    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    THE BUSINESS CASE FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS

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

                                    (117-7)

                                 REMOTE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 17, 2021

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-617 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021

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

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

      PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                      District of Columbia
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICK LARSEN, Washington
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Georgia
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           JARED HUFFMAN, California
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
      Puerto Rico                        SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GREG STANTON, Arizona
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
    MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                                         KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                         MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                         NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                         Vacancy

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Louisiana, opening statement................................     9
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, prepared statement.............................   133

                                   WITNESSES

    Jack Allen, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Proterra, Inc.:

        Oral statement...............................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Shameek Konar, Chief Executive Officer, Pilot Flying J, on behalf
      of the National Association of Truckstop Operators:

        Oral statement...............................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Troy Rudd, Chief Executive Officer, AECOM:

        Oral statement...............................................    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Rafael Santana, President and Chief Executive Officer, Wabtec
      Corporation:

        Oral statement...............................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FedEx
      Corporation:

        Oral statement...............................................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice President for Customer Care,
      Pacific Gas and Electric Company:

        Oral statement...............................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
    Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National Business Line Executive for
      Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability, WSP USA:

        Oral statement...............................................    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens
      for Responsible Energy Solutions:

        Oral statement...............................................    67
        Prepared statement...........................................    69

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio:

        Statement of Ed Mortimer, Vice President, Transportation and
          Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce...................     3
        Letter of March 17, 2021, from Cathy Bennett, Sr. Vice
          President for Public Policy, Greater Kansas City Chamber of
          Commerce et al.............................................   134
        Statement of the Carnegie Mellon University..................   135
        Letter of February 7, 2021, from Joy Ditto, President & CEO,
          American Public Power Association; Tom Kuhn, President,
          Edison Electric Institute; and Jim Matheson, CEO, National
          Rural Electric Cooperative Association.....................   136
        Letter of March 15, 2021, from Joe Britton, Executive
          Director, Zero Emission Transportation Association.........   138
        Amazon and Global Optimism Co-founded The Climate Pledge.....   139
    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri:

        Letter of March 17, 2021, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
          President of Government Affairs, Portland Cement
          Association................................................    10
        Letter of March 17, 2021, from Dave Schryver, President and
          CEO, American Public Gas Association.......................    12
        Statement of Nicholas Guida, Chairman and Chief Executive
          Officer, Tamarack Aerospace Group Corporation..............   141
    Letter of March 17, 2021, from the National Association of
      Convenience Stores and the Society of Independent Gasoline
      Marketers of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Tim
      Burchett.......................................................    22
    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Bruce Westerman:

        Article entitled, ``Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,'' by
          Alan Organschi and Galina Churkina, Scientist, Potsdam
          Institute for Climate Impact Research, Springer Nature
          Sustainability Community, February 5, 2020.................   120
        Article entitled, ``Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,'' by
          G. Churkina, A. Organschi, C.P.O. Reyer, et al., Nature
          Sustainability, Vol. 3, April 2020.........................   123
    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Conor Lamb:

        Letter of March 17, 2021, from Matt Smith, President, Greater
          Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce.............................   127
        Letter of March 16, 2021, from Rich Fitzgerald, County
          Executive, Allegheny County, PA............................   128
        Letter of March 22, 2021, from William Peduto, Mayor, City of
          Pittsburgh, PA.............................................   145
        Letter of March 22, 2021, from Sam Williamson, Board Chair
          and Greg Flisram, Executive Director, Urban Redevelopment
          Authority of Pittsburgh....................................   146
    Letter of March 29, 2021, from Frederick W. Smith, Chairman of
      the Board and Chief Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation,
      Submitted for the Record by Hon. Steve Cohen...................   144

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions to Jack Allen, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman,
      Proterra, Inc., from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   147
        Hon. Julia Brownley..........................................   148
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   150
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   150
    Questions to Shameek Konar, Chief Executive Officer, Pilot Flying
      J, on behalf of the National Association of Truckstop
      Operators, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   152
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   153
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   154
    Questions to Troy Rudd, Chief Executive Officer, AECOM, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   155
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   156
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   157
    Questions to Rafael Santana, President and Chief Executive
      Officer, Wabtec Corporation, from:

        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   159
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   159
    Questions to Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive
      Officer, FedEx Corporation, from:

        Hon. Jared Huffman...........................................   160
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   161
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   162
    Questions to Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice President for
      Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   163
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   164
        Hon. Greg Stanton............................................   165
        Hon. Nikema Williams.........................................   165
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   167
    Questions to Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National Business Line
      Executive for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability, WSP USA,
      from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   169
        Hon. Nikema Williams.........................................   171
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   172
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   173
    Question to Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and
      Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   174
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   174
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   175

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 March 12, 2021

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:      LMembers, Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure
        FROM:  LStaff, Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure
        RE:      LFull Committee Hearing on ``The Business Case for
    Climate Solutions''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    PURPOSE

        The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will
    meet on Wednesday, March 17, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT in 2167
    Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex to hold a
    hearing titled ``The Business Case for Climate Solutions.'' The
    hearing will explore private sector actions to develop and
    implement solutions to climate change, with an emphasis on the
    surface transportation sector. The Committee will hear
    testimony from Proterra, Inc; Pacific Gas and Electric Company
    (PG&E); Pilot Flying J; WSP USA; AECOM; Wabtec Corporation;
    FedEx Corporation; and Citizens for Responsible Energy
    Solutions (CRES).

                                   BACKGROUND

    CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

        Global use of carbon has resulted in corresponding
    greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), which is the dominant cause of
    climate change.\1\ According to the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), the transportation sector is the largest source
    of U.S. GHGs, at 28 percent of U.S. emissions.\2\ Electric
    power and industry (iron, steel, chemical, and cement
    production) follow with 27 percent and 22 percent of emissions,
    respectively.\3\ Within the transportation sector, light-duty
    vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty trucks account for 82
    percent of those emissions, with aircraft accounting for 9
    percent, rail accounting for 2 percent, ships and boats
    accounting for 2 percent and other forms of transportation--
    including buses and motorcycles--making up the remainder.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ``The Causes of
    Climate Change.'' Accessed March 8, 2021.
        \2\ EPA. ``Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions,''
    https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-
    gas-emissions. Accessed March 5, 2021.
        \3\ Id.
        \4\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. transportation sector has been the largest
    consumer of petroleum products since at least 1949, the first
    year for which the Energy Information Administration has
    data.\5\ In 2018, the U.S. transportation sector consumed
    approximately 14 million barrels per day of petroleum
    products,\6\ out of a total of 20.5 million barrels per day
    consumed in all sectors domestically.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Energy Information Administration. ``In the United States, most
    petroleum is consumed in transportation,'' https://www.eia.gov/
    todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40752. Accessed March 5, 2021.
        \6\ Id.
        \7\ Id.; see also Energy Information Administration. ``Petroleum
    and other liquids,'' https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/. Accessed March 5,
    2021.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Source: EPA, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100ZK4P.pdf
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Source: Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/
                       todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40752.

        The impacts of climate change can pose risks to our
    infrastructure, the economy, and communities nationwide. At the
    same time, transitioning to a more sustainable surface
    transportation system may bring the opportunity for new
    domestic jobs and a more competitive position in the global
    economy.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ E2. Clean Jobs America 2020. https://e2.org/wp-content/uploads/
    2020/04/E2-Clean-Jobs-America-2020.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND RESILIENCE

        As of 2019, the U.S. was leading the world in energy-
    related emissions reduction due to the expanding role of
    renewable energy sources and switching from coal to natural
    gas.\9\ The COVID-19 pandemic led to a further drop in
    emissions, estimated at 7 percent in 2020.\10\ U.S. GHG
    emissions are now below 1990 levels.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ IEA. ``Global CO2 Emissions in 2019.'' https://www.iea.org/
    articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019. Accessed March 9, 2021.
        \10\ Global Carbon Project: Coronavirus causes `record fall' in
    fossil-fuel emissions in 2020. https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-
    carbon-project-coronavirus-causes-record-fall-in-fossil-fuel-
    emissions-in-2020.
        \11\ Rhodium Group. ``Preliminary US Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Estimates for 2020.'' https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-
    emissions-2020/. Accessed March 9, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, between 1990 and 2018, GHG emissions in the
    transportation sector increased 24 percent, more than any other
    sector.\12\ According to EPA, the increase is driven by
    increased demand for travel with vehicle miles traveled by
    light-duty motor vehicles increasing by 46.1 percent.\13\ EPA
    attributes this increase to a confluence of factors including
    population growth, economic growth, urban sprawl, and periods
    of low fuel prices.\14\ Without changes in carbon use,
    emissions will likely rise in tandem with increased economic
    activity as the U.S. recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-
    inventory-2020-chapter-executive-summary.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2021.
        \13\ Id.
        \14\ Id.
        \15\ Rhodium Group. ``Preliminary US Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Estimates for 2020.'' https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-
    emissions-2020/. Accessed March 11, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total carbon emissions have declined by nearly 11 percent
    since 2010.\16\ Energy innovations have allowed the U.S. to
    decrease dependence on foreign energy with more net exports
    than imports since 2019.\17\ As a result, public and private
    sector entities have a range of options by which to reduce the
    emissions generated by the transportation sector and to improve
    the resilience of the sector against the already-occurring
    impacts of climate change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ IEA. ``CO2 Emissions by Energy Source, United States 1990-
    2018.'' https://www.iea.org/countries/united-states. Accessed March 9,
    2021.
        \17\ IEA. ``Net Energy Imports, United States 1990-2019.'' https://
    www.iea.org/countries/united-states. Accessed March 9, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mitigation of transportation related GHGs may be achieved
    through a variety of means. These can include: conversion of
    individual vehicles and fleets of vehicles to low- and zero-
    emission forms of power; provision of alternative charging and
    fueling infrastructure; provision of low- and zero-emission
    forms of transportation including transit, rail, walking, and
    biking; increased fuel economy standards that reduce the use of
    fossil fuels and associated operating costs for vehicle users;
    \18\ improved operational practices to reduce idling and
    traffic congestion; shifting freight and passenger movements to
    more efficient modes; and innovations within the construction
    sector to reduce or trap emissions produced throughout the
    lifecycle of transportation projects. These types of
    interventions have the ability to reduce the transportation
    sector's GHGs.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Consumer Reports. ``Electric Vehicle Ownership Costs: Today's
    Electric Vehicles Offer Big Savings for Consumers.'' 2020. https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/
    EV-Ownership-Cost-Final-Report-1.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2021.
        \19\ EPA. ``Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transportation
    Sector Emissions.'' https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-
    greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed March 10, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because air pollution and greenhouse gases are often
    released from the same sources, reducing GHGs in an effort to
    slow climate change also reduces air pollutants, such as fine
    particulate matter (PM2.5).\20\ Reducing these co-emitted air
    pollutants improves air quality and benefits human health.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ West, J., Smith, S., Silva, R. et al. ``Co-benefits of
    mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and
    human health.'' Nature Climate Change 3, 885-889 (2013). https://
    www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newsletter/2013/12/
    spotlight/reducing_
    greenhouse_gas_emissions_can_improve_air_quality_and_save_lives_.cfm#::
    text=
    Because%20air%20pollution%20and%20greenhouse,quality%20and%20benefits%20
    human
    %20health. Accessed March 8, 2021.
        \21\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resiliency, or strengthening the ability to anticipate,
    withstand, and recover from natural disasters and extreme
    weather, is also a central element of the U.S. response to the
    ongoing impacts of climate change. Resilient infrastructure
    pays off by saving at least $2 on average for every $1
    spent.\22\ Options to improve the resilience of the
    transportation system include: assessing vulnerability and
    identifying critical infrastructure; raising roadways and
    improving drainage; upgrading evacuation routes; relocating
    assets to higher ground or less flood-prone areas; using
    natural infrastructure to provide protection against extreme
    weather; stabilizing or strengthening facilities to protect
    against erosion and landslides; seeking distributed sources of
    power to maintain transportation services in the event of a
    disruption to the grid; and diversifying transportation options
    to ensure continuity of service following a natural
    disaster.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Engineering News-Record. ``Resilient Infrastructure Could Save
    $4.2 Trillion.'' https://www.enr.com/articles/47135-resilient-
    infrastructure-could-save-42-trillion. Accessed March 9, 2021.
        \23\ Federal Highway Administration. ``Vulnerability Assessment and
    Adaption Framework, 3rd Ed.'' (2017) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
    environment/sustainability/resilience/adaptation_
    framework/chap00.cfm. Accessed March 10, 2021; Federal Highway
    Administration. ``Synthesis of Approaches for Addressing Resilience in
    Project Development.'' (2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIONS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

        A growing number of corporations have set targets to reduce
    GHGs, and goals to achieve carbon neutrality by a certain date,
    some as early as 2030.\24\ In the United States, 209 companies
    have joined the Science-Based Targets Initiative to set and
    disclose targets.\25\ Worldwide, more than 1,200 companies have
    taken such action.\26\ These voluntary actions by corporations
    demonstrate businesses' steps in reducing emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ In January 2020, Microsoft announced it would be carbon
    negative by 2030. https://news.microsoft.com/climate/#january-carbon-
    announcement. Accessed March 7, 2021.
        \25\ Science-Based Targets. ``Companies Taking Action.'' https://
    sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action. Accessed March 7,
    2021.
        \26\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many corporations are formally calling for public policy
    solutions, in addition to setting their own targets, to achieve
    a higher scale of emissions reductions. On January 20, 2021,
    the U.S. re-started the process to join to the Paris Agreement
    and on February 19, 2021, officially rejoined.\27\ Under the
    agreement, the U.S. promises to reduce its emissions by about
    25 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.\28\ The U.S. was already
    on track to reduce emissions by about 17 percent.\29\ Broader
    policy changes and innovations may help achieve the emissions
    reductions necessary for the U.S. to meet its commitments under
    the Paris agreement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Press Release, U.S. State Department, The United States
    Officially Rejoins the Paris Agreement, Feb. 19, 2021, available at
    https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-officially-rejoins-the-paris-
    agreement/; The Paris Agreement is a multi-lateral treaty, negotiated
    in 2015, in which developed countries commit to making the individual
    GHG reduction, contributions necessary to halt the overall rate of
    temperature increase. See: https://unfccc.int/process-andmeetings/the-
    paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement; https://www.aar.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2021/02/AAR
    Climate-Change-Report.pdf.
        \28\ OBP. ``U.S. Officially Rejoins Paris Agreement on Climate
    Change.'' Feb. 19, 2021. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/u-s-
    officially-rejoins-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/.
        \29\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CEO Climate Dialogue, which includes 22 major U.S.
    corporations among its members, states in its guiding
    principles: ``It is urgent that the President and Congress put
    in place a long-term federal policy as soon as possible to
    protect against the worst impacts of climate change.'' \30\ In
    December 2020, 47 leading U.S. companies issued a statement
    letter urging ``President-elect Joe Biden and the new Congress
    to work together to enact ambitious, durable, and bipartisan
    climate solutions.'' \31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ CEO Climate Dialogue. ``Guiding Principles for Federal Action
    on Climate.'' https://www.ceoclimatedialogue.org/guiding-principles.
    Accessed March 7, 2021.
        \31\ Center for Climate and Energy Solution. ``Top Companies Call
    for Ambitious U.S. Climate Policy.'' https://www.c2es.org/content/top-
    companies-call-for-ambitious-us-climate-policy/. Accessed March 7,
    2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce updated its position on
    climate change in January 2021 to include support for ``a
    market-based approach to accelerate GHG emissions reductions
    across the U.S. economy.'' \32\ In September 2020, the Business
    Roundtable issued new principles on climate change, calling for
    market-based solutions and a ``complementary suite of policies
    to drive innovation, significantly reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions and limit global temperature rise.'' \33\ On March 1,
    2021, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) released a
    report stating ``the rail industry recognize(s) that the
    climate is changing. If action is not taken, climate change
    will have significant repercussions for the planet, our
    economies, our society, and even day-to-day railroad
    operations.'' \34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ``Our Approach to Climate Change.''
    https://www.uschamber.com/climate-change-position. Accessed March 7,
    2021.
        \33\ Business Roundtable. ``Addressing Climate Change.'' https://
    www.businessroundtable.org/climate. Accessed March 7, 2021.
        \34\ American Assn. of Railroads. ``Freight Railroads & Climate
    Change.'' https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AAR-Climate-
    Change-Report.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CLIMATE-RELATED TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION FROM THE 116TH CONGRESS

    H.R. 2, THE MOVING FORWARD ACT

        On July 1, 2020, the House of Representatives passed with a
    bipartisan vote of 233-188 the Majority's H.R. 2, the Moving
    Forward Act, which included a surface transportation
    reauthorization proposal titled the Investing in a New Vision
    for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America
    (INVEST in America) Act. The INVEST in America Act proposed
    several provisions related to climate change mitigation and
    resilience. The bill proposed investments in:
         LA new carbon pollution reduction apportionment
    program to fund highway, transit, and rail projects that would
    reduce greenhouse gases.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ Division B, title I, section 1213.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LA new resilience-focused pre-disaster mitigation
    program to help States prepare for and reduce the impacts of
    climate change and extreme weather.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Division B, title I, section 1202.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LTransit, rail, pedestrian, and bicycle funding to
    provide more transportation options.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Divisions B and D.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LAlternative charging and fueling infrastructure
    to support Americans in shifting to lower-emission
    vehicles.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Division B, title I, section 1303.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LA locally-driven climate discretionary grant
    program, allowing communities to advance innovative solutions
    to reducing carbon pollution.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Division B, title I, section 1302.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LDeployment of technologies that would reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions from the surface transportation
    system.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Divisions B and D.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LLower-emission multimodal freight projects.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ See, e.g., division B, title I, section 1212.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LZero-emission buses to reduce greenhouse gases
    and other air pollutants.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Division B, title II, sections 2101 and 2403.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LA new sustainable highway materials research,
    development, and deployment program to reduce or sequester
    greenhouse gases generated during production and
    construction.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Division B, title I, section 5302.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LA new gridlock reduction program focused on
    operational improvements, travel demand management, and multi-
    modal solutions to traffic congestion.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ Division B, title I, section 1306.

        The bill also proposed policy changes to support climate
    change mitigation and resilience by:
         LClarifying that the Federal Highway
    Administration's (FHWA) Emergency Relief Program may be used
    for resilience betterments.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Division B, title I, section 1203.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LReforming the largest highway construction
    program to ensure that States also consider operational
    improvements and transit when proposing additional highway
    capacity.\46\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ Division B, title I, section 1201.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LEstablishing a new greenhouse gas performance
    measure to track States' progress in reducing carbon pollution
    from our highway system.\47\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ Division B, title I, section 1403.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LCreating new incentives for transit-oriented
    development to provide more Americans access to walkable and
    transit-supportive communities.\48\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ Division B, title II, subtitle G.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LEnsuring consideration of climate mitigation and
    resilience through the planning process to encourage
    sustainable building for the future.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ Division B, title I, sections 1202, 1401, and 1402.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LModifying federal design standards to support
    context-sensitive street design and support the use of low- and
    zero-emission modes.\50\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Division B, title I, section 1107.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LRequiring a National Academies of Science
    assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on the
    national rail network.\51\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ Division D, title I, section 9106.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LSpurring Amtrak to improve passenger rail service
    to encourage a shift towards passenger rail which produces less
    greenhouse gas emissions.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Division D, title II.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 7248, THE STARTER ACT

        On June 18, 2020, Ranking Member Sam Graves introduced H.R.
    7248, the Surface Transportation Advanced through Reform,
    Technology, and Efficient Review (STARTER) Act, a five-year
    surface transportation reauthorization bill.
        The bill proposed policy changes to support climate change
    mitigation and resiliency by:
         LEstablishing the Promoting Resilient Operations
    for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation
    (PROTECT) grant program to fund highway projects that reduce
    the cost and risk related to natural disasters (Sec. 7001).
         LModifying the purpose of the National Highway
    Performance Program (NHPP) to incorporate resiliency measures
    to diminish the impacts of natural disasters (Sec. 7002).
         LAllowing States to use up to 15 percent of NHPP
    funds for protective features to improve the resiliency of a
    Federal-aid highway or bridge off the National Highway System
    (Sec. 7002).
         LEstablishing that funding under the Federal
    Transit Administration's (FTA) Emergency Relief Program for
    mitigation activities will support projects that are cost
    beneficial and will reduce actual risk (Sec. 7003).
         LClarifying that FHWA's Emergency Relief Program
    may be used for projects related to wildfires and sea level
    rise (Sec. 7004).
         LPermitting funding under the FHWA's Emergency
    Relief Program to be used for mitigation projects that are
    demonstrated to mitigate against and reduce the risk of
    recurring damage from extreme weather events, flood, and other
    disasters (Sec. 7004).
         LAuthorizing an increase in the Federal cost share
    in highway funding for activities that are designed and
    demonstrated to reduce cost and risk associated with extreme
    weather (Sec. 7005).
         LExtending University Transportation Centers'
    research focus to mitigation and resiliency (Sec. 7009).
         LEstablishing a five-year pre-disaster mitigation
    pilot program under the FHWA with funding to support projects
    that substantially reduce the risk of or increase the
    resilience to future damage from weather events (Sec. 7010).

        This Congress the Committee will continue work on a surface
    transportation reauthorization ahead of the expiration of the
    current surface transportation programs on September 30, 2021.

                                  WITNESS LIST

         LMr. Jack Allen, Chief Executive Officer,
    Proterra, Inc.
         LMs. Laurie Giammona, Senior Vice President for
    Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation
         LMr. Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and
    Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions
         LMr. Shameek Konar, Chief Executive Officer, Pilot
    Flying J, on behalf of the National Association of Truckstop
    Operators
         LMr. Tom Lewis, National Business Line Executive
    for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability, WSP USA
         LMr. Troy Rudd, Chief Executive Officer, AECOM
         LMr. Rafael Santana, President and Chief Executive
    Officer, Wabtec Corporation
         LMr. Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and Chief
    Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation

                    THE BUSINESS CASE FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in 2167
    Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex, Hon. Peter
    A. DeFazio (Chair of the committee) presiding.
        Present in person: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Larsen, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
    Carbajal, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Newman, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr.
    Crawford, Mr. Webster, Mr. Massie, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rodney Davis,
    Dr. Babin, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Bost, Mr.
    Westerman, Mr. Mast, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Guest, Mr.
    Nehls, Ms. Mace, and Mrs. Steel.
        Present remotely: Ms. Norton, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Sires,
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Brownley,
    Mr. Payne, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Malinowski, Ms.
    Davids, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Delgado, Mr. Pappas, Mr.
    Lamb, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms. Strickland, Ms.
    Williams of Georgia, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Fitzpatrick,
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Van Drew, and Ms. Van Duyne.
        Mr. DeFazio. The hearing of the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure will come to order.
        I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
    declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        For Members participating remotely, if Members experience
    any connectivity issues--do I really have to keep reading this
    stuff? Do people not know this? It has been shortened. Good.
        For Members experiencing connectivity issues or other
    technical problems, please inform the committee staff as soon
    as possible so you can receive assistance.
        As chair of today's hearing, I will make a good-faith
    effort to provide every Member experiencing connectivity issues
    an opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings. It is
    the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition to unmute
    their microphone prior to speaking. Keep the microphone on mute
    when not speaking and avoid inadvertent background noise.
        Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I will yell
    at you. And finally, to insert a document into the record,
    please have your staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
        Wow, you did shorten it. That is good. Thank you.
        So today's hearing is an important step on the path to a
    more sustainable transportation future. The depth of interest
    in this hearing which resulted in eight witnesses today
    demonstrates the willingness and readiness of corporate America
    to be active partners in solving the monumental challenges we
    face regarding infrastructure and climate change.
        As we will hear today, both private-sector action and sound
    public policy are necessary to meaningfully address climate
    change. This is not about whether we need either private
    voluntary reductions or Government measures. We need both.
        We will need commitment at all levels of Government and
    from the private sector to achieve significant reduction in
    carbon pollution in the transportation sector, to transition to
    large-scale decarbonization, and to invest in the
    infrastructure upgrades to make our assets and facilities
    resilient to extreme weather events and sea level rise.
        Failure to protect assets and invest in emission reductions
    will have real financial consequences for business and
    transportation agencies both now and in the long run.
        So we will hear those messages loud and clear today. In
    2021, we have thankfully moved beyond the polarizing discussion
    of whether we need to act, which has stalled progress on an
    existential threat to our planet and our citizens for far too
    long.
        If any are here today to make that argument, I urge you to
    review the prepared remarks of our panel. Every one of the
    business leaders here today can affirm the denial of this
    reality is a bad business decision.
        But these decisions are about more than just the bottom
    line. We will hear from our panel today that the transportation
    sector, in particular, holds tremendous promise for new norms
    that will move the needle on climate change.
        To quote from Mr. Smith's written testimony, ``we believe
    that a connected world is a better world . . . and we recognize
    that with the privilege of connecting the world also comes the
    responsibility of being good stewards of the planet.''
        While some sectors have begun to move in the right
    direction on climate, the same is not true in the majority of
    the transportation sector, which is the largest contributor of
    greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
        Over the last three decades, those emissions have risen 24
    percent, more than any other sector. Passenger and freight
    vehicles account for 82 percent of transportation sector
    emissions, which is why so much of this hearing will focus on
    surface transportation policy. The contribution to the carbon
    pollution problem from the way we currently move people and
    goods is clear.
        The available solutions are equally plentiful and
    promising. Conversion of personal vehicles, transit buses,
    trucks, and locomotives to low- and zero-emission forms of
    power and providing alternative charging and fueling
    infrastructure is a rapidly expanding area that several
    witnesses will discuss today. Support of this transition
    through robust Federal investment was a key element of the bill
    this committee approved in the last Congress as part of H.R. 2.
        Boosting investment in low- and zero-emission, and more
    efficient modes of transportation, including transit, freight
    and passenger rail, walking, and biking, is an equally
    important mitigation strategy, and we have several witnesses
    who actively work on projects to expand mode choice.
        H.R. 2 substantially increased investment in each of these
    modes while enhancing the safety of these options.
        Improved operational practices to reduce idling and traffic
    congestion will also help make better use of the infrastructure
    we have. That is the smart use of our infrastructure where we
    get more throughput without having to add lane-miles.
        And innovation within the construction sector to reduce or
    trap emissions produced through the life cycle of
    transportation projects holds significant promise. H.R. 2
    focuses heavily on the development and implementation of these
    technologies and practices.
        Each of these ideas taken together can add up to a
    substantial difference in mitigating the effects of climate
    change. Yet we know that we need to adapt. It is very real
    right now.
        Strengthening the ability to anticipate, withstand, and
    recover from natural disasters and extreme weather is a major
    portion of the U.S. response to the ongoing impacts of climate
    change.
        We will hear case examples from witnesses today about how
    these investments are no longer optional but a necessity, and
    that this reality is impacting the way we build and rebuild
    transportation assets.
        Climate is changing rapidly. Time is not on our side. This
    committee intends to take bold steps again this Congress to
    support significant emissions reductions from the
    transportation sector, and support for action among the
    business community is growing.
        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently issued updated policy
    that states, ``durable climate policy must be made by
    Congress.''
        At this time, I will insert into the record a statement
    from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, submitted for this hearing
    in support of addressing climate change.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

         Statement of Ed Mortimer, Vice President, Transportation and
     Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Submitted for the Record by
                             Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) is the world's largest
    business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
    businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and
    local chambers and industry associations. The Chamber is dedicated to
    promoting, protecting, and defending America's free enterprise system.
        More than 96% of Chamber member companies have fewer than 100
    employees, and many of the nation's largest companies are also active
    members. We are therefore cognizant not only of the challenges facing
    smaller businesses, but also those facing the business community at
    large.
        Besides representing a cross-section of the American business
    community with respect to the number of employees, major
    classifications of American business--e.g., manufacturing, retailing,
    services, construction, wholesalers, and finance--are represented; the
    Chamber has membership in all 50 states.
        The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. We
    believe that global interdependence provides opportunities, not
    threats. In addition to the American Chambers of Commerce abroad, an
    increasing number of our members engage in the export and import of
    both goods and services and have ongoing investment activities. The
    Chamber favors strengthened international competitiveness and opposes
    artificial U.S. and foreign barriers to international business.
                                  Introduction
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for
    the record concerning the urgent need for bipartisan congressional
    action to modernize America's infrastructure that can bring innovation
    and technology to address climate issues. My name is Ed Mortimer and I
    serve as the Vice President of Transportation and Infrastructure at the
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                Need for Action
        The Chamber has been a long-time advocate for modernizing America's
    infrastructure. A central component of that modernization should be
    policies designed to advance a cleaner, stronger transportation
    system--not just the roads, bridges, and transit systems that are the
    foundation of America's infrastructure, but the enabling systems that
    are necessary to modernize transportation in America.
        The most recent Infrastructure Report Card from the American
    Society of Civil Engineers highlights the lack of infrastructure
    investment and the need to not just fix existing infrastructure but to
    modernize the aging network using the latest private sector ingenuity
    to build infrastructure that is durable and resilient to changing
    climate conditions.
        The Chamber believes that effectively addressing climate change
    will require citizens, government, and business to work together. The
    American business community is central to this effort, not only through
    its leadership in developing and investing in innovative solutions and
    deploying low-carbon technologies, but also as a partner in the
    development of sound policies to guide this transition.
        The Chamber has outlined a set of principles (attached) that shapes
    our advocacy and policy development as we engage with policymakers at
    both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. This includes leveraging the power of
    business, maintaining U.S. leadership in climate science, embracing
    technology and innovation, aggressively pursuing energy efficiency,
    promoting resilient climate infrastructure, supporting trade in U.S.
    technologies and products, and encouraging international cooperation.
        Our principles also reflect the overall consensus of the Chamber's
    membership that Congress should pursue market-based solutions to
    accelerate emissions reductions, and that the Chamber will continue its
    engagement to pursue meaningful, achievable progress to address the
    challenge of climate change.
        Overall, our message remains clear: inaction is not an option.
        Two areas the Chamber believes can bring bipartisan support as this
    Committee formulates a surface transportation bill include increased
    investment in electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and promoting the
    design and construction of modern, resilient infrastructure.
       Incentives to Promote Building Alternative Vehicle Infrastructure
        As this Committee looks to formulate policy to modernize the
    nation's infrastructure, providing flexibility and investment
    opportunities for state and local governments to make investments in
    electric charging stations are a good start.
        The private sector continues its efforts to diversify the energy
    sources of new vehicles entering the fleet over the next 20 years.
    Several automakers and trucking industry companies have publicly stated
    their intent, without government mandate, to move toward lower emission
    vehicles. Building upon these efforts to encourage more private sector
    actions is an area many Democrats and Republicans support.
        With many automakers expressing their intent to significantly
    increase production of electric vehicles and other alternatives, any
    infrastructure bill should include adequate investments to allow states
    flexibility to make such investments as we look to modernize the
    network.
        To build on strong bipartisan support for the concept that users of
    our infrastructure must help fund the roads, bridges and transit they
    depend on, we must also ensure that electric and other alternative fuel
    vehicles contribute to this critical investment.
        More than 30 states have instituted an EV fee that approximates
    their use of the surface transportation network, and we believe such an
    approach must be included in any federal legislation. Ensuring EVs and
    other alternative fuel vehicles invest in a modern transportation
    network will broaden support for this important effort from Congress
    and the stakeholder community.
                   Building Modern, Resilient Infrastructure
        The Chamber believes there is broad agreement on both sides of the
    aisle and among experts across our nation that advancing resilience is
    a win-win for the environment and the economy, in particular to
    responding to climate risks to companies and communities.
        The U.S. Chamber supports building modern, resilient
    infrastructure, and pre-disaster mitigation promotes projects that
    harden infrastructure to prepare, in advance, for future crises.
        An example of what bipartisan solutions can be made includes
    enactment of the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation
    Act (STORM) of 2020. We were pleased to work with the American Society
    of Civil Engineers, the Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative,
    and other stakeholders on this important legislation that will
    capitalize state revolving loan funds that provide low-interest loans
    for pre-disaster mitigation. We appreciate Congress' thoughtful
    leadership in passing this legislation.
        Enactment of this important legislation is just one tool among many
    that are needed. More must be done.
        The U.S. Chamber has outlined our resilience policy principles
    (attached). Below are a few practical suggestions we believe could
    advance smart, bipartisan policy reforms:
          Elevate resilience as a national priority by establishing
    a chief resilience officer reporting directly to the President and
    developing a national resilience strategy, leveraging current
    interagency coordination under the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA).
          Urge FEMA to provide the full 6% funding for the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program.
          Set aside a small portion of infrastructure funding to
    create a resilience pre-development fund to assist small disadvantaged
    communities in the planning and preparing for pre-disaster mitigation
    projects.
          Broaden the focus on pre-disaster mitigation as the
    infrastructure debate proceeds across the federal family of agencies
    and programs (e.g., highway and Community Development Block Grant
    programs).
          Encourage coordination among relevant federal and state
    agencies to align actions, avoid duplication, and optimize resources.
          Convene state lifeline infrastructure leaders to share
    experiences across program areas and identify federal policy
    implementation and funding needs.
          Incentivize and institutionalize resilience by providing
    additional funding, technical assistance, and other benefits to states
    and communities that are most active in implementing pre-disaster
    mitigation, such as green infrastructure and other nature-based
    solutions.
          Pilot small business planning grants to catalyze
    strategic, contingency planning among small businesses ahead of the
    next disaster that may reduce possible future losses and improve
    resilience.
          Ensure that projects reduce risks and are cost effective
    by funding actions where the benefits outweigh the costs.
            Chamber Works to Broaden Stakeholder Support for Action
        To build upon our efforts to promote infrastructure modernization,
    the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced in January with the Bipartisan
    Policy Center an important new campaign--``Build by the Fourth of
    July,'' (BB4J) which, as the name implies, calls on Congress to pass
    comprehensive infrastructure legislation into law by July 4, 2021. This
    effort includes more than 300 organizations, including major voices
    from business, labor, and environmental groups. While these
    organizations will not agree on every issue, we hope that this unified
    message will provide critical momentum to finally pass a historic
    infrastructure bill that the country sorely needs.
        In our view, a successful ``BB4J'' effort must be comprehensive,
    addressing not only crumbling roads, bridges, and transit, but many
    other components of U.S. infrastructure, and do so in a manner that
    stimulates our economic recovery, improves federal project approvals,
    and accelerates environmental progress of recent decades. As the pledge
    states, ``As a nation we must be able to build big things promptly to
    accelerate the economic recovery and build the resilient low-carbon
    economy of the future. We need a durable commitment and clear
    strategy.''
        Our coalition recently sent a letter to every member of Congress
    (attached) urging their support for these priorities.
                                   Conclusion
        The time to make important infrastructure investments that address
    climate is NOW. Delaying action only makes the decisions more difficult
    and projects more costly. From the business community's perspective,
    the question is not if we need to make these decisions, but when.
        Infrastructure investment has traditionally enjoyed broad
    bipartisan support, and we believe the Administration, House, and
    Senate must act to address the critical needs of a system that was
    built 60-150 years ago. We must plan to provide every American a 21st
    Century infrastructure system that addresses climate issues and
    provides multimodal mobility solutions. This critical effort starts
    with a timely surface transportation authorization.
        The Chamber has also provided lawmakers with a variety of funding
    and financing options to pay for infrastructure improvements. For
    surface transportation, we continue to believe adjusting the federal
    motor fuel tax, then transitioning to a vehicle miles traveled
    mechanism must be considered.
        Bottom line, we believe there is much common ground on which all
    sides of this discussion could come together to address the important
    climate issues the Committee is discussing today with policies that are
    practical, flexible, predictable, and durable. As this debate evolves
    with Congress and the Administration, we pledge to work constructively
    with this committee to engage on and evaluate specific policy
    approaches. Thank you for considering our views.
                                  attachments:
    https://www.uschamber.com/climate-change-position

    https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/resilience-good-public-
    policy#:
    :text=According%20to%20a%20Metlife%20and,the%20environment%20and%20the
    %20economy.

        Mr. DeFazio. I thank each of our witnesses for being here
    today and persevering through what I know may be a long
    hearing. I know your time is valuable. The committee is
    grateful for your participation, and the time we invest in
    discussion today is nothing compared to the time we stand to
    preserve if we get this right.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
          Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Today's hearing marks an important step on the path to a more
    sustainable transportation future. The depth of interest in this
    hearing--which resulted in eight witnesses today--demonstrates the
    willingness and the readiness of corporate America to be active
    partners in solving the monumental challenge we face.
        As we will hear today, both private sector action and sound public
    policy are necessary to meaningfully address climate change. This is
    not about whether we need either private voluntary reductions or
    government measures. This is an all-hands-on-deck situation.
        We will need commitment at all levels of government, and from the
    private sector, to achieve significant reductions in carbon pollution
    in the transportation sector, to transition to large-scale
    decarbonization, and to invest in the infrastructure upgrades to make
    our assets and facilities resilient to extreme weather events. Failure
    to protect assets and to invest in emissions reductions will have real
    financial consequences to businesses and transportation agencies both
    now and in the long run. And we will hear these messages loud and clear
    today.
        In 2021, we have thankfully moved beyond the polarizing discussion
    of whether we need to act, which has stalled progress on an existential
    threat to our planet and our citizens for far too long. If any of my
    colleagues are here today to take that line of argument, I urge you to
    review the prepared remarks of our panel. Every one of the business
    leaders here today can affirm that denial of reality is a bad business
    decision.
        But these decisions are about more than just the bottom line. We
    will hear from our panel today that the transportation sector in
    particular holds tremendous promise for new norms that will move the
    needle on climate change. To quote from Mr. Smith's written testimony:
    ``We believe that a connected world is a better world . . . and we
    recognize that with the privilege of connecting the world also comes
    the responsibility of being good stewards of the planet.''
        While some sectors have begun to move in the right direction on
    climate, the same is not true of the transportation sector, which is
    the largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United
    States. Over the last three decades, those emissions have risen 24
    percent, more than any other sector. Passenger and freight vehicles
    account for 82 percent of transportation sector emissions, which is why
    much of this hearing will focus on surface transportation policy. The
    contribution to the carbon pollution problem from the way we currently
    move people and goods is clear.
        The available solutions in the transportation sector are equally
    plentiful and promising. Conversion of personal vehicles, transit
    buses, trucks, and locomotives to low- and zero-emission forms of power
    and providing alternative charging and fueling infrastructure is a
    rapidly expanding area that several witnesses will discuss today.
    Support of this transition through robust Federal investment was a key
    element of the bill this Committee approved last Congress, H.R. 2.
        Boosting investment in low- and zero-emission, and more efficient,
    modes of transportation including transit, freight and passenger rail,
    walking, and biking is an equally important mitigation strategy, and we
    have several witnesses who actively work on projects to expand mode
    choice. H.R. 2 substantially increased investment in each of these
    modes, while enhancing the safety of these options.
        Improved operational practices to reduce idling and traffic
    congestion will also help make better use of the infrastructure we
    have. And innovation within the construction sector to reduce or trap
    emissions produced throughout the lifecycle of transportation projects
    holds significant promise. H.R. 2 focuses heavily on the development
    and implementation of these technologies and practices.
        Each of these ideas, taken together, can add up to a substantial
    difference in mitigating the effects of climate change. Yet we know
    that the need to adapt is very real, right now. Strengthening the
    ability to anticipate, withstand, and recover from natural disasters
    and extreme weather is a major portion of the U.S. response to the
    ongoing impacts of climate change. We will hear case examples from
    witnesses today about how these investments are no longer optional, but
    a necessity, and that this reality is impacting the way we build and
    rebuild transportation assets.
        The climate is changing rapidly. Time is not on our side. This
    Committee intends to take bold steps again this Congress to support
    significant emissions reductions from the transportation sector. And
    support for action among the business community is growing. The U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce recently issued updated policy that states
    ``durable climate policy must be made by Congress.'' At this time, I'll
    insert into the record a letter from Chamber President Suzanne Clark
    submitted for this hearing in support of addressing climate change.
    Without objection, so ordered.
        Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today and
    persevering through what may be a long hearing. I know your time is
    valuable and this Committee is grateful for your participation. The
    time we invest in the discussion today, however, is nothing compared to
    the time on earth we stand to preserve if we get this right.

        Mr. DeFazio. So, again, thanks to all, and I will note that
    Mr. Smith has noted that he can only be here for 2 hours. I
    hope that the other witnesses can stay. I expect we may go a
    little bit longer than that.
        With that I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think we can all agree that we want clean air and clean
    water for our communities, and that we have to prepare for the
    challenges that are posed by severe weather events. And those
    are happening with greater frequency and intensity.
        While climate change is often considered to be a loaded
    issue that sends us all to our respective opposing partisan
    corners, I can tell you that protecting the environment is very
    much a bipartisan issue.
        We have leaders on this committee who have been working
    hard to address the issue, and this committee has a bipartisan
    track record of addressing issues like resiliency and
    mitigation, which prepares our infrastructure to withstand the
    impacts of climate change.
        We are willing to work with our Democratic colleagues on
    goals of reducing emissions in transportation. However, my
    colleagues must also understand that people are not going to
    stop driving cars or flying on airplanes.
        While dramatically increasing funding for transit and
    passenger rail as proposed in last year's H.R. 2 is going to
    take some cars off of the road in urban centers, it is often
    inefficient and very much unjustified in rural America.
        Meanwhile, there are a couple of key points that help keep
    things in perspective. America is the world leader in reducing
    emissions, and according to the International Energy Agency,
    U.S. emissions reductions in the last 10 years have been the
    largest in world history. Plus, goods manufactured in the U.S.
    now are 80 percent more carbon-efficient than the world
    average.
        There are a lot of innovative American companies that are
    coming up with some great solutions to reduce our emissions,
    and it is important as we hear from our witnesses today about
    the solutions that they have developed on their own so that
    Congress does not trample on the progress that they are making.
        What works for larger companies may not work for smaller
    companies. Larger companies have the resources to be able to
    deploy.
        The way to lead the world to becoming greener and more
    resilient is not through unachievable, one-size-fits-all
    policies or spending trillions on a patchwork of pilot
    programs. Heavy-handed mandates are only going to waste money
    and constrain innovation and put many of our job creators out
    of business.
        Instead, incentives that spur American innovation and
    accelerate what is already being done are the key to achieving
    our climate goals without taking down the economy and
    regulating jobs simply out of existence.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on the
    unique ways in which each of them is working to find a viable,
    long-term solution to reducing carbon use and growing American
    businesses.
        [Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair DeFazio. We can all agree that we want clean air
    and clean water for our communities, and that we must prepare for the
    challenges posed by severe weather events that are happening with
    greater frequency and intensity.
        While ``climate change'' is often considered to be a loaded issue
    that sends us all to our respective partisan corners, I can tell you
    that protecting the environment has bipartisan interest. We have
    leaders on this Committee who have been working hard to address this
    issue. And this committee has a bipartisan track record of addressing
    issues like resiliency and mitigation, which prepares our
    infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change.
        Having said that, you will not find bipartisan support for heavy-
    handed government mandates, one-size-fits-all policies, or the complete
    upending of our traditional infrastructure programs to enact excessive
    climate goals that look more like the liberal agenda outlined in the
    Green New Deal.
        We are willing to work with our Democratic colleagues on the goal
    of reducing emissions in transportation. However, my colleagues must
    also understand that people are not going to stop driving cars or
    flying on airplanes.
        While dramatically increasing funding for transit and passenger
    rail--as proposed in last year's H.R. 2--may take some cars off the
    road in urban centers, it is often inefficient and unjustifiable in
    rural America. Additionally, COVID has completely disrupted our
    transportation network, and it's important to see how the system
    rebalances itself and what our new reality will look like.
        Meanwhile, I think there are a couple of key points that help keep
    things in perspective.
        America is the world leader in reducing emissions. According to the
    International Energy Agency, U.S. emissions reductions in the last 10
    years have been the largest in world history. Plus, goods manufactured
    in the U.S. now are 80 percent more carbon-efficient than the world
    average.
        There are a lot of innovative American companies coming up with
    solutions to reduce our emissions. It's important, as we hear from our
    witnesses about the solutions they have developed on their own, that
    Congress doesn't trample on the progress they are making.
        We must also keep in perspective that while many of these
    businesses testifying today are great American companies, they have the
    resources and manpower to change and adapt more quickly. What works for
    larger companies may not work for the smaller operators.
        The way to lead the world in becoming greener and more resilient is
    not through unachievable, one-size-fits-all policies or spending
    trillions on a patchwork of pilot programs. Heavy-handed mandates will
    only waste money, constrain innovation, and put many of our job-
    creators out of business.
        Instead, incentives that spur American innovation and accelerate
    what is already being done are the key to achieving our climate goals
    without taking down the economy and regulating jobs out of existence.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the unique
    ways in which each of them is working to find a viable, long-term
    solution to reducing carbon use and growing American business.

        Mr. Graves of Missouri. And with that, I would like to
    yield my remaining time to the ranking member on the Select
    Committee on the Climate Crisis, Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Ranking Member Graves,
    for the yield.
        Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up quickly on the
    conversation that the ranking member noted and also on your
    comments.
        Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, we have got to keep in
    mind that, number one, this committee has jurisdiction over
    transportation infrastructure and that, like the following up
    on the successful work of the FAST Act and other bills we have
    done in the past, we need to continue to advance our
    transportation solutions, and we need to do it in an efficient
    way because there is no question that we are decades behind
    where we need to be in regard to infrastructure progress, and
    it is impacting our economy. It is squeezing our economy.
        Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, we also need to keep in
    mind that the United States has reduced emissions more than the
    next 12 emissions-reducing countries combined in regard to
    emission reductions in the energy sector. We are the global
    leader today in reducing emissions.
        And we have done that not through regulation, not through
    requirements, not through picking winners and losers in
    technology, but by letting the markets do what they do.
        As a matter of fact, when President Obama put the Clean
    Power Plan together, his objective was to reduce emissions by
    32 percent, by 32 percent off of a 2005 baseline, and the goal
    that President Obama set was to do that by 2030, and, Mr.
    Chairman, without the impact of regulations, without the impact
    of mandates, without the impact of picking winners and losers,
    we actually hit that target nearly 11 years earlier under
    President Trump.
        And we hit it in 2019, proving once again that we can move
    forward with affordable solutions, with clean solutions, with
    solutions that are based on U.S. resources and U.S. technology
    that are exportable as opposed to picking winners and losers
    and moving in the direction where we subject ourselves to the
    manufacturing and production capabilities of China and other
    countries that do not share our objectives.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with everyone
    on this committee to build upon the successes and the lessons
    learned that we have had in the energy sector in reducing
    emissions and to make sure that we have a transportation bill
    with some clean energy solutions, not a climate change bill
    with transportation afterthoughts.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, I
    have got two letters from the Portland Cement Association and
    the American Public Gas Association. Could I have unanimous
    consent to insert them in the record?
        Mr. DeFazio. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

     Letter of March 17, 2021, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice President of
      Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association, Submitted for the
                     Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri
                                                        March 17, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2165 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2164 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
        The Portland Cement Association (PCA), which represents cement
    manufacturers across the country, appreciates the opportunity to submit
    comments for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's ``The
    Business Case for Climate Solutions'' hearing. We believe it is
    important to take steps to combat climate change and believe cement is
    critical to building infrastructure to better withstand the climate
    crisis.
        As you may know, PCA is a premier policy, research, education, and
    market intelligence organization serving America's cement
    manufacturers. PCA's members represent 93 percent of the U.S. cement
    production capacity and have facilities in all 50 states. Our members
    manufacture portland cement, the primary ingredient in concrete, an
    essential construction material and a basic component of our nation's
    infrastructure. Portland cement is used in the construction of
    highways, bridges, tunnels, mass transit systems, airports, runways,
    locks, dams, and wastewater infrastructure. Cement and concrete product
    manufacturing, directly and indirectly, employs approximately 600,000
    people across the United States, and our collective industries
    contribute over $100 billion to our economy.
        The cement industry commends the attention being placed by the
    Committee on combatting climate change. PCA and our members are
    committed to working with Congress to ensure our industry continues
    playing our part in building our nation's resilient infrastructure and
    lowering our industry's carbon footprint. Recently, PCA announced our
    ambition to reach carbon neutrality 2050 through the entire concrete
    value chain. We are in the process of drafting our industry's roadmap
    to carbon neutrality and look forward to sharing the roadmap with you
    upon its completion.
        From an infrastructure perspective, there is an opportunity to
    advance policy that reduces carbon emissions associated with the use
    phase of an infrastructure asset and considers the carbon sink
    opportunity associated with carbonization. According to the
    Environmental Protection Agency, the transportation sector makes up 28
    percent of the United States' total emissions. Critical to reducing
    these emissions is designing and building transportation assets with
    elements to address the impacts of climate change. It is important to
    recognize that from an infrastructure perspective, this means not only
    building projects that will reduce transportation-related emissions but
    also improving the resiliency of our nation's infrastructure. Concrete
    construction plays as important role in both reducing transportation
    related emissions and improving the resiliency and sustainability of
    transportation assets.
        Part of reducing transportation-related emissions is accounting for
    emissions reductions during the use of a transportation asset. A
    critical part of reducing use phase emissions is the design and
    construction of roadways that reduce excess fuel consumption. Whether
    gasoline, diesel, or electric, all vehicles use energy to move, but
    some of that energy is wasted. Pavement vehicle interaction (PVI) is
    the relationship between a vehicle's tires and a road's surface, such
    as roughness, texture, and deflection. PVI can lead to excess fuel
    consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Research by the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology's (MIT) Concrete Sustainability Hub of
    Virginia's interstate highway system identified 1 million tons of
    carbon dioxide emissions associated with excess fuel consumption over a
    seven-year period.\1\ MIT's Concrete Sustainability Hub research also
    shows that 1.3 percent of Virginia's interstate roadways are
    responsible for 10 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions.
    Improving PVI is especially important on our nation's freight
    corridors. Research has shown that lessening the impacts of deflection
    of 40-ton trucks could generate up to four percent in fuel savings.
    Building and maintaining stiffer pavements is important to reducing
    transportation related greenhouse gas emissions. Policies seeking to
    reduce transportation related emissions should seek to advance road
    construction using materials that translate to stiffer pavements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://cshub.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
    CSHub_PVI_v4_final_print.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, as steps are taken to combat climate change, it is
    important to recognize that certain infrastructure building materials
    can absorb more carbon than is released as carbon dioxide, therefore
    serving as a carbon sink. Specifically, a chemical reaction called
    carbonation occurs in concrete roadways, which forms calcium carbonate.
    Calcium carbonate forms when carbon dioxide from the air reacts with
    the water in concrete pores, and then with calcium compounds in
    concrete. As a result, the concrete roadway serves as a concrete sink.
    Research by MIT's Concrete Sustainability Hub demonstrates that the
    carbonation process could offset five percent of the carbon dioxide
    emissions generated from the cement used in U.S. pavements.\2\ MIT's
    research also shows that 5.8 million tons of carbon dioxide could be
    sequestered, with 2.8 million tons from the use phase and 3 million
    tons coming from the end of life. This research demonstrates that
    policy seeking to reduce transportation related emissions consider the
    full life cycle of a project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://cshub.mit.edu/sites/default/files/images/
    0120%20Carbon%20Uptake%20Brief.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The federal government's 2019 National Climate Assessment, compiled
    by 13 agencies, highlights that extreme weather events will
    increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure in communities
    across the country due to an increase in heavy precipitation, coastal
    flooding, heat, and wildfires with regional differences. PCA encourages
    the Committee to prioritize combatting climate change by investing in
    projects to improve resiliency and adaption, enabling the nation's
    infrastructure to withstand a disaster better and return to operation
    quickly. Concrete is a durable and resilient building material critical
    to building infrastructure that can withstand the increase in extreme
    weather events. The cement industry recognizes that both gray
    infrastructure and natural and nature-based features (NNBF) are used to
    improve the resiliency of infrastructure assets. Many times, both
    features are used in concert with each other to improve the resiliency
    of infrastructure. It is important that policy seeking to improve the
    resiliency of infrastructure provides engineers the discretion to
    choose the best features on a project-by-project basis. To do this, it
    is important to consider the costs and benefits of project features
    over the life cycle of the project. Doing so will ensure the best and
    most cost-effective project alternative over the long-term are used in
    each instance.
        PCA appreciates the opportunity to share our perspective on climate
    solutions as it relates to transportation and infrastructure. If you
    have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sean O'Neill,
    PCA's Senior Vice President of Government Affairs.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sean O'Neill,
          Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Portland Cement
                                                           Association.

       Letter of March 17, 2021, from Dave Schryver, President and CEO,
     American Public Gas Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam
                               Graves of Missouri
                                                        March 17, 2021.
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
            House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn
            House Office Building, Washington, DC.

    Re:  March 17, 2021 Full Committee Hearing on ``The Business Case for
    Climate Solutions''

        Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
        APGA represents roughly 1,000 retail natural gas distribution
    entities owned by, and accountable to, the citizens they serve. They
    include municipal gas distribution systems, public utility districts,
    county districts, and other public agencies that own and operate
    natural gas distribution infrastructure in their communities. Their
    primary focus is on providing safe, reliable, affordable, efficient,
    and clean natural gas service to their customers and communities. APGA
    members deliver natural gas to be used for residential space and water
    heating, cooking, and clothes drying, as well as for various commercial
    and industrial applications. In regard to the March 17th full
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on ``The Business
    Case for Climate Solutions,'' several public natural gas utilities also
    supply fuel for natural gas vehicle (NGV) fueling stations, and many
    maintain and manage fueling operations for their own fleets or for
    vehicles within their community.
        APGA was very appreciative of the discussion on transportation
    technologies, and the importance of low and no-emission vehicles in
    America's pursuit of a clean energy future. Public natural gas
    utilities continue to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
    emissions in all sectors. Our members are good stewards of their
    systems and the environment; they also take seriously their role in
    providing affordable and reliable energy. In addition to the
    residential and industrial uses most are more familiar with, natural
    gas is used for transportation. NGVs have significantly less emissions
    and given the price of natural gas, offer relative price stability,
    which makes them an attractive option for urban fleets, long-haul
    shipping, and municipal or local vehicles. APGA knows that natural gas
    and the infrastructure and workforce that get it to America's homes and
    businesses, as well as NGV fueling stations, are essential in the US
    furthering all aspects of clean energy policy, while still ensuring a
    resilient and economical energy source. The following further details
    how NGVs can play a critical role in achieving America's transportation
    decarbonization goals. APGA suggests that the Committee consider this
    input, as it develops clean energy legislation, recognizing complete
    electrification of our nation's transportation is bad policy.
        Many APGA members are heavily invested in natural gas
    transportation fuels, mostly via compressed natural gas (CNG). This
    fuel has proven to be safe, clean, abundant, and affordable, and our
    members are proud to distribute. NGVs increase fuel diversity, spurring
    economic growth and potential for expanded application across the
    country. NGVs also provide two specific benefits that other fuels
    cannot: unmatched fuel delivery reliability and the ability for
    communities to reach attainment status under the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards (NAAQS), as set forth in the Clean Air Act.\1\
    Municipalities take advantage of these characteristics by running and
    maintaining their own natural gas fleets, including maintenance and
    utility trucks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Clean Air Act'' Sections, P.L. 91-604, Sec. 109.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CNG is resilient. Its delivery is only dependent on the
    availability of the natural gas via underground pipelines. Gasoline and
    electricity, on the other hand, can only be used so long as gasoline
    supply remains uninterrupted, and the electricity infrastructure
    remains functional. However, these are often disrupted in severe
    weather events. For example, the 2017 hurricane season resulted in
    widespread power outages and major gasoline shortages. Fortunately,
    natural gas was fully functional through it all. NGVs proved resilient
    for two reasons. One, the supply could be delivered relatively
    uninterrupted. Natural gas pipelines, being underground, were mostly
    protected from debris, wind, and storm surges. Second, CNG can be
    pumped without the use of electricity. The fueling stations are run on
    generators that are fueled by natural gas. With no need for
    electricity, the pumps were able to flow CNG to stations reliably.
        There is an environmental benefit to NGVs, too. They offer the
    fastest path to reducing heavy-duty vehicle emissions.\2\ As an
    example, California has the most rigorous emission standards for
    nitrogen oxides (NOx), but the Cummins Westport 8.9-liter ISL G NZ
    engine is certified to meet the California Air Resource Board (CARB)
    standard. As well, this same manufacturer has an engine with near-zero
    NOx emissions. Generally speaking, these innovations from Cummins
    Westport are 90% cleaner than what the current EPA standard
    requires.\3\ Everyone is discussing electricity as the next
    transportation fuel, but why dismiss natural gas so quickly? Even in
    states like California, Oregon, and Washington that have the cleanest
    electrical grids in the nation, the NOx emitted through emissions is
    much worse than the direct use of natural gas in a heavy-duty vehicle
    with a natural gas engine.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Environment,'' NGV America, Accessed March 15, 2021, https://
    www.ngvamerica.org/environment/.
        \3\ ``Report Overview One Sheet,'' NGV America, Accessed March 15,
    2021, https://cdn.ngvgamechanger.com/pdfs/game-changer-graphic-
    onesheet.pdf.
        \4\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The US may soon face challenges of how to properly dispose of spent
    vehicle batteries. If electric vehicles are to be the future of
    transportation, the grid will likely need significant upgrades.
    Research by the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA), shows that 75
    percent of all electric utilities in the United States are not prepared
    to meet expected future demand in terms of grid capacity and
    distribution needs.\5\ As proponents of full-fuel-cycle metrics, APGA
    also wants to highlight that the Union of Concerned Scientists has
    provided it takes so much energy to make batteries that electric
    vehicles with a 250-mile range have a carbon footprint 68 percent
    higher due to manufacturing.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``Utilities and Electric Vehicles: Evolving to Unlock Grid
    Value,'' Smart Electric Power Alliance, Accessed March 15, 2021,
    https://sepapower.org/resource/utilities-electric-vehicles-evolving-
    unlock-grid-value/.
        \6\ ``Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave,'' Union of Concerned
    Scientists, Published Oct 29, 2015, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/
    cleaner-cars-cradle-grave.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are additional emissions reductions opportunities if
    renewable natural gas (RNG) is utilized in the transportation fuel
    market. Both APGA members, as well as private companies, are investing
    in this technology. The United Parcel Service (UPS) is making
    significant investments in RNG and CNG transportation initiatives. They
    recently announced plans to purchase more than 6,000 natural gas-
    powered trucks between 2020 and 2022, a commitment representing a $450
    million investment in the company's alternative fuel program to reduce
    emissions and a complement to its current RNG commitments.\7\ Also,
    buses used by cities for transit can take advantage of RNG to lower
    emissions in their locales. Fueling with natural gas can lower GHG
    emissions about 12 percent, when compared to diesel. However, in
    research led by CARB, buses fueled with RNG can yield a carbon-negative
    lifecycle emissions result. Additionally, this CARB data shows RNG
    holds the lowest carbon intensity of any on-road vehicle fuel,
    including fully renewable electric.\8\ APGA and its members support RNG
    technologies in the transportation sector and all others. RNG is
    derived from the breakdown of organic wastes and processed for use in
    existing natural gas infrastructure, interchangeable with geologic
    natural gas in homes, businesses, vehicles, manufacturing, and
    industrial applications. RNG, a low-carbon pathway, takes an existing
    carbon-emitting waste stream, either from waste or agriculture, and
    recycles into a usable product. APGA members' support for RNG
    demonstrates their investment in balanced energy solutions as it
    lessens environmental impacts. The Committee should consider federal
    support for this valuable technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``UPS adding 6,000 NGVs,'' Shale Directories, Accessed March
    15, 2021, https://www.shaledirectories.com/blog/ups-adding-6000-ngvs/.
        \8\ ``Maximize Clean Transit Investment: Natural Gas Outperforms
    Electric,'' Accessed March 15, 2021, https://ngvamerica.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2021/02/NGVA-Transit-Full-Study-December-2020.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        APGA's members agree that action is needed to further clean
    transportation policy and are grateful for the full Committee holding
    this hearing, but APGA urges pursuit of equitable energy policy through
    a balanced solution. Do not pursue only electric vehicles. This drastic
    approach misses the mark discarding the value natural gas
    infrastructure and NGVs has delivered through decreased emissions now
    and will continue to deliver well into the future through innovations
    around increased use of RNG. APGA hopes the Committee will pursue
    policies that allow for multiple fuels, with a focus on environmental
    benefits balanced with reliability and affordability for all Americans.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this input. APGA stands
    ready to work together in this effort.
                                                 Dave Schryver,
                      President & CEO, American Public Gas Association.

        Mr. DeFazio. We will now proceed to our witnesses.
        Mr. Jack Allen, chief executive officer and chairman,
    Proterra, Inc.
        Mr. Shameek Konar, chief executive officer, Pilot Flying J,
    on behalf of the National Association of Truckstop Operators.
        Mr. Troy Rudd, chief executive officer, AECOM.
        Mr. Rafael Santana, president and chief executive officer
    of Wabtec.
        Mr. Frederick Smith, chairman and chief executive officer
    of the Federal Express Corporation.
        Ms. Laurie Giammona, senior vice president for customer
    care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
        Mr. Tom Lewis, national business line executive for
    climate, resilience, and sustainability at WSP USA.
        And Mr. Charles Hernick, vice president of policy and
    advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.
        As I said, this is a long witness list, but I appreciate
    you all being here. We have your written remarks, so if you
    would all summarize in a 5-minute statement, that would be most
    desirable.
        With that, Mr. Allen.

    TESTIMONY OF JACK ALLEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN,
     PROTERRA, INC.; SHAMEEK KONAR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PILOT
     FLYING J, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKSTOP
     OPERATORS; TROY RUDD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AECOM; RAFAEL
        SANTANA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WABTEC
     CORPORATION; FREDERICK W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
      OFFICER, FEDEX CORPORATION; LAURIE M. GIAMMONA, SENIOR VICE
    PRESIDENT FOR CUSTOMER CARE, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY;
      TOM LEWIS, P.E., J.D., NATIONAL BUSINESS LINE EXECUTIVE FOR
     CLIMATE, RESILIENCE, AND SUSTAINABILITY, WSP USA; AND CHARLES
     HERNICK, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY AND ADVOCACY, CITIZENS FOR
                      RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS

        Mr. Allen. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman DeFazio,
    Ranking Member Graves, and the members of the committee.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's
    hearing on the business case for climate solutions.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and this committee for
    driving the Federal surface transportation policies and funding
    levels that will position America to compete and lead the
    future of transportation globally.
        The investments and overarching focus on reducing emissions
    through H.R. 2 are exactly the bold steps that climate change
    and the opportunity for jobs and new industries demand.
        I am here today representing Proterra, Inc., an American
    electric vehicle technology company. Proterra has been
    delivering battery-electric transit buses to U.S. transit
    agencies since 2010. Our buses have delivered over 17 million
    miles of service, and we serve communities in over 40 States
    and the District of Columbia.
        We have over 130 customers, including municipal transit
    agencies, airports, universities, and commercial businesses.
        Proterra is also a leader in the design and manufacturing
    of battery systems and electric drivetrains for commercial
    vehicles, and we provide charging infrastructure solutions for
    agencies and fleets.
        Our charging solutions enable bidirectional vehicle-to-grid
    applications, allowing electric vehicles to be strategic assets
    to the power grid.
        We provide our products and our services to other vehicle
    manufacturers, and our technology will be powering coachbuses,
    schoolbuses, delivery trucks, low-floor shuttles, and
    construction equipment in the United States and globally, in
    collaboration with some of the biggest names in the industry.
        Most importantly, we are an American company, an American
    technology leader. Our products are designed, engineered, and
    manufactured in our factories in the United States.
        We hold over 70 patents. We employ over 600 people across
    the Nation, and we operate 3 U.S. factories. Our products
    comply with Made in America policies, and our businesses
    support hundreds of other U.S. businesses, including small
    businesses.
        Over 75 percent of the components in Proterra vehicles are
    sourced from American companies in more than 30 States,
    including Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio,
    Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
        As battery costs continue to decline and vehicle ranges
    increase, transitioning to zero-emission electric vehicles is
    not just the right thing to do for public health and to lower
    emissions, it is the smart thing to do for businesses.
        Compared to just 4 miles per gallon in diesel vehicles,
    Proterra vehicles have a fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon
    equivalent and a low total cost of ownership compared to diesel
    or natural gas vehicles.
        In addition to heavy-duty electric vehicle battery systems
    like Proterra's, we create economies and business opportunities
    well beyond transportation of goods and services. We have
    designed our battery systems to serve the development of
    multiple industries and applications.
        Our battery systems are built to last. They carry 6- to 12-
    year warranties, and after that they still have the capacity
    for second-life applications, such as stationary energy
    storage, and beyond that, our batteries are designed for easy
    separation of components and are recyclable.
        The United States is positioned to lead the world in this
    emerging market for clean energy and clean mobility. This
    opportunity for U.S. leadership and manufacturing expansion is
    worthy of strong support from the Federal Government.
        The Federal Government, including the work of this
    committee, has already played a critical role in the early
    adoption of electric vehicle technology, and we ask that you
    continue to do so.
        Public transit funding through the FAST Act's Low or No
    Emission Vehicle program, for example, has accelerated our
    technology development to support the demand from U.S. transit
    agencies' investments in battery-electric buses.
        By driving greater investment into the market, the Federal
    Government can send a strong signal to the industry and to the
    supply chains that the United States is committed to
    electrification, strengthening domestic supply chains for
    manufacturing and materials that will lower cost through
    economies of scale while creating even more American jobs in
    this rapidly growing global market.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
    and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Thank you.
        [Mr. Allen's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Jack Allen, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman,
                                 Proterra, Inc.
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing
    on ``The Business Case for Climate Solutions.''
        My name is Jack Allen, and I am the CEO of Proterra.
        I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the opportunity
    for American industry to drive the next wave of innovation and economic
    growth and provide solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through
    electric vehicle technology.
        Proterra is a leader in the design and manufacture of battery
    systems and electric drivetrains for commercial vehicles, charging
    infrastructure solutions for commercial vehicle fleets, and zero-
    emission, battery-electric transit buses. Our mission is to advance
    electric vehicle technology to deliver the world's best performing
    commercial vehicles.
        Proterra is an American company and an American technology leader.
    Our products are designed, engineered, and manufactured at our
    factories in the United States. We employ over 600 people across the
    nation, with most of those employees located at our bus production
    plant in Greenville, South Carolina, our battery and bus production
    plant in City of Industry, California, and our battery production and
    powertrain testing lab in Burlingame, California.
        Our sole focus is battery-electric vehicles. We are not hampered by
    investments in legacy technologies. While the internal combustion
    engine has had a good run, the future is electric. Market demand for
    electric vehicles is rising because battery electric vehicles can meet
    the demands of customers at a lower cost of ownership than diesel
    vehicles. At the same time, electric vehicles impose fewer costs on our
    communities and advance our climate goals.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and this Committee for driving
    federal surface transportation policies and funding levels that will
    position America to compete and lead the future of transportation
    globally. The investments and overarching focus on reducing emissions
    throughout H.R. 2 are the bold steps that climate change and the
    opportunity for jobs and new industries demand.
        Federal policy supporting the development of alternative fuel
    technologies and investments in zero emission vehicles has been
    critical to U.S. competitiveness in these new industries and to
    advancing U.S. technology leadership. In turn, those policy signals
    have been followed by significant private investment in companies such
    as Proterra that have created new jobs. These jobs are full time, high
    paying, skilled jobs in manufacturing, engineering, and related support
    functions. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped measuring
    employment in industries that produce goods or provide services that
    benefit the environment in 2013, in 2011 more than 3.4 million
    Americans were employed in the green sector, including over 500,000 in
    manufacturing jobs.\1\ In March 2020, The Institute for Applied
    Economics at the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
    reported that the electric vehicle industry in California alone has
    provided over $9.6 billion in labor income and thousands of well-paying
    jobs. California's EV industry provided over 275,600 jobs with average
    annual wages of $91,300 in 2018 alone.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/green/
    home.htm, last accessed on March 13, 2021.
        \2\ https://laedc.org/2020/03/01/laedc-ev-industry-report/, last
    accessed on March 13, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Expanding the electric vehicle industry and investing in supporting
    infrastructure, and commercial electric vehicles, will continue to
    create new job opportunities. Such efforts will ensure that American
    companies become global leaders in research, development and
    manufacturing of zero emission vehicles.
        Proterra is one of those leaders.
        We delivered our first battery electric bus to Foothill Transit in
    San Gabriel Valley over ten years ago. Since then, we have delivered
    over 550 battery electric transit buses throughout North America. We've
    sold more than a thousand electric transit buses; however, battery
    electric buses still only represent approximately 1% of the overall
    transit bus market.
        Through deploying those transit buses, we have learned what it
    takes to design and manufacture a commercial, heavy-duty, all-electric
    vehicle. We have just launched our fifth-generation battery electric
    bus, the ZX5, in 2020, and our battery technology has been proven
    through over 17 million miles of revenue service. There is much to be
    done to transition the U.S. transportation system to zero emission
    fleets, and American companies, like Proterra, can meet this
    opportunity.
        We have developed intellectual property and hold over 70 patents on
    our innovative solutions. In addition, we have taken our expertise in
    transit vehicles and built a business providing electric powertrain
    systems to other commercial OEMs. Our battery systems--also designed
    and manufactured in the United States--will power other transit buses,
    coach buses, school buses, delivery trucks, low-floor shuttles, and
    construction equipment in the United States, and other countries.
        Critical to transportation electrification is charging
    infrastructure. In fact, recent news headlines are pressing this point
    to policymakers as well as the public. To date, Proterra has deployed
    an industry-leading 54 megawatts of charging systems for our customers
    through 45 projects in North America. Proterra is a full-service
    provider of charging solutions including the software to manage fleet
    charging and the expertise to plan large-scale, cost-effective charging
    solutions for vehicle fleets. We recently completed our largest
    charging installation for the City of Edmonton, Canada, with 40
    Proterra electric buses and a first-of-its-kind overhead charging
    solution for a bus depot in North America.\3\ Our new charging hardware
    manufacturer, Power Electronics, is investing in a manufacturing
    facility in Arizona to support Proterra's Energy business.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.thefourth-revolution.com/buses/edmonton-transit-
    agency-becomes-first-in-north-
    america-to-deploy-overhead-in-depot-charging-for-electric-buses/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Proterra's business supports hundreds of suppliers, including US
    small businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises, women-owned
    businesses, and veteran-owned companies. Over 75 percent of the
    components in Proterra vehicles are sourced from American companies in
    more than 30 states including Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina,
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
        The road to building the future of zero emission transportation in
    the U.S. begins with public transit. I would like to thank the Members
    of this Committee for your leadership in advancing the American Rescue
    Plan and previous COVID-19 emergency relief legislation which have
    provided necessary funding to public transit agencies in both urban and
    rural areas of the nation that provided a lifeline during the pandemic.
    In 2019, Americans took 9.9 billion trips on public transportation.
    Public transportation brings Americans to work. Over 71% of public
    transit riders are employed.\4\ During the COVID-19 pandemic, our
    essential workers depended on public transportation and your actions
    helped transit agencies meet that need.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.apta.com/news-publications/public-transportation-
    facts/, last accessed on March 14, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress also took the historic step in the FAST Act to fund the
    Federal Transit Administration's Low and No Program from the Highway
    Trust Fund. Stable funding from the authorization act buttressed by
    supplemental funding through the annual appropriations process for the
    past 4 fiscal years has provided approximately $500 million in
    investments for this program which has supported over 200 separate
    awards to help communities electrify. As a result of this modest
    federal investment, more than 2700 zero emission buses are running in
    revenue service or soon will be deployed.\5\ Just as importantly, the
    program has demonstrated a federal commitment to electric vehicle
    deployment and the growing level of funding has sent a signal of
    support for accelerating electric vehicle adoption for public
    transportation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/
    Zeroing_In_on_ZEBs_FINALREPORT_
    1262021.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Driven by technological and cost advancements, electrifying
    transportation increasingly offers a winning formula to cities, states,
    companies, and other fleet operators.
        Over the past decade, battery costs have declined substantially.
    According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, since 2010, lithium-ion
    battery pack prices have fallen 89 percent.\6\ At Proterra, we have
    lowered our battery pack cost by 86 percent since 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-
    100-kwh-for-the-first-time-in-2020-
    while-market-average-sits-at-137-kwh/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over our five generations of bus development, we have routinely
    increased range and drive performance. Our newest model of electric
    bus, the 40-foot Proterra ZX5, can be equipped with 675 kilowatt hours
    of energy storage on board to deliver up to 329 miles of drive range,
    which represents the most energy storage and longest drive range of any
    40-foot electric bus available in the market today.
        Going electric does not mean compromising on vehicle performance. A
    Proterra electric transit bus can accelerate 1.5 times faster than a
    standard diesel bus, with nearly twice the horsepower, giving it the
    ability to tackle steep hills with grades up to 27 percent.
        Battery-electric transit buses offer a low total cost of ownership
    and less volatile fuel costs when compared to internal combustion
    engine vehicles. Proterra's drivetrain and propulsion system enables
    fuel economies of up to 25 MPGe, a substantial improvement over
    conventional combustion engines fueled by CNG or diesel. Further
    because electric buses have fewer parts, require no oil changes or
    emissions tests, and place less wear on braking systems, operating and
    maintenance expenses are substantially lower compared to diesel and CNG
    alternatives.
        Simply put, transitioning to zero-emission, electric vehicles is no
    longer just the right thing to do for public health reasons and to
    address climate change, it is the smart thing to do for businesses.
        That's why private business along with cities, states, schools,
    airports, and others are advancing bold initiatives to switch entirely
    to zero-emission vehicle fleets.
        Last summer, for example, 15 states and Washington D.C. signaled
    their intent to transition to 100% zero-emission trucks and buses by
    2050.\7\ California has continued its embrace of electric vehicles
    through meaningful standards advanced last year to transition
    commercial trucks like delivery vans, school buses and other large
    vehicles to zero-emission technology by 2035.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/15-states-and-district-columbia-
    join-forces-accelerate-bus-and-truck-electrification
        \8\ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-
    california-will-phase-out-
    gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-
    californias-fight-against-
    climate-change/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Major automakers including GM and Ford along with truck
    manufacturers like Daimler are driving significant investment into
    accelerating their conversion to electric vehicles.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/business/gm-zero-emission-
    vehicles.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also, leading delivery and e-commerce companies including FedEx,
    UPS, and Amazon are on a path to electrifying their fleets in the
    coming years.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/business/electric-delivery-
    vehicles-ups-fedex-amazon.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now, as demand for transportation electrification accelerates,
    electric vehicle technology is an opportunity for the United States to
    be at the leading edge of the innovations that will create good
    American jobs, modernize our nation's infrastructure, and help build a
    more just and resilient economy.
        Last summer, this Committee spearheaded HR2: The Moving Forward Act
    which provided for bold investments in our future and decisive action
    to create US leadership globally in zero emission transportation. The
    competition in these markets is formidable. In China, there are 450,000
    EV buses on the road and China has made massive investments in EV
    technology.
        We believe the technologies we need to meet the global demand for
    zero-emission transportation, can and must be built right here in the
    United States. We've experienced this first-hand at Proterra.
        In December 2020, Proterra marked the opening of a new battery
    production line in Los Angeles County. This facility will expand our
    production capacity to manufacture our industry-leading battery
    technology systems that power our fleet of transit buses as well as
    commercial vehicles, such as school buses and delivery vans. With the
    opening of our new battery production line, we are hiring over 30
    employees in Los Angeles County--providing much needed jobs during the
    pandemic--and these new jobs will include more than two dozen union
    represented positions.
        The new battery production facility is also the first to be co-
    located within a vehicle manufacturing plant--showcasing our ability to
    bring state-of-the-art battery production directly to vehicle
    manufacturers.
        Successfully building an advanced manufacturing workforce requires
    investing in training and development. That's why, along with the
    United Steelworkers Local 675, our community partners, and Los Angeles
    County, we launched a first of its kind training program for job
    applicants interested in electric vehicle manufacturing and celebrated
    the first graduating class in January.
        This training program was developed to advance diversity, equity,
    inclusion in the EV manufacturing sector by targeting historically
    underrepresented groups with barriers to employment, including women,
    people of color, aging foster youth, veterans, and the formerly
    incarcerated.
        As the transportation industry transitions from fossil fuels, we,
    along with our partners at USW Local 675, are modeling how American
    manufacturing companies and workers can come together to create the
    manufacturing jobs of the 21st century.
        The benefits of electric vehicle technology extend far beyond how
    we move people and deliver goods throughout our communities, too.
    Proterra has designed our battery systems to serve the development of
    multiple industries and applications.
        The recent widespread power outages in Texas have demonstrated the
    need for grid resilience, and electric vehicles can play an important
    role. We can create a more resilient energy and transportation system
    that works for everyone including cities and states operating electric
    vehicle fleets as well as the utilities and regulators that manage the
    grid.
        Electrifying school bus fleets provides an excellent opportunity.
    In 2018, Proterra and our partner Thomas Built Buses unveiled a
    Proterra powered electric school bus. The all-electric Saf-T-Liner C2
    Jouley is powered by Proterra's electric vehicle technology and built
    on the Thomas Built Buses school bus platform--all manufactured here in
    the United States, in California and North Carolina respectively.
        The Jouley electric school bus is capable of supplying power back
    to the electricity grid using bidirectional charging and vehicle-to-
    grid technology. This means we can send stored power back to the
    electricity grid at times when it's needed most or even to provide
    back-up power to critical facilities like schools during a power
    outage, as the electric utility DTE Energy will be testing with their
    recent acceptance of six electric school buses to serve students in
    Michigan.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.michigan.gov/mienvironment/0,9349,7-385-93394-
    551135--,00.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Just last month, the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education
    approved a project with Highland Electric Transportation, to convert
    its school bus fleet to all-electric, starting with 326 school buses
    over the next four years. This project represents the largest single
    procurement of electric school buses in North America. In addition to
    delivering health and climate benefits by reducing diesel pollution,
    these Proterra Powered electric school buses will lend their batteries
    to deliver stored power to the local electricity markets, helping the
    community integrate renewable energy and support grid resiliency.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://www.proterra.com/press-release/montgomery-county-
    approves-largest-electric-school-bus-order/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Utilities are focused on ensuring the right-sized charging
    infrastructure is in place to meet the needs for electric vehicles.
    These initial deployments show promise and policymakers should support
    additional opportunities to explore how charging infrastructure
    projects can lighten demand and deliver power back to the electricity
    grid.
        Accelerating the switch to clean transportation will require
    partnership and coordination, and we are excited to work with electric
    utilities across the country, including PG&E, which is represented on
    this panel, to advance creative solutions to meet our energy demands.
        Beyond transportation, there are further business opportunities for
    U.S. innovation and job creation.
        Proterra batteries come with up to 12 year warranties, depending on
    the application. When Proterra batteries have met their useful life in
    a vehicle, these batteries still retain a significant amount of energy
    that can be used in second-life applications such as stationary energy
    storage. In fact, our batteries are designed with second life
    applications in mind.
        When batteries are no longer suited for those applications, there
    is an entire industry to be built in the U.S. to recycle components for
    reuse. Proterra battery packs are designed for easy separation of
    components for recycling purposes, allowing for 100% of aluminum used
    in the battery pack to be recycled. We also work with top-tier
    recycling companies such as Redwood Materials in Carson City, Nevada
    that specialize in extracting and repurposing materials inside lithium-
    ion automotive batteries.
        This regenerative cycle of use and reuse can support the creation
    of new jobs, help the United States maintain a competitive economic
    advantage by spurring new domestic industries, and strengthen our
    national security by reducing reliance on foreign industries for
    minerals and mining for critical raw materials.
        The United States is positioned to lead the world in this emerging
    market for clean energy and clean mobility. This opportunity for U.S.
    leadership and manufacturing expansion is worthy of strong support of
    the federal government. The federal government has played a meaningful
    role in the early adoption of electric vehicle technology, and we
    strongly urge you to continue to do so at a scale and with a sense of
    urgency that the climate crisis demands. Through meaningful measures to
    expand support for this emerging industry through policies that promote
    manufacturing, a domestic supply chain, and workforce training, we can
    bring the next wave of innovation directly to communities across the
    United States.
        For your consideration, Proterra recommends the following measures
    to accelerate the adoption of zero emission vehicles:
          Increase funding for zero emission buses and related
    infrastructure. The Low or No Emission Vehicle Program (Low No) has
    been responsible for funding thousands of electric transit buses, and
    we urge you to reauthorize the program and apply significantly greater
    resources to it to meet growing demand. The INVEST in America Act,
    which later became the Moving America Forward Act, included bold
    investments that dedicate significant resources for zero emission buses
    through the ``zero-emission bus grants'' program as well ``Bus facility
    and fleet expansion competitive grants'' program. As the Congress and
    this Committee begin the surface transportation reauthorization process
    again, we support reforming the Low No Program as a zero emission bus
    grant program and endorse funding at the levels called for in the HR 2
    or Congresswoman Brownley's Green Bus Act.
          Incentivize domestic manufacturing and supply chain. We
    urge Congress to modify the eligibility of the existing Advanced
    Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program to include heavy
    duty vehicle and suppliers to heavy duty original equipment
    manufacturers (OEMs). Access to low cost capital through this program
    would allow companies to invest in state-of-the-art manufacturing and
    build the supply chain for domestic components that will allow us to
    compete against aggressive foreign competition. It will also entice
    foreign battery cell manufacturers that are the market leaders to open
    manufacturing facilities in the United States and to import
    considerable intellectual property and create new American jobs.
          Support deployment of electric vehicles for other public
    fleets. We recommend that Congress establish grant programs that are
    modeled on previous successful efforts like the Low or No Emission
    Vehicle Program that would support the electrification for other heavy
    duty vehicle fleets such as school buses and municipal fleets.
          Electrification of Federal Vehicles. Proterra applauds
    the Administration's goal to electrify the federal fleet of vehicles,
    which boost electric vehicle manufacturing domestically. While
    opportunities for light duty vehicles garner much of the attention, we
    believe that deploying zero emission buses at national parks, military
    facilities, and other federal installations would bring immediate
    environmental and public health benefits while also reducing operating
    costs for these agencies over time.

        Through these policies, the federal government can send a strong
    signal to the industry and supply chains that the United States is
    committed to electrification and will drive greater private investment
    into the market, thereby creating even more American jobs in this
    rapidly growing market.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look
    forward to answering any questions that you may have.

        Mr. DeFazio. Representative Burchett would like to briefly
    introduce the next witness.
        Mr. Burchett. I caught that ``briefly,'' Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, today I have the honor of introducing Shameek
    Konar from Pilot Flying J. He is the chief executive officer,
    and I note that Congressman Cohen has someone from Tennessee as
    well, Mr. Smith, and I remember meeting him at Jimmy Kelly's in
    Nashville, Tennessee, with then-Senator Cohen. So I am
    interested to hear his testimony as well.
        But today I am honored to welcome Mr. Konar to our hearing.
    Since 2017, Mr. Konar has been instrumental in growing Pilot's
    energy business. Founded in 1958 by Jim Haslam in Knoxville,
    Tennessee, Pilot Flying J is now the 10th largest privately
    held company in the United States.
        And on a personal note, Mr. Haslam has been a good friend
    to me. I saw him Saturday at our little coffee club we have at
    one of his Pilots, and we were practicing social distancing if
    anybody is listening to this.
        But Mr. Haslam has always been very benevolent to the
    community, literally giving millions and millions of dollars to
    the community. I saw just in today's press that his family had
    given another $1 million to the University of Tennessee.
        But on a personal note, when I was a young State
    legislator, I went back to my elementary school, and I asked
    the principal if there is anything any of the kids needed, and
    she said, yeah, there was one kid that needed a jacket and he
    was poor.
        I was pulling down about $16,500 a year, and I figured I
    could afford about half of that jacket. So I called Big Jim
    Haslam on the phone, and he said--he calls me Timmy because
    he's known me since I was a little boy--``Timmy, just come on
    by and pick up the check.''
        We went half on that jacket, I remember, and the kid got to
    go home that day warm. And I remembered one thing he said. He
    said, ``Just don't tell anybody, Timmy. Just keep it
    anonymous.''
        And I have honored that until this point right now, but it
    has been several years. So I feel it is important that we point
    out that these folks have a very huge impact on our local
    community.
        But back to Pilot, it is also the largest operator of
    travel centers in North America with over 900 retail and
    fueling locations in 44 States, employing more than 28,000 team
    members. Pilot's success is emblematic of the American energy
    sector.
        Pilot and other businesses like it have chosen to make
    great strides on environmental issues. Because of private-
    sector innovation, the United States is working towards
    significant emissions reduction, and I hope Pilot Flying J
    continues its good work.
        And I will note Mr. Haslam has his autobiography out now,
    and it was started basically in one little station across the
    border in, I believe, Bristol, Virginia, and now its impact is
    literally nationwide.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record a letter in support of this testimony from the National
    Association of Convenience Stores and the Society of
    Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.
        Mr. DeFazio. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

    Letter of March 17, 2021, from the National Association of Convenience
     Stores and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America,
                 Submitted for the Record by Hon. Tim Burchett
                                                        March 17, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
        The National Association of Convenience Stores (``NACS'') and the
    Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (``SIGMA'')
    (collectively the ``Associations'') write to support the testimony of
    Mr. Shameek Konar of Pilot Flying J Travel Centers LLC at the hearing
    on ``The Business Case for Climate Solutions.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    ``Hearing on The Business Case for Climate Solutions,'' (Mar. 17,
    2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fuel retailers in the United States are well positioned to play an
    important role in the development of infrastructure to offer American
    motorists not only traditional liquid motor fuels but also a range of
    alternatives, including electricity to power their vehicles.
         Overview of the Associations and the Retail Fuels Marketplace
        Collectively, the Associations represent approximately 80% of
    retail sales of motor fuel in the United States. The fuel wholesaling
    and convenience industry employed about 2.46 million workers and
    generated more than $647.8 billion in total sales in 2019, representing
    approximately 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Of those sales,
    approximately $395.9 billion came from fuel sales alone.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Data from the National Association of Convenience Stores, State
    of the Industry Report (2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The retail fuels market is the most transparent, competitive
    commodities market in the United States. Retailers post fuel prices on
    large exterior signs, which consumers use to shop for the best
    prices.\3\ Many consumers drive out of their way to save a few cents
    per gallon. The Associations' members operate on tiny margins--
    generally several cents per gallon of fuel sold.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ In addition to price signs seen from the road, consumers also
    frequently use applications, such as Gas Buddy, to compare fuel prices.
    According to a 2019 NACS survey, 59% of consumers say price is the most
    important factor in determining where they buy fuel. See NACS. (2019).
    Consumer Behavior at the Pump. Retrieved from https://
    www.convenience.org/Topics/Fuels/Documents/How-Consumers-React-to-Gas-
    Prices.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The competitive nature of the retail fuels market compels retailers
    to pass through cost savings to consumers in order to maintain and
    increase their market share. It is in retailers' interests to increase
    the amount of fuel they sell to consumers. This is not only because
    those sales drive profit opportunity in and of themselves, but also
    because such sales drive in-store traffic, which is another source of
    profit for the retailer. These dynamics can be harnessed to create a
    growing market for alternative transportation energy sources.
       Electric Utilities, Fuel Retailers, and EV Charging Infrastructure
        The Biden Administration has committed to adding 500,000 electric
    vehicle (EV) charging stations over the next decade. The most
    efficient, cost-effective path to achieving this goal is a partnership
    between utilities and fuel retailers, with support from federal
    policymakers.
        Federal policy should incentivize and leverage private investment
    in bringing electricity as an alternative fuel to market. By the same
    token, federal policies should not undercut incentives for retailers to
    invest in EV charging infrastructure.
        The biggest impediment currently to fuel retailers investing in EV
    charging is the practice of utilities charging all of their electricity
    customers more in order to pay for their investments in EV charging
    infrastructure. Where this occurs, utilities are able to compete with
    private sector groups without risking a single dollar of their own.
    This tilts the cost for electric charging infrastructure in favor of
    utilities such that the private market cannot compete, placing existing
    and new market participants at a competitive disadvantage which they
    cannot overcome. The predictable result is that the private market will
    not risk capital investment in EV infrastructure when it knows it
    cannot make a return on that investment due to the unfair competition
    from utilities.
        Furthermore, some states classify businesses that sell electricity
    for the purpose of charging EVs as utilities, effectively prohibiting
    such sales from anyone other than utilities. Federal policy preempting
    these state regulations should be established, allowing non-utilities
    such as fuel retailers to resell electricity commercially.
        Finally, federal policy should maintain the ban on commercialized
    Interstate rest areas, including disallowing EV charging within federal
    Interstate rights of way. This will ensure that off-highway businesses
    are not discouraged from investing in EV charging. Our industry has
    supported the ban on commercial activity and electric charging should
    be treated no different from any other commercial service. If EV
    charging is opened up at Interstate rest areas, it will undercut
    private sector investments in that infrastructure at Interstate exits.
    That will mean fewer, not more, EV chargers.
                                   Conclusion
        The Associations' members' sole objective is to sell legal
    products, in a lawful way, to customers who want to buy them. As new
    fuels enter the market, our members want to be able to sell those fuels
    lawfully and with minimal volatility and risk. While the Associations'
    members are agnostic to the type of fuel sold to satisfy consumer
    demand, it is best for the American consumer to have a reliable source
    of fuel at competitive and stable prices.
        As such, the Associations believe that EV charging should be an
    open, competitive market. Convenience and fuel retailers should be able
    to sell electricity in a competitive market on equal footing with other
    market actors. Allowing private sector competition will spur efficient
    investment in and development of electric charging infrastructure. And,
    it is the best way to ensure that vehicle owners continue to get the
    best prices and experience as electricity is introduced into the fuels
    market.
        This Committee, utilities, and fuel retailers all have vital roles
    to play in building the nation's first EV charging network, together.
    Our industry is eager to work with the Committee to help it achieve
    this objective.
            Sincerely,
                            National Association of Convenience Stores.
                  Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.

        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Konar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Konar. Thanks for that very, very generous
    introduction.
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
    committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
        My name is Shameek Konar. I am the chief executive officer
    for Pilot Flying J, which is the largest travel center network
    in the United States.
        I am testifying on behalf of NATSO, the National
    Association of Truckstop Operators.
        Today I hope to demonstrate to you that travel center
    companies and the broader retail fuel industry are invaluable
    partners as you seek to minimize the transportation sector's
    carbon footprint.
        Our industry has demonstrated that we are prepared to
    invest in any transportation fueling technology that our
    customers desire.
        We are eager to continue playing this important role as we
    transition to the next generation of transportation energy.
        The Biden administration wants to add 500,000 EV charging
    stations over the next decade. My testimony will focus on the
    most efficient, economical way to accomplish this objective and
    lower the carbon footprint of transportation fuel.
        We will need a partnership. We need a partnership between
    utilities and fuel retailers with support from the Federal
    Government to achieve this. In order to develop policies that
    facilitate this partnership, there are fundamentally two
    buckets of activities that we need to pursue.
        First, the power grid needs to be restructured. As EV
    charging stations are installed, generation, transmission, and
    distribution networks will need to be expanded to meet this new
    demand.
        Drivers must be assured that they will be able to refuel as
    reliably as they do today in order to expedite adoption of EVs.
        Second, the market dynamics that govern our industry today
    should be replicated to accommodate EVs. This will ensure that
    customers have multiple recharging options that are competing
    for their business on price, on speed of service, and on
    quality of service.
        As it relates to reducing range anxiety, one of the primary
    impediments to EV adoption is a nationwide network of fast
    charging stations.
        We believe that this is achievable, but there must be a
    policy framework to harness our core competencies of the
    utilities, as well as the retail fuel sectors to make this
    work.
        The utility sector is best suited to perform the
    generation, development, and power grid restructuring work that
    will be essential to facilitate this network.
        The fuel retailers, on the other hand, like us are best
    positioned to own and operate EV charging stations and provide
    transportation energy to customers, along with services, in the
    manner that they are accustomed to today.
        Until the number of EVs on the road reaches a critical
    mass, however, there is an important role for Federal policy to
    bridge this gap and make private investments more viable while
    providing long-term consumer benefits and a reduction in the
    carbon emission footprint of the sector.
        These policies should encourage utilities and fuel
    retailers to focus activities where we are the most productive.
        At the same time, policies that may appear to be quick and
    easy solutions often undermine our objective, either utilities'
    incentives to restructure the power grid or the retailers'
    incentive to invest in charging infrastructure.
        For example, some electric utilities have had to increase
    cost to all ratepayers to underwrite their investment in EV
    charging stations and electricity that powers EVs.
        Businesses like mine cannot do this, and we cannot compete
    in this environment with those who do. But this would make it
    very difficult for us to invest and actually hamper our goal of
    reducing the carbon footprint.
        Some advocates are also interested in allowing EV charging
    at interstate rest areas. This will discourage, again,
    companies like mine and other retailers in this industry from
    investing in charging infrastructure. It will also signal to
    prospective drivers that when they recharge, they will not have
    access to all of the amenities and the security they have come
    to expect from this sector.
        Approaches like these would undermine the business case for
    companies like Pilot and other fuel retailers to leverage our
    existing investment--and we have tens of billions of dollars
    invested in the sector--to develop EV charging infrastructure.
        As I have said, there is a very strong business case for us
    to be actively engaged in this space.
        It is our sincere hope that we can continue working with
    you, your staff, and my fellow witnesses to do just that.
        On behalf of NATSO and Pilot, I thank you for inviting me
    to testify here today, and I am happy to answer any questions
    that you or the committee may have.
        [Mr. Konar's statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Shameek Konar, Chief Executive Officer, Pilot
     Flying J, on behalf of the National Association of Truckstop Operators
                            I. Summary of Testimony
          The National Association of Truckstop Operators (NATSO)
    is the premier national trade association representing off-highway fuel
    retailers, from multi-billion dollar travel center and convenience
    store chains to small, single-store operators. Pilot Flying J (Pilot)
    is the largest travel center chain in the United States, with more than
    28,000 employees helping operate a nationwide network of more than 900
    retail and fueling locations providing travelers with convenient stops
    that offer a variety amenities and products to make road travel easier.
          NATSO supports policies that incentivize fuel retailers
    to invest in alternative fuels, and reward businesses that make those
    investments. Because fuel retailers are fuel agnostic, we are
    invaluable partners for policymakers whose objectives include
    increasing consumption of alternative fuels. With the right alignment
    of policy incentives, fuel retailers are best equipped to facilitate a
    faster, more widespread and cost-effective transition to alternatives--
    including electricity--in the coming years. The optimal way to lower
    transportation fuels' carbon footprint is through policies that (i)
    encourage businesses such as Pilot to offer more alternatives, and (ii)
    make those alternatives more economically attractive to consumers.
          As customers utilize electric vehicle (EV) charging
    stations, they will expect a seamless and predictable experience not
    unlike their current refueling experience, grounded in safe, accessible
    amenities and affordable, competitive pricing. The market dynamics that
    govern today's liquid fuel retail sector should be replicated to
    facilitate greater EV adoption.
          Achieving the Biden Administration's goal of adding
    500,000 EV charging stations over the next decade will require a
    partnership between utilities and fuel retailers, with support from
    federal policymakers. If designed and implemented properly, such a
    partnership would benefit all three stakeholder groups and ultimately
    achieve environmental policy goals.
          There are two components to this partnership: Power grid
    restructuring to accommodate the significant demands that an EV
    refueling network (and electrification of various other sectors such as
    home heating) will place on the grid as the world transitions away from
    fossil fuel; and the consumer fueling experience to provide customers a
    safe, ubiquitous, reliable, affordable and competitive market for
    recharging activities.
          Federal incentive policies should harness the core
    competencies of the utility and retail fuel sectors. Neither sector can
    create a sustainable, nationwide EV charging network without the other,
    especially in an expeditious, efficient and economical way. The utility
    sector is best suited to perform the requisite generation development
    and power grid restructuring work. Fuel retailers are best positioned
    to own and operate EV charging stations (especially along Interstate
    highway locations) and provide transportation energy--including
    electricity--to consumers. Grant programs or other federal policies
    designed to encourage investment in EV charging infrastructure and
    supply equipment should be designed in a manner that is consistent with
    each sector's respective area of expertise.
                                II. Introduction
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and distinguished members
    of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify at this important hearing examining the
    business case for climate solutions. On behalf of the National
    Association of Truckstop Operators (NATSO) and Pilot Flying J (Pilot)
    where I am Chief Executive Officer, we are eager to work with you--and
    with my fellow witnesses--to improve the environmental characteristics
    of transportation energy in the United States.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In addition to NATSO, Pilot is also an active member of the
    National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and the Society of
    Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA). Pilot and NATSO both
    support NACS and SIGMA's joint submission to the Committee to be
    inserted into the hearing record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The most expeditious, efficient and economical way to achieve
    environmental advancements in transportation energy technology is
    through market-oriented, consumer-focused policies that encourage
    businesses such as Pilot to offer more alternatives and our customers
    to purchase those alternatives. Fuel retailers are in the business of
    providing competitively priced fuel and services to our customers.
    Unlike refiners, power generators, and biofuels producers, fuel
    retailers are agnostic to what the form of fuel is; our goal is to
    provide customers ``what they want, when they want it, and at a price
    they are willing to pay.'' Fuel retailers have demonstrated in recent
    years that we are prepared to invest in any transportation fueling
    technology that our customers desire.\2\ With the right alignment of
    policy incentives, fuel retailers are well equipped to facilitate a
    faster, more widespread and cost-effective transition to alternatives--
    including electricity--in the coming years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The amount of biofuels that Pilot sells today in response to
    the Renewable Fuel Standard, and Pilot's and NATSO's aggressive support
    of enhanced biofuel incentives demonstrates this.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the past decade, companies such as Pilot have invested
    significant amounts of money to bring alternative fuels to market.
    While we invested capital and took business risk, the transparent
    framework laid out by policymakers such as yourselves essentially gave
    us a framework and a line of sight on how we would generate a return on
    our investment. As a result, we responded to your policy signals and
    engaged in behavior that you have determined is beneficial for society
    at large. We are eager to continue playing this important role as we
    transition to the next generation of transportation energy.
        I encourage the Committee to learn from the successes of the last
    twenty years, and apply those lessons to any incentive programs that
    you create for the next twenty years. Once an incentive and regulatory
    regime is in place that enables travel center companies and other fuel
    retailers to gain customers and market share by investing in electric
    vehicle (EV) charging (or any other technology), the private sector
    will bring those fuels to market more effectively and efficiently than
    the government or any government-sponsored monopoly, because this is
    our core-competency.
        I discuss these issues in more detail below.
                                III. Background
    A. NATSO and the Travel Center Industry
        I am testifying today on behalf of NATSO, which is the premier
    trade association representing travel centers, truckstops, and off-
    highway fuel retailers. NATSO represents approximately 300 companies
    that operate nearly 7,000 travel centers, as well as tens of thousands
    of convenience stores. Our membership is comprised of both large,
    multi-billion dollar travel center and convenience store chains, as
    well as small, single-store operators. Given the breadth of its
    membership, NATSO represents a substantial majority of retail sales of
    diesel fuel in the United States.
        The travel center and truckstop industry is a diverse,
    sophisticated and evolving industry. These locations effectively
    function as ``hotels'' for the over-the-road transportation industry--
    because the number of hours that a driver can drive is limited, drivers
    stop at our facilities to fuel, eat, shower, sleep, shop, cash checks,
    etc. Almost every travel center location is in close proximity to an
    Interstate highway and includes multiple profit centers, from motor
    fuel sales and auto-repair and supply shops, to hotels, sit-down
    restaurants, quick-service restaurants, food courts, and convenience
    stores. Although the industry was once tailored solely to truck
    drivers, it now caters to the entire interstate traveling public, as
    well as the local population that lives in close proximity to a travel
    center location. These travel centers are often located in relatively
    remote areas and can at times be one of the only sources of food,
    convenience and fueling for local residents.
        Fuel retailers' sole objective is to sell legal products, in a
    lawful way, to customers who want to buy them. As new fuels enter the
    market, retailers want to be able to sell those fuels lawfully and with
    minimal volatility, risk, and inconvenience for our customers. Our
    industry is agnostic as to which fuels we sell to satisfy consumer
    demand. Our bias is simply that we believe it is best for the American
    consumer--and America's industrial position in the world marketplace--
    to have reasonably low- and stable-priced energy.
        All of NATSO's members, large and small, believe it is imperative
    that policies designed to encourage investment in alternative fuels
    must account for the fact that a majority of fuel retailers are small
    businesses. Any approach to setting policy that does not ensure these
    businesses are able to continue growing and creating jobs in the 21st
    Century will be less successful than policies that enable the entire
    retail fuels industry--large companies and small companies--to
    participate.
        In 2020, NATSO launched the National Highway Charging Collaborative
    with ChargePoint, the world's largest EV charging network. The
    collaborative has committed to leveraging $1 billion in capital to
    deploy charging at more than 4,000 travel plazas and fuel stops that
    serve highway travelers and rural communities. NATSO and ChargePoint
    continue to work together to identify public and private funding
    sources that may be available to support the expansion of EV charging
    at strategically determined locations.
    B. Pilot Flying J
        Pilot started in 1958 with a single gas station in Gate City,
    Virginia. Our founder, James A. Haslam II, wanted to build a business
    to support his growing family and to provide people with the gas and
    conveniences they need while on the road. In 1981, with 100 convenience
    stores, Pilot opened its first full-size travel center in Corbin,
    Kentucky.
        Today, Pilot has more than 28,000 employees helping operate a vast,
    nationwide network of more than 900 retail and fueling locations
    providing travelers with convenient stops that offer an incredible
    variety of amenities and products to make road travel easier. The Pilot
    Flying J travel center network includes locations in 44 states and six
    Canadian provinces with more than 630 restaurants and 35 Truck Care
    service centers. Our One9 Fuel Network connects smaller fleets and
    professional drivers to the services they need at a variety of fueling
    locations.
        We supply more than 11 billion gallons of fuel per year, including
    approximately one billion gallons of biofuel (such as biodiesel,
    renewable diesel, and ethanol). The carbon reduction from our biofuel
    portfolio is equivalent to taking approximately one million cars ``off
    the road'' each year. Our sourcing infrastructure, strong market
    presence and expertise in energy and logistics optimizes the
    distribution of not only diesel fuel and gasoline, but also biofuels
    and diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). Over the last 10 years, Pilot has
    significantly increased the amount of biofuels that we supply to our
    customers based on the policy incentives of the Renewable Fuel Standard
    (RFS) and other state policies such as California's Low-Carbon Fuel
    Standard. Today, Pilot is one of the largest sellers of biofuels in the
    country.
                      IV. Fuel Retailers Are Fuel-Agnostic
    A. Competition and Retail Fuel Prices
        The retail fuels market is the most transparent, competitive
    commodities market in the United States. As every American knows,
    customers can see gasoline retailers' price signs from blocks away, or
    compare prices on cell phone applications. These signs represent more
    than just pricing information; they are a value proposition to
    potential customers, not only with respect to fuel but also food and
    other convenience items and amenities that we offer at our facilities.
        While the gasoline market is extraordinarily competitive--consumers
    will often change where they buy gas to save just a few cents per
    gallon--the retail diesel market is even more competitive and
    transparent. Many travel centers' customers--truck drivers and trucking
    fleets--are more savvy and price-conscious than typical American
    motorists (fuel generally amounts to 20-30% of a motor carrier's
    overall costs). Truck drivers are often aware of retail fuel prices
    when they are 100 miles away from potential refueling sites, and fleet
    managers use this information to direct drivers to specific retail
    locations in order to purchase the lowest-priced fuel available. Every
    time a truck refuels, it is on average 100 gallons, so even a penny
    difference in the price of diesel per gallon amounts to a dollar. Given
    the number of trucks that visit our stores every day, pennies add up
    quickly. This imposes strong downward pressure on retail diesel prices.
        The competitive nature of retail fuel markets compels retailers to
    pass through cost savings to consumers in order to maintain and
    increase their market share. It is in retailers' interests to increase
    the amount of fuel that we sell to consumers. This is not only because
    those sales directly drive profit opportunity, but also because such
    sales drive in-store traffic, which is a source of profit for the
    retailer.
        Given the transparency and competitiveness of fuel pricing,
    retailers are generally ``price takers'' for fuel, where the market
    essentially sets the price. This means that we must compete on prices
    of other items we sell, speed, and quality of service to retain our
    customers and potentially gain market share. In addition, the
    transparency of fuel markets exerts a constant downward pressure on
    retail fuel prices, which benefits customers and forces successful
    retailers to run efficient and cost competitive business platforms.
        Notwithstanding these challenging dynamics, gas stations and travel
    centers are located in every community and at highway exits throughout
    the United States. One would be hard-pressed to identify any other
    industry where there are multiple retailers selling the same, fungible
    product on the same street corner. Yet, as we all know, that
    circumstance is not uncommon in the retail fuel industry.
        The American consumer is the ultimate beneficiary of this dynamic.
    Policymakers and proponents of enhanced EV charging infrastructure
    investment should be mindful of this, and harness the consumer-
    oriented, efficient and innovative retail fuel industry to convert
    environmental aspirations into consumer-accepted realities.
    B. Retailers Respond to Consumer Demand; We Do Not Create It
        Offering a product for sale does not guarantee consumers will
    purchase it. Retailers cannot force consumers to buy a particular
    product. Rather, retailers sell what consumers demand. In fact, the
    primary trait of any successful retailer is an ability to identify what
    his or her customers want to buy and then sell that product at a price
    that is both attractive to the consumer while enabling the retailer to
    earn a profit. In this respect, fuel retailers are quite effective
    surrogates for consumers.
        This is even more relevant when it comes to adoption of EVs or
    other alternative fuels vehicles. In the world of liquid fueling it
    takes a four-wheel customer two to three minutes to complete a fueling
    experience (average fueling for cars and light commercial vehicles is
    approximately 10 gallons at a time). In the world of EVs, however, this
    will expand to 20 to 40 minutes for a charge, depending on the vehicle
    and the type of charger available. This will place a lot of emphasis on
    the type of experience that the consumer has at the retail fueling
    station, because instead of a five minute ``stop,'' this will be a 30-
    minute ``experience.''
        Consumer satisfaction with this experience is essential to
    widespread adoption of EVs. The retail fueling industry is focused on
    competing on speed, customer service, and amenities. We will have every
    incentive to make this customer experience the best it can be. The most
    successful travel centers today have already embraced a changing
    culture, shifting profit centers to food and beverage options, as well
    as offering Wi-Fi, convenience shopping, and security. We are prepared
    to continue to evolve with our customers. As new, faster charging
    technologies come to market, for example, retailers will be forced to
    invest in those technologies in order to compete.
        If Congress wants to incentivize increased investment in and
    consumption of more environmentally friendly alternative fuels, it must
    keep in mind this fundamental market reality: motorists and truck
    drivers do not purchase products because fuel retailers sell them; fuel
    retailers sell products and services because our customers purchase
    them.
    C. Fuel Retailers are Eager to be Collaborative Partners in Bringing
            Alternative Fuels to Market
        NATSO strongly supports policies that incentivize fuel retailers to
    invest in bringing alternative fuels that customers want to market, and
    reward businesses that make those investments.
        Because fuel retailers are fuel agnostic, we are invaluable
    partners for policymakers whose objectives include increasing
    consumption of alternative fuels. The market is extraordinarily capable
    of efficiently and expeditiously bringing the lowest-cost fuels to the
    end user. Fifteen years ago, Pilot blended and sold a nominal amount of
    biofuel. In response to a variety of federal and state programs, today
    we sell more than one billion gallons of biofuels each year (with ample
    room for growth). The impact of our biofuels program is equivalent to
    taking one million cars ``off the road'' every year from a carbon
    emissions perspective.
        Our experience at Pilot is similar to that of dozens of other
    retail fuel companies throughout the United States. As an industry, we
    have adapted in response to tax and other incentives to sell lower
    carbon intensity alternatives to gasoline and diesel. The companies
    that have done this successfully generally have been more profitable
    than the companies that have not done this successfully. Although the
    fuels of the future will be different than the fuels of the past, we
    have made transitions before and we can do it again. Congress has at
    its disposal a nimble, sophisticated industry that is able to adapt to
    clear policy signals and provide customers the fuels that they want.
          V. Utilities, Fuel Retailers, and EV Charging Infrastructure
        The Biden Administration has established a goal of adding 500,000
    EV charging stations over the next decade. This Committee has an
    important role to play in making this goal a reality. The most
    efficient, cost-effective path to achieving this is a partnership
    between utilities and fuel retailers, with support from federal
    policymakers. If designed and implemented properly, such a partnership
    would benefit both utilities and fuel retailers and ultimately achieve
    environmental policy goals while benefitting the American consumer.
    A. Adoption of EVs
        In order for the American consumer to transition to EVs, three
    conditions need to be met:
        (1)  Vehicle Affordability--The vehicles need to be affordable (for
    consumers and businesses), including maintenance costs and other
    operating economics over the life of the vehicle.
        (2)  Vehicle Functionality and Reliability--The vehicles need to be
    functionally capable for the relevant use cases and as reliable at
    serving consumer needs as internal combustion engine vehicles.
        (3)  Refueling Network--There needs to be a robust network of
    fueling stations so that vehicles are not limited in their use and
    consumers feel comfortable and safe traveling throughout the nation
    (much as they feel with the existing liquid refueling marketplace), and
    eliminating the ``range anxiety'' concern associated with EVs.

        Light-duty passenger EVs are on their way to satisfying the first
    two criteria. The biggest impediment to more widespread adoption is the
    lack of a robust nationwide refueling network, and the services and
    amenities that consumers have come to expect alongside such a network
    (e.g., foodservice facilities, restrooms, security, etc.). The ultimate
    solution for heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., long-distance freight carriers)
    is less clear, with various technologies from hydrogen fuel cells to
    EVs competing to satisfy the conditions referred to above. A recent
    survey found that the primary concerns potential EV customers had (with
    over a 40% positive response) were vehicle costs, range and an
    inadequate charging network.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See Utilities: The Unintended Bottleneck to MASS EV
    Penetration, Stephen C. Byrd, Adam Jones et al, Morgan Stanley Research
    (Oct. 28, 2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The current shortfall with respect to a nationwide refueling
    network on the light duty side can be overcome through a coordinated
    partnership between utilities and fuel retailers with support from the
    federal government.
    B. Infrastructure Needs and Market Reforms Necessary for an EV
            Refueling Network
        Before addressing what the partnership between utilities and fuel
    retailers should look like, one must understand the various changes
    that need to be made to existing electricity infrastructure and EV
    charging markets in order to provide a sufficient refueling network.
        1.  Power Grid Restructuring--An EV refueling network will place
    significant demands on the electric grid as well as the generation
    fleet. This will be in addition to pressures that the utility sector
    faces from:
          a.  The fact that significant portions of the electricity system
    are more than 50 years old and need replacement;
          b.  As the power sector transitions to zero carbon emissions for
    the existing demand, they will have to build significant amounts of
    renewable generation and work on grid reliability and storage issues;
          c.  Transitioning of activities currently fueled by fossil fuels
    (such as home heating and industrial processes (boilers, etc.)) to
    green power.

        In addition to these demands on the utilities, achieving greater EV
    adoption requires fundamental restructuring of and enhancements to the
    nation's power grid and generation fleets. We will have to build more
    renewable generation and storage assets. As charging stations are
    installed throughout the country, generation, transmission and
    distribution networks will need to be expanded in order to serve the
    new network of charging stations.
        2.  Customer Fueling Experience--As customers utilize EV charging
    stations, they will expect a seamless and predictable experience not
    unlike their current refueling experience; one that is grounded in
    safe, accessible amenities and affordable, competitive pricing. In
    essence, the current market dynamics that govern the liquid fuel retail
    sector should be replicated to facilitate a future where most consumers
    drive vehicles that run on electricity. Although we anticipate constant
    innovation and improvements, recharging an EV simply takes a lot longer
    than refueling a car with gasoline (20-40 minutes versus a two to three
    minute gasoline fill). This underscores the need for safety, services,
    and other amenities at EV fueling locations. Failing to fulfill
    consumers' expectations with respect to their refueling experience will
    inevitably hinder their desire to shift to EVs.
    C. Necessary Partnership Between Utilities and Fuel Retailers
        A nationwide network of EV charging stations is well within our
    grasp. All it takes is coherent framework of national policies that
    harness the core competencies of the utility and retail fuel sectors.
    Neither sector can create a sustainable, nationwide EV charging network
    without the other; however, both sectors require substantial federal
    incentives and unambiguous policy signals in order to justify the
    necessary investments. The structure and implementation of these
    policies is the key to creating a nationwide EV charging network.
                i. Utility Sector
        The utility sector is best suited to perform the requisite
    generation development and power grid restructuring work given its
    expertise in the infrastructure and its regulated monopoly structure.
    Utilities that function under a ratebased framework can generally
    afford to expand existing infrastructure to accommodate EV charging
    stations. Utilities are well equipped to partner with charging station
    owners and site hosts to (i) effectuate necessary generation and
    transmission capacity upgrades and (ii) develop pricing structures to
    accommodate the nascent market for retail sales of electricity as a
    motor fuel. This plays to their core strengths of deploying long-term
    capital and developing, operating and maintaining critical
    infrastructure.
                ii. Retail Fuel Sector
        Fuel retailers are best positioned to own and operate EV charging
    stations and provide transportation energy--including electricity--to
    consumers.
        Retailers are strategically located throughout the country where
    refueling demand is greatest, operating in the most transparent,
    competitive markets in the world and competing with one another on
    price. It is not uncommon to see multiple fuel retailers at the same
    intersection or exit on a highway competing on price, leading to price
    transparency and lower prices for customers.
        Due to the price transparency and fungibility of the commodities
    they sell, fuel retailers are forced to compete on other non-price
    attributes such as quality of service, cleanliness, security,
    amenities, food, loyalty programs, and speed. As a result, they have a
    keen understanding of consumer preferences and tendencies and have to
    use this knowledge to make the customer fueling experience positive in
    order to compete.
        The retail fuel industry has a history of being very nimble and has
    repeatedly responded to policy incentives for alternative fuels and
    shifting customer preferences. This is a service-based, fuel agnostic
    industry; we recognize that EV charging is the likely next step in the
    evolution of what our customers want. We are best positioned to provide
    EV charging services faster and cheaper than anyone else.
                iii. Policy and Regulatory Environment
        Until the number of EVs on the road reaches a critical mass, there
    is an important role for federal policy to ``bridge the gap'' and make
    private investments more viable while providing long-term consumer
    benefits.\4\ This would be comparable to the experience from the power
    generation sector, where numerous programs including investment tax
    credits, portfolio standards, cap and trade systems, and grants have
    fostered the development of renewable generation--especially wind and
    solar--to get those technologies to a point of scale and economic
    parity. The transportation sector needs to follow a similar path to
    foster the development and the adoption of EVs by the customer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The current utilization of publicly available DC Fast charging
    infrastructure remains low, at less than two hours per day per charger.
    At these levels, the investment economics in the infrastructure lead to
    negative returns. This is the classic ``chicken or egg'' problem, where
    EV infrastructure will get built if there is sufficient demand; but
    until then ``bridging'' is required, where government incentive
    programs can facilitate the development of infrastructure until stand-
    alone economics allow for private investment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These policies should be developed keeping three key principles in
    mind:
          Capital Efficiency--Leveraging core-competencies of the
    constituencies in the value chain and incentivizing them to accelerate
    development of the necessary infrastructure.
          Speed to Market--Given the urgency of climate change,
    speed is more important than perfection in market structure, hence
    policy should incent those who can solve the problem most
    expeditiously.
          Alignment--Incentivizing existing fuel retailers to
    adapt, and co-investing with them, will lead to a better outcome. If
    companies are encouraged to put capital at risk, it will enable the
    sector to champion the adoption of EV charging stations (as has
    occurred with respect to biofuel incentives) as opposed to fighting it.

        The federal government should develop policies to ensure a level
    playing field, including incentives to incubate and foster development
    that will provide long-term consumer benefits. Policy mechanisms worth
    considering include:
          Direct Investment and Tax Credits--Targeted grant and
    rebate programs that improve the economics associated with power grid
    restructuring (for the utility sector) and the installation of EV
    charging stations and sale of electricity to EV users (for the retail
    fuel sector) can expedite investments in a space where sufficient
    consumer demand remains many years away. Similarly targeted tax credits
    can complement direct federal investment.
          Low Carbon Fuel Programs--Low carbon fuel programs can
    make electricity more cost-competitive with other transportation fuels.
    This has been very successful in the development of biodiesel and
    renewable diesel through the RFS program. Critical to the development
    of any such program will be science-based lifecycle analyses of
    greenhouse gas emissions associated with different fuel technologies.
          Reselling Electricity--Governments should permit all EV
    charging station owners to generate a profit by selling electricity to
    EV owners without being subject to regulation as a utility. This
    allowance is essential if fuel retailers are to have any incentive to
    invest in EV charging technology.
          Uniform Pricing--There should be uniform pricing
    measurements (e.g., dollars per kilowatt-hour) and requirements for
    consumer-friendly price disclosures.

        Conversely, policies that at first blush appear to be quick and
    easy solutions may have the unintended consequence of undermining
    either utilities' incentives to restructure the power grid or
    retailers' incentive to invest in EV charging infrastructure. Examples
    of these counterproductive policies include:
          Forcing ratepayers to underwrite utilities' investment in
    EV charging stations or to subsidize the retail cost of electricity
    that charges electric vehicles--Where this occurs, the utilities are
    operating in a guaranteed rate of return environment without putting
    capital at risk. Retailers cannot compete with electric utilities in
    this environment. While there is good reason for ratepayers to help
    underwrite the cost of restructuring the power grid to accommodate EV
    charging, there is no public policy rationale why utilities should be
    given a leg up over private actors who wish to enter the market for
    chargers that consumers use to power their vehicles. Utilities' pursuit
    of this uncompetitive arrangement is the single greatest deterrent
    today to fuel retailers' investing in EV charging infrastructure. It
    also results in an extraordinarily regressive transfer of wealth from
    all ratepayers (regardless of income) to utilities and EV drivers.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ By way of background, investor owned utilities are granted a
    monopoly by state regulatory commissions to provide utility service.
    They are granted a monopoly over the provision of electricity, for
    example, because it is economically inefficient for multiple companies
    to build overlapping infrastructure in order to serve the same end-
    users. In exchange for this loss of market freedom, the ``monopoly
    compact'' provides the utility a guaranteed rate of return on
    commission-approved investments. It further provides for the collection
    of revenue to cover the utility's costs through approved rates.
        As a general matter, utilities try to keep the cost of recovery of
    capital investments within the ``rate class,'' meaning they attempt to
    assign the cost to those that will benefit from the investment. From
    time to time, utilities seek to go beyond this practice to accomplish
    goals outside of the utility's basic mission. Most economists frown
    upon such ``cost-shifting.'' When utilities utilize their monopoly
    powers to insert themselves into the consumer-facing refueling space,
    it is an example of ``cost-shifting.''
        Rate based investments made by utilities are not subject to market
    risk. Once approved by the state public utility commissions, these
    investments provide a guaranteed rate of return for utility
    shareholders. The return is independent of how the investment performs,
    whether it becomes obsolete or not, or even if it is ever used. The
    rate of return is guaranteed. Private companies competing for the same
    customer have very little chance of effectively competing for business
    against a utility that has no risk on capital deployed, and no
    incentive to ensure superior performance.
        Utilities deploy their capital investments for customers through
    approved ``tariffs,'' which outline the terms and conditions to the
    customer. By design, utility tariffs are ``one size fits all.'' This
    keeps it simple when managing many customers, but it is also very
    restrictive: once you're in, you're in. There is no getting out, and
    they are very difficult to change after the fact.
        By contrast, private market solutions are flexible and responsive
    to customer needs. They have to be or a business will lose a customer.
    Utilities do not have this concern. There is no competition, and there
    is nowhere else for a customer to go. What's more, because tariffs do
    not allow for changes to the base investment, they are effectively
    static. In a rapidly developing and evolving marketplace, such as that
    for EV charging infrastructure, using regulated tariffs to deploy
    solutions virtually ensures the investment will be obsolete shortly
    after it is deployed. There is no mechanism to upgrade the investment
    to keep pace with the technology. It is comparable to buying a brand
    new iPhone for every American in 2010, and then not enabling them to
    buy a new one for at least a decade.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Allowing EV charging infrastructure at Interstate rest
    areas--Not only would this discourage off-highway fuel retailers from
    investing in charging infrastructure, but it will signal to prospective
    EV drivers that if they purchase an EV they will need to refuel at
    often remote, poorly maintained state-run rest areas rather than the
    off-highway travel centers and fuel retailers with all of the
    amenities, security and services that drivers have come to expect.
    Carving out an exception for EV charging to the longstanding ban on
    commercial activities at rest areas is a simplistic, shortsighted and
    counter-productive attempt to overcome a complex but eminently solvable
    problem.
          Permitting utilities that own EV charging stations to
    charge other EV station owners higher rates for power than the internal
    transfer price they charge their own operations--A prohibition on such
    practices is the only way to provide a level playing field and ensure
    competitive pricing for individual consumers.

        The framework discussed above significantly enhances the
    disciplined, expeditious and economic adoption of EVs with the utility
    sector and retail fuel sector focusing on their core competencies to
    deliver the solution. For maximum impact, grant programs or other
    federal investment designed to encourage investment in EV charging
    infrastructure and supply equipment should be dispersed in a manner
    that is consistent with the principles and guardrails outlined above.
                                 VI. Conclusion
        As discussed in the foregoing testimony, it is clear to us that
    there is an elegant and effective solution available to accelerate the
    transition to electric vehicles and materially impact the level of
    greenhouse gas emissions through a partnership between fuel retailers
    and the utility sector (with assistance from the government) where:
          Retailers focus on servicing customers, are aligned with
    the adoption of EVs (as they will displace liquid fuels for many four-
    wheel customers) and provide the incremental amenities required in
    light of the 10- to 20-fold increase in fueling times. Retailer
    participation is necessary for a seamless transition to EVs.
          Utilities focus on the development of low carbon
    generation and the development of transmission and distribution
    infrastructure that makes clean electricity reliably available to the
    retailers and other charging station owners to sell fuel to the end-use
    customers.
          Government should provide a ``bridge'' through incentive
    mechanisms in the early states when the stand-alone economics do not
    warrant investment; government should also provide a policy framework
    that supports the provision of electricity and a level playing field
    for the retailers to compete with one another for consumers.

        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before you
    today. On behalf of NATSO, I look forward to continuing to work with
    Congress on these issues, and am happy to answer any questions you may
    have.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Konar.
        Mr. Troy Rudd.
        Mr. Rudd. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
    Graves, and distinguished members of the committee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Troy Rudd. I am the chief executive officer of
    AECOM. Our 47,000 professionals, including 19,000 U.S.
    employees, deliver vital infrastructure projects worldwide that
    are designed to uplift our communities, advance economic
    growth, and improve health, safety, and overall quality of
    life.
        We are ranked number one globally for transportation
    engineering and design and environmental services. By drawing
    on our experience working on all continents and as proud
    partner with the Federal Government, State and local government
    agencies, and the private sector in the U.S., we hope to be a
    resource to the committee on these topics, and we thank you for
    the important work that you are doing.
        The business case for climate solutions in transportation
    is predicated on delivering the following outcomes, we believe,
    for all Americans:
        Creating jobs and, more importantly, lasting careers;
        Accelerating innovation and mobility to meet the needs of
    the future;
        Enhancing the quality of life and the environment by
    reducing emissions;
        Ensuring infrastructure resiliency;
        And stimulating economic growth that drives continued
    prosperity.
        In my testimony, I would like to focus on three areas where
    Government leadership can help achieve the outcomes I have
    described.
        First is advancing electrification. AECOM has guided more
    than 20 public agencies and many private-sector clients with
    early adoption of electrification. In Los Angeles for their
    Department of Transportation, we are delivering infrastructure
    to support full fleet conversion to battery-electric buses.
        In other cities, we have studied the impacts of
    electrification on the grid, how transit agencies can best
    convert to electric, and how they can leverage battery storage
    of EVs even during grid outages.
        These projects have demonstrated numerous benefits in terms
    of emission reductions, especially in areas of vulnerable
    populations; job creation, and resiliency.
        We believe the Federal Government can play an important
    leadership role in accelerating electrification efforts by
    supporting the deployment of a reliable, accessible national
    electric charging network in four ways:
        Working with the private sector in setting design standards
    to encourage interoperability of charging infrastructure;
        Prioritizing pilot projects to convert large State,
    municipal, and private-sector fleets;
        Investing in other charging innovations, including dynamic
    charging imbedded in roads and freeways;
        And advancing the use of electric vehicles by electrifying
    the U.S. Postal Service fleet and deploying regional and rural
    charging infrastructure.
        Second is building resilient infrastructure. Assuring more
    resilient infrastructure is an important area of concern for
    our clients and where Government can make a significant impact.
        In 2020 alone, the U.S. faced 22 natural disaster events
    with losses exceeding $1 billion each, the highest number ever
    in a single year and the 6th consecutive with 10 or more
    billion-dollar events.
        We have conducted transportation climate risk analysis for
    clients like BNSF Railway, the San Francisco Bay area
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the New York City
    Economic Development Corporation, and many more, all looking at
    risk reduction strategies for climate events.
        These analyses find that potential losses due to natural
    disaster disruption can be offset by smaller adaptation
    investments today.
        AECOM supports reauthorization reforms that incentivize
    project investments that take into account environmental,
    social, and safety benefits beyond traditional life-cycle
    costs, and criteria that prioritizes new investment decisions
    with long-term preservation and performance of the assets in
    mind.
        Third is unlocking innovation. We also need Government to
    act boldly in support of new modes of mobility. In our recent
    fiscal year, AECOM worked on more than 29,000 projects for
    transportation clients in the United States.
        We found that projects which include more innovation are
    often delayed by rigid commercial models, dated standards, and
    jurisdictional conflicts. Visionary ideas in mobility, such as
    high-speed rail, hyperloop, and more recently electric vertical
    takeoff and landing vehicles or flying taxis, can all play a
    role in improved mobility, congestion management, emissions
    reduction, and new economic output.
        For us, the bottom line is this: To promote innovative
    modes of transportation, we need to remove some of the
    obstacles that prevent investment in thinking beyond the status
    quo.
        In summary, pursuing climate solutions that advance
    electrification, build a resilient infrastructure, and unlock
    innovation can yield significant benefits. And what is more, it
    plays to American ingenuity and a bipartisan spirit in
    supporting transportation infrastructure; it keeps our country
    moving forward.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today
    and look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Rudd's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Troy Rudd, Chief Executive Officer, AECOM
                               AECOM Introduction
        Good morning Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and
    distinguished members of the committee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important
    issue. My name is Troy Rudd and I am the Chief Executive Officer of
    AECOM.
        Our 47,000 professionals--including 19,000 US-based employees--are
    engineers, architects, scientists, software programmers, urban and
    transportation planners, program and construction managers, and
    economists who plan, design and deliver infrastructure.
        Globally, we are consistently ranked No. 1 in transportation
    engineering and design, and we are the No. 1 provider of environmental
    services.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Engineering News--Record Top Lists.'' Engineering News Record
    RSS, 2020, www.enr.com/toplists.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AECOM has earned a reputation as an industry leader through the
    critical and essential support we provide our clients, and because the
    work and infrastructure solutions we deliver uplift communities,
    advance economic growth and improve health, safety and overall quality
    of life.
        Today, our clients are focused on emerging challenges. At the
    center of this is ESG, or environmental, social and governance
    concerns. Our clients are acutely aware of the need to address and
    prepare for change, whether it is electrification of transit systems,
    creating access to mass transit for all, or preparing for natural
    disasters that disrupt commerce and our way of living.
        At AECOM, we are leading by example through our own practices,
    including setting approved science-based targets in alignment with the
    Paris Agreement. We are already exceeding our 2025 targets in reducing
    Scope 1 and 2 emissions and are committed to being net-zero for Scopes
    1, 2 and 3 by 2030.
        We are a proud partner to the federal government, state and
    municipal agencies, and the private sector, working together in both
    urban centers and rural communities across America.
        Drawing from our global experience working on every continent, we
    hope to be a resource for this Committee as it seeks to consider
    climate responsive and resilient solutions for new and rehabilitated
    infrastructure and to unlock the full economic, environmental and
    mobility benefits of a modern transportation system.
        The work of this Committee is essential to keeping our nation
    moving forward, and I thank all of the members of the Committee for
    your efforts.
                               Focus of Testimony
        Transportation is crucial in ensuring prosperity and well-being
    today, tomorrow and long into the future.
        As the Committee considers the right approach to create lasting
    benefits, the business case for climate solutions in transportation is
    predicated on delivering the following outcomes for all Americans:
          Creating jobs and more importantly, lasting careers.
          Accelerating innovation and giving rise to fresh thinking
    in transportation so that our systems of mobility meet the needs of the
    future.
          Enhancing quality of life through the health benefits of
    reduced emissions and social benefits through equitable access,
    improved mobility and public safety.
          Ensuring infrastructure resiliency, continuity and
    extended lifecycles against both natural and human-made impacts.
          Stimulating economic growth that drives prosperity.

        Additionally, we believe we all share the goal of ensuring that the
    benefits of a modern US transportation system elevate all communities,
    especially disadvantaged and vulnerable populations and areas that have
    been underserved in the past.
        In my testimony today, I want to focus on three areas where
    government leadership can help achieve the outcomes I have described.
          Advancing Electrification
          Building Resilient Infrastructure
          Unlocking Innovation
                           Advancing Electrification
        AECOM has guided more than 20 public-sector agencies and many
    private-sector clients with early adoption of transportation
    electrification.
        In Los Angeles, AECOM is helping the city's Department of
    Transportation convert their existing bus facilities to support a full
    fleet conversion to battery electric buses. This fleet is anticipated
    to be one of the earliest fully converted electric bus fleets in the
    nation.
        In Fresno, a primarily rural county in California, AECOM recently
    completed a study on the impacts of electrification on the grid and how
    the rural transit agencies can best convert to and leverage electric
    vehicles to support resilience during events like grid outages.
        For the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in
    Washington, D.C., AECOM developed the strategy for an initial bus pilot
    with a path forward to electrify the full fleet over two decades.
        In partnership with our clients, we have identified numerous
    potential benefits of advancing electrification, including emissions
    reductions in disadvantaged communities, creation of new high-quality
    jobs and careers, innovation and resiliency.
        Based on real world examples, AECOM believes that significant
    opportunities exist to revisit and strengthen existing federal
    Department of Transportation (USDOT) programs that advance strategic
    national deployment of a reliable and accessible national electric
    charging network.
        We also believe that such a charging network could provide a
    potential future revenue stream to replace or supplement current user
    fees that fund the maintenance and operation of roads and transit,
    while fostering continuing investment in community priorities.
        With nearly 30% of emissions in the US arising from the
    transportation sector \2\, the connection between infrastructure and
    public health, equity and justice are more urgent today than they have
    ever been. The transportation sector is the greatest contributor to
    these air pollutants and therefore presents the greatest opportunity to
    deliver impactful solutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' EPA,
    Environmental Protection Agency, 29 July 2020, www.epa.gov/
    greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AECOM is taking an active role in changing our transportation
    infrastructure and how we use it to reduce emissions that have an
    adverse impact on human health. Low-income communities are
    disproportionately impacted given their increased exposure to
    environmental hazards, particularly related to our highways and other
    transportation facilities that reduce local air quality in those
    communities.
        A widespread transition to zero-emissions transportation
    technologies could produce emissions reductions that by 2050, could
    total up to $72 billion in avoided health harms including 6,300
    premature deaths, 93,000 asthma attacks, and 416,000 lost workdays
    annually. In addition, the benefits to our environment in the form of
    avoided climate change impacts could surpass $113 billion in 2050 as
    the transportation systems combust far less fuel and our power system
    comes to rely on cleaner, non-combustion renewable energy.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``Road to Clean Air--Electric Vehicle Report.'' Road to Clean
    Air--Electric Vehicle Report / American Lung Association, American Lung
    Association, www.lung.org/clean-air/electric-vehicle-report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shifting to zero emissions vehicles can also create jobs--and even
    new careers. In California, a 2020 study showed that transportation
    electrification has created more than 275,000 direct EV industry jobs,
    and that number is expected to rise. These jobs are typically higher
    paying, with a salary average of over $91,000, which is well above the
    state average of $68,500.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``LAEDC Report: California and SoCal EV Industry Is Growing,
    Giving Region Global Competitive Advantage.'' Los Angeles County
    Economic Development Corporation, 8 Mar. 2020, laedc.org/2020/03/01/
    laedc-ev-industry-report/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This Committee's work on the FAST Act, which created corridors with
    alternative fueling and charging infrastructure, has directly
    contributed to significant reduction in harmful mobile source emission
    pollutants. It has also created an exciting new landscape in which our
    public agency clients routinely engage our expertise in designing
    systemwide EV charging infrastructure for new projects.
    Recommendations:
        To foster a more integrated and resilient approach to
    transportation electrification, we encourage the Committee to consider
    the following:
        1.  Working with the private sector in setting design standards to
    encourage interoperability of charging infrastructure and advancing the
    use of electric vehicles.
        2.  Prioritizing pilot projects to convert large state/municipal
    and private sector fleets (as a precursor to broader community
    transition).
        3.  Investing in charging innovations, including dynamic charging
    embedded in roads and freeways.
        4.  Positioning the federal government as a leader in advancing the
    use of electric vehicles by electrifying the US Postal Service fleet
    and deploying regional and rural charging infrastructure.

        Additionally, we suggest that deployment of new electrification
    corridors could be enhanced by exploring new rules that facilitate the
    use, transfer and disposition of under-optimized transportation rights-
    of-way for EV charging transmission, broadband and telematics.
                       Building Resilient Infrastructure
        Pursuing infrastructure improvements to minimize disruption risks,
    and to extend the performance, safety and longevity of their transport
    infrastructure are prevailing--and immediate--concerns of our public-
    and private-sector clients.
        This leads to the second area where government can accelerate the
    benefits of climate solutions in transportation: building resilient
    infrastructure.
        Presently, AECOM is developing a flood mitigation study for BNSF
    Railway to understand the potential of flood impacts with more
    specificity, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of risk reduction
    strategies. The intent of the project with BNSF Railway is to minimize
    annual damage repairs and losses from out-of-service delays by
    developing a flood risk prioritization tool and impact assessment.
        In the San Francisco Bay area, AECOM carried out a resilience study
    for the region's Metropolitan Transportation Commission to address
    future flood impacts on the Bay Bridge touch down area and adjacent
    disadvantaged communities.
        As lead consultant for the Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency
    Study, AECOM's comprehensive climate risk analysis of Lower Manhattan
    included an economic analysis that accounted for potential
    transportation disruption. Similar analyses, including a regional
    economic assessment for Southeast Florida investment in resilience, all
    share the same conclusions: that billions of dollars in potential
    losses due to disruption posed by natural or man-made events can be
    offset by smaller investments today.
        In the case of Southeast Florida, daily tidal inundation under 2070
    conditions could affect over 100 miles of major roadways, expose $53.6
    billion worth of property value, affect 17,800 jobs, and cause $384
    million in fiscal losses in a single year (2019 dollars).
        Investing in regional adaptation solutions would have positive
    returns on investment and provide job opportunities. The analysis
    showed that every $1 invested in community-level adaptation would drive
    $2 in economic benefits. Overall, community-level adaptation investment
    could support 85,000 job-years (a job year is one year of work for one
    person).\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``The Business Case for Resilience in Southeast Florida.'' ULI
    Knowledge Platform, knowledge.uli.org/reports/research-reports/2020/
    the-business-case-for-resilience-in-southeast-florida.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2020, the United States experienced 22 natural disaster events
    with losses exceeding $1 billion each--the most ever. It was also the
    sixth consecutive year in which 10 or more billion-dollar disaster
    events occurred in the US.\6\ Factoring in the human toll as well, we
    believe the business case for investing in prioritizing and mitigating
    the impacts on transportation is profound.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Hurricane Costs, coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-
    costs.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations:
        1.  AECOM is supportive of reauthorization reforms that incorporate
    methodologies that better incentivize investments in projects by taking
    into account economic, environmental, social and safety benefits, in
    addition to traditional life-cycle cost assessments.
        2.  A grant pilot program that offsets the additional cost of new
    resilient infrastructure in a market that prioritizes low bids, would
    incentivize and capitalize on the opportunity to build truly resilient
    and long-lasting infrastructure, and realize a range of associated
    benefits.
                              Unlocking Innovation
        In our most recent fiscal year, AECOM worked on more than 29,000
    projects for transportation clients in the United States.
        Many innovative solutions do ultimately advance to project delivery
    and operation. However, in some instances, the ability to advance
    innovation is stymied as a result of commercial models, dated
    standards, jurisdictional conflicts and more.
        Advances in new modes of mobility can play a critical role in
    congestion management, emissions reduction, economic output and
    innovation.
        AECOM has been supporting clients to explore visionary, new forms
    of mobility ranging from High Speed Rail to Hyperloop, and more
    recently Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (eVTOL).
        AECOM led the environmental process to support federal decision
    making for the high-speed rail project between Dallas and Houston.
        The project would create direct employment and earnings of $14.5
    billion during construction; direct and indirect annual employment and
    earnings of $232 million for the State of Texas during operations; and
    at full operations, reduce vehicles miles traveled by 1.35 billion.
        AECOM has also conducted preliminary studies of hyperloop systems
    to understand the economic and social benefits for both industry and
    citizens. We have found opportunity to increase intermodal
    connectivity, reduce vehicles miles traveled and provide environmental
    benefits.
        In addition to new modes of mobility, AECOM sees merit in
    encouraging greater use of innovative mobility options to address first
    mile and last mile needs and expand access to existing systems.
        This is aligned with the growing equitable interest in supporting
    populations across the country that cannot drive. These vulnerable
    populations may be elderly, disabled or low-income workers that can
    benefit significantly from intermodal solutions that may encompass ride
    sharing for the last section of their trip.
        Bronzeville, a neighborhood on the southside of Chicago, is a
    perfect example of integrated planning and innovation.
        AECOM is working with Commonwealth Edison and the Chicago Housing
    Authority to address transportation, electrification and broader
    community benefits such as jobs and education. AECOM is developing the
    first renewable powered microgrid for the utility in this underserved
    community. At the same time, energy saving programs are helping
    residents and businesses reduce their utility bills. Additional
    initiatives focus on job creation, technical training in support of
    clean energy jobs leading to expertise that is transferable to projects
    around the country and preparing low-income high school students for
    STEM careers. My hope is this would change the beliefs and
    opportunities for the future families of these students for
    generations.
        A first- and last-mile EV shuttle service is being provided to
    three senior centers providing connection to Chicago Transit Authority
    train and bus stops with the intent of adding similar shuttles to the
    local academic community in partnership with the Illinois Institute of
    Technology. Additionally, shared electric vehicles are being piloted in
    the community.
        Among other innovations, there are advances in construction
    strategies and materials that can deliver real benefits to
    sustainability, costs and resilience. Examples include low noise
    asphalt (resulting in reduction of noise abatement structures), low
    carbon concrete (emissions), cost effective use of artificial
    intelligence to detect wildlife hazards rural areas and innovative use
    of energy storage and stormwater management. A more adaptive regulatory
    environment would help firms like AECOM to specify these solutions in
    the design and accelerate their deployment.
    Recommendations:
        1.  We believe opportunities exist to address these challenges
    through changes to USDOT programs, revisions to contracting rules and
    greater flexibility in standards to accelerate the adoption of
    innovation in transportation.
        2.  We believe the fundamental goal should be to encourage agencies
    at the state and local level to adopt alternative investment
    methodologies that foster innovation and engagement of the private
    sector.
                               Summary and Close
        AECOM stands ready to assist this Committee and our public and
    private clients throughout the US to adopt and operationalize a
    paradigm shift in infrastructure.
        To build projects that will last for generations, this Committee
    has an excellent opportunity to alter the project investment paradigm,
    one that that will foster incubation at all levels of government,
    champion new design and performance methodologies that harness cutting-
    edge technologies, and inspire and incentivize our clients to build
    next generation, long-lasting infrastructure.
        Historically, the infrastructure industry has been a powerful jobs
    creator. It has also helped soften the impact of the coronavirus
    pandemic by engineering solutions to social distancing and virus
    detection, aid policymakers in planning for the future, and designing
    for a more equitable and resilient tomorrow.
        The incorporation of climate solutions that help (i) Advance
    Electrification, (ii) Build Resilient Infrastructure and (iii) Unlock
    Innovation will yield significant benefits across America.
        As I noted in my introduction, the business case for these climate
    solutions is strong in terms of (1) creating jobs and lasting careers,
    (2) accelerating innovation, (3) enhancing quality of life, (4)
    ensuring resiliency in our infrastructure for future generations, and
    (5) stimulating economic growth that drives prosperity.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
        I look forward to your questions and to working with the Committee
    to craft solutions to these pressing challenges.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Rudd.
        Mr. Rafael Santana.
        Mr. Santana. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
    committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on
    the business case for climate solutions. This is an important
    topic for the future of the rail industry and the future of our
    Nation.
        My name is Rafael Santana. I am the president and CEO of
    Wabtec Corporation, a global leader in rail technologies for
    over 150 years.
        We are based in Pittsburgh. Wabtec has over 27,000
    employees in more than 50 countries. We are the largest freight
    locomotive manufacturer.
        We move more than 20 percent of the world's freight, and we
    are a proud American company at the forefront of freight rail
    innovation.
        Wabtec embraces Congress' commitment to clean energy and
    the creation of jobs. We believe the freight rail sector is in
    a unique position to accelerate these efforts, and Wabtec is
    prepared to contribute its resources to help meet the clean
    energy challenge.
        In that regard, I want to introduce you to a bold vision
    for transforming the future of freight rail known as Freight
    2030. This is a public-private partnership that will accelerate
    our Nation towards a better and a cleaner tomorrow.
        Joining Wabtec in this vision, we have Carnegie Mellon
    University, the Nation's leading university in artificial
    intelligence and robotics, and we have Genesee & Wyoming, the
    Nation's largest short line and regional freight railroad.
        Rail is, without question, the most sustainable, the
    safest, and the most efficient way to move both people and
    goods over land. But we cannot stop there.
        At Wabtec, we innovate. We help our customers leverage rail
    to increase efficiency, to reduce costs, and to reduce their
    carbon footprint.
        A great example is Trip Optimizer. This is a cruise control
    technology for trains that has saved over 400 million gallons
    of fuel and has reduced CO2 by half a million tons per year.
        Wabtec is also leading the way toward clean freight with
    the world's first heavy-haul, 100 percent battery-electric
    locomotive. This is called FLXdrive. This locomotive is being
    tested in California with BNSF and with the California Air
    Resources Board.
        We are also leading the way in rail utilization and safety,
    having implemented Positive Train Control systems with both
    Class I railroads and also with short lines. This is a safety
    overlay that covers all mainline tracks in the U.S.
        Wabtec strongly believes that by increasing capacity and
    better utilizing our world-class freight rail network, coupled
    with developing zero-emission locomotives, we can reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions by up to 120 million tons per year.
        We can also create up to 250,000 jobs.
        For context, 120 million tons of greenhouse gases is the
    equivalent of 26 million passenger cars.
        The time for rail is now, and Freight 2030 is the critical
    path to our Nation's continued success. At the heart of Freight
    2030, we have three core principles.
        The first one is decarbonization, and we are going to get
    there through zero-emission battery and hydrogen hybrid
    locomotives.
        The second piece is technology. We are going to use
    technology that will increase freight rail utilization and will
    improve safety.
        Third is the creation of direct, indirect, and induced
    jobs, roughly 80 percent of which will be blue-collar jobs.
        This vision would also enable better data sharing and
    increased visibility to the movement of goods from ports to
    rail to yards.
        We propose to create the Freight Rail Innovation Institute
    at Carnegie Mellon, the first of its kind, to drive action
    towards significantly increasing freight rail utilization and
    decarbonization, while spurring jobs and economic growth.
        This institute will allow the U.S. to lead ahead of others,
    including China, including Europe, in zero-emission solutions
    for rail, as well as become an exporter for the world.
        Wabtec and our partners, we are prepared to invest in the
    Freight Rail Innovation Institute alongside the U.S.
    Government, and ask for your support in creating a clean energy
    future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any
    questions you may have.
        [Mr. Santana's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Rafael Santana, President and Chief Executive
                          Officer, Wabtec Corporation
                                  Introduction
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
    Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the critical
    topic of transportation and climate change. My name is Rafael Santana,
    and I am the President and CEO of Wabtec Corporation--a global leader
    in rail technologies for over 150 years.
        President Biden and Congress have pledged to build a clean energy
    economy. The ``Build Back Better'' plan is committed to address climate
    change, significantly reduce carbon emissions and spur job growth. The
    transportation sector is a critical piece of building back better.
    Across the globe, transportation accounts for nearly one quarter of all
    greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.\1\ Current trends indicate that freight
    and passenger rail activity will more than double by 2050.\2\
    Therefore, the United States will require even cleaner and more energy-
    efficient transportation solutions if it is to continue being a leader
    in addressing climate change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The World Resources Institute
        \2\ IEA (2019), The Future of Rail: Opportunities for energy and
    the environment, IEA, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312821-en.

        The freight rail sector, in addition to being the most sustainable
    way to move people and goods over land, is in a unique position to
    contribute to this endeavor. By increasing utilization of our world-
    class freight rail network and developing zero-emission locomotives;
    together, we can reduce emissions by up to 120 million tons of GHG per
    year.\3\ This is the equivalent of removing 26 million cars from the
    road or planting nearly 2 billion trees.\4\ By pursuing increased rail
    utilization and zero-emission locomotives, we can create up to 250,000
    jobs, all while increasing safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Wabtec Internal Documents
        \4\ https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-
    calculator
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With this mind, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to introduce
    you to the ``Freight 2030'' vision for transforming the rail industry.
    Within the next nine years, we are committed to developing the
    technology to enable the expansion of freight rail utilization,
    accelerating the reduction of GHG emissions with battery and hydrogen-
    powered locomotives, and enabling safer trains through a public-private
    partnership between industry, academia, and the federal government.
        Partnering on the ``Freight 2030'' vision for the future are
    Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), the nation's leading university in
    artificial intelligence and robotics, Genesee & Wyoming (G&W), the
    nation's largest short line and regional freight railroad, and Wabtec.
    By working together, we can establish a research institute committed to
    developing and deploying advanced rail propulsion, logistics, and
    safety technologies.
                               Wabtec Corporation
        Wabtec was founded in 1869 by George Westinghouse and, today, is a
    leader in freight rail, manufacturing advanced locomotives, freight
    rail parts and components, as well as advanced network logistics and
    digital solutions. In addition to our freight rail division, we also
    develop transit products and have components or parts on virtually
    every transit train globally.
        Based in Pittsburgh, Wabtec is a proud American company at the
    forefront of freight rail innovation with over 27,000 employees in more
    than 50 countries. The company is the largest freight locomotive
    manufacturer, moving more than 20% of the world's freight.
        At Wabtec, we innovate and help our customers leverage rail to
    increase efficiency, reduce costs, and their carbon footprint. We are
    currently leading the way in developing battery-electric locomotives
    and other low-to-zero emissions technologies. BSNF Railway and
    California Air Resources Board are testing our newly developed FLXdrive
    locomotive in revenue service today on track between Barstow and
    Stockton, California. The FLXdrive is the world's first heavy-haul,
    100-percent battery-electric locomotive (BEL).\5\ The locomotive
    features an overall train energy management system powering
    approximately 20,000 battery cells and delivering 2.4 MWhrs of energy.
    To date, FLXdrive has run over 10,000 miles and delivered an average of
    10% reduction in fuel consumption across the train. This is the
    equivalent of 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel saved and approximately 50
    tons of CO2 emissions reduced. At 6 MWhrs, we have an opportunity to
    further reduce fuel consumption and emissions by up to 30%.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.wabteccorp.com/sustainability-report
        \6\ https://www.wabteccorp.com/sustainability-report
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Wabtec also leads the way in rail utilization, safety and logistics
    optimization technology. In 2008, Congress passed the Rail Safety
    Improvement Act, which mandated the implementation of Positive Train
    Control (PTC) systems on most of America's railroads.\7\ PTC systems
    are designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed
    derailments, unauthorized movements into established work zones, and
    accidents that occur if trains are routed down an incorrect track.
    Since 2008, Wabtec has supplied over 24,000 locomotives with PTC
    computers and software.\8\ Over the past decade, PTC technology has
    revolutionized rail safety in the US and helped make the rail sector
    more efficient and effective. Wabtec is currently developing advanced
    PTC systems that will enable virtual and moving block signaling instead
    of the traditional fixed block signaling used today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-
    control-ptc
        \8\ https://www.wabteccorp.com/about-wabtec
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These new, advanced PTC systems will significantly increase the
    efficiency of our railways by reducing headways between trains while
    maintaining stringent safety standards. Similarly, our Trip Optimizer
    and Movement Planner solutions optimize both locomotive fuel efficiency
    and real-time network planning, respectively. This enables freight to
    move more efficiently using existing rail networks, thereby reducing
    energy use, emissions, and waste. As a reference, our Trip Optimizer
    solution is already installed on over 11,000 locomotives globally,
    saving 400 million gallons of fuel.\9\ It also reduced carbon emissions
    by over 500,000 tons per year--the equivalent of removing 100,000 cars
    from the road.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.wabteccorp.com/sustainability-report
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Following the great American tradition of leadership in innovation
    and industry, Wabtec is on the cutting edge of freight rail technology.
    We have the experience and know-how to lead rail's charge into a
    cleaner and more sustainable future.
                Freight Rail's Role in the Clean Energy Economy
        The United States has the most extensive freight rail
    infrastructure network in the world. Our 140,000 miles of track are
    unparalleled--long enough to stretch around the globe over five
    times.\10\ This allows quick and efficient shipment of goods across our
    nation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AAR-Railroad-
    101-Freight-Railroads-Fact-Sheet.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Freight rail is a critical component of today's clean energy
    economy. Rail can more efficiently and cleanly deliver goods than any
    other mode of transportation.
        While freight rail leads the transportation sector in reducing
    emissions today, there are many more opportunities before us. For
    example, current trends indicate that freight activity in America will
    more than double in the next thirty years, with freight tonnage
    increasing significantly.\11\ The U.S. will require cleaner, more
    energy-efficient transportation solutions. Technology adoption across
    rail will be an indispensable driver for the modernization of the
    entire transportation system, making it cleaner, safer, and more
    efficient, and reliable.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-
    States/bcyt-rqmu
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Trucking is an essential component of the freight shipping network,
    and rail must work hand-in-hand with our nation's truckers to reduce
    emissions, increase efficiency and safety, and more economically move
    goods from coast-to-coast. The U.S. will always rely on trucking to
    move goods, especially in first-and-last mile situations where goods
    are moved to warehouses, businesses, or homes. However, when moving
    goods longer distances, trucking is less efficient than freight rail.
    Compared to trucking, rail produces five times less carbon emissions
    per ton-mile.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Average from AAR Climate Change Report and EDF Green Freight
    Handbook
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Weight of Shipments by Transportation Mode

                                Tons (millions)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        With climate change as one of our nation's greatest challenges, the
    time to shift to rail is now. For example, if we increased utilization
    of rail by 50% for the movement of freight over 500 miles, we can
    reduce 60 million tons of GHG emissions per year.\13\ That is like
    taking 13 million cars off the road.\14\ If the U.S. wants to lead the
    world in decarbonizing the transportation sector, it should look no
    further than freight rail technologies and innovation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Estimated based on AAR Report: The Positive Environmental
    Effects of Increased Freight by Rail Movements in America, at https://
    www.aar.org/data/the-positive-environmental-effects-of-increased-
    freight-by-rail-movements-in-america/aar-positive-environmental-
    effects-of-freight-rail-white-paper-62020/
        \14\ https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-
    calculator
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freight 2030
        Our plan to accelerate the future of freight rail, the ``Freight
    2030'' vision, is to expand freight rail utilization, accelerate the
    reduction of GHG emissions, reduce road congestion and traffic, and
    make transportation in the U.S. safer for everyone. The ``Freight
    2030'' vision seeks to reinvent U.S. freight rail by developing the
    technology to accelerate:
          Decarbonization through the creation of zero-emission
    locomotives.
          Technology that enables a 50% increase in freight rail
    utilization and up to 50% reduction in safety incidents, while at the
    same time making rail faster and more efficient.
          Job creation that enables 250,000 direct, indirect and
    induced jobs spurred by the transportation and manufacturing sectors.

        Wabtec's goal is to develop the next generation of zero-emission
    locomotives. Wabtec has a clear path to power new locomotives--and
    repower existing locomotives--with batteries, hydrogen internal
    combustion engines, and hydrogen fuel cells. As discussed earlier, we
    are testing and deploying our battery-electric locomotive and plan to
    commercialize it in the near future. We are currently researching
    applicability of battery-hybrid and hydrogen combustion engines and
    hope to begin development and testing of those technologies quickly.
    These new technologies need to be retrofittable to the current fleet of
    locomotives. Each diesel-powered locomotive converted to alternative
    energy sources can save up to 3,000 tons of CO2 per year.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Based on 300k gallons of fuel consumed per locomotive per year
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increasing rail utilization will reduce emissions across the board.
    Studies have highlighted that while improvement to infrastructure is
    important, there is significant opportunity to extract more useful
    capacity from the existing network.\16\ Advancements to current
    signaling systems and other utilization technologies can increase
    network capacity by 50%. Through next-gen technology such as dynamic
    network and on-demand logistics planning, we can optimize heavy haul
    operations, increase yard capacity and cargo visibility, and grow
    ``first & last'' mile operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ ``National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment
    Study. Presented to Railroad Energy Transportation Advisory Committee''
    by Cambridge Systematics; Sept 2008; U.S. Freight System Modernization
    Necessary to Reduce Bottlenecks, Improve Security; RAND Corporation.
    Jun 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a key partner to the railroad industry, safety is at the core of
    all that we do at Wabtec and will be the number one focus of our
    ``Freight 2030'' vision. Already, rail is safer than other modes of
    transport. For instance, there are 22 times fewer deaths and injuries
    per year in rail than trucking.\17\ We estimate an increase in freight
    rail utilization will result in 14,000 fewer injuries or deaths per
    year.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Wabtec calculation based on: Bts.gov, injuryfacts.nsc.org,
    nhtsa.dot.gov
        \18\ Wabtec calculation based on: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration--Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2018 and Bureau of
    Transportation Statistics
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, ``Freight 2030'' is a bold vision for job creation. Within
    the next three years, we estimate this initiative will create over
    30,000 new jobs. In the longer term, the initiative will create 250,000
    new jobs. By increasing the amount of freight trains on the railroad,
    we increase the need for yard, maintenance and manufacturing workers.
    Therefore, we believe 80% of the jobs created through our program will
    be blue collar jobs. This is alongside the jobs created to construct a
    research institute, as well as build and maintain hydrogen fueling
    pipelines and stations around the country.
                     The Freight Rail Innovation Institute
        To accelerate the future of rail within the next decade and at
    scale, we ask Congress to collaborate with Wabtec, CMU and G&W to
    create, coordinate, and co-fund the Freight Rail Innovation Institute
    (FRII). This will send a message to the entire transportation industry
    that together, the private and public sectors can help achieve the
    nation's vision of a competitive and sustainable American freight
    transportation network.
        Moreover, this collaboration will create and fund technology
    research, demonstration, and commercialization initiatives that drive
    measurable action toward significantly increasing freight rail
    utilization and decarbonization of the rail network, while spurring
    hundreds of thousands of jobs. To that end, Wabtec proposes
    establishing centers of excellence in Green Power, Advanced Network
    Logistics, and Capacity at the FRII to bring rail into a new age of
    optimization and lead the world in freight rail innovation.
        A public-private partnership will create new manufacturing
    capabilities to supply ``Made in America'' technologies, such as zero
    emission locomotives powered by battery and hydrogen fuel cells, as
    well as on-site hydrogen generation solutions. In addition, it will
    further develop research priorities, conduct research, development, and
    testing, and foster collaboration and action between stakeholders to
    ensure the U.S. maintains its competitive edge and global leadership in
    creating the freight rail network of the future.
                                   Conclusion
        Maximizing the freight rail network and shifting to clean power
    requires upfront intellectual firepower and capital investment. Wabtec
    and our partners are prepared to invest in the Freight Rail Innovation
    Institute alongside the U.S. government and ask for your support in
    creating a clean energy future together. Let's start building America's
    freight rail of tomorrow today.
        I greatly appreciate the Committee's attention on this matter.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
    answering any questions members may have.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Santana.
        I now recognize Representative Cohen, who would like to
    briefly introduce our next witness.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Memphis is kind of a one-name town. There is Elvis, there
    is Cybill, and there is Fred. He has been responsible for so
    much in Memphis, and it would not be the great 21st-century
    city without him.
        And his employees have done a great job in delivering the
    vaccine to America and making it safer from this pandemic.
        FedEx has been the number one carrier, along with UPS--I
    guess it may be a tie there--for helping get that vaccine to
    people around the country.
        There is not a cultural institution or athletic group that
    does not have a FedEx employee involved in a major way.
    Employees of FedEx contribute to our communities in a
    phenomenal fashion.
        And FedEx is ahead of the game in every single area. Just
    as it was ahead of the game in bringing aircargo business as it
    has to the world, it has been ahead in climate and innovative
    activities with electric vehicles and forward thinking.
        Just this past week, FedEx became one of 50 countries to
    sign the climate challenge to reduce and have zero net carbon
    emissions by 2040, 10 years ahead of the Paris Accords.
        It is my honor to represent the city, and FedEx has made a
    great city in America.
        Mr. Fred Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
    members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
    today on the business case for climate solutions.
        I would like to also thank Congressman Cohen for that kind
    introduction. He represents Tennessee's Ninth Congressional
    District, home of FedEx's headquarters where we have over
    30,000 team members employed.
        Addressing climate change is bigger than one business, and
    this committee recognizes for the United States to remain a
    global economic leader, we must work together on sound policy
    and innovative solutions for our planet. The health of our
    planet is at stake.
        FedEx has a long history of keeping sustainability at the
    center of our business, and we know the future of our
    operations is tied to the future of our environment.
        Building on that longstanding commitment, earlier this
    month, as Congressman Cohen mentioned, FedEx announced an
    enterprisewide ambitious new goal to achieve carbon-neutral
    operations by 2040.
        As part of this mission, we will accelerate progress
    already underway in the following areas:
        Electrification of our global parcel pickup and delivery
    vehicle fleet;
        Sustainable customer solutions;
        Sustainable fuels;
        Modernization of our aircraft;
        And continuing fuel conservation endeavors.
        Alongside the many key steps outlined in my written
    testimony, by 2040 the entire FedEx parcel pickup and delivery
    fleet will be zero-emissions electric vehicles.
        FedEx has also announced substantial support to help
    establish the Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture, to
    accelerate research into methods of carbon sequestration and
    scale.
        The center's first focus will be helping to develop
    strategies that offset greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to
    current emissions produced by aircraft. From there, the Yale
    Center will address additional global sources of emissions,
    publishing its findings so other businesses, industries, and
    governments can benefit.
        In addition to our work with Yale, FedEx has a number of
    other future-focused sustainability strategies underway. Roxo,
    the all-electric same-day bot, and our drone delivery pilot
    program operated by Wing Aviation, are just two of the
    innovative, environmentally friendly, same-day, last-mile
    delivery solutions we are working on.
        As seen during the pandemic, the U.S. trucking industry is
    a critical link in maintaining supply chains, yet remains stuck
    with aging infrastructure and dated Federal equipment standards
    for twin 28-foot trailers, unchanged since 1982.
        One step with immediate environmental benefits would be a
    modest 5-foot increase to twin 28-foot trailers, which would
    reduce annual fuel use by 225 million gallons per year at no
    cost to road safety or to the taxpayers.
        Last year, this committee and this Chamber drafted an
    infrastructure package that incorporated important climate
    solutions. This included incentivizing commercial electric
    vehicles and zero-emission vehicle charging infrastructure, as
    well as advancing research into low emissions and alternative
    aviation fuel.
        There was also significant work done to modernize the
    electric grid for more renewable energy and prepare it for the
    large-scale deployment of electric vehicles.
        This is a good start, indeed, but more needs to be done,
    including modernizing our air traffic control system and
    updating air traffic management policies and guidance.
        Our ambitious agenda at FedEx shows that businesses can and
    will lead in creating a sustainable future for us all. Our
    company has been at this for a very long time, however, and we
    cannot do it alone.
        Government, industry stakeholders, and academia must
    continue to work together on policies and regulations to help
    ensure the U.S. maintains its status as a global leader in
    climate change policy, while also stimulating economic growth
    and job development.
        These are just a few of the priorities we must focus on to
    address our global climate challenges. I look forward to
    discussing those shared goals with you today.
        Thank you for inviting me.
        [Mr. Smith's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive
                           Officer, FedEx Corporation
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of the
    committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before the committee
    today on ``The Business Case for Climate Solutions.'' Addressing
    climate change is bigger than one business, and this committee
    recognizes for the United States to remain a global economic leader we
    must work together on responsible policy and innovative solutions for
    the health of our planet.
        For FedEx, sustainability is a relatively simple concept: to
    connect the world responsibly and resourcefully. FedEx has a long
    history of keeping sustainability at the center of our business, and we
    know the future of our operations is tied to the future of our
    environment. Building on that longstanding commitment, earlier this
    month FedEx announced an enterprise-wide ambitious new goal to achieve
    carbon-neutral operations globally by 2040, which I look forward to
    discussing in detail today.
                               FedEx Corporation
        FedEx has grown tremendously since its first night of operations in
    April of 1973. FedEx Corporation now consists of six independent
    operating companies that work collaboratively to provide our customers
    and communities we serve with innovative business solutions to meet
    their emerging needs. We have a fleet of over 680 aircraft including
    the new Boeing 777 freighter model, one of the most efficient freighter
    aircraft in the world. We serve over 650 airports in the U.S. and
    abroad. On the ground, we operate 200,000 motorized vehicles. Across
    all FedEx operating companies, we cover over 2.5 billion highway miles
    per year. Our fleet also includes the latest in all-electric and hybrid
    trucks, some of which traverse the streets of Washington, D.C., each
    day. Together, our 600,000 team members operate one of the largest
    logistics and transportation companies in the world, serving more than
    220 countries and territories.
          Our global FedEx Express integrated air-ground network
    offers time-definite air express shipping for parcels and freight
    shipping and links the American economy to more than 99 percent of the
    world's GDP. As one illustration of the power of this network, since
    January 2020, FedEx Express has transported nearly 80 kilotons of
    personal protective equipment--including more than 2 billion masks--
    around the world as part of our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We
    are now shipping approved COVID-19 vaccines, related ingredients, and
    supplies throughout the U.S., Canada, and to more than 20 other
    countries around the world. We are prepared to ship vaccines to more
    than 220 countries and territories for as long as necessary to help
    eradicate COVID-19.
          Our FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight networks use both road
    and rail to transport products from business-to-business as well as
    business-to-consumer services, which have proven to be essential
    services as communities work to combat the spread of COVID-19.
          Our FedEx Logistics business provides a suite of supply
    chain solutions, including heavy air and ocean cargo services, customs
    brokerage, and trade management tools and data.

        Connecting people with goods, services, ideas, and technologies
    creates opportunities that fuel innovation, energize businesses and
    lift communities to higher standards of living. At FedEx, we believe
    that a connected world is a better world, and that belief guides
    everything we do. And we recognize that with the privilege of
    connecting the world also comes the responsibility of being good
    stewards of the planet.
                         Reduce, Replace, Revolutionize
        The topic of today's hearing, climate solutions, has been a central
    focus at FedEx for a very long time. For example, nearly 20 years ago,
    FedEx was the first delivery company to use hybrid vehicles for pickup
    and delivery. In 2006, I joined with General P.X. Kelley (Ret.), 28th
    Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and a group of business and former
    military leaders to form the Energy Security Leadership Council. Later
    that year, we released a plan to improve U.S. energy security as well
    as crucial follow-up reports and policy briefs. The council continues
    to support mitigating oil dependence through fuel efficiency standards,
    increased domestic oil production, and deployment of alternatives in
    transportation through technologies such as electric vehicles. That
    plan was instrumental in advancing the FedEx sustainability strategy:
    Reduce, Replace, Revolutionize.
        This three-pronged approach has the following goals:
          Specific to Reduce, this includes minimizing or
    eliminating the effects of our activities and operations.
          For Replace, we apply the right solutions in the right
    applications across our business.
          And within Revolutionize, we are continuously discovering
    and adopting cutting-edge technologies and solutions to drive impact.

        Since 2012, this strategy has helped us save 1.43 billion gallons
    of jet fuel and avoid over 13.5 million metric tons of CO2. In fiscal
    year 2019, we avoided more than 3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions
    as a result of our enterprise-wide fuel and energy saving initiatives.
    That's equivalent to the carbon sequestered by more than 4 million
    acres of U.S. forests in one year. Over a 10-year period from 2009 to
    2019 these efforts contributed to an approximately 40% reduction in CO2
    emissions intensity on a revenue basis across the enterprise while
    package volume increased 99%.
        Building on this longstanding commitment to sustainability, as I
    mentioned, earlier this month, we set a goal to achieve carbon
    neutrality for our global operations by 2040. To get there, we will
    invest in solutions and make necessary changes across our enterprise--
    from our packaging to our fleet and more--to deliver lasting benefits
    for our industry and our planet.
                             Carbon Neutral by 2040
        To help us achieve this goal, FedEx is designating more than $2
    billion of initial investment in three key areas: vehicle
    electrification, sustainable energy, and carbon sequestration, as
    outlined below.
          Vehicle Electrification: By 2040, the entire FedEx parcel
    pickup and delivery (PUD) fleet will be zero-emission electric
    vehicles. This will be accomplished through phased programs to replace
    existing vehicles. For example, by 2025, 50% of FedEx Express global
    PUD vehicle purchases will be electric, rising to 100% of all purchases
    by 2030. Our work with General Motors will be key in helping us achieve
    this objective. As the first customer of their new commercial electric
    vehicle brand, BrightDrop, we look forward to taking delivery of 500
    vehicles this year alone.
          Sustainable Customer Solutions: FedEx will work with
    customers to offer end-to-end sustainability options for their supply
    chains through carbon-neutral shipping offerings and sustainable
    packaging solutions.
          Sustainable Fuels (SAFs): FedEx will continue to work
    with industry, government agencies, academia, and alternative fuel
    suppliers to seek development and invest in cost-effective alternative
    fuels to reduce aircraft and vehicle emissions. These investments build
    on our work in 2018 with Boeing, when FedEx supplied a B777 to Boeing
    for the 2018 ecoDemonstrator program, testing 35 separate technologies,
    some of which focused on achieving greater fuel savings. In addition,
    the aircraft flew on 100 percent biofuel. More investment and
    development are needed if we are to see the benefits of SAFs. Given the
    consumption rate of conventional aviation fuel as demonstrated in the
    attached chart, more investment and development are needed if we are to
    see the true benefits of SAFs.
          Fuel Conservation and Aircraft Modernization: FedEx will
    build on its successful FedEx Fuel Sense initiatives designed to reduce
    fuel consumption in its aircraft and continue to invest in new
    aircraft. For example, by the end of 2022, we plan to retire our fleet
    of MD-10s while continuing to acquire cleaner and more fuel efficient
    aircraft. We also will continue working with the U.S. Federal Aviation
    Administration to advance and modernize the National Airspace System.
          Facilities: FedEx will continue efforts to make its more
    than 5,000 facilities worldwide more sustainable through continued
    investments in efficient facilities, renewable energy, and other energy
    management programs. Across our FedEx Ground network, we have solar
    installations in service at 16 facilities and a number of projects in
    progress or in the planning phase at additional U.S. locations.
    Significant efforts are already underway as well to modernize major
    Express hubs in Memphis, Tenn., and Indianapolis, Ind.
          Natural Carbon Sequestration: FedEx will commit $100M
    over five years to help establish the Yale Center for Natural Carbon
    Capture to support applied research into natural carbon sequestration
    solutions.

        The path toward sustainability requires new strategies for removing
    and storing Earth's excess carbon. The Yale Center for Natural Carbon
    Capture will catalyze interdisciplinary research across the natural
    sciences and engineering to accelerate this work.
        Center researchers will develop methods that build on natural
    carbon storage systems, including biological ecosystems and the
    geological carbon cycle, improving, where possible, how quickly carbon
    can be absorbed, how much can be contained, and how long it can be
    stored. The center's first focus will be helping to develop strategies
    that offset greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to current emissions
    produced by aircraft. This effort is critical as we look forward and
    plan for the growth of this dynamic industry.
        The growth of aviation is essential to our collective future.
    Airplanes enable humanity's innate historical desire to travel and
    trade and have uniquely helped create a more connected, prosperous
    world. It was only 118 years ago that the Wright brothers took flight
    in their homemade machine. Today, global air services now comprise an
    industry with nearly 88 million jobs \1\. In 2019, airplanes
    transported over 4.5 billion passengers around the world \2\ and were
    responsible for over 30% of the value of all international trade \3\.
    And while COVID-19 has temporarily disrupted passenger travel,
    international air cargo services have proven essential to helping the
    world combat this crisis, by keeping critical supply chains open to
    ensure the timely delivery of much needed supplies and goods.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ International Air Transport Association
        \2\ International Civil Aviation Organization
        \3\ Bernstein research
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unlike other transport activities that can be powered by batteries
    or other low-carbon fuels, achieving true sustainability in aviation
    has proven to be an intractable problem as there are few viable
    alternatives on the horizon to replace carbon-based jet fuels. Along
    with investing in the modernization of aircraft, the aviation industry
    will continue research and development of sustainable plant and waste-
    based biofuels, synthetic carbon-based fuels, ``electrofuels,'' and
    ``green hydrogen.'' However, the massive costs of new sustainable
    aircraft fuels, suitable new aircraft designs to use them, and
    associated infrastructure make the prospects for carbon-neutral
    aviation challenging. As Bill Gates documents in his new book ``How to
    Avoid a Climate Disaster,'' absent scientific breakthroughs in
    chemistry, flying would necessarily revert to a ``premium'' mode of
    transport--significantly decelerating future global prosperity and
    improvements in health.
        Developing a portfolio of natural solutions for carbon
    sequestration is an ambitious but realistic approach to this problem.
    Building upon initial successes in the aviation sector, the Yale center
    will broaden its scope to address additional global sources of
    emissions--publishing and sharing its findings so that other
    businesses, industries, and governments can benefit from work that will
    accelerate the adoption and implementation of natural carbon capture
    strategies around the world.
                           Future-focused strategies
        This partnership with Yale University is only one of many future-
    focused sustainability strategies underway at FedEx. As we maintain a
    market-leading portfolio for e-commerce--the fastest growing segment of
    our business--we do so with a sharp focus on customer needs and the
    environment as we explore and develop emerging technologies that will
    help create a safer, efficient, and sustainable operation for the
    future. RoxoTM, the FedEx SameDay Bot holds promise for
    deliveries in congested or difficult delivery locations and is all
    electric--using only batteries that produce zero localized emissions.
    In 2019, FedEx launched its participation in a small package, small
    drone delivery pilot program operated by Wing Aviation LLC, a
    subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. The pilot program is being conducted in
    Christiansburg, Va., as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation's
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot Program. Working to meet
    customer needs in an ever-changing marketplace, the collaboration was
    designed to evaluate enhancing last-mile delivery for same-day delivery
    of urgent shipments and other exceptional delivery needs.
        Regarding surface transportation, we must focus on creating sound
    and efficient trucking policies while also investing in infrastructure.
    As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. trucking industry is a
    critical link in maintaining supply chains, accommodating rapid growth
    in e-commerce and meeting fast changing consumer demands. Yet the
    industry remains stuck with aging infrastructure and dated federal
    equipment standards for twin 28-foot trailers that have not been
    changed since 1982. We must continue to advocate for common sense,
    environmentally friendly solutions to maximize trucking efficiency and
    increase environmental gains. One such common sense approach with
    immediate environmental benefits would be a modest 5-foot increase to
    twin 28, trailers--not an increase to the weight limits. This increased
    capacity in our nation's transportation system could reduce annual fuel
    use by 225 million gallons per year and reduce carbon emissions by 3
    million tons per year, all at no cost to road safety or taxpayers.
        Last year, this committee and this chamber did important work in
    drafting an infrastructure package that incorporated climate solutions.
    This included incentivizing commercial electric vehicles, promoting the
    building of zero emission vehicle charging infrastructure, and
    advancing research into low-emission and alternative aviation fuels.
    There was also significant work done to modernize the electric grid to
    accommodate more renewable energy and prepare the grid for the
    largescale deployment of electric vehicles. This is a good start, but
    there is more that needs to be done. As noted earlier, if we want to
    see the full benefit of SAFs, we need to invest in a manner that will
    facilitate development and create a sufficient supply of SAFs that can
    meet and adjust to operator demand. We also need to prioritize
    modernizing our air traffic control system. Beyond technology updates
    and staffing, we need to focus on updating air traffic management
    policies and guidance in a way that balances sustainability and
    efficiency objectives, with community impact.
        Our ambitious agenda at FedEx shows that businesses can and will
    lead in the effort to create a sustainable future for us all. However,
    we cannot do this alone. Government, industry stakeholders, and
    academia must continue to work together to adopt policies and
    regulations that help create a performance-based path that will foster
    and promote innovation in this field, ensuring that the U.S. maintains
    its status as a global leader in climate change policy, while also
    stimulating economic growth and job development.
        These are just a few of the priorities we must focus on as we work
    together to drive innovation and develop solutions to address our
    climate crisis. I look forward to discussing those shared goals with
    you today.
                                   attachment
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        We now move to Ms. Laurie Giammona.
        Ms. Giammona. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman DeFazio
    and Ranking Member Graves, for the opportunity to testify.
        I am Laurie Giammona, senior vice president of customer
    care for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California. I
    appreciate the committee's interest in how business plays a
    role in addressing climate change and commend the committee for
    examining ways that Federal policy can complement this
    activity.
        PG&E's commitment to mitigating and adapting to climate
    change in a way that leaves no one behind is as strong as ever
    and fundamental to delivering on the triple bottom line:
    people, planet, and prosperity, underscored by strong
    operational performance.
        California has some of the Nation's most ambitious climate
    and clean energy goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by
    2045. PG&E is proud to be a committed partner in implementation
    of the State's vision.
        We provide some of the cleanest energy in the Nation with
    88 percent of electricity delivered from carbon-free sources.
    We are focused on meeting our customers' desires to adopt clean
    energy solutions, including energy efficiency, rooftop solar,
    battery storage, and electric vehicles or EVs.
        At the same time, California is experiencing the impact of
    climate change, from record wildfires to yearslong drought and
    unprecedented heat waves. As infrastructure operators and
    planners, PG&E is doing everything we can to adapt to this
    reality and increase the resilience of our energy system.
        Our industry is at a remarkable crossroads. For PG&E, we
    see electric transportation as a vital opportunity to make more
    efficient use and resilient use of our electric grid, keep
    costs affordable for all customers, and enable emissions
    reductions in the transportation sector, which in California
    accounts for 40 percent of emissions and is a major contributor
    to poor air quality.
        It is hard to understate the benefits of electric vehicles.
    EVs powered by PG&E's low-emission electricity will lower
    transportation emissions.
        Since EVs produce no tailpipe pollutants, air quality will
    also improve, ideally, for those disproportionally impacted
    living near highways, ports, and rail yards.
        EVs provide direct benefits to consumers in terms of lower,
    more predictable fuel and maintenance costs. For a PG&E
    residential customer, an equivalent gallon of gasoline costs
    just $1.60. Annually, an electric vehicle driver in PG&E
    service territory can save $1,200 in fuel and maintenance
    costs.
        Declining costs and increased variety of vehicle models has
    accelerated EV adoption in California, and already one in five
    EVs in the Nation plugs into PG&E's grid.
        It is not just EV adopters benefitting from lower costs. As
    EVs add more demand to the grid, the fixed cost of maintaining
    and operating the grid are spread amongst more kilowatthours,
    leading to lower electricity costs for all.
        Our grid will see other benefits and greater EV adoption
    since this load is flexible and geographically distributed.
    Utilities can optimize their grid benefits in using EVs to soak
    up excess solar power and exploring ways to use EVs as
    resilient assets.
        Of note, PG&E has more than $400 million in approved EV
    infrastructure programs to support fleet electrification for
    medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, public fast charging, and
    light-duty charging at workplaces and residential complexes.
    These programs include incentives for and deployment targets in
    disadvantaged communities, helping to ensure everyone can
    equitably access the benefits of EVs.
        PG&E also offers low and simplified EV charging rates and
    rebates to help lower the cost of ownership.
        Finally, through research and pilot programs, we are
    optimizing charging infrastructure siting and usage to maximize
    grid benefits and support customer affordability.
        We believe Federal policies can complement actions at the
    State level and help provide benefits to all customers.
    Specifically, we support Federal investment in policies to
    accelerate deployment of charging infrastructure, particularly
    in ways that will address range anxiety and deployment in
    disadvantaged communities.
        We further support Federal investment to encourage fleet
    electrification by transit agencies; Federal, State, and local
    governments; Tribes, and school districts.
        For other customers, incentives such as expanded tax
    credits can help accelerate adoption and drive down overall
    costs.
        Finally, increased Federal research and development in
    technology innovations can help reduce costs of EVs and ensure
    their successful integration to the grid.
        We appreciate the opportunity to testify, and we look
    forward to continuing to partner with the Federal Government to
    realize the benefit of EVs.
        Thank you.
        [Ms. Giammona's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice President for
                Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is
    Laurie Giammona, and I am the Senior Vice President for Customer Care
    at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E is California's
    largest energy provider, with more than 23,000 employees providing gas
    and electric service to an area that is home to 16 million people.
                             PG&E's Climate Vision
        PG&E's commitment to mitigating and adapting to climate change, in
    a way that leaves no one behind, is as strong as ever, and it is what
    our customers expect and deserve. California's climate and clean energy
    goals are some of the most ambitious in the nation, with a goal to
    reach economy-wide carbon neutrality in the state by 2045. Clean
    electricity plays a foundational role in decarbonizing our economy,
    which is consistent with science-based reduction targets to avoid the
    worst effects of climate change. As such, PG&E's mission and vision are
    aligned with California's commitment to climate policy leadership, and
    we remain a committed partner in implementing the state's climate
    policies.
        In California, the electricity sector accounts for just 15 percent
    of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and state legislation requires us to
    have 100 percent of retail electricity sales from renewable and zero-
    carbon resources by 2045.\1\ Part of California's comprehensive program
    to reduce carbon emissions is its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS),
    one of the most progressive clean energy mandates in the country,
    requiring 60% of energy delivered to retail customers to be from
    qualifying renewable resources by 2030. As a result, PG&E has one of
    the cleanest electricity portfolios in the nation, with 35% of our
    delivered energy from qualified renewable resources in 2020, and 88% of
    electricity we deliver is carbon-free.\2\ Given the low emissions
    profile of electricity in the state, electrification of other sectors,
    particularly transportation, will be key to decarbonizing California's
    economy. PG&E is well positioned to enable this transition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ California Air Resources Board, ``Current California GHG
    Emission Inventory Data,'' https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
        \2\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company, ``PG&E Surpasses California's
    2020 Renewable Energy Goal; Electricity Among Cleanest in Nation''
    (March 2021), https://www.pgecurrents.com/2021/
    03/09/pg-electricity-delivered-to-customers-is-more-than-88-greenhouse-
    gas-free-and-
    among-the-cleanest-in-the-nation/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PG&E customers are also embracing clean energy solutions. We are
    working closely with our customers to provide options that allow them
    to have more control over the energy that powers their lives. Of note,
    PG&E has more than 535,000 interconnected rooftop solar system
    customers--more than any other utility in the U.S.; we provide
    incentives to customers adopting battery storage systems; we offer a
    wide range of programs to help customers reduce their energy use and
    save money; and we provide some of the nation's leading programs to
    encourage electric vehicle (EV) adoption for both residential and
    commercial customers. Today, approximately one in five EVs in the
    United States plugs into PG&E's grid.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company, ``2020 Annual Corporate
    Responsibility and Sustainability Report'' (August 2020), https://
    www.pgecorp.com/corp/responsibility-sustainability/corporate-
    responsibility-sustainability.page
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the same time, California is already experiencing the impacts of
    climate change, and we are doing everything we can to adapt to that
    reality. Through our Community Wildfire Safety Program, we are
    bolstering wildfire prevention and emergency response efforts, putting
    in place new and enhanced safety measures, and doing more over the long
    term to harden our electric system to help reduce wildfire risks and
    keep our customers safe.
        We're also integrating climate science into key company functions
    and creating tools to support planning and decision-making that
    considers the physical risks that extreme weather and climate change
    pose for our infrastructure. And, because resilience requires a
    community-wide approach, we're supporting climate resilience efforts at
    the state and local levels including through PG&E's Better Together
    Resilient Communities grants program.
        For PG&E, corporate sustainability and addressing climate change
    isn't just a nice-to-have; it's a core part of our business strategy to
    meet the triple bottom line of people, planet and prosperity of
    California, underscored by strong operational performance. Our
    customers and communities rely on PG&E to deliver safe, reliable,
    affordable and clean energy, and we must meet their needs today in a
    way that creates a better tomorrow. It's what our customers, investors,
    regulators, community leaders and employees want and deserve.
                   Benefits of Transportation Electrification
        Electrification of the transportation sector will provide
    tremendous benefits for our environment, our economy and our energy
    system. In California, transportation is the largest single contributor
    of GHG emissions, accounting for 41% of GHG emissions--higher than the
    national average of 28% for the sector, while electricity accounts for
    just 15% of statewide GHG emissions.\4\ Nationally, emissions from the
    power sector are at their lowest level since 1987,\5\ while
    transportation is now the leading source of GHG emissions.\6\ As the
    electricity sector continues to reduce its GHG footprint in California
    and across the nation, electrifying transportation presents one of the
    greatest opportunities to address climate change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ California Air Resources Board, ``Current California GHG
    Emission Inventory Data,'' https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
        \5\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, ``Carbon dioxide
    emission from the U.S. power sector have declined 28% since 2005''
    (October 2018), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?
    id=37392#::text=EIA%20has%20calculated%20that%20CO2,the%20lowest%20leve
    l%20since
    %201987.
        \6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Sources of Greenhouse
    Gas Emissions,'' https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-
    gas-emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Transportation electrification will also improve air quality and
    public health as EVs do not produce any tailpipe emissions. In
    California, motorists drive more than a billion miles each day,
    producing 1,000 tons of smog-forming pollutants.\7\ High levels of air
    pollution can lead to asthma and other respiratory illnesses that
    especially affect children and seniors, and those living in communities
    adjacent to highways, ports and rail yards can suffer disproportionate
    effects. In California's San Joaquin Valley, for instance, communities
    suffer from some of the nation's worst air quality, due to the area's
    topography, local industries and heavy traffic. Communities in the
    region are promoting clean vehicles to help reduce pollution and
    improve public health. In fact, a recent study showed that a shift to
    electric trucks and buses in urban areas could prevent more than 57,000
    premature deaths by 2050.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ California Air Resources Board, ``Drive Clean CA.Gov,'' https:/
    /driveclean.ca.gov/why-drive-clean.
        \8\ Environmental Defense Fund, ``Clean Trucks, Clean Air, American
    Jobs'' (March 2021), https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/
    HD_ZEV_White_Paper.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The transition to electric vehicles isn't just an environmental
    priority, it's also a generational and transformational opportunity for
    the United States to generate new jobs and drive economic output. As
    our nation seeks to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and economic
    downturn, EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure buildout could
    create thousands of domestic jobs, adding to the more than 266,000
    American jobs already supported by the alternative fuel vehicle
    industry.\9\ For PG&E, installing charging infrastructure and preparing
    the grid for greater electrification creates new job opportunities for
    our workers. For instance, PG&E has partnered with IBEW Local 1245,
    which represents about 12,000 PG&E employees, to build out charging
    ports, and we look forward to continuing to partner with IBEW 1245 as
    we seek opportunities to upgrade the grid and expand charging
    infrastructure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ National Association of State Energy Officials and Energy
    Futures Initiative, ``2020 U.S. Energy & Employment Report,'' https://
    www.usenergyjobs.org/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Overall affordability is also driving greater EV adoption in our
    service area. Increased variety and number of vehicle models, improved
    battery capacity and declining costs have made EVs more attractive to
    consumers. EVs are less expensive to operate than gasoline-powered
    vehicles, primarily due to fuel cost savings because electricity is
    less expensive than gasoline on an equivalent cost basis. Customers
    using one of PG&E's residential EV rate plans pay as low as $1.60 per
    gasoline gallon equivalent--nearly 60% less than today's average price
    of $3.84 per gallon of gasoline in California.\10\ These are fuel
    prices Californians haven't seen since in decades. For the typical
    Californian who drives about 14,000 miles a year in a car that averages
    35 miles per gallon, this represents a savings of about $900
    annually.\11\ EV owners also benefit from lower annual maintenance
    costs, averaging $330 less per year than gas-powered cars.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ AAA, ``California Average Gas Prices: March 11, 2021,''
    https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA.
        \11\ Car and Driver, ``What is the Average Mileage Per Year,''
    https://www.caranddriver.com/
    research/a32880477/average-mileage-per-year/
    #::text=The%20residents%20of%20both%20states,
    Florida%3A%2011%2C836%20miles.
        \12\ AAA, ``Owning an Electric Vehicle is the Cure for Most
    Consumer Concerns'' (January 2020), https://newsroom.aaa.com/2020/01/
    aaa-owning-an-electric-vehicle-is-the-cure-for-most-
    consumer-concerns/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EVs will even provide economic benefit to our customers who do not
    choose to adopt them--namely through more affordable electric rates. As
    additional demand is added to our grid, the fixed costs of upgrading
    and maintaining the grid will be spread over more kilowatt hours, which
    will help lower costs for all customers. This is particularly true when
    EV users are incentivized to charge during off-peak periods. Even with
    the modest load that EVs have added to PG&E's grid to date, we're
    seeing benefits for all customers. A recent study by Synapse Energy
    examined the contribution of EV charging to PG&E revenues from 2012-
    2018 in comparison to the investments PG&E made in distribution
    upgrades and PG&E programs. The study found that EVs contributed around
    $350 million more than the cost of upgrades and incentives--a number
    likely to grow as adoption increases in future years.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Synapse Energy Economics, Inc, ``EV Rate Impacts in
    California'' (June 2019), https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/
    files/EV-Impacts-June-2019-18-122.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Greater EV adoption will provide us more flexibility to manage the
    grid in a way that promotes better resilience and reliability. In our
    service area, there is an increasing penetration of solar resources
    available in the morning hours--when demand is lower--and an increase
    in electricity demand in the afternoon and evening hours when the sun
    is down. Smart charging and incentives to EV owners to recharge during
    those peak solar hours will allow us to utilize more renewable energy
    and shift demand in a way that benefits all grid users. For example,
    electric companies can send price signals to encourage customers to
    charge their EVs at certain times of day. PG&E's electric rates for EV
    owners send price signals encouraging residential and commercial EV
    customers to charge their vehicles overnight or during the sunny
    morning hours. And PG&E has proposed a dynamic electric rate for
    commercial customers that would encourage customers to charge at the
    lowest cost times of day by providing a day-ahead, hourly price signal.
    Beyond rates, PG&E has piloted various incentives to encourage
    customers to flexibly charge. Notably, we are completing a pilot with
    Pittsburg Unified School District that tested the ability of school
    buses to charge during the middle of the day, when there is excess
    solar generation on the grid.
               Supporting Customer Adoption of Electric Vehicles
        For all these reasons, PG&E supports California's efforts to build
    a low-carbon and clean energy future through the adoption of zero-
    emission vehicles, and we believe the utility sector can play an
    important role in advancing clean transportation options for our
    customers.
        The role played by electric utilities is only one of many in the
    broader transportation electrification ecosystem. This ecosystem
    includes entities such as policy makers, automakers, EV charging
    companies, battery and component manufacturers, technology providers,
    and utilities. None of these entities can work in isolation and they
    all rely upon one another. But primarily, they all rely upon customers
    to purchase electric vehicles and install charging infrastructure. As
    part of this ecosystem, PG&E focuses on four areas in which we leverage
    our core competencies to thoughtfully expand transportation
    electrification, generate economically beneficial load growth and
    support hard-to-serve segments: 1) expand access to charging
    infrastructure; 2) reduce the total cost of ownership; 3) engage and
    educate our customers about the benefits of electric vehicles; and 4)
    optimize use of the electric grid.
        On charging infrastructure, PG&E is actively collaborating with
    automakers, charging equipment providers and state agencies to support
    the large-scale electric infrastructure needed to incorporate EV
    charging systems into the energy grid. These investments total more
    than $400 million in approved infrastructure investments through 2025--
    one of the largest utility-EV investments in the nation--which includes
    these programs:
          EV Charge Network: $130 million to install 4,500+ level-2
    charging ports to support light-duty vehicle charging at workplaces and
    multi-unit dwellings;
          EV Fleet: $236 million to help 700+ organizations
    including school districts, transit agencies and small businesses
    electrify their fleet operations by supporting infrastructure for 6,500
    medium- and heavy-duty EVs;
          EV Fast Charge: $22 million to install infrastructure to
    support public Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC); and
          EV Schools and Parks: $12 million in charging
    infrastructure at schools and state parks.

        Charging programs include incentives for and deployment targets in
    disadvantaged communities, helping to ensure customers can equitably
    access the benefits of EVs, and PG&E seeks to install up to 2,000
    level-1 and level-2 home chargers for low-income customers by 2023. For
    example, Madera Unified School District, located in a disadvantaged
    community in California's Central Valley, received support from PG&E's
    EV Fleet Program in the form of rebates, infrastructure, and technical
    assistance which enabled them to install 10 EV charging stations,
    electrify five electric busses in 2020, and support their plans for
    additional electric busses in the coming years. School districts across
    the state have begun to embrace electrification to reduce vehicle
    emissions that are especially harmful to children and are often more
    pronounced in disadvantaged communities. In addition, fleet
    electrification can reduce major expenses such as maintenance and
    fueling costs, especially for fleets with fixed routes and charging
    locations. For its EV Charge Network and EV Fast Charge programs, PG&E
    has received applications that far exceed resources available,
    demonstrating the strong demand from our customers for EV charging and
    the continued need for utility support. PG&E is working now on the next
    generation of programs, including a 10-year strategic plan on electric
    transportation investments that we will file with the California Public
    Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2022.
        For our customers, PG&E is also working to reduce the total cost of
    EV ownership through rebates and specialized electric rates that ensure
    owning and operating an EV can be cheaper than a gasoline-fueled
    alternative. In addition to federal tax credits, Californians are
    eligible for a point-of-sale price reduction of up to $1,500 for the
    purchase or lease of a new EV through the California Clean Fuel Reward
    program. PG&E also offers residential and commercial EV charging rates,
    that provide predictable, simplified and affordable rates for
    customers. To help customers estimate the full costs of EV ownership,
    PG&E offers an online EV Savings Calculator for both residential and
    fleet customers where customers can browse EV models, discover
    incentives, compare rate plans, and locate charging stations.
        Finally, through research and pilot programs, PG&E is optimizing
    charging infrastructure siting and usage to maximize grid benefits and
    support customer affordability. For example, PG&E is testing how smart
    charging and battery storage can lower operating costs and maximize
    efficiencies for San Joaquin Regional Transit District. PG&E is
    testing, analyzing, and comparing the economics for charging at various
    times of the day using different models with and without battery
    storage. As part of the pilot, PG&E funded five new electric bus
    chargers and a battery energy storage system and funded and built the
    infrastructure from the electric grid to the chargers and storage
    system.
             Federal Policy Can Complement and Accelerate Progress
        Like the current pandemic, climate change is a global challenge
    that requires urgent and decisive action, including leadership by the
    federal government to provide businesses clear, durable policies and
    market-based incentives to act. PG&E believes federal policies can
    complement actions at the state level and help provide benefits to all
    customers who wish to electrify their transportation.
        As we have witnessed through our own experience, customers are
    eager to adopt EVs and enjoy their benefits, but much more is needed to
    build out charging infrastructure, drive down the upfront costs of
    electric vehicles, particularly for disadvantaged communities,
    encourage fleet conversion, and promote the research and innovation
    needed to make further progress. While PG&E has made significant
    investments to accelerate EV adoption, our customers cannot alone
    shoulder all costs needed to advance transportation electrification.
    Given the economy-wide benefits of EVs, we believe there are key roles
    the federal government should play to support this transition,
    including:
    Infrastructure Deployment:
          Provide grant funding for public EV and other clean fuel
    infrastructure, including for deployment along the national highway
    system and in disadvantaged communities, and ensure electric utilities
    are eligible to partner with grant recipients given their critical role
    in infrastructure deployment.
          Provide rebates for EV charging infrastructure in
    workplaces and multi-unit dwellings, and ensure electric utilities are
    eligible to partner with grant recipients given their critical role in
    infrastructure deployment.
          Update and extend the federal tax credit for alternative
    fuel infrastructure to encourage commercial and consumer investments in
    charging infrastructure.
    Customer Adoption:
          Modernize existing federal transportation programs to
    encourage investments in electric transportation and charging
    infrastructure.
          Expand funding for zero- and low-emission school buses.
          Provide grants and other incentives for electrification
    at ports, airports and rail yards and for public transit agencies and
    state, local and tribal governments to electrify their fleets.
          Provide incentives for adoption of light-duty EVs through
    extension of the EV tax credit and examine opportunities to provide
    point-of-sale rebates and used EV incentives to promote greater equity
    and lower the upfront cost for all customers including those with
    limited tax liability.
          Accelerate electrification of medium- and heavy-duty
    vehicles by providing tax incentives for manufacturing and adoption of
    these vehicle classes.
          Expand federal procurement of electric vehicles.
    Research, Development & Demonstration:
          Expand federal funding for research, development, and
    demonstration efforts to accelerate innovations necessary to continue
    reducing costs of light-, medium- and heavy-duty EVs and ensure
    successful integration with the electric grid.
             Essential Partners in America's Transportation Future
        The nation's energy sector is in the midst of a profound
    transformation. PG&E is continuing to make investments in smarter, more
    resilient energy infrastructure, providing even cleaner energy, and
    expanding the choices and energy solutions available to meet the
    changing needs of our customers. Electrifying the transportation sector
    is the gateway to a sustainable, clean energy future and an opportunity
    to collectively make progress to achieve extraordinary benefits for all
    Americans in the decades ahead.
        PG&E is fully committed to working together with policymakers,
    customers and all stakeholders to make this opportunity a reality.
    Thank you again for having me here today. I look forward to your
    questions.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Giammona.
        Mr. Tom Lewis.
        Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you
    for your time today.
        My name is Tom Lewis, and I am a licensed civil engineer, a
    founding board member of the International Coalition for
    Sustainable Infrastructure, and the executive leader of the
    climate, resilience, and sustainability business at WSP USA.
        WSP USA is one of the largest engineering consultancies in
    the Nation. We have more than 11,000 employees in roughly 140
    offices across the United States. We deliver infrastructure
    solutions for hundreds of communities, including many in your
    own congressional districts.
        At WSP USA, we understand that our country and our planet
    are at a critical moment that demands focused and effective
    climate solutions. Based on our work across all types of
    infrastructure and all phases of its life cycle, we embrace our
    role as a force multiplier for positive change and believe that
    the business case for climate-oriented infrastructure solutions
    is very clear.
        The business case is reinforced every day as we provide
    services to reduce the depletion of natural resources, limit
    life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, and make infrastructure
    more resilient to disaster.
        This work includes the increased use of nature-based
    solutions, renewable energy, transportation system
    electrification, and equitable community engagement.
        Climate solutions for infrastructure need to be rooted in
    the quantification and consideration of future risk on a
    project-by-project basis. Unfortunately, proactive investment
    in risk mitigation has been absent from the vast majority of
    infrastructure programs and project selections across the
    country.
        As my fellow witness Troy Rudd mentioned, and according to
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2020 saw
    an all-time record of 22 weather-related disasters that yielded
    economic losses in excess of $1 billion, in addition to the
    tragic loss of 262 human lives.
        This effectively highlights the extremely disruptive,
    expensive, and dangerous consequences of not funding and
    building smartly so that we are protecting against the risk of
    infrastructure failures, casualties, and loss of community
    lifelines and other essential services.
        Experience has taught us that increasing project capital
    costs by just a few percentage points to better future-proof
    our Nation's infrastructure is a very wise investment. In fact,
    FEMA statistics show that each dollar spent on pre-disaster
    mitigation measures saved an average of $4 over an
    infrastructure element's lifespan.
        This noteworthy return on investment is especially
    compelling when you consider that capital construction and
    long-term budget planning almost always underestimates the cost
    and national resource impacts of long-term operation,
    maintenance, and repeated post-disaster repairs.
        Smart investment in life-cycle resilience and
    sustainability must be prioritized to build better
    infrastructure going forward that, in turn, lowers life-cycle
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        The good news is that WSP USA has recently supported
    emerging project success stories in multiple States where
    sustainability, resilience, and risk considerations were
    central to infrastructure planning, engineering, and investment
    decisions on a project-by-project basis.
        These include projects in Massachusetts, using a
    resilience-centric approach; in Florida and New York, using
    nature-based solutions for coastal protection; and in
    California, using a sustainability-centric approach for urban
    transit and for high-speed rail.
        Projects like these use a risk-based framework for
    assessing and protecting assets, natural resources, vulnerable
    communities, and the climate. This is the essence of applying a
    sustainability approach toward infrastructure and makes real
    the goal of achieving a favorable economic, environmental, and
    social equity triple bottom line.
        More frequent extreme weather events continue to endanger
    and impact vulnerable and underresourced communities more than
    any others in both rural and urban areas.
        Therefore, in addition to creating physical resilience,
    climate solutions for infrastructure must establish increased
    economic opportunity and stakeholder buy-in through strategic
    engagement and meeting vulnerable communities where they are.
        To achieve equitable outcomes and maximize stakeholder buy-
    in, Federal policies and funding decisions around
    infrastructure need to place the perspectives of all impacted
    communities at the center of the process.
        In closing, we believe that case-by-case, climate-based
    infrastructure solutions can and will meet this critical moment
    for our Nation and our planet if the following business case
    performance objectives are promoted through good legislation,
    funding decisions, and policymaking.
        First, incentivize the selection, design, and construction
    of infrastructure projects that draw from and impact fewer
    natural resources, including the increased use of nature-based
    solutions, renewable energy, and transportation system
    electrification.
        Second, reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and
    adverse climate and biodiversity impacts.
        Third, require that infrastructure be more resilient to
    future extreme weather events and climate.
        And fourth, prioritize the protection of the most
    vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.
        Thank you for the opportunity to give this testimony.
        [Mr. Lewis' prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National Business Line
         Executive for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability, WSP USA
     Introduction: Meeting the Moment and Being a Positive Force Multiplier
        Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, my name is Tom Lewis and I am a
    licensed civil engineer and the Climate, Resilience and Sustainability
    (CRS) Executive Leader for WSP USA. My position at WSP USA was recently
    created to meet this critical moment in history by coalescing our many
    like-minded, multidisciplinary climate, resilience and sustainability
    professionals.
        The primary objective of the new business line is to enable WSP USA
    to be a force multiplier for positive organizational and infrastructure
    systems change. Our team recognizes that our country and planet are at
    a critical inflection point that demands focused and effective climate
    impact mitigation and adaptation. I enthusiastically accepted the
    opportunity to transition out of my role as WSP USA Federal Programs
    sector president to lead our CRS team, because the role builds on my
    personal passions, and benefits from my career-long advocacy for
    infrastructure sustainability, resilience and environmental
    stewardship, and my leadership on multiple industry boards. The vision
    and mission of CRS directly aligns with the goals of this hearing.
        WSP USA is the U.S. operating company of WSP Global, one of the
    world's leading engineering and professional services firms with more
    50,000 employees worldwide. Dedicated to serving communities,
    governments and the commercial sector, the firm comprises engineers,
    planners, environmental specialists, strategic advisors, project and
    program managers, and construction and operations management
    professionals. With more 10,000 employees across the country, WSP USA
    provides solutions in the transportation, buildings, energy, water and
    environment markets. The CRS business line is the ideal platform to
    support climate action and resilient infrastructure in communities
    nationwide.
                              The Question at Hand
        The foundational question being discussed in the hearing today is
    the appropriateness of incorporating considerations of climate change
    into investment decisions, or the business case for such action. Do
    investments in sustainability, emissions reductions and resilience make
    sense, and how should they be considered by this body? Stated simply,
    the business case from my perspective is:
          Designing, operating and maintaining infrastructure that
    draws fewer natural resources is an efficiency measure, and more
    reliance on sustainable energy sources extends the natural resources of
    the U.S. to future generations.
          Requiring construction of infrastructure that is
    resilient to current and future events ensures:
            the federal government won't have to go back into
    communities to provide duplicative repair on impacted assets after an
    event; and
            the long-term maintenance and repair of the system once
    turned over to state and local agencies won't place a heavier burden on
    them, as state budgets are stretched to the extreme.
          Communities and businesses can more quickly be brought
    back online after a disaster event with energy, water and
    transportation systems operating to facilitate recovery.
       A Value-Added Holistic Perspective: Infrastructure for the Future
        At WSP USA, we assess, plan, design and manage Future ReadyTM
    infrastructure for our U.S. clients and partners that more effectively
    anticipates forthcoming needs and conditions, and therefore provides a
    high level of sustainable and environmentally sound service for many
    generations.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.wsp.com/en-CA/who-we-are/future-ready
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the lifespan of infrastructure, technologies and societal
    needs will radically change. Likewise, the climate will continue to
    change, bringing more extreme weather and the inevitable phase-down of
    fossil fuels. We recognize that design codes and standards are often
    slow to change, and in many cases do not consider current and future
    conditions, which are materially different than the existing conditions
    at the time of the asset's development. For example, in many cases we
    have found the design of infrastructure still reflects design
    parameters based on outdated relationships between asset performance,
    user demands, climatological trends, environmental influences, and
    other conditions that could affect the useful life and the level of
    performance of that asset.
        As a firm that works across all types of infrastructure and all
    phases of its lifecycle for government and non-government clients, WSP
    USA has a clear view on the state of infrastructure and a unique multi-
    dimensional perspective on the business case for climate solutions in
    infrastructure development. We provide services that support both
    climate mitigation through greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate
    adaptation through infrastructure resilience and nature-based
    solutions. From that educated perspective, it seems clear that we as a
    society need to make the case for justifying funding and investment
    decisions on the technical and benefit-cost merits that result in our
    infrastructure being more adaptive, sustainable and resilient to future
    climatological, environmental, technological and societal trends.
        WSP USA has worked on many of our country's largest and most
    important government and public-private-partnership (P3) infrastructure
    projects supporting road, bridge and tunnel improvements, rail and
    transit expansion, airport upgrades, renewal of ports, and water and
    power network modernization in a way that makes a positive impact on
    communities and the environment. These projects often include
    considering multiple aspects of potential climate disruptions,
    including preparing for resilience, improving efficiency and
    sustainability, and ensuring social justice in new designs and
    development.
        At the same time, WSP USA also works for some of the most
    innovative and climate-focused private companies in the U.S. and
    worldwide. These companies include investors funding highly progressive
    projects and technologies, airlines looking to fly using biofuels today
    and hydrogen tomorrow, information technology providers finding new
    ways to store data in ways that reduce demands for water and cooling,
    and financial institutions looking to make their portfolios more
    reflective of the ``green transition'' and with due consideration of
    the social cost of carbon. Often, the solutions developed for and
    employed by these innovative private clients can be, and are, adapted
    for use by our government clients.
                   Credibility: Walking the Talk as a Company
        As an example of how a more adaptive and flexible approach to
    future climate conditions can be formalized as part of engineering
    decision-making, WSP USA trains all its hires in its Future Ready
    program to inspire and empower our employees to design for future
    resilience, adaptability and sustainability. By considering current,
    emerging and anticipated trends in future climatological and
    environmental conditions, the Future Ready approach helps our employees
    develop infrastructure solutions and organizational improvements for
    the benefit of the communities in which they live, work and serve.
        To show how this can be done for greenhouse gas emissions
    reductions, WSP USA became carbon neutral across our operations in
    2019. As a result of this and other progressive improvements within our
    organization, we were recognized by World Finance Magazine as the most
    sustainable company in the engineering industry for both 2019 and 2020.
    Further, in February 2020 WSP became the first professional services
    firm to sign onto a recently created sustainability-linked credit
    facility in the Americas. The agreement applies to a $1.2 billion
    credit facility and includes three key performance metrics to document
    our ongoing commitment to be a sustainable leader in the infrastructure
    industry and society more broadly, including:
          Reduction in operational greenhouse emissions between
    2018 and 2021;
          The percentage of our services having a positive effect
    on the environment; and
          The percentage of women in management positions.

        As further described in the following section, in 2020 WSP USA--in
    collaboration with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and
    others--launched the International Coalition for Sustainable
    Infrastructure (ICSI). The company is also a founding organizer of
    www.pledgetonetzero.org, a program designed to galvanize our consulting
    industry to take on climate action even more directly, while we guide
    our clients on their own net zero carbon progress. Pledge to net zero
    is now one of the United Nation's (UN) Race To Zero partners ahead of
    the pivotal 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26),
    scheduled for November 1-12, 2021 in Glasgow Scotland. Pledge to net
    zero requires three commitments:
        1.  Commit to at least a `well below 2+ Celsius' science-based
    target under the SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative--a non-profit
    facilitated collaboration involving the UN Global Compact, World
    Resources Institute (WRI) and the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF),
        2.  Publicly report emissions; and
        3.  Publish at least one piece of thought leadership each year.
       A Coalition of Engineering Organizations: Bridging the Gaps With
                                Practical Action
        For thousands of years, civil engineers have been imagining,
    designing and building infrastructure that has allowed humans to
    congregate and interact, explore and thrive. Their ingenuity propelled
    the growth of human civilization and paved the way to the present. Yet
    advancement has come at a high cost, economically and environmentally.
        In order to fuel our modern lifestyles, we are unsustainably
    expending the resources of our natural environment. The rate of non-
    renewable natural resource extraction such as minerals, precious metals
    and fossil fuels, as well as post-extraction manufacturing and
    combustion, have led to unprecedented impacts on the world's climate
    and ecosystems. Based on the latest global scientific consensus from
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's
    global average temperature has risen 1.1o Celsius since the industrial
    revolution. This trend will have major ramifications for our nation's
    and the world's infrastructure under any scenario, but if left
    unchecked it could be catastrophic to civilization and natural habitats
    as we know them.
        Transportation is the lifeblood of our economies and is also the
    leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., accounting
    for approximately 30 percent of the nation's total emissions including
    cars, trucks, airplanes and other transit modes. Our national approach
    to repairing and maintaining roads, bridges and other transportation
    infrastructure must urgently consider new assumptions to accelerate how
    we design, measure, manage and invest in infrastructure to achieve both
    resilient and adapted standards and the transition to a low or net zero
    carbon economy that fully considers the physical and social impacts of
    carbon and other GHG emissions.
        Given this urgency, I along with Seth Schultz (currently the
    Executive Director of The Resilience Shift), envisaged a ``Future World
    Vision Leadership Summit'' hosted in late 2019 by the ASCE and its non-
    profit ASCE Foundation. The idea was realized in November 2019 as a
    highly successful summit attended by leadership from WSP USA, the
    Resilience Shift, ASCE and more than 35 other infrastructure
    stakeholders from around the U.S. and the world--five other major
    engineering firms and two major infrastructure construction firms, two
    major transportation/transit agencies, six major municipal/county
    infrastructure agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, three top
    universities and three leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
        As a direct outcome of the leadership summit, more than 100
    individuals from dozens of organizations signed an open letter of
    commitment to action that in turn led to the 2020 launching of ICSI,
    with the letter of commitment stating:

              ``The global population will face unprecedented challenges
            over the next 50 years, from rising seas to more frequent
            extreme weather events, all of which will happen against a
            backdrop of significant demographic changes and technology
            advances. These global trends are already posing well-
            documented challenges,
              Practical solutions are needed in order to adapt our
            infrastructure, close the resilience gap and breakdown barriers
            to action. While there has been some progress in developing
            favorable environmental, economic and social policy to lessen
            the impacts of the changing climate, we need a larger scale
            commitment among all stakeholders, especially engineers, to:
                Identify, prioritize and better understand the gaps
            and barriers for the planning, designing, building, maintaining
            and operating sustainable and resilient infrastructure now and
            in the future;
                Cultivate and unlock the full potential of untapped
            partnerships and funding investments designed to reduce the
            impacts of extreme weather events, create sustainable and
            resilient infrastructure, and effect social change; and
                Understand and identify practical plans of action
            and resources for implementing strategies that influence
            realistic short-term goals and have measured, long-term
            effects.
              We the undersigned commit to unite forces and bring our
            relevant expertise and resources to a Coalition for Sustainable
            Infrastructure.''

        I am extremely proud to be one of the five founding board members
    for ICSI as WSP USA's representative, along with representatives from
    the ASCE and its Foundation (Chair), the Resilience Shift (Host), the
    Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM), and the
    Institute for Civil Engineers (ICE). ICSI's vision (``Engineering a
    more sustainable, just and resilient future'') and mission
    (``Mobilizing an engineering-led coalition to make resilience and
    sustainability a cornerstone of every decision in the infrastructure
    lifecycle in every community around the globe'') and is perfectly on
    topic for this hearing, and so I am happy to add the ICSI perspective
    into my further testimony below.
     Making the Business Case for Climate-Focused Infrastructure Solutions
        If we are serious as a society about future proofing our essential
    structures and infrastructure systems, we must employ a risk-based and
    community-engaged framework, while considering both the public and
    private sectors as partners providing integrated and complementary
    solutions. Much of the risk that private entities face from climate-
    related events is the result of dependencies on public infrastructure
    that support community functions, such as transportation systems, parks
    and water supply. Likewise, many governmental functions depend on the
    reliable and consistent provision of primarily privately provided
    networks such as the electrical grid, fuel supply, mobile
    communications networks and internet fiber.
        Meanwhile, the evidence in the U.S. from FEMA, and globally from
    the UN, is very clear and compelling that a dollar spent proactively on
    infrastructure risk mitigation and better climate adaptation pays
    itself back four or more times over in the form of greatly reduced, or
    even wholly avoided, response and recovery costs retroactively spent in
    the wake of future extreme weather disasters and chronic sea level
    rise.
        We are all interconnected and are likewise at risk of interrupted
    service. In resilience parlance, there are potential cascading effects
    of weather-related disruptions to service. Disruptions of the power
    grid, for example, cause disruptions to electrified systems (e.g.,
    traffic signals) that in turn negatively impact the orderly movement of
    people and vehicles on the road network that then negatively impacts
    public health, safety, and well-being. This interdependency was
    recently illustrated with the extreme cold weather event in Texas that
    caused the gas supply networks and electrical grid to largely fail,
    resulting in serious water shortages and other negative public service
    impacts (including the shut-down of COVID-19 testing and vaccine sites)
    throughout the State.
        I consider ``making the case'' for climate solutions as the most
    important and pressing challenge of our time for infrastructure-related
    industries. Considering future uncertainty and risks have been part of
    investment decision-making for decades, but now it needs to be taken
    even further.
        Engineers, for example, have developed methodologies and technical
    approaches that reflect uncertain futures with respect to the physical
    forces that assets might face in the future. The concept of future year
    conditions, e.g., the 100-year flood, have been an important input for
    infrastructure design for generations. However, never has there been
    such high levels of risk to uncertain environmental futures. Over the
    past 15 years, we have seen unprecedented and evermore frequent extreme
    weather events that have significantly affected our nation's
    infrastructure and the use of this infrastructure, and credible
    projections of future climate and weather conditions suggest that such
    events will be more and more common.
        The ability for the economy in general and our infrastructure
    budgets in particular to recover from major disasters (including the
    ongoing pandemic) is increasingly strained. According to the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2020 saw 22 weather/
    climate disasters that yielded economic losses in excess of $1 billion.
    This is the highest number of such events recorded over the last 41
    years and resulted in total costs in excess of $100 billion and the
    tragic deaths of some 262 people. The National Flood Insurance Program
    and other private insurance products have been further strained and are
    ill-equipped to handle all these disruptions.
        In fact, the world's largest reinsurance company (Swiss Re)
    believes that economic and insured losses resulting from severe weather
    events pose a major threat to global resilience. They state that the
    insurability of weather risks could ultimately be jeopardized,
    particularly in the most vulnerable, high-exposure accumulation areas.
    The resultant cost of near-term disaster response and long-term
    recovery to taxpayers continues to rise as we repeatedly repair damages
    and often rebuild to past design standards that are shown to be
    inadequate.
        The engineering community has learned many lessons from the
    aftermath of these weather events, and how one can better ``climate
    proof'' future designs through lower carbon ``gray infrastructure''
    (e.g., roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, airports) and with more use of
    ``green infrastructure'' (nature-based solutions and other cost-
    effective, resilient approaches to provide functional, climatological
    and community benefits). However, as is common in infrastructure
    decision-making, many trade-offs are considered within funding
    decisions tied to design options. In the context of future-proofing
    built assets, we have often found that the additional costs are traded
    off against focusing investment on today's needs. One of the important
    messages from my testimony is that this trade-off does not have to be
    and should not be mutually exclusive.
        Our experience is that in many cases an added increment to a
    project budget for future proofing will provide protection against
    possible disruptions due to extreme weather events. There are many
    examples of where this has been done for a variety of reasons in
    infrastructure engineering. For example, the Oregon Department of
    Transportation (ODOT) in the early years of seismic retrofits for
    bridges (before Federal funds were available to support such projects)
    allocated additional funds for bridge rehabilitation projects in order
    to make incremental design changes that would provide better protection
    against an earthquake. A State-funded study had shown that a major
    earthquake in Oregon would likely damage many State highway bridges to
    such an extent that supply and recovery efforts via highways would be
    severely constrained, resulting potentially in additional lives lost
    and substantial costs to the State's economy. For an average of about
    five percent of the original project cost, incremental design changes
    were made to add more protection against such a possibility. In other
    words, ODOT officials had successfully made the business case through
    tangible benefits for this type of incremental investment.
        Other public agencies and programs are adopting a similar approach
    to create infrastructure with the vision that it will provide a greater
    public good now and for future generations and in order to preserve
    existing assets against changing future conditions. The Massachusetts
    Department of Transportation is creating inland and coastal flood
    modeling that incorporates future climate change and changing
    precipitation patterns into a predictive physical risk model that will
    enable better planning and design for decades to come. Miami-Dade
    County is planning a major capital program to address changing
    conditions, including installing pumps to deal with street flooding,
    and working to remove septic tanks which are being made ineffective by
    rising groundwater. North Carolina DOT has developed a rainfall warning
    system that predicts areas of flooding and washouts so that they can
    have advanced coordination with state police on road closures due to
    safety concerns. Communities in coastal Louisiana and Alaska have
    started planning for inland migration away from flooding that is
    occurring more and more regularly and damaging communities. These
    agencies and others are expanding their planning and decision-making to
    consider future changes in order to provide long-term and
    transformative benefits for their residents.
        I recognize that the title of this hearing is ``The Business Case
    for Climate Solutions.'' We have shown in our work that such a business
    case can be made where the financial benefits over the long run of
    protecting assets exceeds the near-term costs of adaptive designs.
    However, in the public sector, other non-monetary benefits or societal
    costs are often part of the decision. For example, technical studies of
    the potential disruptions to the road network assign dollar estimates
    to the replacement costs of the disrupted asset, the cost of additional
    travel time and vehicle operations for detours around the blockage, and
    the cost of associated fatalities and injuries. A broader perspective
    has sometimes been used to more fully understand the economic costs to
    surrounding communities of loss of connectivity or to the delays in
    supply chains dependent on the road that cannot in the short term after
    a disaster event handle trucks delivering goods. An even broader
    perspective would include non-monetary considerations relating to loss
    in quality of life, public health and social impacts, and concerns
    relating to providing equitable governmental response to the
    disruption.
        This broader perspective is at its core a key sustainability
    concept, which fundamentally views today's decisions in the context of
    how they affect the quality of life of future generations.
    Sustainability does not rely on a cost-centered, design for capital
    projects and budgets process. Instead, it views such decisions from the
    holistic, life-cycle perspective in consideration of both monetary and
    non-monetary factors. Sustainability is not only applicable to public
    decisions; many corporations that WSP USA advises have adopted it as a
    central principle in their business model and our government
    institutions and agencies can learn from and leverage the positive
    experiences and approaches from such corporations.
        More Future Focused Codes, Standards, Tools and Decision-Making
        The future will continue to bring stark new realities when it comes
    to climate change and impacts on our Nation's infrastructure. The
    engineering community that WSP USA is a part of is critical for
    developing practical solutions as part of a path forward that
    recognizes future uncertainty. Engineers are critical for creating and
    employing more fitting and forward-looking codes, standards and tools,
    which in turn will help establish more modern and effective frameworks
    for achieving better funding and project selection decisions that
    ensure projects are not just ``shovel ready'' but are also ``shovel
    worthy.'' Specifically, these codes, standards and tools relate to the
    capacities, locations, design, construction and operation of roads,
    bridges, tunnels, water treatment plants, power plants, ports,
    airports, railways, transit and other community infrastructure systems.
    In the U.S., an excellent example of this is the evolution and ever-
    expanding use of a tool like Envision from the Institute for
    Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) that WSP USA employs. ISI is an
    educational nonprofit that was established in 2010 by ASCE, the
    American Public Works Association (APWA), and the American Council of
    Engineering Companies (ACEC), who collaborated with the Zofnass Program
    for Sustainable Infrastructure at the Harvard University Graduate
    School of Design (ZPH) to develop Envision (also noting that I am an
    active, long-time Advisory Board member for ZPH). Envision provides a
    consistent, consensus-based framework for assessing sustainability and
    resilience in infrastructure. Envision:
          Sets the standard for what constitutes sustainable
    infrastructure;
          Incentivizes higher performance goals beyond minimum
    requirements;
          Gives recognition to projects that make significant
    contributions to sustainability; and
          Provides a common language for collaboration and clear
    communication both internally and externally.

        Fundamentally, Envision is about supporting higher performance
    through more sustainable and resilient project choices and designs so
    that we ``build the right projects'' in addition to ``building projects
    right.''
        An excellent example of a project that fully incorporates the
    policies and perspectives of sustainability/resilience nationally is
    the California High Speed Rail project, a project that WSP USA is
    supporting and just received a Platinum rating through Envision. This
    project can serve as a national example to other agencies working to
    make better decisions around infrastructure investing. Specifically,
    this project:
          Creates a rail/transportation system powered by
    electricity, generated primarily by renewable energy.
          Weaves consideration of effective use of natural
    resources into all policies--planning, design, construction,
    maintained, etc.--and has developed practices which analyze energy
    expenditures for the lifecycle of construction--from the extraction of
    base material (aggregate, etc.), to transport, to use in construction
    efforts.
          Considers future weather risks (wildfires, flooding and
    temperature) in design to ensure that the facility is built to
    withstand those events in the future and can be returned to service
    more efficiently.
          Better links the state's rural areas more effectively and
    efficiently to the state's economic engines through a faster and more
    efficient travel option, a capability that does not exist today.

        Envision is just one such tool that we and others in the
    engineering and consulting business utilize. Regardless of which one is
    used, these types of sustainability and resilience tools allow our
    decisions to be more informed by future-focused science, demographics,
    socioeconomics, and best management practices--specifically including
    the risk-based frameworks that we have developed to not only plan and
    execute infrastructure projects better, but also to pick the better
    projects to pursue. This ``better'' project selection should be based
    on a holistic, life-cycle, long-term impact perspective versus a short-
    term capital cost assessment. The first perspective specifically takes
    into account the negative impacts of emitted and embodied carbon as
    well as the positive physical and social benefits of climate adaptation
    and infrastructure resilience. Most of these decisions are currently
    driven by upfront costs, operational expediency, and worrying about the
    next quarterly report, election, or budgeting cycle. This in turn leads
    to a false narrative where infrastructure capital improvement budget-
    making is based on what money is available after ``locked-in''
    operations and maintenance budget items are accounted for.
               Incorporating Equity and Social Justice Realities
        Equity and social justice, which have been increasingly highlighted
    over the past year, are critically important considerations from the
    sustainability perspective. In the context of a changing climate,
    studies have indicated that disasters and critical events
    disproportionally impact underserved and frontline populations--a
    notable ongoing example being the COVID-19 pandemic, which is
    underscored by our past experiences with extreme natural disasters such
    as major hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. Frontline round-the-
    clock workers (including in essential transportation and infrastructure
    services) are disproportionately women, representing two-thirds of the
    frontline worker population, and minority populations, including Black,
    Hispanic, and Asian-American/Pacific Islanders.\2\ Over the long term,
    climate change will thus affect some groups more than others.
    Transportation infrastructure, including how transportation is powered
    and where transportation and transit systems are accessible, underscore
    these challenges. Equity and improved economic opportunity need to be
    central tenants of Federal climate action, especially as it relates to
    transportation and infrastructure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A Basic Demographic Profile of Workers in Frontline Industries.
    April 2020. Center for Economic and Policy Research. https://cepr.net/
    wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-Frontline-Workers.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The current and future impacts of climate change, including sea
    level rise and other flood risk hazards, higher temperature, and
    wildfires have time-and-time-again placed an uneven burden on our less
    protected frontline communities--whether they be urban or rural.
    Further, each event comes with long-term economic and social costs.
    There are immediate effects to livelihood following events, such as
    disrupted and suspended transit service following Hurricane Sandy,
    limiting mobility for transit-dependent populations. There are also
    long-term effects due to these events, including social and financial
    insecurity for populations that were already socially vulnerable.
    Resilient infrastructure is at the heart of limiting the effects of
    these events and enabling agencies and communities to rebound more
    quickly to continue to provide needed services to their communities.
        Amidst this social backdrop, climate change poses both an
    opportunity to expand upon the role of infrastructure to provide social
    benefits and opportunities for our communities and simultaneously poses
    a challenge to ensure that infrastructure is resilient to future
    conditions. In order to ensure that our communities are prosperous and
    equitable now and into the future, we need to expeditiously address
    both of these challenges. To inform Federal policies, frontline
    communities will need to be engaged where they are and truly listened
    to in order to gain their buy-in and achieve equitable outcomes. WSP
    works hand-in-hand with these communities and populations, working to
    hear and address their challenges at the local scale by providing the
    analytics and data needed to inform equitable decisions and the
    engineering solutions needed to holistically address climate change.
        Especially as it relates to infrastructure and the built
    environment as it supports communities, we have an opportunity to make
    positive changes through an equity lens in helping people imagine and
    realize their own futures. In our business, we strive to create more
    dialogue, inclusion, and empowerment to increase trust in our work.
    WSP's own ``walk the talk'' performance measures provide an
    illustration of how this can be incorporated into the business ethic of
    a major company, which in many cases can also apply to governmental
    institutions and agencies. WSP USA's equity lens for our three key
    performance metrics specifically looks at:
        1.  Reduction in operational GHG emissions between 2018 and 2021
          a.  Acknowledge the documented frequency and impacts of racism in
    America along with the disparate impacts of air quality and climate
    change issues.
          b.  Engage and listen to communities and their accounts and
    experiences of inequity and harm caused by environmental and racial
    injustices and group outcomes.
          c.  Provide feedback to stakeholders and focus on programmatic
    reform ideas.
          d.  Take action to address climate change with regard to equity,
    social justice, and economic outcomes.
        2.  The percentage of our services having a positive effect on the
    environment
          a.  Develop a process to measure Green Revenue.
          b.  Focus on how this impacts our shareholders, employees,
    partners, environments, and the communities we serve.
          c.  Educate communities on implementing solutions to reduce
    energy use, water consumption, GHG emissions, supply chain disruptions,
    enhance Green Revenue, and to minimize impacts to underserved
    communities.
        3.  The percentage of women in management positions
          a.  Ask all leaders to be role-models for our commitment to
    inclusion, diversity, equity, and social justice.
          b.  Actively sponsor rising women.
          c.  Ensure the infrastructure is in place to support a more
    inclusive and flexible workplace.

        With this type of mindset, investment in transportation and
    infrastructure today has the potential to use our abundance of
    available data, best practices from across the globe, and American
    ingenuity to tailor technical solutions to the needs and priorities
    from constituents on the ground-level to ensure our most vulnerable
    realize benefits of infrastructure upgrades while society at large
    continues to benefit from the additional positive externalities from
    design excellence in infrastructure.
                Better Strategies for Both Urban and Rural Areas
        Sustainability and resilience considerations make sense everywhere
    in the country--in urban and rural areas. Specific to rural
    communities, these practices make sense for all investments--
    particularly regarding resilience, where periods of loss of service can
    be devastating in these communities. There are plenty of examples over
    the past years where impacts were very impactful in rural areas,
    including recent power loss in Texas and the Gulf Coast from both
    winter and coastal storm events, loss of water treatment facilities
    requiring residents to boil water throughout the southeast, and in road
    washouts and landslides in Vermont, North Carolina, Colorado, Michigan
    and Puerto Rico which severed access to communities for extended
    periods, or required lengthy and costly detours to reach services.
    Often recovery times in rural areas can be extended as the systems span
    larger geographies and resources may be limited. These past examples
    underscore the need to build more resilient systems to minimize
    potential weather-related impacts in rural as well as urban areas.
                 Leading the Way Through Example as an Industry
        The engineering community needs to lead, and has in many cases
    taken the lead, in changing the way we think about infrastructure
    investments and decisions. Of course, in the consulting industry,
    companies such as mine work with and on behalf of government and
    private sector clients. Many of these clients have made extraordinary
    commitments to address the cause of and respond to climate change. The
    field has been transforming itself over the past few years in ways that
    I personally have not seen before. Specifically, we have recently seen:
          Major companies take on the role of continually refining
    business operations so as to reduce the emissions impact of their
    operations, supply chains, and product life cycles while enhancing the
    resilience and equity of their business.
          Communities adopting policies that enable traditionally
    underrepresented communities to understand and develop strategies for
    targeted investments aimed at reducing climate change-related impacts
    on their citizens.
          Agencies overseeing major construction projects analyzing
    all of the processes and procedures from point of source origin to the
    point of construction and end of useful life to reduce to the extent
    possible GHG emissions.
          Government leaders (for example, in Hawaii, California,
    Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts) among others
    requiring the consideration of future environmental conditions (not
    past conditions) as an element of major capital expenditures (in some
    cases, including such a consideration in State environmental laws).
          Ongoing dialogue among risk professionals who are
    starting to recognize that the unquantifiable factors of equity,
    environment quality, and community resilience need to carry a new, and
    heavier, weight in decision-making.
          Public bonding firms requiring a risk assessment on
    potential bond-funded actions as it relates to climate change.
                                Recommendations
        Moving forward we have an opportunity to make further progress and
    take steps to ensure that the Nation's built environment and critical
    infrastructure is more resilient and secure as conditions continue to
    change. There are many recommendations for action that would help to
    secure a more adaptive future. Some of the more important ones include:
          Elevate climate change and extreme weather impacts on
    resilient infrastructure as a National concern. Federally-supported
    infrastructure programs such as that for transportation often include
    as an enabling statement that certain factors or issues are of National
    concern. For example, transportation legislation requires the
    consideration of numerous planning factors in the development of
    transportation plans, including transportation system resilience. All
    Federally-funded infrastructure programs should be reviewed from the
    perspective of how extreme weather and climate change considerations
    factor into planning and decision-making.
          Encourage and enable communities and agencies to define
    and quantify the risks they face with respect to climate change. It is
    critical that the technical approaches be available for making the case
    on the rationale for reducing GHG emissions and enhancing
    infrastructure resilience. This can only be done through methods which
    include quantitative consideration of risks. One of the major
    advancements in engineering decision-making occurred decades ago when
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a benefit/cost methodology
    in response to Federal water resources legislation. The benefit/cost
    methodology has been a mainstay of engineering analysis since. A
    similar introduction of risk-based assessment approaches is now
    warranted. This assessment needs to compare real dollar costs to
    associated weighted risks of future damages and loss of service from
    climate change and extreme weather.
          Include in this assessment approach the use of a life
    cycle perspective that considers all possible points of future failure.
    Unfortunately, this is very seldom considered in today's life cycle
    assessments. The assessment should recognize that some of the data and
    tools used today as part of engineering decision-making are very
    limited (such as 100-year flood plain maps).
          Support the consideration of equity and social justice in
    climate change and adaptation decisions. This should result in a shift
    from traditional measures of disproportionate impacts like those
    outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to ones that
    instead seek to overcome inequities in the distribution of
    infrastructure benefits and negative environmental impacts (e.g.,
    degraded air and water quality).
          Provide incentives (for example, grants or tax
    incentives) for incorporating future proofing actions and social equity
    into project designs. Such incentives could motivate innovation and
    creativity in the development of adaptation strategies. This would
    include the provision of funding as part of Federally-mandated planning
    processes to consider climate change as part of the planning process
    (for example, U.S. Code Title 23 for transportation planning).
          Encourage a multi-jurisdictional, multi-sectoral, and
    multi-disciplinary structure for assessing climate change-related risks
    among States and communities. Such a structure would facilitate efforts
    to combine the interests of communities, businesses, infrastructure and
    environmental stakeholder agencies who all recognize the concern, but
    have no guide for how to address policies that assume conditions will
    not change. This would also include the dissemination and sharing of
    information on the institutional structures and program components that
    permit such collaboration.
          Adopt policies that encourage the rebuilding of extreme
    weather- or climate change-related failed or disrupted infrastructure
    that ensures the causes of such failures are understood and future
    protections are incorporated into new designs. Similar policies should
    continue to be adopted that reduce GHG emissions as our understanding
    of the contribution of such emissions to climate change and degraded
    air quality.
          Develop performance metrics that allow agencies to
    monitor changes in underlying conditions or contributing factors to
    climate change. The Federal government has encouraged the use of
    performance-based planning and programming for Federally-funded
    investments. Our experience is that traditional measures such as impact
    on road congestion or emissions have been the most-used metrics.
    Measures relating to the outcomes of public policies, for example,
    those relating to public health and system resilience, have in contrast
    been sparse. Illustrative measures for such types of outcomes should be
    developed and disseminated among the agencies responsible for
    infrastructure. This could include metrics relating to the social cost
    of carbon and the risks to infrastructure and communities resulting
    from a continuing growth in GHG emissions.
          Support research on the continuing and evolving science
    and technology phenomena that exacerbate climate change impacts or that
    conversely can help mitigate and/or adapt to such changes. Climate
    science has made major strides over the past decade as improved data
    and analysis techniques have provided the tools for advancing our
    understanding of climate/Earth relationships. By the very nature of the
    uncertainty associated with future environmental conditions, continuing
    to collect data and revise our understandings based on the new evidence
    will be fundamental to an effective National resilience and adaptation
    strategy.
                                    Closing
        As a company, WSP is committed to its responsibilities for helping
    to lead the way by reducing its own emissions footprint and
    facilitating more resilient and sustainable infrastructure in a way
    that also advances equity. The clients we advise and serve have
    challenged us to develop and implement more future focused, sustainable
    and resilient strategies for them as well. This makes sense from a
    business perspective; from a good governance perspective; and from a
    sustainability perspective. I have no doubt that this is the future of
    infrastructure development in our Nation. National policies that
    encourage the development of this approach to infrastructure
    development would provide a catalyst for reaching this future sooner.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide you this testimony.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
        And the final witness, Mr. Charles Hernick.
        Mr. Hernick. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
    Graves, and members of the committee.
        My name is Charles Hernick. I am the vice president for
    policy and advocacy with an organization called Citizens for
    Responsible Energy Solutions.
        We are a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that engages policy makers and
    the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address
    our Nation's energy, economic, and environmental security,
    while also increasing America's competitive edge.
        My hope is that you will take away three things from my
    testimony today:
        First, that Federal policy must harness the power of free
    markets;
        Second, to make strategic investments in research and
    development and infrastructure;
        And third, and perhaps most importantly, reduce or
    eliminate barriers to infrastructure deployment.
        We live in unprecedented times, and 2020 was remarkable for
    a lot of different reasons, but specifically in terms of
    business and climate, 2020 was a record-breaking year for the
    number of companies that made voluntary pledges to reduce their
    greenhouse gas emissions and get to carbon neutrality by mid-
    century; a record year for the number of power purchase
    agreements that were made by companies to reduce their
    emissions through the power that they are purchasing; a record
    year for the deployment of solar and wind.
        During 2020, under the most extreme economic headwinds that
    I have ever seen in my lifetime, that we have seen in many
    generations, solar and wind grew at 11 percent--11 percent
    growth during an economic recession, and that is because demand
    for clean energy is at unprecedented heights.
        The free market can deliver the solutions that we are
    looking for and are needed.
        The types of companies that are making these voluntary
    commitments and pledges are in finance. They are some of the
    biggest banks that we can recognize. They are in
    transportation.
        I appreciate the comments and the goals set by FedEx. It is
    important to see that kind of leadership.
        But also in retail, from the folks that are selling us
    products, whether that be Amazon, Walmart, Target, other
    companies that are looking to reduce the environmental
    footprint of their products and their supply chains.
        The Federal Government can do more to help normalize this
    race to the top in terms of environmental performance.
    Mechanisms for transparency and accountability for these
    voluntary actions would be popular.
        A recent poll, and my organization does a lot of different
    types of polling, but a recent poll in January showed that 70
    percent of voters of all political stripes would support these
    types of mechanisms to help assure that the voluntary
    commitments that companies are making are followed through
    upon, and I think that that is a reasonable course of action.
        When it comes to making strategic investments in research
    and development and infrastructure, it is paramount that
    Congress pursues an all-of-the-above approach. That includes
    efficiency, new fuels, and electric vehicles.
        For a long time, fuel efficiency has focused on how we
    squeeze more miles per gallon out of a car, but a new era of
    carbon capture utilization and storage technologies and
    deployment make it possible and make the proclamations that oil
    and gas companies have been making to achieve net zero
    emissions and their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 categories a
    reality. It is important to look at that.
        It is also important to look at the new fuels that are
    coming onto the horizon. Looking at the hydrogen economies is
    important, as has been mentioned already, but also electric
    vehicles.
        Electric vehicles are a small but rapidly growing part of
    the American fleet, and it is something that Congress should
    include in its all-of-the-above portfolio.
        Finally, in terms of reducing or eliminating barriers to
    infrastructure deployment, too many of the big types of
    projects that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
    improve our environment take up to 7 years or over a decade to
    permit. Congress should act immediately to codify One Federal
    Decision and reduce the timeline to 2 years so that we can put
    online all of the types of infrastructure in transportation, in
    clean energy writ large, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at
    the pace that we need to achieve the voluntary goals that
    companies have set and the goals that we know we need to
    achieve globally.
        Finally, that type of action would be popular, too.
    Seventy-three percent of voters, again, of all political
    stripes, want to see reductions in redtape and limits to
    regulation that slow down unnecessary project delays.
        With that I will thank you, and I look forward to
    questions.
        [Mr. Hernick's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and
              Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on ``The
    Business Case for Climate Solutions.''
        My name is Charles Hernick, and I am the Vice President of Policy
    and Advocacy for Citizens for Responsible Energy Solution (CRES). We
    are a 501(c)(4) non-profit that engages policymakers and the public
    about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation's
    energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America's
    competitive edge.
        I hope you will remember three approaches for how to reduce
    emissions from my testimony:
        1.  So there is no confusion, it is worth stating that the time for
    additional climate action is now. I say additional because the federal
    government is not the only entity interested or capable of tackling the
    climate challenge. Indeed, many companies, states, and municipalities
    have been hard at work for decades. And Congress must remember that we
    live in an era where even in the depths of a pandemic, companies large
    and small have voluntarily committed to carbon neutrality by definitive
    dates. Therefore, the federal policy playbook should first and foremost
    harness the power of free markets--by encouraging transparency and
    accountability--and empower companies to achieve their self-set goals,
    not pursue heavy-handed, top-down mandates that drive up costs or
    reduce options.
        2.  There is a meaningful role for the federal government in
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. But
    rather than picking winners and losers, federal policy is better
    positioned to make strategic investments in research and development
    (R&D) and infrastructure that serves an all-of-the-above approach
    including fuel efficiency, new clean fuels like hydrogen, and
    electrification (i.e., electric vehicles). The federal government
    should focus on backbone infrastructure for the economy and leave room
    for states to innovate on policies that are locally appropriate.
        3.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if we are to tackle the
    climate challenge quickly, Congress will need to reduce or eliminate
    barriers to infrastructure development. It should take two years, not
    ten years, to permit infrastructure projects. Red tape is not the price
    of good government; it is the enemy of good government. America could
    modernize its infrastructure, reduce costs, while dramatically
    enhancing environmental benefits, with a two-year approval process for
    large construction projects. Among other regulatory reforms, a single
    permitting timetable and timely environmental reviews and authorization
    decisions must be a first-order priority, specifically codifying One
    Federal Decision. The public agrees. Our polling shows that a
    significant percent of voters (73 percent) support streamlining and
    reforming government regulations that hamper the transition to clean
    energy.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). Poll:
    Republican, Democratic Voters Support Commonsense, ``All-of-the-Above''
    Climate Solutions. https://citizensfor.com/pressreleases/
    poll-republican-democratic-voters-support-commonsense-all-of-the-above-
    climate-solutions/.

        The Surface Transportation Advanced through Reform, Technology &
    Efficient Review Act, or STARTER Act, introduced in the 116th Congress,
    was an important effort towards reducing barriers and making targeted
    investments. Thank you, Ranking Member Graves, for your leadership to
    ensure state flexibility by preserving state decision-making and
    rejecting new federal mandates that would dictate funding priorities
    regardless of actual local needs. My hope is that Congress can build on
    your effort and pass bipartisan infrastructure legislation to put
    transportation sector emissions on the right trajectory.
    Framing: Big Government Is Not a Pre-Requisite for Successful Climate
            Policy
        Before we can develop an actionable business case for climate
    solutions, we must first determine how success will be defined.
        Another multi-trillion dollar bill out of Congress will not be a
    sign of success. Capital markets--driven by large investors and common
    stockholders alike--are trained on delivering a low-carbon future.
    Investors like Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, HSBC,
    Morgan Stanley, and Barclays have all committed to net-zero portfolios
    by mid-century.\2\ More investors are factoring climate change into
    their portfolios, and it is easier than ever for Americans to align
    their 401(k) plans with a carbon-free future. There is no shortage of
    finance for mature clean energy technologies. Trillions in scattershot
    federal spending could crowd-out private sector investment. First and
    foremost, we should measure the success of our climate policy based on
    how well it encourages, not competes, with investment from America's
    financial industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ American University. Carbon Removal Corporate Action Tracker.
    https://docs.google.com/
    spreadsheets/d/1vf--uXsf6fo7MuNpPya2Kz82Dxte0hHgtOXimgpRA3c/edit#gid=0.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, we know that low-cost, low-emissions technologies and goods
    will be critical to successful climate policy.\3\ Anything short of
    widespread adoption will fail to address this global issue, and
    American innovation will be the key driver. Inexpensive climate
    solutions are needed for global uptake in developing countries in
    Africa, Latin America, and Asia, where too many people still lack basic
    services. Our geopolitical adversaries are willing to undercut American
    interests no matter what the implications are for climate change. That
    is why the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 was such an important down
    payment on energy innovation. Affordability also matters here at home.
    The impacts of the pandemic-induced recession have not been evenly
    distributed across America, nor are historic environmental burdens or
    the likely economic and health impacts of effects of climate change.
    Price increases make life even harder for these Americans. We can
    measure the success of our climate policy based on the availability of
    new energy innovations and whether they are priced for easy and
    widespread adoption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See more about CRES Forum's Climate Policy Directives at:
    https://cresforum.org/climate-policy-directives/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, effective climate policy will rely on the power of free
    markets. Big government mandates favor incumbent technologies and large
    companies and are blind to what the free market can do. Additional
    bureaucracy is disproportionately threatening to small businesses and
    start-ups. Appetite for clean energy--by people and companies--has been
    growing steadily for decades and as a result, the private sector and
    effective state-level policies have achieved the goals of President
    Obama's Clean Power Plan carbon reductions 10 years ahead of time.\4\
    Indeed, it is a favorable American business environment that gives
    space for a record number of companies to put themselves on a path to
    net zero and differentiate themselves on ``clean.'' Congress should
    encourage more of that race to the top, and successful climate policy
    can be measured based on whether the free market is incentivizing
    behavior and activities that support our climate goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Bloomberg NEF and Business Council for Sustainable Energy
    (BCSE). Sustainable Energy in America 2021 Factbook. https://bcse.org/
    factbook/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And finally, America's interests and American jobs should be our
    number one priority when developing a clean transportation
    infrastructure for the next century. The U.S. is more energy
    independent than we have been in decades and we should not lose that in
    the race to reduce emissions. This means that we need to address the
    entire supply chain of materials and technologies. Domestically sourced
    critical minerals and metals utilized by domestic manufacturing
    facilities could supply the development of a clean transportation
    sector at home and abroad. It is encouraging that new battery plants
    are being built in the U.S. to align vehicle supply chains with the
    domestic market. After a generation of hemorrhaging industrial jobs
    overseas, this realignment will take some time. We can directly measure
    the effectiveness of our climate policy in our job numbers,
    manufacturing metrics, the security of our supply chain, and our Gross
    Domestic Product.
                      1. Harness the Power of Free Markets
        When history books are written about how we solved the climate
    problem, these years of the global COVID-19 pandemic will be a
    surprising turning point.
        At the close of 2020, the COVID relief and year-end omnibus also
    included a broad modernization of our nation's energy policies. The
    Energy Act of 2020 was the culmination of many years of significant
    bipartisan effort and marks the first comprehensive energy legislation
    passed in over a decade. It combined bipartisan provisions from the
    Senate (S. 2657 American Energy Innovation Act) and House (H.R. 4447
    Clean Energy Jobs and Innovation Act) bills and reflects the priorities
    of many members of Congress to accelerate the development of
    technologies needed to meet our environmental and economic challenges.
    The Act provides a timely and critical investment in the advancements
    in energy efficiency, energy storage, advanced nuclear, carbon capture,
    carbon removal, renewable energy, and other approaches needed to
    decarbonize our economy. Importantly, it brought bipartisan compromise
    on the phaseout of hydrofluorocarbons, which are greenhouse gases with
    extremely high warming potential.
        The $900-billion package could inject at least $34 billion in low-
    carbon spending into the country's economy over the next decade.\5\ It
    contains more than $19 billion in the form of new authorizations on
    clean energy research, development, and demonstration by the Department
    of Energy, including $6.8 billion for nuclear, $5.3 billion for carbon
    capture, use and storage, and $1 billion for energy storage. Congress
    should fully appropriate these funds. The package also added an
    estimated $15 billion over 10 years in new federal tax credit
    enhancements on top of existing credits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Bloomberg NEF and Business Council for Sustainable Energy
    (BCSE). Sustainable Energy in America 2021 Factbook. https://bcse.org/
    factbook/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As COVID-19 is brought more under control over the course of 2021,
    the economy will further rebound. The case for additional stimulus is
    limited, and overspending risks overheating the economy.
    Leading businesses are making important commitments and strides to
            reduce emissions: there is a new, encouraging baseline.
        There are three basic ways to reduce emissions from the
    transportation sector: increase (fuel) efficiency, better utilize low-
    or zero-emissions fuels, and pursue electric vehicles. Companies across
    the U.S. economy voluntarily committed to renewable energy, as
    evidenced by more than 10.6 GW of corporate renewable energy purchases
    occurring in 2020, according to the Renewable Energy Buyers
    Alliance.\6\ Companies across retail, big tech, and hospitality, among
    other sectors, have stepped up and made voluntary commitments to
    decarbonize their operations, and that is also translating to a
    transportation or fleet electrification strategy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Ben German. ``Ranking 2020's corporate clean energy deals.''
    Axios, February 11, 2020. https://www.axios.com/renewable-energy-
    companies-amazon-google-18db639c-e1e5-416f-8887-
    848e601131c6.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Traditionally, fuel economy has focused on increasing the miles per
    gallon (mpg) of the internal combustion engine. Internal combustion
    engines will always emit carbon emissions as a product of the
    combustion process. But with current technologies, it is possible to
    reduce, and perhaps someday fully decarbonize, the sector. Oil and gas
    companies are focused on reducing upstream emissions, as well as
    sequestering and offsetting carbon. Despite incredible economic
    challenges this past year, oil and gas majors Total and Royal Dutch
    Shell announced ambitious plans to reach net zero greenhouse gas
    emissions by 2050, echoing similar announcements made by BP and Repsol
    in 2019. Total, for example, aims to achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2
    emissions by 2050 and it is targeting carbon neutrality for all its
    Scope 3 production and energy products sold in Europe by 2050.\7\ Oxy
    Low Carbon Ventures, a subsidiary of Houston based Occidental
    Petroleum, delivered its first batch of ``carbon-neutral oil'' this
    past January.\8\ Fueling up with carbon-neutral gasoline can only be
    part of the future through an all-of-the-above approach that is open to
    innovation in all sectors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Francois De Beaupuy. ``Oil Giant Total Targets Carbon
    Neutrality in 2050.'' Bloomberg Green, May 5, 2020. https://
    www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-05/total-targets-
    carbon-neutrality-in-2050-as-profit-plunges-
    35?cmpid=BBD051220_GREENDAILY&utm_
    medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=200512&utm_campaign=greendai
    ly
        \8\ Eklavya Gupte and Paula VanLaningham. ``US' Occidental supplies
    first cargo of `carbon-neutral crude' to India's Reliance.'' S&P
    Global, January 29, 2021. https://www.spglobal.com/
    platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/012921-us-occidental-
    supplies-first-cargo-of-carbon-
    neutral-crude-to-indias-reliance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Government does not need to mandate this behavior; companies are
    adopting it themselves to meet consumer demand. Zero-emission fossil
    fuels can be an important tool for climate policy as we transition to
    cleaner energy sources, but only if we make it possible for oil and gas
    companies to deliver on those promises. Government can do that by
    removing barriers that currently inhibit transparency, certainty, and
    trust in carbon offset markets--no mandate is required.
        Another cost-efficient way to significantly reduce emissions in
    vehicle fleets is by switching to low-emissions fuels such as natural
    gas or propane. Propane is a promising alternative fuel in the
    transportation sector for a number of reasons:
          Cost savings. While the energy content of propane is
    lower than that of gasoline or diesel,\9\ propane has a lower fuel cost
    per mile, given its lower cost of the fuel itself and the lower
    maintenance costs for propane-fueled vehicles.\10\ The Propane Research
    and Education Council estimates that propane vehicle fleets can
    represent between 30 and 50 percent in cost savings, compared with
    their gasoline and diesel counterparts.\11\ For example, when the Oak
    Harbor Public School District in Washington state replaced its diesel
    and gasoline school buses in 2010 with a propane fleet, it achieved an
    estimated annual savings of $35,000 in fuel costs and an additional
    $700 in reduced vehicle maintenance and service time.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ 84,250 Btu/gal for propane, versus 112,114-116,090 Btu/gal for
    gasoline and 128,488 Btu/gal for diesel. Alternative Fuels Data Center.
    ``Fuel Properties Comparison.'' Department of Energy, January 2021.
    https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.
        \10\ Propane Research and Education Council. ``Driving down
    costs.'' 2020. https://propane.com/
    wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Superior-Plus-Propane-Case-Study.pdf. See
    also National Propane Gas Association. ``Today's Propane.'' 2020.
    https://www.npga.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NPGA-Todays-Propane-
    2019.pdf.
        \11\ Propane Research and Education Council. ``Top 10 Facts About
    Propane Autogas for Fleet Managers.'' September 16, 2018. https://
    propane.com/2018/09/16/top-10-facts-about-propane-
    autogas-for-fleet-managers/.
        \12\ Alternative Fuels Data Center. ``Washington School District
    Cuts Costs and Improves Air Quality with Propane Buses.'' April 09,
    2019. https://afdc.energy.gov/case/3075.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Emissions reductions. In 2019, a study from West Virginia
    University found that propane school buses reduce emissions of nitrogen
    oxide by 96 percent, and of carbon dioxide by 13 percent, compared to
    diesel-fueled buses.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Propane Research and Education Council. ``West Virginia
    University study finds propane school buses dramatically decrease
    harmful emissions.'' August 5, 2019. https://propane.com/
    environment/stories/west-virginia-university-study-finds-propane-
    school-buses-dramatically-
    decrease-harmful-emissions/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Energy security. Around 90 percent of the propane and
    natural gas used in the United States is produced domestically,\14\ so
    it is a fuel source that does not imply dependence on foreign nations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Propane Research and Education Council. ``Top 10 Facts About
    Propane Autogas for Fleet Managers.'' September 16, 2018. https://
    propane.com/2018/09/16/top-10-facts-about-propane-
    autogas-for-fleet-managers/. See also U.S. Energy Information
    Administration. ``In 2018, 90% of the natural gas used in the United
    States was produced domestically.'' July 09, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/
    todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40052.

        Outside of fossil fuels, electric vehicles make more sense than
    ever before and continue to be key to a cost-effective, consumer-driven
    approach to reducing emissions from transportation. Even though they
    are still a small percentage of cars on U.S. roads, widespread adoption
    may not be far off thanks to heightened innovation and more favorable
    federal and state policies. Costs for electric vehicles are coming down
    each year, charging at home is less expensive, recharging options and
    locations are growing, and limited lifetime maintenance costs are
    appealing. Many drivers are already saving money in the long run, with
    approximately $800-$1,000 in savings per year on fuel alone.\15\ The
    best role for government is to simply allow the market to match
    transportation options with consumer needs. Steady federal policy,
    innovative state programs and more choices for consumers will keep
    pressure on lowering prices while also lowering emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Benjamin Preston. ``EVs Offer Big Savings Over Traditional
    Gas-Powered Cars.'' Consumer Reports, October 08, 2020. https://
    www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/evs-offer-big-savings-
    over-traditional-gas-powered-cars/
    #::text=Fuel%20savings%3A%20The%20study%20shows,an
    %20equivalent%20gasoline%2Dpowered%20car.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are lessons to learn from the electric power sector for
            transportation: the clean energy business is unstoppable.
        For over a decade, electric power sector emissions have steadily
    decreased. This is not the case for the transportation sector, which
    has been the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since
    2016. Except for 2020, due to the pandemic, transportation emissions
    have been steadily rising. So as attention focuses on decarbonizing
    transportation, we should consider lessons learned from the power
    sector.
        In 2020, the U.S. renewable energy sector grew 11 percent and added
    27.8 gigawatts of capacity to meet this surging demand for clean
    energy.\16\ Solar and wind power had record years, respectively, and
    now Americans receive 20 percent of their electricity from renewable
    sources, including hydropower. These remarkable trends are due to
    abundant options for low-cost, low- or zero-emissions power generation
    available to the private sector. And they are the result of decades-
    long federal support for innovation and early-stage deployment, tax
    incentives for nascent industries, and complementary state policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Bloomberg NEF and Business Council for Sustainable Energy
    (BCSE). Sustainable Energy in America 2021 Factbook. https://bcse.org/
    factbook/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As targeted federal investments continue to pay off in
    transportation, we should expect free-market forces to continue to
    drive transformation in the sector. Americans are interested in low-
    carbon solutions and empowering them to make those decisions would be
    popular. A recent CRES poll found that over 60 percent of Americans--
    including nearly half of Republicans--support a federal consumer-
    oriented system that would help make transparent which companies have
    followed through on their commitments to report and reduce
    emissions.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). Poll:
    Republican, Democratic Voters Support Commonsense, ``All-of-the-Above''
    Climate Solutions. https://citizensfor.com/pressreleases/
    poll-republican-democratic-voters-support-commonsense-all-of-the-above-
    climate-solutions/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Normalizing transparency and reporting for sustainability markets such
            as voluntary carbon trading will help drive competition and
            investment.
        America's private and public sectors have made great strides in
    deploying clean energy and reducing emissions, but there is currently
    no way for these accomplishments to be documented and organized so that
    their collective impact can be better understood by investors and
    consumers.
        Normalizing systems for carbon reporting will increase transparency
    and accountability, increase investment in clean energy and offsets,
    and further decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without imposing
    unnecessary mandates, costs, or bureaucracy.
        This type of limited federal effort could help protect investors
    and maintain fair and orderly functioning of voluntary carbon markets.
    State compliance markets would still need their own enforcement
    mechanisms. But for private actors in the voluntary carbon space,
    following federal transparency and reporting guidance could crowd-in
    investment the way that Energy Star mainstreamed energy efficiency in
    the early 1990s through a voluntary program. Perhaps most importantly,
    government can facilitate certainty and trust in voluntary, industry-
    established greenhouse gas emissions registries and bring greater
    definition to tradable carbon offsets without inventing a new federal
    system that attempts to supersede state progress.
        In addition to helping industry meet climate change goals, this
    framework for carbon transparency would help U.S. companies outcompete
    foreign rivals, particularly Chinese companies that depend on high-
    carbon sources of energy for industry. Indeed, our polling shows that
    72 percent of all voters, and 61 percent of Republicans, support
    requiring both foreign and domestic companies to label their products
    based on the type of energy used in production, and equal numbers
    support requiring government contractors to disclose carbon emissions
    in the production of their goods and materials.\18\ Consumers want to
    know that their hard-earned dollars support companies that do not harm
    the planet. Providing easy access to that information will drive
    business back to American industry, boosting American jobs, our
    economy, and our national security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). Poll:
    Republican, Democratic Voters Support Commonsense, ``All-of-the-Above''
    Climate Solutions. https://citizensfor.com/pressreleases/
    poll-republican-democratic-voters-support-commonsense-all-of-the-above-
    climate-solutions/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         2. Make Strategic Investments
        Transportation infrastructure is central to our economy, our way of
    life, and our standard of living. However, much of our nation's
    infrastructure is in disrepair and in need of massive re-investment.
    Modernizing America's infrastructure should include investments in more
    efficient technologies, smart and reliable ``clean energy-ready'' power
    grids, and cleaner, more efficient transportation systems. When
    planning infrastructure investments, the federal government should help
    accelerate emissions reductions by prioritizing clean energy projects,
    including those that reduce highway-related emissions, and promoting
    public-private partnerships to build out alternative fuel
    infrastructure. Notable legislation that accomplishes these goals
    includes but is not limited to:
          Provisions on cost-effective deployment of resilient
    infrastructure and mitigation strategies (Title VII) and accelerated
    project delivery (Title I--Subtitle B), included in the Surface
    Transportation Advanced through Reform, Technology & Efficient Review
    Act, or STARTER Act (H.R. 7248).
          Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative,
    Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) Grant Program (Sec.
    7001 of H.R. 7248 STARTER Act; Sec. 1407 of S. 2302 ATIA) that would
    allow states to make resiliency improvements and help protect roads and
    bridges from natural disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, floods,
    and mudslides.
          Electric Vehicle Mobility Area Planning Act (EV MAP Act).
    The EV MAP Act would create a grant program to map optimal locations
    for electric vehicle charging stations, giving private developers and
    consumers the information necessary to strategically invest in new
    charging infrastructure.
          Other Emissions Reduction Provisions (S. 2302 ATIA
    Subtitle D--Climate Change, Sec. 1404, 1402, 1406 & 1408). Supports the
    development of a suite of options to reduce emissions across the
    transportation sector. These multifaceted solutions can include the
    authorization of a new program to help states reduce truck idling at
    ports (ATIA Sec. 1402; H.R. 2 Sec. 33191), the creation of a grant to
    support innovative, multimodal solutions to congestion relief (ATIA
    Sec. 1404), and the reauthorization of the Diesel Emissions Reduction
    Program (ATIA Sec. 1408; H.R. 2 Sec. 33301).
          Competitive Grants for Alternative Fuel Infrastructure
    (Sec. 1303 of H.R. 2; Sec. 1401 of S. 2302 ATIA) would help states and
    localities to build hydrogen, natural gas, and electric vehicle fueling
    infrastructure along designated highway corridors, which lack such
    infrastructure.
          Carbon Reduction Incentive Programs (Sec. 1213 of H.R. 2;
    Sec. 1403 of S. 2302 ATIA) would distribute funds to states for
    projects that will yield significant reductions in greenhouse gas
    emissions from surface transportation and will help states meet
    emissions reductions goals.
              3. Streamline Regulation and the Permitting Process
        Minimizing administrative burdens and duplicative regulations
    promotes better environmental decision-making in a much more cost- and
    time-efficient manner. The complexity of current U.S. permitting
    processes leaves substantial opportunities for improvement that would
    increase predictability, shorten the time to project delivery, and
    reduce costs while still providing for robust consideration of public
    and environmental concerns. Historically, there has been strong
    bipartisan support for incremental and common-sense improvements to the
    environmental review and permitting process, and we encourage the
    following initiatives to promote better environmental policy decision-
    making. The permitting process must be reformed to ensure effective
    stewardship of taxpayer resources--to scale clean energy rapidly and to
    create good-paying American jobs.
        As introduced by Representative Davis, codifying the ``One Federal
    Decision'' (Executive Order 13807) through the One Federal Decision Act
    would consolidate permitting decisions for major infrastructure
    projects into a single environmental document, completed within two
    years, with a review schedule set by the federal lead agency. The
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could be further modernized
    through proposals such as the Building U.S. Infrastructure through
    Limited Delays & Efficient Reviews (BUILDER) Act (H.R. 8333) (Rep.
    Graves (R-LA)). This legislation's overriding goal is to provide better
    environmental decisions in a cost- and time-efficient manner. Codifying
    this careful NEPA modernization will bring a higher level of certainty
    to critical infrastructure projects, enabling planned clean energy
    construction to move forward while continuing to adhere to important
    environmental standards.
        Additionally, legislative proposals such as Rep. Kelly Armstrong
    and Sen. Portman's Federal Permitting Reform and Jobs Act should be
    included in any infrastructure proposal.
    Fast 41 is a model of how permitting should be done, scheduled to
            expire in December 2022.
        As an example of how a voluntary mechanism for streamlining the
    federal permitting process can yield promising results, I will briefly
    mention Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
    (FAST-41) of 2015, or FAST-41. It created the Federal Permitting
    Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), to provide a one-stop shop in the
    federal government and coordinate a single schedule for projects across
    permitting agencies. As stated in the Permitting Council's FY2020
    Report to Congress: \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. Annual Report
    to Congress. Fiscal Year 2020. https://www.permits.performance.gov/
    sites/permits.dot.gov/files/2021-01/FY%2020
    20%20FPISC%20Annual%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The four voluntary, large-scale projects \20\ that
    completed the federal permitting process in FY 2020 and that
    voluntarily applied for FAST-41 coverage represent an average of more
    than 10 years in time savings, 20,000 permanent and temporary jobs in
    construction, and more than $45 billion in economic investment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ The four projects are the Alaska LNG pipeline, Borderlands
    Wind, Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line, and Gemini Solar.
    Gemini Solar and Alaska LNG are some of the largest of their kind in
    the country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For one of these projects, Gemini Solar, the cost of the
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alone ($6.2 million), represented
    an estimated cost savings of $12.6 million from these time savings.
          The average completion time of an EIS between 2010 and
    2018 was 4.5 years. Projects that voluntarily applied for FAST-41 and
    that completed the NEPA process during FY 2020 finalized an EIS in only
    2.5 years--a 45 percent time reduction.
          For the Cardinal-Hickory Creek 345 kV Transmission Line
    Project, 50 percent of the federal reviews and authorizations were
    completed ahead of schedule and the NEPA process was completed in 3.3
    years, or 27 percent faster than the Council on Environmental Quality
    (CEQ) average timeline for projects.
                                   Conclusion
        Over the past decade, America has reduced its carbon emissions more
    than any other country. This was achieved through an all-of-the-above
    energy policy combined with public and private sector investments in
    American innovation. There is no need to reinvent this wheel.
        Fortunately, the business case for climate solutions also
    illustrates the best business practices for climate solutions. Future
    climate policy, including modernizing the transportation sector to
    further reduce U.S. emissions, can build upon our past success by
    harnessing instead of hampering the power of free markets; maintaining
    American leadership through strategic R&D and infrastructure
    investments, and prioritizing reforms to reduce or eliminate regulatory
    barriers--particularly those that inhibit infrastructure development,
    domestic manufacturing, and American jobs.

        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        That concludes the testimony. We will now proceed to
    questions.
        Mr. Konar, in your testimony you said that in order to
    achieve the Biden administration's goal of adding 500,000 new
    EV charging stations over the next 10 years--and I don't even
    know if that is enough--that the Federal Government should be
    the bridge.
        And then, Mr. Rudd, you also mentioned the importance of
    interoperability of charging infrastructure. As we all know,
    Tesla is proprietary, and has a great network, but no one else
    can charge there. And I think it is essential that we have an
    interoperable charging network.
        So could the two of you address the appropriate role for
    the Government in these areas, quickly?
        Mr. Konar. Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Rudd.
        Mr. Rudd. Yes, as I said in my prepared comments, we
    believe that, ultimately, charging infrastructure needs to be
    universally available throughout the country, and especially in
    rural areas.
        At the same time, we also believe that there needs to be an
    investment in innovation, in terms of defining those standards
    and allowing for various forms of charging. So not necessarily
    charging stations, but perhaps things like dynamic charging. So
    as you are driving over large freeways or highways that are
    frequently used, you have the ability to charge your vehicles
    as you move.
        Those standards will lead to the opportunity for innovation
    and, at the same time, will create the opportunity for forward
    thinking, like smaller batteries in vehicles, if you have
    things like dynamic charging. So we think, before we embark on
    this journey and significant investment is made, that we spend
    some time to think about defining those standards so that we
    can all work together to achieve a common outcome, whether it
    is private, or whether it is public agencies.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. Konar?
        Mr. Konar. Congressman DeFazio, the two points I would like
    to make is, first, that we have done this before, right? So I
    feel very comfortable that the retail sector in this industry
    can actually respond to bring chargers in.
        When you look at renewable fuels and biofuels, which 10
    years ago nobody wanted to use, with the right Government
    policy, which was some tax credits and incentive structures for
    people like us to adopt this, we have been able to bring
    biofuels in a big way into the transportation infrastructure
    and significantly reduce the carbon footprint. Just the amount
    of biofuels Pilot sells, we have taken the equivalent of 1
    million cars off the road. So I think this is possible with
    good Government policy.
        But we need to be bridged. At this point in time, the
    economics of standalone chargers and investing in chargers is
    very challenging, just because there is so much range anxiety,
    and not enough people are using electric vehicles. So what
    would be very helpful, from a policy perspective, is if the
    Government allows us to bridge, through help either from tax
    credits like we have done on wind and solar energy, or through
    grants in developing chargers, so that companies like us can go
    out and provide a ubiquitous network throughout the country so
    that there is adoption of EVs.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Mr. Konar. And if you do that over some period of time, we
    will get to a good solution. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great, thank you.
        Mr. Smith, it is a very ambitious goal to be carbon neutral
    by 2040. Is this purely a business decision, or is your
    objective also centered around concern about and a need to
    reduce carbon pollution?
        Mr. Smith. Well, it is some of both, Mr. Chairman. Our
    customers are increasingly focused on this issue. They want to
    do business with transportation providers who are
    environmentally responsible.
        But we also, as a commercial enterprise, have to produce
    for our shareholders. And we are convinced--in the vehicle
    sector we have about 200,000 vehicles in operation. Three-
    quarters of them are pickup and delivery vehicles. A little
    less than one-quarter of them are over-the-road tractors, which
    drive, in this country, 2.5 billion miles per day.
        So battery-powered vehicles for pickup and delivery, which
    we began to pioneer over 10 years ago--and I strongly advocated
    the Government support for the acquisition of electric
    vehicles--have now reached the point where the positive profit
    accretion from about 24 or 25, you will get both the
    environmental benefits, and you will get better economics.
        The operating cost of an electric pickup and delivery
    vehicle, like the new BrightDrop, electric pickup and delivery
    vehicles that General Motors just introduced, will have an
    operating cost that is about 44 percent of what an internal
    combustion-powered equivalent vehicle would be. So it is really
    just the acquisition cost, and that is coming down because of
    battery production efficiencies, and then the charging
    infrastructure. So we think there will be a positive return on
    that.
        Over-the-road vehicles, that is harder, but electric
    vehicles are on the way. We have some on order.
        In aviation, that is the most intractable problem because
    of the difficulty and scaling up sustainable aircraft fuels.
    And that is why we made this big push to come up with scalable
    carbon sequestration methodologies led by the premier
    environmental university establishment in the world, the Yale
    School of the Environment.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you, Mr. Smith. My time has expired.
        Mr. Graves? No, sorry. I had a list.
        Mr. Crawford?
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. I appreciate that. Thank you to the witnesses
    for being here. I just got a couple of quick questions. I will
    start with Mr. Hernick.
        America's greenhouse gas emissions are now below 1990
    levels. How do we ensure that our good work here isn't
    sabotaged by China's increased use of polluting materials and
    activities?
        Mr. Hernick. Congressman Crawford, I appreciate the
    question, and it is a very important one for us to think about.
        China is the number-one greenhouse gas emitter in the
    world, and we have no reason to believe that they will be
    honest or transparent about their carbon emissions and what
    they are doing to reduce their emissions, if they do anything.
    Transparency is their enemy. And we know that China will do
    anything to undercut us, from an economic standpoint.
        So I think that what we need to be able to do is to pursue
    an all-of-the-above approach that focuses on cost reduction, so
    that American solutions that are clean are among the least
    expensive in the world. The climate challenge is a global one,
    and we need folks to be able to uptake American-made solutions
    in parts of the developing world, including Africa and Latin
    America, where folks are still looking to turn on the light
    switch, or get their first car.
        And so that is why focus on cost reduction for customers,
    instead of heavy-handed Government approaches is going to be
    the way to go.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Hernick. I have a question for
    Mr. Allen.
        China heavily subsidizes its national industry. Sometimes
    they even own the companies that are building their
    infrastructure. How do cheaper prices abroad affect your
    business model?
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great
    question. And clearly, there are numerous published reports now
    about foreign state-owned enterprises and foreign governments,
    and the way they provide subsidies to lower prices. That is
    absolutely happening every day in America right now on the
    battery system front.
        I agree with Charles' comment. The way around this is to
    produce these products in the United States. We could use
    Federal help on the investment side for Buy America.
        But today most of the actual battery cells are not produced
    in the United States. They are produced in China, Korea, Japan.
    Now, this is something that I hope the committee addresses
    quickly, by providing incentives to bring that technology to
    the United States that would bring intellectual property here,
    and create numerous wonderful manufacturing jobs if we could
    produce the actual cells here, in the United States.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you for the response.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Crawford.
        Ms. Norton?
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really
    appreciate this hearing. I regard climate change as the most
    important issue facing our country and, for that matter, the
    entire world. My questions first are for Mr. Allen and Mr.
    Rudd.
        The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, if it
    closes down, the concourse closes down. They are prepared to
    move, apparently, on electric buses, but they're finding issues
    with the manufacturing industry's ability to meet demand for
    battery-electric buses. And I am concerned and wonder what you
    believe could be done to support the scaling up of
    manufacturing to meet what is now a growing demand.
        And at the same time I want to ask Mr. Rudd--because you
    also mentioned the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    Authority, and that you were beginning on a strategy for an
    initial bus pilot.
        So I would ask you, as well, what are the biggest
    challenges to electrification, and how do you think the process
    could be sped up to meet the urgency of climate change?
        So first, Mr. Allen of Proterra?
        Mr. Allen. Yes, we do have Proterra buses running in
    Washington, DC, right now. We are very grateful for that.
        I think the way to continue the acceleration of this is
    really on two fronts. One is for the Government to continue the
    funding for zero-emission buses and for charging. This is done
    today through the FAST Act Low or No Emission Vehicle program.
    That program was funded last year at $130 million, this year
    $180 million. We would love to see this program enhanced, and
    further investment in here. This allows agencies to really
    kickstart their adoption of electrification in their transit
    business.
        The second is really around incentivizing the domestic
    supply chain. A little bit about my comments earlier about the
    battery cells, but if the--as the Federal Government makes a
    commitment that they are behind electrification, and it is not
    going away, and this is the trend of the future, this will
    provide comfort to the supply base to be able to make the
    investments necessary to ramp up production in a much faster
    manner.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Rudd?
        Mr. Rudd. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Go ahead.
        Mr. Rudd. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. With respect to
    the pilot program, I think what a lot of agencies are running
    into is recognizing how much capital is actually required for
    the transition, because it is not necessarily the acquisition
    of the vehicles or the electric buses, it really is delivering
    the power and the infrastructure to support those buses that is
    capital intensive.
        So, in terms of the pilot, part of this is understanding
    how we can most effectively deliver power, whether it is using
    a portfolio of opportunities through natural gas, the normal
    power grid, or through green sources of electricity. And in
    facing the challenges of bringing capital to those projects, we
    see that there is an opportunity for a private-public
    partnership.
        Certainly, there is private capital in the world that would
    be willing to invest in the future of America and in the future
    of electrification. And as you have heard, is that there is an
    economic efficiency through electrification compared to
    combustion. So I believe that there is an opportunity for
    private capital to get involved, to fund some of the
    significant expenditures that it takes to get these
    electrification projects off the ground and running in these
    larger communities.
        Ms. Norton. One last question for Mr. Santana.
        Mr. Santana, in your testimony you focused on zero-emission
    freight trains. Now, in my district, here in the Nation's
    Capital, we have one of the biggest rail hubs in the country,
    leading to the Northeast and the Southeast. Is your company
    looking to apply that technology to passenger railroads, as
    well?
        That is Mr. Santana.
        Mr. Santana. If you could----
        Mr. DeFazio. Respond briefly, the gentlelady has run out of
    time. Just respond briefly.
        Mr. Santana. This technology is very much applicable to
    passenger trains, as well. The reason we have really focused on
    freight is just the impact and the amount of, really, emissions
    that we could eliminate by doing so.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Gibbs?
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you----
        Mr. DeFazio. You are----
        Mr. Gibbs. Pardon? Oh, yes, OK, thank you. I just want to
    reiterate the progress we are making in this country. The U.S.
    has already reduced emissions from 2005 by 17 percent, and we
    are on track to reduce our emissions from the 2005 levels by 25
    percent in the next 4 years, so that is good to know. And also
    I hear from companies that are working to do their part.
        One of my biggest concerns I have is that, Government, we
    don't pick winners or losers by our policy [inaudible] the
    market function. And with technology changing as fast as it is
    changing, and new technology coming on, you never know what is
    going to be next. And that is why I think the role of
    policymakers is maybe to have incentives, tax incentives, and
    let the private sector make the determination what technology
    to adopt and use.
        And to go on, we talked about in this hearing the business
    case for climate solutions. I would hope that this committee
    would push policymakers to adopt those kind of----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. To make sure that we don't have
    regulatory hurdles and redtape and bureaucracy that stifles the
    innovation and technology, because we are in an area here where
    it is so important to have the R&D and adopt technologies, as--
    economically at work.
        And with that thought in mind, there has been a little bit
    of mention about hydrogen----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. And fuel cells. And I would like to
    have someone--whoever wants to, chip in on that.
        We all know--or should know--that fuel cell technology, I
    think, is improving pretty fast, and that it creates two
    products. One is electricity to run those electric motors in
    our vehicles, and the other is actual H2O, or water, that is
    actually drinkable water. And so if anybody wants to comment on
    where they see what is happening in the hydrogen fuel cell
    technology.
        I would also say that anything we do, policywise, we should
    include everything that is on the table, and not prioritize a
    certain sector of energy.
        So if anybody wants to chip in, like Mr. Allen on the
    buses, what is going on there with their fuel cells----
        Mr. Allen. Certainly. Certainly, thank you, Congressman.
        So Proterra today is exclusively focused on battery-
    electric vehicles. We have studied hydrogen, but today we make
    a transit bus that provides over 300 miles of range within 1
    day. And we find that that matches up with over 95 percent of
    all the routes in North America today. So we believe that, as
    energy costs come down and as the range goes up, we believe
    that, at least in the transit bus world, the need for a
    hydrogen infrastructure won't be necessary. The battery-
    electric vehicles could handle that.
        I don't think the same is true, as Mr. Smith said, for
    over-the-road class A vehicles. I think today that is probably
    the best application for hydrogen. But I think time will tell,
    as batteries themselves get lighter and have greater range,
    whether they will be able to satisfy the needs of the over-the-
    road truck, along with dynamic charging for the infrastructure.
        Mr. Gibbs. Let me ask you a question on the current
    lifespan of batteries, what is that?
        And then, do we have an issue with disposing used
    batteries? How big of an issue is that?
        Mr. Allen. Yes, that is a great question. So today the
    Federal Transportation Authority requires our buses to last 12
    years. So our battery system that we put on there will last 12
    years, and will have a state of health acceptable at the end of
    that, as required to be able to sell. So at the end of that
    period of time, or during that period of time, we will swap out
    batteries into those vehicles.
        Then the batteries still have 70 percent of their life
    left, state of health. So we will put them into secondary
    storage. This is a fleet battery system that can provide backup
    energy to the fleets and to the grid.
        And then, ultimately, the batteries that we use are able to
    be taken apart. The components are able to be recycled.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I just got 40 seconds. I don't know
    if anyone else wants to chip in on my hydrogen question.
    Comments?
        Mr. Konar. Congressman Gibbs, if I may, this is Shameek
    Konar from Pilot.
        We have been looking at hydrogen quite a bit. And there
    have been a number of OEMs that are focused on hydrogen. The
    real question becomes for our over-the-road customers that are
    coming from, you know, L.A. to Jacksonville, the EV--the range
    associated with batteries and the energy density doesn't seem
    to do it.
        So there definitely seems to be a lot of traction on the
    hydrogen side, especially for over-the-road vehicles, where
    your weight you carry has to do with how much you get paid. And
    we do see a lot of interest on that. And we have been exploring
    alternatives to provide hydrogen at our sites, if this does
    move forward.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. I am out of time. I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. I will just comment. I
    have looked into hydrogen. We have got a number of very
    difficult problems.
        You can't put hydrogen in existing pipelines. It causes
    brittlization and failure. So you would have to have a totally
    new distribution network for hydrogen.
        And secondly, of course, the question is green hydrogen.
    And at the moment, producing non-fossil-fuel hydrogen is not
    particularly cost effective, given the cost of the electrolysis
    and the hydrolyzers. But they are working on that technology.
        With that I would recognize Mr. Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is
    for Mr. Smith, and it is with regards to airframe or airplane
    modernization.
        You have got two OEMs available to you. How do you consider
    the life cycle of an airframe, versus getting the fuel
    efficiency from a new airframe when you make a calculation
    about purchases?
        And do you get caught up at some point during the life
    cycle of that airframe, where you are not getting the savings
    out of it any longer?
        Mr. Smith. Well, we have been in the midst of a major
    aircraft fleet modernization program for over a decade, and we
    have bought--I believe I am correct--187 Boeing 767s and Boeing
    777s. And they were justified on the basis of substantially
    improved economics and operational capability. And we are
    confident in the aviation sector we will be able to continue to
    do that, where we justify new airplanes based on their life-
    cycle cost or their improved operating capabilities for our
    customers.
        What we can't do, though, is to make those airplanes zero-
    emissions the way we can with our pickup and delivery fleet,
    with electrification or some of the other technologies we have
    been discussing for over-the-road, including electrification.
    So that is why we have focused a lot on both sustainable
    aviation fuels and natural carbon sequestration.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, can you talk--as well, have you done any
    estimated fuel savings looking at the last-mile drone delivery,
    and is that scalable?
        Mr. Smith. The drone delivery, both vehicular and aviation,
    really only makes sense for same-day deliveries. The vast
    majority of parcels delivered in the United States--and that
    market, by 2023, we estimate will be about 130 million per
    day--the vast majority of them are moved overnight, and then
    delivered in a loop route during the day. So drones really only
    make sense for same-day delivery.
        And we have an extensive effort, as I mentioned in my
    testimony, on a same-day surface delivery bot, which we call
    Roxo. You can look it up on the internet.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, I will do that.
        Mr. Rudd from AECOM, can you tell me a little bit more
    about the role you play in eVTOL and, specifically with regards
    to the subject matter today, about how eVTOL could play in
    congestion reduction or fuel emission reduction?
        Mr. Rudd. Certainly, thank you for the question. So the
    work that we are doing today is working on piloting some of the
    programs around electric aviation. But again, these are for
    short haul, or what you might describe as last-mile. And the
    work that we are doing at the moment is looking at the
    infrastructure that would be necessary to build out and support
    a system, and then looking at the implications on the
    environment, the social networks, and our communities around
    that.
        So it is really a broader study and a pilot to see how that
    infrastructure could be built to serve a smaller community in
    southern Florida.
        Mr. Larsen. All right, yes, thank you. I may follow up with
    you a little bit more on that.
        For the gentleman from Proterra, are you making the case
    that, at least for bus--for transit and for schoolbuses, to
    leapfrog to electric and sort of skip propane and natural gas
    as a fuel?
        Mr. Allen. Yes, we are. We believe that propane and natural
    gas are really just a bridge to electrification. Certainly,
    both of those technologies provide environmental improvements
    over diesel. But the Holy Grail is zero-emission vehicles that
    we get with electrification. And we believe that the technology
    is there today for transit agencies and school districts to
    move to 100 percent electrification.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Perry is scheduled
    to be next. He is not back yet, so we will go to Mr. Babin.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and
    Ranking Member Graves. I want to say thank you to our witnesses
    for giving us your time today.
        When we debate about carbon emissions of greenhouse gases,
    we must consider the issue from a global perspective. In order
    to actually decrease worldwide pollution, countries like China
    and India have got to be held accountable for their emissions,
    especially when regulations become so burdensome here in the
    United States that our companies are forced to outsource
    production to these major offenders because they have very
    little regulatory oversight.
        So I would like to address my question to Mr. Hernick. How
    do we make sure that overly burdensome regulations are not
    forcing our domestic businesses abroad to other countries that
    are not playing by the same rules as we are?
        And if you would answer that, I have a couple more for you.
        Mr. Hernick. Sure thing, Congressman Babin, I appreciate
    the question. And I think that the most important takeaway is
    that it is a robust and positive business environment that is
    attractive for American companies, and robust competition that
    makes possible the types of emissions reductions that we have
    seen, and that we need to see in the near future to be able to
    achieve our goals, but also maintain a competitive economy
    against other global interests that don't have our same
    interests in mind.
        Very specifically, Congressman Graves, at the onset of this
    hearing, mentioned how the free market was able to reduce
    carbon emissions in the electric power sector faster than the
    Obama Clean Power Plan. We should remember that for the
    transportation sector, and assure that we are not drowning in
    redtape. And that is why, in the written testimony focusing on
    One Federal Decision, to allow businesses to get a firm up or
    down on whether or not their project is able to proceed, and
    not get caught up in years of reviews.
        I spent almost 6 years doing environmental and social
    impact assessments. There are a lot of good people in the
    field. And these are experts that, given a timeline, can meet
    it. And we should expect that, American businesses should
    expect that, and the U.S. Government should be able to deliver.
        Dr. Babin. Well, we just want to ensure--and how would we--
    that our reduced emissions here do not just simply transfer to
    increased emissions around the globe to other countries that
    don't live by these same rules.
        And do you think countries like China would implement or
    retrofit their industries with newer, more costly technology?
        Mr. Hernick. I can't speak for what China will or won't do.
    I know that the example that we had at the last Olympic Games
    that were in China was that they needed to turn off industry to
    meet the standards that athletes required, and that they were
    willing to lie to the globe about what their emissions were
    until the U.S. Embassy put air monitors on the Embassy.
        So we should remember that when dealing with China. That is
    why we do need to focus on low-cost and a competitive
    environment, and we need to not foreclose on any of the
    options. Natural gas is a vital one.
        Russia is the number-four emitter of greenhouse gases. And
    to the extent that we walk away from an international oil and
    natural gas market, that is a direct transfer of power to our
    geopolitical adversaries in Russia. And we should not--that
    shouldn't be part--we should focus on that as a part of the
    strategy to figure out how to deal with these foreign threats.
        Dr. Babin. Absolutely. I think in my remaining time--time
    and again we see the ingenuity and technological innovations
    that come from our private sector. I have the privilege of
    representing southeast Texas, which includes the Johnson Space
    Center in Houston. It is here that we have seen so much success
    in leading the global pursuit of space by teaming up with the
    private sector. It is critical that we continue to pursue
    public-private partnerships, and let our competitive market
    work to identify and solve solutions to our challenges.
        Are there any suggestions you have on how we can modernize
    our infrastructure so that we could be spending our taxpayer
    dollars more wisely?
        Mr. Hernick. Well, sure. I think that the STARTER Act that
    was proposed by Republicans in this committee last year is a
    fantastic foundation for that discussion, focusing on strategic
    investments, where the Federal Government works in partnership
    with States so that decisions aren't being made out of
    Washington, DC, but are being made at the most local level
    possible on how folks actually get around.
        This is a big country, and the transportation differences
    between where I am in Annapolis to your home district and how
    folks get around in DC varies a lot. And that is something that
    is important for Congress to understand. And so pursuing an
    approach where Federal dollars move to States, or where Federal
    public-private partnerships are possible is absolutely a
    necessary part of the equation.
        Dr. Babin. OK, thank you for that answer. My time has
    expired, and I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
        Just in response to Mr. Babin's--these are good questions
    about China. And the best way that I know of to respond to that
    would be through trade policy, where we establish standards, we
    meet the standards; they don't meet the standards, they pay a
    penalty on any goods they want to import that don't meet those
    standards. That is the best solution I have heard.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    very important hearing to discuss innovative policies that
    address the climate change.
        And I was particularly appreciative of the quote you made
    following your meeting on infrastructure with President Biden.
    You said, and I quote, ``We are still living off the legacy of
    President Eisenhower to the detriment of our safety, our
    economy, our communities, and our environment. It is time to
    get out of the 1950s and move forward on a transformational
    infrastructure bill that puts millions of people to work
    building the infrastructure of the 21st century and beyond, all
    while putting our country on a path toward zero pollution.''
        Thank you for working with me last Congress on a provision
    that I have been fighting for since the last FAST Act that
    would allow electric vehicle charging stations at park-and-ride
    rest areas.
        My district is home to the largest transit station on the
    west coast, called the El Monte Transit Center. Because FHWA
    has determined the transit center is on the highway, the 2,000
    parking spaces are not allowed to have electric vehicle
    charging stations. This is a problem throughout the country,
    including the Greenbelt Metro park-and-ride station 3 miles
    north of the Capital.
        The question is for Ms. Giammona. The State of California
    has major plans to work with PG&E and other utilities to
    implement electric vehicle charging stations. But the
    prohibition on EV charging at many park-and-rides and rest
    areas has been a major challenge. Should Congress allow EV
    charging at park-and-ride and rest areas?
        And would this help expand EV charging deployment and
    reduce range anxiety?
        Ms. Giammona. Congresswoman, thank you for your question.
    We have been working with the State of California to implement
    charging at State parks, at community centers, at schools, and
    within Tribes. We believe that Federal policy and enablement of
    charging infrastructure where consumers and customers actually
    want it will be beneficial for all of the Nation's consumers
    that will help to eliminate range anxiety.
        But we believe it----
        Mrs. Napolitano. What have you----
        Ms. Giammona. We believe it is in partnership.
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK, thank you very much.
        Mr. Allen of Proterra, I have visited the factory in the
    City of Industry. You are in my area.
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for testifying. I was very proud
    to have you and the company in my district. And some of your
    fast-charging buses are already in Foothill Transit, which is
    in my area.
        What have been the challenges to EV bus deployment?
        Are there additional challenges working with local bus
    operators on this new technology, and how do you address those
    challenges?
        Mr. Allen. Great, thank you for the question,
    Congresswoman. And we are very proud of our relationship with
    Foothill Transit. They were the very first deployment of
    electric buses in this country with Proterra, back in 2010. So
    they are certainly on the absolute leading edge of this
    technology.
        The challenges, I would say, are no more different than the
    challenges of any new technology. It just takes patience, and
    it takes time, and it takes a collaboration between the
    manufacturing and the supply base, the infrastructure people,
    and the agency. But we continue to progress with Foothill
    Transit and with other transit agencies around the country.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But what are you going to do about the
    challenges of working with the local bus operators on the new
    technology?
        Mr. Allen. Well, training is certainly paramount. We have a
    relationship today within our facilities with the United
    Steelworkers, where we provide training in partnership with the
    Government. We focus on people of color, women, and formerly
    incarcerated people, to become employees within our facility.
    And we are very proud of that program in a public-private
    partnership.
        Mrs. Napolitano. That is wonderful. There are many things
    that I would like to see changed, and that would take a long
    time to try to get to them. But I think that training of
    employees, getting people to buy more electric cars--but if
    they don't have a place to charge them, they are not going to
    buy them.
        Mr. Allen. Right.
        Mrs. Napolitano. So we have to work in tandem with that
    policy, plus all the other aspects of it.
        Mr. Allen. We agree 100 percent, and we are happy to follow
    up afterwards with you and your staff on more things we can do
    together.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Konar. Mr. Chairman, if I----
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the----
        Mr. Konar. If I could just add a comment to the
    Congresswoman's question?
        Mr. DeFazio. Very briefly.
        Mr. Konar. Yes, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. Very brief.
        Mr. Konar. I think charging at park-and-rides makes a lot
    of sense.
        I think one thing I would request the committee to consider
    is, as we go into EVs, the whole charging experience changes.
    You have gone from 2 minutes to fuel a car to 40 minutes or 30
    minutes to charge your car. And when we look at public rest
    areas, those 40 minutes, if you can keep people more engaged,
    give them more things they can do like you get at our travel
    centers, or that you get at the retail stops, where you can
    eat, you can shower, you can do other things, I think it will
    only help adoption of EVs. And I think we have got to keep that
    in mind, because if you are stuck for 40 minutes in some place,
    and it is not very well trafficked, it doesn't have----
        Mr. DeFazio. OK----
        Mr. Konar [continuing]. Amenities, it will be a challenge.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, OK. I thank the----
        Mr. Konar. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Yes, I was just
    commenting with Mr. Larsen. Our rest areas in Oregon are pretty
    ratty, and people aren't going to want to hang around there.
    They are going to want to go someplace where there is a
    restaurant or something else for 25 or 30 minutes to recharge.
    California is pushing that hard. We will see how we deal with
    it in the bill.
        So now we are back--Mr. Perry is still not here, so Mr.
    Graves from Louisiana.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman, the first question I would like to ask is for Mr.
    Lewis and Mr. Rudd.
        In 2018 we made extraordinary progress on a bipartisan
    basis to advance resiliency measures to make investments in the
    resiliency of our communities, by ensuring that disasters are
    rebuilt in a way that builds in a standard looking toward the
    future and more resilient infrastructure, more resilient
    communities.
        You both have advocated for more resilient infrastructure,
    but can you talk about some of the regulatory challenges or
    obstacles that prevent us from doing that, or perhaps even
    tailoring a regulatory structure such as NEPA to the type of
    investments we are making, like green infrastructure
    investments that actually benefit the environment?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, I can certainly start.
        The first one, on the issue of the resilience measures and
    mitigation, we basically have to be able to look at future
    conditions that are going to be very different than the
    conditions that were around when we wrote the current
    regulations, the current standards, building codes, and even
    some of the tools that we use, technically. They have all
    changed. So we need to be able to project ourselves into the
    future, understand not just the physical conditions, but even
    the users of the future, how they might change.
        We see things changing, for example, in the vehicle usage
    in the sense of automated vehicles that will change even the
    use of parking garages and things like that. So first we need
    more flexibility in our regulations and in our codes and
    standards that allows for that kind of future look, and for
    more agility and adaptability.
        I think, in terms of regulations like NEPA, the problem is
    the open-ended timeframes. The private sector, in particular,
    and especially the innovators, tend to be most frustrated, and
    sometimes even put out of business by the open-endedness of
    some of the timeframes that occur.
        So if the legislation and rulemaking and policies can all
    build some more hard deadlines and timeframes into the process,
    or give incentives, find ways to make it more predictable,
    because that is what is really holding back a lot of the
    deployment of new and innovative ideas and technologies,
    because----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, thank you. I want to
    make sure we have time for Mr. Rudd to answer the question, as
    well, please.
        Mr. Rudd. Yes. So building on what my colleague said, one
    of the things that we look at when we look at the construction
    of infrastructure is we look at cost. So usually, the elements
    of a bid for infrastructure are pre-defined, and our bid models
    that we use look at cost.
        What they don't look at is they don't look at sort of the
    probability-weighted cost. Even though a climate event may be a
    low probability, the impact of it is very significant. So we
    need to think more holistically about the cost model, and how
    we actually rate or include resiliency, and the--some low-
    probability outcomes in that.
        My suggestion would be to allow for nonconforming bids,
    moving forward for infrastructure, so that people can include
    innovation, and they can include resiliency and build a
    business case for it that may go beyond the current standards
    that we have for bidding projects and infrastructure.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Rudd.
        Mr. Smith, I would like to ask you a quick question. You
    talked about how your company is voluntarily setting a standard
    for 2040. I just want to be clear. Is there any Government
    mandate or anything that you are being coerced to do this, or
    is this just a decision by the company?
        Mr. Smith. The latter.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK, thank you. And the next
    question is, if we are operating, obviously, in a global
    environment--as Mr. Crawford mentioned earlier, for every 1 ton
    of emissions we produce in the United States, China has
    increased by four. They have increased by four, resulting in a
    net increase in global emissions. And including under the Paris
    Accords, this is allowed.
        How do we, from an economic perspective, move forward on
    this?
        How do we establish a social cost of carbon whenever other
    countries' actions we have no control over, and they are being
    irresponsible?
        So how do we value that, as we look to a free market
    solution, moving forward?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I think one of the most promising areas is
    what Chairman DeFazio mentioned that you might consider, a
    border adjustment taxation, where, if goods come into the
    United States that have not improved their carbon footprint,
    there is a tariff on them.
        And on the other side of the coin, we should have some sort
    of adjustment on our exports out from the United States when we
    have improved. The border adjustment tax is something that was
    carefully considered a few years ago. But if you combine it
    with carbon emissions, you could probably achieve the goal that
    you want, which is to incentivize foreign folks to do the same
    thing that we are doing.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want
    to make a note, with a border adjustment tax you are
    disincentivizing or making the U.S. economy less competitive.
    It would need to be globally adopted. And I don't support
    that----
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Graves, I don't agree with that, and I
    supported the TIACJ, and I think the biggest impediment we have
    to being export competitive is that we compete with people who
    have a value-added tax. And because of the historical trade
    agreements, we can't deduct our corporate income tax, and they
    can deduct their VAT. The VAT, adjusted on the outbound, would
    help our exports.
        I would be glad to sit and talk to you about this, but I
    think it is a positive for U.S. exports.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his question, and I
    thank Mr. Smith. I have raised that issue about the fact we
    can't give an adjustment for our income tax, and they have the
    VAT. And we agreed to that in the 1950s, when we made
    everything in the world. We don't care what they do. Who cares?
    They are going to buy it from us, anyway.
        This is a different era. And I have talked to every trade
    representative about that. And they go, ``Oh, yes, I hadn't
    thought about that.''
        I said, ``well, you have got to change that, or we are
    going to continue to lose market share.''
        With that, Mr. Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio.
        Mr. Smith, you were talking in your introduction about the
    length of trucks, and how maybe that could help with safety and
    with fuel economy. Would you go into more detail on that?
        Mr. Smith. Well, there are about 3\1/4\ million trailers in
    the United States. The vast majority of them are 53-foot
    trailers. They are the type that are operated by the truckload
    carriers, where you pay by the mile: Swift, Schneider, J.B.
    Hunt, and so forth. There are about 300,000-odd so-called twin
    trailers, where they are 2 trailers together, articulated. They
    are used by parcel and LTL, or less than truckload carriers.
    There are only about 300,000 of them in the country.
        So if you extended the length to 33 feet, we would save
    about 225 million gallons of fuel, reducing emissions, take
    lots of vehicles off the road. They are safer. We operate them
    every day in many parts of the country. We have been operating
    them for years. For instance, in Florida they are more stable,
    and so we would advocate for that, and have been for years.
        Mr. Cohen. The issue that people bring up when they talk
    against it is safety. Florida is pretty flat. You can go
    straight down from Tallahassee to Miami, and there is no
    mountain, there is no turn. Do you all have experience with
    these around mountainous areas, like east Tennessee, or some
    other places?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I don't think that the inherent safety of
    the 33-footers versus the 28-footers changes, based on the
    topology that we deal with. I would just say, Congressman,
    every meeting at FedEx begins with safety, above all. It is the
    centerpiece of our corporate strategy and our corporate
    philosophy. So we would not be advocating these if we did not
    believe that they were safer--not as safe--but safer. They are
    more stable, and they take thousands and thousands of trucks
    off the road, which improves safety by reducing the absolute
    number of accidents.
        Mr. Cohen. Now I am going to ask you about two other
    futuristic things FedEx is looking at. One of them is the
    drones, and you all have worked with the FAA and the Memphis
    International Airport on some drone research.
        How do you see drones, and then Roxo, which is the little
    robots, and--you know, I would have probably given you a
    failing grade on [inaudible] on FedEx, because I don't see the
    future as well as you do. How do you see Roxo and drones really
    integrating into the daily lives of people?
        I mean, are you going to put a Roxo out at Oak Hall, and
    let them take delivery at East Memphis? Or how is that going to
    work?
        Mr. Smith. Well, as I mentioned a moment ago, the biggest
    parcel market is the parcel market where people order something
    off the internet and get delivery overnight. And in 2 days
    those items are transported overnight, and then they are put on
    route delivery networks during the day. That is what we do with
    150,000 vehicles around the world.
        There is no way that an aerial drone or a drone like Roxo
    can compete with a truck and an efficient driver doing that.
    But for same-day, let's just say a pizza, which we all get from
    time to time, when you order a pizza you have a driver that is
    driving a 2,500- to 3,000-pound car, delivering a 2-pound
    pizza. That is something that Roxo can do at a fraction of the
    emissions, and a fraction of the cost. So it is the same-day
    market for aviation drones and surface drones that have huge
    environmental and safety implications.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, my question is--and I am just missing
    this--how does Roxo get to Pete & Sam's? Does FedEx have to
    take Roxo out there and drop it off, and then it goes around
    Park Avenue and the----
        Mr. Smith. No, Roxo is so cheap. Think about it like the
    parking lot at Target, where you walk outside with your
    shopping basket. So Target would have the Roxos there. And when
    you order something from Target, a prescription, the Target
    people simply put it in Roxo, it goes to your house, you take
    it out, it goes back, and then is reused again over and over
    during the day.
        Mr. Cohen. So Roxos are all going to be out there in the
    field. They are not going to be out there at a central FedEx
    location. They are going to be more where the retail is.
        Mr. Smith. Exactly. They will be located at the origin of
    the demand. And then, when you order something, within a few
    minutes, Roxo, with virtually no fuel expended--certainly no
    traffic in your neighborhood of a 3,000-pound car delivering a
    prescription or a pizza--will come, and you will take it out of
    the device, and it will go back to its point of origin. Its
    average delivery radius will be probably about 3 miles.
        Mr. Cohen. In 2006, you joined a group of----
        Mr. DeFazio. Steve?
        Mr. Cohen. Is my time up?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, sorry.
        Mr. Cohen. With that, I would yield, and go Falcons.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Bost?
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Konar, in your testimony, you talked about the fuel
    retailer's perspective on offering EV charging. It has been the
    private sector who has led the way in the electric vehicle
    innovation.
        You mentioned that the fuel retailers are agnostic about
    the type of fuel they offer. Can you please expand on how
    companies like Pilot and smaller independent fuel retailers can
    help with providing the EV with making it economically viable?
        Mr. Konar. Thank you, Congressman Bost. So let me start by
    first saying the fuel retailers' goal was really to serve what
    our customer wants. Right? So we are highly focused on
    providing the service that our customer is looking for. And I
    will give you a great example, and then I will talk about how
    it could work in this case.
        About 10 years ago, biodiesel and biofuels were definitely
    not something that were economic and were available in the
    market. And, you know, our customers didn't want it. Through
    the correct market incentives and public policy, what the
    Federal Government enabled us to do was actually provide
    cheaper biofuels to our customers, which has led to significant
    adoption of biofuels.
        So, for example, Pilot next year or this year should
    probably sell about 11 billion gallons of fuel. And we are
    going to sell 1 billion gallons of biofuels, which is a
    combination of ethanol and biodiesel and renewable diesel and
    so on, which has a significantly smaller carbon footprint, and
    does something about it now at scale, right, which is
    equivalent to taking 1 million cars off the road.
        So the way we think about it is we have to get our customer
    comfortable with going into the EV market. And there are three
    legs to that.
        One is the cars should be cost competitive, and we are
    getting there. We are getting there very rapidly with the
    amount of focus there has been on batteries and the EVs.
        The second is the functional experience should work. As Mr.
    Smith talked about the longer trailers, the functional
    experience from the car should work, and I think they do.
        So the third part we need to solve expediently is basically
    how to deal with range anxiety, and provide a fueling
    experience that is safe and has additional attractions for our
    customers, and does not force them to change habits. And we are
    able to do that, and we are fully willing to do that. But today
    the economics, just like in the adoption of biodiesel in the
    beginning, or in the adoption of solar power or wind
    generation, are very challenging for us to invest and be able
    to do that effectively.
        So I think the way we can really enable this is get some
    support from the Government, not just for us, but also for the
    utility sector, who has to provide the green power. Because if
    you are burning coal to sell to charge EVs, we are kind of
    destroying the whole objective of this.
        But, really, support the utility sector and support us, so
    that we can provide the right customer experience, and they can
    provide us the power. And then we can kind of eliminate that
    third issue we are dealing with, which is range anxiety.
    Hopefully I answered your question.
        Mr. Bost. Yes, you did. Thank you.
        Ms. Giammona, are there any technologies or R&D that is
    needed to reduce the cost of EVs, or to ensure that the grid
    can manage the new load?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Bost. That is for Ms. Giammona.
        Voice. PG&E.
        Ms. Giammona. Thank you. Congressman, thank you for the
    question.
        Yes, we do believe and support R&D to really help support
    the grid, nationwide. We are now having to operate the grid in
    a bidirectional fashion. So we think there are opportunities,
    both from an R&D perspective to support the grid, as well as
    support and enhance vehicle adoption and support for what
    consumers need.
        We think there is an opportunity for the vehicle, as my
    colleague from Proterra mentioned, to become a battery storage.
    And we have been in trials with BMW and others to look at the
    second-generation batteries and what they might do to help grid
    stability and operate as a battery.
        We also think there is an opportunity for electric vehicles
    to play a role in household resiliency in times of natural
    disasters, and that is vehicles with inverters. And we think
    that R&D at a Federal level could really help to accelerate the
    development in these areas.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you----
        Ms. Giammona. Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Bost. And just one real quick question for Mr. Smith,
    now that I am down to a few seconds. Is that the Eagle, Globe,
    and Anchor on your tie?
        Mr. Smith. It is, indeed. I served in the Marine Corps in
    1966 to 1970.
        Mr. Bost. Semper Fi.
        Mr. Smith. Semper Fi.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Sires?
        Perhaps he had to step out.
        Voice. He is on.
        Mr. DeFazio. Oh, is he?
        Mr. Sires. I am.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right, go for it.
        Mr. Sires. Can you hear me?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Speak up.
        Mr. Sires. Mr. Lewis--well, first of all, Chairman, thank
    you for this hearing. It is very interesting, very informative.
    And all the witnesses, thank you very much for taking the time
    to be with us and informing us.
        Mr. Lewis, in your testimony you note data showing that
    each dollar spent on infrastructure risk mitigation and climate
    adoptions makes itself back at least four times over. Can you
    speak to the impact----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. Sires [continuing]. Current and future?
        And here is what I am talking about. I see all these
    tornadoes in the Midwest destroying everything, and they seem
    to rebuild them the same way that they were built before, not
    as resilient as it could be for the future weather. I know the
    Obama administration tried to do something about it. But, you
    know, I just don't get it.
        The other issue I will tell you is in New Jersey, we had
    this Sandy storm which caused about $30 billion in economic
    losses and damages. Basically, all along the beach, all along
    the shore. Yet people still want to build right next to it, and
    build the same way. So can you talk about how we change that
    attitude?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, thank you for the question.
        On your first question, the problem really stems from the
    Stafford Act, which has been around for decades. When FEMA
    responds to a Presidentially declared disaster, it is written
    in that the Public Assistance funding cannot be used to change
    what was there before. It basically incentivizes building the
    same thing back again, despite the fact that it is now proven
    that that element of infrastructure is susceptible to failure
    and damage when a disaster occurs.
        So legislation needs to be created, either by just
    modifying the Stafford Act, or by overriding it in new
    legislation that allows for the evolution of the building back
    after a disaster to include these ideas that will make
    something better. By just an incremental 2-percent increase in
    the cost, you can then make it so that the next time the same
    disaster comes, it won't have the same disastrous impact.
        As far as your question on building back in places that are
    proven to be susceptible, like the Jersey Shore, which, by the
    way, I lived at the Jersey Shore for over 10 years----
        Mr. Sires. People want to live on the water. They want to
    live----
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, exactly, exactly. And I think there are
    only two answers to that. Either you need to incentivize people
    to go elsewhere, which is very difficult, in this country in
    particular, but there are some programs that do that by paying
    a fair price to properties that are in vulnerable areas where
    people may be sick of having to rebuild after multiple floods.
    Or you need to build resilience.
        And there are nature-based solutions, putting natural reefs
    or other breakwaters, using smart biodiversity-type solutions,
    like we are doing off of Staten Island, for example, which was
    a Sandy-funded mitigation. And these are good ways to protect
    from the storm surge that occurs. So there are solutions that
    make places safer if you can't, in fact, relocate people.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you.
        I was just wondering about electric locomotives and
    hydrogen fuel cells, locomotives. Can somebody talk to me about
    that?
        I know some of the railroad companies are looking into a
    lot of these electric locomotives. Can anybody talk a little
    bit about that?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Sires. Anyone, take a shot.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Sires. No takers? Is it good, or is it bad?
        Mr. Konar?
        Mr. Konar. Sir, I live in the world of trucks, but I will
    attempt to answer your question.
        Mr. Sires. Oh, OK, well, somebody----
        Mr. Konar. I do think, subject to what the chairman said,
    provision of hydrogen through non-fossil-fuel-based hydrogen
    becomes a challenge. But I think in locomotives you actually
    have the ability of doing that, because you are more
    centralized in where you fuel, as opposed to trucks, where you
    are fueling all over the country.
        So I think it is a problem that is solvable, but I will be
    honest, I have not looked at the economics on the locomotive
    side, and the power--and the hauling side, as I have looked on
    the trucking side of it.
        Mr. Sires. All right. Well, I don't have any more----
        Mr. Santana. Can you repeat your question, please? It is
    breaking up.
        Mr. Sires. Yes, I was just wondering about hydrogen fuel
    locomotives----
        Mr. Santana. Representative, can you please repeat your
    question?
        Mr. Sires. Yes, I am--you can't hear me?
        Mr. Santana. Representative, can you please repeat your
    question?
        Mr. DeFazio. Albio, you are out of time, I am sorry. OK.
        Mr. Sires. OK.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mrs. Steel?
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for all the witnesses coming out today. We have----
        Mr. Santana. Representative, can you please repeat your
    question?
        Mr. DeFazio. Your microphone is on. Please shut off your
    microphone.
        Mrs. Steel?
        Mrs. Steel. We have heard from many experts today that
    market-based innovation is working successfully.
        In Orange County I have many local, small, mid-sized, and
    large companies voluntarily achieve carbon-neutral status.
    California companies are proactively investing in plans to cut
    carbon emissions without additional regulations being enforced
    by Government by any level.
        We must be careful when we talk about creating new taxes or
    shifting our tax code. We have said many times that heavy-
    handed mandates only cause more confusion and burdens. The
    Government is not good at picking winners and losers. The
    Federal Government must allow for flexibility, and we must
    eliminate barriers to major infrastructure projects by
    streamlining permit and modernizing the environmental review
    process.
        Voice. Hopefully you can hear me, Mr. Representative.
        Mr. DeFazio. Hold on. She is making a statement. I don't
    know who is talking. It is her time.
        Mrs. Steel. I want to ask Mr. Lewis the question, what
    hurdles have you encountered as project manager for the
    California high-speed rail project?
        Have California's environmental regulations been easy to
    abide by, since California has much harder regulations than any
    other State?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, we have been able to work with the
    California High-Speed Rail Authority in a case-by-case basis to
    evaluate the different opportunities for sustainability and
    resilience elements within the program. And each one can have
    its different challenges, especially with regard to anything
    that has air emissions associated with it, because of the very
    stringent rules on air emissions in the State of California. So
    that is where you see the biggest challenges.
        But luckily, a lot of the sustainability and resilience
    elements that we are building into the program don't involve
    the emissions. And so the regulatory hurdles are easier to deal
    with. But it really is a case-by-case basis. And you have to be
    willing to think outside the box, and really address each of
    the challenges with their own set of requirements and
    timeframes.
        Mrs. Steel. As you may know, the California high-speed rail
    project had its Federal funding terminated in 2019 for failure
    to comply with the grant terms, and failure to meet deadlines.
    Do you believe it is right for taxpayers to continue to fund
    the California high-speed rail project?
        If so, what is the WSP's plan to fix this project, going
    forward?
        What has changed about the project in 2 years to warrant
    more Federal funding?
        Mr. Lewis?
        Mr. Lewis. I apologize. For some reason I couldn't hear you
    until the last 5 seconds there. Can you repeat the question?
        Mrs. Steel. Do you believe it is right for taxpayers to
    continue to fund the California high-speed rail project?
        If so, what is the WSP's plan to fix this project, going
    forward?
        What has changed about the project in 2 years to warrant
    more Federal funding?
        Mr. Lewis. Well, we are working through all of the
    different elements of the program, which is broken into
    different sections, of course. And each one has its own issues
    and challenges. So we are taking them in partnership with the
    California High-Speed Rail Authority, piece by piece, issue by
    issue. And we are coming up with solutions that absolutely
    justify the project going forward, in our opinion.
        Mrs. Steel. But it has been already failed for all the
    deadlines and all the agreements. So you think that moving
    forward you are going to meet other deadlines, and will you
    need another Federal funding?
        Mr. Lewis. Well, yes, again, each issue has its own path to
    solution and timeframe. There have been some challenges that
    have been taken on, and have been evaluated, and coming up with
    the solutions in partnership with the High-Speed Rail
    Authority. So, yes, we feel like we can move forward in a very
    effective way.
        Mrs. Steel. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. Davids [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlelady yields.
    We will go to Mr. Johnson next.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Davids. OK, it looks like Mr. Johnson might be voting.
    We will go to Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. Yes, I represent the Las
    Vegas Valley, and we're thought of as lots of neon signs and
    glitz and glamour. You don't think of us necessarily as being
    out front when it comes to climate change, but that is really
    not accurate. We have a lot of LEED standard gold buildings.
    MGM Resorts has said they want to slash their carbon emissions
    in half by 2030. Big developments of solar power throughout the
    Las Vegas Valley. Steve Sisolak, our Governor, is trying to
    have the State meet the Paris Agreement standards.
        And also, we have a State senator, Chris Brooks, who has
    introduced a bill that would require a $100 million investment
    in EV charging infrastructure. And an interesting part of it is
    that 40 percent of that infrastructure has to be built in
    historically underserved communities. So I would like to go
    back to that EV infrastructure issue a little bit, and ask Mr.
    Konar to talk about this.
        I support President Biden's efforts to invest in this, and
    his goal of a half a million new charging stations. We need
    this infrastructure available along I-15 that connects us to
    California. You have a couple of service stations and
    facilities along that road. If I-11 is built between Las Vegas
    and Phoenix, that would be another perfect place for this. I
    wonder if you could talk some more about the public-private
    relationship for establishing these stations, and also what we
    can do to be sure that they are built in some underserved
    communities, not just in more affluent neighborhoods.
        Mr. Konar. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question,
    Congresswoman Titus.
        So I would like to kind of answer this in two parts. One is
    your point about building infrastructure on highways. From my
    perspective--and that is what I am way more qualified to speak
    on, because that is what we do--our focus there is reducing
    range anxiety. At Pilot right now, we have 58 charging
    stations, some of them actually in Arizona and in west Texas
    and up in Washington.
        And as we looked at the data from these charging stations,
    what we have been seeing is that our utilization rates at these
    charging stations are way less than 1 percent. So, if you build
    a piece of infrastructure and it is being used less than 1
    percent, as a fiduciary to your shareholders, it is very
    challenging to make that case.
        So I think the Federal Government coming in and assisting
    us, especially during these early days, where I don't doubt if
    you were talking 10 years from now, that utilization number
    would be very different. But we need to incent the customer to
    drive and to charge. So we want to put that out there, because
    it is the chicken and the egg problem that we are suffering
    from. If there are no charging stations, people don't buy EVs
    and people don't go ahead and travel.
        So we really--both us and the utility sector, I think,
    could benefit from getting help from the Federal Government in
    these early days, so that we get adoption and we get to
    critical mass.
        To your second question, as it relates to inside the
    cities, that is a little bit of a different kind of issue. And
    maybe the lady from Pacific Gas and Electric could give you a
    better view on that. But in terms of highways, I think we can
    definitely make this work, and we definitely need some help
    from the Federal Government, as do the utilities, to get the
    infrastructure to us.
        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. And I will ask her, but I would
    think there would be a demand for it along those--I-15 is just
    such a busy corridor. And then all our hotels welcome so many
    driving travelers from California, you would think there would
    be some incentive to put them there.
        Mr. Konar. We are exploring everywhere. We are exploring
    partnerships with people. And I have been just as surprised by
    the data as you are right now. In fact, in preparation for the
    hearing, I pulled data from our stations, as well as one of our
    partners out in Utah, and we are both at less than 1 percent.
    And it makes the economics very challenging right now.
        But I do think range anxiety--I will just cite a study done
    by Morgan Stanley. They polled a lot of EV owners, and range
    anxiety--almost 50 percent of the people who would potentially
    buy an EV said they wouldn't buy them because of range anxiety.
    So we do need to solve that.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment?
        Ms. Giammona. Congresswoman, I really appreciate the
    question. I would offer that, in California, what has really
    helped the California utilities, in partnership with our
    commission and State regulators, we have focused goals on
    disadvantaged communities. So our programs and incentives are
    focused on meeting specific targets to ensure we have charging
    infrastructure built in----
        Ms. Davids. Ms. Giammona? Ms. Giammona?
        Ms. Giammona. Yes?
        Ms. Davids. Do you mind if we maybe come back to the
    remainder of the question? The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. Maybe we can be in touch, and I
    can learn more about it.
        Ms. Giammona. That is great. I am happy to follow up with
    you.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Ms. Davids. Mr. Stauber is recognized for 5 minutes.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Stauber. There you go. Now it is on. Thank you, Madam
    Chair, and I appreciate the witnesses. A few questions.
        Mr. Allen, for your electric vehicles, what country are the
    minerals like copper, nickel, and cobalt used in your batteries
    and computer systems sourced from?
        Mr. Allen. The battery cells that we get today are from
    Korea. Nickel, cobalt, and magnesium are the main ingredients.
    But I am afraid I don't have the information with me about
    where our supplier sources them.
        I do know that all of the suppliers that we deal with are
    in compliance with the OECD due diligence requirement around
    conflict minerals. So we--you know, we do have----
        Mr. Stauber. Yes, Mr. Allen, I would like to inform you
    that most of the minerals come from the Congo and China. And
    does the Congo, Mr. Allen, does the Congo and China have better
    or worse labor and environmental standards than the United
    States?
        Mr. Allen. I think an obvious answer to that question is
    that they don't, sir. But, as I was saying, we do work with the
    suppliers that we have to ensure that they pass the due
    diligence guidelines, that they are not buying products that
    violate human rights in our supply chain.
        Mr. Stauber. And again, the Congo and China do not have the
    environmental and labor standards the United States does.
        My next question, Mr. Hernick, what are some of the global
    environmental benefits to mining and sourcing critical minerals
    in the United States, as opposed to foreign countries with
    little to no environmental standards?
        Mr. Hernick. Well, Congressman, this is a values question.
    This is what do we stand for, as Americans, and for Americans,
    we stand for pride in our work, and human rights, freedom of
    speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. And these
    are rights that we have that a lot of the countries that you
    are talking about--China and DRC, in particular--they don't
    have.
        So when we are doing business with these countries and
    sourcing materials from them, we are supporting regimes that
    undermine American interests, very specifically. And----
        Mr. Stauber. Mr. Hernick, would you agree that, if we
    purchase critical minerals mined in the Congo and China,
    especially in the Congo, there is child labor, forced child
    labor, to mine, for instance, the cobalt?
        Mr. Hernick. We know that. And, as the father of four
    daughters, that makes me very uncomfortable, and it is one
    where we need to be open to all-of-the-above approaches to
    solving the climate problem, and sourcing minerals, and looking
    in our own backyard, and not being afraid of fulfilling our
    high environmental and labor safeguards, and utilizing the
    resources that we have in our own country here.
        Mr. Stauber. And I think that all the witnesses and members
    of the T&I Committee know that, in northeastern Minnesota, we
    have the largest copper nickel find in North America. At least
    one company is in its 19th year of permitting and fighting
    court battles. We have the best environmental and the best
    labor standards in the world. The northeast Minnesota corridor,
    the Iron Range hosts the Duluth complex of this copper nickel
    find. We do it best. And I would suggest that we put a lot of
    effort into mining manufacturing be brought back to the United
    States.
        Mr. Chair, it is clear that the committee has heard today
    that we have found the climate solution that also has a great
    business case. We can mine our critical minerals in the United
    States, we can refine these minerals in the United States, we
    can extract and transport our fuels in the United States, and
    bring back building and manufacturing items of importance into
    the United States using the best labor standards and the best
    environmental standards.
        Nobody does it better than the United States. And the best
    part of all this is that we are following our labor and
    environmental standards. We emit the least amount of carbon
    when we environmentally source it right here, in our country.
    And northern Minnesota and the Iron Range stand ready to source
    these materials in an economically pristine and friendly way.
        Ms. Davids. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Stauber. I yield back.
        Ms. Davids. Mr. Huffman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I want to thank the chair for a
    great hearing.
        It has been suggested by some, though, that just because we
    have begun to reduce emissions over the past decade, that we
    are doing just fine, and we should just pat ourselves on the
    back and continue business as usual. I wish that were so. But
    the truth is we are not doing great. We are on track to lose
    this climate fight if we don't dramatically change course.
        And just because we are finally starting to reduce
    emissions doesn't mean that we didn't put most of those
    greenhouse gases up there over the past century. And we are
    still one of the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluters.
        So the truth is we are playing catch-up here. We are
    running out of time. And we can't indulge fantasies or
    invitations to slow down, or rest on our laurels, or otherwise
    continue fossil fuel business as usual.
        Let's also not pretend that we have to be in some race to
    the bottom competition with Russia for sales of fossil fuels.
    Nothing threatens Russia's geopolitical influence like changing
    the paradigm to clean energy, where they can't compete with us
    or anyone else.
        So with that, I want to ask a question to Mr. Smith from
    FedEx.
        I very much appreciate your commitment to a zero-emission
    fleet by 2040. And you are doing this without waiting for
    Congress to pay for your infrastructure or your fleet
    transition. As a businessman, you have looked at total cost of
    ownership and efficiency, and you have concluded, from a
    business perspective, that a rapid transition to electric
    vehicles is the smartest move.
        So fast forward----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Ms. Davids. The gentleman shall suspend. It seems as though
    we might be having some technical difficulties, Mr. Huffman. We
    are having a hard time hearing you.
        And Mr. Smith has left the hearing, and won't be returning.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Huffman. Madam Chair, if I could get a little credit on
    time, and maybe come back to Mr. Smith, I will move on to my
    other question.
        Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Jared, unfortunately, I announced
    at the beginning he would have to leave in 2 hours, and he
    stayed longer than that, so he is no longer available.
        Mr. Huffman. Well, darn. I thought I had a pretty good
    question for him. Let's go to PG&E, Ms. Giammona, and I hope I
    will get a little break on time, since I missed out on Mr.
    Smith.
        But California is, obviously, on its way to a 100-percent
    clean electricity portfolio. That is exciting. We are leading
    the way on vehicle electrification. And so the move to EVs
    won't just reduce tailpipe emissions. It is going to be clean,
    all the way around.
        But we are also struggling to have a grid that avoids
    rolling blackouts, that doesn't spark wildfires. We are not
    alone. Clearly, Texas has huge problems. It will need to make a
    bunch of investments in its grid. Obviously, today, in many
    parts of the country, our grid is not ready for millions of new
    EVs adding all of that load. But we are planning for the
    future.
        And I want to ask you, will the grid be ready?
        What gives you confidence that our grid will be able to
    handle all these EVs in the next decade or two?
        And what Federal policies would maximize your confidence
    that we can get there?
        Ms. Giammona. Congressman, thank you for the question. As
    you know, we are making significant investments in California
    in PG&E's grid with our system hardening, our undergrounding
    projects, and, really, in an attempt to modernize the grid to
    withstand the climate changes that we are experiencing in
    California, but, more importantly, be ready to adapt for new
    and cleaner technology that customers want and need for the
    future.
        So I feel very confident in California. We are working very
    closely with our regulators, our policy makers, and I really
    see this as a concerted effort. It is not one utility, it is
    the utilities in partnership with good policy and strong
    regulators in the State.
        As we think about it more nationally, we are working in
    partnership with all of the utilities through Electric Edison
    Institute and EPRI to really ensure that we are taking
    advantage of the best technology R&D resources out there to
    modernize the grids.
        But we are an infrastructure company. We planned that
    infrastructure. And I think working with third-party markets,
    working with customers, and really understanding what the
    future of energy is going to look like, coupled with strong
    policy, strong R&D, and strong support from the Federal
    Government, we are going to be ready for this.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Burchett?
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
    bringing these folks to us.
        Mr. Konar, many folks think of Pilot Flying J as just a gas
    station company. Can you talk a little bit about some of the
    other parts of Pilot's business, particularly the biofuels
    program and the low-carbon fuels?
        Mr. Konar. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much for the
    question.
        What I would say is, I would say Pilot Flying J is a
    customer service company. Our goal is to provide the on-highway
    drivers who have just been amazing heroes through the pandemic,
    as they continue delivering goods and services, and today
    vaccines, as Mr. Smith talked about FedEx. Our goal is to
    support them in whatever way we can.
        And in addition to that now, Pilot Flying J has also become
    a center for the four-wheel customer, the gas customer that is
    driving on the road.
        So our goal, as Pilot, is to be a customer service-oriented
    company and deliver to the customer what they want to buy,
    where they want to buy it, and at a price that they are willing
    to pay.
        So, when we talk about renewable fuels, and when we talk
    about reducing carbon footprint, I think the public-private
    partnerships that we have talked about during this hearing, as
    well as partnerships between Pilot Flying J and the utilities,
    would be a great solution to go ahead and reduce carbon
    footprint for the transportation sector. Because the utilities
    need money today in order to help their infrastructure.
        As we discussed, it is not just the EV pressure that is
    going to hit the utilities infrastructure. Remember, we are
    trying to green the whole country. And the utilities are the
    ones that provide power. We change industrial processes, we
    change boilers, we change everything. The utilities have to get
    the green generation and deliver the power to us. So they need
    help. We need help in order to get us going, because at Pilot
    Flying J, we are in 44 States, we have got 1,000 locations
    around the country.
        So we can actually step in there and say--and our retail
    dealers work with us--``You can drive an EV from L.A. to
    Jacksonville and not have to worry because every 100 miles I
    can get you food, I can get you Wi-Fi, I can get you fuel, I
    can get you a shower, I can get you an ATM machine, whatever
    you need.''
        And I think this kind of gets lost in the mix when we talk
    about things like rest areas, and when we talk about trying to
    develop new infrastructure. Our goal, as a country and as a
    community, should be to leverage what is already in place, make
    it attractive for the customers so that they step in and start
    demonstrating the behaviors we want them to, and then use all
    our public funds to basically bridge us to the point where this
    is economic and it has taken up enough scale that we can do it
    with private investment.
        To me, that would be the perfect solution. I know it was a
    mix of what does Pilot Flying J do, but really, I mean, my goal
    here is to try to reduce the carbon footprint and use all the
    efforts from this committee as effectively as possible so that
    the right people get the right amount of support, and we can
    move forward.
        Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. And I know you all started as a
    single gas station, but what prompted the company to change its
    business model and grow over time?
        Was it because of Government mandates or private market
    decisions?
        Mr. Konar. It was completely because of private market
    decisions, because we saw a need for truckstops. Because, as
    you know, trucks can't fuel at gas stations because of their
    size and because a truck needs to fuel at 14, 15 gallons a
    minute. Otherwise, the driver is going to be sitting there
    forever, which is a problem we have to solve on the EV side. So
    completely on market incentives.
        Mr. Burchett. I figured that, knowing Mr. Haslam.
        I would guess that Pilot is the largest employer and
    taxpayer in many of the communities where your truckstops are
    located. How many employees do you generally have at your
    locations?
        And what do these travel centers mean for those
    communities?
        Mr. Konar. Well, it is a great question, because a lot of
    our travel centers are in very remote communities around the
    country, where there aren't jobs. And we often end up being the
    only source of fuel or food or amenities for a lot of the local
    communities.
        A travel center, on average, has, depending on the size,
    between 60 to 80 people that we hire in local communities.
    Pilot employs about 28,000 people around the country. And a lot
    of them live in very rural environments. But, the interstate
    business and keeping America moving is a way for them to get a
    livelihood. So we are very appreciative of that.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. And I
    wish, Mr. Chairman, if you could, express to leadership that we
    need to schedule better. This is a very important committee,
    and the Members are not--I don't think we are being served when
    we have to rush out and vote. Dadgummit, if we need to vote, we
    ought to vote until midnight or later. We are here to work, and
    this is very aggravating, and I don't think it is fair to the
    committee----
        Mr. DeFazio. Well----
        Mr. Burchett [continuing]. For us to continue our important
    work.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, I share the gentleman's frustration. But
    in part, we are having this many votes because some Members on
    his side of the aisle are insisting on votes on
    noncontroversial legislation.
        Mr. Burchett. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but this
    problem preceded all of that. So thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for
    holding this meeting. And I am going to have to be brief,
    because I do have to go and vote. But I wanted to ask a
    question of Mr. Allen.
        And Mr. Allen, I thank you for your testimony. And I think,
    in your written testimony, you mentioned my bill, the Green Bus
    Act. And this is a bill, as you know, that would set a national
    goal for zero-emission buses, and it would require that,
    beginning in 2029, all new buses that are purchased using
    Federal funds be zero-emission buses.
        I know you are helping California meet its goal, because
    this bill is modeled after what California is doing. So my
    question is, how can you and, I presume, other bus
    manufacturers, help transit agencies across the United States
    to meet this goal?
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. In my
    mind, there are a number of areas that the committee and the
    Federal Government could help that.
        The first is to increase the funding for zero-emission
    buses through the Low or No Emission Vehicle program, and
    reauthorize that program, and step up the funding.
        The second would be to incentivize domestic supply chain.
    There is an existing program called ATVM. And that program,
    unfortunately, is only allowed to be used for automotive and
    light-duty vehicles. We would love to see that program enhanced
    for heavy-duty vehicle suppliers and heavy-duty original
    equipment manufacturers. And this would allow companies to
    invest in state-of-the-art manufacturing and build the domestic
    supply chain that many of the discussions today have been
    about, that will allow us to compete against aggressive foreign
    competition. And this will also entice foreign battery cell
    manufacturers to come to the U.S. with their intellectual
    property and create jobs here, in America.
        And then the last area, I would say, is around supporting
    programs for fleet electrification beyond the Low-No program.
    And that, specifically, is around schoolbuses and municipal
    fleets. Today, schoolbuses are not funded at all by the Federal
    Government. They are funded State and locally. And I believe a
    program to--the Federal Government help electrify schoolbuses
    would go a long way towards our challenges on climate.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you so much for that, and, actually,
    thanks for mentioning the ATVM program, because Congresswoman
    Dingell and I have a bill to do exactly what you have
    suggested, to expand that program to medium and heavy-duty
    vehicles. So thank you for the plug.
        The last question, quickly, is I think a green economy is
    going to create lots of good jobs. And again, Mr. Allen, can
    you talk a little bit about the wages and benefits that your
    company offers, because I think we are looking for good-paying
    jobs. And I think, in your company, there are good-paying jobs
    to be had.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, there are. This is not what I would
    describe as just everyday manual labor. This is advanced
    manufacturing. We train our employees to be able to do very
    technical positions. They don't require anything more than a
    high school education to do that. We do the training for them,
    in conjunction with some of the programs we have with the local
    community colleges. And these people come to work, and they
    make a really decent wage in both South Carolina, Los Angeles,
    and in northern California.
        We provide our employees 401(k) matching, and we also
    provide every single employee at Proterra stock options for
    when we ultimately go public. Every single employee will
    benefit from that.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you so much, and I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Stanton [presiding]. Thank you very much. Next up is
    Congress Member Mast.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Stanton. Congress Member Mast, is he still on? We can
    come back to him, certainly.
        OK, then how about Congress Member Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
    first line of questioning will be for Ms. Giammona with Pacific
    Gas and Electric.
        And, ma'am, I spent 6 years as a utility regulator in South
    Dakota, a member of the South Dakota Public Utilities
    Commission. And I like that you called out in your testimony,
    ma'am, the importance of balancing safety, reliability,
    affordability, and sustainability. I don't think many
    ratepayers understand the importance of balancing those
    sometimes competing interests for an investor-owned utility.
        Of course, we have been talking today about Government
    intervention, and how it can expedite some of this progress
    that my colleagues are looking for. So I guess my question
    would be, from your perspective, ma'am, to what extent have
    regulations, requirements, mandates from the California PUC or
    from the State legislature hindered your ability, your
    company's ability to properly balance those four critical
    stakeholder interests?
        And maybe rate that from 1 to 10, 1 being no intervention
    or constraint, and 10 being the regulators have made all the
    decisions for you.
        Ms. Giammona. Congressman, thank you for the question. My
    opinion is it is a partnership. And our regulators in
    California are very focused on and have the same interests that
    we do, and that is providing safe, reliable, affordable, and
    clean energy to the consumers in California.
        And as such, we have not only aggressive policy and
    aggressive goals, but we have been really far ahead on program
    design in the areas of energy efficiency, our solar incentives,
    demand response, community choice aggregation. We have run the
    gamut of energy programs, and that has really been in
    partnership with our regulators.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Ms. Giammona, yes, thank you.
    And I do understand the suite of offerings that you all have
    offered and deployed, some of them in South Dakota in my time
    as a regulator. I mean, it sounds as though you do view this as
    a partnership, and that you largely or maybe completely endorse
    the regulations and requirements within California. I mean,
    giving that a rating on a scale from 1 to 10, I mean, how do
    you feel like PG&E has been able to balance safety,
    reliability, affordability, and sustainability?
        Ms. Giammona. I would love to rate us as a 10.
        I think the challenges that we have faced are our climate
    changes. So what we have experienced is the climate is changing
    and our conditions are changing rapidly. As you know, utilities
    have major infrastructure, with large cycles of depreciation,
    and we are finding ourselves having to be much more nimble to
    respond to what is now a new climate in California.
        So we are really working closely with our regulators to
    ensure that policy moves quickly so that we can act upon that
    policy and really act to support the climate in California.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, and I would just say
    this. I mean, clearly, I think it should be important to all of
    us on either side of the dais here. This issue we are talking
    about, I mean, clearly, we need to build systems that are
    increasingly environmentally friendly, that provide some
    sustainability.
        I would push back on your characterization that PG&E in
    California should get a 10 on balancing these interests. And I
    would just perhaps call out my State of South Dakota again. I
    have got some pride, having been a regulator there. But you
    bragged--and I think understandably so--about how green your
    fleet of generation is. I think South Dakota has a lot to brag
    about, as well. Seventy percent of our electrical generation in
    the State comes from renewable sources.
        But I am concerned there has not been a proper balancing of
    ratepayer interests--the affordability issue--when you all have
    made decisions. And when you look at the residential price per
    kilowatthour--in South Dakota it is $.12, and in California it
    is $.22. Now, that is an overly simplistic way to look at it, I
    admit. But that is 86 percent higher. And we are 70 percent
    renewable; you say you all are 88 percent, and that is a great
    number.
        But if we are going to hold up--if we are going to say,
    ma'am, that California is a 10, that PG&E gets a 10 on
    balancing affordability and sustainability, then I think we
    just need to acknowledge that you are willing to pay an 86-
    percent premium at the rate level to be able to secure that 10.
    And I just don't know that that is the proper way to balance.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up will be Congress
    Member Payne.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Stanton. All right.
        OK, please unmute, Congress Member.
        Mr. Payne. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Stanton. Yes.
        Mr. Payne. OK, thank you.
        Let's see, Mr. Santana, as chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, I care a great
    deal about the effects of rail transportation on the
    environment.
        New technologies have the potential to significantly reduce
    the railroad sector's carbon footprint. Other countries have
    recently put trains into service that are powered by hydrogen
    fuel cells. The United States should take advantage of
    opportunities that integrate innovative technologies that could
    provide efficient rail service, while reducing carbon
    emissions.
        Can you explain the potential benefits of hydrogen-powered
    trains, and how quickly the United States could get to a
    position to take advantage of this technology?
        Mr. Santana. Representative, hydrogen will play a role in
    terms of decarbonizing rail.
        To your point with seeing other countries taking steps in
    that direction, like China, for instance, like Europe, and we
    should take the lead here. When we think about the roadmap to
    decarbonize, we could very much, as you think about batteries,
    where we are applying it now in effective ways into rail, you
    will get to that same point on hydrogen. And what you are going
    to be seeing is a number of these technologies permeating
    different industries, getting to economies of scale that will
    allow this to be efficient, to be competitive. So we need to
    take the lead there.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. Mr. Rudd, 9 years ago, Hurricane
    Sandy provided a stark reminder of how climate change can
    result in more extreme weather and greater harm to our
    infrastructure. Along the Northeast Corridor this means that
    any infrastructure project needs to consider the increasing
    number of hurricanes and other significant weather events.
        Can you explain the cost of failing to make substantial
    investments in the resilient infrastructure now?
        Mr. Rudd. Yes, and building off something one of our
    colleagues said a little earlier was, when we look at the
    economic cost, it really has a four-to-one relationship. So
    underinvesting in resiliency today, although it is a
    generalization, it comes with a very heavy cost, without making
    those initial investments.
        And with respect to some of the things you are talking
    about, it gets back to the point about thinking about our
    procurement model, and building into the procurement models for
    future infrastructure the opportunity to build in innovation,
    and to build in the cost of resiliency, and evaluating that in
    the low-cost models that are currently used to make those
    infrastructure decisions.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Mr. Rudd. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. Also, Mr. Rudd, it goes without question that
    the public and private sector must work together to
    meaningfully address the pressing issues around climate change.
    How do you envision the roles for the public and private
    sectors in creating a climate-forward model of infrastructure
    investment and construction?
        Mr. Rudd. Well, again, when we look at the infrastructure
    investments required, one of the largest challenges is going to
    be the funding itself, and the capital improvements.
        And so, as we look forward, there are economic
    opportunities to improve that infrastructure that the private
    sector would be willing to participate in, and willing to fund.
    And my suggestion would be that, as part of the infrastructure
    bill, you look for opportunities to de-risk those private-
    sector investments, and to lower the cost of capital for those
    fundings, effectively creating an opportunity for a higher
    return, or an appropriate market return for that private
    investment.
        There is so much capital that is required for this. I think
    the only way that we can move forward successfully at the right
    pace is to provide an incentive so that there is public capital
    and private capital coming into these infrastructure
    investments.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Rudd. I appreciate that outlook.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up is Congress
    Member Nehls.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Chair. The U.S. has led the world in
    reducing emissions for 2 years now, and this largely has been
    due to the wider adoption of natural gas. Refrigerated methane,
    more commonly known as liquid natural gas, has the potential to
    continue the American energy revolution, reduce dependence on
    foreign energy sources, and continue to help our environment.
        I have two questions, and my first is for Ms. Giammona from
    PG&E. In February, in my home State of Texas, we saw the tragic
    consequences of becoming overly reliant on certain energy
    sources. What role does fuel diversity play in ensuring that we
    have a reliable and resilient grid?
        Ms. Giammona. Congressman, thank you for the question. It
    was really difficult to watch what was happening in your State
    during the crisis in February, and know that our hearts are
    with the families and customers that were impacted by those
    extreme weather conditions.
        We have been really focused on diversification of our fleet
    for a number of years, leveraging renewable power sources, but
    also leveraging our natural grid infrastructure. And I think,
    going forward, each State is going to look a bit different on
    how they plan to diversify their fleet in order to support that
    customer demand of new technologies, but, in addition, provide
    reliable power sources for customers as we are managing through
    a changing climate.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you. My second question is for the rest of
    the panel.
        We have seen a number of Northeastern States either limit
    or outright ban pipelines carrying American natural gas through
    their States. This has led to other States in the region having
    to look outside the U.S. for their natural gas supply,
    including to places like Russia. This not only harms our energy
    independence, but is also more harmful to the environment,
    given that our environmental standards far exceeds Russia.
        How can we better spur American infrastructure development
    and enhance U.S. geopolitical strength?
        Thank you, and then I will yield back.
        Mr. Hernick. Congressman, this is Charles Hernick with
    Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. I would like to jump
    in on that. I think that your point underscores the highlight--
    the need for an all-of-the-above approach to energy. That
    includes oil and natural gas. And it includes some of the other
    technologies that we have talked about here.
        Very specifically, as it relates to--we need to create
    opportunities for fuel switching. One of the easiest ways to do
    that that has not been mentioned--we have spent a lot of time
    talking about switching to electric vehicles--but emissions can
    be reduced quickly, and at a cost savings to school districts,
    municipalities by switching from diesel to propane, just for
    example.
        So there are very important areas where we can reduce
    emissions now, create cost savings now. It doesn't need to be
    always a tradeoff between reducing emissions and a high
    economic cost. There are ways to do this in a way that create
    options for customers, create options for States and
    municipalities, and reduce emissions quickly, and really
    improve livelihoods for people, instead of waiting for that
    more expensive option that may still be a little further down
    the road.
        Mr. Konar. Congressman Nehls--this is Shameek Konar--if I
    may just add to that this is a great point.
        The renewable fuel standard, which has been in place, which
    has been enhancing the use of biodiesel and all the biofuels,
    is something that works today. And, as we think about policy
    for reducing our carbon footprint, we should look at everything
    that we have at our disposal, which is a great point Mr.
    Hernick makes, which is that we can still bridge our way to EVs
    being adopted, hydrogen coming in, going from 1 percent
    utilization to 30 percent utilization by continuing to push the
    things that work today.
        To your point about natural gas, we can be doing that
    today, while we wait for our future, because just waiting for
    the big bang costs us time. And all of these things will take a
    substantial amount of investment, and that takes time.
        Mr. Allen. If I may just offer a contrarian view that,
    today, schoolbuses don't require a truckstop in order to be
    refueled. They go back home every day to their own spot. The
    total cost of ownership for schoolbuses to be all electric is
    there today. There is really, in my mind, no need to make an
    interim stop at propane. The economics for electric schoolbuses
    is viable today.
        Mr. Konar. No, that is a--it is a fair point.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. We are out of time for
    that 5-minute period, so we will move on to the next Member to
    ask questions.
        Mr. Konar. Thank you.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, gentlemen. I yield back.
        Mr. Stanton. The next questioner will be Congress Member
    Lowenthal.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all our
    panelists. I found this discussion fascinating, both in terms
    of what can be done in the short term, and also, really, maybe
    looking at more long-term solutions. But I want to focus on a
    specific challenge that we have.
        It has been mentioned, but I really want to dig a little
    deeper, and that is heavy-duty vehicle electrification, which
    is a critical priority for reducing freight emissions. I
    represent the Port of Long Beach. And within the port complex,
    Long Beach and the Port of L.A. together, there is a huge
    number of truck traffic in and out of those ports. We are
    talking about 30,000 to 40,000 trips a day, at least. And we
    are talking about having--and I have seen over the years the
    ports have done a great deal, in terms of reducing the impacts
    upon those communities around the ports, which tend to be lower
    income communities, which suffer greatly from asthma and other
    types--not all due to trucks, obviously. We have ships and
    trains, too.
        But I want to talk about now--and what is interesting is
    during this pandemic, while there was a drop in volumes through
    the ports, there has been a tremendous explosion, in terms of
    growth in ports, which we were already doing. So we have other
    issues going on now of congestion, and problems of moving goods
    out, because there is so much demand out there in the Nation
    for goods that are coming from outside of the country, which is
    another issue. But I am not going to deal with that.
        So the issue is dealing with how we move forward in
    changing this fleet. How do we improve the public health,
    address environmental justice issues by reducing diesel
    emissions from this tremendously important, as a thing--we are
    talking about, as I say, a major part of the U.S. economy. We
    are not going to stop this. We need to enhance it.
        And so I want to ask first Mr. Allen, then anyone else on
    the panel, how do we move forward with heavy-duty vehicle
    electrification more quickly? I know we are moving.
        What is the research and investment that may be needed, if
    that is so?
        What are the kinds of Federal support you see as possibly--
    to be a partner in this venture?
        Because I am just focused on those heavy-duty trucks
    carrying 40-foot containers. We are talking about--and I am not
    downgrading the role of diesel. It has helped this Nation. We
    wouldn't be where we are today without it. So I want to know,
    how do we move forward?
        Mr. Allen. Sure, Congressman. I think help is on the way
    for you. I believe that, with the right Government funding here
    in just the next couple of years, there will be vehicles that
    can go 250 miles--granted, they are not over-the-road, but they
    can go 250 miles, which will take a vehicle----
        Mr. Lowenthal. But these vehicles frequently are going a
    lot more than 250 miles, as we know----
        Mr. Allen. Right, the----
        Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Where they--after 350 miles or
    so, they say good night.
        Mr. Allen. Right.
        Mr. Lowenthal. These are, you know----
        Mr. Allen. So that is the first one. But also, there is
    help coming to terminal tractors that are used at the port, as
    well as the heavy-duty forklifts. We are working with companies
    like them today to help.
        But I believe the best thing that the Federal Government
    can do would be to expand the funding. So today there is the
    Low or No Emission Vehicle program that is for transit
    vehicles. That should be expanded for areas of high-emissions
    focus, like the ports, to be able to incent both the
    manufacturers and the users to convert those vehicles quickly.
        Mr. Santana. Representative Lowenthal, if I may, Rafael
    Santana.
        I think that is one of the key roles that rail can play
    here, being the most sustainable way of moving freight over
    land. And what we see here is the opportunity to actually
    accelerate decarbonization at the same time you increase the
    utilization in rail.
        And one of the things that we seek through the Freight 2030
    vision is to also allow the creation standards of the
    information. So it allows you to understand how freight is
    coming to the ports and allowing a more, really, efficient way
    of moving tanks from point A to point B. And this has to solve,
    not just for speed, but it has to solve for efficiency, but
    also the [inaudible] carbon emission type of transportation.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Santana. I agree with you,
    and I think the ports agree with you. In the Nation, the role
    of rail is vitally important, getting more and more important.
    The major investments now in our ports are in rail
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Lowenthal. But it is not just--there has got to be kind
    of a multimodal approach. And I am just concerned we are not
    going to get rid of trucks.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Congress Member
    Lowenthal, we have got to move on.
        Mr. Lowenthal. I yield back. I yield back, thank you.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you, sir. Next up is Congress Member
    LaMalfa.
        Is Congress Member LaMalfa still on?
        OK. How about Congress Member Carbajal?
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. My question is to Ms. Giammona. We
    know the transportation sector is a large emitter of harmful
    greenhouse gas emissions, and searching for fossil fuels has
    led to significant environmental damage to our communities.
        I happen to represent the central coast of California. And
    in Santa Barbara County, our community has seen firsthand the
    devastation oil drilling inflicts to our environment and local
    economy. Not only did the 2015 Plains All American oilspill
    harm wildlife in the region, it cost us over $90 million to
    clean up the area, not to mention the negative impact to our
    local economy.
        How does electrification of our transportation sector help
    protect our environment?
        And can you also walk us through the economic benefits and
    jobs associated with moving towards electric vehicles?
        Ms. Giammona. Congressman, thank you so much. Thank you for
    your question. As I stated in my opening statement, our
    domestic-produced clean energy is 88 percent GHG free. So, we
    have really focused on, as we are using more renewables, really
    moving to cleaner technology to really reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        As it relates to the economics of EVs, this has an
    opportunity to create many jobs, and many jobs across the
    Nation, both from an infrastructure standpoint, from a
    technology standpoint, and certainly at the vehicle level.
        So in California, what we have seen is a tremendous
    opportunity for growth of employment to support this new
    technology. And in particular, at PG&E, we have partnered very
    closely with the IBEW, and ensured that we are using our great
    labor force that supports our current infrastructure to really
    support this new technology and growth within California.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Allen, expanding access to electric vehicles also
    requires an expansion of our charging stations and hydrogen
    fueling infrastructure. H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act that I
    and my colleagues on this committee helped write, under the
    leadership of Chairman DeFazio, included several provisions to
    build infrastructure for the 21st century that includes
    electric charging stations and hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
        In building up this infrastructure, how are we ensuring all
    Americans are benefitting from this, especially communities
    that have been traditionally left behind?
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Congressman. As we got into the
    electric vehicle and transit bus business over the past number
    of years, the biggest impediment for agencies to put more
    electric transit buses into service was the infrastructure. So
    we have focused our company on being able to provide charging
    and infrastructure solutions so that agencies can move forward
    faster.
        These charging stations are open source. So not just can
    they be used by a transit agency for their buses, but they
    could also be used for municipal fleet vehicles, and even,
    depending on how they are located, could be used for the
    general public. And we believe that that is a big enabler to be
    able to provide charging and infrastructure in all communities,
    but especially ones that are typically not served by
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Mr. Konar, what is the importance of leveraging the private
    sector to achieve the electric vehicle charging goals that
    President Biden laid out?
        And how can companies like Pilot Flying J and other fuel
    retailers be part of the solution?
        Mr. Konar. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I would
    say the private sector has already invested a substantial
    amount of money. For example, if you look at Pilot, we have
    over $10 billion invested in creating an infrastructure where
    people currently fuel today. So leveraging that infrastructure
    gets you to the answer a lot faster than trying to replicate
    that infrastructure.
        So I think what the Federal Government should do, and I
    think will be helpful in reducing our carbon footprint, is
    allowing us to bridge our way from where the uptake of this
    technology is today--as I mentioned before, less than 1 percent
    usage on our interstate chargers--to a point where it is
    economically feasible to do it.
        But everything else works. We have the locations, we have
    the investment. We just have to offer them a different fuel.
    And we are fuel agnostic. We are a customer service company. So
    we need to make sure that our customers are getting the service
    they need so that they buy more of that fuel. And it is a self-
    fulfilling prophecy.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up will be Congress
    Member Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
    to the witnesses for very, very interesting presentations.
        Let me just start by laying out the proposition that the
    transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is possibly the
    most significant, predictable economic transformation the world
    has ever seen. It is something that should happen, in my view.
    But, just as important, it is happening, and it will happen.
    And therefore, it is in our economic interest, as a country,
    from a competitiveness standpoint, to get ahead of it and to
    lead it.
        Let me maybe start with you, Mr. Allen. Is that general
    statement something you would agree with?
        Mr. Allen. I absolutely agree with that. I think that the
    policies of the Government here are an important factor in
    shaping the carbon emissions reductions in this country.
        Mr. Malinowski. Now you mentioned in your written testimony
    that there are just over 2,700 zero-emission transit buses on
    the road in the United States. But in China you noted there are
    150,000 EV buses. As I hope all of us know, China is, by far,
    the largest producer of solar and wind energy. It holds three-
    fourths of the world's manufacturing capacity for lithium ion
    battery cells.
        In 2013, we, the United States, had five times as many
    electrical vehicles as China. Today China has twice as many as
    the United States. Why is this happening? Is it because the
    Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party had a meeting, and
    decided that they liked trees more than jobs? Are they, you
    know, all tree-hugger, Green New Deal? Is that what is going
    on? Or are they trying to win a race to the future?
        Mr. Allen. I believe that, in my opinion, they are trying
    to win a race. I believe they have incentivized, or they have
    driven this through a combination of incentives and mandates.
    And they want to be the world's largest producer of electric
    vehicle technology.
        And that is why we believe that we have the prime
    opportunity right now to incentivize the supply chain to be
    here in the United States through a combination of investments
    and domestic content requirements that can put the U.S. in the
    right place to lead, and be not just sufficient for ourselves,
    but be an exporter of this technology.
        Mr. Malinowski. Well, fantastic, and I am glad that your
    company is leading the way, in terms of manufacturing battery
    systems and other critical components of this in the United
    States. And thank you for encouraging us to do what we need to
    do to make sure the United States wins that race. That is my
    interest.
        Mr. Allen. It is mine, also. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
        In the same spirit, I will move to Mr. Smith, as well. I am
    very, very pleased to see that FedEx made this commitment to be
    carbon neutral by 2040. When I meet with corporate executives
    back home, increasingly I find there is a recognition that we
    need market-driven policies to encourage that sort of change,
    including a growing recognition that putting a price on carbon
    is an efficient, market-driven way to bring down global
    emissions.
        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just updated its position on
    climate change to include support for what it calls a market-
    based approach to accelerate reductions in emissions across the
    U.S. economy. The Business Roundtable has adopted a similar
    position. I just wanted to ask whether FedEx agrees, and
    whether you believe we need to move, nationally, to a carbon
    pricing system.
        Mr. Stanton. Congress Member, I believe the representative
    from FedEx, unfortunately, had to leave the meeting early.
        Mr. Malinowski. Oh, I am sorry. Would anyone else be
    interested in taking that question, then?
        Mr. Konar. I can take a quick shot at it--I am definitely
    not speaking for FedEx--but I believe a national carbon pricing
    system--it is a global problem, it is a national problem that
    we face--would actually be helpful.
        And, you know, kind of the provision of market-based
    incentives, which have worked in the renewable fuels standard,
    and I go back to that because that is a good blueprint on how
    this has worked before--is something that, you know, we should
    think about in this respect.
        Mr. Malinowski. Well, thank you. Well, I will say to you
    all, and I would certainly have said to FedEx if they were
    still here, it is very encouraging to hear corporate CEOs say
    that, and to take those positions, just as it is encouraging to
    hear them say we should rejoin the Paris Climate Accords.
        I am hopeful that our private-sector Chamber of Commerce,
    in particular, will really make this a priority, in terms of
    their advocacy on Capitol Hill, because sometimes they say
    these things, and they come to----
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
        Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. With us, and it is not
    necessarily one of their top three issues. And that has got to
    change to make progress.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up will be the vice
    chair of the committee, Vice Chair Davids.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you to our panel
    of witnesses for taking time to join us today.
        I represent the Kansas Third Congressional District, which,
    thanks to its central location, is one of the busiest
    intermodal hubs in the country, where rail, trucking, aircargo,
    maritime, and others meet. But, because of our geographic
    location, we are right up against the confluence of the Kansas
    and Missouri Rivers. We also have the second largest Federal
    levees, only behind New Orleans.
        The Weather Channel Climate Disruption Index has ranked
    Kansas City as the 5th of 25 cities to be most impacted by the
    effects of climate change in the coming years. Thanks in large
    part to the urban heat index effect, we are going to see 20
    days per year above 90 degrees. That is as compared to our
    rural Kansas communities. And then we also have increased
    chances of drought in the coming years. And as storms and
    weather patterns become more severe, they are going to put a
    lot of stress on our transportation systems and public
    infrastructure.
        And I think that we have heard a lot about how we can
    address all of these things here today. And during the 2 years
    I served on this committee I have been fortunate to see the
    ways that the folks here today in your sectors are responding
    to this existential threat. And I think that we have seen that
    we are going to need a true partnership to tackle these. And I
    think I am going to start with Mr. Lewis.
        Your testimony recognizes the benefits of using a life-
    cycle funding cost perspective in infrastructure investment,
    and that there are very--``limited tools'' is what you said. I
    was hoping you could expand on those tools, and whether or not
    Congress can help increase the access to those tools.
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, thank you for your question. Yes, there are
    tools, actually. Unfortunately, there is not a single set of
    consensus tools and standards to be applied. So, from a Federal
    standpoint, there could be at least guidelines that would
    commit to what an acceptable tool and an acceptable standard
    would need to include. And you wouldn't have this problem of
    multiple different sources and organizations putting out
    different performance metrics and approaches.
        The American Society of Civil Engineers is currently
    working on a standard for sustainable infrastructure that
    should come out at the end of this year, which will be an ANSI
    standard. That will help.
        There is a tool called Envision at the Institute of
    Sustainable Infrastructure that was developed, and basically
    takes a life-cycle approach that includes both sustainability
    and resilience. So it goes even beyond what LEED does for
    buildings. This does it for all types of infrastructure, and
    really looks at not just how to build something sustainably and
    in a resilient way, but also how you pick projects and how you
    prioritize which projects should get the funding, and even what
    locations are best for projects.
        So there are tools out there, but there needs to be
    incentives, or extra points, if you will, in Federal funding
    for projects that use these tools, and deploy them, and score
    higher on, for example, the Envision rating system that is in
    existence. Because right now it is really just the honor system
    in terms of organizations wanting to use these tools.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you. And I think that is a great segue to
    Mr. Rudd.
        I would like to hear a little bit about the--you mentioned
    probability weight of cost, and having cost models that rate
    probability cost as we start looking at projects. And I am
    curious if you could maybe expand on that, and, as we talk
    about what tools are available, how you envision that being
    used.
        Mr. Rudd. Certainly. And, really, this is building off what
    Mr. Lewis explained, which is, when you are looking at the
    models that are used to ultimately determine or choose the
    projects that will be invested in, in terms of infrastructure,
    we typically look at what is the lowest cost model to find
    around a certain set of parameters for that infrastructure.
        And as Mr. Lewis pointed out, what we want to do is we want
    to actually change that scoring system so in that procurement
    process we are not simply looking at cost, we are also looking
    at the measurable outcomes of resiliency, the measurable impact
    on the environment or the emissions, the measurable impact on
    the community itself, in terms of the health and safety of the
    community. So it is, effectively, expanding that scoring system
    to not just look at the lowest cost option.
        And included in that is also looking at innovation. A lot
    of times in these models innovation is ignored. I will give you
    an example. There was a large tollway project that was being
    evaluated. And in terms of noise reduction for the communities
    around it, they had to look at retaining walls to do that, a
    traditional way of insulating this noise. The alternative was
    to use low-noise asphalt. It would have reduced the cost by 30
    percent of the project. But ultimately, it was not within the
    bounds of the standards of that procurement. And so it was not
    part of any submission that was made.
        So it is really opening up the standards so that you can
    consider these other alternatives, other than cost.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, Mr. Rudd.
        And Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Mast? Brian?
        Mr. Mast. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Are you available?
        Mr. Mast. Yes, thank you--can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Mast. All right. Look, I think there has been a lot of
    ambitious talking today about electrification, and I am not
    saying that in a negative way. Probably all of us, as parents,
    if we are parents, none of us would encourage our kids to
    strive for anything other than something ambitious. That is,
    hopefully, what defines us as Americans, is that we look to be
    ambitious about the things that we do.
        But I want to ask some specific numbers, because this
    relates to everybody, as we are looking at the source of
    electrification, which is having the power to--whether it be a
    UPS or a FedEx truck, or some other delivery vehicle, or
    somebody's home. And so the questions are going to be geared
    towards you, Ms. Giammona.
        As we look at some of those costs, obviously, we can see
    variations in when we look at fuel costs, based upon global
    geopolitics and what is going on. We can see fluctuations. But
    as we look around domestically, we also see various
    fluctuations in the cost for electricity, just domestically.
    And obviously, wind is better in some places, sun is better in
    other places. Different forms, you know, nuclear power in other
    places, and other things. But could you speak to how do we work
    to ambitiously get our average cost per kilowatthour down?
        What is the best form of electrification in some places
    that we are not looking at?
        Do we need to look at more nuclear, whereas you have seen
    the prices skyrocket in countries like Germany, because of
    their move away from nuclear? I don't have a bend on that, I am
    using that as an example.
        I look at some of the averages, and I would be lying if I
    said I knew all of the inputs that the Communist Party has put
    into subsidizing their electricity costs. But Russia, being an
    average of $.06 per kilowatthour, China listed as an average of
    $.08 per kilowatthour, the U.S. on the average of somewhere
    around $.13, $.14 per kilowatthour, California being up in the
    20s, Florida being down around $.10 or $.11 per kilowatthour.
    How do we ambitiously get to being at $.05, $.06 a
    kilowatthour?
        Ms. Giammona. Congressman, thank you for your question.
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. DeFazio. Your internet is down.
        Ms. Giammona. I am sorry, can you hear me now?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, just start over again, Laurie. We
    couldn't hear your answer to his question.
        Ms. Giammona. OK.
        Mr. DeFazio. Perhaps you need to--your video----
        Ms. Giammona. OK, can you hear me now?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
        Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Giammona. Great. Congressman, thank----
        Voice. She is on mute.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, is she--are you muted?
        We heard her for a second. I think it is the internet,
    isn't it?
        OK. Have we figured out what it is? Is it on her end, or is
    it the----
        [Pause.]
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, Brian, why don't you try a question on
    someone else who has better connectivity, and let's see if it
    is the overall system or her connectivity.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listen, I will yield
    back to you. Maybe if you could just agree to, when her
    internet gets back up, let her answer my question. It is really
    the crux of my question, since Mr. Smith has moved on, as well.
    So maybe, if you could just make that agreement, I would be
    happy to yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. Sure. I would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Mace?
        Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, I want
    to thank everyone, all of our witnesses this afternoon, for
    being on this panel and sticking around and spending much of
    your day and answering our questions.
        Being a freshman on the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee, I have learned a lot today, and a lot leading up to
    the testimony.
        First, I want to thank Mr. Konar for his testimony. I am
    pleased to learn that, as an industry, that you all have
    adapted, and largely in response to tax incentives, and
    utilizing those to sell lower carbon-intensive alternatives to
    gasoline and diesel, and being innovative. And we have many
    innovators who are on our panel today.
        And this also echoes the comments we heard earlier today by
    Mr. Hernick, who said that the Federal policy playbook should,
    first and foremost, really harness the power of free markets.
    And you really were speaking my language.
        I want to turn to Mr. Allen, who is on here today, and I
    wanted to turn to you next. I am really excited to see the
    innovation of Proterra and what you are doing, not only in the
    State of South Carolina. My understanding is that your location
    in Greenville is expanding, you are looking to hire employees,
    particularly during a really challenging time for many
    businesses and industries.
        In my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, we have 6
    electric buses, and our goal is to have 32 by the year 2022.
    And I learned today that it is not just Tesla that is creating
    batteries for electric vehicles and battery technology, but
    Proterra also is being very innovative. And I appreciate and
    commend your leadership and your company's leadership on that
    technology.
        Oftentimes the Government, when we are looking to be
    innovative, can inhibit innovation through heavy-handed
    regulation, and picking winners and losers through different
    types of programs or funding mechanisms. Are there some areas
    that you could talk to where the Government could potentially
    get out of the way, or where we might be holding up growth and
    development for the industry, going forward, so that we can
    create better next-gen technologies, and a need for batteries,
    for vehicles, buses, and the like?
        Mr. Allen. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. We have been
    in South Carolina--Greenville, specifically--since 2010. We
    love being there. We love our workforce. They are just
    incredibly dedicated, hard-working people. And I enjoy spending
    my time there as much as I can, also.
        And in addition, those are our buses, with our battery
    technology that you are experiencing in Charleston right now,
    so we are very proud of that also.
        In terms of how we can work with the Government, I would
    say from a manufacturing and development standpoint, the
    Government doesn't get in the way of what we are trying to do.
    We have a number of training programs in concert with
    Government agencies and local community colleges to get our
    people trained. And we are very proud of where that is.
        I think the biggest thing that could help to accelerate
    this industry, really, is on the demand side, as I have stated
    earlier, and have the Government help agencies begin the
    transformation. There are about 400 transit agencies in North
    America today, and I believe less than 200 of those have their
    first electric vehicle.
        So I think it would be great for the Government to continue
    to help agencies move towards electrification; and then again,
    to incentivize the domestic supply chain, and provide
    incentives through the ATVM program that would apply to our
    industry would be great; and then the third would be support
    fleet electrification. And primarily, this is on municipal
    fleets and schoolbus transformation to electrification. I think
    those three areas the Government supports today, and I think a
    continued focus there and an acceleration would be wonderful
    for our country. Thank you.
        Ms. Mace. Thank you. And my last questions--I only have
    about 1 minute left--really would go to anybody on the panel
    today.
        And learning more about electric vehicles across the board,
    obviously, there is the cart before the horse. To develop
    electric vehicles you have got to then have charging stations
    all around. And there seems to be some disparity in terms of
    what it costs, maybe, to put an electric charging station in a
    residence, like at somebody's home, in your driveway, or in
    your garage, versus maybe get a C store or a gas station or a
    restaurant, or some other commercial location. I don't know if
    there is anyone, with the few moments we have left, that could
    kind of talk to that a little bit for those who might be
    watching.
        Mr. Konar. Congresswoman Mace, if I may answer that, at
    least a little bit, there is a substantial difference between
    charging inside communities, as opposed to charging on the
    highway. When you have time, the cost of the charging stations,
    which are level 2 chargers, is not very much. But when you are
    looking to charge things in 20, 30, 40 minutes, then the cost
    and the infrastructure needs to expand substantially. It could
    be as much as 10-plus times when you are putting in these fast
    chargers.
        So that is just to give you a little bit of perspective.
    But we are happy to follow up with that later, if you wish.
        Ms. Mace. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        We believe that Ms. Giammona is back online, and could now
    answer Representative Mast's question.
        Ms. Giammona?
        Mr. Mast. I'm listening.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, I know. We are waiting, we were told when
    she was back online.
        Ms. Giammona. Thank you, can you hear me now?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
        That is all we ever get, though. She says that, and then it
    goes down.
        OK, sorry. We will try again in a minute.
        Ms. Giammona. OK, can you hear me now?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, we hear you say that every time, and then
    it goes away. So keep talking.
        Ms. Giammona. OK, all right. Well, thank you very much for
    the question.
        We believe that rates determined by commissions are really
    what are going to help the issue of affordability.
        We are collaborating with our commission in California,
    focusing on addressing affordability, overall. And
    specifically, we believe that EVs, coupled with time-of-use
    rates, present opportunities to bring down rates overall, by
    getting more throughput during times where there is excess
    capacity on the grid.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Brian, you have a little more time.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ma'am, if you could just expand a little bit on rates
    determined by a commission, are you looking at both price
    floors and price ceilings?
        As we are all probably familiar with what we see on
    electric bills for high-usage surcharges, is there going to be
    an increase in seeing that, that you are not necessarily
    accounting for if you have to now account for putting however
    many kilowatthours into charging multiple vehicles of a home?
        Just maybe elaborate a little bit on that for us. I would
    appreciate it.
        Ms. Giammona. Sure, thanks for the question.
        California is moving to time-of-use rates for all
    residential customers. We have had high-use rate charges. We
    are starting to level those out. But the combination of time-
    of-use rates, not just for your general residential customer,
    but also for businesses, as well as programmatically for EV
    charging, allow us to flatten out grid usage, allow us to
    flatten out consumption, and which, ultimately, will bring
    rates down overall in the State.
        Mr. Mast. And if I have 1 more second, let me just ask
    this, pointedly: Can we get to a U.S. average of $.08 per
    kilowatthour, $.06 per kilowatthour? Can you get us there?
        I know there are many out there that do electricity, but
    let's hear your opinion.
        Ms. Giammona. Well, you know, as you noted, in California
    we are much higher than that, but it would be our hope. Our
    focus, along with our State commissions and our regulators and
    our policymakers, is really focused on reducing rates overall
    in California.
        But, like we heard from the Congressman from South Dakota,
    rate structures are different, and fuel mix is different across
    the country. So I think it is really a State-by-State
    opportunity, if you will.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        Mr. Lamb?
        Conor?
        Mr. Auchincloss?
        Ms. Bourdeaux?
        Mr. DeSaulnier?
        OK, Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this very important hearing, and I want to thank the
    witnesses for sticking it out with us. It has been a long
    hearing with some interruptions, but we appreciate you all very
    much for your testimony.
        Mr. Lewis, in your written testimony you highlight the
    importance of incorporating equity into our climate and transit
    solutions. A solution to climate change is inextricably linked
    to the idea of transit. It is hard to separate the two, as
    lower income communities and communities of color seek
    environmental justice and transit justice.
        Like the disparities laid bare by the effects of COVID-19
    on health, death, and economic outcomes on people of color, the
    climate crisis disproportionately impacts people of color. What
    is your opinion on the issue of climate solutions being race
    conscious?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, I think, absolutely, there is a connection.
    It has been shown, whether it be COVID or it be other urban
    challenges, in particular, that there is a disparate impact on
    the more disadvantaged communities, which tend to be populated
    by people of color. These are also communities that tend to
    have more industrialization around them, happen to be usually
    more in the flood-prone areas, closer to the waterfronts and
    coastal.
        So there are several factors that all work against these
    highly vulnerable communities. And so that is why, when I
    talked in my testimony about meeting these communities where
    they are, you need to understand what they are dealing with,
    their physical issues, their environmental issues, their social
    issues. You need to reckon with the past that they have had to
    deal with, their realities, before you can get their buy-in on
    the solutions, whether they be transit solutions or they be
    other solutions, like distributed energy, solar in their
    neighborhoods, things like that, so that you can understand how
    they are viewing things, and then work their ideas and their
    perspectives into your solutions.
        But transit is a great example, especially in urban
    environments, of a way you can do that and get better mobility
    for these communities, which gives them more opportunity, gives
    them more access to jobs, and is a virtuous cycle.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        Ms. Giammona, in your testimony you discuss the integration
    of climate science into your company's practices and functions.
    Please elaborate on how PG&E is responding to the climate
    crisis.
        Ms. Giammona?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I tell you, let me--OK, go
    ahead, Ms. Giammona.
        Well, let me move to Mr. Santana.
        Mr. Santana, last week the Railroads, Pipelines, and
    Hazardous Materials Subcommittee discussed the climate
    solutions that a robust freight rail network presents to us.
    What commitments are your companies making to ensure that
    worker protections are central to climate goals?
        Mr. Santana. Sir, we are very committed. We invest about
    $200 million every year to solutions that are very much focused
    along the lines of fuel efficiency and carbon reduction.
        In addition to that, we look at ways to drive more
    utilization of rail, as this is the most sustainable way of
    moving freight along the way. And when we think about the
    Freight 2030 vision, this will greatly enable growth in rail,
    and that would help with all the goals you just mentioned.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes, there are many energy sector
    jobs that are not considered worker-friendly, and that is the
    reason why I asked you that question. Any particular thing that
    your companies are doing to create worker protections that are
    in keeping with other industries?
        Mr. Santana. Absolutely. And last year we issued our
    sustainability report, as a company, where we make a commitment
    directly to reduce emissions ourselves, reduce water usage, but
    at the same time a commitment to make sure that we are helping
    the communities that we operate in, and really offering jobs
    and opportunities here, whether it is for minorities, people of
    color, and female representation. This is very much part of the
    framework we have, and we have specific goals that we are
    committed to meet.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, and my time is expired,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. It is not coming on, Mr. Chair. Oh, I guess
    it is. The light is not working.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for
    your testimonies today.
        Mr. Smith mentioned FedEx's investment in the Yale Center
    for Natural Carbon Capture, which partners with the Yale School
    of the Environment, where I attended long ago. From the front
    page of the center's website, it states that ``emissions
    reductions are crucial, but alone are not enough.''
        I couldn't agree more, and that is why I have proposed
    proactive natural solutions like the Trillion Trees Act that
    would restore our forest, promote reforestation, promote
    innovation, and promote market-based solutions for wood
    products.
        Mass timber construction is a relatively new innovation
    that has many environmental benefits, and benefits for rural
    economies. In my home State of Arkansas, the University of
    Arkansas has constructed the country's largest mass timber
    project, with two five-story dormitories. That project is soon
    to be dwarfed by Walmart's new 15,000-employee corporate
    headquarters that will also be constructed with mass timbers.
        Now, Yale School of the Environment researchers recently
    published a paper in the journal Nature Sustainability titled,
    ``Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,'' and I ask unanimous
    consent to submit that to the record, Mr. Chairman.
        [No audible verbal response.]
        [The information follows:]

       Article entitled, ``Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,'' by Alan
    Organschi and Galina Churkina, Scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate
    Impact Research, Springer Nature Sustainability Community, February 5,
             2020, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Bruce Westerman
                       Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink
    by Alan Organschi and Galina Churkina, scientist, Potsdam Institute for
    Climate Impact Research

    Springer Nature Sustainability Community, February 5, 2020
    https://sustainabilitycommunity.springernature.com/posts/59221-
    buildings-as-a-global-carbon-sink

        For decades, as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and
    corresponding atmospheric carbon concentrations have risen at an
    alarming rate, scientists have investigated the capacity of forests,
    soils, and oceans to act as carbon sinks, vast ecological systems that
    might absorb, store, and offset the enormous release of carbon dioxide
    associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. Some scientists have
    raised concerns about the future durability of such natural carbon
    sinks given that climate change itself has caused such significant
    disturbance to those ecosystems.
        The creation of human-made carbon sinks has only recently emerged
    as a potential supplement to natural carbon uptake and storage domains.
    Although there have been technological proposals and experiments in the
    field of carbon capture--giant machines designed to draw CO2 from the
    atmosphere--costs for both the hardware and the durable disposal of the
    solidified carbon that results from these processes remain
    prohibitively high relative to the current market value of carbon
    offsets.
        The growth and urbanization of global populations anticipated over
    the next several decades will create an enormous demand for buildings
    and infrastructure. As cities expand in size and density, the
    manufacturing of materials required for constructing mid and high-rise
    urban buildings will create a significant spike in greenhouse gas
    emissions, a discharge that takes place at the beginning of each
    building life cycle. This production stage carbon debt could take
    precious decades to offset through operational energy efficiencies
    alone.
        Steel and reinforced concrete, the conventional structural
    materials of the mid- and high-rise cityscape have high production
    stage emissions and little or no capacity to store carbon. Their
    inherent advantages of strength and stiffness come at a significant
    environmental cost. New and emerging material technologies and building
    assemblies in engineered timber combine significant structural
    performance with carbon storage capacity and have been adopted by
    various national building codes. These adaptations have enabled so-
    called ``mass timber'' to challenge the dominance of mineral based
    structural materials in the construction of larger and taller urban
    buildings.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Construction of Brock Commons student residence using massive timber in
      Vancouver, Canada. Foto credit: naturallywood.com. Photographer: KK
                                      Law.

        A small international and interdisciplinary team of architects,
    forest and industrial ecologists, social scientists and climate change
    researchers gathered to consider the possibility of exploiting an
    anticipated global building boom as a means to mitigate rather than
    exacerbate climate change. Could the use of bio-based, carbon-storing
    materials such as timber, bamboo, and other forms of plant cellulose to
    construct dense urban building landscapes serve as a technique to
    offset most of the production stage emissions produced by the
    extraction and manufacture of building components? Could the very
    material that gives form and structure to those new cityscapes, which
    we will have to build for 2.3 billion people by 2050, also act as a
    storage bank for photosynthesized carbon? How much wood would the world
    need to harvest to meet that demand and what would be the impact to the
    health of forest ecosystems around the world?
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Construction of ARBORA complex with 435 residential units using massive
          timber in Montreal, Canada. Foto credit: Nordic Structures.

        As a consensus among the authors grew, they focused on concerns
    about the feasibility of sustainable forest harvest at the global scale
    and weighed a variety of potential mechanisms for the transfer of woody
    plant material into urban building structures; no options were ignored.
    (One scientist suggested that building log houses with very low
    manufacturing CO2 emissions might serve to produce the fewest impacts
    and the greatest material efficiencies, a proposition quickly vetoed by
    the architects who argued that log-building would fail to meet both the
    performance requirements and the construction practicalities of
    contemporary mid-rise urban building, not to mention that it was
    unlikely to have cultural appeal for today's city dwellers.) Debates
    ebbed and flowed. After months of robust conversation and the exchange
    of dozens of drafts, the team arrived at the design of a study that
    would assess--succinctly but as comprehensively as possible within the
    limits of a single technical paper--the relative potential of major
    structural materials to either accelerate or mitigate climate change,
    an approach described in a newly published Nature Sustainability
    ``Perspective''.
        The broad-based substitution of engineered timber for steel and
    concrete in mid-rise urban building offers the opportunity to transform
    cityscapes from their current status as net sources of greenhouse gas
    emissions into large scale, human-made carbon sinks. The sheer volume
    of urban buildings projected for the remainder of the first half of the
    21st century suggests that such a scenario could become a powerful tool
    to mitigate climate change. Construction of timber buildings for more
    than two billion new urban dwellers from 2020 to 2050 could store 0.01-
    0.68 GtC per year depending on the scenario and the average floor area
    per capita. Over a period of thirty years, wood-based construction can
    accumulate 0.25-20 GtC and reduce cumulative emissions of carbon from 4
    (7-20) GtC to 2 (0.3-10) GtC.
        Such a transition to bio-based building materials, implemented
    through the adoption of engineered structural timber products and
    assemblies by the urban building sector, will succeed as a climate
    mitigation strategy only under two conditions. First, designated
    ``working'' forests must be managed and harvested sustainably using
    techniques appropriate to each forest at the stand level in order to
    avoid scenarios of forest degradation and soil depletion. Second, the
    wood from existing and future buildings (the latter specifically
    designed for ease of disassembly) must be recovered and reused as a raw
    material resource for consumer product manufacture or the next
    generation of buildings. In this way, the city and the forest,
    historically antagonistic landscapes, may begin to work in synergy to
    help stabilize a climate in crisis.

        Article entitled, ``Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,'' by G.
     Churkina, A. Organschi, C.P.O. Reyer, et al., Nature Sustainability,
      Vol. 3, April 2020, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Bruce Westerman
    [An abstract of the article appears below. The article is retained in
    committee files.]

    Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C.P.O. et al. Buildings as a global
    carbon sink. Nat Sustain 3, 269-276 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/
    s41893-019-0462-4

        Abstract--The anticipated growth and urbanization of the global
    population over the next several decades will create a vast demand for
    the construction of new housing, commercial buildings and accompanying
    infrastructure. The production of cement, steel and other building
    materials associated with this wave of construction will become a major
    source of greenhouse gas emissions. Might it be possible to transform
    this potential threat to the global climate system into a powerful
    means to mitigate climate change? To answer this provocative question,
    we explore the potential of mid-rise urban buildings designed with
    engineered timber to provide long-term storage of carbon and to avoid
    the carbon-intensive production of mineral-based construction
    materials.

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
        We know that forests are the largest scale, most efficient
    system to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, and wood products
    like we see here on this dais are 40 to 50 percent, by weight,
    stored carbon. Except for in some Western States, where we are
    burning up forests faster than we are growing them, U.S.
    forests are continuing to add carbon storage volume each year.
        From the Yale study, the authors stated that mass timber
    construction has the potential to create a vast bank vault that
    could store up to 68 million tons of carbon, annually. They
    added that a city using mass timber construction will become a
    carbon sink versus a carbon source. They also concluded the
    overwhelming climate benefit of mass timber is something that
    every city planner should consider.
        Mr. Rudd, I know your company is a large, global company.
    And I have seen on your website that you have done some work
    with mass timber. I have two questions.
        The first one is what are the barriers for more mass timber
    construction in buildings?
        Mr. Rudd. Thank you for the question.
        First of all, most of the projects that we are involved
    with obviously are driven by the desires and the economic
    benefits to our customers and to our clients.
        And so, first of all, today, when we look at the--again, I
    am repeating this--the models that are used to evaluate these
    types of projects is focused on cost. It is not focused on
    elements beyond simply the cost of the project. So, for
    example, like promoting the investment in timber construction,
    which effectively is creating a carbon sink, promoting
    decarbonization of our environments.
        So, again, my suggestion again is, when we look at these
    types of projects, some encouragement in terms of the
    legislation to promote thinking beyond just simply the lowest
    cost model of construction would allow us to move in the
    direction of promoting timber construction, large timber
    construction, and promoting the creation and investment in
    carbon sinks.
        Mr. Westerman. Are you facing any regulations or building
    codes that prohibit using mass timber construction?
        Mr. Rudd. I will have to have somebody research that, and
    get back to you with the answer. I don't know the answer to
    that question.
        Mr. Westerman. The U.S. Forest Service lab has also done
    studies that show that using mass timbers in bridge
    construction can produce structures that last up to 50 years.
    What do you think about engineering firms, architecture firms
    using mass timber in rural bridge construction?
        Mr. Rudd. Well, again, when we look at our projects around
    the world, we see a combination of mass timber construction,
    steel bridge construction, and concrete bridge construction. As
    far as I can tell, there is no regulation that is preventing
    the adoption of it. I think we have to change that direction,
    and look at not mandates, but look at ways of encouraging use
    towards mass timber construction.
        Mr. Westerman. And with what little time I have got, Mr.
    Chairman, I would just add a plug that we have got to produce
    more of our rare earth minerals here, in the United States, to
    fuel our green economy. And I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Stanton?
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Under your
    leadership, this committee will soon take up a transformative
    infrastructure investment bill. I can't wait. And it is so
    important that we make the case that this hearing is making,
    that when we make that investment, not only will it do right by
    the American economy, and job creation, and pay for itself many
    times over, but it is also going to help, when we do it right,
    reestablish American leadership on the issue of climate change.
    So thank you for hosting this important hearing.
        I know that, as a former mayor of one of the largest cities
    in America, that when we made smart investments in fighting
    climate change and climate adaptation, it helped the city's
    bottom line. It certainly helped when the various credit rating
    agencies, the bond agencies, would rate the city of Phoenix,
    which had the highest bond rating of any of the largest cities
    in America. The fact that we made smart investments to fight
    climate change at the municipal level was an advantage.
        Arizona, of course, is getting hit harder, as hard or even
    harder than almost any other State in the country, with extreme
    heat and the drought conditions that we are facing, as well as
    forest fires. So these investments are important, and they are
    very real to our community.
        On the private-sector side, by the way, corporations,
    publicly traded corporations, are being judged whether or not
    they are making the right investments in their future in
    fighting climate change. So at the global level, at the
    national level, at the State level, on the private level, this
    is really good for business.
        Mr. Allen, my question is for you. Your testimony states
    that the Federal surface transportation policy supporting the
    development of alternative fuel technologies and investments in
    zero-emission vehicles can help ensure the United States
    becomes the global leader that it should be in research,
    development, and manufacturing of electric vehicles. I want you
    to elaborate a little bit more on that. And what can this
    committee, this important committee, do to help ensure that the
    U.S. competitiveness stays in the global electric vehicle
    market?
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir, for the question. I think the
    biggest area that this committee can help with, and the biggest
    thing that we can do in the United States is support domestic
    supply chain.
        Today, the cells that all of us use come from a foreign
    country. Many of them are from China, Korea, Japan. There is no
    reason, with the increasing demand in the United States, that
    we can't have cell manufacturing here in the United States, and
    in partnership with the companies that are currently making
    them. This will help mining in North America. This will reduce
    supply chain costs, overall cost. It will create phenomenal
    manufacturing jobs in the United States. So I encourage this
    committee, through both incentives and Buy America
    requirements, to move forward and help the supply chain make
    these investments in North America.
        As the gentleman from Pilot Flying J has said, it is very
    difficult for companies to do this because of a little bit of
    the chicken and the egg. So to have Government get out ahead,
    and help these companies when volumes are low to be able to
    provide the opportunity to scale up, is really an important
    factor that I think can be a great public-private partnership,
    going forward.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much for that answer.
        Mr. Chair, I have some additional questions. I will submit
    them for the record in the interest of time, and I will yield
    back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Lamb?
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you----
        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Lamb [continuing]. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. What?
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I----
        Mr. DeFazio. Sorry, wait a minute, wait a minute. It was a
    Republican turn.
        Mr. Guest?
        Sorry.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all of our
    distinguished panel, I want to thank you for being with us
    today. I want to start off.
        Mr. Hernick, in reading your testimony that you provided to
    the committee, on page 2 you talk about ``Congress will need to
    reduce or eliminate barriers to infrastructure development. It
    should take 2 years, not 10 years, to permit infrastructure
    projects. Redtape is not the price of good Government; it is
    the enemy of good Government. America could modernize its
    infrastructure, reduce costs, while dramatically enhancing
    environmental benefits, with a 2-year approval process for
    large construction projects.''
        You go on to say that polling shows a significant
    percentage, roughly 73 percent, support streamlining and
    reforming Government regulations. I know that this is something
    that I hear about routinely when I am back home in the
    district, meeting with governmental officials. And I would just
    ask you if you could please just expand on that for just a few
    moments.
        Mr. Hernick. Yes, absolutely, Congressman, I appreciate the
    opportunity to go into a little more detail.
        The truth is that what Americans want from their Government
    is responsiveness. They are interested in seeing private-sector
    solutions to meet their needs on a daily basis. And there is a
    role for Government to safeguard the environment, safeguard the
    people working on projects, and to safeguard national monuments
    and the things that make this country great.
        But really, Americans are looking for a firm thumbs up or
    thumbs down on whether or not a project or a business can
    proceed at pace. And when we are talking about creating jobs,
    when we are talking about the economic transformation and
    benefits that we are going to see from moving to a cleaner and
    cleaner grid, and moving to a cleaner and cleaner national
    transportation infrastructure, we want to make sure that that
    can be done on a timely basis.
        And I think that the FAST-41--the FAST Act--demonstrated
    that these types of projects can be done upholding all of the
    social and environmental safeguards that we need, that if we
    hold Government bureaucrats accountable to a timeline, the same
    way that the private sector is, the same way that I am, as an
    employee, and that if we hold Government to those same
    standards, Government can perform on a timeline. And I think
    that is not too much to ask.
        Mr. Guest. And you go on on page 8, and you talk about the
    fact that there is another cost-efficient way to significantly
    reduce emissions in the vehicle fleet. And you talk about
    switching to low-emission fuel, such as natural gas or propane.
    And I have also had the opportunity, when I am home in the
    district visiting some of my propane suppliers, to talk about
    or to hear about the benefits of propane vehicles, whether it
    be automobiles, forklifts, riding lawn mowers--normally
    vehicles which would burn either gas or diesel--being converted
    to natural gas or propane.
        You talked about cost savings, emission reduction, and
    energy security. Again, could you just expand on that very
    briefly, about the benefits of vehicles which would use natural
    gas or propane, instead of gasoline or diesel?
        Mr. Hernick. Absolutely. The bottom line, Congressman, is
    that we need an all-of-the-above approach.
        Mr. Allen spoke about the price point for electric
    schoolbuses being there now. But there is still an upfront
    cost. And some school districts, some municipalities just don't
    have the cash on hand, especially in these tough economic
    times, to make those kinds of investments.
        It is going to be more appropriate to switch to propane in
    some cases. And, you know, for moms and kids and dads standing
    at the bus stop, those types of air quality emissions benefits
    that we can see within the next year or two, well, that matters
    a lot more than waiting for a complete transition to electric
    vehicles. And that is not to say that electric vehicles aren't
    a part of the future, they certainly are. But I think that what
    we want is, from Government, an all-of-the-above approach to be
    able to allow States and municipalities to utilize the most
    locally appropriate approach.
        Mr. Guest. And would you agree that we currently have the
    technology, the ability on many of our vehicles to go ahead and
    transition them over right now to propane or natural gas?
        Mr. Hernick. It is happening right now. I live in Maryland,
    and it is one where Governor Hogan has taken the issue very
    seriously. He wants to reduce emissions. And so it has been
    great to see his administration be able to make those switches,
    and make that investment. They are improving air quality and
    reducing emissions in a very cost-effective way, and I think
    that is something that the Federal Government can look at, too.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Lamb?
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start out by
    just emphasizing the great local support that Wabtec's Freight
    2030 vision has already obtained in Pittsburgh.
        And if I could ask unanimous consent to insert two letters
    into the record from the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce
    and the Allegheny County Executive regarding the Freight 2030
    vision.
        Mr. DeFazio. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

         Letter of March 17, 2021, from Matt Smith, President, Greater
    Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Conor
                                      Lamb
                                                        March 17, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 2134 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 1135 Longworth House Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chair DeFazio and Congressman Graves:
        On behalf of the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, the
    advocacy affiliate of the Allegheny Conference on Community
    Development, I write to express our support for the public-private
    partnership proposed by Wabtec Corporation, Genesee & Wyoming, and
    Carnegie Mellon University to establish a Freight Rail Innovation
    Institute. This partnership presents a unique opportunity to positively
    impact our environment, improve the economic future of the Pittsburgh
    region while also increasing the competitiveness of the nation's
    infrastructure by providing the equipment and technology to move
    freight more efficiently, effectively, and cleanly.
        The Pittsburgh region is an established testbed and proving ground
    for world shaping technologies and innovations like the ones that this
    partnership is designed to yield. The region's world-class educational
    institutions, including two Tier 1 universities that anchor a robust
    innovation ecosystem, coupled with a long history of effective public-
    private collaboration, make it exceptionally positioned to serve as
    home to this institute.
        Furthermore, this project is consistent with the sustainability
    principles adopted unanimously by the Allegheny Conference's Board of
    Directors in January 2019. These principles guide the Conference's work
    as it seeks to balance a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The
    proposed Freight Rail Innovation Institute aligns with these principles
    given its efforts to expand the use of rail freight, accelerate the
    reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions, extend the life of our
    roadway networks, and make transportation safer for the benefit of all
    our communities.
        We recognize and welcome investments in sustainable energy and the
    efforts to achieve a low carbon future. Achieving this objective will
    require unwavering commitment to and investment in research and
    development initiatives; the proposed Freight Rail Innovation Institute
    will catalyze these efforts.
        With freight volumes forecasted to grow approximately 30 percent
    from 2018 to 2040 according to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
    the proposed institute possesses a unique opportunity to drive a more
    sustainable future that also increases economic growth. With over
    140,000 miles of track across the U.S. freight network, investment in
    the future of rail benefits the entire country and invests in the
    network that moves our goods to market and makes modern life possible.
    Investment in this private-public partnership will accelerate the
    commercialization of technologies dedicated to sustainable energy,
    autonomous deployments, and advanced network logistics, and strengthen
    the ecosystem of rail supply companies and contractors that employ
    thousands of well-paying freight-related careers. Support of the vision
    championed by Wabtec Corporation, Genesee & Wyoming, and Carnegie
    Mellon University will take this vision to a reality from which we can
    all benefit.
        Pittsburgh is an innovative hub for tangible outcomes changing the
    world. As such, we feel there is no better place for this Institute to
    thrive. I urge your strong consideration and support of the Freight
    2030 vision and investment in our shared economic future. Please feel
    free to contact me with any questions or if you need further
    information.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Matt Smith,
                     President, Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce.

       Letter of March 16, 2021, from Rich Fitzgerald, County Executive,
       Allegheny County, PA, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Conor Lamb
                                                        March 16, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chair,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 2134 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 1135 Longworth House Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Chair DeFazio and Congressman Graves:
        I write today to convey my support for the public-private
    partnership being proposed by Wabtec Corporation, Genesee & Wyoming,
    and Carnegie Mellon University to create a Freight Rail Innovation
    Institute. This initiative will assist in Congressional goals of
    building a clean energy economy and creating jobs while also curbing
    the effects of climate change. Its location in the Pittsburgh region
    would also allow for all parties involved to take advantage of the
    education and research occurring here.
        Our region is not the Pittsburgh of 30 years ago, but it is a
    community that welcomes, embraces and invests in green energy and
    sustainability. We also recognize that there is a bridge that moves all
    of us from reliance on fossil fuels to sustainable energy. That shift
    in our energy requires investment and commitment, as well as a vision,
    that is clearly evident in the proposed Freight Rail Innovation
    Institute. Efforts to expand the use of freight rail, accelerate the
    reduction of national GHG emissions, reduce road congestion, and make
    transportation safer is a benefit for all of our communities.
        As you are likely aware, this region has a long relationship with
    rail and has continued to invest in its development and expansion. With
    over 140,000 miles of track across the U.S. freight network, investment
    in the future of rail benefits the entire country. A single freight
    train can move a ton of freight 472 miles on one gallon of fuel. Rail
    moves 40% of freight and accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GHG
    emissions. Imagine the our domestic policy. With investment in this
    partnership, technology research moves forward more quickly with a
    vision and there are dedicated efforts to focus on best practices as it
    relates to green energy and advanced network logistics. Support of this
    effort takes this vision to a reality from which we can all benefit.
        I urge your strong consideration and support of the Freight 2030
    vision and investment in the future of freight. I stand ready to answer
    any questions you may have of me, or to provide additional information
    as needed.
            Sincerely,
                                               Rich Fitzgerald,
                                County Executive, Allegheny County, PA.

        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This vision really
    builds on what, in western Pennsylvania, has been a successful
    model of collaboration between our universities--in particular,
    Carnegie Mellon--and these great heritage companies that we
    have, like Wabtec, which is related to the original
    Westinghouse set of endeavors, that has given us things over
    the years like nuclear energy, and a number of defense
    technologies, and important technologies for freight rail. And
    this is really the next generation.
        And so, Mr. Santana, I'm hoping that you are still on here
    remotely, I was hoping that you could go into a little bit more
    detail for the committee about the sort of public-private
    balance of the project that you guys are proposing here. Our
    understanding is you already have a locomotive running on a
    battery, essentially, out in some very harsh terrain out in
    California. But there are further leaps that need to be made,
    further scientifically--in particular, bringing hydrogen into
    the equation, and all of the manufacturing and engineering that
    would go into actually making those fuel cells for the future.
        If you could, talk a little bit about how that demand for
    further research and knowledge would be met in a mix of
    investment by your company privately, a university like
    Carnegie Mellon, and the Federal Government, as well.
        Mr. Santana. Representative Lamb, we are seeking your
    approval for this public-private partnership, so we can really
    bring and start working with the Department of Energy, the
    Department of Transportation, and making sure that we
    ultimately are really executing on the vision we laid out,
    which starts with decarbonization.
        There is significant steps here that would evolve with the
    next generation of battery-electric locomotives. But getting to
    fuel cells and getting to hydrogen, it is a roadmap that
    provides, I think, critical milestones to continue to
    decarbonize solutions for rail at the same time it de-risks as
    we go there.
        On the other front, we have the opportunity here to
    increase rail utilization. This partnership with CMU, we bring
    the best of the country, and certainly the best of Pittsburgh,
    when it comes to both artificial intelligence and robotics.
    This is about, really, creating more efficiency as you move
    things from point A to point B, which ultimately translates to
    more competitive logistics for the country. And it comes down
    to creating standards. It comes down to really connecting a
    multitude of stakeholders to this process.
        And so----
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you and I think the competitiveness----
        Mr. Santana [continuing]. Down the----
        Mr. Lamb. If I could, yes, just get in before we run out of
    time, I think the competitiveness point is a key one, because
    we are not the only ones in the world who are interested in
    improving our freight and logistics.
        And we certainly are not the only ones in the world who are
    interested in hydrogen. Europe and China have both already
    openly published national hydrogen strategies. This is a new
    technology that they intend to dominate and not allow the
    United States to be the world leader in the way that we were
    world leaders in oil exploration, and natural gas exploration,
    and nuclear energy, and all the rest.
        And so, for those considering what is the role of public
    investment in public and private partnerships like this, one
    important role is simply to win the race, to speed up the pace
    of our development and advancements, because we are going
    against state-backed enterprises from China, and similar
    dynamics from the EU, as well.
        So I think your proposal is a great one. I hope that the
    committee can continue to work with Wabtec and CMU, and all of
    those interested in this, not just for the good of western
    Pennsylvania, which is very close to my heart, but I think it
    is part of our overall national transportation and
    competitiveness strategy.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick?
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
    two questions for Mr. Henrick.
        And I will ask both of them, and I will allow you to
    respond.
        The Federal Government just spent close to $7 trillion over
    the last year in response to the pandemic. My first question
    is, how do you think Congress should pay for the country's
    much-needed infrastructure, going forward, what revenue
    mechanism?
        And second, you had mentioned FAST-41 in your opening
    testimony. It is viewed as a tremendously successful model for
    ensuring infrastructure projects stay on track. So I was just
    wondering, secondarily, if you could outline some of the
    successes from this program, and explain why you think this
    bipartisan initiative should be extended.
        Mr. Hernick. Well, thank you for your questions,
    Congressman Fitzpatrick.
        There has been a lot of stimulus, and a lot of money that
    Congress has passed just recently. I do want to underscore that
    $34 billion of that was for clean energy, as a part of the
    Energy Act of 2020. And I do want to thank, again, the Members
    who voted in a bipartisan manner to support that Energy Act of
    2020. It included very important price signals for the market
    in terms of tax incentives, and also included important updates
    for the Department of Energy, in particular, to be able to get
    us to that next generation of clean energy.
        I think that is important to underline, that we have
    already done a lot, and I think it is important to see how that
    affects the economy. I mentioned earlier that I have four
    daughters. In terms of how to pay, I would rather that we
    figure out how the folks on this screen here can pay for any
    additional spending on transportation and infrastructure, and
    not those girls. I think it is important to be able to look at
    a balanced budget approach, and make sure that we are not
    overdoing it. There is a lot of stimulus in the pipeline.
        There is no shortage of private-sector capital that is
    aimed at clean energy. Very specifically, some of the biggest
    investors on Wall Street have climate considerations that they
    are putting in on a voluntary basis to help guide their funding
    towards clean energy. So if you have got a clean energy
    project, and it can pencil out, you have got an investor. There
    is no question about that.
        In terms of FAST-41, I think that it is also important to
    note that there are the types of projects that we need to make
    this transition to a clean transportation and a clean energy
    future in there: wind power on public land, and then a couple
    of different transmission lines that are going to be needed to
    assure that we have the reliability built into our grid to
    diversify, maintain an all-of-the-above approach to generating
    power, and then ensure that folks can keep the lights on, no
    matter what Mother Nature brings or has in store for us.
        So there is a major opportunity to reauthorize FAST-41.
    That is kind of a first step, in my mind. I think that looking
    to One Federal Decision and codifying that, as well, would be a
    second and also a beneficial step.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Henrick, and thank you to
    your organization for being very objective, very policy
    focused, working in a bipartisan manner. There is a huge need
    out there. You guys do a really good job in working with
    Democrats and Republicans to advance responsible solutions. So
    I thank you for that, sir.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hernick. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        Mr. Garcia?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. DeFazio. What? All right.
        Well, I want to thank our witnesses for hanging in through
    a long hearing. I appreciate all your contributions to this
    topic, and you have proved to be a valuable resource.
        So, since there are no further questions from the
    committee, I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
    hearing remain open until such a time as our witnesses have
    provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
    in writing.
        I also ask unanimous consent the record remain open for 15
    days for any additional comments and information submitted by
    Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
    hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                          Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
                        Congress from the State of Texas
        Mr. Chairman, the work of the Full Committee on climate change and
    our ability to impact change is critical to the health and wellbeing of
    people in our country. Climate impacts everyone and everything. The
    transportation industry is one of the largest contributors to
    greenhouse gas emissions because of the number of trucks and cars on
    the road.
        This hearing, focusing on the business case for climate solutions,
    gives us the opportunity to understand how private sector innovation,
    along with meaningful government investments, will help the U.S. become
    a leader in the clean energy economy. We cannot allow this industry to
    be dominated by foreign companies. We must bring these jobs home.
        President Biden's goal of adding 500,000 EV charging stations over
    the next decade requires a strong partnership between the federal
    government and the private sector. I would like to see American
    companies building and maintaining the clean energy sector in the
    United States. We must be self-reliant and build resilient and
    affordable clean energy solutions. There is no doubt that expanding the
    electric vehicle industry will provide more well paid jobs here in the
    U.S. I understand that in California, electric vehicles provided over
    275,600 jobs with an average annual wage of $91,300 in 2018.
        According to the Dallas-Fort Worth Clean Cities, direct jobs are
    created through increased production by firms that make plug-in
    electric vehicles (PEVs), PEV components, and PEV infrastructure.
    Indirect jobs are those tied to firms that supply to these direct
    producers. Further, higher employment in direct and indirect jobs leads
    to more spending in the broader economy. These create induced jobs in
    industries like food, clothing, and entertainment.
        According to Plug in America, the increased use of domestic
    electricity in the transportation sector promotes national security by
    reducing our dependence on imported oil. These vehicles keep the U.S.
    competitive with China and the European Union, which are both moving
    aggressively towards full deployment of the vehicles and nationwide
    charging systems. There are currently over 19,281 PEVs on Texas roads
    today, with the market ready to expand as new vehicle makes and models
    become available in Texas. These vehicles are a win-win for Texas and
    consumers want more of them.
        In the public transportation sector, research shows that in 2019,
    over 9.9 billion trips were taken by Americans on public
    transportation. Over 71% of those public transit riders are employed.
    Public transit takes people to work and back home and it leads the way
    to a cleaner climate and thus healthier lives for everyone.
        It is my hope that the fuel operators and the electric vehicle
    charging network will be able to work together to establish a safe,
    affordable and reliable network to keep our country moving forward. I
    look forward to the testimony of each of the witnesses today. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.

     Letter of March 17, 2021, from Cathy Bennett, Sr. Vice President for
        Public Policy, Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce et al.,
               Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
                                                        March 17, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chair,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2134 Rayburn House
            Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 1135 Longworth House
            Office Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chair DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
        Our business organizations urge your committee to update the
    federal transportation program to measure success by access to
    destinations--not vehicle speed--to support public transit, connected
    communities, businesses, and our climate.
        Communities with strong transit, walking, and bike access to jobs
    and services produce lower greenhouse gas emissions, while also serving
    as great environments for vibrant economic activity and more equitable
    opportunity. Yet the federal transportation program does not support
    the development of these communities.
        Instead, the federal transportation program increases vehicle miles
    traveled--and thus greenhouse gas emissions--by design, solidifying
    transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the
    United States. This is because for decades, the federal program has
    used vehicle speed as a flawed proxy to measure how well people can
    access jobs and services like healthcare, education, and grocery
    stores.
        As a result, our states and communities have built more roads and
    spread out destinations, often requiring longer car trips while making
    walking, bicycling, and accessing public transit stations unsafe,
    unpleasant, or impossible. This has put the United States on a path of
    endlessly-increasing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas
    emissions. It has also made our communities less convenient and limited
    economic growth by increasing costs and travel times for
    transportation.
        Fortunately, technology exists to measure success by what actually
    matters to Americans and our businesses: the ease of arriving at your
    destination--not vehicle speed. Instead of prioritizing investments in
    road widenings and expansions that fail to improve access to jobs and
    services and increase our carbon emissions, we can invest in the most
    impactful and cost efficient infrastructure, which may be highways,
    public transit, passenger rail, or safe pedestrian and cyclist
    infrastructure. Providing more transportation choices and more
    connected communities creates more opportunities for business while
    also reducing emissions from transportation.
        To do this, the federal transportation program should require the
    U.S. Department of Transportation to determine how well the
    transportation system connects people to jobs and services, and
    prioritize projects that will improve those connections. USDOT must
    collect the data necessary to develop a national assessment of access
    to jobs and services and set national goals for improvement. With this
    data, state departments of transportation and planning organizations
    can ensure that federal investments effectively connect people to
    economic opportunity. Funding should go to projects that will improve
    these connections, regardless of mode. State departments of
    transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
    should be held accountable by evaluating how well their investments
    help connect people to destinations.
        We are tired of spending over $40 billion in federal tax dollars on
    transportation every year that fails to bring us the connected,
    transit, biking and walking friendly neighborhoods that businesses and
    customers desire. We urge your committee to align transportation
    funding with the outcomes our businesses need: getting people to jobs
    and services sustainably, equitably, affordably, and conveniently--by
    any mode. This approach will benefit the bottom line and the climate.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Cathy Bennett,
           Sr. Vice President for Public Policy, Greater KC Chamber of
                                                              Commerce,
                                                       Kansas City, MO.
                                                   Mark Fisher,
                  Chief Policy Officer, Indy Chamber, Indianapolis, IN.
                                               Nicholas Glover,
                Vice President, Advocacy, Tampa Bay Chamber, Tampa, FL.
                                                  Chip Hallock,
     President & CEO, Newark Regional Business Partnership, Newark, NJ.
                                                  Ashley Henry,
      Executive Director, Business for a Better Portland, Portland, OR.
                                                       Paul Oh,
      Manager, Public Policy, Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce, Duluth, GA.
                                              William Schroeer,
                 Executive Director, East Metro Strong, Saint Paul, MN.
                                                    Ann Silver,
     Chief Executive Officer, Reno + Sparks Chamber of Commerce, Reno,
                                                                    AZ.
                                            Jonathan Weinhagen,
            President & CEO, Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce,
                                                       Minneapolis, MN.

     Statement of the Carnegie Mellon University, Submitted for the Record
                            by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
                                  Introduction
        Carnegie Mellon University commends Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
    Member Graves and the Members of the Committee for pursuing an
    aggressive hearing agenda at the start of the 117th Congress to examine
    the critical challenges facing the United States--from economic
    recovery to climate change, environmental equity, global
    competitiveness, and optimizing US supply chain and manufacturing, and
    how central investments in the transportation sector are to addressing
    them.
        In particular, we are pleased to submit the following statement for
    the record following the Committee's March 17, 2021 hearing on the
    Business Case for Climate Solutions, which examined the potential of US
    industry, including the rail industry, to mitigate climate change. This
    hearing highlighted the role that a bold agenda for the decarbonization
    of freight rail can play in achieving climate objectives, strengthening
    U.S. manufacturing and enabling a more robust and resilient
    manufacturing supply chain.
      Freight 2030--Ensuring U.S. Leadership in Clean Energy Rail Freight
                     Technologies and Improving Rail Safety
        As Mr. Rafael Santana, President and CEO of Wabtec testified at the
    hearing, Freight 2030 is a bold plan to accelerate the development of
    near zero emissions freight rail. Developed in collaboration with
    Carnegie Mellon and Genesee and Wyoming Railroad, Freight 2030 offers a
    vision to ensure that the U.S. wins the race for global leadership in
    Zero Emission rail. It is an industry-driven strategy to rapidly
    combine breakthrough research with applied development, prototyping and
    scalable commercialization. It also requires a creative and
    comprehensive workforce strategy to support training and education for
    workers across the transportation and manufacturing industries.
        The goals of this initiative are ambitious and transformative: To
    transition the freight rail system to zero or near-zero-emission
    battery and hydrogen hybrid locomotives, with a target reduction of 120
    million metric tons of CO2 per year in the US; enable a 50% reduction
    in safety incidents through intelligent systems and sensing; enable a
    50% increase in freight rail utilization; and generate up to 250,000
    new jobs, of which half would be direct job creation in transportation
    and manufacturing.
        Freight 2030 envisions the creation of a new advanced clean energy
    rail technology and logistics ecosystem. Achieving H2 substitution in
    engine operations and railway grade fuel cells demands advances in new
    materials and advances in batteries and storage, combined with the
    intelligent systems engineering needed to deploy these capabilities. In
    turn, advances in artificial intelligence will be needed to support
    expanded rail capacity. AI will enable the enhanced signaling and
    network traffic systems to ensure increased safety and increased rail
    utilization and seamlessly connect the railroad system to intelligent
    ports. AI and autonomous systems technologies will be vital to break
    the last mile bottleneck that will enable realization of enhanced
    multi-modal innovation.
        Carnegie Mellon has a rich history of engagement in initiatives
    advancing innovation in energy and artificial intelligence to transform
    industries and foster innovation led job creation. The focus on
    integrating research deployment Freight 2030 has the potential to
    catalyze job growth across the nation and strengthen leadership in both
    clean energy and logistics industries.
        This is a global race. This initiative will match similar
    investments that global competitors are advancing. Support for Freight
    2030 will help ensure that the U.S. wins the race to global leadership
    in Zero Emission rail.
       Building the Tools to Support Workforce Development and Engaging
                             Directly with Workers
        Freight 2030 is at its essence a jobs initiative. It seeks to
    create jobs throughout a new clean energy rail industry--from clean
    fuel locomotive production to systems operations to rail yard
    management across the nation.
        These jobs will require new skills, understanding of new data
    driven technology applications, and increased worker teaming with
    intelligent systems.
        Freight 2030 will include the development of workforce training
    initiatives from the start. This effort will include collaborations
    with training organizations supporting both manufacturing and rail
    operations workers.
                                   Conclusion
        This Committee continues to demonstrate transformative leadership
    to accelerate innovation in American transportation industries. It was
    the work of this Committee that helped catalyze U.S. leadership in
    autonomous vehicle technologies, which has contributed to the creation
    of over three thousand jobs in just the Pittsburgh region alone. The
    Committee's unwavering commitment to innovation initiatives in the
    Department of Transportation has also helped shape collaborative
    university/industry initiatives in areas such as smart city
    technologies that are reshaping transportation, mobility and the
    sustainability of urban and rural communities.
        Freight 2030 can add yet another chapter to this record of
    innovation by advancing a new generation of U.S. leadership in freight
    rail manufacturing and technologies.

     Letter of February 7, 2021, from Joy Ditto, President & CEO, American
        Public Power Association; Tom Kuhn, President, Edison Electric
     Institute; and Jim Matheson, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative
         Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
                                                      February 7, 2021.
    Hon. Pete Buttigieg,
    Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE,
            Washington, DC.
    Hon. Michael Regan,
    Administrator-designate,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
            Washington, DC.
    Hon. Jennifer Granholm,
    Secretary-designate,
    U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Gina McCarthy,
    National Climate Advisor,
    Executive Office of the President, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Secretary Buttigieg, Secretary-designate Granholm,
    Administrator-designate Regan, and Climate Advisor McCarthy:
        The nation's investor-owned electric companies, public power
    utilities, and electric cooperatives--which our organizations proudly
    represent--look forward to working with you and to leveraging the
    investments our members are making to help meet your Administration's
    goal of deploying electric vehicle charging stations across the
    country.
        Our members provide safe, reliable, and affordable energy to more
    than 300 million Americans. The electric power industry supports more
    than 7 million American jobs and contributes $880 billion annually to
    U.S. gross domestic product, about 5 percent of the total. Each year,
    our industry invests more than $110 billion to make the energy grid
    stronger, smarter, cleaner, more dynamic, and more secure. These
    investments enable us to integrate more clean energy and new
    technologies into our electric systems, including electric vehicles
    (EVs), to benefit customers.
        Our members are proud of the progress that has been made in
    deploying clean energy resources. As the Administration turns to
    electrifying transportation, we are committed to working with you to
    leverage our industry's investments to deploy electric vehicle charging
    infrastructure and to accelerate electric transportation adoption that
    will grow the economy and benefit the environment.
        To get more EVs on U.S. roads, it is important that we invest in
    and deploy more charging infrastructure. Building this infrastructure
    will require public-private partnerships, and our members are critical
    to that effort, in part because they employ a highly skilled workforce
    that builds and maintains the energy grid. A collaboration between the
    federal government and our sector will help to create additional jobs
    and will help spur economic recovery.
        Charging stations are one piece of a vast system with implications
    for the grid. Our members are a crucial partner in building and
    maintaining the infrastructure to deploy EV charging stations at all
    the locations where EVs charge. These investments are structured to
    best serve communities and customers.
        Our members already own and operate EV charging stations in a
    variety of locations and for all types of customers. These arrangements
    are particularly beneficial to consumers who prefer not to procure and
    maintain charging infrastructure and seek a turnkey solution. Some of
    our members install the ``make-ready'' infrastructure that connects to
    the charging equipment, leaving it to the consumer to own and maintain
    the charging station. And other members offer rebate programs to offset
    the costs to install charging infrastructure.
        Regardless of the approach, each of these solutions is critical to
    building charging infrastructure that helps to spur the EV market and
    benefit communities. This is particularly true in regions where private
    investment in EV charging stations historically has been difficult.
        It is important that all communities have access to the benefits of
    EVs, and our members are investing in underserved communities, in
    electrifying car-sharing and public transportation systems that serve
    those who do not own vehicles, in electrifying commercial vehicles such
    as delivery trucks that operate within neighborhoods, and assuring that
    Americans can charge their vehicles coast-to-coast in urban, suburban,
    and rural communities. Each community may have a different model that
    works best. Providing flexibility will ensure that more communities can
    participate in charging programs, leading to more EV charging stations
    across the country.
        Local decision-making will help ensure charging stations meet the
    needs of each community. Our members continue to work with local
    stakeholders and are best-positioned to understand and to maximize the
    value of different technologies and systems that can help optimize the
    operation of the grid, integrate EVs, and recover more quickly from
    natural disasters.
        However, the federal government is a key partner in the research
    and development related to EVs and the associated charging
    infrastructure, and technical and financial assistance can help
    accelerate deployment. Existing programs across federal agencies have
    been effective in deploying alternative-fuel vehicles and
    infrastructure, while other programs should be updated to reflect
    current advancements in technology.
        Today, nearly 40 percent of the nation's electricity comes from
    carbon-free sources, and carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector
    are at their lowest level in more than 30 years--and continue to fall.
    The electric power sector's significant leadership in reducing carbon
    emissions can help drive carbon reductions in other sectors, especially
    transportation, through increased electrification.
        We look forward to working with you and to our continued
    partnership in advancing clean energy technologies and electric vehicle
    infrastructure.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Joy Ditto,
                    President & CEO, American Public Power Association.
                                                      Tom Kuhn,
                                  President, Edison Electric Institute.
                                                  Jim Matheson,
                  CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

     Letter of March 15, 2021, from Joe Britton, Executive Director, Zero
     Emission Transportation Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                                Peter A. DeFazio
                                                        March 15, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States
            House of Representatives, 2134 Rayburn House Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman DeFazio,
        Electrifying transportation is critical to helping the United
    States compete for investment, advance technological innovation, grow
    our economy and address climate change. We have the opportunity--if we
    make the right policy decisions today--to cultivate an advanced vehicle
    industry that drives decarbonization, creates jobs, and once again
    makes us the envy of the automotive world.
        Electric vehicles (EVs) support over 300,000 American jobs with new
    EV manufacturing and infrastructure poised to create hundreds of
    thousands of new jobs in the years to come. EV growth is projected to
    accelerate worldwide, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere.
    Other countries know this and are moving aggressively to seize the
    generational opportunity. We must lead this race or we'll cede this
    economic opportunity to foreign competitors.
        In particular, China and the EU have risen to dominance in the
    critical supply chain and EV sector over the past 15 years. China's
    moves to control critical material supply chains are not only a threat
    to EVs but also consumer electronics and national security
    infrastructure. While some raw materials are sourced in other parts of
    the world, China controls a full 70-90% of the processing and
    production. The U.S. has an opportunity to counter this threat, and
    secure our own economy, by responsibly expanding our ability to source
    these materials from within our own borders. Not only will domestic
    sourcing bolster job creation, but it will also ensure high standards
    for our environment and workforce.
        Despite the gains made by other nations, the United States is still
    strongly positioned to outcompete even the most advanced EV leaders
    around the globe. In fact, the most sought-after EV technologies are
    homegrown in the United States. Dozens of aspiring U.S. companies are
    producing EVs that will alter the landscape in the years ahead.
        As you know, transportation is the largest carbon-emitting sector
    in the economy, responsible for 28% of emissions. Electrification of
    the transportation sector will significantly reduce emissions and
    address both climate change and public health effects throughout the
    country. While any manufacturing process includes some carbon impacts,
    EVs are cleaner than gasoline-powered cars, and will only get cleaner
    as we decarbonize the grid.\1\ When we evaluate the entire process of
    manufacturing an EV and sourcing the electricity, EVs generate up to
    67% fewer emissions over their lifetime than their gas-powered
    counterparts.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-
    getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal
        \2\ woodmac.com/press-releases/evs-up-to-67-less-emissions-
    intensive-than-ice-cars/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EVs are not just good for reducing emissions--consumers also
    benefit from direct fuel and maintenance savings. EV owners can save
    over $700 a year in fuel and $330 in annual maintenance costs.
    Meanwhile, the retail price of EVs continues to decline as
    manufacturing scales up. And we are set to manufacture vehicles with
    400-500 miles of range and battery packs costing as little as $60/-per-
    kwh, two developments that will allow EVs to outperform internal
    combustion engine vehicles on both range and price. Consumers can now
    drive zero-emission vehicles without sacrificing on cost or features
    they have become accustomed to, and federal, state, and local
    incentives have the ability to drive greater consumer benefits and EV
    adoption.
        For these and other reasons, we must grow and expand consumer
    incentives for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, invest in an
    extensive charging infrastructure network, and send a market signal
    that electrification is the future by setting strong fuel economy
    standards. The choices we make now will determine our course for
    decades to come. We can either embrace the economic and domestic
    manufacturing opportunities we now face, or risk relying on foreign
    imports for years to come.
        For this reason, the Zero Emission Transportation Association is
    urging policymakers to act now and invest wisely to help the United
    States realize the economic potential of an electrified domestic
    transportation sector. We look forward to working with you as you
    continue to tackle these difficult decisions and support local
    economies across the United States.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Joe Britton,
          Executive Director, Zero Emission Transportation Association.

    Amazon and Global Optimism Co-founded The Climate Pledge, Submitted for
                      the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    [Editor's note: The following PDF has been modified from its original
    version. It has been formatted to fit this publication.]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Statement of Nicholas Guida, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
    Tamarack Aerospace Group Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                             Sam Graves of Missouri
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for accepting my testimony to the committee on
    ``The Business Case for Climate Solutions.'' I am Nick Guida and I'm
    the founder and CEO of Tamarack Aerospace Group Corporation.
        Climate change is of course one of the most significant challenges
    currently facing human civilization. Despite aviation being a
    relatively small contributor of overall global carbon dioxide emissions
    at 2-3%, aviation's statistical position is often cited in the media
    and that trend will no doubt continue as aviation continues to grow.
    (Graver, Zhang, & Rutherford, 2019). As a result, the environmental
    impact of flying is consistently breaking into the consciousness of
    passengers and the public alike, influencing their perception of
    aviation.
        Aviation must leverage all legacy and especially new technologies
    to constantly strengthen a perception that the industry proactively
    supports sustainability and science that will mitigate the negative
    outcomes of climate change.
        America and the world need to aggressively use all available
    current technologies to reduce the metastasizing carbon footprint and
    not ignore any pending technologies--including pending solutions like
    bio-fuels, electric and hydrogen propulsion--as they become commonly
    available over time. America needs to open its eyes to all current
    possibilities, especially those that are not widely known but can be
    so-called game-changers, game-changers that also make good business
    sense.
        One such new, and game-changing technology available right now and
    gaining notice by the aviation industry and regulators, is Active
    WingletsTM, developed by Tamarack Aerospace Group. Tamarack
    is based in Sandpoint, Idaho--we are a growing American company built
    on invention.
        Active Winglets look very much like the curved-upward passive
    winglets you see on the ends of many commercial aircraft wings, except
    Active Winglets have an extension and an autonomous sensing system that
    in a fraction of a second mechanically adjusts the wing tips to any
    amount of turbulence and, in so doing, allows for the most efficient,
    fuel-saving and flight smoothing capabilities available today.
        Patented Active Winglet innovation delivers a CO2 and fuel burn
    reduction of up to 33% as compared to an approximate 4% fuel savings
    from different types of traditional winglets seen on many current
    commercial, business and military aircraft. Active Winglets increase
    the number of fuel efficient and safer non-stop flights, and reduce the
    amount of maintenance needed for all aircraft. Active Winglet
    technology stands out in many ways amongst other sustainability
    initiatives as a sustainability supporting immediate solution for
    reducing aviation's carbon footprint to meet industry goals (Forbes
    Magazine, Tamarack Aerospace Group, 2020 and former aeronautical
    professor and commercial pilot, NASA astronaut Byron Lichtenberg, 2021,
    to cite just a few of the multiple sources).
        There are several steps that aircraft operators can put in place to
    significantly reduce emissions. The science and market demands are
    dictating that we need to act now. Technology such as Sustainable
    Aviation Fuels are absolutely viable solutions but face significant
    scalability obstacles, carbon sequestration and offsetting would be
    required on a vast scale to have a significant impact and the
    introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft which emit less
    CO2, will not be sufficient on its own to offset the growth in the
    number of air transport movements.
        Active Winglets are a proven technology that has been installed on
    more than one-hundred-and-twenty Cessna Jets, has been certified by the
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Union Aviation
    Safety Agency (EASA), and can be retrofitted onto several current
    aircraft variants, including larger single-aisle commercial, cargo and
    military aircraft . . . even drones. Active Winglets are cost-effective
    and can be rapidly retrofitted to the existing fleet as well as future
    designs to improve safety, mitigate turbulence, reduce noise and other
    pollution associated with aviation and reduce the downtime and need for
    aircraft maintenance.
        The Active Winglet technology is economically viable, paying the
    investment for the modification back to the aircraft operator in a
    short period and can have a significant benefit for the existing as
    well as future fleets of aircraft. Of course, if business and
    government can't make an economic argument for adopting specific
    actions, those actions will naturally fail. Conservative estimates on
    narrow bodied and specific military aircraft, demonstrate that
    Tamarack's Active Winglets can reduce fuel burn by 14-20%, while there
    is proven fuel savings for many business airframes of up to 33%,
    providing significant cost savings and having a meaningful impact now
    on aviation's carbon crisis.
        A case study conducted by Tamarack estimates, for instance, that if
    Active Winglets were to be fitted onto the commercial jet narrow-bodied
    fleet (Airbus A320 / Boeing 737 variants) alone, 1.6 billion tons of
    CO2 would be saved by 2040, reducing the emissions gap by approximately
    20%. Tamarack's technology offers a greater reduction in fuel burn and
    carbon emissions for existing aircraft than any other retrofittable
    solution available at present and certainly will make a demonstrable
    fuel savings and carbon footprint reduction as part of a new aircraft
    build.
        More context about winglet technology. Winglets are small aerofoils
    applied vertically to the wing tips and are a positive addition to
    aircraft as they reduce drag and increase efficiency. They work by
    reducing the aerodynamic drag associated with vortices. Vortices form
    due to the pressure differentiation between the low-pressure upper wing
    surface and the high-pressure lower wing surface. At the wing tip, air
    is free to move from the regions of high pressure to the regions of low
    pressure forming a circular movement of air which trails from the wing
    tip (Anderson, 2017). The creation of vortices causes a redistribution
    of the surface pressure over the wing termed induced drag (Anderson,
    Introduction to Flight, 2016). The advantages of Active Winglets are
    significant and address the vortices and fuel usage challenges more
    than other winglet technologies; they are retrofittable and therefore
    can improve today's aircraft, as well as those coming off the
    production line; they are largely cost effective to implement; and are
    a `win, win' as they pay back economically and environmentally.
        The Active Winglet uses the combination of a wing extension to
    significantly increase aspect ratio with the most optimal winglet to
    reduce induced drag. Traditionally, the most optimal winglet design is
    associated with more structural reinforcement, but the Active Winglet
    doesn't need the structural reinforcement that common passive winglets
    do.
        Active Winglets reap maximum fuel efficiency benefits without
    subtracting the inefficiencies that occur due to additional structural
    requirements. This is achieved using load alleviation at the wing tip.
        Additionally, Active Winglet modified aircraft need shorter runways
    for landing and takeoff and get higher faster than aircraft without the
    modification. For instance, it can take a Cessna Jet with Active
    Winglets to reach 41,000 feet in less than 30 minutes, while a similar
    unmodified business jet will have to reach higher altitudes after
    climbing in steps and may never reach 41,000 feet at all, depending on
    flight conditions and the time of the trip (AOPA reporting Active
    Winglet flight, 2021). As mentioned, once an aircraft gets to higher
    altitudes faster, the carbon footprint is greatly reduced.
        Tamarack commends the committee on its backing of current U.S.
    government programs to encourage innovation in aviation and we hope
    that kind of assistance increases. This committee, for instance, is
    well aware of government grants for emissions innovative companies. For
    example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Continuous Lower
    Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program has already contributed
    $225 million through phases I and II of CLEEN, and the industry has
    contributed $388 million. The 2020 grants under CLEEN III are to be
    issued soon (FAA, 2020). Tamarack will be applying for the next tranche
    of grants in order to go through the certification process for
    additional airframes. Meanwhile, we hope the committee will continue to
    encourage all technologies and efforts to embrace business cases for
    climate solutions.
        Part of the reason that aviation is gaining so much attention
    relative to reducing the carbon footprint is an immediate need, like so
    many other industries, to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels in the
    face of expected continued rapid growth (UNFCCC, 2014). Active Winglets
    and other technologies available now or soon warrant additional focus
    by regulators and the entire aviation community.
        The coronavirus pandemic has shrunk the world fleet because of
    airlines going out of business and older, less efficient aircraft being
    retired early. From 2020 onwards, this will unquestionably deliver
    reduced CO2 emissions lower than previously projected. However, this is
    not the solution to aviation's carbon emission challenges. Although
    passenger numbers dropped by 2690 million (60%) in 2020 compared to
    2019, passenger numbers are predicted to recover to 2019 levels within
    the next 3-5 years (ICAO, 2021). Furthermore, in 2020 compared to 2019,
    approximately USD $370 billion of gross passenger operating revenues of
    airlines were lost (ICAO, 2021). This unprecedented event could present
    a major opportunity for operators to reset their thinking on emissions
    targets and implement sustainable practices in every aspect of their
    new, reshaped organizations.
        Aircraft are reliant on fossil fuels and with no clear path or
    timeframe to a zero-emission alternative, ICAO predicts a large gap in
    the emissions targets set for the period of 2020 to 2040. There are
    several steps that aircraft operators can put in place to significantly
    reduce emissions. The science and market demands are dictating that we
    need to act now. Technology such as Sustainable Aviation Fuels are
    absolutely viable solutions but face significant scalability obstacles,
    carbon sequestration and offsetting would be required on a vast scale
    to have a significant impact and the introduction of newer, more fuel-
    efficient aircraft which emit less CO2, will not be sufficient on its
    own to offset the growth in the number of air transport movements.
        Active Winglet technology is economically viable, paying the
    investment back in a short period and can have a significant benefit
    for the existing as well as future fleets of aircraft. Of course, if
    business and government can't make an economic argument for adopting
    specific actions, those actions will naturally fail. Conservative
    estimates on narrow bodied aircraft, demonstrate that Tamarack's Active
    Winglets can reduce fuel burn by 14-20%, providing significant cost
    savings and having a meaningful impact on aviation's carbon crisis.
        As availability of Sustainable Aviation Fuels increases and
    technology advances, the aviation sector will see substantial
    reductions in carbon emissions until zero emissions aircraft can be
    developed. However, where a near-term solution is needed, fitting
    Active Winglets would be a significant step forward for operators
    looking to obtain carbon neutral operations, particularly when combined
    with a host of other sustainable initiatives. Tamarack hopes this
    committee considers all emission reducing options including Active
    Winglet technology that stands out as an exciting prospect which can
    reduce the emissions gap by over 1.6 billion tons (-20%), it is
    available now and is scalable.
        As mentioned, Tamarack is growing. We have additional primary
    service and installation centers in South Carolina and England and
    other support facilities in more than twenty other locations across the
    United States and world-wide. We have been growing our facilities,
    staff, and customer base, despite the pandemic because our current and
    prospective customers want the innovative capabilities only Tamarack
    Active Winglets can provide to business, commercial and military
    aviation.
        Tamarack is currently working with U.S. and international aviation
    regulators, along with aviation associations like NBAA and GAMA, noted
    academia representatives and getting constant feedback from existing
    and future customers, including the U.S. military. We are confident
    that U.S. innovation tempered by prudent government regulation will
    meet or possibly exceed carbon footprint reduction goals specifically
    outlined for the aviation industry. Those ambitious goals will only be
    achieved through cooperation and teamwork involving all stakeholders
    and by climbing the very steep education curve that recognizes and
    adopts the most pragmatic innovations addressing our climate crisis.
        Tamarack thinks of itself as a good corporate citizen for America
    and also the world and believes news about its sustainability-
    supporting technology, and other avenues for aviation to reduce carbon
    emissions, will be recognized by this committee as a current way to
    quickly provide a solution to help the growing aviation industry reach
    its carbon footprint reducing goals.
        Tamarack looks forward to providing details and science-based
    information alluded to in these comments and will eagerly cooperate
    with this committee to embrace solutions that bolster the reputation of
    aviation as we achieve the climate-saving goals we all want.

      Letter of March 29, 2021, from Frederick W. Smith, Chairman of the
    Board and Chief Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation, Submitted for the
                           Record by Hon. Steve Cohen
                                     FedEx Corporation,
                                    942 South Shady Grove Road,
                                     Memphis, TN 38120, March 29, 2021.
    Hon. Steve Cohen,
    U.S. House of Representatives,
    2104 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
        Dear Congressman Cohen,
        Thank you for the kind introduction and the opportunity to testify
    on March 17, 2021 at the House Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee hearing on ``The Business Case for Climate Solutions''. I
    wanted to follow up regarding your question about the safety of the
    twin 33, trailer configuration.
        At FedEx, ``Safety Above All'' is the centerpiece of our corporate
    strategy and our corporate philosophy, and public safety is the real
    story when it comes to the adoption of twin 33, trailers. Studies have
    shown twin 33, trailers are more dynamically stable at highway speeds
    and are more stable during abrupt evasive maneuvers and less likely to
    roll over than twin 28, trailers. FedEx Ground has been operating twin
    33, trailers on the Florida Turnpike since 2010 with no accidents and
    our drivers have told us repeatedly they find them more stable to
    operate.
        Additionally, the adoption of twin 33, trailers would take trucks
    off the road by reducing trips and miles driven through efficiency
    gains, resulting in 4,500 accidents avoided annually. The proposal we
    support also calls for twin 33s to operate with a suite of modern
    safety enhancing technologies: collision avoidance with automatic
    braking, electronic stability control, lane departure, speed limiters
    and other advanced safety features.
        Longer combination vehicles (LCVs) already safely operate in 22
    states, 20 of which allow operation of twin 33, trailers. These LCVs
    include even longer trailer combinations like the ``Turnpike Double''
    configuration of twin 48, trailers, triple 28, trailers and the ``Rocky
    Mountain Double'' configuration of a 48, trailer and 28, trailer.
        There are also significant efficiency and environmental benefits
    from removing trucks from the road. The adoption of twin 33, trailers
    equates to 274 million fewer gallons of fuel, 3.12 million fewer tons
    of CO2 emissions and 3.36 billion fewer vehicle miles traveled with
    transportation efficiencies. Furthermore, studies have shown that twin
    33, trailers can move the same amount of freight with 18 percent fewer
    truck trips, reducing congestion by 57.2 million hours, decreasing wear
    and tear on roads and bridges, and allowing consumers and businesses to
    realize $2.8 billion annually in lower shipping costs with quicker
    delivery times. These safety, environmental and efficiency benefits
    come at no cost to taxpayers and without any change to the 80,000-pound
    federal gross vehicle weight (GVW) limit or the federal bridge formula.
        In 2016, the Department of Transportation projected that freight
    volumes would increase by 40% by 2045. The trucking industry has been a
    vital lifeline to the U.S. economy during the COVID-19 pandemic by
    supporting the rapid increase of ecommerce and movement of essential
    goods across the country. The adoption of twin 33, trailers would
    provide much needed capacity while benefiting our nation's consumers,
    businesses, environment and overall safety.
        I urge you and your colleagues to consider modernizing trucking
    regulations to include these trailers that have proven to be safe and
    efficient by corporate leaders in transportation and logistics.
        Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Frederick W. Smith,
                     Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

         Letter of March 22, 2021, from William Peduto, Mayor, City of
          Pittsburgh, PA, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Conor Lamb
                                                        March 22, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chair,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, United States House of
            Representatives, 2134 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, United States House of
            Representatives, 1135 Longworth House Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
        I am writing in full support of the Freight Rail Innovation
    Institute, a proposed public-private partnership led by Wabtec
    Corporation, Genesee and Wyoming, Inc., and Carnegie Mellon University.
    Collaborations across levels of government and economic sectors have
    helped Pittsburgh shed its industrial past and become a 21st century
    hub for sustainability and green energy. The Institute would represent
    yet another Pittsburgh-based initiative designed to harness the power
    of innovation, research, and technology, combat climate change, create
    family-sustaining jobs, and build a clean-energy future for our nation.
        Over 140,000 miles of railway play an integral role in moving
    people and products across the continental United States, and
    currently, trains transport 40% of our nation's freight. The proposed
    Freight Rail Innovation Institute presents a prime opportunity to
    invest in a cleaner future for freight rail that will benefit the
    entire country. The Institute will research and develop the
    groundbreaking technology needed to move toward carbon-free rail. By
    investing in this vision for the future of freight transportation, we
    can reduce our nation's Greenhouse Gas emissions, improve safety and
    limit congestion on our highways, and create the jobs of the future. By
    empowering Wabtec, Genesee and Wyoming, and Carnegie Mellon University
    to advance this technology, we can develop trains that can more
    efficiently and safely move goods across the country without polluting
    our air and our planet.
        As you are developing the plan to rebuild our nation's
    infrastructure, I respectfully urge you to consider investing in the
    Freight Rail Innovation Institute. Thank you in advance for your
    consideration. Should you need additional information, please do not
    hesitate to contact me.
            Sincerely,
                                                William Peduto,
                                                   Mayor of Pittsburgh.

      Letter of March 22, 2021, from Sam Williamson, Board Chair and Greg
         Flisram, Executive Director, Urban Redevelopment Authority of
            Pittsburgh, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Conor Lamb
                                                        March 22, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chair,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 2134 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 1135 Longworth House Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

    RE:  Letter of Support--Freight Rail Innovation Institute

        Dear Chair DeFazio and Congressman Graves:
        We are writing in support of the public-private partnership being
    proposed by Wabtec Corporation, Genesee & Wyoming, and Carnegie Mellon
    University to create a Freight Rail Innovation Institute. This
    initiative will assist in the Congressional goals of building a clean
    energy economy and creating jobs as well as reducing the effects of
    climate change. Its location in the Pittsburgh region would allow for
    all parties involved to take advantage of the education and innovative
    research occurring here.
        Pittsburgh is a city that welcomes, embraces, and invests in green
    energy and sustainability. As the North American representative to the
    Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, Pittsburgh's Mayor
    William Peduto has been a leading international voice on the power of
    local government to fight climate change. Our city serves as an example
    of best practices on dealing with the effects of climate change and the
    impact mayors are having on protecting the environment for future
    generations and was recently honored with first place in the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors (USCM) 14th Annual Climate Protection Awards. The
    Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (URA) is proud to partner
    with the Mayor and City of Pittsburgh on these critical sustainability
    efforts.
        We recognize that the shift from the reliance on fossil fuels to
    sustainable energy requires investment and commitment, and that is
    clearly evident in the proposed Freight Rail Innovation Institute.
    Efforts to expand the use of freight rail, accelerate the reduction of
    national GHG emissions, reduce road congestion, and make transportation
    safer is a benefit for all of our communities.
        This region has a long relationship with rail and has continued to
    invest in its development and expansion. With over 140,000 miles of
    track across the U.S. freight network, investment in the future of rail
    benefits the entire country. A single freight train can move a ton of
    freight 472 miles on one gallon of fuel. Rail moves 40% of freight and
    accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Imagine the
    possibilities of zero emission locomotives. With investment in the
    partnership, technology research moves forward more quickly with a
    vision and there are dedicated efforts to focus on best practices as it
    relates to green energy and advanced network logistics. Support of this
    effort takes this vision to a reality, benefiting all.
        For these reasons, we hope that you favorably consider and support
    the Freight Rail Innovation Institute, an important endeavor for the
    Pittsburgh region.
            Sincerely,
                                                Sam Williamson,
              Board Chair, Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.
                                                  Greg Flisram,
       Executive Director, Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.

                                   Appendix

                                  ----------

      Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Jack Allen, Chief Executive
                      Officer and Chairman, Proterra, Inc.

        Question 1. Mr. Allen, you mentioned the difficulty of sourcing
    domestic minerals for electric batteries. Cobalt in particular is
    difficult to find domestically, even if we expand domestic mining.
        Are there any promising developments in domestic battery cell
    manufacturing capacity?
        Answer. Progress is being made but the U.S. is currently behind
    other markets in building capacity. This Committee and the Federal
    government can play an important role in accelerating US leadership in
    alternative fuel technologies for zero emission vehicles that are
    critical to our economic future as the world addresses global warming
    and the need to cut carbon emissions.
        Today, we lag other technology centers in developing domestic
    capacity for battery production. For example, today, there are no
    domestic manufacturers of small format cylindrical cells that are
    available to Proterra for use in battery packs for transit buses or
    other medium or heavy duty commercial vehicles.
        According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, ``China today has
    93 `gigafactories' that manufacture lithium-ion battery cells . . . If
    current trends continue, China is projected to have 140 gigafactories,
    by 2030, while Europe will have 17 and the United States, just 10.''
    \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/11/us-
    battery-production-china-europe/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        China and Europe also lead the United States as the largest
    electric car markets internationally, according to the International
    Energy Association.\2\ ``China (at 4.9%) and Europe (at 3.5%) achieved
    new records in electric vehicle market share in 2019.'' The United
    States trails at 2.1% market share for electric vehicles in 2019.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.iea.org/news/electric-car-sales-this-year-resist-
    covid-19-s-blow-to-global-car-market
        \3\ https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increasing demand domestically for zero emission technology will
    spur growth of the supply chain and attract private investment in
    domestic cell production to meet the market demand for electric
    vehicles. Investments in US technology and manufacturing leadership
    will serve our domestic needs and allow the US to become a world leader
    in this important shift away from fossil fuel dependency in
    transportation.
        Legislation like H.R. 2 (Moving Forward Act) as well as President
    Biden's American Jobs Plan contain meaningful investments to accelerate
    growth in medium and heavy-duty electric vehicles, including battery
    electric transit buses, school buses and delivery vehicles.

        Question 2. What steps has Proterra taken to recycle batteries that
    are past their useful life for transit buses, and how can this
    committee help to support this work?
        Answer. Proterra has designed its battery systems with the full
    life cycle in mind. Our batteries are designed for easy extraction of
    rare minerals and for recycling and reuse of key components, including
    our heavy duty aluminum pack enclosures. Importantly, once a battery
    pack has reached its end of life, the minerals can be extracted and
    reused, reducing the need to mine for new sources.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/pathways-to-achieve-new-
    circular-vision-for-lithium
    -ion-batteries.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The United States has an opportunity to build industry and good
    paying jobs from building batteries to recycling components. Proterra
    has partnered with Redwood Materials in Carson City, Nevada to recycle
    batteries at the end of their useful life. Proterra has already sent
    roughly 26,000 pounds of battery material to Redwood for recycling.
        In addition, Proterra batteries are designed with second-life
    applications in mind. When Proterra batteries have met their useful
    life in a vehicle, they still retain a significant amount of energy
    that can be used in applications such as stationary storage, to reduce
    electricity demand charges, and to charge electric vehicles with
    renewable solar energy stored throughout the day. Our charging systems
    are also capable of sending stored energy from the vehicles back to the
    power grid, becoming a strategic asset for grid stability and
    resilience.\5\ Other second life battery applications could include
    backup power, grid services such as frequency regulation, and utility
    scale storage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.proterra.com/press-release/city-of-beverly-selects-
    electric-school-bus-powered-
    by-proterra/

        Question 3. What other steps can this committee and the Federal
    government take to help anchor the battery supply chain domestically?
        Answer. There are many steps that Congress and the Federal
    government can take to help anchor the battery supply chain
    domestically. The Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle
    Manufacturing (ATVM) program can be revived in support of its goals of
    strengthening US vehicle manufacturing and promoting US energy
    independence and competitiveness by: 1) expanding eligibility to US-
    based medium- and heavy-duty vehicles manufacturers and component
    suppliers, specifically including battery cells manufacturers; and 2)
    revising the financial viability requirements for loan applicants to
    more closely align with the Department of Energy's Title XVII loan
    guarantee program. Congress could also consider making appropriations
    for the grant program that was authorized in the ATVM program but have
    not been funded. Proterra supports the Advanced Technology Vehicle
    Manufacturing (ATVM) Future Act introduced by Congresswomen Julia
    Brownley and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell as well as reforms to the
    program made by section 33342 of last year's HR 2, Moving Forward Act.
        Restoring the Section 48C tax credit or launching a new investment
    tax credit (ITC) would also support the development of the battery
    supply chain in the United States. Proterra supports the ``American
    Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act of 2021,'' which was introduced by
    Senators Debbie Stabenow and Joe Manchin, to reauthorize Section 48C
    and explicitly allow the 30% ITC to be used for EV battery
    manufacturing, assembly lines, and facility buildout and retooling.
        The battery electric transit bus market also benefits from broader
    Federal incentives for the electrification of other medium and heavy
    duty vehicle types, including school buses and delivery vehicles for
    the United State Postal Service and the federal fleet, such as the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
    (DERA) program.

       Questions from Hon. Julia Brownley to Jack Allen, Chief Executive
                      Officer and Chairman, Proterra, Inc.

        Question 4. You mentioned in your testimony that in addition to
    Proterra's electric transit buses, you also provide the battery systems
    for electric school buses.
        Can you please elaborate on the technology readiness, are electric
    school buses able to handle the workload that is currently delivered by
    diesel school buses?
        Answer. An electric school bus is more than capable of handling the
    workload of a diesel school bus. According to a 2014 study by the
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the average school bus
    travels approximately 31 miles per cycle, with a maximum of 127
    miles.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60068.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2018, Thomas Built Buses (TTB) and Proterra unveiled the high-
    performance Jouley electric school bus. The Saf-T-Liner C2 Jouley
    couples 226 kWh of total energy capacity from Proterra's battery
    technology with an electric drivetrain to offer up to 135 miles of
    drive range to meet the needs of school bus fleets.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://thomasbuiltbuses.com/powertrains/
    electric?gclid=Cj0KCQjwvr6EBhDOARIsAPpq
    UPES35MxMphGMdxI383oAckhRf8PUQHaj_hKDj6D3C4aLU5eZX4rQrYaAiDaEALw_
    ,%20pwcB
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As of May 5, 2021, we, along with our partner Thomas Built Buses,
    have delivered 50 electric school buses that are in operation today to
    meet the school transportation needs of communities across the United
    States.
          In Virginia, TBB and Sonny Merryman Inc. were selected as
    the exclusive provider of 50 electric school buses to 15 public school
    districts for the first phase of Dominion Energy's electric school bus
    program. The first of these buses, which represent the first battery-
    electric buses in Virginia, were delivered in November of 2020.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.proterra.com/press-release/virginias-electric-
    school-buses/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Michigan, Ann Arbor and Roseville Public Schools are
    operating six Jouley school buses in partnership with DTE Energy. DTE
    Energy will also initiate a Vehicle to Grid (V2G) study to obtain data
    regarding the energy efficiency and environmental benefits of electric
    vehicles and develop programs that benefit the schools based vehicle
    capabilities.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.michigan.gov/mienvironment/0,9349,7-385-90161-
    551135--,00.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Massachusetts, the City of Beverly and Beverly Public
    Schools recently unveiled its first Jouley school bus in partnership
    with Highland Electric Transportation, a solutions provider for
    electric school buses based in Hamilton, Mass. The bus will further
    participate in a V2G strategy deployed by Highland Electric
    Transportation and utility provider, National Grid.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/city-of-beverly-and-
    highland-electric-
    transportation-select-electric-school-bus-from-thomas-built-buses-
    powered-by-proterra-ev-
    technology-301014159.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Alaska, Tok Transportation is operating the first
    battery-electric school bus in the state, a Jouley school bus, in
    partnership with the Alaskan Energy Authority.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2020/10/08/alaskas-first-
    electric-school-bus-heading-
    to-tok/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Indiana, Monroe County Community Schools and Delphi
    Community Schools both recently received their first Thomas Built
    electric school buses.

        Question 5. What are the total lifecycle cost benefits to cities
    and school districts of switching to electric school buses?
        Answer. Over 90 percent of the school bus fleet in the United
    States is fueled by diesel.\12\ Burning diesel for fuel is associated
    with emissions known to harm human health such as particulate matter
    and nitrogen oxide.\13\ Children may be particularly vulnerable to
    emissions exposure from diesel-fueled school buses.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/
    US_EL%20buses%202021%20scrn.pdf
        \13\ https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/what-makes-air-
    unhealthy/transportation
        \14\ https://www.ehhi.org/reports/diesel/dieselintro.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the clear environmental and health benefits of
    switching to zero-emission, electric school buses, electric school
    buses contain fewer parts than diesel buses, which can generate
    operational and maintenance savings for school districts.\15\ The
    Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2 Jouley school bus, for instance,
    enables fuel economies of up to 24.6 MPGe, an improvement over the
    average 6.2 MPG fuel economy for school buses.\16\ \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://thomasbuiltbuses.com/bus-advisor/articles/top-6-
    benefits-of-electric-school-buses/
        \16\ https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310
        \17\ https://thomasbuiltbuses.com/content/uploads/2020/08/brochure-
    C2-Jouley-and-Proterra-
    summer-2020.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While electric school buses today cost more upfront than a diesel
    school bus, some studies have shown that the operational and
    maintenance savings afforded by switching to electric can save schools
    nearly $2,000 annually in fuel costs and $4,400 in maintenance costs.
    Further, electric school buses can save more than $31,000 in
    operational costs over its vehicle lifetime.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/
    commitments/launching-
    market-electric-school-buses
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, new financing models are reducing the upfront cost to
    school districts of acquiring electric school buses.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/on-heels-of-253m-
    raise-highland-electric-
    lands-biggest-electric-school-bus-contract-in-the-u.s
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Potential vehicle-to-grid applications provide opportunities to
    lower cost barriers to school districts while increasing savings over
    time by leveraging the electric school bus as a grid resource.

        Question 6. What other opportunities do electric school buses
    provide to schools, such as V2G and emergency power backup?
        Answer. Electric school buses can strengthen the electricity grid
    and provide resilience to local communities. Cities and utilities are
    exploring different ways to unlock the full potential of electric buses
    and heavy-duty vehicles.
        According to WRI, `` . . . electrifying the entire school bus fleet
    can unlock 72 GW-hours of energy storage for utilities via vehicle-to-
    grid technologies, enabling new opportunities to expand businesses and
    integrate clean energy.'' \20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ https://www.wri.org/research/financing-electric-and-hybrid-
    electric-buses
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2018, Thomas Built Buses and Proterra unveiled the high-
    performance Jouley electric school bus, which is capable of supplying
    power back to the electric grid using vehicle-to-grid (``V2G'')
    technology. Proterra's bi-directional bus/truck charging infrastructure
    system means that customers can send stored power back to the
    electricity grid at times when its needed most or even to provide back-
    up power to critical facilities like schools.
        Because school buses are on the road for only certain hours during
    the day and otherwise idle, especially during the weekends and summer
    months, battery-electric school buses present an optimal use case for
    V2G applications.
        In Virginia, Thomas Built Buses was selected as the provider of 50
    electric school buses for the first phase of Dominion Energy's electric
    school bus program. Under the program, participating school districts
    will pay about the price of a traditional diesel bus while Dominion
    Energy covers the difference.\21\ Virginia school districts could save
    $700 per month or $8,400 per year in operating costs, according to
    Dominion Energy.\22\ The initiative aims to add 1,000 electric school
    buses by 2025 and replace all diesel buses with zero-emission, electric
    school buses in the school districts serviced within Dominion's
    territory by 2030. Adding 1,000 electric school buses would store
    enough energy to power 10,000 homes.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrifying-virginias-
    school-bus-fleet
        \22\ https://www.axios.com/electric-school-buses-vehicle-to-grid-
    power-19f7b6b1-662b-4501-a96e-
    dcf3fd57a886.html
        \23\ https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrifying-virginias-
    school-bus-fleet
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Massachusetts, Thomas Built Buses recently delivered the first
    Proterra Powered all-electric school bus in New England, supported by
    VW Settlement funding. Highland Electric Transportation and National
    Grid, the local utility, are also working together to deploy a vehicle-
    to-grid strategy with these electric school buses.
        In Michigan, we recently deployed six Proterra Powered battery-
    electric school buses to Ann Arbor and Roseville public schools for a
    five-year pilot program that also includes a vehicle-to-grid study.
    This includes the ability for the bus battery to provide energy to the
    school during a power outage.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ https://www.michigan.gov/mienvironment/0,9349,7-385-90161-
    551135--,00.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Jack Allen, Chief Executive
                      Officer and Chairman, Proterra, Inc.

        Question 7. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. As a commercial electric vehicle and battery manufacturer,
    Proterra does not have a position on approaches to user fees, such as a
    VMT tax, for surface transportation funding. Proterra transit vehicles
    are designed to serve rural and urban communities alike and our buses
    are currently serving rural communities.

        Question 8. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. Modernizing our transportation infrastructure is critical
    to addressing emissions reduction in rural America. Ensuring the
    nation's roads and bridges are in a state of good repair can reduce the
    amount of time vehicles are spent idling or traversing poor
    infrastructure, both of which can result in increased vehicle
    emissions.\25\ Our battery electric transit buses are designed to serve
    rural communities and our zero emission buses are serving rural
    communities across the United States today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/motor-vehicles-
    air-quality/idle-reduction/why-
    idling-harmful
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Jack Allen, Chief Executive Officer
                          and Chairman, Proterra, Inc.

        Question 9. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Question 10. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer to questions 9 & 10. Proterra has been serving our customers
    for over a decade with battery electric vehicles. Customers across the
    nation are adopting battery electric vehicles because of the low total
    cost of ownership in addition to the environmental benefits of cleaner
    air and less noise pollution. Our transit bus and fleet charging
    customers include transit agencies, airports, universities and
    commercial establishments. Our electric powertrain customers include
    school bus, coach bus, delivery truck and construction equipment
    manufacturers. Recent polling also shows that Americans support the
    transition to electric vehicles for the broader benefits of health of
    Americans, air pollution, and reducing asthma \26\. Overall, the poll
    found that 63% of Americans support U.S. automakers transitioning to
    zero-emission vehicles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/u76/
    210219_EDF_GMEV%20Memo_D3_EH.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A 2019 poll of prospective car buyers, conducted by Consumer
    Reports and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 63 percent of
    prospective car buyers in the US have some interest in electric
    vehicles including 31% that would consider one for their next purchase,
    27% that would consider one at some point down the road, and 5% that
    say they are definitely planning on buying or leasing one for their
    next vehicle \27\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/surveying-consumers-electric-
    vehicles
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The industries that will support the clean economy globally should
    be built in the United States and those jobs should be American
    manufacturing and American technology jobs. The federal government has
    provided important support and market signals to build the clean
    technology industry here. Proterra delivered our first battery electric
    transit bus to Foothill Transit in the San Gabriel Valley over ten
    years ago. Foothill Transit was the first public transit agency in the
    United States to operate a battery-electric transit bus in revenue
    service. This initial deployment was supported by federal grant funding
    from the Recovery Act in 2009.
        Building on these early deployments, the federal government has
    increased support for zero-emission, electric transportation through
    programs like the Federal Transit Administration's Low or No Emission
    Vehicle Program (``Low No''). It has been responsible for funding
    electric buses that are being deployed nationwide in urban and rural
    communities in over 40 states.
        Since our initial deployment to Foothill Transit, Proterra has
    grown into a leading manufacturer of electric transit buses in North
    America. We've sold more than 1,000 electric buses with 600 that are on
    the road today. Our battery technology has been proven over 18 million
    miles of revenue service driven by our fleet of transit buses. This
    success has resulted in over 600 direct good-paying American jobs
    nationwide at Proterra, as well as jobs at component vendor companies
    in over 40 other states.
        The federal government's role in spurring demand for
    electrification through programs like Low No has established a strong
    foundation that companies like Proterra have been able to build upon.
        Battery costs have also declined approximately 85% since 2010 \28\
    and the value proposition that electric vehicles offer to private
    enterprise has grown. With lower operating costs, including maintenance
    and energy costs that are significantly lower than internal combustion
    engine vehicles, electric vehicles now offer a compelling economic
    proposition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ BloombergNEF ``Battery Pack Prices Fall As Market Ramps Up
    With Market Average At $156/kWh In 2019'' (December 2019)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a result, companies that operate some of the world's largest
    vehicle fleets like FedEx, UPS, and Amazon are advancing aggressive
    electrification targets.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ https://www.npr.org/2021/03/17/976152350/from-amazon-to-fedex-
    the-delivery-truck-is-going-
    electric
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is in this backdrop of technological innovation that our company
    has transformed into a diversified provider of electric vehicle
    technology.
        Increasing federal support for electrification can help drive the
    next wave of innovation and job creation that will position the United
    States well against foreign competition in this emerging market.

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Shameek Konar, Chief Executive
       Officer, Pilot Flying J, on behalf of the National Association of
                              Truckstop Operators

        Question 1. Mr. Konar, during the hearing, you mentioned that Pilot
    Flying J has deployed 58 charging stations, and the Federal government
    has a critical role to play to help fill the gap and get to mass-
    adoption of EV charging infrastructure in the retail fuel sector.
        How much money have NATSO members invested in EV charging
    infrastructure nationwide, and how many DC Fast charging stations are
    located at NATSO members' facilities?
        Answer. In February of 2020, NATSO launched the National Highway
    Charging Collaborative with ChargePoint, the world's largest EV
    charging network. The Collaborative aims to leverage $1 billion in
    capital to deploy charging at more than 4,000 travel plazas and fuel
    stops by 2030, enabling long distance electric travel along major
    routes and providing access to charging in rural communities. The
    Collaborative also advocates for public policies that are designed to
    create a business case for off-highway fuel retailers to invest in EV
    charging infrastructure.
        The Collaborative announced in March 2021 that it has successfully
    generated more than 150 DC fast charging stations. This is number is
    underinclusive of chargers available at NATSO members' facilities
    because it does not include: (1) members that have not informed NATSO
    of the investments they have made in EV charging stations at their
    facilities and (2) EV charging stations that are owned and operated by
    regulated utilities or other third-parties (eg, Tesla). Although those
    charging stations may be present now, they are not a long-term solution
    and therefore are not included in this data.

      Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Shameek Konar, Chief Executive
       Officer, Pilot Flying J, on behalf of the National Association of
                              Truckstop Operators

        Question 2. The U.S. has been leading in emission reductions for
    decades. Energy and climate solutions have been driven by the U.S.
    These solutions have been adopted by our allies and we've outpaced the
    Clean Power Plan by ten years. I am thankful for industry leaders who
    have led this charge, including many of you who testified before us.
    These same industry leaders use roads, bridges, rails, airports, and
    ports that they support through various fees and taxes, which allow
    these industries to compete in the market. These industries pay for the
    very programs that some would like to pull to address goals we are well
    on the way to meeting through the market.
        Some are pushing expensive programs that would put small businesses
    and rural America out of pace with major corporations and major urban
    centers through costly mandates and disadvantaged retooling. Even if
    grant programs and tax incentives are there, the quick implementation
    turnarounds on many of these programs stifle growth for our smallest
    businesses if they have to change their business models without proper
    lead time.
        Mississippi is home to over 5,000 small trucking companies, many
    mom and pop operations or small agriculture operations hauling
    livestock across the country.
        How much of your business is servicing small trucking or delivery
    service companies or owner-operators?
        Answer. Approximately 27-30% of our volume comes from what we would
    define as small fleets, though this number ebbs and flows throughout
    the year.

        Question 3. As we've discussed, larger corporations and
    transportation system manufacturers are moving towards more efficient
    systems. In my opinion, this allows larger companies to sell more
    efficient used equipment to smaller operations or allow prices to be
    more affordable for small businesses while also not setting burdensome
    mandates or requirements for compliance by the federal government. We
    know this works because Americans moved to using more fuel-efficient
    cars when automakers worked to produce them. That's why our Highway
    Trust Fund is depleted.
        What do you see as the impact on small businesses in your
    industries if mandated emission standards were put in place vs.
    allowing the market to work through this process we just discussed?
        Answer. The most expeditious, efficient and economical way to
    achieve environmental advancements in transportation energy technology
    is through market-oriented, consumer-focused policies that encourage
    all businesses to offer more alternatives and our customers to purchase
    those alternatives. Fuel retailers are in the business of providing
    competitively priced fuel and services to our customers and have
    demonstrated in recent years that we are prepared to invest in any
    transportation fueling technology that our customers desire. With the
    right alignment of policy incentives, fuel retailers are well equipped
    to facilitate a faster, more widespread and cost-effective transition
    to alternatives--including electricity--in the coming years.

        Question 4. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. NATSO has adopted principles it believes lawmakers should
    follow when considering ways to fund highway programs. Funding
    mechanisms should be:
          Simple--It should be efficient and inexpensive to collect
    highway funds.
          Difficult to Evade--It should be difficult for taxpayers
    to evade paying the tax / fee for infrastructure investment.
          User-Based--The primary stream of funding for
    infrastructure projects should be user-based.
          Energy Source-Neutral--All energy sources must be subject
    to the same fee on a gallon / energy equivalent basis.
          Transparent--Users must be able to understand the amount
    they are being charged.
          Dedicated to Infrastructure--Funds raised in the name of
    improving surface transportation infrastructure should be dedicated to
    surface transportation infrastructure for the benefit of the payer.
    Reallocating such funds for other purposes should be prohibited.
          Long-Term--The revenue generated by the funding solution
    should not significantly diminish over time. As a means of guarding
    against future shortfalls, the funding solution should contain
    automatic adjustments to mitigate trends that decrease the revenue it
    generates, such as fuel efficiency.

        Question 5. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. NATSO has long supported robust investment in the nation's
    roads and bridges for a variety of reasons, including the improvements
    those investments would have on emissions.

       Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Shameek Konar, Chief Executive
       Officer, Pilot Flying J, on behalf of the National Association of
                              Truckstop Operators

        Question 6. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Question 7. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer to questions 6 & 7. Until the number of EVs on the road
    reaches a critical mass, there is an important role for federal policy
    to ``bridge the gap'' and make private investments more viable while
    providing long-term consumer benefits. This would be comparable to the
    experience from the power generation sector, where numerous programs
    including investment tax credits, portfolio standards, cap and trade
    systems, and grants have fostered the development of renewable
    generation--especially wind and solar--to get those technologies to a
    point of scale and economic parity. The transportation sector needs to
    follow a similar path to foster the disciplined, expeditious and
    economic adoption of EVs, with the utility sector and retail fuel
    sector focusing on their core competencies to deliver the solution to
    consumers.
        For maximum impact, grant programs or other federal investment
    designed to encourage investment in EV charging infrastructure and
    supply equipment should be dispersed in a manner that includes certain
    guardrails to ensure a level playing field, including incentives to
    incubate and foster development that will provide long-term consumer
    benefits. Policy mechanisms worth considering include: (1) direct
    investment and tax credits; (2) low carbon fuel programs; (3) reselling
    electricity; and (4) uniform pricing.
        Conversely, policies that at first blush appear to be quick and
    easy solutions may have the unintended consequence of undermining
    either utilities' incentives to restructure the power grid or
    retailers' incentive to invest in EV charging infrastructure. Examples
    of these counterproductive policies include: (1) forcing ratepayers to
    underwrite utilities' investment in EV charging stations or to
    subsidize the retail cost of electricity that charges electric
    vehicles; (2) allowing EV charging infrastructure at interstate rest
    areas; and (3) permitting utilities that own EV charging stations to
    charge other EV station owners higher rates for power than the internal
    transfer price they charge their own operations.

      Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Troy Rudd, Chief Executive
                                 Officer, AECOM

        Question 1. Mr. Rudd, one of the former Administration's proposed
    changes to the environmental review process is intended limit the
    consideration of cumulative effects, such as climate change, in the
    environmental review process.
        Given the cost of climate change to the government and the economy,
    do you believe it is appropriate that a NEPA analysis consider the
    impact of a proposed project on the climate?
        Answer. The short answer is, yes. As we work collectively to
    advance our national focus toward addressing climate change, we see an
    opportunity to further this effort under the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA) process. NEPA can analyze, in a meaningful way, the
    potential effects of Federal proposed actions on climate change
    considerations.
        AECOM, in accordance with CEQ's current guidance to address
    greenhouse gases pursuant to EO 13990 (see: https://ceq.doe.gov/
    guidance/ceq_guidance_nepa-ghg.html), has developed and is implementing
    an innovative process to assess climate change in NEPA documents
    addressing cumulative impacts through demonstration of the interplay of
    climate change with other environmental resources. Specifically, we
    couple: (1) a traditional evaluation of greenhouse gases as a component
    of the Air Quality analysis (i.e., effects of the project on climate
    change) with (2) a resource-specific climate change effects analysis
    for each resource area evaluated in the EIS (i.e., effects of climate
    change on the ROI, project, or program). The integration of climate
    change considerations into resource-specific effects analyses provides
    an opportunity to demonstrate the interplay of climate change
    considerations both across and within the context of specific resources
    analyzed, drawing on the expertise of all resource disciplines. With
    renewed interest in the climate change ``crisis'' under the Biden
    administration, we believe an efficient and streamlined process to
    assess climate impacts transversally across resources/disciplines is
    key to their meaningful inclusion in NEPA documents. We have found that
    this approach does not slow the process down (as demonstrated in recent
    Federal NEPA actions) but can actually speed up project implementation
    and reduce delays due to holistic and comprehensive planning, thereby
    maximizing return on investment (ROI).

        Question 2. Mr. Rudd, your testimony noted that you helped
    primarily rural Fresno County, CA assess how rural transit agencies can
    benefit from vehicle electrification to improve resilience. Too often,
    transit is thought of as an urban-only solution.
        What role can rural transit play in providing climate solutions?
        Answer. Often, exurban and rural communities depend on long-
    distance bus services that rural transit operators provide for both
    commuter access to the nearest employment centers. These same
    communities may also rely on commuter rail, and even intercity
    passenger rail for access to jobs, healthcare or higher education. Both
    rail and bus options, in addition to providing mobility access,
    contribute to climate and air-quality benefits by reducing long-
    distance single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and thereby reducing VMT.
    In some cases, rural commuter service into urban centers can be
    substantial, providing the benefits of those reduced (SOV) trips and
    congestion improvements on the corridor served. While this type of
    access may not be available everywhere, the potential for climate
    friendly transportation service that also addresses cleaner air for
    rural communities and access to education opportunities, healthcare,
    and economic and employment centers is certainly worthwhile.
        Climate change is having an impact in rural, suburban and urban
    communities, and transportation is the single largest contributor of
    carbon pollution. The steps we take to address the resiliency of our
    infrastructure, but also to provide cleaner transportation options, are
    appropriate in all communities.
        Rural regions of the country will likely transition slower to zero
    emissions vehicles, as density will be less and public charging
    infrastructure will likely be reduced in low density areas, including
    rural areas. By creating a focus on rural transit, efforts to electrify
    bus fleets in these rural areas can accelerate availability of shared
    public charging infrastructure, catalyze the modernization of grid
    infrastructure to support future electric vehicles, and also provide
    the benefits of zero emissions vehicles to regions that may be slower
    to transition.

        Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Troy Rudd, Chief Executive
                                 Officer, AECOM

        Question 1. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) proposals [or Mileage Based
    User Fees (MBUFs) or Road User Charges (RUCs)] are being looked at as
    options to address the projected decline in purchasing power of the
    federal gas tax, which is currently the central use-oriented revenue
    source for highway, bridge, and transit investments. Currently, the
    more a person drives on the road, the more gas they use and federal and
    state motor fuel taxes they pay. It may be imperfect, but it has served
    as the best user-oriented revenue source we have had to date. However,
    while the gas tax currently raises a very sizable stream of revenue,
    many experts see its role in the long term as a declining revenue
    source, especially as we move toward more fuel efficient and
    electrified fleets. A VMT-oriented approach is currently seen as the
    best alternative to the gas tax that would maintain the connection
    between use of our surface transportation system and the revenues
    needed to support the spending to repair and replace them.
        While many believe that a direct user pay model is also the fairest
    approach to charge those using the roads to help pay for them, there
    are certainly concerns among those in rural communities about how the
    approach will impact them. When considering the concerns of rural
    communities, it is important to understand that VMT (MBUF/RUC)
    approaches can be developed that recognize and adjust for rural equity
    concerns.
        The Road User Charge (RUC) is increasingly being viewed as
    potentially the fairest method to charge for the use of infrastructure.
    The RUC would replace the amount paid for gas taxes with a fee for road
    use. While the current gas tax may be seen as disproportionately
    impacting rural drivers as they drive more miles and often drive less
    fuel-efficient vehicles, a RUC can be designed to be a more progressive
    charge allowing for initiatives such as rebates, discounts, and even
    charging different amounts per mile by vehicle, time of day, or
    roadway. To be fair, all vehicles including electric vehicles, should
    contribute to pay for the use of our roadway system.
        The Eastern Corridor Coalition found that after participating in
    their RUC pilot, 83 percent of participants said RUC was as fair or
    fairer than the gas tax. The RUC can be a more equitable or fair method
    of collection than the gas tax because with RUC, all drivers using the
    roadway, including highly fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles,
    pay to maintain and operate the roadway network.
        In 2017, a report was issued on the RUC West Consortium entitled
    ``Financial Impacts of Road User Charges on Urban and Rural
    Households.'' This report provided an analysis of the financial impacts
    of a revenue-neutral RUC for drivers in urban and rural counties for
    eight states in the RUC West Consortium--Arizona, California, Idaho,
    Montana, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. The report's analysis
    showed that households in rural census tracts will generally pay less
    under a road user charge than they are currently paying in gasoline
    taxes. In most states, households in mixed census tracts will also pay
    less under a RUC. Households in urban areas in all eight states could
    see a slight increase in payments.
        The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
    Commission (established by Congress as part of the SAFETEA-LU
    Authorizing legislation) studied the range of funding options and
    concluded that: ``a federal funding system based on more direct forms
    of ``user pay'' charges in the form of a charge for each mile driven
    (commonly referred to as a vehicle miles traveled or VMT fee system),
    has emerged as the consensus choice for the future.''
        We share the following links as resources to consider as this issue
    progresses:
         https://www.rucwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/
    RUC_RuralDrivers_
    folio_final-LTR.pdf
         http://www.mbufa.org/myth.html
         https://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/
    NSTIF_Commission_
    Final_Report_Exec_Summary_Feb09.pdf
         https://tetcoalitionmbuf.org/states-are-exploring-new-
    ways-to-pay-for-
    transportation-our-latest-research-shows-addressing-public-opinion-
    will-be-key/?subscribe=success#wp-widget-blog_subscription
         https://tetcoalitionmbuf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/
    Coalition-MBUF-Equity-
    _-Fairness-Tech-Memo_2019.pdf
         https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/22/policymakers-
    guide-road-user-charges

        Question 2. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. Investments in transportation that make the system more
    efficient and reduce congestion have the added benefit of opportunity
    to also reduce emissions. Improvements that address major deficiencies
    in infrastructure quality that result in reduced trip length, travel
    time, congestion and idling of commercial vehicles may have benefits on
    air quality, but the specifics of those improvements would be
    determining factors in how much improvement in air quality would
    result. There are also advances being made in materials that are
    showing promise for carbon emission reductions.
        Additionally, often exurban and rural communities depend on long-
    distance bus services that rural transit operators provide for both
    commuter access to the nearest employment centers. Those options, in
    addition to providing mobility access, also provide climate and air-
    quality benefits by reducing long-distance single-occupancy vehicle
    (SOV) trips. In some cases, rural commuter service into urban centers
    can be substantial, providing the benefits of those reduced (SOV) trips
    and congestion improvements on the corridor served. While this type of
    access may not be available everywhere, the potential for climate
    friendly transportation service that also address access to economic
    and employment centers is certainly worthwhile.
        Climate change is having an impact in rural, suburban and urban
    communities, and transportation is the single largest contributor of
    carbon pollution. The steps we take to address the resiliency of our
    infrastructure, but also to provide cleaner transportation options are
    appropriate in all communities.

    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Troy Rudd, Chief Executive Officer,
                                     AECOM

        Question 3. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Question 4. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer to questions 3 & 4. We see electrification of the
    transportation sector as a solution to a problem that our clients are
    raising with us, and one that is thoroughly achievable.
        We know that fossil fuels are contributing to greenhouse gas
    emissions. We also know that the transportation sector is currently the
    economic sector that is currently contributing the greatest amount to
    our carbon emissions total, making it the sector that has the most
    opportunity for reductions. A move towards electrification now will
    enable significant reductions in carbon emissions, and when coupled
    with decarbonization of the power sector, these changes hold great
    promise to help us achieve goals for reduced greenhouse gas emissions
    in the near and long term. A study by the American Lung Association
    found that with a nationwide transition to EVs by 2050, the U.S. could
    avoid 6,300 premature deaths, 93,000 asthma attacks, and 416,000 lost
    workdays each year. Over that time, it would add up to $72 billion in
    health benefits and $113 in climate-related benefits. Further, this
    transition would result in a 94% cut in greenhouse gas emissions,
    particularly for millions of Americans who live in counties where there
    are unhealthy levels of ozone and particle pollution.
        Technology advances over the last decade have driven prices down
    significantly, with battery pack prices falling 89 percent and many
    automakers stating they believe electric vehicles will cost the same
    price as comparable internal combustion engines by 2023. Electric
    vehicles are also less expensive to maintain, and this means cost
    savings for governments and businesses that operate and maintain large
    fleets. These governments and businesses are beginning to recognize
    that the technology has reached a point of maturity where fleet
    conversion is not only possible but is practical and makes financial
    sense due to cost savings derived from both power and maintenance. We
    regularly support government and commercial clients in their dual goals
    to reduce costs (saving taxpayers or clients money) and reduce
    emissions through energy efficiency and operations improvements. We
    think this makes good government sense, and good business sense.
        AECOM is working with clients to develop holistic approaches to
    transportation electrification that combine fleet conversion and
    charging infrastructure with grid enhancements (microgrids and
    distributed energy), energy efficiency improvements, and renewable
    energy applications. When combined together, the savings achieved and
    the energy applied have enormous potential to reshape our
    transportation systems for the better.

      Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Rafael Santana, President and
                  Chief Executive Officer, Wabtec Corporation

        Question 1. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. Wabtec Corporation does not have a position on the Vehicle
    Miles Tax and its benefits for rural Americans. That issue is outside
    the scope of Wabtec's business which is freight rail locomotives and
    freight and transit rail components.

        Question 2. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. Wabtec Corporation generally supports increased investment
    in various infrastructure projects that might reduce emissions in rural
    America. As I discussed in my testimony, Wabtec believes that
    increasing freight rail utilization, capacity, and developing hydrogen
    locomotives will further reduce emissions in across America, including
    rural America where thousands of freight railroad lines connect cities
    and towns. Wabtec believes that increasing freight rail utilization by
    50% and deploying hydrogen freight rail locomotives by 2030 will
    eliminate 100 million tons of carbon dioxide in the United States every
    year.

    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Rafael Santana, President and Chief
                     Executive Officer, Wabtec Corporation

        Question 3. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Question 4. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer to questions 3 & 4. Wabtec is a locomotive manufacturer and
    does not have a position on tax credits for electric vehicles.

     Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and
                   Chief Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation

        Question 1. Mr. Smith, FedEx has made the business decision to have
    an entire fleet of zero vehicles (ZEV) by 2040. While this will have
    the environmental benefit of reduced emissions reduction, as a business
    you are first and foremost focused on your bottom line and the laser
    focus on total cost of ownership.
        Why did you conclude from a business perspective that rapid
    transition to ZEV's was the smartest move?
        Answer. As we announced on March 3, 2021, the transition to ZEV's
    will be via a phased approach that will occur over the next 19 years.
    We also announced interim goals for the FedEx Express pick-up and
    delivery (PUD) vehicle fleet, of which we expect 50% of our global PUD
    vehicle purchases to be ZEV by 2025 and 100% by 2030. These goals do
    not apply to our long-haul trucking fleet since the technological path
    to electrification for this class of vehicles is lagging light and
    medium-duty vehicles.
        In addition to being the right thing to do for the well-being of
    the communities where we operate, there are economic considerations in
    transitioning away from internal combustion engines in our PUD fleet.
        On average, FedEx anticipates that the savings achieved from
    electric vehicle use compared to continued use of internal combustion
    engine vehicles could be in a range of approximately 50% of current
    operating costs. We recognize that actual savings as a result of this
    transition will depend on external factors, such as changes in fuel
    costs over the 19-year transition, fluctuation in manufacturing and
    production costs, as well as capital expenditures to construct the
    supporting ground infrastructure needed for EVs.

        Question 2. Fast forward to 2040, when FedEx and other business
    competitors will have all or significant ZEV fleets.
        How much will FedEx save by 2040 with an all ZEV fleet?
        Answer. As noted above, we expect the savings from this transition
    to be in a range of approximately 50% of today's current vehicle
    operating costs. This estimate will likely change based on other
    external factors, such as future fuel costs over the course of the 19-
    year transition, fluctuation in EV manufacturing and production, as
    well as capital expenditures to replace and electrify our network and
    pickup and delivery fleet. Much, if not all of this investment, will be
    recovered over time. Beyond the economic incentives for our company,
    this is an investment in the continued well-being of the communities we
    serve.

        Question 3. Do you think any major business focused on delivery of
    goods at your scale could compete in 2040 without a nearly all ZEV
    fleet, instead depending on outdated gas-guzzling technology?
        Answer. While I am not able to opine on the business decisions of
    FedEx's competitors, I think we will continue to see a transition away
    from ICE vehicles and toward EVs due to the clear and compelling
    economic and societal benefits, as well as consumer demand.

     Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and
                   Chief Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation

        Question 4. As we've discussed, larger corporations and
    transportation system manufacturers are moving towards more efficient
    systems. In my opinion, this allows larger companies to sell more
    efficient used equipment to smaller operations or allow prices to be
    more affordable for small businesses while also not setting burdensome
    mandates or requirements for compliance by the federal government. We
    know this works because Americans moved to using more fuel-efficient
    cars when automakers worked to produce them. That's why our Highway
    Trust Fund is depleted.
        What do you see as the impact on small businesses in your
    industries if mandated emission standards were put in place vs.
    allowing the market to work through this process we just discussed?
        Answer. Emissions standards are currently regulated by the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, and for the transportation industry,
    those standards are enforced by the relevant component agencies of the
    U.S. Department of Transportation. These standards are developed via
    the federal rulemaking process, which affords opportunity for public
    comment to allow the agency to fully consider the impact of these
    policy decisions on the affected stakeholders, including the
    consideration of alternatives that achieve the same objective yet
    minimize the burden on small businesses. When such policy changes are
    under consideration, we work closely with our independent service
    providers to assess the impact on our operation, as well as evaluate
    the rate of technology development and internal and external
    infrastructure modification and development that would be needed to
    support these changes to ensure these factors are considered by the
    relevant agencies.

        Question 5. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. As Americans continue to purchase and drive electric and
    hybrid passenger vehicles, receipts from motor fuel taxes paid into the
    Highway Trust Fund will continue to decline, thus further reducing
    resources needed to maintain the Federal highway system. An equitable
    and well-designed Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax could be implemented
    that builds on the existing user fee model for highways, while also
    balancing the needs of Americans living in rural areas. FedEx
    recognizes that such a policy shift is of interest to all who use the
    federal highway system and looks forward to working with Congress and
    the U.S. Department of Transportation in developing a system that
    builds upon the productivity of the nation's highways.

        Question 6. How might a VMT change parcel service business models,
    both large and small?
        Answer. Creating a stable source of funding to modernize and invest
    in infrastructure will increase safety and efficiency across our
    country's aging transportation system for all users--both passenger and
    commercial. The long-term benefits of this investment will be shared
    across the transportation companies, large and small, who move nearly
    70% of all U.S. freight tonnage by trucks.

        Question 7. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. Infrastructure is not limited to being a rural or urban
    issue. Our interstate system is over 60 years old, and many of our
    roads and bridges are dangerously deteriorated, as regularly reported
    by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). In smaller, rural
    communities, when a bridge is not safe to cross, operators are often
    forced to drive miles out of their way to safely get to their
    destination, which only serves to increase vehicle emissions.
    Improvements in our infrastructure are necessary not only for reduction
    in emissions, but to keep our system safe for all users, and ensure the
    system is capable of sustaining and advancing the anticipated economic
    growth of all industries who rely on this system.

        Question 8. As widespread use of commercial parcel delivery by
    Unmanned Aerial Systems becomes more of a reality, how can UAS be best
    used to address emissions and traffic issues across the country?
    Mississippi State University in my district houses the FAA Center of
    Excellence for UAS and would be glad to help address that need.
        Answer. Continued investment in research and development of new
    technologies, including small unmanned aircraft systems, will result in
    safety and efficiency advancements for our team members and operations.
    As we have noted previously, it will take a portfolio of solutions to
    address the challenges of the anticipated growth in the e-commerce
    market. More research and development is needed to fully understand the
    impact and various use cases for small unmanned aircraft systems, which
    is why we continue to work with the U.S. Federal Aviation
    Administration via the agency's Beyond program to build on the findings
    of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Small Unmanned Aircraft
    System (UAS) Integration Pilot Program (IPP).

      Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and
                   Chief Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation

        Question 9. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Question 10. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer to question 10. As evidenced by our long-standing history of
    leadership in sustainability, including our announcement on March 3,
    2021, businesses can and will lead in this effort. To do so, however,
    we need supportive policies that help advance innovation. Those
    policies can only come by working together to ensure alignment on
    investment and research and development priorities.
        We have to modernize our country's infrastructure to accommodate
    new and more sustainable technologies. Widespread deployment of
    electric vehicles, not just by FedEx but other large fleets, small
    businesses, municipalities, and individuals will have a profound impact
    on the power grid. We support public policy that strengthens this
    infrastructure and ensures that the electricity being generated comes
    from a diverse set of low and zero emission sources and is of
    sufficient supply to meet the demand of all users.
        I can't speak to the supply chains of individual EV manufacturers
    here in the U.S., but recent studies have shown that by shifting 50
    percent of all vehicles produced to electric would result in a global
    net total of ten million new jobs across all sectors of the economy.
    Incentives intended to speed the adoption of and transition to EVs or
    stimulate manufacturing of EVs would stimulate both job growth and the
    economy.

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice
         President for Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

        Question 1. Ms. Giammona, does PG&E support a change in Federal law
    to allow EV charging at park-and-ride facilities and rest areas? Would
    this help expand EV charging deployment and reduce range anxiety?
        Answer. PG&E is dedicated to working with our customers,
    communities, regulators and policymakers to advance solutions that
    increase access to electric vehicle (EV) charging and reduce range
    anxiety. Range anxiety is one of the key barriers customers cite to EV
    adoption. While newer models of light-duty EVs provide increased range
    comparable with internal combustion engine vehicles, access to charging
    including along the interstate highway system is needed to provide EV
    drivers convenient, dependable recharging options for longer trips. If
    the Federal government decides EV charging should be allowed at park-
    and-ride facilities and rest areas, PG&E will be ready and willing to
    work with our customers to provide utility services needed to deploy
    charging at these locations.

        Question 2. Do you have any examples of partnerships with the
    retail fuel sector to provide EV charging?
        Answer. The role played by electric utilities is only one of many
    in the broader transportation electrification ecosystem. This ecosystem
    includes entities such as policy makers, automakers, EV charging
    companies, battery and component manufacturers, technology providers,
    utilities, and host sites for EV charging, including traditional fuel
    retailers. EV drivers will need multiple options for charging, and fuel
    retailers can play an important role in this space.
        Through PG&E's EV Fast Charge program, we are partnering with fuel
    retailers, including 7-Eleven, to install public EV fast charging at
    retailer locations. PG&E's EV Fast Charge program is investing $22
    million from 2020 to 2025 to install infrastructure that supports
    Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) that is publicly accessible 24
    hours a day, seven days a week. In February 2021, PG&E announced that
    the first public EV fast chargers installed through this program are
    now open at a 7-Eleven location in West Sacramento, and the companies
    are examining opportunities to install fast chargers at other 7-Eleven
    locations.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company, ``PG&E Launches EV Fast
    Charge Program to Help Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption in
    California'' (February 18, 2021), https://www.pgecurrents.com/2021/02/
    18/pge-launches-ev-fast-charge-program-to-help-accelerate-electric-
    vehicle-adoption-in-california/.

        Question 3. Ms. Giammona, can you expand on some of PG&Es efforts
    to ensure that EV charging infrastructure reaches all communities.
        How much has PG&E, and the electric utility sector, invested in
    helping communities deploy EV charging infrastructure?
        Answer. As part of our normal course of business, PG&E invests in
    upgrading and maintaining our electric distribution grid to accommodate
    all new loads, including the growing loads for EV charging. In
    addition, PG&E is making supplemental capital investments that total
    more than $400 million in approved infrastructure programs through
    2025--one of the largest utility-EV investments in the nation. These
    investments include:
          EV Charge Network: $130 million to install 4,000 to 5,000
    level-2 charging ports to support light-duty vehicle charging at
    workplaces and multi-unit dwellings. Through March 2021, 4,504 level-2
    charging ports have been installed at 184 sites.
          EV Fleet: $236 million to help 700+ organizations
    including school districts, transit agencies and small businesses
    electrify their fleet operations by supporting infrastructure for 6,500
    medium- and heavy-duty EVs. Through March 2021, EV charging
    infrastructure has been installed at 22 sites to support 237 electric
    fleet vehicles.
          EV Fast Charge: $22 million to install infrastructure to
    support public Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC). Through March 2021,
    four DCFC ports have been installed at one site.
          EV Schools and Parks: $12 million in charging
    infrastructure at schools and state parks. As of April 2021, PG&E is
    currently accepting and reviewing applications from potential program
    participants.

        These charging programs include incentives for, and deployment
    targets in, disadvantaged communities, helping to ensure all customers
    can equitably access the benefits of EVs, and PG&E seeks to install up
    to 2,000 level-1 and level-2 home chargers for low-income customers by
    2023.
        While PG&E will continue to play a critical role deploying EV
    charging infrastructure in our service area, particularly in
    underserved communities, PG&E's investments alone will not meet the
    significant demand for EV charging in our service area. A recent EV
    charging infrastructure assessment performed by the California Energy
    Commission found that through September 2020 there were approximately
    67,000 shared public and private chargers in California.\2\ The
    assessment concluded the State would need nearly 1.5 million chargers
    by 2030 to support the number of vehicles envisaged by Governor Gavin
    Newsom's Executive Order setting a goal of phasing out sales of light-
    duty internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.\3\ The significant
    amount of charging infrastructure required demonstrates the need for
    support from EV markets and a multitude of stakeholders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ California Energy Commission, ``Electric Vehicle Charging
    Infrastructure Assessment--AB 2127,'' https://www.energy.ca.gov/
    programs-and-topics/programs/electric-vehicle-charging-
    infrastructure-assessment-ab-2127.
        \3\ Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, ``Executive Order N-79-20''
    (September 23, 2020), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/
    09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-text.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Industry-wide, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which
    represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies, reports that as
    of the end of January 2021, 52 electric companies had received
    regulatory approval in 31 states for electric transportation
    filings.\4\ As a result, these electric companies are investing nearly
    $3 billion in customer programs to deploy charging infrastructure and
    accelerate electric transportation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Edison Electric Institute, ``Electric Transportation Biannual
    State Regulatory Update'' (February 2021), https://www.eei.org/
    issuesandpolicy/electrictransportation/Documents/FINAL_
    ET%20Biannual%20State%20Regulatory%20Update_February2021.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice
         President for Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

        Question 4. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. While PG&E does not have a position on federal vehicle
    miles traveled (VMT) proposals, we believe all drivers, including EV
    owners, should contribute to the Highway Trust Fund and support the
    infrastructure they utilize. Any proposal should recognize the
    environmental benefits and efficiency of EVs while also considering the
    equity implications proposals may have on some drivers, including those
    who have longer commutes with limited public transit options.

        Question 5. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. According to research sponsored by the National Science
    Foundation, traffic congestion increases vehicle emissions and degrades
    air quality, which leads to excess morbidity and mortality for drivers,
    commuters and individuals living near major roadways.\5\ Traffic
    congestion can be caused by various factors, including accidents,
    weather, work zones, poorly managed traffic controls, and physical
    bottlenecks due to insufficient or deteriorated infrastructure that
    cannot efficiently accommodate the volume of travelers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Zhang, Kai and Batterman, Stuart, ``Air pollution and health
    risks due to vehicle traffic'' (November 2014), https://
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243514/#::text=Traffic
    %20congestion%20increases%20vehicle%20emissions,on%20roads%20is%20very%2
    0limited.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Improved infrastructure could help reduce traffic congestion and as
    result help lower transportation emissions. Further, greater deployment
    of EVs, which emit no tailpipe emissions, will further reduce
    transportation pollution in all communities.

      Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice
         President for Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

        Question 6. Ms. Giammona, in your testimony, you described the
    importance of a partnership among public sector, private sector, and
    regulated utilities to facilitate electrification of the light duty
    vehicle fleet.
        What role has PG&E played in providing publicly available EV supply
    equipment, and how can utilities like PG&E partner with the public and
    private sector to advance the adoption of EVs?
        Answer. PG&E is actively collaborating with automakers, charging
    equipment providers, state agencies, customers, and communities to
    support the large-scale electric infrastructure needed to incorporate
    EV charging systems into the energy grid. Additionally, PG&E is making
    investments totaling more than $400 million in approved infrastructure
    programs through 2025--one of the largest utility-EV investments in the
    nation. These investments include $22 million to install infrastructure
    to support public Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) and $12 million
    in charging infrastructure at schools and state parks. All DCFC
    installed through PG&E's Fast Charge program will be accessible to the
    public 24 hours a day, seven days a week while charging infrastructure
    installed at certain schools and parks will also be available for
    public use. Other PG&E charging programs target infrastructure
    investments in medium- and heavy-duty fleet electrification and level-2
    charging at workplaces and multi-unit dwellings, which are not
    necessarily publicly accessible but will aid in efforts for fleets and
    individuals to transition to electric transportation.
        To help advance the adoption of EVs in Northern and Central
    California, PG&E partners with both the private and public sectors to
    overcome common barriers to adoption. PG&E provides vital assistance to
    help our customers overcome these barriers by expanding access to
    charging infrastructure, reducing the total cost of ownership of EVs,
    and engaging and educating customers about the benefits of EVs. PG&E is
    also working to optimize charging infrastructure siting and usage to
    maximize grid benefits and support customer affordability. To ensure a
    smooth transition to widespread EV adoption, PG&E strongly encourages
    our customers, policymakers, and regulators seeking to support EV
    charging in our service area to communicate early with PG&E so we can
    ensure the distribution grid is best prepared to meet these new demands
    in an efficient, timely manner. Utilities across the United States can
    take similar steps to aid public and private sector customers'
    transition to electrified transportation.

    Questions from Hon. Nikema Williams to Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice
         President for Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

        Question 7. There is rising pressure to find sustainable solutions
    to combat climate change and protect our resources for the future
    generations to come.
        Ms. Giammona, in your testimony you suggested grant funding for
    public EVs and other forms of clean fuel infrastructure for deployment
    in disadvantaged communities.
        How can we ensure benefits of EVs are also available to
    disadvantaged communities and low-income customers? As we move to
    upgrade the grid and charging infrastructures in low-income
    communities, what obstacles do you see in terms of making it equitably
    available and what should Congress do to combat these?
        Answer. PG&E supports incentives and policies that ensure
    disadvantaged communities and low-income customers can benefit from
    EVs, including reducing the upfront costs of EVs, ensuring charging
    options are available in these communities, and working with schools,
    local transit agencies and fleet operators to electrify medium- and
    heavy-duty vehicles. California and PG&E have enacted policies and
    programs that specifically strive to ensure that disadvantaged
    communities are not left behind in the transition to EVs, and we
    believe federal policy can complement these activities and accelerate
    opportunities for these communities to realize the benefits of EVs.
        Of note, federal policies that provide point-of-sale rebates and
    used EV incentives will help lower the upfront cost of light-duty EVs
    for all customers, including those with limited tax liability. PG&E is
    working to reduce the overall cost of EV ownership through rebates and
    specialized electric rates that ensure owning and operating an EV can
    be cheaper than a gasoline-fueled alternative. In addition to federal
    tax credits, Californians are eligible for a point-of-sale price
    reduction of up to $1,500 for the purchase or lease of a new EV through
    the California Clean Fuel Reward program.\6\ PG&E also offers
    residential and commercial EV charging rates, that provide predictable,
    simplified and affordable rates for customers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ California Clean Fuel Reward, https://cleanfuelreward.com/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal policy can also provide incentives such as grants to ensure
    charging infrastructure is deployed in disadvantaged communities. At
    PG&E, we are investing more than $400 million through 2025 in
    infrastructure investments to expand EV charging, including level-2
    charging at workplaces and multi-unit dwellings, public fast charging,
    charging at schools and parks, and charging for medium- and heavy-duty
    fleets such as transit agencies and school districts. These charging
    programs include incentives for, and deployment targets in,
    disadvantaged communities, helping to ensure customers can equitably
    access the benefits of EVs. PG&E additionally seeks to install up to
    2,000 level-1 and level-2 home chargers for low-income customers by
    2023 as part of its Empower EV program.
        Finally, disadvantaged and environmentally burdened communities
    often suffer from poor air quality due to proximity to major
    transportation corridors (e.g., highways) or industrial areas that see
    a large flow of fleet vehicles (e.g., ports, railyards, etc.) and can
    benefit from improved air quality with greater deployment of EVs,
    particularly electrification of transit buses, school buses, and other
    fleet vehicles which produce a larger share of air pollution. Federal
    programs that provide grants and incentives can help advance the
    development and deployment of medium- and heavy-duty EVs and necessary
    charging infrastructure in these communities.
        The greatest barrier to EV adoption and charging deployment in
    disadvantaged communities remains the upfront cost of the vehicle and
    customer charging stations. For some EV charging providers, building
    charging in disadvantaged communities where EV adoption remains low may
    not provide a necessary return on investment. A recent study by the
    California Energy Commission on the distribution of EV chargers found
    that low-income census tracts have the fewest chargers per capita while
    high income census tracts have the most.\7\ For potential EV owners in
    these communities, the lack of accessible charging infrastructure--
    combined with the higher upfront cost of some EV models--can discourage
    adoption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ California Energy Commission, ``SB 1000 Electric Vehicle
    Charging Infrastructure Deployment Assessment'' (December 21, 2020),
    https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?
    tn=236075&DocumentContentId=69078.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To overcome these barriers, Congress should examine opportunities
    to provide grant funding and other incentives to deploy charging
    infrastructure in disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, opportunities
    to reduce the upfront cost of EVs, including point-of-sale rebates and
    used EV incentives, will help lower the upfront cost of light-duty EVs
    for all drivers, including low-income drivers who may have limited tax
    liability.

        Question 8. I'm proud to represent the Atlanta region, which is
    serviced by the public transportation system, MARTA. In 2019 the
    company announced that it would start to replace several diesel buses
    with zero-emission battery operated models. A shift that I would love
    to see with both public and private transportation systems across the
    country. However, I recognize that there are challenges to electrifying
    buses.
        What are some of the barriers to customers who want to electrify
    their medium and heavy-duty fleets and what is PG&E doing to support?
        Answer. The principal barriers to electrifying medium- and heavy-
    duty vehicles are the capital and debt costs and availability of
    electric models in these vehicle classes; understanding and planning
    for a new refueling paradigm; and the cost and work associated with
    installation of charging infrastructure.
        Increasing federal and state policy certainty regarding a
    transition to cleaner vehicles as well as technology cost reductions
    have encouraged more vehicle manufacturers to produce electric versions
    of fleet vehicles needed for various medium- and heavy-duty purposes.
    PG&E encourages the Federal government to further this policy certainty
    and provide incentives for both manufacturers and consumers of these
    vehicles to help accelerate their financing, production and adoption.
        While direct financial support to lower the upfront costs of
    medium- or heavy-duty electric vehicles is outside of PG&E's supportive
    scope, PG&E does assist its medium- and heavy-duty fleet customers who
    are interested in transitioning to electric vehicles by providing
    education to demystify transportation electrification and learn about
    available models and purchase incentives. PG&E and electric utilities
    act as trusted energy advisors that customers seek to learn from, and
    we very much see this as an opportunity to help our customers
    transition to cleaner forms of transportation.
        PG&E further assists medium- and heavy-duty fleet customers with
    the installation of charging infrastructure necessary to transition to
    electric vehicles. Through PG&E's EV Fleet program, PG&E is investing
    $236 million through 2024 to help 700+ organizations including school
    districts, transit agencies and small businesses electrify their fleet
    operations by supporting infrastructure for 6,500 medium- and heavy-
    duty EVs. Customers participating in the EV Fleet program can see the
    upfront costs of electrifying their fleet reduced significantly.
        Another concern for fleet operators has been the affordability and
    predictability of refueling costs. PG&E has developed an innovative
    business EV rate that replaces demand charges with monthly subscription
    charges that allow for greater price certainty. This rate provides
    business customers a rate of $1.77 per gallon equivalent, which is
    about 55 percent lower than current gasoline prices in California.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ AAA, ``State Gas Price Averages'' (April 23, 2021), https://
    gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, customers seeking to expand their medium- or heavy-duty
    fleets should coordinate early with their utility to ensure the grid
    can effectively meet their charging needs. Large loads associated with
    medium- and heavy-duty charging can create a capacity gap on parts of
    PG&E's distribution system. If these capacity gaps exist, PG&E makes
    upgrades to effectively serve the increased load. To prevent timing
    issues, early coordination is key. PG&E is also seeking to expand its
    coordination with large customers, regulators and other knowledgeable
    parties to identify areas where we could see large influx of vehicle
    electrification and proactively upgrade those areas of the distribution
    grid to ensure capacity is available once customers are ready to
    electrify.

      Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Laurie M. Giammona, Senior Vice
         President for Customer Care, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

        Question 1. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Answer. Electrification of the transportation sector will provide
    benefits for our environment, public health, economy, and energy
    system--benefits which will be realized by all Americans, not just EV
    adopters. In California, transportation is the single largest
    contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 41% of
    GHG emissions, while electricity accounts just for 15% of statewide GHG
    emissions. Electrifying transportation will be necessary to meet
    science-based targets of reducing GHG emissions to net-zero by 2050 or
    sooner to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Already,
    California is experiencing the impacts of climate change, including
    heat waves, more frequent and extreme storms and wildfires, drought,
    and other impacts. These events have resulted in the loss of life and
    property and will continue to pose safety and financial risks to
    communities across America unless we can mitigate the impacts of
    climate change.
        Transportation electrification will also improve air quality and
    public health as EVs do not produce any tailpipe emissions. In
    California, motorists drive more than a billion miles each day,
    producing 1,000 tons of smog-forming pollutants.\9\ High levels of air
    pollution can lead to asthma and other respiratory illnesses that
    especially affect children and seniors, and those living in communities
    adjacent to highways, ports and rail yards can suffer disproportionate
    effects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ California Air Resources Board, ``Drive Clean CA.Gov,'' https:/
    /driveclean.ca.gov/why-drive-clean.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The transition to electric vehicles isn't just an environmental
    priority, it's also a generational and transformational opportunity for
    the United States to generate new jobs and drive economic output. As
    our nation seeks to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and economic
    downturn, EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure buildout could
    create thousands of domestic jobs, adding to the more than 266,000
    American jobs already supported by the alternative fuel vehicle
    industry.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ National Association of State Energy Officials and Energy
    Futures Initiative, ``2020 U.S. Energy & Employment Report,'' https://
    www.usenergyjobs.org/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EV owners will also benefit from lower lifetime fuel and
    maintenance costs. EVs are less expensive to operate than gasoline-
    powered vehicles, primarily due to fuel cost savings because
    electricity is less expensive than gasoline on an equivalent cost
    basis. Customers using one of PG&E's residential EV rate plans pay as
    low as $1.60 per gasoline gallon equivalent--60% less than the current
    average price of $3.98 per gallon of gasoline in California.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ AAA, ``State Gas Price Averages'' (April 23, 2021), https://
    gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EVs will even provide economic benefit to electric customers who do
    not choose to adopt them--namely through more affordable electric
    rates. As additional demand is added to our grid, the fixed costs of
    upgrading and maintaining the grid will be spread over more kilowatt
    hours, which will help lower costs for all customers. This is
    particularly true when EV users are incentivized to charge during off-
    peak periods.
        Greater EV adoption will also provide PG&E more flexibility to
    manage the grid in a way that promotes better resilience and
    reliability. In our service area, there is an increasing penetration of
    solar resources available in the morning hours--when demand is lower--
    and an increase in electricity demand in the afternoon and evening
    hours when the sun is down. Smart charging and incentives to EV owners
    to recharge during those peak solar hours will allow us to utilize more
    renewable energy and shift demand in a way that benefits all grid
    users.
        Given the multiple, economywide benefits of EVs, PG&E supports
    federal incentives and investments including for research and
    development that will help accelerate deployment of charging
    infrastructure, reduce the upfront costs of EVs, and ensure EVs
    integrate successfully onto the electric grid.

        Question 2. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer. PG&E agrees that market-based incentives and collaboration
    are essential to support the expansion of transportation
    electrification. The broader transportation electrification ecosystem
    includes policy makers as well as market participants such as
    automakers, EV charging companies, battery and component manufacturers,
    technology providers, utilities, and host sites for EV charging.
    Coordination and partnerships amongst private and public sector actors
    in this ecosystem help ensure deployment of EVs and charging
    infrastructure proceeds in an efficient, equitable manner that best
    meets customers' needs and demands. Federal policy to incent this
    transition in EV markets will help drive down the costs of EVs, expand
    charging infrastructure and encourage greater customer adoption.

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National
     Business Line Executive for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability,
                                    WSP USA

        Question 1. Mr. Lewis, your testimony references the ``Envision''
    system, a framework for evaluating the sustainability and resilience of
    transportation projects.
        Do you think a similar model can or should be used by the U.S. DOT,
    State DOTs, MPOs, or transit agencies when making funding decisions?
        Are there any changes to federal procurement requirements that
    would facilitate the adequate consideration of resilience and climate
    benefits in transportation projects?
        Answer. Yes, the inclusion of standards and models that directly
    address sustainability and resilience concerns and inform project
    selection, funding and implementation should be a part of all types of
    projects--and this applies to transportation as well as other types of
    infrastructure. Taking such measures makes sense from many different
    perspectives--natural resource management, energy policy, and
    prioritizing and protecting the large investments made in
    infrastructure nationally from extreme events and/or changing
    environmental conditions possible with climate change.
        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) expects to publish
    the Standard Requirements for Sustainable Infrastructure Standard in
    late 2021 through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
    process. Once it is launched, this standard should be used to better
    inform and implement infrastructure development, specifically including
    the procurement process associated with infrastructure projects. These
    are consensus-based standards designed for transportation projects,
    supported by years of scientific and calibrated on actual
    transportation projects. Similarly, incorporating or at the very least
    incentivizing the use of a broad infrastructure rating system like
    Envision from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) will
    help the government ensure that the right projects are being done, as
    well as being done right when it comes to sustainable and resilient
    infrastructure.
        When it comes to transportation, the USDOT and state and local
    transportation agencies in particular can also leverage more
    specialized tools such FHWA's Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation
    Sustainability Tool (INVEST), and the Greenroads rating system to
    ensure that transportation projects are designed for long-term
    resilience and adaptability. The National Cooperative Highway Research
    Program (NCHRP) through the National Academies of Science
    Transportation Research Board (TRB) also expects to publish this year a
    guide on Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation
    Agencies that was led by WSP USA in collaboration with other
    transportation system resilience experts through an NCHRP project and
    funding.
        It is vitally important to encourage Project Sponsors, such as
    local public works agencies, state DOTs and transit agencies, to use
    such standards, tools, and guides to monitor and measure
    sustainability, resilience, and climate benefits staring from the
    initial project planning and development process, through procurement,
    construction, and maintenance and throughout the asset lifecycle. For
    transportation programs and projects, USDOT can send a clear message to
    the project sponsors that their request for funding and approvals will
    be evaluated based on evidence that the project has been developed in
    accordance with industry benchmarked sustainability, resilience, and
    equity standards and considers the entirety of the period when the
    asset will be in service. Requiring grant applicants or funding
    recipients to meet sustainability and resilience criteria and/or to
    design to sustainable and resilient infrastructure standards will lead
    to funding ``shovel worthy'' projects that are more sustainable,
    resilient, and equitable in their design and delivery, as mentioned in
    my testimony.
        Further, USDOT does not need to and should not act alone to prepare
    the country for a sustainable, resilient, and equitable future.
    Infrastructure serves communities and facilitates the economy.
    Transportation and infrastructure planning is also intricately linked
    with and can impact land use planning and housing policy, amongst other
    sectors. Through innovative programs like the Partnership for
    Sustainable Communities which brought USDOT together with HUD and EPA,
    USDOT has recognized its critical and interdependent role in the future
    of the communities in which it invests transportation infrastructure
    dollars. Interdisciplinary efforts like these can continue to have a
    necessary impact.
        Finally, I reiterate that federal procurement policies are a
    powerful tool to shape aspects of project selection and design,
    including at the state and local levels. The ``power of the purse'' is
    an opportunity for the government to establish expectations for project
    sponsors seeking the use of federal monies, and the new ASCE Standard
    Requirements for Sustainable Infrastructure Standard coming out in late
    2021 should be broadly leveraged accordingly to result in more
    sustainable and resilient infrastructure projects. Without clear
    requirements in the procurement solicitation and evaluation process for
    delivering sustainability, resilience, and equity outcomes throughout
    the project lifecycle, it is incredibly difficult to construct, operate
    and maintain a sustainable infrastructure project and system. ESG
    principles (Environment, Social, and Governance) are becoming an
    explicit tenet in how the private sector and government conduct their
    business and should also be considered during procurement and
    throughout the infrastructure project lifecycle.
        By requiring project applicants to follow the tenets of such
    programs and justify instead why their investments are not sustainable
    or not resilient (rather than the other way around, as is done
    currently) infrastructure funding allocated today can make a change for
    decades into the future. Policies and requirements are powerful tools
    for change, and such considerations should definitely be a part of
    transportation project decisions moving forward.

        Question 2. Mr. Lewis, one of the former Administration's proposed
    changes to the environmental review process is intended limit the
    consideration of cumulative effects, such as climate change, in the
    environmental review process.
        Given the cost of climate change to the government and the economy,
    do you believe it is appropriate that a NEPA analysis consider the
    impact of a proposed project on the climate?
        Answer. Yes, it is appropriate and very beneficial to include the
    impacts of transportation projects relative to climate considerations
    as an element of NEPA. The NEPA process is a powerful, structured
    delivery process that has provided a framework for projects for
    decades. Explicitly including climate concerns would be beneficial.
        Cumulative impacts analysis is a well-understood method for
    identifying a project's effects in the context of other project's
    effects that has been part of NEPA analyses for decades. Experienced
    NEPA practitioners are readily able to assess a project's impacts on
    climate change (emissions) through cumulative effects, however federal
    agencies can do more to provide guidance on how these assessments
    should be prepared. Prior to the September 2020 changes to the
    environmental review process, the structure established over many
    decades of NEPA provide a basis to further the assessment of cumulative
    effects and climate change as well as environmental justice. It is
    familiar to NEPA practitioners both from the preparation of NEPA
    documents as well as their assessment and affirmation of NEPA records
    of decision that underpin agency actions to approve and fund projects.
        Improved analysis of a project's climate profile can serve as a
    tool for communicating the importance of resiliency and the need to
    address climate change head on. This is an area that can be improved
    and made more useful as a metric to ensure that climate change and
    equity are integral to the decision-making process. CEQ and federal
    agencies can provide more specific criteria and methodology guidance to
    make these existing elements of NEPA more effective. Additionally, CEQ
    and federal agencies can consider encouraging agencies to include
    climate change goals and activities in the Purpose and Need statement
    for NEPA documents in order to indicate when the project's goals are
    oriented around climate action. This framework can introduce documented
    requirements for resilience that may not be a part of current baseline
    approach methods. As federal agencies reassess recent changes to the
    environmental review process, the time is ripe to consider providing
    practitioners with additional standards, guidance and tools such as
    those identified in response to question number one above to conduct
    these reviews.

     Question from Hon. Nikema Williams to Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National
     Business Line Executive for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability,
                                    WSP USA

        Question 3. Mr. Lewis, thank you for sharing WSP's innovative
    approaches to a more sustainable future. In your testimony you
    mentioned that our national approach to repairing and maintaining
    transportation infrastructure must urgently consider new ideas on how
    we design, manage, and invest to achieve both resilient and adapted
    standards as we transition to a low or net zero carbon economy that
    cognitively responds to the impact of carbon and other GHG emissions on
    communities.
        How are we to re-evaluate existing infrastructure to achieve
    sustainability and resiliency that considers equity and social justice
    impacts in the design and development?
        Answer. Generally speaking, I refer you to my answer to question
    number one above from Chairman DeFazio regarding the incorporation and
    leveraging of modern standards, systems, guides and other tools to
    better select, fund and implement sustainable and resilient
    infrastructure projects--specifically and importantly including during
    procurement activities.
        More specifically in answer to ``the how'' question, the key will
    be to broaden the considerations of investment in infrastructure to
    consider the entire period when the asset will be in place, its
    operation, the maintenance and repair requirements, and how these
    considerations should drive different decisions in the planning or
    design phase. This should include how future changes in community,
    economy, or technology may be considered now to ensure appropriate
    investments today. This broader, future oriented, perspective is not a
    part of traditional practices, so is the high-level basis of what needs
    to change. We should no longer be looking at historical conditions, or
    past ideas, to guide investments. We should be looking to implement new
    methods that enable better decisions.
        Importantly, potentially affected communities should be engaged at
    the beginning of project planning to inform the planning and
    implementation process regardless of the project type. Equity, when
    implemented effectively, is more enabling than traditional
    environmental justice perspectives that focus on the proportionality of
    impacts. Equity in investments should be toward providing equal
    opportunities to transportation service, regardless of income level or
    work type/location.
        With respect to achieving sustainability and resilience through
    repairing or maintaining existing infrastructure, we need to find ways
    to make a better case to provide adequate repairs to infrastructure
    that is failing. Federal investments in infrastructure have often been
    followed by the imposition of maintenance requirements on states and in
    many cases these states are very resource constrained and unable to
    keep up with the maintenance backlog. As we work towards ensuring a
    state of good repair, considerations of how to improve and modernize
    the aging infrastructure should include whether there are opportunities
    through these programs to also make improvements that address past
    environmental or social harms as well as address future climate change
    impacts and make facilities more resilient to damage/impacts, thus
    limiting the disruption costs to users. Every project that is begun to
    restore or replace existing infrastructure should evaluate
    opportunities to promote a more equitable distribution of project
    benefits and be designed to withstand the challenges of rising seas,
    stronger storms, and more extreme weather.

     Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National
     Business Line Executive for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability,
                                    WSP USA

        Question 4. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. The basic premise of a VMT tax is to delink transportation
    funding only from a gas tax and instead distribute costs to all users
    equitably for those users of the highway system. Highway drivers that
    use only electric powered vehicles, as an example, are providing no
    revenue to maintain the highway network.
        To your question, you should note that a study conducted by a group
    called RUC West analyzed the financial impacts of a road usage charge
    (RUC) for urban and rural drivers in eight western states and found
    that rural drivers will likely save money under RUC schemes or a VMT
    tax. Using estimates of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by geographic
    area, vehicle registrations, and gas tax revenue data, researchers
    determined the per-mile fee required to potentially replace current
    state gas tax revenues. RUC West research projects that, on average,
    rural households will pay 1.9%-6.3% less and urban households will pay
    0.3%-1.4% more state tax in a RUC system than they currently pay in
    state gas tax. Ranges reflect the differences from state to state.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Financial Impacts of Road User Charges on Urban and Rural
    Households (RUC West in cooperation with ODOT).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These findings are due to two key factors:
        1.  While rural residents will travel longer distances to reach
    urban areas, they tend to chain trips together. Meaning, a rural
    resident will combine a trip to the grocery store, the pharmacy,
    doctors appointments, etc. into one single trip as opposed to urban or
    suburban residents who will take each of those trips independently. The
    rural driver will actually travel less distance than their urban or
    suburban counterparts due to chaining trips together.
        2.  Rural drivers tend to drive less fuel-efficient vehicles.
    Should states who are exploring VMT programs choose to provide a credit
    to all motor fuel taxes paid, then rural residents may actually pay
    less in a VMT than their urban or suburban counterparts.

        In general, I believe a VMT tax is a way to more equitably
    distribute highway costs to all users and should be a consideration for
    funding.

        Question 5. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. The high costs of maintaining the highway system is
    requiring some infrastructure owners to make hard decisions on managing
    assets, including closure of roads and bridges that are expensive to
    maintain or repair/replace. These closures are limiting access,
    increasing mileage driven, increasing costs for those having to drive
    longer distances, and causing an increase in emissions due to the
    longer trips. The entire situation imposes costs that are undesirable.
        Better long-term investments in roads and bridges, including the
    leveraging of private investment to supplement and be synergistic with
    government funding, could benefit communities and business in rural
    areas and reduce emissions, in three primary ways. First, roads and
    bridges maintained at a state of good repair are safer and more
    efficient for vehicles to drive on, thus reducing overall fuel
    consumption. Secondly, investments made in roads and bridges with
    improved resilience perspectives as part of design and implementation
    requirements will reduce the likelihood of outages and requirements for
    costly repair. Finally, fully including sustainable practices as part
    of design and implementation would help facilitate better use of
    limited natural resource, and reduce effects including construction-
    related emissions and other environmental impacts as described in my
    testimony regarding California High Speed Rail.
        Wise infrastructure investment could reduce/eliminate the
    requirements for facility closure, reduce costs associated with
    associated detours, and provide for more sustainable approaches to
    project delivery and ensure a more resilient future for assets.

      Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Tom Lewis, P.E., J.D., National
     Business Line Executive for Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability,
                                    WSP USA

        Question 6. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Question 7. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer to questions 6 & 7. As an infrastructure and planning firm,
    we work in the best interest of the communities we work for and respond
    to current conditions while also remaining at the leading edge of our
    industry. We do not establish policies, or create the market, we merely
    help to facilitate the needs of the communities we serve and help to
    provide for a sustainable, resilient, and efficient economy.
        This has been the case from the beginning as we helped to develop/
    implement national transit and highway systems as they were put in
    place to serve the citizens based on the best technology available at
    that time. We do see indications of a need to adjust the systems put in
    place to accommodate petroleum powered vehicles and find ways to create
    similar infrastructure for developing technologies, like electric
    vehicles or hydrogen fueled systems, that seem to be growing in
    interest and market share. The commitment of major US vehicle
    manufacturers to expand the roll out of electrical vehicles into the
    future seems to indicate the need for a response.
        The transition to better EV infrastructure, bolstered by federal
    policy support suits both needs as identified in your two questions.
    First, the rapid deployment of EV infrastructure supports this
    developing and expanding technology, leads to reduction of particulate
    pollutants and greenhouse gases and has intangible public health and
    environmental quality benefits that cannot be achieved through the
    continued use of ICE vehicles. So, I believe it to be a responsible use
    of tax dollars.
        The automobile industry has indicated its commitment to
    electrification, which is a different condition from the past,
    unprecedented in fact. Most recently, GM released a commitment to only
    sell zero emission vehicles by 2035. Federal policies and programs that
    support this transition will be bolstering an industry with real
    momentum and providing a cleaner and healthier environment for future
    generations. The market is changing, the provision of a support network
    through targeted infrastructure spending would indicate a path to
    success.

    Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Charles Hernick, Vice President
       of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions

        Question 1. Mr. Hernick, your testimony supports provisions
    included in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's
    proposed Carbon Reduction Incentive Program and alternative fuel
    infrastructure grants, along with the Republican-proposed resilience-
    focused ``PROTECT'' grants. The House-passed bill H.R. 2 includes
    similar provisions on carbon reduction, alternative fuel corridor grant
    fueling, and infrastructure resilience.
        Would you encourage the Republicans on the Committee to support
    those similar efforts in the House?
        Answer. Yes. As noted in my written and previously submitted
    testimony. The Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative,
    Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) Grant Program (Sec.
    7001 of H.R. 7248 STARTER Act; Sec. 1407 of S. 2302 ATIA) would allow
    states to make resiliency improvements and help protect roads and
    bridges from natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires,
    and mudslides. CRES supports this grant program as a good example of
    cooperative federalism, which is a hallmark of American environmental
    and transportation policy. The federal government can improve
    resiliency outcomes by empowering states and municipalities to make
    locally appropriate infrastructure investments.

    Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Charles Hernick, Vice President of
         Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions

        Question 1. Research has shown that the demand for travel has grown
    due to urban sprawl and low fuel costs that have allowed individuals to
    work in urban centers but commute long distances to town. We have
    discussed expanding transit systems and more efficient pedestrian
    travel to account for that. But as we know, there are also rural
    communities that require travel to get to school or work in their rural
    communities. We have discussed a proposed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
    Tax to promote more efficient collection of highway users in fees.
    Rural citizens are going to be the most against this and
    disproportionately affected in the short run.
        Would you be able to discuss how a VMT may be beneficial to rural
    Americans?
        Answer. CRES does not support a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. Annual
    odometer readings would be vulnerable to rollback devices or
    manipulation changing a car's mileage readout. Alternatively, using a
    GPS tracker to monitor the distance a car travels would be an invasion
    of privacy by the Federal government. Both approaches would be a
    logistical nightmare to implement on all cars across the country every
    year.

        Question 2. Across much of rural America, there are closed roads
    and bridges that are creating longer trips and commutes for families,
    drivers, and delivery systems. The longer these trips are, especially
    compounded by something like a heavy logging area that is running
    trucks constantly in and out of that area, or daily parcel services, or
    school buses, the more emissions occur.
        How would long-term and robust investment in our roads and bridges
    across rural America best address emissions in rural America?
        Answer. Investing in infrastructure is an investment in America.
    CRES believes Congress should leverage private investment in clean
    energy with public infrastructure and incentives--not grow government
    into sectors traditionally led by the private sector and states. To
    that end, earlier this year our sister organization CRES Forum ran a
    multi-million campaign called: Let's invest in US.\1\ We have also
    prioritized specific infrastructure priorities in our recommendations
    from the 117th Congress.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See online at: https://letsinvestinus.com/
        \2\ Available online at: https://citizensfor.com/wp-content/
    uploads/2021/02/CRESO-0026-
    PC-US-CST-December-2020-Retainerver43.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Simply keeping roads and bridges in good condition is in itself a
    way of reducing emissions. According to a 2019 study led by Rutgers
    university, keeping roads and highways in good condition with
    preventive maintenance can reduce emissions by up to 2 percent; save
    drivers between 2 and 5 percent because of lower fuel consumption and
    vehicle maintenance and repair costs; as well as help transportation
    agencies cut spending by 10 to 30 percent.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Available online at: https://cresforum.org/climate-policy-
    directives/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Charles Hernick, Vice President of
         Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions

        Question 3. I sincerely hope this hearing serves as a wakeup call
    to the American people about the degree to which our Nation's political
    and corporate elites are marching in lockstep behind President Biden's
    Green New Deal--and promise to electrify the transportation sector
    against the will of the American consumer.
        If this cooperative effort is to succeed, it will cause great harm
    to America's prosperity and security.
        While it appears nearly everyone testifying before the Committee
    today--and much of the broader corporate community--has accepted and
    embraced the radical, whole-sale approach to rapidly electrify our
    transportation sector, historical and recent consumption trends
    indicate that your consumers--and our constituents--don't share this
    warm embrace.
        These concerns will grow to disdain as the costs of all consumer
    goods continues to skyrocket.
        The near universal acceptance that electrification is inevitable
    must be met with the proper historical context--the electric vehicle is
    NOT some emerging technology that will breakthrough if enough taxpayer
    money is spent.
        As a matter of fact, electric vehicles are as old as motorized
    vehicles themselves.
        In 1896--yes, eighteen-ninety-six--Thomas Edison wrote to Henry
    Ford admitting the electric vehicle had been rendered obsolete by the
    cheaper, superior alternative, the internal combustion engine:

            ``Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage
            battery is too heavy . . . Your car is self-contained--carries
            its own power plant--no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam.
            You have the thing. Keep at it.''

        125 years after this exchange, EVs are still plagued by largely the
    same deficiencies relative to ICEs--a lack of range, higher costs, and
    a lack of battery capacity per pound.
        More recent concerns about battery life-span, the diminished range
    of aging batteries, and the propensity for aging batteries to erupt in
    flames add to consumer weariness.
        Until these fundamental issues are resolved, American consumers
    will not adopt electric vehicles voluntarily as demonstrated by EV's
    anemic market share and the continual failure to meet projected sales
    figures.
        At the height of the Obama administration's taxpayer handouts for
    EV companies, he predicted there would be 1 million EVs on the road by
    2015--a figure that wasn't reached until the end of 2018.
        Over the past decade, the EV industry received $43 billion in
    federal subsidies and tax incentives to manufacturers and consumers--
    plus state and local incentives--and electric vehicle sales made up
    only 1.9 percent of US retail car sales in 2020.
        Throwing helicopter money at charging infrastructure fails to
    rectify these underlying issues and thus will not spur widespread
    voluntary adoption by consumers.
        Can anyone please explain to my constituents:
        How this is a responsible use of their tax dollars; or
        Answer. CRES does not support the Green New Deal. The Green New
    Deal is a ``greatest hits'' of liberal policy that all intersect at
    climate change that would dangerously expand the reach of government.
    Conservatives can lead a principled approach to climate change. To that
    end, our sister organization CRES Forum, has put forward Eight
    Conservative Climate Policy Directives to inform better, lasting and
    significant policies that will protect the planet and our future
    economic growth for generations to come.
        As noted, corporate America is quickly moving forward on climate-
    friendly practices, which is a testament to their read of the current
    market conditions. Government intervention in the economics of those
    markets would inevitably skew them and make it much more difficult for
    business leaders to make well-informed decisions.

        Question 4. What is so unique about the EV sector that fosters the
    unfounded belief that central planning will work this time when every
    previous attempt has failed?
        Answer. CRES does not support central planning by the federal
    government. The transportation sector is the largest source of domestic
    greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the most difficult to
    decarbonize. Therefore, it requires an all of the above approach
    including increasing fuel efficiency by scaling up innovation instead
    of imposing federal mandates, better utilizing alternative fuels, such
    as hydrogen, and electrification. A singular focus on electric vehicles
    by government is not advisable. CRES supports federal policy in all
    three categories: efficiency, alternative fuels, and electrification.
        Today, EVs account for a small percentage of total vehicle sales in
    the U.S. However, EVs are more cost effective each year, their range is
    improving, and the industry is working hard to communicate their
    benefits to the public on a voluntary basis. These trends should be
    encouraged.
        It is worth nothing that these benefits do not apply only to urban
    settings. While there is an initial cost involved in the purchase of a
    new electric vehicle, over the long run, rural households are actually
    expected to enjoy higher savings than urban households, given that they
    drive and repair their vehicles more often.

                                  [all]