[Senate Hearing 117-649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]










                                                        S. Hrg. 117-649

 PUTTING THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW TO WORK: THE PRIVATE SECTOR 
                              PERSPECTIVE

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 30, 2022

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works






[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]











        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
        
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
51-869 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           NOVEMBER 30, 2022
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Stanberry, Matt, Managing Director, Highland Electric Fleets.....     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Levy, Jonathan, Chief Commercial Officer, EVgo...................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Bauer, Dave, President and CEO, American Road and Transportation 
  Builders Association...........................................    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Inhofe...........................................    46
        Senator Cramer...........................................    48
Mills, Ali, President, Plum Contracting, Inc., Associated General 
  Contractors of America.........................................    52
    Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Inhofe...........................................    73
        Senator Cramer...........................................    75
Johnson, Gary W., P.E., Vice President, Land and Quarry, Granite 
  Construction Company...........................................    79
    Prepared statement...........................................    81
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........    88
    Response to an additional question from Senator Cramer.......    90

 
 PUTTING THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW TO WORK: THE PRIVATE SECTOR 
                              PERSPECTIVE

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Kelly, Padilla, 
Inhofe, Cramer, Boozman, Sullivan, and Ernst.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Good morning. I am pleased to call this 
hearing to order.
    Welcome, all of you. Thank you for joining Senator Capito 
and our colleagues and our staffs today as our Committee holds, 
I believe this is our fourth hearing on the implementation of 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. It has another name, there 
is an acronym for it, as there is for everything. I always call 
it the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and I think I always 
will.
    Today we are going to examine this law from the perspective 
of stakeholders from the private sector. This hearing is an 
opportunity for us to explore what is working well, but also to 
identify some potential improvements for future infrastructure 
legislation. My colleagues and my staff have heard me say too 
often, everything I do, I know I can do better. The goal is 
always perfection, knowing we will never get there, but at 
least we will be heading in the right direction.
    This Committee was privileged to play an integral role in 
developing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I like to quote 
Will Rogers; Will Rogers used to say, ``If it is true, it ain't 
bragging.'' This is a great piece of legislation, maybe the 
most monumental and meaningful infrastructure investment we 
have made since maybe the interstate system. So we are very, 
very proud. We are delighted to have had a chance to work 
together on that.
    Shortly after President Biden took office last year, he 
invited several members of this Committee to a meeting at the 
Oval Office. During that meeting, we were joined in person by 
the Vice President and joined in person by our Secretary of 
Transportation, whom I still call Mayor Pete. The President had 
Democrat and Republican members from this Committee, and had a 
long conversation, for over an hour.
    Basically, when we left, the President said, ``I want you 
to have on my desk by Easter bipartisan legislation on roads, 
highways, bridges, and water, wastewater, sanitation.'' He 
said, ``I would like you to do that, to work on that.'' That is 
exactly what we did. That is exactly what we did. Ultimately 
our Committee's success on crafting and unanimously advancing a 
robust surface transportation, drinking water, wastewater 
legislation made the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law possible.
    I like to say we laid the foundation. Senator Capito was 
right in the middle of it all, including extensive 
negotiations, kind of one on one negotiations with the 
President of the United States, which I think helped lay the 
groundwork for what we were later to do.
    But when we began working on the highway portion of this 
law, we sought input from a variety of stakeholders, including 
many in the private sector, including some in this room. At the 
time, it was clear to me that our bipartisan legislation would 
be a vehicle through which we could achieve many important 
objectives. First, our infrastructure programs could help us 
reduce emissions from our transportation sector. That is a 
sector that accounts for nearly 30 percent of greenhouse gas 
emissions nationwide.
    I like to say there are three major sources of greenhouse 
gas emissions in this country. One is our mobile sources, our 
cars, trucks, vans. The second is our power plants. And the 
third is our manufacturing, cement plants, steel mills, that 
sort of thing. Those are three major sources. This is a big 
deal, the transportation sector, especially roads, highways, 
bridges. It is a big deal as we take on the climate crisis.
    But new programs could also improve the resilience of our 
transportation system and reduce our vulnerability to extreme 
weather, such as heat waves and flooding that we continue to 
witness across our country and indeed, across the planet. The 
Tour de France, like some of you, I like to ride bicycles, I 
like to run. In France they had days that were so hot in Paris 
this year when they were running the Tour de France, they 
couldn't ride on the pavement because the pavement was melting. 
So this stuff is not just stuff we are making up.
    Our highway programs and policies could improve the safety 
of our Nation's roads where more than 40,000 people tragically 
lost their lives last year. I would like to say that number is 
going down. I know on the pedestrian side it is not. So that is 
a matter of concern to all of us. But across all these critical 
objectives and policy goals, I also sought to uphold another 
key principle, and that is that our infrastructure should help 
to create a nurturing environment for job creation and job 
preservation. When I was privileged to be Governor of Delaware, 
about 400 years ago--it wasn't that long--I would often say 
that government should work together with our partners in the 
private sector to expand opportunities for people to access 
good jobs. I have said that ever since. I am a recovering 
Governor, if you will.
    That is why I am delighted to be here with my colleagues 
and all of you as we hear from five representatives of the 
private sector, businesses and associations. The witnesses 
gathered before us today represent a range of industries from 
road builders and contractors to bus fleet operators to 
material suppliers to electric charging network providers. Your 
perspectives are critical to not just us on this Committee, but 
to our Nation.
    Why might you ask? The program that our Committee created 
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the work that our 
partners, Federal, State, local agencies are leading to 
implement, these programs are only part of the equation. The 
industry is represented here today along with many private 
sector entities also play pivotal roles in the success of our 
transportation investments. These businesses contract with 
public agencies to provide the materials, to provide the work 
force, to provide the engineering skills, the vehicles, the 
manufactured products that transportation agencies rely on to 
see projects through to completion.
    As we all know, private sector industries invest in 
important research and development and innovative approaches to 
deliver projects and improve mobility, improve safety, and 
improve sustainability. It is also worth noting that the 
private sector will benefit tremendously from the new 
opportunities created by this once in a generation investment 
in our Nation's infrastructure.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides more than $350 
billion, $350 billion with a B. In a draft of my statement that 
my staff gave me, it said $350 million. I said, I think it is 
more than that. It is billion with a B. Don't forget it. 
Including a 34 percent increase in State formula funds, this 
increase will translate to more contracts and business 
opportunities for private sector partners and your employees 
across the country.
    While the private sector businesses that participate in 
Federal contracts need to be able to operate profitably, they 
also face important requirements and expectations. When 
developing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we took care to 
ensure that our new programs would support congressional 
priorities. Statutory requirements and regulations will ensure 
that our infrastructure dollars support domestic manufacturing, 
provide common sense labor protection, and reduce emissions 
from vehicles and from materials.
    As we implement these programs, I believe it is critical to 
find the balance between achieving our policy goals while also 
providing long term certainty so that businesses can engage 
profitably. I also believe that they will make more progress in 
advancing our national goals if we allow private sector to 
participate fully and constructively, driving behavior across 
industry and leveraging our Federal funding with private sector 
investments to achieve the greatest possible outcomes.
    My hope is that our panel of witnesses today will share 
their thoughts on how Federal agencies can best structure 
programs and regulations to achieve these goals of reducing 
emissions, improving safety, making our infrastructure more 
resilient, and last but not least, fostering job creation and 
preservation here at home.
    With us today we welcome Jonathan Levy, the Chief 
Commercial Officer of EVgo, as well as Matt Stanberry, Managing 
Director of Highland Electric Fleets, Inc. We will also hear 
from Dave Bauer, the President and CEO of the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association. Finally, we are going to 
hear from Gary Johnson, with whom I served as Governor. I think 
he was Governor of New Mexico. He has changed a lot.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. A different Gary Johnson, probably.
    We are delighted that you have come today.
    We are going to hear from Gary, Vice President of Granite 
Construction Company, testifying on behalf of National 
Sandstone and Gravel Association.
    Last but not least, we will hear from Ali Mills. We are 
glad to see Ali.
    Thanks for bringing these guys with you. We will hear from 
you, President of Plum Contracting, testifying on behalf of the 
Associated General Contractors.
    We look forward to hearing from all of you.
    Before we do that, I am going to turn to Senator Capito.
    This has been a big month in the Capito family. Shelley 
celebrated her 39th birthday earlier this month, and maybe she 
will share a little about that. Something really important 
happened in her family yesterday in West Virginia. I am a 
native of West Virginia, follow West Virginia, love West 
Virginia, almost as much as she and Senator Manchin do. We have 
a couple of grown kids, she has two, and one of them is a State 
legislator who I think made an important announcement. Maybe 
she will mention what that was. We wish him well.
    I used to say, when my time was almost up as Governor of 
Delaware, they would say, what do you want to next, Tom? I 
would say, I would like to move to another State and be their 
Governor, too. People would say, what State would that be? And 
I would say West Virginia. But I think I won't have a chance to 
do that.
    We wish your son all the best. You are recognized for 
whatever you want to say. Thank you.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
    I should take that hint and say, yes, congratulations to my 
son, whose name is Moore Capito, we tend to use the same names. 
He threw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination for 
Governor of West Virginia yesterday.
    Senator Carper. That could be such a great campaign slogan, 
More Capito.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. As the Chairman has said, we just passed 
the 1 year mark since the President signed the IIJA. And we 
promised the American people that this would deliver results by 
improving and expanding our Nation's core transportation 
infrastructure.
    We are really starting to see some of the tangible 
benefits. Roads and bridges are underway. We have a lot of 
those orange and white cones going in West Virginia. States 
have received a second round of historic levels of funding 
through their core highway formula funds. And discretionary 
grants are beginning to be awarded.
    But there is still so much work to be done. Agency 
deadlines are piling up. And we are still waiting for 
significant sections of the law to be implemented by DOT, 
mainly the project delivery title to cut down delays and red 
tape.
    This Committee has the responsibility for proper 
implementation of the IIJA. And we have had several hearings 
with others to see how that is going.
    This is an important voice we are going to hear today in 
this conversation. Our panel represents, as the Chairman said, 
a diverse range of individuals. We thank all of you for coming. 
You all are the ones who have the boots literally on the 
ground. Our witnesses represent companies that are being 
awarded projects funded by the IIJA, which means they are 
perfectly positioned to provide the Committee additional, real 
world perspectives on how things are going.
    Just yesterday, this Committee voice voted out in favor of 
Shailen Bhatt's nomination to be the Administrator of the 
Federal Highway Administration. This is critical, I think, and 
a critical position for the implementation of the IIJA. The 
agency has been without a Senate confirmed administrator for 
far too long. And if he is confirmed by the full Senate, which 
I expect that he will be, I hope that he will grab the reins 
quickly and move to approve some of the issues that have 
already come to light.
    Through his leadership, I expect that the agency will begin 
to execute the law as Congress intended, which he committed to 
do in front of this very Committee. Through public hearings and 
private conversations with DOJ leadership and letters, certain 
members of this Committee have called on FHWA to stop pursuing 
policies that outright contradict the IIJA's statutory text.
    This includes the December 16th FHWA memorandum to staff 
entitled ``Policy on Using the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
Resources to Build a Better America,'' and various other 
programmatic guidance documents. FHWA should instead more 
expeditiously work to implement all provisions of the law as 
written, the project delivery title including the One Federal 
Decision policy.
    The agency should focus on the bipartisan enacted 
provisions of the IIJA that will address climate change, and 
there are many in there, and improve the resilience of our 
transportation infrastructure instead of undertaking 
unauthorized, unilateral partisan actions like a rulemaking to 
establish a greenhouse gas emissions performance measure and 
associated targets for State DOTs and metropolitan planning 
organizations. To me, as I read that, as I say that, that just 
is delay, delay, delay.
    Today, I am also interested in how the current construction 
landscape is impacting the historic investment provided. 
Inflation is still high and impacting supply chain challenges. 
With this looming rail strike, this is another whole issue that 
I think puts a lot of pressure on the system.
    I continue to hear that labor shortages are making it hard 
for companies to bid on projects and then move them through 
completion on time and on budget. With the recent expiration of 
DOT's waiver of Buy America requirements for construction 
materials, I understand there are inconsistencies among States 
on the implementation of that policy. I certainly had that 
conversation myself with our constituents in West Virginia.
    I look forward to hearing from you what programs and 
policies are most beneficial to put this investment to work, 
what is going well regarding implementation, what isn't going 
well, what is making it more challenging to bid on projects, 
and bringing them to conclusion. The IIJA, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure package, included unprecedented investments to 
address the needs of our Nation's core infrastructure in the 
transportation sector. Proper implementation is the only way 
that the funding will uphold those promises that were made to 
the American people with its passage.
    Thank you so much for being here. I look forward to your 
testimony.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thank you for those 
comments.
    Thank you for the great work you did, and frankly, just 
about everybody on this Committee and our staffs, on the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure bill.
    I also way to say thanks for helping move through a number 
of nominees yesterday, including that of Shailen Bhatt to be 
Federal Highway Administrator. We waited on this current 
Administration way too long to nominate somebody of his 
quality. He has just excellent, great experience. Hopefully, we 
can move that while we are still in session this year. That 
would be great.
    Now we are going to turn to our witnesses. And I am going 
to ask that each of you keep your statements to 5 minutes, and 
your full written testimony will be entered into the record, as 
you know.
    We are going to start with Matt. Matt Stanberry, Managing 
Director of Highlands Electric Fleets.
    Mr. Stanberry, you may proceed with your statement. 
Welcome. We are glad you are here. Thank you.

                 STATEMENT OF MATT STANBERRY, 
          MANAGING DIRECTOR, HIGHLAND ELECTRIC FLEETS

    Mr. Stanberry. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today.
    I work for a company named Highland Electric Fleets. 
Highland is a fleet electrification company focused on helping 
governments electrify their fleets. Today, we specialize in 
school bus fleets.
    We recognized back in 2018 that communities wanted cleaner 
alternatives to diesel school buses, and major manufacturers 
were making good quality electric school buses right here in 
the United States. At the same time, we saw that adoption was 
slow because the vehicles cost more up front, and the process 
of electrification felt too complicated and risky for school 
transportation directors. It wasn't a technology problem, but 
rather a business model and access problem.
    So we built a company designed to help schools address 
those specific challenges in a public-private partnership. To 
solve the complexity, we do everything required for a district 
to electrify. To make it affordable, we leverage values that 
electric buses can provide but are hard for districts to 
capture without the help of specialized private companies.
    For example, we help them capture the savings from fuel and 
maintenance, tax depreciation, volume purchasing incentive 
programs, and a number of other areas. We are now the largest 
buyer of electric school buses in the country, all of which, I 
would note, come from domestic manufacturers. And we have the 
largest project in North America, just up the road from here, 
in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland.
    Our pipeline of projects and partnerships underway or in 
development covers over 20 States and Canadian provinces, and 
our district partners range from small, rural communities to 
dense urban environments.
    Our company is interacting with the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law in multiple ways. I will center our comments 
today on Section 71101's Clean School Bus program. It is well 
underway, and it is our area of expertise.
    The passage of the law was a watershed moment for school 
bus fleet electrification, as the Federal Government is 
uniquely positioned to do three important things. One, build 
nationwide awareness and knowledge about the technology. Two, 
accelerate the development of a resilient market for adoption 
by encouraging private sector participation and competition. 
And three, ensure that all communities have access to the 
technology.
    Of course, success will require effective implementation by 
the Environmental Protection Agency, which rolled out the first 
version of the program earlier this year. At the outset, I 
would like to congratulate the team at EPA for doing the hard 
work of standing up a major Federal incentive program in short 
order. It really is no easy feat.
    I am pleased to report that our business has seen a large 
uptick in awareness and interest in electric school bus 
technology based on the program's first round. Building 
awareness and education is critical in all technology 
transitions. So this result alone is a significant victory for 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I would like to commend the 
members of the Committee, Congress at large, and the 
Administration for making that possible.
    That said, we see a central challenge in the approach to 
date to the incentive program that will prevent the Clean 
School Bus Program from fulfilling all the goals that Congress 
laid out unless some significant changes are made going 
forward. Specifically, the incentive structure was not designed 
to sufficiently leverage private sector investment in 
competition to both drive down project costs and accelerate 
deployment.
    Going forward, three things will be required: Moving away 
from lottery based systems that discourage competition and 
create uncertainty; reducing incentive levels to put downward 
pressure on project cost; and encouraging project cost share 
and private sector participation.
    With that, I will close by noting that while my testimony 
focused on the Clean School Bus Program, it is likely that the 
big themes have relatively widespread applicability. As the 
Federal Government rolls out new programs, especially those 
dealing with technology transitions, it should use its unique 
platform to build education and awareness, and it should design 
the programs carefully to leverage the capacity of the private 
sector. In this way it can create momentum so that the private 
sector can help fund the transition going forward.
    Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the 
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify 
before you today and provide some private sector perspective on 
putting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to work.
    I look forward to engaging with you on any and all 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stanberry follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Thank you. You have 18 seconds to spare, 
that is great. Thank you for that testimony and for your 
delivery. Thanks for joining us today.
    On your left, Matt, is Jonathan Levy from EVgo.
    Did I get it right, Jonathan?
    Mr. Levy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Carper. Mr. Levy, we are going to ask you to go 
ahead and proceed with your statement. Your entire statement 
will be made part of the record. Please proceed.

                  STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LEVY, 
                 CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER, EVGO

    Mr. Levy. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, members of the Committee. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share EVgo's perspective on the impact of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the electric vehicle sector.
    Since you started by welcoming everybody in the family way, 
maybe I will start by wishing my dad a happy birthday today.
    Senator Carper. How long has he been your dad?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Levy. My whole life. He is very good at it.
    Senator Carper. Give him our best.
    Mr. Levy. Thank you, sir. I will.
    My name is Jonathan Levy, and I am EVgo's Chief Commercial 
Officer. EVgo has been a first mover in EV charging with over a 
decade of experience owning and operating fast chargers. Fast 
chargers, as you all know, can charge any electric vehicle in 
about 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the car's capabilities.
    EVgo's network spans more than 850 fast charging locations 
across more than 30 States and has been powered by 100 percent 
renewable electricity since 2019.
    This Committee should be lauded for its leadership on 
transportation electrification, especially through the up to 
$7.5 billion zero emissions infrastructure funding included in 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, especially the NEVI program 
or the $5 billion in formula funds.
    Federal policy is a powerful tailwind to support EV 
adoption. And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is one of 
multiple complementary policy efforts accelerating the 
deployment of charging infrastructure across the U.S. EVgo 
strongly supported passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
and other EV incentives that were included in the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    If you will pardon the food metaphors before lunch, we 
often hear about a chicken and egg problem when it comes to EVs 
and charging infrastructure.
    Senator Carper. You are talking to a Committee that is 
chaired by someone who has a State with 300 chickens for every 
person. So feel free to use that one.
    Mr. Levy. My aforementioned birthday boy father was in the 
chicken business. I am familiar with Delaware's farming there.
    At EVgo, we are not big fans of that metaphor. The chicken 
and the egg implies that we are starting from scratch and that 
something has to go first. But we have a base today of 
installed chargers and excellent EV models available for 
consumers. Instead, we like to talk about peanut butter and 
jelly, enough charging stations for people to buy EVs with 
confidence and enough EVs using that infrastructure to support 
the sustainable build out of even more of it.
    EVgo encourages this Committee to continue advancing 
complementary policies that support infrastructure and vehicles 
in tandem. And we are grateful that Congress and the 
Administration did just that by pairing the charging 
investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with 
consumer incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, ambitious 
fuel economy standards as proposed by NHTSA and other policies 
like EARNS.
    As States are on the cusp of awarding funds from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we also have a few 
recommendations to share. First, we appreciate that Congress 
and the Administration focused Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
investments on fast charging, starting with corridors. We 
recommend that in addition to highway build outs, States move 
quickly to also support community charging projects. The 
definition of when highway corridors are built out was 
ambiguous, and we recommend the obligation of funds as a 
practical milestone.
    Second, Congress wisely designated electrification 
investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to leverage 
and not supplant private sector dollars and experience. 
Accordingly, States should adopt best practices and learnings 
from past charging programs and experienced players in the 
market. Specifically, States should use transparent, points 
based scoring rubrics, rather than over specifying specific 
program criteria.
    NEVI funds present an opportunity to make certain projects 
pencil earlier than they otherwise might. Extraneous 
requirements such as bundling multiple sites in the same 
corridor may undermine that math and reduce the pipeline of 
valuable projects that can apply. The Administration has 
implemented a robust public comment process, and while State 
NEVI plans have been approved, the proposed minimum technical 
standards have not yet been finalized.
    It is crucial that FHWA resolve problematic elements of the 
proposed standards, especially eliminating regulated rates of 
return and requirements for specific versions of technical 
protocols. NEVI guidance included an ambitious goal of 
energizing charging stations within 6 months of obligation of 
funding. To meet that goal, States will need to work with 
stakeholders from utilities to local permitting agencies to 
address existing deployment bottlenecks.
    Finally, while we support the goals of Build America, Buy 
America, and are actively working with our suppliers on their 
onshoring plans, the current state of the supply chain 
necessitates a longer waiver which currently expires at the end 
of this year. Based on EVgo's analysis in the marketing, the 
waiver at least through the end of 2023 is needed, as the 
coming domestic supply will not meet the demand for federally 
funded projects.
    With these improvements and complementary programs, the 
implementation of the NEVI funds from BIL will deliver critical 
support to the burgeoning EV ecosystem. As strong believers in 
the vision of electric for all, EVgo is grateful to this 
Committee for your leadership promoting the acceleration of an 
ongoing and just transition to EVs. Congress and the 
Administration have acted boldly with both BIL and IRA, and we 
commend all of you for that action. We are looking forward to 
seeing the vision of this Committee become a reality as States 
start to award funds.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   
    Senator Carper. Great. We look forward to asking those 
questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Levy.
    Now we are going to hear from Dave Bauer, the President and 
CEO of American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
    Mr. Bauer, please proceed with your statement, and welcome.

          STATEMENT OF DAVE BAUER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 
     AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Bauer. Thank you.
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito, and 
members of the Committee. Thank you for providing the American 
Road and Transportation Builders Association an opportunity to 
take part in this timely discussion.
    In 2015, then Memphis, Tennessee, Mayor A.C. Wharton called 
the interchange at Interstate 55 and Crump Avenue Malfunction 
Junction. And a State transportation official referred to the 
area as the worst interstate that we have in the State of 
Tennessee.
    Fast forward to 2022, a $141 million project broke ground 
this summer to enhance safety and mobility for individuals in 
the affected region. The I-55 Crump interchange is one of the 
29,000 infrastructure improvements moving forward in every 
congressional district this year with highway and bridge 
formula funds provided by the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act, or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation has released another 
192 discretionary grants with more 2022 awards on the way. 
Though each project has a unique story of need and solution, 
they are all tangible illustrations of the impacts underway 
from the leadership of this Committee in delivering 
generational investments through a multi-year Surface 
Transportation Program reauthorization. On behalf of all ARTBA 
members, thank you.
    To put the 29,000 State led projects in perspective, 
highway formula funds supported 2,500 more safety, mobility, 
and infrastructure improvements in 2022 than in the previous 
year. To be clear, what we are seeing is more than just an 
increase in the quantity, but also an enhanced ability for 
States to tackle large scale projects with the resources and 
confidence provided by your legislation.
    As an example, the number of $100 million-plus projects 
increased from 18 in 11 States last year to 24 in 14 States 
this year. This data makes a pivotal point that IIJA's highway 
and bridge investments are working as intended. We have 
provided each of you with a fact sheet to help you see the 
specific ways your constituents are benefiting from the first 
year of the law's highway and bridge investments.
    Mr. Chairman, as powerful as the IIJA has been, there is no 
denying the elephant in the room. Inflation has reduced the 
purchasing power of every American household, and it is having 
the same effect on Federal, State, and local efforts to deliver 
or to advance transportation infrastructure improvements.
    The impacts of inflation, however, vary by State and 
project type. Some regions have experienced material prices as 
high as 40 percent, yet bids in other areas are coming in below 
expected cost. While inflation is clearly diluting the initial 
investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it is also 
clear that the situation would have been dramatically worse if 
Congress had opted for another short term, flat funded 
extension of the Surface Transportation Programs.
    Another part of the IIJA story relates to regulatory 
requirements that influence how much projects cost and how long 
they will take to complete. The Infrastructure Law includes 
common sense reforms to the environmental review and approval 
process that once implemented have the potential to reduce 
project costs and speed their benefits.
    Conversely, well intended new requirements, such as the 
expansion of Buy America to construction materials, if not 
pursued with stakeholder input and a clear eye on market 
realities, could have the opposite outcome.
    While I am pleased to report on the progress of the IIJA's 
highway and bridge investments, I must also emphasize that this 
is year one of a 5 year commitment. The history of previous 
long term reauthorizations indicate these results will escalate 
substantially in the subsequent years.
    Mr. Chairman, before I wrap up, I want to take a moment to 
thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership role on this Committee, 
for the three reauthorizations of the Highway and Bridge 
Program that led up to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and 
wish you well on your next adventure.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to 
participate in today's hearing. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bauer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. Thanks very much for your testimony, 
especially for that ad lib at the end. We spent the better part 
of our business meeting yesterday lauding Senator Inhofe, one 
Democrat and one Republican after the other. One of my favorite 
sayings is, flattery won't hurt you if you don't inhale.
    So I would just say to my friend Jim, don't breathe in too 
deeply for the next month or so, because it might hurt you.
    Ali, we are going to hear from you and Gary next, then we 
will take our questions.
    Go ahead, Ali Mills.

  STATEMENT OF ALI MILLS, PRESIDENT, PLUM CONTRACTING, INC., 
           ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

    Ms. Mills. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, thank 
you for inviting me to testify on this vitally important topic.
    My name is Ali Mills. I am the President of Plum 
Contracting in Pennsylvania and an active member of Associated 
General Contractors of America, AGC.
    Plum Contracting is a family operated business for 42 years 
located just east of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In that time, we 
have become a high valued highway and bridge contractor in 
Pennsylvania while also having a successful subcontracting 
division installing highway edge drains along the East Coast.
    I want to start by thanking the Committee for their work 
and leadership in the development of the IIJA. The IIJA 
represents the most significant infusion of investment in our 
infrastructure since the enactment of the interstate highway 
system in the mid-1950s.
    I also want to thank the Committee for continuing to 
prioritize formula dollars to States through the core highway 
formula programs and ask that you continue to do so in the 
future, rather than creating new grant programs, especially 
discretionary ones.
    A recent survey of AGC members found that 93 percent of the 
construction companies are experiencing long lead times and/or 
allocations for construction materials. Infrastructure project 
costs continue to climb in rising construction material prices 
and shortages. Material price increases have doubled or even 
tripled in some cases. Supply chain disruptions from the 
pandemic have inflated the cost of construction materials and 
made project delivery schedules and product availability more 
uncertain.
    Today, my company is experiencing an unprecedented burden 
with bidding and procurement of new projects. We are bidding 
jobs, plugging numbers because suppliers will not quote 
projects due to fluctuations in material pricing or lack of 
material supply. We are seeing suppliers quote projects but not 
sign purchase orders so they are not held responsible for 
honoring the price if material prices do increase.
    Once we begin construction, the new normal is delays on a 
project because of supply issues. From a project scheduling 
perspective, it has turned into a nightmare. As you know, the 
IIJA included the Build America Buy America Act, which expands 
domestic sourcing requirements to all construction materials on 
federally assisted projects. I want to be clear: AGC supports 
sensible efforts to encourage the growth of America's domestic 
manufacturing capacity to restore balance to the supply chain. 
However, these new requirements have created significant 
confusion among industry about the difference between a 
construction material and a manufactured product and what 
manufacturing processes must occur domestically for 
construction materials.
    To address this issue, U.S. DOT must identify a specific 
list of which construction materials will have to be Buy 
America compliant, and which materials will be considered a 
manufactured product. To date, they have not done this.
    There is also heartburn within the construction industry 
about potential project delays due to the need for a Buy 
America waiver, and the low likelihood of being granted one 
based on history. While we still await clarification from OMB, 
the initial director of the Made in America office has since 
left just weeks before the implementation has begun. To put it 
nicely, implementation of a new Buy America requirement is off 
to a rocky start, and the construction industry is very 
concerned and confused.
    A great way to maximize investment in the IIJA would be to 
implement the environmental review and permitting reforms that 
were mandated in the bill. By implementing these provisions, we 
believe that the costs associated with delivering projects will 
be reduced without jeopardizing environmental protections.
    AGC also has concerns about recent changes to the National 
Environmental Policy Act in the Council on Environmental 
Quality's phase one rulemaking. These changes add bureaucratic 
steps in an already burdensome and slow process, require more 
time consuming analysis, increase litigation risks for project 
decisions, and encourage agencies to impose requirements that 
go beyond CEQ regulations, and would slow agency decisionmaking 
and discourage the transformational investments needed across 
the country.
    Labor shortages also continue to be a top concern for the 
industry, with most construction firms expecting labor 
conditions to remain tight. Despite firms increasing pay and 
benefits, the work force shortage continues. The industry is 
facing the effects of decades of policies directing students to 
attend 4 year institutions as the only career options.
    Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify 
today. I appreciate its continued efforts to help improve the 
Nation's infrastructure and enact policies that create good 
paying jobs in America. I look forward to answering any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Mills follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Senator Carper. Thanks very much. When we do Q&A, I am 
going to come back to your last point about the kinds of skills 
sets that we are graduating students from our colleges and 
universities, community colleges. It is a good point. We will 
come back to that. Thanks for your testimony.
    Mr. Johnson, the real Gary Johnson. Welcome.

 STATEMENT OF GARY W. JOHNSON, P.E., VICE PRESIDENT, LAND AND 
              QUARRY, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

    Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, and members of this Committee. Thank you for inviting 
me here today to discuss the implementation of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Act. I am Gary Johnson, Vice President with 
Granite Construction and Vice Chair of National Stone, Sand and 
Gravel Government Affairs Committee.
    Granite is one of the largest diversified infrastructure 
construction and materials companies, with hundreds of 
locations across the U.S. In the last 3 years, we have done 
work in every State represented by the Committee with the 
exception of two States, and we are working on those two 
States.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson. We are one of 400 producer members of NSSGA. 
Our industry operates in more than 9,000 locations, employs 
over 100,000 people in high paying jobs to source 2.6 billion 
tons of aggregates each year that are used to sustain our 
modern way of life and build our Nation's communities and 
infrastructure.
    I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues here 
today to profoundly thank you and your staff for crafting and 
executing this historic law.
    Senator Inhofe, we are indebted to you for your years of 
service. You set the stage; this is why we are here today. We 
appreciate that.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. Your work to advance the bipartisan surface 
transportation bills over the last two Congresses set the stage 
for delivering the largest infrastructure investment in our 
lifetimes. As our country faces economic headwinds and an 
uncertain future, IIJA funding is laying the groundwork to keep 
the aggregate and the materials industry moving forward as we 
build resilient and sustainable communities and stronger 
transportation networks.
    The certainty provided by IIJA through the 5 year 
reauthorization of our surface transportation programs allows 
companies like Granite to better plan and make robust 
investments in our people, plants, and equipment. This is also 
important for State departments of transportation to be able to 
plan their work out also.
    However, with the enactment of any major legislation come 
challenges and opportunities. I would like to focus on four 
primary areas. First, Buy America. It is imperative that 
Federal and State partners responsible for distributing 
investments follow the Build America Buy America Act as written 
and passed by Congress. Clear guidance is needed to ensure that 
aggregate based products remain excluded from the implementing 
regulations as directed by Congress, allowing us to quickly 
deliver materials, keep costs low, and help grow American jobs.
    Under permitting, our industry needs regulatory certainty 
to plan, build, and operate our facilities that supply the 
essential building materials. But many times we are faced with 
conflicting and confusing guidance from Federal and State 
entities as we permit more material sources. We support rapid 
enactment of policies included in IIJA like One Federal 
Decision that will streamline bureaucratic review and reduce 
infrastructure permitting timelines from 7 years to 2 years.
    Buy Clean. Senators, our industry is leading the way to 
create more sustainable materials to reach emissions goals set 
by you and set by States. In 2021, 16 percent of the asphalt 
material in Granite mixes was recycled asphalt. In 2022, we are 
going to exceed 20 percent.
    Ironically, we could go a lot higher if more State and 
local agencies would adopt best practice standards. Many States 
allow up to 40 percent. It is amazing how many States don't 
allow anywhere near that, and even local communities. There is 
a lot of low hanging fruit there that we need legislators, both 
at the State and Federal level, to help us reach.
    In 2021, we replaced one and a half million gallons of 
petroleum diesel with renewable diesel blends, resulting in a 
40 to 50 percent reduction in life cycle greenhouse gas 
emissions. Granite has currently developed the use of waste 
plastic in our asphalt mix, further reducing the use of 
petroleum products by another 10 percent. We applaud the 
provisions of the IIJA and IRA that provide incentives to 
encourage innovative technological advancements, and we ask 
that these grant opportunities come online as soon as possible. 
We have a list of projects that we could apply for grants that 
will lower energy requirements and lower greenhouse gas 
emissions. We are ready to make those grant applications when 
the agencies have the systems in place.
    Flexibility. We believe it is critical for the 
Administration to follow the will of Congress to provide 
maximum flexibility to State and local partners. Whether 
investing in new roads in rural communities or new transit 
systems in urban cities, the infrastructure investments by the 
IIJA should benefit every American.
    In conclusion, we saw your study that your actions to 
unanimously advance the new nomination of the new FHWA 
administrator. This Committee's bipartisan work is critical. We 
hope it continues. Sixty-nine Senators voted for the IIJA last 
year. Our great desire is to ensure your work is successfully 
implemented.
    I apologize for taking too much time, and I look forward to 
your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. You owe us 30 seconds.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. We thank you very much for those words, Mr. 
Johnson.
    In baseball, there is a saying, telegraphing, a pitcher 
telegraphic his pitch. I am going to telegraph my pitch. When 
we get to the end of this hearing, I am going ask each of you 
to take maybe 30 seconds or so and tell us where you think you 
agree, where there is common ground between the five of you. Be 
thinking about that. It is one thing to talk about where we 
disagree, but I am looking for common ground. We will do that 
at the end of the hearing.
    We shouldn't be surprised to hear that there are a number 
of things that need to be fixed, tweaked, or whatever. Anything 
this massive, this transformational, involving State, local, 
cities, counties, Federal Government, private sector, and you 
name it, it is hard to imagine that we would have gotten it 
perfect. We need to keep working at it.
    As I left the office to come over here, Senator Capito, my 
staff in the front office had CNN or something on the 
television. They were announcing Tom Petty, who died a couple 
of years ago, Tom Petty is releasing a new live album. I 
thought, that is interesting. They were playing the words of 
his song, Stand My Ground, I Won't Back Down. We are not going 
to back down until we get this right, perfect, as close to 
perfect as possible. So we appreciate your help in getting us 
there.
    Mr. Stanberry, in your first call for applications the EPA 
received requests for nearly $4 billion in funding from the 
Clean School Bus Program, with applications from every State in 
the Nation and a majority of districts, from districts that 
serve some of our neediest students and children. It is not 
surprising that school districts all over the country want the 
benefits of electric school buses. Taking old, dirty diesel 
school buses off the road reduces deadly air pollution that 
contributes to childhood asthma, while contributing to a 
warming climate.
    Question: In Highlands' experience, what are some ways 
public agencies and school districts benefit by switching to 
electric bus fleets beyond the emission reductions and public 
benefits? For example, are there lower operation and 
maintenance costs associated with electric buses, compared to 
diesel?
    Mr. Stanberry. Chairman, thank you for the question. 
Electric school buses are one of the really interesting spaces 
in the public policy arena, because they provide so many 
different types of benefits to the communities that they serve. 
If you look to your first, to your suggestion, yes, indeed, 
there are savings from both fueling and maintenance. So there 
are about 3 percent of the moving parts on an electric school 
bus as there are on a traditional diesel school bus. That 
translates directly to maintenance savings.
    On the fuel side, there is both lower cost, electricity is 
lower cost than diesel, and it is less volatile in its pricing. 
We have seen a lot of that as we have seen inflationary actions 
given the war in Ukraine and other factors on diesel that have 
created some substantial price hikes recently.
    But there are a number of other benefits for the 
communities as well, some expected, some unexpected. Just to 
take one example, it creates a better working environment for 
bus drivers. As many of you probably know from your States, 
there is a nationwide shortage of bus drivers today that has 
come from the effects of the pandemic.
    What we have seen is that actually school districts are 
using new electric buses as a way to recruit new drivers. 
Because the ambient noise level in an electric school bus is so 
much lower than in traditional school buses, it makes for a 
safer environment for the bus driver. They can hear the kids, 
the kids can hear each other, and naturally, child volume 
drops, and the bus driver has an easier time hearing what is 
happening outside the bus.
    There are a range of others. I won't go into all of them. 
But you see a wide range of benefits.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Real quickly, I want to follow up then I will yield to 
Senator Capito.
    What are one or two changes, just very briefly, that could 
be made by EPA or Congress that could help low income and 
disadvantaged schools better participate in the Clean School 
Bus Program?
    Mr. Stanberry. Good question. I think there are some rule 
changes that can be made around, in particular, scrappage 
requirements. The agency has initiated some additional 
flexibility to its traditional approach to one for one 
scrappage requirements that have helped some. But they are not 
a full fix. We know that there are school districts today that 
did not apply in the first round because they do not feel they 
have the ability to meet the current scrappage requirements.
    And I would note that in a bill that is transformational 
and a program that is designed to help with the market 
transition, it is difficult to have one for one replacement 
requirements, because it creates transactional cost with each 
individual action by a school district. And there are risks 
associated with it, perceived and real, for transportation 
directors that causes concern.
    So continuing to add flexibility on scrappage requirements 
would help a lot more school districts.
    Senator Carper. Great. Thank you for that.
    Next in line for question is Senator Capito. Senator Cardin 
has joined us, Senator Inhofe, Senator Cramer, and Senator 
Boozman.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank all of you.
    We have heard already, you have partly addressed my first 
question, what is working, what isn't working. I would like to 
drill down more on the not working portion of it, because 
obviously the Buy America issue is a big issue.
    I want to talk to you, Mr. Bauer, about the One Federal 
Decision. Because I think in the long run, this is going to be 
the biggest issue. We received from the Department of 
Transportation responses to questions we were asking on 
implementation. It appears as though the Administration is 
really slowing making these provisions for One Federal 
Decision.
    What would you suggest to improve that? Do you feel like 
the communication is good? Do you feel like the department is 
in on this and wanting to do it? Where are we on this? We are 
looking at trying to move that concept to other different 
permitting types of activities. And if it is not working at 
DOT, it is not going to work anywhere else.
    Mr. Bauer. Yes, that is a big question. Let's start with 
understanding that the environmental review process for highway 
and bridge projects typically takes 5 to 7 years right now. One 
Federal Decision lowered that goal to 2 years. I think we are 
all waiting to see how the Administration is going to meet that 
goal of moving from 5 to 7 to 2.
    But some of the key things that are part of this discussion 
is assuring that the department has the ability to compel other 
involved Federal agencies to perform their part of the review.
    Senator Capito. Is that happening now?
    Mr. Bauer. Not that we have seen. And remember, we are 
still very early on in the first year of the Infrastructure 
Law. States obligated their funds, and a good portion of them 
have moved to the construction phase. But that is still going 
to take time.
    Senator Capito. They probably had things in the pipeline 
that were already ready to go.
    Mr. Bauer. Right.
    Senator Capito. So the other agencies, that is a problem?
    Mr. Bauer. Yes.
    Senator Capito. Other issues with One Federal Decision?
    Mr. Bauer. There are page limit requirements as part of One 
Federal Decision also, which I don't think is as difficult. 
Back to trying to make the process as efficient as possible, 
one of the key goals there is assuring that overlapping 
reviews, whether it is through the environmental process or the 
planning process, are consolidated and performed in 
conjunction, as opposed to one after another.
    In general, I think the guidance about how to get from the 
status quo of 5 to 7 years to 2 years, I think we all agree 
with the goal. The challenge is, how do you do that?
    Senator Capito. Has the department, we are a year into 
this. It has a finite life. Those decisions still haven't been 
made?
    Mr. Bauer. My recollection of when the Secretary was here 
earlier this year, he talked about how they were utilizing the 
process to focus on categorical exclusions. That is great, but 
it is the environmental impact statements and the environmental 
assessments that are more time intensive and deserve a lot of 
focus also. That whole thing about how you shave off the years 
is not just going to happen.
    Remember, one of the things that is part of the law is that 
there is a report due next year about the efficacy of One 
Federal Decision. If we don't have some clarity about how that 
is actually going to achieve the goal of shaving years, that is 
going to be a pretty weak report.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Johnson, do you have any comment on that from your 
perspective, on the One Federal Decision?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, it is disappointing that additional, 
earlier this year the Administration added some additional, the 
phase two rule.
    Senator Capito. Under NEPA?
    Mr. Johnson. Under NEPA. It is difficult at times to get 
State agencies and Federal agencies to work together when we 
are permitting projects or even facilities like quarries. In 
California, a lot of times the State regulations are even more 
stringent than the Federal regulations.
    But if there is any inconsistency between the two sets of 
regulations, it makes it very difficult to get the agencies to 
come together and agree upon a certain mitigation measure in a 
timely manner.
    Senator Capito. Ms. Mills, you are right there on the 
ground trying to figure out how to write your bids to match 
these sorts of things. I know the Buy America, and we will get 
into that later, but are you seeing the One Federal Decision in 
any form or fashion moving from your planning to your actual 
able to bid and get projects moving faster?
    Ms. Mills. Coming from a State like Pennsylvania which is 
known for having a lot of structurally deficient bridges----
    Senator Capito. I get it. I am from West Virginia. We have 
them, too.
    Ms. Mills. I am from Pittsburgh, so we just had the Fern 
Hollow Bridge collapse. There was a rush to get that project 
back on the ground. So any further permitting and time delays 
is hard on us in Pennsylvania to correct our problem.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Before we turn to Senator Cardin, several members of our 
Committee are veterans, former military. Senator Ernst was in 
the Army; I think she is a retired Lieutenant Colonel or 
Colonel. Senator Sullivan is a Colonel in the Marine Corps. I 
am a retired Navy Captain.
    In the Navy, we have a lot of sayings. One of them that I 
have always turned to in a situation like this where we are 
talking about trying to take a huge piece of legislation, 
monumental piece of legislation with so many moving parts, and 
actually implement it in a cost effective and timely way, it is 
really hard, it is a little bit like turning an aircraft 
carrier.
    But if we stick with it, don't give up, work together, we 
can turn aircraft carriers, and we can get this piece of 
legislation not just passed and enacted, but implemented well. 
That is what are committed to doing. Thank you.
    With that, let me turn to my neighbor, my DelMarVa buddy, 
Ben Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Captain Carper, first of all let me thank 
you for your leadership. We do share a lot. We have, of course, 
the C&D Canal. Do we need to widen it so we can get an aircraft 
carrier to turn around?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. We will see what the next WRDA bill looks 
like.
    Let me thank all of our witnesses for being here. We are 
very proud of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. It is to 
modernize infrastructure in America. We have seen as we travel 
internationally that America was behind where it needed to be. 
And the principal objective was to modernize our 
infrastructure. We see now those seeds that we planted are 
starting to take hold, as we see local governments, State 
governments, moving forward on a lot of infrastructure projects 
that were delayed for a while.
    It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, I was in, as you 
know, in Sharm el-Sheikh on the COP27. I want you to know, we 
got complaints from our traditional allies. They think we are 
moving too quickly, and they won't be able to compete with us. 
That is good news for us, but bad news for our competition.
    One of the major objectives in this panel here today really 
underscores it, it is to help our economy and create jobs. And 
as I see, looking at the people at this table, you are doing 
exactly that in the ability to use the resources under the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill to move forward on some very 
important projects.
    Mr. Levy, I will start with you first. It is my 
understanding that you have about 62 fast charging stations in 
Maryland across about 33 locations. Thank you for the work you 
are doing in the State of Maryland.
    I am very interested as to how these charging stations will 
keep up with technology and production changes. We see the 
electrification of our transportation fleets. And it is not 
just limited to our passenger vehicles; it is also in regard to 
light trucks and heavy trucks.
    As you see this unfolding, how will these infrastructure 
charging stations be available for all forms of electric 
vehicles, including heavy trucks?
    Mr. Levy. Thank you, Senator, for that question. While it 
is not the subject of this hearing, thank you also for your 
leadership on the IRA and the 30(c) and 30(d) and other tax 
credits. As I mentioned in my testimony, we see great 
complementarity between the investments in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill and IRA as being critical to advancing the 
sector. Thank you for your leadership on that.
    With regard to technology and where the market is moving, 
one of the issues is that consumers don't yet realize that 
their car can ultimately control the maximum rate of charge. So 
while we continue to deploy faster and faster chargers, 
including 350 kilowatt power sharing technology, around 
Maryland and elsewhere, many cars can't take north of 54 
kilowatts in the case of the Bolts, 150 kilowatts in the case 
of the Mach-E, 270 kilowatts in the case of my car. We do see 
those advancements. So it is important to be as economically 
efficient as possible while building some modularity and 
flexibility.
    EVgo has been focusing on deploying power sharing 
technologies that we can take advantage of the most 
economically efficient way to deliver what customers need and 
some dynamic power sharing, so that can adjust over the course 
of charging curves. The good news is that as the industry has 
migrated toward consolidation on the CCS standard, we can use 
the same connector and those technology configurations for a 
number of different deployments, including some truck 
deployments.
    In fact, we have an announcement we made recently with MHX, 
which is doing Class A truck electrification, and we are 
working with them to deploy 350 kilowatt chargers just like the 
ones we have been rolling out in partnership with MEA in 
Maryland and elsewhere, so that we can use that same 
technology.
    The industry is also moving to faster and faster 
technology, 500 kilowatts north of 1 megawatt, and the industry 
has come together through technical groups like CharIN to make 
sure we are not repeating some of the past mistakes and still 
having one connector standard, or at least a compatible 
standard, so that we don't have to worry about multiple 
competing connectors as it relates to different types of 
vehicles.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you. That is a pretty thorough 
answer.
    Mr. Stanberry, I understand your largest client is 
Montgomery County in school buses. That is good to hear. 
Montgomery County has been very aggressive on the 
electrification of their school buses and their fleets. I 
really want to underscore the point the Chairman made, and that 
is, how do we reach communities that have traditionally been 
underserved? There is now financial opportunities here. You 
talked about one aspect of that in regard to the disposal of 
the older buses.
    I am also concerned about outreach. Do they really 
understand how to get engaged in this program, and is there 
more that we can do to make sure underserved communities are 
aware of the opportunities they have in regard to 
electrification of their school buses?
    Mr. Stanberry. Senator Cardin, thank you for that question. 
Without a doubt, there is more we can do on outreach. When you 
look at the communities that have been historically 
underserved, they face a number of challenges in the adoption 
of electric school buses that are unique to their 
circumstances. Obviously, each case is different.
    But in general, it is not just that they have less 
resources. It is that they have less personnel. So that means 
less folks to do the same amount of work that everybody else 
has to do, less folks to dive into the details of learning a 
new technology, implementing a new technology, understanding 
the Federal programs, to your point.
    So there is significant additional outreach that is needed 
for those communities. I would say in the first round of the 
program, EPA did start to take some of those steps to get more 
information into the hands of those communities. That was a 
good start, but more is needed over time.
    I would also say that it is important that the agency start 
to look at providing differential resources between different 
kinds of communities. The folks in traditionally under 
resourced communities need additional support beyond what other 
communities need. The agency did take a start in that, but 
needs to refine the approach going forward.
    Setting aside a specific budgetary allotment for those 
communities is one thing that they can do that would really 
help. And then providing a structure that allows for those 
communities to apply for those funds separately from the 
communities applying for other funds, so that the folks that 
have less personnel are not competing with those who have more 
at the same time for the same funds.
    Senator Cardin. Good suggestions. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for joining us 
today and for your great work on this bill. You played a huge 
role, and we are mindful of that and grateful for that.
    Senator Inhofe, you are recognized.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank Mr. Johnson for his comments. It has been a 
mission of love all these years. I appreciate that very much.
    Ms. Mills, we have something we are faced with right now, 
and this level of inflation creates other problems. Over the 
last year, how has your company managed the work force and 
supply chain challenges in the face of what I call the multi-
decade high inflation environment that we are in?
    Ms. Mills. As I spoke before, we are actually one of the 
biggest highway edge drain installers on the East Coast. What 
we do is put in plastic pipe, and we all know what happened 
with plastic pipe in the past year. I can tell you we install 
about a million and a half feet a year across the East Coast. 
Our pipe pricing went up 80 percent since last year.
    So something that used to be below a dollar is now close to 
$2. A contractor of my size cannot absorb a million dollar loss 
continually with all these issues.
    Senator Inhofe. As easily, perhaps, as some of the larger 
companies are able to do.
    Would you also specifically talk about, as you know, 
Oklahoma is a rural State, and the unique problems that you are 
facing right now in our States, like Oklahoma?
    Ms. Mills. In Pennsylvania, where our company is located, 
we are also pretty rural. We are outside of Pittsburgh. We are 
having trouble getting people to drive to job sites because of 
the cost of fuel. Some of our projects are an hour away. Our 
employees are picking more urban areas to go to work, or either 
other jobs outside of the construction industry, because they 
can't afford to drive that hour and pay for gas.
    Senator Inhofe. Hadn't thought about that.
    Mr. Bauer, would you speak to the challenges of completing 
these projects, the timely completion of surface 
transportation? What unique problems are you facing?
    Mr. Bauer. We talked a moment ago about One Federal 
Decision and how that has the potential to very much assist the 
situation. But we also can't overlook the challenges that occur 
from lack of regulatory clarity on a lot of other issues. Case 
in point, you all have been aware for the last several 
Administrations that the issue related to wetlands, and 
specifically Waters of the U.S., has bounced back and forth 
from Administration to Administration. The Obama administration 
had a proposal, the Trump administration repealed it, they came 
up with their own, and the Biden administration has repealed 
that.
    All along, our community is trying to advance projects with 
this changing set of rules in the middle of the game. That 
makes it very difficult. And wetlands are certainly a 
significant component of infrastructure projects. And Waters of 
the U.S. isn't the only situation where that occurs, but I 
think it is a very well understood one to help make the point 
here.
    Senator Inhofe. Yes, I think it has. From our perspective, 
and you have been dealing with this for a long period of time, 
those of us who are sitting up here on this side of the table, 
what would be looking at that needs more attention today than 
it has in the past, dealing mostly with the fact that, you 
bring it up, that these are problems? Different Administrations 
come in, and they change because those people who are serving 
don't always know how difficult it is to change once you get a 
path going.
    Mr. Bauer. I certainly recognize the challenge of passing 
legislation. But the ongoing oversight that you have started 
performing I think is essential to assuring that, as has been 
said repeatedly, that the law is implemented as it was intended 
is critically important. At the same time, we can't overlook 
the need to deliver the Federal funds in a timely manner.
    The first year of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's round 
of investment came 6 months into fiscal year 2022. States 
obviously were able to commit those funds, but a 6 month late 
start doesn't help. So earlier in the process, in the 
construction season that funds are provided through the annual 
appropriations process is another area besides regulatory 
certainty and oversight that can be very helpful.
    Senator Inhofe. OK. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
    We are joined by Senator Kelly. He will be followed by 
Senator Cramer.
    Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
everybody, for being here today.
    Mr. Johnson, the first question is for you. I want to start 
off by talking about a bill that I included in the 
Infrastructure Law; it's called the ROCKS Act. It establishes a 
working group to make recommendations for how to better manage 
sources of aggregate materials like sandstone and gravel, and 
consider a project's proximity to sources of these materials 
during the planning process.
    This bill was modeled off of policies adopted by Arizona 
over the past decade to ensure that local sourcing of 
aggregates is considered when planning transportation projects. 
And I am hopeful that our bipartisan bill will enable these 
best practices to be shared nationwide.
    Mr. Johnson, can you share more about how better management 
of aggregates can help to lower costs and alleviate supply 
chain concerns for transportation projects? And how did you 
believe this working group can help ensure State and local 
transportation planners consider local supplies of aggregates 
when developing transportation projects?
    Mr. Johnson. Sure, Senator. First, thank you for working 
with Senator Portman on the ROCKS Act. It was a bipartisan 
effort.
    You go back to Arizona, which is the roots of where this 
idea came about, and making sure communities protect access to 
important geological resources, not every rock in the ground 
can be used to make concrete or asphalt, and identifying the 
appropriate geologic areas and working with the communities, 
the cities and the counties, to protect that, so mining 
companies or construction material companies have access to it 
is important.
    One of the things that can drive up the cost of a project 
significantly is having to import or ship aggregate long 
distances. Aggregate is a very dense, heavy material that is 
very low cost. And with the price of fuel and trucking costs 
and labor shortages, moving it long distances can drastically 
increase the cost.
    If you look at the average cost of rock, sand, and gravel 
in Arizona, it is two or three times less than neighboring 
States'. A lot of that is due to local government and State 
government stepping in and saying, hey, we need to protect 
these areas. Hopefully, the DOT and FHWA working together, 
their working group, will come up with similar Federal 
regulations that can be used to help other States do the same 
thing. We thank you for your efforts.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, also Mr. Levy, you both mentioned that the 
Build America Buy America requirements that were included for 
all programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. While 
your industries are very different, you both raised similar 
concerns about the way the guidance for these requirements have 
been rolled out and the uncertain timelines for when these 
requirements should kick in.
    Why don't we start with Mr. Levy. Can you expand on your 
testimony and provide specific steps that you would like to see 
the Administration take to clarify how your industries can 
comply with the Build America Buy America requirements?
    Mr. Levy. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator. EVgo is 
not a manufacturer of chargers. We are a technology specifier 
that works with a number of different suppliers. As a result, 
we have a pretty good view of where the industry is from 
different sources.
    While the level two charging infrastructure manufacturing 
base is a bit more advanced in the U.S., including in Senator 
Cardin's home State, the DC fast charging side, especially 
higher power, is almost starting from scratch. There are a 
couple of things that have started, and people have announced 
some charging manufacturing in DCFC. But that supply at scale 
is not available yet.
    Additionally, because even if somebody were to take an 
offshore manufacturing facility, copy and paste it to the U.S., 
it still needs to go back through UL certification. And then 
following UL certification, individual charging networks put 
those chargers through the paces. EVgo has an innovation lab in 
El Segunda where we test all these things.
    So I share that background because the Buy America waiver 
that is set to expire at the end of this year before NEVI funds 
have been awarded means that there in effect is not a waiver 
for any future projects when the supply is not there yet for 
2023.
    Our specific recommendation as we have submitted to FHWA in 
public comments is to have a waiver at least through the end of 
2023, and then take a data oriented approach to looking at 
where is the state of the industry, what has passed UL 
certification from U.S. sources, is it available at scale. 
Because today we are seeing very long lead times from existing 
overseas manufacturing capacity. So we know it will take time 
to ramp, especially with an increase in demand as spurred by 
BIL.
    Senator Kelly. I am out of time. Thank you to all of you 
for being here.
    Senator Carper. On a personal note, there was a TV special 
I think on CNN maybe Sunday night that I think featured a 
member of your family, and you. We are honored to be in your 
presence. Tell Gabby we said hello, and you go, girl.
    Senator Kelly. I will. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
    Senator Cramer, you came early, and you stayed late. We are 
grateful for your patience. Thank you. You are now recognized.
    Senator Cramer. It is important stuff. I like to satisfy my 
curiosity by listening to the answers of the witnesses to other 
people's questions. Come to find out, they are often the same 
questions I have. So it works pretty well.
    I am going to make some observations, first of all, on some 
of the things that were said, and then maybe drill down a 
little deeper or get further clarification.
    Mr. Bauer, you said something interesting in your opening 
statement that I think is worth repeating. I will repeat them 
in my words, and you can correct me if I am wrong.
    You referenced how important this 5 year new bill was 
compared to the alternative, which would have been a 1 year 
flat lined extension of status quo. Particularly in this 
inflationary time, I think it is an important point, because 
really that would have exacerbated inflation. I think we don't 
talk enough about the anti-inflationary impacts of 
infrastructure. Because everyone talks about the supply side of 
the economy, and they talk about the demand side of the 
economy. But they talk about it in the context of the Federal 
Reserve. They talk about it in the context of money, the supply 
of money, to shrink the demand for the products.
    Of course, one of the ways to do that is add to the cost of 
money, right? So it is all anti what you are doing, it actually 
enhances the cost of things. I am not saying the Federal 
Reserve shouldn't do that. I am on the Banking Committee, and I 
am glad they are doing that. I wish they would have started it 
sooner and been more modest about it instead of so dramatic.
    That said, I think you raised a point that we should talk 
more about, and that is that infrastructure is anti-
inflationary, particularly when the real challenge we have is 
while the demand grew because there was a bunch of free money 
thrown out into the marketplace, the supply chain got broken. 
You guys fix supply chains. You move commerce. It is so 
important.
    So thank you, first of all, for reminding us of that. I 
wouldn't mind a little more detail, if anybody has it, and I 
want to comment on some things that have been said specific to 
how big the bill is and how hard it has been to turn the ship. 
We were rather prescriptive, I think, in the legislation, with 
the One Federal Decision. That was a prescription to the 
complications. It was designed to simplify the environmental 
process, not to further complicate it.
    So I am not looking at you all as part of the blame. I am 
saying the Administration, in many cases, in implementing this 
law, they have tried to add complication by considering things 
that we specifically excluded. That is what Memorandum 16 was 
all about, adding the Administration's priorities into the 
guidance and whatever other things they can add it to.
    So I guess in this inflationary time, when you are trying 
to fix inflation by fixing the supply chain, maybe you could 
talk just a little bit about the cost of that. You are already 
dealing with inflation. You are dealing with the higher cost of 
borrowing money, buying equipment as well as materials, labor 
certainly is a stress point.
    How about the cost of complicating the regulatory side of 
it? What can we do better?
    Mr. Johnson, go ahead. By the way, the Gary Johnson who was 
the Governor of New Mexico is from Minot, North Dakota. He ran 
for President as a Libertarian, you might recall. He was a 
Republican Governor who ran for President.
    Anyway, we know you are not him.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson. Sure. Inflation has driven the cost up of 
construction drastically. I checked with a large concrete 
supplier in Southern California yesterday. In the last 2 and a 
half years, the price of cement, which is the primary or the 
most important ingredient going into concrete, has gone up 30 
to 40 percent in 2 and a half years. Liquid asphalt, which is a 
binder that we use to make the asphalt that we pave the roads 
with, in the last 2 years has gone up 76 percent.
    So if we squelch the supply of cement and asphalt oil, it 
is going to continue to drive it up, drive the price up. On the 
permitting side, the longer it takes to permit something, the 
longer, the more regulations you have to go through, the longer 
the process, that obviously drives the price up.
    I was at a conference in Dallas a couple of weeks ago, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers Regional Director said they have 
projects that they are putting out to bid, a lot of Department 
of Defense contracts, that are not being bid upon because they 
don't have the ability to give the contractors adjustments on 
material pricing on long jobs. So contractors, like Granite 
here, were saying, we can't do that. It's too much risk.
    So we have to get inflation down. The only way I know to do 
that is to increase supply, increase the ability of people to 
get things done quickly and easily.
    Senator Cramer. Do I get to cheat just a little bit?
    Senator Carper. Just a little bit.
    Senator Cramer. Any of the other witnesses who want to add 
onto that.
    Mr. Bauer, you brought it up originally.
    Mr. Bauer. Mr. Johnson had a great answer. The theme of 
your question is the time value of money.
    Senator Cramer. The time value of money.
    Mr. Bauer. The longer things take, the more they are going 
to cost. You are right, that doesn't get considered enough. It 
is very hard to create policy to capture the time value of 
money. But what they have described as to what their businesses 
have experienced in the last couple of years just puts a blast 
rocket on the typical time value of money calculations. 
Everything costs more. I wish I would have said this when 
Senator Capito was asking me previously about One Federal 
Decision. Again, it is hard to legislate this.
    But the fact remains that without a commitment on the part 
of the Federal agencies, State agencies, to try to do this, 
your policies are always going to miss the mark. There has to 
be a commitment on the part of certainly our industry, but 
project owners and administrators too that we want to try to 
capture value and get projects out as soon as possible.
    Again, you have a lot more skill than I do in this area. 
And if you know how to legislate it, great. That commitment is 
a huge component of success, no matter what we are talking 
about.
    Senator Cramer. You are right on point. It is my greatest 
frustration of this place.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You bet. Thank you.
    Senator Capito has to leave for another obligation. She is 
going to ask her questions, and if anyone else shows up, I 
think Senator Sullivan is trying to join us. If no one else 
shows up, I will have some questions to ask.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, and thank all of you. It has 
been very interesting.
    I would like to say in terms of electric school buses that 
West Virginia has attracted GreenPower, who is going to be in 
the process of manufacturing green school buses in South 
Charleston. So we are very excited about that.
    We are also excited about some of the grants that we have 
already received where some of our more rural areas will be 
able to access electric school buses. We have terrain issues 
that are difficult and length of time of certain routes, 
unfortunately, which presents challenges. But we are at the 
front end here, so we are excited about that and really happy 
to be a player and have West Virginians working on this.
    Ms. Mills, I want to ask, I mentioned in my opening 
statement the frustration that I have. We talk about where we 
compromised and how it put into this bill things that we 
wanted, like One Federal Decision and other things. But we also 
left things out on the cutting room floor, so to speak, that we 
didn't put in here. One of these is the greenhouse gas 
performance measure. There was an effort to incorporate that 
into the bill and a requirement for our States to set certain 
stages. But we did not include that in there.
    However, the Federal Highway Administration is coming back 
for a proposed rulemaking to establish a greenhouse gas 
emissions performance measure requiring States to set declining 
targets. I don't know practically speaking how that plays into 
your bidding and your perception of how this might impact 
further construction but also further implementation of this 
bill.
    Ms. Mills. I think, again my location in Pennsylvania, I'm 
not in an urban area. I am in a more rural part of the State. 
So it is going to be the distances that we travel and the kind 
of work that we do. It is going to be a challenge.
    Senator Capito. I would agree with that.
    Mr. Bauer, do you have a comment on that?
    Mr. Bauer. Yes. This is a situation that a lot of States 
are addressing individually. It is very reflective of the 
different challenges that States have with respect to their 
trying to tackle climate change.
    But this is not dissimilar from what I referenced 
previously about Waters of the U.S. In fact, it is almost the 
same playbook. We had an Obama administration proposal in 2015 
that the Trump administration repealed, and it is the continual 
changing of the regulatory regime as we are trying to implement 
long term transportation plans as well as projects that don't 
exactly follow a calendar year. I think that the way you all 
approached greenhouse gas emissions with respect to certain 
discretionary grant programs and eligibility for States, given 
the lack of common ground that exists right now, is a nice way 
to try to prevent that continual changing of regulatory 
requirements that are really not conducive to delivering 
projects in a timely manner.
    Senator Capito. Thank you for that. I suppose at this point 
in my career I can't claim to be naive, but I think the intent 
of our legislation is what should be directing certain 
Administration's cabinet officials on how we want to see these 
things proceed. But we all know that the rules and regulations 
are really where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. There 
is still enough leeway in there to be able to have the 
administrations put their foot on the pedal one way or the 
other. That is what we see happening.
    Mr. Johnson, you mentioned that you had in your industry 
made great strides in terms of emissions and bringing emissions 
down. Do you have an opinion on this particular part of what 
the Federal Highway Administration is doing right now?
    Mr. Johnson. The legislation needs to be followed; States 
and companies need to be given flexibility. Give us some 
guidelines; give us some goals. Let the companies figure out 
how to reach it.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Johnson. But I think it is inappropriate for agencies 
to be creating their own standards that are not in line with 
legislation that was passed by Congress.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. That goes to what Ms. Mills was 
saying, and my State alone, we are a rural State. We don't have 
the congestion of traffic that a lot of our more urban areas 
have.
    So in order for us to bring our targets down and show 
improvement it is going to be really difficult. Because it is 
almost like I am not going from 100 to 90, I am going from two 
to one. Sometimes that is very, very difficult.
    So the flexibilities that we tried to build in throughout 
this bill are absolutely critical. And the things that we left 
out of the bill were intentionally negotiated between the Chair 
and I, because we felt like our projects would move quicker, we 
would eliminate some of the delays. We would, whether the 
decision is to not build a new highway or to build a bypass 
through your entire State, let the States decide how and when 
to best use those dollars.
    That is why I am a little, I am sort of like the repeating, 
whoever repeats, I am one of those, to say the flexibility 
portions of this are absolutely critical for our States. For 
the progress in everything, whether it is an electric school 
bus, whether it is an EV charging station, whatever it is. An 
EV charging station protocol that is going to be developed in 
L.A. is not going to work in the entire State of West Virginia. 
So we need to look at other options. I think that is what is 
critical, and I thank all of you for what you are doing to try 
to keep that flexibility in to match what our intent was in the 
bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. Thanks again. I will slip out to make a 
quick phone call; she is going to hold the gavel and try to 
keep this guy under control.
    We welcome and recognize a Marine Colonel who needs no 
introduction, Danny Sullivan.
    Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here. Important 
topic.
    I like to say my State is also rural. Senator Capito was 
talking about West Virginia. The great State of Alaska, we are 
a resource rich but infrastructure poor State. We are 120 times 
bigger than Connecticut, and we have fewer road miles. Think 
about that. And we have resources, minerals, oil, gas, so many 
things that can power the whole country and our national 
security and our economy. But they are hard to get to. 
Unfortunately, there are a lot of radical groups from the lower 
48 that try to prevent Alaskans from building anything.
    So what I want to do is talk about, continue this topic of 
permitting reform. A lot of us worked hard to get some good 
permitting provisions in this Infrastructure Bill. I voted for 
the bill. It wasn't perfect, but in part because of the 
permitting provisions. We need more of them, but it was a good 
start.
    So here was my astonishment, and I think some of you might 
have shared it with me, that the Biden administration, which 
touted the bill as important for the economy and workers and 
infrastructure, then issued a regulation in April of this past 
year from their CEQ group in the White House a rule to make 
permitting on infrastructure much harder. We all know that.
    So Ms. Mills, I want you to talk about that and maybe 
others. I put together what is called a Congressional Review 
Act, which is Congress's ability to flex its muscle and say, 
you know what, we really don't like that executive order, we 
are going to rescind it. And I was proud to say that my CRA as 
we call them had a vote on the Senate floor, and it rescinded 
the Biden permitting CEQ rule, which was an anti-permitting 
rule meant to stop production and building of energy projects, 
of roads. Unbelievable.
    So that passed. The reason it passed is because we had over 
50 groups in America, all the unions that build things, AGC, 
farmers, ranchers, you name it, they came out, chamber of 
commerce, literally everybody except the radical enviros, they 
all came to support my CRA. So can you talk about this insane 
CEQ rule that undermines the whole bill? Do you support my CRA? 
I know you do because you guys were one of the groups that 
supported it. What more can we do to make this Administration 
wake up to the fact that you can't crush the ability to get 
projects done? I know you love the radical enviros, Mr. 
President, Center for Biological Diversity, all these nut job 
groups.
    But nobody else does. They hurt workers. They hurt the 
economy. They hurt the ability to build infrastructure. Can you 
guys talk about this? It is so important, and it is remarkable 
to me that we pass a bill, and then the White House would come 
out with rules to undermine the very ability to build 
infrastructure that they have touted.
    Ms. Mills. I remember when this bill was being passed, I 
was staying up late talking to our association director, text 
back and forth, like yes, let's get this done. We were so 
excited about this historic bill.
    Again, I am right outside of Pittsburgh. We had the Fern 
Hollow Bridge project. We have all this money. Let's get all 
this work out to the contractors and my employees.
    Senator Sullivan. And the unions, right?
    Ms. Mills. And the unions.
    Senator Sullivan. Building trades. They are great 
Americans.
    Ms. Mills. Everybody wants to be at work. Everyone wants to 
make roads and bridges better.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    So what was your view of the CEQ rule?
    Ms. Mills. It was burdensome.
    Senator Sullivan. Make it harder to build bridges and 
roads, right?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. Anyone else have a view on this? You pass 
an infrastructure bill with permitting reform, and then you 
have the White House come out and say, hey, we are going to 
issue a rule that makes it harder to build things.
    Mr. Johnson. Senator, Gary Johnson with Granite 
Construction. We have a large presence in your State.
    Senator Sullivan. I know. You guys are great in Alaska. I 
have a hard question for you next.
    Mr. Johnson. It is. And something else that confuses us, we 
are moving, vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient, going to 
electric vehicles, obviously that lowers the amount of revenue 
we get from the gas tax. I am sure everybody will figure out 
how to raise that revenue later.
    But if the vehicles are becoming more energy friendly or 
environmentally friendly, what is wrong with building capacity?
    Senator Sullivan. Right.
    Mr. Johnson. We need capacity to move the freight, to move 
the goods, which reduces inflation. If we have a truck sitting 
on a highway and going 10 miles an hour, all it does is 
increase inflation. So we need to get over the fact that we 
have to continue to build capacity to keep up with the fact 
that we are increasing the population to say that we are 
producing more goods.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Johnson. I agree with you.
    Senator Sullivan. I will sum it up for all. But on 
permitting reform, we just need the more efficient, timely, 
certain permitting. We are not cutting corners. I mean, in 
Alaska, we love our environment. But it shouldn't take 8 years 
to permit a bridge. We had a gold mine in Alaska, it took 20 
years to permit. The Kensington Mine, it now employs over 400 
people, average wage over $110,000. It took 20 years. That is 
insane.
    The only people that helps is the Chinese Communist Party 
and the radical enviros. That is my view.
    Mr. Johnson. I worked on permitting a quarry in southern 
California that took over 20 years.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes. Makes no sense.
    Mr. Bauer.
    Mr. Bauer. Senator, the elements of the solution are 
exactly what you described, which is certainty, focus on time. 
But I think what is overlooked a lot of times, Mr. Johnson sort 
of addressed this. When we deliver infrastructure improvements, 
they can have a positive environmental impact.
    Senator Sullivan. Oh, sure.
    Mr. Bauer. Cars moving at free flowing speeds of traffic 
produce fewer emissions than those in stop and go traffic that 
I took to get here this morning. I think that end point also 
has to be part of the discussion and the consideration of 
permitting when we are at the initial stages. The legislation 
that you all put in place last year, which again, thank you for 
that, has the elements of what we need to be able to move 
forward. It just needs to be implemented as you directed.
    Senator Sullivan. Good.
    Well, I want to thank all the witnesses.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. You and I have talked about this 
many, many times. I think we are on the same page. Common sense 
permitting reform is something that every American, regardless 
of political party, regardless of where you live, agrees with. 
That is what we try to get done in this bill.
    I think it was a good start. But the Administration now is 
undermining it, and it makes no sense. So we are going to keep 
fighting to enable people to build infrastructure in our great 
Nation. It shouldn't take 10 years to permit a bridge or 20 
years to permit a gold mine or a quarry.
    I know we have problems, Mr. Johnson, in Alaska and other 
places, you mentioned 20 years in California on a quarry. We 
have to do better. We are very focused on it. I am certainly, 
it is an obsession of mine that we are going to continue to 
focus on.
    Thank you again, all of you, for being here.
    Mr. Chairman, I continue to look forward to working with 
you on these issues.
    Senator Carper. You bet. Thanks very much.
    With respect to permitting reform, my hope is that we can 
move forward on that issue. I think it is important. I think 
both Democrats and Republicans believe it is important to 
continue to protect our environment as we go through permitting 
reform, and to keep in mind the least of these, including 
Native families up in Alaska.
    Thanks so much for joining us and for your passion and good 
work.
    I promised I was going to ask all of you to answer the same 
question. I want a fairly short answer, because I have a number 
of questions to ask. We are into our first vote on the floor, 
so I don't have forever. So just be brief, right to the point.
    Start with Mr. Stanberry. Here is the question. Maybe pick 
one major point where you think you are all in agreement. This 
is important for this Committee, that you say, if you don't 
remember anything else, remember this, and this is something we 
all agree on. Go ahead.
    Mr. Stanberry. I think we all agree that this is a 
transformational bill. The private sector is ready to take it 
on. We all need help getting the rules right, to your point, 
the refinements, so that we have clear rules of the road that 
encourage business investment going forward. I think we can 100 
percent all agree to those points.
    Senator Carper. Good, thanks.
    Mr. Levy.
    Mr. Levy. In addition to agreeing with Mr. Stanberry, I 
think the one theme that I heard a couple times from everybody 
is that there are a lot of best practices already existing that 
we can leverage together. That requires some stakeholder 
engagement.
    It also requires some working through implementation of the 
individual States that are putting out awards to say, hey, here 
is something we have seen in other grant programs or in other 
recycling programs or anything else that has come up today. I 
think the power of leveraging best practices can help reduce 
the time to deploy and really make sure that we are 
implementing responsibly and effectively.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Levy.
    Mr. Bauer.
    Mr. Bauer. A big part of this discussion, and I appreciate 
your convening the hearing, is trying to talk about how the 
legislation that you all crafted and shepherded through is 
impacting lives. I think we can't do that enough. When we get 
to the point where the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has to be 
reauthorized, if Members of Congress and the American public 
don't know exactly how they have benefited and how greatly it 
changed the quality of life and the American economy, then our 
challenge of continuing the trajectory and maintaining the 
progress that you all made is going to be even greater. We have 
to do more of that as the years go forward.
    Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Bauer.
    Ms. Mills.
    Ms. Mills. Yes, I again thank you for this historic bill. 
We are really excited about it here in Pennsylvania and in our 
company. I think I am echoing what everybody else is saying. 
There are some challenges to it. There is a little bit of 
uncertainty. But we look forward to benefiting from it.
    Senator Carper. OK, thanks.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. They mentioned the reauthorization. But even 
before that, it is important that we get a full year of 
appropriations out and we don't have continuing resolutions.
    Senator Carper. Amen.
    Mr. Johnson. We have to get the money to the States and let 
them spend it. It is inflationary to continue to push things 
down the road.
    Senator Carper. Business needs certainty and 
predictability. That is one of the first things I ever learned 
as a cub State treasurer at the age of 29. I will take that 
with me to the grave.
    We have Senator Padilla joining us by Webex.
    Alex, we are in the middle of a vote, but go ahead and take 
a few minutes. Please go right ahead.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
flexibility. As you know, I am simultaneously in Judiciary 
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to join virtually.
    I will just jump right into it. Strengthening our 
electrical grid is an ongoing effort, particularly in my home 
State of California. Two years ago you may recall an extreme 
summer heat wave placed so much stress on the grid that rolling 
blackouts were imposed on many customers across the State. This 
September, triple digit temperatures during an extreme heat 
dome event presented a similar challenge to the grid with peak 
electricity demands reaching a new all time high.
    This time, however, there were no rolling blackouts. We had 
hundreds of thousands of Californians who took voluntary steps 
to reduce their energy consumption to thank for that. We also 
have improved an energy storage system to thank. Between 2020 
and this year's heat wave, California installed over 3,000 
megawatts of new battery storage. I am proud to have led the 
effort to include $5 billion in the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law to enhance the physical resilience of the electrical grid 
in response to extreme weather events and natural disasters.
    Electric vehicles draw power from the grid, but some models 
coming to the market soon will have the capacity to return 
power to the grid.
    [Audio gap] intense demand or serve as their own 
residential or community power generators, a system of bi-
directional charging.
    The question is for Mr. Stanberry. How does school bus 
electrification, along with the rollout of vehicle to grid 
technology present opportunities to support improved grid 
resiliency, especially during emergency situations?
    Mr. Stanberry. Senator Padilla, thank you very much for the 
question. We are proud to be doing work with school districts 
in California.
    Electric school buses, as folks may guess, have very large 
battery packs that can serve multiple purposes. Since these 
buses have duty cycles or use patterns that leaves them unused 
for much of the time, the batteries can be used to serve 
critical functions. In particular, they can provide power back 
to the grid and buildings and other devices when needed. And I 
would say that electric school buses are designed in part due 
to some of the work in California to provide that bi-
directional flow. Most of them today can do this.
    That means that we can provide vehicle to grid services 
where the buses can provide power back to the grid in times of 
need. We have a couple of operating vehicle to grid projects up 
in South Burlington, Vermont, behind Green Mountain Power, out 
in Beverly Public Schools in Massachusetts with National Grid. 
In fact, these very vehicles are being used to provide power 
during peak demand events.
    The other thing I would note, given the Senator's outline 
of extreme events and community response to extreme events, we 
are seeing an increased interest because the batteries of these 
buses can be used not only to flow power back to the grid but 
also to buildings, and using these batteries in tandem with 
onsite solar generation in places like California to form a 
local microgrid that can use the schools, which of course are 
public buildings, as community resilient centers during times 
of natural disaster.
    So really these bus batteries end up serving the purpose of 
a community resource.
    Mr. Levy. Senator, if I may, I think there is an additional 
benefit beyond the V to G side of beneficial use. What we see 
is that EVs, whether it is the bus side or the light duty 
vehicle side, have the ability to help flatten the belly of the 
duck curve as we see daytime utilization coinciding with peak 
solar generation in California and elsewhere. So there is a 
symbiosis there that can happen even just on the usage side of 
the equation.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you for that addition.
    Mr. Chairman, I know my time is short, but I would like to 
ask one more.
    Senator Carper. Go right ahead.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is 
related. I think I speak for all of us when I say we applaud 
President Biden's critically important goal of deploying 
500,000 electric vehicle charging stations by the year 2030.
    Senator Carper. How many? Say that again. You cut out.
    Senator Padilla. Five hundred thousand.
    Senator Carper. That is what I thought you said. Go ahead.
    Senator Padilla. So to achieve this, it is clear we are 
going to need strong public-private partnerships and maximize 
incentives for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. It is 
notable that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will make 
generational investments in electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure. And I want to make sure that no one is left 
behind from these investments. It is critical to focus on 
building up charging infrastructure within communities and not 
just along highway corridors.
    A 2021 UCLA study on electric vehicle charging found that 
residents of multi-family housing units were largely relying on 
public charging infrastructure. That is especially the case in 
my home State of California, where apartment buildings comprise 
almost one-third of all housing units.
    In addition to that, residents of multi-unit dwellings tend 
to be more low and moderate income individuals and live in 
areas that are heavily impacted by the air pollution we are 
trying to counter.
    So Mr. Levy, how can we work together toward a more 
equitable deployment of charging stations? And what can the 
Federal Government do to ensure that we are meeting the needs 
of families in the communities where they live, work, and go to 
school?
    Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to be very brief in 
your response.
    Mr. Levy. Yes, sir, I will be very quick.
    Essentially, there are a couple of different ways. One, we 
vehemently agree with you that FHWA should encourage States to 
move quickly from corridor to also supporting community 
charging projects. It can do that by setting the date at which 
the corridors are built out as the date of obligation of funds.
    Second of all, we would note that the work that Senator 
Carper, Senator Cardin, you, and others all did on IRA included 
the geo-targeting of 30(c) to look at lower income, lower 
percentage of income census tracts. Third, private companies 
like EVgo have a role to play here.
    What we have done is incorporated the EPA's environmental 
justice screen tool into our proprietary siting analysis tool 
so that we can say, let's make sure we are going to those 
disproportionately impacted communities, whether those chargers 
are going to be used by those very same residents that you 
mentioned may not have access to parking, or the ride share 
drivers that start and end those trips in low to moderate 
income communities that are disproportionately burdened by EM 
2.5 and other pollutants.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, thank you for always, you 
are very faithful in your attendance on this Committee. We 
appreciate that, in person and remotely. Thank you for joining 
us in this case.
    One last question, and then I have a couple of comments, 
then we will call it a day, and I will go vote on the floor. 
This question is for the entire panel. It is clear from your 
testimonies that private sector can partner productively with 
public agencies to achieve important national goals.
    What advice would you give to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and to the Environmental Protection Agency to 
ensure that as they implement Federal programs like the ones we 
were just talking about here today they help to elicit and 
leverage private sector expertise, private sector investments 
and innovation?
    Mr. Johnson, would you go first, just very briefly?
    Mr. Johnson. Sure. We at Granite, every company here, I am 
sure, trade associations, we are always eager to work with the 
agencies to find solutions and to move this stuff forward. One 
of the things that if the agencies could get out their grant 
application programs so we could take advantage of the 
authorization under IIJA and IRA to come up with innovative 
ways to further decrease energy use and decrease air emissions, 
we would be glad to do that.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Ms. Mills. Very briefly.
    Ms. Mills. Sure. I think I will echo what Mr. Johnson said. 
We are eager to get to work. We want to build those bridges so 
they are not falling in the State of Pennsylvania. We want to 
partner with any agencies for a great project.
    Senator Carper. All right. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Bauer.
    Mr. Bauer. Yes. Similar to that, and the ongoing dialogue 
about the regulatory policies that were put in place. It is our 
industry; it very much recognizes the objectives that you all 
put in place and that the Administration is pursuing. And we 
want to be part of that solution, because we would rather be 
involved in the dialogue at the front end as opposed to the 
back end.
    I think that is essential to success going forward.
    Senator Carper. I agree. Thank you.
    Mr. Levy, please.
    Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. The Administration has done a great job 
soliciting public feedback and comment, as have the States. And 
we would modestly say we hope they listen to the 
recommendations that EVgo and other companies have submitted.
    Additionally, we hope that the States and others will 
recognize that distributed infrastructure projects like EV 
charging are very different than some of the traditional 
projects that my colleagues to the left have worked on, where 
those projects may take very, very long times to build. So what 
is happening is often in the noise, in terms of month or two 
delays. Whereas we are only onsite constructing for 4 to 12 
weeks. But the whole project to build an EV charging station 
typically takes around 12 to 18 months, soup to nuts.
    So any 3 or 6 month delay from a local utility or a local 
permitting authority, that is an issue that we want to make 
sure we can all work through together, and again, use best 
practice practices, convene stakeholders and push forward to 
accelerate deployment.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
    Mr. Stanberry, please.
    Mr. Stanberry. Thank you, Senator. In addition to what my 
colleagues have said, I would say that our advice would be to 
seek out structures and incentive programs that encourage cost 
share. I would note that that is something that was 
specifically called out by Congress in the law in the school 
bus program and has yet to be implemented. I know the 
Environmental Protection Agency is looking at doing that. We 
have strongly encouraged them to move forward expeditiously in 
implementing that.
    I would also say to look for structures that reduce 
uncertainty for a business that will participate in providing 
that cost share, and to encourage competition amongst those 
businesses.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
    In closing, I want to say a couple of things. I am a big 
believer in certainty and predictability. That has been a theme 
that has been permeating almost all of your testimonies.
    I am privileged to chair this Committee. I am also the 
senior Democrat on the Committee that deals with Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs. That committee, which I used 
to chair, we do a lot of oversight hearings. At the end of the 
hearing I will ask our witnesses, what should we be doing more 
as an oversight committee on homeland security and governmental 
affairs? What advice would you have for us?
    Almost every time, the witnesses would say, more oversight. 
The first time I heard that, it surprised me. But oversight is 
helpful. We worked so hard to put this bill together, this 
legislation together. We worked very hard with the President 
and his team, with the folks in the House, Democrats and 
Republicans. None of it, nothing that is this adventurous, this 
transformative, it won't be perfect.
    So we are going to do a lot of oversight, and we appreciate 
your being part of that for us today.
    I go back and forth on the train to Delaware almost every 
day and night. Not a week goes by that somebody doesn't say to 
me, I wouldn't want your job for all the tea in China. They 
say, you must hate your job. I love my job. I feel so lucky at 
any time to actually be here, involved with this climate 
change, trying to strengthen our economy, tame inflation. I 
mean, gosh, it doesn't get any better than that.
    Einstein used to say, I quote him a lot, used to say that 
the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and 
over again expecting different results. That is not the quote I 
use. I use the one that says, in adversity lies opportunity. In 
adversity lies opportunity. A lot of adversity here.
    Another guy that I like to quote, Henry Ford, father of the 
Model T, he used to say, if you think you can, or you think you 
can't, you are right. If you think you can, or you think you 
can't, you are right. I think we can, and one of the ways we 
will take this transformative legislation and actually bring 
the most good out of it is with your help and your advice and 
participation.
    One of the things I like to do during recess is customer 
calls. In fact, I do them all the time to businesses large and 
small in my State. I have always focused on how to create a 
nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. If 
you want to help people, the best way is to make sure they have 
a job and to make sure that businesses that are doing good work 
are providing those job opportunities.
    But I was out on the West Coast, in the Bay area, visiting 
a bunch of technology companies that were interested in what 
was done in the Inflation Reduction Act, particularly the huge 
piece, I think it is about a $350 million, $360 million 
investment in the IRA in clean energy. There are a bunch of 
technology companies out on the West Coast, and they are other 
places in our country, but they are very much interested in the 
provisions we put in that bill.
    We visited one company, I think the name of it was 
Brimstone, and they are involved in a technology that enables 
the creation of cement that rather than increasing carbon 
dioxide and global emissions actually diminishes it. So you can 
have your cake and eat it too. We are investing taxpayer moneys 
in that kind of technology, just like we are investing in 
making sure we have roads, highways, bridges. We have to. We 
have to do both of those.
    The last thing I would say, I like to say there is no 
silver bullet. No silver bullet, but there are a lot of silver 
BBs. You are helping us identify some of those, and for that we 
are grateful.
    One of the silver BBs involves getting a Senate confirmed 
Federal Highway Administrator on the job. Again, your testimony 
today to that effect is helpful. I am proud of our Committee, 
very grateful to Senator Capito for her support. Finally, when 
we got an Administration that would give us a great nominee, 
Shailen Bhatt, actually move him through hearing and now 
reporting him out unanimously. We are going to try to get him 
before the Senate and confirmed ASAP. It would be a great early 
Christmas present for the people of this country. He will do a 
great job.
    I think the other thing, I have a script here, I am going 
to read this, and then we will wrap it up, and I will go vote. 
In closing, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before 
us today and sharing their perspectives on the implementation 
of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. Senators 
will be allowed to submit written questions for the record 
through the close of business on Wednesday, December 7th, 
Delaware Day. It is the 250th anniversary of the day that 
Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution, the 
day that will live in not infamy, but in glory. Delaware Day, 
December 7th, is the last day that my colleagues have to submit 
their questions, that is a week from today. We will compile 
those questions, sending them to our witnesses, and we are 
going to ask you to reply to them by Wednesday, December 21st.
    The last thing, a word on inflation. After the Navy I had a 
scholarship at Ohio State, studied economics, my professors 
would tell you not enough, but enough to graduate and become a 
Naval flight officer, right in the middle of the Vietnam war. 
After the war was over, I came back to the States, and moved to 
Delaware to get an MBA, studied some more economics.
    One of the things I learned about were the laws of supply 
and demand. I don't think they have really been reinvented 
entirely, when we are looking at prices.
    One of the points I would just have us keep in mind, this 
guy named Putin in Russia who is a no good guy, he has invaded 
a little country and is killing literally dozens, scores of 
people every day, innocent people. It is just awful what is 
going on. He has used, he has been using energy policy, their 
energy policy in an effort to really be engaged in our election 
process, aiding and abetting the increasing inflation 
particularly at the pump and the price of energy. In Iran, we 
are following what is going in Iran as well.
    We are determined to stop both of those countries, both of 
those bullies, from being successful in what they are trying to 
do. I wanted to mention that.
    The last thing I would say, I think I was treasurer when 
Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were President. And we had 
inflation, as I recall, we were looking at inflation, like 20 
percent inflation. A guy named Paul Volcker was nominated and 
confirmed to serve as the head of the Federal Reserve. They 
raised interest rates to like 20 percent, you may recall. It 
choked off inflation, created a recession. But it worked, in 
terms of the inflation. Hopefully, that is not going to happen 
this time.
    But hopefully, the Federal Reserve, which was AWOL for 
frankly too much of this year, they have now started doing 
their job. I think they are doing it well. Hopefully, we can 
navigate our way to a soft landing.
    Controlling inflation is a team sport, and the Federal 
Reserve has a big responsibility to do that, as do the rest of 
us, and the private sector, companies like Brimstone, are 
coming through. There is a bunch of them, and they are 
providing jobs and doing good things for our planet.
    That is for me like the Holy Grail, how do we save this 
planet. It is the only one we are going to have. President 
Biden is having a state dinner tomorrow tonight. The President 
of France, President Macron, is going to be there. President 
Macron spoke to a combined session of the House and Senate 
about 3 years ago. I will never forget what he said. He spoke 
in English brilliantly. He said, there is no planet B. That is 
what he said. He said, there is no planet B. He said, this is 
the only planet we are going to have.
    So we have an obligation to take care of it. And thank you 
for your commitment to that as well. We are determined to walk 
and chew gum at the same time, do good things for our economy, 
do good things for job creation in this country, and do good 
things so our kids will have a planet they can be proud of and 
live on for a long time to come.
    With that, it is a wrap. God bless you all, and happy 
holidays. Thanks so much.
    We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]