[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                   

 
        IT'S ELECTRIC: A REVIEW OF FLEET ELECTRIFICATION EFFORTS

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

                                (118-54)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                          HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 30, 2024

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
            [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
             


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-487 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2024
                        
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking 
              Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  District of Columbia               Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California           Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana                Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Greg Stanton, Arizona,                 Puerto Rico
  Vice Ranking Member                Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire            Vice Chairman
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Burgess Owens, Utah
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Patrick Ryan, New York               Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Vacancy                              Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Kevin Kiley, California
                                     Vacancy

                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

    Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
        Arkansas, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
     Columbia, Ranking Member
Jared Huffman, California            Daniel Webster, Florida
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Mike Bost, Illinois
Patrick Ryan, New York               Doug LaMalfa, California
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon,                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
  Vice Ranking Member                Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Tracey Mann, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiargess Owens, Utah
Julia Brownley, California           Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Greg Stanton, Arizona                Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
John Garamendi, California           Brandon Williams, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Mike Collins, Georgia
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      John S. Duarte, California,
Mark DeSaulnier, California            Vice Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Kevin Kiley, California
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
                                     
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways 
  and Transit, opening statement.................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the 
  District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
  Highways and Transit, opening statement........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               WITNESSES

Kimberly Okafor, General Manager of Zero Emission Solutions, the 
  Love's Family of Companies, on behalf of NATSO, Representing 
  America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops, and SIGMA: America's 
  Leading Fuel Marketers, oral statement.........................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Kevin Coggin, Executive Director, Coast Transit Authority, on 
  behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America, 
  oral statement.................................................    23
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
Taki Darakos, Vice President of Vehicle Maintenance and Fleet 
  Service, PITT OHIO, on behalf of the American Trucking 
  Associations, oral statement...................................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
Nick Nigro, Founder, Atlas Public Policy, oral statement.........    36
    Prepared statement...........................................    37

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford:
    Letter of April 30, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
      Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from J. Clark Mica, 
      President, Institute of Makers of Explosives...............    81
    Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking 
      Companies..................................................    82
    Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers 
      Association................................................    85
    Letter to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. 
      Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
      Highways and Transit, from Ariel Wolf, General Counsel, 
      Powering America's Commercial Transportation...............    86
    Letter of May 7, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
      Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Matthew 
      Brownlee, Director, Federal Government Affairs, The 
      Transport Project..........................................    88

                                APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Taki Darakos, 
  Vice President of Vehicle Maintenance and Fleet Service, PITT 
  OHIO, on behalf of the American Trucking Associations..........    91
Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Nick Nigro, Founder, 
  Atlas Public Policy............................................    94




                             April 26, 2024

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``It's Electric: A Review 
of Fleet Electrification Efforts''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Tuesday, 
April 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn House Office 
Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``It's 
Electric: A Review of Fleet Electrification Efforts.'' The 
hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to hear from 
stakeholders regarding the Administration's efforts to increase 
the number of electric vehicles on the Nation's roadways and 
discuss the implementation of electrification policies included 
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-
58). At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from 
witnesses on behalf of NATSO, America's Travel Centers and 
Truckstops (NATSO) and SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers 
(SIGMA), the Community Transportation Association of America 
(CTAA), the American Trucking Associations (ATA), and Atlas 
Public Policy.

                             II. BACKGROUND

    The Biden Administration has set a goal of achieving net-
zero emissions by 2050, with a target for 50 percent of all new 
car sales to be electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030.\1\ The 
Administration also pledged to build a National network of 
500,000 EV chargers along United States highways and 
communities to meet this goal.\2\ IIJA included $7.5 billion 
for EV charging infrastructure efforts and an additional $10 
billion for electrification and carbon reduction efforts across 
other transportation programs, and over $7 billion in EV 
battery components and critical minerals.\3\ IIJA also created 
the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (Joint Office) 
for collaboration between the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) and the Department of Energy (DOE) in the deployment of 
EV charging infrastructure.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Press Release, The White House, FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris 
Administration Announces New Standards and Major Progress for a Made-
in-America National Network of Electric Vehicle Chargers, (Feb. 15, 
2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2023/02/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-
announces-new-standards-and-major-progress-for-a-made-in-america-
national-network-of-electric-vehicle-chargers/.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 
117-58, 135 Stat. 1425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, China leads the world in EV infrastructure 
investment, with EV sales more than double the global average, 
and over 760,000 public fast charging points and one million 
public slow charging points.\5\ On March 27, 2024, Treasury 
Secretary Janet Yellen warned that China's rapid ramp-up of 
solar energy, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries 
promotes unfair competition and ``distorts global prices'' \6\ 
and ``hurts American firms and workers, as well as firms and 
works around the world.'' \7\ Similarly, the European Union 
launched its own investigation into Chinese subsidies for EVs 
last year, worried about the threat to its own auto 
industry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Joel Jaeger, These Countries Are Adopting Electric Vehicles the 
Fastest, World Resources Institute, (Sep. 14, 2023), available at 
https://www.wri.org/insights/countries-adopting-electric-vehicles-
fastest.
    \6\ Rebecca Picciotto, Yellen warns China's surplus of solar 
panels, EVs could be dumped on global markets, CNBC (Mar. 27, 2024), 
available at https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/27/yellen-china-solar-ev-
surplus-global-markets.html.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ EU Announces an Investigation into Chinese Subsidies for 
Electric Vehicles, AP News, (Sep. 13, 2023), available at https://
apnews.com/article/eu-china-electric-vehicle-subsidy-investigation-
15ec926e756a36a7612a66623ccea51f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the DOE, as of 2022, EVs accounted for less 
than one percent of all registered light-duty vehicles in the 
United States.\9\ The United States Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) found that in the third quarter of 2023, 
sales of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery-electric vehicles 
(BEV) in the United States rose to 17.7 percent of new light-
duty vehicle sales, with about eight percent of those being 
BEVs. but slowed in recent months.\10\ According to Kelley Blue 
Book, there were nearly 1.2 million EVs sold in the United 
States in 2023.\11\ Following the enactment of expanded tax 
credits for EVs in 2021, the tax credits became available as a 
point-of-sale discount at the start of 2024.\12\ EV sales went 
down 7.3 percent in the first quarter of 2024 when compared 
with the final quarter of 2023, although are up 2.6 percent 
when compared with the same time period last year.\13\ 
Additionally, there is an excess of EV inventory, as the 
available inventory of EVs is 136 days, compared to the overall 
inventory of 78 days.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ U.S. Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Vehicle 
Registration Counts by State (2022), available at https://
afdc.energy.gov/vehicle-registration.
    \10\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Vehicles and 
Hybrids Grow to a Record-high 18% of U.S. Light-duty Vehicle Sales, 
(Nov. 27, 2023), available at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
detail.php?id=61004.
    \11\ Americans Buy Nearly 1.2 Million Electric Vehicles to Hit 
Record in 2023, According to Latest Kelley Blue Book Data, Kelley Blue 
Book (Jan. 16, 2024), available at https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2024-01-
16-Americans-Buy-Nearly-1-2-Million-Electric-Vehicles-to-Hit-Record-in-
2023,-According-to-Latest-Kelley-Blue-Book-Data.
    \12\ Greg Iacurci, To get the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit, 
you may no longer have to wait until tax season, CNBC (Feb. 9, 2024), 
available at https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/09/
for-7500-ev-tax-credit-you-may-no-longer-have-to-wait-until-tax-
time.html#::text=U.S.
%20electric%20vehicle%20sales%20hit,That%20cost%20includes%20financial%2
0incentives.
    \13\ J. Edward Moreno and Karl Russell, E.V. Sales Are Slowing. 
Tesla's Are Slumping, The New York Times (Apr. 15, 2024), available at 
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/business/ev-car-sales-tesla.html.
    \14\ Michael Wayland, EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are scaling 
back or delaying their electric vehicle plans, CNBC (Mar. 13, 2024), 
available at https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/ev-euphoria-is-dead-
automakers-trumpet-consumer-choice-in-us.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Joint Office estimates there are more than 67,000 EV 
charging stations across the country, with over 177,000 
charging ports.\15\ The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) 
estimates an investment between $31 and $55 billion in publicly 
accessible charging infrastructure would be needed to meet the 
Administration's goals.\16\ NREL found that ``existing 
(investment) announcements put the United States on a path to 
meet 2030 investment needs.'' \17\ Through March 2023, an 
estimated $23.7 billion of capital has been announced for 
publicly accessible light-duty charging infrastructure, 
including from private firms, electric utilities, and the 
public sector, which includes funding from Federal, state, and 
local governments.\18\ However, a JD Power study from August 
2023 found that despite the increase in public charging 
stations across the United States, customer satisfaction 
declined to the lowest level since the study began in 2021.\19\ 
This decline in public acceptance is due to the unreliability 
of public chargers and the speed and cost of charging.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ See Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, Joint Office 
Vision: A Future Where Everyone Can Ride and Drive Electric, (last 
accessed Apr. 1, 2024), available at https://driveelectric.gov/; see 
also, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, Electric Vehicle 
Charging Stations, (last accessed Apr. 18, 2024), available at https://
driveelectric.gov/stations.
    \16\ Nat'l Renewable Energy Laboratory, the 2030 National Charging 
Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle 
Charging Infrastructure, (2023), available at https://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy23osti/85654.pdf.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Press Release, J.D. Power, Public Charging Issues May Short-
Circuit EV Growth, J.D. Power Finds, (Aug. 16, 2024), available at 
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2023-us-electric-
vehicle-experience-evx-public-charging-study.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                III. SELECT DOT ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAMS

EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE

    The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula 
program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) 
discretionary grant program were created under IIJA to build 
out EV charging infrastructure across the country.\21\ The NEVI 
program is funded at $5 billion over the fiscal year (FY) 2022 
to FY 2026 period and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
mainly distributes funding by formula to the states.\22\ In 
order to receive the funds, states must submit an EV Charging 
Infrastructure Deployment Plan to the Joint Office.\23\ NEVI 
funding must be used on projects that directly relate to the 
charging of a vehicle and are open to the public, or multiple 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operators.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Division J, Title VIII, Highway Infrastructure Program 
Heading, Paragraph (2), IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58 Sec. Sec. , 135 Stat. 
429.
    \22\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FHWA, National Electric Vehicle 
Infrastructure Formula Program, (last updated Feb. 10, 2022), available 
at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/
nevi_formula_program.cfm.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CFI discretionary grant program is authorized at $2.5 
billion over the FY 2022 to FY 2026 period and receives funds 
from the Highway Trust Fund.\25\ The program funds two 
categories of projects, Community Charging and Fueling grants 
and Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC) grants, with the intent of 
deploying publicly available EV charging infrastructure.\26\ 
The Community Charging and Fueling program prioritizes 
underserved, low-income, rural, and high-density 
communities.\27\ AFC grants are awarded to projects that deploy 
alternative fueling infrastructure, like hydrogen, propane, and 
natural gas, in addition to EV charging stations along the 
AFC.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FHWA, Charging and Fueling 
Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, (last updated Mar. 4, 
2024), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ U.S. Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Charging 
and Fueling Infrastructure Grants, (last accessed Apr. 1, 2024), 
available at https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/12732.
    \28\ U.S. Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, 
Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC) Grants, (last accessed Apr. 1, 2024), 
available at https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/12730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In February 2023, FHWA published its final rule relating to 
minimum standards and requirements for NEVI projects.\29\ In 
response to a similar notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to 
set such standards for the program, the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) submitted 
comments raising the need for uniform cybersecurity guidance 
for the program to help inform the states and protect 
information.\30\ In September 2023, several Members of Congress 
wrote to DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg expressing concerns 
regarding the lack of effective standards and encouraging DOT 
and FHWA to adopt stringent, minimum cybersecurity standards to 
ensure the safety of the United States' electric grid and 
Americans' personal data.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ NEVI Formula Program Minimum Standards and Requirements Rule, 
88 Fed. Reg. 12757 (Feb. 28, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-
electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements.
    \30\ Letter from Shawn D. Wilson, President, AASHTO, to Gary 
Jensen, Director of the Office of Nat'l Environment, FHWA, (Aug. 20, 
2022), available at https://transportation.org/ev/wp-content/uploads/
sites/79/2023/05/AASHTO-Comments-to-FHWA-on-NEVI-NPRM-2022-08-20-
FINAL1-1.pdf.
    \31\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure, et. al, to Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of 
Transp., (Sep. 12, 2023), available at https://
transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=406860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the Joint Office, the first NEVI-funded 
charging station opened in Ohio in December 2023.\32\ Since 
then, one NEVI-funded station has opened each in Pennsylvania, 
Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont, and three NEVI-funded stations have 
opened in New York.\33\ During a December 2023 Highways and 
Transit Subcommittee hearing, Members questioned FHWA 
Administrator Shailen Bhatt regarding implementation of the 
program, including the slow pace that NEVI-funded charging 
stations were coming online.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Email from Staff, U.S. Dep't of Transp., FHWA to Minority 
Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure (Apr. 18, 2024) (on file 
with Comm.).
    \33\ Joint Office of Energy and Transp., 2024 Q1 NEVI Progress 
Update, (Feb. 16, 2024), available at https://driveelectric.gov/news/
nevi-update-q1.
    \34\ Oversight of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Modal 
Perspectives: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of 
the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Dec. 13, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTRIFICATION OF BUSES

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers the 
Low- or No- Emission Vehicle grant program which ``provides 
funding for the purchase or lease of zero-emission and low-
emission transit buses, as well as for the acquisition, 
construction, or leasing of supporting facilities and 
requirements.'' \35\ Funding awarded through this program has 
grown significantly from a total of $55 million in FY 2016 to 
over $1.2 billion in FY 2023, a nearly 2000 percent 
increase.\36\ As funding for the Low- or No- Emission and Bus 
and Bus Facilities Program increased via IIJA, so did the 
number of applications, reaching $7.71 billion in combined 
funding requests in FY 2022.\37\ Applicants who apply for the 
zero-emission vehicle grant must submit a Zero-Emission Fleet 
Transition Plan.\38\ The plan must address long-term fleet 
management plans, existing and future facilities, current and 
future resources, fueling partnerships, emerging technologies, 
and the impact on the applicant's workforce.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FTA, Low or No Emission Vehicle & 
Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program Webinar 
(February 2023), available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/
FTA_Low-No_and_Bus_Competitive_Grant_Programs_Webinar_
Presentation_02-16-2023.pdf.
    \36\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FTA, Low or No Emission Grant Program--
5339(c), (last accessed Apr. 1, 2024), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/lowno.
    \37\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FTA, Low or No Emission Vehicle & 
Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program Webinar 
(February 2023), available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/
FTA_Low-No_and_Bus_Competitive_Grant_Programs_Webinar_
Presentation_02-16-2023.pdf.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA included a 25 percent set-aside for the low-emission 
provisions of this grant program to ensure that low-emission 
vehicles, such as hybrid electric, compressed natural gas, or 
alternative fuel buses, would receive funding.\40\ 
Transitioning bus fleets to electric or low-emission propulsion 
vehicles entails additional challenges due to the diminishing 
domestic bus manufacturing marketplace, higher costs per 
vehicle, the need for increased technical and mechanical 
training of workforce, limited EV-bus range capacity, and 
weather degradation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Tenix, 10 Complications of Switching to Electric Buses, (May 
23, 2023), available at https://www.tenix.eu/2023/05/23/complications-
with-electric-buses/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FTA also imposes a `spare ratio' requirement for public 
transit agencies that caps the percentage of a transit agency's 
total bus fleet that can be held in reserve to be used in the 
event of breakdowns, maintenance needs, or a temporary surge in 
operations.\42\ As transit agencies adapt to the range 
limitations of higher cost electric or alternative fueled 
buses, and concurrent fleet volume growth, this ratio remains a 
consideration by FTA in award reviews and can present 
additional challenges.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FTA, Spare Ratio (Jan. 9, 2024), 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/procurement/third-
party-procurement/spare-ratio.
    \43\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FTA, Low or No Emission Vehicle & 
Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program Webinar 
(February 2023), available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/
FTA_Low-No_and_Bus_Competitive_Grant_Programs_Webinar_
Presentation_02-16-2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS WITH ELECTRIC ELIGIBILITIES

    In addition to the programs dedicated to electrification, 
IIJA authorized a number of transportation programs with 
eligible activities that include electrification projects. For 
example, the law reauthorized the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and broadened eligibility to 
include projects such as replacing diesel vehicles with medium-
duty and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles and funding the 
related charging equipment.\44\ IIJA also created the Carbon 
Reduction Program, which funds projects that reduce 
transportation emissions from on-road sources and includes 
projects that support deployment of alternative fuel vehicles, 
including the acquisition and installment of EV chargers and 
hydrogen, natural gas, or propane fueling infrastructure.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FHWA, Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, (Feb. 8, 2022), available at 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/cmaq.cfm.
    \45\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., FHWA, Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), 
(Apr. 20, 2022), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/crp_fact_sheet.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                IV. RECENT SELECT ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES

    FHWA announced a Request for Information (RFI) on March 6, 
2024, to hear from stakeholders on updating minimum standards 
and requirements for EV charging stations, to consider new and 
innovative technologies, such as the SAE J3400 charger.\46\ The 
J3400 charger was developed by Tesla, under their North 
American Charging Standard (NACS), and has been used 
exclusively in Tesla's Supercharger network.\47\ However, in 
the fall of 2022, Tesla opened the NACS to other EV 
manufacturers who were using the Combine Charging System 
(CCS).\48\ SAE International created a task force in June 2023 
to standardize the J3400, and on December 18, 2023, the SAE 
J3400 EV Coupler Standard was released.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Request for Information on the J3400 Connector and Potential 
Options for Performance-Based Charging Standards, 89 Fed. Reg. 16081, 
(Mar. 6, 2024), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2024/03/06/2024-04750/request-for-information-on-the-j3400-connector-
and-potential-options-for-performance-based-charging.
    \47\ Lee Goldberg, EV-Pluribus Unum: An Introduction to the SAE 
J3400/NACS EV Charging Interface (Part 1), Electronic Design (Mar. 7, 
2024), available at https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/
automotive/article/21284134/electronic-design-ev-pluribus-unum-an-
introduction-to-the-sae-j3400-nacs-ev-charging-interface-part-1.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 20, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) announced the ``Multi Pollutant Emissions Standards for 
Model Years (MY) 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty 
Vehicles.'' \50\ While outside of the Committee's jurisdiction, 
the new standards aim to cut more than seven billion tons of 
carbon emissions and push EVs into the market.\51\ The EPA 
estimates these goals can be met in the ``Higher Battery 
Electric Vehicle Pathway'' if 56 percent of the market for new 
vehicle sales in 2032 is electric and as least 13 percent are 
hybrid vehicles.\52\ Other compliance pathways include lower 
percentages of battery electric vehicles and higher percentages 
of hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule: Multi-Pollutant 
Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and 
Medium-Duty Vehicles (last updated Apr. 1, 2024), available at https://
www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-
multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-
model#::text=On%20March%2020%2C%202024%2C%20EPA,
starting%20with%20model%20year%202027.
    \51\ Matthew Daly and Tom Krisher, EPA Issues New Auto Rules Aimed 
at Cutting Carbon Emissions, Boosting Electric Vehicles and Hybrids, AP 
News, (Mar. 20, 2024), available at https://apnews.com/article/epa-
electric-vehicles-emissions-limits-climate-biden-
e6d581324af51294048df24269b5d20a.
    \52\ Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and 
Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, 89 Fed. Reg. 27842, (Apr. 
16, 2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-
18/pdf/2024-06214.pdf.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES

    On March 12, 2024, the Biden Administration released the 
National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy to further the 
Administration's commitment to promote 30 percent of medium and 
heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV) sales being zero-emission by 2030, 
with a goal of 100 percent sales by 2040.\54\ The strategy 
designates National EV Freight Corridors along the National 
Highway Freight Network to guide the deployment of ``expansive 
and convenient access to electric vehicle charging and hydrogen 
refueling.'' \55\ The strategy consists of four phases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, Biden-Harris 
Administration, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation Release 
Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment, 
(Mar. 12, 2024), available at https://driveelectric.gov/news/
decarbonize-freight.
    \55\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, Biden-Harris 
Administration, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation Release 
Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment, 
(Mar. 12, 2024), available at https://driveelectric.gov/news/
decarbonize-freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LPhase 1, which would establish hubs across the 
country based on freight volume;
     LPhase 2, which would connect hubs via corridors;
     LPhase 3, which would expand the network outside 
of Phase 2 connections; and,
     LPhase 4, which seeks to complete the proposed 
network and cover 49,000 connected miles by 2040.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Id.

    The goal of the program is to ``catalyze public and private 
investment'' \57\ into electrified freight movement. A recent 
Roland Berger report estimates that ``full electrification of 
the United States commercial truck fleet would require nearly 
$1 trillion in infrastructure investment alone.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ New Report Pegs Cost of Electrifying U.S. Commercial Truck 
Fleet at $1 Trillion, Clean Freight Coalition (Mar. 19, 2024), 
available at https://www.cleanfreightcoalition.org/new-report-pegs-
cost-electrifying-us-commercial-truck-fleet-1-trillion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most recently, on March 29, 2024, the EPA issued new 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for MY 2032 and later 
heavy-duty vehicles that the Administration estimates will 
eliminate one billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2055.\59\ 
While outside of the Committee's jurisdiction, ATA stated that 
the goal is ``unachievable given the current state of zero-
emission technology, the lack of charging infrastructure, and 
restrictions on the power grid.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Environmental Protection Agency, Regulations for Greenhouse 
Gas Emissions From Commercial Trucks & Buses (Mar. 29, 2024), available 
at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/
regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-commercial-trucks.
    \60\ Alex Guillen, EPA rule pushes heavy-duty trucks to slash 
carbon emissions, Politico, (Mar. 29, 2024), available at https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/03/epa-rule-pushes-heavy-duty-
trucks-to-slash-carbon-emissions-00149644?source=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              V. WITNESSES

     LMs. Kim Okafor, General Manager of Zero Emission 
Solutions, The Love's Family of Companies, on behalf of NATSO, 
America's Travel Centers and Truckstops (NATSO) and SIGMA: 
America's Leading Fuel Marketers (SIGMA)
     LMr. Kevin Coggin, Executive Director, Coast 
Transit Authority, on behalf of the Community Transportation 
Association of America (CTAA)
     LMr. Taki Darakos, Vice President of Vehicle 
Maintenance and Fleet Services, PITT OHIO, on behalf of the 
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
     LMr. Nick Nigro, Founder, Atlas Public Policy


        IT'S ELECTRIC: A REVIEW OF FLEET ELECTRIFICATION EFFORTS

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
Crawford (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Crawford. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will 
come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please email it to [email protected].
    Before we get into the hearing, I would like to take a 
moment of personal privilege to remember our colleague, 
Congressman Donald Payne, Jr., who passed away last week. 
Donald and I have served together on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for over a decade. As his ranking 
member on the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 
Subcommittee, I had the opportunity to learn more about his 
commitment to this institution, his constituents, and to the 
United States. It was always clear to me that his family 
background in Congress had instilled a love for the House that 
could not be dimmed. I will miss his presence on the committee. 
And on behalf of all of us here, I want to send my prayers and 
condolences to his family, friends, and staff for dealing with 
this loss.
    I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening 
statement for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD OF 
    ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

    Mr. Crawford. We are here today to discuss the Biden 
administration's efforts to increase the number of electric 
vehicles, or EVs, on our Nation's roadways, and the 
infrastructure challenges stemming from that goal. But this 
hearing is also about much more than that. I believe in 
consumer choice, the choice to decide where you want to go and 
how you want to get there. Sadly, the Biden administration 
doesn't seem to share that view.
    The President campaigned on a pie-in-the-sky goal of 
reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. We all know that is 
unachievable without massive economic hardship on working 
Americans. He is committed to that vision regardless of what 
that means for the moms and dads who simply want to buy a new 
car, minivan, or pickup to make it easier to get to work or to 
take their kids to school.
    A key part of this goal includes President Biden's pledge 
to have 50 percent of all new car sales be EVs by 2030 and to 
build out a national charging network with 500,000 public EV 
chargers. And that's not to mention the regulatory onslaught 
from the EPA. The EPA just released new tailpipe emission 
standards for light-duty vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicles that will balloon the cost of a vehicle. This, of 
course, follows the EPA reinstating a waiver of California's 
CARB standards that 17 States have sued the administration 
over.
    I am, frankly, shocked at this administration's insistence 
on remaking the domestic vehicle industry in a top-down, 
Soviet-style 5-year plan that is devoid of commonsense market-
driven data.
    I am not opposed to EVs. I am not opposed to any 
alternative energy vehicle, but the Government shouldn't try to 
control the market and shouldn't stack the deck in favor of one 
vehicle over another. The fact is, the EVs are sitting on car 
lots an average of 58 days longer compared to their 
conventional counterparts, and according to the Kelley Blue 
Book, they cost at least $5,000 more.
    Americans are hurting with runaway inflation thanks to this 
administration's economic failures. I'm not sure they can 
afford an additional $5,000 for a vehicle they don't really 
want and that doesn't give them the reliability they need.
    Under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, contained $7.5 billion for 
programs intended to build out charging networks. Yet to date, 
only eight charging stations have been opened. Eight. It has 
been about 2\1/2\ years since IIJA was enacted, and we have 
eight charging stations to show for this multibillion-dollar 
investment. I am sure our witnesses will talk more about that 
today.
    I also remain concerned that there appears to be a lack of 
minimum Federal cybersecurity standards for these chargers, 
which create access points for hackers into our electric grid 
in a way that traditional fueling stations simply do not. 
Separately, I am concerned that China controls the market for 
the majority of the critical minerals and refineries needed to 
produce EV batteries. And just like there hasn't been anything 
that I would call a real plan to deal with increased cyber 
vulnerabilities, I have yet to see the administration make any 
proposals that will address the future of our Nation's Highway 
Trust Fund, which is dependent on user fees generated by excise 
taxes on gasoline and diesel.
    The Highway Trust Fund provides the long-term certainty 
necessary for State departments of transportation to plan 
roadway and mass transit projects. More vehicles on the road 
that do not pay into the Highway Trust Fund is going to have an 
impact. In fact, in February, the Congressional Budget Office 
released an updated 10-year baseline which estimates a delta of 
$280 billion by 2034, but understates the full impact of the 
new tailpipe regulations.
    The Biden administration is so focused on the President's 
promise of achieving net zero by 2050 that it is not listening 
to consumers who actually purchase vehicles, nor is it 
factoring in the realistic challenges of electrification at the 
expense of other viable fuel options.
    Innovation within the marketplace is important, and we 
should encourage it. In fact, just the other week, I was the 
first Member of Congress to drive Tesla's newest model of the 
Cybertruck on the Capitol plaza. Private investment and 
innovation should be encouraged. However, I do not support the 
Federal Government mandating where the market goes, picking 
winners and losers by prioritizing one type of alternative fuel 
over others.
    For example, last week, the Department of Energy's National 
Petroleum Council found that the hydrogen industry is not 
growing fast enough to meet the administration's climate goals, 
and the American Transportation Research Initiative released a 
report analyzing the benefits of renewable diesel compared to 
battery-electric trucks.
    Consumers and businesses should have the choice about what 
types of cars, trucks, or buses they want to buy that make the 
most sense for their bottom line.
    Another concern with respect to the Biden administration's 
pursuit of EVs for all: the United States does not have 
infrastructure that can, at this time, support the levels of 
electrification the administration is pushing. A study out of 
Princeton University estimates that domestic energy levels are 
supposed to increase 18 percent from 2022 to 2030; however, the 
study notes that in order to meet the demand for just light-
duty vehicles, there would need to be a 3,360-percent increase 
by 2035.
    There are even more challenges with trucks. The technology 
needed to electrify the trucking industry just simply isn't 
ready. A Roland Berger study commissioned by the Clean Freight 
Coalition found that a $1 trillion investment is necessary to 
electrify the U.S. commercial truck fleet. This includes $620 
billion for charging infrastructure and $370 billion to upgrade 
the power grid.
    Setting aside those massive needs, even if you can find an 
electric truck, they are cost prohibitive for many in the 
industry. The average battery-electric Class 8 truck costs over 
$400,000 compared to a diesel running close to $180,000 
currently.
    I respect the rights of a company to decide if it is in the 
company's best interest to electrify their fleet, just like I 
respect their ability to choose to go in another direction, 
like natural gas. But it is also important to recognize that 
many fleets, including owner-operators, will be put at a 
competitive disadvantage and simply can't afford to purchase 
new vehicles, let alone a $400,000 rig.
    To add to these challenges, the batteries in these trucks 
can weigh up to 16,000 pounds, roughly one-quarter of the total 
allowable weight. That will make already slim margins for 
payload offset even slimmer. Add in the fact that it takes 
between 2.9 to 5.7 hours to recharge the battery--that is, if 
you can find an open and functioning charger. That's on top of 
the current challenge we know exists with the truck parking 
shortage. Less product will move on each truck, and each truck 
will take longer to get to its destination. That is not a 
recipe for success.
    Similar issues exist for local transit agencies moving to 
battery-electric propulsion buses, which can't spend hours 
recharging with passengers aboard, nor can existing electric 
buses meet the distance ranges needed for many local agency 
routes, especially those in rural areas. The bus manufacturing 
market has consolidated over the past several years such that 
only two companies currently make electric buses domestically. 
The result is a lengthy production to delivery timetable and a 
marketplace with little room for smaller EV bus orders, 
compounding the competition challenges.
    And similar to the heavy-duty truck sector, battery-
electric buses often run as much as double the cost of a 
traditional diesel bus. Altogether, this means more expensive 
buses that take longer to procure and that can't drive as far 
or as often as the diesel equipment in use today.
    You must also factor in bad weather and extreme 
temperatures' effect on battery-electric vehicles and the 
limited ranges that batteries can operate. These are just some 
of the concerns I have with rushing to electrify our 
transportation sector in this top-down, mandated way.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. A 
number of you can provide valuable firsthand experience on 
adding battery-electric vehicles to your fleet.
    [Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative 
 in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
                          Highways and Transit
    We are here today to discuss the Biden Administration's efforts to 
increase the number of electric vehicles, or EVs, on our nation's 
roadways, and the infrastructure challenges stemming from that goal.
    But this hearing is also about much more than that. I believe in 
consumer choice. The choice to decide where you want to go and how you 
want to get there. Sadly, the Biden Administration doesn't seem to 
share this view.
    The President campaigned on a pie in the sky goal of reaching net-
zero carbon emissions by 2050. We all know that's unachievable without 
massive economic hardship on working Americans. He's committed to that 
vision, regardless of what that means for the moms and dads who simply 
want to buy a new car, minivan, or pickup to make it easier to get to 
work or take their kids to school.
    A key part of this goal includes President Biden's pledge to have 
50 percent of all new car sales be EVs by 2030, and to build out a 
national charging network with 500,000 public EV chargers.
    And that's not to mention the regulatory onslaught from the EPA. 
The EPA just released new tailpipe emission standards for light duty 
vehicles and medium and heavy duty vehicles that will balloon the cost 
of a vehicle. This of course follows the EPA reinstating a waiver of 
California's CARB standards that 17 states have sued the Administration 
over. I'm frankly shocked at this Administration's insistence on 
remaking the domestic vehicle industry in a top-down, Soviet style 
five-year plan that is devoid of common-sense, market-driven data.
    I'm not opposed to EVs. I'm not opposed to any alternative energy 
vehicle. But the government shouldn't try to control the market, and it 
shouldn't stack the deck in favor of one vehicle over another. The fact 
is, EVs are sitting on car lots an average of 58 days longer compared 
to their conventional counterparts, and according to Kelley Blue Book, 
they cost at least $5,000 more.
    Americans are hurting with runaway inflation thanks to this 
Administration's economic failures. I'm not sure they can afford an 
additional $5,000 for a vehicle they don't really want and that doesn't 
give them the reliability they need.
    Under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) contained $7.5 billion for programs 
intended to build out a charging network, yet to date, only eight 
charging stations have been opened. It has been about two and half 
years since IIJA was enacted, and we have eight charging stations to 
show for this multibillion-dollar investment. I am sure our witnesses 
will talk more about that today.
    I also remain concerned that there appears to be a lack of minimum 
federal cyber security standards for these chargers, which create 
access points for hackers into our electric grid in a way that 
traditional fueling stations simply do not.
    Separately, I'm concerned that China controls the market for the 
majority of the critical minerals and refineries needed to produce EV 
batteries. And just like there hasn't been anything that I would call a 
real plan to deal with increased cyber vulnerabilities, I've yet to see 
the Administration make any proposals that will address the future of 
our nation's Highway Trust Fund, which is dependent on user fees 
generated by excise taxes on gasoline and diesel.
    The Highway Trust Fund provides the long-term certainty necessary 
for state departments of transportation to plan roadway and mass 
transit projects. More vehicles on the road that do not pay into the 
Highway Trust Fund is going to have an impact. In fact, in February, 
the Congressional Budget Office released an updated 10-year baseline 
which estimates a delta of $280 billion by 2034, but understates the 
full impact of the new tailpipe regulations.
    The Biden Administration is so focused on the President's promise 
of achieving net-zero by 2050 that it's not listening to consumers who 
actually purchase vehicles, nor is it factoring in the realistic 
challenges of electrification at the expense of other viable fuel 
options.
    Innovation within the marketplace is important, and we should 
encourage it. In fact, just the other week I was the first Member of 
Congress to drive Tesla's newest model of the Cybertruck onto the 
Capitol Plaza. Private investment and innovation should be encouraged. 
However, I do not support the federal government mandating where the 
market goes, picking winners and losers by prioritizing one type of 
alternative fuel over others.
    For example, last week, the Department of Energy's National 
Petroleum Council found that the hydrogen industry is not growing fast 
enough to meet the Administration's climate goals, and the American 
Transportation Research Initiative released a report analyzing the 
benefits of renewable diesel compared to battery-electric trucks.
    Consumers and businesses should have the choice about what types of 
cars, trucks, or buses they want to buy that make the most sense for 
their bottom line.
    Another concern with respect to the Biden Administration's pursuit 
of EVs for all: the United States does not have infrastructure that 
can, at this time, support the levels of electrification the 
Administration is pushing. A study out of Princeton University 
estimates that domestic energy levels are supposed to increase 18 
percent from 2022 to 2030; however, the study notes that in order to 
meet the demand for just light-duty vehicles, there will need to be a 
3,360 percent increase by 2035.
    There are even more challenges with trucks. The technology needed 
to electrify the trucking industry isn't ready. A Roland Berger study, 
commissioned by the Clean Freight Coalition, found that a $1 trillion 
investment is needed to electrify the U.S. commercial truck fleet. This 
includes $620 billion for charging infrastructure and $370 billion to 
upgrade the power grid.
    Setting aside those massive needs, even if you can find an electric 
truck, they're cost prohibitive for many in the industry. The average 
battery-electric Class 8 truck costs over $400,000, compared to a 
diesel running close to $180,000 currently.
    I respect the rights of a company to decide if it's in the 
company's best interest to electrify their fleet, just like I respect 
their ability to choose to go in another direction, like natural gas. 
But it is also important to recognize that many fleets, including 
owner-operators, will be put at a competitive disadvantage and simply 
can't afford to purchase new vehicles, let alone a $400,000 rig.
    To add to these challenges, the batteries in these trucks can weigh 
up to 16,000 pounds, roughly one-quarter of the total allowable weight. 
That will make already slim margins for payload offset even slimmer. 
Add in the fact that it takes between 2.9 to 5.7 hours to recharge the 
battery--that is, if you can find an open and functioning charger. 
That's on top of the current challenge we know exists with the truck 
parking shortage. Less product will move on each truck. And each truck 
will take longer to get to its destination. This isn't a recipe for 
success.
    Similar issues exist for local transit agencies moving to battery-
electric propulsion buses, which cannot spend hours recharging with 
passengers aboard, nor can existing electric buses meet the distance 
ranges needed for many local agency routes, especially those in rural 
areas. The bus manufacturing market has consolidated over the past 
several years such that only two companies currently make electric 
buses domestically. The result is a lengthy production to delivery 
timetable and a marketplace with little room for smaller EV bus orders, 
compounding competition challenges.
    And similar to the heavy-duty truck sector, battery-electric buses 
often run as much as double the cost of a traditional diesel bus. 
Altogether, this means more expensive buses that take longer to procure 
and that can't drive as far or as often as the diesel equipment in use 
today.
    You must also factor in bad weather and extreme temperatures' 
effect on battery-electric vehicles and the limited ranges the 
batteries can operate. These are just some of the concerns I have with 
rushing to electrify our transportation sector in this top-down, 
mandated way.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. A number of you 
can provide valuable firsthand experience on adding battery-electric 
vehicles to your fleets.

    Mr. Crawford. I now recognize Ranking Member Holmes Norton 
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT 
   OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND 
                            TRANSIT

    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I address the topic of this hearing, I would like to 
take a moment to remember my friend, Congressman Donald Payne, 
Jr. He and I worked together in the Congressional Black Caucus 
and on this committee. His leadership and his commitment to 
public service will be deeply missed.
    I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for 
holding this hearing on electric vehicles.
    We are in the midst of a substantial change in our 
transportation system. For years, cars, trucks, and transit 
lines have run primarily on gas and diesel. While these fuels 
powered our economy and our mobility, we have also paid a high 
price for our reliance on fossil fuels.
    Transportation pollution causes heart attacks, asthma, low 
infant birth rates, and premature death. It also contributes 
significantly to the warming of our planet. Transportation is 
responsible for 29 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 
Over half of that comes from passenger cars and light-duty 
trucks. And almost one-quarter of that comes from medium- and 
heavy-duty trucks.
    That means this subcommittee has significant responsibility 
in finding a path forward toward a cleaner future. Part of that 
means giving people more transportation choices--including 
rail, transit, walking, and biking--that produce fewer 
emissions than driving.
    But many Americans rely on driving as their primary mode of 
transportation, and electric vehicles have a significant role 
to play as well.
    Thanks to the strong environmental policies championed by 
this committee last Congress, the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have put us on a 
better course. This includes the $5 billion for the National 
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, the $2.5 billion for 
the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, and the 
$5.6 billion for the Low- or No-Emission Bus Grant Program.
    Congress gave the Biden administration a tall order in 
creating the new electric vehicle charging programs. We first 
required them to establish the Joint Office of Energy and 
Transportation to ensure coordinating of Federal investments 
and policies. We required them to issue detailed technical 
specifications to make sure that federally funded chargers met 
certain quality standards. And the Biden administration chose 
to issue stronger Buy America standards for electric vehicle 
chargers to ensure that our Federal programs are supporting 
jobs here in the United States.
    We also required States to create plans to ensure 
investments are targeted wisely. All of this had to happen 
before the projects went out to bid. I know some had raised 
concerns about the pace at which these new programs are 
unfolding. It is important to deploy chargers as quickly as 
possible to help spur the transition to clean vehicles, but it 
is also important to get these programs right--and I appreciate 
the Biden administration's commitment to doing so.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 
any recommendations to improve these programs. Also, I look 
forward to discussing the Low- or No-Emission Bus Grant 
Program. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
provided a significant funding increase for the program, demand 
for these grants still far exceeds available funding.
    Electrification of our transit systems can provide a 
roadmap for electrifying other fleets, including our commercial 
motor vehicles. Moving to a cleaner transportation system will 
require a good-faith partnership between all levels of 
Government, manufacturers, shippers, utilities, and technology 
companies.
    I hope all our witnesses will contribute to finding 
solutions, and I look forward to your testimony.
    I would like to close by reiterating my strong opposition 
to H.R. 7526, the DC Consumer Vehicle Choice Protection Act, 
which would repeal the District of Columbia's regulation 
adopting Advanced Clean Cars 2. This bill, which the Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability passed last month, is an attack 
on DC home rule, the environment, and public health.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in 
      Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, 
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    Before I address the topic of this hearing, I would like to take a 
moment to remember my friend, Congressman Donald Payne, Jr. He and I 
worked closely together in the Congressional Black Caucus and on this 
Committee. His leadership and his commitment to public service will be 
deeply missed.
    I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for holding 
this hearing on electric vehicles.
    We are in the midst of a substantial change in our transportation 
system. For years, cars, trucks and transit lines have run primarily on 
gas and diesel.
    While these fuels powered our economy and our mobility, we have 
also paid a high price for our reliance on fossil fuels.
    Transportation pollution causes heart attacks, asthma attacks, low 
infant birth weights and premature death.
    It also contributes significantly to the warming of our planet. 
Transportation is responsible for 29 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    Over half of that comes from passenger cars and light-duty trucks, 
and almost a quarter of that comes from medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
    That means this Subcommittee has a significant responsibility in 
finding a path forward toward a cleaner future.
    Part of that means giving people more transportation choices--
including rail, transit, walking and biking--that produce fewer 
emissions than driving.
    But many Americans rely on driving as their primary mode of 
transportation, and electric vehicles have a significant role to play 
as well.
    Thanks to the strong environmental policies championed by this 
Committee last Congress, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and 
the Inflation Reduction Act have put us on a better course.
    This includes the $5 billion for the National Electric Vehicle 
Infrastructure program, the $2.5 billion for the Charging and Fueling 
Grants program, and the $5.6 billion for the Low- and No-Emission Bus 
grant program.
    Congress gave the Biden Administration a tall order in creating the 
new electric vehicle charging programs. We first required them to 
establish the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation to ensure 
coordinated federal investments and policies.
    We required them to issue detailed technical specifications, to 
make sure that federally funded chargers met certain quality standards.
    And the Biden Administration chose to issue stronger Buy America 
standards for electric vehicle chargers to ensure that our federal 
programs are supporting jobs here in the U.S.
    We also required states to create strategic plans to ensure 
investments are targeted wisely.
    All of this had to happen before projects went out to bid. I know 
some have raised concerns about the pace at which these new programs 
are unfolding.
    It is important to deploy chargers as quickly as possible to help 
spur the transition to clean vehicles. But it is also important to get 
these programs right--and I appreciate the Biden Administration's 
commitment to doing so.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about any 
recommendations to improve these programs.
    I also look forward to discussing the Low- and No-Emission Bus 
grant program. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
provided a significant funding increase for the program, demand for 
these grants still far exceeds available funding.
    Electrification of our transit systems can provide a roadmap for 
electrifying other fleets, including our commercial motor vehicles.
    Moving to a cleaner transportation system will require a good-faith 
partnership between all levels of government, manufacturers, shippers, 
utilities and technology companies.
    I hope all our witnesses will contribute to finding solutions, and 
I look forward to your testimony.
    I would like to close by reiterating my strong opposition to H.R. 
7526, the D.C. Consumer Vehicle Choice Protection Act, which would 
repeal the District of Columbia's regulation adopting Advanced Clean 
Cars 2. This bill, which the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
passed last month, is an attack on D.C. home rule, the environment, and 
public health.

    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentlelady.
    I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, 
Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair and Ranking 
Member, for holding this hearing.
    I, too, want to take a brief opportunity to express sadness 
at the loss of my friend and colleague, Don Payne, Jr. He was a 
fierce advocate for the traveling public. He was a friend to 
everyone who knew him. I will miss him as well.
    Turning to today's hearing, electric vehicles are steadily 
increasing on the Nation's roadways, moving both people and 
goods. Today's hearing focuses on fleet electrification efforts 
across the passenger vehicle, trucking, and transit sectors. 
Each of these modes has unique needs and challenges that must 
be addressed to support a smooth transition to a cleaner and 
greener surface transportation system.
    I would note, perhaps minus some of the rhetoric from the 
chair, I agree with a lot of his criticisms about how quickly 
things are moving. We might also differ on solutions, but I 
don't disagree with some of the challenges that you have laid 
out. But I would note that fleet electrification is not only 
good for the climate, it is critical to enhancing our Nation's 
economic competitiveness.
    The International Energy Agency reports that the number of 
electric cars sold globally in the first 3 months of this year 
is roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020.
    In 2024, EVs could reach up to 45 percent of new car sales 
in China and 25 percent in Europe. In the U.S., that projection 
is just over 10 percent. And America's economic competitors are 
investing in EVs. The U.S. can't take a backseat in this race.
    Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle registrations reached 
record levels in my home State last year, with Washington State 
seeing the biggest increase in EV market share of any State.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is supporting the 
adoption of EVs in Washington State and nationwide by providing 
funding and supporting domestic manufacturing and supply chains 
for critical minerals, including $7.5 billion for EV charging 
infrastructure, $10 billion for electrification across other 
transportation modes, and $7 billion in EV battery components 
and critical minerals.
    This funding is critical to filling initial market gaps, 
supporting broader deployment, and enhancing domestic supply 
chains. Policy changes in the BIL, including new, stronger Buy 
America standards for EV chargers, are ensuring this funding 
goes further to support domestic manufacturing.
    Just 3 years ago, the production of fast chargers was 
almost nonexistent. Now, there are at least 26 companies 
manufacturing these products within the U.S.
    Last week, I attended an EV charger installation and 
training event at the Mount Vernon Library Commons in my 
district. This event showcased how $12.5 million from the BIL 
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program is being used 
to install 78 public EV charging ports at the Library Commons 
project. This event also featured an installation demonstration 
in partnership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers Local 191 and the private-sector National Electrical 
Contractors Association Cascade Chapter.
    These organizations partnered to provide training for 
journeymen, apprentices, and other electrical workers under the 
collective bargaining agreements in the EV industry. It is an 
example that shows that investing in fleet electrification can 
benefit U.S. workers and create jobs that pay well.
    Also in my district, major truck manufacturer PACCAR is 
using their test center, which is located at the Port of Skagit 
and which Chair Graves and I visited, along with 
Representatives Brownley and DeSaulnier last year. They are 
using their test center to validate the next generation of 
clean commercial vehicles, and I am sure that they would love 
to have any other Member of Congress visit their facility to 
see what this major truck manufacturer is doing on clean 
commercial vehicles. Today, they offer six battery-electric 
truck models and are developing technologies, including 
hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks and internal combustion 
engines running on hydrogen, to get ahead of the market.
    While access to EV chargers has grown significantly, up 
nearly 85 percent in 3 years, almost all of this growth, 
though, has been driven by private investment.
    A lot of work remains to ensure communities receive the 
full benefit of BIL funding.
    To date, States have opened, and the chair recognizes this, 
have opened only eight charging stations through the National 
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, or NEVI, Program, leading to 
legitimate questions and criticism of publicly funded charger 
deployments, ones that can be answered. The slow pace of 
deployment is partly because the administration took time to 
ensure these chargers will be made in the U.S. by U.S. workers 
and to establish standards to create a consistent user 
experience at the stations.
    However, as we will hear in today's testimony, because NEVI 
projects are delivered by State DOTs, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico, a patchwork of program requirements has 
complicated deployment. Private businesses looking to build out 
EV chargers must navigate 52 unique programs, which has slowed 
deployment and caused confusion. So, I urge the Federal Highway 
Administration and the newly created Joint Office of Energy and 
Transportation to update their guidance to make this process 
more uniform.
    Electrification challenges are not unique to passenger 
vehicles. The trucking and transit sectors are working to 
transition their fleets and face challenges with the range, 
cost, and the limited number of manufacturers. On the other 
hand, and certainly in transit, they seem to be navigating this 
fairly well.
    Through innovation and collaboration between the public and 
private sector, I believe the U.S. can overcome these 
challenges and deliver benefits for the economy, the 
environment, and for U.S. workers.
    So, we are still in the early stages of this major 
transition. It won't be as simple as flipping a switch--I 
apologize for that pun--and the Federal Government will 
continue to play an important role.
    BIL initiatives are starting to fill in gaps in the market 
and support the onshoring of the manufacturing process. 
Congress and the administration must work with global partners 
to secure supply chains for critical minerals that are 
essential to EVs and infrastructure; for instance, a newly 
announced effort between the U.S. and Norway to get a critical 
minerals agreement.
    Without continued Federal support and action, the U.S. 
risks falling further behind our competitors in a crucial 
industry, something no one wants.
    So, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look 
forward to the discussion.
    With that, I yield back.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for holding 
this hearing.
    I too would like to take this opportunity to express sadness at the 
loss of my friend and colleague, Congressman Donald M. Payne, Jr. He 
was a fierce advocate for the traveling public and a friend to everyone 
who knew him. He will be dearly missed.
    Turning to today's hearing, electric vehicles are steadily 
increasing on the nation's roadways, moving both people and goods.
    Today's hearing focuses on fleet electrification efforts across the 
passenger vehicle, trucking and transit sectors.
    Each of these modes has unique needs and challenges that must be 
addressed to support a smooth transition to a cleaner and greener 
surface transportation system.
    I will note some of the rhetoric from the Chairman, I agree with a 
lot of his criticisms about how quickly things are moving. We might 
also differ on solutions, but I do not disagree with some of the 
challenges he laid out.
    I will note fleet electrification is not only good for the climate; 
it is critical to enhancing the nation's economic competitiveness.
    The International Energy Agency reports that ``the number of 
electric cars sold globally in the first three months of this year is 
roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020.''
    In 2024, EVs could reach up to 45 percent of new car sales in China 
and 25 percent in Europe. In the U.S., that projection is just over 10 
percent.
    America's economic competitors are investing in EVs. The United 
States cannot take a back seat in this race.
    Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle registrations reached record 
levels in my home state last year, with Washington seeing the biggest 
increase in EV market share of any state.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is supporting the adoption of EVs 
in Washington state and nationwide by providing funding and supporting 
domestic manufacturing and supply chains for critical minerals 
including:
      $7.5 billion for EV charging infrastructure;
      $10 billion for electrification across other 
transportation modes; and
      $7 billion in EV battery components and critical 
minerals.

    This funding is critical to filling initial market gaps, supporting 
broader deployment and enhancing domestic supply chains.
    Policy changes in the BIL, including new, stronger Buy America 
standards for EV chargers, are ensuring this funding goes further to 
support domestic manufacturing.
    Just three years ago, the production of fast chargers was almost 
non-existent. Now, there are at least 26 companies manufacturing these 
products within the U.S.
    Last week, I attended an EV charger installation and training event 
at the Mount Vernon Library Commons in my district.
    This event showcased how $12.5 million from BIL Charging and 
Fueling Infrastructure grants is being used to install 78 public EV 
charging ports at the Library Commons project.
    This event also featured an installation demonstration in 
partnership with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 
191 and the private sector National Electrical Contractors Association 
Cascade Chapter.
    These organizations partnered to provide training for journeymen, 
apprentices and other electrical workers under collective bargaining 
agreements in the EV industry.
    This example shows that investing in fleet electrification benefits 
U.S. workers and creates jobs that pay well.
    Also in my district, truck manufacturer PACCAR is using their test 
center, which is located in the Port of Skagit, and which Chair Graves 
and I visited along with Reps. Brownley and DeSaulnier last year. 
They're using their test center to validate the next generation of 
clean commercial vehicles and I'm sure that they would love to have any 
other Member of Congress visit their facilities to see what this major 
truck manufacturer is doing on clean commercial vehicles.
    Today, they offer six battery electric truck models and are 
developing technologies including hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks 
and internal combustion engines running on hydrogen to get ahead of the 
market.
    While access to EV chargers has grown significantly--up nearly 85 
percent in three years--almost all of this growth has been driven by 
private investment.
    A lot of work remains to ensure communities receive the full 
benefit of BIL funding.
    To date, states have opened only eight charging stations through 
the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, leading to 
legitimate questions and criticism of publicly funded charger 
deployments.
    The slow pace of deployment is partly because the Administration 
took time to ensure that these chargers will be made in the U.S. by 
U.S. workers and to establish standards to create a consistent user 
experience at the stations.
    However, as we will hear in today's testimony, because NEVI 
projects are delivered by state DOTs, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico, a patchwork of program requirements has complicated 
deployment.
    Private businesses looking to build out EV chargers must navigate 
52 unique programs, which has slowed deployment and caused confusion.
    I urge the Federal Highway Administration and the newly-created 
Joint Office of Energy and Transportation to update their guidance to 
make the process more uniform.
    Electrification challenges are not unique to passenger vehicles. 
The trucking and transit sectors are working to transition their fleets 
and face challenges with range, cost and the limited number of 
manufacturers. On the other hand, in transit, they seem to be 
navigating this fairly well.
    Through innovation and collaboration between the public and private 
sector, I believe the U.S. can overcome these challenges and deliver 
benefits for the economy, the environment, and U.S. workers.
    We are still in the early stages of this major transition.
    This will not be as simple as flipping a switch--apologize for the 
pun--and the federal government will continue to play an important 
role.
    BIL initiatives are starting to fill in gaps in the market and 
support the onshoring of the manufacturing process.
    Congress and the Administration must work with global partners to 
secure supply chains for critical minerals that are essential to EVs 
and EV infrastructure, for instance, a newly announced effort between 
the U.S. and Norway to get a critical minerals agreement.
    Without continued federal support and action, the United States 
risks falling further behind our competitors in a crucial industry--
something no one wants.
    Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here today, and I look 
forward to the discussion.

    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentleman.
    I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for being 
here today.
    Before we get started, I want to take a quick minute to 
explain our lighting system. Seems pretty self-explanatory, but 
there are three lights in front of you. Green means go. But 
unlike with our stoplights, yellow does not mean proceed with 
caution, as you might expect. It actually means hurry it up 
because it is fixing to change, you are running low on time. 
And when you get to the end of that time, you might hear a 
little reminder [tapping gavel] that your light has turned red. 
And we just want to make sure that your remarks are kept to 5 
minutes.
    I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements 
be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 
writing. Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 15 
days for additional comments and information submitted by 
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's 
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5 
minutes.
    And with that, Ms. Okafor, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLY OKAFOR, GENERAL MANAGER OF ZERO EMISSION 
SOLUTIONS, THE LOVE'S FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF NATSO, 
   REPRESENTING AMERICA'S TRAVEL PLAZAS AND TRUCK STOPS, AND 
    SIGMA: AMERICA'S LEADING FUEL MARKETERS; KEVIN COGGIN, 
 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE 
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; TAKI DARAKOS, 
 VICE PRESIDENT OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND FLEET SERVICE, PITT 
OHIO, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; AND NICK 
              NIGRO, FOUNDER, ATLAS PUBLIC POLICY

TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLY OKAFOR, GENERAL MANAGER OF ZERO EMISSION 
SOLUTIONS, THE LOVE'S FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF NATSO, 
   REPRESENTING AMERICA'S TRAVEL PLAZAS AND TRUCK STOPS, AND 
            SIGMA: AMERICA'S LEADING FUEL MARKETERS

    Mrs. Okafor. Thank you, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member 
Holmes Norton, and members of the subcommittee. It is a 
pleasure to be testifying before you this morning.
    My name is Kim Okafor. I am an electrical engineer by 
training, and I have worked for the Love's Family of Companies, 
building out our EV charging network, as well as other low-
carbon building solutions. I am testifying today on behalf of 
NATSO and SIGMA, the leading national trade associations 
representing transportation energy retailers.
    Although Love's is the second largest truckstop company in 
the country, we do more than just sell fuel. We also provide 
services, amenities, and security that drivers want when they 
refuel their vehicles. We are agnostic to what type of fuel we 
sell. We sell gasoline or ethanol or diesel or biodiesel or 
electricity, just like we sell Coke or Pepsi or coffee or tea. 
We sell whatever the driver wants.
    At the risk of stating the obvious, we found that our 
customers want the most reliable, convenient, lowest cost fuel 
available. Our job as fuel retailers is to identify that fuel 
and to deliver it to every community across this country. We 
have supported policies that encourage investments in 
alternative fuels and reward businesses that make those 
investments.
    We are, first and foremost, a real estate company. We 
derive our greatest value from identifying prime locations 
across the country where drivers are most likely to stop when 
they refuel. From there, we simply sell drivers the fuels and 
products that they want in a fast, secure, and convenient 
setting.
    The best way to lower the carbon footprint of 
transportation fuel is through policies that both encourage 
businesses, such as Love's, to offer more alternatives, and 
also make those alternatives more attractive to consumers.
    I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to prioritize 
the consumer in this conversation. Consumers will not purchase 
EVs if they are not confident in the charging network, not just 
how many chargers there are, but where those chargers are 
located.
    Many seem to think that EVs need an entirely new refueling 
network, and that is just not the case. Our industry has spent 
the last 60 years building out a competitive refueling network 
that has adapted over time to align with driver preferences, 
and we want to do this well into the future.
    We have supported and are actively engaged in EV charging 
grant programs such as NEVI. I am happy to say that more than 
half of the NEVI awards awarded to date have gone to fuel 
retail sites. Love's has won approximately $30 million to 
install EV charging stations across our network, and we are 
extremely grateful for this opportunity and take seriously the 
responsibility that comes along with it.
    Public investments in EV charging stations should require 
site hosts to be financially motivated to provide a positive 
consumer experience. This motivation should come from 
anticipated revenue that is realized when the charging stations 
are utilized and not just deployed. Public funds go the 
furthest when they mobilize grant recipients not just to 
install the charging stations, but to provide an ongoing 
positive consumer experience, even after the public investment 
program ends.
    Beyond NEVI, there are other policies that need to be 
reexamined. The rate that I pay for electricity from my 
charging station should be the rate that any other business 
pays. No one should have a leg up on anyone else. This is not 
the case today. Creating a level playing field will invite 
additional investments in EV charging stations and ultimately 
make consumers more willing to buy EVs.
    If I leave you with one thought, let it be this: Any 
changes to the transportation energy market in this country 
must work for the American consumer. If Congress ensures there 
are competitive market dynamics governing EV charging, then 
electrified transportation will be available, affordable, and 
attractive to the driving public. This can be done by 
leveraging the existing refueling network, ensuring that 
Federal incentives are not squandered, and addressing the 
structural electricity market impediments to EV charging.
    Again, I am honored to be testifying before you this 
morning. I appreciate the opportunity. I look forward to 
working together on these important policies and welcome any 
questions that you may have.
    Thank you.
    [Mrs. Okafor's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Kimberly Okafor, General Manager of Zero Emission 
    Solutions, the Love's Family of Companies, on behalf of NATSO, 
   Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops, and SIGMA: 
                    America's Leading Fuel Marketers
                        I. Summary of Testimony
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, and distinguished 
members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on 
Highways and Transit. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this 
important hearing reviewing fleet electrification efforts.
    NATSO and SIGMA members are responsible for more than 80 percent of 
retail sales of motor fuel in the United States. Our industry is 
extraordinarily attuned and responsive to our customers' preferences 
and proclivities. As new fuels enter the market, NATSO and SIGMA 
members want to be able to sell those fuels lawfully, with manageable 
risk, and a clear opportunity to generate a return on investment. While 
agnostic as to what types of fuel we sell to satisfy customer demand, 
fuel retailers do have a bias: we believe low and stable energy prices 
are best for the American consumer and America's industrial and 
geopolitical position across the world.
    When it comes to transportation energy, we have found that our 
customers want the most reliable, convenient, lowest-cost fuel 
available.\1\ Our industry's function is to identify that fuel and 
deliver it to every community in the country. In so doing, we compete 
with one another on price, speed, and quality of service. The retail 
fuels market is the most transparent, competitive commodities market in 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fuel marketers and retailers prefer long markets with a diverse 
array of supply options at our disposal. This dynamic tends to enhance 
consumer choice and inject an additional layer of competition into the 
market. This leads to downward pressure on retail fuel prices, which is 
good for both our customers and the American economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Love's Family of Companies (``Love's''), along with the broader 
retail fuel industry, has over the years integrated a variety of 
alternative fuels into the fuel supply. These investments were made in 
direct response to policy incentives. Our experience has equipped us to 
help policymakers understand--and overcome--the impediments to an 
increasingly electrified passenger fleet.
    NATSO and SIGMA support policies that incentivize fuel retailers to 
invest in alternative fuels, and reward businesses that make those 
investments. Because fuel retailers are fuel agnostic, we are 
invaluable partners to policymakers whose objectives include increasing 
the consumption of alternative fuels at lower prices. With the right 
alignment of policy incentives, fuel retailers are best equipped to 
facilitate a fast, cost-effective transition to alternative fuels--
including electricity--in the coming years. The optimal way to lower 
transportation fuels' carbon footprint is through policies that (i) 
encourage businesses such as Love's to offer more alternatives, and 
(ii) make those alternatives more attractive to consumers.
    Consumers will not purchase electric vehicles (``EVs'') if they do 
not feel confident in the charging network. American drivers expect a 
seamless, predictable public charging experience not unlike their 
current refueling experience, which is grounded in safe, convenient, 
accessible amenities and affordable, competitive pricing. Replicating 
the market dynamics that govern today's liquid retail sector is the 
optimal approach to facilitating greater EV adoption.
    Many seem to think that an electrified passenger fleet requires 
creating an entirely new refueling network. That is not the case. Our 
industry has spent the last sixty years building out a competitive 
refueling infrastructure system that optimizes logistics and maximizes 
customer benefits, and we want to be able to do this long into the 
future.
    Love's and our fellow NATSO and SIGMA members are actively engaging 
in the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (``NEVI'') grant 
program, which was created as part of the bipartisan Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (``IIJA''). Under the NEVI program, federal 
dollars are distributed to states, which in turn develop a grant 
solicitation process and award criteria, and then distribute and 
oversee the funds. If implemented properly, the NEVI program will 
prompt investments that will enable recharging to look and feel similar 
to the existing on-the-go refueling experience. If implemented poorly, 
it will lead to chargers being installed in places that consumers have 
no interest in refueling.
    The NEVI program, along with broader market developments, has 
prompted Love's and others in our industry to invest in EV charging 
infrastructure because we think our customers will increasingly elect 
to purchase electric vehicles in the future. Our industry has therefore 
invested in the personnel necessary to navigate states' different 
application processes and criteria, along with the intellectual capital 
necessary to engage in opaque electricity markets and regulatory 
regimes that were not designed to drive private capital toward EV 
charging stations.
    With a full year of experience navigating the NEVI program, it is 
clear that the program would be more successful if the Federal Highway 
Administration (``FHWA'') strongly encouraged states to: (i) prioritize 
driver amenities and the consumer experience; (ii) require executed 
site host agreements; (iii) prohibit caps on rates of grantees' 
returns; (iv) refrain from overly restricting evaluation areas; and (v) 
ensure adequate time for grant solicitations.
    Even amid federal grant funding for EV charging, there are several 
impediments that make it challenging for fuel retailers to identify a 
pathway to profitability with respect to EV charging. Most of these 
impediments involve an electricity market structure that functions very 
differently than the retail fuel market. As recently as ten years ago, 
for example, approximately 80% of states prohibited anyone other than a 
regulated utility from selling electricity to EV drivers. This made it 
virtually impossible to generate a return on EV charging station 
investments. Those laws have all been reexamined over the last decade, 
and today every state permits EV charging station operators to charge 
EV drivers for electricity.
    More updates are necessary. Changes must be made to electricity 
pricing structures. Most retailers with EV chargers today are forced to 
pay retail prices for electricity with excessive demand charges. There 
is no business case for buying at retail prices and selling at retail 
prices. For the private market to work, there must be a pathway for 
retailers to buy electricity at wholesale prices (i.e., the internal 
transfer cost that utilities have to deliver electricity) without 
punitive demand charges. That would make the economics work not only 
for retailers but, more importantly, for consumers.
    In addition, federal EV charging incentive policies are generally 
limited to relief from upfront capital expenditures associated with 
installing the physical charging equipment. There are no incentives to 
lower station owners' ongoing costs for acquiring and dispensing 
electricity into EVs. This distinguishes electricity from other 
alternative fuels that have had more success gaining commercial 
acceptance: those fuels have federal incentives that make the fuel less 
expensive (such as blending or production tax credits), in addition to 
incentives that make installing the refueling infrastructure less 
expensive.
    If Congress is interested in resolving challenges to fleet 
electrification in the United States, it should proactively redress 
these obstacles rather than assume they will dissipate on their own 
under unachievable mandates that forgo consumer choice.
    Any changes to transportation energy must work for American 
consumers. If Congress ensures there are competitive market dynamics 
governing refueling--including alternatives like electricity--
electrified transportation will be available, affordable, and 
attractive for the driving public. Congress can do this by (i) 
recognizing the importance of harnessing the existing refueling network 
to mitigate so-called ``range anxiety''; (ii) ensuring that existing 
federal incentives for charging infrastructure are not squandered; and 
(iii) addressing structural electricity market impediments to public EV 
charging.
                            II. Introduction
    My name is Kimberly Okafor, and I am the General Manager of Zero 
Emission Solutions at Trillium Energy Solutions and the Love's Family 
of Companies. In this capacity, I oversee our development and 
management of EV charging, hydrogen fueling and solar businesses. I am 
testifying today on behalf of NATSO, Representing America's Travel 
Centers and Truck Stops, and SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel 
Marketers.\2\ NATSO and SIGMA are the leading national trade 
associations representing transportation energy retailers, representing 
more than 80 percent of retail sales of motor fuel in the United 
States. In addition to transportation energy, our industry provides the 
services, amenities, and security that American motorists want when 
they refuel. This is due to the convenient locations of our real estate 
and the highly competitive and transparent pricing we offer. On behalf 
of NATSO and SIGMA, we are eager to work with the Committee to continue 
to support the nation's motorists in the coming decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ NATSO represents more than 5,000 travel plazas and truck stops 
nationwide, comprised of both national chains and small, independent 
locations. SIGMA represents a diverse membership of approximately 260 
independent chain retailers and marketers of motor fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Love's Family of Companies
    Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Love's Travel 
Stops and Country Stores and its affiliated companies employ over 
nearly 40,000 Americans and is still family-owned and operated. Our 
core business is travel stops and convenience stores, with 643 
locations (translating to approximately 50,000 truck parking spaces) in 
42 states. Each year the company adds between 20-25 new locations and 
between 55-125 jobs to each community we join. Love's is a significant 
economic contributor to the communities in which we operate and is 
often the largest taxpayer in those communities. Love's starts giving 
back to the communities that it joins the day a new store opens. Team 
members, who live locally, choose a nonprofit organization to which 
Love's donates $5,000 and each district has an annual donation budget 
moving forward. Through the annual Children's Miracle Network Hospitals 
campaign, and recently added year-round giving at the pin pad, Love's 
has raised more than $54 million for sick and injured children.
    In 2016, Love's acquired the Trillium alternative fuels company and 
has made it a member of the Love's Family of Companies. This year, 
Trillium Energy Solutions celebrates its 30th year. For the first 20 
years, Trillium projects mostly involved designing, building, and 
operating a network of compressed natural gas fueling stations for 
Fortune 500 companies' trucking fleets and public entities (such as 
transit agencies). Since the Love's acquisition, we have aggressively 
grown our renewable natural gas and hydrogen businesses and, for the 
last several years, have been developing EV charging infrastructure at 
Love's locations across the country. Love's expects to add multiple 
fast chargers at approximately 100 of its locations over the next few 
years.
    Love's locations provide professional truck drivers and passenger 
vehicles with 24-hour access to purchase transportation energy, coffee, 
and restaurant offerings, along with more than 430 truck service 
centers for professional drivers. Our locations are open 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week, and provide restrooms, food and beverage 
options, sufficient lighting, and security. We always have on-site 
employees whose responsibilities include contacting law enforcement or 
EMS in the event of an emergency. After natural disasters occur, our 
stores are often the first up and running to provide necessary services 
to motorists and first responders.
B. Our Experience Bringing Alternative Fuels to Market
    Over the past twenty-five years, Love's and our broader industry 
have made significant investments in bringing alternative fuels to 
market. Many seem to think that a transition to electric transportation 
energy requires creating an entirely new refueling network. That is not 
the case. The U.S. already has in place a robust, highly competitive 
refueling network. Fuel retailers are in the business of providing 
competitively priced fuel and services to their customers. Unlike power 
generators, refiners, or biofuels producers, fuel retailers are 
agnostic to the type of fuel they sell at their locations; their goal 
is to provide customers what they want, where they want it, when they 
want it, and at a price they are willing to pay.
    For any alternative fuel solution to work, it must promote 
competitive market dynamics and work within (not against) consumers' 
existing behavioral patterns and proclivities. Policies designed to 
encourage private sector investment in alternative fuel infrastructure, 
including (but not limited to) EV charging stations, must be predicated 
upon unambiguous policy signals that such alternatives create 
attractive economic propositions for our industry and for our 
customers.
    Love's and the industry's investments in alternative fuels have 
been the direct result of federal and state policies that are designed 
to make the alternatives more attractive to consumers. Below is a brief 
overview of some of these investments and incentive schemes:
            i. EV Charging
    Love's offers publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure at 
dozens of our locations and is actively investing in this space. We 
have also supported fleets with EV charging design and installation 
from California to Florida. Love's customizable power portfolio enables 
fleets to source electricity as a ``fuel'' from the grid, solar panels, 
energy storage, or an on-site generator powered by RNG.
    At the federal level, the Department of Transportation's 
(``DOT's'') NEVI and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (``CFI'') 
grant programs, and the ``30C'' refueling infrastructure tax credit, 
help offset certain upfront capital expenditures associated with 
installing EV charging infrastructure.
            ii. Ethanol, Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
    Ethanol is a renewable fuel made from corn that can be blended into 
gasoline as an octane booster and to reduce a vehicle's GHG emissions. 
Biodiesel is made from animal fats, vegetable oils, or recycled 
restaurant grease. It can be blended with diesel up to 20% (``B20'') 
and used as a drop-in fuel in diesel vehicles. Renewable diesel is also 
made from animal fats, vegetable oils, or recycled restaurant grease, 
but the production process makes it chemically identical to petroleum 
diesel. This enables it to be used as a substitute, rather than a 
blend. Biodiesel and renewable diesel achieve between a 50% and more 
than 80% lifecycle reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Love's is an 
industry leader in blending and selling all of these low-carbon fuels.
    At the federal level, incentives for these fuels consist of: 
Financial support from the Department of Agriculture under the Higher 
Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (``HBIIP'') for the 
infrastructure (storage tanks, blending equipment and dispensers) 
necessary to bring these fuels to market; the Renewable Fuel Standard 
(``RFS''); and the biodiesel tax credit. The RFS is a permanent program 
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), whereas 
the biodiesel tax credit expires at the end of 2024. It is essential 
that Congress extend the biodiesel tax credit before the end of this 
year to avoid surrendering the emission reductions that technology 
provides.
            iii. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (``DEF'')
    Diesel engine manufacturers use DEF in conjunction with Selective 
Catalytic Reduction (``SCR'') technology to reduce nitrous oxide 
(``NOx'') emissions from exhaust gases. Love's sells DEF at all of our 
truckstops and operates more than a dozen DEF production terminals 
across the United States. At the federal level, incentives for DEF 
consist primarily of Clean Air Act and EPA requirements for mitigating 
NOx and particulate matter from heavy-duty trucks.
            iv. Compressed Natural Gas (``CNG'') and Renewable Natural 
                    Gas (``RNG'')
    CNG is a clean-burning fuel produced by harnessing methane from 
shale formations throughout the United States. RNG is a renewable fuel 
made from the methane that is released when organic waste (e.g., 
livestock manure, food waste, etc.) breaks down. CNG and RNG are 
utilized to fuel vehicles that are designed to run on natural gas. 
Love's is an industry leader in marketing, selling, and helping fleets 
manage CNG and RNG vehicles. At the federal level, incentives for these 
fuels consist primarily of the Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credit 
(``AFTC'') and the RFS.
            v. Solar and Onsite Power Generation
    Love's provides full-service design, installation, and maintenance 
for on-site solar and power generation projects, enabling customers to 
reduce their energy bills and improve resiliency. At the federal level, 
the Investment Tax Credit (``ITC'') is the most important incentive for 
solar technology. Additionally, ``net metering'' throughout the country 
drives solar economics by crediting solar energy system owners for the 
electricity they add to the grid.
            vi. Clean Hydrogen
    Hydrogen is a zero-emission fuel that is used in fuel cell 
vehicles. Love's is an industry leader in developing hydrogen vehicle 
fueling stations and is continuing to expand its portfolio. At the 
federal level, the ``45V'' clean hydrogen production tax credit, along 
with the DOT's CFI grant program and the Department of Energy's 
``Hydrogen Hubs'' investments comprise the primary financial incentives 
for hydrogen investment.
    Our experience at Love's is similar to that of dozens of other 
retail fuel companies across the United States. As an industry, we have 
adapted in response to policy incentives to sell lower carbon intensity 
fuels. Our customers have benefited from our industry's ability to 
offer a suite of refueling options.
     III. Fuel Retailers Are Eager To Be Collaborative Partners in 
                      Decarbonizing Transportation
    To be most effective and expeditious, decarbonization efforts 
should incentivize (rather than mandate) the private sector to invest 
in the desired refueling technologies. Any alternative, including 
electricity, should be offered in an open, competitive market that 
gives American consumers the fullest economic benefits of robust price 
competition. The market is extraordinarily capable of efficiently and 
expeditiously bringing the lowest-cost fuels to market. Conversely, it 
is stubbornly reluctant to consume more expensive or less convenient 
alternative fuels.
    Because we are fuel agnostic, fuel retailers are surrogates for the 
consumer and invaluable partners for policymakers whose objectives 
include increasing consumption of alternative fuels. We believe more of 
our consumers will demand electricity as a fuel over the coming years, 
and we want to be able to sell consumers whatever fuel they want to 
purchase.
A. Technology-Neutrality
    Our industry has ample experience bringing alternative fuels 
(including electricity) to market. Based on that experience, it is 
abundantly clear that clean fuel policies must assess low-carbon fuels 
and vehicle technologies comprehensively. Different technologies should 
compete with one another to reduce emissions and appeal to consumers. 
This will maximize our chances of expeditiously achieving desired 
environmental and economic outcomes. Proven decarbonization 
technologies such as biofuels, for example, can deliver material 
emissions and fuel economy improvements using existing infrastructure, 
existing vehicles, and working within consumers' existing behavior. We 
cannot ignore policies that incentivize these low carbon solutions.
    NATSO and SIGMA encourage policymakers, including federal agencies, 
to take a technology-neutral approach to decarbonization. Incentives 
for alternative fuel technologies should be tied to those technologies' 
lifecycle environmental attributes rather than the underlying 
technology itself. No one solution will decarbonize transportation 
energy. The best solution today may be surpassed by subsequent 
ingenuity and innovation. Mandating a specific technology will 
ultimately stifle innovation and progress rather than advance it. A 
single technology approach also undermines energy security.
    Less expensive, low-carbon solutions for today can be pursued 
alongside more aspirational objectives for the future. Policymakers 
should leverage existing infrastructure to encourage customers to 
gravitate to new types of fuels and vehicles.\3\ Love's and the rest of 
NATSO and SIGMA's membership and our upstream partners in the pipeline 
and terminal industries have spent more than sixty years building out a 
refueling infrastructure that optimizes logistics and maximizes 
consumer benefits. Deployment of new technology that compliments, 
rather than competes with, this infrastructure will (all else being 
equal) be less expensive and thus more likely to ensure consumer 
satisfaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ This applies both to real estate sites for EV charging 
stations--where it is more efficient to leverage existing refueling 
sites and driver amenities rather than building new ones--as well as 
the broader energy and supply chain landscape (e.g., leveraging the 
existing energy pipeline network rather than building a new one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the heavy-duty long-haul space, for example, we believe that the 
commercial and emission-reduction opportunities in hydrogen are more 
crystallized and compelling than is the case with electricity. 
Transitioning to battery electric trucks would adversely impact 
commercial trucking operations by extending refueling times and 
injecting a patchwork of electricity tariffs and regulations into what 
today is an efficient private commercial trucking market. It also 
requires expensive grid upgrades, with uncertain time horizons and 
fluid cost projections. Hydrogen used in over-the-road trucking, on the 
other hand, could leverage existing refueling infrastructure and a 
supply chain familiar to the industry--centralized production, 
transportation to market and retail fuel sales through a nationwide 
network of well-functioning and convenient refueling locations. In 
addition, the time it takes to refuel a hydrogen truck is similar to 
the time it takes to refuel a diesel truck, causing minimal operational 
disruptions compared with battery electric trucks that take longer to 
refuel.
    When addressing transportation emissions and their contribution to 
climate change, there are no perfect answers. All vehicles have 
emissions associated with their manufacture and use. In order to 
understand the benefits and costs of any clean fuel policy, we need to 
examine and account for the full lifecycle emissions of all alternative 
fuels and vehicle technologies and where possible harness the 
infrastructure that is at our disposal.
IV. Barriers to EV Charging Investments and Federal Efforts To Overcome 
                                  Them
A. Fuel Retailers are the Solution to Range Anxiety
    Observers of vehicle trends and consumer behavior agree that one of 
the major factors deterring consumers from transitioning to EVs is 
concern about where they will (and will not) be able to ``refuel'' 
those vehicles.\4\ This ``range anxiety'' is such a strong sentiment 
that consumers often decidedly underestimate the availability of EV 
charging infrastructure that already exists today. The widespread 
availability of EV charging advertised on the familiar large price 
signs at fuel retailers' locations as motorists drive down the streets 
in their communities and traverse America's highways will effectively 
relieve EV range anxiety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The extent to which EV penetration is outpacing public charging 
station deployment is changing the landscape of the EV market. A 2022 
national, representative survey by Consumer Reports and the University 
of Chicago found that 61 percent of Americans point to ``not enough 
public charging stations'' as the primary issue preventing them from 
buying or leasing an EV. In fact, 2022 was the first year in which the 
study found that `access to charging' exceeded `upfront cost' as the 
greatest barrier to consumers purchasing an EV. The same survey found 
that 45 percent of Americans say that easy access to public fast-
charging stations would be the most likely variable to affirmatively 
encourage them to buy or lease an EV. See Consumer Reports, ``Battery 
Electric Vehicles and Low Carbon Fuel: Overview of Methodology,'' April 
2022, available at https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/
content/dam/surveys/
Consumer_Reports_BEV%20AND%20LCF%20SURVEY_18_FEBRUARY_2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To have any chance at success, the refueling experience for 
alternative fuels should be as similar as possible to today's refueling 
experience and offer the services and amenities that consumers have 
come to expect alongside such a network (e.g., security, foodservice 
facilities, restrooms, lighting, etc.). Fuel retailers are best 
positioned to provide alternative sources of transportation energy 
because we have a keen understanding of on-the-go refueling preferences 
based on decades of studying them. This fact is essential when it comes 
to adoption of EVs or other alternative fuel vehicles, where what has 
been a quick ``fill-up'' becomes a 30-minute charging experience.\5\ 
Fuel retailers who seek to maintain their share of the market will be 
forced to compete on the services and amenities they offer during this 
experience. This is a positive market dynamic for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Currently, it takes the driver of a passenger vehicle 
approximately two to three minutes to complete a refueling experience. 
It takes the driver of an EV, on the other hand, 20 to 40 minutes to 
recharge at a Direct Current Fast Charger (``DCFC''), depending upon 
the vehicle and the capacity of the charger available, as well as how 
many other EVs are recharging at the specific site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EV Charging Needs Price Competition
    Our industry provides approximately 125,000 locations across the 
country for drivers to refuel. This refueling capacity drives 
aggressive price competition which, in turn, keeps prices as low as 
possible for consumers. Consumers know how much a gallon of gas costs 
at a location--either due to a big price sign on the street or some 
type of fuel price comparison resource on a mobile device--before they 
decide to refuel. This forces retailers to shave every penny they can 
off of the price of a gallon of fuel to compete for market share. EV 
drivers should get the benefits of that remarkable price competition.
    Recently enacted federal incentives have prompted fuel retailers to 
devote increasing resources to exploring EV charging business 
opportunities. Through that process, we have engaged with electric 
utilities to ascertain the viability of installing the requisite 
electrical infrastructure to accommodate multiple fast chargers at a 
particular site. We have also engaged with automakers and commercial 
fleets to better understand the likely demand curve for EV charging 
services.
    The unambiguous story we are being told by these various segments 
of the value chain is that the pace at which this new technology will 
penetrate the market is inconsistent with the timelines adopted by the 
Biden Administration. Although the obstacles present today can 
undoubtedly be overcome by innovation or other market developments, in 
our pursuit of clean energy we should resist the temptation to abandon 
realistic timelines and expectations. Congress cannot disregard less 
comprehensive yet nevertheless environmentally compelling solutions 
that can be pursued while a longer process unfolds.
    At the moment, there are several impediments that make it 
challenging for private businesses to identify a pathway to 
profitability with respect to EV charging. Most of these impediments 
involve an electricity market structure that was not designed for--and 
is incompatible with--the retail fuel market. Foremost among these 
market impediments is antiquated electricity pricing schemes that many 
utilities are reluctant to modernize for purposes of EV charging 
stations. Some states are exacerbating this problem by allowing 
utilities to pass through the costs of EV charging stations to all of 
the utilities' respective customers on monthly utility bills, rather 
than having EV drivers pay for the costs of refueling their own 
vehicles. On the other hand, several states are beginning to forbid 
this practice in order to catalyze private investment (comparable to 
the developments over the last decade by which states began permitting 
non-utilities to sell electricity to EV drivers).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Recently, Nebraska became the final state to allow non-
utilities to sell electricity to EV drivers and included in that 
legislation guardrails to prompt competition in electricity rate 
structures. NATSO and SIGMA support legislative efforts such as this 
and encourage FHWA to further leverage the NEVI program to not just 
invest public funds, but to drive policies that will shape the future 
of EV charging markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps of greatest import, there are no purchasing options or 
pricing structures for retailers to provide electricity as a fuel. 
There are generally no wholesale purchasing options or pricing 
structures for retailers to provide electricity as a fuel. Retailers 
with EV chargers today are forced to pay retail prices for electricity 
with very high demand charges.\7\ There is no business case for buying 
electricity at retail prices and selling electricity at retail prices. 
If this continues and becomes the prevalent model, this country will 
risk replacing one of the most price-transparent and price-competitive 
consumer markets in the world (retail fuel pricing) with one of the 
least price-transparent and price-competitive markets in the United 
States (utility electricity pricing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ A demand charge is an amount added to a monthly utility bill 
that is not based on the amount of electricity used by that business. 
Instead, the charge typically is based on the highest rate of usage the 
business has during the two 15-minute periods in a month in which the 
business draws electricity from the grid at the highest pace. Fast EV 
chargers inevitably prompt exceedingly high demand charges. This can 
add thousands of dollars to a fuel retailer's monthly utility bill that 
it cannot possibly recover from drivers charging their cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Businesses in our industry are making these investments today, but 
we are struggling to make a profitable return on our investments. 
Instead, we are using this opportunity to learn about the market in 
anticipation of future growth. It is a mistake to assume that the 
presence of EV chargers at our locations today means that market 
problems have been solved. We have a long way to go to ensure there is 
a business case for EV charging investments such that the 
infrastructure can be built to the scale that is needed to support 
future EV drivers.
C. Our Experience With the NEVI Program
    The retail fuel industry supports the NEVI program and is actively 
participating in the program in almost every state. The industry's 
collective experience with NEVI over the last year has varied greatly 
from state to state, however. The divergent approaches among the 
various states threaten NEVI's long-term success. The market simply 
cannot build an efficient network of charging stations across the 
continental United States if the business case for installing chargers 
varies drastically from state-to-state. We believe Federal Highway 
Administration (``FHWA'') should be far less accommodating of such a 
balkanized approach to EV charging markets; instead, it should more 
assertively demand consumer-centric uniformity across the states as it 
considers each respective state's EV charging plan. FHWA should use the 
NEVI program as an opportunity to prompt state-level policy reforms 
that are necessary to create a robust, ubiquitous market for EV 
charging.
    Specifically, public investments in fast charging stations should 
require site hosts to be financially motivated to offer positive 
consumer experiences. This incentive to provide a positive consumer 
experience should emanate from revenue that is realized when charging 
stations are utilized (as opposed to deployed). NEVI dollars can go the 
furthest when they mobilize grant recipients to not only install 
charging stations but to provide an ongoing, positive consumer 
experience for EV drivers even after the NEVI program lapses.
            a. Importance of Prioritizing Amenities
    The more attractive and ubiquitous this experience is for 
consumers, the more comfortable they will be buying EVs. This, in turn, 
will further incentivize charging station investments even in the 
absence of government support. States that recognize and prioritize the 
importance of the consumer experience (e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania) are 
installing chargers alongside driver amenities. Other states conducted 
only high-level assessments of surrounding amenities; in those states 
far fewer of the awards were co-located with 24-7 amenities, despite 
being sited in close proximity to 24-7 locations. There is no reason 
for such disparate approaches and outcomes to be embedded in a grant 
program that is designed to create a single, harmonious network of EV 
charging stations.
            b. Executed Site-Host Agreements
    It is also essential that states do not issue grant awards to 
applicants without committed site host agreements with site owners. 
States have seen proposals with candidate sites that rely upon future 
infrastructure or development; this creates a significant risk that 
those developments may not advance as anticipated.\8\ Instead, states 
should be required to conduct detailed, in-person assessments of a 
grantee's proposed site. Awarding grants to applicants without executed 
site agreements not only risks allotting funding to projects that will 
not come to fruition, it encourages entities like charging station 
companies (including Tesla) to find less stable, but more passive, site 
host arrangements to simplify commercial relationships. (In one 
instance, a NEVI grant was awarded to an applicant who plans to site 
the chargers at a liquor store.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See, e.g., Ohio Department of Transportation RFP #556-23, 
Proposal Debrief (August 1, 2023) (``Claims regarding hours of 
accessibility to restrooms for certain businesses (e.g., hotels) were 
not accurate due to time and manner restrictions (e.g., doors were 
locked at certain times and required room keys for access). . . . 
Proposed site amenities were often at ``off-site'' businesses that were 
not accessibly using pedestrian-friendly infrastructure (e.g., 
sidewalks, signalized crossings, etc.).'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            c. Capping Rate of Returns
    FHWA should not allow states to issue caps on rate-of-return. Some 
have instituted an artificial cap on returns on investment (with 
``excess'' funds remitted to the states' respective department of 
transportation). These guardrails might make sense for traditional 
infrastructure projects, but they do not for programs designed to 
incentivize private investment to flow to a nascent market. Caps on the 
rate of return are dissuading private businesses from applying for NEVI 
grants in states that institute them. A competitive market does not 
accommodate uncompetitive pricing; such pricing would invite new market 
entrants to offer a more attractive proposition to consumers. (This, 
incidentally, is how the existing retail fuel industry was built.). 
When charging becomes more profitable as utilization rates increase, 
NEVI awardees will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to 
privately funded chargers. Placing a cap on returns will also mean that 
less revenue will be available for future upgrades and dissuade the 
retailer from reinvesting profits back into charging capacity to keep 
up with competition (e.g., investing in faster charging speeds or the 
installation of additional chargers.)
            d. Overly Restrictive Evaluation Areas
    FHWA should dissuade states from unnecessarily restricting 
evaluation areas. Some states, for example, use a ``grouping'' approach 
to their NEVI awards: Instead of rewarding the best individual sites, 
these states will award a whole highway segment to one bidder. This 
approach makes it virtually impossible for consumer-oriented fuel 
retailers who are inextricably tethered to fixed real estate to apply; 
grants will inevitably be awarded to charging station networks and/or 
public utilities that will have little financial incentive to create a 
positive consumer charging experience.
            e. Adequate Response Time
    Finally, FHWA should ensure that states provide adequate response 
time for grant solicitations (90-120 days is appropriate); establish 
clear grant application expectations and engage in open communication 
with potential applications in advance (e.g., hosting webinars before 
releasing a grant solicitation); offer one-on-one meetings before, and 
throughout, the grant solicitation process; and provide easy access to 
maps of locations being evaluated for potential awards. There should be 
as much uniformity as possible between the grant application processes 
from state-to-state.
                             V. Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. On 
behalf of NATSO and SIGMA, I look forward to continuing to work with 
Congress on these issues, and am happy to answer any questions you may 
have.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Ms. Okafor. Very well done.
    Before we introduce our second witness, I want to recognize 
Representative Ezell to give a short introduction.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am excited about today, being here, and pleased to honor 
and introduce one of our witnesses, a lifetime resident of 
Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District with over 47 years 
of private and public experience in ground transportation, my 
friend, Mr. Kevin Coggin.
    Mr. Coggin has a passion for improving transit across the 
country and has worked in the industry since his high school 
graduation. In 1989, he joined the Coast Transit Authority as 
director of the maintenance department, where his leadership 
skills and personality quickly made him a company standout. It 
took less than two decades before he would be picked by his 
peers to run the Coast Transit Authority, CTA, as the executive 
director.
    Today, Mr. Coggin boasts 47 years of experience--he is only 
50--in the industry, and he has just done a wonderful job. As 
anyone familiar with south Mississippi knows, this includes 
experiences essential for navigating devastating natural 
disasters, operating tight financial budgets, and finding ways 
to connect individuals across our hospitality State.
    I am excited my colleagues on this committee can learn from 
leaders in my home district. Again, I would like to welcome Mr. 
Coggin and thank him for agreeing--and thank the committee for 
inviting him here--to testify at the subcommittee hearing 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Ezell.
    Mr. Coggin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 TESTIMONY OF KEVIN COGGIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COAST TRANSIT 
     AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION 
                     ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

    Mr. Coggin. Subcommittee Chairman Crawford and Ranking 
Member Norton, thank you for this opportunity to discuss public 
transit fleet electrification efforts.
    I am Kevin Coggin, executive director of Coast Transit 
Authority in Gulfport, Mississippi.
    Coast Transit is a midsized urban transportation system 
serving the three coastal counties of Mississippi, in addition 
to connecting three bordering States. I am here representing 
more than 1,200 Community Transportation Association of America 
members, the majority of which operate rural, small city, and 
Tribal transit systems.
    In my 47 years of experience in the private and public 
transportation industry, including 35 years managing 
alternative fuel vehicle operations, I have been through 
hurricanes, economic recessions, oilspills, and the pandemic. I 
have served in my current role for 21 years and was director 
when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the middle of our 
service area.
    Coast Transit provides fixed route, on demand, and work 
commute services commonly known as vanpool. This year, 
ridership in our system is back to pre-pandemic levels. We are 
projected to provide 775,000 trips in fiscal year 2024. 
Operations are funded by the FTA, local and State governments, 
and self-generated income. We operate our agency without an 
annual operating deficit.
    Coast Transit plays a vital role in the daily lives of our 
ridership. Our riders rely on our system to bring them to work, 
school, medical facilities, essential locations like 
supermarkets, and tourism attractions.
    Coast Transit has a mixed fleet of 54 vehicles. We choose 
low-emission propane in our small to midsized vehicles and 
hybrid or zero-emission battery-electric for our large heavy-
duty buses. We are currently replacing all of our aging diesel 
buses with cleaner alternatives.
    A mixed fleet is our solution to balancing cost, system 
effectiveness, and resiliency in reaching our sustainability 
goals. And that is the most important message I will bring to 
you today.
    Smaller transit operators like mine and those represented 
by CTAA all around the country need flexibility to make 
decisions at a local level based on geography, weather, and 
service. Coast Transit will meet a 50-percent emission 
reduction by 2030 with our mixed fleet of vehicles. Electric is 
part of our plan, but we cannot commit to pure electric.
    In 2021, we purchased one 35-foot battery-electric bus for 
$800,000. The same vehicle today would cost my agency $1.2 
million. We have 12 small buses currently on order to arrive in 
the next year, all of which are propane-fueled.
    Systems need choices. Our battery-electric buses work well 
within the confines of our fixed route, but current price and 
range issues make this technology much less effective and 
unsustainably expensive for the other parts of our service.
    Public transportation is already reducing overall emissions 
by lowering the number of vehicles on the road. We must avoid 
any Federal mandates requiring the adoption of only zero-
emission technologies and continue to allow eligibility for 
low-emission vehicles that make sense in my community and 
thousands more like it across the Nation.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's investment in public 
transit, as well as the flexibility and funding, both low- and 
zero-emission buses, has helped us build back our ridership, 
acquire new equipment, and complete important local capital 
projects.
    As Congress begins to look at surface transportation policy 
to follow the BIL, I ask that you consider the impact of the 
extraordinary price increases of zero-emission technologies on 
local support for vital public transit in smaller cities and 
rural areas.
    Coming up with 15 percent or 20 percent local match on 
buses, both large and small, when prices have nearly doubled in 
the past few years is a big challenge for CTA and many other 
CTAA members. It strains the local budgets of the communities 
we serve. Most of our riders are not interested in the 
specifics of our buses, but they value reliability, reduced 
noise, especially in those coastal routes, and our dedication 
to promoting a healthy environment and community through 
readily available flexible public transportation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss fleet 
electrification and public transit with you today. I look 
forward to answering questions from committee members.
    [Mr. Coggin's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Kevin Coggin, Executive Director, Coast Transit 
  Authority, on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of 
                                America
    Coast Transit Authority (CTA) is a mid-sized 5307 urban public 
transit agency providing various types of transportation services in 
the Gulf Coast region of Mississippi. CTA serves the Gulfport Urbanized 
Zone Area (UZA) that has a population of 215,000+ and encompasses three 
counties and seven cities. CTA also serves the Pascagoula UZA with a 
population of 50,000+. CTA is the direct recipient of Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) 5307, 5310, and 5339a funding for the Gulfport 
Urbanized Zone Area. CTA is the designated recipient FTA 5307 and 5339a 
funding for the Pascagoula UZA. The CTA service area does not have 
serious air quality issues and is not in a non-attainment area.
    Mr. Kevin Coggin, the current Executive Director, has been managing 
fleet acquisition, maintenance, and operations since his employment at 
CTA began in September 1989. He was named Executive Director of CTA in 
2003 and helped steer the agency through Hurricane Katrina's 
devastating impact in 2005, while supporting the areas evacuation and 
relief efforts. CTA's approach to fleet acquisition is to acquire 
vehicles that will meet the operational service needs and implement 
alternative fuel technologies to gradually reduce emissions over time. 
During this time span CTA has closely watched the advancement of engine 
and alternative fuel technologies and assessed what technologies are 
appropriate for CTA. The initial acquisition cost; and life cycle 
operating costs of vehicles are key. The cost of building and operating 
on-site fuel facilities is also a major consideration.
    The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) is a 
national nonprofit association of more than 1,200 organizations and 
individuals who believe that mobility is a basic human right. Mobility 
directly impacts the quality of life of people in communities across 
the nation by providing access to work and education to life-sustaining 
health care and human services programs to shopping and visiting with 
family and friends. CTAA members are in the business of moving people 
efficiently and cost-effectively. CTAA staff, board and state/tribal 
delegates are dedicated to ensuring that all Americans, regardless of 
age, ability, geography or income, have access to safe, affordable and 
reliable transportation.
                        Fixed-Route Bus Services
    CTA currently operates a fixed-route bus service system along eight 
routes using 15 buses that operate seven days a week serving the St. 
Martin community in Jackson County, the cities of Ocean Springs, 
D'Iberville, Biloxi, and Gulfport. The fixed-route bus service is 
projected to provide 665,000 trips in FY 2024. CTA fixed-route 
ridership is 55 percent daily riders, 25 percent work-related, 23 
percent shopping. Eighty percent of our passengers do not own a car, 
and 71 percent earn less than $25,000 a year. CTA has a diverse 
ridership base consisting of workers, retirees, seniors, and tourists. 
The majority of CTA fixed-route local citizen ridership are the working 
poor that do not own a car.
                        Demand-Response Services
    CTA provides a variety of transportation services in the demand-
response category. Eighteen vehicles of various sizes and types are 
used to provide these services. Within this demand-response service, 
CTA provides senior citizen transportation for the Harrison County and 
Hancock County seniors programs. Transportation is provided for daily 
trips to Senior Citizen Centers, medical appointments, and grocery 
shopping. This service is projected to provide 31,500 trips in FY2024. 
These services allow our senior citizens to maintain independence and 
wellbeing.
    CTA provides fixed-route related complimentary ADA paratransit 
service. Riders living within three-quarters of a mile of an existing 
fixed route who have a disability that prevents them from using fixed-
route service are eligible to use this curb-to-curb service. This 
service is projected to provide 6,100 trips in FY2024.
    CTA provides an ADA Plus service. In addition to the complimentary 
ADA service, CTA provides service for people with disabilities who live 
in the rural areas of Jackson and Harrison counties. This service is 
projected to provide 4,800 trips in FY2024.
    CTA provides contract services for access to health care. CTA 
contracts with local mental and physical health care providers to 
transport their patients to and from health care facilities. This 
service is projected to provide 22,500 trips in FY2024.
    CTA provides hurricane evacuation services. CTA is a member of the 
Harrison County Emergency Management Agency and is the designated ESF-1 
manager in the Emergency Operations Center. Emergency Support Function 
1 (ESF-1) plays a crucial role in coordinating transportation-related 
activities during emergencies and disasters. CTA is responsible for 
providing evacuation transportation for all residents of Harrison 
County in the event of a hurricane or tropical storm.
                         Work Commute Services
    The CTA Coast Commuter work commute service is a transportation 
service provided by private contractor Enterprise Commute. It is a 
turnkey service with Enterprise providing all management, operations, 
and vehicles. Coast Commuter provides work commute service along the I-
10 corridor bringing workers into Mississippi and reverse commute out 
of Mississippi in the areas of the panhandle of Florida and the lower 
areas of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Thirty-three vehicles are 
currently in operation consisting of a combination of SUVs, minivans, 
and 15-passenger vans. Coast Commuter is projected to provide 75,000 
work related trips in FY2024. In addition to providing work commuters 
with a low-cost, safe, dependable work transportation option, it has a 
positive impact on reducing vehicle pollution.


                          CTA's Vehicle Fleet
    To meet all of its operational demands CTA operates a fleet of 46 
revenue vehicles and 8 support vehicles. The fleet includes various 
vehicle sizes and types of fuel. The revenue fleet consists of vans, 
small cut-a-way (body-on-chassis) buses, medium-sized trolley buses, 
and 30,, 35,, 40, heavy-duty buses. The current fuels used are 
gasoline, diesel, propane hybrid electric, diesel hybrid electric, and 
battery electric bus. Today, 20 percent of the fleet is gas engine, 52 
percent are diesel engine, 27 percent are propane fuel engine, and 1 
percent is battery electric. Twelve new propane buses are currently on 
order to replace diesel buses. The reason for this diversity of vehicle 
types and fuels is due to budgetary constraints, historical phase-in of 
alternative fuel technologies, and, more recently, lack of availability 
of vehicles due to supply chain issues.
                          The Future CTA Fleet
    CTA's long-range plan is to phase out all diesel-engine and 
gasoline-engine revenue vehicles. They will be replaced with either 
low-emission or zero-emission vehicles. Small cut-a-way (body-on-
chassis) buses and trolley buses will be propane-fueled and large 
heavy-duty buses will be either hybrid electric or battery-electric 
zero emission.
    CTA chose propane for support and small medium sized revenue 
vehicles for the following reasons.
      The initial cost is less than battery electric vehicles 
(BEB). BEB vehicles cost significantly more than low-emission buses; 
they require expensive chargers; and improved (and costly) main 
electric supply feeds to chargers.
      There are no range issues like those associated with 
battery electric.
      There is no cost to CTA for the on-site fueling 
infrastructure.
      Life cycle operating costs of fuel and maintenance are 
significantly less than diesel engine vehicles.
      It allows CTA to fully meet its goal of reducing tail 
pipe emissions by 50 percent by 2030 in a cost-efficient manner.
                  Considerations for the Subcommittee
    As the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Highways 
and Transit Subcommittee begins to look at reauthorizing the nation's 
surface transportation policies, Mr. Coggin and the Community 
Transportation Association of America ask that the following policy 
recommendations be considered.
    Public Transit has Always Been a Leader in Emissions Reduction--
Increased investment in all forms of public transit is the best way to 
lower emissions. Every day, Coast Transit Authority reduces the number 
of personal vehicles on the roads throughout its service area. CTA's 
ability to lower local tailpipe emissions is best demonstrated by 
filling up the seats on our vehicles.
    No Federal Mandates--Please continue to allow for local decision 
making by public transit systems whose leadership and Boards best 
understand their communities and their passengers. There are a variety 
of ways that transit agencies of all sizes can (and do) lower 
emissions. One-size-fits-all approaches that mandate any single type of 
zero or low-emission technology disregards system budgets, local 
emergency management requirements, local energy availability, rolling 
stock availability and many additional factors.
    Continue Investing in Both Low- and Zero-Emission Buses--Small and 
mid-sized transit agencies around the nation like CTA need viable 
vehicle options. Operationally, many transit agencies operating outside 
dense, urban areas routinely provide trips that exceed the current 
range of battery-electric vehicles; smaller city, rural and tribal 
areas do not yet have adequate charging infrastructure; and, cost-
effective battery electric smaller buses are not widely available 
today. Please continue to set aside a minimum of 25 percent of Section 
5339c grant funds for propane, CNG and hybrid vehicles that allow 
smaller transit operators the ability to reduce emissions in cost-
effective, operationally-sound ways. CTAA is concerned that the 
availability of low-emission vehicles, which many of its members 
effectively operate around the country, is threatened by the dramatic 
reduction in transit vehicle manufacturers. Additionally, it is vital 
to not only continue--but to grow--dedicated federal investment in bus 
purchases. In the past two funding cycles, the Federal Transit 
Administration has received a total of more than $16 billion in bus 
funding requests for $3.3 billion in available funding.
    Help with Local Match--Smaller city, rural and tribal transit 
operators are struggling to find the required local share to match the 
federal investment to properly maintain a state of good repair within 
their vehicle fleets. The extraordinary price increases the industry 
has seen, particularly for zero-emission buses, places even greater 
strain on already strained local funding sources.

    Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Very well done. Right on time. 
Probably not by accident, right?
    Mr. Darakos, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 
testimony.

     TESTIMONY OF TAKI DARAKOS, VICE PRESIDENT OF VEHICLE 
  MAINTENANCE AND FLEET SERVICE, PITT OHIO, ON BEHALF OF THE 
                 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS

    Mr. Darakos. Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is Taki Darakos, and I am the vice 
president of vehicle maintenance and fleet service at PITT 
OHIO.
    PITT OHIO is a freight transportation provider that 
operates in 14 States out of 25 depots and employs more than 
3,500 people. Our fleet consists of over 1,550 company-owned 
tractors and boxtrucks.
    Trucking has a positive story to tell about the progress we 
have made to reduce emissions, and PITT OHIO is tremendously 
proud to be a part of it. We have a longstanding commitment to 
environmental responsibility on behalf of our employees, 
customers, and the communities where we operate.
    Over the past several decades, trucking has cut nitrogen 
oxide and particulate matter tailpipe emissions by a stunning 
99 percent. As a result, 60 of today's trucks emit what just 1 
truck did in 1988. This progress was made possible through 
innovation and collaboration. A joint effort between the EPA 
and the trucking industry established aggressive yet achievable 
targets on realistic timelines.
    For this reason, PITT OHIO joined many industry 
stakeholders in supporting the Federal phase 1 and phase 2 
greenhouse gas emissions regulations. These rules achieve 
carbon emissions improvements, as well as deliver real-world 
fuel savings by using proven technologies. Regrettably, EPA's 
phase 3 regulations released this year break from that history 
of successful partnership. This unworkable mandate ignores 
operational realities and places a costly burden on trucking 
companies.
    Currently, there are extremely limited quantities of 
battery-electric trucks on the road. In fact, less than 1 
percent of trucks registered on the road today are zero-
emission trucks. In 2022, after meticulous evaluation and 
planning with our truck manufacturer, we put into service our 
first battery-electric trucks. They cost 2\1/2\ to 3\1/2\ times 
more than traditional diesel-powered units, and that excludes 
charging infrastructure.
    Although battery-electric trucks show promise in certain 
applications, it is apparent that they are not ready for broad 
deployment due to technology limitations. PITT OHIO clean-
diesel tractors average 650 to 700 miles per day, and our 
boxtrucks average 150 to 200 miles per day. The range is not 
there to support our tractor fleet, which is where the majority 
of our vehicle-miles are driven.
    These battery-electric vehicle trucks also require long 
periods of unproductive downtime to recharge, and transport 
less cargo due to the massive weight of their battery packs. 
These limitations contrast unfavorably with clean-diesel power 
trains that can refuel in 15 minutes anywhere in the country 
and drive 1,200 miles. Battery-electric trucks also require 
enormous amounts of energy. Just one truck depot could require 
the same amount of electricity needed to power an entire town.
    Delivering this power is another challenge. Supporting a 
NEVI fleet would require the construction of numerous 
powerplants and transmission lines, not to mention the 
installation of at least 15,000 truck charging stations every 
month between now and 2032. For contrast, the fastest chargers 
cost $100,000 each.
    A recent study commissioned by the Clean Freight Coalition 
calculated full electrification of the commercial vehicle 
industry would cost $1 trillion for charging infrastructure and 
utility investment. Fortunately, there are many alternatives 
that can be taken to zero emissions. Clean natural gas, 
hydrogen, renewable diesel, hybrids, and other bridge 
technologies can all be part of decarbonization.
    Congress should prioritize the carrot-over-a-stick approach 
by incentivizing truck owners to upgrade to the newest, 
cleanest models. A newly manufactured truck produces half the 
CO2 emissions of one manufactured in 2010.
    Trucking is accustomed to overcoming challenges, but we 
cannot address these problems if policymakers ignore them or 
mandate one straightjacket solution. PITT OHIO and our industry 
have demonstrated that we are wholeheartedly committed to 
reducing emissions, but it is important that we get this 
transition right.
    Trucking is the backbone of our supply chain. Setting us up 
for failure will have dire consequences for our economy and 
American consumers.
    Thank you for allowing me to speak today, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [Mr. Darakos' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
     Prepared Statement of Taki Darakos, Vice President of Vehicle 
  Maintenance and Fleet Service, PITT OHIO, on behalf of the American 
                         Trucking Associations
                              Introduction
    Subcommittee Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and Members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 
behalf of the American Trucking Associations (ATA). ATA is a 90-year-
old federation and the largest national trade organization representing 
the 8.4 million Americans working in trucking-related jobs. The 
organization is a fifty-state federation that encompasses 37,000 motor 
carriers and their suppliers, working in all sectors of the industry, 
from less-than-truckload (LTL) to truckload, refrigerated transport for 
food and beverage and life sciences, intermodal trucking, auto haulage, 
and household goods movement.
    Members of ATA range in size from the nation's largest motor 
carriers to mom-and-pop one-truck operations. These companies move 
goods nationwide, in a competitive industry that is faced with steep 
regulatory cost increases stemming from new emission regulations 
implemented by the State of California and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), like the recently finalized Greenhouse Gas 
(GHG) Phase 3 regulation. The diversity of the industry means that 
successful regulations need to be technology-neutral and cannot be one-
size-fits-all. ATA opposes the new GHG Phase 3 rule because the post-
2030 targets are unachievable given the current state of zero-emission 
technology, the lack of charging infrastructure, and restrictions on 
the power grid.
    The company I work for, PITT OHIO, is a regional motor carrier 
offering less-than truckload, drayage, and logistics services. This 
family-owned company has roots that stretch back to 1919. More 
recently, in 1979, three brothers bought three trucks and leased a one-
door warehouse in East Liverpool, OH, to facilitate freight movements 
between Pittsburgh and Ohio. Our company now employs over 3,500 people 
and provides first-rate freight services across the mid-Atlantic and 
midwestern U.S. As the company has grown from those humble beginnings, 
our mission for environmental sustainability has grown as well. We 
pride ourselves on being leaders in the movement towards cleaner, safer 
freight transportation.
    Our sustainability goals are reflected in our core values: people, 
planet, and purpose. We believe that a focus on purpose--creating 
innovative solutions for our customers and improving efficiencies in 
our business--is good corporate citizenship. We are an active 
participant in EPA's SmartWay program and a recipient of the Excellence 
Award that recognizes the most fuel-efficient fleets in the country. We 
have received Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 
certifications for our warehouse facilities and have received multiple 
awards such as a Top Green Fleet from Heavy Duty Trucking and a Top 
Green Supply Chain Partner by Inbound Logistics magazines. In 2022 and 
2023, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency presented our company 
with a Gold award for Encouraging Environmental Excellence Stewardship.
    As the Vice President of vehicle maintenance and fleet services, I 
am responsible for managing the vehicle specifications, acquisitions, 
and maintenance to support PITT OHIO's fleet of over 950 company-owned 
tractors, 2,900 trailers, 600 straight trucks, 16 chassis, and other 
vehicles. This is a demanding and fulfilling job that informs my 
perspective on the challenges of electrifying our nation's commercial 
trucking fleet. More than 80% of U.S. communities rely exclusively on 
commercial trucking fleets like PITT OHIO's to meet their freight 
transportation needs, and trucking currently moves more than 70% of the 
nation's annual freight tonnage.\1\ Over the next decade, trucks will 
be tasked with moving 2.4 billion more tons of freight than they do 
today, and trucks will continue to deliver the vast majority of goods 
to American communities.\2\ As we meet that growing demand, the 
industry will continue experimenting with new technologies that fit 
their business models and reduce overall emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Census Bureau Commodity Flow Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, 
2017.
    \2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2020 to 2031. American Trucking 
Associations, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am grateful for the chance to inform Congress, federal agencies, 
and stakeholders about the opportunities and challenges for PITT OHIO 
and our industry peers to reduce our environmental footprint while 
serving our customers. Our industry association, ATA, works on our 
behalf to spread the message that ambitious policy and regulatory goals 
can be accompanied by achievable timelines for fleets of all sizes to 
deliver emissions reductions without risking supply chain disruption.
    It is a privilege to sit before you today, and I welcome our 
discussion. The deployment of newer, cleaner heavy-duty trucks will 
provide environmental benefits. To achieve these reductions, federal 
policy and regulations need to reflect the unique operating and 
technology-adoption drivers that provide business benefits for fleets. 
To ensure adoption, technology must be proven with significant miles in 
real-world conditions to ensure durability, performance, and cost 
recovery of the investments. I hope that my testimony will be helpful 
as the Committee works on achievable paths forward on electrification 
and emissions reductions from the commercial vehicle industry.
                   Our Commitment to the Environment
    PITT OHIO is not alone among our trucking peers in seeking to 
proactively reduce emissions from our trucking fleet. Our industry has 
a positive story to tell about the progress we have made. A new truck 
today emits 99% fewer particulate matter emissions than one in 1985, 
and 99% fewer nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions than one in 1975.\3\ In 
fact, 60 trucks today emit what one truck emitted in 1988. These 
cleaner trucks are meeting Americans' demands to move more freight than 
ever before. Since 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
SmartWay partners have saved billions of dollars in fuel costs, reduced 
oil consumption, and eliminated millions of tons of air pollutants. EPA 
estimates that the program has helped its partners save 379 million 
barrels of oil since 2004.\4\ If one barrel of oil produces 11 to 12 
gallons of diesel fuel, trucking companies participating in the 
SmartWay program have saved more than 4 billion gallons of fuel--over 
$18 billion at current prices--in the last nineteen years.\5\ Fuel 
savings have directly resulted in critical emissions reductions of 
nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter, in addition to millions of 
metric tons of CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. EPA, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green 
Book). https://www.epa.gov/green-book
    \4\ SmartWay Program Successes, U.S. EPA, Available online at: 
https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-program-successes.
    \5\ Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. EIA, Available online at: 
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=327&t=10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trucking began phasing out harmful sulfur from diesel fuel in 2006, 
practically eliminating sulfur oxide emissions. ATA also championed two 
separate EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
regulations in 2011 and 2016, establishing the first-ever truck engine 
and vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and fuel consumption 
standards--known as Phase 1 and 2, respectively. In total, between 2014 
and 2027, the combined Phase 1 and 2 GHG standards stand to cut CO2 
emissions by 1.37 billion metric tons, saving vehicle owners and 
operators $220 billion in fuel costs and reducing oil consumption by up 
to 2.5 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold 
under the program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. EPA, ``Final Rule for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty 
Engines and Vehicles,'' October 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATA and the trucking industry proactively engaged with the EPA 
throughout the drafting and comment period for the new Phase 3 GHG 
rulemaking. Setting ambitious, achievable, and technology neutral 
standards under that new regulation was a top priority. Requiring 
early-stage technology that has not been fully validated will fail to 
deliver environmental results in the expected regulatory timeframe 
under the current GHG Phase 3 finalized regulation. EPA's work should 
focus on the national needs and not on California, which will be forced 
to readjust its flawed regulations to reflect reality. Trucking is a 
willing partner in finding a path towards a zero emissions future that 
reflects the diversity of our industry, not a one-size-fits-all 
approach.
  The Promise and Challenges of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electrification
    Over the past several years, PITT OHIO has taken steps to meet 
demand for lower-carbon deliveries. Beginning in 2014 we introduced 
compressed natural gas to our fleet. We have run over 21 million miles 
with our natural gas fleet and have a good understanding of that 
technology and what it takes to support it. We are looking forward to 
the new engine technology recently released due to the perceived 
improvement in performance, fuel economy and maintenance costs. PITT 
OHIO has also introduced battery electric vehicles into our fleet to 
better understand the technology. In 2022, we obtained our first Class 
7 battery-electric trucks, which we operated on 100-mile regional 
routes as part of our testing and validation process. We recently in-
serviced the second generation of these trucks and we are seeing 
improved ranges and payloads, but these figures still fall short 
compared to our ICE vehicles. Currently, the technology does not 
support our tractor operations. During the day our tractors operate in 
city operations running between 150-200 miles. At night they run 
linehaul operations, averaging over 500 miles an evening with some 
running over 600 miles. BEV technology will not allow for 
electrification of those vehicles today. Although we continue to be 
optimistic about the promise of electrification in medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles, we continue to encounter challenges related to costs, 
vehicle range, durability, and charging infrastructure that complicate 
broader deployment of heavy-duty battery-electric trucks.
    Zero Emission Vehicles' (ZEV) upfront acquisition costs are much 
higher than their diesel equivalent, making it difficult for fleets to 
embrace electrification until they see meaningful year-over-year 
upfront purchase price declines. Before incentives, a Class 7/8 battery 
electric truck can cost two to three-and-a-half times more than its 
comparable diesel model and a hydrogen fuel cell Class 8 truck can be 
as much as seven times more.\7\ In our fleet, we have found acquisition 
costs to be roughly three-fifths of the total cost of operation.\8\ For 
many fleets like ours, that calculation is often complex and cannot be 
done without significant trial and error and at great capital expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Class 4-6 battery electric delivery vehicles can range from 
$100,000 to $200,000, while Class 8 over-the-road vehicles can cost 
$400,000 or more before incentives. Diesel MDV is around $75,000 and 
HDV is $165,000.
    \8\ See, e.g., Volvo Trucks North America, Press Releases, ``Volvo 
Trucks' New Electromobility Total Cost of Ownership Tool Demonstrates 
Financial, Environmental Benefits of Volvo VNR Electric,'' October 23, 
2022; and Dana, Inc., Total Cost of Ownership Tool, n.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For our fleet, the process of adopting battery-electric trucks 
required meticulous evaluation, planning, and collaboration with our 
truck manufacturer partner before an order was even placed. After 
deliberation, we settled on box trucks due to their range and payload 
capacity. They were the closest fit to our current operation. We 
carefully positioned these vehicles to not go beyond their 
technological limitations. On some occasions, we were able to leverage 
offsite charging to extend the range, however this was done at retail 
sites not set up for truck parking/charging and not even close to 
ideal. Increased vehicle weight from the batteries reduced our payload 
and limited our usage of haul. These limitations have impacted the 
company's timeline on how and when to transition to ZEV.
    ATA conducted a survey of fleets that found most fleet respondents 
were uncertain about ZEVs' residual value.\9\ With the rapid 
technological changes in these vehicles, these early trucks will be 
dinosaurs. Given the continued uncertainty around factors such as 
energy prices, uptime, and residual value, the vehicle purchase price 
must be significantly reduced to make the total cost of operation 
comparable to using existing diesel engines. If fleets do not see the 
expected financial benefit, they will be forced to hold onto their 
existing equipment longer, resulting in an older fleet with a higher 
emissions profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ATA Technology and Maintenance Council, ``Greenhouse Gas Phase 
3 Member Survey,'' June 16, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vehicle purchase incentives can help reduce costs, and robust and 
stable federal and state incentives that cover the entire cost of the 
vehicle or cover the cost differential between a ZEV and diesel truck 
can help support early adoption. Only a few states offer vehicle 
purchase incentives, however, and the federal government's Commercial 
Clean Vehicle Credit is capped at $40,000 for a ZEV, covering the 
federal sales tax for vehicle purchases. In our case, we were able to 
leverage funding through the state for a ZEV demonstration project to 
help offset the increased vehicle costs and reduce some of our 
infrastructure expenses. That said, it has been an incredibly long 
process to add 3 megawatts of power at our Harrisburg, PA, facility. 
This effort has involved many calls, e-mails and follow-ups with the 
utility, along with engineering and construction firms that many 
smaller organizations may not have access to or wonder where to even 
start. When complete in early 2025 this power upgrade will have taken 
two years. Had we asked for more power it would have pushed the lead 
time to five years. And we are doing this ahead of the curve. Looking 
over our network, we have 12 facilities that would make sense to start 
the infrastructure upgrade process. At those 12 facilities, we will be 
working with 10 different utility partners to make this happen. 
Although incentives are sometimes available at the state level, wading 
through numerous pages of funding applications is incredibly complex 
for fleets and not simple or easy.
    Despite our optimism about battery-electric vehicle technology, the 
availability and reliability of charging stations are inhibitors to 
adoption. Earlier this month, the Clean Freight Coalition (CFC) 
published findings from a study conducted by Roland Berger examining 
the required investment to fully electrify the trucking industry by 
2040. Fleets would be expected to invest $620 billion for charging 
infrastructure, with utilities needing an additional $370 billion for 
grid upgrades.\10\ These costs represent an unsustainable financial 
burden on trucking fleets to facilitate this technological transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Clean Freight Coalition, ``New Report Pegs Cost of 
Electrifying U.S. Commercial Truck Fleet at $1 Trillion,'' March 19, 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CFC study highlights some key realities for the trucking 
industry. First, a fleet's optimal vehicle and charging profile largely 
depend on its duty cycle. Assuming improved technology allows for a 
250-mile usable range and on-route charging enhancements, a robust on-
route charging network will be essential for high-mileage medium-duty 
and heavy-duty vehicles. Second, serious constraints exist on the 
current grid, particularly concerning the power needs of medium- and 
heavy-duty BEVs. This necessitates substantial investment, from 
generation to distribution. As charging primarily occurs overnight, 
introducing on-site charging will significantly alter daily electricity 
load profiles, potentially straining current grid capacity--especially 
in areas distant from urban infrastructure, where necessary upgrades 
represent a greater cost and percentage of existing capacity.
    Utilities will face challenges in upgrading infrastructure, 
particularly in areas requiring entirely new infrastructure. Last year, 
the American Transportation Research Institute calculated that 
electrification of the entire U.S. vehicle fleet would consume an 
astounding 40% of the country's existing electricity generation and 
require a 14% overall increase in energy generation, yet our aging grid 
can hardly meet current demands.\11\ In California, where rolling 
blackouts and brownouts are not uncommon, utilities would need to 
generate an additional 57% beyond their current output to support an 
electric vehicle fleet.\12\ In some states, the staggering power 
demands for heavy-duty truck charging could increase even as sources of 
carbon-free power generation, such as hydropower facilities, are taken 
offline or during the implementation of complicated statewide clean 
power plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric 
Vehicle Fleet, American Transportation Research Institute, December 
2022. Available online at: https://truckingresearch.org/2022/12/06/
charging-infrastructure-challenges-for-the-u-s-electric-vehicle-fleet/
    \12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conversations with utilities often reveal lengthy lead times for 
electrical infrastructure upgrades. Forty percent of fleets surveyed by 
ATA said that their utility estimated it would take at least a year 
before they could provide the electricity to support battery-electric 
trucks at their facilities, while 30 percent received wait time 
estimates of over three years.\13\ We have facilities where without 
significant upgrades we only have the power to support limited Level 2 
charging. As an example, that Level 2 charger would take 10 hours to 
charge a medium duty truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ ATA Technology and Maintenance Council, ``Greenhouse Gas Phase 
3 Member Survey,'' June 16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current regulatory targets for the deployment of battery-electric 
vehicles are predicated on unprecedented advancements in battery range 
and capacity, as well as a significant buildout of the national power 
grid over years, not decades, which has historically been the case. 
Mandates and targets for decarbonization of the PITT OHIO fleet, and 
others across the industry, require acknowledgement of market realities 
that both keep supply chains moving and enable fleets like mine to 
affordably acquire and install infrastructure. Along with all my fleet 
management peers, I would note that for me to deploy more battery-
electric or alternative fuel vehicles, it would require certainty that 
the infrastructure to support that investment is affordable, available, 
and compatible with my purchase.
          The Value of Achievable, Neutral, Federal Standards
    Trucking companies traverse state lines multiple times a day, and a 
strong national emissions framework ensures the continuity of our 
nation's freight networks. ATA strongly advocates for federal emissions 
regulations to ensure that interstate commerce continues to move 
unimpeded. State-based emissions regulations that increase the cost of 
trucks--or mandate the deployment of zero-emission trucks--while the 
technology is still in early-stage development disrupt the business 
operations of our industry and make it harder for us to meet the needs 
of our customers--your constituents. Absent federal standards for 
emissions reductions, companies transporting freight interstate will be 
forced to reconfigure their business operations, which will increase 
complexity and the costs of doing business.
    For this reason, ATA has opposed state-based regulations such as 
those promulgated by the California Air Resources Board and joined by 
other states that would mandate the sale and purchase of zero emission 
technology under aggressive timelines. California's Advanced Clean 
Trucks (ACT) and Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) rules are designed to move 
the commercial vehicle industry as quickly as possible towards zero 
emission technology, ignoring the lack of supporting infrastructure. 
Therefore, these regulations are destined to fail. EPA's decision to 
grant California's Clean Air Act waivers to enforce policies that are 
unworkable for the trucking industry--policies developed via a process 
that wholly discounted and marginalized trucking industry 
participation--will result in unworkable regulations and undermine 
long-term cooperative efforts to reduce emissions.
    EPA's GHG 3 rule was an opportunity for the agency to reassert 
their leadership in setting harmonized national emissions standards 
that could provide certainty for the trucking industry. The final 
regulation acknowledges today's challenges with ZEVs for model years 
2027-2029. However, by 2030, EPA's targets will spike to unrealistic 
levels.
    Imposing unachievable state and federal mandates will reduce 
investment in alternative low-carbon technologies like ultra-clean 
renewable diesel (RD), renewable natural gas, and other low-carbon 
fuels, moving us further away from our goal to reduce emissions in the 
freight transportation sector. The new GHG 3 rule represents a missed 
opportunity to course-correct unworkable, aggressive proposals laid out 
by states like California that create a patchwork that complicates 
interstate supply chains.
    PITT OHIO and our peer companies would benefit more from a 
technology- and fuel-neutral approach with timelines that allow for the 
buildout of infrastructure to support these new vehicles and for the 
technology market to mature so that fleets of all sizes can afford to 
deploy these cleaner trucks.
    Unfortunately, forced zero-emission vehicle penetration rates in 
the later years of the GHG 3 rule as currently constructed fail to 
offer flexibility and will limit fleets' choices with only early-stage 
technologies that are still unproven.
  The Cost of Unreasonable Timelines: Utilities, Vehicles, Technology 
                                Maturity
    The Biden Administration's multiagency U.S. National Blueprint for 
Transportation Decarbonization recognized battery-electric technology 
as having ``limited long-term potential'' in the long-haul segment.\14\ 
It pointed to better-positioned opportunities with hydrogen and 
sustainable liquid fuels. These alternatives offer advantages in energy 
density, comparable refueling times to diesel fuel, and compatibility 
with many current internal combustion engine configurations, as seen 
with biodiesel and renewable diesel. Despite the ambitious timelines 
set by California to mandate battery-electric vehicle production and 
fleet sales, the Administration's blueprint outlined longer, more 
manageable timelines extending to 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: a 
Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation, September 2022, U.S. 
Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/
files/2023-01/the-us-national-blueprint-for-transportation-
decarbonization.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mandates that set the industry up for failure will not help to 
accelerate the deployment of zero carbon fuel technologies nationwide. 
Such standards, whether state-based or federal, distort the market for 
vehicle manufacturers and complicate decisions for purchasers of new 
heavy-duty trucks. Nearly half of the heavy-duty trucks on the road 
today are model year 2010 and older diesel engines, meaning they lack 
advanced emissions reducing technologies.\15\ Replacing those trucks 
with current 2024 ultra-clean diesel trucks that are available on the 
market today would deliver environmental emissions reductions 
immediately. It could be done without subjecting fleets to the enormous 
expense of ZEV technology vehicles that are not readily available, and 
which lack the infrastructure to support their operations and 
maintenance as part of regional and national interstate trucking 
fleets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Diesel Technology Forum, dieselforum.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So far, battery-electric is not more efficient for my operation 
than internal combustion. Currently, in just 15 minutes, a truck driver 
can refuel a new clean-diesel truck for a journey of up to 1,200 miles. 
Conversely, a two-hour charge can provide around 200 miles for battery-
electric trucks, though this range may significantly decrease due to 
factors like cold weather, hilly terrain, or the use of HVAC systems. 
In the regions we serve, adverse weather conditions and congestion have 
the potential to further reduce this range. Even with adequate utility 
service capacity and investment in chargers, achieving the same range 
as a modern, clean-diesel truck in ideal conditions would still require 
over five hours. While faster direct current (DC) chargers can cut that 
recharging time in half, that equipment is expensive--roughly $100,000 
each.
    Battery-electric trucks also require significantly heavier 
batteries (ranging from 6,000 to 17,000 lbs.), which results in lower 
payload capacity than an internal combustion engine vehicle. This 
reduced efficiency, combined with limited mileage range and charging 
downtime, necessitates deploying more trucks and drivers to move the 
same amount of freight. With the industry facing significant logistical 
hurdles, battery-electric truck deployment could require a ratio of 
three battery-electric trucks in some operations for every two diesel 
trucks. An increase in the number of drivers needed to move the 
nation's freight could exacerbate the ongoing nationwide driver 
shortage, which currently stands at 78,000 drivers and which will 
require the industry to hire over a million new drivers over the next 
decade to meet demand. Hydrogen refueling infrastructure to support 
hydrogen internal combustion engine (ICE) or hydrogen fuel cell trucks 
is even more nascent, and those technologies raise similar weight- and 
productivity-related concerns.
    The transition to zero-emission trucks will require drivers and 
mechanics to be retrained on the new equipment, which will drive 
today's workforce investment costs higher. Additionally, while diesel 
fueling stations can handle four to five trucks per hour, charging 
stations would only accommodate two to three trucks per day. Each truck 
parking spot (excluding fueling) would need a charging station, 
exacerbating the shortage of truck parking capacity. Currently, there 
is only one truck parking spot available for every 11 trucks on the 
road.\16\ Combined with the related and complicated issues surrounding 
hours of service, cargo securement, and cybersecurity, the industry 
will need time to validate approaches and identify the most efficient 
suite of fuels and technologies that perform according to our duty 
cycle and keep in line with our commitment to decarbonization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Jason's Law Commercial 
Motor Vehicle Parking Survey and Comparative Assessment, December 1, 
2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      How Congress Can Help Today
    Infrastructure can support the reduction of truck emissions in two 
ways: eliminating bottlenecks so that the trucks currently on the road 
can operate more efficiently, and building out the power generation, 
transmission, and charging infrastructure necessary to support battery-
electric commercial trucks. As mentioned previously, electrification of 
trucking is going to require enormous investments and attention to 
areas that are not within the control of trucking. This transition will 
require utility upgrades, power transmission improvements, construction 
of additional space for truck parking, and modernization of our 
nation's workforce development programs to bring in a new generation of 
trucking workforce to drive and maintain these vehicles.
    For today's environmental wellbeing, the greatest near-term 
reduction in emissions can be accomplished by careful oversight and 
distribution of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding 
to mitigate congestion and ensure the efficient movement of freight on 
our nation's highways. Reducing idling hours and time wasted in stop-
and-go traffic on our nation's highway bottlenecks will make more 
efficient use of every gallon of fuel burned, as well as benefit our 
nation's truck drivers and highway safety. Congress should ensure that 
highway funding is directed to new construction that targets those 
chokepoints.\17\
    Highway congestion adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight 
transportation each year.\18\ In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic for 
nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers 
sitting idle for a year.\19\ This caused the trucking industry to 
consume an additional 6.87 billion gallons of fuel in 2016, 
representing approximately 13% of the industry's total fuel consumption 
and resulting in 67.3 million metric tons of excess carbon dioxide 
(CO2) emissions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ ``After Capito, Graves Pledge to Formally Challenge Federal 
Highways Memo, FHWA Issues Substantially Revised Replacement,'' U.S. 
Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Press Release, 24 
February 2023, Available online at: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/2023/2/after-capito-pledge-to-formally-challenge-federal-
highways-memo-fhwa-issues-substantially-revised-replacement.
    \18\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update. 
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
    \19\ Ibid.
    \20\ Fixing the 12% Case Study: Atlanta, GA. American 
Transportation Research Institute, Feb. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congestion serves as a brake on economic growth and job creation 
nationwide, and I see every day the maintenance and operational 
challenges that are created by stop-and-go traffic and the hazards of 
roads and bridges in disrepair.
    Repealing the current federal excise tax on heavy-duty trucks and 
trailers would also make enormous strides in emissions reductions while 
utilities and other stakeholders evolve to meet the demands of heavy-
duty trucking electrification. The current 12% tax is the highest 
excise tax on any good and reduces our ability to invest in cleaner, 
safer equipment. This tax adds roughly $25,000 to the cost of a new 
clean-diesel tractor and can add $40,000 to $50,000 to the cost of a 
battery-electric or alternative fuel truck. This limits me every year 
when I am forced to buy twenty or twenty-one trucks instead of twenty-
five newer, cleaner tractors. Along with my entire industry, I support 
and encourage the passage of H.R. 1440, the Modern, Clean and Safe 
Trucks Act, to eliminate this World War I-era tax and spur further 
investment in the trucks with the latest safety and emissions reduction 
technologies.
    New clean-diesel trucks can further reduce their environmental 
footprint by burning sustainable fuels. However, while the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) increased the tax credit for Sustainable Aviation 
Fuel (SAF) to a range of $1.25 to $1.75 per gallon, the credits for 
renewable diesel remain at $1.00 per gallon. As a result, feedstocks 
for this valuable emissions-reduction tool for trucking are likely to 
be cannibalized for aviation. Restoring parity for tax credits for 
renewable diesel--and increasing the tax credit for renewable natural 
gas, which is used by some trucking companies and is currently eligible 
for a $0.50 per gallon tax credit--can have immediate and sustainable 
environmental benefits.
    Moreover, incentivizing alternative fuels can potentially offer 
significant, and potentially greater, benefits than electrification in 
more difficult to decarbonize segments of the industry. A recent ATRI 
report shows technologies like renewable diesel may yield larger 
emissions-reduction benefits than battery electric technology.\21\ 
While BEV trucks offer a reduction of 30% in CO2 emissions compared to 
ICE trucks using petroleum diesel, renewable diesel (RD) powered trucks 
offer a more substantial reduction of 67.3%. This reduction includes 
emissions throughout the vehicle and battery production, energy 
consumption, and disposal phases.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ ATRI, ``Renewable Diesel: A Catalyst for Decarbonization,'' 
April 2024.
    \22\ RD derived from various feedstocks exhibits significantly 
lower greenhouse gas intensity than petroleum diesel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further related to fuels, Congress and regulators also need to 
understand that ongoing price volatility for diesel, and state-based 
regulations increasing prices at the pump, continue to cost the 
industry tens of billions of dollars and make it harder to upgrade 
equipment to new, cleaner trucks. The trucking industry's fuel bill in 
2019 was $112 billion when prices were $3.00/gallon. However, diesel 
prices rose throughout 2022, reaching a high of $5.81/gallon--90% 
higher than 2019 average prices. This increase resulted in an annual 
diesel fuel bill exceeding $200 billion for the American trucking 
industry, a nearly $100 billion yearly increase.
    According to a 2022 ATRI survey of the industry, fuel costs (22%), 
equipment and lease payments (15%), and repair and maintenance costs 
(9%) account for 46%, or nearly half of the overall operating costs for 
trucking companies nationwide. Surging fuel and truck prices, as well 
as the deployment of new technologies that are difficult for fleets to 
maintain, create enormous headwinds that stymie efforts to incentivize 
fleets to invest in newer, cleaner equipment.
    As a practitioner, I would also recommend that Congress and 
agencies focus and prioritize distribution of funding through National 
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grants, Charging and Fueling 
Infrastructure (CFI) grants, Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles tax 
credits, and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property tax credits 
for heavy-duty infrastructure projects to begin to provide momentum and 
set stakes in the group for fleets. These programs can have long-term 
impacts that will make it easier for PITT OHIO and our competitors to 
invest in decarbonization without putting our businesses at risk. This 
Committee in particular has a valuable role to play in overseeing 
management and funds distribution by those programs, and the industry 
is grateful to you for your leadership on that effort.
    Finally, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 95.7% of private and for-hire motor carriers operate 10 
or fewer trucks and 99.7% operate fewer than 100 trucks. I urge the 
Subcommittee to be aware of the challenges facing those small- and 
medium-sized trucking fleets, in particular, because they are the heart 
of our supply chains and face the biggest barriers to obtaining new, 
clean trucks.
                             In Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to share my company's unique story and 
encourage others to join in our dedicated movement towards 
environmental sustainability.
    On behalf of PITT OHIO, the American Trucking Associations, and the 
8.4 million people in trucking-related jobs who power our nation's 
supply chains and keep the wheels of the economy turning, we look 
forward to working with the Subcommittee and Congressional leaders to 
support legislation that will help us meet ambitious energy and 
emissions goals. Thank you.

    Mr. Crawford. Outstanding. Thank you.
    Mr. Nigro, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     TESTIMONY OF NICK NIGRO, FOUNDER, ATLAS PUBLIC POLICY

    Mr. Nigro. Chair Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak today about the electrification of U.S. transportation. 
My name is Nick Nigro, and I am the founder of Atlas Public 
Policy, a policy and data research firm based here in 
Washington, DC.
    Atlas equips businesses and policymakers to make strategic, 
informed decisions that serve the public interest. I appreciate 
the opportunity to speak to you about the most important 
transportation challenge we face this century.
    In the last 15 years, our innovative businesses, with 
support from Government and civil society, have made great 
strides to transition the country off oil to a more 
sustainable, secure, and economical fuel--electricity. Two 
thousand twenty-three was a banner year for electric vehicles 
with new U.S. sales exceeding $1.4 million. For comparison, it 
took us nearly 8 years to reach the first million EV sales.
    Passenger vehicles often steal the headlines, but truck and 
bus electrification is also underway. The number of electric 
trucks deployed nationwide jumped from only 1,200 in December 
2021 to nearly 18,000 in June 2023, with trucks in every State. 
Fast-charging stations necessary to make an EV as easy to own 
as a gas vehicle are experiencing a similar surge. Twenty-five 
percent of all operational fast-charging ports were installed 
last year.
    Make no mistake, this transition will take decades to 
complete, but we have too much at stake to lose the future of 
mobility to our competitors in China, in Europe, which made up 
85 percent of global EV sales in 2023. The Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation estimates that the automotive sector 
supports nearly 10 million jobs in the United States. And the 
International Energy Agency estimates that global EV sales 
could reach 17 million in 2024, more than all passenger 
vehicles Americans purchased last year.
    The need to advance EVs goes well beyond our economic 
interests. The American Lung Association estimates that zero-
emission trucks could lead to 65,000 fewer premature deaths by 
2050. Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration estimates that climate-related disasters have 
cost us nearly $2.7 trillion since 1980, with costs increasing 
every decade.
    Lastly, all the evidence I have analyzed has led me to the 
conclusion that electrifying transportation is vital to our 
national security, and it is impossible to put a pricetag on 
that.
    To complete the transition off oil, we must set up a policy 
framework that puts us on a better footing globally. Since the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was signed into law in 
November 2021, we have tracked $141 billion in announced 
investments in EV manufacturing, with at least 80 percent of 
these investments flowing to Republican congressional 
districts. These investments will support 160,000 jobs, 
including 59,000 jobs in disadvantaged communities. As the 
clean economy ramps up, we are prioritizing those who have 
historically been left behind.
    Combined, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 
Program and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants funded 
through IIJA is the largest investment in charging in U.S. 
history. These programs take a thoughtful complementary 
approach to building out charging infrastructure, helping to 
ensure all Americans can use their EV to go anywhere they want. 
In addition, the power, port count, and reliability 
requirements raise the bar for a nascent industry and provide 
certainty on how companies will deliver a customer experience 
akin to gasoline refueling. By the end of 2024, we expect NEVI-
funded stations will be open or under construction in most 
States.
    IIJA also supercharged the popular Low- or No-Emission 
Program. Last year, $1.2 billion was awarded to projects in 
nearly all States, with 70 percent of funds going to zero-
emission technology. The boost is timely as the seven largest 
transit bus fleets, making up 60 percent of the market, will 
purchase only zero-emission buses in the next 8 years.
    Congress can use the surface transportation reauthorization 
to redouble its efforts to support electric vehicles. 
Specifically, Congress should renew the NEVI and CFI programs 
and update requirements to meet the near-term needs of EV 
drivers by doubling the poor power level per port and the 
minimum number of ports per station.
    Second, Congress should support truck electrification by 
targeting charging along rights-of-way and at shared public 
sites to support small businesses. Congress should update the 
Low-No Program to focus funding on zero-emission technology as 
it is the best option for the environment, human health, and 
our economy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective 
today. I look forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Nigro's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
     Prepared Statement of Nick Nigro, Founder, Atlas Public Policy
                              Introduction
    Chair Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the 
electrification of U.S. transportation. My name is Nick Nigro, and I am 
the founder of Atlas Public Policy, a policy and data research firm 
based right here in Washington, DC. Atlas equips businesses and 
policymakers to make strategic, informed decisions that serve the 
public interest. We build analytical tools and dashboards using 
accessible technology and offer advisory services to tackle the 
pressing issues of the day, with a particular focus on transportation 
electrification.
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the most 
important transportation challenge we face in this century. For more 
than one hundred years, powering our transportation system has depended 
largely on the extraction, refinement, and burning of petroleum-based 
products to move goods and people throughout our road network.
    In the last 15 years, our innovative businesses, with support from 
all levels of government and civil society, have made great strides to 
take on a once-in-a-century challenge to transition the country off oil 
to a more sustainable, secure, and economical fuel, electricity.
    Make no mistake. This transition will take decades to complete, but 
we have too much at stake to sit on the sidelines and lose the future 
of mobility to our competitors in China and Europe, which collectively 
made up 85 percent of global EV sales in 2023 [1].
    The Alliance for Automotive Innovation estimates that the 
automotive sector supports nearly 10 million jobs and over $700 billion 
in worker income every year in the United States [2]. Nearly 65 percent 
of car and light truck sales in 2023 were from companies who have 
committed to electrify all their vehicle offerings by 2035 or 2040. And 
the International Energy Agency estimates that global EV sales could 
reach 17 million in 2024 [1], more than all passenger vehicles 
purchased in the United States last year.
    Passenger vehicles often steal the headlines, but truck and bus 
electrification are well underway as well. By 2040, the three truck 
manufacturers that make up 70 percent of the medium and heavy-duty 
market--Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, and Navistar--aim to sell only zero 
emission vehicles. These manufacturers, along with large national 
fleets, logistics companies, charging infrastructure developers, and 
electric utilities, formed PACT, a comprehensive coalition focused on 
one of the most critical barriers to accelerating the uptake of zero 
emission commercial vehicles: the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty 
truck zero emission charging and refueling infrastructure [3].
    We aren't just racing against foreign nations to lead the 
development of 21st century vehicle technology. We're also in a race to 
mitigate the worst effects of climate change on the planet and tailpipe 
pollution on human health. The American Lung Association estimates that 
transitioning trucks to zero emission could lead to $735 billion in 
public health benefits and more than 65,000 fewer premature deaths by 
2050 [4]. Moreover, unmitigated climate change is a looming threat to 
the global economy. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
estimates that climate-related disasters have cost us nearly $2.7 
trillion since 1980, with costs significantly increasing with each 
decade [5].
    Finally, in terms of the drivers to an electric future, I'd be 
remiss if I didn't bring up the major factor that brought me to 
Washington nearly 15 years ago. You see, I studied electrical and 
computer engineering in the late 90s and took a job in the booming 
high-tech sector in Massachusetts in 2001. Applying my engineering 
education and building popular consumer products was a rewarding 
experience. But while I was sitting pretty in Boston, the country was 
in a deepening national security crisis, which I believe was driven in 
part by our dependence on oil. I was motivated to change the direction 
of my career, and my life, by going back to school, learning energy 
policy, and putting my engineering brain to better use. All of the 
evidence I've analyzed over the past 15 years has led me to the clear 
conclusion that electrifying our transportation sector is vital to our 
national security, and it's near impossible to put a price tag on that.
                             State of Play
    As I've summarized here with you today: the days of the combustion 
engine are numbered. We must finish the job by setting up a policy 
framework that puts the United States on a better footing globally and 
helps us regain a leadership position in this vital industry.
    The good news is that in the last three years, investments have 
flooded into all parts of the country, in large part thanks to the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA). Since IIJA was signed into law in November 2021, 
investments in EV manufacturing facilities totaling about $141 billion 
have been announced [6]. Notably, at least 80 percent of these 
investments are flowing to Congressional districts represented by 
Republicans. These investments are expected to support more than 
160,000 jobs in manufacturing operations and cover activity across the 
EV supply chain, from minerals processing to produce precursor 
materials for battery production, all the way to EV production and end-
of-life battery recycling to recover materials for reuse. To date, 
Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan lead the country in announced 
investments, accounting for nearly $58 billion combined.
    Where these investments and jobs are sited, and who they are 
impacting, are also important factors in the EV transition. Twenty 
thousand announced manufacturing jobs will be in Energy Communities, 
defined by the federal government as places with former fossil fuel 
industrial sites, including power plants, mines, and oil and gas wells 
[6]. Additionally, more than 59,000 jobs announced will be located in 
disadvantaged communities. As the clean economy ramps up, communities 
that have historically been left behind are finally being prioritized.
    The investments announced boast big numbers, but they go well 
beyond press releases. In fact, 66 percent of investments are at 
facilities currently in operation or under construction. At least 90 
facilities are on track to go into operation by 2024 or 2025, 
representing 80,000 manufacturing jobs.
    In the passenger vehicle market, 2023 was a banner year for 
electric vehicles. More than 1.4 million new EVs were registered last 
year. For comparison, it took the country nearly eight years to reach 
the first million EV sales [7]. Fast charging stations, a critical part 
of making an EV as easy to own as a gas vehicle, are experiencing a 
similar surge in popularity. More than 25 percent of all fast-charging 
ports currently operational were installed in 2023, reaching a rate of 
250 per week in the fourth quarter [8].
    It's not all smooth sailing though and we should expect the market 
to ebb and flow as the technology progresses, consumer interest 
evolves, and new and entrenched businesses are challenged. To 
illustrate, new EV sales for the three months from December 2023 to 
February 2024 are up 20 percent over the previous year's figures; 
however, these figures are down from the 50 percent growth we saw in 
all of 2023 [9]. This is not evidence that the EV market is struggling 
per se, but it does reveal that vehicle offerings must meet consumer 
expectations and that automakers must continue to innovate to drive 
interest.
    Economists describe ``creative destruction'' as the process where 
innovation delivers progress and new products make the existing ones 
obsolete. There are countless examples of this in consumer electronics, 
whereas until recently the vehicle market has experienced gradual 
progress over many decades. EVs are the first major disruption to how 
vehicles are built and powered in more than a century, and there will 
be winners and losers. I'm confident in American know-how and 
ingenuity, but we need to keep our eyes on the ball and manage our 
resources.
                        Charging Infrastructure
    For many Americans, charging an EV can be as easy as plugging in 
your cell phone every night. More than 65 percent of Americans live in 
single family homes, many of which have garages and easy access to 
power [10]. Electric utilities across the country have deployed 
charging programs to support consumers and encourage them to charge at 
times of day that are good for the electrical grid and their wallets. 
The convenience of charging at home and cost effectiveness of doing so, 
thanks in part to utilities, helps explain why most experts expect EV 
drivers to only rely on public charging for a small fraction of their 
trips, particularly as EV ranges continue to climb.
    While most EV drivers won't use the infrastructure very often, they 
consistently cite a lack of reliable public charging as a primary 
barrier to EV adoption [11]. The lack of near-term demand for public 
charging services combined with the expectation of its widespread, 
reliable access make the charging business model challenging. The 
federal government has historically played a constructive role in 
addressing market transition opportunities like this and EVs are no 
different.
    Combined, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) 
program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants (CFI) funded 
through IIJA is the single largest investment in charging in U.S. 
history. These programs take a thoughtful, complementary approach to 
building out the nation's charging infrastructure, helping to ensure 
Americans can use their EV to go anywhere they want. Over the last two 
years, state departments of transportation (DOT) across the country 
have created strategic plans, built capacity, introduced themselves to 
their local utilities in some cases, and stood up this brand-new 
program that is quickly becoming an integral part of the DOT's 
operations. As of late April 2024, six states have stations open to the 
public, one state's first station is under construction, 13 states have 
issued awards, and 15 states are currently issuing or evaluating 
proposals. By the end of 2024, we can expect NEVI-funded stations to be 
open or under construction in most states.
    State DOTs are largely engineering-focused institutions, and as an 
engineer, I can tell you that we like to plan and make sure we get 
everything right before committing major resources to a project. The 
first 12-18 months of NEVI were just that; many state DOTs had never 
funded an EV charging project and had to hire new staff or bring in 
outside help. All of this takes time, but these planning and capacity 
building activities are critically important to ensure the goals of 
NEVI are realized and that these and future funds are used in a way 
that is transparent, efficient, and equitable.
    NEVI is doing more than building out fast charging along the 
Interstate Highway System. The requirements related to power, charger 
count, and reliability are transformational for the industry. At each 
NEVI-funded station, EV drivers can expect at least four ports, each 
delivering 150 kilowatts of power, that are available and operational 
nearly all of the time [12].\1\ These requirements raise the bar for a 
nascent industry and provide much-needed certainty on where companies 
must go to deliver a customer experience akin to gasoline refueling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NEVI requires an average annual uptime of 97 percent or greater 
for each port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While it's best for the grid and household budgets for EV drivers 
to charge overnight where they park, many households do not have this 
opportunity today. Millions of families rent, live in large apartment 
buildings, park on public streets, or otherwise don't have the ability 
to deliver power to where they park. A lack of public, fast charging 
can make it hard for those drivers to consider an EV. Here, NEVI and 
CFI are filling another important charging access gap.
    Charging infrastructure will continue to be a challenge for the EV 
industry in the near term as more everyday Americans buy EVs. The bar 
for the charging experience will rise because these drivers will not be 
as forgiving as early adopters have been with regards to technical 
glitches or other unexpected issues. The good news is that programs 
like NEVI, CFI, and many state and electric utility programs 
nationwide, are fostering a vibrant private charging market. Future 
programs focused on fast charging should continue to raise the bar 
through higher power requirements and offering more ports per station.
                     Electrifying Commercial Trucks
    Like passenger vehicles, the zero-emission commercial truck market 
in the United States is experiencing significant growth and 
transformation, driven by increasing demand for sustainable 
transportation solutions and the need to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions in the logistics sector. As the market evolves, we must 
understand the status quo, key drivers, challenges, and the role of the 
federal government in supporting the accelerated deployment of zero-
emission trucks.
    Currently, as more models become available the zero-emission truck 
market is seeing a surge in sales. As of December 2021, only 1,215 
zero-emission trucks had been deployed in the United States, but by 
June 2023 that number had climbed to over 17,500, including deployments 
in every state [13, 14].
    Manufacturers are introducing a variety of battery-electric and 
hydrogen fuel cell trucks to cater to different applications, from 
last-mile delivery to long-haul transportation. For example, some urban 
delivery trucking fleets are already saving money by deploying zero-
emission vehicles [15]. Health and climate benefits aside, the lower 
operating costs, reduced maintenance requirements, and improved driver 
experience have made zero-emission trucks an attractive option for 
last-mile delivery operations.
    In new markets like this, incentive funding at the state and, 
particularly, the federal levels play a crucial role in offsetting the 
higher upfront costs and encouraging fleet adoption. Additionally, 
numerous demonstration programs across the country, such as the North 
American Council for Freight Efficiency's Run on Less Electric events, 
have showcased the real-world performance and benefits of zero-emission 
trucks [16]. These programs provide valuable insights into the 
operational capabilities and cost savings potential of zero-emission 
technologies. Furthermore, the increasing demand from shippers and 
logistics companies to reduce emissions across their supply chains has 
created a strong market pull for zero-emission trucks.
    Despite this progress, the zero-emission truck market still faces 
several barriers to widespread adoption. One primary challenge is the 
lack of truck-specific recharging and refueling infrastructure, such as 
pull-through spots designed to accommodate larger vehicles. The absence 
of a comprehensive network of charging stations and hydrogen fueling 
facilities has hindered the deployment of zero-emission trucks, 
particularly for long-haul operations.
    Moreover, the economics of zero-emission trucks remain challenging 
due to the higher upfront costs of vehicles and the need for 
significant, expensive investments in charging infrastructure.
    User acceptance is another barrier, as the trucking industry is 
known for its risk-averse approach to adopting new technologies. 
Specifically, there is a misconception that zero-emission technologies 
are unproven in terms of durability and reliability, which has slowed 
down their adoption. Lastly, the lack of parking facilities for 
commercial trucks, especially tractor-trailers, presents an opportunity 
to address both the infrastructure and parking challenges 
simultaneously [17]. As a result, investing in the development of truck 
parking facilities equipped with chargers and amenities, such as 
showers and convenience stores, can support the deployment of zero-
emission trucks while improving driver comfort and safety.
    The federal government plays a vital role in supporting the 
accelerated development and deployment of zero-emission trucks through 
several programs, such as those in IIJA and IRA. To ensure that we 
remain competitive in the global zero-emission truck landscape, we must 
focus on domestic manufacturing and supply chain development for both 
vehicles and infrastructure.
    The federal government can continue to provide incentives, grants, 
and low-interest loans to encourage investments in zero-emission truck 
manufacturing and the establishment of a robust charging and refueling 
infrastructure network. Additionally, the government can support 
research and development efforts to improve battery and fuel cell 
technologies, enhance vehicle efficiency, and reduce costs. Programs 
like NEVI, CFI, and Rebuilding American Infrastructure with 
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants help take equipment from the 
laboratory to the field and are essential to fostering a nascent market 
like electric trucks. Collaboration between the public and private 
sectors, along with targeted investments in workforce training and 
education, can help build a strong ecosystem for zero-emission trucks 
in the United States, such as in state-sponsored workforce development 
programs and the U.S. Department of Energy's Electric Drive Vehicle 
Battery Recycling and 2nd Life Apps Program.
    As the zero-emission commercial truck market grows and evolves, we 
must address these barriers and leverage opportunities to accelerate 
the transition towards sustainable transportation. By implementing 
market-based policies, investing in infrastructure, and fostering 
domestic manufacturing capabilities, the United States can position 
itself as a leader in the zero-emission truck industry while creating 
jobs, reducing emissions, and driving innovation in the logistics 
sector.
                      Transit Bus Electrification
    Zero-emission transit buses have been deployed across cities and 
municipal regions throughout the United States to abate air pollution 
and greenhouse gas emissions in hard to decarbonize urban areas. A 
recent study by CALSTART found that the United States has 5,775 battery 
electric transit buses on the road as of September 2023, an increase of 
12 percent since 2022 [18]. More than half of these buses are operating 
in California (1,760), New York (737), and Florida (464). While the 
growth rate nationwide slowed compared to 2022, seven states (Illinois, 
Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon) 
saw their zero-emission bus deployment rise by at least 50 percent.
    This marked growth in regions nationwide is expected to accelerate 
in the near term largely thanks to funding from IIJA. The law 
supercharged the popular Low and No Emission (Low-No) Program run by 
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with $5.25 billion in funding 
over five years [19]. Last year, more than $1.2 billion was awarded to 
130 projects in 46 states. To put this in perspective, the Low-No 
funding awarded in the first two years of IIJA was 3.5 times the total 
amount awarded in the history of the program. Nearly 70 percent of that 
funding has gone to zero emission technology, and those buses will make 
a meaningful difference in the health and well-being of the transit 
workers who will operate them [8].
    The transition to zero emission buses will take time. The 
technology available today, while steadily improving, may not yet meet 
every use case. For example, cold weather range loss is particularly 
challenging for regions with harsh winter seasons, and these losses are 
exacerbated at slower speeds. At 60 miles per hour or greater, on the 
other hand, recent analyses reveal that temperature has little or no 
effect [20]. Thus, transit agencies must account for this expected 
range loss in their route and charging planning. Technological 
solutions and operational strategies can be used to minimize these 
impacts, such as pre-heating the interior and battery, installing more 
efficient heating technology in buses, and creating strategic planning 
and adaptation guidelines for transportation authorities.
    The funding boost from IIJA is coming at the best time as transit 
agencies nationwide are lining up to commit to a zero emission future. 
The nation's seven largest transit bus fleets, spanning from Los 
Angeles to Boston to right here in Washington, DC, make up more than 60 
percent of our total transit bus fleet [21]. Each one of these agencies 
intends to purchase only zero emission buses in the next eight 
years.\2\ It's an ambitious and laudable goal, and they will need 
continued help from Congress and state governments to deliver on these 
promises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Individual transit agency websites spell out agency goals or 
state requirements to transition to zero emission vehicles for all new 
purchases within the next 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Looking Ahead
    Electrifying the transportation sector is an opportunity we cannot 
miss--too much is at stake. The health of Americans, our economy, and 
our planet demand we decarbonize vehicles as quickly as possible. And 
effective public policy, at all levels of government, is crucial to 
decarbonize.
    We're in the middle of a global economic competition for the future 
of vehicle manufacturing. At the moment, the United States is playing 
catchup to China and Europe but there is still time for us to regain a 
leadership position, and we must, in order to continue supporting 
millions of U.S. jobs and an industry vital to our economy.
    Congress's leadership through the IIJA and IRA has generated a wave 
of positive momentum in the United States. We are seeing billions in 
new investments in manufacturing, thousands of new, good paying jobs, 
and the deployment of advanced vehicle and charging technology 
nationwide.
    Surface transportation reauthorization is a rare opportunity for 
Congress to redouble its efforts to support electrifying U.S. 
transportation through continued and expanded funding for charging 
infrastructure and vehicle deployment. Specifically, Congress should 
renew the NEVI and CFI programs. Updating NEVI's requirements to meet 
the needs of current and future EV drivers is a crucial accessibility 
consideration, and can be done by increasing charger power levels to 
350 kilowatts per port and doubling the minimum number of ports from 
four to eight per station. Second, Congress should support the 
burgeoning truck electrification market by targeting charging 
deployment along rights of way and at shared public sites to support 
small businesses who may not have ready access to a depot. Lastly, 
Congress should consider updating the Low-No Program to focus funding 
on zero emission technology, since electrified transportation is the 
best option for the environment, human health, and our economy.
References
    [1]  International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2024,'' April 
2024. [Online]. Available: https://origin.iea.org/reports/global-ev-
outlook-2024. [Accessed 24 April 2024].

    [2]  Alliance for Automotive Innovation, ``Economic Insights,'' 
2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/
insights. [Accessed 24 April 2024].

    [3]  FleetOwner, ``Coalition of Rivals: OEMs come together to solve 
trucking's ZE infrastructure problems,'' FleetOwner, 31 January 2024. 
[Online]. Available: https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/
article/21281800/rival-oems-join-force-to-accelerate-zero-emission-
truck-infrastructure-in-us. [Accessed 24 April 2024].

    [4]  American Lung Association, ``Delivering Clean Air: Health 
Benefits of Zero-Emission Trucks and Electricity,'' 2022. [Online]. 
Available: https://www.lung.org/getmedia/e1ff935b-a935-4f49-91e5-
151f1e643124/zero-emission-truck-report. [Accessed 24 April 2024].

    [5]  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, ``U.S. 
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters,'' 2024. [Online]. 
Available: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/. [Accessed 24 
April 2024].

    [6]  Atlas Public Policy, Utah State University, ``Clean Economy 
Tracker,'' 2024, [Online]. Available: https://cleaneconomytracker.org/. 
[Accessed 25 April 2024].

    [7]  U.S. Department of Energy, ``FOTW #1327, January 29, 2024: 
Annual New Light-Duty EV Sales Topped 1 Million for the First Time in 
2023,'' January 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/eere/
vehicles/articles/fotw-1327-january-29-2024-annual-new-light-duty-ev-
sales-topped-1-million. [Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [8]  Atlas Public Policy, ``EV Hub,'' 2024. [Online]. Available: 
https://atlasevhub.com. [Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [9]  Argonne National Laboratory, ``Light Duty Electric Drive 
Vehicles Monthly Sales Updates,'' 2024. [Online]. Available: https://
www.anl.gov/esia/light-duty-electric-drive-vehicles-monthly-sales-
updates. [Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [10]  U.S. Census Bureau, ``American Community Survey 5-Year 
Data,'' 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.census.gov/data/
developers/data-sets/acs-5year.html. [Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [11]  AAA, ``EV Consumer Sentiment Survey,'' November 2023. 
[Online]. Available: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2023/11/annual-electric-
vehicle-sentiment-survey/. [Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [12]  Federal Register, ``National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 
Standards and Requirements,'' 28 February 2023. [Online]. Available: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/
national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements. 
[Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [13]  CALSTART, ``Zeroing in on Zero-Emission Trucks,'' January 
2022. [Online]. Available: https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/
2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-II.pdf. [Accessed 26 4 2024].

    [14]  CALSTART, ``Zeroing in on Zero-Emission Trucks,'' January 
2024. [Online]. Available: https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/
2024/01/ZIO-ZET-2024_010924_Final.pdf. [Accessed 26 4 2024].

    [15]  R. Mihelic, D. Schaller, J. Lund, Y. Park, J. Wheeler, K. 
Otto, J. Brown and M. Roeth, ``Electric Trucks Have Arrived: 
Documenting a Real-world Electric Trucking Demonstration,'' North 
American Council for Freight Efficiency, 2022.

    [16]  North American Council for Freight Efficiency, ``Run on 
Less,'' 2024. [Online]. Available: https://runonless.com/electric/. 
[Accessed 26 April 2024].

    [17]  D. Murray and A. Shirk, ``Truck Parking Information Systems: 
Truck Driver Use and Perceptions,'' American Trucking Research 
Institute, Arlington, VA, 2021.

    [18]  M. Hynes, A. Crippen, K. Lemons and E. Varnell, ``Zeroing in 
on Zero-emissions Buses,'' February 2024. [Online]. Available: https://
calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-zebs-2024/. [Accessed 25 April 2024].

    [19]  Federal Transit Administration, ``Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law,'' Federal Transit Administration, November 2023. [Online]. 
Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/BIL. [Accessed 25 April 2024].

    [20]  K. Blongewicz and L. McKenzie, ``Fact Sheet: Combatting Range 
Loss in Extreme Cold,'' December 2023. [Online]. Available: https://
atlaspolicy.com/fact-sheet-combatting-range-loss-in-extreme-cold/. 
[Accessed 25 April 2024].

    [21]  Federal Transit Administration, ``Transit Profiles: 2020,'' 
2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/
fta.dot.gov/files/2021-11/2020%20Top%2050%20Profiles%20Report_0.pdf. 
[Accessed 26 April 2024].

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Nigro.
    I thank all of you for your testimony. We will now turn to 
questions from the panel. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Let me start with Mr. Darakos. I appreciate you raising a 
number of the challenges that trucking fleets, both large and 
small, face as they consider how to respond to decarbonization 
policies without bankrupting their businesses. You also shared 
with the subcommittee the significant multiyear investments 
that the trucking sector has already made to reduce its 
environmental footprint.
    Talk about more of the challenges associated with only 
running Class 7 or Class 8 battery-electric trucks and why PITT 
OHIO has chosen to have a fleet with different fuel options.
    Mr. Darakos. Sure. Thank you, Chairman.
    In terms of hurdles, I would say there are three buckets to 
consider. It is technology, infrastructure, and cost. So, from 
our experiences, the technology was not readily available until 
2 years ago for initial demonstration projects. In fact, we 
were one of the early fleets to bring battery-electric medium-
duty trucks into our operation. The range, the payloads, 
significantly less than the current conventional trucks that 
are on the road today.
    So, when you think about what that does to our operation, 
it changes the dynamics of what we do and how we do it.
    Infrastructure: significant hurdles. So, we have 25 depots. 
We have considered electrification in 12 of those depots. Ten 
different utilities that we have to work with. I can share 
stories with you that, you know, we did a lot of work on the 
facility side many years ago, Chairman. We electrified our 
forklift fleet. Today, we are 42 percent electrified. The 
reason we are not 100 percent: We do not have the power to 
support electrification in those facilities. So, those are 
small loads.
    As we talk about medium-duty, heavy-duty, it is a very 
large load that we are bringing to the grid. And those projects 
to electrify our depots are taking a long time. We have an 
electrification project today that will have taken 2 years from 
start to finish to get 3 megawatts of power onsite, and that is 
just for a small project. And we are ahead of the curve.
    And then lastly I would say is cost. So, what we have seen 
pre-incentives, 3\1/2\ to 4 times the cost of the conventional 
vehicle, we have seen significant cost increases over the last 
years, 2 years for conventional vehicles. And I just signed an 
order agreement for three trucks. One and a half million 
dollars is the equivalent of 10\1/2\ vehicles in internal 
combustion engine technology.
    So, as I mentioned right now, our hurdles are centered 
around technology, and the technology is improving. It is the 
infrastructure which is a large challenge, and it is the cost 
of the technology moving forward.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. In your testimony, you highlighted 
the Roland Berger study that I mentioned in my opening 
comments. Can you give us a little bit more about the real-
world electrification challenges raised by that study? And I 
guess I would like to know how difficult it would be for the 
trucking sector to meet both the Biden administration's carbon 
reduction goals in addition to what California wants to 
require.
    Mr. Darakos. There are a lot of folks working really hard 
to move this forward. In terms of that study, a lot of the 
charging that has to happen for our fleet has to be behind-the-
fence charging. So, that is a significant investment of 
resources. And we are a large organization. We are family-
owned. But the majority of trucking companies today are small 
businesses. And the reality is, they do not have the 
infrastructure, the teams to kind of move this forward.
    In our experiences over the last 3 years, it has taken a 
team to move these small projects forward. So, that is one 
aspect of it.
    The other piece is from a duty-cycle standpoint in the 
Roland Berger study, there is a lot of investment that is going 
to have to happen in corridor charging. That is fine, but it is 
going to have a significant impact in terms of how we do 
business today.
    During the day, our fleet does city deliveries. At night, 
they do line haul deliveries which are terminal to terminal. We 
average 520 miles a night. We have drivers that operate over 
600 miles a night. That is not possible if we have to stop and 
recharge for 30 minutes to an hour. So, there are some 
significant hurdles.
    I think the study out does a good job of shining the 
spotlight on the significant investment that is going to have 
to happen, but there are some challenges that I see with that 
study as how we move forward.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
    Mr. Coggin, real quick, you mentioned the inclement weather 
down the coast that you deal with. I am curious how that 
inclement weather would impact your ability to function if you 
were all electric, given the Katrina scenario, for example. Can 
you talk about that?
    Mr. Coggin. Yes, sir. Hurricane Katrina was a Cat 5 
devastating hurricane who pretty much destroyed our entire 
community. Our public transit agency is a very important part 
of evacuation and recovery. During these events, we are part of 
the Harrison County Emergency Management Agency. We are totally 
responsible for Emergency Support Function 1--Transportation. 
So, we are called upon to meet all of the needs of the 
community when these events happen. And so, we provide 
evacuation transportation. That is the easy part.
    After the storm, if it is devastating, people lose their 
homes, their cars, power--it could be out for weeks at a time, 
like Hurricane Katrina. If we were 100 percent electric, we 
would not be able to support the community in that type of a 
power outage. So, that is a critical issue for us being able to 
meet those needs.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Ranking Member Holmes Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Nigro, we have heard some discussion today 
about the cost of transitioning to cleaner vehicles. Congress 
has a role to play in alleviating those costs. But we would be 
remiss not to also speak about the significant benefits of a 
cleaner transportation system.
    What are the benefits of electrification both in terms of 
human health and avoiding environmental catastrophe?
    Mr. Nigro. Thank you for the question.
    So, let me start with the tailpipe. With no tailpipe, we 
see huge local air emission benefits immediately in all the 
areas where an EV operates. I mentioned earlier that the 
American Lung Association estimates that zero-emission trucks 
could lead to 65,000 fewer premature deaths by 2050. It 
performed a similar study for passenger vehicles, and they 
found that that combined with reducing emissions from the 
electricity sector where the power comes from could lead to 
89,300 fewer premature deaths by 2050. So, that is a lot of 
human health benefits.
    A new analysis from Bloomberg found that EVs produce about 
70 percent less carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in gasoline 
vehicles over their lifetime. It is important to highlight the 
lifetime aspect of this because we have been actively 
decarbonizing the electrical grid for some time. There is an 
old adage in the EV space: The dirtiest days of your EV is the 
first day you take it off the lot. Because the grid is 
continually getting cleaner.
    You also asked about the benefits of avoiding environmental 
disasters. I highlighted what NOAA does, and, frankly, at 
Atlas, we are quite jealous of their work in tracking climate-
related disasters because it is all about making that data 
publicly accessible. They estimated that it cost us nearly $2.7 
trillion in climate-related disasters from all kinds of events 
since 1980.
    Those costs, importantly, are increasing each decade. So, 
the problem is getting worse. And so, the sooner we act, the 
fewer costs we will have to endure in the long term.
    Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Nigro, Federal electric vehicle 
charging programs have taken time to implement, as the Biden 
administration first had to follow congressional directives to 
create a new joint office and issue technical standards to 
ensure consistent charging experience nationwide. The 
administration also chose to issue a stronger Buy America 
standard for electric vehicle chargers. I believe the 
administration did the right thing.
    Were those steps worth the extra time it took to get these 
programs implemented, Mr. Nigro?
    Mr. Nigro. So, that is a great question because for folks 
who don't work closely with State DOTs, from the outside 
looking in, the law was enacted. And for some time, not much 
money has been spent installing charging, at least from the 
outside looking in.
    But as an engineer--similar to Ms. Okafor, I am also an 
electrical engineer--State DOTs are engineering-focused 
organizations. And what they want to do and what we like to do 
as engineers is plan and make sure that we get everything right 
before we commit resources. And the reality of NEVI, in 
particular, the first 12 to 18 months was just doing that, 
building up capacity within the States' DOTs to hire people. 
Many DOTs had never done any recharging program before. So, 
they had to either bring in outside help or hire new resources, 
and they had to submit plans for how they were going to 
implement their program. So, all of that takes time. But it's 
important because it's building long-term capacity within the 
DOTs.
    And what has become evident, watching, again, from the 
outside on what is happening within DOTs, it is quickly 
becoming a core part of what they do as a department of 
transportation, not just building roads and bridges, but also 
making sure that mobility as a service is provided. And EV 
charging is an increasingly important part of that.
    And so, in essence, these plans are essential because we 
want to make sure that the money that gets spent here from IIJA 
is transparent, it is sufficient, and it is equitable. And that 
is going to take time. And that is something that we have had 
to accept in the recent past.
    On the other hand, I mentioned earlier, the funding is 
starting to go out the door. And so, by the end of this year, 
we expect that there are actually going to be stations open or 
under construction in most States. And now that the DOTs have--
many of them have issued awards, I expect that we are going to 
see a lot more NEVI stations open up in the near term because 
these sites are actually relatively quick construction sites.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Nigro. My time has expired.
    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Webster.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Okafor, this is a pretty simple question. Where does 
the electricity come from that charges these batteries?
    Mrs. Okafor. Thank you for the question.
    There are a number of different ways that electricity is 
produced throughout the country. There are a number of 
production plants. And then the utility agencies throughout the 
country transmit that power out to the demand locations, which 
are EV charging stations.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, the Biden administration wants 
to have half a million stations opened up. There have only been 
eight built so far. So, pretty much they still want half a 
million. So, do you know if there is enough power somewhere out 
there being generated right now to support those 500 stations?
    Mrs. Okafor. It is an extremely important question. The 
utilities throughout our country have a very significant job on 
their hands to make sure that there is enough power that gets 
transmitted to these EV charging stations. Quite honestly, they 
are our partner as we think about the value chain, to working 
together with the utility to help them understand when we are 
going to put in chargers and how much load we require, so that 
they can build the utility power production plant as quickly 
and as effectively as possible. It is a better question for a 
utility agency, but it will be a significant challenge 
throughout the country.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes, because permitting is not the 
easiest thing in the world to do. And depending on what kind of 
powerplant you are permitting, for a nuclear plant, probably 
not going to happen in our lifetime. So, I just wondered--if 
that be the case, how much for an average battery-powered 
vehicle that runs--before the battery is run down, how much 
does it take in power to recharge those batteries?
    Mrs. Okafor. Different OEMs have different battery packs in 
their systems. At our locations, we have seen that customers 
usually stay in charge at a fast charger between 20 and 40 
minutes, and they take somewhere between 30 and 40 
kilowatthours per charge.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. OK. So, if all 500,000 of those are 
operating at one time, that is a lot of juice.
    Mrs. Okafor. It is certainly a significant amount of power, 
more power than we use right now. You are correct.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, how much does it--what would be 
the timeframe to permit and build an electric station? What 
does it take to do that?
    Mrs. Okafor. For an EV charging station? The typical build 
time for an EV charging station altogether is 12 to 18 months. 
I would say the three long lead items in that schedule is, one, 
the procurement and manufacturing of the charger. Two, it is 
the utility upgrade. That by far is the portion of the schedule 
that's the hardest to predict. We don't get that much 
information from the utility early on. And then third is 
exactly what you are saying, permitting. Because we have no 
control on how long the AHJ takes to permit our stations, we 
are dependent on the AHJ to review it in a timely fashion and 
to get the permit out to us. On average, we see permitting 
taking anywhere between 1 and 3 to 4 months max.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Do you have to get a permit if you 
are just adding on EV power?
    Mrs. Okafor. You do, yes. So, at a location like Love's 
that is already a fueling station, you do have to get an 
additional permit to add chargers to our stations.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, would that be the same as if it 
were new? New or add-on, it would be the same amount of time, 
you think?
    Mrs. Okafor. Say that one more time. Would you repeat the 
question for me, please?
    Mr. Webster of Florida. OK. So, you said that they have 
add-ons on stations that already exist, and then there are new 
stations that exist. Does it take the same amount of time to do 
either one, as far as electric power? I am not talking about 
the whole station.
    Mrs. Okafor. For just the charge, it depends on what it is 
that you are building. But if you are--let's say you are 
building a new truckstop. Permitting the truckstop itself takes 
a significant amount of time. So, it does fall within--
permitting the truckstop--permitting that EV charging station 
falls within the timeframe of permitting the truckstop.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Is that two permits? Or do you just 
permit the whole station, and it could be or may not be an EV 
station?
    Mrs. Okafor. For an EV charging station, you typically need 
a build permit and, I believe, a structural permit.
    I wish I had my design-build manager up here with me. He 
would be able to answer that question much easier than I would.
    But there are different sorts of permits that you need. For 
a truckstop, obviously, you would need much more than that.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you.
    OK. Yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Those are great questions outlining that most of these--
there is a bucket of challenges that have nothing to do with 
the Federal Government and a lot to do with everybody else.
    And one of the main issues--and I want to come back to you; 
I have a question for Mr. Nigro, but I want to come back to 
you--one of the main issues is you are dealing with local 
utilities that, basically, even though they wield the power or 
send the power, they own it. They own your access to it. So, it 
doesn't matter if you are building a charging station, a 
commercial facility, industrial facility, the utility is the 
gatekeeper on your power.
    Mr. Nigro, I made the point, the chair made the point, the 
NEVI program has only funded 8 charging stations, soon to be 
20, with the 12 that will be located immediately, and a total 
of 78 at the Library Commons project in Mount Vernon. But, 
still, it is a challenge, and it is not a great story.
    Can you talk a little bit about how we can accelerate the 
Federal funding to get chargers funded?
    Mr. Nigro. So, when it comes to NEVI, there was just a 
significant amount of time required to stand up the program. I 
am actually quite confident that DOTs are going to be issuing 
funding opportunities in rapid succession. Many are actually 
already on their second round of funding.
    And so, as I mentioned earlier, I think before the end of 
the year, I would expect more than half of the States to have 
either sites under construction or open at this point.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. But, to date, even though 
the number is eight, do you have an estimate of the number of 
chargers that are actually deployed, total, regardless of who 
has funded them?
    Mr. Nigro. Oh, you mean in addition to NEVI? How many----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Eight, plus how 
many? Yes, right.
    Mr. Nigro. No, I don't have that number with me, but I 
can----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Is it 100? Is it 
200? Is it 1,000?
    Mr. Nigro. Fast chargers available to any American right 
now in the public, it's somewhere near 10,000.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Somewhere near 10,000.
    Mr. Nigro. Yes.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Great. Thanks. Thanks.
    So, back to Ms. Okafor, you mentioned some of the 
challenges. Are there things that we can do to clear the brush 
on these challenges?
    Mrs. Okafor. Yes. What it really reminds me of is the 
biodiesel incentive structure. So, Love's is one of the leading 
blenders of biodiesel throughout the country, and the incentive 
structure that biodiesel had was a two-sided structure: One, 
you had incentives for infrastructure; on the other side, you 
had incentives for the energy or the fuel to go to the 
consumer.
    On the EV charging side for NEVI, we have incentivized the 
infrastructure and haven't incentivized demand to get the 
consumer to be incentivized to buy these electric vehicles. So, 
increasing the demand for the charging stations would make the 
economics for the infrastructure much easier to bear. So, the 
help that we would be looking for is on incentives on 
incentivizing drivers to buy these EVs.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Thanks.
    And then, Mr. Coggin, Todd Morrow was here a few weeks 
ago--he is at Island Transit in my district--speaking on behalf 
of the CTAA, testifying on a separate set of issues. But they 
are also going to electric and propane, because they are a 
rural transit agency as well, and so, they are going to do a 
fuel mix as well.
    We have seen quite a number of, at least in Washington 
State, and I am sure around the country, both urban, suburban, 
and rural transit agencies adopting low- and no-emission and 
working through that transition, as well, with their own sets 
of challenges.
    So, when you are done, if you will, with your transition, 
what will be your fleet mix in terms of fuel?
    Mr. Coggin. Based on current technology and budgetary 
constraints, we are using propane for small and midsize 
vehicles, and we are using pure electric on the big buses.
    The mix of our fleet, 54 vehicles, is currently 20 percent 
gasoline, 52 percent diesel, 27 percent propane, and only 1 
percent electric. We only have one 35-foot heavy-duty bus. We 
have 12 buses on order now that are going to be propane to 
replace diesel, so, we are going to go from 27 percent to 39 
percent propane by the end of the summer this year.
    Going forward, we don't know what that is going to look 
like. We are looking at pure electric. Pure electric is more 
expensive than the other technologies. There are costs to that. 
And we also are blessed to live in a community with clean air. 
We are not in a nonattainment area.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Right.
    Mr. Coggin. But we--I personally think that federally 
funded public agencies should be taking the lead in alternative 
fuels. And there are a bunch of alternatives other than 
electric out there. If you have really bad air-quality issues, 
certainly electric is the way to go, but we don't.
    So, our current strategy is, as I said, using propane. It 
is cleaner than diesel, less expensive to operate, and cheaper 
than electric. But electric is totally clean. So, it just 
depends on your weather, geography, operating requirements.
    So, going forward, 20 years from now, who knows what the 
technology and the costs are going to be? And if we wind up 
having air-quality issues, it will certainly be electric for 
us. But right now the plan is not for pure electric.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. That is great. That is helpful.
    And appreciate it, Mr. Chair. And I will follow up with Mr. 
Darakos on some questions on trucking, but--if I had time to 
yield back, I would do it.
    Mr. Crawford. All right.
    The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Bost.
    Mr. Bost. Mr. Darakos, when I look over the panel, I am 
trying to figure out which person I could ask this of.
    I was born and raised in a trucking business; actually 
dealt with a whole lot of hazardous material, including the 
ANFO for mines, gas, diesel, propane.
    When you start working with electric vehicles, what is the 
higher danger of when you start moving hazardous material, when 
we are talking about charging stations, and the intersection of 
all of those? Do you know?
    Mr. Darakos. Yes, I can comment on that.
    From our standpoint, we move a lot of hazardous-material 
products through our LTL network. We also do flammables, 
explosives. So, there is a concern. In fact, the way we are 
structuring charging today, we do it away from our dock 
facility because of the risk and the potential hazards with 
thermal runaway on those electric vehicles.
    So, we could reduce the impact of infrastructure stress on 
our facilities if we had confidence to plug those vehicles in 
at the dock as the units were being loaded, but today the 
charging happens away from the dock.
    In fact, recently, there was a fire in Columbus, Ohio, 
where a partner LTL carrier had lithium batteries that were 
coming back, that were being sent back in, defective, and they 
had a thermal runaway that shut down a 1-mile radius in the 
Columbus area and shut down the terminal operations.
    So, it's real. We are considering it and looking at it. And 
I think that is why we are walking into this slowly as the 
technology evolves.
    Mr. Bost. I think there are some concerns that many of us 
have. You know what? We would all like to have clean vehicles. 
We would all like to have the--where it's perfect. But what we 
don't say about the electric vehicle is the ability to create a 
grid powerful enough to handle that.
    I worked for 20 years in the State legislature on the 
public utilities. And our base load would not handle increasing 
to the point of what we are talking about through this 
administration.
    But, with that, Ms. Okafor, I know that Love's offers EV 
charging, hydrogen, compressed natural gas, renewable natural 
gas, biodiesel, to name just a few. You do provide all of it.
    Now, in your opinion, if this administration focuses on 
electric, it's limiting investments in other types of 
alternative fuels.
    Now, another problem that is out there is, China currently 
controls the EV charging market and a majority of the 
refineries for the critical minerals that are used to 
manufacture batteries.
    Are there any alternative fuels that you deal with that you 
believe that we, as the U.S., can become energy-independent 
with and actually keep ourselves away from the big fear that we 
have of China?
    Mrs. Okafor. Thank you for the question. It is a great 
question.
    When I think about the incentive programs that we have in 
place today and, in some cases, mandates that we have in place, 
it strikes me that we may be doing this in the reverse order. 
Some of the challenges that you have mentioned are things that 
I believe that we should be focusing on: what are the solutions 
to those challenges.
    So, as we move forward in determining what the energy 
transition should be in our country, focusing on solutions to 
challenges is what I think that we should be doing.
    Mr. Bost. Yes.
    And the only thing that I would also close out here--I 
don't want to drag on too long, but--the frustration that we 
feel.
    This Nation has been really, really, really good on 
allowing the free market to work. And I am going to tell you 
something: that whenever the internal combustion engine was 
created in this Nation, guess what? Government didn't have to 
go out and set up gas stations. Who did it? We, the free 
people. What we did was, we had entrepreneurs that saw a golden 
opportunity.
    If electric vehicles come to a point where all of a sudden 
you, yourself, along with your companies and everything like 
that, have put in--if you can use the electric vehicles. But 
taking existing taxpayer dollars to build an infrastructure 
that it's not time for yet seems a little confusing to most of 
the people out here.
    Because, right now, we can't charge to the level we are 
talking about, as good as it may sound. And it is wonderful to 
quote statistics, as long as you are quoting your statistics 
that support you. And I think on this issue maybe we ought to 
wisen up and let the free-market system work.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Brownley.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Throughout our Nation's history, we have been at the 
forefront of transportation and transportation innovation.
    When the first locomotive steam engine was developed, we 
innovated and adapted and built a coast-to-coast, nationwide 
network of interconnected railways for both passenger and 
freight movement.
    When the combustion engine was invented, we innovated and 
adapted and built a nationwide network of highways and bridges 
and fueling infrastructure for automobiles and trucks.
    When the airplane was invented, we innovated and adapted 
and built a robust, nationwide network of airports for 
passengers and freight transport.
    So, I am a bit perplexed by those who question the United 
States ability to innovate and adapt and build a nationwide 
network of zero-emission-fuel infrastructure. I think instead 
of putting our collective heads in the sand, we should double 
down on investments to innovate and adapt and ensure the United 
States is on the cutting edge of innovation for our future.
    So, my first question, Mr. Nigro, is to you. When this 
committee debates electric vehicles, we often hear concerns 
related to cost and range or technological barriers from those 
who oppose EVs. And these challenges are real, but I believe 
that American ingenuity has a role to play in solving them to 
address the broader goal of reducing carbon pollution and, 
certainly, sustaining life on our planet.
    Your testimony notes that China and Europe together made up 
85 percent of EV sales in 2023. If we don't act quickly, the 
U.S. risks falling further behind.
    What will happen if the U.S. concedes the race on this new 
economic front to other countries?
    Mr. Nigro. That is a big question, and the answer is 
complicated, because it is going to depend, in part, on how the 
industry responds in the near term.
    So, as I mentioned in my testimony, China and Europe are 
ahead of us right now when it comes to electrification. The 
other facts are, the industry is committed to zero-emission 
technology in part because they want to build vehicles for 
those markets.
    And so, the U.S. is currently playing catchup. With the 
enactment of IIJA and IRA, we are catching up quite quickly. I 
mentioned earlier the more than $140 billion of announced 
investments in manufacturing across the EV supply chain here in 
the United States in the last 4 years. So, that is a good sign.
    But we are going to have to keep that going for at least 
the next several years in order to get to capacity where we can 
process minerals for batteries, assemble new vehicles, and, 
frankly, build all the types of vehicles that the American 
consumer wants.
    For the most part, in the early days of the EV market, it 
was focused on some of the higher end, more expensive luxury 
vehicles. Slowly but surely, the market has started to offer 
more and more affordable vehicles. And, in fact, this year, the 
most popular conventional vehicles that were sold--think 
vehicles like the Toyota Camry, the Ford F-150--they have 
electric alternatives that, when you look at the whole 
ownership cost of owning that EV in that conventional vehicle, 
it is cheaper to own the EV.
    And so, right now, we have vehicles that are out there that 
are competitive, but we still have a ways to go.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that.
    And so, also, I wanted to ask you: We have heard a lot 
today already about concerns about the trucking sector's 
ability to move forward with clean vehicles. Do you see reasons 
to be optimistic that the U.S. can succeed in transitioning to 
zero-emission commercial trucks?
    Mr. Nigro. Yes. Yes, I do. And it is in part because, 
again, the industry is stepping up. The three truck 
manufacturers that make up nearly three-quarters of the medium- 
and heavy-duty market--Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, and 
Navistar--they aim to only sell zero-emission vehicles by 2040.
    And so, these manufacturers, along with a handful of 
fleets, logistics companies, charging developers, electric 
utilities, all the key players in this industry, formed an 
association just recently here in Washington called PACT, and 
it is focused entirely on trying to get more zero-emission 
infrastructure out there, which, frankly, appears to be the 
biggest barrier right now to truck deployment, is making sure 
the infrastructure can get deployed as quickly as the trucks 
can be built.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields.
    Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It just seems, about the only thing that we hear about, in 
committee, on the floor, is CO2, climate change, all the time--
hounded, hounded, hounded.
    And I like to go back to when California was incentivizing, 
via regulation, moving people out of the trucks and buses they 
had into cleaner vehicles, moving them to Tier 4. And there was 
this implied promise that, once you get everything updated, out 
of--2011 or newer engines, that once everything is Tier 4, we 
will leave you alone for a while.
    Yet what happens? This kick to electrify everything kicks 
in during this administration. And now they want to electrify 
everything from your car or your truck to your barbecue, OK? 
Because it is just a fad now.
    And I think that when we are mixing up what elements are 
actually pollutants versus someone's idea of inconvenience--for 
example, yes, we have to do better on methane, we have to do 
better on particulate matter, NOx, things like that. But CO2 is 
not this problem. All the time, we hear CO2 is the enemy.
    So, I would like to ask the panel, what are we even 
shooting at here? What is our goal here?
    So, Mr. Nigro, you first. What percent of our atmosphere is 
CO2?
    Mr. Nigro. So, I have to tell you right upfront, I am an 
engineer, not a climate scientist. And so, as an engineer, I 
just know I can't learn everything about everything; I really 
have to build my work on the shoulders of others. And, in this 
case----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. OK. Well, let me--you are in 
here, and you are part of a whole parade of people that comes 
through this committee and others that never seems to know what 
the target is.
    For the rest of the panel, I will just save you. The 
percent of our atmosphere that is CO2 is .04 percent. Yes, the 
average person on the street, with all the hype, they think it 
is somewhere between 20 and 50 percent. It is .04. Yes, it has 
crept up a little bit in the last decades. But if we go below 
.02 percent, plant life dies off. It is essential to plant 
life.
    Yet we are turning our economy up on its head because of 
CO2 and the hype that is being made by all the regulators on 
this. CO2 is not a poisonous gas unless you breathe 100 percent 
of it. It is ridiculous, what is going on here.
    And so, in converting everything to all this, we are doing 
a giant disservice to our school districts, to our truckers, to 
consumers that have to buy things that are delivered by things 
that cost much more--a truck, for example, or a schoolbus.
    Now, I saw one of my local districts bought an electric 
schoolbus here. They are in the middle of farm country in 
northern California. There must have been some massive grants 
or incentive in order to do that, because they didn't just go 
out and buy it themselves. These buses cost anywhere from 
$150,000 to $220,000 is one of the figures I have. I hear 
higher figures from folks in the other part of my rural 
district, much higher numbers. They can't afford to do this.
    So, panelists, anybody want to weigh in on how much is the 
subsidy on the average truck or bus in order for somebody to 
buy this?
    Because we keep hearing we need to incentivize, we need 
to--the Government needs to play a role in this. And the point 
was made a while ago, the Government wasn't buying gas 
stations, the Government wasn't propping up internal combustion 
engines back when they first started really kicking in, in the 
1920s and 1930s, whatever. People were doing it on their own. 
Yes, we built the Interstate Highway System after General 
Eisenhower saw how great that was in Europe and such.
    But what is the real goal here, when we have had Tier 4 
engines in California be the thing that we were supposed to 
shoot for and now they have completely changed the game?
    So, Ms. Okafor, you have those Love's truckstops. Please 
weigh in on the impacts of truckers no longer being able to 
afford the trucks and all the infrastructure, especially when 
they are tearing out the infrastructure to generate electricity 
in California, such as hydroelectric dams.
    Mrs. Okafor. It is a wonderful question. Our focus is 
providing the fuel that our customers need, and we believe 
that, in order to move customers or consumers into a different 
sort of fuel, they have to be incentivized to move in that 
direction.
    Mr. LaMalfa. But that costs a lot of money to the 
taxpayers. We always say Government needs to do something. It 
is the taxpayers that pays for all of this.
    And so, time and time again, when Government says, ``well, 
we have set new goals,'' it means they have goals that cost the 
taxpayers money for something that, when I visit a Ford dealer, 
people don't seem to want, OK? They don't seem to want these. 
Ford is losing their rear end--like, $130,000 is the figure I 
saw reported, per vehicle--because they have already reached 
their saturation point with those.
    I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me first say a brief word about the passing of our 
colleague, Donald Payne, Jr.
    I have been in Congress for three terms now; I have had a 
chance to work with Congressman Payne as a leader here on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
    He was an impactful leader in this body, certainly an 
impactful leader inside the Democratic caucus. He was our 
leader on rail safety issues, and he did an outstanding job at 
an important time in America on the issue of rail safety.
    He was an impactful leader on the issue of supporting and 
advocating for people suffering from diabetes and bringing down 
the cost of insulin and other pharmaceuticals that people 
suffering from diabetes need.
    He was a quiet leader, but a really impactful leader, 
someone I respected greatly. And he will be greatly missed.
    Arizona and my district have benefited from the 
electrification dollars that came through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law.
    In January, the city of Mesa received nearly $12 million to 
install 48 electric-vehicle charging ports, charging docks for 
e-bikes and e-scooters, and solar canopies to support 
electricity generation at the stations. These initiatives will 
ensure that EV charging is accessible to all residents 
regardless of their location or employment.
    Last June, Valley Metro, Arizona's transit agency, was 
awarded over $13 million to purchase zero-emission buses. And, 
in 2022, the city of Phoenix received a $16 million Low-No 
grant to buy hydrogen fuel cell buses, battery-electric buses, 
and charging equipment as part of the initial phase of the 
city's zero-emission transition plan.
    These dollars are helping our local cities. Not only will 
transitioning to electric buses lower emissions, but it will 
significantly lower long-term fuel and maintenance costs, 
saving taxpayer dollars.
    But we are on an aggressive timeline, and we need to be 
thinking strategically about how we use every tool in the 
toolbox to future-proof both our bus fleets and our heavy-duty 
fleets.
    My bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Energy Efficiency and 
Conservation Block Grant Program will provide grants to State, 
local, and Tribal governments to support initiatives that will 
reduce fossil-fuel emissions and conserve energy. It would 
allow municipalities to use the funds to install fueling 
equipment, pumps, EV charging stations, et cetera, to enable 
the fueling of alternative-fuel vehicles, giving fleet managers 
alternatives to the use of gasoline and diesel. This could 
include providing equipment for refueling with bio-gas, 
compressed natural gas, and hydrogen.
    Ms. Okafor, your day-to-day work is managing EV charging, 
hydrogen fueling, and solar businesses. You mention in your 
testimony that any changes to transportation energy must work 
for American consumers. I couldn't agree more. And that means 
it must work for you to distribute it.
    Can you describe how Love's has been working to integrate 
electrification and hydrogen fueling into your business model?
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely.
    So, we started putting in our first EV charging stations 
over 7 years ago throughout the country. And over the last 7 
years, we have installed them at about 30 to 40 locations 
across our network.
    And what we have been doing for the last 7 years has been 
learning: learning about the market, learning about driver 
behaviors, utilization, how to charge for electricity as a 
fuel. And we have learned a lot.
    And because of all of the work that we have done over the 
last several years, we have been able to attack NEVI as 
aggressively as we have been. And happy to say that we have won 
$30 million to date to build 50 new EV charging stations. It 
has really been on the back of everything that we have learned 
thus far. And our hope is to win even more money to build out 
more of our network.
    On the hydrogen fueling side of our business, we have taken 
a different approach, a different lane. The Trillium portion of 
the Love's Family of Companies, one of our major customer bases 
is transit agencies. And transits have been moving much faster 
on the hydrogen fuel cell side of the industry, of the market. 
So, to date, we have designed and built and operated and 
maintained five hydrogen fueling stations for transit agencies 
behind the fence.
    And if and when our heavy-duty customers need hydrogen 
fueling at our Love's truckstops, we will be able to do so 
quickly because of everything that we have learned with our 
transit partners.
    Mr. Stanton. That is really great.
    You also talk about how bringing in alternative fuel does 
not necessarily mean revamping the entire market. Can you 
expand a little bit upon that?
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely.
    Our core is our customers. So, having a place for them to 
fuel their vehicles is exactly what we do for them today, no 
matter what the fuel type is.
    What customers really want is reliable fuel, convenient, 
and lowest cost fuel available. They also want amenities that 
they are used to and that they need whenever they refuel their 
vehicles. These amenities include fresh foods and different 
items that they can purchase, places where they can sit and 
eat, dog parks, clean restrooms; for mothers that are traveling 
with children, diaper-changing areas. All of these. And most of 
all, secure locations, well-lit parking lots where they can 
charge and fuel their vehicle.
    So, everything that our industry has been providing for the 
past 60, 70, 80 years is everything that EV drivers need today.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Appreciate the testimony from you all.
    Ms. Okafor, great to see you again.
    You mentioned in your testimony that you are concerned with 
unfair competition, with utilities owning and operating 
charging stations on the back of ratepayers. I am also 
concerned about that.
    Recently, we saw this debate play out in my State of 
Minnesota, where a utility proposed to build, own, and operate 
public charging sites. The project's multimillion-dollar 
pricetag would have come from its own ratepayers. As you can 
imagine, this received sharp criticism.
    What would have happened to the market in Minnesota if the 
Public Utilities Commission had approved that proposal?
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely. I really appreciate the question. 
And great to see you again as well.
    The only way that we can get a return on our investment 
when we install EV charging stations, or any fuel, is to make 
sure that the customer experience is as positive as possible. 
Our goal is to have consumers return to our sites to get fuel 
as well as other amenities that they need when they stop to 
refuel their vehicles. We have to ensure that our experience is 
consistent and great every single time. That is the only way we 
get a return on our investment.
    For utilities that deploy charging stations and get their 
return in other methods, that makes it such that there is an 
unlevel playing field. They do not have to prioritize consumer 
experience.
    Mr. Stauber. So, I believe in an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy and all the best will rise to the top.
    Do you all agree that forcing the American consumer into 
purchasing an electric vehicle is the way, or should we allow 
the free markets to make that happen?
    Does anyone want to comment on that?
    Do you support the free markets and choosing--for the 
American people to choose their own vehicles?
    Mr. Darakos. From my standpoint, I do, Congressman, I 
think, because it offers us flexibility, and it is going to 
allow for the appropriate technology to move forward to support 
whatever we are doing.
    So, I think there is a great need to allow for that, moving 
forward. And that is why we have a fleet that operates on 
diesel. We are looking at renewable diesel. We have compressed-
natural-gas vehicles that have run within our fleet, and we are 
looking at electric vehicles as well.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Coggin, free market?
    Mr. Coggin. Yes, sir. Current FTA regulations allow transit 
systems like us to provide the types of services that our 
community needs and operate the types of vehicles that meet 
those operational needs. So, there are two issues here: There 
is air quality, tailpipe emissions, and then there is budgetary 
constraints. And we feel like what we are doing meets our 
needs. We are reducing our tailpipe emissions in a cost-
efficient manner.
    So, there is this talk about internal combustion engines 
and the finances of that and the emissions. We chose to use 
propane--and I am not here today to just talk about propane, 
because we are operating a lot of things, and I am not anti 
anything. But a propane bus costs the same as a diesel bus, and 
propane is cheaper to operate. The cost per mile is cheaper 
because the fuel is cheaper. A bonus is, we are reducing our 
emissions. So, we are not fixated on CO2 and emissions. That is 
a bonus.
    The diesel engine requires diesel emission fluid, which is 
very expensive, that you have to put in there. That goes into 
the operating cost. It has been our experience that the diesel 
emission control systems that are on these heavy-duty engines 
that we run are very expensive to maintain. They are 
cumbersome; they are not reliable. Frequently, the engines go 
into what is called ``re-gen,'' where they are burning off 
impurities----
    Mr. Stauber [interposing]. Yes.
    Mr. Coggin [continuing]. Because we do a lot of idling. 
Diesel is not a good option at all.
    So, propane is--the upfront cost is as much, and the 
operating cost is much less.
    Mr. Stauber. And I think you are seeing a lot of school 
districts across the Nation going to propane buses just because 
of that.
    Ms. Okafor, Love's, where do they prioritize the location 
of the charging stations at the businesses? Where do they 
prioritize?
    Mrs. Okafor. The priority is to have the charging stations 
in a place where customers and consumers can actively find the 
chargers and easily find the chargers.
    I took a road trip from Oklahoma City to Houston in an 
electric vehicle because I wanted to understand the experience 
of an EV driver. And what I found is that, in a lot of cases, 
it is hard to even find the charger. And it is hard to find a 
charger that is co-located with amenities that I want because I 
am sitting there for 20 to 40 minutes.
    So, finding the charger has been our priority.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, if you would indulge me, I will 
tell you that this Government has paid $7.4 billion for 
electric vehicle chargers, and they have so far installed seven 
of them, and it has been 2 years ago.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    The chair has been notified there is a series of votes. 
Before we break for votes, I am going to recognize Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 
delighted, and thank you and the ranking member for hosting 
this hearing about transitioning to clean, sustainable electric 
vehicles.
    In Chicago, Pace, one of our transit agencies, debuted its 
first electric bus this past January, and they have 22 more 
buses on order. This is not only a milestone for building a 
sustainable transportation sector, but also for meeting demands 
of rapid decarbonization.
    There is concern over the limited number of bus 
manufacturers and the lack of capacity to produce electric 
buses needed in a timely manner.
    Mr. Nigro, it is encouraging to see how many local transit 
agencies want to transition to electric buses. How can we 
ensure that our markets are prepared for this demand so that we 
can complete orders on time?
    Mr. Nigro. It is a great question. And industry will 
respond with market certainty. So, when you provide it with 
demand for a product like electric buses, they are going to 
ensure that the manufacturing capacity is expanded to meet that 
demand.
    It is what we are seeing right now in passenger vehicles. 
The Inflation Reduction Act set up a framework to encourage 
domestic production and assembly of electric vehicles, and we 
have seen $141 billion of announced investments as a result.
    And so, as more transit agencies commit to zero-emission 
vehicles, I would expect the supply to be made readily 
available.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
    Electric vehicle technology and infrastructure is critical 
to a district like mine, surrounded by highways and industrial 
development. With some of the worst air quality in the country, 
cutting pollution from gasoline and diesel fuel would give my 
constituents years of their lives back.
    No Republicans voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, and 
very few House Republicans voted for the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. Yet their districts are reaping benefits of 
those laws through new electric vehicle manufacturing plants 
and the creation of jobs. And this is good.
    Mr. Nigro, can you speak about the economic benefits and 
jobs that districts across the country are seeing in the 
electric-vehicle sector?
    Mr. Nigro. Yes. So, I mentioned earlier, this is a once-in-
a-century transition. Going from internal combustion engines to 
electric drive is a huge undertaking, and it is going to 
require considerable investments in manufacturing across the 
country. That is a competitive opportunity.
    As I mentioned earlier, of the $141 billion that has been 
announced since November of 2021, 80 percent of those 
investments are flowing into Republican congressional 
districts. So, the evidence is signaling that those districts 
are setting up an environment that is attracting that kind of 
investment and jobs: 160,000 jobs.
    You mentioned earlier this importance of equity, 
essentially reducing emissions for people who are experiencing 
transportation emissions and what it does to their health. 
Importantly, the jobs that are being created right now are also 
encouraging investments in disadvantaged communities. So, 
communities that have historically been left behind are now 
front and center. And I think that is another positive effect 
of what is going on right now.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
    And we have seen efforts to unionize amongst autoworkers 
opening new electric plants. Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, voted last week to unionize--the first southern 
autoworkers to win their union in history.
    Mr. Nigro, can we ensure that EV manufacturing benefits 
disadvantaged communities and is done so with fair labor 
contracts that support a new generation of sustainable careers?
    Mr. Nigro. One of the benefits of electrification is the 
amount of attention that is put on all aspects of building an 
EV, from every aspect of the supply chain to the labor force 
that is being put together to design, build, and deliver these 
vehicles.
    I think it is no coincidence that what you are seeing right 
now in EV manufacturing facilities is greater interest in 
ensuring that the jobs that are created are fair-paying and 
good jobs that are really building new sustainable communities.
    A lot of the facilities that are being built right now in 
different parts of the country, they don't have, necessarily, a 
tradition in the auto sector, so, this is a brandnew 
opportunity for them to create a new sustainable community. And 
with this increased attention, I think we are going to see more 
positive results.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thanks again.
    And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Ms. Okafor, my questions will 
be for you, or my conversation will be with you.
    Your really great policy team at NATSO and SIGMA have 
taught me that you all aren't in the gas-selling business; you 
are in the serving-travelers business. Am I putting that right?
    Mrs. Okafor. You have got it right.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. And in your testimony you talk 
about being technology-neutral, but you don't--I mean, you are 
not a partisan with regard to what fuel you are selling as long 
as your company can make money doing it, right?
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, talk to me a little bit 
about the negotiations with public utilities. And, obviously, 
you have stores all over the place, so, I am sure you have a 
variety of stories. But give me a sense of how that normally 
goes.
    Mrs. Okafor. Yes. You hit the nail on the head. We have 
over 640 stores in 42 States. And, with that, you have hundreds 
of utilities that we have to talk to, we have to partner with. 
And we have been talking to them a lot lately because of the 
work that we have been doing with NEVI.
    And, really, the way the conversation goes is, we let them 
know that we want to build an EV charging station. We ask them 
for two things: How long will it take to get the power that we 
need to our station, and how much will it cost?
    In some cases, they give you an answer. It is usually 
vague, because they haven't done the analysis themselves, which 
makes it extremely difficult because, for the investment, the 
utility portion is always a black box.
    One example of that is, we were building out a charging 
station out in Coachella, California. We had originally thought 
that the utility upgrade there would cost $50,000. Come to find 
out, the utility upgrade, whenever they did the engineering 
analysis, would cost over $300,000 and take a year to install.
    So, that uncertainty makes the investment challenging.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. I think everybody realizes 
that the fuel part of your business is a pretty tight-margin 
business. I assume that is true whether you are selling 
electricity or gasoline. It is a little hard to recover a 
$300,000 line extension fee, I would think.
    Mrs. Okafor. It is difficult to recover that sort of 
investment, especially when utilization is low.
    The other thing that is difficult to recover is demand 
charges. The demand charge is related to the number of 
kilowatts that's utilized--the highest number of kilowatts 
that's utilized over a 30-day period for 15 minutes. So, even 
if you have one car come for 15 minutes and use 100 kilowatts, 
you have a demand charge of $10 per kilowatt, you are talking 
$1,000 that you have to recover. Well, that customer leaves and 
pays $15; we are left holding the bill.
    So, with utilization being as low as it is and the electric 
rates for utilities across the country being challenging, it is 
hard to recover the investments that we make and even the 
operational costs that we incur.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, a lot of these components, 
they are tariffed. I assume in some jurisdictions the utilities 
have a little bit more flexibility than they do in others. But 
I would assume something like demand charges are filed in 
tariffs.
    Do the public utilities commissions, do they provide a lot 
of flexibility to these public utilities on how they charge you 
for demand charge?
    Mrs. Okafor. I am not particularly--I don't have very much 
detailed information on how rate structures are chosen.
    What I will say about rate structures is, because we don't 
have any control over the rate that we pay, it can change 
without my knowledge.
    For instance, there was a charging station that we have out 
in California. We reached a certain demand. And for certain 
rates, if you reach a certain demand for a number of months, 
they move you into a new rate structure, but they don't tell 
you that they move you into a new rate structure. So, I was 
looking at the P&L of our business, and I noticed that they 
moved us, but I hadn't moved the cost that I charged to the 
customer.
    So, that lack of transparency, the lack of knowledge on 
when things are happening and how they are happening, and the 
lack of ability to choose a new provider puts us in a very 
tight spot, and it makes the investment extremely challenging.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Am I right in assuming, Ms. 
Okafor, that all of this unpredictability and relative lack of 
control puts some downward pressure on your interest in making 
these kinds of investments?
    Mrs. Okafor. It certainly makes it extremely challenging. 
At the end of the day, our goal is to provide the fuel that our 
customers need, but, furthermore, the goal is to make a return 
on our investment. And if the utilization isn't high and the 
return is challenging, it makes it hard to make the investment.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thanks very much for sharing 
that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    There is a floor vote called, a series of votes, so, I 
appreciate the patience of our witnesses. We are going to have 
to take a short recess to address that floor vote.
    And so, the committee stands in recess, subject to the call 
of the chair.
    [Recess.] [12:59 p.m.]
    Mr. Crawford. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will reconvene from the previously recessed 
hearing.
    The gentleman, Mr. DeSaulnier, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this 
hearing.
    Just a couple of things.
    The idea that the free market dictates everything, I think, 
just--we really live in a mixed market, and the forces of 
trying to get this right is difficult.
    But if we look at the rest of the developed world, the 
market has already determined what the energy future is, what 
we have to do for infrastructure. The Chinese are adding 
100,000 battery-electric charging stations and fuel cell 
stations a month; the EU is about half of that.
    California, which I am proud to represent--in 1994, I was 
appointed by a Republican Governor, when I was a Republican, to 
represent the Bay Area Air Quality Management District on the 
California Air Resources Board.
    And the Clean Air Act that allows California to do what it 
has done, as I have mentioned to this committee before, was 
signed by Richard Nixon. The California Clean Act was signed by 
Governor Ronald Reagan. And the zero-emission vehicle mandate 
was mandated by Governor George Deukmejian, a conservative 
Republican from Fresno, where the fossil-fuel industry has 
significant investments.
    So, when we get this right, we are at what we used to refer 
to on CARB in Republican administrations is, we were fuel-
neutral; that the private sector, underneath the regulations, 
the laws, were allowed to incentivize and innovate to meet 
their reductions on traditional pollutants, and then we have 
been allowed to do that by the courts, so far, under carbon 
emissions.
    So, having said all of that, to me, this is economic 
security. You don't have to read everything Daniel Yergin has 
written about the fossil-fuel industry and energy industry to 
understand that whoever controls energy has a disproportionate 
advantage for their economy and for their constituents. His 
book, ``The Commanding Heights,'' talked about the British 
understanding wind and navigation or the U.S. and Europe 
understanding fossil fuels. But the fossil-fuel industry is not 
the free market.
    I have a district where Chevron, the second largest 
petroleum company, is headquartered. I have five refineries in 
the area I represent, more or less, in the bay area. They are 
important. They contribute significantly. But they are 
subsidized.
    Brookings did a study just a year ago that said that, in 
the U.S., the fossil-fuel industry gets direct subsidies, tax 
credits, of $500 billion a year. And that is a decision we and 
others make because it is important, as employers, and is very 
much needed for the economy.
    Having said that, we are transitioning. Most of the studies 
that I have read is, when we get the infrastructure done, not 
just for carbon, but in terms of efficiency, the car 
operations--trucks are more of a challenge, given the need for 
the power to generate big loads. But all of that thing is to 
say the Congress is important in figuring out how we transition 
effectively.
    And, within that, if the fossil-fuel industry can come up 
with carbon capture or something that works, then so be it. But 
this idea that somehow the fossil-fuel industry just happened 
completely organically and John Rockefeller was a wonderful 
person who didn't have sharp elbows is just not accurate.
    So, Mr. Nigro, in your experience--and I am proud of the 
fact that my bill, the Clean Corridors Act, got put in the 
Inflation Reduction Act. But placing these are no small--it is 
hard. And so were gas stations in the early 1900s. But getting 
this right and being efficient about it and letting the market 
to dictate within it fairly is a challenge, and not 
misrepresenting it.
    But my question to you is: If the Chinese are 60 percent of 
the electric cars in the world, they have an advantage in terms 
of the chemicals that are needed. And the National Labs at 
Lawrence Livermore, near my district, has identified the Salton 
Sea, prospectively, as being a source of those critical 
elements, up to 375 million, but we have to do it the way we do 
it, environmentally safe.
    So, briefly--that was a long introduction to a simple 
question--what happens if we don't do the right investments and 
we just keep going with fossil fuels the way that we always 
have?
    Mr. Nigro. Well, I will try to be respectful of the time 
here and say briefly that the costs of climate change have 
continued to rise within recent decades. That is the data from 
NOAA that is showing $2.7 trillion in total cost since 1980. I 
think we can expect the cost from climate-related disasters to 
accelerate as a result of us not reducing emissions 
sufficiently.
    The other flag I would give to you is the security 
implications of that. Part of the reason I moved to Washington 
a long time ago was what I perceived to be our dependence on 
oil and the national-security crises that resulted from that in 
the early 2000s. I don't think anyone in this room would want 
to repeat those experiences again.
    And so, there are many facets of fossil-fuel dependency 
that are hurting us, whether it is the planet, our economy, or 
our safety.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman
    Ms. Maloy [presiding]. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Owens from Utah for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member and our 
witnesses here today, for taking time to hold today's hearing 
to highlight the delusion of the Biden administration's at-any-
cost approach on electrification of our grid.
    For almost 60 years, Americans have been driven by fear 
perpetuated by our climate theorists, authors, climate 
absolutists, and climate change activists, all who consider 
themselves experts--these experts who, for decades and with 
total confidence, set dates every 10 years for the end-of-the-
world doom. Then, with no shame, as we run through those dates, 
they predict, with another 100 percent confidence, another 10-
year decline.
    For decades, we have witnessed American taxpayers 
supporting Government-generated wealth. This has been done by 
propping up industries through the power of bureaucratic 
mandates and subsidies, in direct contrast to best cost, most 
convenient, best value products offered through the free 
market.
    Nothing has been more apparent with this tactic than the 
$18 billion taxpayer funding of a mandated industry that 
America's private citizens and business owners do not want to 
be forced down their throats.
    This can be seen in the projections by the Biden 
administration on the growth demand of EVs over the next 6 
years. Biden DC bureaucrats, absent any actual industry input, 
have decided what the American consumer must buy by 2030. That 
is in 6 years. They have decided that 50 percent of all 
American car purchasers will buy an EV, whether they like it or 
not.
    The facts are that, as of 2023, only 7 percent of cars 
purchased by the American consumer were EVs. Yet this 
unrealistic leap to 43 percent in 6 years has not caused one 
moment of pause for the DC maestros.
    We would think that the first steps to meet such an 
aggressive growth goal, one that impacts our U.S. economy in so 
many ways, would have been a roundtable discussion with 
industry experts. These experts would have included utilities 
stakeholders, cybersecurity experts, truckdrivers, State DOTs, 
and a swath of working Americans who stake their livelihood on 
predictable transportation.
    Of course, this taking the industry's input never happened. 
If it had, the advice from the industry experts and 
stakeholders would been: Put on the brakes. Your projection and 
mandates for this industry are premature at best, very 
dangerous at worst.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses to learn how 
arbitrary and delinked-from-reality mandates and rules have 
affected everyday, working-class Americans. I would also like 
to see what this committee can do to mitigate the coming 
transportation one-size-fits-all nightmare that is being 
predicted by industry experts.
    Mr. Darakos, trucking is already a high-risk industry with 
very slim margins. Can you speak to reliability and durability 
of electric vehicles and some of the challenges and limitations 
your drivers might face?
    Mr. Darakos. Sure. Thank you for that question.
    As the vice president of maintenance, my focus is on 
keeping the fleet rolling. So, operational uptime is really 
critical.
    I think, where we are at today, we are early in the 
maturity of the technology in those vehicles. So, the trucks 
that we put in, they are more complex. We have seen some 
downtime with those vehicles. And as opposed to a day in the 
shop, it can be a much longer period of time to work through 
those repair processes. So----
    Mr. Owens [interrupting]. OK.
    I am going to ask you another question. I also serve on the 
Education and Workforce Committee. So, from the labor 
perspective, what type of training and technologies would 
drivers be forced to utilize to meet the Biden administration's 
very aggressive goals?
    Mr. Darakos. So, from a workforce training standpoint, at 
PITT OHIO, we are in the transition--we are a 45-year-old 
company, so, we have folks that are retiring every day. And, 
from a knowledge and education standpoint, I have technicians 
that are very diverse in terms of age, age diversity.
    So, there is a heavy investment in electrical knowledge 
when we are dealing with high-voltage equipment. There is an 
absolute need to put resources into the tech programs, 
workforce development. The ecosystem has to be developed to 
support this.
    The reality today is, when you look at electrification and 
this technology, dealers are certified if they have two 
technicians so that they can do the work. But the reality is, 
technicians don't always stay in one place, and life happens. 
So, we have to invest heavily in building this next generation 
of technicians that will support the technology.
    Mr. Owens. Yes.
    Ms. Okafor, I would like to ask you real quickly, with the 
industry that you run and work within, why is it important to 
allow the consumer to be at the very front of making these 
choices, in terms of how we spend and where we spend our time 
and energies?
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely. I appreciate the question.
    The best way to get consumers to buy EVs is to make them 
what they want, to make the experience of owning the EV better 
than the alternative.
    When we incentivize the market to move in that direction, 
the entire supply chain is consumer-based. When we mandate it, 
we take shortcuts, such as installing chargers in parking lots 
and other undesirable locations.
    I understand the temptation to mandate EVs or to ban gas 
vehicles, but there are no shortcuts. We need to make sure that 
consumers have what they want and make it what they want it to 
be.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you.
    I will yield back. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Johnson of Georgia for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I thank the witnesses for your forbearance. That was a 
long period where we were absent. And I appreciate your all's 
testimony and you all sticking around for this round of 
testimony.
    I want to read to you something that comes out of a 
Bloomberg News article, dated March 28, 2024, written by Tom 
Randall. It goes as follows:
    ``New technologies have a tendency to blindside. When color 
TVs were introduced in the 1950s, for example, they seemed like 
a flop. The devices were expensive, programming was scarce, and 
after a decade on the market few homes had one. Then suddenly 
prices dropped, a ratings war ensued, and in just a few years 
most U.S. households were watching `The Jetsons' in its 
futuristic palette.
    ``A comparable shift is currently underway with electric 
vehicles, according to a Bloomberg Green analysis of adoption 
rates around the world. By the end of last year, 31 countries 
had surpassed what's become a pivotal EV tipping point: when 5 
percent of new car sales are purely electric. This threshold 
signals the start of mass adoption, after which technological 
preferences rapidly flip.''
    Mr. Darakos, in your testimony, you address the costs of 
transitioning to cleaner fuels, and you call for a slower 
transition. But if we fail to act soon, the clean-vehicle 
market is going to develop in other countries, particularly 
China.
    Has the ATA considered the cost to the industry if, in the 
future, we become reliant on China or other foreign nations for 
our commercial motor vehicles?
    Mr. Darakos. Could you repeat the last part?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. If we fail to act soon about 
adopting electric vehicle technology, we will be left behind. 
And has the ATA considered the cost to the industry if in the 
future we become reliant on other nations, particularly China, 
for our commercial motor vehicles?
    Mr. Darakos. Thank you. I think when you look at the 
American Trucking Associations, even at PITT OHIO, I don't 
think anybody is putting the brakes on moving forward with the 
technology. I think what we are saying is that there is a 
diversity of technology needed to support supply chain. And 
when you look at how critical supply chain is to what we do on 
a day-to-day basis, we cannot put technology in place that is 
not going to allow your goods to get to your operation.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. If we slow down everything, we slow 
down everything. So, if we adapt as we move forward adapting, 
we will have the infrastructure that will rest or come to rest 
in place to support these commercial motor vehicles. So, I 
mean, I understand the fear of it not being there right now, 
but the technology and all of its attendant services and 
necessities will be there as it unfolds, just like it has been 
in the past.
    Ms. Okafor, could you comment about this transition to EV 
technology and EV vehicles?
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    Love's has supported policies that encourage investments in 
alternative fuels and reward businesses that make those 
investments. What it makes me think about is our biofuels 
business. Love's has been a leader in biofuel blending in the 
industry. And the way that that market has been incentivized is 
twofold. On one side there was an infrastructure incentive. On 
the other side there was an incentive on the energy or the 
fuel. So, it made the fuel lower cost to the consumer.
    On the EV charging side, we have the infrastructure 
incentive, and we are aggressively going after it. What we are 
missing is the incentive on the demand, the fuel to get it low 
cost to the customers so that fleets can have an attractive 
option for their operations.
    So, I believe once incentives are included on the demand 
side to incentivize customers to buy these new technologies, 
then the market will be consumer-oriented, consumer-driven, and 
it would move much faster.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, you think we should incentivize 
the acceleration of the conversion to EV vehicles rather than 
slow down?
    Mrs. Okafor. I think that we--in order to move to new 
technology similar to what we did in the biofuel space, the way 
that--what made it move was making the alternative technology 
solution a better solution than the traditional solution. So, 
making it better than what the traditional solution is would 
provide an opportunity for fleets to continue with their 
operations.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Ezell from Mississippi for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you all for 
being here today.
    And we all want better. We all want better transportation. 
We all want a better environment. And I think we can figure 
this out with good old American know-how in a timely manner.
    So, Mr. Coggin, thank you again for being here today. It is 
an honor for somebody from my district to be up. And all of you 
witnesses have just been--opened my eyes to a lot, especially 
since I--I do travel to the Love's stations quite regularly in 
my home State and going back and forth to see my granddaughter. 
So, thank you all.
    Mr. Coggin, you have done a great job. And we all know what 
you have done for us on the coast, providing reliable service 
for many decades.
    As the cost of fuel has risen, you have adapted by 
transferring a portion of your fleet to low-emissions propane 
fuel buses rather than all electric. This must have been a 
challenging decision, especially in more rural areas. Can you 
talk about some of the steps that you took before finalizing 
this transfer and how it has impacted your fleet?
    Mr. Coggin. Yes, sir. I have been doing this a long time. I 
have personally been really watching technology evolve for 
decades, trying to find the right fit for Coast Transit 
Authority. So, we have two issues that we consider at our 
transit system: the air/the environment and budget constraints.
    So, we are phasing out all of our diesel because of 
emissions and the high cost of operating diesel. We have chosen 
to go with propane short term in the small and midsized 
vehicles because they are much cleaner. They cost about the 
same to purchase upfront, but the operating cost is much less 
than a diesel engine bus. Fuel consumption, the cost per mile 
is much, much lower than diesel, and we get the benefit of 
lowering emissions. So, we have clean air. We are not a 
nonattainment area. Thank goodness. Hopefully, we won't be.
    But we also are looking at EV, full-electric buses. 
Technology is advancing on the small to midsized buses 
currently. What is on the market is not a fit because of cost. 
And mileage constraints range. We have those two things. Yes, 
they are zero emission. If we were in a poor-quality area, 
nonattainment, we would most definitely be looking at full 
electric EV. But EV is the most expensive solution to lowering 
emissions.
    So, we think we have found the right mix for our community. 
And our community does expect us to be running alternative fuel 
vehicles. But we have cost constraints going--we are funded by 
five cities and three counties. And because we don't have bad 
air quality issues, I cannot go to our local governments and 
ask them to fund EV technology. But at this point in time, it 
is not a necessity for us. So, the funding is just simply not 
there.
    Mr. Ezell. Very good. Thank you for that.
    And the Biden administration seems to try to, what we see, 
continue this one-size-fits-all policies across industries. 
This is especially true in transportation. You know as well as 
I do: that works for someone in a large city, but it is not 
going to work in Gulfport, Mississippi.
    You mentioned in your testimony you feel strongly about no 
Federal mandates. How can the Federal Government serve as a 
partner in enhancing the transportation goals in our 
communities and without Federal mandates?
    Mr. Coggin. We currently do not have a Federal mandate. 
There are goals set by the administrations, and we have agreed 
with 50 percent emission reductions by 2030. We are on track to 
do that, utilizing the technologies that I talked about. So, 
there currently is no mandate.
    Federal Transit Administration does support alternative 
technologies other than zero emission. If you look at the low-
no grant system, which is $1 billion a year to 5339(c), it is 
called, there is a specific allocation in that dedicated to 
low-emission vehicles, and we take advantage of that. We 
currently have a $1.8 million grant that we received under that 
program to buy these 12 propane-fueled vehicles.
    And so, to answer your question, what could FTA do going 
forward is to keep the regs like they are, allow us the 
flexibility to operate the buses that we need to meet our 
service needs in our environment in a cost-effective manner, 
and continue to allow other than zero-emission vehicles to be 
purchased with Federal grants. We would appreciate that, and 
also, more money into that system. There is a lot more money 
requested in all of those grants to purchase vehicles than is 
currently available.
    We are all struggling, and CTA is as well, with older 
fleets, trying to replace them, and there is just not enough 
Federal money in those programs to keep our vehicles in a state 
of good repair.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
    And thank you, again, all of you, for providing us with 
input.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Menendez from New Jersey for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    In January, New Jersey received a $6 million grant to 
improve EV charging reliability in the State. And last 
November, NJ Transit and New York Waterway received a nearly $7 
million grant from the FTA's past year ferry grant program 
funded by the IIJA to electrify two commuter ferries in New 
Jersey's Eighth Congressional District. I was thrilled to 
support these crucial investments in electrification in our 
region to help keep our air clean and our community moving.
    We know that thanks to the historic funding from the 
Inflation Reduction Act, transit agencies across the country 
have received grants to kick-start their conversion to greener 
fleets. We also know that these transit agencies are often 
operating with limited budgets or even at a deficit.
    Mr. Nigro, how important are these Federal dollars to help 
transit agencies acquire more climate-friendly vehicles?
    Mr. Nigro. It is absolutely essential. Right now, many 
transit agencies struggle to cover capital costs and rely on 
Federal programs from FTA in order to purchase new equipment, 
whether that be for buses or trains.
    When we look at the transition to zero-emission vehicles, 
there is a considerable amount of upfront costs that is also 
needed in order to operate these vehicles and with respect to 
infrastructure. And that is another strong role for 
particularly the low-no program that has been mentioned a few 
times in order to support the build-out.
    I just want to flag a couple of things just for your 
information on this trend here. So, zero-emission technology 
is--it is still in its, let's say, its first wave across the 
economy, even though there has been transit buses that have 
been electric on the road for some time. We still have a long 
way to go. But the trends that are clear, seven States had 
zero-emission bus deployments rise by about 50 percent in the 
last year. And the largest transit agency, seven largest 
transit agencies in the country that operate buses--so, L.A.'s 
transit agency, Boston's transit agency, WMATA here in DC--they 
make up more than 60 percent of the total fleet, and they have 
each committed to purchasing only zero-emission buses in the 
next 8 years. So, they are going to rely on low-no and similar 
programs from FTA in order to make that transition.
    Mr. Menendez. Absolutely. And we know that climate change 
and pollution have a disproportionate impact on environmental 
justice communities. We also know that while EVs stand to 
improve health outcomes for Americans across the country, 
access to charging infrastructure remains a challenge, as we 
discussed here today, especially for renters in underserved 
populations.
    Mr. Nigro, how can we ensure equitable access to zero-
emission vehicles for everyone, particularly in historically 
underserved communities?
    Mr. Nigro. I am glad you brought that up because part of 
the purpose of the NEVI program and the CFI program is to fill 
in infrastructure gaps. It is not entirely building on 
infrastructure from scratch. We have had thousands of charging 
stations deployed in the last 10 years before NEVI, before the 
IIJA was enacted.
    A big part of what it is going to mean for consumers who 
don't get to charge at home, which is somewhere near 35 percent 
of the population of households don't have easy access to home 
charging, is going to be through public charging through--and 
some of that is going to be funded through CFI and through 
NEVI.
    I want to just mention that while we are talking about 
this, without funding from public programs, it is likely that 
that charging wouldn't necessarily be deployed in disadvantaged 
communities in part because EVs aren't as popular in those 
areas at this time. And part of it is that we all talk about 
chicken and egg in a lot of scenarios. This is real.
    If you park on the street or if you park in a parking 
facility that doesn't have easy access to home charging and you 
are a renter, you probably don't have an easy way to install a 
charging station at your home, and so, you are going to rely on 
public charging. And if there are no EVs there, there's not 
necessarily going to be a private push. And that is where 
Government can help lead the way, and also electric utilities. 
They have been an instigator in getting charging in a lot of 
disadvantaged communities in some areas.
    Mr. Menendez. And I appreciate that. And we represent one 
of the most densely populated districts in the country, and so, 
we have a high number of renters, and making sure they have 
access to these EV charging facilities is critically important, 
because there is a move and there is a demand, especially in a 
place like New Jersey. So, we have to be a good partner here at 
the Federal level to ensure that we provide those resources to 
get those EV charging stations and infrastructure into all 
types of communities. And that is why this work is so 
critically important.
    Thank you all for your testimony here today, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Yakym of Indiana for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to 
our witnesses for being here today.
    Back in December, this subcommittee hosted top Department 
of Transportation officials for an oversight hearing. This 
included Shailen Bhatt, who heads the Federal Highway 
Administration, or FHWA.
    The FHWA oversees the National Electric Vehicle 
Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, which is devoted to building 
out EV charging infrastructure. NEVI is flush with $5 billion 
of cash, as it was, and yet is responsible for bringing only 
two charging stations online through the end of last year. This 
is something we talked about in the hearing last year.
    I want to register my disappointment because I asked 
Administrator Bhatt in that hearing how many charging stations 
his agency projected that NEVI would bring online this year, in 
2024. He didn't have an answer offhand. Fair enough. But he 
promised to, quote, ``follow up with a very specific number.''
    Three months later, I finally received a response, but no, 
quote, ``very specific number.'' Just a promise that NEVI and 
other related programs would, quote, ``ensure that a rapidly 
increasing number of reliable EV chargers will be operational 
around the country this year'', unquote.
    I suppose in one sense NEVI has been bringing charging 
stations online at a rapidly increasing pace in 2024. There 
have been an additional six NEVI-funded charging stations 
placed in service thus far this year. But $5 billion was 
supposed to be enough funding for 5,000 charging stations. And 
yet after 2\1/2\ years, we have 8.
    It is clear to me that NEVI has become yet another example 
of the Federal Government wasting taxpayer dollars by gumming 
up a program with redtape. In this case, it is unworkable labor 
standards, confusing minimum operating standards, rigid mileage 
requirements that prompted at least one State to ultimately 
decline NEVI funds altogether. That's not mentioning 
permitting, transmission, and other hurdles that grantees may 
encounter along the way.
    Ms. Okafor, what actions could FHWA take today to reduce 
redtape and streamline this process?
    Mrs. Okafor. I appreciate the question.
    The NEVI program that has been deployed is being passed out 
by State DOTs, State agencies. They come up with competitive 
solicitations, bids, for folks like Love's to bid on. To date, 
we have been awarded $30 million for 50 new stations.
    There is a pretty lengthy process to get from the bid phase 
to actually procuring the chargers. The bid itself takes time, 
contracting takes time, and then you have to go into the 
procurement of the chargers themselves.
    The thing that is difficult with NEVI is that the Federal 
rulemaking gave quite a bit of leeway to States. So, each State 
analyzes or understands the Federal rulemaking differently. And 
because of that, they are deploying or awarding these funds 
differently. One of the goals of NEVI is to have a harmonious 
network across the country.
    The most important thing from our perspective is to ensure 
that there is a positive consumer experience, which means co-
location of amenities with these chargers and the requirement 
of co-location of amenities----
    Mr. Yakym [interrupting]. So, in that regard, again, what 
steps do you believe they should take when you talk about the 
regulatory environment, the rulemaking process? What specific 
steps should they take to make this more streamlined so that in 
2\1/2\ years we can push out more than eight chargers on a $5 
billion program? Give me like maybe one specific thing that 
they could do to make this a little more efficient.
    Mrs. Okafor. I think more straightforward rulemaking 
guidance that all States can take on. What I mean by that is, 
each State looks at the Federal rulemaking and comes up to 
their own interpretation of what it means. And because of that, 
each solicitation is completely different.
    Mr. Yakym. So, it is fair to say that the rulemaking that 
occurred created confusion with the States where no one 
actually understands what the rules are? Is that--does that 
sound like that is--am I hearing you correctly?
    Mrs. Okafor. I can't speak for the States on what they 
understand or what they don't understand. What I will say is 
the differences and the interpretations between the States 
makes it so that the applicants--each solicitation is 
different, and it makes it so that the applicants take more 
time because each State is different.
    Mr. Yakym. So, on behalf of my constituents, the 750,000 
people who are American taxpayers, do you believe that American 
taxpayers should accept the fact that there are only eight 
charging stations out there from $5 billion?
    Mrs. Okafor. I can't speak to that specifically. What I can 
say is that all of the solicitations that have come out that 
make sense for our organization, we have bid on those 
aggressively. We have been really competitive in that. Because 
of that we have been awarded, and we hope to continue to be 
awarded.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Maloy. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Molinaro from New York for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I think I am going to follow up a little bit on the last 
set of questioning. But I want to offer--and I come from New 
York where we have big expectations, but I don't necessarily 
mean on the deliverables when it comes to full build-out of EV 
capacity. And I certainly embrace sort of the all-of-the-above 
approach without question.
    I also think, however, it should be driven by consumer 
interest and the market. And, of course, at this point, when it 
comes to EV vehicles, we know that the demand is not moving as 
aggressively as was originally projected. And in communities 
like the ones I represent, there is a reason why. They seem 
unattainable in the capacity to access EV charging, whether it 
is stations themselves or the infrastructure just doesn't 
exist.
    And so, Ms. Okafor, I know you have answered these types of 
questions all afternoon or day at this point. Where do you 
think we are in the total build-out nationwide in EV charging 
capacity, but in particular in rural communities?
    Mrs. Okafor. I really appreciate the question. What it 
makes me think about is the network that our industry has built 
over the last 60 years and being able to leverage the refueling 
network that has been built by this industry and how it is 
going to be extremely useful.
    The place that rural communities has to play in the EV 
charging market is extremely significant. For EV drivers, the 
majority of drivers either charge at home or at their 
workplace. But when they are traveling from--I live in Houston 
and I travel to Dallas, that is when I will need an EV charger. 
And I am going to charge in between Houston and Dallas in the 
rural communities. So, the rural communities have a very 
significant place in this market.
    And our locations--Love's--the majority of our locations 
are in those areas. And it will be really important for this 
market to move forward with having those in-between sort of 
locations.
    Mr. Molinaro. Understood. But you would agree that meeting 
the expectations of the administration, the mandates that are 
being set, we are just not--this is not my observation--we are 
just not going to meet those expectations with the current 
infrastructure, in particular in rural communities. And I will 
move, though, specifically to what are, I think in many cases, 
a bit overly ambitious mandates.
    How do rural communities not get forgotten? They will be 
averaged out, in other words, right? We will make great 
capacity expansion in urban centers, in more densely populated 
areas. But in the rural communities, they are just going to be 
a rounding error when it comes to whether or not the 
administration meets the mandate expectation. How do we meet 
the build-out capacity in the rural communities?
    Mrs. Okafor. It is really going to be extremely dependent 
on getting the power to the rural communities that are needed 
for the EV charging stations. If I think about our network that 
we have today, one of our highest--we have two locations that 
perform very highly. One is in Quartzsite, Arizona; the other 
one is in Davenport, Florida. We are not talking about major 
metropolitan areas. We need rural communities. But making sure 
that we can get the power to these stations will be extremely 
important.
    Mr. Molinaro. So, that truly is the answer to the question. 
And certainly in a State like New York where, quite frankly, 
much of our electric infrastructure is, well, high demand and 
under great stress. The EPA recently issued a final rule which 
requires truck manufacturers to accelerate production of 
electric trucks, obviously, beyond the massive upfront cost 
that small businesses will be required to shoulder. As a result 
of the new rule, we know there needs to be an increase in grid 
capacity. We know this--and the suggestion has been capacity 
needs to increase by over 3,000 percent by 2035 in order to 
meet just the electric light-duty vehicle load.
    So, for any of you, from a place like the communities I 
represent, this just doesn't seem practical. And I am sort of 
a--I was a local government guy. We set expectations that we 
can meet, and it just doesn't seem that we can meet these 
expectations. With 30 seconds left, how do we meet an 
aggressive timeline like that?
    Mr. Nigro. The good news is we have a lot of actual grid 
capacity that is underutilized at night, which is when most 
folks are parked at home, particularly folks who live in rural 
communities. What we have seen so far with the deployment of 
some millions of EVs to date is there hasn't been a lot of 
issues with respect to the grid, in part because 65 percent of 
Americans live in single-family homes and have the easy access 
to power in their garage or near there. That is not to say that 
it is not going to be a lot work to get to 100 percent, but 
there is a large share of the market that can be accommodated 
with the existing grid capacity.
    Mr. Molinaro. I am over my time, and I will just say, 
respectfully, that is an oversimplification of the challenge in 
rural communities in accessing affordable electricity; let 
alone, adequate electricity for this purpose is far beyond the 
reach of many, many, in rural, in less than suburban 
communities.
    With that, I will yield back.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. I was afraid I was going to have to 
use my gavel, Mr. Molinaro. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Kiley from California for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would just ask straight out--I am from California. We 
have this executive action that has banned gas-powered vehicles 
starting in 2035.
    Mr. Darakos, do you think that that is feasible? And 
regardless of whether it is feasible or not, what will be the 
consequences for consumers of trying to reach that point within 
the next decade?
    Mr. Darakos. I think it is aggressive in terms of the 
technology and where it is. And I think early adoption, 
participation now will start to drive some of the costs down. 
But based on what I see, it is going to increase consumer cost 
to all of us. When we look at the cost of the new technology, 
we are not talking about 0.5 or 0.6 more, we are talking 3X and 
4X, and that is without the infrastructure investments----
    Mr. Kiley [interrupting]. 3X and 4X meaning three times as 
many vehicles?
    Mr. Darakos. Correct. That is correct. Well, three to four 
times the cost of a traditional vehicle.
    Mr. Kiley. Three to four times the cost, right, of a 
traditional vehicle. And so, a significant cost increase for 
consumers.
    Do you agree, Mr. Coggin, as far as the feasibility and the 
impacts?
    Mr. Coggin. Yes, I do. It is very costly. Electric is the 
most expensive solution. If you look at a 35-foot heavy-duty 
bus, which we are running, the diesel model is $670,000. The 
hybrid, which is a diesel-engine driving hybrid, is currently 
$855,000, 28 percent more. And the electric version is 
$1,150,000, which is 35 percent more. That does not include the 
cost of the charger. We paid $135,000 for a charger that will 
charge two buses. And we had to upgrade our power supply from 
the power company for $40,000. So, it is very expensive upfront 
to implement these EV technologies.
    Mr. Kiley. So, this is a big impact for folks in my State 
who are already struggling with the highest cost of living in 
the country, highest poverty rate in the country precisely 
because of the cost of living, so, to layer on all of those 
additional costs will pose a major hardship for drivers, which 
is why I am supporting the Preserving Choice in Vehicle 
Purchases Act, which says that we are not going to do these 
bans of gas-powered vehicles within these artificial timelines. 
It passed the House with bipartisan support, but it has yet to 
get a vote in the Senate. So, I think that I would strongly 
encourage the Senate to move on that bill in order to preserve 
choice. Because we all, I think, are excited about what the 
future holds in terms of clean energy.
    And, Ms. Okafor, you work with a lot of clean energy 
technologies. Is it your experience that what drives innovation 
in the clean energy sector is more the work of innovators or 
mandates on the part of Government?
    Mrs. Okafor. It really is--it more has to do with the 
consumer's choice. The consumer has to want to move to this new 
alternative, and we have to provide an environment where they 
want to move from what they traditionally are using to the new 
alternative.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I have always been of the view that 
the way that we can usher in the clean energy future that I 
think is in front of is through innovation rather than 
regulation. And I think that these flat-out bans within an 
arbitrary timeline are sort of the ultimate example of 
overbearing regulation.
    I wanted to ask you about one other topic, Mr. Coggin, 
related to buses, because I have talked with several school 
districts within my district where they get extreme weather, 
where they get a lot of snow, and having electrified buses just 
isn't practical for them. Has that been your experience as 
well?
    Mr. Coggin. Well, we live in an area that does not have 
snow, so, we are fortunate there. But we have a lot of heat, 
extreme heat, and we run air conditioners. I have heard of the 
cold weather-related problems with EV vehicles. I don't have 
any personal experience with them. We do not in our area of the 
country have a problem with our EV vehicles.
    In terms of range, I think it speaks to the point that, in 
our industry, public transit, we would like to continue to have 
the flexibility to operate the types of vehicles that meet our 
operational needs and our climate, with our weather and our 
geography, all things considered. I think that would be what I 
would point out. It is strictly a local decision, what works 
for the individual organizations.
    Mr. Kiley. That is very well said. Because the school 
districts I am referring to are very rural, spread out areas, 
get a lot of snow, and a one-size-fits-all mandate from a 
centralized bureaucracy just doesn't work for them.
    Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am. It is good to see some 
names up there that will be just as much butchered as mine will 
today. So, I just want to thank y'all for that.
    Mr. Okafor? Did I get that right? Close?
    Mrs. Okafor. Mrs. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. Mrs., yes, ma'am. OK.
    It seems like truckstops in east Tennessee such as Pilot or 
Love's have alternative fuel types at their facilities. Is the 
Federal Government currently, in your opinion, standing in the 
way of development or deployment of alternative fuel types 
other than electricity?
    Mrs. Okafor. Would you restate the question, please?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. I will cut through all the fluff. 
It is about alternative fuel types at facilities, specifically 
in east Tennessee. I am wondering, is the Federal Government 
currently standing in the way of development or deployment of 
alternative fuel types other than electricity?
    Mrs. Okafor. I wouldn't say they're standing in the way. 
The alternative fuel types that we--maybe I'll say two things. 
One, we deploy whatever our customers need. So, if our 
customers need electricity or renewable diesel, biodiesel, 
ethanol, then we deploy that infrastructure.
    The second thing is that we follow policy extremely 
closely. So, we have supported other Federal Government-
incentivized infrastructure, and we have invested in that, and 
we continue to support those sorts of investments. So, moving 
into alternative fuels, if the investment makes sense, we will 
continue to do that.
    But what I will reiterate is a two-sided incentive 
structure is extremely important, not only incentivizing the 
infrastructure side, but also the demand side, the energy, the 
fuel that goes to the customer. If you don't incentivize that 
side, then you continue to have an economic structure that is 
extremely imbalanced and investment will cease.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
    Mr. Nigro, our Nation is over $34 trillion in debt, and it 
seems like many rural Americans are struggling. And given that 
the average American-produced EV costs $53,000, why do you 
think this administration is pushing EV-related mandates on 
these hard-working folks?
    Mr. Nigro. I am very glad you brought that up. I think your 
stat probably is correct about the average price of an electric 
vehicle. The thing that is important for all Americans to keep 
in mind when they are buying a vehicle is most of the cost is 
in the owning, ownership cost of it, right, the cost of fuel, 
the cost of maintenance. We ran the numbers on the most popular 
vehicles of different types--the F-150, Toyota Camry, Toyota 
Corolla, and an electric vehicle equivalent--for sure, upfront, 
they cost more. But over time, through fuel cost savings, since 
most people can charge at home at very low cost, you end up 
actually saving money in the long run over what is called the 
total cost of ownership.
    So, counterintuitively, EVs are actually less expensive to 
own in general, particularly in passenger vehicles.
    Mr. Burchett. I am going to follow up with that, if that is 
OK. In March, the EPA announced a final rule that would require 
up to two-thirds of new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. to be 
EVs in 8 years. The President's EV mandate, I feel like, is a 
little bit out there. We don't have the infrastructure, the 
power generation, nor the domestic supply chain to meet these 
demands. I am often wondering, too, is people, they don't take 
into consideration the slave labor that is involved with these 
batteries; the fact that these so-called rare earth minerals, 
that maybe we could get here if there weren't some of the 
restrictions that apply to us that don't apply to our friends 
and enemies overseas.
    Mr. Nigro. Right. Sorry, so, what is the----
    Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Would you like to comment on 
that?
    Mr. Nigro. On critical minerals?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Nigro. Sure. Yes, yes. I think that is a really 
critic--no pun intended, critically important issue. And it is 
really top of mind for anyone who is involved in EVs, in part 
because no one that works in this technology wants to repeat 
the mistakes that we had made with oil and all of the tragedies 
that resulted from human rights abuses and other things around 
the development and extraction of oil over the last 100 years, 
not to mention the harm it has caused the planet.
    I think when we are thinking about critical minerals, there 
are two major things we have to keep in mind. One, batteries, 
obviously, go into EVs, but they also go into what is in our 
pockets, what is in our laptops. So, it is a much broader issue 
than just transportation. And secondly, nearly 95 percent of 
the critical minerals that go into a battery can actually be 
reused.
    A recent study by Stanford University estimated that 
innovative homegrown recycling from a company based in 
California called Redwood Materials, they can cut the 
environmental cost by 80 percent. And they are expected--this 
company is expecting to recycle enough materials for 1 million 
EVs a year by 2025. So, not an immediate solution, but there is 
a pathway where we don't have to be as dependent on developing 
countries for that.
    Mr. Burchett. As usual, when I get going down a good tunnel 
here, the time runs out. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back nothing 
to you.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you for nothing. The gentleman yields 
back.
    And I recognize Mr. Duarte from California for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mr. Duarte. Well, perfect. I am going to pick up where Mr. 
Burchett left off.
    Hope I pronounced your name right, Tim.
    I represent a low-income district in California, a rural 
district in California with farmers, and I am very suspect of 
the social equity claims made by the electric vehicle industry, 
criticizing, as you did, oil production, where it is from. We 
have some of the tightest labor markets, some of the best 
workforce opportunities in America for drilling of carbon fuels 
and delivery of carbon fuels today. It is undeniable. We have 
got plenty of work we could expand here and quit bringing in 
carbon fuels from around the globe where their environmental 
standards and workforce standards are much lower. But that is 
not the lowest we can talk about.
    The absolute human tragedy happening in the Congo right now 
as we speak, mining cobalt mainly, in slave labor conditions, 
child slavery conditions, forced slavery conditions, by mainly 
Chinese firms, we can say, because that is where all the 
batteries are made, and that is mainly who is operating over 
there. But you and I both know, we all know, this is proxy 
imperialism. This is America's political appetite being served 
through an imperialistic group in China, going in, grabbing the 
cobalt through slave labor, running it through probably slave 
labor factories in China, and selling us batteries that our 
Federal Government is subsidizing to serve--yes, we want to 
talk about low-income households. They are not buying the 
electric vehicles.
    Electric vehicles are being purchased by rich people, by 
high-income individuals here in America. If they were truly 
economic, I think that our working families would have enough 
common sense to buy them. They are not.
    Tesla is selling vehicles. And just last year alone, they 
just reported $1.78 billion in EV credits they sold to their 
competitors that produced a lot of gas vehicles that lower 
income families want to buy.
    So, we have serious fair trade issues. We have serious 
economic equity issues with the forced expansion of the 
electric vehicle industry. And I don't even need to talk about 
the logistic difficulty/impossibilities of meeting these EV 
mandates. And we are also talking railroads, don't forget. I 
mean, so, this gets more ludicrous as we unravel it.
    Mr. Nigro, am I wrong on this? Do we or do we not have 
forced slavery in Congo supplying this? Is this or is this not 
proxy imperialism through China? Do we not have slave labor 
embedded in every electric vehicle sold in America today that 
is subsidized by the Federal Government?
    Mr. Nigro. So, I have already mentioned the sort of context 
issues. So, let me just sort of pick up where you have left off 
here on the issue around batteries and critical minerals and 
dependency on countries who arguably do not share our values.
    You brought up Tesla. So, they have been working with 
Panasonic. They have reduced the cobalt use in their batteries 
by 60 percent. And they actually have now a battery that is in 
many of their offerings from lithium-ion phosphate batteries 
that actually have no cobalt at all----
    Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. So, slave labor is OK for now 
because we might get past that later. Haven't we made that 
argument somewhere in our history?
    Mr. Nigro. In a nutshell, it is like so many problems we 
face in transportation: This is about trying to innovate our 
way out of it. And the industry itself has set up an initiative 
called the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance----
    Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. Do you have any faith that that 
is taking place in preventing slave labor-derived elements in 
the Congo from reaching American markets and consumers with 
Federal subsidies?
    Mr. Nigro. I think when it comes to resource extraction in 
general, it is about accountability and shining a light on 
these issues and making sure we set up a policy framework----
    Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. Do those exist? We have been at 
this for a while. Do those accountability mechanisms exist?
    Mr. Nigro. You are----
    Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. Yes, I am asking you. You're 
saying what we should do and what we might do, what the future 
might hold, but I am not hearing that we are holding ourselves 
to any humane standard whatso---I mean, we are in a country 
here that literally cares how a chicken lays an egg and how 
many piggies go in the pigpen so that people can buy pork and 
buy eggs, but we are subsidizing slave labor in foreign 
countries through proxy imperialism, with our geopolitical 
enemies, to force consumers to buy electric vehicles. This is 
ridiculous, isn't it?
    Mr. Nigro. I will just say a couple points here. This 
Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance is recently joined 
General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Tesla, Rivian. This 
initiative had been around for almost 20 years----
    Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. It is failing.
    Mr. Nigro. Automakers are now joining because they want to 
bring that accountability.
    Mr. Duarte. The Federal Government hasn't required any kind 
of fair trade. See, I am dropping tomorrow--I am dropping the 
EV Fair Trade Act, which simply says, if you want to get a 
Federal check to subsidize your electric vehicle purchase, 
that's fine--I am sure you will look cute in it--it's going to 
be certified by the manufacturer not to involve constituents or 
components derived from slave labor.
    Do you see the morality in that, or would you like us to 
ding dong along with these initiatives longer?
    Mr. Nigro. I am not sure of the details of this 
legislation, so, I can't really comment on it.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Ms. Maloy. All right. I am going to take my 5 minutes.
    Mr. Darakos, I want to go to you. I am concerned about the 
trucking industry and being able to move goods. I represent the 
Second Congressional District in Utah. We have two major 
freeways. A lot of goods move through my district. And I spend 
a lot of time driving. I have a very large district. I spend a 
lot of time at places like Love's and Maverik gas stations. And 
I know that trucks are only making money when they are moving.
    Do you know how long it takes a medium-duty truck to 
charge?
    Mr. Darakos. Thank you for that question. It depends. And 
by that I mean it depends on the charge rate of the vehicle, 
what it will accept. And it also depends on the charging rate 
of the charging infrastructure, the hardware. So, in my 
experience, we put in two 75-kilowatt dc fast chargers 3 years 
ago. That was fast, relatively fast. For our medium-duty 
trucks, it takes a couple hours to charge.
    Our new electrification project that we are putting in in 
Harrisburg, we are putting in a 600-kilowatt charging cabinet. 
The vehicles now can charge at 250 kilowatts, but it takes 
time.
    My biggest concern is parking and having access to charge 
over the road, because it is a significant challenge and 
problem. And then also, when you look at the hours-of-service 
rules, I can't imagine what a driver is going to go through. 
There are 10 chargers at a site, they are pulling in the 
charge, and sometime during their rest area, they have to wake 
up and move their rig to allow someone else on. But it is 
improving, but it can be a challenge that is going to impact 
operations today.
    Ms. Maloy. OK. I had four questions to ask you about that, 
and you answered all of them in that answer. That was very 
impressive. Thank you.
    And before I wrap up, I just want to say thank you all for 
being here. I did this once. I came and testified in front of 
Congress way before I ever planned on running for Congress or 
knew I would ever sit on this side, and I know it takes a lot 
of preparation. And you guys have been sitting here answering 
questions for a long time. So, thank you for your preparation. 
Thank you for being here.
    My friend, Mr. Ezell, talked about good old American know-
how, and I agree with him, but I feel like in the conversation 
we are having, we are sort of talking around good old American 
know-how and ignoring some realities.
    One of my favorite movies is ``Top Gun,'' the original one, 
the 1986 one. And there is a line in there, he says, Your body 
is writing egos--or ``Your ego is writing checks your body 
can't cash.'' And I am afraid what we are doing here is our 
goals and our policies are writing a future that our 
infrastructure can't live up to.
    And I just want to finish with the same question for all of 
you. We will start with Ms. Okafor. Actually, let's start with 
Mr. Nigro and move the other way.
    Mr. Nigro, can we actually meet the goals this 
administration has for electrification? Do we have the 
infrastructure, the capacity? Is it a realistic goal?
    Mr. Nigro. I am an eternal optimist, so, that is not a fair 
question.
    Ms. Maloy. Go ahead and answer.
    Mr. Nigro. But, yes, I 100 percent believe that the 
engineering and capacity in this country and the know-how that 
we have with our businesses, with folks in the policy 
community, can come together and do this, yes.
    Ms. Maloy. In the timelines that we have set?
    Mr. Nigro. Yes.
    Ms. Maloy. OK. Mr. Darakos.
    Mr. Darakos. I am an optimist, but I think I am trying to 
be a realist as we move forward. And I think there are going to 
be some significant headwinds as we move forward. I think there 
is a lot of energy. There are a lot of great organizations and 
people that are trying to move this forward, but it is heavy 
lifting. And it is a challenge, and not everyone has the 
resources to move it forward, especially for small businesses 
and smaller organizations.
    Ms. Maloy. Mr. Coggin.
    Mr. Coggin. I think to meet the goal of 50 percent emission 
reductions by 2030 is attainable very much so to get to zero 
emission by 2050. With current technology and current funding, 
I think it is going to be a really heavy lift.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
    Ms. Okafor.
    Mrs. Okafor. Absolutely. If I may, I did want to address 
the question that you asked earlier regarding the amount of 
power needed to charge a truck to--if we were----
    Ms. Maloy [interrupting]. Do it quickly. I am almost out of 
time.
    Mrs. Okafor. Very quickly. At a typical truckstop, you have 
8 to 10 lanes to fuel a heavy-duty truck. In order to do that 
with an electric truck, you will need to put in megawatt 
chargers. You would need to put in 10 megawatt chargers. That 
is more power than the Empire State Building in New York. That 
is a significant amount of power in rural America. That would 
be extremely challenging.
    To answer your question directly, in order to make this 
work, it has to be something that the American consumer wants 
to buy. If they don't want to buy it, if you don't have the 
demand, then you don't have the economic structure that 
investors would want to invest in. So, the challenge there is 
having both sides do this. We have done it before with the 
biodiesel market, having a two-sided incentive structure. 
Without that, I think it would be a challenge to get there.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
    I am concerned that we have these goals, but a goal without 
a plan is just a wish, and a wish is not policy.
    So, with that, thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    Are there further questions from any members of the 
committee who have not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today.
    I would like to thank each of the witnesses for your 
testimony.
    The committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


Letter of April 30, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, 
    and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
   Highways and Transit, from J. Clark Mica, President, Institute of 
Makers of Explosives, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
                                Crawford
                                                    April 30, 2024.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure.
    Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton,
    The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) is a trade association 
founded in 1913 with the mission to promote the safe and secure 
manufacture, transport, distribution and use of commercial explosives. 
IME appreciates the subcommittee's attention to the electrification of 
fleet vehicles through its hearing ``It's Electric: A Review of Fleet 
Electrification Efforts.'' As you conduct your review, we would like to 
bring to your attention our unique concerns with the shipping of 
commercial explosives on zero-emission (ZEV) vehicles.
    Manufacturers of commercial explosives contribute $4 billion 
annually to the U.S. economy and employ nearly 10,000 workers in the 
U.S. Commercial explosives are essential to energy production, 
communications, technology manufacturing, highway and building 
construction, the health care delivery system, agriculture and the 
production of nearly all metals and mineral products. If you consume 
it, explosives make it possible.
    The commercial explosives industry relies on all modes of 
transportation, including rail, truck, water and air to move our 
products safely and securely, not just nationwide but around the world. 
IME supports increased, innovative ways to transport explosives but is 
concerned with the use of ZEVs to transport those products until it can 
be proven safe.
    Currently, commercial explosives and the power sources for ZEVs 
(including lithium-ion batteries and hydrogen-fuel cells) are believed 
to be incompatible and hauling explosives on these vehicles poses a 
potentially hazardous scenario. The incompatibility of the two is 
documented in U.S. transportation policy, as the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration's ``Lithium Battery Guide for Shippers'' explicitly 
states that Class 1 materials cannot be packed in the same outer 
packaging with lithium-ion batteries.\1\ Further, the United Nations 
Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods has raised concerns 
regarding transporting explosives with ZEVs and is currently examining 
the feasibility and safety of doing so.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2021-09/
Lithium-Battery-Guide.pdf
    \2\ https://unece.org/transport/events/wp15-working-party-
transport-dangerous-goods-109th-session
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to ensure the safe transport of commercial explosives 
products, IME would request that fleet vehicles used to transport 
Hazard Class 1 Materials and other materials intermediate for blasting 
be excluded from any greenhouse gas emission standard mandates until 
ZEV technology for transporting commercial explosives is sufficiently 
studied and proven to be safe and reliable. In addition, as the 
subcommittee examines fleet electrification efforts, IME requests that 
PHMSA, or the appropriate agency, study in greater detail the potential 
safety hazards created by shipping commercial explosives on ZEVs.
    Thank you for considering our views and for your attention to this 
important matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss 
further, please contact Julia Bogue, IME's director of government 
affairs.
            Best Regards,
                                             J. Clark Mica,
                      President, Institute of Makers of Explosives.

Cc: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

                                 
  Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies, 
       Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
    The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) 
applauds the subcommittee for holding this hearing on the Biden 
administration's pie-in-the-sky initiatives pushing all-electrification 
of American transportation, including large trucks.
    NASTC is a member-based organization whose 15,000 member companies 
range from the single-power-unit, owner-operator operating under its 
own authority to carriers having more than 100 power units, averaging 
12 power units. These companies mostly operate in the long-haul, over-
the-road, full-truckload, for-hire, irregular-route sector of 
interstate trucking. NASTC's members come from the largest segment of 
America's long-haul trucking: small motor carrier businesses having 
fewer than 100 power units.
    The recent study by Roland Berger estimates that infrastructure 
costs alone for fully switching trucking to electric power would cost 
$1 trillion.\1\ That is more than half a trillion for heavy-vehicle 
charging infrastructure and nearly half a trillion for bolstering the 
electric grid infrastructure. We don't question this research and 
analysis, but we do observe that well-founded, good-faith financial 
projections made at one point in time tend to underestimate actual 
costs, once the funding, planning, permitting, purchasing of supplies, 
contracting of labor, etc. are ultimately fulfilled and construction 
begins. Here we are talking about multiple projects, each one facing 
red tape and delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.cleanfreightcoalition.org/sites/default/files/2024-
03/RB%20Study%20Report_final%5B111225%5D.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, projected costs are likely to rise given the adverse 
effects of inflation, which persists and has worsened lately. Inflation 
since President Biden took office has substantially reduced the 
purchasing power of the dollar; the consumer price index has risen 
about 20% since January 2021, with prices up sharply for gasoline, 
diesel, and groceries. On that basis, the projected cost to switch 
trucking to all electric is staggering and likely to significantly 
exceed $1 trillion by the time costs come due.
    The Biden administration's electric vehicle mandates and subsidies 
in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act are matched by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions 
rules for light and heavy vehicles.
    These initiatives make it clear that the administration's ultimate 
goal is the elimination of internal-combustion vehicles.\2\ 
Regrettably, those driving these changes are using raw government 
power--rather than rational, informed, collegial lawmaking--to force 
American trucking, consumers, and others to give up the option of 
reliable forms of transportation and energy and to hope and pray that 
unreliable electric vehicles and power supply will miraculously meet 
the need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-electric-vehicle-
mandate-gas-powered-cars-2032-epa-
c2a72414?st=zpwhzjf3qa9p5v7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This hearing delivers a reality check about electrification of U.S. 
transportation and the trucking sector. Extremist, unrealistic policies 
must be tempered by acknowledgement of progress already made at 
tremendous cost to taxpayers and the private sector. These gains 
include the tremendous clean-air strides our transportation industry 
has made over the past 40-plus years, such as the implementation of 
low-sulfur fuel, the implementation of ultralow-sulfur fuel, the 
diminution of idling time through the use of auxiliary power units 
(APUs), the implementation of catalytic converters and DEF, and a 
myriad of fuel efficiency practices in tires and aerodynamics.
    Moreover, Chairman Crawford states it well, and NASTC associates 
itself with his opening statement, particularly this, regarding the 
gross lack of understanding of the recent legislative and executive 
unilateralism exhibited as to the practicalities:

        I respect the rights of a company to decide if it's in the 
        company's best interest to electrify their fleet, just like I 
        respect their ability to choose to go in another direction, 
        like natural gas. But it is also important to recognize that 
        many fleets, including owner-operators, will be put at a 
        competitive disadvantage and simply can't afford to purchase 
        new vehicles, let alone a $400,000 rig.

        To add to these challenges, the batteries in these trucks can 
        weigh up to 16,000 pounds, roughly one-quarter of the total 
        allowable weight. That will make already slim margins for 
        payload offset even slimmer. Add in the fact that it takes 
        between 2.9 to 5.7 hours to recharge the battery--that is, if 
        you can find an open and functioning charger. That's on top of 
        the current challenge we know exists with the truck parking 
        shortage. Less product will move on each truck. And each truck 
        will take longer to get to its destination. This isn't a recipe 
        for success. (emphasis added)

    The Biden administration way is not the American way. The EPA and 
other federal agencies are imposing a substantial financial and 
regulatory burden on American industry and citizens, and erecting 
hurdles to advancements such as building new, cleaner oil refineries 
and adequate truck parking. Proposed NOx and greenhouse gas (GHG) 
reduction goals and the timetables for achieving them are wildly overly 
ambitious, especially in light of the remarkable reductions our 
trucking sector has already achieved. Effectively, post-2010 heavy-duty 
trucks release cleaner air into the atmosphere than they take in.
    If stated government orders are implemented, many carriers and 
truckers will opt to keep the vehicle(s) they have for longer than they 
otherwise would have. Already, small motor carriers and independent 
owner-operators are precluded from the new-truck market by price. New 
or used electric vehicles will cost significantly more than do new 
diesel trucks.\3\ For the large percentage of carriers having 20 or 
fewer trucks, electric vehicles won't be an option for the foreseeable 
future. The expensive mandates will cause current vehicles to continue 
in use as long as possible. The price differential between older, used 
trucks and the more expensive, newer electric models, once on the used 
vehicle market, will be key factors in small carriers' purchasing 
decisions. The government-caused slower turnover of older commercial 
trucks and slower uptake of expensive EV models replacing diesel-
powered ones through the used-vehicle market, coupled with predictably 
higher used truck purchase prices and slimmer profit margins, will 
translate into less reduction of NOx and GHG levels in the atmosphere. 
The projected health and environmental gains EPA and the White House 
proffer will not be achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.truckinginfo.com/10166691/what-fleets-need-to-know-
about-electric-truck-batteries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, private vehicles provide a cautionary tale that should 
be learned both for autos and commercial vehicles. American consumers 
are voting with their auto choices.\4\ In the car, pickup, and SUV 
markets, less than 8% of last year's U.S. vehicle sales were EVs; more 
than 90% of 2023 autos sold were gas-powered or hybrid vehicles.\5\ 
Auto dealers have stocks of EVs crowding the lot--middle-class 
consumers aren't buying them. Auto companies lose money on EVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ev-electric-vehicle-
slowdown-ford-gm-tesla-
b20a748e?st=cx7k7q61afuadk9&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    \5\ https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/hybrid-car-sales-boom-
b579bf21?st=tmvqnmw9p5he2nv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consumers reject EVs for a number of good reasons. EVs are not 
dependable. Consumers experience about 80% more problems with EVs than 
with autos run by internal-combustion engines, Consumer Reports 
found.\6\ Consumers complain that electronic features stop working. 
Batteries die faster in cold weather and sometimes won't charge. The 
advertised mileage on an engine charge is often quite shorter in 
reality. EVs are expensive, even when government-subsidized. Charging 
batteries costs more than a tank of gas and is much slower. EV 
maintenance and repairs cost more. For instance, car EV batteries last 
5-10 years, costing $5,000 to $15,000 to replace.\7\ Resale value is 
uncertain. (Perhaps the EV makers could develop an aftermarket for 
scrapped EVs' batteries to equip consumers' homes with sufficient 
electricity generation.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-f-150-lightning-production-
electric-vehicles-biden-administration-
1c3fc8d0?st=oo0rjk4ydehlio3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    \7\ https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/electric-car-
battery-replacement-costs.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, EVs pose significant hurdles for lower-income people 
(as well as certain better-off city dwellers), who live in homes 
without a garage, a driveway, or dedicated or reserved street parking, 
including apartments or condominiums. Policies to deprive people living 
in these circumstances, poor or otherwise, of convenient, affordable 
internal-combustion-auto transportation will face the harshest 
consequences of an EV hegemony that has outlawed gasoline-powered 
vehicles.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.motortrend.com/features/apartment-ev-charging-
renters-rights/,
    https://www.myev.com/research/buyers-sellers-advice/what-if-you-
want-to-drive-an-electric-vehicle-but-dont-have-a-garage,
    https://www.wired.com/story/wait-so-where-will-urbanites-charge-
their-evs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Their batteries make EVs substantially heavier than gas-fueled 
cars, making EVs a danger to lighter weight vehicles, human beings, and 
property in accidents. EVs pose greater risk of catching fire.\9\ Being 
heavier, EVs degrade roads, adding to pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/lithium-ion-batteries-are-
everywhere-fires-caused-by-shoddy-ones-are-on-the-rise-
ef6fb633?st=ty08iiflhomi9c4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EVs hog an unfair share of electricity and burden electric 
infrastructure, risking energy security and reliability while markedly 
increasing energy consumption.\10\ EVs compete for electricity with 
cryptomining, booming artificial intelligence, and other significant 
draws on the electrical grid. Meanwhile, the Biden administration's 
heavy-handed forced closure of functioning power generator stations 
puts the United States at heightened risk of electricity demand quickly 
overwhelming supply. This manmade, self-imposed crisis is entirely 
avoidable and unnecessary. Yet, here we are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-we-power-the-epas-ev-fantasy-
electrical-grid-energy-vehicles-
a786d535?st=ekdp694f1sbl2eq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is serious competitiveness and security risk attached to the 
electric-or-bust political agenda. Mining minerals for and 
manufacturing EV batteries cause substantial particulate emissions, and 
come predominately from rival China or Chinese industry. Further, China 
continues to use Diesel 2, the precatalytic converter-grade diesel fuel 
that has long been in disuse in the United States. The current, 
cleaner-grade diesel fuel used in the United States costs trucking 
roughly $1 more per gallon than would Diesel 2. Of course, U.S. diesel 
fuel today is better for the environment. But at this point, it is 
merely by nominal degrees of ``cleaner'' air rather than earlier gains 
already achieved. Presumably, our country's citizens regard the more 
expensive U.S. diesel fuel and the costs it adds to their cost of 
living worth the extra money. Yet, China benefits economically from its 
use of cheaper, dirtier diesel fuel. Still, the Biden administration 
and many in Congress continue to push unilateral disarmament, forcibly 
denying continued usage of readily available, abundant, U.S. fuel 
resources.
    Congress should reject exorbitantly costly, unrealistic mandates to 
replace fossil fuels and to force foreclosing nearly every other fuel 
source except for unreliable ``green'' ones--all driven by government 
diktat rather than free-market forces and democratic means. The 
subsidies for EV, wind, solar, and battery solutions to our energy 
crunch have suffered documented failures.\11\ ``Green New Deals'' and 
government largesse for electrification and corporate welfare have not 
and won't take the place of a free market-based, forward-thinking, 
ecofriendly evolution into using all power sources to get the job 
done.\12\ In fact, the supposed green goals are pipe dreams: ``[T]he 
vehicles you and I drive, while large in number, sit parked 95% of the 
time and play a minor role in U.S. transportation emissions. It elides 
the fact that U.S. transportation emissions themselves are a small and 
shrinking share of global emissions.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/rivian-tesla-lucid-fisker-
polestar-vinfast-ev-
8676ec4c?st=oytg8ok7nb18sqm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    \12\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-doesnt-tell-the-truth-about-
electric-vehicles-auto-industry-climate-policy-
92e25d01?st=nrorqya4tacglgf&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    \13\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-evs-theres-a-lot-of-hunter-in-
joe-biden-election-policy-trump-reelection-
a9b9e56b?st=oth022mr3asbfdi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Attempts to force U.S. economic sectors such as trucking into 
manipulated electrification risk sparking a debilitating crisis of 
wholesale electricity shortages, unreliable private and commercial 
transportation, and countless EVs without charge sufficient to 
function. That outcome would spell national crisis in the most 
unwelcome way. That is the path the current administration has 
recklessly set the country on. America can do better. This hearing 
marks a beginning.

                                 
    Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 
       Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
    Dear Chair Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chair Crawford, Ranking 
Member Holmes Norton, and members of the Committee:
    The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') is the 
largest trade association of electrical equipment manufacturers in the 
nation, representing nearly 325 member companies and 370,000 American 
manufacturing workers across all 50 states. Together, our industries 
are responsible for 1.65 million American jobs which contribute more 
than $200 billion to the U.S. economy. Our members include 
manufacturers of electric vehicle (EV) charger stations and the 
electrical equipment needed to support public and private charging 
stations.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (``BIL'') provided critical 
funding to fuel much needed investments into EVs and EV charging 
infrastructure. In addition, the bill made it clear that federal 
funding can cover the costs of the grid equipment that is needed when 
installing charging stations.
    An important goal of the legislation is to drive new private 
investments in U.S. based manufacturing. Our members share this goal of 
fostering and strengthening our domestic manufacturing and supply chain 
capabilities for EV charging equipment via responsible right shoring 
techniques such as phasing in requirements, allowing for substantial 
transformation, and providing clear rules governing these requirements 
across all funding programs.
    We would remind the Subcommittee that it takes time to build new 
manufacturing facilities: our members have already announced several 
new plants, have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new U.S. 
manufacturing and are planning additional investments in the future.
    Nevertheless, compliance with the Build America, Buy America (BABA) 
regulations set forth in the BIL does complicate and hinder 
manufacturers' ability to quickly and efficiently deploy EV charging 
infrastructure under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 
(NEVI) program due to the vague and opaque nature of the Made In 
America Office's (MIAO) BABA guidance. Despite the significant 
investment by NEMA members in domestic manufacturing capabilities, EV 
charging infrastructure relies on a complicated global supply chain 
that does not easily adhere to cumbersome one-size-fits-all domestic 
content requirements. NEMA has provided detailed feedback to the MIAO 
on how the BABA guidance could be structured to enhance and strengthen 
domestic manufacturing of EV charging infrastructure.
                       NEMA BABA Recommendations:
    1.  Congress should themselves or ask MIAO to designate countries 
from which materials and components can be procured and waive the 
component test for products substantially transformed in one of these 
acceptable countries or the U.S.; similar to the established Trade 
Agreements Act rules for federal procurement. The following countries 
should be included in this group:
        a.  USMCA countries
        b.  European Union member states
        c.  The United Kingdom
        d.  Indo-Pacific Economic Framework countries
    2.  Congress should or ask MIAO to establish consistent criteria 
and definitions for domestic products across all agencies, programs, 
and funding methods.
        a.  Further, the administration should provide guidance on 
these criteria and definitions to implementing state agencies.
    3.  Congress should ask MIAO to ensure the component test includes 
all costs associated with the manufacturing of a product, such as 
labor, transportation, allocable overhead, and material.

    As the Committee considers the progress made by the industry thus 
far, we would like to provide some key thoughts as it relates to future 
and ongoing efforts of fleet electrification in the U.S.
    1.  NEMA recommends that EV charging infrastructure should be based 
on standardization and interoperability. NEMA is strongly in favor of 
efforts to develop and sustain a nationwide EV charging infrastructure 
as part of global efforts to reduce emissions through electrification 
of the North American regional transportation system. This deployment 
should strive towards standardization and interoperability and allow 
for enhanced communication and coordination between the vehicle, the 
charging station, and the grid to maximize the benefit and convenience 
for vehicle owners while not overly stressing the grid. Standardization 
and interoperability will create a more stable environment for 
innovation, accelerate infrastructure rollout, and lead to faster 
consumer adoption.

    2.  NEMA recommends that all publicly funded public charging 
locations should be interoperable with all electric vehicles. For a 
charging system to energize a vehicle's battery, there must be a common 
physical connection point and ``handshake'' between the vehicle's 
Battery Management System (``BMS'') and the charger. The BMS will need 
to communicate important parameters of the battery to the charger, such 
as state of charge, power capability, environmental conditions, and 
other data that are critical to safety, battery longevity, and 
commercial interoperability. The connection and communication between a 
vehicle and charger should be based on a common protocol and a language 
fluency that creates a seamless charging experience for all vehicles 
and all users.

    3.  NEMA recommends that the Federal Highway Administration 
(``FHWA'') be flexible in its approach to determining appropriate 
performance-based standards for connectors on EV chargers. NEMA 
recognizes that in the market there are different standard protocols 
for interoperability between the vehicle and the charger. These include 
CHAdeMO, Combined Charging System (``CCS1''), and NACS. Another 
technology which is anticipated soon is the Megawatt Charging System 
(``MCS''). These are each supported by their respective connector that 
converts power from the charger before storing it in the vehicle's 
battery. AC Charging relies on the onboard charger in the vehicle to 
convert the AC power to DC where DC fast charging involves converting 
AC power to DC at the charging station before it flows into the 
vehicle. Specifying one type of connector over another could cause 
unnecessary confusion across the EV charging ecosystem. The NEVI 
program sets a good foundational set of minimum requirements for Public 
Charging Infrastructure. EV charging equipment manufacturers are then 
free to innovate off these requirements thereby further spurring market 
competition. As more and more of these get deployed across the country 
the market ultimately will decide on how these standards evolve. 
Therefore, NEMA would be supportive of removing the current requirement 
in the minimum standards for a minimum of four CCS connectors in favor 
of a technology neutral approach that enables the opportunity to deploy 
CCS or J3400 connectors for DC fast charging systems deployed under the 
program.

                                 
 Letter to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor 
 Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 
    from Ariel Wolf, General Counsel, Powering America's Commercial 
   Transportation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
                                Crawford
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on 
        Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on 
        Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC 20510.
    Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton,
    Powering America's Commercial Transportation (``PACT'') writes to 
thank you for holding the hearing titled: It's Electric: A Review of 
Fleet Electrification Efforts. PACT's mission is to accelerate the 
development and deployment of reliable nationwide charging 
infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles. (``M/
HD ZEVs'') \1\. Our membership is comprised of stakeholders across the 
transportation electrification ecosystem, including leading truck 
manufacturers, charging infrastructure technology providers and 
developers, commercial fleets and fleet management companies, and 
utilities. PACT is committed to promoting productive cross-sector 
collaboration to advance policies and regulations that improve access 
to and reduce barriers for M/HD charging infrastructure. PACT members 
are committed to the transition to a zero-emission M/HD sector and 
ensuring U.S. leadership in ZEV technology deployment. We are 
optimistic about the future of M/HD ZEVs, and are dedicated to 
converting policy goals into actionable policy solutions. We welcome 
the opportunity to collaborate with the Committee and its members on 
this important topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ PACT's membership: ABB E-mobility, BC Hydro, Burns & McDonnell, 
Chateau Energy Solutions, Cummins, Daimler Truck North America, EV 
Realty, Greenlane, InductEV, J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., Mortenson, 
Navistar Inc., Penske, Pitt Ohio, Prologis, Pilot, Voltera, Volvo Group 
North America, WattEV, and Zeem Solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The medium- and heavy-duty trucking industry is at a crossroads: 
State and Federal regulations have placed stringent timelines on the 
transition to M/HD ZEVs, but the necessary refueling infrastructure is 
not yet in place. PACT was formed to help all stakeholders meet these 
ambitious goals through the accelerated deployment of M/HD ZEV 
infrastructure.
    Transitioning M/HD vehicles to zero emissions is a solvable 
challenge. To comply with state and federal regulations such as 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3 \2\ 
California's Advanced Clean Trucks (``ACT'') and Advanced Clean Fleets 
(``ACF''), and other states planning to adopt the ACT and ACF rules, 
additional planning and incentives are required for M/HD ZEV 
infrastructure deployment. Detailed below is an outline of the barriers 
and solutions to the deployment of M/HD ZEV infrastructure. The 
examples provided are not exhaustive, but a starting point to address 
the primary challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 40 CFR Parts 86, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1054, 1065, Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3 (Issued March 29, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Barriers & Solutions to M/HD ZEV Infrastructure Deployment
    Barrier--Costs: Electrifying M/HD fleets is expensive, imposing 
significant costs on customers and all project stakeholders. Current 
incentive programs are insufficient to bridge the gap and have long 
lead times for cost recovery. Commercial fleets need to consider all 
costs when transitioning to ZEVs, including the cost of vehicles, ZEV 
infrastructure, and fuel. Additional incentives for fuel and 
infrastructure can offset these costs, however the amount of funding 
for M/HD ZEVs and charging infrastructure is inadequate. Sufficient 
incentives can help to tip the cost balance and build a business case 
for M/HD ZEV investment.
    There is little dedicated federal funding for M/HD ZEV 
infrastructure despite the high cost and unique nature of M/HD ZEV 
fleet deployments. State incentives are available in some states, like 
California and Washington, but are isolated and insufficient to cover 
the costs associated with the transition. Even where incentive programs 
exist, the long lead time for reimbursement impedes subsequent 
investments.
    Solution--Robust Funding Programs: Incentives for M/HD ZEVs and 
charging infrastructure will play a critical role in supporting the 
energy transition in trucking. Carve outs in existing programs for LD 
vehicles will not be sufficient. Instead, the transition to zero-
emission trucking needs dedicated funding streams. For example, while 
the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (``CFI'') program funds some M/
HD infrastructure projects, the funding through the CFI program will 
not be sufficient to seed the initial investment that leads to 
scalability. Similarly, while NEVI is eligible to be used on M/HD 
infrastructure, implementation of the program has led to the vast 
majority of funds being used for light-duty charging exclusively. 
Federal funds could also be used to modernize the electrical grid to 
prepare for M/HD charging.
    Barrier--Long Project Timelines: Fleet operators that are confident 
in their decision to purchase M/HD ZEVs face challenges when it comes 
to site readiness, including the examples below. An OEM is typically 
able to deliver vehicles within a year of their being ordered, but 
customers cannot count on the availability of necessary infrastructure 
or power supply to charge purchased vehicles--it can take 12-36 months 
to install and energize infrastructure. Every M/HD site has different 
challenges, including site design, available power and necessary 
upgrades, among other factors. Additionally, entities must navigate 
complex application processes and permitting regulations in order to 
receive approval for a project.
    Solution--Expediting EV Infrastructure Projects: State and local 
governments should create model permitting policies and establish 
mandatory deadlines for permitting approvals for M/HD ZEV 
infrastructure. The Federal government can also play a convening and 
facilitating role among states to align policies.
    Barrier--Limited Understanding of M/HD Industry: Charging M/HD ZEVs 
is very different from charging light-duty (``LD'') ZEVs. M/HD charging 
requirements depend on the fleet duty cycles and route choices, and 
require direct current instead of alternating current that is typically 
used for LD home charging. This key difference results in a long 
process of customer engagement with power companies. Additionally, it 
is difficult--sometimes impossible--to upgrade sites designed for LD 
vehicles to accommodate M/HD charging because M/HD vehicles typically 
require: (1) larger parking spaces; (2) pull through charging; and (3) 
significantly more power per charger. U.S. agencies should provide 
technical assistance and model programmatic language that supports new 
programs for M/HD needs in the national charging infrastructure 
network.
    Solution--Increased Collaboration: Fleets and utilities should 
increase their collaboration to speed the buildout of M/HD ZEV 
projects. For example, fleets and utilities should be open to phasing 
in power as it becomes available.
    PACT looks forward to working with the Committee to advance the 
deployment of M/HD ZEV infrastructure.
            Sincerely,
                                                Ariel Wolf,
                                             General Counsel, PACT.

                                 
Letter of May 7, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and 
 Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways 
   and Transit, from Matthew Brownlee, Director, Federal Government 
 Affairs, The Transport Project, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric 
                          A. ``Rick'' Crawford
                                                       May 7, 2024.
Hon. Rick Crawford, Chair,
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office 
        Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton:
    I am submitting the following comments on behalf of The Transport 
Project (formerly known as NGVAmerica) in regards to the Subcommittee 
on Highways and Transit hearing on April 30, 2024, titled ``It's 
Electric: A Review of Fleet Electrification Efforts.'' The Transport 
Project is a national coalition of roughly 200 fleets, vehicle and 
engine manufacturers and dealers, servicers and suppliers, and fuel 
producers and providers dedicated to the decarbonization of North 
America's transportation sector. Through the increased use of gaseous 
motor fuels including renewable natural gas and hydrogen, the United 
States and Canada can help achieve ambitious climate goals and greatly 
improve air quality safely, reliably, and effectively without delay and 
without compromising existing commercial business operations.
    The transportation sector makes up the largest portion of 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and thus we have a great 
opportunity to reduce emissions. Over the last thirty years, compressed 
natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles and more 
recently renewable natural gas (RNG) vehicles, have made significant 
achievements in reducing emissions. These technologies can offer 
impactful benefits in our urgent quest for cleaner transportation 
solutions.
    As the Committee considers the future of fleet electrification, I 
urge you to recognize and integrate RNG, LNG, and CNG vehicles into 
your framework of sustainable transportation initiatives. The committee 
also should consider and support hydrogen fueled vehicles including 
hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines (ICEs), which will soon be 
entering the market and offer significant emission reduction benefits.
    The statement and testimony offered by Kim Okafor, General Manager 
for Zero Emissions at Love's Travel Stop and Trillium Energy Solutions, 
on behalf of NATSO underscored the very real challenges and high cost 
of electrifying portions of the transportation sector. Additionally, we 
agree with the statement and testimony of Taki Darakos, Vice President, 
Vehicle Maintenance and Fleet Service at PITT OHIO on behalf of the 
American Trucking Association, regarding the recent EPA GHG3 rule. 
There is a need for broad, pragmatic, and achievable emissions 
standards that truly foster the adoption of lower-carbon technologies. 
The shift to unrealistic targets by 2030 could indeed stifle innovation 
and investment in proven, scalable solutions like RNG that are 
available today and deliver immediate emissions reductions.
    It is widely acknowledged that no single solution will meet our 
clean transportation needs, especially across different vehicle classes 
and use cases. Electric vehicles can be vital to our energy transition, 
but it should not be done at the expense of the investment that has 
already been made into other alternative fuel vehicles. Gaseous fueled 
vehicles present a ready and effective technology solution, which is 
particularly advantageous for heavy-duty transportation where 
electrification faces challenges due to range, payload capacities, and 
infrastructure needs.
    Renewable natural gas, or biogas, is gas produced from methane 
emitted through the decomposition of animal manure, food waste, forest 
management waste, wastewater sludge, and garbage. This methane, if left 
alone is a potent greenhouse gas. However, capturing and processing 
methane for use as a transportation fuel, turns a problematic waste 
liability into a sustainable energy resource.
    As a result, RNG is the only carbon negative motor fuel and its use 
provides significant greenhouse gas reductions. Last year the bio-CNG 
mix in California held an annual average carbon intensity score of -
126.42 gCO2e/MJ, the lowest average carbon intensity of any fuel option 
in the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard program today. This presents 
a great opportunity for RNG's potential to meet and surpass emission 
reduction targets in transportation.
    The prevalence of RNG is expanding. Last year alone, 79 percent of 
CNG used for on road transportation came from a renewable source.\1\ In 
the U.S. there are 338 operational RNG facilities with 165 under 
construction and 324 in development. We have seen more and more fleets 
opt for natural gas vehicles as a way to reduce their carbon footprint. 
The nation's largest fleet, UPS, has over 18,000 alternative fuel 
vehicles and they continue to expand their roster of CNG and LNG 
vehicles. UPS aims to cut its carbon emissions per package delivered by 
50 percent by 2035.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://transportproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TTP-
RNG-Decarbonize-2024.pdf
    \2\ https://tanktransport.com/2024/04/ups-cng-trucks-acquisition/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Natural gas vehicles are not only available now but are mature 
technologies supported by a well-established fueling network of 
stations coast-to-coast. They offer lower total cost of ownership and 
are especially effective in applications where vehicles return to base 
for refueling--ideal for buses, refuse trucks, and short-haul 
logistics.
    Cities like Los Angeles and New York have successfully integrated 
RNG into their public transit systems, demonstrating substantial 
reductions in carbon emissions and pollutants. Similarly, major waste 
management companies like WM have converted their fleets to RNG, 
procuring their RNG from their own landfills. Citing not just 
environmental benefits but also economic advantages due to lower fuel 
costs compared to diesel.
    Electrification is not the only way to decarbonize the 
transportation sector. If the goal is to lower emissions dramatically 
and allow every fleet of every size and corner of this country to 
participate, then multiple clean options must be available.
    Gaseous fueled vehicles powered by CNG, LNG and RNG are a 
practical, immediate solution that can significantly contribute to our 
national goals for cleaner transportation. By integrating these 
technologies into the national fleet electrification strategy, we can 
take a more inclusive and effective approach to reducing transportation 
emissions.
    Please feel free to contact The Transport Project for further data, 
to engage in discussions, or to participate in hearings to explore this 
topic in greater depth. Thank you for considering this crucial aspect 
of our transportation future.
            Sincerely,
                                          Matthew Brownlee,
       Director, Federal Government Affairs, The Transport Project.



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


  Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Taki Darakos, Vice 
   President of Vehicle Maintenance and Fleet Service, PITT OHIO, on 
              behalf of the American Trucking Associations

    Question 1. Mr. Nigro's written testimony reflected that there were 
over 17,000 zero-emission trucks on the road.\1\ In contrast, your 
written testimony suggests that there are very limited numbers of 
battery-electric trucks available to purchase and deployed on our roads 
today.\2\ Can you please explain this inconsistency between your two 
testimonies? For example, what is the vehicle class breakdown of zero 
emission trucks registered today on our roads? Please provide any 
additional details on the differences and uses of these various trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ It's Electric: A Review of Fleet Electrification Efforts: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on 
Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong., (Apr. 30, 2024) (testimony of 
Nick Nigro).
    \2\ It's Electric: A Review of Fleet Electrification Efforts: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on 
Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong., (Apr. 30, 2024) (testimony of 
Taki Darakos).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The figures referenced in Mr. Nigro's testimony are sourced 
from CALSTART's January 2024 State of the U.S. Market Report and 
reflect deployment primarily of cargo vans rather than the heavy-duty 
Class 8 trucks that our economy relies on for long-haul freight. To 
highlight this difference, I encourage the Committee to consider the 
figures in the following table, which show that over 80% of zero-
emission truck deployments through 2023 were cargo vans.

                                 CALSTART Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Deployments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           ZET                        ZET Market
                          Vehicle Segment                              Deployments     Total Stock    Share (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo Van..........................................................          14,400       3,687,740        0.39%
MD Step Van........................................................             843         266,866        0.32%
MD Truck...........................................................             442       3,573,915        0.01%
HD Truck...........................................................             867       5,104,926        0.02%
Refuse.............................................................              48         118,135        0.04%
Yard Tractor.......................................................           1,134          23,437        4.84%
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
  Total............................................................          17,734      12,775,019        0.14%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Jacob Richard, Jessie Lund, and Baha Al-Alawi. ``Zeroing in on Zero-Emission Trucks: The State of the
  U.S. Market.'' CALSTART. January 2024.

    In addition to CALSTART's data, the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) periodically reports on the distribution of state credits 
claimed by heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers. According to CARB's most 
recent May 2024 report, manufacturers sold 18,473 zero-emission 
vehicles in California, of which only 353 (less than two percent) were 
Class 7 and 8 tractors for model year 2023.\3\ Deployment of lighter, 
lower-payload cargo vans, and the charging infrastructure to support 
them, should not be conflated with the major investments needed in 
charging infrastructure for Class 7 and 8 trucks and the technology 
advancements required to make those vehicles practical and affordable 
for regional and national heavy-duty trucking networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ CARB. ``Advanced Clean Trucks Credit Summary Through the 2023 
Model Year.'' May 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our experience it has only been within the last two years that 
the technology has become available in the Class 7 and 8 space. It is 
also important to note that the purchase price in the battery-electric 
light-duty segment is slightly higher than traditional ICE vehicles. 
The price jump for Class 7 and 8 is substantial, ranging from 2.7 to 
3.5 times more (excluding charging infrastructure costs) of traditional 
ICE vehicles.
    Operational costs for battery-electric trucks are also higher, 
especially for Class 7 and 8 vehicles. In a recent study published by 
the commercial lease and truck rental company Ryder System, Inc., their 
fleet experienced total cost of transport increases of 94 to 114 
percent for heavy-duty truck conversions and 56 to 67 percent for mix 
fleet conversions, compared to a five percent cost increase for light-
duty electric vehicles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Ryder System, Inc. ``Charged Logistics: The Cost of Electric 
Vehicle Conversion for U.S. Commercial Fleets.'' May 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle sales are, to my 
knowledge, largely driven by grants and demonstration projects through 
programs such as California's HVIP program or EPA's current Clean 
School Bus program. Setting aside the financial challenges of 
purchasing these vehicles, as I mentioned in my testimony, the lack of 
adequate charging infrastructure and the performance limitations of 
current heavy-duty tractors will also exacerbate the difficulty of 
meeting regulatory targets and timelines such as those established by 
California's Advanced Clean Fleets program. Meanwhile, programs such as 
the EPA's DERA (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act) program, which is 
awaiting Congressional reauthorization and merits expansion, continue 
to deliver emissions reductions and operational benefits for the 
trucking industry by incentivizing the replacement of older diesel 
trucks with new, cleaner diesel technology.

    Question 2. What weather impacts have you experienced with 
performance limitations of the battery-electric trucks that your 
company is running in Ohio and Pennsylvania?
    Answer. Real-world operational data shows that weather and 
topographical conditions can have significant negative impacts on the 
usable range of battery-electric vehicles. According to a AAA 
Foundation study of the range of electric passenger vehicles, a car 
that may be expected to travel 105 miles in 75-degree weather only 
travels 69 miles in 95-degree temperatures and 43 miles in 20-degree 
temperatures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ AAA Foundation. ``Electric Vehicle Range.'' Nd. Accessed from 
https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/automotive-testing/electric-
vehicle-range/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PITT OHIO's experience testing battery-electric trucks has shown 
similar range reductions in hot and cold temperatures as those seen in 
passenger cars. We have seen a 10-15% range reduction over the last two 
years of operation. We are not alone among trucking companies in that 
we need more time to procure technologies and perform testing over many 
miles, and under multiple weather and topographical conditions, in 
order to collect data on how a transition to battery-electric trucks or 
alternative technologies will impact our operations.

    Question 3. How do battery-electric trucks perform in all four 
seasons? Are there any route modifications or adjustments that you need 
to make due to certain weather conditions?
    Answer. As mentioned in my response to the previous question, our 
experience has been that battery-electric freight vehicles experience 
range reductions in extreme hot and cold temperatures. We are a 
regional carrier operating in the mid-Atlantic and midwestern U.S., so 
we must be able to maintain our operations despite challenging seasonal 
weather conditions.
    PITT OHIO has developed internal tools to help with placement of 
vehicles. We make contingencies for factors such as weather, terrain 
and payload. These tools allow our team to understand routes, payload 
and daily operating characteristics to ensure that the vehicles are 
placed in situations where they are set up for success from the start. 
We factor in vehicle range buffers to ensure our trucks are able to 
make it back to their depot and reduce risks of network disruptions. 
While the current technology is improving, it cannot replace the 
traditional diesel engine in terms of the diversity of duty cycles that 
it can support.
    When we initially deployed our first battery electric trucks, the 
range of our Class 7 battery-electric box trucks was only 150 miles, 
and the payload was 8,800 lbs. In comparison, our traditional ICE box 
trucks traditionally run approximately 150-200 miles per day and move 
up to 15,000 lbs. of payload. In the Class 8 segment, the ability to 
shift to a battery-electric truck is limited due to range requirements 
for those vehicles in our current network. Those tractors run 150-200 
miles per day in a city operation and average 520 miles per day at 
night in our linehaul operation. Most of the runs with these heavy-duty 
vehicles are on extremely tight schedules. Having to charge for any 
period would require a significant investment in additional equipment 
and drivers. With a fully battery-electric fleet, we would not be able 
to do what we do today.

    Question 4. The Roland Berger study entitled, ``Forecasting a 
Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty 
Battery Electric Vehicles'' examined the different types of charging 
profiles that commercial vehicles would be required to utilize during 
on-route operations.\6\ How will trucking fleets assess depot charging 
versus on-route charging needs and what needs to be in place to provide 
certainty?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for 
Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles, Clean Freight 
Coalition, (Mar.19, 2024), available at https://
www.cleanfreightcoalition.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/
RB%20Study%20Report_
final%5B111225%5D.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The Roland Berger study highlights the unique charging 
ecosystem that will be required to fully electrify the medium- and 
heavy-duty trucking industry. Fleets will assess route length, duty 
cycles, vehicle range, and the existing charging infrastructure along 
their routes to ensure operational performance.
    Depot charging is generally well-suited for fleets with predictable 
schedules and vehicles returning to a central location daily, such as 
Class 3-6 vehicles with local routes under 90 miles, which can be 
charged overnight using Level 2 or Level 3 chargers. However, fleets 
with longer routes, particularly Class 8 long-haul trucks exceeding 200 
miles daily, will require on-route charging due to the current 
technological limitations of battery-electric technology.
    For PITT OHIO, we continue to have ongoing conversations with 
utility partners serving our facilities where trucks can return daily 
for depot charging. With operations in multiple states, it is 
challenging to work with dozens of utilities and state and local 
regulators on charging projects across our network. Wait times can take 
years for these projects, and there is a significant cost. Our 
experience is likely shared by every other trucking company seeking to 
proactively address the challenges of electrification.
    Our linehaul operations may rely on on-route charging, and the 
potential need for multiple charging stops will significantly impact 
operational efficiency, as well as the total cost of ownership and 
operation. In short, battery-electric technology does not work for 
every operation today. A reliable, dense, geographically dispersed on-
route charging network is an essential precursor before fleets acquire 
heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles in high-mileage operations.
    Several key elements are needed to provide certainty and encourage 
fleet adoption of zero-emission vehicles:
      Clear and consistent federal and state policies that 
incentivize ZEV purchases by reducing the financial burden of their 
higher upfront costs compared to conventional vehicles;
      Substantial upgrades to the nation's grid transmission 
and distribution networks;
      Standardized charging protocols and connectors; and
      Reasonable regulatory timelines that enable fleets to 
work with utility providers to acquire the electricity necessary to 
power their operations and prove that battery-electric truck technology 
works for their duty cycle and application.

    Question 5. The amount of power on the grid to support 
electrification will be tremendous. The American Transportation 
Research Institute's 2022 study demonstrated that electrification of 
the entire United States vehicle fleet would consume as much as 40 
percent of the country's existing electricity generation and require a 
14 percent overall increase in energy generation, yet our aging grid 
can barely keep up with current demands.\7\ Electrification advocates 
point to trucking fleets to charge at night at slower energy demand to 
reduce the stress on the grid and provide lower charging financial 
rates. Would charging at night cover all of the operational needs for 
PITT OHIO?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric 
Vehicle Fleet, American Transportation Research Institute, (Dec. 2022), 
available at https://truckingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/
ATRI-Charging-Infrastructure-Challenges-for-the-U.S.-Electric-Vehicle-
Fleet-12-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Nighttime charging presents a potential solution for 
reducing stress on the grid and taking advantage of lower electricity 
rates. Still, it is not a panacea for PITT OHIO's operational needs. 
This would work to support our box truck fleet. Those trucks sit idle 
overnight and could leverage nighttime charging. These box trucks 
represent about 40% of our fleet but--it is important to note--amount 
to only 18% of our total fleet miles driven. While nighttime charging 
offers favorable rates that fleets could integrate into some duty 
cycles, not all operations easily fit this model. Many drivers prefer 
nighttime driving due to less congested and safer roads, making it 
impractical to switch entirely to nighttime charging without affecting 
service delivery and customer expectations, as well as driver morale 
and retention. It is also important to note that relying on nighttime 
charging for interstate trucking will impact the driving experience and 
increase congestion for passenger vehicles, transit buses, and the many 
other daytime road users who will encounter additional daytime truck 
traffic.
    Moreover, significant investments in infrastructure are required, 
particularly for behind-the-fence charging at depots that would be the 
norm for night charging, which poses a challenge for smaller trucking 
companies that lack the necessary resources. Notwithstanding the 
national shortage of safe truck parking--we currently have one truck 
parking spot for every eleven trucks on the road \8\--these are 
substantial hurdles even for a large, family-owned organization like 
PITT OHIO. Our nighttime line haul deliveries average 520 miles, with 
some drivers covering over 600 miles. These deliveries are not feasible 
if drivers need to stop for lengthy recharges. The Roland Berger study 
highlights the necessity for corridor charging investments, 
underscoring that the shift to electrification will impact current 
business operations significantly. Although nighttime charging could 
alleviate some stress on the grid and reduce costs, this solution 
creates its own challenges and cannot meet the complete operational 
needs of PITT OHIO and other trucking companies similarly involved in 
nighttime line haul operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway 
Administration. ``Jason's Law Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking Survey 
and Comparative Assessment.'' December 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Nick Nigro, Founder, Atlas 
                             Public Policy

Infrastructure as a Challenge to Fleet Electrification:
    Question 1. The White House announced last week a national goal of 
transitioning to a zero-emissions freight sector. Powering America's 
Commercial Transportation identifies the lack of MHD ZEV infrastructure 
as one of the most significant barriers to deployment of zero-emission 
emission MHD vehicles.
    How can the Federal government accelerate the deployment of MHD ZEV 
infrastructure?
    Answer. The U.S. federal government can play a crucial role in 
accelerating the deployment of charging and refueling infrastructure 
for zero-emission commercial vehicles through the following key 
actions:
    1.  Delivering on the National Freight Corridor Strategy: The 
National Freight Corridor Strategy, developed by the Joint Office of 
Energy and Transportation in collaboration with the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency, provides a comprehensive framework for prioritizing investments 
and infrastructure deployment along the National Highway Freight 
Network. The strategy aims to catalyze public and private investment, 
accelerate industry activity, and signal electricity and hydrogen 
markets to plan and deploy necessary generation, transmission, and 
distribution projects. The federal government can support the execution 
of this strategy by:
          Aligning federal investments and funding decisions 
with the prioritized areas identified in each phase of the strategy.
          Providing technical assistance to states, local 
governments, and other stakeholders to incorporate the strategy into 
their planning and deployment efforts.
          Facilitating cross-sector collaboration among 
commercial fleets, industry, fuel providers, grid operators, 
regulators, and communities to ensure a coordinated approach to 
infrastructure deployment.
    2.  Creating incentive funding programs: The federal government can 
establish targeted incentive funding programs to assist fleets, 
utilities, and charging and fuel providers in building and operating 
charging and refueling stations for zero-emission commercial vehicles. 
These actions may include:
          Create dedicated funding programs for commercial 
vehicle infrastructure, similar to the existing National Electric 
Vehicle Infrastructure program and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure 
discretionary grant program, to offset the high upfront costs of 
infrastructure installation and upgrades.
          Support the greater use of the existing Section 30C 
tax incentive for businesses and organizations investing in zero-
emission vehicle infrastructure.
          Provide discretionary funds for public-private 
partnerships that leverage the expertise and resources of both sectors 
in deploying infrastructure.
          Provide targeted incentives for small businesses and 
disadvantaged communities to ensure equitable access to clean 
transportation solutions.
          Support for workforce development programs to train 
the necessary technicians and professionals for installing, operating, 
and maintaining the infrastructure.
    3.  Supporting foundational research at national laboratories: The 
federal government should continue to support the critical research 
being conducted at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Argonne 
National Laboratory, and other national laboratories. This research is 
essential for advancing zero-emission vehicle technologies, improving 
infrastructure efficiency and reliability, and developing innovative 
solutions to overcome deployment barriers. Key areas of focus may 
include:
          Research on high-power charging and rapid hydrogen 
refueling technologies for commercial vehicles.
          Development of advanced energy management systems and 
smart charging solutions to optimize grid integration and support grid 
resilience.
          Analysis of infrastructure deployment scenarios and 
their impact on energy systems, costs, and environmental outcomes.
          Collaboration with industry partners to transfer 
research findings into real-world applications and accelerate 
technology commercialization.

Federal Need for M/HD Electrification Funds:
    Question 2. Powering America's Commercial Transportation, a trade 
association focused solely on the buildout of zero-emission MHD 
infrastructure, notes in their letter to the Committee that due to 
unique aspects of medium- and heavy-duty electrification, new programs 
and funding streams should be created to support the infrastructure 
buildout for these vehicles. The White House, in its recent 
announcement of a national goal of transitioning to a zero-emissions 
freight sector, announced $1.5 billion to transition MHD vehicles to 
zero-emissions.
    Do you agree that dedicated funding streams are necessary to make 
the Administration's goals a reality?
    Answer. Yes, dedicated federal funding streams to support 
infrastructure for zero-emission freight vehicles are necessary for 
three compelling reasons:
    1.  Freight vehicles, such as medium- and heavy-duty trucks, have 
significantly different operating characteristics and larger sizes 
compared to light-duty passenger vehicles. These differences 
necessitate the development of distinct charging and refueling stations 
that can accommodate the higher power requirements, longer charging 
times, and larger parking spaces needed for commercial vehicles. 
Without dedicated funding streams specifically allocated for zero-
emission freight infrastructure projects, there is a risk that 
insufficient funding will be directed towards supporting charging 
station for commercial vehicles, which could depress zero emission 
vehicle adoption.

    2.  Freight charging and refueling stations face economic and 
operating challenges that are distinct from those encountered by light-
duty passenger vehicles. For example, the higher upfront costs of 
installing high-power charging or hydrogen refueling equipment, coupled 
with the need for larger land areas and more complex permitting 
processes, can create significant financial barriers for freight 
infrastructure projects. Moreover, the operating models for freight 
charging and refueling stations may differ from those of passenger 
vehicle stations, as they need to accommodate the specific requirements 
of commercial fleets, such as the need for reliable and convenient 
access to charging or refueling along key freight corridors and at 
logistics hubs. Dedicated federal funding streams can help address 
these unique challenges and ensure the development of a robust and 
sustainable infrastructure network for zero-emission freight vehicles.

    3.  Freight trucks are the backbone of the U.S. economy, 
responsible for transporting goods and materials across the country and 
supporting critical supply chains. Creating a robust network of 
charging and refueling stations for zero-emission freight vehicles is 
not only essential for reducing emissions and improving public health 
but also a matter of national security and competitiveness. By 
investing in the necessary infrastructure to support the widespread 
adoption of zero-emission freight vehicles, the federal government can 
help ensure the resilience and reliability of the nation's 
transportation system, reduce dependence on sources of energy from 
nations who do not share our values, and foster the growth of domestic 
clean transportation industries. Moreover, a well-developed charging 
and refueling network for zero-emission freight vehicles can enhance 
the competitiveness of U.S. businesses by reducing transportation 
costs, improving logistics efficiency, and positioning the country as a 
leader in sustainable freight transportation.