Cleaner Vehicles: Good for Consumers and Public Health (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety)

Hearing	Cleaner Vehicles: Good for Consumers and Public Health
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety
Date	April 18, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Government Policies to Promote Electric Vehicles (EV) Adoption and Reduce Vehicle Emissions: The hearing largely focused on how laws and regulations are impacting the U.S.’s current efforts to promote the adoption of EVs and electric trucks. Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Harris highlighted how the transportation sector accounts for a significant portion of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions and called it critical for the U.S. to reduce its vehicle emissions for environmental, air quality, and public health reasons.
  • The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses highlighted how the recently enacted IIJA, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 seek to promote the adoption of EVs. These laws will accomplish this through supporting the construction of EV charging infrastructure and providing tax consumer tax credits to encourage EV purchases.
  • Proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Vehicle Emissions Standards: A key area of contention during the hearing involved the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Harto expressed support for the EPA’s proposed standards. They stated that these proposed standards would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, improve public health, and save driver’s money in terms of reduced lifetime fuel and maintenance costs for their vehicles. They further asserted that these proposed standards would spur U.S. EV and electric truck innovation, which will make the vehicles more affordable to consumers and support the U.S.’s global competitiveness within the EV market. Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Boyle argued however that these proposed EPA standards are too aggressive and would burden American families, drivers, and businesses. They stated that these rules restrict freedom, fail to account for the higher cost of EVs, ignore supply chain and infrastructure challenges, and disregard the potential use of biofuels. Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE) further warned that these proposed standards might increase greenhouse gas emissions through driving up the cost of new EVs (which will lead people to keep their less efficient vehicles for longer). Subcommittee Republicans expressed their intention to introduce resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act for these proposed standards.
  • California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Rule: Mr. Boyle also criticized the EPA for its recent approval of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule and noted how this rule is “heavily predicated” on the adoption of electric trucks. He called California’s policy “unworkable” and stated that no internal combustion trucks would be able to comply with rule when it goes into effect in January 2024.
• Prospects for the Deployment of EVs and EV Charging Infrastructure: The hearing also considered numerous economic and technological factors that could impact the deployment of EVs and EV charging infrastructure, as well as how public policy can affect said factors.
  • Consumer and Business Demand for EVs: Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Harto discussed how consumers and businesses are increasingly seeking out electric and zero-emission vehicles for their public health benefits and their lower costs of ownership. They noted how EV sales as a share of total vehicle sales have grown significantly in recent years. They further stated that this increased demand is leading the automobile industry to ramp up its production of these vehicles.
  • Cost of EVs: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Boyle raised concerns over the high price of EVs and electric trucks and stated that these vehicles cost significantly more than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. Mr. Boyle emphasized that electric trucks could cost more than twice as much as conventional trucks and commented that recent federal vehicle electrification incentives will barely cover the excise taxes for these new electric trucks. He also stated that the electric truck market is much smaller than the EV market, which limits the potential economies of scale that electric truck manufacturers can achieve. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) further raised concerns that EVs cannot be easily fixed and must be entirely replaced in the event of an accident. Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Harto stated however that EVs will be cheaper for consumers over a vehicle’s lifetime when factoring in savings on fuel, repairs, and maintenance. They also stated that the price of electricity is much less volatile than the price of oil and noted that it costs an EV user about 3 cents to travel one mile.
  • Availability of Energy and EV Materials: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Boyle noted how EVs require significant amounts of electricity and critical minerals (including lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite) and raised concerns that the U.S. currently cannot supply the needed energy and materials to support proposed vehicle electrification efforts. They criticized the Biden administration’s actions to limit domestic energy production and mining activities and stated that these actions would only exacerbate the U.S.’s current resource challenges. They further contended that these actions are increasing the U.S.’s reliance on foreign adversaries (especially China) for its energy and EV material needs. Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Harto argued however that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 requires EVs to source their materials either domestically or from allied countries so that EV manufacturers can be eligible for the law’s tax breaks. They contended that this provision would help to bolster the U.S.’s domestic critical mineral supply chains. Mr. Harto also stated that EVs will have a minimal impact on energy generation demand and that power utility companies maintain various tools to manage electricity outlays during periods of high demand, which can address demand surges.
  • EV Charging Infrastructure Concerns: Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and Mr. Boyle stated that the U.S. lacks sufficient EV charging stations to cover sharp increases in demand for EVs. They highlighted how many rural areas within the U.S. currently lack EV charging stations, which reduces the practicality of EVs. Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) and Mr. Harto stated however that vehicle electrification efforts remain very nascent and predicted that new charging technologies (including fast chargers) will make EV deployment more feasible.
  • Feasibility of Electric Trucks: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Boyle raised particular concerns regarding the feasibility of electric trucks. They stated that the range of electric trucks is much less than the range of conventional gasoline-powered trucks and noted how the charging process for electric trucks can take significantly longer than the refueling process for conventional gasoline-powered trucks. They highlighted how the reduced range and longer charging times for electric trucks makes them impractical for hauling livestock and temperature sensitive materials. They further raised concerns regarding the size and weight of the batteries for EVs and commented that these batteries will reduce the hauling capacity of trucks. They stated that this reduced hauling capacity will require more trucks to be deployed to haul the same amount of goods, which will put strains on existing infrastructure, increase congestion, require more drivers, jeopardize the U.S.’s ability to transport and deliver critical materials, and increase trucking costs (which will be passed onto consumers). Mr. Boyle highlighted how the U.S. trucking industry already faces significant labor shortages and warned that this reduced hauling capacity would exacerbate these shortages.
  • Weather Performance Concerns: Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Mr. Boyle discussed how weather can impact the performance of EV batteries and noted colder weather can impact the driving ranges of EVs. They warned that government efforts to bolster vehicle electrification might therefore disproportionately impact cold weather state residents. 
  • Weight Concerns: Full Committee Ranking Member Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) and Mr. Boyle noted how EVs weigh more than traditional vehicles They stated that these heavier vehicles will have reduced hauling capacity and will necessitate the adoption of certain safety measures (such as stronger highway reinforcements that can accommodate heavier vehicles). 
  • Impact on Low Income and Minority Communities: Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Harto noted how traditional cars and trucks produce nitrogen oxides and other toxic pollution that can increase asthma and cancer rates. They added that this pollution disproportionately impacts African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous communities. They stated that the increased adoption of EVs will reduce this pollution, which will in turn lead to public health benefits.
• Other Policy Topics: The hearing further considered the U.S.’s efforts to reduce vehicle emissions within the transportation sector and challenges within the vehicle electrification space.
  • Consideration of Alternative Fuels for Vehicles: Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE) criticized the Biden administration for excluding liquid fuels from its energy strategy. He mentioned how his state of Nebraska produces affordable, reliable, and clean-burning ethanol and biodiesel. He asserted that renewable fuels are a currently available fuel source for heavy duty vehicles and stated that the U.S. already possesses the infrastructure for renewable fuels technology. He also commented that renewable fuels would reduce the U.S.’s carbon emissions and save consumers money.
  • Federal Excise Tax on Trucks: Mr. Boyle highlighted how a current impediment for purchasing newer and cleaner trucks is a longstanding federal excise tax on trucks. He stated that many trucks currently on the road are very old and suggested that addressing the current federal excise tax on trucks could make it more affordable for trucking fleets and operators to purchase cleaner trucks.
  • Lack of Transparency for EV Charging Station Rates: Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Mr. Harto expressed concerns over how EV charging stations often lack transparency regarding their rates. Sen. Merkley noted how some EV charging stations charge customers a monthly fee, some EV charging stations charge customers based on time hooked up to a charger, and some EV charging stations charge customers based on electricity used. He called on the U.S. to require that EV charging stations clearly display their electricity rates to their customers.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Chris Harto, Senior Energy Policy Analyst, Transportation and Energy, Consumer Reports
2. Mr. Andrew Boyle, Co-President, First Vice Chair, Boyle Transportation, American Trucking Associations
3. Ms. Kathy Harris, Senior Advocate, Clean Vehicles and Fuels, Natural Resources Defense Council

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• He mentioned how the EPA had recently proposed “historic” new rules to strengthen vehicle emissions standards for cars and trucks.
• He also remarked that the IIJA, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 enable the U.S. to pursue more ambitious vehicle emissions standards and noted how these laws provide $135 billion to build EVs domestically.
  • He highlighted how these laws support the construction of new EV charging stations, which will make EVs a more practical option for many Americans.
  • He also stated that these investments are making EVs more affordable and accessible.
• He discussed how companies are already seeking to take advantage of these investments and mentioned how there have recently been $100 billion in announced EV battery investments.
• He stated that the U.S. must still address existing gasoline-fueled vehicles to combat climate change, save drivers money, and protect public health.
  • He commented that the EPA has a key role to play in these efforts.
• He noted how transportation emissions comprise 27 percent of the U.S.’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
  • He indicated that half of these emissions come from light-duty vehicles and that one-quarter of these emissions come from heavy-duty vehicles and trucks.
• He also mentioned how cars and trucks produce nitrogen oxides and other toxic pollution that increases asthma and cancer rates.
  • He commented that this pollution disproportionately impacts African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous communities.
• He remarked that the U.S. needs strong greenhouse gas emission and multi-pollutant regulation for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.
  • He commented that this regulation would benefit the climate, drivers, and public health.
  • He further asserted that the U.S. must ensure that this regulation will benefit American union workers.
• He stated that the EPA’s proposed rule for light-duty vehicles for model years 2027 through at least 2032 would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles by more than half compared to existing standards.
  • He mentioned how the EPA estimates that its proposed light-duty and medium-duty rule can provide up to $1.6 trillion in net benefits through the lifetime of covered vehicles, avoid 7.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions between 2027 and 2055, and save drivers up to $13,000 a piece in fuel savings and maintenance costs.
• He also noted how the EPA projects that 60 percent of new light-duty vehicles sold by 2030 will be electric because of its recently proposed rule.
  • He indicated that this projection exceeds President Biden’s target for having 50 percent of new vehicle sales be electric by 2030.
• He stated that while the EPA’s proposed rule for light-duty vehicles could be expanded upon, he called this proposed rule an “incredible start.”
• He also remarked that while the EPA’s proposed rule for heavy-duty vehicles would be beneficial, he asserted that the Subcommittee must be vigilant in ensuring that this rule does not hamper the U.S.’s efforts to regulate other pollutants (including smog and particulate matter) from trucks and other large vehicles.
  • He mentioned how the EPA projects that its proposed heavy-duty vehicle 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 value through reducing the U.S.’s dependence on oil imports, and result in a 50 percent zero-emission vehicle penetration rate for vocational vehicles.
• He stated that strong proposed regulations are critical for combating climate change and asserted that these regulations are becoming more feasible thanks to Congress’s recent investments in clean vehicle technologies.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE):

• He mentioned how the EPA had recently announced “burdensome” new emissions requirements for American-made vehicles, including for both light-duty and heavy-duty trucks.
• He asserted that these requirements are “detached from reality” and contended that the requirements would have a disastrous impact on the well-being of American families, drivers, and businesses.
  • He stated that these rules restrict freedom, fail to account for the higher cost of EVs, ignore supply chain and infrastructure challenges, and disregard the potential use of biofuels.
• He commented that the EPA’s proposed requirements claim to be technology-neutral while simultaneously expressing the Biden administration’s ultimate desire for an EV-only fleet.
• He noted how the average cost of an EV is currently around $65,000, which is about one-third more than the average cost of a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle.
  • He commented that this $65,000 amount is more than the average income for most American households.
• He also disputed the EPA’s claims that its proposed emissions requirements for new vehicles will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and asserted that the proposed requirements would instead increase these emissions.
  • He explained that these requirements would drive up the price of new and used vehicles, which will cause people to hold onto less efficient vehicles for longer periods of time.
• He further remarked that the EPA’s proposed requirements fail to account for the logistical challenges associated with transitioning the U.S.’s vehicle fleet from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs.
• He stated that the U.S. lacks sufficient EV charging stations to cover the sharp increase in demand for EVs and mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy’s map shows no EV chargers on a 340-mile stretch of highways in northern Nebraska.
  • He indicated that many Nebraska communities are hundreds of miles from the nearest EV charging station.
• He further asserted that electric trucks are not practical for hauling livestock and noted how these trucks cannot stop for prolonged periods of time during periods of high temperatures.
  • He indicated that electric trucks currently need to stop for prolonged periods of time for charging purposes.
• He then criticized the Biden administration’s actions to target traditional power plants, cancel energy lease sales, and not expedite permits for the construction of new energy production facilities.
  • He asserted that the Biden administration’s actions are increasing the U.S.’s reliance on foreign adversaries for its energy needs.
• He mentioned how an American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) study had found that the full electrification of the U.S.’s vehicle fleet would use a large percentage of the U.S.’s current electric generation capacity.
  • He indicated that domestic long-haul trucking would use more than 10 percent of the electricity currently generated in the U.S. while an electric U.S. fleet would use more than 40 percent of the U.S.’s electricity.
• He remarked that the accelerated deployment of EVs would therefore cause an “incredible strain” on the U.S.’s electric grid.
  • He commented that the Biden administration’s inaction on energy permitting, energy generation, energy transmission, and energy storage would further exacerbate these grid problems.
• He asserted that the Biden administration is failing to address the U.S.’s need for reliable baseload energy generation capabilities.
  • He highlighted how Americans had paid 14.3 percent more for electricity on average in 2022 than in 2021 according to recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.
• He mentioned how ATRI’s analysis had also found that the replacement of the U.S.’s existing vehicle fleet with EVs would require tens of millions of tons of cobalt, graphite, lithium, and nickel.
  • He indicated that the U.S. would need almost 35 years of the current global output of certain materials to fully electrify its vehicle fleet.
• He also noted how the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) controls around 80 percent of the world’s rare earth elements and highlighted how many of these elements are used in EV production.
• He mentioned how the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) had concluded in 2021 that an overreliance on the CCP for rare earth elements creates risks for supply disruptions and politicized trade practices.
  • He expressed concerns that the EPA’s recent actions would exacerbate these risks.
• He also criticized the Biden administration for excluding liquid fuels from its energy strategy.
  • He mentioned how his state of Nebraska produces affordable, reliable, and clean-burning ethanol and biodiesel.
  • He asserted that renewable fuels are a currently available fuel source for heavy duty vehicles and mentioned how the District of Columbia’s garbage and recycling trucks operate on pure biodiesel.
• He mentioned how a bipartisan coalition of farm state Senators has long advocated for the promotion of renewable fuels and noted how the U.S. already possesses the requisite infrastructure for renewable fuels technology.
  • He also commented that renewable fuels would reduce the U.S.’s carbon emissions and save consumers money.
• He remarked that emissions reduction technology must be consumer-driven, be economically viable, and operate on a “level playing field.”

Witness Opening Statements:

Ms. Kathy Harris (Natural Resources Defense Council):

• She remarked that zero-emission cars and trucks can improve public health and air quality, reduce consumer expenses, increase consumer choices, help the U.S. economy, and bolster the U.S.’s global competitiveness.
• She discussed how the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., as well as a significant contributor of nitrogen oxide emissions, particulate matters, and other toxic pollutants.
  • She commented that these emissions harm the climate, air quality, and public health.
• She stated that EPA’s recently proposed vehicle tailpipe standards will support improvements in air quality for communities across the U.S., especially communities that have historically been overburdened by vehicle pollution.
• She noted how the EPA projects that its proposed standards will reduce tailpipe emissions from new cars, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), and pickup trucks by 56 percent by 2032.
  • She commented that these standards would work through setting technology-neutral emissions levels for new cars and trucks.
• She highlighted that the EPA projects that vehicle manufacturers will choose to reduce emissions from their fleets through increasing the number of zero-emission vehicles and EVs sold.
  • She indicated that the EPA had based this projection on automobile manufacturer commitments and investments, increasing demand for these vehicles from drivers, and government incentives.
• She stated that electric and zero-emission vehicle technology is key for reducing pollution from the transportation sector and highlighted how these vehicles do not release tailpipe emissions.
• She also mentioned how drivers are increasingly seeking out electric and zero-emission vehicles for their public health benefits and their lower costs of ownership.
  • She noted how the EPA estimates that strong emissions standards will save the average consumer $12,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles.
• She further mentioned how the U.S. automobile industry has already invested billions of dollars domestically to support a transition to zero-emission vehicles.
  • She noted that many automobile manufacturers have announced plans to increase their EV offerings and their intention to phase out gasoline-powered vehicle offerings over the next decade.
• She then remarked that American workers and communities must be able to capture the public health and economic gains associated with transitioning to EVs and the adoption of cleaner energy sources.
  • She asserted that strong vehicle standards from the EPA would play a key role in meeting these objectives.
• She stated that strong clean vehicle standards will complement the “historic” federal investments from Congress in clean vehicle technologies.
• She remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 helps make new and used EVs more affordable and provides important incentives to increase domestic manufacturing and access to clean vehicles.
  • She commented that this law will bolster the U.S.’s global competitiveness and provide public health and workforce benefits.
• She also noted how the IIJA will help to construct over 500,000 EV charging stations throughout the U.S.
  • She added that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits will further support the construction of U.S. EV charging stations.

Mr. Chris Harto (Consumer Reports):

• He expressed the support of his organization, Consumer Reports, for the EPA’s recently proposed greenhouse gas vehicle standards for model years 2027 through 2032.
• He discussed how federal greenhouse gas emissions standards have long played a “critical” role in reducing overall emissions from the transportation sector.
  • He also stated that these standards have encouraged automobile manufacturers to innovate and offer increased clean vehicle options for consumers.
• He remarked that the EPA’s recently proposed greenhouse gas vehicle standards (if enacted) would bring more cleaner and cost-saving transportation technologies to consumers.
  • He commented that these standards will save consumers money while reducing money on health care tied to air pollution and disaster recovery tied to greenhouse gas emissions.
• He mentioned how the EPA’s analysis had found that EVs are likely to be the most cost-effective compliance pathway with their proposed greenhouse gas vehicle standards.
  • He commented however that automobile manufacturers could still pursue greater internal combustion fuel efficiency, conventional hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to comply with the EPA’s proposed standards.
• He noted that while the EPA had estimated that an EV-only compliance pathway for its proposed vehicle standards would require that about two-thirds of vehicles sold be EVs by 2032, he highlighted that the automobile industry is on track to have 50 percent of their sales come from EVs by 2030.
• He further stated that consumer challenges (such as charging infrastructure and affordability) will be mitigated as a result of the “unprecedented” investments from the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • He explained that the IIJA provides funding for charging infrastructure while the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides consumer tax credits for EVs.
• He then noted how consumer demand for EVs had increased by 350 percent between 2020 and 2022 and lamented that automobile manufacturers had not kept pace with this demand.
  • He mentioned how there are now around 45 consumers that state that they would definitely purchase an EV for every EV being manufactured.
  • He also mentioned how 30 percent of new car buyers are not even considering a conventional non-hybrid vehicle.
• He testified that Consumer Reports 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.
• He also mentioned how a 2022 Consumer Reports survey had found that 36 percent of U.S. adults were either definitely or seriously considering an EV if they were to purchase a vehicle at the moment. 
  • He commented that this finding suggests that consumer demand for EVs might already exceed what is needed to comply with the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas vehicle standards.
• He stated however that consumers seeking to purchase EVs face several challenges, including long waitlists and dealer markups.
• He noted that while automobile manufacturers are making investments to improve EV supplies, he lamented that these EV supplies are still lagging.
  • He predicted that the EPA’s proposed vehicle standards should help automobile manufacturers to produce more EVs to meet current consumer demands.
• He then remarked that EVs are cheaper for consumers to own than comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when factoring in higher purchase prices.
• He noted how EVs save an average of 60 percent on fuel and 50 percent on repairs and maintenance.
  • He indicated that these savings translate to between $6,000 and $10,000 in savings over the life of a vehicle, even when factoring in higher purchase prices.
• He stated however that the higher purchase prices for EVs are likely to be temporary and noted how automobile and battery manufacturers plan to invest $210 billion in U.S. manufacturing by 2030.
  • He mentioned how a 2022 analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that EVs are “rapidly” approaching cost parity with conventional vehicles.

Mr. Andrew Boyle (Boyle Transportation, American Trucking Associations):

• He discussed how trucks move 72 percent of the U.S.’s freight tonnage and predicted that this percentage would continue to grow.
• He stated that collaboration between the trucking industry and the U.S. government has led modern clean diesel trucks to produce 99 percent lower emissions than trucks from the 1980s.
  • He indicated that 60 trucks today produce the same level of emissions as a single truck had produced in 1988.
• He attributed the aforementioned progress to both aggressive innovation and technically achievable national standards.
• He also stated that the U.S. trucking industry had been set to further reduce its emissions by another 83 percent and commented that the EPA’s recent reopening of its emissions requirement rules puts this effort in jeopardy.
  • He called it unreasonable to expect truck manufacturers and fleets to comply with capricious EPA regulations.
• He also criticized the EPA for its recent approval of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule and noted how this rule is “heavily predicated” on the adoption of electric trucks.
  • He called efforts to project an automotive construct onto trucking industry dynamics a “massive mistake.”
• He remarked that the trucking industry would embrace electric truck vehicles if electric trucks possessed adequate range, there existed adequate charging infrastructure, and there existed sufficient power supplies.
  • He noted how a clean diesel truck can spend 15 minutes fueling anywhere in the U.S. and then have a range of about 1,200 miles before fueling again.
  • He noted however that current long-haul battery electric trucks have a range between 150 miles and 330 miles and can take up to 10 hours to charge.
  • He added that the availability of charging stations for electric trucks can be sporadic.
• He stated that a reliance on electric trucks would require the U.S. to have far more trucks to haul the same amount of freight and noted that each electric truck would be double or triple the cost of a conventional diesel truck.
• He indicated that converting the U.S.’s fleet of Class 8 trucks to battery electric power would require a $1 trillion investment.
  • He commented that consumers would ultimately bear the cost of this conversion.
• He remarked that the U.S. could not govern its trucking system based on unrealistic timelines, a “patchwork” of state policies, and technically unachievable regulations.
  • He warned that subpar trucking regulations can jeopardize the U.S.’s ability to transport and deliver critical supplies, including food, medicine, and baby formula.

Witness Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey first mentioned how he had authored the fuel economy language in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and commented that this language had “kickstarted” efforts to improve vehicle efficiency. He emphasized that this legislation had called for the U.S. to set the maximum feasible standard for fuel economy. He stated that the EPA’s standards must similarly reflect the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable through available technology. He noted how Congress had invested $135 billion to support clean vehicle technologies through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the IIJA, and the CHIPS and Science Act. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the investments from these laws are making clean vehicles more affordable and more available.
  • Ms. Harris partially attributed recent declines in upfront EV prices to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax incentives. She also stated that the total cost of ownership of an EV is currently cheaper than the total cost of ownership of a comparable gasoline-powered car in terms of fuel and maintenance costs. She further stated that U.S. consumers are increasingly demanding EVs.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the IIJA, and the CHIPS and Science Act are making EVs more affordable and more available. He also stated that automobile manufacturers will produce better and cheaper EVs as they gain more experience manufacturing EVs and they acquire economies of scale.
• Chairman Markey asked Mr. Boyle to identify the most helpful incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the IIJA, and the CHIPS and Science Act that would help the trucking industry to adopt clean vehicle technologies.
  • Mr. Boyle noted that an electric truck currently costs $300,000 and commented that the incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the IIJA, and the CHIPS and Science Act would barely cover the federal excise taxes for an electric truck. He highlighted how a current impediment for purchasing newer and cleaner trucks is the federal excise tax on trucks that had been adopted during World War I. He stated that many trucks currently on the road are very old and suggested that addressing the federal excise tax on trucks could make it more affordable for trucking fleets and operators to purchase cleaner trucks.
• Chairman Markey asked Mr. Harto to address whether the federal government’s investments in EV charging infrastructure are helping to assuage consumer concerns regarding EVs.
  • Mr. Harto answered affirmatively. He stated that the absence of EV charging infrastructure constitutes one of the greatest barriers to EV adoption in the U.S. and noted how the IIJA provides funding for the construction of this infrastructure. He added that this IIJA funding is focused on rolling out EV charging infrastructure to rural and low-income areas. He asserted that this support for new EV charging infrastructure is meant to make consumers more willing to consider purchasing EVs.
• Chairman Markey asked Ms. Harris to indicate how quickly consumers have come to demand EV options (especially regarding SUVs).
  • Ms. Harris remarked that the U.S. is experiencing a “great increase” in consumer interest for EVs. She noted how EV sales had grown from 4.5 percent of total vehicle sales in 2021 to 7 percent of total vehicle sales in 2022. She added that this percentage had been even higher in December 2022. She stated that there is a continuous increase in demand for EVs.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY):

• Sen. Lummis asked Ms. Harris to indicate whether it is appropriate to only assess tailpipe emissions when calculating a vehicle’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Ms. Harris remarked that the transportation sector’s tailpipe emissions are a major source of toxic pollution within the U.S.
• Sen. Lummis interjected to comment that an exclusive focus on tailpipe emissions when evaluating EVs fails to account for the emissions generated from the extraction of rare earth minerals in foreign countries (which are needed to create EV batteries).
  • Ms. Harris stated that there are many studies indicating that EVs are still cleaner than gasoline-powered vehicles on a well-to-wheel (WTW) basis.
• Sen. Lummis stated that there have not been analyses regarding the impact of the rare earth element mining that is needed for EV production. She asked Ms. Harris to confirm that lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite are all critical to the manufacturing of EV batteries.
  • Ms. Harris stated that many current EV battery models do require lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite.
• Sen. Lummis noted how China is the world’s third largest producer of lithium and controls 60 percent of global battery grade lithium refining capacity. She added that China is responsible for nearly 75 percent of global manganese exports and nearly half of global graphite exports. She also noted how the Democratic Republic of the Congo is responsible for 50 percent of cobalt exports and how Indonesia is the largest exporter of nickel. She asked Ms. Harris to indicate whether any of the aforementioned countries maintain the same stringent environmental regulations that the U.S. maintains.
  • Ms. Harris stated that she did not believe that these countries maintain the same stringent environmental regulations that the U.S. maintains.
• Sen. Lummis asked Ms. Harris to indicate how shifting the responsibility of critical mineral extraction to foreign countries with weaker environmental regulations will help to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Ms. Harris mentioned how there are many efforts currently underway to bring EV and critical mineral supply chains to the U.S.
• Sen. Lummis interjected to note how her state of Wyoming had a rare earth mine that has been working for over a decade to obtain the requisite environmental permits to open. She called it impossible for the U.S. to domestically produce sufficient rare earth mineral supplies for EVs within a ten-year timeframe using current environment standards. She further asserted that it would be impossible to increase the production of rare earth minerals in foreign countries enough so that the U.S. can meet the EPA’s current EV goals. She emphasized that these foreign countries maintain lower environmental and labor standards than the U.S. She also stated that the increased production of these rare earth minerals will drive up global greenhouse gas emissions and result in the use of child and slave labor. She remarked that these efforts would result in the creation of very expensive EVs that must be entirely replaced in the event of an accident.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND):

• Sen. Cramer noted how electric trucks are heavier and more expensive than conventional trucks and how the tax incentives for EVs might not cover the federal excise taxes imposed on trucks. He asked Mr. Boyle to discuss the costs associated with insuring these heavier and more expensive electric trucks. He added that the U.S.’s current infrastructure might not be designed to handle these electric trucks.
  • Mr. Boyle remarked that EVs for consumer use are significantly further in their development than electric trucks for commercial use. He noted how an electric truck battery weighs 8,000 pounds and indicated that an electric truck requires at least two batteries. He commented that this weight is equivalent to about four or five cars. He also mentioned how many trucking companies have attempted to adopt some electric trucks and forklifts and noted how their power utilities have blocked these efforts. He explained that these electric trucks and forklifts require significant amounts of electricity to charge. He asserted that the electrification of the U.S.’s trucking fleet is therefore not practical considering current power and infrastructure constraints. He further remarked that California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule is unworkable and stated that no original equipment manufacturer (OEM) will be able to comply with this rule when it goes into effect in January 2024.
• Sen. Cramer also mentioned how many of the countries involved in the supply chain for EV materials (including China, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) are engaged in human rights violations and maintain poor labor standards. He noted how many domestic critical mineral mines face challenges obtaining permits or are being shut down. He asserted that the U.S. must build its domestic critical mineral supply chain. He then discussed how his state of North Dakota can get very cold and stated that EVs have demonstrated very poor cold weather performance. He expressed concerns over how the EPA’s recent push for vehicle electrification will impact his state’s consumers.
  • Mr. Boyle noted how EV batteries degrade in cold conditions, which results in reduced vehicle range. He emphasized that vehicle range is very important for the trucking industry.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE):

• Ranking Member Ricketts asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether the heavier batteries needed for electric trucks would reduce the hauling capacity of these trucks.
  • Mr. Boyle stated that the heavier batteries needed for electric trucks would reduce the hauling capacity of these trucks. He commented that this reduced hauling capacity would require the deployment of more trucks to haul current freight levels.
• Ranking Member Ricketts asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether the reduced hauling capacity stemming from heavier batteries for electric trucks could lead to more traffic.
  • Mr. Boyle answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member Ricketts asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether the trucking industry currently faces driver shortages.
  • Mr. Boyle noted how the trucking industry currently has an estimated shortage of 72,000 drivers.
• Ranking Member Ricketts commented that more truck drivers would be needed if more trucks are needed. He asked Mr. Boyle to project how many more trucks would be needed to make up for reduced hauling capacity stemming from heavier batteries for electric trucks.
  • Mr. Boyle noted how there are member companies of the American Trucking Associations that are testing electric trucks on a limited basis. He testified that these member companies have found that they need to deploy additional electric trucks on a 3:2 or 2:1 basis relative to conventional trucks. He attributed this need to deploy more electric trucks to charging downtimes and reliability issues.
• Ranking Member Ricketts asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether this need to deploy additional electric trucks is more expensive for the trucking companies.
  • Mr. Boyle answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member Ricketts also asked Mr. Boyle to confirm that an electric tractor-trailer truck tends to cost around $500,000 while a diesel tractor-trailer truck costs around $180,000.
  • Mr. Boyle noted that a conventional sleeper truck tends to cost between $180,000 and $200,000 and that an electric truck battery costs around $450,000.
• Ranking Member Ricketts asked Mr. Boyle to indicate who would ultimately pay for the costs associated with electrifying the U.S.’s trucking fleet.
  • Mr. Boyle stated that consumers will ultimately bear the costs associated with electrifying the U.S.’s trucking fleet.
• Ranking Member Ricketts noted how ATRI had found that the trucking industry would use 10 percent of the U.S.’s electricity if its vehicles were electrified.
  • Mr. Boyle commented that ATRI’s finding was closer to 14 percent.
• Ranking Member Ricketts added that ATRI had found that electrifying the U.S.’s entire vehicle fleet would use 40 percent of the U.S.’s electricity. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether there are other studies assessing how much the U.S. would need to increase its power generation capabilities to support greater vehicle electrification.
  • Mr. Harto noted how the U.S. Department of Energy had found that light-duty EVs would increase demand for energy generation by about 1 percent per year. He commented that this 1 percent annual growth is very feasible considering the electricity industry’s historical growth.
• Ranking Member Ricketts questioned the veracity of Mr. Harto’s claim that light-duty EVs will only increase demand for energy generation by 1 percent per year. He noted how California had recently announced its intention to both ban the sale of all internal combustion engines within the state by 2035 and limit when people could charge their EVs due to energy grid limitations.
  • Mr. Harto reiterated his claim that light-duty EVs will only increase demand for energy generation by 1 percent per year. He also discussed how utility companies possess many tools to manage when EVs charge. He stated that there will eventually exist vehicle-to-grid technology that will enable EVs not in use to push power back to the energy grid when energy demand is high.
• Ranking Member Ricketts to ask Mr. Harto to indicate why California needs to demand that EV owners not charge their vehicles during certain periods.
  • Mr. Harto stated that the U.S. is just beginning to experience a jump in EV adoption and predicted that EV charging technologies will improve as EV adoption efforts scale up.

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey asked Mr. Harto to confirm that EVs using critical minerals from certain countries (including China and Russia) are ineligible for the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s EV tax credits.
  • Mr. Harto answered affirmatively. He remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 puts “strong” incentives in place for automobile manufacturers to realign their supply chains and to insulate their supply chains from countries of concern.
• Chairman Markey asked Mr. Harto to indicate whether the phrase “countries of concern” refers to countries that have poorer environmental standards and that can prove adversarial to the U.S.
  • Mr. Harto answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Markey noted how some automobile manufacturers are currently complaining that their EVs might be ineligible to receive tax credits under the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) rules implementing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He explained that the EVs from these automobile manufacturers could be deemed ineligible for the tax credits due to their use of Chinese imported minerals.
  • Mr. Harto confirmed Chairman Markey’s statements. He also remarked that many of these automobile manufacturers are working to realign their supply chains to qualify for the tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
• Chairman Markey stated that the CHIPS and Science Act, the IIJA, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are meant to reduce the U.S.’s dependence on adversarial countries and bolster the U.S.’s economic independence.
  • Mr. Harto expressed agreement with Chairman Markey’s assessment of the CHIPS and Science Act, the IIJA, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
• Chairman Markey acknowledged that the U.S. will still need to temporarily rely upon some adversarial countries for key materials as it works to bolster its domestic supply chains. He remarked however that the U.S. will eventually develop robust supply chains involving both domestic producers and producers from allied countries.
  • Mr. Harto discussed how large portions of the world’s reserves of critical minerals are in Canada, Australia, and Chile. He noted how the U.S. maintains strong trade partnerships with these countries. He also stated that automobile manufacturers are working diligently to realign their supply chains to meet the standards prescribed under the CHIPS and Science Act, the IIJA, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
• Chairman Markey asked Mr. Harto to indicate whether automobile manufacturers are having success in their efforts to realign their supply chains.
  • Mr. Harto stated that the “massive” investments that automobile manufacturers are making in EVs indicates that these manufacturers are realigning their supply chains.
• Chairman Markey then asked Ms. Harris to indicate whether there is market demand for EVs.
  • Ms. Harris answered affirmatively. She mentioned how automobile manufacturers have already announced over $210 billion of investments in the U.S. to transition toward EVs and develop a U.S. EV supply chain. She commented that these investments will benefit both the economy and consumers.
• Chairman Markey noted how the automobile industry had long claimed that vehicle electrification is an overly ambitious goal and that government mandates seeking to move the U.S. toward vehicle electrification are impractical. He stated however that the U.S. automobile industry is now beginning to recognize the need to pursue vehicle electrification. He compared the current innovations in the EV space to the innovations that had occurred in the broadband space following the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He asserted that EV innovations would spur further innovations in battery storage technologies, electricity sources, and vehicles. He acknowledged that while the U.S. must be sensitive to industry concerns regarding vehicle electrification efforts, he contended that the environmental and national security challenges necessitate that the U.S. aggressively pursue vehicle electrification efforts.

Full Committee Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE):

• Chairman Carper noted how mobile sources are the greatest sources of carbon dioxide emissions and account for 30 percent of these emissions. He mentioned how General Motors CEO Mary Barra had told him that EVs are cheaper to build and maintain and are key to addressing climate change. He noted however that Mary Barra had stated that consumers will only purchase EVs if the EVs have a 300-mile range, consumers can charge EV batteries within minutes, and there exist ubiquitous EV charging stations. He commented that the U.S. government could support the deployment of EV charging stations. He also recounted how a major company had told him that it had decided to convert its vehicle fleet to EVs for purely business reasons. He explained that this company had found EVs to be easier to build and maintain. He further mentioned how he personally owns an EV and commented that the EV is fun to drive. He acknowledged that the value of this attribute is difficult to quantify. He then remarked that the U.S. must actively work to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions so that it can avoid the dire consequences associated with climate change. He asserted that vehicle electrification efforts could support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and stated that these efforts could be justified solely on economic grounds. He then stated that the EPA’s recently proposed light-duty vehicle and heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards will reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, greenhouse gasses, and air toxics, which will have public health and climate benefits. He highlighted how his state of Delaware is the lowest lying state in the U.S. and is sinking, which makes it especially vulnerable to rising sea levels. He asked the witnesses to discuss how the EPA’s recently proposed standards will impact drivers. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether drivers want to purchase EVs and to address how these proposed standards will help protect drivers from volatile global oil prices.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that the EPA’s recently proposed light-duty vehicle and heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards will deliver savings to Americans. He stated that EVs already deliver lifetime cost savings to consumers, despite their higher upfront costs. He also acknowledged that while electricity prices might change overtime, he noted that electricity prices are much less volatile than oil prices. He commented that EVs can thus provide their owners with more stable and predictable energy expenditures.
  • Ms. Harris remarked that EVs are already achieving significant cost savings compared to gasoline-powered vehicles. She noted how transportation energy costs often burden consumers and commented that the transition to zero-emissions vehicles will financially benefit consumers. She further stated that zero-emissions vehicles will improve air quality, public health, and the U.S.’s global competitiveness. She lastly remarked that drivers are becoming increasingly interested in purchasing EVs.
• Chairman Carper interjected to indicate that he must abruptly depart the hearing to deliver a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR):

• Sen. Merkley asked Mr. Harto and Ms. Harris to confirm that EVs have lower life cycle costs for consumers than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.
  • Mr. Harto confirmed that EVs have lower life cycle costs than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.
  • Ms. Harris also confirmed that EVs have lower life cycle costs than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.
• Sen. Merkley asked the witnesses to indicate how many miles an EV can travel from 1 kWh of electricity.
  • Mr. Harto estimated that an EV can travel between three and four miles from a 1 kWh charge.
• Sen. Merkley noted how 1 kWh of electricity costs about 12 cents, which means that it costs an EV user about 3 cents to travel one mile. He called this low energy cost “incredible” and commented that it helps to explain the life cycle savings of EVs. He also noted how EVs have much lower maintenance costs than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. He then discussed how his roof has 360 feet of solar panels that produce about 30 kWh of electricity per day. He indicated that these solar panels could therefore provide his car with 120 miles worth of electricity everyday, which he also called “incredible.” He stated however that the EV charging process must be as easy as the gasoline fueling process for conventional vehicles. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the process for charging an EV is now as easy as the process for fueling a conventional vehicle with gasoline.
  • Mr. Harto stated that the process for charging an EV has not yet become as easy as the process for fueling a conventional vehicle with gasoline. He remarked however that the EPA’s recently proposed standards will help to spur the development and deployment of EV charging infrastructure. He commented that the private sector will not invest in installing EV charging infrastructure if it does not believe that there will exist sufficient demand for the infrastructure. He asserted that the EPA’s rules will provide the private sector with the necessary confidence to invest in EV charging infrastructure.
• Sen. Merkley also expressed concerns over how EV charging stations often lack transparency regarding their rates. He noted how some EV charging stations charge customers a monthly fee, some EV charging stations charge customers based on time hooked up to a charger, and some EV charging stations charge based on electricity used. He stated that EV charging stations ought to clearly disclose their rates to customers.
  • Mr. Harto expressed support for Sen. Merkley’s call for transparency around EV charging station rates.
• Sen. Merkley called on the U.S. to require that EV charging stations clearly display their electricity rates to customers. He then noted how 36 percent of Americans are definitely or seriously considering an EV. He asked Mr. Harto and Ms. Harris to indicate why Americans are increasingly considering EVs.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that there exist a variety of reasons that Americans are increasingly choosing EVs, including environmental reasons, cost reasons, and performance reasons.
  • Ms. Harris expressed agreement with Mr. Harto’s response. She emphasized how the cost savings associated with EVs are driving EV purchases.
• Sen. Merkley commented that the acceleration capabilities of EVs are causing many people to prefer EVs.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AR):

• Sen. Sullivan discussed how 70 percent of the U.S. economy’s total tonnage comes from the trucking industry and stated that the U.S. trucking industry has significantly decreased its greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Mr. Boyle noted how the popular line of demarcation with diesel technology emissions is 2010. He indicated that 47 percent of current Class 8 trucks had been manufactured prior to 2010. He mentioned how there have been laws and grants to refresh the U.S.’s trucking fleet and expressed interest in working to remove impediments to purchase more modern trucks.
• Sen. Sullivan asked Mr. Boyle to confirm whether these efforts to promote new truck purchases will benefit the environment.
  • Mr. Boyle answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Sullivan commented that the U.S. trucking industry’s success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions ought to be better publicized. He then raised concerns that the EPA’s proposals to promote vehicle electrification are too aggressive. He described the EPA’s proposals as de facto bans on internal combustion engines. He expressed his intention to work with Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE) to introduce resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act for the EPA’s heavy-duty truck proposals and the EPA’s light- and medium-duty vehicle proposals. He asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether the EPA’s recent proposals are “unprecedented” and likely violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent West Virginia v. EPA decision.
  • Mr. Boyle noted how trucking involves interstate commerce and stated that the EPA’s recent proposals to permit states to enact their own emissions policies would impede interstate commerce. He asserted that companies could not comply with the various needs of individual states. He also discussed how tucking industry stakeholders (including OEMs) have historically worked with the EPA to provide technical input on standards and timelines. He asserted that a state-based regulatory system for trucking (as proposed by the EPA) would result in inconsistent policies across the U.S. that would not be practical. He stated that no internal combustion trucks would be able to comply with California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule when it goes into effect in January 2024. He further remarked that the U.S. lacks sufficient charging infrastructure for heavy-duty electric trucks and stated that the failure to provide this charging infrastructure would make it impossible for the trucking industry to comply with current proposals. He commented that these problems for the trucking industry will ultimately be passed along to consumers.
• Sen. Sullivan then discussed how the Biden administration has claimed that it wants the U.S. to source the critical minerals necessary for producing EVs and clean energy technologies. He stated however that the EPA’s proposals would not provide the U.S. with sufficient time to domestically produce these critical minerals. He remarked that his state of Alaska maintains the world’s highest critical mineral mining standards and asserted that the U.S. ought to be pursuing domestic mining opportunities. He mentioned how Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had predicted that the EPA’s proposals would strengthen China through making the U.S. more dependent on the country for its critical mineral needs. He criticized the Biden administration’s decision to reverse the environmental impact statement on the Ambler Access Project in Alaska and for recently taking a Minnesota critical mineral deposit offline. He asserted that these actions would only increase the U.S.’s dependence on China for critical minerals and commented that China maintains the worst environmental standards in the world. He asked the witnesses to explain why the U.S. is not seeking to domestically produce critical minerals.
  • Mr. Boyle remarked that the U.S. must account for the national security implications of its critical mineral sourcing decisions.
  • Ms. Harris remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 supports U.S. efforts to insource much of its electric battery production and to better source critical minerals from trade partners. She stated that these efforts are being complemented by federal programs to reduce, reuse, and recycle critical minerals from batteries, which would reduce the need for additional mineral extraction.
• Sen. Sullivan asked Ms. Harris to indicate whether the U.S. should focus on sourcing critical minerals from domestic sources and trade partners with higher environmental standards.
  • Ms. Harris answered affirmatively. She also stated that automobile manufacturers are working to drive domestic critical mineral production.
  • Mr. Boyle stated that if the U.S. were to convert its entire trucking fleet to electric trucks, then the U.S. would need to commandeer the global production of lithium for more than seven years. He asserted that the U.S. must acknowledge these realities as it designs its environmental policies.
• Sen. Sullivan reiterated his call for the U.S. to bolster its critical mineral production.

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 seeks to promote clean energy technologies that are domestically manufactured and that are sourced either domestically or from allied countries.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA):

• Sen. Padilla first mentioned how he had advocated for the EPA to finalize strong vehicle emissions rules. He noted how his state of California had proposed strong vehicle emissions rules and stated that these rules provide time to transition from fossil fuel vehicles to EVs. He commented that this time will be necessary to improve EV technologies and increase the capacity of the state’s electrical grid. He then remarked that the EPA’s recent rules will save drivers money on gasoline, create high quality jobs, and support the U.S.’s global leadership on zero-emissions technologies. He also stated that low-emissions vehicles will benefit public health through providing cleaner air. He discussed how California’s Inland Empire region currently has air quality problems due to the trucking surrounding the region’s warehousing and logistics industries. He commented that these air quality problems disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color. He asked Mr. Harto to discuss how the EPA’s proposed heavy-duty vehicle rule will mitigate air pollution in low-income communities and communities of color.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that reducing the emissions from vehicles that drive around communities is “extremely important” for improving the health of all Americans (especially for people living in disadvantaged communities).
• Sen. Padilla noted how the U.S. has made “significant” progress in reducing passenger vehicle emissions and stated that reducing heavy-duty vehicle emissions will likely result in significant public health benefits. He mentioned how had advocated for the EPA to improve environmental standards for trucks since he had first entered the U.S. Senate in 2021. He noted how the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) had called for the EPA’s proposed Phase 3 standards for heavy-duty vehicles to “aim higher” in order to put the trucking industry on a path to zero emissions. He asked Ms. Harris to elaborate on the NRDC’s position on these proposed standards.
  • Ms. Harris commented that while the EPA’s proposed Phase 3 standards for heavy-duty vehicles constitute an improvement over the status quo, she contended that these proposed standards remain too weak. She remarked that truck manufacturers have demonstrated that they can deliver low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles and called on the EPA to adopt standards that would support the deployment of these vehicles. She also stated that trucking manufacturers are better equipped to deploy low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles as a result of the incentives included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. She lastly indicated that the NRDC would work with its nationwide partners and communities near highways, ports, and freight hubs to deliver information to the EPA underscoring the urgency for cleaning up pollution.

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey remarked that the U.S. must increase its deployment of EVs and mentioned how the European Parliament has committed to making all of the continent’s new cars and vans be zero emissions vehicles by 2035. He asserted that a robust U.S. EV industry is therefore critical for ensuring the U.S.’s continued commerce with Europe. He then discussed how there exist different types of heavy-duty vehicles and commented that some heavy-duty vehicles are easier to electrify than others. He noted that the EPA’s rules recognize this dynamic and vary based on a heavy-duty truck’s class. He mentioned how Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had found that zero-emission freight trucks are well-positioned to succeed because long haul truckers tend to travel 150 miles between 30-minute breaks. He stated that the deployment of fast chargers would therefore enable the U.S. to electrify its truck routes. He then asked the witnesses to discuss the efficiency benefits that would come from the EPA’s proposed battery efficiency standards for vehicles.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that increasing the efficiency of EVs reduces their costs and their number of batteries. He commented that these developments enable the EV to travel the same distances using less electricity.
• Chairman Markey also noted that the EPA is considering the treatment of upstream emissions from plug-in hybrid EVs and battery EVs. He remarked that strong standards for EVs would be very beneficial.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE):

• Ranking Member Ricketts noted how Ms. Harris and Mr. Harto had asserted that the U.S. could work with its allies (including Canada, Chile, and Australia) to source critical minerals. He noted however that 80 percent of the world’s graphite comes from China and stated that graphite is an essential input for EVs. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S.’s allies could provide the U.S. with sufficient amounts of critical mineral supplies if the U.S. could no longer obtain critical minerals from China.
  • Ms. Harris commented that she believed that there do exist studies on this issue and indicated that she could not recall the findings of these studies.
  • Mr. Harto stated that he had not conducted significant research on this precise issue. He noted however that there do exist methods to make synthetic graphite from coal and commented that the U.S. has an abundance of unused coal.
• Ranking Member Ricketts asked Mr. Harto to indicate how much more expensive it is to develop synthetic graphite than to extract natural graphite.
  • Mr. Harto stated that he did not know how much more expensive it is to develop synthetic graphite.
• Ranking Member Ricketts then noted how Ms. Harris had asserted that rural drivers that must travel further distances and tend to have larger vehicles that could benefit the most from vehicle electrification efforts. He indicated that this assertion is based on a study that looked at the impact of EVs in Maine, Vermont, Virginia, and Maryland. He noted however that these states are much smaller than his state of Nebraska, as well as other Western rural states. He remarked that EVs are much easier to use in urban areas than rural areas and mentioned how there are large swaths of Nebraska that lack EV charging stations. He stated that Nebraska could not deploy EV charging infrastructure quick enough to enable Nebraska drivers to comply with the EPA’s proposed requirements, even when considering the IIJA’s investments in charging infrastructure. He further questioned whether Nebraska possesses enough electricity generation capabilities to support a significant increase in EVs and EV charging infrastructure.

Full Committee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV):

• Ranking Member Capito noted how Mr. Boyle’s trucking company’s fleet transports temperature sensitive materials, such as vaccines. She asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether electric truck requirements would impact his company’s ability to transport temperature sensitive materials.
  • Mr. Boyle noted that the draw and demand for heavy-duty electric trucks is very intense. He then expressed the trucking industry’s interest in achieving zero emissions and asserted that the path to achieving zero emissions must be practical. He commented that California’s current regulations are counterproductive and noted how California has one of the oldest truck fleets in the U.S. He stated that simply modernizing California’s truck fleets would reduce their diesel emissions by 83 percent.
• Ranking Member Capito asked Mr. Boyle to compare the cost of a new diesel truck to the cost of a new electric truck.
  • Mr. Boyle stated that an electric truck costs approximately $300,000 more than a diesel truck. He acknowledged that while the electric truck will realize various savings throughout its entire lifetime, he asserted that these savings would never amount to the difference in costs between an electric truck and a diesel truck. He remarked that electric trucks currently are not financially feasible in the near-term. He further stated that the U.S.’s current lack of electric truck charging infrastructure makes electric trucks impractical.
• Ranking Member Capito asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether the cost difference between new diesel trucks and new electric trucks is expected to decrease over time.
  • Mr. Boyle noted how the heavy-duty trucking sector is significantly smaller than the overall automobile sector. He stated that this smaller sector would likely face challenges obtaining the economies of scale needed to significantly reduce the cost difference between new diesel trucks and new electric trucks. He testified that truck prices have not significantly decreased during his career in the trucking sector. He remarked that while electric trucks might eventually become economically attractive based on total cost of ownership, he stated that the U.S. trucking sector cannot currently deploy electric trucks.
• Ranking Member Capito also noted that EVs weigh more than traditional vehicles due to their heavy batteries. She asked Mr. Boyle to discuss the safety issues associated with EVs. She commented that EVs will likely necessitate stronger highway reinforcements that can accommodate heavier vehicles. She further asked Mr. Boyle to address how the use of heavier electric trucks will impact the trucking industry’s ability to transport cargo.
  • Mr. Boyle noted that each battery for a heavy-duty electric truck will weigh about 8,000 pounds and indicated that heavy-duty electric trucks will typically require multiple batteries. He stated that these heavy batteries will reduce the payload capacity of trucks. He then recommended that policymakers pursue targeted infrastructure investments at choke points throughout the country. He commented that these targeted investments will reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce emissions.
• Ranking Member Capito then discussed how the U.S. is dependent on China for many critical minerals and is currently working to bolster its domestic supply chains. She asked Ms. Harris to indicate whether the NRDC is currently supporting any domestic mining projects that would provide the U.S. with new critical mineral sources.
  • Ms. Harris stated that mining projects are outside of her area of expertise. She noted however that the automobile industry has already committed over $210 billion to bringing the battery supply chain to the U.S. She also stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is providing incentives to onshore battery supply chains and to reduce, reuse, and recycle batteries. She commented that these incentives will reduce the need to extract critical minerals moving forward.
• Ranking Member Capito remarked that the U.S. would still need to extract critical minerals so that it can satisfy the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s domestic production requirements. She asserted that mining projects are needed for sourcing critical minerals and commented that support for permitting efforts would therefore be necessary to enable these projects. She questioned whether the NRDC would provide support for domestic mining projects.

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey first remarked that removing a truck’s diesel tank provides a truck with a lot of space to hold an electric battery. He expressed confidence that U.S. innovators would be able to achieve deployable EVs if given the proper incentives and support. He asked Mr. Boyle to indicate whether there exist types of heavy-duty vehicles (such as school buses) that can more easily be electrified.
  • Mr. Boyle remarked that the heavy-duty vehicles encompass a diverse array of vehicles and commented that many of these vehicles might be better suited for electrification. He stated however that this vehicle electrification must be pursued in a practical manner and asserted that current vehicle regulations (such as California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule) are too aggressive based on existing infrastructure. He mentioned how many utilities have warned trucking companies that they could not support existing vehicle electrification efforts and commented that this underscores his argument that these regulations are too aggressive. He expressed the trucking industry’s willingness to work with policymakers to develop a viable path for vehicle electrification.
• Chairman Markey remarked that the U.S. should work to reduce the emissions of heavy-duty vehicles and commented that innovation would eventually support the U.S.’s efforts to accommodate more difficult vehicles. He then expressed frustration with the U.S.’s continued importation of oil from adversarial countries and stated that this importation is largely done to support gasoline-powered vehicles. He asked Mr. Harto to discuss how vehicle electrification will provide the U.S. with climate change and national security benefits through reducing U.S. oil imports.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that vehicle electrification will insulate consumers from the problems associated with volatile gasoline prices. He also suggested that plug-in hybrid EVs could serve as a solution for people living in rural areas that lack robust EV charging infrastructure.
• Chairman Markey commented that consumers are powerless to push back against Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (OPEC+) decisions to artificially constrain global oil supplies (which cause gasoline prices to spike). He stated that vehicle electrification would reduce the impact of OPEC+ decisions on the U.S. and enable the U.S. to make better foreign policy decisions. He then provided the witnesses with an opportunity to provide closing statements.
  • Mr. Boyle remarked that the U.S. trucking industry is not averse to change and is interested in exploring alternative fuels and technologies to achieve zero emissions. He expressed the U.S. trucking industry’s disappointment with the EPA’s recent proposals and stated that automobile manufacturers are already pursuing significant reductions in emissions. He also criticized the EPA for allowing a “state patchwork” of emissions standards. He called this system unworkable for the trucking sector given how the sector operates in interstate commerce. He further criticized efforts to extrapolate vehicle electrification in the consumer automobile sector to the trucking sector. He noted how the trucking sector cannot make use of existing EV charging infrastructure. He expressed the U.S. trucking industry’s interest in working with policymakers to develop a more workable plan to reduce emissions.
  • Ms. Harris remarked that a transition to a cleaner automotive sector would result in pollution reductions, improved public health, consumer savings, and economic benefits for the automotive industry and the U.S. She commented that vehicle electrification efforts can help bolster the U.S.’s domestic manufacturing sector. She expressed support for the U.S. government’s efforts to support this transition.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that the EPA’s proposed standards are achievable, that consumer demand for EVs is far outpacing the supply of EVs, and that EVs save consumers money.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE):

• Ranking Member Ricketts expressed agreement with Mr. Harto’s suggestion that plug-in hybrid EVs would be better suited for rural states (such as his state of Nebraska) where residents tend to drive further distances. He noted how the EPA had estimated that two-thirds of vehicles will need to be EVs by 2032 to comply with its proposed standards. He asked Mr. Harto to indicate the share of new vehicle sales that would need to be plug-in hybrid EVs to comply with the EPA’s proposed standards.
  • Mr. Harto remarked that multiple vehicle technologies will need to be pursued to comply with the EPA’s proposed standards. He stated that the increased manufacturing of plug-in hybrid EVs would reduce the need to manufacture battery EVs for the purposes of complying with the EPA’s proposed standards. He indicated that Consumer Reports plans to evaluate the impact of plug-in hybrid EVs on the U.S.’s ability to comply with the EPA’s proposed standards.
• Ranking Member Ricketts then noted how the U.S. trucking industry has expressed its desire to reduce its emissions. He asked Mr. Boyle to discuss how state emissions rules would impact the ability of trucking companies to engage in long-term business planning and strategy.
  • Mr. Boyle testified that his trucking company maintains the highest level of sustainability practices amongst trucking companies. He lamented however that his company’s sustainability efforts are not valued within the marketplace. He suggested that the U.S. government could encourage trucking companies to adopt sustainable practices through having federal contracts account for the sustainability of transportation service providers. He commented that these incentives will encourage trucking companies to upgrade their fleets to more environmentally friendly vehicles. He then remarked that current heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules would require trucking companies to expand their fleets to service the same amount of freight. He also stated that trucking companies are currently not considering efforts to invest in electric trucks. He noted that the current heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules treat all heavy-duty vehicles the same and commented that this approach does not work for long haul trucks.
• Ranking Member Ricketts then asked Mr. Boyle to elaborate on his statement that trucking companies are not considering investments in electric trucks.
  • Mr. Boyle stated that trucking companies are not considering investments in electric trucks because the U.S. lacks the necessary energy generation capabilities to support these vehicles.
• Ranking Member Ricketts stated that the U.S. had achieved energy independence under the Trump administration and commented that the Biden administration’s policies had made the U.S. dependent on foreign countries for its energy needs.

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey commented that the U.S. had still imported oil from foreign countries during the Trump administration.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Ricketts (R-NE):

• Ranking Member Ricketts stated that the U.S. had been a net exporter of energy during the Trump administration and asserted that domestic resource production efforts could enable the U.S. to re-achieve energy independence.

Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA):

• Chairman Markey stated that vehicle electrification would reduce the U.S.’s need for oil, which would reduce the U.S.’s need to assuage the concerns of Saudi Arabia. He also remarked that vehicle electrification efforts that involve the onshoring of supply chains will create U.S. jobs. He further stated that the U.S. must pursue vehicle electrification efforts in a manner that promotes environmental justice and labor protections. He lastly noted that the U.S. had been a net oil exporter in 2022.