    [Senate Hearing 118-45]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 118-45

                    CLEANER VEHICLES: GOOD FOR CONSUMERS AND
                                 PUBLIC HEALTH

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR,
                          CLIMATE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 18, 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
    52-794                     WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman

              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

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

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

             Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety

                   EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman

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

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 APRIL 18, 2023

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of
      Massachusetts..................................................     1
    Ricketts, Hon. Pete, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska.....     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Harris, Kathy, Senior Advocate, Clean Vehicles and Fuels, Natural
      Resources Defense Council (NRDC)...............................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    34
            Senator Kelly............................................    46
    Harto, Chris, Senior Energy Policy Analyst, Transportation and
      Energy, Consumer Reports.......................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   145
            Senator Kelly............................................   147
            Senator Ricketts.........................................   148
    Boyle, Andrew, Co-President, First Vice Chair, Boyle
      Transportation, American Trucking Associations.................   149
        Prepared statement...........................................   151
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   160
            Senator Kelly............................................   160
            Senator Ricketts.........................................   161

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letters submitted for the record by Senator Pete Ricketts from:
        American Truck Dealers.......................................     6
        Growth Energy................................................    12
        Renewable Fuels Nebraska.....................................    14
        Renewable Fuels Association..................................    18
    Articles from:
        The International Council on Clean Transportation:
          Infrastructure and Supply Chains Won't Holdup EPA's
          Proposed Light and Medium-Duty Vehicle Standards...........   167
        International Energy Agency: Comparative Life-Cycle
          Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a Mid-Size BEV and ICE Vehicle.   180
        The Editorial Board: Biden's EPA Remakes the Auto Industry...   189
        The Washington Post: Biden's New Electric Car Rule Puts the
          Country on the Wrong Road..................................   207
        Economic Policy Institute: The Stakes for Workers in How
          Policymakers Manage the Coming Shift to All-Electric
          Vehicles...................................................   209
        Environmental Defense Fund: U.S. Electric Vehicle
          Manufacturing Investments and Jobs.........................   228
        Bipartisan Policy Center: IRA EV Tax Credits: Requirements
          for Domestic Manufacturing.................................   236
         The International Council on Clean Transportation: Analyzing
          the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric
          Vehicle Uptake in the United States........................   246
    Letter to Senator Markey and Senator Ricketts from Clean Fuels
      Alliance America...............................................   282

             CLEANER VEHICLES: GOOD FOR CONSUMERS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
        Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety
    Washington, DC.
        The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Markey, Ricketts, Carper, Merkley,
    Padilla, Capito, Cramer, Lummis, Sullivan.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Good morning. I call the Subcommittee on
    Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety to order for this
    important hearing on vehicle emissions standards and clean
    vehicles.
        Thank you to my Ranking Member, Senator Ricketts, and to
    the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment
    and Public Works, Senator Carper and Senator Capito, for their
    helpful partnership in holding this very timely hearing.
        It is my pleasure to welcome my colleagues on the
    subcommittee, as well as our three witnesses. We appreciate
    your willingness to appear before our subcommittee today
    because, one day after Massachusetts celebrated Patriot's Day,
    we are here to discuss America's clean energy revolution, which
    is already well underway.
        Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    proposed historic new rules to strengthen vehicle emissions
    standards for cars and for trucks. Thanks to the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the
    Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), we can be more ambitious in our
    standards than ever before because we are actively building a
    world in which we can meet and exceed those goals.
        Because of those bills, more than $135 billion will be
    invested to build America's electric vehicle future. We have
    unleashed incentives for clean cars and trucks while creating
    new American jobs in the process. We are putting billions of
    dollars toward new electric vehicles' charging stations, which
    will make clean cars an option for families across our Country.
        We are making clean vehicles more affordable. We are making
    them more accessible, and we are making them here in the United
    States. Companies are racing to take part in this revolution,
    announcing over $100 billion in battery investments alone.
        While we buildup our electric vehicle supply chain in the
    United States, we need roadside assistance for the remaining
    gas-guzzling cars and trucks on the roads to help fight climate
    change, save drivers money, and protect public health. That is
    where the EPA has to step in.
        Transportation emissions make up 27 percent of total
    greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, more than half
    of which comes from light duty vehicles, and a quarter of which
    comes from heavy duty vehicles and trucks. Cars and trucks also
    produce nitrogen oxides and other toxic pollution that
    increases asthma and cancer rates, harming public health and
    disproportionately affecting Black, Brown, and indigenous
    communities.
        To keep moving down the road to a safer, healthier, and
    more affordable future, we need strong greenhouse gas emission
    and multi-pollutant regulation for light duty and heavy-duty
    vehicles, we need a foot not on the gas, but on the
    accelerator. Those benefits are a bonanza of benefits to our
    climate, to drivers, and to our health. We need to make sure
    they also benefit union American workers.
        First, EPA's proposed rule for light duty vehicles for
    model year 2027 through at least 2032 would reduce carbon
    dioxide emissions from light duty vehicles by more than half
    compared to existing standards. EPA estimates that the Light
    and Medium Duty Rule could one, provide up to $1.6 trillion in
    net benefits through the lifetime of covered vehicles, avoid
    7.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide over 2027 to 2055,
    and save drivers up to $13,000 apiece in fuel savings and
    maintenance costs.
        Additionally, the EPA projects that 60 percent of new light
    duty vehicles sold by 2030 will be electric as a result of the
    proposed rule, overtaking President Biden's target for 50
    percent of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030.
        The Light Duty Rule could be expanded upon, and I am
    interested to hear from our witnesses about what they
    recommend, but even so, it is an incredible start. The Heavy
    Duty Rule also makes progress and charts a new course for
    American industry, but we still need to make sure the Heavy
    Duty Rule does not stall out our efforts to regulate other
    pollutants like smog and particulate matter from trucks and
    other big vehicles.
        EPA projects that its Heavy Duty Rule will avoid 1.8
    billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2055, provide net
    benefits of up to 350 billion through 2055, provide 12 billion
    in reduced reliance on oil imports, and result in a 50 percent
    zero-emissions vehicle penetration rate of vocational vehicles.
    Strong proposed regulations are critical to driving climate
    progress forward, but they are more doable than ever, thanks to
    the billions in clean vehicles investments passed by Congress.
        As our expert witnesses will explain, the clean vehicles
    revolution is not in our rearview mirror. It is right in front
    of us.
        Before we hear from our witnesses, and we thank you so much
    for joining us today, I want to turn for an opening statement
    from our Ranking Member, Senator Ricketts.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE RICKETTS,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        As we all know, last week, the EPA introduced or announced
    burdensome new regulations on emission requirements for
    American-made vehicles, including both light cars and heavy-
    duty trucks. These detached-from-reality requirements are going
    to have a disastrous impact on the well-being of American
    families, American drivers, and American businesses.
        Rules like this tell States like mine that the EPA and
    Washington, DC. does not care about our quality of life and
    does not understand who we are. It restricts freedom, shrugs
    off the higher cost of electric vehicles while families are
    struggling, ignores supply chain and infrastructure challenges,
    and disregards a better solution like American biofuels like
    ethanol.
        This rulemaking claims to be technology-neutral while
    simultaneously touting on about the push toward the
    Administration's goal of an entirely electric vehicle America.
    Let us not forget the average cost of electric vehicles is
    around $65,000. That is about 33 percent, or a third higher,
    than the average cost of a car right now. Frankly, that is more
    than most American households' income. In Nebraska, you are
    basically asking the average family to spend their entire
    year's income on buying this car. This Administration wants to
    take Nebraska families' entire income to do that.
        As far as the claims that this rule will lower carbon
    emissions, the increased costs will actually have the opposite
    impact, because when you increase the cost of the average
    vehicle because you are going to drive this mandate for
    electric vehicles, that means new and used vehicles will become
    more expensive, which means people are going to hold on to them
    longer before being able to purchase a new vehicle, and that
    means that you are going to have more emissions.
        The EPA mandate also fails to address the many logistics
    challenges that come from a massive switch to EVs and what it
    poses. America lacks sufficient EV charging stations to cover
    the sharp increase in demand. President Biden's own Department
    of Energy map in the northern part of Nebraska shows no EV
    chargers on a 340-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 20 from Allen to
    Hay Springs. Many Nebraska communities are hundreds of miles
    from the nearest charging station.
        I hail from the Beef State, and I can guarantee you that
    electric trucks are really not practical when you are hauling
    livestock. You can not just pull over on the side of the road
    to charge for two hours when you are hauling a truckload of
    cattle in 90-degree heat. It does not work that way. It is just
    not feasible.
        In tandem with these rulemakings, President Biden has
    refused to support American energy production, going after
    traditional power plants, canceling lease sales, and refusing
    to expedite permits for new construction. Instead of developing
    our national resources, his policies are increasing our
    reliance on foreign adversaries.
        The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) says
    that full electrification of the U.S. vehicle fleet would
    utilize a large percentage of the Country's current electric
    generation capacity. Domestic long-haul trucking would use more
    than 10 percent of the electricity generated in our Country
    today, while an electric U.S. fleet would use more than 40
    percent. This will cause an incredible strain on the electric
    grid at a time when the Biden Administration is dragging its
    feet on permitting generation, transmission, and storage of
    energy of all types.
        While I am all for renewable energy production, and trust
    me, electric cars are cool. They have great torque, accelerate
    fast, that is cool stuff, this Administration is brushing over
    the need for reliable, baseload generation. Not to mention the
    fact that consumers paid 14.3 percent more for electricity last
    year on average than in 2021, more than double the overall 6.5
    percent rise in prices. This is according to the Consumer Price
    Index data released at the beginning of this year.
        ATRI's analysis also found that tens of millions of tons of
    cobalt, graphite, lithium, and nickel will be needed to replace
    the existing U.S. fleet with battery electric vehicles, placing
    high demand on raw materials. For some materials,
    electrification of the U.S. vehicle fleet would require almost
    35 years of the current global output.
        According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Chinese
    Communist Party controls around 80 percent of the world's
    production of rare earth elements, including elements like
    graphite and neodymium that are used in EVs. President Biden's
    own Defense Department concluded in 2021 that an overreliance
    on the Chinese Communist Party creates risk of disruption and
    politicized trade practices, yet his EPA is moving forward with
    a mandate that will increase this risk.
        The Biden Administration has also excluded liquid fuels,
    which support jobs in rural communities across our Country. In
    Nebraska, we produce affordable, reliable, and clean-burning
    ethanol and biodiesel. Renewable fuels are a here and now
    technology proven to work in heavy duty vehicles.
        Right here in D.C., for example, the garbage and recycling
    trucks operate on pure biodiesel, a fuel produced from waste
    fats and oils. Just last month, a poll showed that 70 percent
    of the poll responders support increasing the availability of
    E15 to help lower fuel prices and support energy independence.
    That same poll shows that responders strongly oppose government
    mandates related to their vehicle purchase options.
        A bipartisan coalition of farm State Senators has long
    worked to promote renewable fuels, a tried-and-true technology
    for which the infrastructure already exists today, lowers
    carbon footprints, and saves consumers money at the pump, all
    while supporting our communities in rural America.
        There are many steps that we can take to support this here
    and now solution, and we must adopt a fair and consistent
    emissions model to truly compare these fuel sources apples to
    apples.
        In short, emissions reductions technology should be
    consumer-driven, economically viable, and operate on a level
    playing field for all technologies. I am exploring options to
    push back on this Administration's overreach. I look forward to
    discussing these issues with our panel of witnesses. Thank you
    all for attending today.
        I would also like to ask unanimous consent to submit four
    letters that I have here from the American Truck Dealers,
    Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Nebraska, and the Renewable
    Fuels Association.
        Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Ricketts. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. We thank you, Senator Ricketts.
        We will now turn to our esteemed panel of witnesses. We
    will hear from them in this order. First, we will hear from
    Kathy Harris. Ms. Harris is the Senior Advocate for Clean
    Vehicles and Fuels for the NRDC. Before that, she worked as a
    planner for the State of Delaware addressing policies and
    programs to mitigate emissions in the transportation sector.
        Next, we will hear from Mr. Chris Harto. Mr. Harto is the
    Senior Policy Analyst on Transportation and Energy for Consumer
    Reports, where he leads research on electric vehicles, fuel
    economy, energy efficiency, and other energy issues. He has
    conducted 20 years of policy research experience for government
    agencies, national laboratories, universities, and non-
    governmental organizations (NGO).
        Finally, we will hear from Andrew Boyle. Mr. Boyle is Co-
    President of Boyle Transportation based in the great
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is the first Vice-Chairman
    for the American Trucking Association. Mr. Boyle is a board
    member of the American Transportation Research Institute and a
    past chairman of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts. He
    grew up in Natick, Massachusetts, the home of Doug Flutie,
    amongst many other very important citizens of the history of
    Natick.
        We thank you all so much for agreeing to join us today. Ms.
    Harris from the NRDC, we welcome your testimony first.

    STATEMENT OF KATHY HARRIS, SENIOR ADVOCATE, CLEAN VEHICLES AND
                FUELS, NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL

        Ms. Harris. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Ricketts, and
    esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity today to discuss the benefits of cleaner cars in
    the United States and the importance of the efforts by this
    body and other branches of the Federal Government in helping
    accelerate the transition to a clean transportation system.
        My name is Kathy Harris, and I am a Senior Advocate leading
    the Clean Cars Portfolio at the Natural Resources Defense
    Council, or NRDC. NRDC is an international nonprofit of
    scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists committed to
    improving public health, tackling the climate crisis, and
    creating a more affordable, clean energy future.
        Zero emission cars and trucks provide the United States
    with an opportunity to ensure a win for public health and air
    quality, a win for consumers' pocketbooks and consumer choice,
    and a win for our economy and our global competitiveness.
        The transportation sector is the largest source of
    greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, but is also a
    major contributor to nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and
    other toxic pollutants. These emissions are not only
    detrimental to our climate and air quality, but also to human
    health.
        The vehicle tailpipe standards announced by EPA last week
    will play a key role in improving air quality for communities
    across the Nation, especially communities that have been
    historically overburdened by vehicle pollution. EPA projects
    that their proposed standards will reduce tailpipe emissions by
    56 percent by 2032 from new cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks.
        These ambitious and achievable standards work by setting
    technology-neutral emissions levels for new cars and trucks.
    Based on automaker commitments and investments, increasing
    driver demand and the incentives from Congress, EPA projects
    that manufacturers will choose to reduce emissions from their
    fleets through increasing the number of zero emission and
    electric vehicles sold.
        Electric and zero emission vehicle technology is a key
    strategy for reducing pollution from the transportation sector,
    as they release zero tailpipe emissions, improving air quality
    and health. Drivers also increasingly want these vehicles for
    these public health benefits in addition to the lower cost of
    ownership of the vehicles compared to gas-powered cars.
        EPA estimates that strong emissions standards will save the
    average consumer $12,000 over the lifetime of the vehicle. The
    auto industry has already invested billions of dollars in the
    United States to support a transition to zero emission
    vehicles. Many manufacturers have announced plans to increase
    electric vehicles in their offerings, in some cases completely
    phasing out gasoline vehicles from their lineups over the next
    decade.
        One thing that the Biden Administration and Members of
    Congress have made clear is that American workers and
    communities must be able to capture the public health and
    economic gains associated with transitioning to electric
    vehicles and building a clean economy. Strong vehicle standards
    from the Environmental Protection Agency will play a key role
    in ensuring this occurs.
        Strong clean vehicle standards complement the historic
    Federal investments from Congress. The Inflation Reduction Act
    will not only help to make new and used electric vehicles more
    affordable, but it also provides important incentives to
    increase domestic manufacturing and access to clean vehicles,
    helping the Country become more competitive globally and
    bringing more of these public health and work force benefits to
    our shores.
        The Infrastructure Law passed in 2021 will help to build
    out a robust network of over 500,000 charging stations
    throughout the Country to help ensure that drivers will have
    the ability to charge their cars reliably, while tax credits
    under the Inflation Reduction Act will help catalyze many more
    charging ports being installed across the Country.
        It is clear that clean vehicles are a win for the United
    States' air and public health, a win for consumers, and a win
    for the economy. We appreciate Congress and the Federal
    Government for their leadership in supporting the transition to
    a clean cars and clean air future.
        Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today. I look
    forward to answering any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Ms. Harris, very much.
        Next, we are going to hear from Chris Harto from Consumer
    Reports.

        STATEMENT OF CHRIS HARTO, SENIOR ENERGY POLICY ANALYST,
                            CONSUMER REPORTS

        Mr. Harto. Good afternoon, Chair Markey, Ranking Member
    Ricketts, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Chris
    Harto, and I am a Senior Sustainability Policy Analyst at
    Consumer Reports.
        I thank the committee for inviting CR to testify today in
    support of the proposed EPA greenhouse gas standards for model
    years 2027 through 2032 and on the benefits that they will
    bring to American consumers.
        CR is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. One of the
    things that CR is best known for is testing cars. Every year,
    our testers drive about half a million miles to put new cars
    through their paces, and we work with policymakers like you to
    advance policies for safer and cleaner cars.
        For decades, Federal greenhouse gas emissions standards
    have played a critical role in reducing overall emissions from
    the transportation sector, while encouraging automakers to
    innovate and offer increased clean vehicle options for
    consumers.
        The proposed EPA standards, if enacted, would bring
    cleaner, cost-saving transportation technologies to consumers
    faster. The rule will save consumers money while reducing
    spending on healthcare tied to air pollution and disaster
    recovery tied to greenhouse gas emissions.
        I have three main points I would like to make based on CR's
    analysis. First, EPA's standards are achievable. Second,
    consumer demand for EVs is far outpacing supply. Third, EVs
    save consumers money.
        The proposal for light duty vehicle standards is ambitious,
    but achievable. EPA's analysis is that EVs are likely to be the
    most cost-effective compliance pathway, but not the only option
    for automakers. Automakers can also use a mix of improvements
    in internal combustion fuel efficiency, conventional hybrids,
    plug-in hybrids, and even hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to
    comply.
        EPA estimated that while an EV-only compliance pathway
    would require about two-thirds of vehicles sold to be EVs by
    2032, industry is already on track to deliver around 50 percent
    EV sales by 2030, according to commitments made by automakers.
        Further, consumer challenges, such as charging
    infrastructure and affordability will only continue to improve
    due to the unprecedented investments from the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which
    provide funding for charging infrastructure and consumer tax
    credits, respectively.
        Consumers want EVs. Consumer demand for EVs has been
    soaring, increasing 350 percent between 2020 and 2022.
    Unfortunately, automakers have not been keeping up. There are
    now around 45 percent of consumers who say they would
    definitely buy an EV for every EV being manufactured.
    Meanwhile, 30 percent of new car buyers are not even
    considering a conventional non-hybrid vehicle.
        CR estimates that an EV-only compliance pathway would
    result in the production of enough EVs for approximately 25
    percent of Americans to own one by the end of 2032. A 2022 CR
    survey found that already, 36 percent of American adults were
    definitely or seriously considering an electric vehicle if they
    were to buy a vehicle today, indicating the consumer demand may
    already exceed what is needed to comply with these standards.
        Despite the rapid growth in consumer demand, people can not
    buy vehicles that do not exist. Consumers who want an EV right
    now often have to deal with long waitlists and dealer markups.
    Automakers are making investments to improve supply, but
    unfortunately, the growth and supply has still been lagging.
    EPA's proposal should help automakers catch up.
        EVs are cheaper to own. A 2020 analysis by CR found that
    EVs are cheaper to own than comparable gasoline vehicles, even
    when factoring in higher purchase prices. EVs save an average
    of 60 percent on fuel and 50 percent on repairs and
    maintenance. This translates to between around $6,000 and
    $10,000 over the life of the vehicle, even factoring in higher
    prices.
        Higher purchase prices, however, are likely to be
    temporary. As of January, automakers and battery manufacturers
    already plan to invest $210 billion in U.S. manufacturing by
    2030. A 2022 analysis by ICCT found that EVs are rapidly
    approaching cost parity with conventional vehicles, even with a
    range of over 300 miles.
        In conclusion, EPA's proposed light duty vehicle standards
    will hit the accelerator, helping to drive automakers to catch
    up to consumer demand for cleaner vehicles. We see these rules
    as a win-win for consumers and the climate, putting over a
    trillion dollars back into consumers' pockets while delivering
    massive reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harto follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Harto.
        Finally, we are going to hear from Andrew Boyle from the
    American Trucking Association. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF ANDREW BOYLE, CO-PRESIDENT, BOYLE TRANSPORTATION,
            FIRST VICE-CHAIR, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS

        Mr. Boyle. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Ricketts, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify.
        In addition to serving as first Vice-Chair of the American
    Trucking Association, I am Co-President of Boyle
    Transportation, a trucking firm headquartered in Massachusetts.
    My company has the honor of doing important work delivering
    life-saving medicine and transporting critical materiel for the
    U.S. Military.
        We employ 200 people, including 160 of the Nation's finest
    professional truck drivers, and we are recognized as having the
    No. 1 work environment among smaller fleets in all of the U.S.
    and Canada in 2020 and 2021. Boyle is a subsidiary of Andlauer
    Healthcare Group, a highly regarded logistics provider to the
    North American healthcare industry.
        We take tremendous pride in our environmental record. An
    EPA SmartWay partner since 2008, we have been a SmartWay high
    performer for five straight years and received EPA's
    Environmental Merit Award. In 2021, we became the first
    trucking company in North America to achieve certification for
    the rigorous ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Our
    headquarters is solar-powered.
        ATA shares that commitment to sustainability as it
    represents a diverse industry which includes carriers ranging
    from enterprise fleets to single truck operations, and which
    serves every economic sector.
        Trucks move 72 percent of America's freight tonnage, a
    number that will continue to grow. Essentially everything
    touches a truck. Thanks to collaboration between industry and
    government, today's clean diesel trucks produce 99 percent
    lower emissions than those from the 1980's. Sixty trucks today
    emit what just a single truck emitted in 1988.
        This progress is owed to both aggressive innovation and
    technically achievable national standards. We were aligned with
    another EPA emissions standard slated to take effect in 2027,
    which will reduce NOx by yet another 83 percent until EPA
    recently announced that it was going to reopen that rule. How
    are manufacturers and fleets meant to comply with regulations
    that whimsically change with political preference?
        EPA also recently decided to create a State patchwork that
    undermines Federal leadership by approving a waiver for
    California's so-called Advanced Clean Trucks Rule, which is
    heavily predicated on the adoption of electric trucks.
        While we share the passion for EVs in cars and light duty
    vehicles, projecting an automotive construct onto trucking
    industry dynamics is a massive mistake. Let me be clear: if
    battery electric trucks had adequate range, there was adequate
    charging infrastructure, and utilities could deliver the power,
    we truckers would be delighted, but let me explain our reality.
        Today, a clean diesel truck can spend 15 minutes fueling
    anywhere in the Country and then have a range of about 1,200
    miles before fueling again. In contrast, today's long-haul
    battery electric trucks have a range of about 150 to maybe 330
    miles and can take up to 10 hours to charge. For the same
    1,200-mile journey, we would go from 15 minutes of fueling a
    clean diesel truck once to charging today's BEV four to eight
    times for dozens and dozens of hours. This is assuming there
    are chargers where you need them.
        We would need far more trucks to haul the same amount of
    freight, and each of those trucks would cost two to three times
    a comparable diesel truck. Converting the U.S. fleet of Class A
    trucks to battery electric would require a $1 trillion
    investment, which ultimately would flow to consumers.
        We welcome the opportunity to provide real-world, factual,
    and constructive input into the legislative and rulemaking
    process. We recognize that most people do not understand how
    the trucking industry works behind the scenes to supply the
    American public, but we can not allow unrealistic timelines, a
    State patchwork, and technically unachievable regulations to
    set trucking up for failure. Remember, we deliver food,
    medicine, baby formula. Failure is not merely inconvenient; it
    is catastrophic.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Boyle follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Boyle, very much.
        Now, we will turn to questions from our panel. I will begin
    by just pointing out that when I served in the House of
    Representatives, I authored the fuel economy language in the
    2007 Energy Independence and Security Act that kickstarted the
    new race to the top for vehicle efficiency, and that
    legislation made it clear that we must set the maximum feasible
    standard for fuel economy.
        The EPA standards are no different. They must ``reflect the
    greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable through
    available technology.'' Well, in the Inflation Reduction Act,
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science
    Act, Congress invested more than $135 billion to make clean
    vehicle technology more available than ever.
        To each of the witnesses, do you believe that investments
    from these bills are making clean vehicles more affordable and
    available? We will begin with you, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Harto,
    then you, Mr. Boyle.
        Ms. Harris. Thank you so much for your question, Senator.
        I think the short answer is yes. We are seeing that the
    upfront prices of electric vehicles costs are reducing, and
    that is in large part due to the Inflation Reduction Act and
    the tax incentives passed by this body, but additionally, we
    know even today that the total cost of ownership of electric
    vehicles is still cheaper than a comparable gasoline car. We
    are seeing an increase of desire for these vehicles from the
    American people, as well.
        Senator Markey. Meaning that over the life expectancy of
    the vehicle, you spend so much less on electricity than you do
    on oil?
        Ms. Harris. Yes, and the maintenance costs of the vehicles
    are lower, as well.
        Senator Markey. Yes. Mr. Harto?
        Mr. Harto. Yes. We do believe that these policies are
    helping to accelerate and bring more EVs to consumers cheaper.
    The more automakers do something, the better they get at it.
    Learning by doing and economies of scale are two of the biggest
    drivers of cost declines in any industry. The more clean
    vehicles automakers deliver, the cheaper they will be able to
    offer them to consumers.
        Senator Markey. Let me go to you, Mr. Boyle. What
    incentives are most helpful to the trucking industry in the
    legislation thus far to increase the ambition to move to clean
    vehicles?
        Mr. Boyle. Thus far, the adoption of BEVs, so in a heavy-
    duty truck, the upcharge is roughly $300,000. The incentives
    barely cover the Federal excise tax, which is an issue we would
    like to bring up, because I know some of your colleagues have
    been advocating for us. A huge impediment to buying newer,
    cleaner trucks, even today's trucks, is the Federal excise tax
    that was installed more than 100 years ago to finance World War
    I.
        A big issue when we look at the emissions in aggregate
    right now is not so much that today's trucks are not clean
    enough, it is just that of the fleet on the road, not enough
    are today's trucks. This is one lever we have to kind of make
    it more affordable for fleets and operators to buy today's
    clean trucks.
        Senator Markey. Yes. My father was a truck driver, so I
    grew up with a truck driver as my father, so I am very
    conscious of this profession and the need to have these
    vehicles be able to operate.
        Mr. Harto, would the investments which are being made in EV
    charging help to deal with the range anxiety that people have
    had in purchasing an EV in the past?
        Mr. Harto. Absolutely. Charging infrastructure is one of
    the biggest barriers to EV adoption in the U.S., and the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides significant investments
    to especially roll out those chargers in areas where the free
    market is lagging, States like Senator Ricketts' Nebraska, as
    well as low-income areas of the Country.
        It is really targeted at filling the gaps where the market
    is missing to help consumers feel confident that they can buy
    an electric vehicle.
        Senator Markey. Ms. Harris, how quickly is this transition
    occurring in terms of consumers' demand and the purchases of
    electric vehicles, especially the light duty, the SUVs?
        Ms. Harris. We are seeing a great increase in the interest
    in electric vehicles. Last year, electric vehicle sales were
    about 4.5 percent over the course of the year, and in 2021,
    they were about 4.5 percent. In 2022, that rose to about seven
    percent over time. We have even seen that in December 2022,
    that was almost up to nine or 10 percent sales, as well.
        So there is a continuous increase in interest in these
    vehicles, and we are seeing that demand increasing annually.
        Senator Markey. Beautiful. Thank you. Senator Ricketts?
        Senator Ricketts. I will yield to Senator Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you very much, Senator Ricketts, and
    thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Harris, do you believe it is appropriate to analyze
    only the tailpipe when calculating greenhouse gas emissions?
        Ms. Harris. Thank you so much for your question, Senator. I
    believe that electric vehicles and the tailpipe emissions from
    the transportation sector are a major source of toxic
    pollutions in the United States.
        Senator Lummis. OK, so what about the fact that method
    misses significant emissions generated through the extraction
    of rare earth minerals in foreign countries that are needed to
    create EV batteries?
        Ms. Harris. There have been many studies that have shown
    that electric vehicles today from well to wheel are still
    cleaner than compared to a gasoline vehicle.
        Senator Lummis. However, you have not analyzed the need for
    rare earth minerals and the mining, the significant mining that
    has to occur. Can you confirm that lithium, cobalt, manganese,
    nickel, and graphite are all critical to the manufacturing of
    electric vehicle batteries?
        Ms. Harris. Many of the batteries that are currently made
    today for electric vehicles do require those minerals.
        Senator Lummis. Do you know which country is the third-
    largest producer of lithium and controls 60 percent of global
    battery-grade lithium refining capacity?
        Ms. Harris. I do not have that number in front of me today.
        Senator Lummis. Well, it is China. Do you know which
    country is responsible for over 50 percent of cobalt exports?
        Ms. Harris. I do not have that number in front of me today.
        Senator Lummis. It is the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    Do you know which country is responsible for nearly 75 percent
    of global exports of manganese?
        Ms. Harris. I do not have that number in front of me today.
        Senator Lummis. It is China. Do you know which country is
    responsible for the most exports of nickel?
        Ms. Harris. I do not have that number in front of me today.
        Senator Lummis. That would be Indonesia. Do you know which
    country is responsible for nearly half of the global graphite
    exports?
        Ms. Harris. I do not have that number in front of me today.
        Senator Lummis. That is also China. Do any of these
    countries have anywhere near the stringent environmental
    regulations the United States has?
        Ms. Harris. I cannot speak to that today.
        Senator Lummis. You do not know? You do not know whether
    these countries are mining in a more environmentally friendly
    way than the United States?
        Ms. Harris. Oh, I am sorry. I misunderstood the question.
    Could you please repeat it?
        Senator Lummis. Do any of these countries have anywhere
    near the stringent environmental regulations that the United
    States has?
        Ms. Harris. My apologies. Not to my awareness.
        Senator Lummis. If climate change really is a worldwide
    problem, how does shifting the responsibility of mineral
    extraction to these countries help us reduce worldwide
    emissions?
        Ms. Harris. Thank you so much for the question. I will say
    that there are many investments and incentives that are
    happening here in the United States to bring the supply chain
    to the United States.
        Senator Lummis. I have a rare earth mine in my State that
    has been trying to open for over 10 years and still does not
    have the environmental permitting to open. There is no way that
    the standards and the materials needed to produce and
    manufacture in the United States can happen in 10 years.
        To ramp up the supply even in foreign countries that have
    far lower environmental standards, not to mention human labor
    standards, this is not possible to do. It is going to take four
    to six times more product, and then the mining and milling of
    that product over a 10-year period to meet the regulatory
    standards that the EPA is advocating for.
        It is going to raise greenhouse gases all over the world,
    including in China, Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of the
    Congo. It is going to create child labor and human labor issues
    that are deplorable. We are doing that all so we can provide a
    vehicle that costs $65,000 to the American consumer, and that
    if you are in an accident, you have to replace the whole
    vehicle, because the battery can not be damaged? To me, there
    is really nothing about this idea that is reflective of global
    reality.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record this
    article about the gamble on critical minerals that is being
    undertaken with regard to this proposed EPA regulation.
        Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lummis. Thank you. I yield back.
        Senator Markey. OK. Senator Cramer is recognized.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    witnesses.
        I have to say, I have taken more notes while I was
    listening to Senator Lummis than I came with. A couple things
    that struck me right away, as well as listening to your earlier
    testimony, Mr. Boyle. We acknowledge that they are heavier. We
    have acknowledged they are more expensive. Maybe the incentives
    do not even cover the excise tax.
        What does it cost to insure a vehicle like a large truck
    that has these extra costs and weights and an infrastructure,
    frankly, not designed for 5,000 more pounds per axle, and those
    kinds of things?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes. It is hard to tell because we are so, the
    consumer-facing EV product is so much further ahead, right? We
    are talking about a very heavy duty, under high stress,
    corrosive environment. Just so we are clear on the scale of the
    issue, each electric vehicle battery for a heavy-duty truck
    weighs 8,000 pounds. You would need at least two of them. We
    are talking the weight of four or five cars.
        My friends and peers in the industry nationwide who have
    tried to make efforts to put in, say, hey, I am going to
    convert a dozen forklifts to electric, or I want to tee up a
    facility for 30 electric trucks, there is no power. The
    utilities come back, the cities come back and say, is this some
    kind of joke?
        One friend tried to put in Illinois a facility, teed up for
    30 trucks for electrification. The city came back and said,
    this is some kind of joke. You are asking for more draw than
    the entire city requires.
        Just to give you an idea, 30, 50 trucks, that is like a
    five-or six-megawatt application. The factory that makes the
    trucks is a two-megawatt factory.
        We are playing checkers right now. We would be delighted to
    have more choices. If the power and infrastructure is not
    available, it is not even a consideration for trucking, yet
    California wants to make it effective next January as the only
    choice. No diesel trucks, no OEM is going to be compliant with
    California Carbon Standard for a diesel electric truck starting
    in January. They will have product due to credits and so forth,
    but none is going to be technically compliant.
        What are we talking about here? We are trying to serve the
    Country and supply commodities that are essential to everyday
    life, so before any of the, this is not a choice, we have the
    cart before the horse right now.
        Senator Cramer. Well, and the fight over the infrastructure
    piece is not a small matter, either. When you start talking
    about all these socialized costs for a grid that covers every
    inch and socializes the cost of every little generator and
    every street corner, another issue I am not suggesting we get
    into right now.
        But building even more on what Senator Lummis was talking
    about with regard to the supply chain, the Congo, Indonesia,
    China, and the human rights violations and the work force
    challenges, certainly standards that do not meet ours, to me,
    those are of greater importance than some of the other issues
    we are trying to solve.
        Here is the other irony. She has an opportunity in her own
    State that is not being done. We know of two critical minerals
    mines that have been shut down before they even had an EA in
    this Country, by this Administration, this year, one in
    Minnesota, Twin Metals, and one in Alaska, Pebble Mine. You are
    right, the cart is before the horse. Let us build the horse and
    find the supply chain that can produce some of these things
    before we start incentivizing things.
        The other thing I would bring up, unlike Senator Lummis, I
    do not come from a tropical environment like Wyoming. I come
    from the arctic State of North Dakota.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. Or Nebraska, which is balmy by comparison.
    The performance in cold weather is not just unproven, it is
    proven to be horrible. I just can not imagine pushing this
    standard on North Dakota.
        Mr. Boyle. That is right, sir. The battery degrades in cold
    conditions, up to about a third. That range I talked about, 180
    to 150 to 330, it is degraded by 30 percent.
        Senator Cramer. Is range fairly important in the trucking
    industry?
        Mr. Boyle. If you want to talk about range anxiety, we
    truckers would need therapy.
        Senator Cramer. I bet. With that, my point is made. I
    appreciate you all being here, and I yield. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. Senator Ricketts?
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boyle, you talked about the trucking industry. Talk a
    little bit about, the trucks are heavier, you said, like 8,000
    pounds for a battery. Does that mean that you can not haul as
    much, your payload is reduced? Is that correct?
        Mr. Boyle. That is correct, which means more trucks to haul
    the same amount of freight.
        Senator Ricketts. You are going to need more trucks on the
    road. Does that mean that consumers are going to have to put up
    with more trucks on the road as they are driving around, right,
    because there would be more traffic?
        Mr. Boyle. Certainly.
        Senator Ricketts. Is there a shortage of truck drivers in
    your industry today?
        Mr. Boyle. We estimate about roughly 70,000, 72,000 short
    currently.
        Senator Ricketts. However, you would need more truck
    drivers if you are going to need more trucks, is that fair?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ricketts. OK, so talk to me about what your
    experience is from your industry about some of your friends you
    have talked about doing it, something along those lines of more
    trucks, how many more trucks are we talking?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes. We have members of ATA who have limited
    scope operations where they are testing BEVs. What they have
    found is that they need about a three-to-two or occasionally
    two-to-one ratio of trucks, meaning for every route and mission
    that one truck would do in an internal combustion, reliability
    was high, they now have to use two BEVs due to charging
    downtime, reliability, et cetera.
        Senator Ricketts. Is it fair to say that is more expensive?
        Mr. Boyle. Certainly.
        Senator Ricketts. One of the things, also, that you were
    talking about is, if you have this cost, and also the tractor
    trailers themselves, I was told by somebody in the industry
    that a regular tractor trailer diesel runs $180,000. These are
    about $500,000. Is that ballpark correct?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes. Yes, so for the tractor part of a tractor
    trailer, about $180,000 to $200,000 for a sleeper truck and
    then, in comparison to the $450,000 thousand price point for a
    battery.
        Senator Ricketts. I just want to reemphasize something you
    said in your testimony. Who, ultimately, is going to pay for
    this, I think you said, a trillion dollars in additional costs?
    Who is going to pay for that?
        Mr. Boyle. Ultimately, it flows to the consumer.
        Senator Ricketts. The American consumer will end up paying
    that.
        Mr. Boyle. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. Now, the American consumer is going to
    have to foot the bill for all this so forth, and I think that
    there was an ATRI study that showed that the trucking industry
    used about 10 percent of our electric power generation?
        Mr. Boyle. I think it is actually more, sir. It is closer
    to 14 percent, so we would be putting an incremental load of 14
    percent on the grid.
        Senator Ricketts. OK. Mr. Harto, can you help me? We have
    this one study that talked about, trucks would need 14 percent
    more, is that 14 percent more, or 14 percent overall power
    generation, Mr. Boyle?
        Mr. Boyle. Effectively, it means we need 14 percent more
    power generation, incremental.
        Senator Ricketts. Got it. I think the electric vehicles, if
    you electrify the entire fleet, it is 40 percent of our current
    power capacity generation. That is a study out there right now.
        Are you aware of, are there studies where somebody has put
    pencil to paper to see how much more we would have to increase
    our power generation that has different numbers than what we
    just talked about here?
        Mr. Harto. Yes. The United States Department of Energy
    (USDOE) research labs, I forget which ones, have done this type
    of analysis. I know at least for the light duty vehicle sector,
    we are looking at increased growth in generation demand of
    about one percent per year, which is well within what the
    electricity industry has done in the past, when we deployed AC.
        Senator Ricketts. Really, Mr. Harto, one percent per year,
    when Gavin Newsom last year announced within the same week that
    he wanted to ban the sale of all internal combustion engines in
    California by 2035, and then told people with electric
    vehicles, you can not charge them in the afternoon, because the
    grid can not handle it?
        Mr. Harto. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. Didn't that seem like a disconnect to
    you? It does not seem like a disconnect to you?
        Mr. Harto. It is about one percent per year in overall
    generation need. As well, utilities have a lot of tools to move
    around when EVs charge. Time of use rates, managed charging,
    eventually we will have vehicle-to-grid technology where EVs,
    when they are not being used, can push power back to the grid
    and help get through those peak periods in the late afternoon,
    when everybody is running their AC, everybody is coming home
    and cooking dinner, and demand is very high.
        Senator Ricketts. When you say manage, when you say
    managing your charging, you are talking about like Gavin Newsom
    is talking about management, do not charge it in the afternoon.
    Is that what you are saying?
        Mr. Harto. You can plug in, you can have your car sitting
    in your driveway, plugged in, and your utility can just switch
    it on and off for a few minutes, for a few hours. Typically,
    you only need it charging for a couple hours a day.
        Senator Ricketts. If they can do that, why isn't California
    doing that right now? Why would he have to tell people, do not
    charge your cars?
        Mr. Harto. It still takes a little bit. We are in the first
    inning of the EV transition. A lot of this stuff is going to
    get a lot better as we scale up.
        Senator Ricketts. Eventually. OK, thank you Mr. Harto.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator Ricketts. If Senator
    Merkley is ready, or I could go for another round and then
    recognize you. Are you ready to go now? OK.
        Let me come back to you, Mr. Harto. Is it not true that the
    Inflation Reduction Act protects against the use of minerals
    from countries of concern that make vehicles ineligible for the
    tax credit if they are using minerals from China, from Russia,
    from countries of concern?
        Mr. Harto. Absolutely. The Inflation Reduction Act puts
    strong incentives in place for automakers to realign their
    supply chains and secure them away from countries of concern.
        Senator Markey. Yes. Countries of concern is just another
    way of saying, countries we are not really confident of having
    the correct environmental standards, or that we can trust them
    as a national strategic partner for a transition as important
    as this. Is that correct?
        Mr. Harto. Yes, that is correct.
        Senator Markey. Right now, we are hearing some complaints
    from some automakers that the new IRS rules are not going to
    allow their vehicles to qualify because they are importing too
    many materials from China. Is that correct?
        Mr. Harto. Yes, that is correct, but many of those
    automakers are rapidly moving to realign their supply chains in
    order to qualify for these very strong incentives.
        Senator Markey. In other words, you heard Senator Lummis go
    down this whole list of concerns, which is obviously the whole
    point of the CHIPS Act, the whole point of the Inflation
    Reduction Act, the whole point of the Infrastructure Bill.
        It is just to say to China, we do not need your materials
    anymore, and to Russia, we do not need your oil any more than
    we need your caviar, and to Saudi Arabia, we do not need your
    oil any more than we need your sand. We are fine; you can keep
    it. We are moving in a new direction.
        That is really what those three big bills are all about. Is
    it not true, Mr. Harto, that is the goal?
        Mr. Harto. Yes, that is correct.
        Senator Markey. Yes, we are going to be in a little
    transition period right now, obviously, where there will be a
    little bit of a grace period for some of these materials to be
    used, but after that, we are on to a whole new era where we are
    not only using materials from countries that we have close
    partnerships with, but also that we are going to make in
    America. Go through that, Mr. Harto, a little bit.
        Mr. Harto. Yes. Large portions of the world's reserves of
    critical minerals are actually from countries like Canada,
    Australia, and Chile, with which we have strong trade
    partnerships with. Again, automakers are working hard to
    realign their supply chains to meet these standards.
        Senator Markey. Are they making that transition?
        Mr. Harto. The massive investments that they are putting
    into this transition to electric vehicles say that they are.
        Senator Markey. They say that they are.
        Ms. Harris, there are some complaints that this is too
    ambitious, but you are saying the real world says no, there is
    a big appetite for these vehicles.
        Ms. Harris. Yes, that is correct. To Mr. Harto's point,
    automakers have already announced over $210 billion of
    investments here in the United States to help with that
    transition and, as you mentioned, help bring that supply chain
    here to the United States, which will continue to increase the
    benefits to the economy and to drivers.
        Senator Markey. Yes. I had this problem, actually, back in
    the 1990's. I was chairman over Telecommunications, and
    unfortunately, Alexander Graham Bell would have still
    recognized our phone system, those black rotary dial phones, or
    a cell phone that was the size of a brick that Gordon Gekko was
    using in Wall Street. How can we move to the future?
        So, my bill, that I was the principal Democratic author of
    in 1996, said, break up all these monopolies. They are
    stultifying technological growth, and by 2000, four years after
    the bill passed, we have a broadband revolution. We had a dot
    com bubble, but everyone had broadband except for the most
    rural parts of the Country and the poorest people in our
    Country. It had just been held up.
        We heard from the auto industry for so many years, we can
    not do this, you do not know how hard it is, if you knew what
    you were asking for, you would not even raise the subject.
    Well, now, of course, finally, the auto industry is accepting
    the future. Now, they let Tesla get a huge lead on them by
    maintaining their denial that you could do it. The battery
    technology, all of these new technologies, they are all
    happening and improving very rapidly.
        The interesting thing about the 1996 Telecommunications Act
    is that it created a broadband revolution. What is the
    electricity revolution? The electricity revolution is a
    broadband revolution. You can manage the electricity coming in
    off the ocean, off the prairies, off of roofs. You can manage
    the electricity inside of people's homes and buildings, and you
    can manage automobiles and trucks, feeding electricity back
    into the home or into the grid.
        All of that is now possible because of the broadband
    revolution, and this revolution is going to create all new
    revolutions in battery storage technologies, in the ability for
    us to be able to imagine where our electricity comes from, or
    what kind of vehicles we have.
        There has always been really, very strong opposition to
    these kinds of technological revolutions, and I understand
    that, because it is just part of looking at the world in a
    rearview mirror. We have to be sensitive to industries that are
    going to be impacted. The legislation, the regulations are
    trying to do that, and I am sure there are some accommodations
    that can be made.
        Nonetheless, because of the imperative of us to back out
    imported oil, national security issue, to reduce greenhouse
    gases going up, national security issue, we really do not have
    a choice. This bill is saying to China, to Russia, to other
    countries, we are not going to need your minerals anymore. We
    are not going to need your parts anymore. I think that is a big
    part of what the message is that is being sent to the private
    sector, and it is largely responding.
        We are going to have to make some adjustments, obviously,
    but I still think that we have an incredible future that we can
    look forward to. Let me turn and recognize the Chairman of the
    full committee, Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks. I appreciate, Senator Merkley, your
    letting me slip ahead of you. Thank you so much. First of all,
    let me just say, I appreciate you having the hearing today.
        The largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, carbon
    emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, come from our mobile
    sources. I think it is about 30 percent, about 25 percent from
    power plants, about 20 percent from manufacturing operations,
    including cement plants, including steel mills, that kind of
    thing. We are trying to make sure we focus especially on those
    three, but including focus on autos.
        I will never forget, I have shared this with some of my
    colleagues before, I used to go to the Detroit Auto Show every
    January, actually. When Delaware had two big auto plants, a big
    Chrysler plant and a big General Motors plant, they employed
    about 3,000 or 4,000 people at each of them. It was a big deal
    for a little State.
        I remember being at the Detroit Auto Show about 10 years
    ago, and I met a young woman named Mary Barra. For a lot of
    people, that is a familiar name now, because she is not just
    the CEO of General Motors, she is the chair of the Business
    Roundtable.
        I met her at a ceremony they had at the Detroit Auto Show
    to announce what car was selected as car of the year, what SUV
    or truck was selected as the truck of the year. The car of the
    year was the Chevrolet Volt, and it was a hybrid. They do not
    make them anymore, but it was a hybrid. I remember talking with
    her, and she told me that it got 38 miles on a charge, and
    after that, the battery was depleted and the car would have to
    operate on gasoline, diesel, whatever.
        Ten years later, she is a big deal. She is the chairman of
    the company and chairman of the Business Roundtable. I was
    trying to get GM, maybe about a year ago, to join Ford and
    Volvo and some other companies in really signing onto fuel
    efficiency standards, or emissions standards.
        I will never forget what she said to me. She said, Senator,
    I am all in on electric. That is where the future is. They are
    cheaper to build, to maintain, and climate change is real. It
    makes sense. She said, three things have to happen before
    people will buy the vehicles that we are prepared to make, the
    electric vehicles we are prepared to make in the future.
        No. 1, 300 miles range. She said, that is on the industry,
    not on the government. She said, the second thing we need is
    the ability to charge batteries in minutes, not hours. That is
    on the industry; that is not on the government. She said the
    third thing is on the government, and that is to make sure that
    we have throughout not just Delaware and places on the East
    Coast, but all over the Country, charging stations and fueling
    stations for vehicles that we are prepared to build. She said,
    if we do not do that, we will never be as successful here as we
    would like to.
        Another conversation that I remember was with a person, I
    remember a conversation with, I think it was Amazon and FedEx.
    They were talking about their delivery vehicles and whether or
    not they use electric vehicles, do they use diesel vehicles,
    some combination thereof.
        I am not sure if it was Amazon or FedEx, but over a
    relatively short period of time, they migrated almost entirely
    to electric. They did it, and I will never forget them
    explaining to me. The fellow we talked to from whichever
    company it was said that, the right business decision for us,
    set aside concerns about climate change or global warming or
    sea level rise, for us, the right business decision was
    electric vehicles.
        Same reasons that Mary Barra had given me. It is not just
    low emissions; it is low maintenance. They are easy to build,
    easier to maintain. She did not say this, but as the owner of
    an electric vehicle that I have had now for about two years,
    they are fun to drive. That is kind of hard to put a price tag
    on, but they are just a hell of a lot of fun. For people who, I
    can see some heads in the audience here nodding, yes, they
    really are.
        For those reasons, I think that is where we need to go,
    ought to go. Having said that, 10, 15, 20, my last vehicle was
    a 2001 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan with 600,000 miles on
    it. Some people just love their vehicles. Maybe some people in
    the audience love their vehicles and never want to change, and
    they are going to keep their vehicles for 100,000, 200,000
    miles, maybe more. We are not going to hit a switch and just
    move over and take EVs, or hydrogen-powered vehicles, but we
    will eventually migrate away.
        The other thing I would just say, I mentioned in another
    hearing today what we are facing in terms of climate change,
    sea level rise, and that sort of thing. We have to be smart
    enough to not let this happen. The question is, are we smart
    enough to avoid the dire consequences that we hear about all
    the time, are we smart enough to do that, and at the same time,
    create jobs and economic opportunity?
        I would take away from my conversations with Mary Barra and
    the folks at General Motors, and frankly, Bill Ford at Ford
    Motors and the folks at Amazon, the delivery company or FedEx
    that offered the very smart, I thought, coaching arguments for
    supporting EVs. There we go. We do not have to do it just
    because it feels good, but it is actually good business sense.
        My wife and I have some four step-grandchildren. I want to
    make sure that they grow up and have a planet to grow up on and
    grow old on and have good jobs. It comes to that.
        Mr. Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent a study by the
    International Energy Agency that compares the greenhouse gas
    life cycle analysis between an internal combustion vehicle and
    battery electric vehicles. It is hard to read my staff's
    writing, but then considering the mining of critical minerals
    electric vehicles are substantially less in emissions compared
    to internal combustion vehicles. We will change this for the
    record, but I think I am asking unanimous consent for a study
    by the International Energy Agency, here.
        Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I have a question for Mr. Harto, and then I
    will be out of your hair.
        I want to thank the Chair for holding a hearing on a
    transportation sector that I have suggested as a major source
    of carbon emissions, and we have to do something about it. We
    are doing something about it. EPA's newly proposed light duty
    vehicle and heavy-duty vehicles greenhouse gas emissions
    standards will reduce emissions of criteria pollutants,
    greenhouse gases, and air toxics, creating significant benefits
    for public health and our climate.
        This issue is especially personal for us in Delaware. I
    think I have mentioned a million times, my committee members
    can tell you, a million times how Delaware is the lowest-lying
    State in the Country. Our State is sinking. The seas around us
    are rising. It is not a good combination.
        Here is my question for you, Mr. Harto. We always talk
    about the tremendous clean air and climate benefits of EPA's
    Clean Car Rule, but as a car enthusiast with, as I said
    earlier, my own electric vehicle, I also want to hear about
    what these rules will mean for American drivers.
        Does your research show that many drivers want to buy
    electric vehicles, and if so, why? How will these clean car
    rules help protect drivers from volatile global oil prices,
    which are often influenced by the whims of dictators?
        Mr. Harto. Great. Yes, thank you for your question.
        Yes. These rules will deliver consumer savings to
    Americans. EVs on the road today, despite their higher prices,
    already deliver lifetime cost savings to consumers while
    reducing the volatility of their monthly fuel budget.
    Electricity prices change over time, but they change very
    slowly, in fairly predictable ways, whereas oil prices
    fluctuate wildly, which can, even if you thought you could
    afford the vehicle when you first bought it, if oil prices rise
    $1, $2, you might have to choose between feeding your family
    and fueling your vehicle to get to work every day.
        Senator Carper. Anybody else want to comment on that? Ms.
    Harris?
        Ms. Harris. Thank you so much, Senator.
        Just uplifting what Mr. Harto said, we are already today
    seeing significant cost savings for an electric vehicle
    compared to a gasoline-powered car. Since the transportation
    costs tend to be a large energy burden for drivers and
    consumers, transitioning to zero emission vehicles is a win for
    consumers' pocketbooks as well, in addition to a lot of the
    points that you uplifted for improving air quality and health
    of Americans and also making us more globally competitive, too.
    There are many, many benefits, and there is an increased
    interest from drivers to purchase these vehicles.
        Mr. Boyle. Senator Carper, if I may?
        Senator Carper. I was just handed notice that I need to go
    give a speech on the floor right now. If I could be, I should
    be two people right now, but I apologize, I need to run. I
    welcome anything you want to give us for the record, please and
    thank you.
        Mr. Boyle. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
        Senator Markey. The Senator's time has expired, and his
    request for inclusion in the record of the document that he
    referred to, without objection, they would be so ordered.
        The Senator from Oregon?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    greetings to all. Thank you for your testimony. I just want to
    repeat what I heard you all saying, Mr. Harto, that life cycle
    costs for a consumer, they are better off buying an electric
    vehicle?
        Mr. Boyle. That is correct.
        Senator Merkley. Do you agree with that, Ms. Harris?
        Ms. Harris. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. If I am buying an electric vehicle, and I
    am wondering, well, how many miles am I going to get on a
    kilowatt hour, what is the answer?
        Ms. Harris. A recent study that I saw said that the average
    range of an electric vehicle today is about 290 miles.
        Senator Merkley. That is not the range. How far am I going
    to go on a kilowatt hour?
        Mr. Harto. Somewhere between three and four miles per
    kilowatt hour.
        Senator Merkley. Four miles on most of the Bolt, for
    example. I pay 12 cents for each kilowatt hour that comes to my
    house. Therefore, it costs me how much to go one mile?
        Mr. Harto. About three or four cents.
        Senator Merkley. Three cents. Brilliant. That is
    incredible. I think that is why the life cycle savings are
    significant, not to mention the savings when you have an
    internal combustion vehicle doing tens of thousands of little
    explosions that have to be managed, they have all kinds of
    parts to repair that you do not have on an electric vehicle.
        I did, however, have a problem in that a mouse got under
    the hood of my Bolt and ate a bunch of key wires out of reach.
    I did have to have one repair, unfortunately.
        Well, I have a 360 square foot, 20-panel solar panels on my
    roof. Well, this month, they produce about 30 kilowatt hours a
    day, just 360 square feet, which means that the average mileage
    that I get from my car out of this little, tiny solar array on
    my roof is about 120 miles. I can drive my car 120 miles a day
    on the electricity coming in on that little tiny array on my
    roof. To me, that is incredible.
        I think it is helpful for people to hear those basic
    numbers, because it does not translate initially that just a
    little bit of panels on your roof, and you can drive. Well,
    think about that. If you are doing a hundred miles a day, for a
    year, that is 36,000 miles on just that little sunlight coming
    in on your roof.
        Anyway, it has to be, however, when you are on the road,
    outside of the range of your fueling up at home, charging up at
    home, it has to be as easy to charge up as it is to fill up.
    Have we reached that point yet, either one of you?
        Mr. Harto. No, we have not, but these EPA standards really
    help solve the chicken and egg problem with charging
    infrastructure. Private industry is not going to invest
    billions of dollars in putting in chargers if they are not sure
    that the vehicles that need them are going to be there.
    Industry promises only go so far. Having set rules really sets
    a direction for the industry and allows them to invest with
    confidence.
        Senator Merkley. Well, we do have to grow the charging
    stations and grow the number of vehicles, but something else
    that would be helpful, and I have sent a number of letters to
    our Transportation Secretary, I have had many conversations
    with him about this, is the complexity of charging when you
    find that station that is open. Some of them charge monthly
    fees. Some of them charge by how much time you are hooked up.
    Some of the charge by kilowatt hour, but do not tell you what
    the charge is, and so forth.
        My advocacy to the Transportation Secretary is making it as
    transparent as gas stations are. Every single one of them, you
    know what you pay per gallon before you drive in. Can we do the
    same and have people know how much they are going to pay per
    kilowatt hour when you bring it up to the charging station?
    Would that be a good idea?
        Mr. Harto. Sure, yes. Sounds great.
        Senator Merkley. Those are softball questions, maybe
    leading questions. Some stations charge 15 cents in Oregon.
    Some charge 45 cents, and you do not really know until you get
    there. That will really help, because there is a certain
    anxiety about the complexity of charging stations that is
    totally unnecessary.
        So, with the grants that we have in the legislation we
    passed last year, my argument was, require people to
    standardize in a way to get rid of that anxiety about the
    complexity of a charging station. For folks who travel a lot,
    you eventually figure out the system. You figure out how to
    check the apps, but it does not need to be that hard.
        I read, Mr. Harto, that 36 percent of Americans were
    definitely or seriously considering an electric vehicle. I
    certainly, after having one, understand that there is a lot to
    love. What is the main reason Americans are considering an
    electric vehicle? Is it the cost savings that you referred to?
    Because I think most Americans do not really know that yet. Is
    it how quiet they are, is it the lack of repairs, is it the
    environmental sensitivity? What is driving their interest?
        Mr. Harto. Every American has their own reasons for
    choosing an electric vehicle. Some of them choose them for
    climate reasons; some of them choose them for cost reasons.
    Others just like that they are faster and perform better, and
    they enjoy driving them. There are a lot of different entry
    points for Americans into electric vehicles.
        Senator Merkley. Any insights, Ms. Harris, on what are
    considered the top two drivers for people's interest in
    electric vehicles?
        Ms. Harris. Nothing more to add than what Mr. Harto said. I
    think there are a variety of reasons, but I do think that the
    cost savings for drivers is definitely one of the reasons why
    they continue to purchase electric vehicles.
        Senator Merkley. I must say, early on in the electric
    vehicle world, it was the glue yourself to the back of your
    seat acceleration that put a big smile on a lot of people's
    faces. I must say, I nearly wrecked an electric vehicle the
    first time I drove one, because it was like--I was on the
    freeway before I knew what had happened. I am glad I made it
    through that, otherwise I would not be here today.
        My time has expired, so I am going to turn it back over to
    the Chairman. Thanks.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. Now, we will turn and recognize
    the Senator from Alaska. Mr. Sullivan?
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses.
        Mr. Boyle, I would like to focus on some of the issues
    relating to the trucking industry. There has been a really good
    story on the fact that 70 percent of our economy's total
    tonnage has been coming from you and your industry, and there
    has been very significant greenhouse gas emission reductions,
    primarily through your own work. Isn't that true?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes, sir.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you think that has been highlighted
    much?
        Mr. Boyle. You know, the line of demarcation that most
    people refer to with diesel technology emissions was 2010.
    Right now, if we look at the national fleet of Class A trucks,
    47 percent of them are still pre-2010. There is an 83 percent
    reduction going from 2010 to today. Senator Carper and others
    have actually facilitated legislation grants to help refresh
    this fleet. We want to remove impediments for people to buy
    today's trucks.
        Senator Sullivan. That is going to help make the
    environment cleaner, correct?
        Mr. Boyle. With the existing infrastructure, without the
    trillion-dollar investment, yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, listen, I think that is a story
    that we need to hear more about. I am very concerned, like
    many, bipartisan concern, by the way, of the EPA's using its
    regulatory power to the transition vehicle fleet in a way which
    I think is not an achievable pace. These rules are de facto
    bans on internal combustion engines, and that is why Senator
    Ricketts and I intend to introduce resolutions of disapproval
    under the congressional Review Act both for heavy duty truck
    proposals and EPA light and medium vehicle proposals. I ask,
    Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to enter into the record a
    recent op ed from the Wall Street Journal, saying Biden's EPA
    rules remake the auto industry.
        Senator Markey. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Mr. Boyle, do you agree that
    the regulations are an unprecedented move by the EPA to
    dramatically move forward something that we think probably
    violates the recent Supreme Court decision in EPA versus West
    Virginia in terms of, if you are going to regulatory authority
    to remake the whole economy, you need to get that authority
    from the Congress. What is your view on that?
        Mr. Boyle. We work in interState commerce. My trucks
    transport cancer drugs. When we impede interState commerce, the
    products that are essential to daily life do not get delivered.
    Yes, by passing the buck and allowing States to enact their own
    regulations on emissions, the market is not large enough for
    innovators to address individual States.
        Furthermore, yes, historically, we have had great, our OEMs
    and other stakeholders in industry have great cooperation and
    collaboration with EPA on technical standards and on timelines
    that were achievable. If we do not do that, and we cede to the
    States, we end up with this patchwork.
        Then, furthermore, as we discussed earlier, as of January
    of this coming year, there will be no internal combustion truck
    that is compliant with California Carb Standards. Battery
    electric trucks, if everybody in this room took off their socks
    and shoes and we counted fingers and toes, we would have more
    of them than there are chargers for heavy duty trucks.
        We have to play a little bit more chess, not checkers, get
    the power generation, establish the infrastructure for chargers
    and then, by all means, we would embrace this notion. To do so
    without that in place sets trucking up for failure which in
    turn, sets up consumers for failure and higher costs.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Let me ask one final question for all the panelists. The
    Administration, and I think this is a bipartisan issue, says
    that they want America, not China in particular, to source the
    critical minerals that we will need for electric vehicles and
    so many other clean energy technologies. Yet, this kind of
    timeline does not give our Country the ability to mine critical
    minerals that we have.
        By the way, in Alaska, we have the highest environmental
    standards in the world on mining critical minerals. If we need
    critical minerals, and we want to get away from China, the
    reliance on China, and we have the highest standards in the
    world and we can employ our own people, why wouldn't we do
    that?
        You may have seen Senator Manchin's statement on what he
    called the EPA's radical vehicle emissions standards, and he
    said that the one thing that is going to happen here is that it
    is going to only result in more energy secure and powerful
    China and strengthening our reliance on minerals and
    technologies from China. This is a Democrat saying this.
        I am meeting with, in the next couple minutes, a group from
    the Ambler Mining District in Alaska. Huge critical minerals
    supply for our great State. Highest environmental standards,
    labor, Tribal, individuals I am going to be meeting with on
    this Ambler project. The Biden Administration, on the day the
    President held a critical minerals summit, reversed the 7-year
    environmental impact statement on the Ambler mining road.
        It is crazy. If we need green technologies and we need the
    critical minerals for it, why wouldn't we do it from here? Why
    would we keep relying on China? The Administration recently
    took a very large critical mineral deposit in Minnesota offline
    for 20 years. All this does is make us more reliant on China,
    and they have the worst environmental standards in the world.
        Would anyone like to comment on this? If we need these
    technologies and minerals, why wouldn't we get it in the place
    with the highest standards on the planet? That is America. That
    is Alaska. Yet, this Administration talks a big game, and all
    they do is undertake policies that make us more reliant on the
    Chinese Communist Party and its economy.
        Any views on that? I will throw it open to anybody. Mr.
    Boyle, we will start with you.
        Mr. Boyle. Certainly, national security needs to be taken
    into consideration. If we expose ourselves, we are just moving
    from one commodity to another.
        Senator Sullivan. Ms. Harris, any views on that, just
    wanting to source critical minerals in the place that has the
    highest standards in the world, which is us?
        Ms. Harris. Yes, of course, thanks for the question,
    Senator. Thanks to Congress passing the Inflation Reduction
    Act, the U.S. is now on course to insource much of the battery
    production while also having minerals sourced from countries
    that we have trade agreements with;
        Senator Sullivan. And our allies, right?
        Ms. Harris. Yes. I will highlight, too, that these rules
    are being complemented by U.S. programs to reduce, reuse, and
    recycle the minerals from batteries so that we can reduce the
    need for additional extraction.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. You agree with focusing on American
    production, mineral production, or our allies, who have much
    higher standards than the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
    China, correct?
        Ms. Harris. Yes, and we are seeing automakers also bring
    this industry onshore already, with over $210 billion of
    investments just here in the United States to help with that
    process.
        Senator Sullivan. Good, excellent.
        Mr. Harto, do you have a view on that, as well?
        Mr. Harto. I have nothing more to add from what has already
    been said.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, thank you. One point five partisan
    agreement. I think everybody here agrees with this.
        Mr. Boyle. It is worth noting, to your point, if we were to
    convert the entire U.S. trucking fleet to battery electric, we
    would need to commandeer global production of lithium for more
    than seven years.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Boyle. That is the scale of the problem we are talking
    about. It is not that we can not overcome challenges, but we do
    not overcome them by pretending they do not exist. We just
    manifest our own destiny that way.
        Senator Sullivan. A lot of the challenges we have, Mr.
    Chairman, as you know, we can solve here, in America, with our
    own high standards on the environment and production. I think
    it is a good area of bipartisan cooperation. I am glad all the
    witnesses are in agreement. Thank you very much.
        Senator Markey. I thank the gentleman.
        After the Waxman-Markey bill passed, I traveled immediately
    to China, waiting for it to pass the Senate. We actually went
    to a wind turbine manufacturing facility. It was massive. We
    did not have an equivalent in the United States. I said, those
    wind turbines are pointing at the American economy in the same
    way that the Russian missiles were pointing at the United
    States during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
        We need a response, and that is what the IRA is. It is
    saying, domestic manufacture, domestic sourcing, only with our
    allies, and let us just put this thing together, because we
    have been asleep, allowing for this erosion of our own domestic
    capacity. I think it is an area where we can partner.
        Let me turn to the Senator from California.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    holding this important and timely hearing today.
        I just want to start by saying I am so proud of the efforts
    that you have led, that I have tried to lead, along with
    Chairman Carper pushing the EPA to finalize the strongest
    possible vehicle emissions rules.
        I am starting to like this subcommittee and this committee
    as a whole, because it seems like every time I walk in from
    another committee, I am told that they were bashing California
    again for the audacity to exercise some policy leadership. Let
    me just say that you are absolutely right. We are setting the
    bar high, but we are also thoughtful enough, from the Governor,
    the legislature, the congressional delegation, on down to be
    thoughtful about a transition from fossil fuel vehicles to
    electric.
        The deadlines that have been set are not tomorrow or next
    week or next month. We know that there is a transition that
    needs to take place. By setting out a marker several years, we
    know that technology will continue to improve, performance of
    those technologies will continue to improve in that timeframe,
    not just batteries, but all aspects of electric vehicles, for
    example, passenger vehicles, to heavy duty trucks, even
    locomotives eventually, but also modernizing the electrical
    grid to handle the transition to the transportation sector that
    we are mindful of.
        So, give us some credit, that we were thoughtful about
    this, and already showing some significant progress.
        Focusing on today's hearing though, EPA's latest rules are
    important for so many reasons. They are going to save drivers
    money on gas. They are going to create high quality jobs in the
    process and continue to position the United States as a leader
    in zero emission vehicle technology.
        Equally important, and I want to make sure this is not lost
    on anybody, equally important to my constituents are the public
    health protections that come from cleaning up vehicles,
    particularly in the heavy-duty sector. I can not tell you how
    often I hear from constituents who just want to be able to
    breathe clean air outside, go outside and play with their kids,
    and live healthy lives.
        I hear frequently from constituents all over California,
    but particularly in the Inland Empire that is the Nation's
    capital when it comes to logistics, we all know people love, in
    this day and age, getting products, whatever they buy online,
    literally delivered to your doorstep. We have to understand
    that convenience comes with a significant cost to the public
    health of Californians, not just, but especially in the Inland
    Empire.
        Mr. Harto, I appreciate your testimony and your
    organization's reports that shine a light on the environmental
    injustices happening in the Inland Empire in California, often
    referred to, as I said, America's logistics capital. The
    reports show that the impacts of the rapid expansion of
    warehouses in the area disproportionately fall on low-income
    communities and communities of color, which increases air
    pollution in the area due to trucks that burn fuel and
    transport goods to and from warehouses, to and from ports, and
    to and from homes.
        Can you speak for a minute on how EPA's proposed Heavy Duty
    Rule will mitigate air pollution in these communities?
        Mr. Harto. Yes, thank you for your questions. I will admit,
    I have not had a chance to dig too deeply into the EPA's
    proposal on the Heavy Duty Rule, but we know that decarbonizing
    and removing emissions from these vehicles that are driving
    around communities in people's front yards, where children are
    playing in communities, is extremely important to improving the
    health of all Americans, especially Americans who live in
    disadvantaged communities.
        Senator Padilla. Suffice it to say, we have made and can
    appreciate the significant progress in cleaning up the
    passenger vehicle sector. We can only imagine the positive
    benefit that will come with cleaning up the heavy-duty vehicle
    sector, as well.
        One followup question in my time remaining. I have been
    fighting for the cleaner trucks since I first came to the
    Senate from pushing EPA to originally revise the standards back
    in 2021 to moving the Clean Trucks Plan to the proposed phase
    three standards that we are discussing today.
        Question for Ms. Harris. The NRDC has written about how the
    final phase three standards need to aim higher in order to
    reduce trucking pollution and put the trucking industry on a
    path to zero emissions. What do they mean by aiming higher? Can
    you describe what being more ambitious means to you?
        Ms. Harris. Sure. EPA's truck standards are an important
    step forward, but the main proposal is much too weak. Truck
    makers have shown that they can deliver less polluting and zero
    polluting vehicles, and EPA needs standards that will get them,
    to get them on the road. This is especially true given the
    historic incentives for electric heavy-duty vehicles that were
    included in last year' Inflation Reduction Act.
        To your point, we are going to be working with our partners
    in communities near highways and ports and freight hubs
    nationwide to deliver data to the Environmental Protection
    Agency showing how and why this pollution can be cleaned up,
    and why it must be cleaned up now.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        In closing, Mr. Chair, I will just reiterate my invitation
    to any of our colleagues who want to see the future of a
    cleaner transportation sector in progress, I am happy to
    welcome you to California. Thank you very much.
        Senator Markey. Of course, we always take that as a
    challenge, especially since what they do in California is that
    they take people who are educated at the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology (MIT), elect them to the U.S. Senate,
    then challenge Massachusetts to develop better, more innovative
    people. We accept the challenge, as we have in the past.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. We do not have a choice here. We really do
    not. I have the great honor, as a Member of Congress, this is
    how long I have been around, I voted to bail out Chrysler in
    1979. They were going bankrupt because they had fallen so far
    behind technologically. Then, I had the honor in 2009 of voting
    to bail out Chrysler, because they had fallen behind
    technologically.
        We can keep waiting for them to get it, and they would keep
    saying, oh, Tesla, that is not the future. Do you know how hard
    it is? People do not want to drive around in an electric
    vehicle, like a golf cart. They did not have the vision to see
    what an electric vehicle could be, more powerful than an
    internal combustion engine vehicle.
        So, now they are hustling to catch up, finally, thank God
    they are, and it is about time. In Europe, for example, the
    European parliament has committed to making all new cars and
    vans in Europe to be zero emission by 2035. If we want to be
    selling vehicles in Europe, we better get moving, here. That is
    the market.
        If we do not want to be in the market, of course we can go
    slow. We could have a bill to bail out auto companies in 2031
    because they are going too slow, and people are not buying
    them, or in China, if we want to look at Asian markets, we
    better be making vehicles that they want to purchase.
        That just comes down to what Senator Padilla is talking
    about, that we need to have a way to continue to innovate and
    get out there. Take them on. We do not want to keep them out.
    We want to ultimately take them on. Let's have this battle. We
    have to have the battle on our terms, so that we are not Uncle
    Sucker here, just importing all of their raw materials.
        There are different levels of heavy-duty vehicles. Some are
    easier to electrify, no question about it. A school bus is
    easier to electrify than a long-haul truck.
        That is why EPA rules to regulate different classes of
    heavy-duty vehicles are different, giving more leeway and a
    longer ramp to the vehicles that are hardest to electrify. We
    can work with the industry on this subject.
        But I will just say this, and I hate to do this before the
    Senator from California leaves, because I am going to cite the
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California for a study
    which they have completed that finds that zero emission freight
    trucks are primed for success, because in their assessment, an
    average long-haul trucker goes 150 miles between 30-minute
    driver breaks.
        So if we deploy fast chargers across this Country, we can
    electrify those truck routes and save 13 percent for the owners
    of those trucks per mile, if we do it right. We are going to
    have to do it right, there is no question. We are going to have
    to do it in the correct sequence.
        Of course, buses and other vehicles of that nature are
    going to be easier than the kind of vehicles that Mr. Boyle is
    talking about.
        But we can do this, reflecting the truck stops that, for
    safety purposes, truck drivers have to accommodate anyway. It
    will have to be done in a massive enough future.
        Again, from Massachusetts, I thank the Senator for all of
    the great work from the State of California as well. Thank you.
        Let me just ask, if I may, one final question before I turn
    it over to Senator Ricketts. That would be, battery efficiency
    and the efficiency benefits that we get if this EPA supported
    battery efficiency standards for vehicles as part of the
    rulemaking process. Could you speak to that?
        Mr. Harto. Yes, I can take that question. Thank you.
        Not enough is talked about on efficiency of electric
    vehicles. Increasing the efficiency of EVs reduces the cost,
    reduces the amount of batteries, and allows the vehicles to
    travel greater distance on the same amount of electricity.
    Ensuring that the EVs that are built are as efficient as
    possible is great for everybody.
        Senator Markey. The EPA is considering the treatment of
    upstream emissions from plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and
    battery electric vehicles. I really do believe it is an area
    where we can put the strongest possible standards in place, and
    the whole system would benefit greatly.
        Let me turn and recognize Senator Ricketts one more time.
        Senator Rickets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Harris, Mr. Harto, both of you mentioned that when it
    comes to securing these critical minerals, that we can work
    with our allies, and certainly, Canada is obviously a very
    close ally. I think you mentioned Chile, too. Was Argentina the
    third one that you mentioned?
        Mr. Harto. Australia.
        Senator Ricketts. Australia, OK. Very good.
        When it comes to specific items, right, when you have to
    make a battery, you can not miss anything, or else the battery
    is not going to work. Is that a fair statement? Like, if you do
    not have graphite, you can not make the battery work, is that
    fair?
        Mr. Harto. Sure.
        Senator Ricketts. I think 80 percent of the graphite comes
    from China. Can these other countries make up the difference of
    that? Has somebody done, again, for all the critical minerals
    that are needed for these batteries, has somebody looked at the
    reserves for these countries and done the math to see that they
    can actually meet that need? We have heard that you are going
    to have to, Mr. Boyle, you said 35 percent of the world's
    minerals we are going to need to do all the heavy trucks,
    right?
        Mr. Boyle. We would need to commandeer seven years' worth
    of global production.
        Senator Ricketts. Seven years' worth. Has anybody done that
    math, looked at the allies and what they can actually provide?
        Ms. Harris. I believe that there are some studies on that,
    but I have not. I do not have that in front of me.
        Senator Ricketts. You do not have any personal knowledge of
    it. Mr. Harto, do you?
        Mr. Harto. Yes, again, we have not dug deep into it, but I
    will say that, you mentioned graphite. There are methods to
    make synthetic graphite from coal. We have a lot of coal that
    is not going to be used here in the United States.
        Senator Ricketts. Do you know how much more expensive that
    would be to make it?
        Mr. Harto. I do not know offhand.
        Senator Ricketts. OK.
        Ms. Harris, I think in your testimony, you said, in your
    written testimony, rather, you said rural drivers who, on
    average, tend to drive further and have larger vehicles, stand
    to benefit the most from identifying their electric vehicles.
    Is that accurate?
        Ms. Harris. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. I believe that the study you were looking
    at analyzes impacts in Maine, Vermont, Virginia, and Maryland.
    Is that accurate?
        Ms. Harris. I believe so, yes.
        Senator Ricketts. Just out of curiosity, do you know how
    long it take to drive north to south in Maryland?
        Ms. Harris. I do not have that estimate in front of me.
        Senator Ricketts. About four hours.
        Ms. Harris. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. What about Vermont? Have you any idea?
        Ms. Harris. I would estimate two to three hours.
        Senator Ricketts. Actually, it is about four hours and 40
    minutes, so it is a little bit longer in Vermont.
        Nebraska is about seven hours. If you look at not just how
    long it takes to drive back and forth, but also the square
    mileage, if you look at the States that you cited in your
    study, Maryland is about a sixth the size of Nebraska; Vermont
    is an eighth the size. Maine is about half the size, a little
    bit less, and Virginia is a little more than a half of it.
        My point being that these States are not typical for what
    you would find in the Western United States as far as rural
    States. Trying to get at how it is going to impact people in
    those States is one of the challenges. In fact, that is one of
    the things that I have noticed since I have come here to
    Washington, DC.
        Again, to Senator Carper's point, driving electric
    vehicles, they are fun. They have great acceleration. It is
    great that we can have fun with them like that. I think one of
    the things that I have seen here in Washington, DC. in my short
    time is that when you are around big urban areas, you have a
    different perspective on how you can use electric vehicles and
    the access to charging stations and so forth versus a rural
    State like Nebraska, where you have two metropolitan areas that
    would not even be considered big on the East Coast and a lot of
    open space in between where you do not have a lot of people. We
    have, for example, three times as many cows as we have people.
        You have to drive long distances to be able to get
    anywhere, and I mentioned the stretch between Allen and Hay
    Springs, 340 miles, there are no charging stations. Even with
    the $6 million a year I think Nebraska is going to be getting
    from the stimulus package that got passed, you are not going to
    be able build that out in time to be able to have two-thirds in
    effect, in my humble opinion, by 2032. That is a lot of
    infrastructure.
        We are challenged with that right now when it comes to just
    getting broadband out to our Nebraska households. That is a
    billion-dollar investment there, to be able to get just
    broadband to every household in Nebraska. Trying to do charging
    stations is going to be another drop, and then again.
        Just in my experience as Governor, working with our public
    power districts, we are the only public power State in the
    Country, just providing, for example, Google and Facebook,
    which use a lot of electricity, have come to our State, and
    economic development, creating jobs, they use a lot of
    electricity. You just do not pop up the kind of electricity it
    takes to handle those types of facilities.
        In fact, in my conversations with Omaha Public Power
    District (OPPD), Javier Fernandez is their president, it is a
    challenge to be able to make sure you can keep up with just the
    growing needs that we have today, none of this is factored into
    that. None of this is factored into having two-thirds of cars
    being electric vehicles in less than 10 years. It is not in
    their plans right now to be able to accommodate that sort of
    growth in the utility field.
        My time has expired, so I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator.
        The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Sorry this is a quick in and out, but this is a very
    topical topic, and I appreciate the three of you and the panel
    being here today. I am going to jump right in with Mr. Boyle. I
    understand that your fleet transports sensitive materials that
    can have strict temperature range requirements. You did a lot
    of transporting, I believe, of the vaccine?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Capito. Yes. If you are required to purchase an
    electric heavy-duty truck, do you have any concerns about the
    ability to deliver shipments with these kinds of specific
    temperatures, and are those even available with that kind of
    technology for an electric heavy-duty truck?
        Mr. Boyle. That is a great point. The draw and the demand
    is very intense. It is a completely different dynamic than the
    auto sector.
        I would like to address Chairman Markey and Senator Padilla
    explicitly. We share your concern and your drive toward zero
    emissions. The trucking industry starts at yes. We are on that
    path, and we share the concerns about all different
    communities, rural and urban.
        But the path to get there has to be logical. We can not be
    set up for failure, and in many respects, some of the
    regulations have caused negative consequences. California
    actually has among the oldest truck fleets in the Country, so
    52 percent of California trucks are pre-2010 diesel emissions.
    If we got them current to today, that would be an 83 percent
    reduction with the existing infrastructure.
        It is not that we do not want to reduce emissions. We are
    fully on board with that. It is just that not all solutions, we
    can not spread the peanut butter from cars onto all vehicles.
        Senator Capito. Let me ask you this, and it has probably
    been asked, the cost issue, a new diesel truck in your
    business, how does that cost? What is the equivalence there for
    that and an electric truck?
        Mr. Boyle. The upcharge is roughly $300,000.
        Senator Capito. That is on top of what the vehicle costs?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes, ma'am, the upcharge, the delta.
        Now, as my friends to the right of me here have pointed
    out, over the cost of ownership, a portion of that may be
    realized, but not nearly the $300,000. At some point, yes, it
    might be somewhat more viable. It is just that we are years
    away from it. It is simply not an option, because there isn't
    the infrastructure or power to get to them.
        Senator Capito. In terms of, let's say, if we are looking
    10 years down the road, or if we look 10 years back, would that
    $300,000, we expect, I think, and you probably, I do not want
    to put words in your mouth. Do you expect, I expect, that delta
    does down over time as there is more, or not?
        Mr. Boyle. The economies of scale that have been discussed
    previously are in the auto sector where the addressable market
    is exponentially larger, in the millions of vehicles per year.
    In trucks, it is a couple hundred thousand, so the market
    opportunity isn't such that you would have a Moore's law for
    heavy trucks, for example.
        I can tell you, over the course of my career, I have not
    seen truck prices go down much over time, but yes, could it be
    compelling and a total cost of ownership at some point?
    Perhaps, and we are not averse to that. We are certainly not in
    position to even phase that in at a one percent level at
    current.
        Senator Capito. The weight is an issue as well, both for
    cars and for, I am concerned about, I will go to cars. Cars are
    going to be heavier. EV cars are going to be heavier because of
    the weight of the battery and other things.
        What kind of safety issues and what kind of State DOTs,
    what kind of reinforcements along the highways, is that all
    going to change, accidents, impacts? All of these things I know
    are critical when you are looking at transforming an entire
    fleet. I do not know if the trucking industry, by the time you
    add the weight to the truck, what does that do to the cargo,
    because there are weight limits, obviously?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes, sure. Each heavy-duty truck electric
    vehicle battery would be about 8,000 pounds. They are typically
    in sets of two or three or four. As you add weight in that
    respect, you reduce the payload capacity. I think another lever
    for improving congestion and emissions that you have
    championed, with direct targeted infrastructure investment, and
    particularly in chokepoints around the Country in a smart
    fashion, then reducing traffic reduces emissions. That is
    another lever that the government has at its disposal.
        Senator Capito. Ms. Harris, I wanted to ask you a question
    on, in your testimony, you highlight the NRDC support for EVs
    and the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. The
    investments that have to be made in battery manufacturing, we
    know we are beholden to China right now, so we are trying to
    draw that back into our own Country and have domestically
    produced critical minerals and chips and everything.
        Does the NRDC, are you supporting any domestic mining
    projects right now that would provide that? Can you name any
    that your organization does support in terms of creating a mine
    for critical minerals?
        Ms. Harris. That is not my area of expertise, but I will
    say that the auto industry has already committed over $210
    billion to bringing this battery supply chain here to the
    United States. Many of the incentives that are coming from
    Congress, including in the Inflation Reduction Act, are not
    only helping to on-shore some of these supply chains, but are
    also incentivizing reducing, reusing, and recycling the
    batteries so that we need to extract less minerals moving
    forward.
        Senator Capito. We still have to extract in order to get
    the domestic production requirements in the Inflation Reduction
    Act and other things. There are still requirements for, and
    there is a great desire for us to have domestic materials,
    whether they are recycled or not, you have to originate. If you
    are going to have this whole, huge glut of new vehicles or
    trucks or whatever, or both, you have to have the critical
    mineral, and you have to have the mine to do it.
        We have to have support for permitting reform and for
    permitting these mines. I question whether your organization
    would be in favor, and I understand it is not your expertise of
    domestic mining of some of these critical minerals, which can
    be very difficult. Thank you.
        Ms. Harris. Thank you for your question.
        Senator Markey. Great, thank you. Just a tip of the cap to
    West Virginia because school buses are considered to be heavy
    duty;
        Senator Capito. And they are making them;
        Senator Markey. And they are making them in West Virginia,
    so the innovation State of West Virginia has figured out how to
    make heavy duty buses, school buses, that will be purchased in
    States all over the Country. They have already made an
    announcement in West Virginia of 750 jobs in a battery
    manufacturing plant that is going to be opening down in West
    Virginia. Congratulations on that, and the fact that it is a
    company from Somerville, Massachusetts, which is going to use
    West Virginia for the 750 manufacturing jobs down there.
        Senator Capito. What company is that?
        Senator Markey. Form Energy.
        That is going to the grid, but again, it is the larger size
    battery technology that can be developed. For example, I heard
    Mr. Boyle talking about how when the truck fills up, it goes
    1,200 miles, but if you take out that 1,200 mile capacity for
    oil, that leaves a lot of space for a battery and innovation
    that can develop that battery that could fill in, because that
    is a lot of weight that is taken off the truck if you could
    then replace it with a battery that could use it. West Virginia
    is at the cutting edge of those issues.
        Again, I view this, Mr. Boyle, in a way in which we had
    these cell phones that were the size of a brick, and then I
    know because I moved over the 200 megahertz to create the flip-
    phone era. If you listened to the incumbents at that time, oh
    my God, you do not know how hard that is, but within three
    years, everyone had a flip phone by 1995.
        And then a very smart kid out in Silicon Valley figured
    out, you know what, with all that spectrum, I could actually
    turn it into an iPhone with the capacity of a computer on the
    Apollo mission in 1969.
        So I am very confident that once we set these high goals,
    with all of the tax incentives that are going to be there, that
    we will make the breakthroughs, but understanding that you are
    in an area which will be more difficult, but there are many
    other heavy duty truck areas that can be solved.
        Do you agree with that, that for school buses, for other
    types of heavy duty but still within a range of technological
    feasibility to solve that problem in a relatively short period
    of time?
        Mr. Boyle. You make a great point, sir. It is a massive,
    diverse industry, and not all operations are the same. However,
    your previous statement where you used a very important term,
    sequence, it has to be at the right sequence.
        Currently, .001 percent of operations could be supported.
    That is part of the problem, is that the Clean Trucks Rule, all
    these things, are way too aggressive based on the current
    infrastructure. Many carriers are actually making inquiries.
    When the utility tells you, you are three years out from
    converting to ten forklifts in a warehouse, I think that should
    alert us to the fact that we are just not there.
        Once again, we are on board with getting there in a gradual
    fashion, but even come January of this year, we are not quite
    there. We welcome the opportunity to kind of inform the
    rulemaking and legislative process.
        Senator Markey. Thank you for that.
        Again, the sequencing is important, but we should get those
    heavy-duty vehicles that we can, and then continue to work,
    knowing that innovation will help us to accommodate the more
    difficult areas over time, but still to meet the goal.
        One thing, Mr. Harto, that continues to tick me off, is
    that we import oil from Saudi Arabia, that we import oil from
    Iraq to put into gasoline tanks in the United States. We put 70
    percent of all the oil we consume at the gasoline tanks, when,
    with innovation, we can just back out that oil.
        Can you talk about those benefits, Mr. Harto, for our
    society, both from a climate and from a national security
    perspective?
        Mr. Harto. I can talk about it from the perspective of the
    consumer. From the consumer perspective, not having to worry
    about the fluctuations in the price of gas as it goes from $2 a
    gallon to $5 a gallon, back to $3.50 a gallon, and who knows
    where it goes tomorrow or two weeks from now.
        Electrified vehicles, whether they are hybrids, whether
    they are plug-in hybrids, which would work great in Senator
    Rickett's State of Nebraska, where people may have to drive
    long distances without charging infrastructure while still
    significantly reducing emissions, all of those technologies can
    reduce consumers' risk to fluctuating oil prices.
        Senator Markey. Without question. When Saudi Arabia and the
    Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Plus
    two weeks ago decided, well, too much oil on the market, we are
    just going to reduce the amount of oil on the market to drive
    the price back up again. The equivalent to my father, the truck
    driver, he can not do anything about it. He has to buy the oil.
    He does not have a choice. We are just held to whatever the
    price that this cartel, this essential monopoly, a cartel,
    wants to charge us.
        This gives us a chance to kind of break that link. It will
    probably help us make more intelligent foreign policy
    decisions, as well, in terms of this dependence that we have
    had upon oil over all of the years.
        I can not thank all of you enough for your testimony today.
    In conclusion, when I am going to give you each is one minute
    to summarize what you want us to know at the conclusion of this
    hearing. I will go in reverse order of the opening statements
    and give each one of you that one minute. We will begin with
    you, Mr. Boyle.
        Mr. Boyle. The trucking industry is not averse to change.
    We embrace the opportunity to explore alternative fuels and
    alternative technologies to achieve zero emissions over time.
        We are very disappointed with EPA's about-face in terms of
    the existing rulemaking that manufacturers were trending to and
    planning for and investing the capital necessary to achieve
    another significant reduction in emissions.
        Second, this kind of punting to a State patchwork of
    emissions standards is not workable when you are dealing in
    interState commerce. The assumptions and the passion for
    electric vehicles in the car industry and the car segment, I
    totally appreciate. To extrapolate that onto the trucking
    industry and the complexities where you can not leverage any of
    the existing car charging infrastructure is a huge mistake.
        We look forward to working constructively both with
    Congress and the agencies. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you so much.
        I should have offered Senator Ricketts a final round, as
    well, which I did not do, and I apologize for that. If you
    would like to ask questions, let me just give each one of these
    the 1-minute, and then we will come back to you.
        Ms. Harris?
        Ms. Harris. Thank you so much. One takeaway, three major
    wins that a transition to----
        Senator Markey. One minute.
        Ms. Harris. Oh yes, I will sum it up very quickly. The
    three wins that we can anticipate through a transition to clean
    air cars is a win for pollution reductions and for public
    health. Clean car standards will reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions and also just improve the health of our communities
    and our children.
        It is a win for consumer pocketbooks and for consumer
    choice. We know that transitioning to zero emission vehicles
    can save drivers thousands and thousands of dollars over the
    life cycle of the vehicle.
        And it is a win for the industry and the economy in the
    United States. We have the opportunity to have a renaissance of
    manufacturing here in the U.S. and incorporate and increase our
    competitiveness across the globe.
        For these reasons, we are very excited and appreciate the
    Federal Government's efforts to support this transition. Thank
    you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Ms. Harris, very much.
        Mr. Harto?
        Mr. Harto. Yes. I just want to reiterate my three main
    points that these EPA standards are achievable, there is
    consumer demand that is far outpacing supply for electric
    vehicles, and we see that continuing into the future, and third
    that, again, EVs already save consumers money, and they will
    continue to save consumers money far into the future.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Harto, very much.
        Again, I apologize to Senator Ricketts. You are recognized
    for another round of questions.
        Senator Ricketts. Not at all. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Harto, you mentioned earlier, you talked about hybrids.
    I actually agree with you that a hybrid is a better solution
    with regard to States like Nebraska, where you have longer
    distances that you have to drive. The EPA has said to attain
    their standards by 2032, it would have to be something like
    two-thirds of cars would have to be electric vehicles, if it
    was only an electric vehicle solution. You also mentioned in
    your earlier testimony that car manufacturers can do things
    like hybrids. Correct?
        Mr. Harto. That is correct.
        Senator Ricketts. Do you know, have you done the math, have
    you seen any studies that show that say, you were going to just
    assume electric vehicles were going to grow to the current
    pace, what would hybrid vehicles have to be, what percentage of
    the new car sales would hybrid vehicles have to be to meet the
    same sort of attainment standards if you had two-thirds?
        Mr. Harto. Again, we are going to have a mix of solutions
    in different places. When we did the analysis on a 50 percent
    target, if an automaker built mostly hybrids, that 50 percent
    drops down to about 35 percent electric vehicles. Again, an
    automaker could build 50 percent. I do not know the exact
    numbers, but they can build a mix. The more hybrids they build,
    the more plug-in hybrids they build, the fewer battery electric
    vehicles they have to build.
        Senator Ricketts. Consumer Reports has done that math on
    that to say how much percentage would have to be to reach these
    attainment emission standards?
        Mr. Harto. We have not for the current rules. We plan to do
    some of that analysis in the future. They were just released
    last week, so we have not had a chance to run the numbers. We
    have done it on similarly strong standards, and there is a lot
    of room to apply other technologies.
        Senator Ricketts. OK. Mr. Boyle, we have talked a lot about
    how the trucking industry is on board with reducing emissions.
    You have already been doing it. Talk to me a little bit,
    though, about, you mentioned the patchwork of States also
    trying to do this.
        Can you discuss the impact these rules would have on
    business development strategy? When you have a change like
    this, what does it do for your long-term business planning?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes. I hope I conveyed early on how my company
    is in the top one percent of the top one percent in terms of
    sustainability performance and initiatives. I can tell you
    that, tragically, it is not valued in the marketplace.
        So one other lever that I would suggest that the Federal
    Government has at its disposal is to put out a carrot. Think of
    the purchasing power of the U.S. Postal Service, the General
    Services Administration (GSA), the Department of Defense. None
    of those factor in sustainability of the transportation service
    provider in the procurement decision.
        How about we use market forces to entice people to buy
    newer, cleaner vehicles? And that will enable us to bring that
    40 percent of America's fleet that is on the old standard up to
    current, and that will have, without as much of an investment,
    that will have a greater impact.
        Senator Ricketts. What about, again, just talking about
    your own business planning, when you see changes like this, how
    does that impact your business, specifically?
        Mr. Boyle. I guess we would have to have a lot more trucks
    to service the same amount of freight, and then we would have
    to, we really, as of right now, it is not even a consideration
    to invest in battery electric trucks. The Clean Truck Fleet
    Rule is not saying, as Senator Markey said, hey, particular
    applications is more applicable. No, you are looking at, hey,
    every motor carrier, you have to have this percentage. That is
    just completely irrational.
        Senator Ricketts. You are saying the regulations do not
    accommodate what we are talking about, that maybe school buses
    would be a good application, but long-haul trucks would not be?
    The regulation is too broad, it is too blunt of an instrument
    to actually make that, it does not have that nuance. Is that
    fair?
        Mr. Boyle. That is a great analogy, yes, because all school
    buses have the same characteristics and operation. Trucking is
    so massively diverse.
        Senator Ricketts. I thought you just said something about,
    it is a discouragement to make investments in battery trucks.
    Is that what you just said?
        Mr. Boyle. Yes. Right now, because, as we said, the
    sequence, the power generation, if we said right now, 25 new
    nuclear plants are going in to create clean energy in the
    Country to feed the grid and other renewables, and then in
    parallel we are going to build the charging infrastructure,
    hey, then we are considering it. That is a business decision.
        We all want to reduce fuel consumption. That is good
    business, but without those in place, there is actually no
    consideration whatsoever.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Boyle.
        Chairman Markey, I would note that under the last
    Administration, the United States was energy independent before
    the Biden Administration's policies that reduced the investment
    by our own companies here in America. We actually did not have
    to do all that importation of other fuel, if we would take
    advantage of our own resources.
        Senator Markey. No, we were importing oil from Saudi Arabia
    and other OPEC countries.
        Senator Ricketts. We were a net exporter of energy, and we
    could be again if we would take advantage of some of the things
    we talked about today about using our resources. Of course, I
    do not think anybody is going to do it better than we are with
    regard to protecting the environment.
        Senator Markey. I appreciate what you are saying, but if we
    did not export our own oil, we could have told Saudi Arabia and
    other countries, we do not need your oil at all. By exporting
    our own oil, we then need Saudi oil.
        In essence, what this revolution is, we are saying to all
    of the oil companies, we are not going to need your oil. We are
    going all electric. It is not going to be drill, baby, drill,
    it is going to be plug in, baby, plug in. It is across the
    whole oil industry, across domestic and international markets.
        I appreciate what you are saying. Ultimately, this plan is
    one to create jobs in America. Let's just say that. If by the
    time we have 50 percent of all vehicles here sold in the United
    States by 2030 are electric, and we do nothing to on-shore the
    EV supply chain or grow the market share for American-made
    vehicles, there will be significant job losses in the United
    States.
        But if 50 percent of vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2030 are
    electric and we increase domestic content and increase the
    market share of American-made cars, 140,000 new jobs will be
    created in the United States.
        So, implementation of this matters. It is going to be very
    important for us to make sure that we get this technological
    and economic and climate justice revolution underway, and that
    it happens in a fair way with environmental justice for our
    communities, for union workers, and with intentional
    implementation of the billions of dollars in new money going to
    the right places, while the EPA has to deliver that we are, in
    fact, delivering for those communities that have always been
    impacted most intensively.
        Again, I will just add one more fact that in 2022, the
    United States was a net petroleum exporter in 2022, so we were
    in fact exporting more oil that we actually imported in 2022.
    That is just the reality of where we are today. This is a
    discussion about how we are moving to the future.
        As a matter of housekeeping, I would like to ask unanimous
    consent to submit for the record a variety of materials that
    include letters from stakeholders and other materials that
    relate to today's nomination hearing. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Senators will be allowed to submit written
    questions for the record through the close of business on May
    2nd. We will compile these questions, send them to all of our
    witnesses. We will then ask you to reply by May 16th.
        With that, this very important and reformative hearing is
    adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                [all]