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






                   IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE 
                    INVESTMENTS FOR AGRICULTURE AND
                             RURAL AMERICA

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 12, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-25




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov





                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
49-767 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2022  
















                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, 
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice  ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
Chair                                Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia   SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            DOUG LaMALFA, California
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio               RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Northern Mariana Islands             DON BACON, Nebraska
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois               JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   CHRIS JACOBS, New York
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
RO KHANNA, California                TRACEY MANN, Kansas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida              RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               BARRY MOORE, Alabama
JOSH HARDER, California              KAT CAMMACK, Florida
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa                   MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JIMMY PANETTA, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

                                 ______

                      Anne Simmons, Staff Director

                 Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                                  
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Brown, Hon. Shontel M., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, 
  prepared statement.............................................     5
Davis, Hon. Rodney, a Representative in Congress from Illinois, 
  submitted article..............................................   105
Delgado, Hon. Antonio, a Representative in Congress from New 
  York; submitted statement on behalf of American Public Power 
  Association, et al.............................................   103
Fischbach, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from 
  Minnesota, submitted blog......................................   108
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Submitted article............................................    99
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     4

                               Witnesses

Strickland, J.D., Hon. David, Vice President for Global 
  Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Technology Policy, 
  General Motors, Washington, D.C................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Supplementary material.......................................   109
Wood, Lincoln E., Electrification Policy Manager, Southern 
  Company, Atlanta, GA...........................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Supplementary material.......................................   110
Laughridge, Matthew, Owner and Managing Director, Terry Reid 
  Enterprises, Cartersville, GA; on behalf of National Automotive 
  Dealers Association............................................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Walter, Trevor, Vice President of Petroleum Supply Management, 
  Sheetz, Inc., Altoona, PA; on behalf of National Association of 
  Convenience Stores.............................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Supplementary material.......................................   117
Cooper, Geoff, President and Chief Executive Officer, Renewable 
  Fuels Association, Ellisville, MO..............................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30
Nassar, Josh, Legislative Director, International Union, United 
  Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of 
  America, Washington, D.C.......................................    37
    Prepared statement...........................................    39
    Supplementary material.......................................   118
Mills, Mark P., Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, Chevy Chase, 
  MD.............................................................    43
    Prepared statement...........................................    45
    Supplementary material.......................................   119

                           Submitted Material

Kovarik, Kurt Vice President, Federal Affairs, National Biodiesel 
  Board, submitted letter........................................   120
Penmetsa, Praveen, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Zimeno 
  Inc. d/b/a Monarch Tractor, submitted letter...................   123

 
                   IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE 
                    INVESTMENTS FOR AGRICULTURE AND 
                             RURAL AMERICA 

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. 
David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia, 
Costa, Vela, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Delgado, Brown, Rush, 
Pingree, Kuster, Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran, 
Carbajal, Khanna, Lawson, Craig, Harder, Axne, Schrier, 
Panetta, Bishop, Thompson, Austin Scott of Georgia, Crawford, 
LaMalfa, Davis, Allen, Kelly, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Jacobs, 
Balderson, Cloud, Mann, Feenstra, Miller, Moore, Cammack, 
Fischbach, and Letlow.
    Staff present: Josh Lobert, Ashley Smith, Luke Theriot, 
Paul Balzano, Patricia Straughn, Erin Wilson, and Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. Ladies and 
gentlemen, we are at a very historic moment for our nation. Who 
would have thought of it, even as soon as just a few years ago, 
that we would have this golden opportunity to be able to 
provide electricity that would motor our vehicles? But it is 
bringing on some very serious questions, some very serious 
issues, so that we know what it will take to make sure that our 
people in this country are well aware and will be able to take 
advantage and enjoy this movement, this great movement, that we 
are making to transition from petroleum for our vehicles to 
electricity.
    And I want to welcome everyone to this hearing, and 
especially our witnesses, because we are looking to you to tell 
us what this means. What does it mean for jobs? What is the 
impact that this will have in rural America if we do not move 
and make sure that those in rural America can enjoy and be 
productive from this move we are making? I am sure that none of 
us want to deal with this move as we have with getting 
broadband internet into our rural communities. The whole issue 
is it is just not that if we go back to electricity. It took 
almost forever for it to get to rural America, which harvests 
our food and the necessities of our life, our clothing from 
textiles and cotton, from our forestry for lumber and our 
shelter. When we deal with agriculture, when we deal with rural 
America, we are dealing with the heart and the soul of our 
great nation.
    And so, I am so delighted to have all of you here and for 
us to move in this direction.
    I want to also--before I get to that, I want to go over 
some basic housekeeping here. Let me just make sure that 
everyone understands how we will be proceeding. After brief 
opening remarks, Members will receive testimony from our 
witnesses today, and then the hearing will be open for 
questions. Members will be recognized in order of seniority, 
alternating between Majority and Minority Members, and in order 
of arrival for those Members who have joined us after the 
hearing was called to order. And when you are recognized, you 
will be asked to un-mute your microphone, and each of you will 
have 5 minutes to ask your questions and make your comments. 
And also, Members, please, if you are not speaking, I ask that 
you just remain muted in order to minimize background noise. 
And in order to get to as many questions as possible, the timer 
will stay consistently visible on your screen.
    And now, before we begin, I want to welcome one of our 
newest Members, our newest Member who has just come to be with 
us just a few weeks ago. And so, we want to welcome Ms. Shontel 
Brown from Ohio, our newest Member. Welcome, Shontel.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. It is great having you.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    The Chairman. You are welcome.
    Now, I want to turn to my own opening statement for a 
moment. As I mentioned a little earlier, this is historic and I 
am so, first of all, grateful to our staff for pulling together 
this hearing and working it under the direction of Ms. Anne 
Simmons. Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure she won't mind, but I 
call her my Ethan Hunt. And for those of you who may not know 
who Ethan Hunt is, he is a character that is played by Tom 
Cruise in Mission: Impossible. But the thing here is, this 
Agriculture Committee staff I have now coined our Mission: 
Possible.
    We are witnessing a point of major research and investment 
and adoption of electric vehicles across the country and the 
world, driven in large part in an effort to mitigate the 
impacts of climate change. And as with so many other of our 
technological advancements, like, as I mentioned a little 
earlier, electrification, broadband, telephone service, and 
even plumbing. I want to see that we make sure that our rural 
America is not left behind as they were left behind in 
movements to electricity, to plumbing, to all of the other 
areas. This is our duty.
    I want to make sure that we can ensure the needs also of 
farming and agriculture. These are our vital producers of food, 
of our fiber, of so many other areas that we are working on. We 
need to know what impact this will have on the movement we have 
made to biofuels and other areas that our Agriculture Committee 
is working on. And as I mentioned about rural America, I want 
to just share with you an article from The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution * that really provides the essence of why we are 
here. It says here that Georgia has 1,500 EV charging stations, 
seventh out of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Metro 
Atlanta has 1,110 of them, the third highest among U.S. metro 
areas, according to real estate data provider, Yardi Matrix. 
But this is the major point. Outside of Atlanta, the article 
says, good luck. In rural America, good luck. On I-16 between 
Macon and Savannah, which is a 170 mile stretch of urban 
America, drivers pass only four charging stations, just off the 
interstate, according to the website PlugShare. This is why we 
are here, to make sure that we know what we are getting into.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the article referred to is located on p. 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And as anyone who lives in a rural community knows, our gas 
stations, our convenience stores are oftentimes the pillars of 
these communities. Many of them don't have the kinds of 
businesses and providers that we have in the urban areas. So, 
we need to know what is the impact of these businesses? What 
will this impact be?
    And I am also hoping to hear about some of the positive 
developments that could come from a more widespread adoption of 
electric vehicles all across rural America. And with so many 
input costs fluctuating for our farmers, could electric 
vehicles also provide one additional stable cost on their 
balance sheet? And beyond that, how will this electrification 
of vehicles translate to tractors, to other farm elements, to 
the huge trucking operations that are vital in our food supply? 
We hope to find answers to this today. There are so many issues 
that will impact agriculture and our rural communities, and I 
want to ensure that this Committee has a seat at the table and 
that the voice of America's farmers, America's ranchers, 
America's foresters, and above all else, our rural residents 
who go to school, who make life livable in our rural areas are 
considered.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
    Good morning, and welcome to a hearing that I have been greatly 
looking forward to hosting. Today we will discuss the implications on 
rural communities and agriculture from the ongoing investment and 
adoption of electric vehicles.
    We are witnessing a point of major research, investment, and 
adoption of electric vehicles across the country and the world, driven 
in large part in an effort to mitigate the impacts of climate change. 
As with so many other technological advancements like electrification, 
broadband, or telephone service, I want to see what can be done to make 
sure that rural America is not left behind. And to that point, I want 
to also ensure that the needs of agriculture and rural residents are 
being considered with these important developments.
    As anyone who lives in a rural community knows, gas stations and 
convenience stores are often a pillar of those communities and are 
sometimes the only place for miles to get food. With the ongoing 
investment and transition to electric vehicles, we must know what the 
long-term impacts to these businesses will be.
    I am also hoping to hear about some of the positive developments 
that could come from more widespread adoption of electric vehicles 
across rural America. With so many input costs fluctuating for farmers 
across the country, could electric vehicles provide one more stable 
cost on their balance sheets? And beyond that, how will this 
electrification of vehicles translate to tractors and other farm 
implements? I hope to find out today.
    As with so many issues that will impact agriculture and our rural 
communities, I want to ensure that this Committee has a seat at a table 
and that the voice of America's farmers, ranchers, foresters, and rural 
residents are considered.
    With that, I yield to Ranking Member Thompson for any opening 
remarks he would like to share.

    The Chairman. And so, with that, I now would like to 
welcome our distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for any opening remarks he would 
like to make.
    Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, I am pleased to be with you today 
and being here in the middle of the week during 8 days when we 
celebrate the largest indoor agriculture exposition, 24 acres 
under one roof of the Pennsylvania Farm Show, the 106th annual 
show. It is going to go through this coming Saturday. I 
appreciate this hearing.
    Mr. Chairman, electric vehicles are impressive feats of 
technology and engineering, and the substantial industry 
investment in EVs is testament to the hope that they can meet 
the varied needs of drivers across America, including in rural 
communities.
    In recent years, the electrification of our transportation 
systems and the elimination of liquid fuels has been advertised 
as a critical component of the global fight to reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions. I am not sure that is completely proven yet, 
but maybe this hearing will help us with that. Last Congress, 
the Democratic Members of the Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis called for eliminating internal combustion engines by 
2035, and that is despite the fact that we have been using 
these and our CO2 emissions have been steadily 
reducing as a result of a lot of what we do in agriculture, 
actually. Then this past August, President Biden pledged half 
of all new cars will be electric by 2030. I don't think he 
should be making those decisions for consumers, quite frankly. 
I am skeptical such top-down planning from Washington will meet 
the needs of rural residents. Congress should not be picking 
winners and losers. Drivers in the marketplace must decide what 
technology meets their transportation needs, especially rural 
residents for whom vehicles and private transportation are an 
essential service. And quite frankly, the utilization can be 
much different from what we see in densely populated urban 
areas. the ability to choose ensures vehicles remain a 
productive tool and not a technological burden to work around.
    Now, while I am encouraged by the substantial investments 
being made by private industry in EVs, I do have a few honest 
concerns associated with this government-first drive to 
electrify the transportation system. Chief among those are, 
number one, who will finance the huge investments in electric 
generation and transmission capacity so that we don't wind up 
with brownouts and blackouts with the significant increase in 
demand when charging, new retail distribution points, and all 
the associated equipment? Who is going to finance that? Will 
electric vehicles be able to meet the needs of all drivers as 
efficiently as a conventional vehicle without demanding 
unacceptable tradeoffs in cost, range, capacity, or time of 
service, particularly for rural residents? I would throw in 
these wonderful cold temperatures we are experiencing right now 
would be a factor. What will the impact of a transition to EVs 
be on the liquid transportation fuel industry, particularly for 
the agriculture producers and the oil producers, two industries 
which have often formed the very foundation of regional rural 
economies? And number four, will expanding electric vehicle 
manufacturing increase our dependence on unfriendly, unstable, 
and under-regulated foreign nations for the raw materials 
necessary to build EV batteries?
    Now I think those are fair questions, and perhaps we can 
find some solutions to those, or get some answers to them and 
then maybe some solutions.
    Now, these potential costs associated with answering these 
questions must be balanced against the purpose of the policy, 
which is reducing global CO2 emissions. That should 
be the driving force. If at the end of the day an accurate 
accounting of the total emissions associated with transitioning 
to electric vehicles fails to make a significant dent in global 
carbon dioxide emissions, then Congress must ask the difficult 
question of whether a national policy of promoting or imposing 
EVs is worth it. If not, what other policies could meet our 
goals of continuing to lower emissions, because America has 
done better than the nine countries that follow us in terms of 
reducing CO2 emissions--what can we do to further 
our success at a lower cost and with more flexibility for 
consumers?
    Now, this question is especially pressing for rural 
communities like those I represent in Pennsylvania's 15th 
Congressional District, which stands to bear the brunt of the 
cost of building new infrastructure and eliminating liquid 
transportation fuels. I am not sure that President Biden's 
Administration recognizes that liquid fuel's money are critical 
in doing the road maintenance for rural roads. Are the global 
emissions reductions worth the potential disruptions to rural 
communities, implications for our national security, and costs 
for our infrastructure?
    Now, as we consider the impact of electric vehicles in 
rural America, we should ensure policies are in place which 
meet the needs of drivers and integrate these vehicles into the 
transportation system as seamlessly as possible, without 
exacerbating our public policy problems.
    Now, I am really appreciative to all the witnesses that 
agreed to testify before us today. I want to thank each and 
every one of them for their time today, their expertise, and 
their willingness to share their perspectives. I look forward 
to hearing as each of you testify.
    As I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for 
holding this hearing. I appreciate your convening a panel of 
experts who can help us sort through our many questions.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member, and the chair 
would request that other Members submit your opening statements 
for the record so witnesses may begin their testimony and to 
ensure that there is ample time for questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Shontel M. Brown, a Representative in 
                           Congress from Ohio
    Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson, for holding 
this hearing. And thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.
    We are currently at a great inflection point. How we approach the 
next 10, 20 years will determine where we will be in 50 years. The 
existential threat of climate change to humankind is clearer than ever. 
People in Ohio and around the country are experiencing the dire 
consequences of climate change: devastating hurricanes in Louisiana, 
raging wildfires in California, harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie, and 
rising sea levels in south Florida, to name a few.
    The generally accepted agreement that greenhouse gas emissions 
contribute to the threats has led many to electric vehicles (EVs) which 
are likely to have lower emissions than internal combustion engine 
vehicles (ICEVs). While U.S. auto sales declined 23% in 2020, the sales 
share of EVs increased two percent. My home State of Ohio has also seen 
a steady increase in EV registrations in recent years. The EV market is 
only going to continue to grow as consumer demand for the technology 
increases. It is prudent to begin examining this new technology, so we 
adequately address the needs of all stakeholders in America--urban, 
suburban, and rural.
    As we work to transition to a clean energy economy, we owe it to 
our farmers and autoworkers to ensure they are not left behind. Many of 
them have spent generations feeding and powering our country, and their 
work has every bit as much dignity as the work of an EV battery 
manufacturer.
    I am confident that the investment of EVs is a step in the right 
direction. It will supercharge America's efforts to lead the electric 
future that will allow us to remain competitive and strong in the days 
to come.

    The Chairman. And now, I want to introduce our very 
distinguished witnesses, and our first witness is the Honorable 
David Strickland. Mr. Strickland is the Vice President of 
Global Regulatory Affairs for General Motors.
    Our next witness is Mr. Lincoln Wood, the Electrification 
Policy Manager of our Southern Company, headquartered in 
Atlanta, Georgia.
    Our third witness today is Mr. Matthew Laughridge, the 
owner and Managing Director of the Terry Reid Enterprises, on 
behalf of the National Automobile Dealers Association of 
Cartersville, Georgia.
    Our fourth witness today is Mr. Trevor Walter, the Vice 
President of Petroleum Supply Management for Sheetz, Inc., and 
also on behalf of the National Association of Convenience 
Stores of Altoona, Pennsylvania.
    Our fifth witness is Mr. Geoff Cooper, the President and 
Chief Executive Officer of the Renewable Fuels Association from 
Ellisville, Missouri.
    And our sixth witness today is Mr. Josh Nassar, who is the 
Legislative Director for the International Union of the United 
Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implementation Workers 
of America, the UAW, here in Washington, D.C.
    And our seventh and final witness today is Mr. Mark Mills, 
who is Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute from Chevy 
Chase, Maryland.
    Thank you all for coming, and you represent the important 
industries. You all are the ones that will make this happen, 
and we thank you for it. I am so pleased to have such a 
distinguished panel before us today.
    Each of you will have 5 minutes. The timer should be 
visible to you on your screen, and you will count down to 0, at 
which point, your time has expired.
    Mr. Strickland, please begin when you are ready.

        STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID STRICKLAND, J.D., VICE 
  PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTATION 
                  TECHNOLOGY POLICY, GENERAL 
                    MOTORS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Strickland. Here we go. Yes, I fell prey to the mute 
button once again, just like the Ranking Member.
    Good morning. My name is David Strickland, and I am General 
Motors Vice President of Global Regulatory Affairs. I would 
like to thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and the 
other Members of the Committee for inviting me to tell you more 
about General Motors commitment to an all-electric, zero 
emissions future, and the opportunities of electric vehicle 
investments for rural America.
    At General Motors, our vision for the future is a world 
with zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion. 
Building an inclusive, all-electric future is the right thing 
to do for the world, U.S. competitiveness, and our company, 
which includes more than 85,000 U.S. employees across the 
country. We are committed to bringing everybody in on this 
future, and we are working hard to ensure we leave no community 
behind.
    While we can't achieve this alone, GM is committed to doing 
our part. We are on track to invest $35 billion in electric and 
autonomous vehicles by 2025, and planning to launch more than 
20 electric vehicles in North America over that same timeframe, 
including options at every price point and for every lifestyle. 
We are increasing range and decreasing costs of EVs to make 
them more affordable and accessible. In addition to our 
manufacturing incentives, we are investing $25 million in our 
climate equity fund, which is dedicated to closing equity gaps 
in the transition to electric vehicles and other sustainable 
technologies.
    We just revealed the Chevrolet Silverado EV, which is the 
vehicle in my background. This new electric pickup will 
integrate the capability Silverado customers have come to 
expect in terms of strength, durability, and performance. 
Silverado EV will offer a GM-estimated range of 400 miles on a 
full charge, which is a round trip from Atlanta to Albany, and 
with 664 horsepower, our customers in rural America will find 
it satisfies all their needs, both on and off the farm.
    With GM's EV portfolio today and those that are just on the 
horizon, which includes a range of vehicles from pickups, SUVs, 
and commercial vehicles, we believe that no other auto maker 
matches the depth and range of our portfolio. To support this 
growing portfolio, we are converting large portions of our 
manufacturing footprint for EV production. GM is committed to 
bringing our workforce and our dealers with us on this journey, 
as well as to continue to create good-paying U.S. jobs.
    By 2025, our North American EV assembly capacity will reach 
20 percent, and climb to 50 percent by 2030. We have announced 
nearly 9,000 jobs and more than $9 billion in new electric 
vehicle or battery cell manufacturing facilities in Michigan, 
Ohio, and Tennessee, and there is more to come. Furthermore, we 
are working to secure the raw material supply chain needed to 
build and grow at the scale required.
    Another critical aspect of preparing communities for an 
all-electric future is ensuring access to charging. Today, 
charging deserts still exist in many rural and underserved 
areas. GM will invest nearly $750 million to expand home, 
workplace, and public charging. We are developing a community 
charging program with our more than 4,000 dealers to expand 
access by installing up to 40,000 level 2 destination chargers 
at key locations throughout their communities, including rural 
communities. This is significant because nearly 90 percent of 
the U.S. population lives within 10 miles of a GM dealership. 
These charging stations will be interoperable, available to all 
EV customers, not just those who purchase a GM EV.
    GM is leading integration with major EV charging networks 
to simplify the charging experience. Customers can use their 
app to see real-time information from over 100,000 charging 
spots throughout the U.S. and Canada. To get to an all-electric 
future, we must ensure customers can get from farm to city, 
from coast to coast.
    Governments across the globe have recognized the 
competitive advantages to be gained by leading EV and battery 
technology. If the U.S. is to remain the global leader in 
automotive technology, several key policy elements are needed 
to help augment private-sector efforts in leading 
electrification. They include investing in infrastructure that 
includes fast charging stations along highway corridors. The 
IIJA's (Pub. L. 117-58) investments are an important first 
step, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee 
to leverage existing USDA programs to further that effort. 
Investment tax credits to incentivize companies to establish 
battery and EV manufacturing capacity in the U.S., and to help 
build the U.S. supply chain, and also, consumer incentives, 
which include a modification to the EV tax credit for new and 
used vehicles, which has proven to be an effective accelerator 
for adoption.
    As we implement our strategy, we have the opportunity to 
create a better future for generations to come. Thank you again 
for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering 
your questions.
    For just a small moment of personal privilege, I see that 
Representative Rush is on the call, on the hearing, and when I 
was first nominated and confirmed to be NIST Administrator, Mr. 
Rush called me to his office and gave me, frankly, some of the 
best advice that any new Federal executive could have, and the 
kindness he showed me I will never forget.
    Mr. Rush, please enjoy getting home to your grandbabies, 
and thank you so much for all that you have done for me and for 
the country.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Strickland, J.D., Vice President for 
    Global Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Technology Policy, 
                    General Motors, Washington, D.C.
    Good morning.
    My name is David Strickland, and I am General Motors' Vice 
President of Global Regulatory Affairs. I want to thank Chairman Scott, 
Ranking Member Thompson, and the other Committee Members for inviting 
me to tell you more about General Motors' commitment to an all-
electric, zero emissions future and the opportunities of electric 
vehicle investments for rural America.
    At General Motors, our vision for the future is a world with zero 
crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion. The key to unlocking that 
vision is automobile electrification. Building an inclusive, all-
electric future is the right thing to do for the world, U.S. 
competitiveness and our company--which includes more than 85,000 U.S. 
employees across the nation. We're committed to bringing everybody in 
on this future, and we are working hard to ensure we leave no community 
behind. While we can't achieve this alone, GM is committed to doing our 
part.
    We are on track to invest $35 billion in electric and autonomous 
vehicles by 2025, powering our plants to launch more than 20 electric 
vehicles in North America over that same timeframe--including options 
at every price point and for every lifestyle. We are increasing range 
and decreasing the cost of EVs to make them more affordable and 
accessible. In addition to our manufacturing investments, we are 
investing $25 million in our Climate Equity Fund, which is dedicated to 
closing equity gaps in the transition to electric vehicles and other 
sustainable technologies.
    Just last week at the Consumer Electronics Show, we revealed the 
Chevrolet Silverado EV. This new electric pickup will harness 
Silverado's proven credentials as the brand's best-selling nameplate 
and integrate the capability Silverado customers have come to expect in 
terms of strength, durability, and performance. Based on GM's 
revolutionary Ultium battery platform, Silverado EV will offer a GM 
estimated range of 400 miles on a full charge (a round trip from 
Atlanta to Albany), and with 664 horsepower, our customers in rural 
America will find it satisfies all their needs, both on and off the 
farm. The Silverado EV will be built in our first ever fully dedicated 
EV Assembly Facility, Factory Zero, which just opened in Detroit after 
a $2.3 billion investment to retool the plant from the production of 
internal combustion engine vehicles.
    With GM's EV portfolio today and those just on the horizon--
including Chevrolet Silverado EV, Equinox EV, Blazer EV, Bolt EV and 
Bolt Electric Utility Vehicle, GMC Sierra EV, GMC HUMMER EV and EUV, 
Cadillac LYRIQ, and BrightDrop EV600 and EV450--GM believes that no 
other automaker today matches the depth and range of our all-electric 
portfolio. We will deliver electric vehicles that fit all needs and 
price points, for all customers, including those in rural America. To 
support this growing portfolio, we are converting large portions of our 
manufacturing footprint for EV production. GM is committed to bringing 
our workforce and our dealers with us on this journey as well as 
continuing to create good paying U.S. jobs as we transition to an all-
electric future.
    By 2025, our North American EV assembly capacity will reach 20 
percent and climb to 50 percent by 2030. We have recently announced 
nearly 9,000 jobs and more than $9 billion in new electric vehicle or 
battery cell manufacturing facilities in Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, 
and, there is more to come. This transformation has already happened at 
Factory Zero, and is underway in Spring Hill, Tennessee. To meet the 
demand for batteries, two of our battery plants are already under 
construction today in Ohio and Tennessee, and two more U.S.-based 
plants are also being planned as we build the scale that will enable us 
to lower the cost of EVs to make them accessible to everyone. 
Furthermore, we are working to secure the raw materials supply chain 
needed to build and grow at the scale required.
    Another critical aspect of preparing communities for an all-
electric future is ensuring access to charging. Today, charging 
``deserts'' still exist in many rural and underserved areas that lack 
the critical EV charging infrastructure necessary for the more 
widespread adoption of EVs. GM is committed to helping expand access 
and offering ubiquitous charging solutions that can help meet customers 
where they are. Last year, we announced that GM will invest nearly $750 
million to expand home, workplace, and public charging. As part of this 
investment, we are developing a new community charging program working 
with our more than 4,000 dealers to expand access by installing up to 
40,000 Level 2 destination chargers at key locations throughout their 
communities, including rural communities and other areas where charging 
is limited. This is significant, because nearly 90 percent of the U.S. 
population lives within 10 miles of a GM dealership. These charging 
stations will be available to all EV customers, not just those who 
purchase a GM EV. It is critical that America's charging infrastructure 
be an interoperable network.
    Beyond this Dealer Community Charging Program, GM is leading 
integration with major EV charging networks to simplify the charging 
experience. Customers can use their GM brand mobile apps to see real-
time information from over 100,000 charging spots throughout the U.S. 
and Canada, find stations along a route and initiate and pay for 
charging. We know that to get to an all-electric future we must ensure 
customers can get from farm to city, from coast to coast. We are 
working with our partners, and with the Federal, state, and local 
governments to make this happen.
    Many governments across the globe have recognized the competitive 
advantages to be gained by leading in electric vehicle and battery 
technology. China has included EV development as a key industry in 
their Made in China 2025 initiative and provided billions in government 
subsidies to develop their domestic industry. European countries have 
provided similar levels of support to domestic EV manufacturers. If the 
U.S. is to remain the global leader in automotive technology, several 
key policy elements are needed to help augment private sector efforts 
to lead in electrification. They include:

   Investing in infrastructure that includes fast-charging 
        stations along highway corridors. We look forward to working 
        with Congress and the Administration to implement funding plans 
        from the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
        Act to make EV charging accessible to all, including rural 
        communities. Further, we would welcome the opportunity to work 
        with the Committee to leverage existing USDA programs to 
        further support EV charging infrastructure. We are also 
        committed to working with our dealers and community partners, 
        using our learnings from years of electric vehicle experience, 
        to make charging ubiquitous and convenient.

   Investment tax credits to incentivize companies to establish 
        battery and EV manufacturing capacity in the U.S. and to help 
        build out the U.S. supply chain for critical EV components. 
        Investment tax credits can help ensure the U.S. remains 
        competitive for capital.

   Consumer incentives including a modification to the EV tax 
        credit for new and used vehicles, which has proven to be an 
        effective accelerator for EV adoption. As we make significant 
        investments to bring 20 models to market in the U.S. by 2025, 
        we support a modification that lifts the cap.

    As we implement our strategy, we have an opportunity and, frankly, 
a responsibility to create a better future for generations to come. Our 
mission is to leave no one behind. Thank you again for your invitation 
to testify on this topic that is critical to the future of our company, 
our customers, our industry, and our country. I look forward to 
answering your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you so much. I agree with you. Bobby 
Rush is legendary in terms of his leadership in representing 
the fine folks in Chicago.
    Mr. Wood, please begin when you are ready.

 STATEMENT OF LINCOLN E. WOOD, ELECTRIFICATION POLICY MANAGER, 
                 SOUTHERN COMPANY, ATLANTA, GA

    Mr. Wood. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members 
of the Committee, thank you for having me here today to 
testify. I am Lincoln Wood, Electrification Policy Manager for 
Southern Company.
    Southern Company, as you may know, is an Atlanta-based 
energy company. We serve nine million customers through our 
electric and gas subsidiaries across the country.
    This is an important hearing on an important topic that, as 
already has been discussed today, there is lots of opportunity. 
In our understanding, electric vehicles are cheaper to operate, 
fuel, and maintain, and it represents an opportunity to 
decarbonize the transportation sector, which aligns well with 
Southern's net-zero carbon goals by 2050.
    But first, I want to offer a bit of thanks to Congress for 
passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act. 
The $7\1/2\ billion of EV infrastructure that is allotted is a 
welcome development for EV drivers nationwide. Paired with 
regulated utility programs and private market investment, that 
will dramatically expand the availability of EV charging. Thank 
you.
    To tell you a bit about Southern Company and our efforts, 
we have a long history in electric transportation and 
supporting the industry and our involvement continues to grow. 
For over 50 years, our research and development organization 
has been at the forefront of researching electric 
transportation technologies both on road and off road. We are a 
founding member of Energy Impact Partners, which is a clean 
tech venture capital fund, which counts EV charging among its 
product portfolio.
    Our activities really can be broken down into six kind of 
big buckets, the first being rolling out public EV charging 
infrastructure, of course, but then paired with that, rates 
that incent EV charging, including mitigating the demand charge 
component where needed. The third piece of it would be fleet 
electrification, so if you have large customers that have fleet 
delivery vehicles or whatnot that can be converted into 
electric and they are interested in that, we have partners 
through a turnkey process that can help with that. We have a 
long history of industry involvement, with Southern being a 
founding member of two electric transportation industry 
organizations since 2017.
    Workforce development and preparing the workforce for the 
future is a key area of focus for us. We are working with the 
University of Georgia, University of Alabama, and Mississippi 
State on e-Mobility curriculum development, and with that goes, 
of course, economic development for our cities, for our 
communities, for the states in which we serve. A battery plant, 
EV manufacturer, and a battery recycling plant announcement 
coming out of Georgia all in the past year are just three 
examples of the growth in the industry.
    Of special note for this Committee, Southern Company is 
helping the Administration with their electrification goals 
where we are piloting the first ET turnkey service at Marine 
Corps Logistics Base in Albany, and we hope that process will 
be a, I guess, a template for us internally, but also one we 
can share with regulatory utilities nationwide.
    So, as I came here today, I wanted to offer a few thoughts 
around where Congress could be helpful going forward, the first 
being an agriculture--Chairman Scott, to your point. There is a 
need to understand the implications of agriculture 
electrification. There could be a research program created. In 
doing that, it needs to be a multi-stakeholder process, so to 
have the manufacturer of the equipment, the utilities, of 
course, to understand the implications of charging, but also 
the farmers' involvement in that case so that they do not bear 
the full cost of the new equipment all by themselves. With 
that, we have a joint DOT/DOE Office of Transportation 
Electrification, so that agriculture still qualifies as moving 
people, moving good with electricity. So, whatever learnings we 
have there, we should be able to make sure those learnings are 
allocated to that DOE/DOT office. And Chairman Scott, I have to 
mention: I have contacts at UGA through our e-Mobility 
curriculum. I know UGA has a College of Agriculture, and I 
certainly can't speak for this school, but I think should it 
please the Committee, there are avenues we can explore on how 
we can get there and what action might be needed.
    And the last piece I will leave you with would just be in 
terms of battery recycling. That is still an issue for the 
industry that we are working toward, but obviously through 
research budgets that come up, we want to fund research 
programs. That is a place we need to focus.
    And a bit of personal privilege, just so you know, I am 
Atlanta-based, you may can hear it in the accent. I actually 
drove to D.C. this week in an electric vehicle through rural 
North Carolina and Virginia, so 660 miles of gasoline-free 
driving. I am happy to be here, happy to answer your questions. 
Thank you for having me.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]

Prepared Statement of Lincoln E. Wood, Electrification Policy Manager, 
                     Southern Company, Atlanta, GA
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is 
Lincoln Wood, and I serve as the Electrification Policy Manager of 
Southern Company.
    Southern Company is one of America's largest energy companies, with 
42,000 megawatts of generating capacity and 1,500 billion cubic feet of 
combined natural gas consumption and throughput volume serving nine 
million customers through its subsidiaries, as of July 31, 2021. The 
company provides clean, safe, reliable, and affordable energy through 
electric operating companies in three states, natural gas distribution 
companies in four states, a competitive generation company serving 
wholesale customers in 11 states across America and a nationally 
recognized provider of customized energy solutions, as well as fiber 
optics and wireless communications.
    I am pleased to address the Committee today to share what steps 
Southern Company and its affiliates are taking to electrify the 
transportation sector. This is an important hearing on an important 
topic. According to EIA \1\ the transportation sector is now the number 
one emitter of greenhouse gases; moving people and goods with 
electricity represents an un-paralleled opportunity to reduce the 
sector's carbon footprint. Additionally, it makes good economic sense--
electric vehicles typically are cheaper to fuel, operate, and maintain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=29612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, on behalf of Southern Company, thank you to Congress for 
passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The EV 
charging infrastructure investment of $7.5 billion is a welcome 
development for the transportation sector and growing number of EV 
drivers nationwide. Paired with existing EV infrastructure investment 
both through regulated utility programs and private market investment, 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will dramatically increase 
the availability of EV charging.
    The energy we provide to charge electric vehicles continues to 
become cleaner. In 2018, Southern Company was among the first U.S. 
utilities to set a bold goal of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
by 2050--and we're on the right track. We have rapidly transitioned our 
system's generation fleet. In 2020, the Southern Company system reduced 
GHG emissions 52% from its 2007 benchmark levels, exceeding its 
intermediate 2030 goal to reduce GHG emissions by 50%.
Electric Transportation Programs
    Southern Company has a long history of supporting electric 
transportation. For more than 5 decades, Southern Company's world-class 
Research and Development (R&D) organization has remained at the 
forefront of innovation, including researching electric transportation 
technologies, both on-road and off-road. The Company is testing Smart 
Charging strategies to maximize the number of vehicles that can be 
charged with our current energy capacities, as well as ways to maximize 
range from battery packs. Additionally, Southern Company is a founding 
member of Energy Impact Partners,\2\ a venture capital fund focused on 
clean energy technologies including electric transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://www.energyimpactpartners.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Southern Company's electric operating companies offer specific 
electric vehicle programs and pricing options designed to meet customer 
electric transportation requirements. Alabama Power and Georgia Power 
both offer EV rates that provide clean, reliable, and affordable 
electricity for all EV charging requirements, from home charging to 
public fast charging.
    As part of DOE's Clean Cities Program, Southern Company affiliates 
hold board seats in Alabama Clean Fuels Coalition and Georgia Clean 
Cities. These organizations work to promote the use of domestic, 
affordable alternative fuels including electricity, and improve 
transportation efficiency at the local, state, and national levels.
    Both Alabama Power and Georgia Power are actively supporting EV 
charging infrastructure rollouts in their respective states. Alabama 
Power Company (APC) contributed $737k to Alabama Dept. of Economic and 
Community Affairs (ADECA) awardees served by APC to assist their 
installation of DCFC along Interstate Corridors at ten sites.
    As the largest of SoCo's electric subsidiaries, Georgia Power 
Company (GPC) offers additional infrastructure programs to accelerate 
adoption of EVs. GPC offers EV charger rebates for both residential and 
business customers. The rebates range from $100 to $500 depending on 
the type and purpose of the installation.
    Additionally, Georgia Power offers an EV time-of-use rate that 
offers 1/kWh charging overnight, which allows an EV customer to charge 
their vehicle all month long for about $20.\1\
    Georgia Power offers two regulated electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure programs:
    Community Charging Program--Business & Residential (GPC branded 
charging).

   Georgia Power's Community Charging program provides fast-
        charging sites along travel corridors to give charging options 
        and increase EV drivers' confidence traveling throughout 
        Georgia. Through this program, Power is addressing gaps in EV 
        corridors according to the Federal Highway Administration in 
        hopes to help Georgie become ``EV Corridor Ready.''

   The Community Charging locations are sited in partnership 
        with GPC commercial business customers on their properties. 
        Through this structure, both the business (site host) benefits 
        as well as the public who rely on the EV charging 
        infrastructure to travel both short and long distances.

    Make Ready Program--Business & Residential: this program pays for 
infrastructure from the electricity meter up to but not including the 
charger.

   Georgia Power's Make Ready EV infrastructure program 
        provides charging infrastructure to business owners to 
        significantly reduce the cost of installing chargers for 
        public, employee, or their business operations use.

   The Company partners with a variety of business customers 
        that want to install infrastructure to support electric 
        mobility technology charging. Examples of customer 
        installations include public transit agencies, warehouse 
        applications, multifamily residential properties, colleges and 
        universities, and many others.
Additional Programs in 2022
    Southern Company Fleet Electrification Turnkey Offering: Strategic 
partnerships provide a turnkey offering for our customers who want to 
electrify their transportation fleets.

   Through strategic partnerships, each of Southern Company's 
        electric subsidiaries offers:

     software and consulting to analyze current fleet needs 
            and understand the power implications of transitioning a 
            customer's fleet.

     resources for charging installation and financing, to 
            effectively meet customers' needs and leverage any 
            regulated utility programs.
Southern Company Electric Transportation--Industry Involvement
    In 2020, Southern Company played a leadership role with the 
Department of Energy to produce a state-of-the-industry report, 
``Voices of Experience: An EV Transition''.\3\ This report represents 
the feedback from more than 3,500 industry stakeholders worldwide, 
representing 700 unique entities. Topics covered include deploying EV 
charging infrastructure, managing load, fleet electrification, new 
technology implications, and conventional fuel retailing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ http://www.evplusgridworkshop.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Southern Company is a founding member of two dynamic electric 
transportation trade associations, the Alliance for Transportation 
Electrification, and the Zero Emissions Transportation Association.
    Established in late 2017, the Alliance for Transportation \4\ (ATE) 
is state-focused, aligning EV policy at the state level. Counting 
automakers, utilities, EV charging providers, engineering firms, and 
standards-based organizations in its membership roster, ATE is one of 
North America's largest electric vehicle industry coalitions. 
Priorities include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ http://www.evtransportationalliance.org/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Increasing EV charging infrastructure

   A strong utility role in EV charging

   A ``big-tent'' approach for all stakeholders

   Open standards among EV charging hardware and firmware

    The Zero Emission Transportation Association \5\ (ZETA) was 
established in 2020 with a singular vision: 100% electric vehicle sales 
in 2030. ZETA's policy focus is at the Federal level; policy pillars 
span light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles; recommendations for a 
national charging initiative, domestic manufacturing, performance and 
emissions standards, and Federal leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ http://www.zeta2030.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Southern Company is a founding member of the National Electric 
Highway Coalition \6\ (NEHC). The NECH, which was announced in December 
2021, is comprised of 50 investor-owned utilities, one electric 
cooperative, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, and represents 
approximately 120 million U.S. electric customers across 47 states and 
the District of Columbia. The NEHC is committed to providing electric 
vehicle (EV) fast charging stations so that the public can drive EVs 
with confidence along major U.S. travel corridors by the end of 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/Pages/NEHC.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce Development
    In 2021, Southern Company and Georgia Power partnered with the 
University of Georgia's College of Engineering to create an e-Mobility 
Certificate program. With elements of engineering, public policy, 
public health, and business acumen, this new program will prepare 
Georgia's workforce for an electrified future. The Company is also 
working closely with design students at Georgia Tech to evaluate the 
environmental benefits and future workforce opportunities of 
transportation electrification.
    Also in 2021, Alabama Power, in partnership with Mercedes-Benz and 
the University of Alabama, launched the Alabama Mobility and Power 
(AMP) Center in Tuscaloosa. The AMP Center will serve as a research and 
development hub for creating and sustaining modern mobility and power 
technologies, developing charging infrastructure and managing power 
delivery to support large-scale growth in electric vehicles.
Considerations for Ongoing Congressional Assistance
    As Congress looks to 2022 and beyond, I wanted to leave you with a 
few ideas to provide additional support to transportation 
electrification:

   Create a multi-stakeholder, agriculture-focused 
        electrification research program where new technology can be 
        tested at reduced risk to farmers

   Continue to provide budgetary support to ARPA-E and other 
        research programs, especially battery recycling and autonomous 
        technologies

   Consider funding a specific electric vehicle education 
        center at the Federal level as a resource for K-12, technical 
        schools, and universities nationwide, using the joint DOT and 
        DOE office as a starting point

    I am honored to have the chance to testify. I look forward to your 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Now, Mr. Laughridge, please start when you are ready. You 
may need to un-mute, Mr. Laughridge. Okay.

          STATEMENT OF MATTHEW LAUGHRIDGE, OWNER AND 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TERRY REID ENTERPRISES, CARTERSVILLE, GA; ON 
       BEHALF OF NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Laughridge. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, 
Members of the Committee, my name is Matt Laughridge, and I am 
a Hyundai/Genesis dealer in Cartersville, Georgia. I am honored 
to appear here today representing the National Automobile 
Dealers Association, or NADA, a national trade association with 
more than 16,000 franchise new car and truck dealers. Most NADA 
members are small businesses, and franchise dealers employ more 
than one million Americans.
    Mr. Chairman, the transition from internal combustion 
engines to electric is well underway. Dealers right now are 
making substantial investments to sell and service the dozens 
of new electric vehicles, or EVs, which automakers already or 
will soon be manufacturing. NADA estimates that dealers 
nationally will spend between $2 to $3 billion installing 
electric chargers, purchasing special equipment, and investing 
in training sales and service personnel.
    Franchise dealers are not only all in on selling and 
servicing EVs, dealers are essential to the speedy adoption. 
With EVs currently comprising 2.9 percent of sales, dealers 
will be critical in transitioning from internal combustion 
vehicles to EVs. As with any unfamiliar technology, consumers 
will need to be educated on owning and operating EVs. Consumers 
will need a reliable, nationwide network of qualified service 
technicians to service their EV or perform safety recalls. 
Consumers will also want a place where they can kick the tires, 
test drive a new EV, trade in their old vehicle, and obtain 
affordable financing, preferably all under one roof. The dealer 
network is perfectly positioned to assist consumers with the 
transition to electric vehicles, as franchise dealers already 
perform all these necessary services.
    The franchise dealer model benefits rural America. In some 
communities, the franchise dealership is one of the largest 
private employers. Many franchise dealerships are family-owned 
and operated, and have served their local community for 
decades, just like mine. State vehicle franchise laws are also 
key ensuring price competition and market success for EVs. As 
Members may be aware, states traditionally license and regulate 
the distribution, sale, and service of vehicles within their 
state, including EVs. These laws are based on the state's 
interest to protect consumers, preserve price competition, 
support local jobs, and provide local tax revenue. These laws 
also regulate the economic relationship between dealers and 
automakers which ensure small dealers in rural areas are 
treated fairly. We urge Congress to preserve the states' 
traditional role to regulate vehicle commerce by rejecting any 
attempt to preempt state dealer franchise law.
    Mr. Chairman, America's franchise dealer will help usher in 
the next chapter of American automotive history by doing what 
dealers do best: providing our customers with reliable and 
affordable private transportation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Laughridge follows:]

Prepared Statement of Matthew Laughridge, Owner and Managing Director, 
    Terry Reid Enterprises, Cartersville, GA; on Behalf of National 
                     Automotive Dealers Association
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the Committee, my 
name is Matt Laughridge, and I am a Hyundai/Genesis dealer based in 
Cartersville, Georgia. I'm honored to appear before you today 
representing the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), a 
national trade association representing more than 16,000 franchised new 
car and truck dealers, most of whom are small businesses as defined by 
the Small Business Administration, and who collectively employ more 
than one million Americans.
    Mr. Chairman, this hearing is timely, as the transition from 
internal combustion engines (ICE) to electric is well underway. Dealers 
right now are making substantial investments to sell and service the 
dozens of new electric vehicles (EVs) which automakers already are or 
will soon be manufacturing. In the aggregate, NADA estimates that 
dealers across America will spend between $2 to $3 billion on 
installing electric chargers, purchasing special equipment, parts and 
tools, and investing in training sales and service personnel. My two 
dealerships have already committed to spend $160,000 in upgrades to 
prepare for future EV sales.
    Franchised dealers are not only ``all-in'' on selling and servicing 
EVs; dealers are essential to their speedy adoption by consumers. With 
283.8 million vehicles on the road today, and EVs currently only 
comprising 2.9% of sales, dealers will be critical to advancing the 
process of transitioning from ICE vehicles to EVs. As with any 
unfamiliar technology, consumers will need to be educated on owning and 
operating an EV. Customers will also need a reliable nationwide network 
of qualified service technicians to service their EV or perform safety 
recalls. Customers will also want a place where they can ``kick the 
tires,'' test drive a new EV, trade in their old vehicle, and obtain 
affordable financing--preferably under one roof.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For example, the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association has 
created the ``Georgia in Charge'' dealer network, which establishes 
criteria relating to the sale and service of EVs. Participating dealers 
must commit to the criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The good news is that all this infrastructure is already in place, 
as franchised dealers across the country perform these necessary 
services for tens of millions of Americans annually. In 2021 through 
thousands of retail locations nationwide, franchised dealers sold a 
total of 14.9 million new vehicles and 15 million used vehicles, while 
completing 279 million service and repair orders. Clearly, consumers 
trust their local franchised dealers to meet their individual 
transportation needs, so this expansive retail network is perfectly 
positioned to assist customers with the transition to electric 
vehicles.
    The franchised dealer model especially benefits rural America. In 
some small communities, the franchised dealer is one of the largest 
private employers. Many franchised dealerships are family owned and 
operated and have served their local community for decades.
    As Members may be aware, states traditionally license and regulate 
the distribution, sale and service of vehicles within their state, 
including EVs. These laws are based on the states' interest to protect 
consumers, preserve price competition, support local jobs and provide 
local and state tax revenue.\2\ These laws not only protect consumers, 
but also regulate the economic relationship between dealers and 
automakers, which helps to ensure small dealers in rural areas are 
treated fairly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Franchise Law Journal, ``An American Solution: Automotive 
Franchise Laws Serve Local Communities and Consumers,'' pgs. 665-680, 
(2021) https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/
franchising_law_journal/spring21/franchiselaw-spring21.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, some in academia claim that EVs are significantly 
different from ICE vehicles. These academics believe that Congress 
should circumvent these long-standing state laws which provide consumer 
protections and regulate vehicle commerce--but only for EVs. They claim 
that ``[d]ealerships are often found in out-of-the way locations'' and 
EVs should be offered ``in places like shopping malls and city 
centers.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Open Letter by Academics in Favor of Direct EV Sales and 
Service, Apr. 14, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This argument ignores one of the key benefits of a national 
franchised dealer network--that no one part of America is forsaken. As 
a rural dealer, I can attest that my customers find my dealerships 
conveniently located, and even an ``out of the way location'' can be a 
godsend for the traveler who breaks down on the road, far away from a 
city center or shopping mall. The jobs and local tax revenue my 
dealerships provide also help keep my community vibrant.
    Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to have a system where the sale of 
one vehicle is under one set of rules and the vehicle next to it is 
under no rules at all. Additionally, the assertion that EVs are 
significantly different from ICE vehicles, and that this justifies 
nullifying every state franchise law protecting local businesses and 
their customers is simply false. Last year, over 135,000 EVs were sold 
by franchised dealers, and it is likely dealers will be selling more 
EVs as new models are introduced. An EV is still a motor vehicle, and 
dealers know how to sell and service the vehicles their customers want. 
State vehicle franchise laws are key to ensuring price competition \4\ 
and market success for EVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See T. Randolph Beard, George Ford & Lawrence J. Spiwak, 
``Spatial competition in automobile retailing,'' Applied Economics, 
(2021), https://www.nada.org/WorkArea/
DownloadAsset.aspx?id=21474865303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We urge Congress to continue to preserve the states' traditional 
role to license and regulate vehicle commerce by rejecting any attempts 
to preempt state dealer franchise laws.
    Obviously, the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs will present 
challenges, especially in rural America where distances can be great. 
In the near future, we expect that the majority of EV customers in 
rural areas will be commercial, centrally charged fleets owned by small 
businesses which serve rural communities and agricultural operations 
ranging from small family owned to larger commercial farms.
    Another challenge that will disproportionately impact rural America 
is the ease and availability of public charging. Today any gasoline-
powered vehicle can be refueled at any gasoline pump, but not every EV 
charger is compatible with every EV. In our view, one of the biggest 
potential impediments to widespread EV deployment could be avoided if 
all publicly funded charging stations were made non-proprietary and EVs 
were standardized so they could be recharged at any charging station. 
Dealers are also committed to working with local utilities to help 
ensure that public charging is rolled out in an effective manner.
    Additionally, rural Americans are more likely to purchase sport 
utility vehicles and pick-ups, both of which are underrepresented in 
the EV market. Last year, 77% of the fleet sold in the U.S. were light-
duty trucks. In some states, the percentage of light duty trucks is 
notably higher. For example, 80% of vehicle sales in Maine are light 
duty trucks, and in Michigan, 84% of the fleet sold were light duty 
trucks.\5\ We expect this situation to improve for rural Americans as 
more electric light duty truck models are introduced in the coming 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Alliance for Automotive Innovation, ``Economic Impacts: Every 
State is an Auto State'' https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/
insights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Chairman, the auto industry is always changing. A little over 
100 years ago, dealers who sold wagons drawn by horses began the 
transition to selling vehicles propelled by fossil fuels. While the 
internal combustion engine has been a mainstay for the past century, 
America's franchised dealers have adapted over the years as the 
technology in motor vehicles has evolved dramatically, reducing 
environmental impact, increasing safety and enhancing the consumer 
experience. For example, the sophisticated driver assist functions in 
vehicles today are much more advanced compared to vehicles manufactured 
just a few years ago. Our role in explaining these enhancements to our 
customers keeps evolving with the technology. In some ways, I expect 
the transition to EVs may be less dramatic, as the manufacturers we 
represent send us EVs that match the functionality of the ICE vehicles 
on the road today. America's franchised dealers look forward to helping 
usher in the next chapter of America's automotive history by doing what 
dealers do best: selling and servicing automobiles that provide our 
customers with reliable and affordable private transportation.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 
to answering any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Now, Mr. Walter, you may begin.

         STATEMENT OF TREVOR WALTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF 
          PETROLEUM SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, SHEETZ, INC., 
 ALTOONA, PA; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE 
                             STORES

    Mr. Walter. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is Trevor Walter, and I am the Vice 
President of Petroleum Supply Management at Sheetz. I am 
testifying today on behalf of the National Association of 
Convenience Stores.
    The companies that currently provide transportation energy 
to motorists are well-positioned to play an important role in 
decarbonizing the transportation sector through the sale of 
cleaner liquid fuels and alternative technologies, such as 
electricity. We want to partner with Congress to help achieve 
environmental goals in a market-oriented and consumer-friendly 
manner.
    We know that one of the challenges to the development of 
the electric vehicle market is consumer perceptions on the 
availability of chargers, often referred to as range anxiety. 
These perceptions often do not match reality. By far, the best 
way to address this problem is for more chargers to be 
deployed. Our industry's locations are purposely visible. 
People already have established patterns using them, and we 
typically show the prices of fuels we offer on large signs that 
motorists can see as they are driving. When drivers are able to 
readily see that they can get electricity the same way and in 
the same places they refuel now, range anxiety will no longer 
be an impediment to the purchase of the vehicles.
    The importance of our industry to tackling this problem is 
particularly relevant to rural America. Eighty-six percent of 
Americans living in rural America live within 10 minutes of a 
convenience store. This shows the remarkable reach of our 
industry. This reach is even more true in urban areas, as 93 
percent of Americans overall live within 10 minutes of a C 
store.
    For our industry to play an important role and for charging 
to be good for consumers, the sale of electricity must be 
reformed such that a functioning retail market for selling 
electricity to vehicle drivers emerges. We have several 
impediments to that today. First, utilities hit commercial 
users of electricity, such as convenience and fuel retailers, 
with punitive demand charges. Given the large electricity 
demands associated with fast chargers, these demand charges 
overwhelm the cost of electricity and make it impossible for 
retailers to sell electricity and make a profit.
    Second, many utilities have had the rates they charge 
adjusted so that residential and business customers pay higher 
rates in order to underwrite the construction and operation of 
EV chargers. This, too, creates an unlevel playing field and 
prevents a competitive market from emerging because other 
businesses that deploy chargers must try to recover 
construction and operating costs from vehicle drivers 
themselves.
    Third, a handful of states still prohibit businesses from 
selling electricity to vehicle drivers. They only allow 
regulated utilities to do that. This makes businesses with 
chargers engage in awkward practices such as renting the 
chargers based on time spent on a charger, rather than selling 
electricity. This makes for confusing experiences and stunts 
the growth of the market. These barriers must be addressed.
    We should also take advantage of healthy competition among 
technologies to reduce carbon. One of those technologies is the 
renewable fuels that are part of our system of powering 
vehicles today. Those renewables are responsible for some of 
the largest gains we have made in decarbonizing the 
transportation sector.
    Unfortunately, some policymakers want to pick technology 
winners and losers, rather than allowing competing options to 
deliver the best environmental results they can. The risk is 
that we may pick wrong and miss some benefits. There is also a 
risk that too much of one technology will be more than the 
system can bear. Specifically, those who would ban internal 
combustion engines are making a grave mistake. Such a ban would 
end investment in those technologies and the technologies that 
fuel them. A ban would set renewable fuels on a path to 
elimination, and would cause economic hardship for the farmers 
who produce and sell the feedstocks for those fuels. Those 
farmers have relied on the long-term policy decisions that 
Congress has made to gear their operations towards production 
of these feedstocks and renewables. To pull the rug out from 
under them now would betray their trust.
    The problem for us to focus on is on carbon emissions, not 
the internal combustion engine. That is why technology-neutral 
performance goals that honestly take into account the life 
cycle of carbon emissions in the supply chain, including the 
carbon emissions from electricity generation, must be part of 
the foundation for sound policy. And that is why this Committee 
has such an important role to play in this debate. This 
Committee has a recognition of the role played by agriculture 
in transportation fueling and decarbonization that must be part 
of policy in this area.
    We look forward to working with the Committee to deal with 
these questions and come up with policies that most effectively 
support reducing carbon emissions and delivering a market that 
brings reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective energy to 
American consumers.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walter follows:]

Prepared Statement of Trevor Walter, Vice President of Petroleum Supply 
     Management, Sheetz, Inc., Altoona, PA; on Behalf of National 
                   Association of Convenience Stores
I. Summary of Testimony
    The retail fuel industry is an indispensable asset to any 
alternative source of powering vehicles, including electricity and 
renewable fuels, that lower the carbon footprint of transportation fuel 
in the United States. Fuel retailers should be viewed as surrogates for 
the consumer in that we identify the most reliable, lowest cost 
transportation energy available, and deliver that energy to every 
community in the country. In so doing, we compete with one another on 
price, speed, and quality of facilities and service.
    To be effective, policies designed to encourage private sector 
investment in alternative fuel infrastructure, including but not 
limited to electric vehicle (``EV'') charging stations, must be based 
upon clear policy signals that such alternatives create attractive 
economic propositions for our industry and for our customers.
    This can be done. Not even 2 decades ago, Congress passed the 
Renewable Fuel Standard (``RFS''). Although the RFS is far from 
perfect, it created market incentives for fuel retailers to invest in 
new fuel dispensers and storage infrastructure to accommodate higher 
amounts of biofuel. Many fuel marketing companies have invested in the 
physical and intellectual capital necessary to participate in 
agriculture and commodities markets. Fuel retailers did this in order 
to efficiently incorporate those products into our fuel supply in a 
manner that improved fuels' greenhouse gas (``GHG'') footprint while 
also enabling us to sell the alternative fuel to customers for less 
money at retail than purely petroleum-based fuels. This has caused more 
customers to gravitate toward those cleaner burning fuels and renewable 
fuels should not be abandoned in our collective effort to increase the 
availability of electricity as a vehicle fuel. Doing that would be 
harmful to the environment and to rural economies.
    Our industry is eager to work with policymakers, such as the House 
Committee on Agriculture, to find market-driven ways to address 
concerns about carbon. To do that, Federal policy should incentivize 
and leverage private investment in bringing to market a variety of 
alternatives. Equally important, Federal policies should not undercut 
the incentives for retailers to invest in alternatives such as EV 
charging. There has to be a viable pathway to profitability for any 
alternative to gain any meaningful market share.
    For any solution to work, it must promote competitive market 
dynamics and work with consumers' existing behavior and the business 
infrastructure we have. If policy does that and ensures a functioning 
private market--then private dollars will make sure infrastructure is 
there to meet consumers' needs. If that is not done, it is likely that 
any public dollars spent will be stranded and wasted in ways that do 
not serve an appreciable number of consumers and cost far more than any 
benefit they produce.
    At the moment, there are several impediments that make it 
challenging for fuel retailers to find a pathway to profitability with 
respect to EV charging. Most of these impediments involve an 
electricity market structure that was not designed for--and is not 
surprisingly incompatible the competitive retail fuel market.
    Foremost among these obstacles is the threat of regulated utilities 
making use of their status as monopolies to gain a competitive edge 
over private businesses. Throughout the country today, for example, 
regulated utilities are seeking to convince public utility commissions 
that they should be able to charge all of their ratepayers--regardless 
of income--a higher dollar figure on their monthly electric bill in 
order to underwrite the utilities' investment in EV charging stations. 
Private companies do not have access to such a pool of risk-free 
capital. What's more, many regulated utilities want to bill EV charging 
station owners more money for electricity than their own cost to power 
their utility-owned chargers by adding extra tariffs or fees, such as 
demand charges. If these efforts persist, fuel retailers will not 
consider EV charging stations to be an attractive investment. No amount 
of grant money or tax incentives will change that fundamental reality.
    On the flip side, if policymakers signal that there must be a 
productive partnership between utilities and fuel retailers, with each 
sector incentivized to concentrate on its core competencies, progress 
can be made faster and at a lower cost. For utilities, the focus should 
be on modernizing the power grid and ensuring a reliable and adequate 
supply of clean power to meet dramatic increases in demand that will 
come with enhanced EV penetration. At the same time, the market 
dynamics that govern the retail fuel industry today should be 
replicated to accommodate EVs. This will ensure that customers have 
multiple fueling options at locations where they travel every day that 
are competing for their business.
    Simple, modest guardrails around how any Federal money going to 
alternatives such as electric vehicle charging can be used to leverage 
rather than waste Federal dollars, such as was included in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Any future Federal incentives 
for EV charging infrastructure should stipulate that businesses that 
are putting capital at risk in order to own and operate EV charging 
stations are prioritized over other potential funding recipients. This, 
in conjunction with other tax credits and incentives, can move us 
toward a viable business model, rather than exacerbating the various 
challenges that already exist.
    Such guardrails have been crafted in a way that would impose no 
limitations on utilities' ability to use ratepayer funds and access 
Federal funds for any infrastructure development up to and until the 
point of owning and operating the chargers and allows utilities to 
compete with the private sector with no disadvantage if they are 
putting their own capital at risk and not increasing all of their 
customers' electricity bills to pay for EV chargers.
    Replacing the highly familiar, price competitive fuel market in 
place today with the opaque and monopolistic pricing of electricity 
would reduce efficiency, raise costs, and impose large regressive costs 
on lower income Americans. That is not an attractive solution.
    Changes must also be made to electricity pricing related to EV 
charging. Retailers with EV chargers today are forced to pay retail 
prices for electricity that include very high demand charges. There is 
no business case for buying at retail prices and selling at retail 
prices. Regulated utilities that own and operate their own charging 
stations, on the other hand, are not subject to demand charges and thus 
have an insurmountable competitive advantage over anyone else in that 
market.
    For the private market to work, there must be a pathway to 
retailers buying electricity at wholesale prices (like the internal 
transfer cost that utilities have to deliver electricity) without 
punitive demand charges. That would make the economics work not only 
for retailers but, more importantly, for consumers.
    In addition, retailers must be allowed charge EV drivers for the 
cost of electricity by kilowatt/hour and not be regulated as a utility. 
Though many states are addressing this issue, there remain over a dozen 
states that have not addressed this impediment for private sector 
investment in EV charging.
    The bottom line is that any changes to the transportation energy 
mix must make it work for American consumers--which means those changes 
must work for our industry. Fuel retailers already have the real estate 
that customers visit when they refuel. The industry offers the services 
and amenities that consumers have come to expect alongside the 
refueling network (such as foodservice facilities, restrooms, security, 
and the like). Until consumers see alternatives like electricity at the 
outlets where they currently refuel, they will not adopt those 
alternatives in large numbers.
    Fuel retailers are surrogates for the consumer. If you ensure there 
are competitive market dynamics governing refueling--including 
alternatives like electricity--you will make the transition more 
affordable and attractive for the public. We are eager to work with you 
to ensure policy accounts for that reality.
II. Introduction
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, my name is Trevor Walter. I am the Vice President of 
Petroleum Supply Management at Sheetz, Inc.--a Pennsylvania-based 
marketing and retail company with locations primarily in the mid-
Atlantic area of the country--and am testifying today on behalf of the 
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). The fuel retailers 
that currently provide transportation energy across the United States, 
including Sheetz, are well positioned to play an important role in the 
development of infrastructure to offer American motorists not only 
traditional liquid motor fuels but also a range of alternatives, 
including electricity to power their vehicles, so long as the policy 
framework and incentive regime established facilitates a competitive 
and level playing field. In fact, it is nearly impossible to 
effectively decarbonize the transportation sector without working with 
our industry to offer a range of alternatives to our nation's drivers.
III. Background
    Sheetz operates 637 retail fuel and convenience stores across six 
states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and North 
Carolina. Sheetz employs around 23,000 individuals across its divisions 
and subsidiaries. More than half of our stores offer E15 and E85 fuels 
for our customers. In fact, our sales of E15 have grown 92 percent 
since 2019 and more than 300 percent since 2017.
    With respect to electric vehicle charging, we were one of the first 
retailers in the nation to offer EV chargers more than a decade ago. We 
currently offer EV charging at 78 locations and plan to grow that 
offer. But, to date, charging electric vehicles has not been a 
financial winner for our company due to the market impediments that I 
describe in this testimony. We are eager to work with Congress to help 
ensure that these substantial investments can become beneficial for 
everyone.
    The National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) is an 
international trade association representing the convenience store 
industry with more than 1,500 retail and 1,600 supplier companies as 
members, the majority of whom are based in the United States. We are 
also a member of two other national trade associations representing our 
industry--the National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO) and 
the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA). NATSO 
currently represents more than 4,000 travel plazas and truck stops 
nationwide, comprised of both national chains and small, independent 
locations. SIGMA represents a diverse membership of approximately 260 
independent chain retailers and marketers of motor fuel.
    The industry as a whole represents approximately 90 percent of 
retail sales of motor fuel in the United States. The fuel wholesaling, 
fuel retailing and convenience industry employed about 2.34 million 
workers and generated more than $548.2 billion in total sales in 2020, 
representing more than three percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Of 
those sales, approximately $292.6 billion came from fuel sales alone.
    Members of the industry process more than 160 million transactions 
every single day.
    That means about half the U.S. population visits one of the 
industry's stores on a daily basis. In fact, ninety-three percent of 
Americans live within 10 minutes of one of our industry's locations. 
These businesses are particularly important in rural areas of the 
country that might not have as many large businesses. In these 
locations, the convenience store not only serves as the place to get 
fuel but is often the grocery store and center of a community.
    The average time a customer spends in a convenience store is about 
3\1/2\ minutes and industry members compete to ensure the customer's 
needs are met as efficiently as possible--saving them time and money.
    Our industry's sole objective is to sell legal products, in a 
lawful way, to customers who want to buy them. While agnostic as to 
what types of fuel they sell to satisfy consumer demand, industry 
members do have a bias: they believe it is best for the American 
consumer and America's industrial position in the world marketplace to 
have reasonably low and stable energy prices.
A. Environmental Transportation Policy Principles
    The industry believes the most expeditious and economical way to 
achieve environmental advancements in transportation energy technology 
is through market-oriented, consumer-focused policies that encourage 
our industry to offer more alternatives. With the right alignment of 
policy incentives, the private-sector is best equipped to facilitate a 
faster, more widespread, and cost-effective transition to 
alternatives--including electricity--in the coming years.
    Policies attempting to improve the environmental characteristics of 
transportation energy in the United States should adhere to the 
following principles:

  (1)  Science should be the foundation for transportation climate 
            policies--Any effort to improve transportation energy's 
            emissions characteristics requires an accurate accounting 
            of the lifecycle carbon intensity associated with 
            particular fuels and technologies. This analysis should 
            include everything from acquisition of natural resources, 
            engine and battery manufacturing, tailpipe emissions, and 
            vehicle end-of-life consequences. It should also be 
            regularly updated so that policy is nimble enough to adjust 
            to efforts to innovate and improve the environmental 
            characteristics of different alternatives. Additionally, 
            every sector of the economy should assume a burden of 
            reducing carbon emissions.

  (2)  Establish performance goals without mandating specific 
            technologies to allow for the benefits of innovation and 
            technology development--Sound policy must recognize that 
            the state of technology can change rapidly, and tie 
            incentives to technologies' lifecycle environmental 
            attributes rather than the underlying technology itself. No 
            one solution will decarbonize transportation energy and 
            policies should incentivize multiple technologies. What 
            policymakers think is the best solution today may be 
            surpassed by subsequent ingenuity and innovation. Sound 
            policy should not stifle innovation by mandating specific 
            fuel solutions. Instead, policy should set performance 
            goals and let the market--guided by consumers--innovate to 
            find the best way to meet those goals.

  (3)  Develop competitive market incentives to ensure a level playing 
            field and provide long-term consumer benefits--As described 
            in more detail below, fuel retailers today are best 
            positioned to provide alternative sources of transportation 
            energy--including EV charging stations--because we are fuel 
            agnostic and have a keen understanding of consumer 
            preferences and tendencies. Fuel retailers have 
            strategically located themselves where refueling demand is 
            greatest and they compete with one another on price, speed, 
            and quality of service. Moreover, fuel retailers offer the 
            security and amenities that consumers demand regardless of 
            the type of fuel their vehicle consumes. Fuel retailers 
            have made investments in renewable fuels and existing 
            alternative fuel incentives allow retailers to offer lower 
            carbon fuels to consumers at a price at which they are 
            willing to purchase them.

  (4)  Harness existing infrastructure to help commercialize new 
            technology, maximize diverse investments, and achieve near-
            term and long-term emission reduction goals--It is far less 
            expensive to leverage existing infrastructure than create 
            entirely new supply chains and infrastructure. To the 
            extent environmental objectives can be achieved by 
            harnessing existing infrastructure, especially retail fuel 
            outlets, customers will more seamlessly gravitate to new 
            types of fuels and vehicles. American companies have spent 
            more than sixty years building out a refueling 
            infrastructure system that optimizes logistics and 
            maximizes customer benefits. Deployment of new technology 
            that complements this infrastructure will (all else being 
            equal) be less expensive and thus more likely to generate 
            consumer loyalty.

  (5)  Set consistent, uniform national policy so that (i) the market 
            has certainty to help it invest, and (ii) state policies do 
            not create inconsistent or counterproductive measures--
            Federal policy should be designed to lower the cost of 
            alternative fuels to make those sources of transportation 
            energy more competitive with petroleum-based fuels. This is 
            the only way to ensure that consumers will gravitate toward 
            low carbon technologies. Although some state incentive 
            programs adopt this approach, others have vacillated 
            between different approaches in a way that does not allow 
            private market participants to plan long-term investments 
            in alternatives. These inconsistent policies are ultimately 
            self-defeating and should be avoided.

  (6)  Ensure fair treatment so that all households are not forced to 
            subsidize alternative energy users--Fundamental tenets of 
            fairness dictate that users of transportation energy pay 
            for that energy and related infrastructure. It is patently 
            unfair and inequitable for policymakers to force most 
            households to subsidize the refueling costs for EV drivers. 
            When utilities rate-base their EV infrastructure 
            investments in EV chargers, however, it raises the monthly 
            utility bills for all of a particular rate class, even 
            though the benefits are confined to a small group of users. 
            Vehicle owners should pay the costs of powering their own 
            vehicles in order to create a market system that will keep 
            energy prices down and avoid regressive charges. Moreover, 
            it is imperative that highway infrastructure funding comes 
            from all highway users, and not just those that rely on a 
            particular technology.

    By observing these principles, environmental transportation 
policies can create new jobs, accelerate the deployment of advanced 
alternative fuel infrastructure and vehicles, benefit consumers through 
a competitive and robust marketplace and drive massive economic 
investment and improvements in air quality-objectives fuel retailers 
and lawmakers share.
IV. Fuel Retailers Understand Consumer Behavior and Respond to Consumer 
        Demand
A. Overview of the Retail Fuels Marketplace
    The retail fuels market is the most transparent, competitive 
commodities market in the United States. Retailers post fuel prices on 
large exterior signs that consumers use to shop for the best prices. 
Many consumers drive out of their way to save a few cents per gallon. 
Our members operate on small margins--generally measured in cents per 
gallon of fuel sold.
    Fuel retailers are agnostic to the type of fuel sold to satisfy 
consumer demand and have demonstrated they are prepared to invest in 
any transportation energy technology that their customers desire. Over 
the last thirty years, our industry has adapted to meet consumer demand 
with increased biofuel blends and other alternative fuels, as well as 
healthy and made-to-order food and beverage offerings. Fuel retailers 
provide the security and amenities desired by the motoring public more 
than any other type of location. These dynamics can be harnessed to 
facilitate the transition to a growing market for alternative 
transportation energy sources, such as electricity.
    The competitive nature of the retail fuels market compels retailers 
to pass through cost savings to consumers in order to maintain and 
increase their market share. It is in retailers' interests to increase 
the amount of energy they sell to consumers. This is not only because 
those sales drive profit opportunity in and of themselves, but also 
because such sales drive in-store traffic, which is another source of 
profit for the retailer.
B. Fuel Retailers Are the Solution to Range Anxiety
    To have any chance to be successful, the refueling experience for 
alternative fuels should be as similar as possible to today's refueling 
experience. Fuel retailers are best positioned to provide alternative 
sources of transportation energy because they have a keen understanding 
of consumer preferences and habits. This fact is essential when it 
comes to adoption of EVs or other alternative fuel vehicles. The 
transition to EVs will require what was previously a quick stop to 
become a 30 minute consumer experience. Currently, it takes the driver 
of a passenger vehicle approximately 2 to 3 minutes to complete a 
fueling experience. It takes the driver of an EV, on the other hand, 20 
to 40 minutes to recharge at a Direct Current (``DC'') Fast Charger 
(depending upon the vehicle and the capacity of the charger available). 
Fuel retailers will be forced to compete on the service and amenities 
they offer their customers during this refueling experience to maintain 
their share of the market. This is a positive market dynamic for 
consumers.
    Observers of vehicle trends and consumer behavior agree that one of 
the major factors deterring consumers from transitioning to EVs is 
concern about where they will (and will not) be able to ``refuel'' 
those vehicles. This ``range anxiety'' is such a strong sentiment that 
consumers often underestimate the availability of EV charging 
infrastructure that already exists today.\1\ Beyond the number of EV 
chargers available, desirability of the location also factors into 
concerns about ``range anxiety.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ There are currently 102,621 public charging outlets available 
at 42,078 public stations across the United States, of which 17,861 
charging outlets at 5,040 public stations are DC Fast Chargers. See 
Alternative Fueling Station Locator available at https://
afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Availability of EV charging stations at our locations is the most 
effective way to solve range anxiety. Consumers freely drive their gas- 
and diesel-powered vehicles to every part of the country today without 
concerns about whether they will be able to refuel whenever they need 
to do that along the way. Offering EV charging at fuel retailing 
locations would mean drivers would not need to change their habits if 
they choose not to--they can refuel on the go at the same convenient 
locations they do today. The availability of EV charging on large price 
signs at fuel retailers' locations as they drive down the streets in 
their communities and traverse America's highways will effectively 
relieve EV range anxiety.
    Consumers frequently use their vehicles for travel--including 
visits to family and friends and vacations. And, the majority of 
consumers are not in a position to purchase or rent a separate vehicle 
solely for these types of trips. If EV charging is not available in the 
neighborhoods they want to visit as well as along Interstate locations, 
many Americans simply will not purchase an EV.
    Placing chargers only in individual garages in private homes, 
apartment buildings, and parking lots cannot combat the notion of 
``range anxiety'' the way fuel retailers offering that service would. 
This is particularly true in rural and urban areas where fewer people 
live in single-family homes with garages that are conducive to private 
charging equipment. If EVs are to be adopted at the rate policymakers 
desire and by broader demographics than those that currently can afford 
an EV, the charging model must include the full range of options 
available in the refueling experience that exists today. The majority 
of renters across the nation do not have garages nor do many 
homeowners. And, those that have garages often do not have space in 
their garage for the number of vehicles their family drives nor do they 
have the electrical capacity in their garage to support a charger or 
multiple chargers. This is also true for workplaces; many employees 
will not have the option, for a variety of reasons, to charge at work. 
Consumers must have viable charging options available outside of their 
home or workplace.
    Refueling stations are strategically located throughout the country 
where refueling demand is greatest, competing with one another on 
price, speed, and quality of service. In fact, we currently have about 
150,000 fueling stations across the country in local communities of all 
kinds, including in every single Congressional district. Furthermore, 
these locations include accessible restrooms and parking lots, food and 
beverage options, vehicle service and repair centers, and even showers 
and other amenities for professional drivers. Consumers demand all of 
this, regardless of the type of fuel their vehicle consumes, and fuel 
retailers respond accordingly.
C. EV Charging Needs Price Competition
    As described above, there are about 150,000 locations across the 
country for drivers to currently refuel. This refueling capacity drives 
aggressive price competition which, in turn, keeps prices as low as 
possible for consumers. Consumers know how much a gallon of gas costs 
at a location--either due to a big price sign on the street or some 
type of fuel price comparison resource--before they decide to refuel. 
This forces retailers to shave every penny they can off of the price of 
a gallon of fuel to compete for market share. When adjusted for 
inflation, the 3 years with the lowest average gas prices in the United 
States since 1978 are 2020, 2018, and 2019, in that order.\2\ That is 
not an anomaly. While the pandemic and some other events have created 
pricing anomalies the past couple of years, in general, fuel prices 
stay as low as possible and generally trend slightly downward over time 
when adjusted for inflation due to price competition. If electricity is 
to be the transportation fuel of the future, EV drivers should get the 
benefits of that remarkable price competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-
adjusted-for-inflation/. Figures for 2021 are not yet available though 
the year was a anomaly due to supply chain and crude oil price issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The overarching structure of wholesale and retail electricity 
markets are not designed for--and is thus incompatible with--the retail 
fuel market. Many states are exacerbating this problem by allowing 
utilities to pass through the costs of EV charging stations to all of 
their customers on their monthly utility bill, rather than having EV 
drivers pay for the costs of refueling their own vehicles. And, there 
are no wholesale purchasing options or pricing structures for retailers 
to provide electricity as a fuel. If that practice were to continue and 
become the prevalent model, this country will risk replacing one of the 
most price-transparent and price-competitive consumer markets in the 
world (retail fuel pricing) with one of the least price-transparent and 
price-competitive markets in the United States (utility electricity 
pricing).
V. Federal Policies Should Incentivize Private Investment
    Competitive markets with a level playing field for investments must 
be the focus for any alternative fuel to be successful. Existing 
alternative fuel incentives--such as biofuel blending and alternative 
fuel infrastructure tax credits--have allowed retailers to offer less 
expensive, lower carbon fuels to their customers, while also supporting 
investments in renewable fuel production. Regardless of how one may 
feel about ethanol and biodiesel, the incentives Congress established 
for those fuels have successfully displaced a large volume of 
petroleum-based fuel by these renewable fuels since 2005.
    In just the past decade, there has been extraordinary growth in 
consumption of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, as well as other 
low carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas, compressed natural gas, 
renewable diesel, and biobutanol. These are all liquid fuels that are 
mostly compatible with existing infrastructure that was originally 
developed for hydrocarbons. With all of these fuels, fuel retailers 
have responded to policy signals by allocating capital toward bringing 
the fuels to market. Retailers then sell the fuels to consumers for 
less money than the fuels that were being displaced. This has created 
enormous environmental benefits in a relatively short period of time 
and has been beneficial to U.S. agriculture.
    Federal policy should be designed to lower the cost of alternatives 
to make those sources of transportation energy more competitive with 
petroleum-based fuels. This is the only way to ensure that consumers 
will gravitate toward low carbon technologies. Although some state 
incentive programs adopt this approach, others have vacillated between 
different approaches in a way that does not allow private market 
participants to plan long-term investments in alternatives. Such 
inconsistent policies are ultimately self-defeating, and that approach 
should be avoided. Federal policy instead should incentivize and 
leverage private investment in bringing alternative fuels to market. By 
the same token, Federal policies should not undercut incentives for 
retailers to invest in alternative fuels. Policymakers can leverage 
existing infrastructure to achieve meaningful environmental benefits 
while also incentivizing fuel retailers to invest in new technology if 
policymakers adopt a market-oriented and consumer-focused perspective.
VI. Challenges
    In an effort to decarbonize the transportation sector, the Biden 
Administration has committed to adding 500,000 EV charging stations 
over the next decade. One of the biggest impediments currently to fuel 
retailers investing in EV charging infrastructure is the practice of 
utilities charging all of their electricity customers more in order to 
pay for their investments in EV charging stations--in other words, 
their ability to use rate base. Where this occurs, utilities are able 
to compete with private sector groups without risking a single dollar 
of their own. This tilts the cost for EV charging infrastructure in 
favor of utilities such that the private market cannot compete, placing 
existing and new market participants at a competitive disadvantage 
which they cannot overcome. That the private market is reluctant to 
risk capital investing in EV charging infrastructure is entirely 
predictable when it knows it cannot make a return on that investment 
due to the threat of monopolistic and anti-competitive practices from 
investor owned utilities.
    As described above, many states allow utilities to charge all of 
their customers, regardless of the type of vehicle they drive (or if 
they drive at all), for the utility's investments in EV charging 
stations via their customers' monthly electric utility bills. There is 
no public policy rationale for pursuing this approach with respect to 
refueling, as it will only decrease transparency and competition, 
increase costs, and stifle innovation.
    This type of pricing system was designed for fixed locations, such 
as homes and commercial properties. It does not take into account EVs. 
The use of rate base or passing along the costs of a project to all 
ratepayers makes sense for projects that benefit the whole, such as 
generation plants, transmission grid, interconnection systems. Funding 
necessary electricity infrastructure investments to carry the 
electricity to fixed locations through rate increases therefore makes 
sense and should be done for the increasing future demands our 
electricity grid will face.
    EVs move from place to place rather than remaining in one spot. 
Policy should enable the motoring public to access every benefit that 
our competitive market system has to offer. If that customer interface 
is funded through consumer utility bills, consumers will collectively 
pay far more than they should for the chargers and electricity to fuel 
EVs.
    That cost burden will hit hardest on those least able to afford it. 
Individuals who struggle to pay their monthly bills should not be 
required to underwrite investments that the private sector is willing 
and better equipped to make. EV drivers--who today have above-average 
incomes and drive cars that cost much more than average--can and should 
pay the costs of charging their vehicles. As EVs become more common in 
less affluent communities, it will be especially important that drivers 
know that they will pay the smallest amount possible due to retail 
price competition.
    Furthermore, some states classify businesses that sell electricity 
for the purpose of charging EVs as utilities, effectively prohibiting 
such sales from anyone other than utilities. Federal policy preempting 
these state regulations should be established, allowing non-utilities 
such as fuel retailers to resell electricity for refueling 
commercially.
    Finally, Federal policy should maintain the ban on commercialized 
Interstate rest areas, including disallowing EV charging within Federal 
Interstate rights-of-way. This will ensure that off-highway businesses 
are not discouraged from investing in EV charging. Our industry has 
supported the ban on commercial activity and electric charging should 
be treated no differently from any other commercial service. If EV 
charging is opened up at Interstate rest areas, it will undercut 
private-sector investments in that infrastructure at Interstate exits. 
That will mean fewer, not more, EV chargers. The bipartisan 
infrastructure bill that became law kept this ban in place and did not 
include an exception for EV chargers. Regulatory efforts to the 
contrary should be stopped.
    In addition to the challenges fuel retailers face investing in EV 
charging infrastructure, there are challenges with the electricity 
market that must be addressed before a robust EV charging marketplace 
is viable. Utilities do not simply charge their commercial customers a 
fixed price for electricity that is used. Instead, commercial consumers 
are charged a rate for the energy itself, billed as kilowatt-hours 
(kWh), and then an additional rate to provide reserve capacity when 
needed, known as a demand charge, billed as kilowatts (kW).
    Demand charges are based on the largest amount of power that a 
business needs at a particular time during the entire month. They are 
there to compensate the utility for having enough power in reserve to 
meet spikes in demand. Private businesses that have short, but high 
spikes in their power needs will be hit hard by this pricing structure. 
Utilities' demand charges make it very challenging for private 
companies to offer electricity to EV drivers at a price that is 
competitive with gasoline or diesel.
    DC Fast Chargers require a large amount of power in a short time 
frame to recharge vehicles quickly. A DC Fast Charger pulls 150% more 
power than a typical store and fueling operation combined does at its 
peak moment in a month. Accordingly, when businesses offer EV charging, 
these large demand costs restrict profitability and increase the cost 
for drivers of EVs to ``refuel.'' DC Fast Chargers are capable of 
filling a vehicle up half-way in about 20 minutes and 80 percent of the 
way in about 35 minutes. For a customer, a charge can cost anywhere 
from $10 to $30 depending how much charge is required to refuel the 
battery. For a typical business, adding a single DC Fast Charger can 
increase its monthly bill by about $1,600. The demand portion of this 
bill is $1,500 and the energy portion of this bill is $100.
    But, it is very difficult for businesses to have consumers fully 
pay the demand charge. The business would have to precisely know ahead 
of time how many people would use its chargers over the course of an 
entire month in order to do that. If it turned out to make the wrong 
assumptions, consumers could be dramatically undercharged or 
overcharged--leading to difficult consumer protection questions or 
business losses, respectively. No matter the incentive for charging 
infrastructure, the ongoing costs for electricity, particularly demand 
charges which cannot effectively be passed through to consumers today, 
make profitability near impossible to achieve for private businesses 
without changes.
    Fuel retailers getting hit with demand charges also cannot compete 
with a utility that has substantially lower costs for energy and power. 
Utilities have excess capacity and much lower energy costs that allow 
them to offer EV charging with little impact to their bottom line. 
What's more, demand charges are compounded so a fuel retailer will be 
saddled with higher demand charges for every additional charger 
available to their customers. That will make it more difficult for 
retailers to deploy DC Fast Chargers and give consumers the benefit of 
competitive pricing. The utility demand pricing model could not be 
further from the current retail fuel model, where increased consumption 
and volume results in efficiencies and lower costs for consumers. The 
utility model, then, will not work for EV charging on a large scale.
    The challenges with electricity pricing as it exists today threaten 
to stunt the growth of the EV market. Congress could address this 
problem by ensuring businesses offering EV charging only pay the costs 
that utilities pay for the electricity, without demand charges. Such a 
wholesale rate would allow businesses to offer charging, compete, and 
develop the competitive market for EV charging. Demand charges are the 
greatest barrier to entry to mass adoption of DC Fast chargers by 
private business, even greater than the large capital costs to install 
DC fast chargers.
VII. The Need for Multiple Technologies
    One key to decarbonization of the transportation sector is ensuring 
that we pursue advances wherever we can. If government policymakers 
pick technology winners and losers, that denies us the chance to 
squeeze gains out of existing technologies and creates huge risks that 
any misreading of future markets or advances in technology could deny 
us the benefits those markets or advances would have delivered. We have 
seen huge mistakes made in exactly this way--for example, when Congress 
and regulators pushed for MTBE in gasoline decades ago. Let's avoid 
repeating these mistakes.
    In particular, some states have called for banning internal 
combustion engines. This would be a bad policy mistake for a number of 
reasons.
    First, if combustion engines are banned, investments to find ways 
to take carbon out of the operation of those engines will be stunted. 
No one wants to make major investments in research in a technology that 
has been given a death sentence. American ingenuity remains one of the 
most powerful forces we have at our disposal. If people have a way to 
make money, they are remarkably good at finding ways to make that 
happen. We should use that potential rather than shutting it down.
    Second, renewable fuels have already delivered most of the 
decarbonization gains we have made in the transportation sector to 
date. One study from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization 
estimated that renewables had reduced carbon emissions by 589 million 
tons over 10 years.\3\ Renewables help reduce carbon emissions and 
could be a larger part of the fuel mix to deliver additional 
decarbonization gains. Banning internal combustion engines means 
killing off the renewable fuels that are helping us keep carbon out of 
the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See New Study: Biofuel Use Saved 589.3 Million Tons of Carbon 
Emissions Over the Past Decade--BIO (https://archive.bio.org/media/
press-release/new-study-biofuel-use-saved-5893-million-tons-carbon-
emissions-over-past-decade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, a ban on internal combustion engines would have significant 
negative consequences for agriculture and rural America. Many farmers 
grow crops that produce renewable transportation fuels today. This is a 
huge market and losing it would dramatically reduce the prices of some 
farm commodities and leave many growers without an adequate market.
    Fourth, no matter how rapidly electric vehicles are adopted, we 
will have large numbers of people driving traditional cars and trucks 
for a long time. Recent projections from the consulting firm McKinsey & 
Co. demonstrate that we need to keep making advances in traditional 
technologies. Experts from McKinsey project that by 2030, 50 percent of 
new vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. That is a 
large, aggressive number but it also comports with goals laid out by 
many political leaders looking to move to EVs. But, even at that level, 
it means that EVs will only be around 17 percent of the total vehicle 
mix in the United States. This is because some of those new EV sales 
will be replacing older EVs and people keep driving internal combustion 
engine cars for a long time.
    And, even with those numbers, overall gasoline consumption will 
only decline at that point by four percent. Why? Because EVs tend to be 
purchased and used as second cars and people drive their combustion 
engine vehicles more miles each year. Even among the EV sales that 
replace combustion engine cars, most of those will replace cars that 
are relatively fuel-efficient while the least efficient vehicles stay 
on the road longer. These projections demonstrate that we must continue 
to invest in getting more efficiency out of combustion engines. 
Electrifying transportation alone simply doesn't do enough.
    Fifth, electricity has more emissions than many people assume. The 
transportation sector accounts for more carbon emissions than any other 
sector of the U.S. economy. But, the second highest sector for 
emissions is--electricity generation. In light of the emissions 
attributable to EV batteries, it takes 7 or 8 years of driving for an 
EV to make up for carbon emissions involved in batteries and produce 
overall reductions compared to today's internal combustion engine 
vehicles. Further advances in carbon output from combustion engines--
for example from the use of higher concentrations of renewable fuels 
and engines that take advantage of those fuels--could change that 
balance. If our goal is to reduce carbon in the environment, then we 
should be open to those gains no matter where they come from.
    The bottom line is that competition among technologies that can 
help us achieve our climate goals should be a positive dynamic for us 
to use to our advantage. Banning internal combustion engines takes that 
positive dynamic off the table and undermines the renewable fuels 
industry in a way that would be bad for the environment and bad for 
agricultural economies and communities.
VIII. Policy Solutions
    Finally, there are inherent challenges in shifting our 
transportation fuel from the liquid marketplace of today, where 
retailers have the ability to price shop among a variety of suppliers, 
toward a market with one power provider operating in a regulated 
environment. Without injecting competitive forces throughout the fuel 
supply chain, fuel retailers will be limited in their ability to lower 
the prices to the consumer. Congress can help alleviate that challenge 
by ensuring that utilities sell power to EV charging retailers at their 
own internal transfer price. Demand charges, which set our rates 
exorbitantly high during peak demand times, are another impediment to 
make the EV business case for retailers. Again, demand charges do not 
make sense for refueling on the go. A driver should not be penalized 
for needing to refuel at certain times of the day and fuel retailers 
should not be penalized for providing the fuel this Committee wants 
sold. Addressing the cost-prohibitive demand charge model will be 
beneficial to building the business case for investment by our 
industry.
    The Committee should consider policy mechanisms to address these 
concerns, including:

   Ensure Federal funding does not block private sector 
        investment by compounding the problem of utilities charging all 
        their customers more for chargers and not putting capital at 
        risk.

   End the electricity pricing problem of demand charges that 
        make the business case unattractive for retailers to sell 
        electricity.

   Prioritize credit regimes and/or tax incentives that make 
        alternative energy less expensive for the end user, thereby 
        providing a stable economic case for upstream investment. Tax 
        credits and other incentives targeting the underlying economics 
        of different fuels are a far more efficient, effective way to 
        incentivize behavior than grant and rebate programs.

   Permit all EV charging station owners to generate a profit 
        by selling electricity to EV owners without being subject to 
        regulation as a utility. This allowance is essential if fuel 
        retailers are to have any incentive to invest in EV charging 
        technology.

   Adopting uniform retail pricing measurements (e.g., dollars 
        per kilowatt-hour) and requirements for consumer-friendly price 
        disclosures.
IX. Conclusion
    We believe decarbonization efforts should incentivize private 
sector investments in the desired behavior--offering alternatives that 
reduce carbon output. To be effective, any alternative--including 
electricity--should be offered in an open, competitive market that 
gives American consumers the fullest economic benefits of robust price 
competition. This has worked well for consumers for nearly one hundred 
years with liquid fuels because the market had a business case to 
invest to meet consumer needs. It can work for alternative energy 
sources in the future if we follow those lessons.
    Our industry is eager to work with the Committee to help it achieve 
this objective and place critical guardrails on any programs the 
Committee may pursue to decarbonize the transportation sector.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Walter.
    Mr. Cooper, please begin when you are ready.

        STATEMENT OF GEOFF COOPER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
 EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION, ELLISVILLE, MO

    Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Scott, 
Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the Committee. My name 
is Geoff Cooper, and I am President and CEO of the Renewable 
Fuels Association. We are the leading trade association for 
America's ethanol industry. Thank you for convening this timely 
and important hearing today, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to share our industry's unique perspective.
    The emergence of electric vehicles and the push to 
decarbonize transportation could have important implications 
for farm country, and we commend the Committee for thinking 
carefully about those issues. As you know, the massive increase 
in public and private investment in electric vehicles is being 
driven by the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 
achieve economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050. Transportation 
is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., 
accounting for nearly \1/3\ of our nation's total emissions. 
Thus, any strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by mid century 
must include measures that rapidly decarbonize the 
transportation sector.
    We agree that electric vehicles will be an important part 
of that strategy, but given the time needed to transition the 
light duty vehicle fleet, continued reliance on fossil fuels 
for electricity generation, the difficulty of electrifying 
medium and heavy-duty vehicles, and other barriers, electric 
vehicles alone will not get our transportation sector to net-
zero emissions by 2050.
    Today, there are more than 267 million light duty vehicles 
in the U.S. Just 2.3 million of those vehicles--that is less 
than one percent--are battery electric or plug-in hybrid EVs. 
The other 99 percent run on liquid fuels, and the Energy 
Information Administration projects that four out of five new 
vehicles sold in 2050 will still be internal combustion engines 
requiring liquid fuels. So, even with increased electric 
vehicle sales in the years ahead, it would take decades to turn 
over the fleet. And that means hundreds of billions of gallons 
of liquid fuels will continue to be burned for years, for 
decades to come.
    So, given these realities, other complementary solutions 
clearly will be needed to decarbonize transportation by mid-
century, and that is where agriculture comes in.
    Through increased production and use of renewable fuels 
like ethanol, the agriculture sector offers an effective and 
immediate solution for decarbonizing all segments of the 
transportation sector. Today's corn ethanol already cuts 
greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 50 percent compared 
to gasoline, according to the Department of Energy, Harvard 
University, and others. With increased adoption of low-carbon 
farming practices, carbon capture, sequestration and storage, 
and other technologies, we are well on our way to producing 
zero carbon corn ethanol. In fact, the members of my 
organization are so confident about this that they adopted a 
resolution last July, pledging to achieve a net-zero carbon 
footprint for corn ethanol by 2050 or sooner.
    But for this vision to become a reality, we need fairness 
and consistency in how the carbon footprint of different fuels 
and vehicles is measured. For ethanol's carbon footprint, 
regulators count the emissions associated with every step in 
the supply chain, from planting the seed all the way to 
delivering the fuel to the consumer at retail. For the carbon 
footprint of electric vehicles, however, the upstream emissions 
associated with electricity generation and battery 
manufacturing are often overlooked, giving the false impression 
that electric vehicles are zero emission vehicles. These 
overlooked emissions can be quite significant. In fact, 
analyses we have conducted shows that a Ford F-150 flex fuel 
vehicle, which happens to be what I drive, running on an 85 
percent ethanol blend will generate far fewer greenhouse gas 
emissions over its lifetime than a new Ford F-150 Lightning 
electric vehicle running on fossil-generated electricity.
    We believe any future decarbonization policy should take a 
technology-neutral, performance-based approach that focuses 
strictly on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and increasing 
fuel efficiency without dictating the use of specific fuels and 
vehicles to achieve those reductions. That is why we support 
the concept of a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard. We also 
support the Next Generation Fuels Act of 2021 (H.R. 5089) that 
was introduced by Congresswoman Bustos, which establishes 
carbon performance and minimum octane standards for liquid 
fuels, again without dictating what fuels would be used.
    In closing, we believe electric vehicles will play a key 
role in reducing emissions over the long-term, but if we are 
serious about achieving a carbon neutral transportation sector 
by 2050, we must take a comprehensive approach that also 
capitalizes on the ability of agriculture to deliver low- and 
zero-carbon renewable fuels.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Geoff Cooper, President and Chief Executive 
          Officer, Renewable Fuels Association, Ellisville, MO
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is 
Geoff Cooper and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the leading trade association 
representing the U.S. ethanol industry.
    RFA's mission is to drive expanded demand for American-made 
renewable fuels and bioproducts worldwide. Founded in 1981, RFA serves 
as the premier organization for industry leaders and supporters. With 
over 300 members, we work every day to help America become cleaner, 
safer, and more economically vibrant.
    We thank the Committee for convening this timely hearing, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to share our industry's unique perspective. 
RFA believes the emergence of electric vehicles and the push to 
decarbonize the transportation sector could have important implications 
for the farm economy and rural America, and we commend the Committee 
for thinking carefully about these issues.
I. Summary of Testimony
    The massive increase in public and private investment in electric 
vehicles is being driven by the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions and achieve economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050. 
While increased deployment of electric vehicles will indeed play a 
vital role in reducing GHG emissions from transportation, other 
complementary solutions will also be required to truly decarbonize the 
sector by mid-century.
    That's where agriculture comes in. Through the increased production 
and use of low-carbon renewable fuels like ethanol, the U.S. 
agriculture sector offers an effective and immediate solution for 
further reducing carbon emissions from liquid fuels across all segments 
of the transportation sector.
    Today's corn-based ethanol already cuts GHG emissions by 
approximately 50 percent, on average, compared to gasoline. With the 
increased adoption of low-carbon farming practices and carbon capture, 
utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies, the U.S. ethanol industry 
is well on its way to producing zero-carbon corn ethanol. In fact, in a 
July 2021 letter to President Biden, RFA's member companies pledged 
that ethanol will achieve a 70 percent GHG reduction, on average, 
compared to gasoline by 2030 and a net-zero carbon footprint for 
ethanol by 2050 or sooner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letter from RFA member companies to President Joseph R. Biden. 
July 27, 2021. https://ethanolrfa.org/file/2036/RFA-Net-Zero-
Commitment-Letter-to-President-Biden--1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But for this vision to become a reality, the biofuels industry 
needs smart policy and regulation, including:

   fairness and consistency in how the carbon footprint of 
        different fuels and vehicles is measured;

   removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers that are blocking 
        the use of fuel blends that contain higher levels of ethanol, 
        such as 15 percent ethanol blends (E15);

   investment in storage and distribution infrastructure for 
        higher ethanol blends like E15 and flex fuels like E85;

   implementation of strong Renewable Fuel Standard volume 
        requirements in 2023 and beyond;

   equitable incentives for the production of flex-fuel 
        vehicles that can operate on fuels containing up to 85 percent 
        ethanol; and

   a nationwide technology-neutral, performance-based low 
        carbon fuel standard.

    In addition to its environmental benefits, ethanol also makes a 
vital contribution to our nation's economy. The 206 ethanol 
biorefineries across the country serve as crucial drivers of employment 
in the communities in which they operate. Even as the COVID-19 pandemic 
continued to disrupt the U.S. economy and world energy markets in 2021, 
the production of 15 billion gallons of ethanol directly employed 
73,000 American workers in the manufacturing and agriculture sectors. 
In addition, the ethanol industry supported 330,000 indirect and 
induced jobs across all sectors of the economy. Meanwhile, the industry 
generated $29 billion in household income and contributed $52 billion 
to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2021.\2\ These 
significant employment impacts and economic contributions should be 
taken into consideration by Congress as it examines potential future 
energy and climate policies that may impact the biofuels sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ J.M. Urbanchuk (ABF Economics). ``Contribution of the Ethanol 
Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2021.'' Forthcoming 
(February 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. As the leading source of GHG emissions in the United States, the 
        transportation sector must be a central focus for national 
        decarbonization efforts.
    According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
United States was responsible for 6.56 billion metric tons of carbon 
dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) in 2019.\3\ As shown in the 
chart below, the transportation sector accounted for approximately 29 
percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, followed by the electricity 
generation sector at 25 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. EPA. ``Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' Viewed Jan. 
8, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector in 2019


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021).

    GHG emissions from transportation primarily result from the burning 
of fossil fuels (mainly petroleum) in passenger cars, trucks, ships, 
trains, and planes. The increased use of renewable fuels like ethanol 
has already helped reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, 
and EPA notes that ``using renewable fuels such as low-carbon 
biofuels'' is an important GHG ``reduction opportunity'' for the 
sector.\4\ After peaking at 1.98 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent (MT CO2e) in 2006, transportation-related GHG 
emissions fell 12 percent to 1.75 billion MT CO2e in 2012 
and stood at 1.88 billion MT CO2e in 2019.\5\ Recent 
research shows that the use of biofuels under the Renewable Fuel 
Standard resulted in the cumulative avoidance of nearly 1 billion 
metric tons of GHG emissions from the transportation sector between 
2008 and 2020, equivalent to 75 million MT CO2e per year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ U.S. EPA. ``Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer.'' Viewed 
Jan. 8, 2022. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/.
    \6\ S. Unnasch and D. Parida. ``GHG Reductions from the RFS2--A 
2020 Update.'' Life Cycle Associates Report LCA.6145.213.2021. February 
11, 2021. Prepared for Renewable Fuels Association. https://
ethanolrfa.org/file/748/LCA_-_RFS2-GHG-Update_2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite progress in reducing GHG emissions from transportation, the 
sector remains as the most substantial source of emissions in the 
United States and, thus, should be the central focus of a national 
strategy to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.
III. Increased deployment of electric vehicles will play an important 
        role in reducing transportation-related GHG emissions, but 
        other complementary solutions will also be required to truly 
        decarbonize transportation fuels by mid-century.
    Recognizing the urgent need to reduce GHG emissions from the 
transportation sector, public and private entities have massively 
expanded investments in the development of electric vehicles and the 
infrastructure to support them. Battery and plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles are generally believed to offer a much smaller carbon 
footprint than vehicles with internal combustion engines operating on 
petroleum fuels.
    As shown in the chart below from the International Energy Agency 
(IEA), mid-sized battery electric vehicles (BEV) are found to reduce 
lifetime GHG emissions by about 50 percent, on average, compared to an 
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle operating on petroleum.\7\ It 
is notable, however, that the magnitude of the GHG reduction achieved 
by the BEV can vary from just seven percent to 77 percent, according to 
IEA, depending on the source of electricity used to charge the 
vehicle's battery and the origin of the minerals used in the 
manufacture of the battery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ International Energy Agency. ``The Role of Critical Minerals in 
Clean Energy Transitions.'' May 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-
role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle GHG Emissions of a BEV and ICE Vehicle


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          IEA. All rights reserved.
          Source: International Energy Agency (2021).

    While the current 50 percent average GHG reduction offered by BEVs 
(as estimated by IEA) is already a significant improvement over ICE 
vehicles operating on petroleum, the GHG emissions associated with 
producing and operating BEVs are expected to decrease further in the 
future as electricity generation from renewable sources (e.g., biomass, 
wind, solar) increases and more efficient battery technologies are 
introduced.
    Still, the contribution of electric vehicles to decarbonization 
efforts will be constrained--especially in the near-term--due to the 
sheer size and scale of the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet and the 
amount of time required for the fleet to turn over. On average, 
consumers keep their vehicles for more than 12 years, meaning that an 
ICE vehicle purchased today will likely still be in use well beyond 
2030.\8\ Today, there are more than 267 million passenger cars, SUVs, 
pick-ups, vans, and other light-duty vehicles registered in the United 
States.\9\ Just 2.3 million of those vehicles--less than one percent--
are battery electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,\10\ meaning 
the other 99 percent are ICE vehicles that operate on liquid fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ IHS Markit. ``Average age of cars and light trucks in the U.S. 
rises to 12.1 years, accelerated by COVID-19.'' June 14, 2021. https://
ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/average-age-of-cars-and-light-trucks-
in-the-us-rises.html.
    \9\ Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics 2020. 
``State Motor-Vehicle Registrations--2020.'' https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policyinformation/statistics/2020/mv1.cfm. (Note: 8.3 million 
motorcycles and one million buses are excluded from the 267 million 
figure.)
    \10\ Argonne National Laboratory. ``Light Duty Electric Drive 
Vehicles Monthly Sales Update.'' Dec. 2021. https://www.anl.gov/es/
light-duty-electric-drive-vehicles-monthly-sales-updates. (Note: 
Argonne reports, ``In total, 2,257,292 PHEVs and BEVs have been sold 
since 2010.'' We assume all of those vehicles remain in service today.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While electric vehicle sales are growing, they continue to 
represent a relatively small share of overall light-duty vehicles sales 
(i.e., electric vehicles accounted for 1.7 percent of light-duty 
vehicle sales in 2020 \11\ and were expected to account for roughly 
four percent in 2021 \12\). Growth in electric vehicle sales is 
expected to continue in the decades ahead, but there is significant 
uncertainty and debate around the rate of growth. For example, the 
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2021 
forecast that roughly 80 percent of new light-duty vehicles sold in the 
U.S. in 2050 will be powered by an ICE that requires liquid fuel.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 
``Sales of New Electric Vehicles in the U.S. Were Up for 2020 While 
Conventional New Light-Duty Vehicle Sales Were Down.'' Aug. 23, 2021. 
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1200-august-23-2021-
sales-new-electric-vehicles-us-were-2020-while.
    \12\ ING. ``Slow start for U.S. electric vehicles, but times are 
changing.'' Dec. 1, 2021. https://think.ing.com/articles/slow-start-
for-electric-vehicles-in-the-us-but-times-are-changing/.
    \13\ .S. EIA. ``Annual Energy Outlook 2021: Transportation.'' Feb. 
3, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/
05%20AEO2021%20Transportation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even with increased electric vehicle sales expected in the years 
ahead, it would take decades to entirely turn over the fleet. As such, 
hundreds of billions of gallons of liquid fuel will continue to be used 
in ICE vehicles for many years to come. To achieve true carbon 
neutrality in the U.S. transportation system by mid-century, strategies 
focused on decarbonizing those liquid fuels will need to be undertaken. 
This reality was recognized in a recent study published by the Rhodium 
Group, which concluded, ``While efficiency improvements and vehicle 
electrification can cut transport emissions by up to \2/3\ by 2050, 
low-GHG liquid fuels are needed to fill the remaining gap and achieve 
net-zero emissions in the transportation sector by mid-century.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Rhodium Group. ``Closing the Transportation Emissions Gap with 
Clean Fuels.'' Jan. 15, 2021. https://rhg.com/research/closing-the-
transportation-emissions-gap-with-clean-fuels/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Through renewable fuels like ethanol, the U.S. agriculture sector 
        offers an effective and immediate solution for decarbonizing 
        liquid fuels across all segments of the transportation sector.
    As established in the remarks above, a national strategy to achieve 
net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 cannot rely exclusively on electric 
vehicles to decarbonize the transportation sector. Complementary low- 
and zero-carbon solutions in the ICE vehicle market will also be 
required to secure carbon neutrality by mid-century.
    Fortunately, U.S. agriculture offers one of those complementary 
solutions. Through renewable fuels like ethanol, the U.S. farm sector 
presents an effective and immediate opportunity for decarbonizing 
liquid fuels across all segments of the transportation sector.
    Today's corn ethanol already reduces GHG emissions by roughly half, 
on average, compared to gasoline (i.e., similar to the GHG reduction 
offered by BEVs, according to the IEA study cited above). According to 
the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, typical corn 
ethanol provides a 44-52 percent GHG savings compared to gasoline.\15\ 
Similarly, researchers affiliated with Harvard University, MIT, and 
Tufts University concluded that today's corn ethanol offers an average 
GHG reduction of 46 percent versus gasoline.\16\ In addition, the 
California Air Resources Board found that from 2011 to 2020, the use of 
ethanol cut GHG emissions from the California transportation sector by 
27 million MT CO2e, more than any other fuel used to meet 
the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard requirements.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Lee, U., Kwon, H., Wu, M. and Wang, M. (2021), Retrospective 
analysis of the U.S. corn ethanol industry for 2005-2019: implications 
for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref., 15: 
1318-1331. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2225.
    \16\ Melissa J. Scully, et al. (2021), Carbon intensity of corn 
ethanol in the United States: state of the science. Environ. Res. Lett. 
16 043001. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abde08.
    \17\ CARB. ``Low Carbon Fuel Standard Reporting Tool Quarterly 
Summaries.'' Viewed Nov. 20, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/
documents/low-carbon-fuel-standard-reporting-tool-quarterly-summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the rapid emergence of new technologies and more efficient 
practices, even greater GHG reductions are coming to the corn ethanol 
sector. In fact, analysis by USDA found that some biorefineries could 
produce corn ethanol that offers a 70 percent GHG reduction versus 
gasoline as soon as this year.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Jan Lewandrowski, Jeffrey Rosenfeld, Diana Pape, Tommy 
Hendrickson, Kirsten Jaglo & Katrin Moffroid (2020) The greenhouse gas 
benefits of corn ethanol--assessing recent evidence, Biofuels, 11:3, 
361-375, DOI: 10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488 https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, the U.S. ethanol industry is well on its way to producing 
corn ethanol that is fully carbon neutral. With the adoption of carbon 
capture utilization and storage (CCUS); biogas substitution; and 
climate-smart farming practices, corn ethanol is expected to achieve 
net-zero emissions, on average, by 2050 or sooner. In fact, RFA's 
member companies are so confident about the promise of carbon neutral 
ethanol that they adopted a resolution last summer to achieve a net-
zero carbon footprint, on average, for ethanol by 2050 or sooner. This 
pledge was memorialized in a letter to President Biden last July.
    Clearly, the U.S. agriculture sector--through increased production 
and use of ethanol and other biofuels--has the ability to jumpstart 
decarbonization efforts now. America's farmers and biofuel producers 
offer an effective and economical solution for drastically reducing the 
carbon impacts of liquid fuels across all segments of the 
transportation sector, including light-, medium-, and heavy-duty 
vehicles; the marine sector; and even the aviation sector, through the 
utilization of ethanol as a feedstock in the production of sustainable 
aviation fuels (SAF).
V. Decarbonization strategies must adopt fair and accurate 
        methodologies for assessing the lifecycle GHG emissions of 
        various fuel and vehicle options.
    To ensure a wide variety of low- and zero-carbon technologies are 
allowed to contribute to national decarbonization efforts, fair, 
accurate, and consistent methodologies are needed for assessing the 
lifecycle carbon footprint of different fuels and vehicles.
    For typical measurements of corn ethanol's carbon footprint, 
emissions associated with every step in the supply chain--from planting 
the seed all the way to delivering the fuel to a retail gas station--
are included. For the carbon footprint of electric vehicles, however, 
the upstream emissions associated with electricity generation and 
battery manufacturing are often underestimated or entirely overlooked, 
giving the false impression that electric vehicles are ``zero-emissions 
vehicles.''
    As underscored by the IEA report cited above in this testimony, 
emissions associated with battery minerals and electricity generation 
can be a significant determinant of the overall carbon performance of 
an electric vehicle (especially if the electricity is generated using 
coal, petroleum, or natural gas). As shown in the chart below from the 
EIA, coal, petroleum, and natural gas accounted for 60 percent of U.S. 
electricity generation in 2020, while wind and solar combined accounted 
for less than 11 percent.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ U.S. EIA. ``Electricity explained: Electricity in the United 
States.'' Viewed Jan. 7, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/
electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources of U.S. electricity generation, 2020
Total = 4.12 trillion kilowatt-hours


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          Note: Electricity generation from utility-scale generators. * 
        Hydro is conventional hydroelectric; petroleum includes 
        petroleum liquids and petroleum coke, other gases, 
        hydroelectric pumped storage, and other sources.
          Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric 
        Power Monthly, February 2021, preliminary data.
          Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (2021).

    To further underscore the importance of accurate carbon footprint 
measurements, analysis recently conducted by RFA shows that a Ford F-
150 flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) running on an 85 percent corn ethanol blend 
(E85) will generate far fewer GHG emissions over its lifetime than 
Ford's new electric F-150 Lightning running on fossil fuel-generated 
electricity. Yet, certain policies and regulations--like EPA's light-
duty vehicle GHG standards--strongly incentivize the production of 
electric vehicles by treating them as ``zero-emission vehicles'' 
regardless of the source of electricity, while discouraging production 
of flex-fuel vehicles that can operate on high concentrations of low-
carbon ethanol.
    As Congress considers future climate and energy policies, RFA 
strongly recommends that each potential fuel and vehicle combination 
should be evaluated based on the GHG emissions associated with its full 
``cradle-to-grave'' supply chain. The Department of Energy's Argonne 
National Laboratory GREET model is recognized worldwide as the ``gold 
standard'' for conducting this type of analysis, and RFA strongly 
supports its use for policy and regulatory decision-making.
VI. Smart policy can ensure agriculture and renewable fuels are able to 
        effectively contribute to national decarbonization efforts.
    In addition to a level playing for lifecycle GHG analysis, certain 
policy and regulatory actions are needed to fully leverage the 
potential of agriculture and biofuels to decarbonize transportation.
    First, removal of EPA's arcane fuel volatility barrier would 
facilitate the rapid expansion of E15 in the marketplace. Not only does 
E15 typically sell for 5-10 per gallon less than regular gasoline with 
ten percent ethanol (E10), it also reduces lifecycle GHG emissions. 
Simply switching from E10 to E15 would reduce the annual GHG emissions 
from a typical passenger car by seven percent. If E15 replaced E10 
nationwide, annual GHG emissions from the transportation sector would 
be reduced by nearly 18 million MT CO2e. RFA supports the 
Year-Round Fuel Choice Act of 2021 (H.R. 4410), introduced by Reps. 
Angie Craig (D-MN) and Adrian Smith (R-NE), which would remove the 
illogical volatility barrier to E15 expansion. We also support 
administrative action to address this obstacle, and we have recently 
encouraged EPA to undertake such action.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ RFA. ``Farm, Biofuel Groups Ask EPA to Resolve Summertime E15 
Barrier.'' Dec. 9, 2021. https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/
category/news-releases/article/2021/12/farm-biofuel-groups-ask-epa-to-
resolve-summertime-e15-barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, implementation of strong Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 
volume requirements in 2023 and beyond will ensure low-carbon biofuels 
have access to a growing market. This year is the final year for 
statutorily prescribed RFS volume requirements, and EPA is expected to 
propose RFS requirements for 2023 and beyond this summer. In order to 
maximize the GHG emissions benefits of the RFS program, we believe EPA 
must implement future RFS volume requirements that continue to grow 
beyond the levels proposed for 2022.
    Third, our nation cannot fully capitalize on ethanol's low-carbon 
benefits unless more vehicles are produced that can run on flex fuels 
like E85. Over the course of a year, a flex fuel vehicle (FFV) running 
on E85 made from today's typical corn ethanol will reduce GHG emissions 
by roughly 29 percent compared to the same vehicle model operating on 
E10. Indeed, if all 21 million FFVs on American roadways were using E85 
in lieu of E10, annual GHG emissions would be reduced by some 32 
million MT CO2e. Accordingly, RFA strongly supports the 
Clean Fuels Vehicle Act (S. 2267) introduced in the Senate by Sens. 
Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ernst (R-IA), which would encourage increased 
production and deployment of flex-fuel vehicles by creating a $200 
refundable tax credit for each light-duty FFV manufactured for a period 
of 10 years. The legislation would also restore certain Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy credits that were previously available to 
automakers for producing FFVs.
    Fourth, additional public and private investment is needed in the 
infrastructure necessary to distribute higher ethanol blends like E15 
and flex fuels like E85. RFA supported the Renewable Fuels 
Infrastructure Investment and Market Expansion Act (H.R. 1542) 
introduced last year by Reps. Cindy Axne (D-IA) and Rodney Davis (R-
IL), and we thank this Committee for its efforts to ensure nearly $1 
billion in biofuels infrastructure funding was included in the House-
passed Build Back Better legislation.
    Finally, we believe future decarbonization policies should take a 
technology-neutral, performance-based approach that focuses on reducing 
carbon emissions and increasing fuel efficiency without dictating the 
use of specific fuels or vehicles. That's why we support the concept of 
a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and we are hopeful Congress begins 
serious discussions around such a policy in 2022. It's also why we 
support the Next Generation Fuels Act of 2021 (H.R. 5089), introduced 
last year by Rep. Bustos (D-IL). The bill would require liquid fuel 
suppliers to meet certain carbon performance and fuel efficiency 
standards, without dictating what specific fuels are used.
VII. Conclusion
    On behalf of the membership of the Renewable Fuels Association, 
thank you again for the opportunity to share our perspective on the 
potential implications of electric vehicle investments on agriculture 
and rural America. We believe both electric vehicles and increased 
production and use of low- and zero-carbon renewable liquid fuels will 
be necessary to achieve our national goal of net-zero carbon emissions 
by 2050.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    And now, Mr. Nassar, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF JOSH NASSAR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL 
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT 
              WORKERS OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Nassar. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and I want to thank 
you, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the Committee for 
the chance to testify today on behalf of UAW's one million 
members and retirees, and our Executive Board President, Ray 
Curry.
    Just first of all, I want to say that our membership and 
retirees, their livelihoods depend on having a healthy auto 
industry, and the reality is, is that there is a global 
transformation going to electric vehicles. We have countries 
like China and the European Union that have already made 
massive public investments to establish their industries, and 
frankly, they are beating us. So, we do really--but as has been 
said by other witnesses, it is going to take time. So, I think 
it is really important that we do look to biofuels and other 
things to also reduce carbon emissions and we also support the 
Next Generation Fuels Act of 2021 very strongly.
    But there are things that I would encourage everyone to 
keep in mind, too. One is that the agricultural implement 
industry is also moving forward with electrification and 
autonomous vehicles. John Deere just made a recent announcement 
about an autonomous tractor that is going to be online pretty 
soon. So, electrification is going to impact manufacturing kind 
of across the board, and I think that is something that we need 
to take into account. In fact, we have over 15,000 members who 
work in the agricultural implement industry.
    Now, back to electric vehicles. It is--in order to have--
so, the bottom line for us is that companies our members work 
for, and the industry at large, have made huge investments, and 
those investments if they fail will be bad for our economy and 
will be bad for our members, and for working families across 
the board. So, we need this transition to work, and part of 
that is going to be having--we need a strong domestic market. 
We are not going to export our way into having a strong EV 
market. We need people in the U.S. buying them. And that is 
only going to happen if we have a strong infrastructure the 
infrastructure laws start in that direction. We also need 
strong policies to help the transition when it comes to 
retooling and things like that. I should add, some of that is 
in the infrastructure laws in the Build Back Better. We also 
need strong consumer incentives, and we commend Representative 
Kildee, and frankly the House of Representatives for including 
provisions which would add extra incentives for vehicles built 
by union workers, and we think that is really important because 
the reality is, is that auto jobs, auto manufacturing jobs 
really helped establish manufacturing jobs as middle class jobs 
some time ago. But that is really changing. It is really going 
in the wrong direction. Adjusted for inflation, real wages have 
dropped roughly 20 percent over the past 15 years for auto 
workers and auto parts. So, we are not--a lot of the jobs are 
not what they used to be. And a big way to change that is to 
allow workers the free choice to join unions. It is true that 
unionized workers comparative fields have a ten percent--
usually ten percent higher wages. So, I mean, there is serious 
economic impacts for the workers for joining a union. And, one 
thing that we have seen is that a lot of foreign-based 
automakers who are unionized pretty much everywhere around the 
world, when they come to the U.S. they end up being quite 
opposed to unionization.
    So, we need to do a few things in our view. One is, we need 
to pass the Next Generation Fuels Act. We think that is going 
to be helpful. We also need to move forward on these three 
prongs in order for the EV transition to work. I mean, our view 
is that the transition is--I mean, and that is what all the 
analysts say, too, is that it is coming whether we like it or 
not. So, it is better to be in the race and to have a strong 
auto industry making EVs than not. And the only way that is 
going to happen is if there is--with public policy as well as 
the private investments.
    So, I am very much looking forward to answering questions 
and really appreciate the opportunity. Thanks again.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nassar follows:]

Prepared Statement of Josh Nassar, Legislative Director, International 
    Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
                  Workers of America, Washington, D.C.
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, on behalf of the over one million active and retired members 
of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and 
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), UAW President Ray 
Curry, and the UAW International Executive Board (IEB), I want to thank 
you for the opportunity to share our perspective on the implications of 
electric vehicle investments for agriculture and rural communities. It 
is my honor to appear before you today.
Importance of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry
    The United States' motor vehicle industry is advanced, competitive, 
and a cornerstone of American manufacturing. The domestic vehicle 
assembly and parts industries are vital to our manufacturing base, and 
it is imperative that we stay strong and competitive now and into the 
future.
    A majority of our members and retirees work in or have retired from 
the auto industry. They are directly impacted by decisions made in 
Washington, D.C., and corporate board rooms regarding this critical 
sector of our economy.
    By extension, investments in motor vehicle manufacturing jobs 
impact workers, their families, and communities. Over 900,000 people 
work in the auto and auto parts manufacturing sectors.\1\ Of course, 
the economic impact of the auto industry reaches far beyond the workers 
employed at the plants and their families. It has been estimated by the 
Center for Automotive Research that when jobs from other linked 
industries are considered, the auto industry is responsible for over 
7.25 million jobs nationwide.\2\ The long-term health of the industry 
is critically important to both workers and the economy at large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Automotive Industry: Employment, 
Earnings, and Hours'', https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm.
    \2\ Hill, Kim, Deb Menk, Joshua Cregger, and Michael Schultz. 
``Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the Economies of All Fifty 
States and the United States.'' Center for Automotive Research. January 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, auto manufacturing is not a regional issue and extends 
far beyond the upper Midwest. For example, in recent months, 
significant investments in motor vehicle and battery manufacturing have 
been made in Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky.
    The UAW supports a coordinated industrial policy centered on 
maintaining and growing high-quality jobs in U.S. manufacturing while 
combating climate change and advancing equity. As we work toward the 
future of clean transportation, it will be critical to ensure this 
transition benefits American workers, enhances U.S. competitiveness, 
and promotes economic security. Unless comprehensive policies are 
adopted which focus on raising standards for U.S. workers and boosting 
domestic manufacturing, we will continue to fall behind in the 
production of EVs and union jobs in the auto sector will be eroded even 
further.
Union Difference
    The difference between being in a union versus not being in a union 
is significant. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 
unionized workers earn on average 10.2% more than their non-union 
counterparts.\3\ Union workers are more likely to have paid sick days 
and health insurance compared to non-union workers. 94% of union 
workers participate in a retirement plan compared with 67% of non-union 
workers. Policies that strengthen labor standards and support workers' 
right to collectively bargain is foundational to building a strong 
middle class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Economic Policy Institute. Unions Help Reduce Disparities and 
Strengthen Our Democracy, April 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Coming
    EV sales have grown steadily over the past decade, but they still 
represent a fraction of vehicle sales. EVs and PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrids) 
combined represent just 4% of U.S. auto sales in 2021.\4\ And EVs face 
several hurdles to mass-adoption. EVs are more expensive to produce, 
making them less profitable and dependent on consumer incentives. In 
most parts of the country, EV charging infrastructure is woefully 
inadequate, and the electrical grid is unprepared. And moreover, 
consumers shopping for an EV face barriers in battery range and 
charging speed, as well as a limited selection of models and segments. 
To be clear, this transition will take time and will occur at different 
rates throughout our country and world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Wards Intelligence. Jan. 2022. ``U.S. Light Vehicle Sales, 
December 2021'': https://wardsintelligence.informa.com/WI966151/US-
Light-Vehicle-Sales-December-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The industry is preparing for EVs to be a much larger part of the 
market going forward, both in the U.S. and abroad. Major automakers 
around the world have announced several billion in EV investments and 
ambitious new product plans and target dates. As automakers improve 
technology, decrease battery costs, and produce at scale, EVs will 
become more competitive with ICEs (Internal Combustion Engine). And in 
the coming years, automakers plan to launch EVs in the segments that 
are most popular with American consumers: CUVs, SUVs, and pickups.
    Union workers must lead this transition and in fact, UAW members 
are currently building the vehicles of the future. Our members 
currently make advanced technology vehicles that include battery 
electric (Chevy Bolt, GMC Hummer), plug-in hybrids (Jeep Wrangler PHEV, 
Ford Escape PHEV), and autonomous vehicles (Cruise AV (Autonomous 
Vehicle)). UAW employers have announced plans to make EVs and PHEVs at 
UAW plants in a range of segments, including CUVs, SUVs, pickups, and 
delivery vans. This year will also see production launches by several 
start-ups. If new entrants are hostile to unions and provide subpar 
wages & benefits, it will further erode job quality in the industry.
    Electrification is not limited to the auto industry. The UAW also 
represents over 15,000 workers who manufacture farm, construction, and 
mining equipment. These manufacturers are also investing in future 
technologies for electrification and autonomy, including those in the 
agricultural equipment sector. For example, John Deere Senior Vice 
President Pierre Guyot has said that ``John Deere is committed to a 
future with zero emissions propulsion systems and is investing in and 
developing technologies for batteries as a sole- or hybrid-propulsion 
system for vehicles.'' \5\ Just last week, John Deere revealed a fully 
autonomous tractor that will be available to farmers later this year 
and is ready for mass production.\6\ The over 10,000 UAW members who 
build John Deere equipment, most of whom are working and living in Iowa 
and Illinois, are ready and able to build the latest agricultural 
equipment that helps feed the nation. But we need policies that ensure 
industry invests to produce advanced technologies domestically and 
creates quality manufacturing jobs that sustain communities across the 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/news-and-announcements/
newsroom/kreisel-announcement/.
    \6\ https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/news-and-announcements/
news-releases/2022/agriculture/autonomous-tractor-reveal/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Committee is aware, climate change presents significant 
challenges for the agricultural sector. A large body of scientific 
research predicted for decades that climate change would increase the 
number and strength of extreme weather and climate events such as heat 
waves and droughts. Unfortunately, these predictions regarding climate 
change are proving correct right before our eyes, and we all have a 
responsibility to take action to mitigate its impacts. We need cleaner 
and more efficient vehicles on the road and jobs building these cleaner 
vehicles must pay family and community-sustaining wages and provide 
benefits that workers can count on to care for themselves and their 
loved ones.
    The U.S. is far behind other nations in public and private 
investments needed to make the U.S. a competitive player in vehicle 
electrification. China has invested more than $60 billion to support EV 
manufacturing. Chinese firms, either owned or supported by the Chinese 
Government, currently produce 60% of passenger EVs sold around the 
globe and produce almost 70% of battery cells.\7\ China also controls 
some 80% of the supply of rare earth minerals--which are essential for 
aerospace, defense, and EV production--and may impose export controls 
on these vital materials.\8\ The European Union (EU) has established 
the European Battery Alliance to promote the production of batteries 
and key components within EU.\9\ South Korea is home to LG Chem, the 
world's largest producer of lithium-ion batteries for electric 
vehicles, with a 24.6% market share. The company has plans to triple 
its battery production.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The New York Times, ``The U.S. Auto Industry Bets Its Future on 
Batteries,'' February 16, 2021. The Auto Industry Bets Its Future on 
Batteries--The New York Times (nytimes.com (https://www.nytimes.com/
2021/02/16/business/energy-environment/electric-car-batteries-
investment.html)).
    \8\ Financial Times, China targets rare earth export curbs to 
hobble U.S. defence industry, February 16, 2021. Available Online: 
China targets rare earth export curbs to hobble U.S. defence industry--
Financial Times (ft.com).
    \9\ European Battery Alliance, ``EBA 250,'' accessed Jan. 15, 2020. 
Available online: www.eba250.com/about-EBA250?/cn-reloaded=1.
    \10\ Reuters, ``LG Chem to Triple its EV Battery Production 
Capacity,'' October 21, 2020. Available online: LG Chem to triple its 
EV battery production capacity (autoblog.com (https://www.autoblog.com/
2020/10/21/lg-chem-to-triple-ev-battery-production/)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The global market is moving towards ever more efficient vehicles, 
including hybrid and electric vehicles. Global electric car 
registrations increased by 41% in 2020, despite the pandemic-related 
worldwide downturn in car sales, in which global car sales dropped 
6%.\11\ It has been projected that by 2040, over 50% of new car sales 
globally will be electric.\12\ If the U.S. fails to make public 
investments and adopt smart public policies to encourage and attract 
investment in the growing electric vehicle market, companies will 
locate production and supply facilities in countries that are making 
these investments. The greener vehicles of the future are going to be 
made somewhere and other countries are preparing for these innovative 
technologies. We could see the U.S. auto industry fall behind on 
advanced technology, hurting the American economy and American workers. 
Ignoring these realities is not an option because it cedes the future 
to other nations that have a significant auto manufacturing footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2021.'' 
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021.
    \12\ BloombergNEF, ``Electric Vehicle Outlook 2020.'' https://
about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are at a pivotal crossroads as automakers transition many of 
their fleets from gas- and diesel-powered vehicles to electric ones. 
The shift to EVs cannot come at the expense of good wages and benefits 
and it is critical that we do not leave workers behind as the industry 
transitions to electrification.
    The EV transition reinforces the continued importance of putting in 
place policies that facilitate vehicle and parts production in the 
United States and easing impediments to workers at non-union automakers 
to organize. As the nation invests in a transition to innovative 
technology, we must seize upon these opportunities to preserve and 
increase quality jobs. We have an opportunity, right now, to ensure 
that future EV investments incentivize production of EVs in the United 
States, made by union workers.
    A three-pronged approach is needed to achieve these goals including 
robust investments in EV infrastructure such as charging stations: 
supporting tax subsidies to incentivize consumers to purchase EV's; and 
targeting investments towards retooling facilities. We commend Congress 
and the Biden Administration for passing the bipartisan Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) which contains historic investments in 
EV infrastructure including $7.5 billion for EV charger infrastructure, 
$5 billion for EV school buses and $3 billion over 5 years for battery 
processing. Furthermore, we commend the House of Representatives for 
approving the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). The Build Back Better Act 
includes the Kildee-Stabenow EV consumer tax credit which makes 
historic investments in domestic electric vehicle production that are 
good for the environment, our economy, and working families. IIJA and 
BBBA, together, address all three prongs that are needed for a 
successful transition. The UAW believes that government subsidies and 
tax breaks must be paired with a commitment to locate these jobs in the 
U.S. at comparable wages and benefits to the jobs they replace. 
Fortunately, the Kildee-Stabenow amendment in the BBBA continues a 
$7,000 consumer credit for EVs and adds a $4,500 bonus for autos 
assembled in the U.S. by unionized workers as well as a $500 domestic 
battery bonus. It is our hope that the Senate passes BBBA and maintains 
this provision to reward good jobs.
Future of the EV Manufacturing in the United States
    While EV sales have grown steadily over the past decade, but they 
still represent a fraction of vehicle sales. EVs and PHEVs combined 
represent just 4% of U.S. auto sales in 2021.\13\ And EVs face several 
hurdles to mass-adoption. EVs are more expensive to produce, making 
them less profitable and dependent on consumer incentives. In most 
parts of the country, EV charging infrastructure is woefully 
inadequate, and the electrical grid is unprepared. And consumers 
shopping for an EV, face barriers in battery range and charging speed, 
as well as a limited selection of models and segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Wards Intelligence. Jan 2022. ``U.S. Light Vehicle Sales, 
December 2021'': https://wardsintelligence.informa.com/WI966151/US-
Light-Vehicle-Sales-December-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Challenges
    The ongoing pandemic has a direct impact on the topics before us 
today. According to John Hopkins University, the U.S. now averages more 
than 700,000 new COVID (coronavirus disease) cases per day, far more 
than any previous point in the pandemic. By just April of last year, 
more than 35% of the U.S. population had been infected by COVID-19, 
putting the current death toll over 830,000 Americans.\14\ Of course, 
the pandemic has impacted both production and demand. As we are all 
painfully aware, the global coronavirus pandemic is by no means over 
and will take many years until we fully appreciate the profound impact 
it has had on our country and the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``COVID Tracker.'' Center for Disease Control, January 10, 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regarding the motor vehicle sector, lack of resilience in our 
global supply chains has painfully demonstrated that the slightest 
disruption can have significant impacts on working people and the 
economy. Our members have been severely impacted by the pandemic-driven 
shortage of automotive-grade semiconductors. Production at numerous 
U.S. plants have been idled and tens of thousands of workers have been 
laid off, with ripple effects across the automotive value chain.
    The current shortage is relevant to the discussion of electric 
vehicles (EVs) and autonomous vehicles (AVs). EVs and AVs are heavily 
reliant on semiconductors. It is estimated that an EV autonomous 
vehicle will have over a thousand dollars' worth of semiconductors. 
This increase in semiconductor usage comes at a time when U.S. 
semiconductor manufacturing has been in decline. The total number of 
U.S. fabrication plants have decreased from 123 in 2007 to 95,\15\ 
while the industry employs 100,000 fewer production workers than it did 
at the turn of the century.\16\ Currently, U.S. manufacturers account 
for only 13% of the global semiconductor supply. This is because the 
U.S. is no longer attracting new fabs. In 2011, of 27 high-volume fabs 
built worldwide, only one was in the U.S.; 18 were in China and four in 
Taiwan. In 2018, 20 new fab projects were announced in China, with 
total investment exceeding $10 billion.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ MForesight, ``Manufacturing Prosperity: A Bold Strategy for 
National Wealth and Security'', June 2018: http://mforesight.org/
download/7817/.
    \16\ BLS, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for NAICS 
334413, http://www.bls.gov/cew/.
    \17\ MForesight, ``Manufacturing Prosperity: A Bold Strategy for 
National Wealth and Security'', June 2018: http://mforesight.org/
download/7817/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We applaud Congress for passing the Creating Helpful Incentives to 
Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Act in the FY 2021 National 
Defense Authorization Act which included funding to address the 
semiconductor shortage facing auto manufacturing, but more work 
remains. We urge the House to pass the CHIPS for America Act provisions 
from the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), providing more 
than $52 billion to fully implement this program aimed at spurring 
domestic production of semiconductors that are crucial for auto 
manufacturing and a host of other sectors.
Need to Create and Maintain Good Jobs
    U.S. manufacturing workers face serious headwinds, including weak 
labor laws that fail to protect workers' rights to join a union, bad 
trade deals that put interests of investors before workers, and 
misguided tax incentives that allow corporations to pay fewer U.S. 
taxes on profits earned overseas than those earned within our borders 
and some to pay no corporate taxes at all. Over the past fifteen years, 
U.S. automotive production workers' wages have fallen significantly. 
When adjusting for inflation, average hourly earnings for production 
workers in auto assembly have declined by 21%, while wages in the auto 
parts sector have declined by 19%.\18\ The status quo is unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. ``Average hourly earnings of 
production and supervisory employees.'' Series CEU3133610008 & 
CEU3133630008, Data from January 2006-January 2021. Adjusted using BLS 
CPI Inflation Calculator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Labor law reform is desperately needed. In fact, the National Labor 
Relations Act (NLRA) has not been strengthened since becoming law over 
85 years ago. Our laws must ensure workers are able to collectively 
bargain for better wages, safer worker conditions and a dignified 
retirement. We urge the Senate to pass the Protecting the Right to 
Organize (PRO) Act. The PRO ACT could help raise job standards in the 
motor vehicle industry. We applaud the House for passing it in the 
117th and 116th Congresses on a bipartisan basis. If signed into law, 
the PRO Act will protect a worker's right to join a union by 
strengthening penalties against corporations that violate workers' 
rights, provide for mediation and arbitration of first contracts, 
eliminate right to work laws, prohibit captive audience meetings, and 
support workers' right to strike. Passing the PRO Act will go a long 
way in strengthening outdated labor laws and rebuilding our nation's 
middle class. We call on the Senate to swiftly pass the bill.
    As Congress deliberates on legislation aimed at improving the 
environment and ensuring that jobs of the future are good jobs, it is 
incumbent to incorporate provisions related to shoring up domestic 
supply chains and strengthening labor standards. Consumer and 
deployment incentives must support domestic assembly and high domestic 
content requirements. Lawmakers should include U.S. domestic content 
requirements for key vehicle components, like those considered super-
core components in the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), 
focusing on domestic EV batteries, plug-in hybrid engines, hybrid 
transmissions, and electric motors. Companies that fail to meet labor 
standards and U.S. final assembly requirements will still be able to 
sell their automobiles, they just should not get taxpayer assistance.
    President Biden has rightfully prioritized buying American 
products, made here by American workers by signing the Executive Order 
to Strengthen Buy America provisions. We commend the Biden 
Administration for emphasizing the importance of building out and re-
shore critical supply chains, including medical equipment, 
semiconductors, energy and grid resilience technologies, key 
electronics and related technologies, telecommunications 
infrastructure, and key raw materials. These initiatives have the 
potential to create new jobs and protect U.S. supply chains against 
national security threats. We urge you to work with the Administration 
to strengthen domestic supply chains and support U.S. made products.
Conclusion
    We do not have to choose between protecting our environment and 
economic prosperity. This is a false choice that hinders our ability to 
tackle real dangers and build a better future. In fact, to effectively 
combat climate change and strengthen our middle class, we must do both. 
To lead the future, electric vehicles and other green technologies must 
create good U.S. jobs where workers have a voice on the job. It is 
important to ensure all manufacturing workers can join a union free 
from intimidation by employers seeking to maintain the status quo.
    The transition from traditional gas-powered engines will require 
patience and public resources. Even with billions in planned 
investments, auto companies are relying on public subsidies and other 
policies to promote sales, transform production capacity, and speed up 
profitability for EVs. Strategic government support is a crucial tool 
for strengthening American innovation and manufacturing capacity. But 
if the public is going to foot the bill, the public must get economic 
benefits in return, in the form of domestic investments and quality 
jobs. To make EVs work for American workers, we need policies that 
promote domestic manufacturing and quality union jobs.
    We stand ready to work with you and all other stakeholders to 
ensure the transition is good for working people, the U.S. economy, and 
our planet. Thank you for considering our views. I look forward to 
answering your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    And now, Mr. Mills, you are recognized. You may need--oh, 
go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF MARK P. MILLS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, 
                        CHEVY CHASE, MD

    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    As you probably know, my work focuses on technology 
forecasting, so I would be remiss in not starting out by noting 
that I just published a new book about America's broad-based 
and exciting technology and economic future, with a subtitle, 
The Roaring 2020s. So, you might imagine, I am pretty 
optimistic about America's future.
    But onto the subject today. As the Committee knows, so far 
despite rapid growth in EV sales, batteries power only about 
0.6 percent of the vehicles on America's roads, and it is at 
least ten times lower than that in rural areas. So, the issue 
is whether the rural/urban asymmetry is amenable to policies 
that would incentivize greater rural EV use and, of course, at 
what cost? Also relevant is whether or not greater EV use in 
rural America would significantly impact global carbon dioxide 
emissions.
    So, let me focus on summarizing three key realities. First, 
as great as the new EVs are, they still can't meet the overall 
practical performance requirements, especially in rural areas. 
The conventional wisdom is that consumers' reluctance to 
embrace EVs in general, and especially for rural use, arises 
primarily from so-called range anxiety, and of course, cost. 
The former, it is argued, can be solved with more charging 
stations; the latter, we are told, can be fixed with subsidies 
that would soon become unnecessary because of expectations of 
the inevitable decline in costs for batteries.
    But the facts suggest otherwise. Most EVs today offer range 
comparable to a conventional car, including the newly announced 
GM offering and Ford's Lightning, both have 400 mile range 
batteries. The practical problem is the time it takes to refuel 
a battery. Instead of 5 minutes to fill up a pickup truck's 
tank, a standard level to charge it takes about 10 hours. The 
so-called super charger can drop that to 40 minutes, but that 
is obviously still nearly ten times longer than normal. So, 
providing the same consumer experience means installing at 
least ten-fold more electric pumps, super chargers, than exist 
as gas pumps. And the former super chargers cost about twice as 
much as a gasoline pump. So, that 20-fold higher infrastructure 
cost per consumer served is only part of the story. Super 
chargers operate at about ten-fold higher power levels than 
standard chargers, so the rural electrical distribution 
infrastructure will have to be upgraded radically, and it is an 
infrastructure that is already far more expensive per household 
than in urban areas.
    Then there are hidden costs. Of course, rural grid outages 
are about 50 percent more frequent than in urban areas. Today, 
a rural resident can ensure travel is possible during an 
outage, whatever the cause of the outage, by spending a few 
hundred dollars on enough gasoline storage capacity to fill up 
a pickup truck's tank. But if a grid outage happened when, 
let's say, a Ford Lightning is only half charged, that 
homeowner will have to spend over $30,000 on a home-based 
battery storage system that could hold enough backup power to 
fill up just half of the pickup truck's battery.
    So, that brings me to the assumption that EV subsidies will 
become unnecessary because of the expectation that batteries 
will soon become far cheaper. The fact is that the mass 
adoption of EVs will dramatically stress global supply chains 
and lead probably to higher, not lower, prices for batteries in 
the coming years. The global plans to expand battery 
production, along with solar and wind construction, are 
parallel. Studies have shown, including from the IEA, that they 
expect demand to increase from 400 percent to over 4,000 
percent for the various critical minerals that are needed to 
build all the planned hardware. On average, it is important to 
note that compared to a gasoline vehicle, an EV entails at 
least 1,000 percent increase in the overall tonnage of 
materials that are extracted from the Earth to deliver the same 
lifetime miles.
    So, the growth in demand for materials will be far greater 
right now than the rate at which the world's miners are 
planning or likely able to supply, and keep in mind, the global 
average to open a new mine is 16 years, and it is far longer in 
the United States. So, in basic commodity economics, this 
demand for EV battery minerals up strips supply, it will fuel a 
price increase, not the decrease that is assumed by many 
enthusiasts. Commodities alone comprise 60 to 70 percent of the 
cost to fabricate a battery.
    Even with energy mineral supply chain that is not yet fully 
stressed, because remember, EVs still account for under five 
percent of new vehicle purchases. Even then, the overall price 
for the sort of suite of EV battery metals, the price for those 
commodities is up 200 percent over the past 2 years. What that 
has done is caused last year's lithium battery costs to decline 
by barely six percent. The dramatic slowdown from sort of the 
decadal trends, and the current forecast to see lithium battery 
costs rise next year as commodity inflation continues.
    So, the future price for batteries is now determined mainly 
by the mining and the commodities markets. And it bears noting 
that most of the primary minerals and the chemical processing 
of those minerals takes place overseas. The issue of foreign 
dependencies on energy materials used to be something that 
Congress worried about. Today, Chinese firms dominate the 
critical mineral mining and processing supply chains, and the 
majority of growth in the mining and processing is expected 
offshore. Just for the record, the U.S. depends on imports for 
100 percent of some 17 critical minerals and for over half of 
the supply of another 28 minerals. It goes without saying that 
the inverse is the case for----
    The Chairman. Mr. Mills, your time is expiring.
    Mr. Mills. Oh, let me just say as a final point that the 
data shows that EVs will only have a trivial impact in global 
oil use, maybe three percent reduction of rural oil use, and in 
fact, potentially lead to increased carbon dioxide emissions 
when the fabrication of batteries is counted.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan 
                       Institute, Chevy Chase, MD
    Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm a 
Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute where I focus on science, 
technology, and energy issues. I am also a Faculty Fellow at the 
McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University where my 
focus is on supply chain systems and future manufacturing technologies. 
And, for the record, I'm a strategic partner in a venture fund focused 
on software startups in energy.
    Since the purpose of this hearing is to explore actions that might 
be directed at ``the needed infrastructure and possible impediments to 
electric vehicle (EV) adoption in rural America,'' permit me to 
highlight some of the infrastructure realities and some of the 
impediments emerging from the underlying engineering and physics of 
EVs, in particular for rural markets.
    I should begin by pointing out the obvious. Without regard to 
government interventions or incentives, we will see a lot more EVs on 
roads in the future. Electric cars are now a viable consumer product. 
This transformation happened because of the combination of the 
unheralded advances in high-power semiconductors along with the far 
more heralded, forty-year-ago, invention of lithium battery chemistry. 
It bears noting that these twin technology revolutions emerged without 
government intervention or policies. The ultimate extent to which EVs 
can displace internal combustion engines, and how soon, will be 
determined, ultimately, by the limits of the technologies that now 
exist.
    As the Committee knows, while in recent years we've seen rapid 
growth in consumer purchases of EVs, the total number of EVs in use 
today remains, overall, at about a 0.6% share of all light duty 
vehicles on America's roads. And, relevant to this hearing, the EV 
share of vehicles in rural America is at least ten times lower than 
that. At issue is whether that rural-urban asymmetry is amenable to 
policies that would incentivize greater rural EV penetration, and at 
what cost. Also relevant to this exploration is whether subsidizing 
greater EV use in rural America would make a significant difference in 
global carbon dioxide emissions. I'll focus on three key realities.

    EVs still can't meet overall practical performance requirements, 
especially in rural areas.

    It is well-known and obvious that rural residents drive more miles, 
on average about 40% \1\ more per person per year than urban drivers. 
And similarly well-known is the fact that pickup trucks make up about 
40% \2\ of the share of new car purchases in rural areas, compared to a 
20% share nationally. Manufacturers are rushing to offer all-electric 
pickups. Rural consumers will soon have that option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
Articles.Urban-Rural_differences.pdf.
    \2\ https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/beyond-cities-breaking-
through-barriers-to-rural-electric-vehicle-adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The conventional wisdom has it that consumer reluctance to embrace 
EVs in general, and especially in rural areas, arises primarily from 
so-called ``range anxiety,'' and cost. The former, it is commonly 
argued, can be solved with more charging stations. The latter we're 
told can be alleviated with subsidies while awaiting ostensibly 
inevitable declines in costs. The facts, however, suggest otherwise.
    Most EVs available today, or announced, offer a range comparable to 
a conventional car's full gasoline tank, including for example the new 
Ford F-150 Lightning pickup truck, as well as GM's emerging offering. 
Both the latter have 400 mile range batteries. The practical problem is 
the time it takes to refuel a battery. While that's an issue that can 
be ameliorated, solutions come at great cost both for the consumer and 
for the electrical infrastructure. And in the time frames proposed in 
aspirational policies, there's no visible path to refueling a battery 
even close to as fast as filling up a gasoline tank.
    A standard gas station pump can fill a 26 gallon F-150 fuel tank in 
about 5 minutes. Meanwhile, charging an EV with a standard Level 2 
charger (which constitutes the majority of both public and home 
chargers today) takes about 10 hours.\3\ A so-called supercharger can 
drop that time to 40 minutes, which is still nearly ten times longer 
than filling up a gas tank. Set aside the inconvenience for most 
drivers, most of the time, of a 40 minute fill-up, using superchargers 
has critical infrastructure implications. In order for an EV filling 
station to provide the same functional utility consumers experience for 
their vehicles today, far more electric `pumps' will be needed than gas 
pumps; maybe ten-fold more. And the capital cost \4\ of a supercharger 
is roughly double the cost of a gasoline \5\ pump. Thus, in rough 
terms, that constitutes a 20-fold higher infrastructure cost per 
consumer served to provide the same functional utility. That cost 
differential is anchored in basic electric equipment realities that are 
not subject to profound or rapid cost reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2022-ford-f-150-lightning-
ev-pickup-debuts-300-mile-range-priced-at-40k/.
    \4\ https://blog.carvana.com/2021/07/how-much-does-it-cost-to-
install-an-ev-charger/.
    \5\ https://www.commtank.com/ufaqs/how-much-does-a-gas-station-
fuel-pump-cost/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then there are the incremental costs for the local electrical 
distribution infrastructure. In order to achieve a faster charge rate, 
superchargers operate at about a ten-fold higher power level. 
Supporting that kind of power, especially for multiple superchargers 
operating simultaneously, will require a radical and expensive upgrade 
to the existing rural power distribution infrastructure. Such upgrade 
costs are often ignored but are unavoidable and particularly impactful 
in rural areas where distribution infrastructure costs are far greater 
per household than in urban areas.
    It is very unlikely that a significant share of either rural or 
urban households will spend the 20-fold higher costs to have a so-
called Level 3 superchargers. The more common Level 2 chargers that 
take overnight to refill pose other practical challenges in rural areas 
where the frequency of grid outages is, on average, about 50% \6\ 
higher than for urban and suburban grids. In order to ensure the 
ability to travel during outages--which, if caused by weather or 
natural disasters, is even more important--rural homeowners using 
gasoline vehicles can spend a few hundred dollars on a storage tank 
that can hold enough gasoline to fill an F150's tank. But in the event 
of a grid outage with an F150 Lightning that's, say, only half charged, 
one would need to have an onsite a Generac or Tesla Powerwall with 
enough stored power to fill up the pickup's battery. A Powerwall with 
that much storage--half a `tank'--costs over $30,000.\7\ The other 
alternative for that rural homeowner of course would be to keep a small 
tank of fuel on hand and a $5,000 generator to charge the truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.eaton.com/content/dam/eaton/products/medium-
voltage-power-distribution-control-systems/reclosers/distribution-
system-reliability-and-outage-rate-analysis-td280026en.pdf.
    \7\ https://sunwatts.com/13-5-kwh-generac-pwrcell-energy-storage-
system/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, none of this says anything about the practical utility of 
a truck with a fuel system--the battery--that weighs 1 ton instead of 
150 pounds. The latter is the weight of full gasoline tank for a 
conventional truck with the same range. Of course, for rural homeowners 
with two vehicles, it is possible many people would choose to own 
second vehicle with limited emergency fuel capability, and more limited 
cargo capacity, if there were no cost penalty because of subsidies.
    Which brings us to the ubiquitous policy assumption that EV 
subsidies can decline and soon become unnecessary because of the 
expectation that batteries will soon become far cheaper. Whether costs 
decline at the rate assumed, or at all, is an issue anchored in supply 
chains.

    Mass adoption of EVs will stress global supply chains and lead to 
higher, not lower, prices.

    The energy transition, as it's conceived today will create an 
upstream demand for tens of gigatons of materials to be mined in order 
to fabricate car batteries. In addition, gigatons more will be needed 
for the grid storage batteries contemplated, and yet more to build 
solar and wind machines. Using batteries entails at least a 1,000% 
increase in the tonnage of materials extracted from the earth to 
deliver the same mile driven by a gasoline vehicle. Given the 
integration of the transition proposals, it is relevant that a similar 
increase in materials is associated with using solar and wind to 
replace hydrocarbons to make the same unit of electricity to charge the 
battery. The IEA has observed that the transition is a ``shift from a 
fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.'' This 
unavoidable, physical reality has profound implications for costs, not 
to mention the implications in environmental and geopolitical domains.
    So far, the upstream, energy minerals supply chain has yet to be 
fully stressed with EVs still accounting for well below 5% of new 
vehicle purchases. The increase in demand for materials to build EVs at 
the rate proposed by governments around the world will be far greater 
than the rate at which the world's miners are planning, or likely able 
to expand supply.
    The contemplated increase in solar/wind/battery construction is 
estimated to create a jump in demand for the various critical energy 
minerals from 400% to over 4,000%. In a nearly 300 page report \8\ 
issued last year by the IEA, that agency's analysts observed that an 
energy transition plan that is more ambitious than implied by the Paris 
Accord, but one that remains far short of eliminating hydrocarbons, 
would increase demand for minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel 
and cobalt rare earths by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, 
respectively, by 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-
clean-energy-transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fact that an EV uses, for example, about 300 to 400% more 
copper than a conventional car has yet to impact global supply chain 
because EVs still account for such a small share of global auto 
production. Producing EVs at scale, along with plans for grid batteries 
as well as for wind and solar machines, will push the ``clean energy'' 
sector up to consuming over half of all global copper (from today's 20% 
level). For nickel and cobalt, to note two other relevant minerals, 
energy transition aspirations will push \9\ clean energy use of those 
two metals up from a negligible share today of global demand for all 
other purposes, to 60% and 70%, respectively, of all demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-
clean-energy-transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Relevant to the transportation sector alone is a recent analysis 
from Wood Mackenzie of the mineral demands to fabricate automotive 
batteries to meet the goal to have EVs account for \2/3\ of all new car 
purchases by 2030. Such a goal would create a demand for lithium, 
nickel and copper, requiring dozens of new mines to be opened, before 
2030, each the size of the world's biggest in each category today. Such 
a possibility is fantastical considering, as the IEA reported, that the 
global average is 16 years to open a new mine. That average timeline is 
far longer in the U.S., and often infinite.
    As demand for EV battery minerals rises--and that increase occurs 
contemporaneously with rising demand for minerals for grid batteries, 
and for solar and wind machines--it will inevitably lead to price 
increases in those commodity markets, not the decreases that are 
assumed in nearly all forecasts. Few analysts seemed to have 
incorporated that fact in the assumptions about the future cost of the 
necessary minerals for a far producing a far greater quantity of 
batteries.
    The commodity materials alone comprise 60[%] to 70% of the cost to 
produce a battery. This is a testament to the incredible progress on 
reducing costs in the engineering and manufacturing of battery cells 
and systems. But it also means that modest rises in commodity prices 
can now wipe out future gains in reducing the far smaller share of 
costs associated with the electronics and labor. The IEA has noted as 
much in its report, concluding that future mineral price escalations 
could ``eat up the anticipated'' reductions in manufacturing costs 
expected from the ``learning effects'' in further scaling up of battery 
production.
    It is notable that 2021 saw a rise in commodity material costs, and 
that lead directly to a dramatic slow-down in the decadal trend of 
declining battery costs. Lithium battery costs declined by only 6% last 
year. And the current forecast \10\ is for batteries to rise in cost in 
2022, again because of the ongoing increases in materials commodities 
prices. The overall price index \11\ for the suite of EV battery metals 
is up some 200% over the past 2 years. And that trend comes with EVs 
still at only about 5% of new car sales. The future price direction for 
batteries is now determined mainly by the mining and commodities 
markets and not by the manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-to-an-
average-of-132-kwh-but-rising-commodity-prices-start-to-bite/.
    \11\ https://www.mining.com/mining-com-launches-ev-battery-metals-
index/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commodity inflation has begun to escalate the cost to build solar 
and wind machines as well, also slowing or reversing long-run cost 
declines. Solar module prices were up nearly 50% \12\ last year over 
2020. Progress in manufacturing efficacy has reduced those costs so 
much that commodity inputs now make up about 70% \13\ of the cost of 
solar modules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/01/04/higher-pv-module-
prices-may-point-to-stable-demand-and-more-sustainable-pricing-trends/.
    \13\ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/11/the-weekend-read-solar-
pv-development-disrupted/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Producers do respond to higher prices by adding more supply, in 
every business. But for infrastructure-scale supplies of minerals and 
metals it takes at least a decade, under ideal circumstances, from 
discovery and decision to see production emerge from new mines. And 
even then, expansion typically begins a while after producers come to 
believe that prices will stay escalated long enough to recover multi-
billion-dollar investments.
    Finally, it bears noting that most of the primary minerals and the 
chemical processing of those minerals takes place overseas. The issue 
of foreign dependencies on energy materials used to be something that 
Congress worried about because of both practical supply chain exposures 
and geopolitical challenges. The U.S. is today dependent \14\ on 
imports for 100% of some 17 critical minerals and, for 28 others, net 
imports account for more than half of existing domestic demand. 
Insufficient attention has been afforded the impact of accelerating 
adoption of EVs and the resultant realignments of energy-material 
supply chains. Shifting the United States from hydrocarbon energy self-
sufficiency to energy-mineral dependency entails some obvious 
consequences, and almost certainly some wildcards that are not obvious 
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As it stands today, Chinese firms dominate the production and 
processing of many critical rare earth elements, and nearly all the 
growth in mining is expected offshore, increasingly in fragile, 
biodiverse wilderness areas. More mining can be done in an 
environmentally responsible way, but so far there's little evidence of 
support for a massive expansion of new mines in America. The path the 
United States is proposing with EVs is the practical, economic, and 
geopolitical equivalent of building conventional cars in America but 
importing nearly 100% of all gasoline.
    This brings me to my final point regarding the off-shoring of 
energy materials. Mining and processing minerals is an energy-intensive 
activity that is dominated by the use of fuel-burning machinery. Since 
the primary, if not sole motivation for incentivizing the purchase of 
EVs is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there has been insufficient 
attention afforded the issue of the offshore and out-of-sight emissions 
from accessing, processing, and transporting all the associated 
materials to fabricate the batteries themselves.

    EVs will reduce oil use only slightly, and have an even smaller 
impact on carbon dioxide emissions.

    The question of how much carbon dioxide--as opposed to how much 
oil--is eliminated by using an EV is not one solely about counting the 
emissions resulting from producing the electricity to charge the 
battery. Instead, it's dominated by what know about the ``embodied'' 
emissions arising from the labyrinthine supply chains to obtain and 
process all the materials needed to fabricate batteries.
    When considering all the factors in mining the necessary minerals 
to fabricate a battery, fabricating a single 1 ton EV battery for a 
pickup truck can entail digging up and moving a total of about 500 tons 
of earth. After that, an aggregate total of roughly 100 tons of ore are 
transported and processed to separate out the targeted minerals. That's 
where all the hidden, upstream energy and emissions come from.
    As a benchmark, the technical literature \15\ shows that the 
embodied \16\ energy associated with all that industrial activity 
ranges from two to six barrels of oil (in energy-equivalent terms) 
needed \17\ to fabricate a battery that can store the energy-equivalent 
of 1 gallon of gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://kundoc.com/pdf-the-environmental-impact-of-li-ion-
batteries-and-the-role-of-key-parameters-a-re.html.
    \16\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0306261917305433.
    \17\ https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/5/2/48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Embodied emissions can be difficult to accurately quantify. And 
unlike the petroleum fuel cycle, nowhere are there more complexities 
and uncertainties than with EVs. For example, one review \18\ of fifty 
academic studies found estimates for embodied emissions to fabricate a 
single EV battery ranged from a low of about 8 tons to as high as 20 
tons of CO2. And that's for a battery that is half the size 
of what is used in an electric pickup truck. The high end of that 
ranges is nearly as much CO2 as is produced by the lifetime 
of fuel burned by an efficient conventional car. Again, that's before 
the EV is delivered to a customer and driven its first mile and does 
not include emissions associated with producing the electricity to 
charge the battery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The uncertainties come from inherent--and likely unresolvable--
variabilities in both the quantity and type of energy used in the 
battery fuel cycle with factors that depend on geography and process 
choices, many of which are proprietary. Thus, any calculation or claim 
about emissions saved by using an EV is necessarily an estimate based 
on myriad assumptions.
    The embodied energy is also impacted by a mine's location, 
something that is in theory knowable today but is a guessing-game 
regarding the future. Remote mining sites typically involve more 
trucking and depend on more off-grid electricity, the latter commonly 
supplied by diesel generators. As it stands today, the mineral sector 
alone accounts for nearly 40% \19\ of global industrial energy use. And 
over \1/2\ of the world's batteries or the key battery chemicals are 
produced in Asia with its coal-dominated electric grids. Despite hopes 
for more factories in Europe and North America, every forecast sees 
Asia \20\ utterly dominating that supply chain for a long time, a part 
of the supply chain where coal produces over half of the electricity 
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1528681/.
    \20\ https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/global-lithium-ion-
cell-manufacturing-capacity-to-quadruple-to-1.3-twh-by-2030/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some forecasts of emissions savings from EVs explicitly \21\ assume 
\22\ that the future battery supply chain will be located \23\ in the 
country where the EVs operate. One widely cited analysis \24\ assumed 
aluminum demand for U.S. EVs would be met by domestic smelters and 
powered mainly from hydro dams. While that may be theoretically 
possible, it doesn't reflect reality. The U.S., for example, produces 
just 6% \25\ of global aluminum. If one assumes instead the industrial 
processes are located in Asia, the calculated lifecycle emissions are 
150% \26\ higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-
LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf.
    \22\ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11027-019-
09869-2.pdf.
    \23\ https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/5/2/48.
    \24\ https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/5/2/48.
    \25\ https://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics/.
    \26\ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11027-019-
09869-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For EV carbon accounting, the problem is that there are no 
reporting mechanisms or standards equivalent to the transparency with 
which petroleum is obtained, refined, and used. Researchers \27\ are 
aware of this issue, even if concerns don't show up in popularized 
claims. One often finds cautionary statements such \28\ as a ``greater 
understanding of the energy required to manufacture Li-ion battery 
cells is crucial for properly assessing the environmental implications 
of a rapidly increasing use of Li-ion batteries.'' Or in another paper: 
\29\ ``Unfortunately, industry data for the rest of the battery 
materials remain meager to nonexistent, forcing LCA [lifecycle 
analysis] researchers to resort to engineering calculations or 
approximations to fill the data gaps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ https://www.ivl.se/download/18.14d7b12e16e3c5c36271070/
1574923989017/C444.pdf.
    \28\ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/
ab5e1e#fnref-ercab5e1ebib8.
    \29\ https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/5/2/48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the IEA report also observes, the direction of global mining is 
toward a higher ``emissions intensity,'' because the energy-use-per-
pound of mining is rising because of long-standing declines in ore 
grades. If mineral demands accelerate, miners will necessarily chase 
ever lower grade ores, and increasingly in more remote locations. The 
IEA sees, for example, a 300% to 600% increase in emissions to produce 
each pound of lithium and nickel respectively.
    Those realities mean that as the world's mineral supply chain 
expands to support the production of tens of millions more EVs, the 
future embodied emissions could easily mean there are nearly trivial 
decreases--and even an increase--in overall transportation carbon 
dioxide emissions.
    For the record, a world going from today's ten million to having 
500 million EVs on the roads would eliminate only about 15% of world 
oil use. And, bringing the realities back to rural America: if half of 
all rural homeowners could be induced to replace their second vehicle 
with an electric pickup truck, that would reduce U.S. oil consumption 
by barely 3%, and world oil consumption by about 0.5%. And it would 
have even less impact, perhaps none, on global carbon dioxide 
emissions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in 
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority 
Members. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in order to 
allow us to get in as many questions as possible. And please, 
keep your microphones muted until you are recognized in order 
to minimize background noise.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. David Strickland with General Motors, Mr. Strickland, 
you mention in your testimony plans for General Motors to bring 
20 different--let me remind Members, please, mute yourselves. 
Thank you very much.
    And now, Mr. Strickland, you mention in your testimony 
plans for General Motors to bring 20 different models to the 
United States auto market by 2025, including your announcement 
last week for a new electric pickup truck. Let me ask you, how 
are the needs of rural America taken into consideration when 
you at General Motors were designing these vehicles?
    Mr. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to 
continue to fulfill our customers and the market that we serve, 
and as America's largest automaker, we really do embrace the 
fact of servicing a full line of products and capabilities.
    As an example, the Silverado EV has a range of 400 miles, 
and it has 664 horsepower, which is comparable performance-wise 
to what you see in a dealership today for a Silverado. We have 
every expectation to be able to meet the wants and the needs of 
rural America and for farmers to have that same capability.
    In addition to that you gain some advantages with an 
electric vehicle, because it also, out in the field--if it 
comes an individual power supply or power plant for other farm 
instruments and tools that may need to be charged. So, in 
addition to having the typical capability that you are looking 
for, there is actually some advantages it has as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I really appreciate 
that.
    Now, to you, Mr. Lincoln Wood, with Southern Company. How 
prepared is the electric grid to handle an influx of EV--and 
again, Members, mute your phones. Thank you. How prepared is 
the electric grid to handle this influx of EV users? What steps 
are our electric utility companies taking to prepare for 
additional demand on the grid, particularly in regards to 
outdated infrastructure in rural areas?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for the question.
    First, utilities have a track record of integrating 
technology over the past 50, 60 years, air conditioning comes 
to mind of integrating that technology into our electric grid 
successfully. In particular at Georgia Power, we have a $1.3 
billion grid investment plan, and that is looking at the grid 
holistically to figure out how we can increase its reliability, 
because electric vehicles are not the only reason to make 
investments into the grid. Whether it be severe weather, 
whether it be cyber concerns, renewables or energy efficiency, 
utilities are constantly looking at the electric grid to 
upgrade or make it more resilient for all these reasons.
    But a couple specific activities that we are working on, 
automated line devices so that we can isolate the source of an 
outage and make it a smaller impact to the grid itself. It 
could be maintenance at a substation or rebuilding the entire 
substation, if needed, to increase reliability. It could be 
even for our transmission system, even rebuilding the 
structures if those are needed. It could be adding alternate 
circuits--go ahead. I see you have a question.
    The Chairman. Yes. I have a minute left, and I have another 
important question. However, we will make sure we get in touch 
with you to get your full answer. All right.
    Mr. Wood. Of course.
    The Chairman. It is very important for us to have the UAW 
here, this distinguished member of that very distinguished 
union. They provide the workers. They are the ones that put it 
together.
    So, Mr. Nassar, what will be the impact in terms of jobs 
for your union members?
    Mr. Nassar. Well, that really depends on how successful the 
EV transition is and how many people are buying them, and how 
that is going to work out as far as the marketplace. It is also 
dependent on what we are going to do as far as the battery 
manufacturing. Are we going to do the manufacturing here in the 
U.S.? So, there are quite a few open questions about what kind 
of jobs will be produced by this changeover to EVs.
    And a lot of it has to do also with our economic policy. I 
want to point out that we have had big problems throughout 
manufacturing, many industries, because of a semiconductor 
shortage, which was, in our opinion, a real self-inflicted 
wound because we really didn't have policies to make sure that 
production was here.
    So, we encourage the House to pass portions of USICA (S. 
1260, United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021) 
that has--for the semiconductors, but overall job impact, it is 
really going to be dependent on if workers have a voice, and 
what kind of policies we have to support the transition.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
my first question is for you, Mr. Strickland.
    The vehicle behind you will be available in late 2023, is 
that correct, fall of 2023?
    Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir, it is. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. For most of us in rural 
America, we don't just use our vehicles to move from place to 
place. They are tools, I mean, for us, and if we weigh them 
down towing trailers and other things, certainly that impacts 
the fuel economy that we get in a normal pickup truck. What 
does that do to the range of the vehicle? I would assume it 
would reduce it, so if I am hauling a trailer, do I go from 400 
to 300 miles? What is the impact on the range?
    Mr. Strickland. Well, sir, it certainly can't defy the laws 
of physics, but just like it impacts the fuel economy of the 
internal combustion engine vehicle. We are working very hard on 
new battery technology. Our old TM platform is one of the 
foundational things that we are doing to--not only are we very 
excited about the performance long-term, but it is going to get 
better. And I think when you think iteratively about the 
technology, we are going to have to recognize the fact that 
these are working vehicles. We supply America's work truck, and 
so yes, absolutely. We have to sort of think through those 
things, but that is very much in our engineering planning and 
we are very bullish on the opportunity to be able to provide a 
vehicle that is a true working vehicle for farmers and 
everybody else.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And if I use a super charger 
to charge the vehicle, what does it cost me to charge it, 
approximately?
    Mr. Strickland. I have to get to you on that answer. Yes, 
sir, I don't know the exact answer to how much for a super 
charger, but I will certainly get back to you on the record.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 109.]
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you for that. That 
is one of the questions I have is what does it cost to 
recharge, especially if we are using a super charger.
    I can see where electric vehicles would be very valuable 
for people who just need a daily vehicle to commute. They start 
and stop at the same place every time. For some of us who are 
on the road significantly more, I think that we will probably 
stick with the internal combustion engines for the foreseeable 
future.
    I am concerned, as Mr. Wood talked about becoming more and 
more dependent on China with regard to natural resources. Mr. 
Wood--I am sorry, it was not Mr. Wood that said that. It was 
Mr. Mills who was talking about that. So, Mr. Mills, the rare 
earth elements, a lot of them were mined from the Middle East 
and from Africa, if I am not mistaken, but the mines are 
controlled by China. Could you expand on where the raw 
materials are mined and how China has embedded themselves in 
the supply chain?
    Mr. Mills. Certainly, thanks for the question.
    First, the rare earth minerals, specifically China has 
about a 90 percent global market dominance on the critical 
minerals that are not called rare earths, this would be nickel, 
cobalt, and so forth. So, China has a market dominance in 
refining those materials, like carbon and graphite and cobalt. 
Russia is a big player in nickel. South American firms are, 
African firms. China is one of the largest investors globally, 
particularly in Africa in mines, and in the processing 
industries that are associated with taking the raw ore and 
turning it into useful minerals. So, it is a completely 
focused--they are an OPEC of battery minerals. Instead of a big 
portfolio of countries, you would have just three countries. 
Fortunately, a couple of them included are France and Canada--
being a Canadian, I am happy to say that--and of course, 
Australia, but their market share is very small compared to the 
rest of the world.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. So, Mr. Laughridge, you drove 
from Atlanta to D.C. in an electric vehicle, is that correct?
    Mr. Laughridge. I believe that was----
    Mr. Wood. No, that was me, Lincoln Wood.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And so, how many times did you 
have to recharge on the way?
    Mr. Wood. Four.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Four, okay, and how long did 
it take you each time to recharge?
    Mr. Wood. Half an hour.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Half an hour, and what did it 
cost for a recharge?
    Mr. Wood. In this particular model, it was free.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. It was free to recharge. You 
expect that would be the trend, going forward?
    Mr. Wood. I cannot say, but it was offered in this 
particular model for free.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. To recharge. Where did you 
recharge?
    Mr. Wood. Two of them were actually at Sheetz stations, and 
then two were just in the community based on--one was in Glen 
Allen, Virginia at a Target.
    The Chairman. Mr. Scott, your time----
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. My time has expired. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    And now, I recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 
Ms. Adams, who is also the Vice Chair of our Committee, 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member, thank 
you as well for hosting today's hearing, and my thanks as well 
to the witnesses for their testimony.
    The climate crisis presents a significant challenge to 
everyone, not just a select few. And so, as we continue to 
transition towards clean energy and transportation, we must 
focus on equitable distribution of the charging infrastructure 
and not forget our rural and traditionally underserved 
communities. Which is why I applaud my colleagues and the Biden 
Administration for enacting the bipartisan Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58). This bill will fight 
the climate crisis and advance equality, while also creating 
high quality U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    My question, first of all, Mr. Strickland. Rural drivers 
often have different driving needs than their urban 
counterparts. They need heavy duty vehicles such as utility 
vans or trucks with hauling capacity, and they drive longer 
distances.
    So, Mr. Strickland, how is GM taking that into account as 
it transitions to electric vehicles?
    Mr. Strickland. Ms. Adams, again, we have focused on being 
a full line manufacturer across the range of vehicles that we 
currently provide, including medium-duty and heavy-duty 
vehicles in the pickup line, and we also have a partnership 
with BrightDrop, which provides commercial vehicles as well.
    The goal once again--and as you alluded to for the IIJA, is 
being able to have the money for the infrastructure bill that 
will be very, very important to being able to have the 
resources to be able to provide consumer incentives. And being 
able to think thoughtfully about how we implement charging 
strategies for rural communities, and those are all incredibly 
important. And we are looking forward to working with you and 
the rest of the Committee Members on hopefully getting that 
money distributed, and then, once again, being able to port 
rural communities to not only the vehicles that they need, but 
also the ability to charge them in a thoughtful way.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, thank you.
    I will follow up with what can we do as Congress to ensure 
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers have the access to 
electric vehicles and charging stations? Did you want to 
expound on that anymore?
    Mr. Strickland. Oh, yes, ma'am. Absolutely. One of the 
things that we are working on, and we have a climate equity 
fund, which is providing $25 million to actually support the 
ability to deal with--to disadvantaged communities and 
communities that are frankly electric deserts. So, it isn't 
just simply working with our partners and providing charging 
stations, but it is making that investment in communities to 
make sure that that $25 million--and I am sure it will be more 
as the years go on for us--to be able to address those social 
gaps and those disparate impacts for folks that don't have 
those opportunities. We are very committed, as we said, to make 
sure that everybody comes along for this journey.
    Ms. Adams. Right.
    Mr. Strickland. And we have to pay attention to those 
communities especially.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Mr. Laughridge, my State, North Carolina, currently falls 
behind other parts of the country when it come to the adoption 
of electric vehicles. Drivers are concerned with charging 
barriers and limited range of the vehicles. Have you seen a 
shift in the knowledge of or added toward electric vehicles 
when interacting with consumers at your dealerships, and what 
are the most common misperceptions, and what do you foresee as 
the biggest barrier for consumers to switch to electric 
vehicles?
    Mr. Laughridge. Thank you, Representative Adams, for the 
question.
    To go to the last part of your question, the barriers. The 
biggest barrier we see is education. So, part of what I believe 
is the essential part of dealerships being involved in 
distributing the EVs is educating the customer about their 
needs and assessments of what type of vehicle that they would 
want to buy, whether EV is the proper vehicle or internal 
combustion engines is the proper vehicle.
    But we are all in, in making sure that the customer gets 
the availability, the affordable pricing, and make sure that we 
are able to give them the correct information that fits them 
and their family's needs.
    Ms. Adams. Well, thank you.
    Very quickly, Mr. Mills, what do you suggest we do to lower 
carbon dioxide emissions?
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Madam Congressman.
    I think if we are serious about lowering the emissions, the 
cheapest, fastest way, if we want to spend Congressional money 
on subsidies, would be to incentivize the purchase of far more 
efficient internal combustion engines. It is much cheaper, much 
faster, and easy to document. And we know that all the 
automakers make pickup trucks, full size trucks that are close 
to 50 percent more fuel efficient than their sort of low 
average.
    So, it would be a very fast way to do it, much, much 
cheaper, and easy to document, frankly.
    Ms. Adams. Great, thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time and I am going to 
yield back. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, 
Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Strickland, as you well know, Democrats continue to try 
to pick winners and losers by subsidizing EV purchases using 
taxpayer dollars. The current proposal would give up to $12,500 
for individuals making less than $800,000. Now, to me, someone 
making that kind of money doesn't really need any free money to 
purchase a new vehicle. What is more, these credits threaten 
the economic livelihood of small businesses in Arkansas and 
elsewhere in the country who rely on distributing and selling 
traditional motor fuels.
    I also wonder why we subsidize EVs when they don't 
contribute to the Highway Trust Fund? All vehicle owners and 
operators, no matter what fuel type they choose, including 
electric vehicles, should pay their fair share for road 
maintenance and repair.
    So, my question is, how will subsidizing EV purchases 
impose economic hardships on small business fuel and energy 
marketers across the country?
    Mr. Strickland. I think that the perspective of a number of 
folks in dealing with climate transition sees that there is, 
frankly, more opportunities and more opportunities for jobs and 
job creation with a green agenda, and including the evolution 
and transition into electric vehicles.
    The issue in terms of providing support from a consumer 
demand to be able to get the EV consumer demand up actually 
will drive down the cost of battery production. It will 
actually provide a broader ability to be able to support these 
vehicles long-term, and we think that the overall economic 
prospects of making that transition is positive.
    With that being said, we do understand that road 
maintenance and road issues are certainly very important, and 
we are certainly willing to work with Congress to figure out 
ways to be able to make sure that we figure out those equities 
and making sure that the roads continue to be maintained, since 
this is going to be impacted by moving off of a possible fuel 
support system.
    Mr. Crawford. Yes, I want to make sure that we ensure that 
EVs are paying their fair share for the wear and tear that they 
impart on our highways.
    I don't know if you are open to suggestions or not, but I 
am wondering why the industry hasn't developed some sort of a 
more efficient sort of a battery exchange type model where you 
could--like for example, when you exchange your propane tanks 
at a local retailer for your gas grill or whatever. It just 
seems to expedite the process. Those retailers are already 
prepared to collect the associated taxes. How hard would that 
be to--I know we are making progress in the electric vehicle 
space, but there just doesn't seem to be much consideration 
about how we address this collection of taxes with regard to 
the Highway Trust Fund. I am just wondering if maybe a battery 
exchange type approach might be more effective. What are your 
thoughts? Is that even a viable consideration for EVs?
    Mr. Strickland. There are a number of prospective ways to 
think about collecting the user fees in order to be able to 
support the highway system. We would be happy to engage with 
you and your office in that particular idea. Clearly thinking 
about battery exchanges or changing batteries definitely has 
some pluses and minuses in terms of vehicle design and rigidity 
and things of that nature, but we are all in for trying to 
figure out the most equitable way to make sure that we continue 
to support our road system.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I also think it probably expedites 
the process as opposed to pulling into a charging station and 
being forced to wait 30, 40 minutes for your batteries to 
charge, where you could do a quick change and be on your way. 
That maybe helps expedite the process in addition to creating a 
better collection model.
    So, I appreciate your comments, and Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate the hearing, and to all the witnesses, thank you.
    I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Spanberger, who is also 
the chair of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
to our guests who are here today, thank you so much.
    Mr. Wood, I would just note that when you stopped to charge 
your vehicle in Glen Allen, Virginia, you were doing so in the 
wonderful 7th District of Virginia. So, I hope you enjoyed the 
stop and perhaps even added to our local economy.
    Mr. Strickland, I am very pleased to hear about the many 
steps that General Motors is taking to help deploy EV charging 
infrastructure to rural communities. But I also strongly agree 
that the U.S. must really step up to the plate through some 
targeted public investments.
    In your testimony, you welcome the opportunity to, as you 
put it, to leverage existing USDA programs to further support 
EV charging stations and charging infrastructure. Could you 
elaborate a little on why that might be especially helpful in 
rural areas, and how legislation like the Electric Vehicle 
Charging Infrastructure for Farmers Act (H.R. 6390), could 
really help build momentum and build on the momentum that 
General Motors has generated in addressing rural EV charging 
deserts?
    Mr. Strickland. Well, Ms. Spanberger, bottom line being is 
the USDA recognizes the needs of rural America. That is the 
agency that serves that entire population of those communities. 
So, being able to leverage existing resources, and frankly, the 
expertise of the USDA in terms of thinking about ways to 
support and ways to deploy would be essential in trying to make 
sure of a successful rural development program in terms of the 
expansion of charging stations.
    So, we are happy to work with you and your office and the 
other Members on this important legislation, and we think it is 
a very thoughtful approach on how we really address the 
specific needs for rural communities.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so very much for those answers. I 
really do appreciate, when we are thinking about how we can 
compete with other nations in the EV market and we think about 
the role of manufacturing, can you explain a bit more how the 
investments in the deployment of domestic charging 
infrastructures are, in fact, really essential towards 
competing internationally in the EV space, again, from your 
perspective?
    Mr. Strickland. It is foundational. When we think about our 
international competition dealing with our competitors, whether 
it is China, whether it is Europe, to be able to build it out 
and have a successful charging infrastructure, which supports 
the ability for people to buy and use these vehicles. That is 
how we maintain our competitiveness long-term as, frankly, the 
world's best automotive manufacturer.
    We need to have all those elements in there to have that 
success and to compete, and having that opportunity to be able 
to build that out is foundational.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
    Well, I am really proud of the fact that I will be 
introducing legislation, bipartisan legislation today to expand 
the USDA's Rural Energy for America Program to include electric 
vehicle supply equipment as an eligible expense for farmers and 
agribusinesses that apply for that support. So, certainly, 
Congresswoman Adams, I will be in touch with your office 
because it might get it, some of the questions that, ma'am, you 
asked in your 5 minutes. I do firmly believe that this change 
will help ensure that our farmers and agribusinesses, and by 
extension, our rural communities have greater access to EV 
charging infrastructure while leveraging the existing 
relationships of USDA's Office of Rural Development and the on-
the-ground relationships that they have.
    Mr. Strickland, you were kind to comment on the bill that 
my legislation, Electric Charging Infrastructure for Farmers 
Act, it is really starting to gain support across a range of 
stakeholders, because its supporters include other car 
manufacturers such as Ford Motor Company, the National 
Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, and the 
Zero Emissions Transportation Association. I would also really 
like to thank my colleague, Republican Tom Rice of South 
Carolina, for recognizing the value of this legislation to our 
communities, to industries in our districts, and certainly to 
our farmers and producers across the country.
    I am coming up on time, but Mr. Strickland, if I could just 
ask one more general question. From the perspective of car 
manufacturers, certainly many of the things that you all have 
mentioned, the investments that General Motors is making in 
electric vehicles also in the equity priorities that the 
company maintains. Looking down the line, many of the decisions 
presumably that you as a company are making are based on where 
the market is going, being responsive to what consumers want. 
And so, could you just comment a little bit on really what made 
it so that that beautiful vehicle, the Silverado behind you, is 
one of the top priorities, is a vehicle that you are going to 
be producing, and why for those of us in Congress who are 
trying to be responsive, might hear from you as to how you 
reached that place?
    Mr. Strickland. The future of--oh, I am un-muted.
    The future around transportation is electrification, 
period. The world has recognized it, too. It isn't just us. It 
is Europe, it is China, it is Asia. And bottom line being is 
that people who are exposed to electric vehicles, the power----
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. We have 
many that want to ask questions.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
our witnesses. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yes. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
LaMalfa, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    I just wanted to--let's just go with Mr. Wood here, please. 
I wanted to ask a question on looking at the grid realities I 
have in northern California and all of our State of California 
really, we have some pretty big challenges. Just for example, 
this winter--now, this is after a summer of fire and 1 million 
acres in just one fire, and several hundred thousand in others 
affecting the grid and generation, et cetera. Now we have had 
recently some kind of unprecedented level of snow at lower 
elevations. It has knocked out a lot of our power grid to 
constituents like Nevada County and Sierra County, and others 
in the Sierras in general. So, many people were left without 
power for weeks, and so, with what we are looking at, combined 
with in the summer months, for example, the public safety power 
shutoffs. If people on the Committee don't know what that 
means, they intentionally shut the power off in the summertime 
when there is going to be high winds because of the fear that 
tree branches and trees might blow into power lines and do 
blackouts and cause fires, which keeps happening, right? The 
Dixie Fire, almost 1 million acres. In this case, it was a tree 
that fell into a power line that had a bad root system that was 
undetected, but in other times, it is the same thing.
    So, what you are looking at is a grid that is already in 
question, and even without the shutoffs from a public safety 
aspect, when it gets really hot in California, they ask people 
to shut off manufacturing plants and others that are already 
prepositioned to shut off in order to make the grid carry 
through the hottest days, as well as an edict right after these 
electric cars are getting so popular supposedly, they had an 
edict asking people not to charge their electric cars between 
3:00 and 9:00 p.m. So, I would really tend to wonder, is the 
market driving this thing with new electric cars, or is it 
really government and a lot of hype by media? Because I don't 
know people that are just that hot to get electric cars as--in 
their areas, especially those on limited incomes.
    So, Mr. Wood, they are looking at charging--so, as I 
mentioned, charging EVs during the non-peak period in order to 
avoid rolling power outages. With the condition of the grid as 
I have mentioned in California, they are pulling--they want to 
pull hydroelectric plants off. They want to tear down at least 
five dams and make hydropower. We have lost a nuclear power 
plant in the San Diego area, which is about nine percent of the 
grid. They are going to take down the San Luis Obispo Juan 
Diablo Canyon within a couple years. That is another nine 
percent of the grid. Where the hell is the power supposed to 
come from to run all this?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you so much for the question, and I will 
acknowledge that California is not an area where Southern 
Company serves electricity, so I am happy to make connections 
offline with utilities in the area for further follow up. I 
will also add in general that electric vehicles won't all 
charge at the same time. That is generally incremental, charged 
off peak or at different times of the day, and that if the same 
thing happens if we--for hurricanes in the Southeast, for 
example. If people are getting gas to evacuate, sometimes we 
have issues with stations running out of gas. Catastrophes 
happen for sure, and I am happy to connect you with my 
colleagues in California that can give you more information.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Okay.
    Let me shift over to Mr. Mills here. You had a recent piece 
that was published on carbon accounting. So, what are the 
assumptions that if we are idling combustion vehicles and 
switching to an electrical grid? What is the whole accounting 
of this and supposedly saving CO2 and other forms of 
pollutants that are the concern in converting over to a grid 
like that, especially when the alternatives to power being 
generated are being limited?
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Congressman.
    I will just summarize quickly that in the technical 
literature, not so much in the popularized literature, there is 
lot of working going on looking at the so-called fuel cycle, 
where the minerals are mined, how they are processed and 
transported. And what we know is that to build a battery, 
counting everything up-stream, we don't know precisely how much 
carbon dioxide emissions occur in the process of mining 
minerals, moving and processing them, but we know the range. 
So, people who say they know that it will--what the exact 
emissions reductions are, it is actually--truth is, it is a 
guess. It is a number somewhere between 8 and 20 tons of 
CO2 to fabricate a battery for one car. For a pickup 
truck it is--you can double that. And that is the lifetime 
emissions of carbon dioxide from driving a regular automobile--
--
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
witness may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, who is also 
the Chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and 
Department Operations, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having this very important hearing today.
    Outside of this Committee, I have worked tirelessly to 
expand access to electric vehicles. In my first year in 
Congress, I co-led the Clean School Bus Act of 2019 (H.R. 3973) 
with now Vice President Kamala Harris, which would allocate $1 
billion over 5 years to replace diesel school buses with 
electric ones. Since then, I have worked to ensure robust 
investments in electric vehicles have been included in any 
infrastructure legislation that has come to the House floor. 
With Representative Cardenas, I co-led the Clean Commute for 
Kids Act (H.R. 2721), which laid the blueprint for clean school 
bus provisions of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act. 
Ultimately, we were able to secure about $5 billion for the 
replacement of diesel school buses with electric ones across 
this country.
    A key component for any plan for electric vehicle expansion 
is the grid. Expanding our national grid will not only benefit 
individual consumers, but communities at large. As you can 
tell, this issue is very important to me, having had a career 
for 15 years as a public school teacher and stood in many bus 
lines and taught many kids who were affected by the harmful 
impacts of breathing in diesel fumes.
    So, my questions today are for--well, my first question is 
for Mr. Wood. One problem I have heard in conversations about 
electric vehicles is their applicability in rural areas: 
enormous, mountainous rural areas where there must be special 
consideration for larger charger placement and range. What can 
the Federal Government do to incentivize utilities to build 
charging infrastructure in rural communities, and is there any 
technical expertise you think would be helpful for Federal 
agencies to provide in that process?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you so much for the question. I will first 
say, utilities have an obligation to serve all customers, in 
urban and rural areas, and that is part of our public service 
mission. So, to your point, electric school buses are already 
an important aspect of our electrification plan. It is 
something we are already looking at. Some of my contacts 
throughout the industry when I have talked to in transit 
agencies, and when they switched to electric buses have told me 
about their testing procedures, which might be loading the bus 
down, running it in very cold temperatures, very hot 
temperatures with a lot of weight in it. So, some of those 
research methods are already in flight.
    I think additional assistance from DOE for modeling for 
what the batteries would look like, for the amount of energy 
consumed, any of that could be helpful. But I would say, as I 
said earlier in my opening comments, the infrastructure, EV 
infrastructure that has already been passed is of great help. 
If you want to carve out for electric school buses, especially 
get the first cost problem down, is more of the issue for the 
school bus problem of if the school district needs five school 
buses but they can only afford three because electric may cost 
more, that, to me, is where I see more of the challenge versus 
the infrastructure itself.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, and I know that expanding our 
electric grid not only provides opportunities for zero carbon 
transportation, but an array of other zero carbon 
infrastructure and resources.
    Mr. Wood, can you expand on what the agricultural industry 
specifically stands to gain from a national expansion of our 
electric grid?
    Mr. Wood. When you think about electrification and 
agriculture, the electrification typically knows that piece of 
equipment is very, very precise. So, if you drive an EV, for 
example, and you barely press the accelerator, the vehicle 
barely moves forward. You don't have the idle that pulls you 
forward. So, if you are thinking about planting a certain 
number of crops or you need to see a certain number of crops in 
a certain area to make a particular harvest, having more 
precise, more precision, or if you have that equipment that 
becomes autonomous and being able to control it, those are all 
benefits of how the agriculture industry can gain from 
electrification. We just have to be able to get there and 
understand what those implications are.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you so much, and I don't really have time 
for my last question, but I am sure I will hear the answer at 
some point. I am just interested to know what investments and 
resources can Congress provide to address the increased demand 
for EVs, and how can we help to build out the pipeline for 
manufacturers who produce these electric vehicles?
    There is not really enough time to answer, but hopefully 
throughout the rest of this hearing that will be incorporated 
in answers as we go along.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Hayes.
    And now, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and also Ranking 
Member Thompson for holding this hearing on electric vehicles.
    I am also the Ranking Member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Highways and Transit Subcommittee. It 
happens to be the largest subcommittee in Congress. I am glad 
that other committees are also discussing the Biden 
Administration's Build Back Broke scheme to further bankrupt 
American families.
    With inflation over seven percent and President Biden's 
anti-work policies, the average family in my district would 
struggle to afford a new car, let alone a more costly electric 
vehicle. Not to mention the CDC's fluctuating whims that 
restrict the average working-class family's ability to go to 
work and earn a living. It kind of makes you wonder why the 
Biden Administration is making such a push for EVs when they 
would rather have every American locked inside their house.
    For those that can afford a new car, due to supply chain 
constraints, begs the question of whether anyone looking to buy 
a car could even find one on the lot if they wanted, let alone 
an EV. Reducing emissions is not synonymous to electrifying the 
entire fleet. We have the tools and technology to reduce 
emissions right now. For example, Clear Flame, a company in 
Illinois, is already producing the technology to retrofit 
engines to run on cleaner conventional fuels, like ethanol. 
They are working with companies like John Deere to ramp up this 
technology and bring it to the marketplace. We don't have to 
wait until 2050, bankrupt our constituents by taking away 
consumer choice when shopping for vehicles, or break the law by 
undercutting the Renewable Fuel Standard.
    So, when you look at a rough estimate, a rough estimate 
suggests that it costs the average American to buy an electric 
vehicle versus the most affordable conventional vehicle on the 
market, cost difference is around $38,000.
    So, I want to get to my questions and I want to start with 
Mr. Cooper.
    Mr. Cooper, did you see the report that Reuters issued this 
morning stating that the Biden Administration is considering 
lowering the 2022 ethanol blending mandate below the proposed 
$15 billion that was set to be increased over the cut levels 
from 2020 to 2021?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman 
Davis, and I did happen to see that article actually as I was 
sitting here. I saw that come across the wire.
    Certainly, it is of great concern if those rumors are true. 
We do have plenty of experience with rumors being reported in 
the news, sometimes not quite accurately. But we would be 
greatly concerned if EPA is backtracking on its very recent 
proposal to make sure that we return to that 15 billion gallon 
statutory requirement for conventional fuels, renewable fuels 
in 2022. So, we are going to try to get to the bottom of those 
rumors, and we will be absolutely insisting that EPA and this 
Administration follow through on their commitment to restore 
that 15 billion gallon commitment for 2022 and beyond.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
actually insert this report into the record today.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The article referred to is located on p. 105.]
    Mr. Davis. Thank you.
    Mr. Cooper, if the Biden Administration is intent on 
reducing emissions and using cleaner fuels like ethanol and 
biodiesel, and using those fuels get us there immediately, why 
do you think they broke the law and cut the RFS, jeopardizing 
the demand for biofuels for our farmers in rural America?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, we certainly hope that doesn't happen, 
because again, we believe the Renewable Fuel Standard is the 
best near-term opportunity we have for reducing carbon 
emissions from the transportation sector. It is law that has 
been on the books for more than 15 years now. We have seen 
significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions result from the 
Renewable Fuel Standard. In fact, one study estimates we have 
seen nearly 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions avoided 
because of the Renewable Fuel Standard and the use of biofuels 
under that program.
    So, we agree that a strong RFS that is consistent with the 
statutory intent of the program is fundamental to decarbonizing 
transportation, and that is why we support a strong RFS in 
2022, but well beyond as EPA begins the process to determine 
those volumes as well.
    Mr. Davis. Great. One quick question for Mr. Strickland. 
How many vehicles that will be internal combustion engine 
vehicles does GM expect to produce between now and 2035?
    Mr. Strickland. We expect to produce 30 to 40 million.
    Mr. Davis. Well, if you putting 30 to 40 million internal 
combustion vehicles on the roadways, I mean, that is where this 
disconnect seems to be we need cleaner fuels, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The witness, please, you have the opportunity to provide 
him with an answer in writing. Thank you.
    Mr. Strickland. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And now, we recognize the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, Ms. Brown, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson for holding this hearing, and thank you to all the 
witnesses for joining us today.
    We are currently at a great inflection point. How we 
approach the next 10, 20 years will determine how we will be in 
the next 50. The existential threat of climate change to 
humankind is clearer than ever. People in Ohio and around the 
country are experiencing the dire consequences of climate 
change. Devastating hurricanes in Louisiana, raging wildfires 
in California, harmful algae blooms in Lake Erie, and rising 
sea levels in south Florida, to name a few.
    The generally accepted agreement that greenhouse gas 
emissions contribute to the threats has led many to electric 
vehicles, which are likely to have lower emissions than 
internal combustion engine vehicles. While the U.S. auto sales 
declined 23 percent in 2020, the sales share of EVs increased 
two percent. My home State of Ohio has also seen a steady 
increase in EV registration in recent years. The EV market is 
only going to continue to grow as consumer demands for 
technology increases. It is prudent to begin examining this 
technology so we adequately address the needs of all 
stakeholders in America: urban, suburban, and rural.
    As we work to transition to a clean energy economy, we owe 
it to our farmers and auto workers to ensure that they are not 
left behind. Many of them have spent generations feeding and 
powering our country, and their work has every bit as much 
dignity as the work of an EV battery manufacturer. I am 
confident that the investment in EVs is a step in the right 
direction. It will supercharge America's efforts to lead the 
electric future that will allow us to remain competitive and 
strong in the days to come.
    I would like to acknowledge that Chairman Scott and 
Congresswoman Adams asked and answered one of the questions 
that I have, so I would like to acknowledge Mr. Josh Nassar 
from the UAW.
    In your testimony, you spoke to the environmental benefits 
of an EV transition and the importance of also ensuring this 
transition benefits American workers. What policies should be 
in place to ensure those benefits?
    Mr. Nassar. Well first, thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman.
    First of all, we should make sure taxpayer dollars are used 
to support good jobs and responsible employers, and that should 
be done across the board with public dollars. The second thing 
is that we need to focus--we are talking about the battery 
supply chain. It is very true that China dominates, but they 
dominate from getting a lot of rare earth minerals from other 
countries. And what we need to do is we really need to get way 
more involved and engage in that, plus we need to do the actual 
battery manufacturing here, not just the packing of the 
batteries, the last step in the process, because that is not 
too many jobs at all. The real jobs have to do with the other 
processing.
    So, we are just--we are seriously behind. The truth is that 
China and the European Union were focused on this well before, 
but it is not too late, and we can't give up on fighting to be 
part of this transition. Because if we do, what is going to 
ultimately happen is as EVs become a larger share of the 
market, fewer and fewer of them will be make--fewer car 
manufacturing jobs will be in the U.S. So, I think really 
engaging fully in the entire supply chain is incredibly 
important, and making sure that there are conditions on 
taxpayer dollars.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Wood, Lincoln Wood. What type of coordination among 
utilities do you think will be necessary to ensure that rural 
communities are not left behind in the transition towards 
transportation electrification, and the other as a follow up, 
how can communities work best with their utility partners to 
educate customers about charging during off peak period and 
public charging opportunities?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you for the questions.
    So, you may have seen a couple weeks ago the Edison 
Electric Institute announced the National Electric Highway 
Coalition, and that is a group of utilities from across the 
U.S. that all focused on really--think of it as the EV brain 
trust from each utility in a room trying to figure out how we 
roll out charging infrastructure in an equitable way across the 
U.S. I think that is a good first step. I think a best practice 
is to always involve your utility early and often, and 
utilities typically have really good relationships with their 
communities all across their service territory, and so, we have 
relationships with dealers and with local governments and 
others to help communicate the benefits of electric vehicles as 
well as other electric technologies, and those efforts are 
ongoing. But certainly, we are always open to more engagement. 
I think a meeting just like this one of all stakeholders to 
have a discussion is a great first step.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much, and my time is expiring, so I 
yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, our distinguished Ranking 
Member Thompson, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thanks 
again to all the witnesses for your testimony, it is very 
informative.
    My first question is for Mr. Mills. Mr. Mills, as you 
mentioned in your testimony, it seems like our analysis of EV 
supply chains' environmental footprint is often incomplete. Why 
is it so hard to account for these activities when measuring 
the greenness of an activity, and why does an accurate 
accounting matter?
    Mr. Mills. Well, thank you, Ranking Member.
    The greenness is determined entirely--and by that portion, 
I mean carbon dioxide emissions--by where and how materials are 
mined and processed. And as a consequence, we are talking about 
a vast global industry, thousands of businesses around the 
world, not in the United States. So, we have some knowledge of 
it, but it is very hard to track down what a propriety process 
is among proprietary industries, and frankly, a lot of secret, 
we will call them--not secret illegal, just secret transactions 
that go on. It matters because the data shows and the research 
shows that the total emissions from accessing the minerals and 
producing materials can easily equal all of the savings from 
not using gasoline, from not burning the gasoline. So, the idea 
that we are dealing with zero emissions vehicles is just flat 
wrong.
    The only question is how much the emissions are reduced? 
Even Volvo and Volkswagen recently issued studies on their own 
websites showing that the emissions reductions based on 
assumptions about the supply chain are rather modest, very 
small. So, they are sort of warning everybody to be careful 
about these assumptions.
    Mr. Thompson. I want to follow up to maybe one example. I 
know there is a study you are familiar with from the 
International Energy Agency. The study is the role of critical 
minerals and clean energy transition, which examines the 
changing mining patterns for critical minerals resulting from 
increased electrification. The question is, how will the 
predictions made by the IEA with respect to declining ore 
quality and increased resource demand impact the carbon 
accounting, and with this new calculus change the case for EVs, 
whether in rural America or elsewhere?
    Mr. Mills. That is a very good question, Congressman.
    The fact is, the IEA pointed out, as have other analysts, 
that as you increase demand for minerals like cooper and 
nickel, the common ones, you have to chose lower ore grades. 
That is the technical way of talking about there is less copper 
as a percentage of the actual ore, means you have to dig up 
more rock, use more energy, and cause more emissions. As they 
have pointed out, the expectation is that the carbon dioxide 
emissions associated with, for example, accessing lithium will 
increase several hundred percent. So, as we chase more and more 
lithium to put into lithium batteries, the emissions from 
producing the lithium are rising in the future as we chase more 
of these minerals not going down.
    And this is an indisputable sort of geophysical fact that 
no one, bizarrely, is including in any of their forecasts about 
carbon dioxide emissions from making batteries.
    Mr. Thompson. Very good. My next question is for Mr. 
Walter.
    First of all, Mr. Walter, I can't tell you how happy I and 
pleased I am to have a fellow Bald Eagle Area alumni testifying 
today, and also, congratulations on your career. I want to 
thank you for your testimony.
    You closed your written testimony by noting something I 
think is important. ``Any alternative, including electricity, 
should be offered in an open competitive market that gives 
American consumers the fullest economic benefits of robust 
price competition. This has worked well for consumers for 
nearly 100 years with liquid fuels, because the markets had a 
business case to invest to meet consumer needs.'' So, why is it 
so important that any new motor vehicle fuel, and indeed, any 
engine technology, was subject to the pressures of an open and 
competitive market?
    Mr. Walter. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson.
    An open market provides the lowest cost to consumers. Any 
time markets operate with opaqueness, it typically creates 
higher costs for consumers across the board, and the 
traditional fuel market today is an open, highly competitive 
marketplace with many competing factors, not only from the sale 
at retail for physical fuels, but also in various geographic 
pockets there is high competition amongst wholesalers of 
traditional fuels.
    In today's world, there is a tremendous amount of 
opaqueness that exists around EV charging costs. Some will 
highlight, like Mr. Wood highlighted, that he paid zero for 
charging and first, I just want to say thank you to Lincoln for 
stopping at Sheetz on his path. But I mean, that cost in the 
future will be higher for EV vehicles, and I think a lot of 
people today are not working on----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The witness 
may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 117.]
    And now, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rush. I certainly want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this important hearing, and I really want to let you 
know that I sincerely appreciate your kind remarks that you had 
for me at the beginning of the hearing.
    As the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's 
Subcommittee on Energy, I have been proud to champion electric 
vehicle infrastructure modeling, and specifically 
infrastructure for urban and rural underserved areas. I was 
proud, Mr. Chairman, to negotiate provisions to advance 
electric vehicle infrastructure and adoption which was 
ultimately included in the House-passed Build Back Better Act, 
and I am very, very hopeful and optimistic that these 
provisions will be signed into law soon.
    Mr. Strickland, so good to see you again, and once again, I 
just want to thank you so much for your sincere and heartfelt 
remarks. I am so proud of you, man, of all of your 
multitudinous accomplishments over your relatively young years. 
So, man, you make my heart glad and warm just to see you and 
knowing that you are such an amazing individual and amazing 
success.
    Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. I have a few questions for you.
    I have spent much of my professional career fighting for 
the health and the wealth of Black and Brown Americans. As you 
know, disproportionally we live in an area where there is a 
higher level of harmful emissions, and I am absolutely worried 
that once again, these needs of these same communities will be 
overlooked as they were catering to a more affluent White 
consumer base. My question to you is, what policies should the 
Federal Government implement to ensure that minority consumers 
are incentivized to purchase electric vehicles, and what 
specific plans do you see on the horizon that would ensure that 
these electric charging stations will also be amply supplied in 
these disadvantaged communities?
    Mr. Strickland. Mr. Rush, I know your passion for this 
subject, and in our conversations so long ago, you know my 
passion for the very same subject across a number of things 
that impact our community.
    I think foundationally we need to get the money from the 
IIJA distributed to support overall infrastructure investment, 
charging investment, and also providing consumer demand. 
General Motors is committed to having affordable vehicles 
across our chain. In addition to the Chevy Volt, which was our 
first and most successful, and widest deployed affordable long-
range vehicle, we also announced the Chevrolet Equinox, which 
will be a $30,000 vehicle, which we will be also introducing 
into the market in a couple of years.
    I want to talk about the Climate Equity Fund that GM has 
made in obligations. We have $25 million to support, frankly, 
equity issues in the distribution of charging stations to 
support communities to be able to make sure that we leave no 
one behind. That is in addition to the $10 million that we have 
invested in racial justice and equity funds to help close gaps 
addressing communities that are adversely impacted by climate 
change, and in addition to supporting the 357 U.S.-based 
nonprofits for that goal. So, we need to make that investment 
because that not only helps every community, but it especially 
helps our community, and General Motors has an immense focus on 
making sure that diversity and equity issues are full and 
foremost made available to every community, rural, urban, 
Black, and Brown. We want to make sure that everybody is along 
for this ride, and nobody gets left behind.
    Mr. Rush. I believe in you. I believe in you. I believe in 
you, man.
    All right. Mr. Nassar, what percentage of electric vehicles 
are currently being manufactured by union workers?
    Mr. Nassar. I don't know the exact percentage of, but I can 
tell you, in addition to the vetting models that were talked 
about by Mr. Strickland, Ford and----
    The Chairman. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time has 
expired. We have many that want to ask their questions. The 
witness may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 118.]
    The Chairman. And now, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Allen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I think 
this has been very informative, but I am a little troubled by 
the fact that we are sitting here talking about things in the 
future and what it looks like.
    Let me tell you what is going on, on main street right now. 
How many of my colleagues have been into a grocery store in the 
last 2 or 3 days here in Washington, D.C.? I mean, the shelves 
are empty. I mean, this is a real problem. When you talk about 
energy policy, over the holidays we get together with family, 
and of course, a lot of questions are asked. Where is this 
thing going? And frankly, I said, based on the fact that when 
you pull into a service station today, you don't know if that 
service station--the energy policy of this Administration is so 
incompetent. You don't know if this service station has any 
gasoline to put in your automobile. I mean, we have all seen 
it. We have seen the plastic covers over the dispensers. And 
so, I said, we probably all need to have at least one of our 
automobiles electric to ensure that we can get from point A to 
point B. I mean, this is main street, folks.
    The other thing I mentioned to my friend from General 
Motors, Mr. Strickland, we have a three-generation Cadillac 
dealer in my hometown of Augusta, Georgia. Cadillac just came 
to them and said you are going all electric, and this is what 
you are going to have to invest or we are going to buy you out. 
They ran the numbers and there was no way economically they 
could do that. I understand there are over 400 Cadillac dealers 
across this nation that have closed because of this policy of 
General Motors Corporation. Just in my community that is 32 
very high paying jobs gone. This is what is going on, on main 
street, and here we are talking about the future.
    So, Mr. Mills, my first question is this. This new religion 
of climate change, if we do everything that the Biden 
Administration says that we need to do to fix this, how much 
are we going to lower the temperature of this planet? Does 
anybody have any idea?
    Mr. Mills. Congressman, I would just say that based on the 
published data, what we do know is that if the United States 
dramatically continues to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, 
the world carbon dioxide emissions are going to continue to 
rise. That is because of what is going on in China, India, the 
rest of the Asian countries and Africa. And that is just the 
IEA and IPCC forecast. So, we know that is what is actually 
happening on main streets all over the world. Emmissions are 
going up, not down. So, and that will happen without regard to 
what the United States does, frankly. So, even if we 
impoverished ourselves by not existing, there would still be 
rising carbon dioxide emissions. That is an elliptical way of 
saying that would mean essentially no measurable impact on the 
forecast temperature of the planet.
    Mr. Allen. So, what you are saying is we are putting our 
entire economy in jeopardy over this new religion, and we have 
absolutely no idea of the consequences?
    Mr. Mills. We are obviously guessing about consequences 
about what the future will be with respect to the climate. The 
climate--as any climate scientist will tell you, the climate is 
obviously changing. It is indisputable that the planet is 
warmer, and by the way, it is also indisputable that human 
activities have something to do with it. The dispute is over 
two things: how much warmer, how fast, what effects that has, 
and so, that is a science there, and the other that an area 
that is independent of climate science. What can one do about 
energy? What is possible with batteries, for example, is 
anchored in the physical chemistry, the physics of batteries. 
It is not amenable to government policy. We know the limits. We 
know what batteries can and can't do. They can do a lot, but 
they aren't going to replace all combustion engines anytime in 
the foreseeable future. So, this is--I mean, this is not a 
knock against what GM has done. GM is making a great truck. I 
have owned lots of Suburbans. I love them. I am ready to buy an 
electric truck to commute in on the farm. But an electric truck 
has a 1 ton battery by definition that reduces by 1 ton what 
you could have done with an identical vehicle with a gasoline 
tank.
    Mr. Allen. Well, I am out of time and I am going to have to 
yield back. But the audacity to believe that we actually have 
control of this, this is mind boggling to me, and I thank you 
for, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Bustos, 
who is Chair of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities 
and Risk Management, is recognized now for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott, and I also 
want to thank our Ranking Member Thompson for putting this 
together today.
    Obviously, the future of electric transportation is bright, 
and certainly we appreciate all the witnesses for their input 
today, and especially how we can make sure that rural America 
is not left behind as we continue this conversation.
    So, let me look at it this way, and I know we have talked 
about it a little bit. But obviously, we have electric 
vehicles, as I see it, as many of us see it, a major positive 
step toward decarbonization in the transportation sector. And 
really, we, as has been acknowledged, there is going to be a 
little bit of time before we get to this, full EV and every 
vehicle that is coming off the lot is an electric vehicle.
    So, the climate is calling for us to bring down carbon 
emissions now. That is not something that we can continue to 
just put off, and I appreciate our witnesses, a couple of who 
mentioned a bill that we have written out of my office, the 
Next Generation Fuels Act (H.R. 5089). I am really happy that 
we have bipartisan support for that, so thank you for our 
Republicans and Democrats who have signed on to this.
    And just very briefly, this is a bill that has support of 
many of our witnesses today, but it would require automakers to 
optimize their vehicles' engines to run on high octane, low-
carbon fuel, so like E20 and E30. There has been a recent 
analysis out of the University of Illinois in my home state, 
University of Illinois at Chicago, that says that the Next 
Generation Fuels Act would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2 
billion--2 billion--metric tons by the year 2040, and that 
would save nearly $100 billion in climate-related property 
damage and public health issues.
    So, this question can be answered by Mr. Strickland, Mr. 
Nassar, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Walter, and if one has something to add 
before or after the next, please do. But can you talk about how 
a new era of low-carbon, high octane liquid fuels in the Next 
Generation Fuels Act specifically would impact your businesses 
and your members as we continue to transition to electric 
vehicles? And why don't we start with Mr. Strickland, and then 
go to Nassar, Cooper, Walter, whatever you have to add on that, 
please.
    Mr. Strickland. Well, Mrs. Bustos, clearly before we get to 
our all-electric future in 2035, we are going to be selling 
internal combustion engines. So, as I noted earlier, we will be 
selling 30 to 40 million of those vehicles, and the ability and 
the opportunity of being able to use lower carbon fuels such as 
higher octane is incredibly important. There are advantages 
there where you can get three to nine percent better fuel 
efficiency with higher compression and higher octane fuels and 
biofuels. And we believe that the path to zero is going to be 
inclusive of that particular pathway. We are looking forward to 
working with you and the Members on your important legislation.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Nassar. Thank you for the question. Well, first of all, 
it is going to be very helpful for the agricultural implement 
sector, because it is really going to help increase demand for 
farming equipment. So, it will certainly be helpful on that 
score.
    It would also be helpful, in meeting the CAFE standards, 
which we are supportive of the moderate standards that were put 
forward, finalized by the Biden Administration with support 
from automakers. But this will help comply with those 
standards.
    So, this is kind of an overlooked area is the fuels when it 
comes to having--how that could really improve reduced carbon 
emissions and improve manufacturing employment. So, that is 
important.
    Mrs. Bustos. Very good. Thank you, Josh.
    Mr. Cooper. May I add?
    Mrs. Bustos. Yes, please.
    Mr. Cooper. Yes. Thanks, Congresswoman, for the question. 
This is certainly a piece of legislation that we strongly 
support in the ethanol industry. We do think it marks a huge 
step toward decarbonizing our liquid fuels. You are right. It 
is going to take a long time for the fleet to turn over to 
electric vehicles. We ought to be doing something in the 
interim, and your bill would move us a long way down that road 
toward decarbonizing those fuels.
    And the other thing we like about it is not only is it 
requiring higher octane in our motor fuels, but it is requiring 
lower carbon as well. It is really marrying those two aspects 
together, and it just so happens that ethanol is the highest 
octane, lowest carbon fuel source available on the market 
today. So, we do see the bill as a significant opportunity for 
our industry, and frankly, a significant opportunity for 
consumers because it would make a meaningful dent in emissions 
from the transportation sector.
    Mrs. Bustos. All right. Mr. Walter, I would love to have 
chime in, but I think we are out of time, and we will hear from 
you. We will hear from you at another time.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 117.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now, we recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. 
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is pretty 
clear to me that EVs will play a role, obviously, in the 
transportation sector of the future. But there are other 
technologies that have been proven ways to offset carbon or to 
minimize the carbon footprint, and of course, biofuels is a 
huge one. And although I am still not sure why we haven't had a 
committee hearing on biofuels yet in the 117th, I do want to 
thank the Chairman and his team for having Mr. Cooper, because 
I think his testimony helps to round out the record a little 
bit. And when I talk about proven technology, I mean, that is 
no joke. Between 2008 and 2020, biofuels offset 1 billion tons 
of carbon. I will just mention that again. That is a billion 
metric tons of carbon, and I think that is obviously worth 
noting at the committee level.
    So, I do have a question for Mr. Cooper. You talked a 
little bit about E15, sir, in your testimony. I want you to put 
a little more meat on that bone, if you will. What does the 
path forward look like for E15? What should it look like, as 
well as for E20 and higher blends for non-flex-fuel vehicles?
    Mr. Cooper. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman, 
and I am happy to answer it.
    We absolutely believe that E15 is one of the best near-term 
opportunities we have for really jump-starting decarbonization 
in the transportation fuels marketplace. Analyses we have done 
and others have done shows that simply moving from the current 
gasoline blend, which is ten percent ethanol, to E15 nationwide 
would reduce carbon emissions by about 18 to 20 million metric 
tons per year, just that simple switch. And virtually every car 
on the road today is legally approved to use E15. We have a 
number of retailers already offering the fuel. My friend, from 
Sheetz, who is also a witness today, is among the leaders in 
offering E15 to consumers. So, we do see that as the next 
logical step in this transition.
    However, we have some key barriers in place that need to be 
resolved. The most prominent of those is this ridiculous 
volatility regulation that prevents retailers from offering E15 
during the summer months in about \2/3\ of the country. We felt 
like we had that problem resolved when EPA adopted regulations 
to fix it a few years ago. The refiners didn't like it. They 
sued EPA. That regulation was recently overturned. The Supreme 
Court declined to review it, so we are right back where we 
started where we have this summertime ban on E15. So, that has 
to be fixed. We know there has been legislation introduced in 
both chambers to rectify that situation. We strongly support 
that, but there are other things EPA can do administratively to 
fix that problem as well.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, of course, and Mr. Cooper, the Reid vapor 
pressure for E15 is actually lower than it is for E10, so there 
is no technical reason the E15 wouldn't be made available year-
round.
    And just quickly, because I do have another line of 
questioning. It is not just about E15, right? I mean, I do 
think we also want to think about what is the sweet spot for 
non-flex fuel vehicles E20 or some other blend, right?
    Mr. Cooper. It absolutely is, and that really gets to the 
Next Generation Fuels Act and the need for those mid-level 
blends. That is the sweet spot. The E25, E30 range is where 
ethanol's properties are really leveraged, that high octane 
content, that low carbon attribute. And so, if we have high 
octane fuels like an E25----
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Cooper, I have to reclaim. I am sorry, I 
just have a minute and I do want to get a sense from Mr. 
Strickland.
    Mr. Strickland, I am from South Dakota and I appreciate the 
incredible technological advances batteries have made, but of 
course, all batteries still substantially under-perform in cold 
weather. And I don't want everyone to think that South Dakota 
is always a tundra. Three of the seasons are wonderful, but 
winter is terrible. It might be 50 there today, but last week 
there were a few days where it was 40 below freezing.
    So, Mr. Strickland, that is clearly a real technical 
limitation to widespread EV use during the winter months. Tell 
me about how General Motors views that.
    Mr. Strickland. We don't actually--long-term, we do not see 
that as a long-term technical barrier. We are working through 
and doing our testing in extreme climates. Our Altium battery 
chemistry addresses a number of these things long-term, and 
yes, we recognize the fact that what we have seen in past years 
in terms of reduced performance, we recognize that as a company 
and our engineers are working to make sure we address that. 
Actually, I had a conversation with Senator Thune before I left 
the Commerce Committee about this very similar thing, and yes, 
you are right. South Dakota isn't always a frozen tundra.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, let's follow up, because I am interested 
in learning more, but I am out of time, and I want to thank the 
Chairman for his indulgence. Mr. Strickland, let's follow up 
because I want to learn more.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson. I appreciate the opportunity. This is a very good 
hearing today.
    As excited as we should be by the increase in EVs, it is 
important to emphasize the importance of EVs in rural 
communities as we have talked about today. Like much of 
Arizona, in my Arizona district oftentimes discussions about 
electric vehicles center around consumers and businesses in 
urban, suburban, or exurban settings. However, the move to 
electric and clean energy vehicles can provide profound 
economic opportunity for rural communities, and we are already 
seeing these benefits in Arizona.
    My district is the proud home to the manufacturing centers 
of two major clean energy startups. Lucid Motors, which began 
delivering electric vehicles to consumers in October 2021, was 
built--has a massive factory in Casa Grande in southern 
Arizona, and plans on continuing investing in the community. 
Another clean energy vehicle startup, Nikola Motors, builds its 
zero emissions heavy-duty trucks in Coolidge, Arizona, 
utilizing hydrogen fuel cells to deliver vehicles that will 
help further reduce emissions from vehicles on the roads. These 
two companies will bring much needed American manufacturing to 
Arizona and provide good-paying jobs with sustainable economic 
growth for the region, as well as the development of the 
electric grid and the other clean energy sources that will be 
built throughout America and rural America.
    Most recently, Congress passed the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act legislation that included $7.5 billion 
for electric vehicle charging. The text includes some of the 
language that I helped develop to determine where these 
electric vehicle charging stations should be located, 
specifically ensuring that the needs of communities like Native 
American communities and rural communities are incorporated. 
While the Infrastructure Investment Act includes funds to 
modernize and upgrade transmission and other electrical grid, 
more needs to be done to ensure that these charging stations, 
particularly those in rural and Tribal communities, have the 
power to meet their specific electric vehicle needs and the 
needs of our economy.
    Mr. Strickland, thank you so much for being here. What 
sorts of infrastructure is needed to ensure that rural and 
underserved communities like Native American communities can 
purchase and effectively utilize EVs, not just in their day-to-
day life, but in their industries and the ability to be able to 
have the economies that they need so dearly?
    Mr. Strickland. Well, Representative, the IIJA 
implementation is incredibly important to get those resources 
out to support charging stations, but also, the Build Back 
Better Act, which also includes the EV tax credit and the 
consumer side pull to make those vehicles affordable for, 
frankly, everybody in rural communities and other communities 
of color, including Native American communities, is especially 
important.
    GM has made a commitment for the production and the sale of 
affordable electric vehicles, whether we talk about the Volt or 
the Equinox, but foundationally speaking, we need a commitment 
from Federal, state, and local to partner with all of us in 
terms of implementing charging infrastructure everywhere that 
it is needed, and getting that support. We are willing to make 
those investments in partnership with our 4,000 dealers, and 
frankly, it is going to be making sure we get, not only the 
IIJA implemented and all the things that are there, but also 
getting Build Back Better done, which has also those other 
consumer pulls and those other supports that we need to make 
sure that electric vehicles are available to all.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
    When I am pulling my horse trailer or somebody is doing 
their RV for tourism across my district and across America, and 
trucks are long hauling it across our country, it is going to 
be critical that we really understand completely what this grid 
is going to have to look like and what the charging stations 
are going to have to be, and how this all works together.
    Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. O'Halleran. As of right now, I don't know that. I think 
we are moving in a direction that is going to bring about a 
tremendous amount of technological change to get us where we 
need to be, but we do have to be careful as we move forward.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. O'Halleran. Well stated.
    Now, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all 
the witnesses being here today talking about this important 
issue.
    As you all know, it is important to agriculture and a 
district like I represent from Indiana. And, we hear a lot 
about the vast decrease in the carbon output because of 
electric vehicles, but rarely about the total lifecycle and the 
carbon footprint of these vehicles when we compare to 
combustion engines. So, our nation, in our latest attempt to 
rise to the vehicle electrification often seems forced, 
especially given the viable and practical middle step of 
biofuel adoption.
    So, Mr. Cooper, how do the biofuels play into this 
transition and the broader decarbonization of American 
transportation, and how does this carbon footprint compare, and 
how do crop yield improvements and the conversion of 
conservation practices of farmers impact the carbon intensity 
of biofuels? Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman, 
and we agree completely that the carbon footprint and the way 
it is measured matters very much to the decision making around 
where we go with the future of our transportation sector. The 
IEA study that was mentioned earlier by the Ranking Member 
actually shows that yes, on average, when you consider the 
source of minerals and the source of electricity generation, 
electric vehicles are about 50 percent cleaner than a 
petroleum-fueled internal combustion engine. That can range a 
lot from a seven percent reduction to a 77 percent reduction.
    With biofuels and corn ethanol specifically, we are also 
already at a 50 percent reduction compared to gasoline, and we 
have some member companies that are producing ethanol that is 
70 percent, 75 percent better than gasoline.
    So, again, if the goal here is to reduce emissions from the 
transportation sector, there is more than one way to do it. 
Ethanol is here. It is available today. It is available now to 
immediately jumpstart decarbonization efforts, and the first 
step is getting more ethanol into the blend, E15, E20, E30.
    So, again, I just can't say enough about the importance 
about using the same measuring stick when we look at the carbon 
footprint of these various fuels in vehicles.
    Mr. Baird. Especially when considering the tremendous 
impact that sudden change can have on our agricultural 
industry.
    So, Mr. Mills, do you have any comments in this same 
regard?
    Mr. Mills. I think I will just reinforce the fact that the 
IEA study does show the estimated 50 percent reduction counting 
all the emissions from fabricating the batteries, chemicals, 
and mining. But the IEA also points out that the trajectory for 
the future is for the reduction in emissions to go down, but as 
the emissions from producing the materials are rising, not 
declining, that is sort of locked into the geophysics of 
materials.
    The International Clean Car Transportation Council has also 
looked at this fuel cycle issue, looked at it from country to 
country, and they find that to the point that Mr. Cooper made, 
that the emissions reductions can range from as little as seven 
percent to as much as 70 percent. But this is all based on 
today's practices. We are talking about increasing the demand 
for minerals to make batteries by over 1,000 percent. That will 
put so much pressure on the rural mining. I would just be happy 
to predict--not happy, but willing to predict that we are going 
to see a kind of road block--no pun intended--to expanding 
battery production globally, long before any of the aspirations 
for the level of EV penetration happens. That will lead to 
higher prices, not just for batteries, but higher prices for 
all the commodities that are made from copper and nickel and 
cobalt, the same minerals. So, it is a very serious 
inflationary pressure on the broader economy, which is being 
underestimated and completely ignored.
    Mr. Baird. Well, thank you very much.
    Mr. Walter, would you care to elaborate in terms of the 
company you work for, as well as the association you work for, 
and how the biofuels impact your industry?
    Mr. Walter. Yes. So, the c-store industry operates 120,000 
locations offering motor fuels, but specifically, the 
environmental savings have been highlighted by Mr. Cooper. But 
in terms of Sheetz, since 2019, E15 sales have grown 92 
percent, and since 2017, they have grown 300 percent. And that 
is really off the backdrop that ethanol is able to be procured 
cheaper than gasoline, and we are able----
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, but 
you may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 118.]
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to you and the 
Ranking Member, this is a great hearing that we are having 
today. And also, I would just like to give a shout-out to 
Congressman Austin Scott from Georgia, winning in the national 
championship. They don't want to talk about it last time, but 
this time around is a proud alumnus of the University of 
Georgia. They finally were able to beat Alabama.
    As billions of dollars in investments have been made in 
EVs, and the required infrastructure needed to sustain them, 
the U.S. must invest in workforce to meet the demands of an 
electrified future. The first question--this question is for 
all panelists. What type of academic programs and training are 
necessary to prepare for future workforce, and how can the 
industry prepare HBCUs to meet this demand?
    Mr. Strickland. No, Josh, go ahead. No, go ahead, Josh.
    Mr. Nassar. Oh, sorry.
    Well, first of all, we need to in general have more of a 
focus on trade schools and those kind of jobs regarding 
manufacturing and really supporting those as a career option. 
As far as auto workers being able to work--existing auto 
workers on electric vehicles, that is not something that is of 
major concern. Workers are used to transitioning from vehicle 
to vehicle, platform to platform. But really, we need a lot 
more when it comes to encouraging people to work in 
manufacturing, and making them good jobs really helps.
    Thanks.
    Mr. Lawson. Anyone else on the panel?
    Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. We at GM are definitely making 
that same investment in terms of training and protecting our 
workforce. We have about 1.3 million years--1.4 million years 
of collective experience, and not only sort of dealing with the 
entire vehicle that we have an essential workforce. And looking 
at our initiatives long-term for training, we definitely have 
that same focus as Josh mentioned in his response, and it is a 
partnership that is best served for us to be able to bring our 
workforce along and make those opportunities available.
    And just another note of personal privilege, also go Dogs. 
I am from Atlanta.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. Anyone else before I ask the next 
question?
    Mr. Wood. I have one more thing to add, if I may?
    Mr. Lawson. Go ahead.
    Mr. Wood. So, some of the work that Southern Company has 
done particularly with the University of Georgia is developing 
e-Mobility certificate that will be housed in the College of 
Engineering, but it is cross-functional with aspects of public 
policy from the business school, from public health, with the 
idea that electric transportation itself is a budding industry 
and it is growing, and you may need to know aspects of it in 
other jobs that you get.
    So, that is in flight now, but also with in conversations 
with university systems of Georgia, with our technical colleges 
system, I tend to break this out into three kind of big 
buckets: the infrastructure itself and understanding how that 
needs to be installed; vehicles and autonomy, and what that 
means for the second piece; and the third piece will be on the 
corporate side. For example, if you work in a fleet 
electrification capacity for a large package delivery company, 
you still need to understand how electric vehicles work and how 
those are different than maybe traditional fleet vehicles. So, 
that is a big focus for us.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay, and I know that this next question I will 
try to get in is that as we look across America and we see all 
of the hurricanes, tornadoes, and stuff that have caused so 
much damage, and it is always sometimes weeks and so forth for 
electric utilities to get back up. What type of relationship 
would this have on vehicles, especially in rural areas, when 
electrification is down and at the same time, people won't have 
transportation if we have more electric vehicles and not using 
any fossil fuel for them to get around? Has that been taken 
into consideration when you all are looking at getting more 
charging stations and so forth?
    Look at the recent tornado that we had and the devastation 
that it caused in Kentucky and other places.
    Mr. Wood. Yes, that is actually a great question. I have a 
couple points on that. One being if the power is out, yes, 
electric vehicles will be at a bit of a disadvantage, but also, 
gasoline vehicles will too because pumps won't operate without 
electricity. However, one of the main thrusts of states is that 
they are planning for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act formula funding that is coming is putting together a 
statewide plan. Some states, such as Florida, have already 
published a statewide plan with hurricane evacuations and 
whatnot already in that plan as it relates to electric 
vehicles, and more and more states are doing that. Utilities 
are also doing that.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, is recognized now 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson.
    Supporting innovation that will create jobs at home and 
lower our emissions in the transportation sector is obviously 
all our goal, and in efforts to reach this vision, there are 
many steps that we need to take. However, I do want everyone to 
remember--and this is so critical--that the consumer dictates 
the demand for vehicle purchases, not government, and I think 
so often we put that cart before the horse. Electronic vehicles 
obviously represent one potential opportunity, but we should 
not let biofuels, carbon capture, and other technologies get 
swept under during this discussion.
    I believe accurate information is always necessary, factual 
information, to provide industry with the tools needed to 
innovate in this space. It is one the reasons that I introduced 
the COST Act (H.R. 5621, Comparison of Sustainable 
Transportation Act), which would examine the cost of the 
lifecycle of emissions of fully electrifying the Federal fleet 
versus transitioning it to a flex-fuel vehicle fleet.
    Mr. Mills, I appreciate your insight from the research 
challenges related to electric vehicles, carbon accounting. In 
your testimony, you noted that there are no reporting 
mechanisms or standards equivalent to the transparency with 
which petroleum is obtained, refined, and used. How may we 
establish reporting mechanisms or standards to perform this 
research, leading to more accurate information and a lifecycle 
of carbon emissions?
    Mr. Mills. Well, thank you, Congressman. That is a 
challenge. I think the model we have might be in the mineral 
space. You recall some years ago concern about so-called 
conflict diamonds, knowing where diamonds came from and not 
from abusive labor practices. It is a very difficult issue, 
because the industries, businesses, and the people who are 
engaged in mining, virtually all the minerals are not under the 
jurisdiction of American firms, American legislators, 
regulators. So, we can ask, and I think we should ask 
manufacturers to be more transparent in the supply chain. Many 
of them are trying. Let me just give credit to companies like 
GM and Mercedes Benz and others. They are making the attempt to 
document the supply chain where practices are abusive. It is 
very difficult. I think we just have to demand more.
    But the same thing would be applying to where these things 
are being produced, the labor to the point we heard earlier, 
the labor in the mining and the processing is all overseas. 
Assembling electric cars here is no different than assembling 
internal combustion engines here and having all the fuel and 
all the labor to make the fuel for gasoline overseas. That is 
exactly where we are with electric vehicles.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thank you so much for that answer, 
and I agree with you.
    My next question, many of the convenience stores in my 
district serve communities with populations of only a few 
hundred people. Most communities, it is the main area. It is 
the one store they have, and it is so important to me that 
these convenience stores continue their operations for years to 
come. Mr. Walter, do you have concerns for the viability of 
these local stores, and how can we ensure that these businesses 
continue to operate without undue burdens?
    Mr. Walter. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman.
    I think, the c-store industry as a whole wants just a level 
playing field that is open, that is highly competitive, and as 
you know, we serve many customers every single day, millions 
across the country, and what we really want is an open level 
playing field with price discovery that is apparent across the 
board.
    As I mentioned earlier, the fuel market is highly 
competitive, and today the EV market or the charging--for 
charging is very much opaque. And so, at the end of the day, we 
are here for our rural communities. We want to serve them, and 
we want to serve them at the lowest cost possible.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, and you are exactly right. I mean, 
every one of my communities, the convenience stores are a vital 
part and vital economic engine for our main streets, so thank 
you for those things.
    As we continue to discuss investments and cleaner 
transportation, we must avoid putting all our eggs in one 
basket. As I said before, this current Administration put out a 
report projecting that four out of every five vehicles 
purchased by 2050 will still run on liquid fuels, and taxes of 
liquid fuels are paramount when you talk about maintaining our 
rural roads, and that is a whole other discussion. To achieve 
our vision and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 
transportation sector, we must also be looking at supporting 
biofuels by allowing year-round E15, supporting the deployment 
of carbon capture technologies, and considering a nationwide 
Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
    And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thank you to all 
of our witnesses for being here today and lending your 
expertise to another biofuels discussion.
    I just wanted to correct the record here. We did have a 
CEEC biofuels subcommittee hearing last November, so we have 
been addressing biofuels, and for me, it is a key priority. So, 
I am glad we are here again.
    A little less than a year ago, this Committee held its 
first hearing of the new Congress on the topic of climate 
change, and the potentially devastating impact on agriculture 
and rural communities. And from, of course, increased 
uncertainty to unpredictability of weather patterns to more 
powerful storms like we have seen in Iowa with the derecho and 
floods, et cetera, of course, many of our farmers are on the 
front lines dealing with the issues related to climate change.
    So, within the transportation sector, which contributes the 
largest share of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions, we have 
a couple of key tools here to reduce those emissions, electric 
vehicles and biofuels. And gosh darn it, if I didn't just find 
out today that the first electric vehicle was made by a Des 
Moines guy in Iowa a long, long time ago. I did a little bit of 
history there. So, we have some--a history in that, 
Representative Feenstra, that I wasn't aware of.
    But as a new and promising technology, we know that 
electric vehicles have received a heck of a lot of attention 
lately, including significant funding in the bipartisan 
infrastructure law. So, I am looking forward to seeing how 
those investments build out necessary infrastructure for 
greater electric vehicle use, benefitting both urban and rural 
communities.
    However, the dire need for carbon reduction can't wait and 
be achieved when we have electric vehicles alone as the only 
option, and we can't wait for this to get to scale. We have to 
capitalize on the carbon benefits possible today through the 
use of biofuels. And as was pointed out through Mr. Cooper's 
testimony, Americans will continue to consume hundreds of 
billions of gallons of liquid fuel for years to come. So, if we 
are taking the climate crisis seriously, we have to replace as 
much of those gallons as possible with higher blends of 
biofuels.
    And thankfully, our farmers and biofuel producers are doing 
their jobs and providing billions of gallons of clean-burning 
biofuels. In fact, your members have even committed to being 
net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, so this is exciting.
    So, my first question goes to you, Mr. Cooper. As you noted 
in your testimony, it is going to take some time, decades, for 
the vehicle fleet to convert to electric technologies, and some 
heavy-duty uses may never find an electric solution. So, that 
is another reason to look at biofuels. So, could you please 
expand on how biofuels will be able to make significant 
contributions to lower the carbon transportation sooner than 
electric vehicles?
    Mr. Cooper. I am happy to, and thanks for the question, 
Congresswoman.
    We agree completely. If the goal here is decarbonization, 
we have to get started now. We cannot afford to wait decades 
for more electric vehicles to penetrate the light duty vehicle 
fleet. And so, we need a few things in order for that to 
transition to really kick start with biofuels, and one of those 
is more infrastructure. We can't allow consumers to capture the 
full benefits of low-carbon biofuels unless retailers are 
offering those fuels, and so, we need to see more 
infrastructure in place that would allow for dispensers and 
storage tanks and other equipment compatible with these fuels, 
and that is why we strongly supported your work to include some 
funding in the House-passed Build Back Better bill for biofuel 
infrastructure, nearly $1 billion. That is quite significant 
and would really help in this transition.
    But you are absolutely right. Corn ethanol today already 
offers a 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction. We have a lot of 
ethanol in the marketplace. In fact, the California Air 
Resources Board has certified that some ethanol is already 70 
percent better than gasoline, and we are well on our way to 
net-zero emissions for corn ethanol. So, that transition is 
well underway, and we just need continued support to make sure 
that happens.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you for that, and speaking of continued 
support, I want to move to another policy I am working on.
    Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied to review a 
district court decision last year that jeopardizes the ability 
for fuel retailers to provide year-round E15 for consumers. And 
so, if we don't pass the bill that I have done along with 
Representative Angie Craig, the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act 
(H.R. 4410), and allow the sale of year-round E15, what are the 
consequences of this decision, both in terms of rural 
communities and carbon output?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, it would have a significant impact. We 
have already noted that transitioning to E15 would reduce 
emissions by about 20 million metric tons nationwide, and we 
have heard from retailers that say if they can't sell the fuel 
year-round, they are unlikely to offer it. So, it is a huge 
barrier that needs to be resolved.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Of 
course, feel free to respond in writing.
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jacobs, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My question is for Mr. Strickland and Mr. Nassar: there is 
an issue that has been raised here in my community. I represent 
the outskirts of Buffalo, New York. We have, in my district, a 
Ford stamping plant and just outside my district, a GM 
powertrain plant. Between the two of them, they employ well 
over 2,000 people, very good paying jobs. It has been a staple 
of our industrial base for a long time, plus many, many 
suppliers, the old Harrison Radiator plant, which is in 
Lockport, also has about 1,000 employees which supplies a lot 
of GM products.
    But in our area, due to the fact that I look across the 
Niagara River to Canada, we have had a really robust and 
successful binational automotive manufacturing sector for 
years. NAFTA played a role in that. That was a very good part 
of the NAFTA, even though it was an imperfect trade deal, and 
both those plants rely very much on their proximity to Canada. 
The stamping plant stamps and then they ship that up to 
Oakfield up in Ontario where they add to that and it comes back 
down, and actually multiple trips back and forth in the 
production process.
    What I am raising is a concern that has been highlighted in 
the Build Back Better plan, Build Back Better Act that would 
provide the 12,500 electric incentive credit, in that it is 
only for American-made cars. And there is a concern that this 
would be harmful to these manufacturers up here which rely so 
strongly on a binational model. And there has also been 
concerns raised that this may be a violation of the new USMCA, 
which I am very concerned by, because of the fact that we are 
trying to remedy some of the problems that we have had with 
Canada not adhering to reducing the dairy tariffs that are in 
the USMCA.
    Anyway, we all support green energy. We all support the 
movement to have an added mix of electric cars, but it is very 
important to do that in a way that is not harmful to our 
employees and the significant employers that have really been a 
part of it, the automotive manufacturing fabric in this 
community for so long.
    If there is any comment on how we can do this to make sure 
that policies are not harmful to the employees and employers in 
a region like ours, which is a real binational region?
    Mr. Nassar. I am happy to answer that. Thank you for that 
question.
    A few things. First of all, the provision that you are 
talking about, it would be in 5 years, not allowing imported 
EVs to get tax credits. We very much agree that the supply 
chain work between Canada and the U.S. in your region and other 
areas is really important to maintain, and we are so, I agree 
with you on that.
    I think the whole thing, though, is that, first of all, as 
we have talked about EVs, they are four percent of sales. They 
are about two percent or less of the cars on the road. So, I 
think we need to take a deep breath and put things in 
perspective a little bit.
    Second of all, it is in 5 years, so there is time if it 
were to become law to try to work on some of these trade 
issues. But I think the other thing that--to look at is do we 
want to subsidize floods of EVs coming from China, from Mexico, 
from all over the place with U.S. taxpayer dollars? Our 
position at UAW is we don't think that is prudent. We think 
that we should focus U.S. taxpayer dollars on promoting U.S. 
manufacturing.
    So, one last thing. The EV tax credit stuff that doesn't--
there is an extra bonus for batteries made in the U.S., but 
besides that, it is not a content-related provision. So, the 
supply chain impacts should--we need to keep that in mind when 
we are analyzing it. Thank you.
    Mr. Jacobs. Okay.
    The Chairman. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Jacobs. Just to conclude, I just wanted to say that I 
understand and agree completely about flooding from China. A 
product I would say that differentiate a bit between Canada and 
Mexico were part of the USMCA, and that part of that agreement 
was to make sure that the wages are significantly raised if 
they are to participate----
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 
the witness may respond in writing. Thank you very much.
    And now, I recognize the gentlewoman from Washington. Ms. 
Schrier is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
of our witnesses. I have listened carefully to all of your 
comments and find this a very interesting discussion. I am 
really happy that we are discussing electric vehicles and that 
role in rural America, because this topic has come up several 
times in recent weeks as I have been out and about in my 
district.
    The first discussion was a bit of an eye-roll by a farmer 
explaining that the economics of running a farm are so tight 
right now between labor and feeling squeezed by buyers that the 
notion of investing in an electric tractor or electric semi was 
just not a realistic one. The second was a discussion with 
wheat farmers who told me that because of economics, they 
generally buy used trucks. They have their own semis and would 
be in no position to buy an electric semi. The third was 
interesting. It was actually a fruit farmer in my district who 
has made the investment and ordered a Tesla semi, and he sees 
that the country is headed in this direction. He made some 
calculations and determined that he will save enough in diesel 
costs and truck maintenance to make up some of the expense, and 
he also expects that he will be able to do something previously 
unheard of, which is back the truck right into the warehouse 
for loading, which will streamline the process, save a step, 
save time, and money. And you can't do that with a diesel 
truck.
    And then the last conversation was actually with Puget 
Sound Energy, and we were talking about what it takes to site 
electric vehicle charging stations. And we think from paying 
rent on parking spaces to siting transmission lines and 
installing transformers and payment systems, and it is really 
complex. And as one of our witnesses pointed out, really 
expensive. In fact, Mr. Mills, you noted that.
    I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Mills' comments about 
personal electric vehicles in rural America, and some potential 
challenges, including power outages. And so today, I would like 
to focus more on the electrification of semis and medium- and 
heavy-duty trucks, which make up just five percent of vehicles 
in the country, but contribute 25 percent of vehicle greenhouse 
gas emissions, and I believe 70 percent of particulate 
pollution. So, this in rural America is really where we get the 
most bang for the buck.
    So, Mr. Strickland and Mr. Wood, I want to get to you with 
questions about charging infrastructure. In the City of 
Wenatchee that is in my district, apple capital of the world, 
they invested in an electric bus system with an inductive 
charging system, which is amazing. The bus can come by, drive 
over this thing, charge up in 5 minutes, and get going again, 
and I would imagine that is the kind of thing we are going to 
need for electric semis.
    So, Mr. Wood, do you have an opinion based on your 
experience about what the smartest way is to develop charging 
infrastructure for buses and these semis and medium-, heavy-
duty trucks?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you for the question.
    So, what we have done at Southern Company thus far, 
especially to your question around electrification of medium- 
and heavy-duty vehicles, the first thing we did was look at our 
footprint across Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, and mapped 
out, for example, in the case of fleet electrification, where 
our warehouses are and--which are often in rural areas with 
access to interstates. But if you think of a warehouse, it may 
have air conditioning and lighting for a small office space, 
for example, but not for the amount of energy that 50 trucks 
can just show up outside and charge, for example. So, our first 
action really was looking at our electric grid and seeing where 
we have excess capacity, where we have maybe some constraints 
where we may need to do additional upgrading to figure out how 
we can assist customers, step one.
    Beyond that, there are challenges at each depot depending 
on the amount of vehicles, how it needs to electrify, what the 
end result or end goals of that customer are.
    So, to my earlier comment of involving the utility early, 
that is how, I guess, the smartest way to start is to make sure 
that you engage that conversation up front so the utilities can 
start to respond and understand what the implications are in 
that particular area for the grid.
    Beyond that, there are some interesting technologies. We 
have the Ray down in southwest Georgia. Allie Kelly is the 
Executive Director where she is investigating inductive charge 
and that exact thing, so it is definitely a technology that is 
up and coming. While more work is needed, it is definitely an 
interesting concept and I will be happy to connect you with 
Allie if you like.
    Ms. Schrier. Topic with my limited time, Mr. Strickland. I 
am wondering since you are dealing with fleets of electric 
vehicles with FedEx, for example, is there a way to have the 
same kind of charging infrastructure that would apply to fleets 
of delivery vehicles and semi-trucks and buses?
    Mr. Strickland. Representative, I will certainly get back 
with my group of very talented engineers and planners. They are 
probably better positioned to answer that than I, but our work 
group--on our commercial vehicle side, thinking about how we 
can provide----
    The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired, but 
please do respond in writing to her inquiry.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 109.]
    The Chairman. And now, the gentlelady from Minnesota, Mrs. 
Fischbach, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, 
I do appreciate a lot of the discussion or the comments that 
have been made regarding the biofuels, but I am still not sure 
quite what to make about the hearing.
    The hearing comes after the Majority's push through the 
partisan $2 billion--$2 trillion, excuse me--package that picks 
the winners in EVs at the expense of my district's farmers and 
biofuels producers. Now, we are here today and we are exploring 
whether this investment would work for rural America, and 
despite my colleagues already have picked a side.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert for the record the 
article from Wanda Patsche, a farmer in southern Minnesota, 
about what an EV mandate would mean for their livelihoods and 
the economic lifeblood of my state.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The article referred to is located on p. 108.]
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I agree with Mr. Cooper that liquid fuels are still here to 
stay, but because of that, biofuels will play an important role 
in reducing carbon emissions. Unfortunately, President Biden's 
Build Back Better Act doesn't agree, providing more than 15 
times the amount of EV incentives than for biofuels.
    Even further, I also saw the reports this morning that 
President Biden may be considering going back on his promise to 
producers in my district for annual biofuels volumes in Fiscal 
Year 2022. I can't help but see a trend of what the future 
holds for the biofuels industry that is so important in my 
State of Minnesota.
    There have been some comments about the credits that were 
included in the Build Back Better, but I would like to ask Mr. 
Strickland and Mr. Laughridge about the recently passed Build 
Back Better, which all of my colleagues on the other side voted 
for. It did provide several credits for the purchase of 
electric vehicles and plug-in or hybrid vehicles. Are you aware 
of any similar credits for flex-fuel vehicles that were 
included in the BBB that we passed recently?
    Mr. Strickland. Well, Representative, I am aware currently 
of the electric vehicle credits, but I am not as closely tied 
to BBB. I will get back to you on that, but I am not aware of 
it at this point.
    Mr. Laughridge. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am not strictly 
aware of the exact credits, but I do know we consider that 
everything should be a level playing field, and to achieve that 
widespread EV adoption, we really need to be looking at how 
that affects everyone equally.
    So, to me, I think it goes to the broad application of EV 
tax credits, but it should be a level playing field.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Well, 15 times more the investment doesn't 
seem like a level playing field.
    Mr. Cooper, could you respond to that same question?
    Mr. Cooper. I would be happy to, Congresswoman, and again, 
I am going to sound like a broken record here. But if the goal 
is to reduce carbon emissions from transportation, we ought not 
be picking technology winners and losers, and we really should 
be incentivizing the behavior to reduce emissions without 
regard to what fuels and vehicles are doing that. And then step 
back out of the way and let the market determine what the 
lowest cost, most economic way of reducing emissions is.
    We believe it is through flex-fuel vehicles in the near-
term. When you put corn ethanol, 85 percent ethanol blend into 
an FFV, you are getting a significant reduction in greenhouse 
gas emissions. You are correct. There was no incentive included 
in the Build Back Better plan for flex-fuel vehicles. We were 
optimistic when a bill was introduced in the Senate last year 
by Senators Klobuchar and Ernst that would have created a flex-
fuel vehicle credit. Unfortunately, that was not included in 
either the infrastructure plan or Build Back Better. So, we are 
hoping that can be picked back up this year.
    Mrs. Fischbach. And Mr. Cooper, just finally, I just have a 
few more seconds, but are you aware of any statements or 
inclinations from the Biden Administration that they would 
support these same incentives be extended to vehicles that use 
higher blends of biofuels?
    Mr. Cooper. I am not aware of really the Administration's 
position on FFVs at this point. We know there are also things 
EPA can do through its fuel economy or actually its tailpipe 
emissions standards to help incentivize FFV production. That is 
what led to the 22 million FFVs we have on the road today was 
the EPA and NHTSA standards. Those credits are no longer 
available to automakers, and so yes, EPA plays a role in this 
as well and would love to see those CAFE credits restored for 
flex fuel vehicles.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, and with that, I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
certainly thank you for holding this hearing, and for your 
leadership on these pivotal issues that are so timely. And I 
want to just thank you also for the breadth and the broad scope 
of the witnesses that are here to talk about it, because there 
are definitely pros and cons on this issue. I think this is 
important for the Committee to hear all sides of this, because 
it is so very, very important.
    Let me go to an area--many of the questions that I had have 
been asked over the past couple of hours, but I want to deal 
with the utility company rate structure issue. Because energy 
demand--let me direct this to Mr. Wood from the Southern 
Company. Since energy demand is much lower at night, some of 
the utility companies reduce their electricity rates at that 
time. But transition to electric vehicles will lead to a 
significant long-term increase in the demand for electricity. 
How do you anticipate that this load growth will impact 
electricity rates? Should rural customers, especially those who 
don't own electric vehicles, should they be concerned that 
their utility rates will go up higher, even though they are not 
utilizing the electric vehicles to the same extent? And does 
the Southern Company, or do you think others similarly situated 
to the Southern Company will support the creation of a new rate 
structure, such as real time pricing or time of use rates to 
impact customer behavior?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    So, Georgia Power actually offers a time of use EV charging 
rate for 1 per kilowatt hour from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 
incentive for EV charging, and that is a whole house rate. So, 
it is not sub-metered. So, theoretically, wash your clothes and 
run your dishwasher at the same time. And it is a time of use 
rate, so the rest of the time is off peak except for 2:00 p.m. 
to 7:00 p.m. in the afternoon.
    Similarly, Alabama Power also offers an EV charging rate 
for residential and also for public fast charging, business 
electric vehicle rates that eliminates demand charges that we 
think will be helpful for the convenience store industry as we 
have continuing dialogue with them. And those are happening 
already today.
    So, I guess in answer to your question, I don't look at it 
as a future issue. I think it is a today issue, and utilities 
are already navigating through that, especially considering 
this will be an incremental adoption of electric vehicles. I 
think we have plenty of time to have a dialogue and to see what 
the impacts will be. But to date, we haven't seen that.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much for that.
    Let me go to Mr. Walter regarding some of the fuel retailer 
incentives. I think you indicated in your testimony that one of 
the major factors deterring consumers from transitioning to 
electric vehicles is concern about where they will or won't be 
able to refuel. It seems that people will continue to get their 
car's energy, whether it is diesel or biofuel or electricity, 
from refilling stations, and especially so if they don't have 
access to a charging station at their residence.
    With fuel retailers being such an essential piece of the 
puzzle to help increase the adoption of electric vehicles, let 
me ask you if you can give us a sense of the size of your 
industry, how many charging stations your industry might have 
the capacity to provide if the right incentives were there, and 
could you just touch a little bit more on how we can 
incentivize the fuel retailers and the convenience stores to 
invest in new technology, and how we ensure that those 
incentives are flowing to our rural communities?
    Mr. Walter. Thank you, Congressman.
    As I mentioned before, we have 150,000 constituents and 
120,000 of them selling motor fuels today. I don't have the 
exact count of how many offer EV chargers to date, but I can 
tell you at Sheetz specifically, we have 78 locations that 
offer EV charging, which represents around 12 percent of our 
overall store portfolio. And what we really need is a clear 
economics around what it takes to provide energy to consumers 
through their ability to charge and them to have a guaranteed 
rate of what they will be charged at a convenience store like 
ours.
    If you look across the platform for our industry, there are 
widespread prices on the pylon that clearly tell you and state 
what the price of fuel is on any given day. That does not exist 
today for EV charging, and while we note that the growth of----
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, 
unfortunately, but please respond in writing to Mr. Bishop. 
Thank you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 118.]
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is 
recognized now for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you so much to all of our witnesses. You have been here with us 
for a long time, and I appreciate the time you have taken with 
us and your ability to describe this from your perspective.
    I want to say a couple of things before I ask my questions. 
I come from Maine. I come from one of the most rural districts. 
Even though we tend to think about rural districts being 
somewhere else in the country, I represent a lot of farmers and 
fishermen, and I have many conversations with people who drive 
Ford, GMC, Chevrolet trucks, virtually everybody does in my 
community, who can't wait to have the opportunity to have an 
electric truck. They can't wait to be done with the 
maintenance. They can't wait to have these changes and 
opportunities and see some of the new trucks coming off the 
line as having all the power they need, whether it is pulling a 
trailer or putting a big load on, or using it at a job site for 
a generator. I mean, we keep talking about these in a negative 
way as if people are running in the opposite direction. I know 
there are affordability issues. I know we want to make sure 
that our electricity comes from renewable fuel, but these are 
going to be a great opportunity in rural America.
    I also know that to the extent that people have the 
opportunity to put solar panels on their houses because of the 
reduced cost of solar power and the credits available, people 
are anxious to stop having to pay their utility bills and be 
able to pull their truck in, use their solar power, and power 
their trucks that way and be independent in that way.
    So, we keep talking about this in a negative way, but I 
think it is important to think about the great opportunities 
this offers up, the opportunities for agricultural equipment as 
we discussed a little bit, precision agriculture, some of those 
opportunities. And also even on the convenience store side, I 
was glad to hear Mr. Bishop's questions and appreciate your 
response on those.
    But frankly, when you have to plug in your electric car at 
a convenience store down the road, you have just that much more 
time to stop in, get some food, do a little shopping. I think 
it is a great market opportunity for them as well, and I 
understand some of the challenges about understanding what the 
pricing will be and getting some uniformity in what is a very 
new technology, really, of these plug-in stations. And I know 
they need to be, there needs to be some different standards, 
but that is why we are making these investments now so there 
can be uniformity and availability. And frankly, I am just very 
excited about what we have in front of us, and really, thank 
you all for lending your thoughts to that.
    Mr. Nassar, you have spoken about this a little bit, and in 
your testimony, you talked about the three-pronged approach to 
ensure competitiveness in electric vehicles and the 
infrastructure, and you sort of talked about the importance of 
the fact that we have already passed the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill, but also how it fits in with the Build 
Back Better bill, and why that will make a big difference. Do 
you mind just talking a little bit more about that?
    Mr. Nassar. Sure.
    So, the new law, it does have the funds for 
infrastructure--some funding for EV infrastructure and also for 
incentivizing electric buses, and it also includes some funds 
for helping--for DOE funds helping plants upgrade and change to 
be able to have more efficient products, basically. But, it 
didn't address anything about consumer incentives and consumer 
price, and that is going to be a big part of it. And also, more 
needs to be done on the what I would say the supply side. So, 
basically those things to really make sure that the battery 
production is here. So, we don't have all three prongs in play, 
to put it bluntly.
    Ms. Pingree. Great, and I appreciate that because we do 
want all of that--those jobs to be in America and that 
manufacturing capacity to be here.
    Mr. Strickland, thank you so much, and we love seeing the 
beautiful pickup truck behind you there. I hope that is on the 
road soon.
    You talked a little bit about--or I guess it was in your 
testimony about GM being interested in leveraging some of the 
USDA programs to support EV charging structure, and I know 
there has already been a question or two about that. But do you 
have any specific programs in mind, and can you talk about how 
that might help to fill the gaps since that is some of the work 
of our Committee?
    Mr. Strickland. I can definitely make sure that my team 
[inaudible] by USDA, but I know the Rural Electrification 
Program grants I don't know which part of USDA could be some of 
that helps leveraging. But more importantly, I think having the 
advice and the expertise of the USDA in sort of dealing with 
rural communities and being able to help identify parts and 
places where we can think about laying out infrastructure is 
very important. But I will certainly get back to you in writing 
in terms of where we see those opportunities within USDA to be 
leveraged.
    Ms. Pingree. Perfect timing. I yield back the rest of my 
time, as I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity, and thank you to all the witnesses here today.
    Climate change certainly poses an immense threat, and we 
must invest in renewable energy infrastructure, obviously, to 
protect our planet. Electric vehicles are an important part of 
modernizing our transportation sector. EVs--not only does this 
transformation benefit the environment, but it also 
significantly benefits the economy.
    Mr. Wood, the bipartisan infrastructure law will fund 
500,000 EV charging stations across the country to reduce 
emissions. Can you discuss how EVs and EV infrastructure will 
translate into jobs and workforce development in different 
parts of the country?
    Mr. Wood. Thank you for the question.
    So, as we think about the entire supply chain around EV 
infrastructure, and even the vehicles themselves of the 
components that it takes to make each of the pieces of the 
infrastructure or the vehicles, all--if you think about 
manufacturing plants, there is a supply chain that rolls into 
those, and there is a distributive supply chain beyond the 
product that you see. So, as we gain momentum, as we roll out 
more infrastructure, as we have a demand for increased 
charging, for increased materials, like wire conduit that will 
supply the electricity, for example, for vehicles that need to 
use that charging. There will naturally be a rising tide lifts 
all boats in that regard of more jobs, but it is also around 
workforce development, specialized training, people that 
understand this technology, how it works. For example, battery 
chemistry, what the next generation of batteries looks like. 
All of that will come as this charging gets rolled out and 
demand increases.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    In addition to the possibilities that EVs present, 
renewable natural gas, RNG, is a naturally occurring biomethane 
that can be captured during production at dairies, poultry 
operations, and hog farms. When cleaned up, it can be put into 
existing natural gas infrastructure and used as a carbon 
neutral or carbon negative transportation fuel. In 2020, 
California fleets fueled with California-produced RNG were 
carbon negative.
    Capturing RNG can address a couple of different issues. It 
captures harmful emissions from farms while providing a clean 
transportation fuel available to rural America today. What role 
do you see for RNG in providing clean fuels for rural America?
    Mr. Wood. So, as part of my work with Georgia Clean Cities, 
we talk a lot about carbon intensity and the alternatives. So, 
as we think about electrification--and yes, I know that is 
where our focus is today--sometimes there is not an electric 
alternative for a particular duty cycle or piece of equipment. 
In that case, sometimes it may make more sense to convert from 
gasoline or diesel to natural gas, for example, if there is 
equipment available. And that is a switch that can be made 
today versus waiting for a new piece of equipment 2, 3, 4, 5 
years out. So, I think there is definitely a role for RNG to 
play. That is a role that can be played today as we move 
forward with the public policy goal in mind of reducing carbon 
emissions.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield 
back. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, is recognized 
for 5 minutes. Mrs. Miller, you may need to un-mute.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
witnesses.
    I cannot embrace President Biden's radical Green New Deal 
agenda that forces American taxpayers to pay for electric 
vehicle infrastructure at a time when our farm families are 
struggling to heat their homes. High electricity demand breeds 
high stress on our power grid, as Californians and Texans have 
found out with rolling blackouts and calls to reduce energy 
consumption. I cannot embrace this agenda which is a taxpayer-
funded handout to China.
    A typical electric vehicle needs six times the mineral 
inputs as manufacturing a conventional car, according to the 
International Energy Agency. The vast majority of these 
minerals are mined in China with very low standards in labor 
and environmental protections. The Biden Administration's 
environmental agenda also ignores the global context of climate 
change. China emits twice as much as America. It is unfair to 
force American taxpayers to subsidize electric vehicle 
infrastructure for what seems to be President Biden's top two 
priorities: punishing rural America, and helping China. We have 
to hold China accountable, which is why I am introducing my 
bill today to ban Chinese purchases of our agricultural land.
    And with that, I have a question for Mr. Mills. Mr. Mills, 
rare earth elements are considered critical to modern batteries 
and electronics, yet United States is almost wholly dependent 
on China to supply our factories with these critical minerals. 
Just a few years ago, there was a real palpable concern that 
China would use its control of rare earth element production to 
further its geopolitical aims by restricting the export to the 
United States. If that happens, how would we build batteries, 
solar cells, wind turbines, and all the other tools of modern 
life? So, is rare earth mining more environmentally damaging 
than mining for other materials?
    The Chairman. Does the gentlelady yield back?
    Mrs. Miller. Well, did Mr. Mills--could he answer my 
question?
    The Chairman. Oh, Mr. Mills, did you hear the question?
    Mrs. Miller. Maybe I ran into it too fast.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mills is no longer on camera.
    The Chairman. Mr. Mills, you may want to un-mute.
    The Clerk. Ask if there is anybody on the panel that would 
like to address the question.
    The Chairman. Is there anybody on the panel that might want 
to pitch in?
    Well, thank you, gentlelady. You have 2 minutes remaining. 
Do you yield back?
    Mrs. Miller. Does Mr. Mills not want to answer that 
question?
    The Chairman. We have not been able to locate him on the 
panel.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 119.]
    Mrs. Miller. Oh, okay. Well, then I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Perhaps he has stepped off. Thank you.
    And now, we recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Costa, who is also the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
this good hearing that we are having today and the diversity of 
witnesses. I must, once again, congratulate you on national 
championship. It certainly has been a good year for Georgia, 
not only with the Braves, but also with the Bulldogs. Since we 
have Bulldogs out in California at Fresno State, I am happy to 
cheer you folks on.
    I want to try to focus on the big picture here. Mr. 
Strickland, I was at a meeting with one of your primary 
competitors, another major automotive company there in Detroit. 
It sets goals for 2030 of over the majority of their automotive 
production would be electrical vehicles. What similar goals do 
you have beyond the Volt and some of the other vehicles you are 
producing now as General Motors looks at the next 10, 15 years 
of automobile production?
    Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. We have 20 electric vehicles 
across our entire sales line, and we are going to be 
introducing over the window of when we are going to be fully 
electric by 2035. We are planning on selling one million 
electric vehicles by 2025, so we are very much fully invested. 
We are very much all in, and we align with the President's----
    Mr. Costa. I think it is important to put that in 
perspective, because General Motors, Ford Motor Company, the 
major automotive manufacturers not only here but in Europe all 
have similar targeted goals, it appears to me, as we are trying 
to look at how we go through this transition.
    Mr. Cooper, because we are talking here about electrical 
vehicles, but you talked in a comment earlier about being 
neutral as it relates to reducing carbon footprints in terms of 
choice of fuels. Would you care to comment in terms of what 
role hydrogen and there was a mention earlier by my colleague 
in California about what we are doing in dairy and we have 
turnkey operations on methane production today that are very 
successful economically. But what role other fuels may have as 
we make this transition?
    Mr. Cooper. Absolutely, and thank you for the question, 
Congressman.
    We think right there in California you have an excellent 
example of what can happen when you put a policy signal out to 
reduce carbon emissions, and with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard 
in California, the response you have seen from the marketplace 
is a combination of low-carbon fuels that have increased their 
presence in the market to achieve the reduction goals of the 
program. The same thing could happen at the national level with 
a similar type program, and you are right. Renewable natural 
gas has made a significant contribution to meeting the 
objectives of the LCFS in California, not only as a 
transportation fuel itself, as was mentioned earlier, but also 
as a process fuel to make ethanol and other biofuels. There are 
some ethanol plants in California that have invested in taking, 
capturing methane from dairies, digesting it, and using it to 
replace natural gas----
    Mr. Costa. What do you think about hydrogen?
    Mr. Cooper. We think hydrogen is another phenomenal 
opportunity for ethanol. Ethanol is a hydrogen-rich molecule. 
It is an excellent carrier of hydrogen, and we think ethanol 
could be a major source for fuel cell electric vehicles further 
down the road.
    Mr. Costa. My time is running out here, but I want to get a 
perspective here with the $7\1/2\ billion for the bipartisan 
infrastructure package on EV charging stations. And we look at 
rural America that I have grown up in, and I think back to our 
family's farming operation. When we talked about EV 
connections, members of my family and friends already have EV 
vehicles. They charge them at home. Our farming operation, we 
had two gas pumps, regular and premium, and we had a separate 
diesel tank.
    For a lot of our ag producers in my area, they are going to 
set up their own separate refueling methods for tractors and 
for other equipment that they are going to need to use. My time 
is running out, but I would like to see how we break this down 
in terms of American agriculture doing its part.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    And now, I recognize the gentlelady from Louisiana, Ms. 
Letlow, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thank you to all 
the witnesses for your participation today in discussing the 
implications of electric vehicle investments on agriculture and 
rural America.
    The 5th District of Louisiana is the definition of rural 
America. Agriculture and small businesses play an essential 
role in the local economies that serve the residents of our 
rural communities. In addition, the oil and natural gas 
industry is one of the leading industries in the State of 
Louisiana in terms of economic impact, taxes paid, and people 
employed. According to a 2020 report, the industry provided $73 
billion to the state GDP, and supported 249,800 jobs in 2019. 
However, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources recently 
estimated that the state lost 12,256 oil and gas industry jobs 
between March 1, 2020 and November 15, 2021. In my opinion, 
that is a substantial reduction to a sector that is so vital to 
our state's economy.
    Mr. Mills, as Members of the House Agriculture Committee, 
we often remind the public that the United States is the global 
leader in producing affordable and abundant food, fiber, and 
energy in a sustainable way. How could this Administration's 
top-down approach on policies up end our manufacturing, energy, 
and agriculture industries? Specifically, do you see premature 
investment in electric vehicles increasing costs and impacting 
jobs for our rural residents and lower income households?
    Mr. Mills. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I think the 
problems we have amounts to almost unserious examination of the 
whole fuel cycle, and I will come back sounding like a broken 
record on this, but the--America's mining industry is rural. 
America's oil and gas industry is rural. Its food industry is 
rural. These are rural industries. We have provided for several 
decades massive disincentives to the mining industry, so all 
the mining jobs and all the chemical processing jobs, which 
would otherwise be rural, that would be needed to make the 
battery cells to assemble vehicles here are going to be 
overseas. They are already overseas. We are going to increase 
them overseas. We are a net exporter of food, as you know in 
America, we are also a net exporter of hydrocarbon fuels. So, 
that goes away as we provide disincentives for that industry.
    It would be almost like disincentivizing the entire 
agriculture industry, and providing incentives to bankers, but 
importing all our wheat and banning wheat production in 
America. This is the path we are on with EVs.
    I think EVs are great. There is phenomenal technology. GM's 
products are wonderful. Ford's products are wonderful. They 
still don't have the functionality of a gasoline-powered 
vehicle for most of the uses that they are put to in rural 
America. So, it is a very odd asymmetry and a lack of 
recognition of the profound advantaging of other countries' 
industries over ours with these mandates that are being created 
here.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much, Mr. Mills.
    Mr. Walter, one of the principles in your testimony is to 
ensure fair treatment so all households are not forced to 
subsidize alternative energy users. Can you expand on this 
principle? Who pays for charging stations in rural communities, 
and why does it matter?
    Mr. Walter. In today's world, I mean, charging stations can 
be subsidized through utilities and the like. I mean, we in the 
convenience store industry, we are really focused on pricing 
our products at a fair market price. We sell commodities across 
the board, and that is really--if I could just speak to E15 
briefly. We have undercut or priced E15 versus 87, a regular 
grade gasoline by 20 to 25 across the industry, and we do so 
at a time while that brings on cost savings to the consumer.
    But in today's world, EV charging, per se, is being 
subsidized at a state level and at a national level, and we 
have not found EV charging implementation as an organization to 
be profitable at this time. And so, really, there is a lot more 
work that needs to be done until you can find an adequate 
return on invested capital in this space.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much to the witnesses.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again 
for hosting this important hearing.
    The transportation sector is the number one source of 
carbon emissions in the United States, and as we decarbonize 
our electric grid, transitioning to electric vehicles will help 
our country reduce carbon emissions and harmful pollutants, and 
thereby save our planet.
    To support electric vehicles, we need to build out a robust 
network of charging stations around the country, including in 
rural areas. These charging stations can be isolated. Urban 
areas need to adopt these charging stations so that people who 
live there can experiences the benefits of electric vehicles in 
my district to be important for our poor constituents and lower 
class. And visitors can feel confident traveling to and 
spending their dollars in rural communities.
    So, in short, we must ensure that rural Americans have just 
as much incentive to buy EVs as Americans living in cities and 
suburbs. But one of the main challenges to building out public 
electric vehicle charging infrastructure are demand charges. 
Demand charges are a monthly fee you pay to the electric 
utility in order to maintain the infrastructure needed for the 
power to reach your house or building. These demand charges are 
one way for utilities to recoup the costs they incur to 
maintain an electric system necessary to meet peak demand.
    However, many utilities have yet to adjust electric rates 
to ensure that demand charges levied against electric vehicle 
charging infrastructure accurately reflect the costs chargers 
impose on the electric system, and this means electric vehicle 
charging service providers pay more for electricity than they 
should. As a result, high costs must either be passed along to 
consumers, or eaten by charging service operation. Gas stations 
that include electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Can you 
explain to the Committee how high demand charges impact this 
space for having electric chargers, especially in rural 
communities?
    The Chairman. Ms. Kuster, you may want to repeat the person 
who you are referring----
    Ms. Kuster. I am sorry. My apologies. I am having trouble 
with my connection. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Who did you direct your question 
towards?
    Ms. Kuster. Mr. Walter. Mr. Walter from Sheetz.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
    Mr. Walter. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I mean, first and foremost, Americans are not going to put 
up with surprise fluctuations in the cost of energy at a retail 
location like ourselves unless there is clear price discovery 
that exists.
    You know, essentially price gouging or peak demand charges 
could negatively affect the consumer in many ways, and also 
potentially attract the authorities for passing on elevated 
costs. So, we are really not in a position to be able to pass 
on direct costs to consumers in today's environment. And I 
would liken it back to events where we have hurricanes whereby 
we are not able to raise the price of retail fuel, even though 
the physical product might be increasing at price in the 
physical markets. There are many laws on state of emergencies 
that are put forth that prohibit us from doing so.
    And then one last thing, in terms of some of these 
environmental concerns around national disasters, our industry 
is one of the first to come back online. We have backup 
generators in place with fuel to bring our industry back if and 
when possible.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kuster. We hear Ms. Kuster is 
having difficulty, and so, now we will hear from the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Cloud, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
    Just one quick question right off the top. Mr. Nassar, you 
mentioned that people should be free to choose to join a union, 
and I appreciate that. Would you agree that membership to a 
union should not be mandated?
    Mr. Nassar. No. I think that if you are benefitting from a 
collective bargaining contract, you should be part of the 
organization just like most other systems and organizations.
    Mr. Cloud. So, when you said people should be free to 
choose, you didn't really mean people should be free to choose?
    Mr. Nassar. No, I did mean that. What I meant was in the 
beginning about whether to decide--whether joining a union or 
not. In 90 percent of organizing--these captive audience 
meetings where employers daily lecture workers about the fact 
of dangers of joining unions----
    Mr. Cloud. It is a yes or no question. I got a lot of 
ground to cover.
    But do you know how much the price of automobiles has gone 
up in the last year?
    Mr. Nassar. I don't know precisely, no.
    Mr. Cloud. It is about 11 percent for new cars, 38 for used 
cars. Food has gone up about six percent as the official stat. 
When I talk to people, they will say it is more like 30 or 40 
percent what they are experiencing at the grocery store. Energy 
costs have gone up 30 percent, and frankly, I am a techie kind 
of guy. I appreciate this discussion on electric cars, but the 
discussion seems a little bit like we are putting the cart 
before the horse, to use an agricultural reference for the 
moment that we are in.
    Just to kind of bring this discussion into a little bit of 
context, I want to read this from the 2005, the Director of 
National Intelligence published a report, and it said this. 
``In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer 
of global wealth and economic power now underway--roughly from 
West to East--is without precedent in modern history. This 
shift derives from two sources. First, increases in oil and 
commodity prices have generated windfall profits for the Gulf 
states and Russia. Second, lower costs combined with government 
policies have shifted the locus of manufacturing and some 
services to Asia.''* And so, right now, we are in an 
unprecedented shift where everything that the American worker 
is working for has been shifting overseas in terms of economic 
influence and in terms of wealth and prosperity, and we are 
having this discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the quotation is from Global Trends 2025: A 
Transformed World, (emphasis as in original) available online at: 
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/
2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is notable that when we have produced energy exports 
here in the United States, what we don't see is other nations 
going green. What we see them doing is buying oil and gas from 
people who produce it much less responsibly. And so, one thing 
you mentioned is that China is ahead of us in electric vehicle 
technology, and that we are not going to be able to export our 
way into it. We are certainly not going to be able to import 
our way out of it as well when it comes to us being reliant on 
their rare earth minerals. They are also ahead of us in 
hypersonic missiles at the moment. They are also ahead of us 
when it comes to producing coal. And so, a lot of what we are 
talking about has to do with us being reliant on China. 
Meanwhile, they are producing more coal plants each and every 
year to make us have to meet the stated goals of the policy 
that we are talking about today.
    I also find it interesting that right now, California is 
asking people not to charge their electrical cars just to keep 
up with the electric shortage. Meanwhile, we are talking about 
putting much more of a tax upon that.
    A couple more points. I would point out that we used to 
produce ag products emissions free, and I see technology that 
we brought to scale with each successive generation that has 
allowed us to come to this point in history where we are, for 
the first time actually producing more food than the world 
needs. Now, we have some infrastructure issues in getting that 
food where it needs to go, obviously, and some geopolitical 
barriers and such, but it is the technology that has been 
brought to bear that is helping us to meet that need and to 
bring food to an affordable level. And right now, we see such a 
demand on the American household right now, and then what is 
proposed right now is this $12,500 credit for electrical cars. 
So, we are saying we are going to take money from the American 
people so that we can give it back to them after a modest 
Federal bureaucracy handling fee to purchase electric vehicles.
    And so, I am all for the free market. I think they are 
cool. I hope to one day have one, but it is important that we 
look at these discussions in the proper context, and certainly 
that we don't play into China's hands when it comes to this 
messaging that they are trying to get us to buy into it.
    Mr. Mills----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, 
unfortunately. However, please, you can respond in writing.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
    The Chairman. And now, we recognize the gentlelady from 
Florida, Mrs. Cammack, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking 
Member Thompson, and first, I would like to associate myself 
with the comments and remarks from my colleagues, 
Representative Cloud, as well as earlier from Representative 
Allen.
    We are dealing with very serious supply chain crises all 
around the country, and Representative Allen hit the nail on 
the head earlier talking about how here in Washington, D.C., we 
have empty grocery store shelves. And so, while this is an 
important topic, I think there are far more pressing items in 
the face of what we are experiencing with historic record-
breaking inflation.
    But I will jump right into it. I know several of these 
topics have already been covered, and I am going to direct this 
to Mr. Mills to bring it back to the farmer for a minute.
    Our farm equipment needs to function in all weather 
conditions, which can be a challenge in Florida's climate. EV 
batteries experience difficulties in extreme cold and heat, 
drastically reducing range and serving as a fire hazard in 
inclement weather and flood water. Florida, on average, we get 
about 56" of rain a year and that is without a hurricane, and 
we know we are prone to those. We are seeing that EV vehicles 
such as transit buses often rely on auxiliary heat and power 
systems, resulting in unintended emissions.
    So, Mr. Mills, rather than hoping that a battery works in 
warm or cold temperatures or relying on polluting auxiliary 
systems, doesn't it make sense or more sense to explore other 
forms of energy like the capture of farm emissions and use them 
in renewable natural gas-powered vehicles?
    Mr. Mills. Well, Congresswoman, thank you.
    I think the short answer is yes. I will elaborate slightly 
by pointing out that I am actually very optimistic about the 
progress we made in solving some of the problems you described 
for batteries. I was an interim CEO of a large format lithium 
battery factory and I am fairly familiar where their technology 
is going.
    I will just repeat a point I made in my original testimony. 
The real challenge, especially for big vehicles, trucks and 
farm vehicles, is the charging, the time it takes to charge, 
and the cost of the charging systems. A super charger, the kind 
that Sheetz would like to install, they are about $50,000 each, 
more than double the cost of a gasoline pump. Those aren't good 
enough for charging quickly a Deere-sized combine. There will 
be $100,000 kind of costs for the charger to charge these 
multi-megawatt level of systems that are required to do 
reasonably fast charging.
    So, it is fundamentally--and I hate to use the word--
convenience problem. Convenience is more than convenience when 
it comes to rural America. It is operational lifestyle. So, 
these are non-trivial barriers. It will take a very long time 
to solve, and cost a lot of money.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, I appreciate that, and you just 
mentioned, in your experience as CEO in dealing with lithium 
batteries, we take a little bit of a broader geo-strategic look 
at things.
    This all relies heavily on foreign suppliers to make this 
initiative work, and so, we know in the United States, 
especially under this Administration, mining has become an 
extraordinarily over-regulated industry and has created some 
very, very tough situations for folks as we try to reassert our 
independence on multiple fronts. Now, especially in places with 
lax regulations, like China, for example, that can cause severe 
environmental degradation, and I would argue that no one does 
this safer, better, more efficiently than the United States, 
yet it seems that we are exporting our dirty work to places 
like China in the name of green energy. Would you agree?
    Mr. Mills. Well, that is exactly what we are doing. We are 
exporting the carbon dioxide emissions. We are exporting the 
jobs, and we are exporting the revenues. And we are subject to 
the vicissitudes of the commodity market prices from other 
players. Just to repeat a fact that I put in my testimony, that 
60 to 70 percent of the cost to make a battery for a car or a 
truck is the cost of the commodities. We don't control that 
because it is all foreign markets, foreign revenues, and 
foreign politics, frankly.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Mills.
    Now, Mr. Strickland, I am going to redirect to you, and 
very quickly.
    As a growing purchaser of many of these foreign-sourced 
commodities, what steps is GM taking to ensure America's desire 
to make it like better here doesn't result in environmental 
catastrophe over there? What steps are you all taking?
    Mr. Strickland. Well, we are working on our battery 
chemistry so that we have 70 percent reduction in cobalt, as 
one example. We are members of the Institute for Responsible 
Mining Assurance, which is another element to make sure that 
our partners in our supply chain basically align to act with 
integrity and with safety. And also, we are working right now 
in California with Salt and Sea to be able to access supplies 
of lithium.
    So, we recognize the fact that we have to have great jobs 
here. We have to make sure that we are not dependent on these 
foreign sources, and we are working very hard to achieve that 
goal.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
    My time is expired. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    And now, ladies and gentlemen, we are approaching the end 
of this fantastic hearing. Let me just say how much we all 
appreciate this. Each of you have opened our eyes and our minds 
to much of what we were only dimly aware when it comes to this 
issue of making sure that we have electric vehicles for 
everyone, especially in our rural communities, which have for 
so many situations been unfortunately left behind. We will not, 
we must not, and we cannot do with them the way we have been 
doing in bringing rural broadband. But thank God, we have about 
$68 billion on the way to finally get rural broadband. Thank 
you.
    But before I get my closing statements, I would like to 
recognize our Ranking Member for any comments he would like to 
make.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you to you for this hearing. I look forward to lots more 
hearings. On our side of the aisle, we will clear our schedule 
for hearings. We really, as you heard a little bit of 
frustration seep through because of the supply chain issues, 
the agriculture issues, the oversight on the farm bill, and so, 
I appreciate today, but really, we really got to put our 
shoulder to the plow. I will describe it that way, and get to 
work on really ag-centric issues.
    I appreciate the nature of this, looking at the impact of 
rural America, the impact on agriculture. I want to thank our 
witnesses. I thought we got great witnesses, very balanced, and 
great experience that they brought to the task. And thanks to 
our Members, because participation was excellent, and that is 
always important, right? We need our farm team to show up, and 
they did today.
    You know, this really was, in the end, a climate-driven 
discussion because it is a climate-driven issue, and we all 
know that our goal should be in everything that we do, we work 
to decrease CO2 emissions. There is no industry that 
does that better anywhere in the world, certainly anywhere in 
this nation, than agriculture. The U.S. farmer is a climate 
champion, a climate hero--our U.S. farmers and ranchers and 
foresters. But, we know that we can't have a healthier climate 
or a healthier environment without a healthier economy. It is 
counterintuitive, doesn't work. If you compromise one for the 
other, it is going to fail, and I think this unilateral 
electric vehicle push, not to impose electric vehicles, but 
doing that at the cost of everything else, it compromises that 
principle.
    Today, we heard a balanced discussion on the topic of 
electric vehicles. Lots of questions have been raised and I 
think these questions and the information that was shared 
should instruct the Federal Government proceeding with any 
additional investments with electric vehicles. I think the 
American people deserve to have answers to the questions that 
were raised here by some of our witnesses, and certainly some 
of our Members.
    Now, I am pleased with the information that was shed on the 
role of agriculture, and specifically renewable fuels, in 
making America the world leader in reducing greenhouse gases. I 
thought that was nicely showcased and highlighted today, and 
that is a story we need to keep telling and bragging about. 
Top-down Washington dictates on to consumers is a flawed 
strategy. Science, technology, and innovation is critical to 
addressing the challenges, I think all of the challenges our 
nation is facing.
    Today, we are in the context of transportation, but we also 
know that science, technology, and innovation is critical for 
agriculture. It is because of science, technology, and 
innovation that America is leading the world in reduction of 
greenhouse gases.
    So, I do think in the end on this issue of electric 
vehicles, government can do what government will do, but 
consumers will be the deciding factor. They are going to make 
the decisions in the end.
    So, thanks again for the hearing, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much, and I want to thank you, 
Ranking Member, for our bipartisanship work that we have done 
together. We have moved to make sure that we got rural 
broadband now moving to finally get into rural America, and now 
we are dedicating ourselves to this.
    But first of all, in my closing comments, I want to just 
thank each of you. You have brought great wisdom to us, and you 
can see from the interchange and the discussions and the 
caliber of questions that our Committee Members asked that we 
are determined to provide the necessary leadership in making 
sure that our rural communities, our agriculture industry have 
a seat at the table when it comes to this. Billions and 
billions of dollars are being allocated for this effort, and 
you all with your excellent testimonies have helped us to make 
sure that we will not and we cannot leave rural America behind 
here. We are committed to that.
    So, to you, Mr. David Strickland with the General Motors 
Company, thank you. To you, Mr. Lincoln Wood, Electrification 
Policy Manager with the Southern Company, Georgia Power 
Company, thank you. And for you, Mr. Matthew Laughridge, owner 
and Managing Director of the Terry Reid Automotive Group in 
Cartersville, Georgia, on behalf of all of our national 
automobile dealers. And to you, Mr. Trevor Walter, Vice 
President of Petroleum Supply Management, the Sheetz company, 
on behalf of our National Association of Convenience Stores. As 
you so eloquently mentioned, our convenience stores play a 
critical role in making sure we have the charging stations 
adequately and effectively placed in rural America, as well as 
urban America. And to you, Mr. Geoff Cooper, thank you. You 
offer some tremendous points that needed to be discussed, and 
we are going to take those into consideration. Thank you so 
much. And to you, Mr. Josh Nassar, Legislative Director of our 
very great International Union, the UAW. I say that with 
heartfelt feelings, because I worked closely with the UAW for 
20 years in the Georgia legislature, as well as here in 
Congress. And to you, Mr. Mark Mills, Senior Fellow of the 
Manhattan Institute, thank you, and thank each of you for this 
extraordinary and very helpful hearing. Thank you.
    And now, I think I have a bit of housekeeping to take. 
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's hearing 
will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional 
information, supplementary written responses from our witnesses 
to any questions posed by a Member. And of course, I want to 
thank our staff. Didn't they do a wonderful job in bringing 
together this excellent hearing? Thank you, staff, and thank 
you, Anne, who is the director of our staff. Thank you. She 
works awfully hard.
    And now, this hearing of this Committee of Agriculture is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
  Submitted Article by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-tries-to-become-leader-in-an-
industry-thats-no-sure-thing/F6WTUWIEBJHDTL66J7SNJSJDC4/]
Georgia tries to become leader in an industry that's no sure thing

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Credit: Ben Gray.
News \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ajc.com/news/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Andy Peters, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Dec. 23, 2021
Electric vehicles may be future but EVs, charging stations still rare
    Georgia officials want the state to be a leader in manufacturing 
electric vehicles, which could very well be the next big thing.
    When it comes to seeing EVs on the state's highways and backroads, 
though, Georgia's got a long way to go.
    EV manufacturers flocking to Georgia? Check. A surge in consumer 
sales of EVs and charging stations blanketing the state? Nope.
    Rivian will start building a $5 billion factory \2\ next summer in 
Atlanta's eastern exurbs to manufacture electric trucks and SUVs, in 
what Gov. Brian Kemp has called the largest economic development 
project in state history. SK Battery America is nearing completion of a 
$2.6 billion EV battery plant \3\ northeast of the city. Many EV 
suppliers are expected to follow close behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.ajc.com/news/rivian-confirms-ev-factory-thousands-
of-jobs-coming-to-georgia/CUH7ZNS5URGODNQG7CEUU2FCVY/.
    \3\ https://www.ajc.com/news/battery-maker-sk-eyes-faster-hiring-
potential-growth-in-georgia/YB47RMLA6RDUHGZQEJZIPURWKQ/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But only about one in 50 cars sold in the U.S. these days is an EV, 
and Georgia is no different. An EV also is more expensive to buy than 
gasoline-fueled cars. And if you want to buy a new one, it might not 
arrive for weeks or months. Rivian's R1T truck starts at around 
$70,000--and if you order it now, you won't get it until 2023.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.ajc.com/news/rivian-losing-money-as-it-struggles-
to-meet-fast-rising-ev-orders/JTQE6KYDQZGZHFWAIEW7I7XDNE/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Georgia has 1,500 EV charging stations, seventh out of 50 states 
and the District of Columbia. Metro Atlanta has about 1,110 of them, 
the third-highest among U.S. metro areas, according to real estate data 
provider Yardi Matrix.
    Outside Atlanta, good luck. On I-16 between Macon and Savannah, a 
170-mile stretch, drivers pass only four charging stations just off the 
interstate, according to the website PlugShare.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Vanessa Miller, an attorney in Detroit who advises automotive 
companies on supply chain issues, said a chicken-or-egg situation is 
holding things back.
    ``It's hard to get the momentum you need because a driver isn't 
going to buy an EV until they know they can keep it running,'' she 
said. Companies won't install more charging stations ``because you 
don't know how many EVs there are going to be.''
State, Federal Governments make electric push
    Kemp has made EV a priority, forming an EV task force \5\ in July 
to ``ensure that our state is positioned to continue leading the nation 
in the rapidly growing electric mobility industry.'' The group's report 
may be released in early 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2021-07-20/gov-kemp-
announces-statewide-initiative-accelerate-georgias-electric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Georgia gave SK Battery $300 million in grants, tax breaks and free 
land.\6\ The state has probably offered \7\ a larger bounty to Rivian, 
though details haven't been disclosed. Georgia has only one combustion-
engine auto plant, Kia, after rivals chose neighboring states to build 
traditional auto plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/what-did-georgia-
promise-win-korean-battery-plant/VOFQc9fmGXvvjzIX7Ocm2M/.
    \7\ https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-would-offer-a-bounty-of-
perks-for-rivian-project/OMRLP3ZLRVGWDE66BSJTQQLDOA/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wall Street investors and automotive industry analysts predict the 
EV market will soon be red hot. Industry tracker IHS Markit projects 
that EVs on U.S. roads \8\ will rise from 1.5 million vehicles now to 
9.3 million by 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/US-
infrastructure-bill-will-support-400000-new-EV-chargers.html.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Credit: Steve Schaefer.

    At Tesla, the largest EV maker, yearly revenue grew from less than 
half a billion dollars in 2012 to more than $30 billion last year. It 
reported its first quarterly profit this summer. Rivian's November IPO 
valued the company at more than $100 billion, more than either Ford or 
General Motors.
    Governments have set lofty goals for converting to EVs in a push to 
combat climate change. President Joe Biden wants to cut greenhouse gas 
emissions\9\ by half from 2005 levels by 2030, in part by cutting the 
price of EVs by $12,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/11/01/fact-sheet-president-biden-renews-u-s-leadership-on-world-
stage-at-u-n-climate-conference-cop26/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Corporations want to oblige. Amazon has ordered 100,000 electric 
vans from Rivian. UPS will buy 10,000 electric vans from British 
company Arrival. Hertz and Enterprise Rent-a-Car have said they'll add 
more EVs to their fleets.
    A Federal infrastructure program will provide $7.5 billion to 
install hundreds of thousands of EV charging stations nationwide. Funds 
will likely be available first-come, first-serve, though details 
haven't been released, said Brandon Jacobs, regional vice president of 
sales at charging station provider Blink.
    But there's no guarantee EVs will become the dominant mode of 
vehicle transportation in the U.S., or at least not as quickly as some 
predict, Jeremy Michalek, head of the Vehicle Electrification Group at 
Carnegie Mellon University, wrote in a recent column for 
MarketWatch.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/im-an-ev-expert-and-im-
skeptical-about-how-quickly-electric-cars-will-go-mainstream-in-the-u-
s-11623770187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ford, GM, Mercedes-Benz and other automakers with big EV plans may 
run into production problems that delay product launches or force 
recalls. Volkswagen delayed the release of its ID.Buzz \11\ electric 
microbus from 2022 to 2023. Chevrolet in August recalled all 141,00 
Chevy Bolt EVs due to fire risks. Rivian warned in December \12\ it 
would fall short of its 2021 production target, sending its stock price 
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ http://id.buzz/.
    \12\ https://www.ajc.com/news/rivians-evs-get-plaudits-but-tesla-
others-pose-tough-competition/52L7Y2BFAFA2RBSE6U6B4HNZRI/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EV sales have already captured the low-hanging fruit of consumers 
who are early adopters of new technology, Michalek said. Other 
customers may put up more resistance, especially if the price remains 
high. The gas-powered Hyundai Kona SUV starts at $20,950. The electric 
version starts at $34,000.
    Mainstream consumers ``aren't as driven by environmental and 
technology-oriented lifestyles and have other priorities and 
constraints,'' Michalek wrote.
EV drivers face plenty of speed bumps
    Today's market for EV sedans and trucks is so tiny that it barely 
registers. In Georgia, EVs are 1% of all vehicles, and the nationwide 
state average is 1.5%, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. New 
EV sales account for 2% of all vehicles, according to Automotive News.
    California is tops with about 5.2% of all vehicles powered by 
electricity. In Georgia's neighboring states, it's exceedingly rare to 
see an EV on the road. In South Carolina, 0.5% of vehicles are EVs, and 
in Alabama it's 0.4%.
    EV companies say it's mandatory that charging stations become more 
accessible and not just inside wealthy consumers' home garages. 
Charging stations ``must be conveniently located where drivers live, 
work and play,'' EVBox, a Dutch maker of charging stations, said in a 
recent regulatory filing.
    The average range for all EVs is about 194 miles, according to 
EVBox. That's not too far behind gas-powered cars, which can travel 300 
miles or more before running on empty. And EV range is expected to keep 
climbing. Tesla models top 300 miles and Rivian vehicles are expected 
to have a range of at least 300 miles.
    But unlike gas stations, many parts of Georgia are EV charging 
deserts. No charging stations are located along four-lane U.S. Highway 
441 from McRae to the Florida state line, a 116-mile drive. That's one 
mile more than the range for an electric Mini Cooper SE that is fully 
charged.
    The dearth of charging stations has given rise to range anxiety.
    Marshall Norseng drives his 2021 Tesla Model Y Long Range 50 miles 
a day commuting from his Midtown home to his Duluth office at Banyan 
Hills Technologies. His home charger provides enough juice to last two 
or three days and he's never run out of power on the road.
    Interstate travel offers a much-bumpier ride. On a recent trip to 
the Midwest, Norseng carefully planned his stops for recharges. Those 
stops turned out to be unlike a quick trip to a gas station.
    ``If you're driving to the Midwest and you stop in Chattanooga at a 
charging station and they're all full, you have to sit and wait,'' he 
said. ``You don't have a choice.''
    Some waits at EV charging stations can be royal time sucks.
    A gas-powered vehicle typically takes fewer than 10 minutes to 
refuel. An EV plugged into a high-speed charger takes about 50 minutes. 
So-called Level 2 chargers, the most common type, can take six to 10 
hours to recharge an EV.
    ``You're not going to have people who are going to want to hang out 
at a rest stop for two hours waiting for their car to be recharged,'' 
said Miller, the attorney.
    Experts say that charge times will become less of an issue if there 
are more charging stations. An army of startup companies are competing 
to capture that market by selling to homeowners, local governments, 
retail establishments, hospitals, apartment complex owners and others.
    SemaConnect has focused on placing Level 2 chargers in 
disadvantaged communities since they're cheaper than fast-charging 
models, said Stephen Carroll, vice president of marketing. ``Level 2 
charging stations will be key to making EVs available'' to those 
communities, he said.
    The Bowie, Maryland, company declined to disclose the price of its 
Level 2 charging station, but said its at-home charger is priced at 
$699.
    Cox Automotive, a unit of Cox Enterprises, last year installed 32 
charging stations \13\ at the Metropolitan Parkway location of fleet 
management provider Pivet. It's one of the biggest charging stations on 
Atlanta's southside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.ajc.com/news/business/electric-vehicle-charging-
station-opens-on-southside/36WK3QSNF5G6TGFZMH2UAKXN7U/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cox Enterprises, owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, owns a 
4.7% stake in Rivian and supplies services to Rivian. Sandy Schwartz, a 
Cox executive who oversees the AJC, is on Rivian's board of directors 
and holds stock personally. He does not take part in the AJC's coverage 
of Rivian.
    More charging stations are coming, said Rich Simmons, a research 
engineer at Georgia Tech's Strategic Energy Institute. The recently 
approved federal infrastructure bill has earmarked $135 million to 
Georgia for installations.
    Other incentives are available. Georgia Power and Cobb EMC offer 
$250 rebates for the purchase of at-home EV charging stations and offer 
discounted rates to residential customers for overnight power if used 
to recharge EVs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Georgia's mixed messages on electric vehicles
 
    The state has encouraged the electric vehicle market on some
 occasions and has introduced impediments at other times:
 
                           Georgia incentives
 
      10% state tax credit for a business that buys an EV charging
   station and makes it available to public
      $250 rebate from Georgia Power and Cobb EMC for residential
   customers who install an EV charging station
      Discounted rate for Georgia Power customers who charge EVs
   overnight
      Free power for Cobb EMC customers who charge EVs overnight
 
                          Georgia disincentives
 
      EVs charged an extra $213.70 for yearly vehicle registration
      In 2015, the state ended a $5,000 tax credit for EV purchases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept of Energy and Georgia Power.

    But Georgia doesn't make it easy for consumers to purchase EVs. 
State lawmakers blocked legislation \14\ that would allow EV makers to 
sell locally without going through a franchise dealer. Politically 
powerful auto dealers lobbied to kill the proposal. State lawmakers 
granted Tesla a waiver in 2015 letting it sell cars directly to 
consumers. In exchange, Tesla agreed to open no more than five stores 
in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-would-offer-a-bounty-of-
perks-for-rivian-project/OMRLP3ZLRVGWDE66BSJTQQLDOA/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2015, Georgia lawmakers declined to renew a $5,000 tax incentive 
for EV purchases and added a new $214 yearly registration fee on top of 
the $20 yearly fee assessed on gas vehicles. Lawmakers added the EV fee 
to make up for owners not paying gasoline fuel taxes.
    Buying a new EV is a case study in delayed gratification. Used 
Teslas and Nissan Leafs are being offered for sale around metro 
Atlanta. But if you want a fresh one from the factory, the wait for the 
cheapest Tesla sedan can be up to 10 months. Consumers must wait weeks 
or months for other EVs, too.
    U[l]timately, if the potential Rivian manufacturing facility near 
Covington is to be successful, Georgia and the nation need to get 
things up to speed, said Miller, the automotive attorney.
    ``I don't know which comes first, more charging stations or more EV 
sales,'' she said. ``But they both need to be moving forward and they 
need to be moving forward more quickly than they are.''
About the Author
Andy Peters \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://www.ajc.com/staff/andy-peters/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Andy Peters covers commercial real estate, economic 
        development, banking and financial services.
                                 ______
                                 
   Submitted Statement by Hon. Antonio Delgado, a Representative in 
      Congress from New York; on Behalf of American Public Power 
                          Association, Et Al.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
    This statement is submitted on behalf of the American Public Power 
Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association. Together, we represent the nation's 
investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, and electric 
cooperatives.
    Our members provide safe, reliable, and affordable energy to more 
than 300 million Americans. The electric power industry supports more 
than seven million American jobs and contributes $880 billion annually 
to U.S. gross domestic product, about five percent of the total. Each 
year, our industry invests more than $110 billion, on average, to make 
the energy grid stronger, smarter, cleaner, more dynamic, and more 
secure. These investments enable us to integrate more clean energy and 
new technologies into our electric systems, including electric vehicles 
(EVs), to benefit customers.
Federal Investment in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and 
        Supply Equipment Is Needed
    We write in support of Federal investment in EV charging 
infrastructure, which includes everything from installing the supply 
equipment (charging station) to performing any energy grid upgrades or 
modifications that may be needed. To help incorporate increased EV 
penetration on U.S. roads, it is important that we invest in and deploy 
more charging infrastructure. Building this infrastructure will require 
public-private partnerships, and our members are critical to that 
effort, in part because they employ a highly skilled workforce that 
builds and maintains the energy grid. A collaboration between the 
Federal Government and our sector will help to create additional jobs 
and will help spur economic growth.
    Our members already are partnering with their customers to overcome 
barriers to deploying charging infrastructure. Some of our members own 
and operate EV charging stations in a variety of locations and for all 
types of EV customers, which is particularly beneficial to consumers 
who prefer not to procure and maintain charging infrastructure and seek 
a turnkey solution. Some of our members install the ``make-ready'' 
infrastructure that connects to the charging station, leaving it to the 
customer to own and maintain the charging station. And other members 
offer rebate programs to offset the costs to install charging 
infrastructure or partner with third parties to provide charging 
services. Regardless of the approach, each of these solutions is 
critical to building charging infrastructure that helps to spur the EV 
market and benefit communities.
    Our members continue to work with local stakeholders and are best 
positioned to understand and maximize the value of different 
technologies and systems that can help optimize the operation of the 
grid, integrate EVs, and recover more quickly from natural disasters. 
This is particularly true in areas, including many rural communities, 
where private investment in EV charging stations historically has been 
lacking. It is important that all communities have access to the 
benefits of EVs, and our members are investing in underserved 
communities, in electrifying car-sharing and public transportation 
systems that serve those who do not own vehicles, in electrifying 
commercial vehicles such as delivery trucks that operate within 
neighborhoods, and assuring that Americans can charge their vehicles 
coast-to-coast in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Any Federal 
policy for EV infrastructure must maintain flexibility for states and 
localities to determine the most effective public-private partnership 
structure that meets their needs. We do not support efforts to restrict 
Federal program flexibilities and limit stakeholder participation.
Federal Investment Can Complement and Leverage Public-Private 
        Partnerships
    Federal investment in charging infrastructure can leverage and 
amplify the progress that the nation's investor-owned electric 
companies, public power utilities, and electric cooperatives are 
already making in deploying charging infrastructure. For example, some 
of our members launched a nationwide collaborative to help ensure the 
availability of EV charging for travel along major corridors by the end 
of 2023.\1\ The Federal Government is a key partner in the development 
of a nationwide EV charging network and technical and financial 
assistance can help accelerate EV deployment by filling in gaps or 
providing cost-share to complement the efforts already underway. We 
support efforts that would include financial assistance for EV supply 
equipment, including grid upgrades and modifications, as part of a 
larger effort to support EV infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/Pages/NEHC.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, electric transportation options are extending beyond 
light-duty vehicles, with many fleet operators looking to diversify 
their medium- and heavy-duty vehicle mix to include zero-emission 
options. Our members will be crucial partners in the building and 
maintaining of infrastructure--including charging depots--needed for an 
increasingly clean medium- and heavy-duty fleet market. We support 
Federal efforts to help address up-front costs for the deployment of 
these vehicles and necessary infrastructure as it nears commercial 
viability.
    While our members are investing in electric vehicle infrastructure, 
additional information regarding when and where public charging 
stations will be needed, particularly in areas that have not yet seen 
significant saturation or rural areas that may serve to connect 
communities. Mapping this demand, based on data such as regional 
commute and travel patterns, can improve upon the investment decisions 
our members are making in charging infrastructure. We support technical 
and financial assistance to help public and private entities, including 
utilities, map the demand for EV charging.
Conclusion
    Thank you for your consideration of these proposals. We look 
forward to working with you and to our continued partnership in 
advancing electric vehicle infrastructure.
Organizations
The American Public Power Association
    The American Public Power Association is the voice of not-for-
profit, community-owned utilities that power 2,000 towns and cities 
nationwide. We represent public power before the Federal Government to 
protect the interests of the more than 49 million people that public 
power utilities serve, and the 96,000 people they employ. Our 
association advocates and advises on electricity policy, technology, 
trends, training, and operations. Our members strengthen their 
communities by providing superior service, engaging citizens, and 
instilling pride in community-owned power.
Edison Electric Institute
    The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that 
represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members 
provide electricity for 220 million Americans and operate in all 50 
states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power 
industry supports more than seven million jobs in communities across 
the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 
65 international electric companies as International Members, and 
hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate 
Members.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
    The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 
represents more than 900 electric cooperatives. America's electric 
cooperatives are energy providers and engines of economic development 
for more than 20 million American homes, businesses, farms and schools 
across 48 states. Electric cooperatives play a vital role in 
transforming local communities.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Article by Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Illinois

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-biden-weighing-cuts-
2022-ethanol-blending-mandate-proposal-sources-2022-01-12/]

January 12, 2022 11:44 p.m. EST

Last Updated 7 days ago

Energy \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive: Biden weighing cuts to 2022 ethanol blending mandate 
        proposal

By Jarrett Renshaw and Stephanie Kelly



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          An ethanol plant with its giant corn silos next to a 
        cornfield in Windsor, Colorado July 7, 2006./File Photo.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        
          Ethanol fuel is shown being pumped into a vehicle at a gas 
        station selling alternative fuels in the town of Nevada, Iowa, 
        December 6, 2007. Reuters/Jason Reed/File Photo.

    Jan. 12 (Reuters)--The Biden Administration is considering lowering 
the 2022 ethanol blending mandate below the proposed 15 billion gallons 
amid backlash from the oil refining lobby and unions arguing the 
shrinking U.S. ethanol industry can no longer support the target, 
according to two sources familiar with the Administration's thinking.
    U.S. President Joe Biden vowed to bring some normalcy back to laws 
requiring refiners to blend biofuels like corn-based ethanol into the 
nation's gasoline pool after his predecessor, Donald Trump, took 
unprecedented steps to relieve refiners from the requirement.
    But Biden is finding it difficult to live up to his promise. The 
COVID-19 pandemic has dampened fuel consumption and triggered a handful 
of ethanol plant shutdowns. Higher regulatory costs have refiners 
threatening to close refineries and shed high-paying union jobs.
    In December, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a long-
awaited biofuel blending mandate proposal that cut ethanol requirements 
for 2020 and 2021 but restored them to 15 billion gallons for 2022. 
Farmers and biofuel producers criticized the rollbacks but welcomed the 
restoration this year.
    But, in recent weeks, Administration officials have considered 
rolling back the 15 billion gallon mandate when the final rule is 
issued later this year, the two sources told Reuters.
    ``EPA remains committed to the growth of biofuels in America,'' 
said Nick Conger, an EPA spokesperson. ``We look forward to reviewing 
the robust comments that we receive from all stakeholders before 
finalizing our rulemaking later this year.''
    The Administration had initially planned to set the 2022 ethanol 
mandate at 14.1 billion gallons, Reuters previously reported,\2\ but 
went with 15 billion gallons under pressure from Farm-Belt Democrats 
like Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-epa-
considering-cuts-biofuel-blending-obligations-2020-2021-2022-2021-09-
22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``The White House is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one 
hand, they want to support the agricultural and biofuel industry, but 
they have been bombarded by unions and refiners who say there's not 
enough ethanol and they are listening,'' said one of the sources 
familiar with the discussions.
    Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend biofuels 
like ethanol into their fuel pool or buy tradable credits, known as 
RINs, from refiners who do. Merchant refiners like PBF Energy (PBF.N) 
\3\ and Monroe Energy have long complained that the cost of purchasing 
RINs threatens their plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.reuters.com/companies/PBF.N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While cuts to the 2020 and 2021 ethanol mandate briefly lowered RIN 
costs, they have since rebounded. RINs are trading about 50% higher 
from the around 80 after the mandates were announced in December.
    After Reuters reported the news on Wednesday, RIN prices fell about 
6% to $1.20 each. Margins to produce gasoline fell to an intraday low 
of $17 per barrel, before recovering.
    Mike Burnside, Policy Analyst at the American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers, a leading refining trade group, told the EPA during a 
hearing on the blending mandate proposal that its 2022 targets are out 
of step with demand.
    ``EIA (the Energy Information Administration) projects that 
gasoline consumption in 2022 will be below 2019 demand, so it is 
unreasonable to propose 15 billion gallons for conventional biofuel in 
2022 as if the pandemic never happened and we are back to normal,'' 
Burnside said.
Ethanol Plants Shut
    The U.S. ethanol industry has seen a number of facilities shut down 
in the last few years, and the industry had to deal with reduced fuel 
demand because of the coronavirus pandemic. There were 197 U.S. ethanol 
plants at the beginning of 2021, down from 201 a year earlier, EIA data 
showed.
    Some ethanol companies have strayed from production of the corn-
based fuel.
    For instance, a company formerly known as Pacific Ethanol Inc said 
in 2020 it would change its name to reflect its focus on specialty 
alcohols used in beverages and sanitizers instead of fuel. It is now 
Alto Ingredients Inc. (ALTO.O).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.reuters.com/companies/ALTO.O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``I don't see anyone running to invest more,'' said Ed Hirs, who 
teaches energy economics at the University of Houston.
    Still, the ethanol industry enjoyed higher margins and increased 
production in the later half of 2021.
    In November, margins to produce ethanol in the Corn Belt increased 
to $1.82 per gallon, the highest since 2014, Refinitiv Eikon data 
showed. They have since fallen to about 37 per gallon.
    U.S. ethanol production in October rose to the most since 2017, 
according to the EIA.
    ``The Administration has indicated blending requirements will 
remain strong and at 15 billion gallons for 2022, and we have every 
expectation that they will deliver on that promise,'' said Growth 
Energy Chief Executive Emily Skor, in response to the news on 
Wednesday.

          Reporting By Jarrett Renshaw and Stephanie Kelly, Editing by 
        Chizu Nomiyama and Marguerita Choy
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Blog by Hon. Michelle Fischbach, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.mnfarmliving.com/2021/08/electric-vehicles-mandate.html]
Electric Vehicle Mandates Crafted in California Weren't Made for 
        Minnesota's Farmers
August 14, 2021 By Wanda Patsche \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.mnfarmliving.com/author/wpatschegmail-com.

    As a rooster and a bull have completely different needs, so do the 
constituents of states across our country. Here in Minnesota, a place 
far different than California, we are fighting against a ``one-size-
fits-all'' policy that will serve, when implemented, as a detriment to 
our agricultural community for decades to come. Electric vehicle 
mandates adversely affect the farming communities in Minnesota and I, 
as a lifelong Minnesota farmer, urge the state to reconsider this 
harmful mandate. At the upcoming annual Minnesota FarmFest in Redwood 
Falls, fellow farmers should raise awareness about this electric car 
mandate's negative consequences on our community.
    Government leaders at all levels have put an emphasis on our 
nation's transition to electric vehicles. These politicians are 
positioning these policies as crucial, immediate steps that need to be 
taken to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector. From 
President Biden's $170 billion dollar earmark \2\ in his infrastructure 
bill, to states like Minnesota and others across the country proposing 
mandates and additional subsidies for these vehicles and their 
infrastructure, the momentum is building. And while we all can agree a 
clean environment and less greenhouse gas emissions should be 
prioritized, government electric vehicle mandates are not the best path 
forward. The push to fully transition to EVs comes with serious 
drawbacks that would inherently limit consumer choice and burden 
consumers with higher costs--especially here in Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/legislation/2021/01/
20/president-biden-announces-american-rescue-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Governor Tim Walz's Administration gets its way, unelected 
officials in California will control the future of automotive emissions 
policies in our state--not Minnesota's elected leaders. The result? A 
stringent electric vehicle mandate that will harm our state's farmers, 
automakers and dealers, consumers, energy suppliers, among other 
constituencies. Starting in 2024, Minnesota would be forced to require 
an ever-growing percentage of EVs and vehicle retailers would have to 
stock an arbitrary number of non-combustion vehicles whether consumers 
want them or not. This would not only raise the cost of vehicles for 
Minnesota families and businesses, it would hamstring farmers and rural 
populations by forcing vehicle choices that make little sense for them. 
As written, the proposal falls far short of sound policy and common 
sense.
    As for the agricultural community and the biofuels industry in 
Minnesota, instituting California's combustion engine vehicle ban would 
disproportionately harm these sectors. Minnesota is currently the 
fourth largest ethanol producer in the United States with over 1.3 
billion gallons of ethanol produced annually from 18 ethanol plants. In 
Minnesota, here are roughly 19,000 full-time jobs, and millions in tax 
revenue that is supported by the ethanol industry alone. An 
Agricultural Retailers Association study \3\ found that if Minnesota 
puts a ban on combustion-powered vehicles, total U.S. net farm income 
could decrease up to $27 billion, and both corn and soybean prices 
would be nearly cut in half. These numbers speak louder than any 
environmental opinion; Minnesota's agricultural community must be 
prioritized for the sake of our entire nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.aradc.org/news/ag-biofuels-study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond the economic harm, this bill could cause in the future, 
there have been further injurious effects that have already come from 
this issue. Governor Walz bypassed the State Senate by forcing through 
the mandate administrative sanction. Governor Walz neglected his own 
state legislature's input and is holding Minnesotans to standards set 
by the legislators of other, vastly different states. The democratic 
rights of Minnesota constituents have been not only ignored but 
completely circumvented in what is supposed to be a well-represented, 
legislative system.
    While electric vehicles are more popular than ever, they still only 
makeup roughly 1.8% of the market \4\ and are far less cost-effective 
than traditional, gas-powered vehicles. The mandate would force 
automakers to ship more zero-emissions vehicles to Minnesota, 
regardless of actual demand. Minnesota currently sees 2,000 electric 
vehicles sold per year, and under the new mandate, dealers would have 
more than 18,000 electric vehicles dropped annually onto their lots. 
Demand and infrastructure limitations in Minnesota currently cannot 
support such an artificially high supply. While the mandate's benefit 
to the environment is not clear, the harm caused to everyday 
Minnesotans will be heavily consequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://news.ihsmarkit.com/prviewer/release_only/slug/bizwire-
2021-2-19-electric-vehicle-share-in-the-us-reaches-record-levels-in-
2020-according-to-ihs-markit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The electricity used to power electric vehicles is a source for 
increased carbon emissions. In Minnesota about 31% \5\ of utility-scale 
electricity generation still came from coal-fired electric power plants 
in 2019. Additionally, until batteries can be recycled, battery 
disposal will remain an issue similar to nuclear waste storage. This 
fact underscores the larger concerns surrounding electric vehicles and 
how they are not a silver bullet for addressing environmental 
challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have spent my entire life in southern Minnesota. If this mandate 
were to culminate in full effect, I would see our state undergo a 
change that will hurt my fellow farmers for decades to come. Government 
policies should work for all Minnesotans, while supporting consumer 
choice, instead of picking winners and losers. This mandate is not the 
answer to becoming more climate-friendly. Please rethink this mandate 
and its impact on the farming community. The Minnesota legislature 
should repeal the rule. To put it simply: please don't impose 
California values on my Minnesota.

          Note: Blog post was published in Redwood Falls Gazette on 
        August 2.
                                 ______
                                 
 Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. David Strickland, J.D., Vice 
 President for Global Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Technology 
                         Policy, General Motors
Insert 1
          Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And if I use a super charger to 
        charge the vehicle, what does it cost me to charge it, 
        approximately?
          Mr. Strickland. I have to get to you on that answer. Yes, 
        sir, I don't know the exact answer to how much for a super 
        charger, but I will certainly get back to you on the record.

    Thank you for that question, Representative Scott. The cost of 
charging for an EV driver will vary depending on several factors, 
including the amount of charge (kilowatt-hours), speed of the charge 
(kilowatt), and the charging network setting the pricing. Fast charging 
a Bolt EV (from near 0 to 100% capacity) at a typical station today is 
estimated at approximately in the range of $20-$30, though pricing will 
vary by site and by state, as is true with gas stations. There are 
several key cost drivers behind the scenes affecting customer pricing 
and the overall charging business model, including but not limited to 
electricity rates. We are working with utilities and regulators to keep 
the cost of public charging low through better electricity rates as 
well as ``vehicle-grid integration'' programs that minimize grid 
impacts and maximize savings for all. We are also working with 
policymakers and industry leaders to improve the customer experience 
for fast charging, including more transparency on pricing and power 
levels.
Insert 2
          Ms. Schrier. Topic with my limited time, Mr. Strickland. I am 
        wondering since you are dealing with fleets of electric 
        vehicles with FedEx, for example, is there a way to have the 
        same kind of charging infrastructure that would apply to fleets 
        of delivery vehicles and semi-trucks and buses?
          Mr. Strickland. Representative, I will certainly get back 
        with my group of very talented engineers and planners. They are 
        probably better positioned to answer that than I, but our work 
        group-on our commercial vehicle side, thinking about how we can 
        provide----
          The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired, but 
        please do respond in writing to her inquiry.

    Representative Schrier, thank you for that question. One of the 
objectives for charging infrastructure should be to develop a set of 
common standards that can meet the needs for all classes of vehicles. 
In the light duty space, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
Standard J1772 already applies to Level 1 and Level 2 charging, and the 
SAE Combo Charging System (CCS) is the industry standard used by almost 
all manufacturers for fast charging in the U.S. We also use these 
standard interfaces currently for our medium-duty BrightDrop delivery 
vehicles which launched late last year.
    The largest commercial trucks and buses (with larger battery 
capacities) may need access to higher power charging technologies 
depending on their routes and charging needs. There is an existing 
overhead pantograph charging system used by some buses today, and there 
are also efforts underway to develop a Megawatt Charging System to 
accommodate ultra-high power charging applications. Industry 
stakeholders continue to work on standardization to minimize the number 
of ``plugs'' and maximize interoperability.
                                 ______
                                 
 Supplementary Material Submitted by Lincoln E. Wood, Electrification 
                    Policy Manager, Southern Company
January 21, 2022

  Hon. David Scott,
  Chairman,
  Committee on Agriculture,
  U.S. House of Representatives,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chairman Scott:

    On behalf of Southern Company, thanks to you, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify 
regarding electric vehicles (EVs) and their implications for rural and 
agriculture applications.
    Following up from discussion during the hearing, I wanted to expand 
my remarks on grid readiness for electric vehicles. EV charging is not 
the only reason to upgrade the electric grid and expand capacity. As a 
vertically integrated utility, Southern Company's electric subsidiaries 
regularly upgrade the transmission and distribution grid infrastructure 
to ensure we meet the commitment to our customers to provide clean, 
safe, reliable, and affordable electricity. Some examples of other grid 
upgrades include generation resources such as renewables, and upgrades 
to ensure the reliability and sufficient capacity to meet customer 
demand. For example, Georgia Power is beginning a $1.3 billion grid 
investment plan to upgrade the Company's electric grid in the following 
areas:

  (1)  Adding automated line devices that isolate power outages to a 
            smaller portion of the grid

  (2)  Adding connections to nearby power lines, so there is an 
            alternative source of power available

  (3)  Relocating lines that are hard to access

  (4)  Line strengthening where needed

  (5)  Placing wires underground

  (6)  Replacing wires and/or structures

  (7)  Substation maintenance, including replacing equipment or 
            completely rebuilding the substation as needed

    Additionally, although the U.S. population is more familiar with 
our current petroleum fueling system, it is not without challenges 
during power outages. In fact, some of the same concerns expressed 
about electric vehicles are present in today's fueling industry. When 
natural disasters cause power outages, all fueling infrastructure that 
has an electric component, such as gasoline pumps or compressed natural 
gas, will also be unavailable. Similarly, natural disasters often 
create fuel shortages during mass evacuations and when pipeline flows 
are interrupted.
    Switching from petroleum-based fuels to electricity is an industry 
disruption. Tremendous teamwork from all sides is necessary for a 
successful transition. Considering the central role utilities play in 
providing electricity to customers, it is critical to include them 
early in the conversation. Southern Company welcomes the opportunity to 
partner with all players in the transportation ecosystem in providing 
EV charging wherever it is needed.
    The cost of EV charging is another key element of the transition to 
an electrified transportation future. According to energy.gov,\1\ the 
U.S. average price per gallon of gas is $2.85 as of January 18, 2022. 
Similarly, the average equivalent of EV charging, the `eGallon', is 
$1.16. In general, driving an EV costs half as much as a similar 
gasoline-fueled vehicle. Coupled with reduced maintenance needs--no oil 
changes or tune ups, and reduced frequency of brake service due to 
electric regenerative braking, electric vehicles represent a compelling 
value proposition for drivers of all types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ eGallon: What It Is and Why It's Important, (https://
www.energy.gov/articles/egallon-what-it-and-why-it-s-important) 
Department of Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, I have included additional information on eMobility 
efforts at the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama. 
Southern Company is committed to preparing the next generation of 
workers for electrification technologies and is sponsoring eMobility 
activities at both institutions.
    Should the Committee have further questions, or if Southern Company 
can be a resource to the Committee, it would be our pleasure to serve.
            Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            
Lincoln E. Wood.
                              attachment 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[https://news.uga.edu/electric-mobility-initiative-taps-into-evolving-
tech-field/]

Campus News \1\  Science & Technology \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://news.uga.edu/topics/campus/.
    \2\ https://news.uga.edu/topics/science-technology/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Mobility Initiative taps into evolving tech field
6 days ago [January 19, 2022]

By Rod Guajardo \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://news.uga.edu/author/rg16532/.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
Campus-wide effort will develop applications within electric 
        transportation
    With the goal of enhancing research, education and outreach 
opportunities in a rapidly developing technological field, the 
University of Georgia has established a campus-wide Electric Mobility 
Initiative that will provide seed funding for new projects and bring 
together thought leaders to discuss innovative approaches to electric 
mobility across Georgia and the region.
    Electric mobility refers to vehicles like cars, trucks, bicycles, 
boats and aircraft that use electric powertrain technologies for 
propulsion. The field of electric mobility has grown significantly in 
recent years with the development of smart infrastructure, wireless 
communications, and most importantly, efficient energy storage 
technology such as high-capacity batteries. These developments have 
converged to make electric mobility competitive with vehicles powered 
by internal combustion engines.
    ``We're pleased to announce that the University of Georgia will be 
leading this comprehensive Electric Mobility Initiative in an effort to 
understand the wide range of impacts associated with the 
electrification of transportation infrastructure,'' said S. Jack Hu, 
the university's senior vice president for academic affairs and 
provost. ``This initiative will span our entire campus and allow for 
all academic units to contribute to this exciting, developing tech 
space.''
    Initial partners in the UGA Electric Mobility Initiative include 
faculty, staff and students from the College of Engineering, the School 
of Public and International Affairs, the Carl Vinson Institute of 
Government and the Terry College of Business.

   The College of Engineering will assess the opportunities and 
        challenges associated with advanced electric energy technology, 
        smart infrastructure and interconnected communications on the 
        integrated transportation network.

   The School of Public and International Affairs will explore 
        energy security, regulatory and public financing facets of 
        electric mobility.

   The Terry College of Business will examine the economic, 
        human and natural capital impact of scaling electric mobility 
        and its effects on sustainable development goals.

   The Vinson Institute will use its extensive statewide 
        network to understand how electric vehicle technology will 
        impact communities in Georgia and enhance the economic 
        competitiveness of the state.

    These initiatives will seed other efforts on campus that leverage 
the comprehensive land-grant mission of UGA, while also seeking to 
partner with industry throughout the state.
    ``The potential applications of this developing technology are 
endless and could greatly impact communities across the state of 
Georgia in so many ways,'' said Jennifer Frum, vice president for UGA 
Public Service and Outreach. ``Electric mobility technology will play 
an important role in the state and nation going forward, and UGA's 
involvement is a testament toward our ongoing goal to connect the 
university's expertise with communities and partners across the 
state.''
    UGA will invest $1 million in seed funding over the next 5 years to 
initiate new projects, including the development of educational 
programs such as the E-Mobility Certificate and research activities in 
battery re-use and recycling, including the creation of a laboratory 
that will be housed in the new Interdisciplinary STEM Research Complex. 
Private support has already been obtained for faculty development, 
student projects and efforts to enhance the health and resilience of 
vulnerable communities.
    An Electric Mobility Summit is planned April 28-29 on the UGA 
campus in Athens to bring together industry, educational institutions 
and government agencies to assess the state of electric mobility in 
Georgia and the region. Participants will discuss existing and future 
education programs to support workforce development and assess the 
economic impact of future electric transportation technologies in 
communities across Georgia.
                              attachment 2

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Press Release]
University of Alabama Teams with Alabama Power, Mercedes-Benz U.S. 
        International for Mobility and Power Center

                            Press Information
 
              Contact                             Telephone
 
Felyicia Jerald (MBUSI)             +1 205 507 3507
Adam Jones (UA)                     +1 205 348 4328
 

Date: November 9, 2021

    Tuscaloosa, Ala.--A strong partnership between The University of 
Alabama, Alabama Power Company and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, 
Inc. fuels a newly-formed research and workforce development center 
designed to meet the needs of the booming electric vehicle market.
    The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama recently 
approved forming the Alabama Mobility and Power Center to be a world-
class research and development hub for creating and sustaining modern 
mobility and power technologies, developing charging infrastructure and 
managing power delivery to support large-scale growth in electric 
vehicles.
    ``This partnership in the areas of mobility and power technologies 
is a chance for the talented researchers at the University to support 
prominent industries in our state while growing opportunities for our 
students to apply their skills here after graduation,'' said UA 
President Stuart R. Bell. ``We are grateful for how both these 
companies support the University's mission.''
    There is a substantial automotive industry ecosystem within the 
state with a corresponding commitment to electrification. Alabama is 
third in the nation for auto exports, with $7.5 billion in Alabama-made 
vehicles and parts exported in 2018. MBUSI is undergoing a $1 billion 
expansion to support electric vehicle production, and other auto 
manufacturers in the state are embracing this technology, as well.
    ``Mercedes-Benz is getting ready to go all electric by the end of 
the decade, where market conditions allow and we are moving swiftly 
toward an emissions-free and software-driven future,'' said Michael 
Goebel, President and CEO of Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. 
``Our location here in Alabama is among the Mercedes-Benz locations on 
three continents that next year will build electric vehicles and highly 
efficient battery systems. Our partnership with the University of 
Alabama and Alabama Power through the AMP Center is a collaboration 
that will help position Alabama to be a leader in electric vehicle 
innovation.''
    A critical mass of faculty and staff experts will be built at UA to 
support both private and government investment on new battery 
technologies and secure an efficient infrastructure to charge electric 
vehicles. The AMP Center will be organized under the Alabama 
Transportation Institute at UA and housed in the recently approved 
Smart Communities and Innovation Building.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://news.ua.edu/2021/07/transformative-ua-alabama-power-
mercedes-initiative-moving-forward-with-state-support/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``High-quality jobs are the key to helping Alabamians live better 
lives, and this targeted research center, focused on solving challenges 
and capitalizing on the opportunities facing our state's automotive 
industry, is essential to driving our state's economic growth,'' said 
Tony Smoke, senior vice president for marketing and economic 
development for Alabama Power.
    MBUSI and Alabama Power are each supporting the AMP Center with in-
kind support as well as personnel support and employee consultation to 
enhance projects.
    The partnership will benefit students through expanded mentoring, 
intern and career possibilities while providing opportunities for these 
students to participate in world-class research that is on the cutting 
edge of industry. These activities will lead to the development of the 
mobility and power workforce and create future leaders in the 
electrification of the transportation network.
    ``This partnership will be a nationwide leader in mobility and 
powered research that aims to tackle relevant challenges faced by 
industry and infuse a highly skilled and educated workforce into the 
state as a boost to Alabama's economy,'' said Dr. Russell J. Mumper, UA 
vice president for research and economic development.
    Four themes of the AMP Center at UA include:

   Preparing the electric vehicle workforce

   Driving collaborations between industry and UA

   Creating innovations in battery manufacturing and use

   Developing effective and sustainable vehicle charge 
        infrastructure

    Partnerships will be developed between UA and other auto 
manufacturers in the state that could benefit from the expertise and 
workforce developed at UA. As part of the agreement, UA will establish 
a national training center for students, state and local officials, and 
the electric vehicle workforce.
    ``Alabama has the potential to be among the nation's leaders in 
transportation electrification--if we have adequate skilled workforce 
and a commitment to leadership in electric vehicle and supporting power 
grid technologies,'' said Dan Blakley, associate vice president for 
economic and business engagement. ``The AMP provides a great 
opportunity for a strong coalition of partners to address innovation, 
workforce development and commercialization in mobility and power 
research.''

          For more details about Alabama Mobility and Power Center, 
        visit: Amp.ua.edu.
                              attachment 3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.energy.gov/articles/egallon-what-it-and-why-it-s-
important]
eGallon: What It Is and Why It's Important
June 11, 2013

Energy.gov
eGallon: Compare the costs of driving with electricity

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Editor's note: this is an interactive graphic with a drop-
        down selection menu. The graphic's Data and Methodology was 
        updated March 20, 2021. An animation capturing the comparisons 
        is retained in Committee file.

    The eGallon price is calculated using the most recently available 
state by state residential electricity prices. The state gasoline price 
above is either the statewide average retail price or a multi-state 
regional average price reported by EIA. The latest gasoline pricing 
data is available on EIA's webpage. Find out more at www.energy.gov/
eGallon.
    For most drivers, a trip to the fuel pump is an easy reminder of 
the day-to-day cost of gasoline or diesel. But for electric vehicle 
(EV) drivers, who typically charge their car at home, there isn't a 
similar measurement to determine the cost of driving on electricity. To 
help both current and potential EV drivers better understand the cost 
of driving an EV, the Energy Department created the eGallon.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.energy.gov/articles/egallon-how-much-cheaper-it-
drive-electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the eGallon?
    The eGallon represents the cost of fueling a vehicle with 
electricity compared to a similar vehicle that runs on gasoline. For 
example, if gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon in your state and the eGallon 
price for your state is $1.20, that means that for $1.20 worth of 
electricity you can drive the same distance as you would for $3.60 
worth of gasoline.
How is eGallon calculated?
    To determine the eGallon price for each state, the Department of 
Energy calculates how much electricity the most popular electric 
vehicles would require to travel the same distance as similar models of 
gasoline-fueled vehicles would travel on a gallon of gasoline. That 
amount of electricity is then multiplied by the average cost of 
electricity for the state. This gives consumers a clear comparison of 
the cost of driving on electricity vs. a similar sized car that uses 
gasoline.
    For more on how eGallon is calculated, download the eGallon 
methodology.
Why do gasoline prices swing so wildly? Does the same thing happen with 
        eGallon prices?
    Gasoline prices are tied to the global oil market, which is driven 
by international events that are difficult to predict, control or 
prepare for. Unrest in an oil producing country on the other side of 
the world can drive up the price of gasoline in your neighborhood, 
seemingly overnight.
    In contrast, the price of electricity is determined by local 
markets or state utility commissions. This means that electricity 
prices tend to be very stable over time-creating a lot less uncertainty 
about fuel costs for an electric vehicle. The chart below shows how the 
prices of gasoline (the green line) and electricity (the blue line) 
have fluctuated over the past 10 years.
Gasoline vs. eGallon Prices, 2001-Present

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Editor's note: the chart is not present on the DOE's website 
        as there is a html coding error. The chart is posted on the EV 
        News Report site: https://evnewsreport.com/ev-fuel-savings-by-
        state-doe/.
Why does the price of an eGallon vary by state?
    Just like the price of gasoline, the average electricity price is 
different for each state. Electricity is generally produced close to 
its customer base, and different regions have different regulations and 
resources (e.g., coal, natural gas, wind, etc.) that affect the cost of 
electricity production. Traditionally, the cheapest way to produce 
electricity is through ``mass production''--at a large scale. So each 
region may have only one electricity company. Local governments work 
with this company to set a price for electricity that is reasonable for 
consumers. In many places across the U.S., electricity prices are set 
by regulators, not the market.
How does ``off-peak'' charging affect the eGallon price?
    In some places consumers are charged ``off-peak'' rates for fueling 
their electric vehicles at night when electricity demand is low. This 
``off-peak'' electricity rate leads to even bigger cost savings for 
driving on electricity. The eGallon is based on the average cost of 
electricity for residential consumers.
Why do we need eGallon?
    The cost of driving an EV depends on the cost of electricity, which 
is measured in kilowatt hours. Yet, when consumers think of the cost of 
driving, it is usually determined by the price of a gallon of fuel. The 
eGallon provides a metric that is easily comparable to the traditional 
gallon of unleaded fuel--the dominant fuel choice for vehicles in the 
U.S.
How is eGallon related to the EPA's MPGe rating?
    eGallon and MPGe are not related. eGallon is a measurement of the 
cost to drive a comparable vehicle the same distance you could go on a 
gallon of gasoline. MPGe is a measurement of how efficiently a vehicle 
uses energy based on the number of British Thermal Units (BTUs) in the 
fuel.
How often is the eGallon price updated? What about the gasoline prices 
        listed with eGallon?
    Energy.gov will release the state and national averages for eGallon 
in coordination with the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 
monthly reports on electricity prices. The eGallon price is calculated 
using the most recently available state-by-state residential 
electricity prices. The state gasoline price above is either the 
statewide average retail price or a multi-state regional average price 
reported by EIA. The latest gasoline pricing data \2\ is available on 
EIA's webpage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_a_epmr_pte_dpgal_w.htm.

          More on eGallon: Read the eGallon blog post.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.energy.gov/articles/egallon-how-much-cheaper-it-
drive-electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Download the eGallon Methodology \4\ to learn how it is 
        calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.energy.gov/downloads/egallon-methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
 Supplementary Material Submitted by Trevor Walter, Vice President of 
 Petroleum Supply Management, Sheetz, Inc., Altoona, PA; on behalf of 
               National Association of Convenience Stores
Insert 1
          Mr. Thompson. Very good. My next question is for Mr. Walter.
          First of all, Mr. Walter, I can't tell you how happy I and 
        pleased I am to have a fellow Bellefonte area alumnus 
        testifying today, and also, congratulations on your career. I 
        want to thank you for your testimony.
          You closed your written testimony by noting something I think 
        is important. ``Any alternative, including electricity, should 
        be offered in an open competitive market that gives American 
        consumers the fullest economic benefits or robust price 
        competition. This has worked well for consumers for nearly 100 
        years with liquid fuels, because the markets had a business 
        case to invest to meet consumer needs.'' So, why is it so 
        important that any new motor vehicle fuel, and indeed, any 
        engine technology, was subject to the pressures of an open and 
        competitive market?
          Mr. Walter. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson.
          And open market provides the lowest cost to consumers. Any 
        time markets operate with opaqueness, it typically creates 
        higher costs for consumers across the board, and the 
        traditional fuel market today is an open, highly competitive 
        marketplace with many competing factors, not only from the sale 
        at retail for physical fuels, but also in various geographic 
        pockets there is high competition amongst wholesalers of 
        traditional fuels.
          In today's world, there is a tremendous amount of opaqueness 
        that exists around EV charging costs. Some will highlight, like 
        Mr. Wood highlighted, that he paid zero for charging and first, 
        I just want to say thank you to Lincoln for stopping at Sheetz 
        on his path. But I mean, that cost in the future will be higher 
        for EV vehicles, and I think a lot of people today are not 
        working on----
          The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The witness 
        may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.

    Producing energy costs money. And, all of it, even renewable 
energy, results in carbon emissions. That is certainly true for the 
production of electricity. To incentivize the behaviors we want, we 
need to keep those things in mind. We need free market mechanisms to 
allow businesses to recover the costs of producing and delivering all 
forms of energy and to have the chance to make a profit doing it. If 
that doesn't happen, we will never be able to make and sustain the 
investments we need to give people access to that energy. That is why 
we need to ensure there is an open and competitive market. Without it, 
the supply of and demand for the energy we need will never match. We 
need to ensure peoples' energy needs are met--both for the health of 
our economy and for the health of our environment.
Insert 2
          Mrs. Bustos. . . .
          But can you talk about how a new era of low carbon, high 
        octane liquid fuels in the Next Generation Fuels Act 
        specifically would impact your businesses and your members as 
        we continue to transition to electric vehicles? And why don't 
        we start with Mr. Strickland, and then go to Nassar, Cooper, 
        Walter, whatever you have to add on that, please.
          * * * * *
          Mrs. Bustos. All right. Mr. Walter, I would love to have 
        chime in, but I think we are out of time, and we will hear from 
        you. We will hear from you at another time.
          Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back

    We see promise in the idea that advances in liquid fuels can 
improve the emissions of internal combustion engines. Of course, we 
need to be sure that policy does not send a market signal that those 
engines and liquid fuels will be regulated out of existence. If we do 
that, we remove any incentives for new innovations in those products 
that could improve emissions. That will hurt, not help, emissions and 
climate change. We need to push for continued innovation across all 
energy sources and engine types rather than picking technology winners 
and losers.
Insert 3
          Mr. Baird. Well, thank you very much.
          Mr. Walter, would you care to elaborate in terms of the 
        company you work for, as well as the association you work for, 
        and how the biofuels impact your industry?
          Mr. Walter. Yes. So, the c-store industry operates 120,000 
        locations offering motor fuels, but specifically, the 
        environmental savings have been highlighted by Mr. Cooper. But 
        in terms of Sheetz, since 2019, E15 sales have grown 92 
        percent, and since 2017, they have grown 300 percent. And that 
        is really off the backdrop that ethanol is able to be procured 
        cheaper than gasoline, and we are able----
          The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, but you 
        may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.

    I would just add that biofuels are an essential part of the fuels 
market and provide benefits not only to that market but to the 
emissions picture relating to fuels. We need to consider that when 
looking at policy choices relating to the internal combustion engine 
and electric vehicles. Specifically, we should be sure to provide room 
in the policy equation for continued advances that improve the 
emissions picture for engines that use biofuels and other liquid fuels.
Insert 4
          Mr. Bishop. . . .
          With fuel retailers being such an essential piece of the 
        puzzle to help increase the adoption of electric vehicles, let 
        me ask you if you can give us a sense of the size of your 
        industry, how many charging stations your industry might have 
        the capacity to provide if the right incentives were there, and 
        could you just touch a little bit more on how we can 
        incentivize the fuel retailers and the convenience stores to 
        invest in new technology, and how we ensure that those 
        incentives are flow to our rural communities?
          Mr. Walter. Thank you, Congressman.
          As I mentioned before, we have 150,000 constituents and 
        120,000 of them selling motor fuels today. I don't have the 
        exact count of how many offer EV chargers to date, but I can 
        tell you at Sheetz specifically, we have 78 locations that 
        offer EV charging, which represents around 12 percent of our 
        overall store portfolio. And what we really need is a clear 
        economics around what it takes to provide energy to consumers 
        through their ability to charge and them to have a guaranteed 
        rate of what they will be charged at a convenience store like 
        ours.
          If you look across the platform for our industry, there are 
        widespread prices on the pylon that clearly tell you and state 
        what the price of fuel is on any given day. That does not exist 
        today for EV charging, and while we note that the growth of----
          The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, 
        unfortunately, but please respond in writing to Mr. Bishop. 
        Thank you.

    The bottom line is that, if there is a business case for providing 
EV charging, our industry can supply all of the needs that we have--now 
and in the future--for that charging. The key is ensuring there is a 
free market and making sure that anachronisms of the local regulated 
monopolies on the sale of electricity, including things like demand 
charges, do not undercut that free market.
                                 ______
                                 
Supplementary Material Submitted by Josh Nassar, Legislative Director, 
  International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural 
                      Implement Workers of America
Insert
          Mr. Rush. . . .
          All right. Mr. Nassar, what percentage of electric vehicles 
        are currently being manufactured by union workers?
          Mr. Nassar. I don't know the exact percentage of, but I can 
        tell you, in addition to the vetting models that were talked 
        about by Mr. Strickland, Ford and----
          The Chairman. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time has 
        expired. We have many that want to ask their questions. The 
        witness may provide an answer in writing. Thank you.

    Thank you for the question. We are proud to already be building the 
vehicles of the future. UAW members are building advanced technology 
vehicles and their components for a variety of applications and 
powertrain types--including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electric 
vehicles, and increasingly efficient gasoline vehicles.
    UAW-made plug-in hybrids (PHEV) and full electric vehicles (BEV) 
include the BEV CUV Chevy Bolt, Chevy Bolt EUV, and Cruise Autonomous 
Vehicle (Orion, MI), BEV GMC Hummer pickup (Detroit, MI), PHEV Jeep 
Wrangler SUV (Toledo, OH), PHEV Lincoln Aviator SUV (Chicago, IL) and 
PHEV Ford Escape & Lincoln Corsair CUVs (Louisville, KY). In addition 
to passenger vehicles, UAW members are building electric and plug-in 
hybrid vehicles for commercial and heavy-duty applications, such as the 
BEV Ford E-Transit commercial van (Kansas City, MO), BEV Thomas Built 
Saf-T-Liner C2 Jouley school bus (High Point, NC), BEV Volvo VNR Class 
8 truck (Dublin, VA), and the BEV Mack LR refuse truck (Macungie, PA).
    In addition to current vehicles, UAW employers have announced 
ambitious product plans for plug-in vehicles across various segment. 
Publicly announced production plans include the BEV F-150 Lightning 
pickup (Dearborn, MI),\1\ * BEV Cadillac Lyriq CUV (Spring Hill, 
TN),\2\ BEV GMC Hummer SUV (Detroit, MI),\3\ BEV Chevy Silverado pickup 
(Detroit & Orion, MI),\4\ BEV GMC Sierra pickup (Orion, MI),\5\ BEV 
Cruise Origin autonomous shuttle (Detroit, MI),\6\ and the PHEV Grand 
Cherokee SUV (Detroit, MI).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/
01/04/ford-planning-to-nearly-double-all-electric-f-150-lightning-
production-150000-units.html.
    * Editor's note: footnotes annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.
    \2\ https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/
Pages/news/us/en/2020/oct/1020-event.html.
    \3\ https://www.gm.com/stories/factory-zero-supertruck-hummer-
detroit.
    \4\ https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/
Pages/news/us/en/2021/apr/0406-factory0.html, https://investor.gm.com/
news-releases/news-release-details/gm-accelerates-its-drive-lead-ev-
industry-7-billion-investment.
    \5\ https://investor.gm.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gm-
accelerates-its-drive-lead-ev-industry-7-billion-investment.
    \6\ https://www.gm.com/stories/factory-zero-first-dedicated-ev-
plant.
    \7\ https://media.stellantisnorthamerica.com/
newsrelease.do?id=23497∣=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    UAW members continue to work on cutting edge technology. Besides 
publicly announced production plans, automakers and heavy-duty truck 
manufacturers have a deep pipeline of BEV and PHEV vehicles under 
development, with production locations yet to be announced. With major 
future investments at stake, it is crucial that we have policies that 
promote the domestic production of advanced technology vehicles. The 
UAW will continue to work with policymakers and major manufacturers to 
secure future quality jobs for American workers.
                                 ______
                                 
   Supplementary Material Submitted by Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, 
                          Manhattan Institute
Insert
          Mrs. Miller. . . .
          And with that, I have a question for Mr. Mills. Mr. Mills, 
        rare earth elements are considered critical to modern batteries 
        and electronics, yet United States is almost wholly dependent 
        on China to supply our factories with these critical minerals. 
        Just a few years ago, there was a real palpable concern that 
        China would use its control of rare earth element production to 
        further its geopolitical aims by restricting the export to the 
        United States. If that happens, how would we build batteries, 
        solar cells, wind turbines, and all the other tools of modern 
        life? So, is rare earth mining more environmentally damaging 
        than mining for other materials?
          The Chairman. Does the gentlelady yield back?
          Mrs. Miller. Well, did Mr. Mills--could he answer my 
        question?
          The Chairman. Oh, Mr. Mills, did you hear the question?
          Mrs. Miller. Maybe I ran into it too fast.
          The Clerk. Mr. Mills is no longer on camera.
          The Chairman. Mr. Mills, you may want to un-mute.
          The Clerk. Ask if there is anybody on the panel that would 
        like to address the question.
          The Chairman. Is there anybody on the panel that might want 
        to pitch in?
          Well, thank you, gentlelady. You have 2 minutes remaining. Do 
        you yield back?
          Mrs. Miller. Does Mr. Mills not want to answer that question?
          The Chairman. We have not been able to locate him on the 
        panel.

    The United States is profoundly dependent on imports for not only 
rare earths, but all manner of minerals. As the USGS reports, the 
United States today is dependent on imports \1\ * for 100% of some 17 
critical minerals, and for 28 others net imports account for more than 
half of existing domestic demand. For many tech (and military) products 
that require those minerals, whether the products are purchased, or 
even assembled, in the United States--from smartphones to electric car 
batteries--the fact is the critical supply chains entail off-shoring of 
most mining, and in particular most of the related mineral processing. 
China, for example, refines the majority of the worlds' cobalt that is, 
mainly, mined elsewhere. While Congress, and many Administrations, have 
over many decades episodically studied mineral dependencies, relatively 
little action has been taken to encourage--rather than discourage--
domestic mining and processing. In fact, in February this year, the 
Biden Administration canceled a long-sought permit to open a new copper 
and nickel mine in Minnesota. While neither of those are ``rare'' 
elements, both are essential for building electric vehicles and much 
else. Rare earths are, for the record, not physically ``rare,'' rather 
those elements possess ``rare'' properties that are very valuable for 
high-tech products. The United States as extensive rare earth 
resources. And the mining of rare earths is itself is not more 
environmentally challenging than mining for other minerals. However, 
the environmental challenges (which modern industry can easily meet) 
are associated with the subsequent, essential, chemical processes 
needed to separate and [refine] the rare earths from the ore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020.pdf.
    * Editor's note: the report entitled, Mineral Commodity Summaries 
2020, is retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Letter by Kurt Kovarik, Vice President, Federal Affairs, 
                        National Biodiesel Board
    Dear Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Honorable 
Committee Members,

    Thank you for considering the testimony of America's clean fuel 
producers, who play a pivotal role in supporting the rural economy and 
meeting the nation's environmental goals in many of the hardest-to-
decarbonize transportation and industrial sectors.
    The National Biodiesel Board (NBB)--soon to become Clean Fuels 
Alliance America--represents the cleanest, lowest carbon fuels 
available for use today at a commercial scale. Our members include 
biodiesel, renewable diesel, Bioheat' fuel, and sustainable 
aviation fuel (SAF) producers as well as soybean growers and waste fats 
and oil processors. NBB is the industry's central coordinating entity 
for technical, environmental, and quality assurance programs and the 
strongest voice for its advocacy, communications, and market 
development.
    These fuels are better, cleaner and widely available now to achieve 
reductions in the nation's carbon emissions--which showed a 6% increase 
in 2021. Reducing carbon emissions today is crucial to turn the 
trajectory of global climate change. Reductions today are far more 
valuable even than greater reductions in the future. America can rely 
on the clean fuels industry now and in the future to achieve these 
reductions. Congress should ensure that there are equivalent, stable 
and forward-looking investments in clean fuels development, 
infrastructure and market expansion alongside EVs.
Jobs and Economic Growth
    The U.S. transportation market today uses more than 3 billion 
gallons of these clean fuels--which supports more than 65,000 jobs 
across the country and generates more than $17 billion in economic 
opportunity. Our industry includes many small biodiesel producers in 
addition to large, integrated companies. In many rural areas of the 
country, small biodiesel plants are a driving force of the local 
economy, supporting the employment of plant operators, technicians and 
engineers as well as local construction workers, truck drivers and 
farmers.
    According to a November 2021 report, Union Jobs in Ethanol & 
Biodiesel Industries: An American Success Story, more than 30,000 union 
members are working directly for, and in supplier industries to, the 
ethanol and biodiesel industries. ``Perhaps most striking is that union 
gains are found in farm country and among agricultural workers, both 
areas where union membership has historically lagged,'' the authors 
state. The Energy Futures Initiative found a union density rate of 
seven percent in the ethanol and biodiesel industries in 2019, above 
the estimated national workforce average of six percent.
    Our industry is on a path to sustainably grow domestic production 
to 6 billion gallons annually by the end of this decade. Every 100 
million gallon increase in U.S. production supports an additional 3,200 
jobs and $780 million in economic activity--not just in rural 
communities, but across the country--and can eliminate an additional 
metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions each year.
    The economic opportunities demonstrate biodiesel's, farmers', and 
rural communities' potential to contribute to meeting the nation's 
climate goals. With advancements in feedstock, the market can reach 15 
billion gallons by 2050. The United States will need these fuels in the 
future to meet the nation's clean air, energy, and agriculture goals.
    The House Climate Crisis Select Committee's report, Solving the 
Climate Crisis, found, ``For heavy-duty freight trucks, technology 
options like electrification may not be available in the short or 
medium term, given the need to carry weight and travel longer 
distances.''
Value Added to the Ag Economy
    Our industry's clean fuels are made from an increasingly diverse 
mix of resources, including recycled cooking oil and animal fats as 
well as surplus soybean, canola and distillers corn oils. Our fuels add 
value to fats, oils and greases that might otherwise be treated as 
waste or as a cost for other industries.
    For example, soybean oil is separated from soybean meal through 
oilseed crushing. Demand for the meal as a high protein animal feed has 
been the traditional driver of soybean production, which reached 4.4 
billion bushels in the 2020-21 marketing year. This growth created an 
ever-increasing surplus of oil.
    About 60 percent of the separated oil is currently used in U.S. 
food production, with some additional exports. However, the volume of 
oil for food and exports has been stable over the past decade without 
any growth. Growth in biodiesel and renewable diesel production has 
always absorbed the surplus of soybean oil and is now providing market 
signals to increase domestic production and capture more value. 
Approximately half of the biodiesel produced in the U.S. comes from 
soybean oil.
    Traditionally, roughly half of all U.S.-grown soybeans have been 
exported each year--and crushed overseas--to meet animal feed demand. 
Instability in these markets--including trade wars--combined with 
growing markets for renewable fuels in the United States are 
encouraging investment in more U.S. crush capacity to keep the value of 
soybean oil here at home. Domestic soybean crushing is projected to 
expand by 13%--increasing processing by 350 million bushels--in the 
next few years to match growth in the clean fuels sector. The increased 
production will support food and animal feed demand along with 500 
million additional gallons of clean fuels.
    StoneX estimates that without biodiesel and renewable diesel 
production, the value of every bushel of soybeans grown in the United 
States could fall as much as 13 percent. The bottom line is that 
farmers receive better value for their soybeans thanks to their 
partnerships with biodiesel and renewable diesel producers.
    Rural livestock producers also benefit from increased biodiesel 
production. By boosting the value of surplus soybean oil--which would 
otherwise represent a loss to crushers--biodiesel production provides a 
counterweight to the price of soybean meal and the cost of raising 
poultry and livestock. As more surplus soybean oil is processed for 
biodiesel production, farmers can grow and crushers can process more 
soybean meal for animal feed at a lower price. Informa Economics has 
estimated livestock producers pay $21 per ton less for soybean meal due 
to increased biodiesel production and use.
    Approximately \1/4\ of all animal fats produced in the U.S. now go 
into biodiesel. Higher demand has led to increased value for those 
fats.
Environmental Health Contributions
    Clean fuel use lowers the impacts and costs of carbon and 
particulate emissions. Biodiesel and renewable diesel reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions on average by 74% compared to petroleum diesel, according 
to the newest Argonne National Labs data. In difficult-to-decarbonize 
transportation applications--the majority of diesel end uses--these 
clean fuels immediately and substantially reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. Additionally, they significantly reduce criteria pollutants 
from diesel transportation and other end uses, which can have direct 
benefits for both rural and urban communities.
    Biodiesel and renewable diesel have reduced U.S. emissions by 143.8 
million metric tons since 2010, when the Renewable Fuel Standard first 
included biomass-based diesel obligations. These fuels have also made 
significant contributions to the carbon reduction goals of many states. 
For instance, California's total biodiesel and renewable diesel volume 
grew to 855 million gallons in 2020, meeting nearly 24% of the state's 
total diesel demand for the year. These fuels have reduced the state's 
greenhouse gas emissions by 32.3 million metric tons since 2011.
    In the Northeast, biodiesel and Bioheat' fuel will be 
required to meet the states' carbon reduction goals. Currently, one in 
five existing homes in the Northeast (around 4.5 million) rely on 
oilheat, using more than 2.3 billion gallons yearly. The region's 
biodiesel and Bioheat' fuel use annually avoids more than 
1.5 million tons of CO2 emissions, equivalent to removing 
320,000 vehicles from the road or the emissions from annual energy use 
by 180,000 homes. New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island this year 
adopted goals to increase use of Bioheat' fuel.
    In addition to having one of the lowest carbon intensities of any 
liquid fuel, biodiesel also significantly reduces criteria pollutants 
from diesel transportation and other end-uses. Major trucking 
corridors, warehouse distribution centers and other diesel hot spots 
close to population centers can inflict serious harms to human health 
and often highlight disparities in the impacts of transportation 
pollution burdens as a result of emissions from petroleum fuel. Since 
biodiesel and renewable diesel cut these harmful emissions by half, 
their use can generate immediate health benefits for disadvantaged 
communities.
    A recent study, conducted by Trinity Consultants on behalf of our 
trade association, shows that converting from petroleum-based diesel to 
100 percent biodiesel (B100) results in a multitude of health benefits 
at the Census-tract level, including lowering cancer risk, reducing 
premature deaths, and decreasing asthma attacks.
    The study found that switching to B100 in the home heating oil and 
transportation sectors would provide immediate community health 
improvements that can be measured in reduced medical costs and health 
care benefits, including approximately 50,000 fewer sick days in the 
study demographics.
    In the transportation sector, benefits included a potential 44 
percent reduction in cancer risk when heavy-duty trucks use B100, 
resulting in 203,000 fewer or lessened asthma attacks for the 
communities studied. When biodiesel is used for home heating oil, the 
study found an 86 percent reduced cancer risk and 17,000 fewer lung 
problems for the communities studied.
    These are benefits that can be achieved today with available 
production of biodiesel, renewable diesel and Bioheat' fuel. 
Since the study focused on only 13 communities, it represents the tip 
of the iceberg in what can be accomplished this decade through growth 
of the clean fuels industry.
Supportive Federal Policies
    As Congress considers legislation to address the nation's 
infrastructure, climate and economic priorities, we ask that you ensure 
a level playing field for the continued growth of the biodiesel and 
renewable diesel industry. The Renewable Fuel Standard and biodiesel 
tax incentive have supported the growth of our industry to 3 billion 
gallons. Extension and optimization of these policies is crucial to our 
industry.
    Our industry grows and creates jobs when the biodiesel tax 
incentive is stable and forward-looking. For example, in 2020 and 2021 
the U.S. market for biodiesel and renewable diesel increased even while 
the coronavirus pandemic reduced overall demand for transportation 
fuel. This was largely due to the biodiesel tax incentive.
    NBB and its members appreciate the leadership of Rep. Cindy Axne 
(D-IA) and many others for advocating a long-term extension of the 
biodiesel tax incentive in the Build Back Better Act. This provision 
grew out of bipartisan legislation--H.R. 3472--that she cosponsored 
with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and 41 other Members of the House. The 
policy enjoys bicameral support with companion legislation, introduced 
by Senators Grassley and Cantwell and cosponsored by 12 other Senators. 
We ask that Congress maintain an equitable balance in duration and 
value for the policy in relation to other renewable energy incentives.
    NBB and its members also applaud efforts to continue the Federal 
matching grant program supporting higher blends of biodiesel. USDA's 
Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program continues to be a huge 
success, providing a tremendous return at a very low cost. To date, \1/
3\ of the program's announced grants have been awarded to 24 biodiesel 
projects, which received a combined $25 million. Completion of these 
projects will increase consumer access to nearly 1 billion gallons of 
biodiesel while eliminating 9.4 million metric tons of greenhouse gas 
emissions every year at a 1 year cost of only $2.67 per ton. Continuing 
the program will help the industry build or retrofit terminals, 
storage, and rail capacity to extend access to these clean, low-carbon 
fuels.
    We thank Reps. Angie Craig (D-MN) and Axne for championing a 10 
year authorization and funding of this grant program and support its 
inclusion in the Build Back Better Act. The proposal evolved from 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation cosponsored by Reps. Rodney Davis (R-
IL) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD) as well as Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and 
Joni Ernst (R-IA). It promises to be an effective way to expand 
consumer access to cleaner, low-carbon transportation options.
    Additionally, Congress can work with the Environmental Protection 
Agency to optimize the Renewable Fuel Standard to achieve carbon 
emission reductions. While we appreciate the rule that EPA recently 
proposed, it can only have a retroactive impact. The agency continues 
to fall behind its statutory annual deadlines to set volumes.
    EPA's delays in rulemaking create uncertainty for the biodiesel and 
renewable diesel industry, which hampers growth and opportunities 
within the rural economy. The delays allow refiners to manipulate the 
RFS rules and create uncertainty for renewable fuel producers. And 
uncertainty among biodiesel producers could impact jobs and economic 
growth opportunities throughout America.
    Congress must encourage EPA and the Administration to support 
sustainable, achievable growth in RFS volumes, issue annual rules in a 
timely manner, and increase the transparency of the small refinery 
exemption process.
Conclusion
    NBB and its members thank the Committee for holding this hearing 
and considering this written testimony. The clean fuels industry 
creates jobs and value-added markets for agricultural partners. 
Biodiesel and renewable diesel use can improve environmental health and 
reduce associated costs for disadvantaged communities.
    Cleaner, better fuels highlight the contribution that the 
agricultural sector can make to the nation's overall climate and carbon 
reduction goals. They are here, commercially available and in use 
today, achieving significant reductions in carbon emissions. Their 
increasing use today will do more to avoid climate change impacts than 
incentives that electrify transportation and other sectors down the 
road.
    We look forward to working with Congress on policies that maximize 
these benefits.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Kurt Kovarik,
VP Federal Affairs,
National Biodiesel Board.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Praveen Penmetsa, Chief Executive Officer and Co-
               Founder, Zimeno Inc. d/b/a Monarch Tractor
01/21/22

  House Agriculture Committee
  Washington, D.C.

    Monarch Tractor appreciates the opportunity to submit comments 
regarding the January 12th, 2022 House Agriculture Committee Hearing on 
the Implications of Electric Vehicle Investments for Agriculture and 
Rural America. We strongly support initiatives to expand 
electrification and EV infrastructure, especially in high impact areas 
like the agricultural sector.
About Monarch Tractor
    Monarch Tractor is an innovative, mission-driven company, 
headquartered in Livermore, California developing driver-optional 
electric tractors. We are committed to enabling clean, efficient, and 
sustainable farming practices by making them economically viable. The 
Monarch Tractor brings together the benefits of electrification, 
automation, and insightful data to enable farmers to transition to more 
productive, precise, and sustainable farming practices. Providing a 
superior platform for farmers, Monarch Tractor is focused on delivering 
meaningful change for today's farmers and the generations of farmers to 
come.
    The Monarch Tractor MK5 is the world's first fully electric, driver 
optional, smart tractor. It enhances farmer's existing operations, 
alleviating labor shortages and maximizing yields. The award-winning 
Monarch Tractor combines electrification, automation, machine learning, 
and data analysis to set a new standard in tractor technology and 
capabilities.
    Providing 40 horsepower continuously and peaks up to 70 horsepower, 
a category 1 three-point hitch, 6 Spline 540 rpm PTO, and 16 gpm 
standard hydraulic hookups, the Monarch Tractor can accomplish 
everything a traditional diesel tractor can and more. This power is 
packed into a compact footprint resulting in best in class plow, till, 
and hauling capabilities. Optional four-wheel drive and front implement 
compatibility extend the Monarch Tractor's functionality even further.
    Monarch's Compact Tractor is an attractive platform for 
significantly reducing criteria and greenhouse gas emissions in the 
agricultural sector. The compact tractor segment offers the opportunity 
for some of the most significant and cost-effective diesel emissions 
reductions due to its high volume, high utilization, and significant 
annual growth.
    Throughout the company's home state of California, Monarch has been 
working with both local and state government agencies and programs to 
accurately incentivize and deploy fully electric farm equipment. 
Various California State Legislators and officials have toured 
Monarch's California Headquarters and experienced a demonstration of 
the technology in a local vineyard. Monarch has already partnered with 
air districts to complete a variety of zero emission tractor 
deployments in North Central California.
Farm Electrification is Primed for Federal Support
    Farm EV technology isn't in development, it's already here. Thanks 
to significant public and private investment in on-road 
electrification, high voltage battery technology has improved vastly in 
the last decade. Now, farm EV's provide a zero-compromise solution for 
farmers looking to replace aging or high-polluting equipment. 
Agriculture is responsible for a significant amount of overall 
greenhouse gas emissions which makes the industry an ideal candidate 
for sustainability initiatives and one of the most effective on a cost 
of emission reduction basis.
    Electrification is quickly expanding in the farming sector; 
government participation can ensure the benefits of this technological 
shift are both swift and equitable. Farmers looking to adopt ZEVs 
currently face expensive upgrades to existing electrical 
infrastructure, poor or no financial incentives to replace their 
equipment with ZEVs, and other transitory challenges. This is 
compounded in rural communities that have not had the need, nor the 
opportunity, to install the necessary infrastructure to support 
electric vehicle usage and charging. As both equipment and implement 
manufacturers are moving toward an electric future, rural areas are at 
risk of being left behind without appropriate support to aid in 
adopting these new technologies. Infrastructure investments to 
facilitate rural electrification need to be made urgently so farmers 
have the ability to choose an Electric Farm Vehicle as their next 
equipment purchase.
    Monarch Tractor is dedicated to facilitating the future of our food 
ecosystem; one that is electrified and sustainable. We are looking 
forward to collaborating with the House Agriculture Committee on 
initiatives that help further sustainability in the agricultural 
sector.
            Sincerely,

Praveen Penmetsa,
CEO and Co-Founder.

                                  [all]