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


   THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT: DECARBONIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 5, 2021
                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-28
                           
                           
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
47-848 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2022  




                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    Chair                            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware           (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Adam Phadke, Ph.D., Staff Scientist and Deputy Department Head, 
  International Energy Analysis Department, Lawrence Berkeley 
  National Laboratory............................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   284
Joseph Britton, Executive Director, Zero Emissions Transportation 
  Association....................................................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   296
Josh Nassar, Legislative Director, International Union, United 
  Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of 
  America (UAW)..................................................    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   302
David Jankowsky, Founder and President, Francis Energy...........    46
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   304
Michelle Michot Foss, Ph.D., Fellow in Energy, Minerals and 
  Materials, Center for Energy Studies, Baker Institute for 
  Public Policy, Rice University.................................    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    52
AJ Siccardi, President, Metroplex Energy, Inc....................    73
    Prepared statement...........................................    75
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   306

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 1221, the Electric Vehicles for Underserved Communities Act 
  of 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush \1\
H.R. 1512, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for 
  our Nation's Future Act, submitted by Mr. Rush \1\
H.R. 2308, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Future 
  Act of 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush \1\
H.R. 2852, the NO EXHAUST Act, submitted by Mr. Rush \1\

----------

\1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112550.
Report on behalf of the Midcontinent Transportation 
  Electrification Collaborative, ``Analytical White Paper: 
  Overcoming Barriers to Expanding Fast Charging Infrastructure 
  in the Midcontinent Region,'' Great Plains Institute, July 
  2019, submitted by Ms. Kuster..................................   139
Analysis, ``Reforming electricity rates to enable economically 
  competitive electric trucking,'' by Amol Phadke, et al., 
  Environmental Research Letters 14, submitted by Ms. Kuster.....   161
Letter of March 29, 2021, from John Bozzella, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, et al., 
  to President Biden, submitted by Ms. Dingell...................   175
Memo, ``Backgrounder: EVs Are Coming. Will They Be Made in the 
  USA?,'' BlueGreen Alliance, submitted by Ms. Dingell...........   181
Statement of Genevieve Cullen, President, Electric Drive 
  Transportation Association, May 5, 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush.   188
Letter of May 2, 2021, from Dr. Levi Tillemann, Vice President 
  for Policy and International, Ample, Inc., et al., to Mr. Rush 
  and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush...........................   198
Letter from David Terry, Executive Director, National Association 
  of State Energy Officials, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted 
  by Mr. Rush....................................................   203
Letter of May 5, 2021, from Dave Schryver, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, American Public Gas Association, to Mr. Rush 
  and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush...........................   206
Statement of the American Public Power Association, et al., May 
  5, 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush.................................   209
Article, ``CLEAN Future Act Puts Ratepayers On The Hook For EV 
  Infrastructure,'' American Energy Alliance, March 18, 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   212
Analysis, ``Changes in Non-Ferrous Production: 1996-2020 United 
  States vs. China,'' by Michael Moats, Thomas J. O'Keefe 
  Institute, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   214
Fact sheet, ``Electric Vehicle Registrations by State,'' National 
  Renewable Energy Laboratory, submitted by Mr. Rush.............   223
Fact sheet, ``Electric Vehicles Depend on Mining,'' 
  MineralsMakeLife.org, submitted by Mr. Rush....................   224
Executive summary, ``The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean 
  Energy Transitions,'' International Energy Agency, submitted by 
  Mr. Rush.......................................................   225
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Ed Brzytwa, Director for 
  International Trade, American Chemistry Council, to Jennifer M. 
  Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................   239
Letter of April 28, 2021, from Ryan Jackson, Senior Vice 
  President, Government and Political Affairs, National Mining 
  Association, to Lloyd Austin, Secretary, Department of Defense, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   248
Article of April 26, 2021, ``Understanding discontinuance among 
  California's electric vehicle owners,'' by Scott Hardman and 
  Gil Tal, Nature Energy, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   261
Letter of May 5, 2021, from Rob Hood, Vice President, Government 
  Affairs, Hyundai Motor Company, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   272
Fact sheet, ``Importing Our Energy Future: Minerals Mining, 
  Import Dependence and U.S. Energy Transition,'' National Mining 
  Association, submitted by Mr. Rush.............................   273
Report, ``Eye on the Market: 2021 Annual Energy Paper,'' Michael 
  Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy, J.P. 
  Morgan Asset Management, submitted by Mr. Rush\2\

----------

\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112550.
Chart, ``2020 New Light-Duty Vehicle Registrations By Vehicle 
  Type, Segment, & Powertrain,'' Alliance for Automotive 
  Innovation, submitted by Mr. Rush..............................   274
Report of the Fuels Institute, ``Proposals to Ban the Sale of 
  Combustion Engine Vehicles,'' March 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush   275
Charts, ``Electrified vehicles continue to see slow growth and 
  less use than conventional vehicles,'' Energy Information 
  Administration, submitted by Mr. Rush..........................   279
Article, ``Biden's E.V. Bill Punishes the Poor,'' by George 
  Landrith, Townhall.com, May 4, 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush.....   281

 
   THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT: DECARBONIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

                              ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:31 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Jerry McNerney 
(vice chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
McNerney, Tonko, Schrier, Butterfield, Matsui, Welch, Schrader, 
Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex 
officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess, Latta, 
McKinley, Griffith, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, 
Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Clarke and Dingell.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital 
Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Lino Pena-Martinez, 
Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, 
Clerk; Kylea Rogers, Staff Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority 
Deputy Staff Director; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; 
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority 
Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; and Michael Taggart, 
Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. McNerney. [In progress] panelists, and I want to 
welcome all the members of the committee.
    I am in my district office, so it is a little bit of a 
challenge, technically, because I haven't done this before. So 
bear with me if I cause any delays.
    This morning's hearing is on ``The CLEAN Future Act: 
Driving Decarbonization of the Transportation Sector.'' So this 
is a very important issue that we all care about, and I want to 
go ahead and recognize myself for an opening statement.
    The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order.
    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``The 
CLEAN Future Act: Driving Decarbonization of the Transportation 
Sector.'' Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via video conferencing.
    As a part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute 
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. 
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone 
each time you wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez 
at the email provided to staff. All documents will be entered 
into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
    Again, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement. If you will, give me a minute to pull up the opening 
statement.
    You know what? It is going to take me a minute to find 
that, so I am going to yield to the ranking member 5 minutes 
for an opening statement, and then I will follow up with my 
opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Upton. Well, thanks. Thanks, my friend, and I look 
forward--I understand Bobby is going to be a little bit late, 
but good to see you. And thanks to our witnesses, as well, for 
appearing before us virtually to discuss the role of EVs, 
electric vehicles.
    You know, the CLEAN Future Act contains billions in 
subsidies and mandates in an attempt to push EVs on the 
American public, whether they are ready for them or not.
    Now, I would note that I have always supported reasonable 
fuel efficiency standards, and I am excited about the prospect 
of EVs, that is for sure. And I know that our great domestic 
automakers in Michigan are hard at work to make cars that 
consumers are going to want to buy.
    With that, I confess that I have concerns that the CLEAN 
Future Act puts the cart before the horse by mandating electric 
vehicles, because there is no consideration for American 
workers or car buyers, our growing reliance on China for 
critical materials and minerals to make those batteries, and 
certainly the strain that EVs will place on our grid. As 
members of this committee already know, every summer 
California--your State--faces rolling blackouts. And of course, 
just last winter, in March, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana 
suffered prolonged power outages.
    Today EVs account for less than 2 percent of the cars on 
the road. And we are simply not ready to charge EVs at scale, 
or potentially during emergencies. Instead, we need to let the 
market and consumer choice drive the adoption of EVs.
    While this hearing is focused on EVs, we have got to 
realize that the CLEAN Future Act has sweeping impact across a 
thousand pages--a thousand pages. That is going to result in de 
facto bans in hydraulic fracturing, plastics manufacturing, and 
new pipelines. And as a result, the CLEAN Future Act is going 
to increase the cost of energy and make it practically 
impossible to build new industrial facilities.
    The question is, how are we going to build these EVs here 
at home?
    How are you going to replace all the plastic and 
hydrocarbon-based materials contained in these vehicles?
    How are we going to import all the critical minerals from 
China, with their weak environmental and labor standards?
    We simply can't have it both ways. House Republicans, we 
have introduced a number of bills as part of our Securing a 
Cleaner American Energy Agenda to protect American jobs, the 
environment.
    We need first to look at regulatory reform to mine and 
process critical minerals at home so that we can secure that 
supply chain and reduce our reliance on China.
    I would also note that I introduced H.R. 1599, Securing 
America's Critical Minerals Supply Act. It is an important step 
in that direction. We need to modernize the electric grid so 
that it can handle the charging, even in extreme weather 
conditions.
    We have also got to make sure that we protect American jobs 
and consumer choice. The last thing we want to do is take away 
people's mobility and livelihoods by limiting the options of 
affordable and reliable vehicles.
    We all know that the U.S. has become the world's leading 
producer of oil and gas. Thanks to free markets--sorry, that is 
my phone in the background--thanks to free markets, 
competition, and the American spirit of innovation. And thanks 
to more efficient engines, advancing materials in plastics, 
less carbon-intensive fuels, we are going to be making great 
strides to decarbonize our transportation sector and maintain 
that energy security.
    The COVID pandemic has exposed many weaknesses in our 
supply chain for pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and even 
food. I am afraid that the CLEAN Future Act is going to trade 
away the progress that we have made to become almost energy 
independent by increasing our reliance on China, which controls 
80 to 90 percent of the critical minerals that go into the EV 
business.
    I am also concerned that the real impact on American jobs 
and the needs of car buyers perhaps are being overlooked. I am 
pleased that two of our witnesses today, Dr. Foss and Mr. 
Siccardi, will help us explore those challenges. Rather than 
rushing new mandates with taxpayer subsidies, we need to take 
the time and do the work to enact durable, bipartisan policies.
    I look forward to the testimony and continuing the 
discussion, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our witnesses, 
for appearing before us virtually to discuss the role of 
electric vehicles. The CLEAN Future Act contains billions of 
dollars in subsidies and mandates in an attempt to push 
electric vehicles on the American public, whether they are 
ready for them, or not.
    I have always supported reasonable fuel efficiency 
standards, and I'm excited for the prospects of EVs. I know 
that our great domestic automakers in Michigan are hard at work 
to make cars that consumer are going to buy. But I have real 
concerns that the CLEAN Future Act puts the cart before the 
horse by mandating electric vehicles, because there is no 
consideration for American workers and car buyers, our growing 
reliance on China for critical minerals to make batteries, and 
the strain that electric vehicles will place on our grid.
    As members of this committee already know, every summer 
California faces rolling blackouts, and just last winter Texas, 
Oklahoma, and Louisiana suffered prolonged power outages. 
Today, electric vehicles account for less than 2% of the cars 
on the road. We are simply not ready to charge electric 
vehicles at scale or potentially during emergencies. Instead, 
we should let the market and consumer choice drive the adoption 
of EVs.
    While this hearing is focused on electric vehicles, we must 
also recognize that the CLEAN Future act has sweeping impacts 
across 1,000 pages--that will result in de facto bans on 
hydraulic fracturing, plastics manufacturing, and new 
pipelines. As a result, the CLEAN Future Act will increase the 
cost of energy and make it practically impossible to build new 
industrial facilities. The big question is how are we supposed 
to build these electric vehicles here at home? And how would 
you replace all the plastic and hydrocarbon based materials 
contained in these vehicles? Are we going to continue importing 
all the critical minerals from China, with their weak 
environmental and labor standards? We simply cannot have it 
both ways.
    House Republicans have introduced several bills as part of 
our Securing Cleaner American Energy Agenda to protect American 
jobs and the environment. First, we need regulatory reform to 
mine and process critical minerals at home, so we can secure 
our supply chain and reduce our reliance upon China. 
Legislation that I introduced, H.R. 1599 Securing America's 
Critical Minerals Supply Act, is an important step in this 
direction. We need to modernize our electric grid so it can 
handle the charging--even in extreme weather conditions. We 
also need to make sure we protect American jobs and consumer 
choice. The last thing we want to do is take away people's 
mobility and livelihoods by limiting options of affordable and 
reliable vehicles.
    The United States has become the world's leading producer 
of oil and gas, thanks to free markets, competition, and the 
American spirit of innovation. Thanks to more efficient 
engines, advanced materials and plastics, and less carbon 
intensive fuels, we are making great strides to decarbonize our 
transportation sector and maintain our energy security.
    The COVID pandemic has already exposed many weaknesses in 
our supply chains for pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and 
even food. I am afraid the CLEAN Future Act will trade away the 
progress we have made to become almost energy independent by 
increasing our reliance on China, which controls 80-90% of the 
critical minerals that go into EV batteries.
    I am also concerned that the real impacts on American jobs 
and the needs of car buyers are being overlooked. I am pleased 
that two of our witnesses today--Dr. Michot Foss and Mr. 
Siccardi--will help us explore these challenges.
    Rather than rushing new mandates and taxpayer subsidies, 
Congress must take the time and do the work to enact durable 
bipartisan policies. With that, I look forward to the testimony 
and continuing this discussion.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. McNerney. I thank the ranking member for yielding back, 
and I see that the chairman has arrived. If he is ready, I will 
yield to him.
    Mr. Rush, are you ready?

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Rush. I am. I thank my vice chairman and thank each 
and--all the Members. We had a very serious accident on my way 
in this morning, and traffic was at a--standing still for a 
long time.
    The impacts of the auto industry on this Nation and the 
entire globe are sweeping. Since the late 1800s, the auto 
industry has become a major, worldwide industrial and economic 
force. In the U.S. alone, innovation within this industry 
revolutionized travel, improved transportation infrastructure, 
and radically changed both rural and urban landscapes across 
the Nation and, indeed, across the world.
    A recent report from the University of California at 
Berkeley suggests that auto innovation in the U.S. is once 
again on the brink of a--that will unleash equally 
revolutionary outcome, if you could imagine that. According to 
the 2035 Report 2.0, with the right series of policies, it is, 
and I quote, ``technically and economically feasible for all 
new car and truck sales to be electric by 2035.''
    The rapid electrification of light-, medium-, and heavy-
duty vehicles to this degree would drive down consumer costs, 
create jobs, and save lives. More specifically, the 
electrification of all new trucks and cars by 2035, paired with 
a clean electric grid, would prevent 150,000 deaths. If that is 
not convincing enough, the study also showed that broad vehicle 
electrification will save U.S. consumers $2.7 trillion by 2050 
and create over 2 million jobs by 2035.
    The report also indicates that electric vehicles will be 
cheaper than gasoline-powered vehicles within the next 5 years. 
To achieve this reality, the current U.S. transportation 
sector, much like the other sectors of the U.S. economy, is in 
need of deep decarbonization. Absent any action, greenhouse gas 
pollution will result in harsh consequences for our 
communities, especially the most vulnerable among us.
    For these reasons, Chairmen Pallone and I and Chairman 
Tonko, along with many of our Democratic committee colleagues, 
set forth the CLEAN Future Act to put the Nation on a path 
toward achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution no later 
than 2050.
    I have also introduced the NO EXHAUST Act, which promotes 
the electrification of the transportation sector to improve air 
quality and electric vehicle infrastructure access, especially 
in rural, urban, low-income, and minority communities.
    Sadly to say, our friends across the aisle have often 
expressed concern for how other industrialized nations are 
charging ahead in energy-related markets. They have also 
expressed concern for how domestic manufacturing has 
diminished, rural communities have been left out, and labor has 
been left out. These are indeed bipartisan issues. We are all 
concerned about these issues. Let me say emphatically we are 
all concerned, and share concern in terms of these issues.
    A productive discussion of all of today's bills presents an 
opportunity to fine-tune legislative solutions that are geared 
towards tackling these challenges and the climate crisis head-
on.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for your participating 
in today's hearing.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    The impacts of the auto industry on this Nation and the 
entire globe are sweeping. Since the late 1800s, the auto 
industry has become a major worldwide industrial and economic 
force. In the U.S. alone, innovation within this industry 
revolutionized travel, improved transportation infrastructure, 
and radically change both rural and urban landscapes across the 
country. A recent report from the University of California, 
Berkeley suggests that auto innovation in the U.S. is once 
again on the brink of a shift that will unleash equally 
revolutionary outcomes.
    According to the ``2035 Report 2.0,'' with the right series 
of policies, it is [quote] ``technically and economically 
feasible for all new car and truck sales to be electric by 
2035.'' The rapid electrification of light-, medium-, and 
heavy-duty vehicles to this degree would drive down consumer 
costs, create jobs, and save lives. More specifically, the 
electrification of all new trucks and cars by 2035--paired with 
a clean electric grid--would prevent 150 thousand deaths. If 
that is not convincing enough, the study also shows that broad 
vehicle electrification will save U.S. consumers $2.7 trillion 
by 2050 and create over 2 million jobs by 2035. This report 
also indicates that electric vehicles will be cheaper than 
gasoline powered vehicles within the next 5 years.
    To achieve this reality, the current U.S. transportation 
sector--much like the other sectors of the U.S. economy--is in 
need of deep decarbonization. Absent any action, greenhouse gas 
pollution will result in harsh consequences for our 
communities, especially for the most vulnerable among us. For 
these reasons, Chairmen Pallone, Tonko, and Rush, along with 
many of our Democratic committee colleagues, set forth the 
CLEAN Future Act to put the Nation on a path toward achieving 
net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by no later than 2050. Mr. 
Rush has also introduced the NO EXHAUST Act, which promotes the 
electrification of the transportation sector to improve air 
quality and electric vehicle infrastructure access--especially 
in rural, urban, low-income, and minority communities.
    Our friends across the aisle have often express concern for 
how other industrialized nations are charging ahead in energy-
related markets. They have also expressed concerns for how 
domestic manufacturing has diminished, rural communities have 
been left behind, and labor has been left out. These are 
bipartisan issues, and these are shared concerns. A productive 
discussion of all of today's bills presents an opportunity to 
fine-tune legislative solutions that are geared towards 
tackling these challenges and the climate crisis head-on. With 
this in mind, the subcommittee gathers for this important 
discussion to provide expert witnesses and members of this 
Committee with the opportunity refine vital proposals through 
regular order.
    I thank all of the witnesses for their participation in 
today's hearing. And, with that, I yield to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton 
for 5 minutes.

    Mr. Rush. And, with that, I yield right now to the chairman 
of the full committee, Chairman Pallone, for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    One of this committee's top priorities is taking action to 
address the climate crisis. In the last several months we have 
held numerous legislative hearings on the CLEAN Future Act, our 
comprehensive and ambitious legislation to combat the climate 
crisis and to achieve a 100 percent clean economy no later than 
2050.
    And today the Energy Subcommittee is focusing on 
decarbonizing the transportation sector through investments in 
electric vehicles and EV infrastructure. We will be discussing 
a suite of provisions in the CLEAN Future Act that support 
electric vehicle infrastructure and domestic manufacturing of 
EV-related technology, and the subcommittee will also review 
legislation from Chairman Rush, Representative Clarke, and 
Representative Dingell that are also included in the CLEAN 
Future Act, and I thank them for their leadership.
    Electrifying the transportation sector is critical to 
meeting our climate goals. This is particularly important, 
since we will be simultaneously working to decarbonize the 
power sector, which will result in EVs becoming even cleaner in 
the future. And it is expected that nearly 7 million electric 
vehicles will be sold per year by 2025.
    To ensure we are ready for this growing demand, we must 
invest in the necessary charging and manufacturing 
infrastructure, so that consumers are able to reliably power 
their cars. Now, President Biden's American Jobs Plan invests 
heavily in EVs and infrastructure, with a goal to build a 
network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030. And the President's 
plan recognizes the important role of EVs in our economic 
recovery and growth, and in our fight against climate change. 
The legislation we are discussing today is part of this larger 
effort with the President.
    At the same time, we must also guarantee that benefits of 
electric vehicles are available and accessible to all 
communities. Minority communities often have the most exposure 
to polluted air from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. 
Electric vehicle access could help provide cleaner 
transportation options in these environmental justice 
communities.
    Rural and underserved communities also stand to benefit 
from EV infrastructure deployment, as EV-charging 
infrastructure can help support local economies. And I am 
particularly excited to hear from Francis Energy today about 
its rollout of a statewide EV infrastructure network in 
Oklahoma.
    Perhaps more--most importantly, as we see growing EV 
adoption in this country, we must make sure our transition 
prioritizes American workers. China and other countries are 
rapidly growing their EV markets, and therefore we must invest 
aggressively to ensure we don't lose the EV market to China.
    It is imperative this investment occur here to grow an 
American EV manufacturing base that employs union workers at 
good wages with real benefits, and that is why the CLEAN Future 
Act provides funding for domestic manufacturing conversion 
grants to help create and expand domestic manufacturing of 
advanced vehicles and advanced vehicle components. It also 
modernizes and expands the Department of Energy's Advanced 
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program, or ATVM.
    Now, I know that--I know Mr. Upton--I was listening to what 
he said, and he is right when he talks about foreign supply 
chains. He, you know, points out the role of critical minerals 
and the fact that many of these are produced now or mined in 
China and other countries. And so, as Democrats, Fred, I do 
want to say we believe we have to work together to find new, 
reliable, and responsible sources for these materials. And the 
CLEAN Future Act includes provisions that begin to address the 
extraction and processing and reuse of critical minerals. We 
can't be relying on China and our--and other, you know, enemies 
for these materials.
    But I do want to say this. Look, I don't think--everyone 
has to understand that electric vehicles are the future. That 
is coming from the auto industry itself. And therefore, we need 
to do everything we can to ensure America needs that future by 
making the necessary investments now.
    And again, I am not trying to pick on you, Fred, but I 
know, Fred, you talk about how, you know, we are spending money 
and, you know, government dollars to help this investment. But 
I just don't think it is possible to do if we just rely totally 
on the private sector and don't make those investments to spur 
this industry in order to compete with China and other 
countries that are making those investments.
    And therefore, we need to, you know--with these bills we 
are investing in innovation, and helping give consumers the 
ability to choose between more than just gasoline or diesel. We 
have to ensure that our roads, our grid, and our workers are 
prepared for this important transition. When charging stations 
are as ubiquitous as gas stations, then consumers will have a 
choice, and we truly will be in a position to win the future, 
which is what we are trying to accomplish.
    So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It is an important 
hearing. And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    One of this committee's top priorities is taking action to 
address the climate crisis. In the last several months, we have 
held numerous legislative hearings on the CLEAN Future Act, our 
comprehensive and ambitious legislation to combat the climate 
crisis and to achieve a 100 percent clean economy no later than 
2050. Today, the Energy Subcommittee is focusing on 
decarbonizing the transportation sector through investments in 
electric vehicles and EV infrastructure.
    We'll be discussing a suite of provisions in the CLEAN 
Future Act that support electric vehicle infrastructure and 
domestic manufacturing of EV-related technology. The 
subcommittee will also review legislation from Chairman Rush, 
Representative Clarke, and Representative Dingell that are also 
included in the CLEAN Future Act. I thank them for their 
leadership on these important provisions.
    Electrifying the transportation sector is critical to 
meeting our climate goals. This is particularly important since 
we will be simultaneously working to decarbonize the power 
sector, which will result in EVs becoming even cleaner in the 
future. It is expected that nearly seven million electric 
vehicles will be sold per year by 2025. To ensure we are ready 
for this growing demand, we must invest in the necessary 
charging and manufacturing infrastructure so that consumers are 
able to reliably power their cars.
    President Biden's American Jobs Plan invests heavily in EVs 
and infrastructure, with a goal to build a network of 500,000 
EV chargers by 2030. The President's plan recognizes the 
important role of EVs in our economic recovery and growth and 
in our fight against climate change. The legislation we are 
discussing today is part of this larger effort.
    At the same time, we must also guarantee the benefits of 
electric vehicles are available and accessible to all 
communities. Minority communities often have the most exposure 
to polluted air from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles. 
Electric vehicle access can help provide cleaner transportation 
options in these communities.
    Rural and underserved communities also stand to benefit 
from EV infrastructure development as EV charging 
infrastructure can help support local economies. I'm 
particularly excited to hear from Francis Energy today about 
its rollout of a statewide EV infrastructure network in 
Oklahoma.
    Perhaps most importantly, as we see growing EV adoption in 
this country, we must make sure our transition prioritizes 
American workers. China and other countries are rapidly growing 
their EV markets and therefore we must invest aggressively to 
ensure we don't lose the EV market to China. It's imperative 
this investment occur here to grow an American EV manufacturing 
base that employs union workers, at good wages, with real 
benefits.
    That's why the CLEAN Future Act provides funding for 
Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grants to help create and 
expand domestic manufacturing of advanced vehicles and advanced 
vehicle components. It also modernizes and expands the 
Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles 
Manufacturing program, or ATVM.
    Today, we will also discuss the role of critical minerals 
and foreign supply chains in the EV industry. My Republican 
colleagues are right to point out the problems with the labor 
practices and, in some cases, outright exploitation that occurs 
in the extraction of some of the critical minerals found in the 
batteries in electric vehicles. Democrats share these concerns 
and believe we should work together to find new, reliable, and 
responsible sources for these materials. The CLEAN Future Act 
includes provisions that begin to address the extraction, 
reprocessing, and reuse of critical minerals.
    Make no mistake--electric vehicles are the future. That's 
coming from the auto industry itself. And therefore, we need to 
do everything we can to ensure America leads that future by 
making the necessary investments now. With these bills, we are 
investing in innovation and helping give consumers the ability 
to choose between more than just gasoline or diesel. We must 
ensure that our roads, our grid, and our workers are prepared 
for this important transition. When charging stations are as 
ubiquitous as gas stations, then consumers will have a choice, 
and we truly will be in a position to win the future.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back. Now the Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great to see 
everybody.
    Yes, it is about winning the future. I would suggest it is 
EVs and AVs, right, electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. 
That is our future. I know today we are focused on EVs, you 
know, but there's many exciting technologies under development 
that will help drive cleaner energy systems, protect our 
environment, expand economic opportunity, and benefit families 
and workers. That is the wonder and promise of the American 
free enterprise system and our culture of innovation, which is 
driven by consumer demand, not a government socialist agenda.
    The fruits of free enterprise innovation can be seen in all 
the amazing advances over the decades in our transportation 
systems, like the cars and trucks that we drive. This includes 
constantly improving performance, efficiency, and safety. It 
also includes improving mobility, convenience, and comfort, all 
the benefits that people want and look for.
    Think about the benefits of autonomous vehicle systems, 
which we have examined in this committee. AVs will mean more 
safety and more mobility, especially as these advances become 
more affordable to everyone, including seniors and people with 
disabilities.
    Think about new power trains, including EV power trains, 
and the fuels which are building upon our existing energy 
infrastructure and providing more efficient, cleaner, high-
performing vehicles.
    Unfortunately, this free market innovation and its benefits 
are being jeopardized by the mandatory rush to green. This 
approach includes regulatory mandates to drive reduction of 
greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation systems by 
restricting people's options, regardless of technological 
capability or cost. The leading edge of this approach is 
happening at the State level, led by California, with its 
aggressive renewable electric mandates and vehicle standards.
    Despite rapidly rising electric rates 7 times the national 
average and a struggling, unreliable electric grid, people 
having to buy generators just to keep the lights on, 
California's Governor was unconvinced the State policies were 
enough to meet climate goals. So last year he issued an order 
to restrict oil and gas production and to ban sales of gas-
powered cars and light trucks by 2035. Add the Biden 
administration's plans to drive electrification on aggressive 
timelines nationwide, and costs on families and workers will 
increase. We have detailed this in recent hearings.
    Today's hearing concerns legislation to expand electric 
vehicle infrastructure as part of the majority's climate agenda 
and its CLEAN Future Act. Taken together with the energy 
restrictions in the broader bill, the policies today should be 
scrutinized to understand, unfortunately, how it will hurt 
security, innovation, affordability, and reliability. All of 
these consequences will hurt especially the low- and middle-
income families.
    In hearings earlier this year we discussed risk from 
replacing existing energy infrastructure with systems reliant 
mostly on wind and solar, batteries, and completely electric 
transportation.
    All of us should be asking: What are the security impacts 
of the United States trading its strategic advantage in fossil 
energy for more reliance on supply chains from China?
    What will weather-dependent electricity systems mean for 
reliability and rates people pay, like the working families of 
eastern Washington?
    What are the costly impacts on people who rely on gas-
powered vehicles well into the future? What will happen to 
their cost?
    Although the radical left doesn't like to recognize it, 
America has led with a sophisticated and competitive fuel 
system developed over nearly a century to serve our needs. What 
are the benefits of working to foster continued innovations in 
the system and building on its attributes, even as autonomous 
and electric vehicle innovations are deployed and developed?
    As I have said before, we should build upon our energy 
systems, not dismantle them. We should stop attacking the 
source of American innovation and stop trying to pick winners 
and losers. We should recognize the essential role 
technological innovation and American free enterprise serves to 
address climate risk. Let's win the future. Let's do it the 
American way.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    There are many exciting technologies under development that 
will help drive cleaner energy systems, protect our 
environment, expand economic opportunity and benefit families 
and workers.
    That is the wonder--and the promise--of the American free 
enterprise system and our culture of innovation, which is 
driven by consumer demand, not a government socialist agenda. 
The fruits of free market innovation can be seen in all the 
amazing advances over the decades in our transportation 
systems, like in the cars and trucks we drive.
    This includes constantly improving performance, efficiency, 
and safety. It also includes improving mobility, convenience, 
and comfort--all benefits people want and look for. Think about 
the benefits of autonomous vehicle systems, which we've 
examined in this committee.
    AVs will mean more safety and more mobility, especially as 
these advances become more affordable to everyone, including 
seniors and people with disabilities. Think about new power 
trains--including EV powertrains--and the fuels, which are 
building upon our existing energy infrastructure and providing 
more efficient, cleaner, higher-performing vehicles.
    Unfortunately, this free market innovation and its benefits 
are under assault by the compulsory ``rush to green'' schemes 
presented by the majority and the administration to address 
climate risks. These schemes include regulatory regimes to 
drive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from our 
transportation systems by restricting people's options--
regardless of technological capability or cost.
    As usual, the leading edge of this assault is happening at 
the State level led by California, with its aggressive 
renewable electricity mandates and vehicle standards. Despite 
rapidly rising electricity rates, and a struggling, unreliable 
electric grid, California's governor was unconvinced the 
State's policies were enough to meet climate goals.
    So last year he issued an order to restrict oil and gas 
production and to ban sales of gas-powered cars and light 
trucks by 2035. Add the Biden administration plans to drive 
electrification on aggressive timelines nationwide, and costs 
on families and workers will increase, as we've detailed in 
recent hearings.
    Today's hearing concerns legislation to expand electric 
vehicle infrastructure as part of the majority's radical 
climate agenda in its CLEAN Future Act. Taken together with 
fossil energy restrictions in the broader bill, the polices 
today should be scrutinized to understand how it hurts 
security, innovation, affordability, and reliability. All these 
consequences will hurt low and middle income families the most.
    In hearings earlier this year, we discussed risks from 
replacing existing energy infrastructure with systems reliant 
mostly on wind and solar, batteries, and completely electric 
transportation. All of us should be asking: What are the 
security impacts of the United States trading its strategic 
advantage in fossil energy for more reliance on supply chains 
from China?
    What will weather dependent electricity systems mean for 
reliability and the rates people pay--like the working families 
of eastern Washington? What are the costly impacts on people 
who rely on gas-powered vehicles well into the future? What 
will happen to their costs?
    Although the radical left does not like it, America is 
blessed with a sophisticated and competitive fuel system, 
developed over nearly a century to serve our needs. What are 
the benefits of working to foster continued innovations in this 
system and building on its attributes--even as electric vehicle 
innovations are developed and deployed?
    As I've said before, we should build upon our energy 
systems, not dismantle them. We should stop attacking the 
source of American innovation, stop trying to pick winners and 
losers. We should recognize the essential role technological 
innovation and American free enterprise serves to address 
climate risks.

    Mr. Rush. I want to thank the ranking member. The ranking 
member yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statement shall 
be made part of the record.
    And now that concludes our opening testimony. I would like 
to, at this time, welcome our witnesses who are at this 
morning's hearing.
    First of all, Mr. Amol Phadke, staff scientist and deputy 
department head for the International Energy Analysis 
Department in the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
    Next, Mr. Joe Britton, executive director of the Zero 
Emissions Transportation Association.
    Following Mr. Britton will be Mr. Josh Nassar, the 
legislative director of the International Union, United 
Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of 
America, the UAW.
    Next will be Mr. David Jankowsky, founder and president of 
Francis Energy.
    Next, following Mr. Jankowsky, will be Dr. Michelle 
Mishot--Michot, rather--Foss, who is a Ph.D., a fellow in 
energy and minerals, Baker Institute for Public Policy at the 
Center for Energy Studies at Rice University.
    And lastly, Mr. AJ Siccardi, president of the Metropolis 
Energy, Incorporated--Metroplex, rather--on behalf of the 
National Association of Convenience Stores, NACS; the National 
Association of Truck Stop Operators, NATSO; and the Society of 
Independent Gasoline Manufacturers of America, SIGMA.
    I want to thank each and every one of the witnesses for 
joining us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
    Dr. Phadke, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

 STATEMENTS OF AMOL PHADKE, Ph.D., STAFF SCIENTIST AND DEPUTY 
  DEPARTMENT HEAD, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT, 
    LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY; JOSEPH BRITTON, 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ZERO EMISSIONS TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; 
JOSH NASSAR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED 
 AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF 
AMERICA (UAW); DAVID JANKOWSKY, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, FRANCIS 
ENERGY; MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS, PH.D., FELLOW IN ENERGY, MINERALS 
 AND MATERIALS, CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES, BAKER INSTITUTE FOR 
  PUBLIC POLICY, RICE UNIVERSITY; AND AJ SICCARDI, PRESIDENT, 
                     METROPLEX ENERGY, INC.

                STATEMENT OF AMOL PHADKE, Ph.D.

    Dr. Phadke. All right. Thank you. I am just going to pull 
up my desk for a second.
    All right. Good morning, everybody. Chairman Pallone, 
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 
Upton, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you 
for holding this important hearing and for inviting me to 
testify.
    I am Dr. Amol Phadke, I am a staff scientist and deputy 
department head of the International Energy Analysis 
Department, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. I am also affiliate 
and senior scientist at the Goldman School of Public Policy, 
University of California, Berkeley, and the lead author of the 
2035 Power Report, which looks at the technical economic 
feasibility of reaching 90 percent clean power by 2035, where 
we find that such a grid is technically feasible and dependable 
and, in fact, the lower wholesale consumer cost. I am also the 
joint lead author with Dr. Nikit Abhyankar of the recently 
released 2035 Transport Report, which assessed rapid 
decarbonization of the U.S. transport sector via 
electrification.
    What is really exciting is that my own research and the 
research of several other scientists show that limiting battery 
cost breakthroughs and battery technology have created new 
opportunities for accelerated decarbonization of the transport 
sector via electrification. Significant barriers remain, but 
the total consumer cost savings and societal benefits of 
accelerated vehicle electrification are just staggering.
    In our report we analyze the economic, human health, 
environmental, and electric grid impacts of a future scenario 
in which all new sales of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles 
are electric by 2030 and 2025, respectively. This timeline is 
consistent with what we need to do to avoid climate change and 
also in line with the recent private-sector and government 
targets.
    Our key findings are: One, such a scenario is technically 
feasible. EVs can deliver the required performance, given 
recent dramatic improvements in battery technology.
    Two, which is very important, it leads to massive savings 
to consumers, due to much lower running cost of EVs. The 
consumer saves $2.7 trillion in vehicle spending by 2050. This 
translates to approximately $1,000 in average household savings 
each year over the next 30 years.
    Three, it avoids 150 premature deaths, due to dramatic 
decline in air pollution from transport. This one is 
particularly important for environmental justice.
    Four, over 2 million new jobs are supported by 2035, 
because of significant increases in construction and 
manufacturing jobs to build the grid and charging 
infrastructure required to support this transformation. And 
more importantly--jobs, because the $1,000 that consumers save 
to spend on other things, which drives investments.
    Five, investments in charging infrastructure are critical, 
but the investments are modest compared to the rapid benefits 
of electrification. However, several hurdles, including high 
upfront vehicle costs and inadequate charging infrastructure, 
remain.
    A robust policy ecosystem is required to address these 
barriers, which potentially include five elements.
    First, strong standards that require all new auto sales to 
be zero-emission, a technology neutral standard.
    Second, targeted financial incentives that ramp down over 
time.
    Third, equity-focused programs.
    Fourth, and most importantly, investments in a ubiquitous 
charging network and a modern grid.
    Five, the strong made-in-America policies.
    You know, Europe and China are implementing several of 
these policies already. And in 2020, EV sales and public charge 
points in Europe and in China will more than double that of the 
U.S. So we have some catch-up to do, but it is eminently 
possible.
    Last, but not the least, enhanced investment in R&D to 
establish U.S. leadership in clean technology and rapid 
decarbonization of the transport sector. Examples include 
extreme fast-changing, cobalt-free batteries, solid-state 
advanced manufacturing.
    In short, recent dramatic technology improvements have 
created a massive opportunity for consumers, climate, economy, 
and jobs. And I think it is wise to take it.
    I yield back, or I am done.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Phadke follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank Dr. Phadke.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Britton for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BRITTON

    Mr. Britton. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Rush, Vice 
Chair McNerney, Ranking Member Upton, full committee Chairman 
Pallone, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and other members 
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak about 
zero-emission transportation and the CLEAN Future Act today.
    My name is Joe Britton. I am the executive director of the 
Zero Emission Transportation Association, a public-interest 
nonprofit representing 55 company interests who are all 
advocating for a 100 percent EV sales by 2030. Our membership 
spans the entire EV supply chain and includes critical 
materials, charging companies, utilities, vehicle 
manufacturers, and battery producers, and recyclers.
    At the start of this year, ZETA launched a comprehensive 
Federal roadmap to achieve 100 percent EV sales by 2030. This 
EV agenda offers Federal policymakers a blueprint to create 
hundreds of thousands of domestic manufacturing jobs, protect 
public health, and secure American leadership in the automotive 
space. We are pleased to see key provisions of ZETA's platform 
captured in the CLEAN Future Act and the additional legislation 
included in today's hearing. My testimony will provide context 
on ZETA's recommendations and on how we can best invest to 
create an unbeatable U.S. automotive sector for decades to 
come.
    We know the world is moving forward with transportation 
electrification, with or without us. So the United States has a 
choice and an opportunity to revive its industrial and 
automotive superiority.
    Hundreds of thousands of Americans, many in rural 
communities, depend on the automotive industry for their 
livelihood. Electric vehicles present a critical pathway and 
opportunity for American leadership in manufacturing at a time 
when economic advancement in these areas is sorely needed. EVs 
will define the new automotive economy. That is because they 
create enormous value, without asking the consumer to 
sacrifice.
    In fact, EVs are superior products that deliver a better 
driving experience, have zero tailpipe emissions, cost 
significantly less in terms of fuel, maintenance, and service 
costs.
    The choices we face are stark. We can either cultivate an 
advanced vehicle sector or cede this economic opportunity to 
others. It is true that China holds a disproportionate share of 
the EV supply chain, particularly when it comes to battery 
processing, materials, and recycling. But this didn't happen 
accidentally. They have delivered support and funding for 
research and development that has allowed their economy to 
capture the market.
    But that doesn't need to be the end of the story. We can 
drive American innovation through programs like the Advanced 
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program and seek to reshore 
the production of components, parts, and vehicles. Investing in 
the U.S. domestic supply chain will protect us from 
overreliance on foreign competitors and ensure that disruptions 
like those brought on by the coronavirus are not repeated.
    In short, the United States cannot be on the sidelines 
while our foreign competitors continue to solidify their 
control over the manufacturing, processing, and commodities 
critical to our economic future.
    The current policy landscape presents an opportunity to 
retake a leading position in the EV space. Congress can help by 
passing strong consumer incentives, investing in charging 
infrastructure, and instituting rigorous fuel economy 
standards, all while ensuring this transition is achieved in an 
equitable manner.
    ZETA specifically recommends removing the 200,000-unit-per-
manufacturer cap as part of the 30D tax credit and making those 
EV incentives point-of-sale refundable.
    We must also provide rebates to the used-car market to 
ensure electrification is not only--out of reach but is 
available for those 70 percent of Americans that are not in the 
market for a brand-new car.
    And we have urged the Federal Government set strong fuel 
economy standards. This will send a market signal that we are 
going to make this transition to EVs in the next 10 or 15 
years, and not the next 40 or 50.
    We have also called for a $30 billion investment to build 
out accessible charging infrastructure. Reliable charging that 
meets every community's needs is critical. We are pleased to 
see charging infrastructure prioritized in the American Jobs 
Plan.
    Finally, each of ZETA's policy objectives are grounded in a 
recognition that historic infrastructure efforts have not made 
a pointed attempt to engage frontline communities and 
communities of color. With this in mind, we fully support 
Representative Clarke's Electric Vehicles for Underserved 
Communities Act, which directs DoE to support the deployment of 
EV charging in disadvantaged or underserved communities.
    In tandem with the investments in the American Jobs Plan, 
these proposals present a critical opportunity for full 
transportation electrification.
    ZETA's membership has come together, as a business group 
and a business voice to ensure that the United States can lead 
the global EV market while creating good-paying domestic jobs 
and cutting our emissions to improve public health and reduce 
our carbon footprint.
    We can make this an American success story and outcompete 
anyone, but we have to do it now. Together, we can establish 
the best products, careers, and public health outcomes 
possible.
    ZETA encourages the committee to adopt these policies, and 
I look forward to taking your questions and contributing to the 
discussion about how best to invest in a strong economic 
future. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Britton follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Josh Nassar for 5 
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF JOSH NASSAR

    Mr. Nassar. Thank you, Chairman Rush and members of the 
committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify here 
today on behalf of the million members and retirees of the 
United Auto Workers, our president, Rory L. Gamble, and the 
executive board.
    I want to start off by just saying that there is no 
organization that the fate--our fate, our members' and 
retirees' fate, is directly tied to the success of the motor 
vehicle automobile industry in the United States. So this is an 
issue that we are deeply engaged in.
    I think, first of all, you know, from our standpoint, often 
it is set up as a choice between either we can have strong 
environmental standards or we can have, you know, good jobs. We 
think both are absolutely necessary here. And when talking 
about what I mean by good jobs, we think that, absolutely, we 
support the idea of there being massive Federal investments to 
create the infrastructure for EV manufacturing and deployment, 
but there has to be conditions. Employers have to be held 
accountable for how they treat their workers, and it has to be 
part of the equation.
    The other thing is that we believe strongly that taxpayer 
money should be used to support U.S. jobs and U.S. 
manufacturing. We don't think it should be for imported 
vehicles. It should be for domestically built vehicles.
    We also strongly believe that, you know, we have to beef up 
our supply chains. The current shortage of auto-grade wafers 
for semiconductors is having a devastating impact on our 
members and on parts of the economy throughout the country. And 
it really shows kind of the fallacy of overly relying on 
foreign supply chains. So this is an opportunity to bring those 
supply chains here, start them here in the first place. We are 
at kind of a key moment.
    The other thing is we just need to make sure that, you 
know, those new jobs that are created are good jobs. And right 
now, I can't say with any assurance that they will be. We have 
seen, you know, joint ventures and other arrangements from some 
of the startups and stuff, and where, just with an unproven 
record of working conditions and wages. So we are really at a 
kind of a--at the cusp here.
    If Congress does not get involved, if Congress does not 
make big investments here, we are afraid we are just going to 
fall further and further behind China and Europe and other 
places with a strong auto presence. So we do think those 
investments are necessary public investments. But again, we 
think there needs to be conditions attached to those 
investments.
    The other thing is that if we don't make those investments, 
we are really worried that investments made by the companies 
will not be successful. So we need that infrastructure, and we 
need to boost EV sales in order to support the EV 
manufacturing.
    But to be clear, EVs aren't, you know, a silver bullet 
here. When we are talking about reducing emissions, which we 
believe, you know, we all have a role to do, we also need to 
focus on what could be done to make existing ICE-powered 
vehicles more efficient, as well. So I am pleased to see that 
there are provisions in the CLEAN Future Act that do just that.
    Also, when talking about, you know, workers, and having, 
you know, wages increase, we really need workers to have a 
voice on the job, and commend the House for passing the PRO 
Act. And now it is really important, we think, for the Senate 
to follow suit, because if workers have a voice on the job, 
then we are going to see higher wages and better working 
conditions.
    So we are looking at all this in a holistic way. And, you 
know, from our point of view, the future is really on the line 
here. But we need to be smart in how we proceed here. We need 
to do it based on, you know, where--partly where consumers are 
at, partly where we could incentivize. So if we do this in kind 
of a deliberate and careful way with strategic supply chains in 
mind, we could very well be in a much better position than we 
are right now when it comes to EV production and sales.
    As has been noted, less than 2 percent of the vehicles on 
the roads right now are electric vehicles.
    So I just want to conclude by saying that we don't really 
see this as a choice between creating good jobs or protecting 
the environment. We must do both. And in fact, we won't succeed 
in either endeavor if we don't do both, which I am happy to get 
into later in questions and answers.
    So really, I just appreciate the opportunity to testify 
here today, and I really look forward to answering the 
questions and further engagement here, as we continue down this 
very important effort. Thanks so much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nassar follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Well, I thank the witness.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. David Jankowsky for 5 minutes 
for the purposes of an opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF DAVID JANKOWSKY

    Mr. Jankowsky. Well, thank you so much, Chairman Pallone, 
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Subcommittee Chairman Rush, 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Upton, and other Members on the 
committee today. My name is David Jankowsky. I am the founder 
and president of Francis Energy, and I am just so grateful to 
be in front of you and testifying here today.
    Francis Energy is an Oklahoma-based owner and operator of 
direct current fast chargers. In very simple terms, these are 
simply chargers that can power cars very rapidly. In fact, some 
of these chargers can power cars in 7 to 12 minutes. Francis 
Energy and other companies built the first comprehensive fast-
charging network in the country, with over 350 direct-current 
fast chargers spread across 110 sites, strategically placed 
every 50 miles across the State of Oklahoma. And this was 
accomplished through a public-private partnership with the 
State.
    The CLEAN Future Act is exactly the kind of public-private 
partnership, in the form of rebates and grants, that will 
enable the private sector to build out modern infrastructure 
that is both comprehensive and equitable across all 
communities--urban, rural, underserved, disadvantaged, Tribal, 
and all other communities across America. This bill helps make 
that possible.
    In fact, roughly 75 percent of Francis Energy's charging 
stations in Oklahoma are in such communities. We built these 
stations because we know your constituents will be purchasing 
electric vehicles in the very near future. We say that with 
confidence because of the massive investment auto manufacturers 
and other stakeholders have committed to the electrification of 
transportation, as Mr. Britton so eloquently described in his 
opening statement.
    In the short term, because of this investment, electric 
vehicles will be at price parity with combustion engine 
vehicles and, importantly, with comparable range in the very 
near term. At that point, we see the acceleration of EV 
adoption in every community across America.
    The Oklahoma example proves that modern infrastructure does 
not have to be a partisan issue. In fact, lawmakers and other 
stakeholders in Oklahoma understood that placing fast chargers 
in these communities would have massive, massive economic 
development impact. We support the CLEAN Future Act and the 
rebate and grant provisions because it is this robust 
legislation that will enable private companies like ourselves 
and other charge point operators and other stakeholders--it 
will take a village to create this network across America.
    But we know that this legislation will enable the private 
sector to place charges every 50 miles across the U.S., leaving 
no community behind. Francis Energy is committed to that 
mission.
    I am just very grateful, again, to be in front of you today 
and very much look forward to the question-and-answer session.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Jankowsky follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Well, I thank the witness.
    The Chair now recognizes Dr. Michelle Michot Foss for 5 
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

            STATEMENT OF MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS, Ph.D.

    Dr. Foss. Thank you, Chairman. And I would like to thank 
all of the members of the committee for asking me to join the 
hearing today, and I would like to commend all of the members 
of the committee for demonstrating a really good handle on all 
of the risks and challenges that are embedded in the subject 
that we are discussing today: how to how to change 
transportation, how to introduce new technologies, and other 
things. I feel like you all have a very good handle on all of 
the enormous aspects that have to be dealt with on this.
    When it comes to electric vehicles, the main part of the 
vehicle, of course, is the battery. This is what everybody is 
focused on. And battery costs, risks associated with those 
costs, and affordability are contingent on regional differences 
in manufacturing--huge regional differences in manufacturing. I 
can't emphasize that enough. And that includes both supply 
chains and labor. And I think everybody understands that the 
cheaper EVs are made in the locations where both of those 
things are way less expensive than they are in our country or 
in Europe.
    Enormous cones of uncertainty exist. In part, what policy 
can do is help to narrow those cones. But it has to be 
sensible, and it has to be targeted the right way.
    Batteries and battery electric vehicles are materials-
intense. I don't need to restate everything that is coming into 
the public domain on that front. It is well known now. The 
thing that I find ironic is that so many people who want to 
promote electric vehicles in their States are also opposed to 
mining and minerals processing in their States, and that raises 
a distinct question: If you are concerned about sustainability 
of what we are trying to do because of mining and minerals 
processing abroad, then you--and you are also concerned about 
it in your own State, those two things don't equate. So I think 
the committee has to kind of deal with some of the 
contradictions and intentions and some of the things that I 
think that people are focused on.
    Commodity prices are already rising sharply. We are full of 
news about that right now. It is something that I have been 
concerned about for some time. Rapidly rising commodities 
prices, because of a mix of factors including policy mandates 
and other things, will contribute to inflation and higher 
interest rates. And that will undermine everything that you are 
trying to accomplish, in terms of positive goods.
    Electricity is a distinctly difficult commodity. I am all 
for fast recharging, there are very exciting developments on 
that front. But we have a lot of work to do on electric power 
systems. And I think that people have an understanding of that. 
Who should pay for recharging? How much should recharging cost? 
Those are things that are enormous puzzles with no real 
solutions to.
    Half of a vehicle comes from other materials, hydrocarbons-
based plastics. That is how we have made combustion engine 
vehicles more efficient already. That is how battery 
efficient--battery electric vehicles are going to remain--are 
going to move--become higher performing, going forward. 
Anything and everything that affects the ability to extract oil 
and gas, extract hydrocarbons, provide the materials from those 
that are needed, are going to affect the affordability and 
availability of battery electric vehicles. I can't say that 
strongly enough.
    Finally, on China, we have already had a lot on the table 
about China. So much of what people think they understand about 
battery cost structures, battery electric vehicle cost 
structures, is distorted by the Chinese role in all of this. 
With more than 80 percent, or roughly 80 percent of control--of 
battery-making capacity, and a dominant position in electric 
vehicle manufacturing platforms, we simply cannot look at those 
cost structures and assume that we can do the same thing. We 
have got a lot of a learning curve that we have to absorb in 
our market.
    It is certainly true that the automakers are focused on 
this and trying to find the best ways of escalating. But to 
reach the level of sales growth that people would like to 
achieve is a pretty massive effort. And I am not sure that 
going toe to toe with China, frankly, on all of this really 
makes sense. I have plenty of content in my formal testimony 
related to Chinese dominance of supply chains, Chinese 
dominance of trade flows.
    I want to go back to what Mrs. McMorris pointed out about 
free markets. It is not hard to operate in a free--or it is not 
easy, I should say, always to operate in a free market. But 
communism is much worse. And I think that, when we look at 
China, we have to be skeptical about a lot of the confidence 
around what they are doing, given what we know about communist 
regimes.
    Thank you very much for the time, and I wish the committee 
best of luck.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Foss follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank Ms. Foss for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Siccardi for 5 minutes for the 
purpose of an opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF AJ SICCARDI

    Mr. Siccardi. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is AJ Siccardi, and I am the president 
of Metroplex Energy, based in Atlanta, Georgia.
    Metroplex is a subsidiary of RaceTrac, one of the largest 
independent convenience chains in the United States. I am 
testifying today on behalf of NACS, NATSO, and SIGMA, which 
represent more than 90 percent of retail motor fuels in the 
U.S.
    The retail liquid fuels industry is indispensable to 
decarbonizing the transportation sector, both through the sale 
of cleaner liquid fuels as well as through EV chargers. We want 
to partner with Congress to help achieve environmental goals in 
a market-oriented and affordable manner.
    Fuel retailers represent the consumer. We don't care what 
types of fuel our customers choose to buy from us. We simply 
identify the most reliable, lowest-cost fuels that people want 
to buy, and deliver those fuels throughout the country. We 
compete with one another on price, speed, quality of our 
facilities, and service. This is a good dynamic for consumers. 
If you want there to be more publicly available charging 
stations, you should make investing in charging stations more 
attractive for private companies.
    Today it is not an attractive option. There is range 
anxiety because existing charging infrastructure is not 
convenient to consumers. More EV charging stations at existing 
retail fuel locations is the most effective way to eliminate 
range anxiety.
    Our stores are already convenient locations. We offer the 
services and amenities that drivers want, such as food, 
beverages, restroom, and security. There is no range anxiety 
for liquid fuels today. That is not because of government 
incentives. It is because businesses like mine had a clear, 
unambiguous profit incentive to sell fuel to consumers.
    The profit incentive does not exist today with regard to EV 
chargers. There are several impediments standing in the way. 
Most of these impediments involve an electricity market that 
was not designed for and is not compatible with the retail fuel 
market. For example, some States prohibit fuel retailers from 
selling electricity to EV users. We appreciate the legislation 
seeks to address this. A lot more must be done.
    It remains a threat that regulated utilities will use their 
status as monopolies to gain a competitive edge over private, 
unregulated businesses.
    Additionally, many States allow utilities to charge all of 
their customers higher electric bills to underwrite the 
utilities' investments in charging stations. Private companies 
like RaceTrac cannot access a pool of risk-free capital. 
Allowing utilities to do so only makes sense if the money will 
go towards enhancing regeneration and capacity. Our concern 
only arises when utilities are also able to use ratepayer funds 
to own and operate the charging stations themselves.
    It is unnecessarily regressive to force the lowest-income 
Americans to pay higher electricity bills to subsidize EV 
driving fuel and costs. It is also counterproductive because it 
will take away fuel retailers' desire to invest, because we 
can't compete with businesses that are guaranteed a return. 
This will result in fewer public charging stations available 
for consumers.
    On top of all this, regulated utilities under current rules 
can force EV charging station owners to pay for electricity 
more than it costs the utility to power their own chargers. The 
large demand charges authorized under outdated regulations make 
it impossible for private fuel retailers to compete on price.
    When our competition at retail is the same company that 
sells us power, that is not an attractive investment 
opportunity. In fact, no successful business buys goods and 
service at retail prices and sells at retail prices. Successful 
business models provide a spread between wholesale and retail. 
Otherwise, consumer prices will have to rise to create a margin 
for retail. Or retailers simply won't enter the market, because 
there is no viable business model. No amount of grant money or 
tax incentives will change that fundamental economic reality.
    To be clear, that is why there is range anxiety today. The 
EV charging proposals the committee is considering, 
unfortunately, would not fix these problems. This makes rebate 
opportunities unattractive for private companies. It would be 
far more attractive if the legislation stipulated that 
businesses putting capital at risk to own and operate EV 
charging stations are prioritized over applicants seeking to 
double dip. By ``double dip'' I mean access both Federal 
rebates and funds to own and operate EV charging stations.
    Fuel retailers are the representative for the consumer. 
When you make the EV charging investment more attractive for 
us, you will make the transition more comfortable and 
attractive to the public.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy 
to answer any questions you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Siccardi follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank all the witnesses for 
their opening statements. And indeed, we have concluded all the 
opening statements. We will now move to Member questions.
    Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our 
witnesses. I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jankowsky, in your testimony you describe the work of 
your company, which I find fascinating. Francis Energy created 
a comprehensive electric vehicle charging network through the 
largely rural State of Oklahoma, and also within urban, low-
income, Tribal, and other underserved communities. My bill, the 
NO EXHAUST Act, has provisions aimed at enhancing the Federal 
Government's role to address exactly this type--why is it 
that--why is investment important to the deployment of electric 
vehicles, and how will it specifically impact underserved and 
disadvantaged communities?
    Mr. Jankowsky. Well, thank you so much, Chairman Rush, for 
the question. So why is Federal investment important into the 
EV infrastructure space?
    And really, we feel it is important because of the chicken-
or-the-egg problem, right? Economists call it a market 
coordination problem. Simply, without infrastructure, no one is 
going to buy cars. And if cars are available and the market is 
demanding it but that infrastructure is not there, then, quite 
simply, no one is going to buy EVs.
    It is going to take a whole host of public funding. The 
Federal Government has a significant role to play in that 
public-private partnership. And really, that is the only way 
this network across the U.S. will get created. It is a function 
of private capital, Federal investment, and also, importantly, 
State investment. Those three kind of, you know, prongs to that 
stool, they are all critical. They are all critical.
    Now, how do--how does EV infrastructure get into 
underserved and disadvantaged communities? The upfront capital 
cost to build these stations, particularly when we talk about 
7-to-12-minute charging systems, they can cost upwards of 
$400,000 for the first dispenser. The way that the EV market is 
going simply to be developed, in terms of what charge point 
operators would charge electric vehicle consumers, the absolute 
baseline is that EV consumers will be paying much, much less in 
fuel costs to power that car and also avoided maintenance. In 
order for, you know, these communities to be able to access, 
you need to solve this market coordination failure, and that is 
exactly what the CLEAN Future Act does.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Nassar, the NO EXHAUST Act and the CLEAN Future Act 
both include strong labor standards that are attached to 
several grant programs. These programs invest in electric 
vehicle legislation and infrastructure in the U.S., and require 
that grant recipients pay workers not less than the prevailing 
wage.
    Can you describe why provisions to--labor standards are 
essential to Federal infrastructure deployment efforts, 
especially as we work to decarbonize our economy?
    Mr. Nassar. Sure. Thank you for the question. Basically, if 
we don't have kind of employer responsibility standards and 
kind of, you know--keeping track not just of the wages and 
working conditions, but also, you know, are they offering full-
time jobs, are a lot of the workers, you know, temporary 
workers, for example, keeping track and kind of an 
accountability on all that, is a key way to ensure that the 
jobs that are being created are, in fact, good jobs.
    And I want to point out that, while we support Davis-Bacon 
provisions, they don't apply for the manufacturing of the 
vehicles themselves. So we think that these labor provisions 
are important, and would support those provisions for sure. 
Thanks.
    Mr. Rush. Well, that concludes my time for questioning. Now 
the Chair now recognizes my friend from Michigan, the ranking 
member, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to see 
you, and know that you are just across the lake here, as I am 
in Michigan and you are in Illinois.
    Mr. Siccardi, let's talk a little bit about the business 
case to support EVs and the charging stations. Can we actually 
do this? Is it possible to do without a heavy taxpayer subsidy?
    Mr. Siccardi. Thank you for the opportunity, Representative 
Upton.
    That is probably the biggest thing that our members are 
struggling with today, is finding a business case for EV 
chargers or our fast-speed chargers. Our goal would be to make 
EV fast chargers as ubiquitous as the 150,000 fueling locations 
that we have across the country today for liquid fuels. But in 
order to do so, we need a business model that actually makes 
sense.
    Unfortunately, there's a number of things that create 
challenges to that business model. The first and foremost is 
utilities rate basing. So being able to charge all ratepayers 
the cost of installing a charging station, that might seem like 
a great short-term idea in that it gets chargers out there 
quickly. But, unfortunately, it takes away the profit incentive 
for retailers to choose to deploy private capital to do the 
same thing.
    As important is most States have very expensive charges for 
demand charges. Demand charges make the cost to power--for a 
retailer to provide the load required for a high-speed charge 
cost-prohibitive, really, for us to have much of a margin. So 
it becomes very, very difficult for a retailer to not only 
deploy the capital required to get a return, but then, on an 
ongoing basis, be able to generate any margin on the 
transaction.
    So what we would encourage the committee to do is focus on 
making the business model make sense, remove the impediments, 
give us the opportunity to compete. We will compete with all 
manner of businesses, whether it is other fuel retailers, or 
chargers, or whatever happens to come to the marketplace. But 
we need a profit incentive to do so. That profit incentive can 
be done with relatively well-intentioned and smart legislation 
to allow the utilities to focus on the areas that they should 
be focused on, which is providing power and grid resiliency and 
allowing retailers of all stripes to compete on price and to 
offer the consumer the amenities they need.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you. I would note that there is--I was in 
a conference call, a Zoom call earlier today with some folks in 
Michigan, and they talked about an energy storage incentive 
that [audio malfunction] suspect that that would be a good 
thing, as it would be able to store that battery energy, or 
that energy stored, and then be able to release it in off-peak 
times. That may be something that actually has pretty strong 
bipartisan support that might move forward.
    Mr. Jankowsky, I was pretty--obviously, with what you are 
doing--and I sense that Mr. Mullin, Markwayne Mullin, will be 
asking you some questions. But how much does it cost to 
actually build--you talk about a facility every 50 miles. Well, 
I look at my district, six counties, it is--there is no 
gerrymandering here, it is a cube. Every 50 miles would be 
about maybe 4, 3 or 4 charging stations in my district, serving 
750,000 people. That would be some pretty long lines there, 
longer than what we had in the energy crisis in the 1970s, when 
you wanted to fill up your car on an even or odd day.
    But what is the cost per station that you have invested in 
Oklahoma?
    Mr. Jankowsky. So, Congressman Upton, thank you so much for 
the question. So Oklahoma--and these are just hard numbers--
Oklahoma, with 355 superchargers, cost all-in--and we are 
talking all-in project costs, so, as defined in the 
legislation, ``eligible costs''--about 30 to 40 million 
dollars.
    Now, it is a difficult question to answer, simply because 
the charging stations themselves have very different power 
outputs for different applications and therefore,cost very 
differently and widely across those direct-current fast 
chargers.
    Mr. Upton. But you are going to want that. So, again, I 
didn't see your testimony until, literally, this morning, but 
you are going to want--I mean, someone driving an EV car, 
driving, I don't know, here or someplace else, Mackinac Island 
or Debbie's district on the other side of the State, you don't 
want to stop, and you are not going to want to take more than 7 
or 10 minutes to charge it, unless you have a spare battery in 
the trunk.
    So, I mean, it is remarkable technology that you are ready 
to go, but what--you are going to want that type of thing, and 
so you--what you are saying is that--I know my time--40 
million, to--30 to 40 million dollars----
    Mr. Rush. The ranking member, your time has expired.
    Mr. Jankowsky. So----
    Mr. Rush. The witness will be allowed to answer your 
question.
    Mr. Jankowsky. You know, Congressman Upton, you know, I am 
very happy to meet with you and your staff after this. But our 
infrastructure in Oklahoma, effectively, 50 percent of them are 
in rural communities that are more slower fast-charging 
systems. So these are systems that can charge in 60 to 90 
minutes. And we put those in rural communities, in underserved 
communities, because they serve as a beacon. So drivers on the 
highways will have to come into town and be captive. And there 
are some environmental--or, sorry, some economic development 
impacts for having a single charger in a rural or underserved 
community.
    But equally important, what one charger does is it now 
gives permission to your constituents to buy electric vehicles 
when they become available in your communities. And it is 
really a function of investment going into light-duty trucks, 
which, in our part of the world, is a car that a lot of people 
like, SUVs. And simply, the cost of batteries have come down so 
much that we are certain that your constituents and 
constituents in rural and underserved and disadvantaged 
communities will be able to afford these cars. But you need 
that public infrastructure to give them permission to buy them. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for the purposes of 
questioning the witnesses.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I wanted to start 
with Mr. Nassar.
    Can you discuss some of the policies we should pursue in 
order to make sure that U.S. workers benefit from this growing 
domestic industry and ensure we don't lose out to other 
countries, if you would, Mr. Nassar?
    Mr. Nassar. Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
    I think--well, for starters, we should make sure that 
Federal money used is used to support vehicles that are built 
in the United States. I think that is going to be important. We 
have to anchor the jobs here, and by anchoring the jobs here, 
it is not just going to be the final assembly, it is going to 
be throughout the supply chain. We could have more of those 
jobs being good, U.S. jobs.
    We also, you know, as I said, I mean, other changes in law 
are needed, such as strengthening the National Labor Relations 
Act by passing the PRO Act.
    But as far as conditions within, you know, the money that 
is given, first of all, we think it should be looked at 
broadly. So we shouldn't just look at tax credits. We should 
look at grant, loan programs too. And what it should be is 
that, as part of, you know, being able to access those funds, 
an employer should be held accountable for what--you know, what 
kind of wages, what kind of retirement, you know, benefits do 
they have. Are the workers full time, or are they permatemps?
    What we see in a lot of manufacturing is the companies that 
will have the same person come back day after day, year after 
year, and technically they are called a temp, because their 
paycheck is from a third party, but they are not a temp worker 
whatsoever. So we--you know, there really has to be way more 
accountability and transparency for the companies receiving the 
aid. I think that is a really key part of it.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And let me go to Mr. Phadke.
    Your testimony includes some of the grid considerations 
related to EV infrastructure. And last week FERC held a 
conference on electrification of the U.S. economy, including 
vehicles. Can you talk about the grid planning and upgrades 
that are necessary to support increased EV demand, if you will?
    Dr. Phadke. Thanks for the question. And I would say that 
there are three aspects of grid planning that need to 
accommodate EV demand.
    First is generation. Essentially, you will need--U.S. will 
need additional generation to support the additional 
electricity demand generated by the EVs. And we find that, in 
order to electrify--all sales to be electric, the additional 
supply that the U.S. power system needs to support is about 2 
to 3 percent per year. And this kind of supply growth has 
already been achieved in the past. And why this number is 
relatively modest, the answer is EVs are 3 to 5 times more 
efficient than combustion engine cars. So when you move all 
that demand from oil to electricity, yes, there is demand 
growth, but the demand growth is modest. But it needs to be 
taken into account, because what--the last thing we want is an 
unreliable grid. That is first.
    Second, similar investments in transmission and 
distribution infrastructure are required to kind of anticipate 
what electricity demand will occur, and do those investments 
proactively.
    That is why it is so important--perspective to do two 
things.
    First, we have to have some kind of indication of goals of 
what is the kind of transformation we are looking at in the 
transportation sector. So, for example, by what date we should 
be expecting oil sales to be zero emission/electric. That will 
give the utilities the certainty to make some investments in 
transmission generation and distribution infrastructure.
    And secondly, there are opportunities for research and 
development and smart policies on the grid which actually use 
the existing grid more efficiently to support EVs. That links 
to the issue of kind of off-peak rates and being smart about 
the--so you are incentivizing EVs to charge when the power 
system is not constrained and loaded.
    What it will, in fact, do is that, if EVs are charging 
during, say, nighttime or off-peak time, you are using the 
existing infrastructure to send more electrons. That will, in 
fact, lower rates for all consumers, if such smart grid 
policies are implemented.
    Mr. Pallone. All right, thanks so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. That concludes the Chairman's questioning. He 
yields back the balance of his time.
    Now Mrs. McMorris Rodgers is not present with us right now, 
so the Chair recognizes Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes for the 
questioning of the witnesses.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush, and I 
certainly hope people are watching this hearing. I think it is 
perhaps one of the most critical hearings that people might 
have on their radar screens right now, because it is certainly 
indicative of what the narrow House Democratic majority is 
trying to do with that narrow majority and, of course, the 
Senate being divided even Steven and things going through on 
reconciliation.
    So these policies that we are talking about today are all 
at risk of becoming law. And I say that with all due respect 
and affection for my friends on the other side of the dais. 
But, clearly, what we are talking about is taking the country 
in the wrong direction.
    Look, this committee has a rich history of making decisions 
for the benefit of the country, decisions that, in fact, 
benefit other jurisdictions, other committees' jurisdictions. 
Think of what we did on allowing--or lifting the ban on the 
sale of exports of crude oil in December of 2015 and how much 
more flexibility we gave to the Department of State and the 
Department of Defense by providing the pathway for America to 
become energy independent.
    And today, as quickly as we can, the Democrats are trying 
to undo that energy independence and literally give it away. 
And I hope people are paying attention and understand what is 
at stake here and what is being given away.
    And the sad thing is bipartisan policies do exist. You 
know, in the last Congress I introduced the EV MAP Act with Mr. 
O'Halleran. We strove to provide better information to the 
developers of electric vehicle charging infrastructure to help 
people make more educated investments. But the bills we are 
considering today waste taxpayer money, they reduce 
competition, they harm consumers, and they harm our country.
    So, Dr. Foss, let me ask you--and of course--it is always 
great to have someone from Rice University come and testify to 
one of our subcommittees because it raises the overall 
educational stature of our exercise, from merely partisan to 
truly informed. But can I just ask you, where do the electric 
vehicle batteries come from?
    Dr. Foss. I am sorry. Can you restate the question, please? 
I couldn't hear it.
    Mr. Burgess. Where do our batteries for these electric 
vehicles--where do they come from?
    Dr. Foss. Well, they all come from outside of the United 
States, for the most part, right now, and they will----
    Mr. Burgess. So let me stop you there for a second. So, if 
my premise is energy independence was good for America, we are 
basically dialing that back. Is that not correct? We would not 
be energy independent if we are dependent upon other countries 
for the source of this battery technology.
    Dr. Foss. You are correct, if what we also do is ban the 
fuels that have made us independent, which we also need for 
materials. And that is the conundrum.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes, and thank you for pointing that out. 
Since my time is limited, I do have some additional questions 
for you, Dr. Foss. I am going to be submitting those for the 
record. But I do need to ask Mr. Siccardi, because I am a 
frequent visitor of RaceTrac.
    You all provide a significant service for constituents of 
the--in the North Texas area. But you have kind of said it 
already, but is this CLEAN Future Act--is it a level playing 
field for the competitors in the fuel market?
    Mr. Siccardi. Yes, we believe that good policy should focus 
on outcomes and drive the outcomes that we are trying to 
achieve here. And, fundamentally, as I mentioned earlier, there 
is not a business case today for retailers, given the 
constraints and the cost of capital, to install charging 
stations across the country and replicate the existing 
infrastructure that we have for liquid fuels.
    That is not to say that there isn't things we can do. We 
can. We can work collectively to continue to lower the carbon 
intensity of existing fuels, as well as continue to expand the 
EV charging stations. And our hope----
    Mr. Burgess. Which you have done. And I certainly 
appreciate the efforts that you have put forward on that.
    But, look, one of the things you brought out in your 
testimony, if this becomes law, we are going to have a very 
regressive system, where people at the lower end of the income 
scale are paying for the charging stations for people at the 
upper end of the income scale, who are able to afford these 
fancy electric vehicles. Is that not correct?
    Mr. Siccardi. Our focus would be to allow private capital 
to come into the market so that private capital can make the 
investments necessary to build out the infrastructure 
necessary. Private capital will do that, just as we have done 
with liquid fuels, as long as there is a business case that is 
viable.
    Rate basing, as I mentioned, while it might seem attractive 
because it is an opportunity to build out chargers quickly, it 
creates very perverse incentives, because it not only leads to 
additional charges for those that don't have EVs, but, on top 
of that, it crowds out private capital. Because who wants to 
compete with a guaranteed rate of return?
    Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you. Thank you both for your 
important contribution today, and I will have additional 
questions for all of the witnesses for the record.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Peters for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Peters?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks to 
the witnesses for being here today.
    The switch to zero-emission vehicles is coming. Our own car 
makers have announced as much. And China and Europe are making 
investments in the supply chains and manufacturing capability 
already. So we need to invest in the whole supply chain and in 
ensuring that the future of EVs are made in America, where we 
can create thousands of good-paying jobs, and ensure that our 
companies are the world's leaders in clean car technology.
    Let me ask Dr. Phadke.
    You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle love 
to talk about how all green technology is made abroad. So, 
instead of ceding the future of battery manufacturing to China 
and Europe, shouldn't we be the ones investing now to lead the 
way?
    Can you speak to the jobs, environmental and national 
security impacts of investing in on-shoring our battery and EV 
supply chain?
    Dr. Phadke. Thanks for the question. I would say I would 
agree that--because of the massive benefits that EVs offer to 
consumers, this transition is going to happen. Now the question 
is whether we take advantage of it or not.
    So what is interesting about batteries, batteries are quite 
heavy and more difficult to transport. So suppliers tend to 
locate manufacturing close to where the demand is. So if there 
are specific policies, from financial incentives or 
requirements for EVs, suppliers will have an incentive to 
locate manufacturing in the U.S., especially when combined with 
incentives of strong make-in-America policies.
    The second most important thing I would say is that the 
battery costs are also driven by the cost of manufacturing, and 
U.S., at times, has a significant advancement, because of 
advanced manufacturing capabilities in the U.S. So continued 
investments in R&D and advanced manufacturing and U.S. advanced 
manufacturing capabilities can be used as an advantage to 
really locate the supply chain close to where the demand is.
    And lastly, I would just give an example of Europe. Europe 
also has high labor costs. It is not like China. And they are 
able to successfully locate significant battery manufacturing 
in Europe, with a concerted effort on supply-and-demand push-
and-pull policies.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Let me ask you another question. I 
appreciate that answer.
    There is another zero-emission transportation option, and 
that is hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. I am just curious, 
what are your thoughts on the future of hydrogen 
transportation?
    Dr. Phadke. I would quickly say that, essentially, the 
policy has to be technology neutral. Technology has always 
surprised us. So currently it appears that battery technology 
has moved much quicker, and it provides a competitive or highly 
cost-saving option to--with continued investment in hydrogen, 
especially for heavy-duty vehicles or ships, aviation, trains, 
it could become a very competitive option. So one has to keep 
all options open, and keep technology policy neutral and 
investment R&D.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Britton, would a large government investment through 
grants or loans in the upstream and midstream sectors, battery 
materials processing, and battery materials manufacturing 
incentivize private investment in further upstream or 
downstream processes?
    What would be the overall impact of that kind of government 
investment?
    Mr. Britton. Well, it would be huge. And Congressman 
Burgess asked where do these batteries come from, so I wanted 
to take a moment to, in some ways, correct the record.
    We have mega-factories either in operation or in 
development in Nevada, Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, 
Georgia, New York. So this is totally possible. We have the 
opportunity here to drive domestic manufacturing, create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
    And if you think about every State, they have got an 
economic development office who is trying to provide incentives 
to locate that manufacturing in their State. We have the 
opportunity to do that, as a country. If we send the right 
signal that we are open for business, that we are willing to 
innovate, it will accrue dividends across the entire supply 
chain, from upstream to components, to parts, to batteries.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expiring, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for today's hearing, 
and thanks to our witnesses for appearing before us. I really 
appreciate your testimony.
    Dr. Foss, I believe you and I would agree that, in order 
that the electric grid could be able to provide enough electric 
power to charge the tens of millions of additional electric 
vehicles that would be on the road, as envisioned by the 
legislation before us, continued access to reliable sources of 
energy will be essential.
    Isn't it true that we will still need natural gas, oil, 
clean coal, and nuclear power to generate the amount of 
electricity needed to charge this new EV fleet?
    Dr. Foss. Yes, I think you are correct.
    First of all, I disagree. I think that the demand on 
electricity, with the kinds of scenarios people talk about for 
scaling up electric vehicles, it is bigger than what people are 
estimating or forecasting. And the reason is an electric 
vehicle is both a consumer of huge amounts of data and also a 
producer of huge amounts of data.
    Along with the idea of electrification, actually, for all 
transport, what we are trying to do is use data from mobility 
to accomplish a host of other things, to be able to anticipate 
road maintenance, to be able to look at traffic patterns, 
whatever it is. And data is energy intensive. That is all there 
is to it.
    And so one of the things that we have to think about is, as 
we move in these directions, what is the overall demand for 
energy, the overall demand for electricity? And I think we are 
going to need all of our generation sources.
    I also want to point out and add to the record that a lot 
of the large-scale battery manufacturing that is being located 
in various places, including in Europe, are in places that have 
robust nuclear energy competence. And that is a very attractive 
energy source for the high-energy intensity of battery 
manufacturing.
    Mr. Latta. You know, as you talk about battery 
manufacturing, let me just follow up on some of your testimony. 
And maybe you would like to just go into it some more.
    According to the IEA's 2020 Global BEV outlook material, 
the demand for batteries and BEVs starting in 2019 was 
estimated at 19 kilotons for cobalt, 17 kt for lithium, 22 kt 
for manganese, and 65 kt for nickel. But then you go into your 
projection scenario. For when it increases you are going from 
170 gigawatt hours today to 1.5 kilowatt hours by 2030. Demand 
for cobalt would expand about 180 kt per year in 2030, lithium 
to about 185 kt, manganese 177 kt, class-one nickel to 925 kt a 
year. Where is that going to come from?
    Dr. Foss. Most of it will come from abroad, from the 
countries that are resource rich, many of them that are 
traditional suppliers already. Some of it will have to come 
from new projects that we can't imagine yet, including marine 
minerals, other locations.
    There are a great number of ideas out there. The question 
is how well the public will tolerate that kind of activity.
    Mr. Latta. Well, and again, do you think the--in the 
climate that we are in today, that we will be able to mine for 
that in the United States for all these different minerals?
    Dr. Foss. Well, I want to go back to a comment that was 
made by either one of the Members or one of the other 
panelists. One of the things that I have advocated for in 
previous testimonies and in other places is that we need to 
revisit our commitment to mining and minerals processing in the 
United States, regulatory reform, streamlining.
    It is hard to look at the timelines that people are 
interested in, also knowing the timelines that it takes for 
projects. Fifteen, 16 years to be able to begin to even start 
to realize production from a facility, a new facility? That is 
just not going to work in the discussions that we are having.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Siccardi, I come from a very large area manufacturing 
district here, in Ohio. Would you say that moving away from 
renewable fuels toward an EV-only future would hurt these 
producers on the--and the agricultural community?
    Mr. Siccardi. Yes, we would encourage smart policy to be 
focused, as Dr. Phadke said, on technology-neutral solutions. 
Technology solutions should be focused on outcomes, and doing 
so should preserve a way for fuels to compete, whether they are 
renewables or hydrocarbons or EVs.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 
has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the fine gentleman from the State, the excellent 
State of California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
    Thank you again, Mr. McNerney, for your assistance this 
morning. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman, and I thank the 
witnesses. I think your testimony is all very, very informative 
and useful.
    Dr. Phadke, what opportunities exist to pair EV charging 
infrastructure with distributed resources, including energy 
storage, but with times of high renewable generation?
    Dr. Phadke. I think there are--thanks for the question. I 
think there are incredible opportunities to bear this, 
especially because, essentially, demand charges are levied by 
utilities when they are really constrained in meeting the 
supply. So if you have storage located on site, then, even if 
consumers are coming and charging during the peak hours for 
convenience, the stores, or whoever has the distributed 
storage, can potentially mitigate and avoid those demand 
charges. So it is an incredible opportunity.
    Also it improves grid resilience overall, because you have 
that kind of on-site storage, which can improve grid 
resilience.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, in your testimony you note 
that, although new investments in the distribution systems are 
necessary to support increased loads from EVs, the costs were 
modest. Could you please elaborate on this and what it means 
for consumers?
    Dr. Phadke. So, essentially, distribution investments 
required to--for upgrades are about--nationwide, in our 
scenario--are about 8 to 10 billion dollars a year. 
Distribution utilities, on average, invest $30 billion a year 
already per year.
    And why I am saying that the--why we find that the consumer 
costs will not go up? Essentially, if you are able to sell more 
electrons, then those investment dollars are distributed over 
many electrons. And that is the reason why they would be able 
to keep the rates at the same level or lower, because, 
essentially, you are selling--you are investing, but you are 
also selling more power.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Britton, can you please expand on your--on the consumer 
interest in EVs?
    What are some of the trends you are seeing in EV adoption?
    Mr. Britton. Well, I think the thing that is important to 
think about is the savings for fuel, and service, and 
maintenance. So, on average, most consumers save around $1,100 
a year. That is a real driver.
    The other thing that we are seeing in this space is 
dramatic increases in range. Many of the new vehicles--and 
there's going to be dozens coming on the market in the years 
ahead--are going to have 300 or 400 miles of range, which will 
be a huge breakthrough.
    But also, if you think about the battery pack, most folks 
think that $100 per kilowatt is the price parity with the 
internal combustion engine vehicle. We expect in the next 
couple of years to get down to $60 per kilowatt for that 
battery pack. So that will provide not only savings on the fuel 
and maintenance, but eventually price reduction and 
competitiveness on the upfront cost that will be able to drive 
adoption and show that they are not only cheaper for fuel and 
maintenance, but even the upfront costs. You are going to be 
getting a superior product and a better driving experience for 
the same amount of money, with savings on the fuel and 
maintenance side.
    Mr. McNerney. That sounds great. Mr. Britton, my 
congressional district includes parts of the San Joaquin 
Valley, where air pollution has been a significant problem, 
having some of the poorest air quality in the country. What 
would the potential impact of EVs and EV charging stations do 
to areas like San Joaquin--the San Joaquin Valley?
    Mr. Britton. Well, I think that is, in some ways, the 
missing part of this equation when we talk about the public 
interest. You know, we talk about consumer choice, but once 
those emissions leave the tailpipe, the public doesn't have a 
choice. The impacts on public health are dramatic.
    If you look at the medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, they 
represent about 7 percent of vehicles on the road, but they 
represent over 30 percent of the carbon emissions, and well 
over 50 percent of the toxic pollution that has dramatic public 
health impacts. And so, if we are able to reduce those 
emissions from--on the light-duty side, it is estimated that 
that is $8,600 in saved public health costs per light-duty 
vehicle that is on the road--we are going to be delivering not 
only consumer benefits on fuel and maintenance and service, but 
dramatic public health benefits.
    And again, we can do this in a way where we are addressing 
climate change and creating huge economic development 
opportunities and reshoring domestic manufacturing in the 
country.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, do you think we can catch up and 
surpass China in the supply chain? And if so, what would it 
take to do that?
    Mr. Britton. Well, I think, you know, some of the things 
that are being talked about are investment tax credits for the 
full lifecycle of the battery. So that is upstream. It is 
manufacturing, but it is also the recycling. That is absolutely 
key.
    But if you think about what we really need to accomplish in 
this space, it is leaning in. You know, America doesn't shy 
away from the competition. And we can outcompete China in 
absolute terms. We actually have greater lithium deposits than 
China does. It is a matter of really investing wisely to drive 
that domestic production in a responsible way.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Member extraordinare from the great State of 
West Virginia, my friend, Mr. David McKinley.
    Mr. McKinley. You are always too kind.
    Let me begin by saying, look, I support EVs and renewable 
energy, but not on this particular timeline that we are talking 
about, politically driven timeline. But I would rather on a 
free-market approach. And certainly not until researchers have 
developed an alternative mineral composition for our batteries.
    Now, look, no one on this panel can tell us the impact on 
the global temperature changes that a 100 percent renewable 
grid in America and a 100 percent EV mandate is going to have. 
But what we do know that--are the devastating environmental and 
human rights consequences by pursuing this objective in this 
time frame.
    Look, in recent years my Democrat colleagues have called 
Republicans ``climate change deniers.'' But I could tell you, 
Mr. Chairman, maybe it is time they look in the mirror and ask 
themselves why are they denying these devastating environmental 
and human right abuses in order to obtain the critical minerals 
needed for batteries?
    Is it because they don't want it to occur in their 
backyard?
    Look, this road to get 100 percent EVs and renewables is 
littered with environmental damage and human rights abuses. For 
example, just--the UN just came out with a report last year 
that talked--that warned us about these. They talked about the 
critical minerals being mined in the cobalt by an estimated 
40,000 children. And I have shown these pictures before. But 
here are some of the pictures of some of these children that 
are impacted with it. Here is another with the children being 
impacted.
    And lithium. To produce just one ton of lithium, you need 
to use 500,000 gallons of water, which consumes more than 65 
percent of all the water available in Chile. And this will only 
make 20 batteries out of a ton. So--and there are similar 
problems in harvesting graphite and manganese and the like.
    So--and excavating. According to Mark Mills at the 
Manhattan Institute, to make one battery you have to excavate 
250 tons of dirt, just to get the minerals necessary to make 
just one battery. Now, do the math, Mr. Chairman.
    As we transition to only 20 million vehicles by, let's say, 
2050, that will require 5 billion tons of dirt that will have 
to be excavated. That is an amount that will fill the vast 
Chesapeake Bay, just in one year. And we are talking about 
years going on in the future. So isn't it time to be honest 
with the American people about the raw materials needed to make 
these batteries, where they come from, and the consequences of 
extracting these raw materials?
    This is nothing more--just exporting American guilt, and 
turning a blind eye to the devastating impact we are doing to 
these emerging--the environment of these emerging nations.
    So, Dr. Foss, can you just tell me a little--am I wrong in 
assessing these consequences with this government?
    Should we be considering alternatives, like we have 
mentioned before about hydrogen fuel cells and carbon capture, 
that we can continue to use fossil fuels into the future as 
part of our mix?
    Where am I wrong on that?
    Dr. Foss. First of all, to be fair, anything that we do 
requires minerals and materials. We need platinum group metals 
or noble metals of other sorts for hydrogen-based fuel cells. 
We need metals for our legacy energy businesses, our carbon-
based businesses, oil, gas, coal, whatever.
    The problem is the metals intensity and the vehicle 
designs. And I think you can go to just about any other source. 
You could look at something simple like copper, and you can see 
the amount of metals intensity in the electric vehicle designs 
versus the traditional combustion engine designs. So I think we 
have to be honest about all of that.
    When it comes to all of the excellent points that you are 
making about responsibility, accountability, governments, I 
think that people are aware of all of these issues. But this is 
one of the things that will take so much time. It is very, very 
difficult to get countries on the same page with regard to best 
practices in extractive industries, things that make sense with 
regard to responsible operation.
    I think the mining industry, overall, is actually a very 
responsible industry, has good practices, but the rules and the 
government oversight, the protections for labor and environment 
in other countries are not the same. And the issue is the cost 
structure of minerals that are available and the timelines that 
everyone is talking about versus where they are located, and 
the governance structures in those countries. And I think that 
is what you are trying to get to here.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. And I just want to reinforce for 
everyone, you ought to read this United Nations report, because 
it really does document very clearly some of the problems that 
we are foisting on other nations, instead of doing it 
ourselves.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the brilliant chair of the environmental 
subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our 
witnesses.
    My hometown is a relatively small, working-class city. But 
just last month they cut the ribbon on 25 new, publicly 
accessible charging stations located in our city parks. We 
don't have many EV drivers there yet, but this is an investment 
with an eye toward adoption trends, and it will help people 
develop a comfort level with future EV ownership.
    So I want to thank Mr. Jankowsky, because it takes vision 
to build out this infrastructure in remote and rural 
communities. And I think it is clear we are going to need 
public charging in every community across the country, and 
sooner than people think.
    So, Mr. Britton, you make an important point that, today, 
80 percent of charging occurs at homes. How might that number 
change, as more people adopt EVs, some of whom won't have a 
garage or a dedicated off-street parking space?
    Mr. Britton. Well, we anticipate that 70 or 80 percent of 
charging will occur at home, as we move towards 100 percent EV 
sales. But the important point is how do you close that gap?
    And really, what that looks like is municipal parking, on-
street parking, multi-unit, and then retail and workplace 
settings. And that will provide, I think, the comfort and the 
ecosystem where people can plan for their charging needs, 
whether it is something that they are going to, you know, be 
doing at home, in supplement of work, whether that is going to 
the grocery store, or other settings that, you know, really 
reflect, I think, a more convenient charging and refueling 
approach, where they will go about their daily lives, and they 
will have a full charge. Most Americans will wake up with a 
full charge, but closing that gap is really important.
    And I think, you know, your local community leaders are 
trying to think through that. They are trying to make capital 
decisions for the next 25 or 50 years, and electrification is 
going to be part of that picture. And I think that is why your 
leadership on these issues to deploy the rebates, certainly for 
those subnational governments, is key.
    Mr. Tonko. Do you believe charging at workplaces and 
multifamily homes can fill some of this gap, and provide 
charging access for people that may not have a dedicated 
parking spot?
    Mr. Britton. Absolutely, and I think that is why--you know, 
and Mr. Siccardi has noted with the current gas station model--
there is a 30C tax credit that is available for folks to, you 
know, receive a 30 percent investment tax credit for deploying 
charging. I think your rebates that are available to those that 
may not have a tax liability are especially important to close 
that gap.
    But absolutely, when you think about it, it is going to be 
on-street parking, it will be municipal, it will be workplace, 
it will be retail. That is the way we are going to close that 
gap. Again, 70 or 80 percent will be at home. But getting to 
where you are meeting every community's needs is closing that 
gap with those other use cases.
    Mr. Tonko. And do you believe level-two chargers, which may 
take a few hours to complete a charge rather than a few 
minutes, would be sufficient at most homes and workplaces?
    Mr. Britton. So most homes will likely be level one, which 
is your current, you know, 110-volt service, or level two, 
which is the same service that your dryer operates on. That 
will be the vast majority of your at-home.
    When you think about the other settings, 90 percent--our 
estimation is that 90 percent of the public charging will be 
level two. So it will be a--you know, you will get 25, 30 miles 
of range while you are at the grocery store, while you are at 
church, while you are at work. Ten percent of that public 
charging will likely need to be direct current fast-charging 
along transportation corridors, where there is a need to--you 
know, to refuel in, you know, 10 to 30 minutes. But level two 
is a really important part of this puzzle, and, you know, it 
will be the vast majority of what public charging looks like 
and will require.
    Mr. Tonko. All right, thank you.
    I absolutely support building out charging corridors to 
address people's concerns with long distance and interstate 
travel. But is it fair to say that most people will continue to 
do most of their driving similarly to how it is done today? 
That would be, like, commuting to work, taking their children 
to school, running their errands.
    Mr. Britton. Yes, most of the--most range that you would 
think for a normal consumer is--the average is about 30 miles a 
day. So most consumers will have 10 times as much range in a 
given day than they would otherwise use.
    And again, that is why you supplement it for those 
instances where they are traveling across country, they are 
traveling to see family. But again, that is likely to be about 
10 percent of the use cases and where we should deploy 
resources to meet those needs.
    Mr. Tonko. And how might investments that build out 
infrastructure to support this around-town driving at people's 
workplaces and grocery stores complement investments along our 
highways and travel corridors?
    Mr. Britton. Well, again, that is why I think, you know, 
the combination of the 30C tax credit, which is that 30 percent 
ITC, along with the rebates you have proposed, is a perfect mix 
to have a flexible deployment to meet each of those use cases 
in need.
    So if it is a city that is the site host and they don't 
necessarily have a tax liability, you know, and may not be 
eligible for 30C, your rebate that they can go and access is a 
key part of deploying the charging to meet their community's 
needs.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Siccardi, according to the independent U.S. Energy 
Administration, EIA, miles driven in electric vehicles pale in 
comparison of those covered in internal combustion engines, 
meaning folks don't drive EVs as much.
    We also know the majority of consumers who currently own 
electronic vehicles make over $100,000 a year and own multiple 
vehicles.
    In a list from Car and Driver magazine, with every new EV 
model for sale in 2021, the prices of certain vehicles might 
not seem so bad to some, but once you look at the range 
available per charge, that value diminishes. The average annual 
income in my district in 2018 was $41,250. Spending $41,190 on 
a 2021 model from this list would get you a range of 250 miles.
    Now, we just heard from the previous witness that most 
people are just going to be driving to and from work about 30 
miles a day. But that is not true in rural districts like mine. 
People are driving sometimes, you know, 50, 60 miles just to go 
to their regular workplace.
    Having States--and I would say, along with that, having 
States consider basing cost of electric vehicles on the 
ratepayers across the board, whether you have an EV or not, is 
burdensome to my constituents.
    Do you agree with the numbers that I have gone over, Mr. 
Siccardi?
    Mr. Siccardi. I would agree that rate basing or charging 
stations across the market is regressive to consumers that 
don't have the EV charging stations.
    And we also don't believe it is the right policy. The right 
policy is to put incentives in place to allow private capital 
to come into the marketplace.
    We also do respectfully disagree with others that view that 
consumers are going to want to change their refueling 
experience that they have done over the last 60 years and go to 
places that, in some cases, are desolate, don't have security, 
and certainly don't offer the amenities that are offered at the 
stores that our retailers offer.
    Our new stores, typically, are 5,000 to 6,000 square feet, 
have lots of amenities, including great lighting, fresh food, 
seating, free Wi-Fi. It is tailored for someone who wants to 
stay with us, to shop with us, as well as fuel. To do that in a 
parking lot is a very, very different experience. And to me, I 
just think it will be very difficult to get consumer adoption 
and to address the range anxiety you shared, if people don't 
have a similar fueling experience that is ubiquitous to what 
they do today.
    Yes, I think it is a real problem for rural America, 
because there likely won't be options.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, and the problem is that we have--and I 
am going to go back to the electricity, but I am going to come 
back to your point just now--I mean, we just had in the Roanoke 
Times, which is probably the largest newspaper in my district, 
we had an article last week indicating that there might be as 
much as a $22 per month rate increase. And, you know, and all 
of a sudden Twitter blows up and says, just what we needed, you 
know, more expenses. And if we start adding the electric 
vehicle cost on top of that, particularly for areas that may 
not be served, I think we are going to be in real trouble.
    I will tell you that there is a lot of areas that won't be 
served. And I have heard them, you know, talk about Oklahoma 
and 50--you know, one every 50 miles. I wonder if that is as 
the crow flies. Because in my district--which is mountainous, 
it is not Oklahoma--you would have a hard time placing the 
stations where they were actually convenient to folks to do the 
electricity. And it is rural. It is sparsely populated. You 
know, I am hearing about we are going to do it in multifamily 
homes and we are going to be doing it, you know, in all these 
different places. Well, if you are driving that distance, you 
are not going to have that opportunity.
    And let me say this, and I know that maybe my world is a 
little bit different, but my district is roughly the size of 
the State of New Jersey, maybe a little bit bigger. And so last 
week I drove from my hometown of Salem to an event in 
Pennington Gap, 198 miles. My wife was out of town. I had to 
get home. I didn't have time to wait 40 minutes, as the new 
technology says they can do, or the 60 to 90 minutes somebody 
on--one of the other witnesses on the panel said. I had to get 
home to make sure that my kids--they are now teenagers, so they 
weren't in desperate need, but they needed to have somebody in 
the house with them that night. I didn't have time to sit on 
the side of the road 40 minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes, 
refueling. That is why there is this hesitancy on ranges.
    And look, my district is still waiting for the promise of 
broadband that was given to them by the Federal Government 20 
years ago. We haven't gotten that everywhere yet. We are 
hopeful that it will be in the next 2 or 3 years. And now you 
are coming along with a new promise? We hear about these 
promises all the time, and they rarely develop the way the 
Federal Government says they are going to. And the last place 
you get them is someplace like my great city of--or town of 
Pennington Gap, very rural, very out there, and the last to 
receive what the Federal Government promises it is going to 
give to all citizens.
    Do you hear those complaints in your--for RaceTrac?
    Mr. Siccardi. We serve rural, urban, and suburban 
communities. We have stores all throughout all communities, as 
do our retailers. In fact----
    Mr. Griffith. Do you recognize this is going to be a 
problem? Yes or no, because my time is up.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Schrier for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Schrier?
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here today for this very spirited discussion about these 
important issues.
    Now, as we continue to expand electric vehicle 
infrastructure, it is also important that we support demand for 
the EV charging with vehicle exchange programs for older, more 
polluting vehicles and provide secondary market credits to make 
electric vehicles more accessible for everyone.
    We have to remember that two-thirds of Americans are not in 
the market for a new car, and we have to help drive down 
emissions everywhere, especially in areas of disproportionate 
impact and public health concerns. So when we are talking about 
cars, this bill incentivizes the purchase of new EVs. For those 
in the market for a used car, there's also incentives to make 
it a used EV. And for some, it is just moving from an older, 
very polluting vehicle to a newer, more efficient, used gas 
vehicle, because every one of those helps reduce overall 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    So I want to focus on disadvantaged communities just for a 
moment, because electrification for some areas may really refer 
more to transit or school buses or, especially, medium- and 
heavy-duty vehicles. So, Mr. Britton, you stated that medium- 
and heavy-duty vehicles play an outsized role in negative 
environmental implications for emissions. Although they 
represent 7 percent of the vehicles on the road, they are 
responsible for 25 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, 50 
percent of the nitrous oxide emissions, and 67 percent of 
particulate matter emissions, which has a profound impact on 
health, particularly for these communities who are most exposed 
to trucks and pollution and ports.
    So I was wondering, Mr. Britton, can you talk about 
incentivizing the transition to electric vehicle medium and 
heavy vehicles, and the impact for these disadvantaged 
communities, as compared to simply replacing passenger 
vehicles?
    Mr. Britton. Well, yes. The medium- and heavy-duty space is 
a huge opportunity, and it is one where many of these vehicles 
are really hard-wired for the use cases that you might want, 
given charging and battery and range.
    So if you think about, for example, the Postal Service, the 
average route for the Postal Service is 20 miles, and they sit 
and they idle while they deliver mail for a majority of that 
route. And so you can provide a zero-emission transportation 
option and not be emitting those pollutants in every community 
in the country. So there is huge decarbonization but also 
pollution reduction opportunities there.
    The other thing that I think is worth remarking on is that 
it may not feel like an emergency for your community, but it 
certainly is an emergency for some communities. And if you look 
at the mid-Atlantic region, where there was a recent study, 
Black and Brown communities breathe in 66 percent more 
transportation-based emissions.
    And so we can think about these things as consumer choice, 
and I happen to believe that, on the light-duty side in 
particular, the products need to sell themselves. But there is 
also the public health element, where people don't have a 
choice. And so how we contribute to that and how we address it 
is really, really important, from an equity standpoint.
    Ms. Schrier. I agree, and we are already seeing this with 
FedEx. We have got investments in this bill for the Postal 
Service and for buses, because nobody likes to get stuck behind 
them. And there's more of these vehicles in those communities.
    I want to pivot a little bit, Mr. Jankowsky, to talk about 
rural America. I appreciate range anxiety. We are a family that 
took a 1,000-mile road trip, including the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains, in an electric vehicle. And so I have felt that 
anxiety.
    Mr. Jankowsky. Wow.
    Ms. Schrier. I know that those 50-mile-separated chargers, 
just in answer to some of the other comments I have heard, they 
are probably not for people who are living in rural America. 
They are charging at home. They are for people who are 
traveling rural America. So I just wanted to clarify that.
    Can you talk about your vision for electric vehicles in 
rural America, and even maybe, you know, some thoughts about 
not just personal vehicles but trucks or farm equipment?
    Mr. Jankowsky. Excellent. So thank you so much for the 
question.
    So in rural communities you need charging stations, simply 
because people travel away from their homes. Sure, in the 
typical day, maybe they are only traveling 30 miles. But I can 
certainly tell you, in the midcontinent of the U.S., people 
travel a lot further, and they leave home and they go further 
distances. So you have to have this charging infrastructure in 
those rural communities.
    But the other thing I would like to point out is those fast 
chargers, those 7-to-12-minute chargers in rural areas, are not 
just for crosscommuting traffic. There are for the local 
community. And if you consider, you know, that a home charging 
station--so a level two home charging station that could take 
about 6 to 8 hours to charge, I think today, where we stand, 
could cost between 1,500 to 2,000 dollars, and it is not like 
there is a lot of R&D going into that hardware, where those 
costs are going to come down so significantly that everyone can 
afford them. That is why we think it is not only for 
crosscommuter traffic, it is also for the community.
    Ms. Schrier. That is a great point. Thank you for those 
comments, and I yield back none of my time. Thanks.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
everyone for being here.
    As discussed today, the CLEAN Future Act aims to massively 
build out electricity transmission to transform the economy 
towards complete electrification. I am not anti-EV, but I am 
opposed to Federal mandates requiring electric vehicles. I also 
have concerns about the rush to green in the U.S. 
transportation sector, and the implications that this will have 
for the grid, energy rates, and reliability. I also believe 
there is a huge disconnect between those who live in 
metropolitan areas and those areas in rural America. I was 
interested to hear a brief glimpse of these issues from 
Congresswoman Schrier just now.
    I will point out that I have been told each charging 
station has a cost of around $70,000. That is not counting the 
build-out infrastructure needed to get electricity to many of 
those areas. From an environmental justice perspective, I do 
find it ironic that the reality of the Democrats' EV plan may 
result in the cost of charging stations being passed along to 
utility customers, many of those in low-income communities. Any 
tax credits are regressive and burden working-class Americans 
and many who don't own or have intention to purchase electric 
vehicles. According to the Congressional Research Service, 
about 78 percent of the credits claimed are by filers with an 
adjusted gross income of more than $100,000.
    Putting aside the climate motives behind the electric 
vehicle push, the policy, on its face, is a transfer-of-wealth 
scheme, harming folks like my constituents. If you live in 
rural South Carolina and you do not own an EV, you are de facto 
subsidizing some wealthy person's purchase of one.
    Furthermore, most of my constituents don't want EVs. 
According to the Auto Alliance, almost 50 percent of my 
constituents that own a vehicle drive either SUVs, pickup 
trucks, or minivans. Many of the jobs and lifestyles my 
constituents have require them to drive pickup trucks and 
bigger vehicles. I know auto companies are investing in larger 
electric vehicles, but the reality is the technology is just 
not there.
    So, Mr. Siccardi, it is clear the bureaucrats here in 
Washington and the Biden administration are pushing a one-size-
fits-all approach to EV policy. They want an irreversible path 
to EVs and do not care about a lack of consumer demand. Do you 
think policies like the CLEAN Future Act totally ignore market 
realities and consumer demand?
    What is the right approach, Mr. Siccardi?
    Mr. Siccardi. We believe the right approach is focusing on 
outcomes. In this case, if the outcome desired is to reduce 
carbon intensity and reduce emissions, there are ways to do 
that in a way that is market neutral and technology neutral 
that will bring fuels to market, that will continue to reduce 
the carbon intensity of fuels.
    As I mentioned earlier, we believe that this can happen and 
has happened. It has happened in the liquid fuel space. With 
the renewable fuel standard that was passed by this Congress 
almost a decade ago, we have brought down the carbon intensity 
of liquid fuels. There are still more--a lot more--work to be 
done there, and I think these are absolutely a part of the 
future.
    But I think the key is we have the opportunity to allow 
technology to compete because, ultimately, it has to be 
consumer-focused. The consumer wins when all technologies are 
competing, and they have many options for the lowest possible 
price. And that is what we think is important, is focusing on 
outcomes, and allow the consumer to have a choice, allow the 
consumer to have a lot of competition at the lowest possible 
prices.
    Mr. Duncan. And, you know, look, I talk to a lot of my 
petroleum marketing companies, and many of them do agree with 
you, that EVs are a part of the future. In fact, they would 
like to have charging stations because, as that consumer is 
sitting there for 15, 20, 30 minutes charging an EV, they are 
probably going in the convenience store and purchasing a lot of 
the items in that store, where the margin is much higher than 
the gasoline sold by those petroleum workers at the pump.
    I want to shift gears. Dr. Foss, you state in your 
testimony data is in a fragile state. Could you walk through 
some of the data and intellectual property concerns related to 
EVs that you have identified?
    Dr. Foss. Sure. Just quickly, in a nutshell, it is 
everything from the design of batteries, the chemistries, 
powertrains, manufacturing processes, the design and 
intellectual property associated with a lot of the electric 
power system equipment, design and intellectual property 
associated with advanced mineral processing. It is a pretty big 
list. Would you like me to continue? I think I have given you 
enough of a flavor.
    Mr. Duncan. You have done great, and I appreciate that.
    I am about out of time, so, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
8 seconds I have got. Thanks.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from the other Carolina, Mr. 
Butterfield of North Carolina, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
good afternoon to you, and good morning to those of you who 
might be on the West Coast.
    Yes, I want to make sure that you keep Mr. Duncan and I 
separated. He is certainly South Carolina, Greenville County, 
and I am upstate in North Carolina, what we call Wilson County.
    But thank you for this very important hearing today. We are 
talking about the future. That is exactly what we are talking 
about. And thank you to our witnesses for your testimony. Your 
testimonies have been very, very helpful. Let me go back to Mr. 
Britton.
    And you have been on the hot seat today, Mr. Britton, and 
let me just continue with you. I listened very carefully a few 
moments ago to your testimony. And I appreciate you talking 
about equity. Equity must be part of our approach to electric 
vehicles. And Dr. Schrier and Jeff Duncan have both touched on 
some of my concerns about rural America.
    Rural America is absolutely important. I am rural America. 
Jeff is rural America. Dr. Schrier is rural America. We all 
represent rural America. I am concerned that, when it comes to 
electric vehicle charging, rural communities may again be left 
behind. What do you see as the barriers that need to be 
overcome right now?
    And do you see utilities, particularly rural electric co-
ops, playing a significant role?
    Mr. Britton. Yes, I do. I think we have got so much build-
out to be done that we need everybody to be playing a role. So 
that's your site hosts, your municipalities, your third-party 
charging companies, and your utilities.
    And one of the things that has been noted, I think, is--
important to remark on--is we have heard folks suggest that 
this is going to be a huge runaway and, from an equity 
standpoint, may hurt people because of the increased cost. In 
your State of North Carolina, Duke put forward a $76 million 
charging infrastructure build-out plan for the regulators. That 
would have extrapolated to ratepayers--been a 15-cents-per-
month addition to their bill. What was approved was a $26 
million charging plan, so about 6 cents per month per customer. 
So the dividends here are enormous. The costs are very small.
    And one of the things that has also been found in--on the 
other coast, with PG&E, is that, by shaving the peaks and the 
valleys and using those fixed costs for generation, you can 
actually have downward pressure on rates. And so PG&E has found 
that there is a $350 million dividend by better managing their 
grid through vehicles that has accrued to their customers.
    And so, when you think about the utilities, they have a 
service, obligation, and responsibility that I think will be of 
particular use and value to rural Americans, as they seek to, 
you know, meet the use cases that those customers require.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you----
    Mr. Siccardi. Congressman Butterfield, if I may, I have----
    Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
    Mr. Siccardi [continuing]. Something I would like to add.
    Mr. Butterfield. You certainly can, yes.
    Mr. Siccardi. Thank you. What I would add is I think it 
misses the point, just looking at the cost. The cost ranges 
State by State, depending on the size of investment utilities 
are trying to make.
    More important, or as important, is the fact that it 
creates barriers to entry for private capital. Who wants to 
invest with someone who has a guaranteed return on their 
investment? That model made sense for building out electricity 
infrastructure across the U.S. It doesn't make sense for 
charging when you have retailers today ready and willing to 
invest and add capabilities, just like we have done at 150,000 
locations across the United States.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. I have got a minute and a half 
left. Let me jump over to Mr. Jankowsky. Thank you so very 
much, sir, for your testimony.
    You highlight your experience in managing over 350 rapid-
charging stations for EVs across 119 distinct locations. As 
North Carolina, my State, continues to add fast-charging 
electric vehicle stations throughout our State, with one added 
to the City of Halifax in my district 3 weeks ago, I think our 
State can benefit from the lessons you have learned in 
deploying electric vehicle chargers to rural and underserved 
communities. Could you elaborate, please, in the minute that we 
have left, on specific grid upgrades and considerations that 
should be considered?
    Mr. Jankowsky. So thank you so much, Representative 
Butterfield. So in rural areas, I think we all agree, as EV 
adoption rates increase in those areas, the grid is also going 
to have to be increased, because it is an ecosystem.
    Now, in the meantime, while that grid is getting built out 
to meet EV adoption demand, we think batteries have a very 
important role to play in grid stabilization. The ability to be 
able to feed back power during peak power times, which is 
particularly hurtful for rural electric cooperatives and 
municipality utilities, this is going to help stabilize the 
grid while that investment is being made into that 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member, who returned.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 
the witnesses for joining us today. I think it is really 
important that we are looking at what is the real-person impact 
on some of these policies that we seem to be rushing through 
this committee and through the House right now, the real-person 
impact of--on electricity generation in America, and what it is 
going to cost ratepayers with these type of mandates that are 
coming down and, really, the impact that it is going to have on 
reliability, keeping our lights on, on affordability. It seems 
like there is a rush for action right now that is--that 
includes a stifling of our current energy and all of its 
economic, technological benefits in exchange for this idea that 
is being promoted.
    So--and it is also jeopardizing American energy 
independence at the very time that we are celebrating America 
being energy independent. The first time in decades that this 
has been achieved, and it has been a long-time goal.
    When Dr. Michot testified last fall, we discussed how the 
drive for more wind and solar, and the impact that it would 
have on supply chains, and what it means for the environmental 
impacts, both here and abroad. And I don't think anybody really 
questions that we are playing into China's strategic interest 
with these policies, even to the point of ignoring human rights 
abuses.
    Dr. Michelle Foss, you talk in your written testimony about 
a worldwide rush to materials for alternative energy that will 
threaten economic and national security. Would you just explain 
a little bit more what you mean by this, including what actions 
you see other nations taking in response to that--to this 
demand?
    Dr. Foss. So the first part of the question is the reality, 
in terms of the distribution of current supply. The bulk of it 
is not in our country, or even in China. In fact, China is, as 
was pointed out earlier, not necessarily rich in lithium, but 
they control lithium deposits and lithium supplies and 
processing at other places. So that is the first issue.
    I will add that China's participation in all of this has 
helped to expand the global supply picture, which is one good 
thing.
    Because all of our requirements are outside of our 
respective countries, that puts us in the position, as I said 
earlier, of trying to encourage everyone else to do a good job 
with their minerals sectors, with their extractive and 
processing businesses. And it is a work in progress, is the 
best that I can say. Resource-dependent countries that are 
heavily dependent on commodities for their treasuries, for 
revenue, are always subject to cycles and commodity prices that 
also include inflation and inflationary pressures.
    And we have gone through this so many times. We have seen 
countries in Latin America and Africa and other parts of the 
world continuously try to get ahead in economic development and 
then get set back as they have to deal with various commodity 
cycles.
    There is a lot of concern right now that we are moving in a 
direction of a supercycle. I don't know how to think about that 
yet, but I think some of the concerns have credence. And I 
think the consequences of that would be damaging, not only for 
the commodity-based economies but also for the receiving 
countries, like ours. So it is a very complex problem that 
requires a lot of thought.
    This is not to say that people are not doing the thinking. 
Everyone is trying to think about how to improve conditions, 
operating and otherwise, in all of the countries that we depend 
on for sourcing. But it is a very complex endeavor. It takes a 
long time. Not everybody is in agreement how to do it.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Would you just speak to what you believe the 
impact will be, the real-life impact on higher costs, whether 
it is for electric vehicles or other products?
    Dr. Foss. There is no way that we would not get higher 
costs across the board for all consumer products, including 
what we are talking about today, vehicles and everything 
related to vehicles. They are materials price sensitive.
    And we have been through a period of time in which 
materials costs have been lower. So it is very comforting or 
easy to think that somehow that will remain that way. But, as I 
said in the beginning, and in my remarks, we already are seeing 
pressure on commodity prices. Those get transferred very, very 
quickly into goods. We have already seen effects from higher 
copper prices and consumer products. We have seen effects from 
our freeze in Texas, which caused plastics prices to skyrocket, 
and that is getting transferred across everything that we need 
and use, including larger appliances, like vehicles.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, well, thanks again. Thank you, everyone.
    Bottom line, we need to make sure that we are keeping 
affordability and reliability at the forefront as we continue 
to explore this clean energy future.
    And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you very much for having this really very important hearing. 
And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
    I want to talk a little bit about tailpipe emissions 
standards, because, if we look at the future of our country, we 
need to realize that we need to transform, in essence, to 
really look to the future, and transition to EVs with 
dramatically reduced transportation emissions that are harmful 
to communities nationwide, exacerbate the devastating effects 
of the climate crisis.
    So to lower transportation emissions, I fought to codify 
Obama-era tailpipe emission and fuel economy standards through 
my----
    Mr. Rush. Will the gentlelady yield? Will----
    Ms. Matsui. Yes.
    Mr. Rush. We can't hear you that well, Doris. Can you move 
closer?
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Mr. Rush. Yes, that is better.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, great, good. So I recently led a letter, 
with 70 of my colleagues, asking the Biden administration to, 
at minimum, reinstate these important measures.
    Mr. Britton, does your organization support the strong 
implementation of the Obama-era standards for the light-duty 
sector that are necessary to reduce emissions and expedite EV 
adoption?
    Mr. Britton. Yes, we do, and we thank you for leading the 
letter.
    We have called for strong fuel economy standards for a 
couple of reasons. One is consumers are not demanding less-
efficient vehicles. Every year consumers are rewarding the 
manufacturers that are providing more fuel-efficient vehicles. 
And so it helps us keep pace. And we don't have to look far 
back to know what happens when we get caught from behind. So, 
if we look back to 2007, more fuel-efficient foreign imports 
ate our lunch, and it led to a $34 billion auto bailout.
    And so other countries are racing ahead, and that is the 
right market signal to send to suggest to both manufacturers 
but also our foreign competitors that we are taking this 
seriously and we are going to make this transition in the next 
10 or 15 years and not the next 40 or 50.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you very much.
    Clean transportation is crucial, as we know, to reduce 
harmful emissions, which disproportionately affect communities 
of color and low-wealth populations. And that is why I have 
long been a leader of initiatives such as the Diesel Emissions 
Reductions Act, as we call DERA, to retrofit legacy diesel 
engines. And I led a letter to the Appropriations Committee to 
increase this funding.
    Mr. Britton and Dr. Phadke, in both your testimonies you 
highlighted the negative impacts of medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicle emissions. Can you expand on how increased funding for 
DERA and other provisions in the CLEAN Future Act can help 
electrify medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and ensure the 
transportation transition is equitable?
    Mr. Britton?
    Mr. Britton. Thank you. Well, I think it is also important 
for California how the stakes are--the transportation sector 
emits more carbon emissions than any other sector in our 
economy. Right now, countrywide, that is about 28 percent. In 
California, I believe it is well over 40 percent. So the Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Act, in concert with the congestion 
mitigation and air quality programs, all drive really important 
emissions reductions in those frontline communities and have a 
huge impact on public health.
    And again, I think it is important to note where, if you 
don't feel like it is an emergency for your community, that 
doesn't mean that it is not an emergency for other communities. 
And the public health impacts are dramatic.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Dr. Phadke, do you have any comments on 
that?
    Dr. Phadke. Yes, I would say that it is a very important 
issue. And what is actually exciting is that battery technology 
has moved fast enough so that even medium- and heavy-duty 
trucks can be electrified cost-effectively, meaning that our 
recent work shows that electrifying a long-haul truck will save 
the long-haul truck operator $200,000 over its lifetime.
    And I want to explain why really quickly. Long-haul trucks 
drive five times as cars. They are driving 100,000 miles a 
year. So, if your savings are based on total mile, because they 
are much lower to operate, then your savings are higher. So I 
would say that, from equity, and from an environmental 
perspective, but from economic perspective, this is 
apportionment is just massive. So anything that pushes that 
forward is of great value.
    And our assessments have--last 3 years.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you. The Biden administration's plan 
includes $15 billion to help build and support a national 
charging network of half a million stations by 2030. 
Accessibility for communities of color as well as rural and 
underserved populations are a top priority as we expand EV 
charging.
    Mr. Jankowsky, what additional efforts should Congress 
prioritize to ensure that underserved communities can become a 
part of the transition to EVs?
    Mr. Jankowsky. So thank you, Congresswoman Matsui. I see 
that I am already out of time, but I will----
    Ms. Matsui. I am sorry, yes.
    Mr. Jankowsky. No, no, no, I will give a brief answer. So 
what the Federal Government can do for these communities?
    You know, private companies like ourselves are naturally 
doing this because we see the utility. However, there could be, 
as an example, some sort of set-aside for these types of 
communities, just as an example, to encourage other companies 
like ourselves to actually leverage those funds and place them 
in communities where, currently, utilization is very low.
    So private enterprise is certainly not going to go into 
those communities and tell those communities ``start buying 
EVs'' in a massive way. We think that is a coordination 
problem, and that is why we are there today.
    Ms. Matsui. Sure. Well, thank you very much.
    And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your patience.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all of the people that are our witnesses today, I appreciate 
the time. My first question is for Mr. Jankowsky with Francis 
Energy.
    I believe you said that you built 355 electric vehicle 
charging stations in Oklahoma, and that the rural charging 
stations take 50 to 70 minutes to charge the vehicles. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Jankowsky. So, Congresswoman Lesko, thank you for the 
opportunity to kind of clarify.
    So there's basically three gradations of superchargers. 
There is the 60-to-90-minute charger, and those have 
applications that we discussed.
    There is also the 20 to 40-minute charger. And that, to us, 
is kind of the bread and butter for retail settings, because it 
typically matches kind of the behavioral patterns of people 
going into grocery stores, or going to shop, or eating in 
cafes.
    And then you have the 7-to-12-minute chargers. So in the 
State of Oklahoma, we have four of these systems that are 
currently at convenience facilities, convenience stores, on 
highways through Oklahoma. Those are all in rural areas. So the 
build-out in the rural communities is going to be a mix of 
those grades of chargers, just depending on the application, 
and depending on the site.
    Mrs. Lesko. And thank you, Mr. Jankowsky. So, just to 
confirm, you--right now you have--4 of the 355 charging 
stations are the fast ones, 7 to 9 minutes. And how many are 
these 20-to-40-minute ones?
    Mr. Jankowsky. So, of our portfolio, I would say, you know, 
49 percent are the 50 kWs. So those are the slower-charging 
systems, the 60 to 90 minutes that have great applications in 
certain settings, of course.
    The--another 49 percent is the 20-to-40-minute charger. 
Those, to us, are kind of the bread and butter for public 
usage, not for cross-country commuting traffic, but for local 
communities, a 20-to-40-minute charge.
    And then, of course, 2 percent, roughly, are those 
superchargers, the 400 kW chargers. And the reason for that is 
they are very expensive, and a consumer on the highway at a 
Francis Energy station getting a 7-to-12 or 9-minute charge is 
going to pay anywhere between $18 to $22 for the full range, 
300-plus-mile range, to fill up their battery.
    That is kind of the market in our part of the world. 
Obviously, it is going to be very different, because it is very 
dependent on electricity rates, which is very local.
    Mrs. Lesko. And how much would a full charge that costs 18 
to 22 dollars to fill up, how far would that car go?
    Mr. Jankowsky. So, Congresswoman, that is very much 
dependent not on the charging stations, which can deliver all 
the power that any car is going to need in America, it is 
dependent on the battery in the car and the onboard software 
that controls it.
    So, as an example, you know, a Nissan Leaf today is going 
to take longer to charge, simply because of the battery 
chemistry. There is a smaller battery in that Nissan Leaf. 
Whereas, a larger vehicle with a larger battery will be able to 
take that charge in 7 to 9 minutes----
    Mrs. Lesko. So----
    Mr. Jankowsky [continuing]. And go 300-plus-mile ranges.
    Mrs. Lesko. OK, thank you. And I am going to go to Dr. 
Foss.
    Dr. Foss, do you think it makes sense for us to shift so 
fast to electrification of the transportation sector and the 
goal of reducing emissions when existing electric vehicle 
battery production in China is powered significantly by coal-
fired electric power generation?
    Dr. Foss. Congresswoman Lesko, I think that, for many, many 
years, the bulk of battery making in many places is going to be 
powered by coal use. That is the structure in most of the 
countries outside of ours. Even in ours, in some places where 
battery manufacturing is either located now or contemplating it 
being located, it will use whatever is available on the grid. 
And good baseload power--I mentioned nuclear earlier, coal, 
other sources, natural gas--will be what feeds battery 
manufacturing.
    What we are doing is shifting emissions around. I 
appreciate fully the desire to do things that reduce pollution 
in urban airsheds and other places. I think what you have to do 
is weigh that against all of the consequences that are being 
created elsewhere in the supply chain and value chains.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This has been 
a very good hearing, including many of the concerns that have 
been raised by----
    Mr. Rush. Could you----
    Mr. Welch. I am from rural Vermont.
    Mr. Rush. Would the gentleman suspend?
    Peter, will you move closer to your mike?
    We lost you now.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Welch. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. All right.
    Mr. Welch. I was saying that I wanted to thank my 
Republican colleagues and also Mr. Butterfield for bringing up 
concerns that rural America has. These are significant in 
Vermont, as well.
    But raising the concerns doesn't--it doesn't answer the 
challenge that we have and also the market reality. I mean, 
concerns about the range anxiety, concerns about access to 
critical minerals, concerns about folks who are driving SUVs 
and pickup trucks--and there's an awful lot of those in 
Vermont, we love them--it does not answer the reality that the 
market is moving. VW is doing electric, GM is going all 
electric, and Ford is going all electric. And we are in a 
competition with China to see who is going to be on top in the 
electric market and also create a new future.
    So raising those concerns is not a reason to stop or pause, 
it is a reason to answer. So I will start by asking, Mr. 
Britton, would you agree that it is important for the U.S. to 
significantly improve its collection, recycling, and reuse of 
critical minerals?
    Mr. Britton. Absolutely, and I think most people would be 
shocked at how much of these minerals we can actually acquire 
from a battery.
    So we have got members like LifeCycle, Redwood Materials, 
an American battery technology company, and they are able to 
get, on average, about 95 percent of the critical materials out 
of a battery. In some ways, their biggest challenge is there is 
not many EVs coming out of their lifecycle. A lot of EVs go 
into a second use, where the battery is used for stationary, 
utility-scale storage. And so they are left with----
    Mr. Welch. Well, that is great. You have made my point, so 
I want to come back to a few other questions.
    I am introducing legislation that would incentivize public, 
on-street, publicly available EC charging. Mr. Siccardi, could 
you--I know you want to have some help with the private 
infrastructure, but do you have any problems with access so the 
customers you have can get it at home in their apartments, 
apartments that would be built with building codes so that the 
charging will be available?
    Mr. Siccardi. No, we----
    Mr. Welch. So that is OK, but what you want to do is get 
some help so that you can provide this option for your 
customers, the fuel choice that they prefer, correct?
    Mr. Siccardi. What I would say is we want consumers to have 
a choice to shop wherever they want to shop, or power wherever 
they want to power.
    Mr. Welch. We get that, and we have got these local stores 
all over Vermont, and people love them. And it is a place where 
they get fuel and--I hate to say it--pick up a doughnut or two.
    The question that I have for--here--what is the best method 
by which the public, who--the driving public--can get access to 
the EV charging station? Doesn't it absolutely require, Mr. 
Britton, that there would be some public investment in this?
    Mr. Britton. Absolutely. And I think that is--you know, 
David has mentioned this already. There are some areas where 
there is a really strong commercial case now. But the 
importance is the sequence. So you want to outsequence the 
vehicle to address range anxiety, but you don't want idle 
capital. So the sequencing is important, and getting into those 
areas that are underserved, whether that is rural or other low-
income areas, are critical.
    Mr. Welch. So how do we get into those underserved areas 
and have a policy where, from the very beginning, that is what 
we are doing?
    Mr. Britton. Well, the two main levers are the 30C tax 
credit, which provides an incentive. The other is the rebates. 
And I think you and Congressman Tonko have put forward ideas on 
how to do that, and I think they are complementary policies 
that will allow for flexibility to meet each community's needs.
    Mr. Welch. And Mr. Nassar, do you have any views on this, 
with respect to how this is going to affect job access and 
wages for the people you represent?
    Mr. Nassar. I am sorry, are you talking about the charging 
stations and how they are set up? Is that what you are talking 
about?
    Mr. Welch. And also, you know, comment on the--the problems 
that folks have raised are problems.
    Mr. Nassar. Sure.
    Mr. Welch. But it is not as though raising the problem is 
we don't try to solve the things, we do solve them. So maybe 
you could comment on that.
    Mr. Nassar. Sure. I mean, I think, first of all, you know, 
as has been stated many times, you know, it is a global market. 
EVs are an increasing share. The real question is the speed in 
which it happens, and where those jobs are going to be.
    And I would just say that, you know, one way to ease 
working people's minds is to have, you know, not only just 
policy here, but also a tax policy, others that hold companies 
accountable. We are seeing companies, you know, make--get 
taxpayer assistance and then turning around and making big 
investments overseas in electric vehicles.
    So one of these things is we really need that production 
here. We need to become good jobs. That is the way that you 
reduce anxiety with our members. They need to see good jobs----
    Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Nassar, thank you. My time is up, 
so I want to yield back and not overstay my welcome.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing today, and all the witnesses 
for your participation.
    Representing the crossroads of America, I support 
innovation in the transportation industry. At home, companies 
throughout Indiana's 6th district are leading the way in 
developing low-emission engines, EV batteries, and alternative 
fuels like hydrogen. But the future of our transportation 
industry should not be a one-size-fits-all decision made by 
Washington.
    We should seek a diverse slate of technologies and delivery 
options competing with one another to reduce the financial 
pressures on our consumers. Lightweight fuels like hydrogen can 
generate enough power to haul heavier loads and should be a 
major part of the conversation. Renewable diesel that lowers 
agricultural emissions is fully compatible with existing diesel 
assets and has a place at the table, too.
    Electric vehicles make sense for cities and densely 
populated areas, where commutes are predictable and charging 
stations may be more economical. However, instead of bolstering 
innovation in transportation fuels, this bill imposes 
unrealistic deadlines to establish electric vehicle as an only 
solution. The provisions of the CLEAN Future Act are moving 
ahead of our ability to get the products to consumers, as my 
peers have mentioned repeatedly.
    It will take more than a decade to construct the high-
voltage transmission lines needed to meet transportation demand 
peaks. Coal is achieving this in my district right now.
    On the generation side, the out-of-touch clean electricity 
standards timeline set in this bill will only drive up costs 
for consumers. In Indiana, efforts to implement wind and solar 
have already started to increase electricity prices for 
ratepayers. In a mere 2\1/2\ years from today, the retail power 
sector will need to start overhauling assets to meet 
compliance. Meanwhile, it can take up to 5 years to fully 
implement carbon capture equipment that is still not ready for 
commercialization.
    I agree with my colleagues that EVs will play a critical 
role in our future transportation sector, and there are 
appropriate opportunities to incentivize manufacturing here in 
the U.S., which could bring back jobs lost to China and other 
countries. But the CLEAN Future Act severely limits 
hydrocarbons and plastic production necessary for car 
manufacturers without a realistic alternative by harming the 
very petroleum industry that has millions of jobs.
    This bill makes no meaningful regulatory reforms to protect 
the supply and economic case for mining minerals and rare 
earths here in the U.S. All the while, provisions of this bill 
will put all ratepayers, not just EV owners, on the hook to 
foot the bill for charging infrastructure, unfairly costing my 
rural areas early in the process.
    Mr. Siccardi, you mentioned in your testimony that there is 
a missed opportunity for the committee to create incentives for 
private investment. Particularly, you mentioned the fairness in 
electrical pricing. I, too, am concerned that this Act may put 
your industry at a competitive disadvantage. As you know, I 
spent many years in your industry. You and I remember when 
retailers were protected against predatory pricing by retail 
refiners.
    My question: How would you propose fairness in wholesale 
electric pricing to private retailers be managed to prevent the 
destruction of your constituents and all of the convenience of 
your industry?
    Mr. Siccardi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on 
that. We think this is really an opportunity for the committee 
to consider.
    The power markets were structured almost 100 years ago. 
And, as the world is changing and new technologies are coming 
about, we have to look at new regulations. The current 
regulations put very large demand charges on when you pull a 
large amount of grid--load from the grid. And those demand 
charges make the business case for EVs untenable for high-speed 
charging applications.
    That is why we would hope that the committee would seek to 
figure out a way to address that, to offer a wholesale pricing 
for people that are offering EV charging services, or to ensure 
that utilities charge no worse than their transfer price or 
their avoided costs. There's a number of ways to solve this.
    And I want to be clear here. This isn't at the expense of 
utilities. There is a role for utilities here. All of us have 
to participate in trying to move this technology forward. The 
role for utilities is adding redundancy and resiliency to the 
grid, adding the load necessary to be able to support the high-
speed chargers. It is the role for retailers, whether it is 
retailers that are fueling locations or other retailers, to 
offer the services to consumers in the places where they want 
to go.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Schrader of Oregon for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing. It 
is very interesting. It is going to be very critical for the 
future of our country. I guess my first question is for Mr. 
Nassar.
    You know, everyone talks about--well, a lot of people talk 
about all the new jobs that are going to be created by the 
green revolution and the opportunity for electric vehicles and 
what have you. And I think that is true. I am looking forward 
to that. But I am concerned about the current jobs, make sure 
those folks that--in this great country that work in the oil, 
gas, and coal parts of our geography have opportunity, too, and 
even more particularly for UAW workers.
    I mean, I guess my question is what--are the skills 
transferable between what your men and women do on combustion 
engines to the electrical vehicle sector?
    Are there provisions in place to make sure there is an 
opportunity for those folks to get trained to transition over 
to working on electric vehicles?
    Mr. Nassar. I could speak most to the--well, thank you for 
your question, first of all, to the--to our--you know, to where 
we have a union workforce collectively bargained, because there 
are, you know, apprenticeship and training programs which 
enable people to have that transfer of skill. The problem isn't 
lack of workers who can do the job when it comes to EVs and 
such.
    But I want to talk to your point about, yes, we got to make 
sure these jobs are good jobs. And right now what we are seeing 
is we are seeing a lot of folks, frankly, in the industry, new 
OEMs, who are resisting giving workers a voice, even though 
often they have it in their home country.
    So real wages in auto have dropped 20 percent over the past 
15 years. If we don't start creating good jobs in auto through 
this transition, I think there is going to be actually a 
backlash on this, which would actually reduce the ability to 
achieve the environmental goals too. So, yes, we better get 
this right. I hope that helps answer the question.
    Mr. Schrader. No, that is great. Yes, we need to have some 
labor standards in here to make sure we are not downwardly 
mobilizing American families. So thank you.
    Mr. Siccardi, I think your line of concern is very 
legitimate. I guess the question would be, why are we even 
subsidizing public stations?
    Why not just--we have got gas stations, truck stops all 
over the country. Why are we not targeting them with whatever 
public assistance we get to set up these EV charging stations?
    Mr. Siccardi. I think the best way to do that would be to 
provide the profit incentives for retailers to make that 
investment. We are prepared. We have made that investment over 
the course of the last 60 years. We can continue to make those 
investments. We have the right real estate, the amenities, the 
things consumers want.
    The problem is we have some true problems with the business 
cases. Representative Pence just mentioned the fact that we buy 
power from a utility at a retail price and then try and turn 
around and sell a retail price to consumers. It doesn't work. 
The structure of the electricity market, as it was structured 
100 years ago, doesn't work with demand charges. The nature of 
power for charging is you have to have a lot of load to put in 
a battery in a short period of time.
    As we do more [audio malfunction] and it makes it 
impossible to recover that from the consumer.
    Mr. Schrader. So some sort of incentive or direction to our 
utilities to, you know, to help incentivize that opportunity 
for EV stations so that they could--I would assume some sort of 
discounted rate so that you can mark it up at least a little 
bit and make it worth your while.
    Mr. Siccardi. There's lots of ways to do it, but bottom 
line is a mechanism for us to be able to have a wholesale rate 
for power so that we can offer consumers a retail price and be 
able to still offer low prices to consumers but have some 
ability to compete. If we can do that and address some of the 
other obstacles we mentioned, like making sure we don't do rate 
basing and provide a competitive market, then I feel confident 
capital will come into the marketplace and will provide the 
charging stations necessary.
    We believe it is important to have the level three fast 
chargers. It--we don't believe the market is going to work with 
just level one and level twos. We do believe people will charge 
at home. But for people to have ultimate comfort in driving 
across the country, or wherever they want to, they have got to 
know that they can stop at a place that they can charge 
quickly, and that it has the amenities that they need.
    Mr. Schrader. Well, and Mr. Jankowsky, real quick, I am 
mostly concerned about rural America. I mean, I think there is 
a--can be a business case to be made that these stations could 
go easily in urban areas. But, you know, for the long haul, an 
urban guy--or rural guys, you know, the farmers and ranchers, 
how are they going to be able to access EV stations where they 
live?
    Mr. Jankowsky. Well, we are going to have to put charging 
stations into farming and rural communities. And the reason why 
the incentives are so important is because private capital 
simply is not going to put in charging stations in those rural 
communities, at least in the first couple of years, because 
there is simply no one charging on those systems.
    I mean, our system in Oklahoma today achieves maybe 1 
percent utilization, just a very fancy name for how often it is 
being used. Our forecast is 5 to 10 percent in 5 years. So 
there are companies like ours that are prognosticating that 
cars will be in these communities. But that is not where 
chargers are going in today. And that is why, quite frankly, 
the CLEAN Future Act provides that incentive for us and other 
charge point operators to go into those communities.
    Mr. Schrader. Very good, and I apologize for going over my 
time, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all very, very much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
Congressman Schrader, for raising some of those issues, as 
well. You know, we heard earlier sequencing is important, and I 
agree with that. And listening to Mr. Siccardi's testimony 
about this, I think, is also important.
    But I have also heard some of my colleagues talk about 
rural areas getting left out. I will be here right now and I 
will just say I am comfortable with North Dakota getting left 
out of the first portion of this, because I do think sequencing 
is important, and we are rushing towards these things and we 
keep acknowledging what the challenges are, but we just gloss 
over what it is going to take to solve those challenges.
    And I think a perfect example is exactly what we are 
talking about, is who is going to play in this space. We are 
investing billions and billions of infrastructure, but we are 
spending very little time about--talking about who is going to 
play in the space, whether it is a utility, a municipality, 
private equity, gas stations, all of this. There are structural 
ways in which electricity is delivered to communities that has 
to be addressed before we move into this portion of that.
    And I mean, that is before we get into heavy trucks, a 
Volvo. A Volvo truck for a medium-weight load is about 800--
8,000 pounds more than a diesel truck. That means you have two 
options. It either carries one-seventh less weight, which means 
more deliveries, higher prices, or you have to raise road 
rates, and in places like mine, which means more roads are 
going to get beat up, they are going to be dealt with--dealing 
with that.
    How about 90 minutes to charge a truck? Does that--I mean, 
what does that do to hours of service? What does that do to 
cost of delivery? These are all real things that exist, and we 
have to talk about them. Because I agree, to some degree or 
another, electric vehicles are coming.
    And that is before we talk about, if we are going to expand 
the grid on resiliency and reliability, which we have had 
numerous other hearings on, how do you deal with people 
plugging in their car at night when the sun isn't shining and 
the wind isn't blowing? These are real, consequential things.
    And I appreciate what my friend Congressman McKinley talks 
about, outsourcing our guilt, and where we currently get our 
rare earth metals. Because one of the things--we do have them 
here, we have lithium deposits here.
    And we talk about the streamlining permitting and 
development like we are just going to snap our fingers and do 
that. But that is ignoring 50 years of permitting history, 
whether it is at the Federal, local, State level, and the 
regulatory fights. That is before you get into sue-and-settle 
litigation with activists that will file a lawsuit if you are 
potentially going to harm an earthworm.
    So, I mean, we have to--this--as we move forward--and 
listen, these things are going to move forward. We have to be 
better at addressing some of these.
    So, Dr. Michot Foss, your testimony, you discuss 
recommendations for overall economic growth and performance, 
including statutory and regulatory changes. Are there 
opportunities to pursue these changes while utilizing existing 
energy infrastructure?
    Dr. Foss. Absolutely. If you have a more reasonable view of 
the world and you think about how long it will take to deal 
with--to actually construct solutions for a lot of the things 
that we have been pointing to today, I think that you could 
rely on investment coming from existing legacy energy 
businesses as they move forward with all of the strategies that 
they have got to continue to ensure that traditional fuels are 
clean and widely available and affordable.
    I mean, a more reasonable approach would allow all of those 
things to take place. Sound tax policy, making sure that, you 
know, you, our representatives on the Hill, are not moving us 
in directions that--in which the Federal Government is becoming 
too intrusive, especially on State and local initiatives. I 
mean, those are all things that, taken together, I think, could 
improve on the picture hugely.
    Mr. Armstrong. You also discussed workforce training and 
development, something even Energy Secretary Granholm touched 
on in March when she stated having coal workers employed in the 
mining of critical materials is a natural shift. Wouldn't 
easing permitting and existing mine transition also support 
your recommendation of workforce education and retraining?
    Dr. Foss. So I think if you are--you were breaking up a 
little bit. So what you are raising a question about is how to 
streamline permitting and certification of new facilities, 
which, by the way, includes recycling.
    One of the things that gets taken very lightly is the 
certification process that you have to go through to 
participate in recycling, because you are dealing with 
hazardous materials, all--under all of our existing laws. So 
you need the appropriate education and skills competency. You 
need people who understand how mining and minerals processing 
work. We have done a good job of kind of depleting that part of 
our labor force.
    I made a comment to one of Mr. McKinley's staff yesterday 
that, when I look at this--I am a Colorado School of Mines 
alumni. When I look at the state of mining, engineering, 
metallurgy, other essential disciplines today, the coal 
industry historically has done a huge amount to contribute to 
that, because it is a big part of the extractives businesses. 
We have done a good job of actually impacting all of the 
programs that now we need, by actually putting the coal 
industry under pressure. Those are just realities that we have 
to deal with.
    Mr. Armstrong. I appreciate that, and our coal guys are 
pretty good at making a money--or making a living digging 
stuff----
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has----
    Mr. Armstrong. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Chairman Rush, for 
organizing this important hearing, and for your commitment to 
ensuring that all Americans, regardless of their ZIP Code, have 
access to electric vehicles.
    The transportation sector is the number-one source of 
carbon pollution in the United States. And as we decarbonize 
our electric grid, transitioning to electric vehicles will help 
our country reduce carbon pollution. In order to support 
electric vehicles, we need to build out a robust network of 
charging stations around the country. But these charging 
stations can't be isolated to urban areas or along major 
highways. We need to ensure that electric vehicles chargers are 
built in rural communities too.
    Sadly, two rural counties in my district, Coos and 
Cheshire, don't have a single fast-charging station. Rural 
communities need robust charging infrastructure that--so that 
people who live there can experience the benefits of electric 
vehicles, like lower maintenance and fuel costs, and so that 
visitors, including our guests from Canada, can feel confident 
traveling to and spending their money in rural communities.
    The CLEAN Future Act and the bills before the committee 
today are a historic step. They will help address some of the 
financial barriers to expanding electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure in rural communities, and I commend my 
colleagues for their important work.
    One of the major barriers to deploying electric vehicle 
infrastructure in rural communities are fees called demand 
charges electric companies place on businesses with electric 
vehicle fast-charging stations. In New Hampshire this means 
that small businesses or towns can't afford to operate these 
fast-charging stations. These fees are particularly burdensome 
in rural communities. One charging station in Derry, New 
Hampshire, was forced to close because demand charges made it 
simply unaffordable to operate.
    Mr. Jankowsky, in your view, are these fees known as demand 
charges a barrier to deploying fast-charging stations, 
especially in rural communities?
    Mr. Jankowsky. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for the 
question. I think you have just identified probably the number-
two major barrier to EV infrastructure deployment. The first 
is, obviously, the upfront capital costs. You are talking now 
about the ongoing operating costs of these chargers. And, yes, 
high-demand chargers, particularly in rural areas, where many 
of our chargers are, is a major impediment to EV adoption.
    Now, how do we handle it? So, in the rural communities, 
with the rural electric co-ops and municipalities that are 
providing electricity, we are building relationships with all 
of these utilities in rural communities, and most of these 
rural electric co-ops are not subject to State utility 
commissions, necessarily, at least not extensively. So we are 
able to go to the co-ops on a one-on-one basis and say, ``We 
want to bring significant infrastructure to your service 
territory, but your demand charges are going to impede that.'' 
So it almost becomes a bilateral discussion simply to say, ``If 
you, Mr. or Mrs. Rural Electric Co-op, can reduce your demand 
charges or give us a significant holiday, right, for the first 
5 years, that would be extraordinarily helpful to us.''
    Now, in return, we could certainly absorb higher kilowatt 
hour rates for EV charging stations, and that is simply because 
of the dynamics of electricity going through, and the price of 
that electricity. You can--a charging station operator that is 
operating direct current fast chargers can absorb that. What 
you cannot absorb are the exorbitant demand charges because, in 
the rural areas, consider there is only one or two people with 
charging stations today. The second they plug in, you get hit 
with what could be, in some of our areas, $2,000 per month that 
is basically set on a rolling average for 12 months. There is 
no----
    Ms. Kuster. I am sorry to interrupt you----
    Mr. Jankowsky [continuing]. Way anybody can make money----
    Ms. Kuster. I want to make sure we get to all our 
witnesses.
    Mr. Siccardi, in your view, are these fees known as demand 
charges a barrier to deploying fast-charging stations in rural 
communities?
    Mr. Siccardi. Absolutely. And I would expand to say it is 
not just in rural communities, it is across the country. It is 
urban, suburban, rural. It is a part of the utility pricing 
model. And it has to be addressed to create the profit 
incentive for any retailer to want to invest in high-speed 
charging stations.
    It is good that we are able to do one-off things with co-
ops from time to time, but that is not a scalable model. If we 
want to see charging stations----
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, I apologize. My time is up.
    But I do want to yield back by saying that, Mr. Chairman, 
the majority and minority witnesses are in agreement here. And 
if you will indulge me, I seek unanimous consent to enter a 
white paper by the Great Plains Institute, and another article 
by Dr. Phadke. And I will make sure that those get to the 
committee.
    And with that, I yield back. I apologize for cutting you 
off.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman [audio malfunction].
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Palmer, can you come closer to your mike, 
or--it is hard to hear you.
    Mr. Palmer. OK. I said can you allow the next Democrat 
member to ask their questions? I am having some connection 
problems. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. Yes, OK, all right. Well, we will come back to 
you.
    Mr. Walberg of Michigan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rush. All right. Mr. Bucshon of Indiana, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rush. All right. We will go back to Mr. Palmer.
    Are you prepared, Mr. Palmer, now?
    Mr. Palmer. No, sir, I am not. Let me--I am trying to get--
--
    Mr. Rush. OK, we will go back to the Democrat side. Ms. 
Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Chair Rush, for holding this 
important hearing on how we reduce and eventually eliminate 
emissions from the transportation sector. This is critical for 
our climate and for bringing cleaner air to my district. The 
transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions and a major source of ozone emissions and particulate 
matter.
    My district in Los Angeles County is not in compliance with 
the EPA air quality standards for ozone emissions and 
particulate matter, which leads to higher rates of cancer and 
respiratory illnesses. This also made us more vulnerable to 
COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths. A priority of our electric 
vehicle policies has to be expanding access to communities of 
color and low-income residents who are most impacted by air 
pollution.
    Mr. Britton, we need to think creatively on how electric 
vehicles access can work for people who often struggle to 
afford a car. One example in my district is at Rancho San 
Pedro, a 478-unit public housing complex that has recently 
launched a community car-share program named Rancho San Pedro 
Electric Car Share. This project brings the benefits of 
electric vehicle access and mobility to residents who 
previously had neither. Should our policies for encouraging 
electric vehicle adoption be thinking outside the box about how 
to be inclusive and whether that always involves ownership of a 
car?
    Mr. Britton. Absolutely, and I want to thank you for 
providing leadership in this space, especially on port 
electrification. I think that is another area where there's a 
lot of dividends, certainly for areas with disproportionate 
public health impacts from emissions. But certainly, we should 
be thinking about flexible ways to deploy electrification, 
whether that is on the light-duty side or on the medium- and 
heavy-duty and, you know, potentially, forklifts and drayage 
trucks, the things that are, you know, an everyday part of life 
in the port landscape, as well. So I think we absolutely need 
to be flexible. It needs to be leasing. It needs to be used 
cars. It needs to be ride share.
    We can actually achieve the emissions reductions necessary 
if we are smart and we think about all the various use cases 
that provide an opportunity for us to deliver a better 
experience to drivers and address the public health impacts 
that we know in your district are particularly acute.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you for that.
    Dr. Phadke, it would be helpful to get a sense of scale for 
how big our investment plans need to go to eliminate emissions 
from the transportation sector. The American Jobs Plan includes 
$15 billion for a national charging network and a total of 174 
billion over 8 years when you include electric vehicle 
incentives and grants. Is this enough public investment to 
decarbonize our transportation sector, or should we go bigger?
    Dr. Phadke. I would suggest that that is about the scale 
that appears to be reasonable. Just in comparison, the annual 
utility-sector revenues are about $400 billion. And if you look 
at auto-sector revenues, they are about $800 billion. So, yes, 
these numbers look large, but in comparison of the saving 
estimates that we have, they are pretty modest.
    I would say that these incentives need to be matched by 
clear goals of electrification on zero-emission vehicles. That, 
in fact, in addition, could go a long way in terms of providing 
the investment certainty to automakers and utilities to make 
those investments. So establishing a clear goal of when we 
should be reaching all vehicle sales to be zero emission, a 
technology-neutral goal, will also be critical and 
complementary to these investments. And that is the way to go 
bigger, I think.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. I just want to highlight a 
piece of legislation called the THRIVE Act, which I am 
coleading with my colleagues, Representatives Dingell and 
Clarke, which would be a good investment and a large investment 
in electric vehicles and charging over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Britton, electric truck adoption in the goods movement 
system is an important part of reducing emissions in the 
transportation sector. Many trucks bringing cargo from ports 
are bringing the cargo to rail yards or warehouses well within 
the range of battery. Do you agree that investing in purchasing 
electric drayage trucks at ports could help to accelerate the 
adoption of heavy-duty electric trucks?
    Mr. Britton. Yes, and there's two important points here. 
One is that we have really sophisticated buyers in the medium- 
and heavy-duty space, so they can, you know, see through and 
have a line of sight on the net present value savings that are 
to be accrued. The other thing that I think is really exciting 
about that use case is you think about induction charging, the 
kind of charging that, while in operation and use, can also be 
charging the vehicle to have continuous and unlimited charge 
for those use cases. So there is a lot of innovation to be had 
in that space.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that. And my bill, the 
Climate Smart Ports Act, which is in the CLEAN Future Act, 
includes grant funding for replacing diesel drayage trucks with 
zero-emissions vehicles. It is as much a transportation bill as 
it is a ports bill.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Palmer, are you prepared to question the witnesses?
    Mr. Palmer. Can you hear me now, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Rush. You want to try----
    Mr. Palmer. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chair, you can hear me now? Thank you. Yes, 
sir, I will be happy to----
    Mr. Rush. You are breaking up----
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you for your indulgence.
    OK, Mr. Siccardi, we have heard a lot about justice and 
environmental justice in this committee. Section 435 of the 
CLEAN Future Act would require [audio malfunction] consider 
allowing utility companies to recover from ratepayers any type 
of operating expenditure or other costs with the electric 
utility relating to operating expenditure--programs or 
investments associated with integration of electric vehicles--
the grid. In layman's terms, the electric companies can build 
whatever they want related to electric vehicles, and everyone 
with electricity service has to pay for that.
    Would you consider that----
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Palmer, you seem to be--we can't hear you 
well. You try to correct your technical difficulty, and we 
will--I promise you, we will get back to you. But please try 
to--we can't hear you at all.
    All right, the Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
time--and ranking member.
    I want to start off with a little bit of discussion about--
earlier on it was mentioned, ``the American way.'' And my 
definition is--that relates to this issue--is we need to be 
innovative, protect our market share, to be able to be 
competitive in the entire environment that is out there, not go 
and say somebody else can take care of it and we will follow. 
We don't follow. We are America.
    We have to identify that we need to plan for the future. 
This is what this is doing. And the competition side of it is--
that is what we are made of, as a country. We grew up being 
competitive and not taking second place.
    Research, we are doing the research now. We are moving 
forward with it. It would be terrible if we even thought of not 
addressing this in a meaningful, strategic way.
    And then, obviously, recognize our competition, and stay 
ahead of them all the time. So thank you for that right now.
    I am pleased to--that this committee is working on 
legislation to expand the use of electric vehicles across the 
country. I hope this is an area where we can have some 
bipartisan agreement on both sides of the aisle.
    Mr. Rush. Can you please----
    Mr. O'Halleran. Arizona is ready to be a leading player in 
this industry, with local manufacturing plants ready to roll 
out parts for EVs. We have two EV factories, manufacturers in 
the State already, with a third on its way in Arizona. The 
industry is opening up new, good-paying jobs for Arizonans, and 
will across America.
    However, we must ensure that changes to the transportation 
sector do not leave our rural areas out. I am proud that the 
CLEAN Future Act includes a provision I have championed to 
provide grants to determine where charging stations will need 
to be. We want to see these charging stations built, but we 
need to know where to put them first. These grants would be 
available to communities and private entities. The data 
collected from this program will be available to the public. As 
we encourage the build-out of electric vehicles, charging 
stations, we need to be careful in setting up the right 
incentives for market competition.
    We also need to make sure our electric grid can handle the 
increased demand that comes from more EVs and have it much more 
reliable than it is today.
    Mr. Jankowsky, can you tell us what successes you have seen 
in getting private capital to build chargers in rural 
communities?
    Mr. Jankowsky. Thank you so much, Congressman, for the 
question. So, you know, Oklahoma and the network in Oklahoma 
was built, really, through a public-private partnership with 
the State of Oklahoma, and it was through various funding 
mechanisms. One was a State tax credit. Also, Volkswagen funds 
that were available for DCFC in our communities.
    The success, though, is not necessarily here yet, because 
there are not many EVs in our rural communities. However, we do 
have a number of success stories, and just one very quickly.
    In a community called Okmulgee in Oklahoma, we put in 
several fast chargers. And we started noticing utilization on 
those chargers going up rapidly. In fact, it was probably our 
best charger in our entire network. And the reason for that is 
some very enterprising entrepreneur decided to create a ride-
share program using electric vehicles, and he uses our charging 
stations for his business. As a result, his operating costs to 
run his business have come down so significantly, because fuel 
is a major component of these ride-share costs. With 
electricity, the cost of that business has gone down so 
significantly that he has added more cars and more employees.
    We think that is going to happen everywhere, not just ride 
share, but we are going to see economies of scale and new 
businesses across the entire value chain created because you 
have that public infrastructure now, and you have now given 
permission to people in those communities to buy cars.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much.
    And Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions, but I 
will yield with this final statement. We owe it to the American 
people to make sure we do not fall behind in manufacturing of 
this product, in development of these products. And we also 
need to understand completely that we have lost the solar 
market and the wind generation market. We cannot lose this 
market. And I yield.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Palmer, I am going to ask you once again, are you ready 
for questioning the witnesses?
    Mr. Palmer. I am going to try one more time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. All right.
    Mr. Palmer. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. We hear you now.
    Mr. Palmer. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. Yes, quite well.
    Mr. Palmer. OK. First of all, I want to thank you. It is 
ridiculous that we continue to have these virtual hearings when 
most of us, if not all of us, have been vaccinated. With that 
said, I will go back to my questions.
    Mr. Siccardi, what I was trying to ask earlier was we heard 
a lot about justice and environmental justice and climate 
justice. Section 435 of the CLEAN Future Act would require the 
States to consider allowing utility companies to recover from 
ratepayers any capital operating expenditure or other costs of 
the electric utility relating to load management programs or 
investments associated with the integration of electric vehicle 
supply equipment into the grid.
    In layman's terms, the electric companies can build 
whatever cost they want to into the--related to the electric 
vehicles, and everyone in the electricity service has to pay 
the bill. Is that just? Would it be just to the single mom that 
only takes a public bus has to pay for electric vehicle 
charging stations if she has electricity in her home? Would 
that be just?
    Mr. Siccardi. We think it is a problem. We don't think 
utilities should be able to rate-base for charging equipment. 
As I said a few times, it will not only pass the cost onto 
consumers that don't have EVs, but on top of that it will crowd 
out private capital.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, it is also interesting to note that the 
AARP agrees with you on that. Some minority groups agree with 
that. You know, I keep trying to bring up the fact that they 
keep talking about climate justice and environmental justice, 
but there is also a problem with energy poverty, energy 
justice, economic justice. And they don't seem to be concerned 
about that, that energy cost is the most inflationary component 
of our economy. And it is going to have an enormous negative 
impact on low-income families, their ability to heat and cool 
their homes.
    I raised the example of Pembroke Township in Illinois, town 
of 2,100 people, 80 percent of them are African-American. They 
don't have natural gas. Yet my Democratic colleagues all are 
opposed to natural gas. They don't want it. Yet the Reverend 
Jesse Jackson is working to get a natural gas pipeline in the 
Pembroke Township so that those people can stop having to heat 
their homes with propane or, in a lot of cases, with wood-
burning stoves.
    Would you agree that the Reverend Jackson is doing the 
right thing to try to address energy injustice and economic 
injustice by getting a natural gas pipeline into that 
community?
    Mr. Siccardi. Well, I would say one of the things our 
industry is focused on for--since its inception was trying to 
get the lowest-cost energy to consumers. And I think consumers 
deserve that. It helps our economy. That is our focus. The last 
3 years have been the lowest inflation-adjusted gasoline prices 
in our history. So I think consumers should have options for 
all sorts of fuel types to get them the lowest cost of energy.
    Mr. Palmer. So what--if I understand what you are saying, 
it is you don't want a low-income family to pull up to your gas 
pump and have to make a decision on how much gas they can put 
in their tank because they are deciding between being able to 
get to and from whatever job they have and putting food on 
their table or helping pay for their kid's school. Is it--you 
want to keep these prices low, because you understand how it 
impacts individuals up and down the income scale, is that 
right?
    Mr. Siccardi. America wins when we have low energy prices 
for all consumers. And yes, that is our----
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, I am not against electric vehicles. I want 
my colleagues on the committee to understand that.
    But this bill, like many of the other green initiatives, 
they take choice away from Americans and they pick winners and 
losers. And we have seen it with the Keystone XL pipeline. We 
have seen what has happened to union pipe workers versus the 
green activists. And I just don't think we need to have 
politics involved in the decision making, and we certainly 
shouldn't be subsidizing millionaires' ability to buy Teslas at 
the expense of lower-income people who are driving used 
vehicles and not being able to pay their own household bills, 
living in homes that are colder than they need to be, 
especially people who are susceptible to respiratory diseases 
and cardiovascular.
    I just think that we are, once again, going down the wrong 
track with this. And again, I am not against electric vehicles. 
I just--I am for fairness, I am for justice, particularly for 
people who are often overlooked when it comes to justice.
    And I yield back.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Chairman, you are on mute.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    You are still on mute, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. I am unmuted now, and I guess these technical 
difficulties are contagious.
    I just wanted to just remind the gentleman that we have had 
hearings on energy justice, and also just to remind the Member 
I am very familiar with Pembroke, Illinois, and I don't think 
that your viewpoints of Pembroke are consistent with what is 
really happening in Pembroke, Illinois.
    With that said, I--now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady 
from the great State of Delaware.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for calling this important hearing, and to all of the 
witnesses for your testimonies today.
    In Delaware we see the impacts of climate change every day. 
As the State with the lowest mean elevation in the country, and 
as the State that is urban, suburban, and rural, and coastal, 
we see the impacts through saltwater intrusion in our farmlands 
and wells, to the flooding in our neighborhood, such as 
Southbridge, Wilmington, and on our beautiful beaches. We can 
overcome these impacts and tackle the climate crisis, but we 
need to act now, and the transportation sector can play a key 
role.
    The transportation sector accounts for almost a third of 
greenhouse gas emissions. And by reducing transportation 
emissions and shifting to zero- and low-carbon fuels, we can 
take an important step in our fight against climate change, and 
we can do it in ways that create good-paying union jobs and 
protect our environmental justice communities.
    And at this point I just want to also clarify something 
that has been said a few times during the hearing from some of 
my colleagues across the aisle, just to clarify that we are not 
insisting that we mandate that new car sales in the U.S. are 
EVs. The CLEAN Future Act does not include a mandate for EVs. 
We do include programs and policies that provide grants and 
support to build out the infrastructure needed for EVs. 
Additionally, we include policies that support domestic 
manufacturing of EVs. We see growing interest in these cars, 
and we are--and vehicles--and we are trying to ensure that 
drivers have reliable charging options.
    So my first question is for Mr. Britton. Countries across 
the globe are taking steps to modernize and electrify their 
transportation sector. And in many of those countries, their 
governments are working closely with the private sector to 
build infrastructure to support new technologies. Earlier this 
year I reintroduced the Open Back Better Act, which leverages 
public funding to draw a private investment for energy 
efficiency and resiliency--retrofits in public facilities.
    How can we take a similar approach in the EV space and use 
public-private partnerships to build out EV charging stations 
and support infrastructure--and the supporting infrastructure?
    Mr. Britton. Well, thank you for the question. I think it 
is important to note that other economies are racing ahead. And 
one of the things that we really risk is not only falling 
behind but getting caught from behind. And it is something that 
we have experienced in the automotive sector before.
    So the opportunities here are multifaceted. We can do 
something that is great for the consumer. We can do something 
that addresses climate change. We can invest in domestic 
manufacturing. We can reduce emissions that harm public health. 
This is, literally, a win for everybody across the spectrum. We 
can also do more for rural communities that want economic 
development with critical materials. So everybody should be 
invested in getting ahead of this.
    And I think that is where the public-private partnerships 
really exist. We have folks in what we represent as 55 separate 
companies, they are eager to invest. They are eager to work 
with local communities, with site hosts, with economic 
development offices across the country to get this right and 
make it a win for everybody.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent. And just to follow up on 
that, how can these public-private partnerships support good-
paying union jobs for all Americans?
    Mr. Britton. Well, I think that is one of the exciting 
parts about this, is these are--this is a stark contrast. We 
either invest here and we create these jobs here in America, or 
we are ceding that economic opportunity elsewhere.
    And when you think about the entire supply chain, certainly 
in the upper Midwest we have a long history of providing the 
parts, components, and critical materials that go into not only 
your traditional vehicles but even now those advanced 
batteries. And so these are all jobs that we can be securing 
for our economy, or ones that we will be ceding forever. And I 
think Congressman O'Halleran mentioned it with some other 
sectors. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance, and we either do 
it or we are turning our back on this opportunity forever.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And just to help us in Congress 
understand the prioritization for EV infrastructure funding, 
can you talk about what existing programs within the Department 
of Transportation or the Department of Energy we should 
prioritize?
    Mr. Britton. So some of the--I think, certainly for the 
public-private partnerships, the loan program office at the 
Department of Energy is key. You think about the Vehicles 
Technology Office, the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing Program. You have got the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Program along with the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act. These are all opportunities for us to identify 
either gaps or problems in our economy and to drive resources 
and drive investment in R&D to solve them.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And my time is running out, so I will 
ask for a followup for the record, but transit agencies with 
bus fleets are at various stages of transitioning to zero-
emission vehicles. What can Congress do to further enable those 
agencies as they modernize their facilities and fleets? If we 
could do that for the record, I would appreciate it.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of town, so I--out of 
time, so I yield back. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Castor of Florida.
    Voice. She isn't here yet.
    Mr. Rush. Oh, she--no? Ms. Castor, is she--I don't see her 
on the screen.
    All right, now we have two--I only see one of them on the 
screen right now, and it is the gentlelady from the great State 
of Michigan, someone who has really embedded herself in this 
particular issue, very knowledgeable about this issue, none 
other than the gentlelady Ms. Debbie Dingell from Michigan.
    You are recognized as a waive-on. We want to thank you for 
your--and you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding today's 
hearing, because it is so important to talk about decarbonizing 
the transportation sector. The CLEAN Future Act will help us 
accomplish this goal to meet the climate crisis head-on and at 
the same time support American jobs.
    The world is going electric, and the United States has had 
the opportunity to lead the way. As the automotive industry 
makes this shift, there are going to be risks and there are 
going to be opportunities. So we have got to make sure we get 
the policies right to not only compete and remain the global 
leader for the next era, which I am very dedicated to, but to 
also ensure that we don't leave the finest workforce in the 
world behind: the American worker.
    I am pleased that the CLEAN Future Act includes two bills I 
have authored: the USA Electrify Forward Act, and the ATVM 
Future Act. Together, these bills will expand the ATVM program 
to include medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and modernize the 
ATVM to help develop supply chain manufacturing in the United 
States with American workers. And the legislation will update 
domestic manufacturing conversion grant programs to include 
plug-in electric vehicles and components.
    I would like to first start with the UAW. Mr. Nassar, I 
would like to focus on EV production, the current state of EV 
production in the United States, in our workforce. From your 
testimony, you make the case that the United States is falling 
behind in the production of electric vehicles. First, can you 
please elaborate more on the specific impediments auto workers 
are facing referenced in your written testimony?
    Mr. Nassar. Sure, and thank you for the question. You know, 
I would, first of all, just want to point out that we do have 
members that are making, you know, battery electric vehicles, 
plug-ins, and this sort, and we need to just make sure that we 
are creating a whole lot more of those good jobs. But I just 
want to say that, just because it is a new job and a battery 
job or from a startup, we cannot say with confidence that those 
are good jobs. We--that is yet to be seen.
    When you are talking about what our membership and 
manufacturing workers are dealing with--and we are still in the 
middle of this pandemic, first of all, you know, blue-collar 
folks have had to take it really hard in there, they don't have 
the luxury of working at home like we do.
    Then you look at the situation where, you know, we have 
this massive, you know, supply chain problem with 
semiconductors, which just points to the fact that we really 
have neglected our supply chains for a long time, not to 
mention we have tax policies that are, you know, costing us 
jobs and are perverse.
    We have a lot that needs to be done. We also need to train 
more folks----
    Mrs. Dingell. Now----
    Mr. Nassar [continuing]. To come into manufacturing.
    So I would just say this. At the end of the day, what we 
need to do is we have to make sure that we are attaching 
government funding to labor standards and making sure the work 
is in the U.S. If we do not, the trends are going to continue 
in the wrong direction, and there is no assurance that the auto 
jobs of the future are going to be the good jobs that we are 
accustomed to. There is no assurance of that, whatsoever. So I 
hope that helps with the question.
    Mrs. Dingell. So what happens if Congress doesn't invest in 
the EV infrastructure?
    Mr. Nassar. Quite simply, what is going to happen is, first 
of all, you are going to have an EV market that is continually 
dominated by the very wealthy. You are not going to have cars 
becoming cheaper and more affordable, and you are not going to 
have the adoption rates, and then you are going to have less 
manufacturing of it here. Most vehicles made, you know--or 
sold, rather, close to where they are made. We are going to 
lose supply chains. A lot of bad trends are just going to 
continue and become, actually, much, much worse, especially 
over time as more of the fleet becomes EVs and fewer percentage 
becomes the traditional engine.
    So this is the chance to act. If we don't act, we are going 
to--I am convinced that we will be regretting it for many, 
many, many decades.
    Mrs. Dingell. I have got 1 minute left, and I was going to 
ask both you and Mr. Britton, so I will ask Mr. Britton this, 
but I am going to do more questions for the record.
    Mr. Britton, could you speak to the importance for your 
members of expanding programs and modernizing the ATVM to 
enable component manufacturers to participate in the program?
    Mr. Britton. Yes, ATVM has been part of the progenitor 
story for many companies in the advanced vehicle space, and it 
is very important. Certainly your upgrades to the program to 
expand it to medium- and heavy-duty, where there is more 
innovation to be had, and companies like Proterra that I think 
are very interested in the program, so I think it is really, 
really important.
    The one thing I would also add is, if there is any doubt 
about the economic potential here, I think folks need to go 
back and look to 2 weeks ago, where the GM LG Chem advanced 
battery plant was announced in Tennessee. The Republican 
Tennessee Governor called it the single greatest investment in 
economic development in the State's history. So I think there 
is a consensus here that we have to take this seriously, but 
the rewards are not elusive. We can see the material progress 
on economic development and job creation and something that we 
can really achieve, and I think your leadership is driving that 
through programs like ATVM.
    Mrs. Dingell. So I have more questions that I would like to 
submit for the record, Mr. Chairman.
    I would also like to request unanimous consent to submit 
two documents into the record. The first is a recent background 
report by the BlueGreen Alliance, United Steelworkers, UAW, and 
the AFL-CIO that reviews factors likely to drive U.S. job gains 
and job losses related to the electrification of the U.S. and 
global vehicle fleet, and the second is a recent joint letter 
by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, MEMA, and UAW to 
President Biden that highlights the need for a comprehensive 
national vision and strategy for electrification and the 
policies that will help us get there.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Rush. The Chair will entertain your UC request at the 
conclusion of the Members' questioning.
    And the Chair now recognizes the other waive-on to the 
subcommittee, Ms. Clarke of New York, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Rush, and 
Ranking Member Upton, for convening this important hearing on 
the future of our transportation sector. And let me also thank 
our witnesses for your testimony today.
    I am very optimistic about the opportunities we have before 
us to fully electrify our Nation's transportation sector. Our 
colleague Mr. Butterfield remarked earlier during his statement 
and line of questioning that this is about our future. I would 
like to add that our future is now.
    Right now, transportation is not only our Nation's largest 
contributor to the climate crisis in communities like mine in 
the district in Brooklyn, it is also a major source of air 
pollution that contributes to the disproportionate health 
outcomes we see around asthma, heart disease, and even 
premature death, which the COVID-19 pandemic has now 
exacerbated.
    Voice. No----
    Ms. Clarke. The transition--OK, let's mute, everyone.
    The transition to electric vehicles presents us with the 
opportunity to tackle these disparities head on by decreasing 
air pollution in the communities that have been suffering for 
decades, and most profoundly.
    But while I am optimistic, I am also cautious. History has 
shown us very clearly that, unless we act with intentionality 
and purpose, the communities who have most to gain from a clean 
transportation sector will also be the last to receive the 
least amount of benefit. And that is exactly why I have 
introduced H.R. 1221, the Electric Vehicles for Underserved 
Communities Act, which I am happy to see under consideration in 
this legislative hearing.
    On day one, my legislation would direct the Department of 
Energy to commence a nationwide assessment of the EV charging 
infrastructure in underserved communities in both urban and 
rural areas. This assessment would specifically gather data 
about the quantity and location of publicly accessible level-
two charging stations and DC fast-charging stations. So for 
light-duty and medium-duty electric vehicles.
    It would also identify current barriers and opportunities 
to greater and more equitably put out charging deployment.
    Mr. Britton, how would this major study help companies and 
communities target their charging build-out and clean 
transportation services towards the areas that need it the 
most?
    Mr. Britton. Thank you, Congresswoman Clarke, and we are 
proud endorsers of the legislation, and thank you for your 
leadership on it.
    One of the important things about sequencing charging 
infrastructure build-out is that it paves the way for adoption 
of the vehicles. And obviously, adoption of the vehicles leads 
to emissions reductions and public health gains.
    And so the most important thing I think we can do--it is 
kind of a twofold step--one is that your bill is shining a 
light on not only the need, but also the impediments and how we 
can knock down those barriers, but two are the incentives, 
whether those be tax credits or rebates, in order for us to 
actually deploy the infrastructure and make this a reality.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Jankowsky, the same question to you: What 
do you see as the benefits to underserved communities of this 
nationwide assessment?
    Mr. Jankowsky. Oh, Congresswoman Clarke, thank you again. 
We are very much with Mr. Britton and support 1221. We think a 
competitive grant process is going to entice private capital to 
come into underserved communities, whether it is rural or urban 
communities, and build out this infrastructure.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, and so my legislation 
would also establish an EV charging equity program at the 
Department of Energy to invest $960 million in Federal grants 
over the next 10 years to help deploy over 200,000 EV stations.
    So, Mr. Britton, how would this Federal support expand 
investment and deployment of not only EV charging 
infrastructure but also the services many ride-share and last-
mile transportation companies are striving to provide?
    Mr. Britton. Well, I think what your leadership has, I 
think, shown is that it is important to engage the community. 
So we can't tell a community what the best way for them to 
electrify their transportation sector is. Every community is 
different. And I think what you noted is important, is that for 
some folks it might be a light-duty vehicle. For others, it 
might be transit and school buses, and those last-mile medium 
and heavy-duty delivery trucks. And so providing the 
infrastructure paves the way to make emissions reduction and 
the public health gains and our ability to address climate 
change possible.
    And so, without those sort of markers and market signals to 
the private sector to go in and to leverage those resources, I 
agree that we will be missing an opportunity to drive benefits 
in every community.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing 
me to waive on, and I yield back.
    Don't forget to unmute, Mr. Chairman.
    Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, you need to unmute.
    Ms. Clarke. We hear you now.
    Mr. Rush. All right. That concludes the witness questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Rush. And I especially want to thank all the Members, 
and all--particularly, all the witnesses for their 
participation in today's hearing. This has been a very, very 
informative, worthwhile hearing, and we thank you for your 
patience and for your contribution to this hearing.
    I must remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, 
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for 
the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared 
with us today. And I ask each of our illustrious witnesses to 
respond promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
    Before we adjourn, though, I request unanimous consent for 
entering the following documents, testimony, or other 
information into the record. And I am trying--I am going to ask 
the ranking member--I think who is driving an EV right now on 
the committee hearing.
    Mr. Ranking Member, is there any objection on the 
Republican side to inserting these into the record en bloc?
    Mr. Upton. No, Mr. Chairman, I have got no reservations. I 
would note I am not driving an EV, I am driving a Jeep, getting 
30 miles to the gallon, so I am doing pretty well.
    But thank you for the hearing, and I appreciate the 
witnesses' attention, too.
    And it is a six-speed stick.
    Mr. Rush. OK, so the question is, is there any objection to 
entering--we have 22 documents. Can we enter these into the 
record, without objection?
    Mr. Upton. No objection.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. Now, before we adjourn, I think Mrs. 
Dingell had an additional remark.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am just making sure what I had wanted to 
introduce into the record before could be introduced, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Right. All right. Well, now 22 documents, 
including the documents of Mrs. Dingell and others who have 
brought forth documents today. And without any objection, these 
are entered into the record, and they are a part of the record.
    Now, at this time, the subcommittee stands adjourned, and 
the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]