    [Senate Hearing 118-14]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 118-14

                      THE FUTURE OF LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION
                       FUELS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NATIONAL
                       CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                FEBRARY 15, 2023

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    52-175                    WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania         ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               FEBRUARY 15, 2023
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                                   WITNESSES

    Graff, Michael J., Chairman and CEO, American Air Liquide
      Holdings Incorporated, Executive Vice President and Executive
      Committee Member, Air Liquide Group............................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    17
            Senator Capito...........................................    22
    Cooper, Geoff, President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association....    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    43
            Senator Kelly............................................    46
            Senator Fetterman........................................    47
            Senator Capito...........................................    47
            Senator Mullin...........................................    48
    Spear, Chris, President and CEO, American Trucking Association...    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Kelly............................................    65
            Senator Capito...........................................    65

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Consumer Reports.................................................    68
    Oregon Department of Quality.....................................    83
    Press Release; Volvo Leads th Booming Market on Electric Trucks..    97
    Article; Nikola Delivers First Nikola Tre Battery-Electric Trucks   103
    Article; EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration.............   108
    Letter from Driveclean...........................................   119
    Letter from NACS, Natioanl Association of Convience Stores,
      NATSO, Representinh America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops,
      SIGMA, America's Leading Fuel Marketers........................   122
    Report, Rhodium Group, Closing the Transportation Emissions Gap
      With Clean Fuels...............................................   127

    THE FUTURE OF LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR A
                          NATIONAL CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2023

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators
    Carper, Capito, Cardin, Merkley, Stabenow, Padilla, Fetterman,
    Lummis, Boozman, Mullin, Ricketts.

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

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. This is the day
    after Valentine's Day. I hope you all had a great Valentine's
    Day. We did in our family. My wife renewed my contract for
    another year. It is a no-cut contract. I am hopeful that we can
    extend beyond that.
        Those of you who know my wife know that she is a saint. We
    are welcoming some saints here this morning. Not the New
    Orleans Saints, but some saints nonetheless.
        I will be honest with you. I hadn't really thought a lot
    about this issue that is before us today in the last year or
    two, but I think we are on to something here. I am excited
    about the hearing today. Senator Capito, Ben, and others really
    look forward to this hearing and what we are going to learn.
        As I think you all know, today is the first Environmental
    and Public Works Committee hearing of this 118th Congress.
    Senator Capito and I are pleased to welcome our newest members,
    Senator Fetterman, Senator Mullin, and Senator Ricketts, as
    well. Great to see you again. Thanks for letting me come and
    visit with you earlier this month.
        We are delighted to be with our returning members as well,
    not the least of those, my wingman from DelMarVa, Senator
    Cardin. I call him my DelMarVa buddy.
        Over the last couple of years, this committee has played a
    vital leadership role in passing historic infrastructure and
    climate legislation. Much of our success was, I am proud to
    say, bipartisan. We have a couple of people here from Wyoming,
    and I quote another fellow from Wyoming, who used to say when
    he was actually sitting right out where you are, Chris, he said
    these words: ``Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions.''
        I see we have been joined by Senator Fetterman. Welcome,
    Senator Fetterman, I am glad to see you. Thank you for joining
    our committee and being a neighbor. We have Delaware, we have
    Maryland, we have Pennsylvania. That is a pretty good
    combination.
        Over the last couple of years, this committee has played a
    vital leadership role in passing historic infrastructure and
    climate legislation. Much of our success was bipartisan.
    Looking ahead, I am eager to work with Senator Capito and with
    all of our colleagues here, Democrats and Republicans as well,
    as we aim to build on that record of success and further
    strengthen our economy at the same time. Together, I know we
    can continue to develop lasting solutions to some of our
    biggest challenges.
        That brings me to the topic of today's hearing, and that is
    exploring policies that support the development and deployment
    of low-carbon transportation fuels.
        As a Senator from the lowest-lying State in our Country, I
    can think of no greater challenge than the climate crisis. My
    colleagues have heard me say more times than they want to
    remember, Delaware is the lowest-lying State in America, our
    State is sinking, the seas around us are rising. That is not a
    good combination, so we want to make sure that we are doing
    everything we can to address that and create economic
    opportunity for the rest of our Country.
        Last year, some of you may recall that the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, affectionately known as NOAA,
    reported that there were 18 climate disasters in the United
    States, with losses exceeding $1 billion each. Eighteen,
    exceeding $1 billion.
        They also approached a report, a year ago, that sea level
    rise is occurring even faster than predicted. Those 18 costly
    disasters underscore the urgent need for further action to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to limit the impacts of
    climate change.
        We were reminded by Albert Einstein years ago that ``in
    adversity lies opportunity,'' and that is true here, as well,
    and those opportunities are, frankly, enormous. By tackling the
    climate crisis, we can continue to fuel the growth of clean
    energy jobs in our Country and reduce our dependence on foreign
    oil.
        Again, to our newest members of this committee, including
    our neighboring Pennsylvanian and Senator Ricketts as well, my
    colleagues have heard me tell once or twice the story of a guy
    named Willie Sutton. I don't know if you have ever heard of
    Willie Sutton, a famous bank robber during the Great
    Depression.
        He finally got caught and was dragged before the judge and
    jury and everything. The judge said to him, famously, ``Mr.
    Sutton, why do you rob banks?'' He replied, ``Because, Your
    Honor, that is where the money is.'' When people ask me, ``why
    do we focus on reducing transportation emissions?'' I say,
    ``Because that is where a good deal of the emissions come
    from.''
        For some time now, our Nation's transportation sector has
    remained the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the
    U.S. economy, accounting for more than 25 percent of emissions
    in America. I think power plants account for close to 25
    percent. Another 20 percent comes from our manufacturing
    operations, think cement plants, think steel mills, and so
    forth.
        Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that we all
    participated in crafting and passing and the Inflation
    Reduction Act, Congress and the Biden Administration have made
    significant investments to support American clean energy and
    zero-emitting vehicles while also securing the domestic supply
    chain of critical minerals for electric vehicles.
        Many Americans, including several members of this
    committee, are making the switch to electric vehicles and
    hybrid vehicles. Still, there is more that we can and must do
    to support cleaner fuels for the vehicles on our roads and
    provide greater certainty and flexibility for those who produce
    these fuels.
        As a recovering Governor, while exploring ways to improve
    Federal policies, I often look to see what is working well in
    the States and try to replicate those efforts. I have called
    the States laboratories of democracy forever. They have been,
    and they continue to be laboratories of democracy for us to
    learn from.
        States have learned from the Federal Government's mistakes
    when it comes to programs like the Renewable Fuel Standard.
    Many States, including Oregon and California, have implemented
    or are considering implementing technology-neutral low carbon
    fuel standards. These State-level programs have successfully
    advanced the production and use of cleaner fuels and kept
    consumers and compliance costs low while fostering local
    investment and job creation.
        As we will hear today, these State programs have fuel
    flexibilities, greater long-term predictability, and cost-
    containment mechanisms that are not included in the Renewable
    Fuel Standard. Unlike the Renewable Fuel Standard, existing
    State programs often focus more on emissions reduction
    potential when determining what qualifies as a clean fuel. In
    addition to reducing the number of questions the States have to
    ask when determining which fuels quality for a clean fuels
    program, this structure allows multiple options for obligated
    parties to comply.
        For example, a wide range of stakeholders, including the
    Delaware City Refinery, about 20 miles from my house down the
    Delaware River, those stakeholders are interested in producing
    clean hydrogen as a qualifying clean fuel. They believe they
    can do so with their existing infrastructure to secure a
    stronger financial future and create new jobs. That is why we
    have invested significant Federal resources to support the
    development of clean hydrogen infrastructure in our Nation.
        However, unlike existing State-level programs, the
    Renewable Fuel Standard does not currently consider hydrogen a
    clean fuel. Increasing the production and use of clean hydrogen
    is a key to reducing emissions in sectors of our economy that
    are difficult to decarbonize. Think large trucks, think buses,
    big buses.
        The challenges with the Renewable Fuel Standard do not stop
    at hydrogen. As we are going to hear here today, there are
    challenges across clean fuel stakeholders, including biofuels,
    which we can address by moving toward a more technology-neutral
    approach.
        With that, I welcome the discussion on the benefits of
    establishing a Federal Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a program that
    can provide certainty, provide predictability, and provide
    flexibility for all stakeholders while also spurring innovation
    across clean fuel technologies to help us meet our ambitious
    climate goals.
        My hope is that today's hearing is the first of many
    conversations on how we can bring industry together along with
    environmental groups, along with agriculture and stakeholders,
    to further decarbonize our Nation's transportation fuels while
    also supporting job creation across our Nation.
        We look forward to hearing the perspectives of each of our
    witnesses here today. Before we do that, I want to turn to our
    Ranking Member, Senator Capito, for her opening statement.
    Senator Capito, it is great to be with you.

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

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
    witnesses for being here today. I think we have a great panel,
    so we will get to learn a lot about this.
        For those unfamiliar with a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, it is
    a regulatory process meant to advantage fuels that generate
    lower carbon emissions in their production and use over fuels
    that emit more. This may be achieved through financial
    incentives funded by the taxpayers, decreasing quotas or limits
    on market access for more emissive fuels, or a combination of
    the two.
        I am very concerned by the concept of empowering
    bureaucrats to decide what fuel sources qualify, how, and what
    associated phase-outs may look like. It sounds like a
    combination of social cost of carbon and centralized economic
    planning.
        We have watched administrations of both parties seesaw on
    the execution of regulatory programs that impact American
    energy prices, with experience revealing that heavy-handed
    regulatory approaches inevitably lead to reduced supplies and
    higher prices. Perhaps nowhere has the tug of war been more
    obvious than the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard.
        Speaking of that program, in December, EPA proposed the new
    RFS ``Set'' rule to establish the required volumes of biofuels
    to be blended with conventional gasoline and diesel for the
    next 3 years, 2023, 2024, and 2025.
        As part of this proposal, EPA has allowed automakers
    contracting with certain renewable electricity producers to
    generate compliance credits, known as RINs, for the first time
    in this program. In fact, EPA says in their proposal that they
    are using the creation of electric RINs, or eRINs, which have a
    cash value, to incentivize increased vehicle electrification.
        Yet another subsidy for EVs was not congressional intent,
    nor is it a reasonable interpretation of the statute. This eRIN
    proposal has aggravated proponents of the RFS, critics of the
    programs, and environmentalists alike, a rare trifecta. The
    fact that it is also formulated without any political
    accountability should cause us all significant concern.
        Speaking of things to be concerned about, one State that
    has taken a lot of action recently on transportation fuels is
    California. California was the first State to adopt the LCFS.
    It is no coincidence that California's gas prices are more than
    $1.20 higher than the national average due to its regulatory
    policies and taxes. A study from the Stillwell Associates found
    that California's LCFS by itself has added more than 22 cents
    per gallon in 2022.
        Oregon and Washington have followed suit in establishing
    their own LCFS programs and have seen their gas and diesel
    prices rise.
        Last September, fuel prices in Oregon spiked 50 cents per
    gallon, the sharpest spike of any State in the Country.
    Washington's cap-and-trade and LCFS programs went into effect
    at the start of the year, and according to State legislators
    and Washington Independent Energy Distributors Association,
    gasoline has gone up by more than 34 cents per gallon and
    diesel by more than 43 cents on average as a result of the two
    policies in the past month and a half.
        This stacked LCFS and other environmental regulations and
    taxes mean that residents of the West Coast States face the
    highest fuel prices in the lower 48. But don't worry, if these
    prices make your eyes water, you can just buy an EV. California
    is requiring 100 precent of new vehicles purchased to be zero-
    emission by 2035 through its Advanced Clean Cars II rulemaking.
    That target means higher costs for consumers to buy still-
    scarce electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles and the
    potential disruption of interState commerce.
        According to Kelley Blue Book, the average price of an
    electric vehicle in the United States as of August 2022 was
    $66,000. That is more than the median household income in my
    State, which is $50,000.
        I don't have anything against EVs, and we will eventually
    get there. But I think people should be free to buy the
    vehicles they want and can afford. It also does not help that
    California has some of the most expensive and least reliable
    electricity in the Country, with even greater challenges ahead
    as nuclear and natural gas plants are forced to retire and the
    transportation sector is electrified. But those electricity
    prices can be a subject for a future hearing.
        Looking at the statistics on fuel and vehicle prices at a
    time of significant and sustained inflation, I doubt my State
    and many others, particularly in rural America, will want to
    import the West Coast's policies, which will also bring higher
    prices for at-best hypothetical climate benefits.
        This is especially true at a time of sustained high
    inflation, which, despite monetary policy and the Inflation
    Reduction Act, inflation remains stubbornly predicted to be
    between 4 and 6 percent, we saw the figures yesterday, of over
    6 percent, well above the 2 percent target of the Federal
    Reserve, and is being forecast by groups like Apollo Global
    Management to be stuck there for the near-or medium-term.
        An LCFS and these other cap-and-trade regulatory process
    will only accelerate and lock in those price increases at a
    time when American households and businesses can least afford
    it.
        I look forward to the testimony and thank you again.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        As our new colleagues probably don't know, I go home at
    night, almost every night, to Delaware. I am able to take the
    train. Every morning when I head for the train station, I drive
    by a BP station where I bought gasoline for about 20 years for
    my 2001 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan, which had 600,000
    miles on it when I sold it for $1 last year.
        I no longer stop at the station and get gas, but every day
    I look at the price. I noted that yesterday the price was $4.17
    cents, which is down by more than $1 from where we were maybe
    this time last year. My hope is that it will continue to trend
    down. We will see.
        Anyway, we are going to have a healthy debate here, Senator
    Capito and I, we may have some differences here. This is
    something I am just learning about, and that is why we are
    having the hearing. Hopefully, we will all learn something, and
    maybe we will learn that there is a way to find, to join forces
    and move together down this road. I hope so.
        Now, we are going to turn to our esteemed panel of
    witnesses. In a few minutes, we are going to hear from them in
    this order. First is Michael Graff, the Chairman and CEO of
    American Air Liquide Holdings Incorporated. He is also
    Executive Vice President and Executive Committee Member of the
    Air Liquide Group. We are delighted to see you. Thank you so
    much for joining us and thank you for your presence in our
    State.
        Second, we are going to hear from Geoff Cooper, President
    and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, and finally, from
    Chris Spear, President and CEO of the American Trucking
    Association. Chris, it is very nice to see you again.
        We are now going to begin our witness testimony. I am going
    to ask Mr. Graff if you will proceed with your statement. Your
    entire statement will be made part of the record. You may
    proceed as you wish.
        Thank you so much. Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. GRAFF, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, AMERICAN AIR
      LIQUIDE HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
             EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, AIR LIQUIDE GROUP

        Mr. Graff. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
    members of the committee, on behalf of Air Liquide's more than
    20,000 employees in the United States----
        Senator Carper. Excuse me, let me interrupt for just a
    second. My staff reminds me. It was not $4.17, it was $3.17.
    You are right. Hopefully it will continue to drop. I think it
    will. We will see. Thanks.
        Mr. Graff. On behalf of our 20,000 employees in the United
    States, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
    name is Mike Graff, and I am the Chairman and CEO of American
    Air Liquide, a world leader in sustainable technologies and
    solutions that help decarbonize the planet and advance a clean
    energy economy while creating high-paying careers.
        It is a pleasure to be here today with Mr. Cooper from the
    Renewable Fuels Association and Mr. Spear from the American
    Trucking Association. I want to thank Mr. Spear and the ATA,
    with whom we worked closely during the pandemic to ensure
    patients and hospitals had the medical oxygen they needed to
    save lives. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, it was Air Liquide's honor to host you, the
    Secretaries of Energy and Labor and the National Climate
    Advisor at our Innovation Campus Delaware last August. We share
    a core belief: clean energy is about lowering emissions and
    growing our economy while creating new, value-added jobs.
        As the committee considers the establishment of a national
    clean fuels program, we urge you to ensure that any proposal is
    technology-neutral and enables emissions reductions through
    certainty and flexibility. These are essential to promoting
    private sector investment, creating jobs, and minimizing
    burdens on the American consumer.
        Hydrogen plays an important role in decarbonizing the
    transportation sector, and Air Liquide is at the forefront of
    that effort. In Nevada, Air Liquide has invested $250 million
    in the first world-scale liquid hydrogen production facility,
    with the capacity to supply renewable hydrogen for over 40,000
    zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Much of this
    hydrogen is supplied to California under its LCFS.
        Leveraging the versatility of hydrogen and regional energy
    ecosystems, Air Liquide is also involved in many hydrogen hub
    proposals, which include decarbonization of the transportation
    sector.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Fetterman, as mentioned, Delaware
    is home to our innovation campus, and Pennsylvania is home to
    1,400 Air Liquide employees. As the headquarters of Airgas and
    Air Liquide Company, a hub here could unite the East Coast
    transportation system with the necessary renewable fuel
    infrastructure.
        Ranking Member Capito and Senator Cardin, an Appalachian
    hub could leverage the region's abundant supply of natural gas,
    joint with carbon capture, to produce low-carbon hydrogen.
        Senators Sanders, Whitehouse, and Markey, NYSERDA is
    leading the effort to convert the Northeast's abundant wind and
    hydropower to low-carbon hydrogen via electrolysis, which Air
    Liquide already does in this region with the world's first
    industrial scale PEM electrolyzer. Similar initiatives are
    underway in the Midwest, the Southwest, and the Gulf Coast. Any
    clean fuels program must have flexibility at its core to fully
    leverage hydrogen within the local energy ecosystem.
        Air Liquide is a significant low-carbon fuel supplier that
    gives us insight into clean fuels programs like the California
    Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Nation's Renewable Fuel
    Standard and their effects on private investment and on the
    market.
        First, the California LCFS has reduced CO2 emissions while
    stimulating private investment. Senator Padilla, the hydrogen
    and renewable natural gas that Air Liquide supplies to the
    California transportation market falls under the State's LCFS.
    We also supply hydrogen for the refining industry, which is
    also subject to the LCFS.
        Second, the California LCFS employs a performance-based
    carbon intensity target and a fuels evaluation methodology that
    is agnostic about technologies and feedstocks. This is a key
    feature of the program designed to maximize the reduction of
    greenhouse gas emissions. However, given the number of fuel
    pathways requiring approval, a streamlined process through
    pathway standardization would be beneficial.
        Third, policies that enable the use of renewable energy
    credits and environmental attributes enable investments that
    best use regional resources, infrastructure, and technologies
    to meet targets and increase the supply of low-carbon and
    renewable energy, ensuring consistency in the use of RECs and
    EAs across all feedstocks and processed energy, and in avoided
    emissions rules, would make the California LCFS more efficient.
        Finally, the pathway approval process for the Renewable
    Fuel Standard is significantly delayed. Like many entities, Air
    Liquide has pending RFS pathway petitions. Ours seeks to
    qualify hydrogen for renewable natural gas. Despite favorable
    review by EPA, these pathways have not advanced. The RFS
    pathways process needs to be transparent and timely in order to
    advance the Nation's emission reduction goals.
        In conclusion, we urge the committee to ensure than any
    national clean fuels program is technology neutral and enables
    emission reductions through the program's certainty and also
    flexibility.
        Thank you for inviting me to participate today, and I
    welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Graff follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Mr. Graff, thanks so much. Great to see
    you, and thank you. Our best to you and the team you lead back
    in Delaware and across the Country and around the world. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Cooper, Carper welcomes Cooper. Capito welcomes Cooper.

     STATEMENT OF GEOFF COOPER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RENEWABLE FUELS
                              ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Cooper. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
    members of the committee, good morning. My name is Geoff
    Cooper, and I am the President and CEO of Renewable Fuels
    Association, the leading trade association for the U.S. ethanol
    industry.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share our industry's
    perspective on the future of low-carbon fuels and the potential
    for a Federal Clean Fuels Program. The transportation sector,
    as you said, Mr. Chairman, is the leading contributor of
    greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for
    nearly one-third of total emissions annually. Although
    transportation emissions have fallen slightly from their peak
    in 2006, the pace of emissions reduction must rapidly
    accelerate in the years ahead if we are to meet the
    Administration's goals of net-zero emissions by 2050.
        We believe a properly structured Clean Fuels Program offers
    the best opportunity to rapidly reduce carbon emissions from
    the transportation sector while simultaneously enhancing energy
    security, creating jobs, and reducing tailpipe pollution linked
    to poor air quality and health challenges.
        RFA supports the development of a national program that is
    truly technology-neutral and performance-based. In essence, a
    Clean Fuels Program sets annual greenhouse gas reduction
    requirements for the transportation sector, and then it allows
    the marketplace to determine the most efficient and economical
    ways of achieving those reductions without dictating the use of
    specific fuels or vehicles.
        Under a well-designed policy, we believe renewable fuels
    like ethanol offer an effective and immediate solution for
    decarbonizing the transportation sector, including light and
    heavy-duty vehicles, rail, marine, and even aviation fuels.
    Today's corn ethanol already cuts greenhouse gas emissions by
    approximately 50 percent on average compared to gasoline.
        With the increased adoption of low-carbon farming
    practices, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage, and other
    technologies, the U.S. ethanol industry is well on its way to
    producing net-zero carbon corn ethanol. In fact, RFA's member
    companies have pledged that the ethanol they produce will
    achieve a 70 percent reduction compared to gasoline by 2030 and
    a net-zero carbon footprint by 2050 or sooner.
        Clean fuel policies have already been implemented at the
    State level, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, and several
    countries are beginning to implement their own programs. While
    existing State programs like the California LCFS have been
    successful in reducing emissions and driving investment,
    certain design shortcomings have at times undermined the
    technology--neutral intent of those programs and limited the
    ability of some low-carbon fuels to provide greater greenhouse
    gas emissions benefits.
        Still, ethanol and other liquid biofuels have accounted for
    nearly three-quarters of the total carbon reductions that have
    been achieved under the California LCFS since it began in 2011.
        If implemented on a national scale, a Clean Fuel Program
    will need to be designed in a way that avoids picking
    technology winners and losers and drives the greatest
    greenhouse gas emissions reductions at the lowest cost. A
    nationwide program should one, use consistent, science-based,
    and transparent life cycle analysis methodologies like the
    Department of Energy's GREET model for determining the carbon
    intensity of all fuel and vehicle options.
        Two, it should set clear and predictable annual greenhouse
    gas emissions reduction requirements and then stick to those
    targets. Three, it should adopt rules for credit generation
    that are consistent across all fuel and vehicle pathways.
        Four, it should include flexibility for low-carbon fuel
    producers to demonstrate process improvements and carbon
    intensity reductions across their entire supply chain. Five, it
    should include complementary measures to remove technical and
    regulatory barriers that artificially limit greater use of
    certain low-carbon fuel options, like the current barrier we
    have in place today that prevents the sale of E15 during the
    summer months.
        In closing, we believe a well-designed national program has
    enormous potential to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
    from the transportation sector and help our Nation achieve net-
    zero emissions by 2050. We look forward to working with the
    committee as it continues to consider a nationwide clean fuels
    standard.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Mr. Cooper, thanks. It is great to see you,
    and thank you for joining us.
        We have been joined by the Senior Senator from the great
    State of Michigan, Senator Stabenow, who is also not just a
    member of the Ag Committee, but the Chairman of the Ag
    Committee. She might serve on the Finance Committee together
    with some of you.
        The Finance Committee is going to have a confirmation
    hearing this morning for the Administration's nominee to head
    up the IRS, Danny Werfel, not the football player, the public
    servant. He has invited me to come and introduce him. I will be
    slipping out in about 10 minutes or so, but I will be back
    shortly. Senator Capito has agreed to hold the gavel until I
    get back.
        Chris Spear, I already gave you a short introduction. I
    will just say again, it is great to see you. Welcome. Thank you
    very much for all you do and for your testimony today. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN TRUCKING
                              ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Spear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito,
    and members of the committee. I really appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Trucking
    Association. For 90 years, the ATA has helped Congress shape
    solutions to our Nation's energy and environmental challenges.
    Today's hearing is no exception.
        The trucking industry starts with ``yes.'' The ATA was a
    proud supporter of the bipartisan IIJA. Prior to passage, ATA
    testified 25 times before the House and Senate, including this
    committee, sharing how our Nation's decaying infrastructure has
    given competitive aid to rising global powers, like China. In
    short, our first-world economy cannot survive with third-world
    infrastructure. Thank you for recognizing that.
        To predict the future of low-carbon transportation, one
    should start with the IIJA's ability to eliminate congestion.
    Right now, our industry loses $75 billion a year sitting idle
    in traffic. That is 425,000 drivers sitting for an entire year.
    That is 6.87 billion gallons of wasted fuel pumping 67.3
    million metric tons of CO2 into our environment.
        In short, if you want to eliminate emissions, start with
    the top 100 traffic bottlenecks, of which 22 are in States
    represented by members of this committee.
        IIJA moneys are more than adequate for fixing existing
    roads and bridges. There is plenty more for new capacity too,
    including truck-only lanes, bypasses, bridges, and parking.
    There is no reason this Administration should have to pick
    favorites.
        Another example: ATA worked with the EPA producing phases
    one and two emissions reduction rules. To date, 98.5 percent of
    all emissions have been removed from our tailpipes. In fact, 60
    trucks today emit what one truck emitted in 1988.
        These two rules alone cut CO2 emissions by 1.37 million
    metric tons, saved $220 billion in fuel costs, and reduced oil
    consumption by 2.5 billion barrels of oil.
        The ATA and the ETA created the SmartWay Program, saving
    participating fleets more than four billion gallons of fuel,
    over $19 billion at today's costs. Those fuel savings resulted
    in massive emission reductions of 2.7 million short tons of
    nitrogen oxide, 112,000 short tons of particulate matter, and
    143 million metric tons of CO2, all by putting the safest,
    newest, and most environmentally friendly equipment on our
    roads.
        This is not a debate about if we get to zero, but when. We
    will get there, not just on the timelines proposed by
    California. Their excluding our industry in a mad dash to zero
    makes their timelines and targets not only unachievable, but
    guarantees they will fail.
        To get to zero, we have to be honest and we have to be
    transparent about the road ahead. Sourcing rare materials
    needed for millions of 5,000-pound truck batteries, the
    infrastructure needed to charge them, and the additional
    electricity needed to power our trucks, full-scale, doesn't yet
    exist, and won't, if you allow California to set the Nation's
    standard.
        Trucking now moves 72.5 percent of our Nation's freight
    tonnage. Over the next decade, trucks will be tasked with
    moving 2.4 billion more tons of freight than they do today. The
    moment that slows or stops, Americans, your constituents, are
    going to want answers.
        The responsible approach is also the realistic approach.
    Achievable timelines and targets do matter. The ATA will
    continue supporting policies that are responsible, realistic,
    and inclusive of our industry.
        Our written testimony provides this committee with just
    that, targeting IIJA moneys to reducing congestion, creating
    cost parity between current and future equipment and fuel
    sources, and the low-hanging fruit, such as drayage, port
    interconnectors, and safe, secure truck parking.
        We are committed to a cleaner environment, and we have
    proven it. We simply ask that we be realistic about the path
    forward. Do that, and we will post the best environmental gains
    possible.
        I thank the committee and yield.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Spear.
        I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record a letter from Consumer Reports asking EPW to pursue a
    Clean Fuel Standard to decarbonize the Nation's transportation
    sector.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. With that, I am going to slip out and go
    over to the Finance Committee and introduce Danny Werfel. I am
    going to yield to Senator Capito to preside in my absence.
    Thanks so much.
        Senator Capito.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Spear, I talked in my opening statements about the
    prices of diesel and how they have been at a record high in
    June 2022. Can you talk about the impacts of when these prices
    are way up like they are, and have been for a sustained period
    of time, what impact that has on your industry, and how it
    impacts the small businesses, many of them small businesses,
    some quite large, across the Country?
        Mr. Spear. It is significant, Senator. Fuel costs are our
    second-highest cost, just under labor. Under that, you have
    safety, including training. So a lot of important operational
    expenditures, but fuel is our second-highest cost, and that was
    before we went to 40-year highs on inflation, which comes as no
    surprise with the standard in California and Oregon. We have
    litigated it directly because of the cost impact that it has on
    our industry, particularly those that are running 20 trucks or
    less or owner-operators, one truck.
        Senator Capito. Are you in the middle of that litigation
    right now?
        Mr. Spear. We are, indeed.
        Senator Capito. OK. So, would you say then, that these
    regulations, as I said in my opening statement, are leading to
    higher prices in those particular States?
        Mr. Spear. Yes, we are dealing nationally with 40-year
    highs on inflation. These two States compounded that problem,
    which is why you see fuel costs exceeding $7 in California,
    nearly $6.50 in Oregon. That is much, much higher than the
    national average as you said.
        But if you are a small carrier or owner-operator, you don't
    have the luxury of a fuel contract. You are paying retail at
    the pump, so you are absorbing that cost into your operational
    expenses. It is chipping away. You are going to see
    consolidation in our industry as a result, and it is going to
    hurt the very small businesses that this committee says it
    supports.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Mr. Graff, I think that Appalachian hydrogen hub sounds
    really good to me, and thank you for what you are doing to lend
    your expertise. I know we are in competition with a lot of good
    ones, as you mentioned, but I appreciate your mentioning that.
        Let me ask you a question. I think this is an important
    question when we are all looking at what the environmental
    impacts can be. You mentioned, Mr. Cooper mentioned life cycle.
    So, in order to get to an EV, in order to get to a hydrogen
    car, there is a lot that goes before you actually are at the
    tailpipe, I guess is how they say it, measuring it before the
    tailpipe.
        So, a life cycle, have you done an analysis of that, of
    what it takes to create the hydrogens that go into these
    vehicles, and how the emissions, I guess I am focusing more on
    emissions than cost, although we know that does drive up the
    cost, if we have to do another process before another process.
    What are your thoughts on that, on life cycle analysis?
        Mr. Graff. Thanks for the question, Ranking Member Capito.
    Clearly, we need to look at every aspect of basically well to
    wheel, so to speak, in the approach for any pathway to produce
    energy and understand its emissions potential and how we
    address that.
        In terms of hydrogen, we have been in the business of
    producing and transporting and utilizing hydrogen for over 60
    years. We have the full capabilities to make sure that hydrogen
    itself is well-managed, it is well-contained, and its fugitive
    emissions, as you consider its impact on the environment, are
    genuinely more second order.
        I think we look at safety, we look at what we can do to
    make sure that there is safe transport, the safe production,
    the safe use of hydrogen. But any fugitive emissions of
    hydrogen into the atmosphere has a much lower effect than other
    hydrocarbons or other substances that may end up in the
    environment.
        Senator Capito. OK.
        Mr. Cooper, on ethanol, obviously, there is an expenditure
    of a great deal of energy to make ethanol. How would you answer
    that question on life cycle, both emissions and cost?
        Mr. Cooper. We fully support a well to wheels full life
    cycle approach when analyzing the carbon intensity of all fuel
    pathways. We agree that in particular, when you talk about
    electric vehicles, we often hear then referred to as zero-
    emissions vehicles. Well, that is ignoring all of the upstream
    emissions associated with electricity production.
        But for corn ethanol specifically, the Department of Energy
    analyzes in great detail that full life cycle, energy use and
    emissions involved with farming and harvesting the corn and
    processing that corn into ethanol. When you add all of that
    together, corn ethanol has an emissions footprint that is about
    50 percent lower than gasoline. So that does include all the
    farm inputs and all the energy used on the farm, all the way
    through the process to the retail gas station, about 50
    percent.
        Senator Capito. Let me ask Mr. Graff a quick question, too.
    Does California have personal vehicles that are hydrogen? That
    doesn't exist right now, does it, in any large measure?
        Mr. Graff. Ranking Member Capito, there are currently
    15,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that have been sold into the
    California market. I mentioned earlier that we had built the
    first-ever liquid hydrogen production facility to provide
    renewable hydrogen into the State. That was specific in working
    with the automotive companies to facilitate the introduction of
    those vehicles.
        Senator Capito. What is the cost of a hydrogen vehicle?
        Mr. Graff. I can't speak to the exact cost today. I think
    that, depending on the model and the make, you are in the
    $50,000 to $60,000 range today.
        Senator Capito. And they are quite heavy, as well, correct?
        Mr. Graff. No, they are quite light, actually.
        Senator Capito. They are?
        Mr. Graff. They are much lighter than, for example, a
    battery-powered electric vehicle.
        Senator Capito. Right. Well, the electric vehicles are a
    lot heavier than the vehicles we have.
        Mr. Graff. Their weight would be comparable to the weight
    you have in other vehicles today.
        Senator Capito. OK. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley? Senator Fetterman? Senator Stabenow?
        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much. Good morning,
    and thank you to all of you for being here.
        I will say on the issue of hydrogen, I know that there are
    joint ventures, partnerships going on right now in Michigan,
    and we are with the Army and so on in terms of development of
    hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and they are having great success
    on a number of fronts.
        Let me start off though, Mr. Cooper, and let me just say
    that, as we look at transitions, and I am all for transitions,
    and I want to see us get to electric vehicles. I am currently
    driving the Michigan-made Chevy Bolt. I think it is one of the
    most affordable American-made vehicles right now, in terms of
    electric vehicles. I love it. It is here; I love it.
        But I know that the reality is that our cars are lasting
    longer than ever, even as we transition all the structures and
    things that need to happen, that the U.S. fleet is going to be
    comprised of hundreds of millions of internal combustion
    engines for years to come, so it really is important for us to
    understand all of this as we transition.
        If we are going to meet our national climate targets, do
    you agree that we must secure a robust supply of low-and zero-
    carbon liquid fuels to complement the push toward
    electrification?
        Mr. Cooper. Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I
    absolutely agree that yes, we need to embrace the use of low-
    carbon liquid fuels. If we are serious about reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, we can't wait
    around for full electrification of the fleet. That is going to
    take decades, as you pointed out.
        There are roughly 270 million light-duty vehicles, cars,
    pick-ups, SUVs, and vans. Today, 1 percent of those are
    electric vehicles. It is going to take decades for that
    transition to occur, and we should be taking steps now to
    further decarbonize those liquid fuels that we know are going
    to be, as you said, hundreds of billions of gallons of liquid
    fuels will be needed in the decades ahead in these vehicles.
        So we think a clean fuel standard is a great way to do that
    and really jump start that decarbonization of our liquid fuels.
        Senator Stabenow. I am assuming you do not think it is
    instead of a Renewable Fuel Standard, that this is about
    complementing.
        Mr. Cooper. That is correct. A well-done Clean Fuel
    Standard would complement a Renewable Fuel Standard, which
    really creates the foundation and the bedrock for the renewable
    fuels industry.
        Senator Stabenow. Could you speak a little bit about the
    recent investments that we have made, Congress has made,
    including those in the Inflation Reduction Act, that are going
    to help us be able to achieve these goals?
        Mr. Cooper. Absolutely. Our industry is very excited about
    the Inflation Reduction Act and the suite of tax credits and
    grant programs in that legislation. It is a game changer for
    our industry.
        One of the programs in particular is Section 45Z, the Clean
    Fuel Production Credit, which is, in essence, the tax version
    of a Clean Fuel Standard. It generates a tax credit for clean
    fuel producers based on the carbon intensity of their fuel, and
    the lower the carbon intensity, the more valuable the credit is
    up to $1 per gallon.
        Our industry is already making investments based on the
    availability of that tax credit in the next few years. Along
    with that, we had the expansion and extension of Carbon Capture
    and Sequestration credits, a $500 million grant program for
    biofuels infrastructure. So yes, it was a wonderful investment
    and down payment in low-carbon renewable fuels.
        Senator Stabenow. Great. I was very pleased to be able to,
    in the agriculture section of that bill, to have the investment
    in the biofuels infrastructure.
        Mr. Cooper. We thank you for that.
        Senator Stabenow. You have already mentioned less carbon, I
    am assuming, as you talk about that, it is jobs? I hear jobs,
    as you are talking about that as well. I think it is also
    important to stress that biofuel production lowers prices at
    the pump, and the fact that this last summer, where E15 saved
    drivers in some areas as much as $1 a gallon, more at the time
    when we saw prices going through the roof, that was a big deal.
    I wonder if you might just speak more about how much renewable
    fuels save drivers at the pump.
        Mr. Cooper. Absolutely. We did see it, especially last
    summer when we had record high gas prices. Ethanol was selling
    for about a $1 to a $1.25 a gallon less than gasoline at the
    wholesale level. So obviously, when you blend more of that
    lower cost product, it is going to reduce the price for the
    consumer. Still today, if you go to any retail gas station, the
    lowest cost fuel option for the consumer is going to be the
    fuel that has the highest content of ethanol.
        We talked about California. The lowest cost fuel in the
    California market today is E85, it is that 85 percent ethanol
    blend. It is typically $2 to $3 a gallon less expensive than
    gasoline in the California market, and that is being driven by
    the LCFS in that marketplace.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. I have other
    questions, but my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Now, I turn to our newest Senator, Senator Ricketts.
    Welcome to the committee. You have 5 minutes for questions.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, and thank you
    to all of our testifiers here today about the future of
    transportation fuels.
        Mr. Cooper, you have a great barber there. That joke never
    gets old.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ricketts. One of the things I always talk about is
    ethanol. I would say three things: ethanol saves consumers
    money at the pump, it is going to help cleanup the environment,
    and it is going to create jobs here in America. Ethanol must be
    central to any discussion that we are going to have about the
    future of transportation fuels.
        Senator Stabenow, thank you for mentioning the dollar
    savings in some places, because that is awesome. I was going to
    put that as one of my talking points today, too, that E10, that
    10 percent blend of ethanol and 90 percent gasoline is about 98
    percent of all the gasoline that is sold in this Country. E15
    and the EPA's decision to allow that last summer helped with
    the high inflation that people were experiencing, bringing down
    their fuel costs.
        Senator Stabenow mentioned the dollar, I think the average
    is about 16 cents. I just filled up my gas last time I was
    home. It was about 40 to 45 cents a gallon on E10, helping save
    that, and of course, E20, E30, E85, as you mentioned, all have
    future potential on that.
        Also, as we have discussed about ethanol helping reduce
    carbon emissions, the use of ethanol blended fuels led to a
    reduction of nearly a billion metric tons of carbon dioxide
    equivalent greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2020.
    Environmental Health and Engineering found that corn ethanol is
    46 percent less carbon intensive than gasoline.
        In addition, ethanol creates economic opportunities for our
    families, especially in Nebraska, there are over 1,000 direct
    jobs in Nebraska related to the ethanol industry and creates
    the demand for corn from our farmers. I would also note that
    the biproduct, the distillers grains, goes into feeding our
    livestock. It is just a wonderful thing, there. Ethanol has
    always fueled our trucks, cars, and other transportation
    vehicles along the American roads and highways.
        So, Mr. Cooper, I want you to talk a little bit more about
    this Administration, as well as the State of California, has
    classified electric vehicles as zero emissions. Biofuels are
    considered low emissions. How would a National Clean Fuel
    Standard impact the use of biofuels and this new CFS, how would
    it work with the RFS, the Renewable Fuel Standard? Would it
    replace it, would it coexist? How would that work?
        Mr. Cooper. Thank you for the question, Senator. We
    certainly believe that an LCFS or Clean Fuel Standard done
    right at the national level would complement a Renewable Fuel
    Standard. Again, the RFS was primarily about volume and energy
    independence and reducing imports. A Clean Fuel Standard is
    more directly about reducing emissions based on performance.
        We do think the two would work together very well,
    complement one another. As I mentioned earlier, the RFS was
    really that bedrock and kind of the foundation for the
    renewable fuels industry. It is important to keep that
    foundation in place. We do think the two would work together.
        In terms of how the biofuels industry would respond to a
    Clean Fuel Standard, we expect that it would be similar, in
    ways, to the response in the California marketplace and in
    Oregon. It has been interesting to see some of the different
    ways that the markets have responded to those programs in those
    States.
        As I mentioned, the E85 market in California is off the
    charts. They are using more E85 in that State than any other
    State in the Country as an outcome of the Low Carbon Fuel
    Standard. They are also one of the last two States that hasn't
    yet approved E15. Well, guess what? That are moving toward
    approval of E15 because the market is calling for it via the
    LCFS.
        We do believe a properly designed clean fuel standard, and
    again, doing the life cycle analysis correctly, would drive
    increased use of ethanol and other renewable fuels above and
    beyond what it called for under the Renewable Fuel Standard.
        Senator Ricketts. I think we have talked about it a little
    bit here; I am concerned that any national clean fuels program
    could prioritize electric vehicles over liquid fuel vehicles,
    including clean biofuels. This will only make us more dependent
    on our foreign adversaries who control the majority of the
    worldwide production of several key components.
        For example, the CCP, Chinese Communist Party, controls 60
    percent of the raw lithium mines in the world, 50 percent of
    the lithium processing and refining, and 75 percent of the
    lithium and battery mega factories. How can you ensure that a
    new national low carbon fuel standard won't falsely prop up EVs
    to satisfy an agenda and do significant damage to liquid fuels,
    including biofuels in the process?
        Mr. Cooper. Great question, and thank you, Senator. Again,
    if the life cycle analysis is done correctly, and the carbon
    intensity scores are developed in a fair and transparent way,
    we believe that renewable fuels are going to compete very well
    with electric vehicles in terms of the carbon reductions that
    they provide.
        As the Ranking Member mentioned, internal combustion
    engines and conventional vehicles are far less expensive than
    EVs. So again, if you step out of the way and let the market
    respond to these carbon reduction requirements, we think it is
    going to drive the market toward increased use of renewable
    fuels, which are the lowest cost option of meeting the carbon
    reduction requirements.
        If you stack on top of that an EV mandate or something like
    California is trying to do, then yes, that changes the
    calculation immensely. But we, again, think a truly technology-
    neutral standard is going to put renewable fuels in a very
    competitive position.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Cardin?
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me thank
    our three witnesses. I think it is very appropriate that our
    first hearing in this Congress is in regard to the future of
    low carbon transportation fuels.
        Clearly, Senator Merkley and I have been engaged in some of
    the international meetings on the climate crisis. We have a
    crisis, so we need to do everything we possibly can in every
    aspect. The low carbon emission fuels is clearly part of that.
        I am pleased that under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill
    Maryland has been able to take advantage of many of the new
    opportunities under the low or no emissions fuel programs. We
    have received three major grants in our State, $15 million to
    Montgomery County, Maryland for new hydrogen productionsites,
    and acquiring 13 hydrogen fuel cell electric buses. In Prince
    George's County, $25 million for 70 zero-emissions electric
    buses, and in Ann Arundel County, $1.9 million for four diesel
    electric hybrid buses. I say that, because there are three
    different technologies, but all of them are adding to our
    commitment to reduce our carbon footprint.
        Under the Clean School Bus program, Baltimore City is
    receiving $9.4 million for 25 electric school buses. We are
    taking advantage of these opportunities.
        Mr. Graff, you talked a little bit about the hydrogen
    issues. It is new technology, but it has limits. Where do you
    see the future of hydrogen as a source for transportation
    energy?
        Mr. Graff. Senator, thanks for the question. Hydrogen
    itself is a very versatile molecule. If we are going to achieve
    our climate objectives, if the energy transition is going to
    occur, it will not happen without hydrogen. The estimate is
    that hydrogen itself, long-term, by 2050, will likely account
    for roughly 20 percent of the world's energy supply.
        That versatility allows us to use hydrogen, produced in a
    variety of different pathways, to decarbonize energy intensive
    industry and also to decarbonize the transportation sector. The
    utilization of that hydrogen, we have talked a little bit about
    personal vehicles, but as you grow the vehicle, as you look at
    commercial vehicles, as you look at the class A tractors that
    are on the highways, if in fact, we want to get to a zero
    emission vehicle, in that case, we are in a place where we can
    utilize hydrogen paired with a fuel cell, maintain the same
    utility you have today, the same drivability, the same
    refueling time, the same use regardless of temperature, and you
    will be able to utilize because of the small footprint and
    weight of the fuel cell along with the amount of hydrogen
    necessary to go ahead and carry on board to power that, you
    will be able to maintain the payload you have today.
        So it has the capability in almost every use in the
    transportation sector to see that evolve. The key is to build
    out the infrastructure, the key is to build the need for the
    vehicles and see this grow and evolve as we have for other
    sectors.
        Senator Cardin. So, we took a giant step in that direction
    under the Inflation Reduction Act, providing certain
    incentives. What more needs to be done?
        Mr. Graff. The Inflation Reduction Act clearly provides the
    capability to produce hydrogen under a variety of pathways,
    whether utilizing renewable power or utilizing natural gas with
    carbon capture to produce the hydrogen at a lower cost and have
    the benefit of low carbon renewable hydrogen.
        The key now, given the fact that the transportation sector
    is one of the most difficult to decarbonize, is to go ahead and
    further incentivize the use to build out the vehicles and fully
    utilize those.
        As a matter of fact, I was with one of our drivers just
    Thursday utilizing one of the Class A tractors we are currently
    using to deliver goods in the State of California between our
    industrial sites, which utilizes hydrogen and a hydrogen fuel
    cell to power it. We just need to build to scale to get there.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Mr. Spear, I want to get you engaged here on heavy duty
    trucks. I recognize that we have infrastructure challenges that
    are very important to the trucker and trucking industry. I
    recognize we have supply chain challenges that you have already
    mentioned in your testimony. How do we provide the necessary
    incentives so that heavy duty trucks are also going to have
    themselves a smaller carbon footprint? What additional
    incentives do you think are necessary?
        Mr. Spear. I think if you want to get the newer, safer,
    more environmentally friendly equipment out on the road, you
    have to incentivize it. You have been a leader on this. You
    sponsored a bill that would repeal the Federal excise tax. This
    is a 100-plus year old tax, World War I. It is the only one
    left of that era that still exists.
        It tacks on 12 percent of the price of the sale of a new
    tractor. So that is roughly $25,000 per tractor. Think about
    that. Not only is that more expensive, the impact that has on
    manufacturing that equipment, jobs around the Country in those
    manufacturing facilities, is quite significant. We believe that
    repealing that would have immeasurable impact on getting
    cleaner, more environmentally safe equipment out on the road
    quicker.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for that answer. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Cardin. We are going to
    move down to Senator Merkley, and I will ask my questions a
    little bit later in the hearing. Senator Merkley?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to start, Mr. Cooper, related to your experience
    with low carbon fuel standards, particularly the Oregon Clean
    Fuels Program. As you look at Oregon's program, has it been a
    success?
        Mr. Cooper. Yes, we think the Oregon program has been very
    successful.
        Senator Merkley. Any particular insights or lessons we
    should take to mind, as other States consider similar?
        Mr. Cooper. Yes, when we think about a low carbon fuel
    standard done right, we typically point to Oregon, because we
    think the life cycle analysis and modeling and methodology that
    they used for their program is more transparent, is more
    technology-neutral than what California is doing even. We think
    the Oregon program has been a great example and model for the
    rest of the Country to follow.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Mr. Graff, I want to turn to hydrogen, and specifically
    that that is made from fossil gas with carbon capture. The
    industry uses the term blue carbon or blue hydrogen, as you are
    familiar with. The first peer-reviewed study in 2021 found that
    using blue hydrogen, that is fossil hydrogen with carbon
    capture, was 20 percent more damaging in terms of greenhouse
    gas footprint than using fossil gas or coal directly for
    heating buildings, and that it was 60 percent worse than using
    diesel directly for heating buildings.
        We have a lot of buildings heated by fossil gas and a lot
    that are heated by diesel. Do you agree with the studies that
    have shown that using fossil gas, even with carbon capture, and
    by the way, the assumption in this was 100 percent carbon
    capture, no leakage from a geological formation, doesn't make
    sense when it comes to trying to tackle greenhouse gas?
        Mr. Graff. Senator, thank you for the question. I am not
    familiar with that exact study, and we can certainly take a
    look at that and spend more time with you and your staff to
    talk about it. What I know is this: we have looked at the
    emissions reductions and the benefits of utilizing hydrogen.
    For example, it could be in the State of West Virginia, it
    could be on the Guld Coast, to go ahead and produce large
    quantities, what I would call low carbon hydrogen. Sometimes,
    people get confused with the various colors, and I just like to
    call it what it is, low carbon hydrogen.
        We are able to capture that. We are able to capture that
    CO2 in those geographies. With large-scale production, like
    with autothermal reformers, technology that we have, we can
    decarbonize entire energy intensive industrial sites.
        If you are going to produce hydrogen only with the need,
    for example, to burn it in a home, then you can certainly do
    this same thing in order to achieve that. However, when you are
    located with the local infrastructure, we can drive this in a
    very significant way for the industries that use it. By the
    way, if you utilize hydrogen in a fuel cell, it is a very, very
    different dynamic than a combustion engine. The benefits of
    that are very clear.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, the point I am wanting to
    drive here is, we often talk about with electric cars, it
    matters how the electricity is made. The parallel is that is
    makes a big difference how the hydrogen is made. The industry
    has given it the name, it sounds very nice, blue hydrogen. It
    sounds like the best of the best, but in fact, it is made from
    fossil gas, and this is the best version where carbon capture
    is complete. Even in that case, it is more damaging to the
    climate than is burning fossil gas directly for heating homes
    or than using diesel for heating homes by a 60 percent factor.
        That is assuming that every bit of carbon capture is
    perfect, which is rarely that case that you can capture all of
    the carbon out of the emissions and that you can store it for
    eternity underground with perfect security.
        So I think it is very important, the hydrogen conversation
    is going to be very relevant as we go forward. When it is made
    from electrolysis, that is, from renewable electricity being
    used to make it, it has a profoundly different footprint than
    when it is made from fracked methane gas.
        I want to make sure, as we talk about hydrogen, that we
    realize that there are many different forms that have very
    different life cycle footprints. If we go down a route that
    actually makes things worse in terms of substituting hydrogen
    for heating buildings that is made from fossil gas. And then
    say that there is no carbon capture, then it is even worse than
    that. So this is the best case for fossil gas using. This is
    also true in terms of the production of electricity.
        There is a much better case to be made that hydrogen for
    high-temperature applications in industry, making that hydrogen
    from a clean system, making it from renewable electricity. Then
    you have a really important application because you have
    hydrogen that works in settings where electricity doesn't work
    directly, but it is made from renewable electricity to begin
    with.
        I just want to caution that not all hydrogen is the same,
    and not all hydrogen hubs would be the same. Hydrogen hubs that
    promote essentially making hydrogen from fossil gas have a very
    different footprint than those hubs that would be depending
    upon a clean hydrogen. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for your questions. Thanks for
    that cautionary note.
        I am happy to have the opportunity, this is the first time
    I have been introduced to Senator Fetterman. He is from a State
    just north of us in Delaware. John, Delaware and Pennsylvania
    used to be the same State. Delaware, on June 15th, 1776,
    declared our independence from Great Britain, and we gave
    Pennsylvania their independence from Delaware. We still have a
    great relationship with your State.
        We are delighted that you have joined us in the Senate,
    especially on this committee. Thanks so much. Welcome, Senator
    Fetterman. You are recognized.
        Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graff, I want to start with you. Many Pennsylvanians
    are employed in energy production industries. Transitioning to
    more clean energies is so important and ensuring metal class
    workers are not being left behind in the changing economy, is,
    I think, equally important. Are there any barriers, very
    specific kinds of special barriers, for workers in the fossil
    fuel sector to learn skills in renewable fuel production?
        Mr. Graff. Senator, thank you for the question, to begin
    with. The evolution of hydrogen, both from a low carbon
    standpoint and a renewable standpoint, as I mentioned earlier,
    will actually create many value-added jobs in the economy. The
    estimate is by 2030 in the United States that the utilization
    of hydrogen, as projected to grow, would create about $140
    billion of additional revenue in the economy and create about
    700,000 value-added jobs.
        These are jobs that we are already beginning to build the
    work force through in many States today. We are in 50 States
    across the Country, and we are at a place where these jobs are
    readily available. The skills and the competencies and the
    capabilities are readily available. Where necessary, we will
    continue to go ahead and train the workers to be prepared to
    accept these jobs.
        The real benefit here is that these facilities and the use
    of hydrogen create for a much cleaner environment, both in
    terms of not just in their use in the community, but also in
    the workplace.
        Senator Fetterman. No additional questions.
        Senator Carper. We have been joined by Senator Lummis, who
    sent me the nicest note for my birthday last month. I saved it.
    I have it right here in my binder. I was going to read it
    aloud.
        Senator Lummis. Well, I am not sure it is nice to tell
    people that in Latin the term ``Senate'' means council of old
    people, and then say ``Happy Birthday.'' But that is, I think,
    what it said. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. We are only as old as we feel. I feel about
    20, so let's go. You are recognized for as long as you want to
    be recognized.
        Senator Lummis. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Spear, welcome to the committee. I have concerns that
    creating a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard will only
    galvanize efforts to enact another anti-consumer regulatory
    scheme, such as phasing out liquid fuels through
    electrification mandates or banning heavy duty diesel engines.
        Do you share this concern, and are there examples of such
    efforts in the States that have already enacted their own low
    carbon fuel standards?
        Mr. Spear. There are, thank you, Senator. As I mentioned
    previously, we had litigated in California and Oregon, largely
    because of the impact that it would have on our industry,
    particularly medium-sized companies with 20 trucks or fewer
    down to owner-operators. Those are folks that pay retail at the
    pump. They don't have fuel contracts.
        So the impact that this has on inflating the cost of diesel
    in those States and then those areas is quite measurable. It is
    the second-largest cost strain under labor. This is a make-or-
    break issue in terms of keeping them out on the road moving
    freight. Those costs generally will be reflected in what
    consumers pay, your constituents.
        It needs to be a gradual process that takes into account
    the fact that we are already facing 40-year highs in inflation.
    This is just an additive on top and reflected in the fuel
    prices, $7 exceeding in California, nearly $6.50 in Oregon.
    Those are the highest in the Country, so we definitely are
    going to defend our membership when that happens.
        Senator Lummis. President Biden recently noted in his State
    of the Union Address that the U.S. would continue to need
    liquid fuels for at least the next 10 years. Is that a
    statement that you agree with?
        Mr. Spear. I think it is going to be a little longer than
    10, I really do. I believe we will get there, as I said in my
    opening remarks, I firmly believe that we will transition in
    time, but it has to be inclusive. The timeline has to be
    realistic. The targets have to be achievable for that to
    happen.
        I think this mad rush to zero is going to be very
    impactful, not just in State economies, but the national
    economy. Something we are very mindful, I think if we pace
    ourselves and let the market work its will, we will get to
    zero.
        Senator Lummis. I know people in Wyoming are concerned
    because electric vehicles are tested at sea level, which
    Wyoming is not, tested on flat ground, which Wyoming is not,
    tested at 60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, which Wyoming rarely is.
    In fact, today it is zero degrees again in Casper, Wyoming.
        Those factors change the distance one can travel on a
    charge dramatically, and I don't think that that is well
    understood. Hopefully, we can bring some of those factors to
    light in the coming months.
        Mr. Cooper, thank you for being here as well. As you know,
    the EPA issued what is called their ``Set'' rule, which, among
    other things, set RVO limits for the next 3 years, and proposed
    to create a pathway for electric vehicles' participation in the
    RFS.
        I am concerned with how the EPA is proposing that auto OEMs
    generate eRINs. What is your level of concern with the eRINs
    proposal from EPA?
        Mr. Cooper. Thank you for the question, Senator, and we
    share your concern with the way that EPA is proposing to allow
    electricity into the RFS program. We are not opposed to the
    inclusion of electricity in the RFS, but it has to be done
    right. We share your concern that, in the case of these eRINs,
    the generator of those credits would be the automaker, like
    Tesla, and that is completely different, completely
    inconsistent with how RIN credit generation is done across any
    other fuel that is regulated under the RFS. That gives us some
    concern.
        We are also concerned with the way that EPA would allow
    those automakers to benefit from what is called book-and-claim
    accounting, which is essentially, the automaker is going to
    sign a contract with a renewable electricity producer that
    could be thousands of miles away. When that electron enters the
    grid, the automaker gets to claim that carbon reduction benefit
    from that electron, whether it ever is used to fuel an electric
    vehicle or not.
        So, we have some concerns with inconsistent application of
    that accounting practice.
        Senator Lummis. I may have to spend a little more time with
    you, Mr. Cooper, to better understand that, but I appreciate
    your making me aware of that.
        Mr. Cooper. I would be happy to.
        Senator Lummis. Do you believe EPA's proposal aligns with
    congressional intent when it created the RFS nearly two decades
    ago?
        Mr. Cooper. That is another concern we have. As we look at
    the statutory intent of the RFS program and our understanding
    of that intent, it was all about stimulating the production and
    use of renewable fuels, not necessarily about stimulating the
    production and use of certain vehicle technologies. So we think
    if you all in Congress had intended the program to drive
    certain vehicle technologies, you would have been more explicit
    about that.
        Senator Lummis. Is it appropriate for EPA to combine their
    eRINs rulemaking with 2023 through 2025 RVOs?
        Mr. Cooper. We have asked in the comments we just submitted
    to EPA last week that they sever that portion of the proposal,
    or that portion of the rulemaking, from the actual volume
    requirements. We think EPA should move ahead with finalizing
    those volume requirements. But it sounds like they need more
    time to really figure out this eRIN proposal and to make sure
    they are getting it right. We would prefer to see EPA separate
    those two parts of the proposal from one another.
        Senator Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of our
    witnesses for being here today. Thank you for helping educate
    and inform the committee. I yield back.
        Senator Carper. I want to thank you for being here and
    joining us in a good learning exercise.
        We are privileged that the Governor of our State is very
    active in the National Governor's Association. We have
    something in the National Governor's Association called the
    Center for Best Practices. They still have it, yes. It was an
    opportunity to for Governors to share with other Governors,
    other States, what was working in their respective States. I
    loved being part of all of that.
        I believe you bring the same kind of thinking to this job
    as we did in those days, as well. Thank you so much for joining
    us today for your questions.
        I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    the testimony of Oregon's Clean Fuels manager, whose name,
    believe it or not, is Wind. How about that? Cory Ann Wind.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Before the U.S. Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Work, here is what she testified: that
    ``Oregon's Clean Fuels Program has spurred innovation and kept
    consumer costs low,'' and the article that I referred to
    earlier actually spends some time elaborating on that. Good.
        We have been joined by Senator Alex Padilla from
    California. Again, he comes from a State where I used to live,
    where I was a Naval flight officer. We always like to think of
    States as laboratories of democracy. California just happens to
    be a pretty big laboratory.
        Thanks so much for joining us. I am delighted that you are
    in this hearing and this committee and that you could come with
    us and join us today. Thanks so much.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to
    represent not only a great laboratory of democracy, but the
    most populous and diverse State in the Nation, the largest
    electric of any State in the Nation, and the fourth largest
    economy in the world.
        With that being said, let me brag a little bit about
    California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. It is helping to advance
    a wide range of clean fuels while at the same time, keeping
    consumer costs low and fostering clean fuel investments.
        California continues to grow its economy and reduce its
    emissions. The program's tech-neutral approach, greater long--
    term predictability, and cost containment mechanisms have
    provided certainty and flexibility. I know prior to my
    opportunity to ask questions, there was a lot of California-
    specific comments and questions by my colleagues in the
    committee.
        This program has been so successful that other
    jurisdictions are joining California, which is evident in the
    Pacific Coast Collaborative, a regional agreement between the
    States of California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia
    to strategically align policies to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions and promote clean energy.
        My first question is for Mr. Graff. You talk about
    certainty, flexibility, and technological neutrality as
    essential ingredients to any low carbon fuel program. Can you
    expand on how California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard provides a
    certainty and flexibility to industry?
        Mr. Graff. Senator, thank you for the question. There is no
    question that California's LCFS program drove the introduction
    of zero-emission vehicles and the recognition that, in order to
    go ahead and fuel those vehicles, it recognized that the real
    point was carbon intensity and it was agnostic in terms of the
    pathways for the technologies to get there.
        For Air Liquide, we have a long history. It is core in our
    culture to be sustainable in our approach. We see our
    commitment to our climate goals, the world's climate goals, as
    well as the energy transition with hydrogen as a core component
    of delivering that.
        For us, the ability to go ahead and leverage the ability to
    work with the automakers, to provide the renewable hydrogen for
    the nascent development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles was
    paramount in our decision to invest the $250 million liquid
    hydrogen plant in Nevada to meet those needs.
        What is important is that in that plant, we utilize both
    renewable power and we use biogas, the attributes of biogas, in
    order to produce that renewable hydrogen. As a result, we are
    leveraging many technologies in order to go ahead and meet the
    needs.
        Senator Padilla. If I heard you correctly, California's
    program was paramount in your decision, not just whether or not
    to make the investment, but where to invest in clean hydrogen
    production, is that correct?
        Mr. Graff. It clearly enabled the introduction of the zero-
    emission vehicles. We needed to demonstrate what that could
    mean, not just for the State of California, but for the
    Country, and the world, we wanted to find that opportunity to
    demonstrate what could happen, and we wanted to locate those
    things logistically as close to the market as possible. It is
    good to minimize logistics. It also creates value-creating jobs
    in those communities in which you are going to use that
    product.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Followup question for Mr. Cooper. Could you elaborate on
    the RFA's pledge to achieve a net-zero carbon footprint by 2050
    and talk about how low carbon fuel standards, not just in
    California, let us add Oregon to the conversation, may have
    contributed to innovation in the biofuels sector?
        Mr. Cooper. Absolutely, and thank you for the question,
    Senator.
        I did mention our pledge, our members' pledge to achieve
    net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner in my opening remarks.
    This is a pledge and a commitment that our membership is taking
    very seriously. They are already taking steps and making
    investments to reach that goal.
        Today, ethanol already reduces greenhouse gas emissions by
    about 50 percent compared to gasoline, so we are halfway there.
    But with the adoption of technologies like Carbon Capture and
    Sequestration, with the adoption of lower carbon farming
    practices upstream of our facilities, replacing fossil natural
    gas with renewable natural gas at our facilities, all of those
    practices and technologies will continue to drive the carbon
    intensity lower for corn ethanol. We absolutely think we can
    get there by 2050 or sooner.
        A lot of those investments are happening today, and they
    are being driven by the California LCFS, they are being driven
    by the Oregon program. Again, our member producers that serve
    those markets, their top priority is doing everything they can
    to reduce the CI, the carbon intensity, of those fuels.
        So they are making investments. That was the purpose of the
    program. It is why we think a similar program at the national
    level would be a great way to rapidly reduce emissions from the
    transportation sector.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you both.
        My time is up, Mr. Chair. Let me just end with this.
    Imagine that: public policy, private investment. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Carper. That is a good note to emphasize.
        We have been joined by our new colleague from Oklahoma.
    Senator Mullin, we are delighted to see you today.
        I just want to mention before I turn to you for your
    questions, this committee has a remarkable tradition for
    actually working together and working across the aisle to find
    common ground that you wouldn't really expect. I worked with
    John Barrasso for a number of years on something to reduce
    emissions of refrigerants from air conditioners and freezers
    and so forth that actually led to the ratification of the
    Kigali Treaty and phased down hydrofluoric carbons over the
    next 15 years. John Barrasso and I worked together on that for
    a long time.
        Before that, Barbara Boxer was our Senior Democrat on this
    committee. Your predecessor, Jim Inhofe, was our Senior
    Republican. You could not ask for two more polar different
    Senators, and they somehow managed to find common ground on any
    number of issues, to our amazement, including transportation
    policy, but other stuff, as well. Jim and I were cosponsors of
    the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act for any number of years.
        That is something we are proud of on this committee. It is
    a wonderful tradition. We hope that we can continue to take
    advantage of it with your presence. Welcome aboard. We are
    delighted to hear from you. Thanks for joining us.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you so much. I look forward to that;
    I look forward to getting to know everybody and finding those
    places we can work and use good common sense.
        I would have loved to have been involved in the
    conversations with refrigerants, considering I have owned
    several HVAC companies, and I have a pretty strong opinion on
    the direction, just because from practical use, right?
        I appreciate that. It is an honor to be on the committee.
    Sorry about sliding in here late. I am still trying to find
    where the committees are.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. You are right on time, and the restroom is
    right outside the door, sir.
        Senator Mullin. I figured that one out. I was in the Armed
    Services Committee, and since I am on the back side of that
    panel, it took a while to get there.
        I would like to visit a little bit with Mr. Spear.
    California, obviously, they proposed replacing the diesel
    trucks with battery electric vehicles and trucks on the road
    for the air source, obviously, board. What has this meant for
    the prices of vehicles?
        Mr. Spear. It is putting immense pressure on the sale of
    new vehicles, but also used trucks, significant costs in making
    equipment newer, safer, more environmentally friendly
    equipment, less available as a result. They are just out of
    reach.
        Senator Mullin. As a guy who has a CDL in my back pocket, I
    own multiple semis, we have had fleets of vehicles out there. I
    have driven in California, and the traffic is pretty bad.
        If you put these diesel trucks, which are already heavy and
    take up a lot of room, and then you make them all electric, has
    anybody done a study on how many more trucks that is going to
    add to the road? We have weight issues already, right?
        We kind of have two options here. Either we increase the
    weight of these vehicles so that they can move, which could
    drastically affect safety, or we are going to have to literally
    put three-to-one on the road just to be able to move the same
    product we are moving now.
        Has anybody done a study on that, and what congestion that
    is going to cause, and honestly, how much bigger of a carbon
    footprint that is going to put on California?
        Mr. Spear. Yes, the American Transportation Research
    Institute has done some pretty significant recent studies on
    this subject and the impact that it is going to have. Looking
    logically at the availability of minerals to create those
    batteries, these are 5,000-pound batteries or more going into
    these trucks. The amount of lithium, graphite, cobalt, that has
    to go into these batteries to process that is not readily
    available.
        We are not sourcing that here in the U.S., and it is not
    going to come from China. It is going to come from Congo. That
    needs to be decided in terms of availability of the equipment.
    Beyond that, the infrastructure to charge it is not in place,
    and then the amount of electricity needed to charge it.
        ATRI did this study, and they are showing that to charge
    all trucks and cars currently on the road would be 40 percent
    of current capacity. Think about that. Where is the power going
    to come from, especially in California, where there are already
    rolling blackouts? This is a question that we believe has to be
    answered before you move forward with such an aggressive
    timeline that is also, by the way, not just confined to
    California. It is going to set the national standard for the
    entire Country if the EPA doesn't step in.
        We need a national framework. We are interState commerce.
    You have driven across the Country in a truck. You understand
    that.
        Senator Mullin. It occurs to your point, just for the
    reference of those that are listening, the average house has a
    200-amp service that goes to every house. To charge two
    vehicles overnight, these aren't semis, and we are talking
    about infrastructure here, just to charge, the average
    household has two vehicles, to charge those vehicles overnight,
    you would be required to take a 200-amp service house to a 400
    amp service house.
        As someone that owned a fleet of 300-plus vehicles on the
    road every day, I can't imagine how much power it would cost me
    at night to charge all those trucks. This is something that is
    short-sighted when we start talking about California's
    proposals.
        I understand what they are trying to get to, but are we
    thinking long-range? Are we actually paying attention to the
    safety, the effects on the grid? Last time I checked, they
    still have rolling blackouts without going all-electric. Where
    is that infrastructure going to come from?
        Sir, as you say, we work together. This is a point that we
    need to have a deep discussion on, because when we start
    talking about renewable fuels versus fossil fuels, there seems
    to be somewhat of a divide, but we need to be realistic to our
    approach.
        I am glad that you started your introduction to the
    committee for me in this, because I want to be part of a
    solution, not of a problem. The Choctaws, who have a privilege
    to represent the Choctaw Nation, and I am Cherokee and proud to
    be Cherokee, Chief Batton, he says that when we think of
    decisions, we think generational, not today, but we think
    generational. In this effect, we need to be thinking about, the
    effect today and generational, what our long-term goals are.
        I look forward to working on the committee. Thank you for
    being here. With that, I yield back.
        Senator Carper. Thanks again, and welcome to our committee.
        Before you arrived here, I just want to mention this again.
    I mentioned that I was born in West Virginia, in a coal mining
    town. That is where my sister and I were born. That is where I
    grew up until we moved to Virginia, and then off into the
    world.
        I have always focused on job creation and job preservation
    as Governor, and even before that. I worked in the division of
    economic development. I always focused on job creation and job
    preservation. I continue to do that. I always look at adversity
    and find opportunity.
        There is plenty of adversity in our Country and our planet.
    Where is the opportunity for doing something about it? My mom
    raised my sister and me in Grace Gospel Baptist Church. She
    dragged us there every Sunday morning, every Sunday night,
    every Wednesday night, and most Thursday nights. Then we would
    go home and watch Billy Graham on TV. She wanted to make sure
    we understood.
        Senator Mullin. Wait, you all had a TV?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. It was a little tiny one. We had three
    channels.
        She wanted to make sure we understood the difference
    between right and wrong. She really wanted to make sure we
    internalized the Golden Rule, treat other people the way we
    want to be treated. I mentioned earlier, my State of Delaware
    is the lowest-lying State in America. Our State is sinking. The
    seas around us are rising.
        If Bill Cassidy and John Neely Kennedy were here today,
    they would tell you, in every 100 minutes in Louisiana, they
    lose a piece of land the size of a football field to the ocean.
    The folks at NOAA told us last year that sea level rise isn't
    just a problem today. It is going to get worse before it gets
    better.
        That is sort of the environment in which we are operating
    here. We somehow have to find consensus to address these
    problems and concerns in a way that is fair, but also in a way
    that strengthens our economy rather than diminishes it.
        Delaware used to be the State that built more cars, trucks,
    vans per capita than any State in America. We had a Chrysler
    plant with 4,000 employees, we had a GM plant with 4,000
    employees. I worked for years to keep those plants alive. We
    lost them both in the Great Recession, which was just a body
    blow to a little State with less than a million people.
        I would just say that when Chrysler decided to close their
    plant, I remember being there the day they literally tore down
    the plant and leveled it to the ground. I nearly cried. But we
    have on a site that used to have 4,000 employees, we have 4,000
    people go to work every day in the science and technology
    campus that is affiliated with the University of Delaware. In
    adversity, lies opportunity. We just have to be smart enough to
    figure out how to get there. The way we do it on this committee
    is just being honest with each other, working with each other,
    thinking outside the box, looking to see what works, and trying
    to do more of that.
        I remember going to the Detroit Auto Show. We used to go
    every year to the Detroit Auto Show. I remember 1 year, being
    there, and they have the stands, and every auto producer has a
    stand. GM has a stand. Ford has a stand. Some stands are bigger
    than others. They have all kinds of different models and trucks
    and so forth, and vehicles. One year, I remember meeting a
    woman named Mary Barra, who is pretty famous now. She is the
    Chairman of GM and chairs the Business Roundtable.
        It was the year that the Chevy Volt was selected as the car
    of the year. It is a hybrid. The Volt that year got 38 miles on
    a charge. The vehicle I drive now, mentioned earlier, my 2001
    Chrysler Town and Country Minivan, which I sold for $1 last
    year with 600,000 miles on it, but it has been replaced by an
    EV that gets 300 miles on a charge.
        The numbers are actually getting better. Ten years ago is
    when the Chevrolet Volt won car of the year at the Detroit Auto
    Show. I remember walking around and visiting one of the stands.
    I don't know if it was Toyota, or who it was, but they had a
    vehicle, it looked like a framework with two-by-fours framed
    into a garage. They had a vehicle sitting in the garage, and
    next to it was a frame for a house.
        I said to the people from the company that had that
    vehicle, ``What is this?'' They said, ``This is a car that is
    sitting in a garage and has the ability not only to use
    hydrogen fuel cells, but to provide electricity to the vehicle,
    provide electricity for the house, cool the house in summer,
    warm the house in winter. This is where we are going to go in
    the future.'' Ten years later, that is a reality.
        There is a lot we can do here, and a lot of ways to create
    jobs. I am all about jobs. I think the best thing we could do
    is, I used to say in my speeches, I would talk about the least
    of these in our society, and I would say, give a person a fish,
    you feed them for a day. If you teach a person to fish, they
    can feed themselves for a lifetime.
        I used to say that was in the Bible. One day, I would say
    that in a speech, and there was a minister there. He said to me
    after my speech, ``That is not in the Bible.'' Well, I say it
    should be.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lummis. Mr. Chairman, may I remark on your
    comments? One of the things during the State of the Union
    Address when President Biden mentioned this one-decade goal, I
    thought about how, without permitting reform, we don't stand a
    chance, because one of the largest wind energy facilities in
    the Country has been developed in Wyoming by Philip Anschutz.
    It took him over 10 years just to acquire the transmission line
    right of way, and there is additional permitting that needs to
    be done there.
        Even for people who desire to move to electric vehicles
    that can power houses out of the garage if there is no
    electricity available, it is because of the permitting burdens
    that come with building transmission lines, it is just an
    unachievable goal. I think that, even for people who aspire to
    President Biden's goal, that that should become a priority.
    Thank you.
        Senator Carper. I agree. President Biden, we ended up
    voting on permitting reform, as you will recall, at the end of
    last year. We ended up not passing it on the 47th vote. The
    President worked very hard to try to get it adopted.
        I expect the Administration will come back and say, let's
    try it again, give it another try. He likes to say, as you may
    recall in his State of the Union Address, he kept going back to
    the phrase, let us finish the job we have begun.
        It is all well and good that we have a lot of promising
    ways to create electricity without worsening our carbon
    situation here in this Country, but if we create all this clean
    energy over here in our Country, and over here we have a lot of
    people who need that energy, we have to figure out how to get
    it there.
        Your point is well taken. I think this is an area where we
    can find consensus and should work hard to do that. I know
    Senator Capito has offered legislation on this front. I am
    hopeful that we can all be part of getting to that consensus.
    Thank you.
        I have a couple more questions. Do either of you want to
    ask another question, is there anything else? OK.
        This is a question for Mr. Graff and Mr. Cooper. As a
    recovering Governor, I often look to States for policies that
    work. I have mentioned this before.
        Today, there are States that have implemented or are in the
    process of considering technology-neutral low carbon fuel
    standards that provide greater flexibility and certainty than
    the Renewable Fuel Standard. For example, as we heard last year
    from, again, Ms. Cory Ann Wind, that is a great name, Oregon's
    Clean Fuels Program manager, Oregon has successfully advanced
    cleaner fuel usage, kept consumer costs low, and helped to
    foster local job creation.
        Oregon is tracking consumer fuel costs as a requirement of
    the program, and Oregon has lower fuel prices than surrounding
    States, such as Idaho, which does not have a clean fuels
    program.
        A question, if I can, for Mr. Graff, and also, Mr. Cooper,
    for you. What are the most important principle of lessons
    learned from State programs that should guide development of a
    national Clean Fuels Program, and how are these State programs
    protecting the interests of consumers? Mr. Graff, would you go
    first?
        Mr. Graff. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. As I said
    in my opening remarks, I think that any program in itself,
    first of all, needs to have clear certainty. That is to say,
    if, in fact, we are going to make major investments as a
    Country or as a business into the infrastructure, into the
    production capability, to provide for renewable fuels, for low
    carbon fuels, we need to have certainty as to the future. When
    we invest, we invest for the long-term. These facilities will
    be in operation for 15, 20, 40, 50 years.
        The second thing is flexibility, that is the ability to
    choose the right solution for that ecosystem. If you have
    abundant wind power, solar power, hydropower, for example, you
    can produce hydrogen with electrolysis using water. If you have
    an abundant supply of natural gas and the capability to store
    carbon in sub-surface geological structures like you do in West
    Virginia or on the Gulf Coast, then you can utilize hydrogen
    with carbon capture in order to produce that hydrogen.
        By the way, the byproduct natural gas liquids you produce
    are critical and necessary to the local economy to preserve the
    jobs and grow the jobs in the chemical industry. That is
    critical in terms of the versatility and the flexibility of
    what you need to have.
        Then the final piece is around technology. We don't want to
    pick or choose specifically what technology to apply in a rule
    or a law. We want to give the companies, we want to give the
    ability to go ahead and pick and choose what makes the most
    sense, whether it is renewable power, whether it is biogas,
    whether it is hydrogen with carbon capture, whatever the case
    may be, and to build that at the appropriate scale to meet the
    needs of the local economy.
        Senator Carper. Good, thank you. Geoff?
        Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Senator. I think my list would be
    pretty similar to what we heard from Mr. Graff.
        Senator Carper. Repetition is a good thing. Feel free to
    repeat.
        Mr. Cooper. I won't repeat, but I will say setting clear
    and predictable carbon intensity reduction requirements is very
    important, and then sticking to them, not backtracking or
    changing them retroactively.
        Second, life cycle analysis is critically important under a
    program like this. Those carbon intensity values for each fuel
    pathway, that really is the engine that drives the program.
    Having a consistent, transparent, science-based life cycle
    methodology is critical to the whole thing. Again, that is why
    we think the Department of Energy's GREET model is a great
    example for that type of methodology.
        Senator Carper. OK, thanks. I am going to pick on Mr. Graff
    again for a minute here. It is a question dealing with energy
    security. The recent price spikes in petroleum, particularly
    following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, all those prices at the
    pump, as I have seen witnessed as recently as this morning in
    my neighborhood, they demonstrate that global markets continue
    to drive fuel prices. The volatile global oil market creates
    economic uncertainty, puts pressure on American families and
    businesses that no amount of domestic drilling can prevent.
        I believe the solution to high oil prices and dependence on
    foreign oil is to reduce demand for oil and transition away
    from oil over time while giving consumers more choices to fuel
    our cars, our trucks, and our vans. Fortunately, clean hydrogen
    is an example of a low carbon fuel that can be produced
    domestically from renewable fuel resources like wind, like
    solar, like biomass.
        My question is, how can the use of hydrogen in low carbon
    transportation fuels help strengthen our national energy
    security? I am going to repeat that. How can the use of
    hydrogen and low carbon transportation fuels help to strengthen
    our national energy security?
        Mr. Graff. Thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman. As you
    pointed out, the world's energy needs only continue to grow.
    The inherent risks of various energy supplies continue to
    evolve. I think we should see everything we have today as
    additive, with the idea that hydrogen and its long-term growth
    and potential will help fill both a necessary void and provide
    the growth in low carbon and renewable sources of energy that
    we need for the future.
        The application, again, of hydrogen, and the use of
    hydrogen, again, is very versatile because it provides the
    capability in an industrial setting to decarbonize and provide
    the needs for energy intensive industry. We are already
    beginning to demonstrate that with some of our projects we are
    building around the world, but it also provides the flexibility
    and the capability to decarbonize the transportation sector and
    provide the additional fueling needs we need for that
    infrastructure.
        We already had a conversation about personal vehicles, the
    introduction of those vehicles, and how it is used. As you
    scale those vehicles into commercial vehicles or a Class A
    tractor trailer, the utilization of hydrogen is a primary and a
    core vector that will allow us to decarbonize heavy
    transportation, and in its use, it has basically this----
        Senator Carper. Did you say carbonize heavy, or
    decarbonize?
        Mr. Graff. Decarbonize.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Mr. Graff. As we look to go ahead and think about its
    utilization, which is similar to everything we have today. If
    you utilize hydrogen in any of these vehicles, regardless of
    their size, you have the same range of drivability. You have
    the same utilization. That is to say, in refueling, it is the
    same experience you have today. You don't have to wait hours to
    recharge. It is the same experience you have today. If you were
    to still have your minivan, and you had to fill it with fuel,
    it would be the same experience in refueling a hydrogen fuel
    cell vehicle.
        Senator Carper. Don't let my wife hear you say that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Graff. The inherent drivability, regardless of
    temperature, is paramount. It doesn't matter where you are. We
    had a conversation on this earlier. Temperature is not an issue
    for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and its performance.
        At the end of the day, the inherent weight and the size of
    the array necessary for just the fuel cells and a full charge
    of hydrogen is comparable to what we have today. It doesn't
    require additional weight; it doesn't require additional size
    from an array standpoint, so you can maintain the same type of
    payload you have today.
        I think all this is additive, substitutive, and we are able
    to go ahead and demonstrate its versatility in almost every
    sector, including if you wanted to back up power and back up
    the grid.
        Senator Carper. OK. Just a quick followup, if I could, Mr.
    Graff. I mentioned earlier, you may recall, Consumer Reports
    say they support the Clean Fuel Standard because it can, this
    is their quote from Consumer Reports, ``help alleviate high gas
    prices by providing more fuel options for consumers that are
    not tied directly to fluctuating oil prices.''
        Mr. Graff, do you agree with Consumer Reports on this
    point? Could a technology-neutral clean fuel standard actually
    lead to lower costs for consumers?
        Mr. Graff. I think any time you have a market-based,
    flexible program that allows you to utilize any technology, as
    long as it meets the requirements, will create the lowest cost
    solution to the consumer. At the end of the day, the consumer
    wants power to be or fuel to be available. It wants it to be as
    low cost as possible, and clearly, they want it to be cleaner.
        I think that the affordability, the availability, and the
    ability to go ahead and provide cleaner fuels is paramount as
    we think about where we are going to go and the world around
    us.
        Senator Carper. Good, thanks.
        I have a question for the entire panel. Before I do, I want
    to just take a couple minutes and give Chris Spear a chance to
    comment, especially, if you would, Chris, on the potential for
    hydrogen with respect to large vehicles, trucks, vans, and
    semis, buses.
        My hope is that there is a future there that would involve
    hydrogen, the cleaner the better. But are we barking up the
    wrong tree, or is there something to this?
        Mr. Spear. No, not at all. I think we have a tremendous
    amount of innovation that is occurring within our industry, and
    a lot of that is domestic innovation. Our trucks are largely
    manufactured here in the United States, even foreign flight
    carriers, so it is a very exciting space.
        I appreciate Michael's comments across the board. We too,
    are tech neutral. Our industry will gravitate to different
    types of energy sources, fuel sources, that fit their business
    model.
        I mentioned drayage. Starting in the ports where the
    equipment is confined, electrifying there makes a lot of sense.
    Don't do it too fast. A lot of that equipment is old, and a lot
    of the people servicing those boxes are 20 trucks or less
    operations. So if you go too quickly, the cost of an electric
    truck or even now hydrogen trucks as they come online are much,
    much higher in price.
        You have to let parity work its course. That is why I keep
    coming back to the timeline. My comments about California and
    Oregon are not rhetorical. They are factual. If you have a
    timeline and a target that is that aggressive, and in an
    economy that size, fourth largest economy in the world, we
    service that.
        If you want us to keep servicing that and providing those
    goods to consumers, your constituents, you have to build in
    time to do it. Those wins that we have had with the EPA took 40
    years to gets 98.5 percent of the tailpipe emissions out, and
    we are committed to the remaining 1.5 percent. Moving to
    electric, moving to hydrogen, these are emerging technologies
    that will take time, but they are very exciting.
        Senator Lummis was talking about Wyoming. I am from
    Wyoming, Geoff is from Wyoming. It is a very different climate.
    It is going to have different conditions, different
    applications. Hydrogen has tremendous potential for longer
    haul, not affected by cold or heat. It is a very, very exciting
    technology for us, beyond electric.
        We will get there, as I said in my opening remarks. It is
    just going to take a little bit more time than some States are
    providing.
        Senator Carper. OK, thank you for that.
        The last question is for the entire panel. I want to start
    off with Geoff Cooper. Geoff, here is the question. First, I do
    appreciate the perspectives that all of you, this entire panel,
    have shared with us today. I hope that the dialog can help
    further inform thoughtful action to support the development of
    national clean fuels policy that will reduce emissions from our
    transportation sector and help further grow our economy at the
    same time.
        That said, I also recognize the challenges in developing a
    new program that satisfies everyone will need compromise and
    collaboration as we go along that road.
        My question is, would you take a moment and share with us
    where you believe there is common ground amongst you as a
    panel? I am always looking for common ground. Where would the
    common ground lie here on this panel? I think I have heard it,
    but I want you to sort of close with that thought in mind. Go
    ahead.
        Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today. I think this has been a
    wonderful conversation and very enlightening.
        I do think I have heard lots of common ground amongst the
    three of us today around the need to continue innovating and
    continue looking at and investing in technologies that reduce
    carbon emissions, that reduce dependence on petroleum and
    imports in particular, and that continue to stimulate
    investment and innovation and new technologies.
        I think that is one area where we are all in agreement. I
    think a clean fuel standard, again, if properly structured,
    would do that.
        Senator Carper. Good, thank you. Mr. Spear?
        Mr. Spear. Yes, Mr. Chairman. You and I have had
    conversations on this, other members of this committee and
    staff.
        We are all in on this. We start with yes. I think we have
    demonstrated that over the last 40 years with the EPA. We need
    to collaborate, public and private, setting standards that are
    achievable, so the timelines and the targets do matter.
        What I hear that is common amongst this panel is tech
    neutrality and market driven. To do that, you have to be
    inclusive. You have to be transparent. Our industry serves 72.5
    percent of the domestic freight in this Country, so there is
    really nothing that we eat, drink, or wear that did not, at
    some point, touch a truck and 3.8 million drivers out there
    making it happen.
        It is a very proud industry. It is a hard-working industry.
    It is one that we need to keep around as an economy. Going at
    the right pace and hitting the right targets, we will get
    there. I am convinced of that, and working with our partners at
    this table, we are committed to doing that, and we will help
    this committee achieve those goals.
        Senator Carper. Great, thank you so much.
        Mr. Graff, closing thought, please.
        Mr. Graff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the rest
    of the panel for their thoughts today, as well.
        I fully agree with the other panelists. I think there is
    very common agreement, first of all, on the need for clarity,
    for certainty, for flexibility, and for the ability to innovate
    on various technologies in order to meet the end use consumer's
    needs and in order the meet the Country's needs.
        I think all of us here and in the organizations or
    companies we represent are clearly committed to the long-term
    prominence of the U.S., whether that is in innovation, which
    has been core to the U.S. since its founding, and the benefits
    that brings, whether it is to go ahead and recognize that the
    U.S. is clearly, from an energy standpoint, the world leader of
    production, and from the standpoint of the future, the
    willingness to innovate to demonstrate we are not only the
    energy leader today, but we will be the clean energy leader in
    the world in the future, as well.
        But most importantly, to make sure that in everything we
    do, whether that is meeting the economic needs of the Country,
    meeting the economic needs of the various representatives here
    and the businesses we represent, is to give back to the
    community, to make sure we keep our own employees, but more
    importantly, communities in mind to what we do, and that we are
    able to go ahead and give back in those communities, we are
    able to create jobs in those communities and clearly maintain
    those jobs and grow the value-added jobs that we can create in
    the world around us.
        If we continue to manage all that in balance, if we
    continue to go ahead and drive that in the right way, we will
    continue to propel the U.S. as we all know it.
        Senator Carper. Great thoughts. Thank you. We are indebted
    to each of you; thank you for spending this time and sharing
    your ideas with us and helping to further cultivate an
    atmosphere to find consensus on an incredibly important issue.
        I am going to make a couple of unanimous consent requests
    before we let you escape. I would ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record announcements from Volvo, from Tesla, and
    from Nikola about their plans to roll out electric big rigs
    with 355-mile range. Let me say that again. I want to make sure
    I got that right. They plan, these three manufacturers, to roll
    out electric large rigs with 355-mile range, which is quite a
    bit.
        Volvo is looking to have half of their truck sales to
    electric by 2030, proving electric heavy-duty vehicle
    technology is advancing quickly.
        I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    announcements from those companies.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I would also like to ask unanimous consent
    for the record to submit various articles, reports, and other
    documents that help demonstrate the benefits of a Federal
    program to help provide certainty, predictability, and
    flexibility for all stakeholders while lowering costs for
    consumer, spurring clean fuel technology innovation and helping
    to meet our climate emissions reductions goals.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. True confession, I was born in West
    Virginia in a coal mining town. I grew up in Danville and
    Roanoke. All my life as a kid, I loved cars. I loved cars,
    trucks, and vans as a little boy and as a teenager, and even as
    a big boy today. It has been a passion of mine.
        I am an Ohio State Graduate. I love Ohio State, but I love
    Detroit. I am a huge Tigers fan. I was on the phone earlier
    this week with Chris Ilitch, the owner of the Tigers, talking
    about our team and pitchers and catchers reporting, so this is
    something that is just part of my DNA.
        The other thing that is part of my DNA is trying to find
    consensus and common ground, trying to make sure that the
    people that are being born today are going to have a planet to
    grow up on and a planet to grow old on. As they grow up and
    grow old, they will have jobs that will enable them to support
    themselves and their families.
        I mentioned earlier, I used to love to go to the Detroit
    Auto Show. They have always had it in January. Some of you may
    have been there. It was always cold. They moved the Detroit
    Auto Show now to June or July, and now we have the Auto Show
    here in the winter. I am happy they invited me to come by and
    speak at the D.C. auto show last month.
        I was struck, as I walked around, I looked at the vehicles
    that were being offered at the auto show and thinking about, 10
    years ago, when I was starting to first think about maybe
    buying an electric vehicle, being at the Detroit Auto Show, we
    had the Chevrolet Volt. It was a hybrid. It got about 38 miles
    on a charge.
        But I walked around the year after that, and after that,
    and after that, and there just wasn't much coming along in
    terms of electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Boy, there is
    now. I was stunned when I walked around the huge showroom for
    the D.C. Auto Show. There were so many. It was not just little
    cars; it was SUVs, it was minivans, like my old Chrysler
    minivan, all kinds of vehicles that are being offered these
    days. It was exciting to see, and a lot of them are being built
    right here in America.
        This is a glass half full deal. This is a glass half full
    deal. It is not going to be easy to get from here where we need
    to go, but it is imperative that we do that.
        I will close with a quick story about Albert Einstein that
    I occasionally share in this committee, so hopefully you will
    not have heard it. I take the train to work; I take the train
    to go home most days. I love the train, I love Amtrak. I used
    to be on the Amtrak Board. Bill Clinton put me on the Amtrak
    Board and gave me a chance to help fashion and form the future
    of passenger rail in our Country a little bit.
        This weekend, my wife and I had gone up to New York City to
    celebrate the birthday of one of our sons. On our way back, we
    stopped at a train stop where Albert Einstein used to get on
    and off the train. He used to teach at Princeton. As we stopped
    in Princeton, at the train station, I was reminded of an Albert
    Einstein story about the day he got on the train to go
    someplace, and sometimes he would go to New York City, he would
    go to Washington, wherever he would go.
        One day, he got on the train and got to a seat and started
    looking for his train ticket. He looked in his pants, he looked
    in his coat, he looked in his briefcase, he couldn't find it.
        The conductor comes along and sees that Albert Einstein is
    in some duress. He said, Dr. Einstein, we know who you are. You
    don't have to worry about it. Just forget about your ticket.
    That is OK.
        The conductor turned around to walk out of the car to
    leave, and he turned around just before he went into the other
    car. Albert Einstein was down on his hands and knees looking
    for his ticket. The conductor rushes back to Albert Einstein,
    and he says, Dr. Einstein, you don't have to do this. We know
    who you are. You ride the train all the time. We know who you
    are.
        Dr. Einstein looked up and said, I know who I am, too, I
    just don't know where I am going. I just don't know where I am
    going.
        I have a pretty good idea, I think we all have a pretty
    good idea, where we are going. There is a smart way to get
    there, and there is a less smart way to get there. The smart
    way to get there is to figure out how to work together to get
    to where we all need to go.
        One of the ways we will do that is by learning from those,
    it could be some States or jurisdiction, whether they have
    taken a wrong approach, and we will learn from their mistakes,
    and there will be others where they are on to something,
    something good, and we want to learn from both. We want to
    learn from both. Your testimony today will help get us on the
    right path, I think. We appreciate it very, very much.
        In closing, I want to again thank our witnesses for your
    time and for your testimony today. Clean fuels help safeguard
    our Nation's energy security, boost economic opportunity for
    our famers, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has been
    over 15 years since Congress passed significant revisions to
    the Renewable Fuel Standard. Since then, American ingenuity and
    innovation, clean vehicle and clean fuel technology has
    advanced further than I think a lot of us would have imagined.
    With that in mind, I think it is time to revisit our national
    fuels policy.
        I know this is not an easy issue to tackle. My dad used to
    say, you probably remember things your parents said to you. One
    of the things my dad used to say to us was, the hardest things
    to do are sometimes the things that are the most worth doing.
    This is not an easy one, but it is an important one, if we want
    to reach our energy security and our climate goals.
        As I said earlier, my hope is that today's conversation
    will help be the start of more conversations between my
    colleagues and us and our other stakeholders, and what a
    national fuels program could look like, should look like.
        Before I adjourn, some housekeeping. Senators will be
    allowed to submit written questions for the record through the
    close of business on Wednesday, March 1st. We will compile
    those question; we will send them to each of you. We would ask
    you try to reply to us by midnight, March 1st. No, I am just
    kidding. We will ask you to reply to us by Wednesday, March
    15th.
        With that, without further ado, this hearing is adjourned.
    Thank you all.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                             [all]