[Senate Hearing 110-1199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1199
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-852 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Paul Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 24, 2008.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Carper...................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 24
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 36
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 39
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 35
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 91
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Witnesses
Barrett, Hon. Thomas J., Vice Admiral, Deputy Secretary,
Department of Transportation................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Dickey, Ph.D., G. Edward, Affiliate Professor of Economics,
Loyola College in Maryland; Member, Committee on Climate Change
and U.S. Transportation, Transportation Research Board,
Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council,
The National Academies......................................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Friedman, David, Research Director and Senior Engineer, The Union
of Concerned Scientists........................................ 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads.............................. 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Meenan, John M., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, Air Transport Association of America, Inc............. 71
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Peterson, Dr. Thomas C., Climate Services Division, National
Climatic Data Center, National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Porcari, John, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation;
Chair, Climate Change Technical Assistance Program Advisory
Board, and Chair, Standing Committee on Aviation, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials...... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Treadwell, Mead, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission.......... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Turner, Dr. James M., Deputy Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.......... 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 11
Appendix
Alterman, Stephen A., President, Cargo Airline Association,
prepared statement............................................. 100
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared
statement...................................................... 95
Letter, dated June 23, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from
Edward M. Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation
Association, Inc............................................... 104
Letter, dated June 24, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Ross
B. Capon, Executive Director, National Association of Railroad
Passengers..................................................... 102
Letter, dated June 30, 2008 to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Thomas
D. Simpson, Executive Director, Railway Supply Institute, Inc.. 99
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Thomas J. Barrett
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 109
Hon. Thomas R. Carper........................................ 110
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 108
Response to written question submitted to Dr. G. Edward Dickey
by:
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 117
Hon. Ted Stevens............................................. 119
Response to written questions submitted to David Friedman by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 120
Hon. Thomas R. Carper........................................ 121
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 119
Hon. Ted Stevens............................................. 122
Response to written questions submitted to Ed Hamberger by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 123
Hon. Thomas R. Carper........................................ 124
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 123
Hon. Ted Stevens............................................. 125
Response to written questions submitted to Thomas C. Peterson by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 114
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 113
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John Porcari by:
Hon. Thomas R. Carper........................................ 106
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 105
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. James M. Turner by
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye.......................................... 112
Schaffer, Captain Mary Ann, Chairperson, Aviation Sustainability
and Environment Task Force, Air Line Pilots Association,
International, prepared statement.............................. 96
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Inouye, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
This Committee, with its diverse jurisdiction, has a
history of rising to meet climate change challenges by
advancing, in a bipartisan manner, legislation that will make a
difference in the fight against global climate change.
Legislation passed by this Committee will result in a
meaningful reduction of fuel consumption and emissions by
increasing fuel efficiency standards for American cars.
In addition, the actions of this Committee have
strengthened climate change research programs, addressed ocean
acidification, and ensured that adequate information and data
are available to help lawmakers, regulators, and planners,
among others, make informed decisions and adapt to climate
changes.
Today's hearing regarding climate change impacts on the
transportation sector is a continuation of the Commerce
Committee's work to examine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the transportation sector and determine what role
the Federal Government should play in encouraging these
efforts.
The transportation sector is a major indicator of the
overall economic health of our Nation. Given that fact, it is
important to recognize that climate affects the design,
construction, safety and operations, and maintenance of
transportation infrastructure and systems. For example, as we
will hear today, predicted increases in precipitation and
frequency of storms will impact our transportation systems;
recent flooding in the Midwest resulted in submerged highways
and railroad bridges, and significant diversion of freight
traffic. In addition, severe storms have caused major airport
delays around the country.
While there is a need for the transportation sector to
adapt to the environmental changes brought on by global climate
change, it is also widely recognized that the transportation
sector has contributed to the causes of climate change.
Transportation sources account for approximately one-third
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And transportation emissions
are among the fastest-rising of all emitting sectors, due to
increased consumption of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that greenhouse
gas emissions attributable to the transportation sector will
increase 26 percent by the year 2020.
Today's hearing will examine climate change research,
mitigation, and adaption results, efforts in the transportation
sector, including the surface transportation, maritime, and
aviation industries. The Committee looks forward to hearing
from the witnesses about how the transportation sector can
adapt to the impacts of climate change, increase fuel
efficiency, and otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We have several witnesses with us today. Panel one consists
of the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation,
the Honorable Thomas Barrett; Acting Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Dr. James M. Turner; and
a Physical Scientist from the National Climatic Data Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admainistration, Dr. Thomas C.
Peterson.
May I call upon Deputy Secretary Barrett.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, VICE ADMIRAL, DEPUTY
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Admiral Barrett. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and good morning.
I'm pleased to appear before you today and discuss the
activities of the United States Department of Transportation as
they relate to transportation's impact on climate change and
the impacts that climate change may have on the Nation's
transportation networks.
This Committee brings a breadth of expertise and
understanding to transportation's vital role to the United
States economy and our quality of life and its impact on the
global economy, so we appreciate your leadership on this
important subject.
To support the Administration's climate change goals, DOT
is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation activities and prepare for the impacts of
climate change to protect transportation infrastructure. As we
pursue these goals, like you, we are mindful of the
indispensable role that transportation plays in sustaining and
improving our economy. And, like you, we have seen much
evidence that markets provide strong incentives for innovation
and improvement in efficiency.
With that in mind, under Secretary Peters's leadership, we
have focused our approach on improving vehicle efficiency,
increasing use of alternative fuels, reducing congestion,
advancing the efficiency of the transportation system, and
improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on
transportation networks.
The Administration is leading efforts to improve the fuel
economy of the Nation's fleet of passenger vehicles and light
trucks. Building on a record of fuel economy reforms, DOT
announced a CAFE proposal, in April, that would save a
projected 55 billion gallons of fuel and reduce U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the lifetime
of the regulated vehicles, going above and beyond the
requirements set out by Congress under the Energy Independence
and Security Act.
In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is working with the National Academy of Science
to develop a study of fuel economy standards for medium- and
heavy-duty trucks.
The Administration strongly supports research on, and use
of, alternative fuels. The Federal Aviation Administration, for
example, is a major partner in the Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative, and DOT has, and is, undertaking
research required for development of safety standards for
future hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure.
And while we look at these, improvements in the efficiency
of the existing transportation system can reduce delays and
also deliver significant environmental benefits, including
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Texas Transportation Institute estimated highway
congestion in the United States wastes 2.9 billion gallons of
fuel annually, translating to 2.6 million metric tons of
unnecessary CO2. And all of us have been stuck in
traffic, watching our fuel gauge creep toward empty as
congestion brings traffic to a crawl. DOT has responded with a
congestion initiative, a multifaceted program to ease highway,
aviation, freight, intermodal, and border congestion through
direct user fees and more congestion pricing.
I would invite your attention, also, Mr. Chairman--aviation
is a somewhat unheralded but real success story in these areas.
Compared to the year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation in 2006
moved 12 percent more passengers and 22 percent more freight,
while actually burning less fuel and reducing our carbon input
by a million tons. This is a result of airframe, power, and air
traffic system improvements. U.S. airlines, in a very
competitive market, have committed to another 30 percent
improvement by 2025, a goal the industry adopted before the
recent spike in fuel prices. And I would urge caution in not
hamstringing this flagship U.S. industry that has such global
reach by imposed new emission regimes.
Clearly, anyone who has flown lately, though, can attest to
the fact that the current aviation system needs fundamental
changes. We recognize this and have begun to implement air
traffic management procedures, and taken steps to introduce
components of the next generation air transportation system.
And the FAA is moving to accelerate implementation of that
system, in terms you may have heard, to make it more NowGen
than NextGen, and they'll be introducing test pad sites in
Florida and several other U.S. city pairs this year.
The Department is also addressing the challenges posed by
climate on transportation infrastructure and systems. DOT
released, earlier this year, the Gulf Coast study, which
provides and assessment of the vulnerabilities of
transportation systems in the region, and subsequent phases
will focus on developing tools for State and local officials to
use as they develop their transportation plans and make
investment decisions.
We have also begun to develop a congressionally required
report on transportation impact on climate change and ways to
mitigate its impact on the changing environment.
In sum, the Department is approaching greenhouse gas
mitigation in line with the Secretary's priorities, and I know
Congress is, for a safe, efficient, reliable, and,
increasingly, a clean transportation network. We take this
issue very seriously, as I know the Committee does.
We appreciate the attention and the opportunity to discuss
the issue. And I would be pleased to respond to your questions,
sir.
[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Barrett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas J. Barrett, Vice Admiral,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and distinguished Members,
I am pleased to appear before the Committee today to discuss the
various activities of the U.S. Department of Transportation as they
relate both to transportation's impact on climate change and to the
impacts that climate change may have on the Nation's transportation
networks. I appreciate your attention on this important subject and the
expertise this Committee brings to transportation and the American and
global economy.
Addressing the challenge that global climate change presents will
require a sustained effort over many years. The Bush Administration is
committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigating the
impacts of the climate change that occur. This Administration has
devoted almost $45 billion to support climate change-related programs,
with an additional $40 billion in loan guarantees made available to
support investments in technologies that promise to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
The Department of Transportation's principal mission is to ensure
the safe, efficient, and reliable performance of our highway, transit,
rail, maritime, pipeline, and aviation networks. We also support the
Administration's efforts to reduce the Nation's greenhouse gas
emissions, not only by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation activities, but also by preparing for the impacts of
climate change in order to protect our valuable transportation
infrastructure. As we pursue each of these goals, we are always mindful
of the indispensable role that transportation plays in sustaining and
improving our economy, and supporting our trade, and the importance of
transportation infrastructure to the millions of Americans who depend
on it for their mobility and the competitiveness of their businesses.
These goals are all a part of the Secretary's priorities for a safe,
efficient, reliable and clean transportation network.
Reducing Transportation's Impacts
I would first like to discuss the Department's approach to the
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
Our approach focuses on: improving vehicle efficiency; increasing the
use of alternative fuels; advancing the efficiency of the
transportation system (often by promoting market-based measures and
technological innovations); and improving our understanding of the
impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure.
Let me state at the outset that, although mandates and regulations
have their place, new technologies and private sector innovations are
really the keys to effectively addressing climate change without
compromising the competitiveness of our transportation providers or the
shippers and passengers that rely upon them. As evidence, I refer you
to the European aviation regulatory model that has encouraged a
decrease in overall ridership but an increase in emissions. Compare
that to the more open market approach taken in the U.S.--our airlines
have increased ridership while at the same time decreased emissions
dramatically. Between 2000 and 2006, aviation CO2 emissions
in the U.S. declined by about 4 percent. During the same period in
Europe, emissions increased by around 30 percent.
Vehicle and Engine Efficiency
The Administration has been a leader in improving the fuel economy
of the Nation's fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks. Our
record in this area speaks for itself. In April, Secretary Peters
announced a proposal that would establish the first new fuel economy
standards for passenger cars in more than two decades, and would update
and expand fuel economy standards for light trucks. Once finalized,
this rule would raise 2011 passenger car fuel economy standards by 13
percent and boost light truck fuel economy standards by a further 4
percent above the attribute-weighted standard set 2 years ago. Overall,
the fuel economy standards of the U.S. fleet would be raised by more
than 25 percent through model year 2015.
The proposal reflects the fuel economy reforms passed by Congress
in December 2007 at the President's urging. Indeed, the new law, the
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, incorporates many
of the provisions of the President's ``Twenty in Ten'' initiative,
aimed at reducing light duty vehicle petroleum consumption by 20
percent in 10 years through both improved fuel economy standards and
increased use of alternative fuels.
The standards in the proposed rule would save a projected 55
billion gallons of fuel and reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 521
million metric tons over the lifetime of the regulated vehicles. It
also includes provisions for trading fuel economy credits between
manufacturers and vehicle classes, as well as provisions for carrying
forward excess credits earned in earlier years. This proposal goes
above and beyond the requirements set out by Congress.
This proposal builds on earlier initiatives to raise light truck
fuel economy under prior law. The Department issued new fuel economy
rules for light trucks in 2003 (covering model years 2005-2007), and in
2006 (covering model years 2008-2011). The 2006 rulemaking implemented
an innovative attribute-based standard for light trucks that Congress
extended to passenger cars in EISA. The two earlier rules are estimated
to save 13 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetimes of the regulated
vehicles.
Through the Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Department is working
with State and local governments on a range of programs to improve
urban air quality within the transportation sector. For example, DOT
has cooperated with the Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay
Program initiative to retrofit trucks and truck stops with on-board and
off-board auxiliary power to run vehicle lights and air conditioning
and reduce truck idling. This program has reduced fuel consumption,
criteria pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions, and has
expanded to include idling emissions from marine, agricultural, rail,
and off-road heavy-duty engines. The Federal Transit Administration
funds the development and deployment of alternative fuel buses,
including hydrogen fuel cell buses, and diesel-electric hybrid buses,
as well as alternative fuels infrastructure for transit systems across
the United States.
The Department also has focused on efficiency beyond the highway.
In aviation, we have begun to implement the Next Generation Air
Transportation System to modernize the U.S. air traffic system, of
which I will say more in a moment. The Federal Aviation Administration
is in the process of setting up a new program, CLEEN--Continuous, Low
Energy, Emissions, and Noise--a research consortium focused on cost-
shared efforts accelerating the maturation of lower energy, emissions,
and noise technologies for aircraft and engines and advancing cleaner
alternative fuels. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is focused on
new technologies to reduce the harmful emissions from marine diesel
engines through research on alternative fuels (such as biodiesel) and
reduced ship stack emissions.
Alternative Fuels
The Administration also is supporting research on and use of
alternative fuels. The EISA requires fuel producers to supply at least
36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2022--a 500 percent
increase in the use of renewable fuels. President Bush is calling on
every vehicle manufacturer that serves the U.S. market to produce flex-
fuel vehicles across its fleet, providing tax incentives for drivers to
buy fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles that run on both gasoline and
electricity and investing in plug-in hybrids that can cover up to 40
miles on electricity alone.
Though corn-based ethanol is currently the primary way to meet that
standard, that will not always be the case, and so the Administration
also is investing in next generation biofuels such as cellulosic
ethanol. Since President Bush took office, the projected cost of
cellulosic ethanol has dropped by more than 60 percent.
Last year, the U.S. produced about 450 million gallons of
biodiesel--up 80 percent from 2006. Today, there are more than 968
biodiesel fueling stations, and hundreds of fleet operators use
biodiesel to fuel their trucks. Over the last 5 years, the
Administration has invested about $1.2 billion in hydrogen research and
development to help bring hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to market. These
vehicles use no gasoline at all, and emit only clean water.
Even as the Administration focuses on alternative fuels and alt-
fuels vehicles, we must ensure that the environmental improvements they
bring do not erode the safety levels that Americans expect. Through the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, we have undertaken research required
for the development of safety standards for future hydrogen vehicles
and infrastructure.
We are exploring the potential of alternative fuels for aviation--
fuels that could have benefits for energy security as well as emissions
performance. The FAA is one of the key partners in the Commercial
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). CAAFI's participants,
which include airlines, manufacturers, airports, fuel producers,
Federal agencies and international players, are implementing a roadmap
for the use of alternative fuels for commercial aviation. Commercial
airlines and manufacturers are beginning to make some headway in
experimental use of biofuels in jet aircraft. Using an unmodified
Boeing 747, pilots for Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic have
successfully flown from London's Heathrow airport to Amsterdam using a
biofuel made of a mix of coconut and babassu oil.
System Efficiency and the Marketplace
As important as research may be, the Department is of course
concerned first and foremost about making our networks as safe and
reliable as possible. Secretary Peters has made improving the
performance of those networks one of the Department's primary
objectives, because severe congestion is choking our major urban areas
(and, for that matter, more and more medium-sized cities), impeding the
efficient flow of goods, and threatening our mobility--to the tune of
about $200 billion every year just on our highways. As we focus on
increasing efficiency, we simultaneously can and should reduce the
amount of needless greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions that those
networks generate through idling, inefficient routing, and other
undesirable effects.
The problem is significant. The Texas Transportation Institute
estimates that highway congestion in the U.S. wastes approximately 2.9
billion gallons of fuel annually, translating into 2.6 million tons of
unnecessary CO2 emissions every year. We think this figure
actually underestimates the costs associated with the near-constant
congestion that afflicts so many of our cities and our most important
highway corridors. I think all of us have experienced this first hand
while stuck in traffic watching the gas tank empty as congestion brings
highway speeds to a crawl.
The Department has responded with the Congestion Initiative, a
multifaceted program aimed at easing highway, aviation, freight/
intermodal, and border congestion. As part of the Initiative, we have
focused on encouraging states and localities--which, after all, own
nearly all our highways--to embrace congestion pricing and direct user
fees for both their operational and environmental benefits.
Researchers have for decades predicted the beneficial environmental
impacts of pricing, and we have recently seen real evidence of reduced
emissions in cities around the world following adoption of congestion
pricing. One study found that congestion pricing reduced emissions up
to 10 percent in the aggregate and as much as 30 percent in high
pollution areas.\1\ These benefits are obtained because efficient
pricing mechanisms reduce the number of trips taken, alter trip routes,
reduce trip duration, decrease variation in travel speeds, and
facilitate more pollution-efficient travel speeds. A study of Atlanta
during the 1996 Summer Olympics revealed significant benefits.\2\
Several travel demand management measures were introduced to reduce
traffic congestion during the 17 days of the games. The study found
that daily peak ozone levels dropped 28 percent and hospitalizations
for asthma fell by almost 20 percent during that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Khalid (Daniel & Bekka., 1998. The Environmental Impact of
Highway Congestion Pricing, Journal of Urban Economics. Volume 47,
Issue 2, March 2000, Pages 180-215).
\2\ Friedman & Powell. 2001. Impact of Changes in Transportation
and Commuting Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta
on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma. JAMA. Vol. 285 No. 7, February 21,
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, with the proliferation of open road pricing technology,
highway facilities can achieve free-flow conditions without intrusive
tollbooths, thus obtaining the efficiency and environmental benefits of
pricing without the harmful impacts of queued vehicles waiting in line
to pay.
Real evidence of the emissions benefits of pricing is now available
from Singapore, London, Stockholm, and Germany. Through congestion
pricing, London reduced emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen
oxides by 12 percent and fossil fuel consumption and CO2
emissions by 20 percent. Singapore uses pricing to manage demand on its
downtown road network during peak travel periods and has prevented the
emission of an estimated 175,000 pounds of CO2. Stockholm's
congestion pricing system, which targets congestion in the city center,
has led to a 10-14 percent drop in CO2 emissions. In January
2005, Germany implemented a new system to price trucks on the
autobahns. These charges, which are collected electronically using
Global Positioning System Satellites (GPS), are based not only on
distance traveled and number of axles, but also on a vehicle's
emissions class. This system has increased freight efficiency and cut
freight greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent. A 50 percent premium
charge for older, more polluting trucks has doubled the replacement
rate to new trucks.
Our focus on variable pricing and other direct user fees also
responds to the drawbacks of a highway funding model that relies on gas
tax revenues even as we strive toward increased energy independence,
greater fuel economy in automobiles, development of alternative fuels,
and reduced emissions. The EISA, and the increasing popularity of
hybrid vehicles, presage reductions in the amount of gas tax revenue
available for investment in transportation. Concerns about the
viability of gas tax revenues are only exacerbated by the recent
increases in fuel prices which have led to reduced vehicle miles
travelled on U.S. roads (Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer miles in
April 2008 than they did in April 2007, the sixth consecutive monthly
drop). As the United States works to reduce emissions and promote
alternative fuels, a transportation funding system that relies
primarily on the gas tax undoubtedly contradicts the Nation's overall
policy objectives. Pricing and other market solutions can help address
concerns about the viability of the gas tax by substituting private
capital and direct user fees for gas tax revenue.
Because of these benefits, tolling and direct user charges have won
support from a wide range of ideological viewpoints in the United
States--from Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservancy to the
Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Reason Foundation. Recognizing
the environmental benefits of this approach, San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom stated in his recent inaugural address that a ``sensible
congestion-pricing plan is the single greatest step we can take to
protect [San Francisco's] environment and improve our quality of
life.''
All of this is to say that we view congestion pricing as a win-win
concept because it generates revenues that can be used to expand and
maintain highways or bridges or transit, and it provides users with
price signals that encourage rational decisions about how and when to
drive--yielding efficiencies that are at once an environmental and
economic boon.
Anyone who has flown lately can attest to the fact that the current
aviation system needs fundamental changes. I briefly made reference to
the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen. As with
congestion pricing, this is an area in which efficiency improvements
and environmental advances go hand-in-hand. NextGen aims to improve our
air traffic management procedures and route structures so that aircraft
can choose more efficient routes, make quicker in-flight decisions to
avoid weather and other traffic, and even operate more efficiently on
the ground.
The FAA and our commercial airlines have saved 300 hundred million
gallons of jet fuel and displaced over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide
emissions by implementing Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM),
permitting aircraft flying in U.S. air space to operate at more
efficient altitudes. FAA has achieved further improvements in system
performance through the related reforms of Area Navigation (RNAV) and
Required Navigation Performance (RNP)--both of which allow for the more
efficient routing for commercial air traffic and more reliable service
during marginal weather conditions, particularly at congested airports
such as Atlanta Hartsfield. If we want to reduce jet fuel consumption
and aircraft emissions without discouraging air travel, we must
transform our aviation system. As we move to push Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) into the cockpit, we anticipate still
greater efficiency gains. And, because every gallon of jet fuel not
burned equates to roughly 20 pounds of displaced CO2, even
small improvements yield huge GHG savings when deployed systemwide.
These advances, combined with the imperative for commercial
airlines to save fuel, have produced reductions in GHG emissions that--
contrary to frequent criticisms--are quite impressive. Compared to the
year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation in 2006 moved 12 percent more
passengers and 22 percent more freight while actually burning less
fuel, thereby reducing our carbon output by a million tons. U.S.
airlines have committed to another 30 percent improvement by 2025. With
the recent spike in fuel prices, reduction in schedules, and retirement
of older aircraft, fuel consumption by U.S. airlines will continue to
decline.
Internationally, the Department supports the International Civil
Aviation Organization's continued leadership in the environmental arena
and its decisive action in developing a comprehensive plan to mitigate
aviation GHG emissions and establishing a new high-level Group on
International Aviation and Climate Change to work with ICAO's 190
Member States to implement the plan. We oppose, I should emphasize, the
European Union's proposal to include aviation in an ``emissions trading
scheme,'' as both unworkable and contrary to international aviation
law.
In 2008, we have seen auto buyers shift toward smaller vehicles and
hybrids; airlines modify their fleets (and their operations) to do more
flying with fuel-efficient aircraft and to get weight off the airplane;
shippers move freight to an increasingly efficient rail network; and
commuters utilize transit services in greater numbers. These examples
contain a common thread, and, of course, that thread is that the market
itself--especially of late--will provide ample incentive for
transportation providers and consumers to travel more efficiently and
with reduced emissions. The Secretary has demonstrated a clear
commitment to improving transit. Cumulative VMT has fallen by 17.3
billion miles since November 2006, and we estimate that greenhouse gas
emissions in the transportation sector fell by an estimated 9 million
metric tons for the first quarter of 2008. The pain from increased fuel
prices that Americans are experiencing at the pump and in the grocery
store is real and should not be minimized, but the changes we are
seeing in transportation systems response to the high price of oil
remind us that the marketplace can be a major ally in reducing
transportation's environmental footprint and creating the conditions
necessary to spur private sector environmental innovation.
Better Scientific Understanding
I also would like to summarize the Department's efforts to measure
and prepare for the impacts that climate change may have on our
transportation infrastructure. The Department's Center for Climate
Change and Environmental Forecasting was designated by EISA to be the
Office of Climate Change and Environment. This virtual organization is
the focal point within DOT for multimodal technical expertise on
transportation and climate change. Nine DOT operating administrations
contribute resources to conduct strategic research, engage in policy
analysis, and ensure coordination on multi-modal approaches to reducing
transportation-related greenhouse gases and to mitigate the effects of
global climate change on the transportation network. Recent and
continuing research has focused on a range of topics, including
emission modeling, evaluation of State and local efforts, early action,
tax credits, alternative fuels, and urban ferries.
Most recently, the Center has focused on research requirements from
EISA: first, U.S. DOT has approved a statement of work to conduct an
EISA-required report on transportation's impact on climate change and
ways to mitigate transportation's contribution. The study will also
consider co-benefits of fuel savings and air quality improvement. This
report will be conducted in coordination with the Environmental
Protection Agency and in consultation with the United States Global
Change Research Program. Second, the U.S. DOT, in coordination with a
range of other groups, is developing a Transportation and Climate
Change Clearinghouse to provide one-stop shopping for transportation
decision-makers and planners.
As part of the NextGen effort to advance our understanding of
aviation's effects on climate, the FAA has launched the Aviation
Climate change Research Initiative (ACCRI) in partnership with the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other
agencies. This initiative will help accelerate our scientific
understanding to inform policy decisions in this area.
The Department also is addressing the challenges posed by the
impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure and systems.
Our Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting has been
studying this question for several years. Early this year, DOT released
The Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems
and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. This study provides an
assessment of the vulnerabilities of transportation systems in the
region to potential changes in weather patterns and related impacts, as
well as the effect of natural land subsidence in the region. The area
examined by the study includes 48 contiguous counties in four states,
running from Galveston, TX to Mobile, AL.
Based on 21 simulation models and a range of future scenarios, the
study found that potential changes in climate, through both sea level
rise and subsidence over the next 50-100 years, could disrupt
transportation services in several key ways. Twenty-seven percent of
major roads, 9 percent of rail lines, and 72 percent of area ports are
at or below 4 feet in elevation above sea level, and could be
vulnerable to future sea-level rise combined with non-climate related
sinking of the area's land mass that is occurring in the area. The
study is designed to help State and local officials as they develop
their transportation plans and make investment decisions. Subsequent
phases of the study are intended to focus on risks and adaptation
strategies involved in planning, investment, and design decisions for
infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region and nationwide. The study was
performed in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey and State and
local researchers, and is one of 21 ``synthesis and assessment''
reports produced as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
A similar study that will soon be released is The Potential Impacts
of Global Sea Level Rise on Transportation Infrastructure. This study
was designed to produce rough estimates of how future climate change,
specifically sea level rise and storm surge, could affect
transportation infrastructure on the East Coast of the United States.
Like the Gulf Coast Study, this study's major purpose is to aid
policymakers by providing estimates of these effects as they relate to
roads, rails, airports, and ports.
In sum, the Department is approaching greenhouse gas mitigation and
adaptation in a comprehensive, multimodal, and innovative way, in line
with the Secretary's priorities for safety, system performance, and
21st century solutions. I commend the Committee for paying attention to
this important subject and appreciate the opportunity to discuss this
issue with a group of individuals who are so knowledgeable about our
transportation network. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Turner?
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TURNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Dr. Turner. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the research related to the transportation sector in
areas that are related to global climate change underway at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST.
The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by
NIST's measurements, science, and standards work. Virtually
every segment of the economy, from transportation to computer
networks, banking, food processing, healthcare, communication,
depends on NIST research, products, and services. More broadly,
the quality of the water we drink, the air we breathe, the
energy we use, and the food we eat depends, in part, on that
work.
Just as NIST has impacted these technologies in the past,
NIST is poised to play an equally important role in our
Nation's efforts to address the challenges of climate change. A
large part of the work that NIST does for the transportation
sector has an impact on climate change.
In the area of transportation, let me start with an
example. NIST conducts research and provides measurement
science and services that underpin many stages of the
transportation sector in auto manufacturing, from the
production of materials, like sheet metal for body panels, to
monitoring the final quality of the vehicle assembly. NIST's
work extends beyond the car to the transportation
infrastructure itself, including both fossil and alternative
fuels and emissions, to lightweight metals and composites for
auto body parts and fuel cells.
Another big area NIST works in is advanced materials, like
cement, for bridges and highways. Cement production provides a
large amount of CO2, and NIST's work to improve the
quality of cement will lead to less frequent replacement.
Specific areas that I address in more detail in my written
testimony include composition, volume, and weight standards for
fuels and oil to allow confidence in the trading of low and
high sulfur content fuels in competitive markets. This covers
everything from measures and standards for fossil fuels, to
biofuels, from train cars of coal, to gallons of gasoline at
the pump; to gas reference standards for sulfur dioxide and
nitrous oxides that enable the automotive manufacturers to meet
the EPA standards; allow industry to tune and trade their
emissions through the EPA's sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade
system; to composition of refrigerants in automotive air-
conditioning systems to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons and find
replacements that minimize the impacts on the ozone-depletion
in the upper atmosphere; to production of roadway materials and
the composition, strength, and durability of road and bridge
materials and construction techniques to minimize greenhouse
gas emissions; to lightweight metal-forming and composites to
enable manufacturers to have high-performance, high-durability,
and safe materials to increase efficiency in the automotive and
aerospace industry; to development of measurements, science,
and standards infrastructure to support the development and
implementation of advanced alternative fuel sources, such as
hydrogen and biofuels; and finally, to the development of the
Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010.
Automobiles and light trucks consume 79 percent of all U.S.
distilled fuel and account for 19.8 percent of all U.S.
CO2 emissions. Lightweight materials are a big part
of the solution to reduce our consumption, as lighter vehicles
tend to use less fuel.
The Department of Energy's Office of Vehicle Technology
states that lightweight materials are needed to ``offset the
increased weight and cost per unit of power of alternative
power trains, hybrids, and fuel cells, with respect to
conventional power trains.''
The transportation industry, particularly the automotive
and aerospace industry, is looking for lightweight materials,
such as new lightweight aluminum and composite materials, to
improve fuel efficiency. Introduction of these materials is
limited by severe manufacturing difficulties tied to
unpredictable small-scale stresses during production. DOE and
NIST scientists developed a way to measure and map stresses on
this scale using X-ray micro-beams that are 100 times thinner
than a human hair. These measurements have solved key
scientific questions about how metals deform, and this
knowledge will accelerate the introduction of lightweight
alloys into fuel-efficient vehicles.
Before I sum up my remarks, I'd like to briefly mention two
of our requested budget initiatives for 2009 that will greatly
expand our capabilities and ability to have an impact on the
broader issue of climate change.
The expansion of the NIST Center for Neutron Research
(NCNR) is integral to our programs that impact transportation-
related climate change issues because of the ability to image
the interior of operating hydrogen fuel cells. Large and small
companies involved in the manufacture or use of fuel cells,
including General Motors, DuPont, and PlugPower, have benefited
from this unique capability.
Industry scientists have stated that the research performed
at the NIST Center for Neutron Research has allowed them to
jump 5 years ahead in fuel cell development.
The second initiative, which is related directly to the
work made possible by the NCNR, is an expansion of our program
targeted to enable the use of hydrogen as a fuel. This
initiative would expand our work to address more of the
technical challenges that need to be overcome before hydrogen
can become a practical and economic alternative fuel, such as
its propensity to embrittle materials which could lead to
problems in containment and distribution infrastructure
integrity, not to mention the challenges associated with
measuring and distributing it to ensure equitable sale in the
marketplace.
Today, more than any other time in our history,
technological innovation and progress depend upon NIST's unique
skills and capability. Helping the U.S. to drive and take
advantage of the increased pace of technological change is a
top priority for NIST. The technologies that emerge as a result
of NIST's development of measurement science and standard tools
will enable U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive.
That absolutely includes the need to develop both information
and measures to enable the United States and other nations to
deal with the potential and real climate-related impacts of
transportation systems and components.
This concludes my remarks, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions you may have, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Turner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James M. Turner, Deputy Director, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the research we do related to the transportation sector on
areas that are related to global climate change underway at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by NIST's
measurement and standards work. Virtually every segment of the economy,
from transportation to computer networks, banking, food processing,
health care and communication, depends on NIST research, products and
services. More broadly, the quality of the water we drink, the air we
breathe, the energy that we use, and the food we eat depends in part on
that work.
The work NIST is doing on climate change is important. Some of the
drivers of climate, such as the sun's output, have small variations
that change slowly over time. As a result, climate predictions depend
on developing absolute measurements of the sun's energy that can be
compared accurately over decades from different sensors. Other
important variables include the sizes, shapes, and chemical composition
of particles or droplets (aerosols) in the atmosphere. Whether aerosols
contribute to the warming or the cooling of the Earth depends upon
their composition.
In the area of transportation, let me start with one example. NIST
conducts research and provides measurement science and services that
underpin many stages of auto manufacturing--from the production of
materials like sheet metal for body panels to monitoring the final
quality of the vehicle assembly. NIST's work extends beyond the car to
the transportation infrastructure itself, including both fossil and
alternative fuels; emissions; advanced materials like cement for
bridges and highways to lightweight metals and composites for auto body
parts; fuel cells; and more efficient and greener manufacturing
processes:
In addition, NIST works in the following areas:
Composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels and oil
to allow confidence in trading in low to high sulfur content
fuels in competitive markets. This covers everything from
measures and standards for fossil fuels to biofuels, and from
train cars of coal to gallons of gasoline at the pump.
Gas reference standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrous
oxides that enable automotive manufacturers to meet
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and generally
allow industry to tune and trade their emissions through the
EPA sulfur dioxide cap and trade system.
Composition of refrigerants in automotive air conditioning
systems to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons and find replacements
that minimize impacts on ozone depletion in the upper
atmosphere, as well as climate forcing due to these gases.
Production of roadway materials, and the composition,
strength, and durability of road and bridge materials and
construction techniques to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
Lightweight metal forming and composites to enable
manufacturers to have high performance, high durability and
safe materials to increase efficiency in the automotive and
aerospace industry.
Developing Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid
electrical vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010.
More efficient, greener manufacturing through a partnership
with EPA on the Green Supplier Network.
Now I would like to cover some specific work NIST is undertaking to
improve efficiencies in the transportation industry that could reduce
the impact of the industry on climate change. I also want to note that
NIST has requested budget increases in FY09 that would enable us to
expand and accelerate our work in this area. It also is important to
note that nearly all of NIST's work is planned and done in partnership
with others in industry, universities, and government at all levels.
Supporting Innovations in Fossil, Bio Fuels and Hydrogen Fuel Cells--
Monitoring Emissions and Developing New Fuel Capabilities and
Standards
Fossil Fuels Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)--Standards in
Emissions. Beginning in June 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency mandated ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel to make possible
more efficient exhaust emissions. The accurate determination of sulfur
in ULSD at low levels is a major measurement challenge with enormous
economic consequences, mostly in avoided costs, for petroleum
refineries and for every link in the distribution system. To meet this
challenge, industry must have highly accurate sulfur standards. These
SRMs ensure the accurate make up of the fuel and enable compliance to
EPAs regulations regarding sulfur fuels. NIST is the place to go for an
SRM for a fossil fuel. NIST's first fossil fuel SRMs were issued in
1967 and continue to be issued today.
These standards represent some of NIST's most successful products.
According to the study Economic Impact of Standard Reference Materials
for Sulfur in Fossil Fuels, NIST work returned a calculated rate of
return for the program of 1,056 percent. Studies also demonstrate that
NIST standards for sulfur in fossil fuels have a net value to society
of more than $409 million since 1984.
Biofuels. Biofuels have gained popularity worldwide both as a
renewable energy source and as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and move away from dependence on fossil fuels. NIST is participating in
this arena. The United States, Brazil and the European Union have
convened a task force of experts to study existing biofuels standards
and catalog similarities and differences between them. Out of this
partnership, NIST and Brazil are collaborating on the development of
joint measurement standards for bioethanol and biodiesel by the end of
2008.
Getting an Accurate Fill-Up. Working very closely with State
weights and measures organizations, NIST has long maintained the
standard for ensuring that consumers actually receive a gallon of gas
every time they pay for one. Now NIST researchers are incorporating the
properties of hydrogen in standards that will support the development
of hydrogen as a fuel in vehicles. One of the challenges in the use of
hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is the seemingly trivial matter of measuring
fuel consumption. Consumers and industry are accustomed to high
accuracy when purchasing gasoline. Refueling with hydrogen is a problem
because there are currently no mechanisms to ensure accuracy at the
pump. Hydrogen is dispensed at a very high pressure, at varying degrees
of temperature and with mixtures of other gases. NIST's research and
new technological innovations will enable accuracy in hydrogen fill-
ups.
Fuel Research for Aviation, Aerospace and Vehicular Transportation.
NIST has a major effort underway to characterize and model fuel fluids.
All reformulations of these fuels changes the way they operate and NIST
is working to identify how they are affected. These liquid fuels have
long been the most convenient fuel source for all sectors of
transportation--aircraft, rockets, cars, trucks, locomotives and
military vehicles. The design and specification of these fuels has
environmental considerations. Redesigning fuels with environmental
considerations as a factor can only be done after NIST does its job of
understanding how different additives and formulations affect the fuel.
Enabling the Use of Hydrogen Fuel. As mentioned above, NIST is
working to enable the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen offers the
possibility of lowering the impact of motor vehicles on the
environment, and reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. While
the burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and other emissions
harmful to the environment, hydrogen fuel can be made from many energy
sources, including renewables, and produces zero emissions.
Technical challenges need to be overcome to make hydrogen-powered
vehicles more practical and economical. Fuel cells need to operate as
reliably as today's gasoline engine. We need systems that can store
enough hydrogen fuel to give consumers a comfortable driving range. We
need science-based standards that will guide local officials in
establishing codes for building and fire safety as they relate to
something like a hydrogen fueling station. And we need a technical
infrastructure to ensure the equitable sale of hydrogen in the
marketplace, as exists today for gasoline.
Expansion of research efforts at NIST is essential to achieving
widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel. The distribution and sale of
hydrogen will require entirely new systems for ensuring equity in the
marketplace. In Fiscal Year 2009, NIST has requested $4 million to
accelerate its research in this area. NIST has been a leading provider
of data on the chemical and physical properties of hydrogen for more
than 50 years. It has statutory responsibility under the Pipeline
Safety Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-355) to develop research and standards for
gas pipeline integrity, safety, and reliability. It is the lead U.S.
agency for weights and measures of vehicle fuels, and it develops test
protocols for stationary fuel-cell systems, covering issues of
efficiency, performance, and compatibility with the power grid for
interconnection purposes.
NIST's Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is the premier facility
for real-time, three-dimensional imaging of hydrogen in operating fuel
cells. NIST's operations have won awards and wide praise for providing
the diagnostics that industry needs to make fuel cells more reliable
and less costly. The unique resources developed at this NIST facility
will also help reduce technical barriers for efficient hydrogen
production and storage. Indeed, NIST participates in two of the three
Centers of Excellence established by DOE to develop better means of
hydrogen storage.
Transporting and Distributing Hydrogen. Gasoline consumption in the
U.S. exceeds 388 million gallons per day and at $4 a gallon that is a
growing investment. Producing hydrogen fuel from domestic energy
sources will increase domestic control and substantially reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. One barrier to this switch is pipelines.
There are currently 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines in operation--that
is in comparison to 1 million miles of natural gas pipelines. To move
to a more nationwide use of hydrogen, safe and effective pipelines have
to be developed. This work will also be part of the NIST Fiscal Year
2009 Hydrogen initiative request of $4 million dollars to accelerate
research in this area. NIST is working on both sensor development to
monitor the pipelines and steel and material testing to ensure the
safest pipeline possible. NIST is working to establish the codes and
standards necessary to ensure safe distribution of hydrogen fuels. The
future ``hydrogen economy'' will depend on efficient transport of fuel
across the U.S. In order to use the existing network of pipelines,
tests have to be developed to test for the degradation that is likely
to occur to the metals that can be caused by hydrogen weakening the
pipeline. By establishing the unique test facilities and standard test
procedures, we will provide pipeline operators with critical data on
the durability of pipeline material in high-pressure hydrogen gas
environments.
Hydrogen Storage. Hydrogen is promoted as a petroleum replacement
that presents an attractive alternative for fueling automobiles and
trucks while maintaining a cleaner global environment. A major
roadblock associated with the use of hydrogen is the inability to store
it efficiently. Because hydrogen's properties have been shown to
embrittle metals and because current storage technologies limit the
potential range of hydrogen powered vehicles, NIST is working on
measurement tools to determine hydrogen's absorption/desorption
characteristics that will accelerate discovery of new materials that
can be used to store hydrogen for use across the U.S.
Fuel Cell Research. This is another area where innovations can have
an impact on the environment. A huge array of emerging technologies,
from new portable electronic devices to smart energy vehicles, depend
on the successful development and deployment of efficient, lightweight,
reliable and cost-effective fuel cells. The potential market for these
new products represents billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. NIST's
Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) works with General Motors and others
in this area. NIST's expertise is essential for making fuel cells less
costly and more reliable.
To develop fuel cells for practical use, NIST researchers are
developing measurement methods to characterize the nanoscale structure
and dynamics of polymer membranes inside the fuel cell to enable
stronger fuel cells. Industry's use of the unique facilities and
instruments at NIST will help reduce technical barriers for efficient
hydrogen production, storage, and use.
Supporting Innovation in Advanced Materials--Lightweight Materials and
Nanocomposites
In addition to the work NIST is doing in the area of hydrogen fuel,
other researchers at NIST are looking at materials that will make more
efficient cars, airplanes and trains. These efficiencies also will
strongly benefit the environment by introducing lighter, more fuel
efficient transportation.
Automobiles and light trucks consume 79 percent of all U.S.
distilled fuel and emit 19.8 percent of all U.S. CO2
emissions. Lightweight materials are a big part of the solution to
reduce our consumption. The Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle
Technologies states that lightweight materials are needed to ``offset
the increased weight and cost per unit of power of alternative
powertrains (hybrids, fuel cells) with respect to conventional
powertrains.''
Lightweight Materials for Automobiles. The transportation industry
in general, particularly the automotive industry, is looking for
lightweight materials such as new lightweight aluminum and high-
strength steel alloys to improve fuel efficiency. Introduction of these
alloys is limited by severe manufacturing difficulties tied to
unpredictable micron-scale stresses during production. NIST and
industry scientists developed a way to measure and map stresses on the
micron scale using X-ray microbeams that are 100 times thinner than a
human hair. These measurements have solved key scientific questions
about how metals deform and this knowledge will accelerate the
introduction of new lightweight alloys into fuel-efficient vehicles.
NIST is partnering with the automotive industry to accelerate the
introduction of aluminum and high-strength steel into automobile
production and is collaborating with the Argonne National Laboratory's
Advanced Photon Source and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to measure
stresses in deformed metals at the nanoscale level.
NIST Center for Metal Forming. The NIST Center for Metal Forming is
developing the measurements, standards and analysis necessary for the
U.S. automotive industry and metal suppliers to transition to new ways
of forming metals. This will enable the industry to transition to new
advanced and lightweight materials more easily as more accurate data
and material models will lead to more accurate die designs, reducing
redesign and new model development costs. The reduction of sheet metal
forming redesigns through improved material data and models is
projected to save the U.S. auto industry a large portion of the $600
million lost per year on redesigns.
Determining the Life Cycle and Environmental, Health and Safety
Performances of Polymer Nanocomposites. Polymer nanocomposites, defined
as material systems in which one or more dimensions is less than 100
nm, have greatly improved performance properties relative to
traditional polymeric materials and are forecast to make significant in
roads in the near future in high volume markets including
infrastructure, automotive, and aerospace industries. However, use of
these materials in products is hindered by the lack of performance data
for them, as well as significant societal concerns regarding the
release of significant quantities of nanomaterials into the environment
during or at the end of the product service life. Critical information
and data is lacking for characterizing and predicting life cycle
performance and in-service release rates of nanoparticles from polymer
nanocomposites. Although current research focuses on nanoparticle
exposure during the manufacturing process, in-service release of
nanoparticles from nanocomposites is expected to be greater by several
orders of magnitude. NIST will develop and apply measurement science
over a wide range of length and time scales to enable a comprehensive
understanding of life cycle performance and nanoparticle release rates
of polymer nanocomposites.
Timely, accurate, and precise material life cycle performance
estimates will enable a revolutionary transformation from initial cost
to life cycle cost-based materials selections. Information regarding
nanoparticle release rates over the life cycle of nanocomposite
materials will ensure safety in commerce by directly addressing public,
environmental, and regulatory concerns regarding the environmental,
health, and safety aspects of these materials. This research will also
foster innovation throughout the nanocomposites supply chain such as
material and product manufacturers, and end users and improve the
competitive position of U.S. industry in the global market.
While NIST's work in the automotive and related industries is
important to reducing our impact on the environment, there are many
ways in which NIST's research in the area of transportation
infrastructure could reduce our impact on our climate.
Supporting Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Via Concrete
Research That Will Have an Impact on the Environment
Most of the U.S. and the world's infrastructure--transportation
structures, tunnels, airports, buildings, dams, industrial plants--is
made out of concrete. There has been significant work in the area of
concrete technology over the last few decades to greatly improve
processing and properties making concrete more sustainable.
Why is this important to climate change? The cement and concrete
industry is a large generator of greenhouse gas, mainly carbon dioxide
(CO2), during the manufacturing production process. One U.S.
ton of cement produces about one ton of CO2 and the annual
world production of cement--2.5 billion tons--is equal to a 3-9 percent
estimated share of world man-made CO2. In 2006, the U.S.
produced 96 million tons of cement and 37 million tons were imported
for use in the U.S. It is estimated that 1.5 percent of U.S. man-made
CO2 generation comes from concrete production. And while
this is a large number, cement production is forecast to greatly
increase over the next 20-40 years because of burgeoning demand for new
and replacement infrastructure.
In the U.S., the energy efficiency of cement production is already
high, and is probably only capable of fairly small improvements. One is
limited to reducing the CO2 that is given off from the raw
materials by partially substituting another material for the cement in
concrete, such as the substitution of non-CO2 containing
materials for a portion of the limestone in the raw materials. Around
the world, the two most common minerals used to substitute for cement
are fly ash and granulated ground blast furnace slag. The use of fly
ash and slag in concrete can actually improve the properties of
concrete, especially the durability.
NIST is planning to incorporate research on fly ash into our
research program in this year and is currently collaborating with
several research institutions in submitting joint proposals in response
to a Federal Highway Administration Broad Area Announcement pertaining
to fly ash. In addition, our researchers have published extensively on
the incorporation of fly ash into concrete for other Federal agencies.
Let me highlight some of NIST's work to address the needs of the
concrete industry itself. All of our work will improve our
understanding of how cement and concrete actually work, and ultimately
should make possible improvements in the formulation and use of cement
that could save hundreds of millions of dollars in annual maintenance
and repair costs for concrete structures and the country's
infrastructure. This work should also lead to improving the properties
and performance of concrete while decreasing energy costs and reducing
the CO2 emissions from its production.
Using NIST State of the Art Tools to Study Concrete. Using the most
modern tools of materials research, researchers from NIST and industry
are exploring one of the oldest but most complex construction
materials--cement.
Cement may be the world's most widely used manufactured material--
more than two billion metric tons are consumed each year--but it also
is one of the more complex. And while it was known to the Romans, who
used it to good effect in the Coliseum and Pantheon, questions still
remain as to just how it works, in particular how it is structured at
the nano- and microscale, and how this structure affects its
performance. NIST's investigations should lead to a better
understanding of the contribution of the nanoscale structure of cement
to concrete durability, and how to improve it.
Processing of High-Performance Concrete: Mixing and Flow
Properties. NIST researchers are looking at ways to develop cement
paste and mortar measurement techniques. Researchers are also looking
at models of mortar and concrete flow, and guidelines for optimizing
the proportioning and processing of high-performance concrete (HPC). At
present, there are no generally accepted guidelines for formulating and
mixing HPC and no standard tests for measuring the workability of HPC
in terms of fundamental flow quantities such as yield stress and
plastic viscosity. In the selection of mixture proportions, many
methods exist for present-day concretes, but none has received general
acceptance and only a few are based on performance rather than
prescription; all require the making and testing of numerous batches,
which is not the most efficient way to test. We need to link the
mixture composition with performance, including flow properties. A
method for predicting the flow properties of HPC from mixture
proportions will result in a significant reduction of cost in designing
HPC mixtures with optimum performance, both in the fresh and hardened
states. NIST is developing models to simulate various scenarios to
address this issue and to improve the performance of concrete.
Virtual Cement and Concrete Testing Laboratory (VCCTL) Cement
Hydration Modeling. A new hydration model is part of a NIST/industry
consortium to design, develop, document, and validate a novel, next-
generation computer model of microstructure development of hydrating
cement paste. The hydration of portland cement pastes is an extremely
complicated phenomena involving many chemical reactions. The VCCTL
consortium is committed to the development of a computer model, based
on accepted reaction thermodynamics and kinetics that can make reliable
predictions of the kinetics of 3-D microstructure development and its
dependence on various chemical admixtures. Such a model could become a
valuable research tool for cement and admixture companies and could
help them reduce the amount of physical testing that they currently
perform.
Micro- and Macrostructural Characterization of High-Performance
Concrete. NIST is developing methods for characterizing of the micro-
and macrostructures of cements and high-performance concrete. To
understand how concrete will react under certain circumstances--in
numerous environments--one has to understand concrete at the micro
level. The methodology developed by NIST will form the basis for
assessing and predicting concrete composition and texture influences on
performance. This project will lead to an improved understanding of
concrete degradation and therefore reduce the need for repeated
replacement of concrete and thereby reducing the CO2
emissions associated with the production of cement.
Simulation of the Performance and Service Life of High Performance
Concrete. NIST is also looking at computer simulation algorithms for
the service life of high-performance concrete. The service life of HPC
depends on almost all performance properties, such as transport
properties like resistance to chemical penetration and mechanical
properties like elasticity. These properties need to be predicted at
the design stage, so that HPC can be designed for durability and
lifecycle cost requirements, not just strength requirements. The only
accurate way that different kinds of HPC can be handled is to base such
predictions on fundamental materials science that includes
microstructure, cement chemistry, concrete mixture design, and expected
curing. Since concrete is made up of particles at many length scales
(e.g., cement, fly ash, silica fume, sand, gravel), quantitative
characterization of particle shape is needed so that real particles can
be used in these kinds of quantitative models.
Adaptive Concrete Technologies. NIST researchers are investigating
adaptive concrete technologies including internal curing and the
incorporation of phase change materials into concrete to increase its
service life. Field concrete is exposed to a wide variety of
environmental conditions and distress. These environmental factors
often result in premature degradation and/or failure. Examples include
early-age cracking due to shrinkage and degradation as a result of
repeated cycles of freezing and thawing, and deterioration due to
damaging reactions of chemicals (chloride, sulfate, and alkali ions,
etc.). An adaptive concrete is one that dynamically and actively
``responds'' to these stimuli in such a manner as to reduce their
impacts. The results of this research may encourage the industry to
have another look at what composition is truly optimum for applications
such as pavements and bridge decks, where durability is much more
important than strength.
Doubling the Service Life of Concrete. NIST is working to have a
dramatic effect on the concrete industry through doubling the service
life of new concrete by altering the composition of concrete. One of
the main goals of high performance concrete is to increase service
life. Under most chemical erosion scenarios, the service life of
concrete depends on its reaction to external chemicals entering it.
There are a number of ways to significantly increase the service life
of concrete including reducing the porosity and adding mixtures to
provide increased resistance to the infiltration of chemicals.
Unfortunately, one of the side effects of these modifications is a
large increase in the propensity for early-age cracking, and the
desired barrier performance of a dense concrete is easily compromised
by the formation of just a few cracks. Time until the steel
reinforcement in the concrete rusts is related to the depth of concrete
cover, so that if you increase the thickness of concrete over the steel
by 50 percent, you get approximately double the expected service life.
More concrete covering the rebar may not be feasible because of design
constraints, and both additional concrete and changing the composition
to resist chemicals can add considerable cost to construction. NIST
researchers propose a different approach to modification of the
physical properties of the concrete structure by using a combination of
electrical conductivity, ion diffusivity, and viscosity measurements.
In addition to these programs, NIST cement Standard Reference
Materials (SRMs) have underpinned product quality for the cement
industry for nearly 50 years. The cement SRMs series has proven to be
essential to laboratories that certify concrete products for
performance and that evaluate mechanisms for concrete corrosion and
failure.
Summary
For 107 years, NIST research has been critical to our Nation's
innovation and competitiveness by directly supporting technological
advances in broad sectors of the economy that will quite literally
define the 21st century--as well as improve the safety and quality of
life for all our citizens.
Today, more than at any other time in history, technological
innovation and progress depend on NIST's unique skills and
capabilities. Helping the U.S. to drive and take advantage of the
increased pace of technological change is a top priority for NIST. The
technologies that emerge as a result of NIST's development of these
tools are enabling U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive.
That absolutely includes the need to develop both information and
better tools to enable the United States and other nations to deal with
the potential and real climate-related impacts of transportation
systems and components.
To ensure that NIST programs deliver the highest impact, the
Institute, working with our stakeholders in Congress, industry,
academia, and other government agencies, will continue to identify the
most critical measurement, standards, and technological challenges--
including our efforts that relate to the transportation sector and
climate change. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Subcommittee, throughout this process.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Turner.
Dr. Peterson?
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS C. PETERSON, CLIMATE
SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER,
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA,
AND INFORMATION SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Peterson. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens,
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
talk to you today on the impacts of climate change on
transportation.
When the National Research Council started focusing on this
topic a few years ago, they didn't find very much solid
information on it. I'm pleased to be able to report to you
today that this is no longer the case. In addition to the paper
the National Research Council commissioned me to write on
climate variability and change with implications for
transportation, earlier this year the National Research Council
released its report on the potential impacts of climate change
on U.S. transportation. Also, the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program recently released its report on the impacts of climate
variability and change on transportation in the Gulf Coast and
a report on weather and climate extremes and how they are
changing. This latter report, of which I'm one of the authors,
is relevant to transportation because transportation is
particularly sensitive to changes in extremes, and it was just
released last Thursday.
There are five key aspects of climate change that are of
greatest relevance to transportation. The first is increases in
very hot days and heat waves. Very hot days can cause railroad
tracks to buckle and road pavement to rut more easily. They
limit some outdoor maintenance activities and can force
aircraft at higher elevation airports to lighten their loads.
The second is the increases in Arctic temperatures which
are causing a thawing of permafrost on which some
transportation infrastructure was built. Also, the melting of
Arctic sea ice is raising the potential future opening of a
summertime Arctic sea lane, which could save thousands of miles
on some shipping routes.
The third--global sea level is rising, and in many parts of
the country this will be noticed when storm waters flood
farther inland than they would have without sea level rise. In
some areas of the country, such as along the Gulf Coast, local
sea level rise can be much greater than global rise, due to
land subsidence.
The fourth is increases in heavy precipitation. Flooding
from heavy rain damages many types of transportation
infrastructure.
And the last feature is increases in hurricane intensities.
The number of hurricanes is not projected to increase, but it
is likely that their intensity will. Intense hurricanes impact
transportation infrastructure through stronger winds, heavier
precipitation, and higher storm surges.
NOAA helps the Nation's transportation industry identify
and manage risk associated with climate variability and change
by serving as a centralized source of relevant and timely
weather and climate information needed to support commerce.
Specifically, NOAA actively supports the transportation
industry in three ways.
The first is through the creation of basic data and models
that transportation planners rely on for both adjusting to
real-time weather impacts and for making long-range
infrastructure decisions.
The second is through NOAA's participation in scientific
assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. These reports synthesize state-of-the-art scientific
understanding that planners need when looking decades into the
future.
And the third is outreach and education to data users in
transportation and other sectors. For example NOAA hosts annual
data user workshops which both educates transportation data
uses on what relevant data and services NOAA can provide and
also educates NOAA on the needs of the transportation sector.
User-specific information is needed, because climate change
will affect transportation and transportation infrastructure in
multiple ways over the lifetime of the infrastructure, which
can be long. The lifetime of roadways is typically 25 years;
railroads, 50 years; and bridges and underpasses, 100 years.
When planning a new bridge, for example, designers can take
into consideration, among other things, current traffic and
potential future traffic; current weather and climate, and
potential future weather and climate. The design of the 8-mile-
long Confederation Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island
to the Canadian mainland, did just that by taking into account
the possibility of a 3-foot rise in sea level due to climate
change.
Many other adaptation measures can be adopted. For example,
there are methods of laying railroad track that can raise the
temperature at which they buckle; some pavement options are
more resistant to rutting during hot weather than others; and
larger culverts can be placed under railroads and highways to
accommodate heavier precipitation.
In summary, to help the Nation respond to this challenge,
NOAA provides climate information to the transportation sector
to aid in its efficient and safe operation and to help guide
infrastructure design to withstand future climate change.
The environmental information NOAA provides is crucial for
decision makers in the transportation sector and many other
critical areas of the economy every day.
Thank you, again, for inviting me to testify. I'm happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, Climate Services
Division, National Climatic Data Center, National Environmental
Satellite,
Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Thomas
Peterson, a physical scientist with NOAA's National Climatic Data
Center. I am pleased to present a summary of our understanding of the
impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure as well as a
description of NOAA's role in creating and providing key information on
climate change to transportation decision-makers. I am an author of a
National Research Council (NRC) commissioned paper released this past
March on Climate Variability and Change with Implications for
Transportation, along with other colleagues from NOAA and the
Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
My testimony will draw from the NRC paper as well as from three
other timely reports of which I am an author of the report on climate
extremes:
The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation
by the NRC Transportation Research Board (TRB) which was
released March 11, 2008.
Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation
Systems and Infrastructure--Gulf Coast Study, U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Report
4.7, released March 12, 2008.
Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, U.S.
Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Report
3.3, released June 2008.
Climate Change and Its Impacts on Transportation Operation and
Infrastructure
According to the NRC report, five aspects of climate change impact
transportation operations and infrastructure: (1) increases in very hot
days and heat waves, (2) increases in Arctic temperatures, (3) rising
sea levels, (4) increases in intense precipitation events, and (5)
increases in hurricane intensity.
Increases in Very Hot Days and Heat Waves
It is highly likely (greater than 90 percent probability of
occurrence) that heat extremes and heat waves will continue to become
more intense, last longer, and be more frequent in most regions during
the twenty-first century. In 2007, the probability of having five
summer days at or above 43.3 +C (110 +F) in Dallas was about 2 percent.
In 25 years the models indicate that this probability increases to 5
percent; in 50 years, to 25 percent; and by 2099, to 90 percent. Very
hot days can have an impact on operations; for example, by limiting
periods of outdoor railroad track maintenance activity due to health
and safety concerns. High temperatures can have a big impact on
aircraft by influencing the limits on payload and/or canceling flights.
This is due to the fact that, because warmer air is thinner (less
dense), for any given take-off speed the wings of airplanes create less
lift when temperatures are high. This causes lower lift-off load limits
at high-altitude or hot-weather airports with insufficient runway
lengths. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include rail-track
deformities, thermal expansion on bridge joints and paved surfaces, and
concerns regarding the integrity of pavement.
Increases in Arctic Temperatures
Arctic warming is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent
probability of occurrence), as temperature increases are expected to be
greatest over land and at most high northern latitudes. As much as 90
percent of the upper layer of permafrost could thaw under higher
emission scenarios. The greatest temperature increases in North America
are projected to occur in the winter in northern parts of Alaska and
Canada as a result of feedback effects of shortened periods of snow
cover. By the end of the twenty-first century, temperatures could
increase by as much as 10.0 +C (18.0 +F) in the winter and 2.0 +C (3.6
+F) in the summer in the northernmost areas. For the rest of North
America, the projected annual mean temperature increase ranges from 3.0
to 5.0 +C (5.4 to 9.0 +F), with smaller increases expected near the
coasts. Examples of impacts on operations include a longer ocean
transport season and more ice-free ports in northern regions, as well
as the possible availability of a northern sea route, or a northwest
passage. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include a short season
for ice on roads and thawing of permafrost, which causes subsidence of
roads, rail beds, bridge supports, pipelines, and runway foundations.
Rising Sea Levels
It is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent probability of
occurrence) that sea levels will continue to rise in the twenty-first
century as a result of thermal expansion and loss of mass from ice
sheets. The projected global range in sea level rise is from 0.18 m
(7.1 in) to 0.59 m (23.2 in) by 2099. These estimates do not include
subsidence in regions of the Gulf of Mexico and uplift along portions
of the New England and Alaskan coasts. They also do not include the
dynamics of land ice in frozen regions such as Greenland and
Antarctica, which could increase the projection for sea level rise. The
Gulf Coast Study estimates that a relative sea level rise of 0.5 to 4
feet is quite possible for parts of the Gulf Coast within 50 years, due
primarily to land subsidence. With an increase of 4 feet in relative
sea level, as much as 2,400 miles of major Gulf Coast roadways could be
permanently flooded without adaptation measures. Other examples of the
impacts of sea level rise on operations include more frequent
interruptions in coastal and low-lying roadway travel and rail service
due to storm surge. Sea level rise will cause storm water levels to be
higher and flow further inland, exposing more infrastructure to
destructive wave forces. Higher storm water levels will in turn require
reassessment of evacuation routes, changes in infrastructure design,
siting, and development patterns, and the potential for closure or
restrictions at several of the top 50 airports, as well as key maritime
ports that lie in coastal zones. With 50 percent of the population
living in the coastal zone, these airports and ports provide service to
the highest-density populations in the United States. Examples of
impacts on infrastructure include reduced clearance under bridges;
erosion of road base and bridge supports; inundation of roads, rail
lines, subways, and airport runways in coastal areas; more frequent or
severe flooding of underground tunnels and low-lying infrastructure;
and changes in harbor and port facilities to accommodate higher tides
and storm surges.
Increases in Intense Precipitation Events
It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability of
occurrence) that intense precipitation events will continue to become
more frequent in widespread areas of the United States. Examples of
impacts on operations include increased flooding of evacuation routes,
increases in weather-related delays and traffic disruptions, and
increases in airline delays due to convective weather. Examples of
impacts on infrastructure include increases in flooding of roadways,
rail lines, subterranean tunnels, and runways; increases in scouring of
pipeline roadbeds and damage to pipelines; and increases in road
washout, damages to rail-bed support structures, and landslides and
mudslides that damage roadways and tracks.
Increases in Hurricane Intensity
It is likely (greater than 66 percent probability of occurrence)
that tropical storm intensities, with larger peak wind speeds and more
intense precipitation, will increase. However, it is presently unknown
how 21st century tropical storm frequency will change compared to the
historical data. Increased storm intensity can lead to increased
likelihood of negative impacts to operations and infrastructure, even
though the number of storms may not be changing. Examples of impacts of
increased storm intensity on operations include more frequent and
potentially more extensive emergency evacuations; and more debris on
roads and rail lines, interrupting travel and shipping. Examples of
impacts on infrastructure include a greater probability of
infrastructure failures, increased threat to stability of bridge decks,
and harbor infrastructure damage due to waves and storm surges.
In addition to the five major aspects of climate change listed
above, cold extremes are likely to decrease. This change should have
mostly positive impacts on transportation, such as a decrease in ice
buildup on marine infrastructure. Also, if the snow season is shorter,
roadway maintenance will be easier and highway safety will improve.
In summary, climate change will affect transportation operations
and infrastructure in multiple ways. Transportation infrastructures
have long lifetimes. For roadways it is typically 25 years, railroads
50 years, and bridges and underpasses 100 years. When planning a new
bridge, for example, designers can take into consideration (among other
things) current traffic, potential future traffic, current weather and
climate, and potential future weather and climate. As illustration of
such an adaptation measure, the design of the 8 mile long Confederation
Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island to the Canadian mainland,
took into account the possibility of a 1-m (3 feet) sea-level rise due
to climate change. Many other adaptation measures can be adopted. For
example, there are methods of laying railroad track that raise the
temperature at which it will buckle, some pavement options are more
resistant to rutting during hot weather than others and larger culverts
can be placed under railroads and highways to accommodate heavier
precipitation. To help the Nation respond to this challenge, NOAA
provides climate information to the transportation sector to aid in its
efficient and safe operation, and to help design infrastructure to
withstand future climate change.
NOAA's Role in Providing Climate Information
NOAA helps the Nation's transportation industry identify and manage
risks associated with climate variability and change. NOAA supports the
transportation industry by serving as the centralized source of
relevant and timely weather and climate information needed to support
commerce. NOAA's contributions include historical and real-time data,
monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and
projections, decision-support tools.
For example:
NOAA's Climate Prediction Center produces seasonal forecasts
used for planning for transport on waterways and stockpiling
supplies such as sandbags or salt for roadway (among other
functions).
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) develops
national and global datasets that have been used to maximize
climate resources and minimize the risks posed by climate
variability and weather extremes.
NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, working with the
Federal Highway Administration, develops decision-support
software applications that use weather forecasts to generate
predictions about roadway conditions and recommendations for
the frequency of snow plowing and deicing. These efforts help
to increase roadway safety and cost-savings due to reduced
unnecessary roadway maintenance.
NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory develops
climate models to prepare projections of future climate
conditions.
NOAA's Climate Program Office supports fundamental research
aimed at fulfilling NOAA's goal to understand and describe
climate variability and change to enhance society's ability to
plan and respond.
NOAA's National Weather Service and NCDC produce many
publications that describe the weather and climate of the
United States, participate in national and international
climate research assessments, and fulfill millions of data
customer requests each year.
NOAA's National Ocean Service provides information on local
vertical land movement and local relative mean sea level trends
and provides coastal managers with coastal resilience tools and
training.
Climate change presents a substantial challenge for future policy
and business decision-making, and the demand for climate information
from NOAA has increased over the past decade and continues to grow.
Designers of transportation infrastructure can use NOAA's climate
change information to help guide the design and construction of new
infrastructure, so it will withstand climactic changes throughout its
designed life time.
NOAA actively participates with other Federal agencies and other
organizations, and often takes a leadership role in collaborative
climate change assessments and reports. NOAA has worked on both
domestic efforts, such as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) report on changes in extremes in North America, and
international efforts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). These rigorous assessments synthesize the latest climate
science to provide authoritative information on how the climate has
changed in the past and is expected to change in the future. These
reports are widely accessed by the transportation industry.
NOAA has taken a proactive role in understanding the emerging data
and information needs facing a variety of data users and decision-
makers. As climate services continue to evolve, NOAA recognizes that
local, regional, state, and private entities require better information
to understand how their localities are contributing to, will be
affected by, and can adapt to a changing climate. It is NOAA's goal to
provide relevant, user-specific climate information to meet this
demand. NOAA has begun to address this through problem-focused
initiatives developed collaboratively with users, such as the
transportation industry.
For example, in 2007, NCDC hosted a specialized NOAA Data Users
workshop to identify the climate data and information requirements of
the energy, insurance, and transportation sectors, in the context of a
changing climate. The workshop also explored how those emerging
information needs might guide future products and services. The
feedback gained from this workshop provided an understanding of the
needs of each industry, enabling NOAA to maximize the value of the
climate products and services it delivers. For instance, in addition to
NOAA's role as provider of historical, current and modeled
environmental data, these industries are interested in data about the
probability of risk associated with a changing climate.
In summary, NOAA is striving to meet the rising demand for climate
data and products, which support decision-making in a number of
nationally significant industries including transportation. Government
and industry leaders recognize the inherent value in planning for
future climate change through an enhanced climate services partnership
between the public and private sectors.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to discuss the effects of
climate change on our Nation's transportation operations and
infrastructure. I look forward to working with the Committee on any
further information you may require for your deliberations on this
topic.
References
CCSP, 2008: Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on
Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee
on Global Change Research [Savonis, M.J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter
(eds.)]. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA, 445 pp.
CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate.
Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific
Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald A.
Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and
William L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 164 pp.
Peterson, Thomas C., Marjorie McGuirk, Tamara G. Houston, Andrew H.
Horvitz and Michael F. Wehner, 2008: Climate Variability and Change
with Implications for Transportation, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/
sr290Many.pdf, 90 pp.
NRC, 2008: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S.
Transportation. National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences, Transportation Research Board Special Report #290, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 218 pages.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Dr. Peterson.
My staff has prepared several very technical questions, but
I'd like to ask other questions, if I may.
None of you have mentioned the price of gasoline at the
pumps, or suggested what it should be tomorrow or the following
day. I would venture to say that if gas prices were set at
$2.50 a gallon this morning, we would not be holding this
hearing, nor would Presidential candidates be concerned about
climate change, emissions, or greenhouse gases.
And so, I've done some studying, and I'm not certain
whether the information I'm receiving has any bearing. For
example, I've been told that 94 percent of the oil we consume
in the United States comes from countries or dictatorships, 6
percent by private capitalists. Does that make any sense--94
percent by countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Emirates,
nationally owned companies like in Venezuela; and 6 percent by
private sources--does that make sense? Any of you.
[No response.]
The Chairman. We have no idea where the oil is coming from?
[No response.]
The Chairman. I've been also told that if all the oil
consumed in the United States each day--51 percent consumed by
passenger cars, 12 percent by trucks, buses, and trains, 7
percent by aircraft, 24 percent by industry, and the rest,
different places. Does that make sense?
Admiral Barrett. Senator, I--we're obviously more focused
on transportation, but, in response to your first question, my
understanding is, about--something a little less than 40
percent of our supply comes from domestic sources, and the
remainder comes from overseas. And I don't know how to
characterize it. I don't have any information on the nature of
the places we get it. But, obviously, Congress, certainly the
Administration, is focused on energy security and energy
independence; it's a fundamental issue for the country.
With respect to transportation, what I would offer you is
that about 95 percent of the fuel used in transportation is
based on petroleum in one form or another. There are some
amounts that come from the power grid--electric, on rail--and
there's some amount--some small amount comes from natural gas--
power compressors. So, the net is that our transportation
systems are heavily reliant on fossil fuel, and obviously the
supply of that fuel to the effectiveness of our transportation
networks and our economy is vitally important.
The Chairman. I've been told, by responsible people, that
all of the major automobile manufacturers in the United States
are prepared to build automobiles that will run on alternative
fuel once we determine what that alternative fuel is to be.
Now, if we look at articles, you'll see one organization
advocating electricity; another, hydrogen; another, biofuel;
one says do what Brazil does, raise sugar cane; others say
corn, et cetera. But yet, at the same time, automobile
manufacturers say, ``If we decide, will we have distribution
points?'' At the present time, less than 1 percent of our gas
stations provide other-than-petroleum sources. What's the
solution?
Admiral Barrett. Senator, thank you.
I--from a transportation perspective--again, to go back to
your initial entry point, on the fuel price--market forces
dramatically will affect the transportation systems, and also
what types of alternatives. Obviously, Congress and certainly
the Administration are promoting alternate fuels, renewable
fuels, new technologies, different technologies, battery
technologies, hybrids, clean diesel, more efficient diesel, a
multitude of initiatives. And I don't think that the market has
settled out, in terms of what the American consumer will find
most efficient and affordable and functional for their
transportation needs. And I think part of what has to happen
is, as manufacturers in the marketplace bring these
technologies forward, I think the--both the opportunities and
the challenges associated with them in the costs will surface.
And I think the market will be in the best position to help
sort this out over time.
I think, obviously, from our perspective, we have ratcheted
up, substantially, the mandated fuel economy standards. As you
know, in April we proposed new CAFE standards for passenger
cars and light trucks. That will increase--require an increase,
if the rules are adopted, of 25 percent in the fuel economy of
the major U.S. vehicle fleets by 2015. That would save you
somewhere in the order of 521 million metric tons of
CO2. That's a very aggressive standard. It exceeds
what Congress set down in the Energy Independence and Security
Act. Congress mandated about a three-and-a-half-percent-a-year
improvement. The Administration's initial target was about 4
percent, and the rule we've proposed is about 4 and a half
percent. And how the manufacturers get to that standard, I
believe, will be a combination of the types of initiatives you
spoke about. And I think the market will lean toward the most
effective ones at the end of the day.
The Chairman. I've been further advised by economists that
the hike in price is not under the control of the marketplace;
the marketplace supply-and-demand theory has very limited
impact. Speculators, maybe, account for about 10 percent of the
hike. And nowhere can anyone suggest that the cost of
production has gone up that high. So, somebody's making a ton
of money. Is that assumption correct?
Admiral Barrett. Mr. Chairman, I think what clearly has
gone on is, the demand, globally, has gone up dramatically over
the past several years, not just in the United States--this is
a global market; it's gone up dramatically in places like
China, it's gone dramatically up in places like India, it
certainly has increased in this country, as well.
So, again, to the best of our knowledge, this is
fundamentally driven by supply and demand. And that's why,
candidly, you know, the solution to this problem is--we hear
lots of alternatives--we, kind of, have to do everything. We've
got to increase domestic supplies. We've got to drive more
efficient vehicles. We've got to make our systems more
efficient. We've got to take a different look--I know this
Committee will--at transportation, and more flexibility in
transportation funding. You know, the vehicle miles traveled in
April of this year are down substantially from where they were
last year, driven by the prices you mentioned. And also,
transit ridership is going up. People are shifting their
choices, if you will, in response to these market pressures.
And so, I think we need a multifaceted approach, and obviously
we're going to work, and continue to work, very hard at that.
But, to the best of my knowledge, sir, this is primarily
driven by supply and demand over an extended period of time.
This is not new; it's just--there's less margin, there's less
flexibility. We're getting up to the, kind of, limits of what
the available supply is, and we need to think very seriously
about expanding that supply, particularly domestically, as you
mentioned, in areas such as offshore or areas such as ANWR. We
need to think very seriously about that, and improve our
supplies.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Stevens?
Senator Stevens. Senator Kerry was here ahead of me.
The Chairman. Mr. Kerry?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Admiral Barrett, I'm a little surprised,
first of all, to hear you extolling the Administration's
initiative with respect to CAFE standards, since the
Administration fought them every step of the way and the level
we're going to is well below what most of us believe we ought
to be going to. And I wonder if, since your own figures on the
savings and the standards were calculated on a $2.25 price--
whether now that doesn't have to be completely revised, since
we're almost double that.
Admiral Barrett. Senator, our prices were calculated based
on the information provided by Department of Energy, the
standard package prices that the Government uses. But,
candidly, the mandate we have in the law was to address the
most feasible possible, given technology availability, as well
as, you know, the art of the possible and 18-month cycles in
advance for manufacturers to adjust their times, and also the
cost.
Senator Kerry. What do you----
Admiral Barrett. The cost----
Senator Kerry.--mean by the ``art of the possible''?
Admiral Barrett. In other words, the technology has to be
available----
Senator Kerry. Well, the National Academy of Sciences says
it is, you could double it now.
Admiral Barrett. Not speculative. I mean, it can't--there's
also a huge cost factor. The cost of the standards we----
Senator Kerry. Come back to the----
Admiral Barrett. Yes, sir.
Senator Kerry.--to the expectations. I mean, the National
Academy says that a lot of people out there--you can get 170
miles to a gallon tomorrow if you use a battery and plug-in and
hybrid.
Admiral Barrett. Well, and I think the manufacturers are
trying to bring those forward. But, I don't think----
Senator Kerry. Do you think the market is moving fast
enough to respond to that?
Admiral Barrett. I think it's moving very--I think it's
moving increasingly rapidly.
Senator Kerry. And----
Admiral Barrett. And I think you'll see more increase in
that. And----
Senator Kerry. Do you think we'd be better off if the
market moved faster?
Admiral Barrett. I think the market is moving faster----
Senator Kerry. Do you think we'd be better off if the
market moved faster?
Admiral Barrett. I think the market will move in line with
the technology. I just----
Senator Kerry. No. No, no, no.
Admiral Barrett. There's a cost----
Senator Kerry. Would we be better off as a country if the
market moved faster?
Admiral Barrett. Well, I think there are tradeoffs. The
cost to the consumer, of what we have proposed--not anything
further, as you discuss; what we have proposed--is somewhere
between $300 and $900 a vehicle. That's substantial impact,
also, that needs to be factored in.
Senator Kerry. But we----
Admiral Barrett. I also can't----
Senator Kerry.--we did factor it in. In 2004, I proposed a
$4,000-per-vehicle credit to the consumer.
Admiral Barrett. Well----
Senator Kerry. That's a worthwhile tax expenditure, isn't
it?
Admiral Barrett. Well, it--I think that's an issue for the
Congress. I--what I also--I just--candidly, Senator, I
appreciate your interest in this, and I understand the concern
you're raising. What we put out as a proposal--we're open for
comments until July 1--we will take seriously the feedback. And
obviously, we will look at what's going on in the market and
what's going on with fuel as we consider a final rule.
Senator Kerry. Well, the final rule is predicated on a
notion that we're going to try to achieve that standard by
2030, isn't that correct?
Admiral Barrett. Well, it's staged, so actually a lot of
the standard will be achieved by 2015, and then 2020 is the out
year for the final standard--2020.
Senator Kerry. China's going to achieve that standard next
year.
Admiral Barrett. I'm not--I'm not aware of that. China has
nowhere near the number of vehicles we have, either, sir.
Senator Kerry. They're growing rapidly, aren't they?
Admiral Barrett. They are growing. But, they're still----
Senator Kerry. Doesn't it matter that they think they can
put vehicles in place that can establish that standard by next
year? What does that say about us?
Admiral Barrett. Again, we've proposed what we believe is
feasible and achievable, in line with the law. We've actually
exceeded the requirement in the law. But, I don't know,
specifically, what the Chinese----
Senator Kerry. Where's the Administration's proposal with
respect to high-speed rail, and rail as a whole, in the
country?
Admiral Barrett. Well, I think rail--a number of things are
going on. Certainly, freight rail is a hugely efficient way of
moving freight. It's near capacity across the country.
Senator Kerry. And where's the proposal to expand capacity
on high-speed rail?
Admiral Barrett. Well, again, I think that's something
that, again, is in a research-and-development area. I think
Congress is obviously interested, and we are interest, also--as
well. But, the technology for some of the high-speed rail is
enormously expensive. And unlike in some other places, we're
using existing infrastructure. You know, it's--it takes a lot
of work. And it would probably be feasible only in very heavily
trafficked corridors.
Senator Kerry. Well, we have some of those, Mr. Barrett. We
have trains today that could go 150 miles an hour, and they
can't go 150 miles an hour because the Baltimore Tunnel won't
allow them to, because the----
Admiral Barrett. You're right.
Senator Kerry.--bridges won't allow them to. And you don't
have any proposal whatsoever to fix those things.
Admiral Barrett. Well, I think, again, investment in
infrastructure is enormously important.
Senator Kerry. Well, of course it is. That's what I'm
talking about. But, where's the proposal?
Admiral Barrett. For high-speed rail? We----
Senator Kerry. For any of these things.
Admiral Barrett. Well, we have proposed--we, in fact, have
spent enormous amounts of money on improving transit
infrastructure, improving highway infrastructure, and trying to
bring market forces to bear to improve the flow, to eliminate
the congestion. And I think the passengers are moving, based on
those prices.
Senator Kerry. Well, I have to tell you that it's more than
passing disappointing.
Let me ask you what is the guiding operative management
target under which Department of Transportation, Department of
Energy, and others are proceeding with respect to global
climate change? This hearing is obviously on global climate
change. This is the 20-year anniversary of Jim Hansen coming up
here and telling us that it's happening now, 20 years ago. Now
we know it's happening, even to a greater degree and faster
than was predicted. I'd like to know what the operative
estimate is of your Department as to where a potential, sort
of, catastrophic tipping point may be, and how fast you have to
respond to these infrastructure challenges.
And I do that particularly in light of the fact that there
are predictions, for instance, that--just last week, The
Washington Post ran a story headlined, ``Extreme Weather to
Increase with Climate Change,'' and, ``Our scientists now agree
that the droughts are going to get drier, the storms are going
to get stormier, the floods are going to get deeper with
climate change.'' That's a quote. They warn of more flooding,
like we're seeing in Iowa today, more heavy downpours, more
droughts. ``In March, the Department of Transportation found
that the Gulf Coast would put a substantial portion of the
region's transportation infrastructure at risk. Storm surges in
the Gulf Coast will flood more than half the area's major
highways, almost half of the rail miles, 29 airports, and
virtually all of the ports.''
So, given these predictions, which keep coming at us, under
what time-frame do you believe you're operating, in terms of
the infrastructure expenditures necessary to respond to these
threats?
Admiral Barrett. Senator, I think the answer is, first,
you--and you highlighted it--the Gulf Coast study we did is
regionally focused. With respect to transportation
infrastructure, the first step is understanding the potential
implications in local areas, because they vary. And a follow-on
to that study will involve the East Coast. But, the impacts
will be different. Gulf Coast, obviously, you've got the
potential for sea level rise, temperature changes, storm
intensity, all affecting the things you do. So, I think the
first thing we are trying to do is understand better, and
particularly regionally, what the actual implications might be
so that people who repair and renew and expand transportation
infrastructure, which, to a large extent, rests in the states,
as well as the Federal Government, can adjust to that over time
as they repair and renew and build out.
But, I think there is no timeline, specific, but we clearly
need to understand what needs to be done, and, as we plan new
projects--for example, we had instrumented, in the Gulf region,
a cable-stay bridge when Katrina came through. We have the data
from the wind-loading on that bridge, and we're trying to--and
we are assessing the implications of that for bridge design
across the country. And I think you will see adjustments to how
we design, build, and install bridges to withstand climate
better, and the impacts of climate change, whether it's
increased storms or higher river levels.
And so, the technology to do this is within our capability.
We will make the adjustments as rapidly as we can. But, there's
no specific time. It's a serious issue, it's got our attention,
and, working with the Congress, we are doing our very best to
address it.
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and I
appreciate your indulgence here.
I'd just close by saying there really is a specific time,
sir. Jim Hansen, who is hugely respected, first warned of this,
20 years ago, and we've been slow to respond to it. The science
is only coming back stronger and more rapidly and greater. Jim
Hansen has now revised--right now, today, in these days--is
warning us that we have less cushion than the scientists
thought when they revised the cushion from several years ago.
So, it's gone from 550 parts per million of greenhouse gases,
to 450, and now, they believe, less than that.
There is a time-frame here. They've said we've got 10 years
to get this right. And if you're saying to us, you know,
there's no time-frame, and that's, sort of, the attitude of
where we are, I think this is going to be very difficult to get
done. And I think it's, frankly, inappropriate, that that is
where a major department, the Department of Transportation,
stands today. I think there ought to be vast commitments in
incentives, tax incentives, grants, expenditures to put America
on a course, here, to deal with this.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Stevens?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask that you put my statement in the record that I
would have made if I had gotten here on time. I do apologize
for being late.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Stevens. And I'm constrained to say that I think my
friend from Massachusetts seems to think that we ought to
change the world overnight. We did adopt a new CAFE standard,
the first since the 1970s; and we're implementing it. China has
not called in the cars that are polluting. They've set new
standards for their new vehicles, if and when they get them.
I think the problem we have to deal with is the impact of
some of these changes on the individual American and on our
states. Our state had, as I've said in this statement, a report
that the effects of climate change stand to increase our
maintenance and replacement costs for public infrastructure by
$6 billion over the next 20 years. Now, we're a small state.
The impact of that on the taxpayer and upon the people of our
state is going to be overwhelming if we have to start meeting
some immediate standards. The question has got to be, What do
we do first?
Now, I applaud you, Mr. Barrett, for what you've said, in
terms of the attempts that the administration is making to get
people to move, across the board. Nobody can do it overnight,
all at once. But, I think the CAFE standards that we've
established are really a step in the right direction. We're
trying to find ways to really measure the effects of
alternative energies and how much we can afford to move, and
how quickly we can move on those.
I would say, those people who have opposed our exploration
in the Arctic of Alaska and of developing our resources
offshore have put us behind the eight ball right now. If
President Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, we would
be producing an extra 2 million barrels of oil a day, and that
income to our state and to our Nation would enable us to be
making some of the changes that we have to make. The only way
we can make them now is to raise taxes. And how do you raise
taxes on people that are currently now paying for oil at $140 a
barrel instead of $8 a barrel, which is what we paid when we
completed the Alaska Oil Pipeline?
Now, Mr. Secretary, what I'd really like to know is
something different, and that is, have you conferred with the
people in the aviation industry? How are they going to meet
these changes? The cost of aviation fuel is going up as
rapidly, or more rapidly, than that for automobiles. In my
state, 70 percent of the destinations in my State can be
reached only by air, and we're seeing enormous change. National
airline after national airline is canceling their flights to my
state. We'll be isolated in another 2 years. Now, what can we
do to meet the problems of these international and national
airlines?
Admiral Barrett. Senator, thank you. I think they are
enormously challenged. At the same time, they are leading
American industry with respect to technology. And, as I
indicated in my statement, they have actually been able to
improve their fuel efficiency and reduce their carbon emissions
when other international airlines--EU, for example--have not
been able to do it; they're moving in the opposite direction.
We clearly--one of the principal things we're doing is try
to accelerate bringing forward what is commonly termed ``next
generation technology'' to allow the management of the air
traffic system that we operate--the FAA operates--to allow them
to operate much more efficiency and reduce their carbon burn.
We are providing grants, through our Airport Improvement
Programs, to bring ground equipment forward that uses less
fuel. But, aviation--a lot of the burn is in the routes, it's
getting them the ability to get from point to point more
efficiently. We've changed the routing in the air, we've
brought forward--allowed them to space--safely, I might add--
closer together at certain altitudes. We have worked closely
with the Department of Defense to open up military airspace as
part of the national airspace when we've had holiday traffic.
Again, it reduces the fuel burn to the airlines. We're working
very closely with them to try and do everything we can to
minimize the burden the Government puts on them, in terms of
managing their flight profiles.
And--but, I don't want to underestimate it. Their model,
their business model of your major carriers is not built on
135-dollar-a-barrel fuel, and it's a substantial challenge. And
we're going to move, again, as quickly as we can. The FAA
certainly is.
As an example, one of the issues we're working with the--
with RNAV--and you're familiar with these, Senator--continuous-
descent approaches to allow airlines in--where we can do it
safely--to come down on a direct approach, basically throttle
back into an airport. FAA is moving testbed into Florida to
bring this forward. We've done tests in Louisville to work
incrementally to reduce the fuel burn. It's that simple.
There's a direct line between fuel burn and carbon footprint
and cost.
Airlines are offloading weight, as you know. We're managing
that for safety. That's another concern. As these things are
taken--as these measures are taken, we're working very closely
with them to make sure their flying remains as it is, a very
safe mode of transportation.
Senator Stevens. Well, that's good. I'm glad to hear it.
Have you analyzed the effect of cap-and-trade legislation
on building our enormous natural-gas pipeline to Alaska?
Admiral Barrett. Not specifically, no. But, I would say
that cap-and-trade--we've done a couple of things in the
Department. We have tried--for example, Pipeline Safety
Administration--to look at ways to move gas through lines at
higher volume and get more efficiency out of an existing line;
move more--increase the capacity.
But, cap-and-trade, with respect to transportation systems,
has to be approached very carefully. Mobile sources and sources
that move product are not the same as power plants. And, again,
the cost structure of the business models are totally
different. And if we are not very careful about improving--and
we're global--if we impose, carelessly, cap-and-trade regimes
in transportation, it can have a very negative, even
devastating effect. So, we haven't looked specifically at your
question. I'd be glad to, and provide some feedback to you.
Senator Stevens. Well, I wish you would, because I was told
that the application of cap-and-trade, the credits that would
be required during the construction phase alone for a pipeline
of that size, really, it would be the largest project in the
history of the United States financed by private capital--that,
for all the trucks and everything else that are going to be
used in this construction phase over a period of 5-6 years,
that the costs would be increased by at least 20 percent if
they had to go out and buy credits under that concept for the
pollution that's taking place, notwithstanding the fact that
the completion of the line would bring about the delivery of an
enormous amount of new additional natural gas, which is not as
polluting as the coal that people are using in many of the
areas that would be supplied. There doesn't seem to be any
leeway for those who want to move to try and get a more
efficient type of energy available. I think that cap-and-trade
legislation would kill that pipeline.
Admiral Barrett. Sir, no, I agree, in general. Cap-and-
trade in transportation is very treacherous and needs to be
looked at very closely.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. I do have some questions to be submitted
to--I'm going to be going out of the hearing after----
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
The effects of climate change on the transportation sector is an
important issue, particularly in Alaska, and I thank the Chairman for
holding this hearing.
The University of Alaska recently released a report on potential
impacts of climate change on transportation and public infrastructure
in Alaska. The report found that the effects of climate change stand to
increase maintenance and replacement costs of public infrastructure in
Alaska by up to 20 percent, or an additional $6 billion over the next
two decades.
We can mitigate these impacts and reduce costs through study and
research on improving the planning, design, construction, and operation
of transportation systems.
We must also explore the potential for increased energy efficiency
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.
Recently, I have supported legislation to increase the corporate
average fuel economy standards for automobiles.
Conservation measures and alternative energies need to be part of
our long-term strategy, but the idea that we can transition from fossil
fuels anytime in the next 20 years is not realistic.
Worldwide oil demand is expected to increase to 116 million barrels
a day by 2030. We do need to explore ways to ease our dependence on
fossil fuels in the transportation sector, but the investments required
to make this transition are enormous.
This is why I continue to argue that revenues from new domestic
sources of oil, including ANWR, should be devoted to climate change
adaptation and alternative energy development to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil.
I welcome our witnesses today, including Mead Treadwell who has
traveled all the way from Anchorage to be here, and I look forward to
your testimony.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Carper?
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To our witnesses, welcome. Thank you for joining us today,
for your testimony, and for responding to our questions.
I just want to follow up on a couple of comments that our
colleagues have made in some discussion a bit earlier on CAFE.
The CAFE legislation, which I think all of us here worked on to
enact, has the practical effect of, not literally but
figuratively, removing about 60 million vehicles off of our
roads, in terms of reduced CO2 emissions, by 2020.
That's no small accomplishment. If we don't figure out how to
drive less, though, instead of how to drive more, it will be an
accomplishment for naught.
We were speculating earlier about whether or not we needed
to go further than CAFE, further than 35 miles per gallon by
2020. My guess is that market forces will get us there a lot
faster than the legislation that we've passed. And I think that
will be a good thing.
I have a couple of questions, and I have a statement for
the record, if I could, more effective, but a couple of
questions.
Senator Carper. And the first question, I think I'll direct
it to Dr. Peterson to start off with and others might respond,
if they wish. The transportation sector is responsible, I
believe, for almost one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions,
making it among the largest source in our economy; I think,
second only to power plants. How should the U.S. surface
transportation policy be updated to support the goals of
climate change legislation?
Dr. Peterson. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to
that question, but it's somewhat out of my area of expertise.
We've been focusing on how climate change will impact
transportation, rather than focusing on how transportation is
impacting climate change and what should be the change in
policies should be with regard to transportation.
Senator Carper. Let me ask a slightly different question,
but a related one. Should the transportation sector be
responsible for one-third of the emission reductions for
CO2 that are necessary to meet targets that
scientists say is necessary?
Dr. Peterson. Should transportation be required for one-
third of the reductions or a different amount? Again, that's
out of my area of expertise. But, as we look forward----
Senator Carper. Once, in another hearing, I asked a witness
a question like that, and it was beyond his area of expertise,
and he just said to me, ``Next question?''
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. You can----
Dr. Peterson. Next question?
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Let me just bounce that same question off
of Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett, you want to take a shot at that, and we'll
give Dr. Peterson a pass, here.
Dr. Peterson. Thank you.
Admiral Barrett. Senator, thank you very much. And I'd
agree with your observation, by the way, that the market does--
seems to be working. And as gas prices are going up, we are
seeing shifts in behavior that affect--and, over time, will
affect even more--transportation.
But, I think--one way to approach it is, I think we clearly
recognize it and desire to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
that comes from transportation. We can improve the energy
efficiency of transportation vehicles, such as with CAFE. We
can substitute energy sources that are lower in emission--
alternate fuels, renewable fuels. We can do things, like we're
doing with congestion pricing, that improve the flow--better
technology, signal timing--that leverage the systems we've got;
and then reduce, you know, how much motorized activity goes
on--vehicles--and how much.
But, the intermodal piece is important, too. I mean, you're
seeing shifts to rail, to ships, to ways that are intrinsically
more efficient, and the market is driving that. I don't know if
that's what--responsive. But, I think the goal is to drive it
down, across the board.
Senator Carper. I take the train back and forth to
Washington almost every day. I live in Delaware and I don't get
off the train at BWI, but if I wanted to, I could literally
take a bus from my house to the train station, catch the train,
take the train to BWI, get off, take a shuttle to the terminal,
and then fly to just about any place around the world. We don't
always make it easy for people to get from a train to an
airport terminal, but we do at BWI, and I think we do the same
thing at Newark, Delaware.
Let me just do a follow-up, if I can, Mr. Barrett. I think,
in your testimony, you talked about congestion pricing, and you
mentioned it just a moment ago, as well, and other travel
demand management techniques, and I missed your statement, but
I believe you may have cited Germany's experience with this.
But, as I'm sure you know, Germany has invested a lot of money
in transit. They've invested a fair amount of money in other
driving alternatives that are not always available in American
communities, like what I described for my own community for
myself if I wanted to fly out of BWI. But, without the safe,
convenient driving alternatives, do people really have the kind
of options that they need, other than, in some cases, paying
the tolls, or, in other cases, changing the time of their
commute, which they might like to do, but their employers may
have another idea about that? And doesn't this severely limit
the potential benefit of congestion pricing, which, frankly, I
still find is an interesting option, but it's not without its
problems?
Admiral Barrett. No, I think it--one of the options it does
is potentially does create funds to invest in other
alternatives. You mentioned Germany, but if you look at London
or you look at Stockholm, you look at some of the other
examples where they've put, for example, cordon-type pricing
approaches in, one of the things they do with the funds they
gain is invest it to improve transit and improve the
alternatives that you're speaking about, so that, you know,
ultimately, the publicly has more choice available to them. And
certainly, I think the idea of providing more flexibility to
both State and local officials as they make those regional
investment decisions is important.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
This could be a question for any of our panelists, but
transit agencies across the country are struggling to meet the
increasing demands resulting from high gas prices. This is
actually a good-news story, I think, because we've seen SEPTA
ridership growing in my own region of the country, by 5 to 10
percent; we've seen some transit agencies with as much as 20-25
percent growth in ridership. Ridership on Amtrak is up, I
think, this year to date, by about 10 to 15 percent; last year,
it was up by close to 10 percent, as well. But, transit
agencies across the country are struggling to meet increasing
demands resulting from high gas prices, as you know. And, at
the same time, more people are turning to transit as a clean,
affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public
transportation user, on average, needs to buy, I'm told, about
half as much gasoline as a person without access to transit.
And I would just ask anyone on this panel, is the Federal
investment in public transportation adequate to serve our
public in an era of high gas prices?
Dr. Turner, I can tell you're dying to answer that
question.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Turner. Well, sir, your perceptive powers are amazing.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Turner. This is a little bit out of our area of
expertise, but let me just describe for you the things that
we're doing at NIST.
We're basically attacking this at three levels, starting
with the atmosphere. We are working with NOAA, which is a
sister agency of ours within the Department of Commerce, to
make very accurate measurements of the gases that are in the
atmosphere, to help with calibrating satellite instruments and
to make very accurate measurements of the solar radiance on the
atmosphere, and also to look at the impact of aerosols, because
NOAA needs that information to put into their climate models to
make the predictions that are necessary.
We're also looking at some very near-term things, such as
biofuels and hydrogen as alternatives in the mix that people
will have. We've been very active with Brazil and the EU to
develop standards and methods of measuring, to assure that
commerce can take place equitably in biofuels.
The U.S. auto manufacturers have also been a very
significant user of our neutron facility, which is used to
improve fuel cells, which support a hydrogen economy. We're
also working to tackle the problem of embrittlement that
hydrogen has on metals that would be used in a pipeline. So,
we're looking at that also.
One of the other things that we're doing is to look at what
can be done with respect to cement. It's something so basic, so
fundamental, but it turns out that, for each ton of cement
produced, you produce a ton of carbon dioxide. And so, one of
the things we're looking at is the replacement of cement, in
manufacturing concrete, with fly ash. Fly ash is a byproduct of
electricity production, and so, any increase that we can have
in the production of concrete, using fly ash as opposed to
cement, would have immediate impact on the carbon footprint
that's out there.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired. Could I just add
a quick P.S., if I may? I won't ask another question.
When I was Governor of Delaware, if we wanted to build a
road or a highway or a bridge, the Federal Government paid for
80 percent of it. Eighty percent. If we wanted to do a transit
investment, the Federal Government provided 50 percent of it.
If we wanted to invest--if it made more sense to put in
intercity passenger rail, the Federal Government provided
nothing. And I'm sure we made investment decisions, that were
probably wrong decisions, because of the difference in those
modes of--or measures of Federal support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas Carper, U.S. Senator from Delaware
This is a very important hearing, one that I hope will be repeated
in the other committees with jurisdiction over transportation.
The transportation sector is responsible for 30 percent of this
Nation's carbon emissions and growing. Yet emissions from the
transportation sector can be more difficult to address than stationary
sources.
This is because we have millions of tiny, mobile smokestacks
manufactured by different companies, fueled with fuel from different
companies and sources and operated by millions of different people with
varying demands and needs.
No matter the challenge, it is an area we must address in order to
meet our carbon reduction targets and we already have the tools to do
so.
There are three broad areas that must be dealt with: the efficiency
of vehicles, the carbon content of fuels and how much people drive.
Last year, this committee took the lead in passing a bill to increase
the fuel efficiency of cars from 25 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020.
We also promoted the use of alternative fuels by passing a
renewable fuels standard, requiring the production of 21 billion
gallons of advanced renewable fuels, also by 2020.
The final area that needs some attention is making our
transportation system less congested and more efficient. This means
fixing bottlenecks, intermodalism and more options to driving.
American ingenuity is going to bring us the Chevrolet Volt in the
very near future--a car that will go 640 miles without needing to be
recharged or filled up. There are also companies hard at work
developing renewable fuels. One example is Coskata, a U.S. company that
says it will be able to produce ethanol from practically any source--
including garbage, plant waste and used tires--for $1 per gallon.
Now we, in government, need to show the same amount of ingenuity
and address the efficiency of the transportation system we have built.
There is much we can learn from state and local governments that
have already begun to invest in alternatives to driving, saving their
constituents thousands of dollars when the cost of gas goes up.
Some states and local governments have found that when
transportation and development decisions are made together the whole
system works better, people save money on transportation, property
values rise and pollution decreases.
To support these important efforts, the Federal Government will
have to work across agencies and modes of travel to find the most
effective way to move people and freight.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly from the
Department of Transportation, about how we can break down these silos
and find ways to make it safe and convenient for people and goods to
get where they are going, whether it is by car or truck, train, plane,
ship or all of the above.
We will have to address that here in Congress, as well. In the
Senate, transportation is handled by three different committees--air
and rail in this Committee, highways at Environment and Public Works
and transit at Banking. I am fortunate enough to serve on all three.
As we develop a climate change bill and prepare to reauthorize the
surface transportation program, we need to bring these three committees
together to consider how to move people and goods, not just cars,
trains and ships. By doing so, we can save Americans money at the pump,
reduce congestion and reduce the carbon and other pollutants being
emitted today.
The Chairman. There is a vote pending at this moment.
Senator Nelson will ask one question, and we will stand in
recess.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. We have 7 minutes left to vote, so you all
are saying, with climate change, roads will buckle, bridges
will wash out, railroads will be destroyed. If the seas rose 2
feet, in my state of Florida, we're talking about--what kind of
investment in transportation would be thrown out the window as
a result of that?
Admiral Barrett. I would guess--surmise, substantial. But,
I--again, I would take the approach--the Gulf Coast, trying to
quantify specifically where those--what rail would need to be
rerouted, what roads would need to be readjusted. I think you
need very specific analysis at a local and/or regional level.
And obviously, we're working toward that. Understanding the
specific impacts is enormously important.
Dr. Turner. Sir, one of the things that I would add is that
one of our initiatives in our 2009 budget looks more broadly at
making communities more disaster-resilient. This would be for
water, winds, fires, and so forth.
Senator Nelson. And that's the point. In a state like
Florida, where 80 percent of the population is on the coast,
it's very difficult to go in and redo all of that
infrastructure. And the cost is just going to be enormous. So,
we'd better start figuring out something to do so that the seas
don't rise.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The hearing will stand in recess. We'll be back in about 10
minutes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. We shall resume the hearing.
I've been asked by Senator Thune to submit his remarks and
questions for the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The information previously referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senator from South Dakota
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairman
and Vice Chairman for holding today's hearing on the
transportation sector's impact on climate change and climate
change's impact on our transportation infrastructure.
When discussing the topic of transportation's impact on
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, we must
start with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
In addition to the historic increase in vehicle fuel
efficiency standards and other energy efficiency programs, this
bill included an expanded renewable fuels standard.
The 2007 Energy Bill requires the use of 36 billion gallons
of renewable fuel by 2022. The new RFS also includes
significant requirements for lifecycle greenhouse gas emission
reductions.
New corn ethanol plants must produce ethanol with a 20
percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
Advanced biofuel and cellulosic ethanol, which constitute
the majority of the new RFS, must have a 50 percent reduction
and 60 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
relative to regular gasoline.
Mr. Chairman, this landmark piece of legislation cannot be
overlooked when discussing transportation sector's impact on
greenhouse gas emissions.
Moving forward, we must continue to meet the challenges of
high fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions with common sense
policies that reduce emissions while keeping U.S. businesses
competitive, our economy growing, and family budgets intact.
Climate Change's impact on the transportation sector:
On account of aging and outdated infrastructure, we have
economic challenges that are real, tangible, and identifiable
today. Many of these infrastructure challenges are going unmet.
Based on projections of population growth and government
funding streams such as the Federal Highway trust, fund we know
that these challenges will only grow in the future and
resources will increasingly fall short of meeting these real
short- and mid-term challenges.
I encourage the Committee to proceed with caution when
considering proposals that allocate scarce Federal resources
based on climate models or projections of weather patterns far
into the future.
The Chairman. May we have a 2-minute recess?
[Recess.]
The Chairman. You are here earlier than expected.
Ms. Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for waiting. And thank you, to our witnesses.
Everywhere I went this weekend, this issue of the
interaction between changes to our climate and our
transportation system--confronted me from our airlines
executives at Northwest Airlines, who testified yesterday about
the effect on the fuel and their need to do something
differently there, to a bus line, called Jefferson Bus Line,
that I did an event with, and their brochures show 100 penguins
getting on their bus, to show how, by using public
transportation, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, like,
55 cars for every bus, to a very sad moment when we went to
look at the floods in southern Minnesota, right on the Iowa
border, and went to a very rural part of our state, where a man
was driving a business owner to get a sump pump, in the middle
of the night, to help his daughter, and suddenly the road just
opened up and caved in. It's literally from this wall to that
wall, a country road, down probably, I don't know, 10 yards,
and he died in this. And we went to the site with some of the
rescue workers that tried to save his life. But, it made me
think--very close to my heart--about the effect that changes in
our world are having on our transportation system.
So, I know, Dr. Peterson, you talked about some of the work
that might need to be done for bridges and for roads and for
other things if we continue to see changes to our climate
resulting in more storms and tornados and everything else.
Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
Dr. Peterson. Yes, thank you.
One of the things we're realizing, as the climate is
changing, is that it is not only changing now, or has changed
in the past, but that it will change even more rapidly into the
future, and we need to take this into consideration as we're
designing infrastructure. Some of the questions about
infrastructure are a result of how long it has been in service.
For example, some coastal railroad tracks were laid shortly
after the Civil War, and the climate has changed. Sea level has
risen since then, and is expected to continue to rise in the
future. So, we need to have a continuing effort to take
adaptation measures. Not only at the present time, but
continuing into the future. To always try to include the latest
information as we design structures to withstand the future
climate as it is evolving and going on.
Senator Klobuchar. And, of course, we, here in Congress,
have a responsibility to try to figure out how to fund it, and
right now we are looking at a potentially bankrupt Highway
Trust Fund if we don't do something different there. And I
don't expect you to give us that answer, but it's clearly, as I
hear about the adaptations you think that we need, that we're
going to have to look at more infrastructure funding.
Have you looked, also, at the effect on the Great Lakes?
Because, with the exception of this year, over the past 80
years we've seen Lake Superior at its lowest level--it's still
low now, it was just lower the year before--due to climate
change, because the water is evaporating. It's different than
the sea. The ice melts quicker, the water evaporates, and the
water levels are going down, so we're having severe problems
with barge traffic coming in.
Dr. Peterson. Yes, as the ice recedes and there is less
ice, there is more evaporation with a general trend towards
more drying in the midsection of the continent. We were just
working on a figure, last week, of Great Lakes water levels
with different model projections into the future, going out to
2100, and all of the Great Lake levels were projected to
decrease under all the different global warming scenarios we
were looking at.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. I just wondered if that
was unique to our lake.
And then, I wanted to turn to--Mr. Deputy Secretary, to
some of the issues of the biofuels, which both you and Dr.
Turner mentioned. And we are one of the leading states for
biodiesel, were ahead of our time on ethanol, and are now ahead
of our time, in terms of looking to that next stage of ethanol,
which is cellulosic, with prairie grass and--I've seen plants
in my state. Guys have laptop computers showing how we can grow
it on all the highway medians. And my husband and I wonder how
we're going to harvest it. It looks a little dangerous. But,
the point is that there are all kinds of possibilities to go
into this next stage of ethanol, and I just wondered what you
see as the potential of biofuels if we go beyond where we are
now with corn?
Admiral Barrett. Senator, thanks. Obviously, alternative
and renewable fuels are something that offers some
possibilities. What we are looking at is both the research and
technology necessary to allow these fuels to operate safely.
Safety is always our primary concern. And, as you bring
ethanol, alcohol-based fuels, into transportation networks, the
ability to move them and distribute them safely is a concern.
So, we're investing a fair amount of research in that, and
obviously working with a lot of partners.
Senator Klobuchar. And I probably missed the main point. I
mean, the main point, when we're talking about climate change
and the interaction with transportation, is, not only is it
energy-independent, but it's actually the--if done right, the
prairie grass, the cellulosic is actually carbon-negative, as
opposed to the corn, which reduces carbon dioxide by, I think,
20 percent over the fuel, but this could actually be carbon-
negative, so it could reduce----
Admiral Barrett. And I--in broad terms, we obviously have
to make our vehicles more efficient, we have to make our
systems more efficient, we have to look for alternative and
renewable sources, we have to improve our supplies. I think
it's multifaceted. I also think it will take time. The market
will help determine how quickly it can be brought forward and
how it works for American consumers and their vehicles.
Senator Klobuchar. And, Dr. Turner, one of the things we're
looking at is some higher blends. Let's say, we--you know, we
have E85 in Minnesota, but we also--E10, E20, but we could do
some higher blend of fuel, where it's part gas and then it's
part biofuel, whether it's from algae or whatever we're going
to develop in this country. Have you looked at that for
standards for certification? I know there's also--it's--being
in a big snowmobiling state of Minnesota, there are also some
issues for smaller engines with higher biofuel blends that
we're going to have to look at and make sure that they're still
going to be able to work. But, could you talk about that?
Because that could be a very promising development, if we
actually up the percentage of biofuels in all of our--in all of
our fuel.
Dr. Turner. Yes, Senator. As you're aware, measurements and
standards are our core competency, and we certainly are looking
at that. We're also looking a bit beyond that, to look at
different catalysts that may be available to make the process
of producing the ethanol more efficient. Also, we are looking
at the possibility of synthetic molecules that would have a
greater energy content than the ethanol that's currently
produced.
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
Dr. Turner. We're looking at things, across the board, as
well as looking globally at the other countries that will be
playing in the ethanol economy, to make sure that we have a
level playing field and we have common terminology and common
definitions and are able to trace back to common standard
references for precisely what is ethanol, so that our consumers
can have confidence that for each dollar they pay, they get
what they think they're getting.
Senator Klobuchar. And I just think sometimes this--biofuel
things get very confusing for people, but it's an infant
industry, and it clearly needs to get more efficient as we go
forward. But, when we look at other countries, like Brazil,
they've done a lot with this, and it's possible, if we do this
right, we can actually do something about climate change at the
same time.
So, thank you, to all three of you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I'll wait until the
second panel comes, please.
The Chairman. OK.
Then, I'd like to thank Admiral Barrett, Acting Director
Turner, and Senior Scientist Peterson. We thank you very much.
Your testimony will be most helpful.
And we'll be submitting many questions. We look forward to
your answers.
Our next panel consists of the Chair of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Climate Change Technical Assistance Program, and the Secretary
of Transportation of the State of Maryland, the Honorable John
D. Porcari; then the Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola
College in Maryland, on behalf of the National Research
Council, Three Stratford Road, Baltimore, Dr. G. Edward Dickey;
Research Director of the Clean Vehicles Program, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Mr. David Friedman; President and Chief
Executive Officer, American--Association of American Railroads,
Mr. Edward Hamberger; Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer, Air Transport Association, Mr. John M.
Meenan; and the Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, Mr.
Mead Treadwell, of Anchorage.
I'd like to recognize Mr. Lautenberg for his opening
statement.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
apologize for my late arrival.
I saw a phenomenon this morning that is almost noteworthy;
and that was, I came down on an airplane that was on time. It
is very unusual.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, one-third of America's
greenhouse gas emissions comes from cars, trucks, and buses.
And Dr. James Hansen, NASA scientist, said, just last week, and
I quote, ``If we don't begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the next several years, then we are in trouble.'' And we've
got to begin by getting cars off the road, more people onto
passenger rail, buses, subways, and other types of mass
transit. Already, more and more people are riding public
transit, and it's more efficient, more convenient, and, with
these high gas prices, certainly more affordable.
Now, as all know, gas has skyrocketed in price from $1.50 a
gallon in 2000 to more than $4.00 a gallon today. And that's
why, in the first 3 months of this year, the number of people
taking mass-transit options rose more than 3 percent, just in
the first 3 months, over the same period last year. And I'm a
user of trains on a regular basis, and it's just more and more
crowded, people jamming the cars and the stations.
Amtrak also set records last month, both in number of
riders and amount of revenue. And the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak
bill, which we hope to finalize soon, and send to the President
for his signature, will lead to even more rail options for
travelers. But, for travelers who still need or choose to
drive, we must continue improving the fuel economy of our cars
and trucks.
Last year, we took the historic step of increasing the fuel
efficiency of our vehicles for the first time in decades. But,
that same day, the Bush EPA denied a waiver to allow
California, New Jersey, and 14 other states to set fuel economy
at even the higher standard of 40 miles a gallon by 2020. Now,
if this waiver were granted, it would take the equivalent of
more than 6 million cars and trucks off the road. Congress must
act to overturn the President's action.
We've also got to act to ensure more efficient movement of
freight. Trains are at least six times more energy efficient
than trucks, and barges are more than eight times more
efficient. I chaired a Subcommittee hearing a couple of weeks
ago on freight transportation needs, and, based on what I
learned, I plan to introduce tax relief legislation which will
encourage greater use of ships and barges, or, as we call it,
short sea shipping between U.S. ports. By investing in fuel
efficiency, mass transit, and better freight strategies, we can
both bring relief to the people at the pump and fight global
warming for generations to come.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to go out
of order.
The Chairman. Mr. Lautenberg, will you yield?
I regret I must leave this hearing. And so, I will be
relinquishing the chair to Senator Lautenberg.
And I thank you very much, members of the panel. But, I
have two other meetings to attend. So, thank you.
Senator Lautenberg [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Ex-Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I don't do this lightly.
We welcome the panel, and I'm pleased to be here with my
friend Senator Stevens from Alaska. You heard the Chairman
bring in the list of our panel, and I'm pleased to have you all
here. And I would ask that you give your testimony.
And, unfortunately, because of the size of the panel, we're
going to be fairly strict in the limit of 5 minutes, so we ask
you to summarize your testimony.
And, if you would, first, Mr. Porcari.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PORCARI, SECRETARY,
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; CHAIR,
CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ADVISORY BOARD; AND CHAIR, STANDING COMMITTEE ON
AVIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee.
I'm John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland Department of
Transportation, and I'm here on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in my
capacity as Chair of the Climate Change Technical Assistance
Advisory Board.
And let me say that, first, the State DOTs are working to
be part of the climate change solution. As you have noted,
transportation represents approximately one-third of greenhouse
gas emissions, and it's estimated that highway vehicles
generate 72 percent of those emissions.
To make a positive contribution to the issue of global
climate change, AASHTO believes transportation policies need to
reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce energy consumption,
and reduce travel demand relative to current trends. To achieve
these goals, AASHTO has called for reducing oil consumption by
20 percent in 10 years, doubling the fuel efficiency of new
passenger cars and light trucks by 2020, in the fleet by 2030,
and reducing the growth of vehicle-miles-traveled from the
predicted 2 percent per year to 1 percent per year.
To reduce vehicle travel, AASHTO has endorsed doubling
transit ridership by 2030, significantly expanding the market
share of passengers and freight moved by rail rather than
trucks, reducing the percentage of commuters who drive alone to
the 1980 levels, and increasing the percentage of those who
ride transit, carpool, walk, bike, and work at home.
Additionally, we're utilizing a publication we call the
``AASHTO Transportation and Climate Change Primer'' to outline,
for State and industry transportation leaders, the current
thinking on climate change and transportation.
We have also initiated a climate change technical
assistance program to supply states with timely information,
tools, technical assistance, and assistance in meeting climate
change challenges.
Let me briefly turn to the points that we believe should
guide Federal policy in this area.
First, the challenge before us is to reduce total
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. We need to develop national
policies that reduce our own emissions, and, where possible,
contribute to the broader global effort to reduce emissions.
Second, reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will
require a major contribution from every country and every
economic sector, including transportation. No one can sit on
the sidelines. Transportation agencies stand ready to do our
part.
Third, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will involve many
separate initiatives. In the transportation sector, we need
improvements in fuel economy, greater usage of low-carbon
fuels, better management of our transportation system to reduce
congestion and smooth traffic flows, and we need to take steps
that reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled.
Fourth, we should focus on finding solutions that yield the
greatest emissions reductions at the lowest cost. In other
words, cost-effectiveness should be a major consideration in
setting policy.
Fifth and finally, we need major technological
breakthroughs in order to have any chance of dramatically
cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases. For
transportation, this means improvement of fuel economy, but
ultimately a transition to entirely new fuels and new
propulsion systems.
With these breakthroughs and significant reductions, we
believe we can still allow for the travel growth to support the
economy.
In recent decades, road travel has greatly increased, while
the emissions of many harmful air pollutants have been
significantly reduced. Technological innovation has made this
possible. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions presents a new
challenge, and technological advances will be just as
important.
We're also seeing a tempering of growth in travel, due, in
part, to the higher fuel prices. Rather than growing at 2
percent or more annually, we've seeing the average vehicle-
mile-traveled growth of one-half of 1 percent since 2004.
Recently, USDOT reported the cumulative vehicle miles of
travel for 2008 declined by 2.1 percent. It's feasible, through
a combination of measures, to achieve major reductions in
greenhouse gases from road travel in the U.S. Relieving traffic
congestion is also essential to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. The optimal speed for motor vehicles is about 45
miles per hour. At lower speeds, emissions are several times
higher. If we can reduce the fuel burned by vehicles stalled in
traffic, that is a gain. If we can improve the flow of traffic
so fuel is burned at a more optimal efficiency, that will also
produce a gain.
In my own State of Maryland, under the leadership of
Governor Martin O'Malley, we've developed a statewide
greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint reduction
strategy. Our goal is to reduce emissions between 25 and 50
percent by 2020, and to obtain a 90-percent reduction in
greenhouse gases by 2050. Those transportation policies that
will help implement this include: slowing the growth of VMT,
supporting the development and use of improved techniques and
fuels, and examining other strategies, such as promoting
sustainable transit communities and transit-oriented
development.
We're also evaluating what climate change and sea level
rise will mean to our transportation infrastructure, given that
Maryland has 4,360 miles of shoreline. Now, fortunately, as a
multimodal State DOT with one transportation trust fund for
highways, transit, ports, and airports, we can work across the
board to meet these goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Porcari, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation; Chair, Climate Change Technical Assistance Program
Advisory Board; and Chair, Standing Committee on Aviation, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Good morning, I am John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland
Department of Transportation. Thank you for the invitation to speak
today on an issue of critical importance to the Nation--climate change
and national strategies to address climate change.
I am appearing on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). I chair AASHTO's Climate
Change Technical Assistance Program Advisory Board and the Standing
Committee on Aviation. I will also touch on some Maryland activities
and initiatives.
AASHTO and its members are working diligently to be part of the
climate change solution. AASHTO has undertaken a number of climate
change activities, including:
Organizing a Transportation Vision Conference in Spring,
2007 which included discussions regarding sustainability and
climate change;
Publishing, in April 2008, a Primer on Transportation and
Climate Change; and
Developing a Climate Change Technical Assistance Program to
supply AASHTO members with timely information, tools and
technical assistance to assist them in meeting the difficult
challenges that arise related to climate change.
These and other materials will be provided to the Committee staff
for use by the Committee.
In May, 2007 AASHTO brought together transportation experts from
across the nation, representing users, builders and providers of our
transportation system for a three-day Transportation Vision and
Strategies for the 21st Century Summit. The resulting report, A New
Vision for the 21st Century, recognized the difficult challenge of
expanding the transportation network's capacity to serve a growing
population and communities and an expanding economy while
simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint of the system. To
address this challenge, AASHTO adopted the ``Triple Bottom Line''
approach, to encourage sustainable development by evaluating
performance on the basis of social, economic and environmental impacts.
The ``triple bottom line'' calls for:
Robust economic growth,
``Better than before'' health of the environment, and
Improved quality of life for all citizens.
AASHTO further recognized that to make a positive contribution to
the issue of global climate change, transportation policies need to
reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce energy consumption, and reduce
travel demand, relative to current trends. To achieve these goals
AASHTO called for:
Supporting the President's goal to reduce oil consumption by
20 percent in 10 years,
Doubling the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars and light
trucks by 2020, the entire fleet by 2030, and
Reducing the growth of vehicle miles traveled from the
predicted 2 percent per year to 1 percent per year.
To achieve the proposed reduction in VMT growth, AASHTO proposed:
Doubling transit ridership by 2030,
Significantly expanding the market share of passengers and
freight moved by rail rather than trucks,
Reducing the percentage of commuters who drive alone to 1980
levels, and
Increasing the percentage of those who ride transit,
carpool, walk, bike and work at home.
The AASHTO Transportation and Climate Change Primer was developed
to provide AASHTO members with an introduction to the issue of climate
change and its implications for transportation policy in the United
States. The paper is organized into five parts:
Part I summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge
concerning the causes and impacts of climate change.
Part II provides an introduction to climate change policy
issues.
Part III discusses trends in greenhouse gas emissions from
road transportation.
Part IV reviews potential measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from road transportation.
Part V identifies issues for further study.
The Primer is based on the most recent research in the field. Its
purpose is to outline for AASHTO members the current thinking of
governmental agencies, researchers, and advocacy groups on the issue of
climate change and transportation.
General Observations
In my testimony today, I will focus on the issue of climate change
as it relates to the surface transportation system, specifically
highways. I will begin with a few general points that we believe should
guide Federal policy in this area.
First: The challenge before us is to reduce total greenhouse gas
emissions, worldwide. In the end, it is the global total that matters.
This means we need to develop national policies that reduce our own
emissions and, where possible, contribute to the broader global effort
to reduce emissions.
Second: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a
major contribution from every country and every economic sector,
including transportation. No one can sit on the sidelines and wait for
others to carry the burden. As transportation agencies, we stand ready
to do our part.
Third: The effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will involve
many separate initiatives. There is no silver bullet. We should not get
so caught up in debates about competing approaches that we lose sight
of this bigger picture. In the transportation sector, this means we
need improvements in fuel economy; we need greater usage of low-carbon
fuels; we need better management of our transportation system to reduce
congestion and smooth traffic flows; and we need to take steps that
reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Fourth: We should focus on finding solutions that yield the
greatest emission reductions at the least cost. In other words, cost-
effectiveness should be a major consideration in setting policy.
Congress will be asked to consider many proposals in the name of
climate change. The question that must be asked is: How much emissions
reduction will this policy deliver, and at what cost?
Fifth, and finally: Technological innovation has been the key to
environmental progress in many areas. That will be even truer with
greenhouse gas emissions. Quite simply, we need major technological
breakthroughs in order to have any chance of dramatically cutting
global emissions of greenhouse gases. For transportation, this means
not only improvement in fuel economy, but ultimately a transition to
entirely new fuels and new propulsion systems--for example, plug-in
hybrid vehicles, zero-emission fuel-cell vehicles, and large-scale use
of next-generation renewable fuels such as cellulosic ethanol.
Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Travel
According to the policy analysis seen to date, transportation
represents approximately one third of greenhouse gas emissions, and it
is estimated that highway vehicles generate 72 percent of those
emissions.
Between now and 2030, the U.S. Government forecasts that fuel
efficiency will continue to improve and renewable fuels will gain
market share, but also vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will continue to
grow at 1.6 to 1.9 percent annually, outpacing the gains in fuel
efficiency. The result is that, according to DOE's forecasts,
greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are projected
to increase gradually between now and 2030.
Clearly, it is important to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from the U.S. transportation system, but how? It is a
difficult challenge, but the challenge can be overcome. Recently,
AASHTO published a report--the ``Primer on Transportation and Climate
Change--which analyzed this issue.
The Primer developed four scenarios showing how much greenhouse gas
emissions could be reduced under a range of assumptions about fuel
economy and growth in vehicle miles traveled. These scenarios assumed
that fuel economy would increase faster than currently forecasted by
USDOE--increasing to 50 or 100 miles per gallon in 2050. (For this
study, ``miles per gallon'' was measured in ``gasoline equivalent'',
which is a measure that converts greenhouse gas emissions from electric
or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles into an equivalent amount of gasoline
usage). The scenarios considered in the primer also assumed the VMT
would grow at either 1.5 percent or 1.0 percent annually, which would
be slower than the USDOE's forecasts. AASHTO found that under these
scenarios, major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are
achievable--in the range of 60 to 80 percent under the more optimistic
scenarios.
These scenarios are intended to illustrate the point that
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from road travel can
be achieved, if we have major breakthroughs in fuel economy and a
slight tempering of travel demand growth--while still allowing for
travel demand to increase at a rate at least equal to population
growth.
So is it realistic to achieve these dramatic reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions?
First, in terms of fuel economy: We have all seen the tremendous
increase in sales of gas-electric hybrid vehicles, which were rare up
until just a few years ago. The auto manufacturers are working on
developing entirely new vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids--for example,
the Chevy Volt--that runs entirely on electricity. Researchers are also
working on other innovations in vehicles and fuels, including next-
generation (cellulosic) ethanol and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The
seeds of tomorrow's technological breakthroughs have already been
planted.
And in terms of vehicle miles traveled: The VMT growth trends have
been tapering off in recent years. Rather than growing at 2 percent or
more annually, we have seen average VMT growth rates of approximately
0.5 percent (one-half of a percent) since 2004. And very recently, the
USDOT reported that cumulative vehicle miles traveled for 2008 declined
by 2.1 percent. Higher gasoline prices have played a role in this
shift, as have demographic factors. But the bottom line is this: we are
not seeing runaway growth in VMT; in fact, we are seeing just the
opposite. The tempering of VMT growth provides another indication that
it is feasible--through a combination of measures--to achieve major
reductions in greenhouse gases from road travel in the U.S.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Innovation in Vehicles and
Fuels
In recent decades, the volume of road travel has greatly increased,
while the emissions of many harmful air pollutants have been
significantly reduced. Technological innovation has made this progress
possible: today's vehicles are more fuel-efficient and employ far more
sophisticated emissions-control technologies than those on the roads in
the 1970s. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions presents a new challenge,
and in some ways a greater one. But technological advances will be just
as important to meeting this challenge as they have been to achieving
environmental goals in the past.
As the AASHTO scenarios illustrate, technological innovation is
essential to achieving emissions reductions. There are several ways
that Congress can help encourage innovation in vehicles and fuels. I
will briefly cover several of the most important ways that Congress can
assist in this area.
Strengthening Vehicle Emission Standards
In 2007, Congress increased the CAFE standard for passenger
vehicles and light trucks to 35 mpg, which must be achieved by 2020.
The law also creates a framework under which CAFE standards may further
increase between 2021 and 2030 for passenger cars and light trucks, and
establishes a program under which fuel-economy standards will be set
for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. There could also be separate
legislative or regulatory initiatives to continue raising fuel-economy
standards, as a way of making continued progress toward reducing
greenhouse gas emissions despite increasing travel demand.
In addition, California and several other states have adopted
stricter vehicle emission standards than those established by the
Federal Government. However, these standards cannot take effect unless
a waiver is granted by EPA, and in December 2007, EPA denied the
waiver. California and other states have filed a lawsuit to overturn
the waiver, and that case is now pending. If the California standards
are eventually allowed to proceed, or are adopted in some form at the
Federal level, they will contribute to further reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions.
Researchers have suggested another regulatory option, which focuses
specifically on greenhouse gas emissions. This concept involves setting
greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles--that is, a standard for
the grams of greenhouse gases emitted per mile of travel. This type of
standard would more precisely reflect the underlying goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, not just reducing the amount of fuel
consumed. This standard could be defined so that it covers all
greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles, including methane and nitrous
dioxide, not just CO2.
Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
Federal legislation has set goals for the total amount of biofuels
to be produced in 2022 (36 billion gallons), but has not set an overall
goal or requirement for reducing the carbon content of transportation
fuels. However, California has adopted a low-carbon fuel standard,
which calls for a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of
transportation fuels by 2020. Additional states, and possibly the
Federal Government, could adopt low-carbon fuel standards in the
future. If such standards are adopted, it will be important to consider
the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases associated with each fuel.
Some of the benefits of using low-carbon fuels may be offset by the
additional greenhouse gas emissions that result from clearing land and
growing crops to produce the fuels.
Cap-and-Trade Program/Carbon Tax
Any system for pricing carbon (whether it involves a cap-and-trade
program or a carbon tax) could include transportation fuels. For the
consumer, the increased cost of carbon would show up in the price of
gasoline at the pump. Estimates differ about how much a system of
carbon pricing would affect gasoline prices. However, there is general
agreement that the effect on gasoline prices would be noticeable but
not dramatic in relation to the price increases that have occurred in
recent years.
The enormity of the potential revenues from a carbon tax or cap-
and-trade program would give rise to important policy decisions about
how to spend those revenues and whether to make offsetting tax cuts.
Certainly, there would be a strong policy preference for funding
activities that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as
increased investments in transit, better management of our
transportation system to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows,
and removing barriers to high density development. Congress should also
consider dedicating a portion of the revenues from such a program to
help meet the costs of adapting to climate change, including the costs
of adapting the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Reducing the Growth in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT)
While technological change is essential to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, there is also a role for strategies that help to limit the
growth in travel demand. As discussed above, the total VMT has grown
much faster than population growth for the past several decades, but
appears to have slowed considerably in the past few years. The average
annual increase in VMT between 1990 and 2005 was approximately 2.2
percent. By contrast, population increased only about 0.8 percent per
year during this period. Between 2005 and 2007, VMT growth occurred at
a much slower rate--approximately 0.5 percent annually. Recent reports
indicate that over the 12 month period between March 2007 and March
2008, VMT declined by 4.3 percent
This recent data suggests that the VMT growth rates are moderating.
It is unclear at this point whether the lower growth rates are merely a
temporary departure from historical trends or a sign that future VMT
growth will be much lower than in the past. Certainly, it is plausible
that continued record high oil prices will cause motor fuel prices to
remain high or increase, which could continue to dampen growth in VMT.
In addition, changing demographics (an increase in retirees as the baby
boomer generation reaches 65 years of age) could also help to reduce
the rate of VMT growth, since people over the age of 65 generally drive
less than the rest of the population.
There are many factors that can affect the future growth rate of
VMT. Among the most important factors are economic trends and
demographic forces, which are largely beyond the influence of
government policies. For example, a strong economy and rising average
incomes tend to produce increases in VMT; conversely, large and
sustained increases in fuel prices will tend to dampen the growth in
VMT.
Against the backdrop of these larger trends, government policies
also can play a role--albeit a limited one--in influencing VMT growth.
Strategies that can be used include: (1) increasing investments in
transit and intercity passenger rail, (2) expanding other alternatives
to single-occupant vehicle travel, and (3) encouraging land uses that
minimize the number and length of auto trips.
Expanding Transit Service and Intercity Passenger Rail
Transit service provides an alternative to automobile travel and,
under certain conditions, can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
challenge is how to make the most of transit's potential, given that it
serves a relatively small share of travel in the United States (1
percent of passenger miles traveled) and major transit system
expansions require significant public sector funding. Additional
research will be required to determine how much of a reduction in total
greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved through increased transit
ridership and which types of transit investments would yield the
greatest (and most cost-effective) reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions.
While expanding transit service may not yield major reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, there are still good policy justifications
for increasing investments in transit service. For example, transit
service continues to play a key role in maintaining mobility within
large and densely population metropolitan areas, especially for
populations that lack access to an automobile. In addition, expanding
transit service can facilitate higher-density land use patterns that
help to reduce the need for auto trips. These considerations, in
combination with the potential greenhouse gas emission reduction
benefits, provide support for continuing to expand transit service as
an integral part of the transportation system.
Expanding Alternatives to Single-Occupant Auto Travel
In addition to transit, passenger travel also occurs by walking,
biking, carpooling, vanpooling, and telecommuting. To the extent that
auto driving in single-occupant vehicles can be shifted to these
alternatives, greenhouse gas reductions can be achieved. Telecommuting
is likely to be a highly cost-effective strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, as telecommuting costs are quite low, with
potentially a net savings per ton of greenhouse gas reduction, after
factoring in reduced auto operating costs.
Changes in Land Use Patterns
Land use decisions play an important role in determining the demand
for automobile travel. Existing land use patterns in many areas make
automobile travel a necessity for most trips. Higher-density land use
patterns, combined with increased availability of transit service,
could help to reduce the demand for automobile travel without reducing
mobility.
A key question is how to bring about those types of changes in land
use, which can be difficult because land use decisions are primarily
made by local governments. Government efforts should be focused on
removing the barriers to higher-density land use patterns, not
regulating lifestyle changes. Example of such barriers include, local
land use policies, such as zoning and parking regulations and local
reliance on land use taxes which tend to make localities favor
commercial development rather than residential development. In
addition, efforts should be made to tie the location employment centers
with affordable housing and tie high density development with transit
services.
As with transit, an important question to consider is how much
greenhouse gas emissions reduction can be achieved by shifting to
higher-density and less auto-dependent land use patterns. This issue--
the magnitude of the effect on VMT--has been addressed in several
reports. These reports indicate that changes in land use can reduce VMT
growth--over a 40 to 50 year timeframe--by approximately 5 to 10
percent.
Reducing Greenhouse Gases Through Congestion Relief and Other
Operational Strategies
In tandem with efforts to develop cleaner vehicles and fuels and to
reduce growth in VMT, it also is possible to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging more efficient
operation of motor vehicles.
Congestion Relief
Traffic congestion contributes to greenhouse gas emissions because
vehicle engines operate less efficiently--and therefore produce higher
emissions per mile--when they are driven at low speeds in stop-and-go
traffic. The optimal speed for motor vehicles with internal combustion
engines is about 45 mph. At lower speeds, CO2 emissions per
mile are several times higher than at 45 mph. At higher speeds,
CO2 emissions per mile increase as well, but somewhat less
sharply. As such, congestion relief can play a role in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. If we can reduce the amount of fuel burned by
vehicles stalled in traffic that is a gain. If we can improve the flow
of traffic so fuel is burned at more optimal efficiency rates then that
will also produce a gain.
Driver Behavior
In addition to vehicles, fuels, and VMT, the way motorists actually
operate their vehicles affects greenhouse gas emissions. The March 2007
TRB report notes that: Recent EAP data suggests that a significant
component of greenhouse gas emissions--as much as 22 percent--results
from inefficient operation of motor vehicles. These inefficiencies
could result from factors beyond the driver's control, such as traffic
congestion, and also could reflect a driver's own behavior, such as
high-speed driving, vehicle maintenance, and tire pressures. Driver
education and other policies could help to promote more efficient
vehicle operations, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Impacts of Climate Change on the Transportation System
While my testimony today focuses primarily on the role of the
transportation system in emitting greenhouse gases, I will also briefly
addresses the Transportation Research Board's (TRB's) recent report on
the potential impacts of climate change on the U.S. transportation
system.
Based on numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, the TRB report
identified five climate changes of particular importance for the
transportation system in the U.S.:
Increases in very hot days and heat waves,
Increases in Arctic temperatures,
Rising sea levels,
Increases in intense precipitation events, and
Increases in hurricane intensity.
These changes in climate will affect the transportation system in
many ways. The TRB report noted several specific examples. Just a few
of these examples include:
Operational and maintenance impacts of excessive heat.
``Periods of excessive summer heat are likely to increase
wildfires, threatening communities and infrastructure directly
and bringing about road and rail closures in affected areas.
Longer periods of extreme heat may compromise pavement
integrity (e.g., softening asphalt and increasing rutting from
traffic); cause deformation of rail lines and derailments or,
at a minimum, speed restrictions; and cause thermal expansion
of bridge joints, adversely affecting bridge operation and
increasing maintenance costs.''
Increased flooding of coastal roads and rail lines. ``The
most immediate impact of more intense precipitation will be
increased flooding of coastal roads and rail lines. Expected
sea level rise will aggravate the flooding because storm surges
will build on a higher base, reaching farther inland. . . .
[The IPCC] identifies coastal flooding from expected sea level
rise and storm surge, especially along the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts, as one of the most serious effects of climate change.
Indeed, several studies of sea-level rise project that
transportation infrastructure in some coastal areas along the
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic will be permanently inundated
sometime in the next century.''
Disruption of coastal waterway systems. ``[A] combination of
sea level rise and storm surge could eliminate waterway systems
entirely. For example, the Gulf Coast portion of the
intercoastal waterway will likely disappear with continued land
subsidence and disappearance of barrier islands. This will
bring an end to coastal barge traffic, which helps offset rail
and highway congestion; all ships will have to navigate the
open seas.''
Impacts on Alaskan infrastructure. ``The effects of
temperature warming are already being experienced in Alaska in
the form of continued retreat of permafrost regions (see the
discussion of Alaska below), creating land subsidence issues
for some sections of the road and rail systems and for some of
the elevated supports for above-ground sections of the Trans-
Alaska pipeline. Warming winter temperatures have also
shortened the season for ice roads that provide vital access to
communities and industrial activities in remote areas.''
Several other studies have also concluded that climate change is
likely to have widespread and severe impacts on transportation
infrastructure. These studies include:
U.S. DOT Gulf Coast Study. This study examined the potential
impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure in
the Gulf Coast region. The study recognized ``four key climate
drivers'' in the Gulf Coast region: rising temperatures,
changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and
increasing storm intensity. It suggested a range of possible
responses, including raising transportation facilities in low-
lying areas; hardening them to withstand storm events;
relocating them to areas that are less vulnerable; and
expanding redundant systems where needed.
ICF Studies of Sea-Level Rise. This two-part study focused
specifically on the potential impacts of sea-level rise (not
climate change in general) on transportation infrastructure.
Phase 1 assessed impacts of sea-level rise on the District of
Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Phase 2,
which is still under way, will evaluate impacts of sea-level
rise on seven additional States on the East Coast: New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia,
and the Atlantic Coast of Florida.
As these studies reflect, there is a growing consensus that climate
change has already begun to have impacts on the transportation system
and that those impacts will become more severe over time as the global
climate continues to warm.
Adapting to climate change will present challenges for all levels
of government. Rather than a single national program or strategy, there
will likely be many initiatives undertaken in response to the specific
climate-related threats that exist in each region.
For the transportation system, the adaptation challenges will be
substantial. There is a need for adaptation planning at the State and
local level, because of the important role of State and local
governments in maintaining and operating the road system. According to
the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, five States have adopted
adaptation strategies (as of January 2008) as part of their
comprehensive climate action plans, while six others have started
adaptation planning efforts. In addition, cities and counties have
begun to address adaptation as part of their climate plans. King
County, Washington (which includes Seattle) has established an inter-
departmental team to develop adaptation plans and has even produced a
guidebook on this issue. New York City has addressed adaptation as part
of ``PlaNYC'', which calls for planning to protect critical
infrastructure and high-risk communities from the effects of climate
change.
Maryland Activities and Initiatives
The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is undertaking
various efforts and activities to reduce GHG emissions in Maryland,
including participating in developing a statewide Greenhouse Gas and
Carbon Footprint Reduction Strategy (GHG Strategy) and promoting
sustainable transit communities. MDOT is also active in evaluating what
climate change and sea level rise will mean to our transportation
infrastructure given Maryland's 4,360 miles of tidal shoreline and our
transportation system's proximity to these areas.
In April 2007, Governor Martin O'Malley established a Climate
Change Commission through Executive Order that includes: sixteen agency
heads, six members of the General Assembly, private sector
representatives from environmental groups and power companies, and
local government representatives. This Commission is charged with:
Developing a plan of action to address climate change;
Preparing for climate change impacts in Maryland;
Establishing goals and timeframes; and
Reporting each year (Nov. 1) on a plan of action including
updates, timetables and draft legislation for the coming
legislative session.
Our preliminary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
between 25 and 50 percent between 2006 and 2020 and to obtain 90
percent reductions by 2050. The Commission's preliminary report and
list of strategies in various focus areas will be made public in mid
July. Transportation-related policies in the GHG Strategy include
strategies to slow the growth of VMT, support the development and use
of improved technologies and fuels, and other emissions reduction
strategies.
Fortunately, Maryland is in a unique position to work across all
modes of transportation to implement GHG reduction strategies. As a
multi-modal agency with a flexible transportation trust fund and
responsibilities for highway, transit, port and airport capital
development and operation, MDOT has the opportunity to act effectively.
The department has already undertaken various strategies to reduce the
growth in VMT including, developing park and ride lots, investing in
transit expansions, encouraging telecommuting, providing ridesharing
and guaranteed ride home support, and progressing bike and pedestrian
projects. Additional mitigation strategies include: requiring idling
reduction in MDOT contracts, utilizing hybrid buses and cleaner MARC
engines, providing truck stop electrification, tree planting, use of
biodiesel by MDOT trucks, and purchasing hybrid cars for our fleet.
Climate change is bringing transit into the forefront of national
policy discussions. In Maryland, transit communities are a priority,
however, we need a new financial paradigm for supporting transit.
Maryland is actively pursuing the establishment of public/private
partnerships related to transit oriented development while creating an
equity position for the public sector.
To date, most public private activity has been related to highways.
Maryland is working to encourage private investments in transit. We are
anxious to find ways to establish public private partnerships that
allow the private sector to benefit from the state's investment in
transportation while sharing some of the benefit with the state. We
would like to create public private partnerships that allow the state
to take an equity position in land, projects and businesses that
benefit directly from the transportation asset, or in the
transportation asset itself, if it is privatized. Under this structure,
ongoing equity returns could be directed toward transit operating
costs.
Conclusion
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major
contribution from every country and every economic sector, including
transportation. At the same time, our Nation needs a strong
transportation system to maintain its competitiveness in the global
economy and to expand economic opportunity in all regions and among all
parts of the population. We need a strong transportation system to
maintain and improve the quality of life by providing a high level of
mobility while minimizing impacts to communities and the environment.
We need to achieve our transportation goals in a way that is
environmentally sustainable. This includes efficiently reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases from the transportation sector as well
taking other actions to minimize our carbon footprint.
The effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will involve many
separate initiatives. Transportation sector initiatives include,
improvements in fuel economy; greater usage of low-carbon fuels; better
management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and smooth
traffic flows; and taking steps that reduce the growth in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT).
Technological innovation is the key to progress in greenhouse gas
emissions reduction. With increases in fuel economy and a shift to
cleaner fuels, it is possible to reduce greenhouse gases while there is
some growth in VMT. In the short term, the market will produce
additional fuel economy and increased use of alternative fuels. New
technologies including hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in electric hybrids
are expected to enter commercial production in the next decade. In the
period between 2020 and 2050, these and other zero-emission vehicles
which no longer burn petroleum are expected to dominate the automotive
market. These technologies alone may make it possible to reach the
carbon emission goals set by many Governors and mayors for 2050.
The growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a reflection of
overall growth in our economy and our population. However, VMT growth
is already flattening due to increasing fuel prices and long-term
demographic changes. Regardless of current VMT trends and anticipated
technological innovations in automotive fuel economy and fuels,
additional measures should be taken to manage demand. Such measures
include: increasing transit ridership, finding alternatives to single
occupant auto travel and removing the barriers to high density land use
development.
Greenhouse gas policies should be based on sound, comprehensive
data, including data regarding the cost and feasibility of
accomplishing emissions reductions. It is ineffective to set an
arbitrary target without knowing how that target could be achieved. We
should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emission
reductions at the least cost.
Also, greenhouse gas policies need to take a broad and balanced
approach as climate change solutions will vary from state to state and
region to region. As such, individual states/regions should have the
flexibility to implement the strategies that will work in their
particular circumstances. It is imperative that transportation leaders
be involved in the climate change discussion at all levels of
government to assist in developing emissions reductions strategies and
goals.
Finally, strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector cannot be effectively evaluated or carried out on
a project level. A broad, systems-level approach is needed.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the importance of the
subject you have under discussion today is of vital national
importance. It is in the interest of us all to take on the challenge as
vigorously and effectively as we can. On behalf of the AASHTO member
states, I promise that we will continue to work with you in that
effort.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari. And I
note that you are required to leave promptly, and Senator
Stevens hasn't asked to throw any questions at you, so I would
just have one.
And I'd like to know what kind of impacts of climate change
are considered before DOT undertakes a new project to build a
new road. Should they be required to identify climate change
impact?
Mr. Porcari. It's a very good question, Senator. We're--
with Maryland as an example, we are currently, actually,
mapping all of the projected climate change impacts on all of
our transportation infrastructure--roads, rails, bridges, and
tunnels, aviation, et cetera. Going forward, in both the
location in the design of facilities, we will be taking this
into account. I would point out that we have a number of
facilities that are severely impacted, like the Port of
Baltimore, a number of our bridges and tunnels, and highway
network. You have similar examples, throughout the country,
where you first have to map what the impacts will be, and then
mitigate that in new construction, and reconstruction of older
projects.
Senator Lautenberg. Just one more thing. How complicating a
factor is it to make judgments on the effect on climate? Does
it require months of study or is it relatively simple computer
formulation?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, we're really plowing new ground here.
To--some of the transportation decisions that we're making,
such as doubling transit ridership, tripling our MARC commuter
rail capacity, are relatively straightforward. We know those
will have a positive impact. We are now turning to the process
of getting down to the project-specific level and trying to
quantify those impacts, positive or negative. It is one of the
things that AASHTO is doing nationally that we can do through
this technical assistance program, is provide the framework for
all the states to make those kind of evaluations in the future.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari.
Mr. Porcari. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. And thank the other panelists for their
patience in letting us go ahead.
Dr. Dickey, let me hear from you, please.
STATEMENT OF G. EDWARD DICKEY, Ph.D., AFFILIATE
PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, LOYOLA COLLEGE IN
MARYLAND; MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND
U.S. TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
BOARD, DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Dickey. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee.
My name is Edward Dickey. I'm Affiliate Professor of
Economics at Loyola College in Maryland, and I served as a
Member of the National Research Council's Committee on Climate
Change and U.S. Transportation.
The charge given to our Committee was to examine the
potential consequences of climate change on U.S.
transportation. Our definition of ``transportation'' covers all
the modes. Most of us usually focus on transportation's impact
on climate change, where the emphasis is on strategies to
mitigate these effects. This study was concerned with the
converse, examining the potential impacts of climate change on
transportation infrastructure and operations and identifying
appropriate adaptation strategies.
The main findings of our work are presented in Special
Report 290, ``The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S.
Transportation.'' The report begins with an acknowledgment that
global warming is a real, observable, phenomena, and that
resulting climate changes will be marked by weather and climate
extremes and surprises, not gradual shifts.
A second finding is that the use of historical weather and
climate data may no longer provide an accurate forecasting
guide for infrastructure planning and design.
Third, climate change will likely impact all regions of the
country and all modes of transportation. Flooding of coastal
transportation infrastructure probably poses the greatest risk,
because of rising sea levels, coupled with storm surges and
land subsidence.
Fourth, climate change will require significant changes in
the planning, design, construction, and operation and
maintenance of transportation systems.
Last, transportation professionals should acknowledge the
challenges posed by climate change, and incorporate current
scientific knowledge into the transportation planning process.
Investment choices made today will influence how well the
transportation infrastructure adapts far into the future.
Our recommendations can be divided into two broad
categories. We begin with the process of making decisions.
First, government agencies and private owners should
inventory critical infrastructure to determine which systems
are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Second, transportation providers should incorporate climate
change into their capital improvement programs, facility
designs, maintenance practices, operations, and emergency
response plans.
Third, planners and engineers should use risk-based
approaches that identify the tradeoffs between improved
performance levels against the cost of achieving them when
analyzing investment choices.
Fourth, better communication is needed among transportation
professionals, climate change scientists, and other related
disciplines.
Fifth, ongoing and planned research on climate science and
decisionmaking tools should incorporate the needs of
transportation decisionmakers. And decisionmakers, on the other
hand, should define the types of climate data that would be
most useful to them.
Turning to the issue of adaptation to climate change, we
have a number of additional recommendations.
Sixth, recent experiences with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
emphasize the importance of making transportation an integral
part of response plans to handle emergencies, and how these
plans are executed.
Seventh, greater use of technology would enable
infrastructure providers to monitor climate change and its
possible deleterious effects on structures and systems.
Eighth, we need new design standards that incorporate
climate change. The Committee recommends that the U.S.
Department of Transportation take the lead, along with
professional organizations across all modes, to initiate,
immediately, a multiyear, multi-agency research program.
Ninth, in the short term, whenever possible, we need to
rehabilitate or construct new transportation infrastructure to
higher design standards, especially in vulnerable regions.
Tenth, transportation organizations, such as the American
Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, in
cooperation with the Federal Government, should develop
mechanisms for sharing best practices.
Eleventh, we would be remiss if we did not mention that
land use is an important issue. Much of our population now
lives near the coasts, placing themselves, their homes, their
businesses, and their transportation systems at greater risk.
Land-use planning and zoning decisions are made primarily by
local governments, and often involve competing interests that
transportation planners cannot resolve. However, greater
collaboration among these parties could go a long way toward
putting these issues on the table, and such collaboration
should be required in the reauthorization of transportation
programs.
Twelfth, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which
acts as the insurer of last resort for homeowners in designated
flood hazard areas, should re-evaluate the risk reduction
effectiveness of the National Flood Insurance Program, in view
of projected increases in intense precipitation and storm
activity. As a minimum, updating flood insurance rate maps to
account for sea level rise and to incorporate land subsidence
should be priority in coastal areas.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dickey follows:]
Prepared Statement of G. Edward Dickey, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor of
Economics, Loyola College in Maryland; Member, Committee on
Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, Transportation Research Board,
Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council,
The National Academies
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Edward Dickey. I am Affiliate Professor of Economics at Loyola College
in Maryland at Baltimore and served as a member of the Committee on
Climate Change and U.S. Transportation of the National Research
Council. The Research Council is the operating arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine of the National Academies, chartered by Congress in 1863 to
advise the government on matters of science and technology.
Our study was initiated by the Executive Committee of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) and funded by TRB, the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), the Transit Cooperative Research Program, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Dr. Henry G. Schwartz, Jr., retired chairman of Sverdrup/
Jacobs Civil, Inc., and member of the National Academy of Engineering,
chaired the expert panel of 13 members who conducted the study.\1\ Our
report--Special Report 290: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on
U.S. Transportation--provides transportation professionals with an
overview of the scientific consensus on the current and future climate
changes of particular relevance to U.S. transportation, including the
limits of present scientific understanding as to their precise timing,
magnitude, and geographic location; identifies potential impacts on
U.S. transportation and adaptation options; and offers recommendations
for both research and actions that can be taken to prepare for climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other committee members are Alan C. Clark, Houston-Galveston
Area Council, Texas; G. Edward Dickey, Loyola College, Baltimore,
Maryland; George C. Eads, CRA International, Washington, D.C.; Robert
E. Gallamore, Gallamore Group, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware; Genevieve
Giuliano, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; William J.
Gutowski, Jr., Iowa State University, Ames; Randell H. Iwasaki,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento; Klaus H. Jacob,
Columbia University, Palisades, New York; Thomas R. Karl, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, North Carolina;
Robert J. Lempert, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; Luisa M.
Paiewonsky, Massachusetts Highway Department, Boston; Christopher R.
Zeppie, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study concludes that transportation professionals should
acknowledge the challenges posed by climate change and incorporate
current scientific knowledge into the planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of transportation systems. Every mode of
transportation and every region in the United States will be affected
as climate change poses new and often unfamiliar challenges to
infrastructure providers. Focusing on the problem now should help avoid
costly future investments and disruptions to operations.
Challenges of Climate Change
Climate change will affect transportation primarily through
increases in several types of weather and climate extremes. Climate
warming over the next 50 to 100 years will be manifested by rising sea
levels coupled with storm surges and land subsidence, increases in very
hot days and heat waves, increases in Arctic temperatures, more
frequent intense precipitation events, and increases in the intensity
of strong hurricanes. The impacts will vary by mode of transportation
and region of the country, but they will be widespread and costly in
both human and economic terms and will require significant changes in
the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
transportation systems.
The past several decades of historical regional climate patterns
commonly used by transportation planners to guide their operations and
investments may no longer be a reliable guide for future plans. In
particular, future climate will include new classes (in terms of
magnitude and frequency) of weather and climate extremes, such as
record rainfall and record heat waves, not experienced in modern times
as human-induced changes are superimposed on the natural variability of
the climate.
Decisions transportation professionals take today, particularly
those related to the redesign and retrofitting of existing
transportation infrastructure or the location and design of new
infrastructure, will affect how well the system adapts to climate
change far into the future.
Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation
Inventory Critical Infrastructure
Potentially, the greatest impact of climate change on North
America's transportation system will be flooding of coastal roads,
railways, transit systems, and runways because of a global rise in sea
level coupled with storm surge and exacerbated in some locations by
land subsidence. The vulnerability of transportation infrastructure to
climate change, however, will extend well beyond coastal areas.
Therefore, Federal, state, and local governments, in collaboration with
owners and operators of infrastructure such as ports and airports, and
private railroad and pipeline companies should inventory critical
transportation infrastructure to identify whether, when, and where
projected climate changes in particular regions might be consequential.
Incorporate Climate Change into Investment Decisions
Public authorities and officials at various governmental levels and
executives of private companies are making short- and long-term
investment decisions every day and should incorporate climate change
into their long-term capital improvement plans, facility designs,
maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response plans. (See
box below, which lays out a six-step approach for determining
appropriate investment priorities).
Adopt Strategic, Risk-Based Approaches to Decision Making
The significant costs of redesigning and retrofitting
transportation infrastructure to adapt to the potential impacts of
climate change suggest the need for more strategic, risk-based
approaches to investment decisions. Transportation planners and
engineers should incorporate more probabilistic investment analyses and
design approaches that apply techniques for trading off the costs of
making the infrastructure more robust against the economic costs of
failure and should communicate these trade-offs to policymakers who
make investment decisions and authorize funding. One model is the
California Seismic Retrofit Program, which uses a risk-based approach
to analyze vulnerability to earthquakes and criticality of highway
bridges to determine priorities for retrofitting and replacement.
Improve Communication
Transportation decisionmakers note that one of the most difficult
aspects of addressing climate change is obtaining the relevant
information in the form they need to plan and design. Transportation
professionals often lack sufficiently detailed information about
expected climate changes and their timing to take appropriate action.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDOT, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and other relevant agencies should work together to
institute a process for better communication among transportation
professionals, climate scientists, and those in other relevant
scientific disciplines, and establish a clearinghouse for
transportation-relevant climate change information. In addition, better
decision support tools are needed to assist transportation
decisionmakers. Ongoing and planned research at Federal and state
agencies and universities that provides climate data and decision
support tools should include the needs of transportation
decisionmakers.
Integrate Evacuation Planning and Emergency Response into
Transportation
Operations
Projected increases in weather and climate extremes underscore the
importance of emergency response plans in vulnerable locations and
require that transportation providers work more closely with weather
forecasters and emergency planners and assume a greater role in
evacuation planning and emergency response. Climate extremes, such as
more intense storms and more intense precipitation, will require near-
term operational responses from transportation providers and greater
attention to emergency response in transportation operations and
budgets. Transportation agencies and service providers should build on
the experience in locations where transportation is well integrated
into emergency response and evacuation plans.
Develop and Implement Monitoring Technologies
Monitoring transportation infrastructure conditions, particularly
the impacts of weather and climate extremes, offers an alternative to
preventive retrofitting or reconstruction of some facilities in advance
of climate change. Greater use of sensors and other ``smart''
technologies would enable infrastructure providers to receive advance
warning of potential failure due to water levels and currents, wave
action, winds, and temperatures exceeding what the infrastructure was
designed to withstand. Federal and academic research programs should
encourage the development and implementation of these technologies.
Share Best Practices
As the climate changes, many U.S. locations will experience new
climate-induced weather patterns. The geographic extent of the United
States--from Alaska to Florida and from Maine to Hawaii--and its
diversity of weather and climate conditions can provide a laboratory
for best practices and information sharing as the climate changes.
Drawing on existing technology transfer mechanisms, relevant
transportation professional and research organizations should develop a
mechanism to encourage sharing of best practices to address the
potential impacts of climate change.
Reevaluate Design Standards
Environmental factors are integral to transportation infrastructure
design. However, engineers have not given much thought to whether
current design standards are sufficient to accommodate climate change.
Climate change projections indicate that today's 100-year precipitation
event is likely to occur every 50 years or perhaps even every 20 years
by the end of this century. Reevaluating, developing, and regularly
updating design standards for transportation infrastructure to address
the impacts of climate change will require a broad-based research and
testing program and a substantial implementation effort. USDOT should
take a leadership role along with professional organizations in the
forefront of civil engineering practice across all modes to initiate
immediately a federally funded, multiagency research program. The
program should focus on the reevaluation of existing design standards
and the development of new standards as progress is made in
understanding future climate conditions and the options available for
addressing them. A research plan and cost proposal should be developed
for submission to Congress for authorization and funding. Until new
standards are developed, infrastructure rehabilitation projects in
highly vulnerable locations should be rebuilt to higher standards.
The development of appropriate design standards to accommodate
climate change is only one of several possible adaptation strategies
that may require Federal leadership, research, and funding. Federal
agencies have not focused generally on adaptation in addressing climate
change. Better collaboration could help focus attention on these issues
and shape existing research programs. USDOT should take the lead in
developing an interagency working group focused on adaptation.
Include Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Planning
One of the most effective strategies for reducing the risks of
climate change is to avoid placing people and infrastructure in
vulnerable locations. Transportation planners are not currently
required to consider climate change and its effects on infrastructure
investments. Land use decisions are made primarily by local
governments, which have too limited a perspective to account for the
broadly shared risks of climate change. Integration between
transportation and land use planning is uncommon. Federal planning
regulations should require that climate change be included as a factor
in the development of public-sector, long-range transportation plans;
eliminate any perception that such plans be limited to 20 to 30 years;
and require collaboration in plan development with agencies responsible
for land use, environmental protection, and natural resource management
to foster more integrated transportation-land use decisionmaking.
Evaluate the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate
Maps
The Federal Government is the insurer of last resort for homeowners
in specially designated flood hazard areas. The National Flood
Insurance Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), and the flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) that determine
program eligibility do not take climate change into account. FEMA
should reevaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of the National
Flood Insurance Program and the FIRMs, particularly because climate
change may trigger more intense storms and sea-level rise will extend
the scope of flood damage in some special flood hazard areas. At a
minimum, updated FIRMs that account for sea level rise (incorporating
land subsidence) should be a priority in coastal areas.
Develop New Organizational Arrangements
The impacts of climate change do not follow modal, corporate, or
jurisdictional boundaries, yet decisionmaking in the transportation
sector is based on these boundaries. Current institutional arrangements
for transportation planning and operations were not organized to
address climate change and may not be adequate for the purpose. Some
models of cross-jurisdictional cooperation exist. Among them are
regional authorities for specific facilities (e.g., the Alameda
Corridor); regional and multistate emergency response agreements; and
state-mandated regional authorities, such as those responsible for air
quality improvement. Similar arrangements could emerge to address the
effects of sea-level rise on coastal real estate and infrastructure,
drought on shipping along inland waterways, and hurricanes in the Gulf
Coast region. However, state or Federal incentives may be required to
ensure the development of such organizational arrangements at the
regional or multistate level.
Actions to prepare for climate change can be taken almost
immediately. Some steps can be undertaken by local governments and
private infrastructure providers. Others depend on Federal and state
action. In all cases, leadership and continuing commitment are
essential.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would be happy to
address any questions the Committee might have.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Friedman?
STATEMENT OF DAVID FRIEDMAN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR AND SENIOR
ENGINEER, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm the Research Director and a Senior Engineer for the
Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you for holding this
hearing, because the topic is extremely urgent.
Put simply, global warming is the largest long-term
environmental threat facing the country and the world. If we
are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, our country
must cut global warming pollution by at least 80 percent in
2050, when compared to emission levels in the year 2000. Of
course, we can't just sit around and wait, for decades, to
begin. U.S. global warming pollution must be cut by more than
20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.
For transportation to play a role, we need to rethink the
system. In doing so, we will not only dramatically lower global
warming pollution, we will cut our addiction to oil, we will
save consumers billions, and we will create new high-quality
jobs throughout America.
One of the important tools that must be put in place is an
economy-wide cap-and-trade policy. But, while a cap is
essential to curbing global warming pollution, it will not push
the transportation sector to do its share over the next 20 to
30 years.
Recent analysis from the Energy Information Administration
shows that others must pick up the slack. As a result, it will
be more expensive to control global warming pollution.
A cap-and-trade market fails transportation consumers,
because there are too few alternatives to going about our daily
travel. Consumers and corporations need better vehicles, viable
alternatives to cars and freight trucks, and sustainable fuels
with a low global warming pollution footprint. And they need
these solutions as soon as possible, much faster than the
market can provide.
This Committee is already quite familiar with policies to
require better vehicles. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, by
requiring at least a 10-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel
economy for cars and trucks, will cut new vehicle global
warming pollution by nearly 30 percent. It will also save
consumers money at the pump. At today's $4.00 per gallon, the
35-mile-per-gallon minimum is the equivalent of cutting gas
prices by more than one dollar. The Committee also opened the
door to fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks. But, the Committee's work is far from over. Rail, air,
and shipping can also benefit from improved efficiency.
There is also more work to be done in the fuel economy of
cars and trucks of all shapes and sizes. Despite the fact that
their own analysis indicates that we could reach the 35-mile-
per-gallon minimum fuel economy standard by 2015--that is 5
years early--the Department of Transportation is relying on a
flawed rulemaking that, at best, just barely puts cars and
trucks on the road to 35 by 2020.
In their work, NHTSA relied on gas price projections of
$2.25 to $2.50 per gallon. Gas is over $4.00 a gallon today.
Even the head of the Energy Information Administration recently
publicly said that the Department of Transportation should use
their high oil and gas price scenario, not the scenario they
used.
Further, NHTSA effectively ignored the cost of global
warming and assumed hybrids would not be available until 2014,
despite the fact that the Toyota Prius, a hybrid, is the ninth-
best-selling car in the country today. Instead of doing the
bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should put cars and
trucks on a path to 40 miles per gallon by 2020, and at least
50 by 2030. This will cut global warming pollution from new
cars and trucks in half by 2030, and would save about 50
billion barrels of oil through 2050.
Of course, efficiency isn't enough. Both urban and suburban
areas need greater access to public transportation. As of 2001,
less than one-third of the U.S. population lived within about a
block of a bus line, and only about one-quarter lived within 5
miles of a rail stop. Consumers also need improved access to
high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, bike lanes, and more affordable
housing near where they work. Corporations need many of the
same solutions.
For these options to work, we will need money to fund them
and the willingness to use them. Whether it is pay-as-you-drive
insurance, road-user fees, per-mile congestion fees, charging
per mile rather than per year or per gallon can create a
revenue stream to allow us to repair our roads and bridges,
plus to provide funding for transit and other alternatives. We
are already paying these costs, but consumers don't see it in
their daily lives. Making them visible will provide a direct
incentive to use the newly available alternatives.
In addition, we also need to clean up our fuels. By 2050,
we need the equivalent of 150 to 200 billion gallons of
gasoline with as much as an 80-percent reduction in global
warming pollution compared to today's gasoline.
To supply this fuel, we must tap into sustainable biofuels,
renewable electricity, and clean hydrogen. But, these resources
will not appear overnight, nor will the vehicles that must be
sold to use these low-carbon fuels. We need to institute a low-
carbon fuel standard. And, because plug-ins, fuel-cell
vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles are currently
significantly more expensive than even hybrids, we will need a
combination of performance-based vehicle incentives and an
ultra-low-carbon vehicle requirement. Policies like these will
help us rethink our transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, I am an engineer, and, as such, I was trained
to be a problem-solver. And climate change is the largest long-
term environmental threat there is. We have the necessary
solutions to deal with this problem. What we have lacked is the
will.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Friedman, Research Director and Senior
Engineer, The Union of Concerned Scientists
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today. I am a research director and
senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). UCS is a
leading science-based nonprofit that has been working for a healthy
environment and a safer world for over 30 years.
The topic of this hearing, transportation and climate change, could
not be more urgent. Put simply, global warming is the single biggest
long term environmental threat facing the country and the world. But
within this threat are buried opportunities. Every step we take to curb
transportation's role in global warming will also cut America's oil
addiction--and most, if not all, of these will also save consumers
money. At the same time, the investments we make to become the world's
leader in climate change solutions will strengthen our economy as we
export the technology that will be essential to avoid the worst impacts
of global warming.
Transportation, Targets, and Climate Caps
If we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, our nation
and the world must adopt a target that will keep global temperature
from rising more than 2 +C above pre-industrial levels. That means
stabilizing the concentration of global warming pollutants in our
atmosphere at no more than 450 parts per million carbon dioxide
equivalent. Analysis by UCS shows that one part of achieving this goal
means the United States must cut global warming pollution by at least
80 percent compared to emission levels in 2000.\1\ In addition, UCS
analysis indicates that U.S. global warming pollution must be cut by
more than 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, and at least 50 percent
below by 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/
emissions-target-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no single silver bullet that will dramatically cut U.S.
global warming pollution and no single sector will be able to carry the
full burden. Instead, the country will have to put in place a
comprehensive climate and energy policy that encourages a diverse
portfolio of solutions in every sector. Transportation, including the
cars and trucks consumers drive every day, will have to play a
significant role in meeting this essential 80 percent reduction minimum
and all options for cutting pollution from transportation must be on
the table. The good news is that every sector, including
transportation, has many tools at its disposal.
The debate has already begun on one of the most important tools
that must be put in place to limit the total amount of global warming
pollution humans create: a cap-and-trade policy that would ensure that
the U.S. is on a path to do its part to limit global temperatures from
rising above 2 +C, including at least an 80 percent reduction in U.S.
global warming pollution by 2050.
This cap must apply to all sectors, including transportation, but
even that will still not be enough to ensure that transportation does
its part. While it needed significant strengthening, the recently
discussed Climate Security Act (S. 2191) provides a good example of the
strengths and weaknesses of cap-and-trade policy. By 2030, EIA
estimated that S. 2191 would cut global warming pollution by more than
30 percent compared to emissions in 2000.\2\ However, at the same time
that most sectors are projected to contribute reductions of 40 percent
to 80 percent, the transportation sector is projected to continue to
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Energy Information Administration Analysis of the Climate
Security Act (S. 2191).
Supporting Transportation Climate Policy on a Three-Legged Stool
The transportation sector simply does not do its share under a cap-
and-trade system. Instead, despite the fact that many transportation
solutions can save money while cutting global warming pollution, other
sectors must pick up the slack to ensure that the overall cap is still
met. This dynamic is a sign of market failures that will lead to higher
costs than are necessary for controlling global warming pollution.
Put simply, the market fails transportation consumers because there
are too few alternatives to doing things other than the way we have
been doing them for the past sixty years:
Most of the planes, trains, ships, and automobiles we rely
on were designed during the days of cheap oil when fuel
efficiency was not a priority. Manufacturers have been slow to
respond to recent consumer demands for fuel economy. In
addition, consumers have shown themselves slow to change. Gas
prices have more than tripled since 2000 and consumers have
only just begun to shift their purchasing and driving habits.
Both personal travel and goods movement have evolved around
our extensive and dispersed national highway system. Compact,
walk-able or bike-able communities and easy access to transit
are the exception rather than the rule. Consumers and
corporations lack choices to substitute for reliance on our
cars and trucks.
The transportation sector is almost exclusively reliant on
fossil fuels, a fuel with a very high global warming footprint.
Alternative fuels meet only about 0.2 percent of U.S.
transportation fuel needs.
These faults can be fixed by moving beyond the piecemeal approach
that has historically characterized U.S. energy and transportation
policy and instead applying a comprehensive approach that addresses
these three market failures to build a solid foundation to support
transportation's role in a national cap-and-trade policy.
Increasing Fuel Economy
To tackle global warming, reduce America's oil addiction, and save
consumers tens of billions of dollars, we must give consumers and
corporations new options to use fuel more efficiently when they travel
or ship goods. This can be achieved either through vehicle global
warming pollution standards or by setting fuel economy standards.
Through the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, this Committee led the
Nation forward on fuel economy for cars and light trucks for the first
time in more than three decades. And for the first time ever, the door
was opened to fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty trucks
thanks to this Committee.
The projected benefits of just the light-duty portion of the Ten in
Ten Fuel Economy Act highlight the importance of keeping efficiency a
top priority. Meeting the minimum fuel economy requirement of 35 miles
per gallon would cut global warming pollution for new cars and trucks
nearly 30 percent by 2020. The minimum will also reduce oil consumption
by nearly 9 billion barrels through 2030, rising to about 30 billion
barrels saved through 2050. And finally, boosting fuel economy from
today's 25 mpg average to 35 mpg will save consumers the equivalent of
reducing the price of today's $4 per gallon gasoline by more than one
dollar.
The example of car and truck efficiency must be repeated and
reinforced throughout the transportation sector. Delivery trucks and
18-wheelers could increase fuel economy from today's level of less than
7 mpg for new vehicles to 10-11.5 mpg by 2030. This represents a boost
of 50-70 percent while maintaining or expanding today's hauling
capacity. However, because of language in Ten in Ten, it may be at
least 8 years before this committee's medium and heavy duty standards
are put to work. Given the significant impacts the freight sector will
feel from climate change, this committee should work to accelerate the
Department of Transportation's reporting and rulemaking
responsibilities in this area.
Rail, air, and shipping can also benefit from improved efficiency.
For example, rail efficiency could be improved by about 1 percent per
year starting in 2015.
Finally, there is more work to be done on the fuel economy of cars
and trucks. A recent UCS report indicates that automakers can cost-
effectively boost the fleetwide average fuel economy of cars and trucks
to 40 mpg by 2020 and to more than 50 mpg by 2030.\3\ Yet the recent
notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Transportation's
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), at best, just
barely puts cars and trucks on the road to the 35 mpg minimum by
2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/redesign-documents/clean_vehicles/
UCS-Setting-the-Standard.pdf.
\4\ http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-fuel-economy-
proposal-star-0111.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should
put cars and trucks on a path to 40 mpg by 2020 and at least 50 mpg by
2030. This would cut global warming pollution from new cars and trucks
in half by 2030 and would save about 50 billion barrels of oil through
2050.
NHTSA appears unwilling or unable to move the country on this path
and this Committee should exercise its oversight authority to ask NHTSA
to fix a variety of flaws used in setting their proposed standards:
While gasoline prices soared above $3 per gallon this winter
and have crossed $4 per gallon this summer, NHTSA relied on
projections of $2.25-$2.50 per gallon.
While carbon dioxide is currently trading at more than $40
per metric ton in Europe, NHTSA used a value of $7 per ton.
NHTSA even considered $0 per ton to be in the range of possible
values, implying that global warming does not exist or will
cause no harm.
NHTSA left out the military and strategic costs of America's
oil addiction.
NHTSA assumed light trucks would grow in market share, but
between 2005 and 2008 the market share of light trucks sold
from January to May dropped from 54 percent to 48 percent.
NHTSA assumed hybrids were not available until 2014 despite
the fact that the Toyota Prius, a hybrid, is the 9th best
selling car in the country today.
NHTSA based its rulemaking on costs and benefits on the
margin rather than the total costs and benefits of improved
standards.
Changes along these lines would redirect NHTSA's efforts to the
intent, not just the letter, of the law passed as part of Ten in Ten.
NHTSA's own analysis confirms that simply switching to total benefits,
even with their poor gas price assumptions, would have led them to
propose a fleetwide average of at least 35 mpg by 2015--five years
earlier than the required minimum.\5\ More realistic gas prices, even
only setting the standard based on the marginal benefits, would also
have led NHTSA to propose a fleetwide average over about 35 mpg by
2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Page III-6 in NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
for their proposed fuel economy standards for Model Year 2011-2015 cars
and light trucks.
\6\ Ibid., pages IX-12 and IX-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making matters worse, not only will NHTSA's poor analysis
shortchange consumers and lead to lower global warming pollution
reductions, we can expect a similar approach to shortchange trucking
companies and the environment when NHTSA address fuel economy standards
for medium and heavy duty vehicles. This Committee's oversight role is
essential to avoiding this outcome.
Smarter Travel, Freight, Cities
While great strides can be made to improve vehicle efficiency, it
is unlikely that technology alone will be able to keep pace with
growing demand for personal and freight travel if we continue on our
current path. As a result, despite the potential for parts of the
transportation sector to increase efficiency by 50 percent or 100
percent, global warming pollution from transportation will continue to
increase beyond current levels.
For example, if projected trends from the Energy Information
Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2008 continue through 2050,
medium and heavy duty vehicles could see demand increase by more than
130 percent. If the fuel economy of all delivery trucks and 18-wheelers
on the road were increased by about 70 percent, that would still not be
enough to compensate for the increase in demand. As a result, global
warming pollution in this sector would still rise by more than 20
percent in 2050 compared to levels in 2000. Compared to a goal of an 80
percent reduction in global warming pollution, a 20 percent increase
clearly won't cut it.
Growing travel demand is a core barrier to avoiding the worst
impacts of climate change, but historical travel growth has also been a
key part of U.S. economic growth. The challenge is to rethink and
redesign our transportation system to allow for continued economic
growth without as many miles.
As with efficiency, the first step is to ensure that consumers and
corporations have alternatives other than business as usual. Both urban
and suburban areas need greater access to public transportation, which
produces significantly less global warming pollution per person than
cars and trucks. As of 2001, less than one-third of the U.S. population
lived within about a block of a bus line, while only about 40 percent
lived within a half mile.\7\ The situation is even worse for rail,
where only about 10 percent of U.S. population lived within a mile of a
rail stop, while only about one quarter lived within five miles.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001
National Household Travel Survey, Center for Urban Transportation
Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, February 2007.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to transit, consumers need improved access to high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, bike lanes, and more affordable housing
near where they work. Corporations need many of the same things. While
18-wheelers provide a lot of flexibility in the freight world, it takes
5-7 times more energy to ship a ton of goods on a truck than on rail--
switching more miles from long-haul trucking to rail will put a real
dent in global warming pollution from freight. Trucks and buses might
also benefit from their own dedicated lanes where they are not caught
up in as much stop and go traffic, making highways safer as well.
For these various new options to work, two key resources are
needed: the money to fund them and the willingness to use them.
Thankfully, in many cases, a system that makes sure people and products
carry the full cost of their travel can help with both. Whether it is
insurance, wear and tear on highways and bridges, or the costs of the
pollution produced from tailpipes, charging per mile rather than per
year or per gallon can create both a revenue stream for the needed
investments and a more direct incentive to try out the newly available
approaches.
Some examples of these approaches include:
Pay as you drive insurance: If you drive less, you are less
likely to get into an accident. Paying for insurance by the
mile rather than just by the car would both provide a more
equitable distribution of insurance payments and encourage
people to drive less.
Per mile road user fees: Current highway construction and
maintenance costs, and some transit costs, are covered by per
gallon fuel taxes. Because fuel efficiency must go up to
address global warming, projected tax receipts will go down
compared to a business as usual scenario. Per mile road user
fees, adjusted to vehicle weight, could maintain a steadily
growing revenue stream to keep our roads and bridges from
falling apart while encouraging consumers and corporations to
seek less expensive alternatives.
Per mile pollution or congestion fees: Accidents and wear
and tear are not the only costs associated with every mile we
drive. Vehicles of all sizes cause smog-forming and toxic
pollution that lead to increased health care costs and even
fatalities. Traffic also costs time because of the delays
created by congestion. Per mile pollution and congestion fees
can become steady funding sources to hold people responsible
for the damage they create while creating a funding stream for
alternatives, plus they would provide another incentive to
drive less. Per mile pollution and congestion fees tied to air
travel and freight could be great ways to finance high-speed
rail or simply much needed reinvestment into the country's
conventional rail infrastructure.
Location efficient mortgages: Current tax codes give
consumers the same break on their mortgage interest no matter
where they live. While these tax breaks have helped many live
out the American dream of owning a house, they have also helped
lower the cost of owning homes that are farther from where
people work, increasing daily travel. Revamping that tax code
to provide greater tax breaks for those who live closer to work
or transit will still help people realize a part of the
American dream while ensuring it does not become a nightmare of
pollution and congestion.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but instead points
the way to policies and practices that could help cut projected
personal travel by 25 percent to 35 percent by 2050 (15 percent-20
percent by 2030) and could contribute to reducing the amount of freight
that is trucked by 20 percent or more by 2050. Even more innovative
approaches, such as reserving downtown areas for walking, biking, and
public transit, or directly integrating our personal and freight
vehicles with a mass transit system, could be part of a smart growth
revolution that allows us to rethink how we move people and goods.
Fueling Up with Low Carbon Alternatives
The combination of investments in improved vehicle efficiency and
alternatives to continuing historic growth in travel can go a long way
to cutting global warming pollution from the transportation sector.
However, if our economy continues to grow as it has over the last 20
years, these solutions will not be enough to cut global warming
pollution from transportation by at least 80 percent compared to levels
in 2000.
To reach those deep cuts while continuing to strengthen our
economy, we must also tap into transportation fuels that do not release
significant amounts of carbon dioxide. If we combine all of the
approaches above for our light-duty cars and trucks, then by 2050 we
will still need to supply the equivalent of 80 to 110 billion gallons
of gasoline with 70-80 percent less global warming pollution than
today's fuel. For medium and heavy duty trucks, we will need the
equivalent of another 30 to 40 billion gallons of gasoline with 75-80
percent less global warming pollution. And for the remainder of the
transportation sectors, we will need yet another 40 to 50 billion
gallons of low carbon fuel.
That means, by 2050, we will need the equivalent of 150 to 200
billion gallons of gasoline with as much as an 80 percent reduction in
global warming pollution compared to today's gasoline. And, while
biofuels will play an important part in a low carbon future, it is
unlikely, at best, that we can sustainably produce sufficient low-
carbon biofuel in the U.S. A more realistic estimate of sustainable
biofuel potential, one that minimizes tradeoffs between food and fuel
and does not encourage deforestation in other countries, would be
closer to 40 to 50 billion gallons, unless breakthroughs are achieved
in novel biomass resources.
To supply the rest of transportation's needed energy, we must to
tap into renewable electricity and clean hydrogen. But these resources
will not appear overnight, nor will the vehicles that must be sold to
use these low-carbon fuels. We will need multiple policies to bring
about the needed fuel revolution:
A low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) must be put in place to
cut global warming pollution by 10 percent by 2030 and up to 80
percent by 2050. While the recently passed Renewable Fuel
Standard applies global warming pollution standards to
biofuels, the required amount would only represent about 10
percent of current demand, leaving 90 percent of transportation
fuel unregulated.
An ultra-low carbon fuel standard is also needed to
accelerate demand for fuels that dramatically cut global
warming pollution. While a 10 percent low carbon fuel standard
may be appropriate for 2030, it will mainly put a stop to dirty
fuels such as liquid-coal and encourage fuels with only modest
improvements. To created demand for the cleanest biofuels,
electricity and hydrogen, there should be a carve-out in the
LCFS for a minimum volume of the cleanest fuels.
Vehicle incentives and an ultra-low carbon vehicle
requirement will also be essential to ensure that the vehicles
are there to use the fuel. Fuel cell vehicles, battery electric
vehicles, and plug-ins are currently significantly more
expensive than conventional vehicles or even hybrids. Economic
incentives and requirements will be needed to overcome the
valley of death experienced by new technologies.
Conclusion
If left unchecked, climate change will have direct and significant
impacts on our transportation system. But that same system can be an
essential part of the solution set to help avoid the worst impacts of
climate change.
The U.S. needs to move away from a piecemeal approach to
transportation energy and environmental policy and instead adopt a
comprehensive set of policies that will tap into both the near term and
long term solutions that are available or on the drawing boards. This
will require a longer term perspective and a combination of consistent,
significant, and sustained policies. Yes, we do need to rethink our
transportation system, but in doing so, we will not only dramatically
lower global warming pollution, we will save consumers billions, create
new jobs in America and ultimately cut our addiction to oil.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
And now, Mr. Hamberger, welcome.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
Mr. Hamberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice
Chairman, Senator Stevens.
The Association of American Railroads appreciates this
opportunity to address the issue of climate change and
transportation. At the outset, I would suggest that one area
where everyone can and should agree is that greater use of rail
transportation, both for freight and for passengers, offers a
simple, cost-effective, and immediate way to meaningfully
reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy.
One way railroads positively impact the environment is by
reducing fuel and energy consumption. Railroads, last year,
were able to move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on
one gallon of fuel. It's like moving a ton of freight from
Boston to Baltimore on one gallon of fuel.
Railroads have an impressive record of improving their fuel
efficiency. Since 1980, our fuel efficiency has improved by 85
percent. Last year alone, freight railroads used 3.5 billion
fewer gallons of fuel than we would have without that
improvement. And important for this hearing is that that
improved fuel efficiency translates into substantial reductions
in emissions of greenhouse gases. In fact, that 3.5-billion-
gallon savings in fuel I've just referenced means that
railroads last year emitted 39 million fewer tons of carbon
dioxide than they would have, otherwise. And since railroads
are three or more times as fuel efficient as trucks, every ton-
mile of freight that moves by rail instead of highways reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds or more. Shifting just
10 percent of the long-haul freight that moves by truck would
produce an annual fuel savings of more than 1 billion gallons
of fuel, resulting in a reduction of annual greenhouse gas
emissions of more than 12 million tons.
The railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why
freight railroads account for just 2.6 percent of
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, and just .7
percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Freight train emissions are also less for other types of
pollutants. The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a
typical truck emits three times more NOX and
particulates than a locomotive. And just 3 months ago, the EPA
issued stringent new locomotive emission standard guidelines
that will cut particulate matter by up to 90 percent and
nitrogen oxide by up to 80 percent.
Freight rail can also help reduce gridlock on America's
highways, saving commuters time, money, and fuel. A single
freight train can take hundreds of trucks off the highways. If
25 percent of freight volume was shifted from trucks to rail by
2026, commuters could save an average of 41 hours a year in
commuting time, 79 gallons of fuel, and $1,000 in total
congestion costs.
Now, just as expanded freight rail would be good for the
environment, so would expanded passenger rail. The average
intercity passenger train produces 60 percent lower carbon
dioxide emissions per passenger mile than the average
automobile, and half as much as an airplane. The public
benefits of a truly attractive and competitive national
passenger rail capability will, indeed, exceed public costs.
The AAR was pleased to support passage of the Amtrak
reauthorization bills in both the House and the Senate, and I
hope a Conference Report can be passed yet this summer.
At your hearing, 2 weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, you heard that
the demand for freight in the U.S. will almost double over the
next 25 years. And, given the green advantage of rail,
policymakers would do well to encourage more of that freight to
move over the Nation's rail network.
I would like to offer three policy initiatives that would
aid railroads in expanding capacity to meet that demand.
First, enactment of the Freight Rail Infrastructure
Capacity Expansion Act, S. 1125, which provides a tax credit
for investments in new rail capacity. That credit would be
available not just to railroads, but to any entity that invests
in rail capacity expansion.
Second, passage of the Short Line Rail Investment Act,
which extends a targeted tax credit for smaller railroads that
expired at the end of last year.
Third, encouragement of public/private partnerships in
which the public pays for the benefits it receives, and the
railroads pay for the benefits they receive. The Chicago Create
Project, the Heartland Corridor, and the Alameda Corridor are
all examples of such projects in which public and private
dollars are leveraged together to produce public benefits both
for capacity for passenger rail, as well as freight rail, that
otherwise would not be realized.
We look forward to working with the Members of this
Committee in developing programs that will help our Nation
address climate change issues and continue to move passengers
and freight by rail.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) appreciates the
opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation.
AAR members account for the vast majority of freight railroad mileage,
employees, and traffic in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Few topics today generate as much debate as climate change. I
respectfully suggest, however, that one area where everyone can and
should agree is that greater use of rail transportation offers a
simple, cost-effective, and immediate way to meaningfully reduce
greenhouse gas emissions without potentially harming the economy.
Given this fact, I also respectfully suggest that policymakers
should take steps to attract more freight and passengers to railroads
and expand the substantial greenhouse gas and other public benefits of
rail transportation--for example, by implementing an investment tax
credit for rail infrastructure capacity expansion projects; by
encouraging greater use of rail-related public-private partnerships;
and by adequately funding Amtrak to allow it to bring the Northeast
Corridor to a state of good repair, procure new rolling stock, and make
additional capital improvements and maintenance over its network.
Freight and passenger railroads have a strong record of success in
meeting our Nation's transportation needs in an environmentally-
friendly fashion. They are committed to pursuing further technological
and operational advancements that will lead to continued tangible
improvements in fuel efficiency, mobility, greenhouse gas emissions,
and air quality.
Railroads Are the Most Fuel-Efficient Form of Surface Freight Transport
According to EPA data, in 2006 total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
were 7,054 teragrams \1\ of carbon dioxide equivalents, with
transportation accounting for 28 percent of the total. The vast
majority of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions are
directly correlated with fossil fuel consumption: the higher the fuel
consumption, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A teragram is a million metric tons or 1.1 million short tons.
Freight railroads, though, are the most fuel efficient mode of
surface transportation. In 2007, railroads moved one ton of freight an
average of 436 miles per gallon of fuel--roughly the distance from one
end of Nebraska to the other, or from Boston to Baltimore.
Indeed, on a ton-miles \2\ per gallon of fuel basis, freight
railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks. That
means that every ton-mile of freight that moves by rail instead of
truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A ton-mile is the movement of one ton of freight one-mile. It
is a standard way to measure freight volume across transportation
modes.
The railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight
railroads account for just 2.6 percent of transportation-related
greenhouse gas emissions and just 0.7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, according to the EPA.
Moving More Freight By Rail is in the Public Interest
Trucks are, and will continue to be, critical to freight
transportation and to our economy. But based on data from a study by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), for each 1 percent of long-haul freight moved by rail instead
of by truck, fuel savings would be around 110 million gallons per year
and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by around 1.2 million
tons. If 10 percent of long-haul freight now moving by truck moved by
rail instead, annual fuel savings would exceed one billion gallons and
annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by more than 12 million
tons.
Moreover, because freight transportation demand is expected to rise
sharply in the years ahead, future fuel savings--and greenhouse gas
reductions--would be much higher if more freight moved by rail. AASHTO
projects that ton-miles for truck movements more than 500 miles long
will increase from 1.40 trillion in 2000 to 2.13 trillion in 2020. If
10 percent of these long-haul truck movements went by rail (perhaps via
efficient intermodal movements involving both railroads and trucks),
cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2007 to 2020 would be around
200 million tons.
The public benefits of freight rail do not stop there, however.
Moving more freight by rail would also help reduce highway congestion,
which costs $78 billion just in wasted travel time (4.2 billion hours)
and wasted fuel (2.9 billion gallons) each year, according to the Texas
Transportation Institute's 2007 Urban Mobility Report. (The total costs
of congestion are far higher if lost productivity, costs associated
with cargo delays, and other items are included.) A typical train,
though, takes the freight equivalent of several hundred trucks off our
congested highways, thus enhancing mobility and reducing the amount of
greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles stuck or slowed in traffic.
Railroads also reduce the costs of maintaining existing roads and
reduce the pressure to build costly new roads, freeing up limited funds
for other purposes.
Finally, railroads also release far less of other types of
emissions than other modes of transport. The EPA estimates that for
every ton-mile, a typical truck emits roughly three times more nitrogen
oxides and particulates than a locomotive. Other studies suggest an
even greater advantage for railroads. In March 2008, the EPA issued
stringent new locomotive emissions guidelines that, when fully
implemented, will cut particulate matter emissions by locomotives by as
much as 90 percent and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by as
much as 80 percent compared to locomotives meeting the most stringent
standards set in 1998. The new standards will also yield sizable
reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and other air
toxics.
Railroads Are Constantly Working to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Even More
In 1980, one gallon of diesel fuel moved one ton of freight by rail
an average of 235 miles. As noted earlier, by 2007 railroads moved one
ton of freight an average of 436 miles per gallon of fuel. Thanks to
this improvement in fuel efficiency, in 2007 alone Class I freight
railroads used 3.5 billion fewer gallons of fuel--and emitted nearly 39
million fewer tons of carbon dioxide--than they would have if their
fuel efficiency had remained constant since 1980. From 1980 through
2007, U.S. freight railroads consumed 48 billion fewer gallons of fuel
and emitted 538 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would
have if their fuel efficiency had not improved.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Today, U.S. freight railroads today consume approximately 4.4
billion gallons of diesel fuel per year.
Railroads are investing heavily in ``cleaner and greener''
technologies and other efforts to further improve their fuel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
efficiency. Just a few examples include:
New locomotives. Railroads have spent billions of dollars in
recent years on thousands of new, more environmentally-friendly
locomotives. They have also overhauled thousands of older
locomotives to improve their environmental performance.
Some of the new locomotives are fuel-saving ``generator set''
(genset) units for use in rail yards. Gensets have two or three
independent engines that cycle on and off depending on need,
sharply reducing fuel consumption, pollution, and noise
compared to the locomotives they replace. Other switching
locomotives are hybrids with a small fossil-fueled engine in
addition to a bank of rechargeable batteries. Research is
ongoing on hybrid long-haul locomotives that would store in
batteries the energy generated by braking, and in hydrogen fuel
cell switching locomotives.
Train handling. In part, railroad fuel efficiency depends on
how well an engineer handles a train. That's why railroads use
the skills of their engineers to save fuel. For example, many
railroads offer training programs through which engineers and
simulators provide fuel-saving tips. On some major railroads,
the fuel consumption performance of participating engineers is
compared, with awards given to the top ``fuel masters.''
In addition, railroads are using sophisticated on-board monitoring
systems to gather and evaluate information on location,
topography, track curvature, train length and weight, and more
to provide engineers with real-time ``coaching'' on the best
speed for that train from a fuel-savings standpoint.
Information technology. Many railroads use advanced computer
software to improve their fuel efficiency. For example,
sophisticated modeling tools identify the best way to sequence
cars in a large classification yard. Railroads also use
innovative ``trip planning'' systems that automatically analyze
crew and locomotive availability, track congestion, the
priority of different freight cars, track conditions, and other
variables to optimize how and when freight cars are assembled
to form trains and when those trains depart. The result is
smoother traffic flow, better asset utilization, and reduced
fuel use.
Idle reduction technology. Locomotives often have to idle
when not in use to prevent freezing, provide for crew comfort,
or for other reasons. However, many railroads have installed
idle-reduction technology that allows main engines to shut down
under certain conditions. One advantage of genset locomotives
is that their smaller engines use antifreeze, allowing them to
shut down in cold weather. Railroads also use ``auxiliary power
units'' to warm engines so that locomotives can be shut down in
cold weather.
Components, maintenance, and design. Railroads use
innovative freight car and locomotive components, maintenance
programs, and designs to save fuel. For example, advanced
lubrication techniques save fuel by reducing friction; the use
of low torque bearings on freight cars and improving the
aerodynamic profile of trains save fuel by reducing drag; and
the use of ``distributed power'' (locomotives placed in the
middle of trains) can, in certain applications, save fuel by
improving operational efficiency.
The seven largest U.S. freight railroads have all joined EPA's
``SmartWay Transport,'' a voluntary partnership between freight
transporters and the EPA that establishes incentives for fuel
efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions. The initiative
is designed to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 36 to 73
million tons and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by up to
220,000 tons. As part of the partnership, each railroad has committed
to evaluating the environmental impacts of its operations and agreed to
work with the EPA to develop and implement plans to improve fuel
efficiency and reduce emissions in coming years.
What Can Policymakers Do Regarding Freight Rail?
Using freight railroads more means consuming fuel less, and that's
important today more than ever.
Serious capacity issues, however, threaten the ability of railroads
to handle socially-optimal amounts of traffic. Freight railroads are
reinvesting record amounts of their own funds into their systems, but
that will not be enough to take full advantage of railroads' potential
to meet our transportation needs. That's why we respectfully urge you
to support a tax credit for projects that expand freight rail capacity.
This would help bridge the funding gap, producing public benefits (like
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced highway gridlock, and cleaner
air) that would far exceed the cost of the credit.
S. 1125 (the ``Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act
of 2007'') calls for a 25 percent tax credit for investments in freight
rail infrastructure expansion projects. The AAR gratefully acknowledges
the support members of this committee have shown toward S. 1125, and
congratulates them on recognizing that a rail investment tax credit
addresses the central challenge of how to move more freight without
causing more highway gridlock or environmental degradation.
I also respectfully urge you to support S. 881, the ``Short Line
Railroad Investment Act of 2007,'' which would extend the ``Section
45G'' tax credit for investments in short line track rehabilitation
that expired in 2007. The Section 45G tax credit has helped hundreds of
short line railroads increase the volume and rate of track
rehabilitation and improvement programs, which in turn allows them to
offer more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally-friendly rail
service to communities throughout the country.
Finally, the immense public benefits of freight railroading--
including lower greenhouse gas emissions and less congested roads and
highways--would accrue more quickly if more public-private partnerships
for freight railroad infrastructure projects were implemented.
Partnerships are not ``subsidies'' to railroads. Rather, they are an
acknowledgement that private entities should pay for private benefits
and public entities should pay for public benefits. Partnerships
reflect the fact that cooperation between interested entities is far
more likely to result in timely, meaningful solutions to transportation
problems than a go-it-alone approach.
Climate Change and Passenger Rail
As discussed above, if our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and highway congestion, transportation policy should
emphasize modes of transportation that reduce fuel consumption and take
motor vehicles off our congested highways. Railroads offer a fuel
efficient, carbon-friendly transportation option for people as well as
freight.
In its January 2008 final report to Congress, the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission stated that
``intercity passenger rail is . . . more energy efficient than many
other modes of passenger transportation.'' The report states that the
average intercity passenger rail train produces 60 percent lower carbon
dioxide emissions per passenger-mile than the average automobile, and
half the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-mile of an airplane.
BNSF CEO Matt Rose was a member of that Commission. In the final
report, Mr. Rose stated that he ``shared the conclusion of the
Commission's report that passenger rail--intercity and commuter--will
need to grow in order to supplant [vehicle miles traveled] and give
Americans more affordable, sustainable choices in light of higher fuel
prices, growing transportation congestion and related environmental
concerns.''
Mr. Rose, like so many others, realizes that there are substantial
public benefits from comprehensive intercity passenger rail. Indeed,
the public benefits of a truly attractive and competitive national
passenger rail capability will exceed public costs. But in order to be
a true transportation alternative for Americans, passenger rail, like
freight rail, cannot be achieved on the cheap.
That's why expanding the capacity of our Nation's rail
infrastructure is a critical challenge that policymakers should
address, especially as rising fuel prices are bringing ever-more
passengers to railroads. Amtrak ridership may reach 28 million this
year--the highest it has ever been and up from 25.8 million passengers
last year. In fact, Amtrak ridership and revenues are up in all
categories: short distance, long distance, and Northeast Corridor
services are all experiencing significant growth. Last month, Amtrak
had the highest revenue and ridership of any month in history. Fiscal
year 2008 year-to-date ridership is up 11 percent and revenues are up
14 percent over the comparable period in Fiscal Year 2007.
Indeed, as the cost of auto and air travel continue to increase and
the prospect of a carbon-constrained future increases, we have an
opportunity--and the need--to make far more concerted efforts than we
have in the past to more fully capture the economic, environmental, and
social benefits of reliable, convenient, and comprehensive passenger
rail service.
Unfortunately, without significant investment in capacity
expansion--both infrastructure and equipment--Amtrak will not be able
to handle all the people that want to use it and we will fail to
capture all of those benefits.
For example, Amtrak's locomotive fleet is antiquated: its diesel
switcher locomotive fleet is 40 years old; the average age of the AEM-7
electric fleet is 25 years, and its overhead electric catenary system
in the Northeast Corridor is 1930s technology that does not allow
Amtrak to take advantage of the improved efficiency of modern
converter, transformer, and transmission designs. Passenger cars could
be made lighter and more aerodynamic. These are all areas worthy of
government investment that will pay huge dividends over the long term.
Moreover, the implementation of high-speed rail corridors, if done
in ways that minimize the substantial operational, engineering, legal,
and other impediments that often hinder the ability of freight
railroads to accommodate passenger trains, would go a long way in
providing a realistic alternative to short-distance air travel and
driving for millions of trips per year while significantly reducing the
carbon footprint associated with that travel.
In the meantime, Amtrak is committed to working to improve
efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Amtrak
is partnering with the state of Oklahoma on a pilot project to test the
use of biofuels in Amtrak locomotives. Amtrak has been approached by
another state about a pilot project testing new battery technology in
locomotives. Amtrak has long been an industry leader in environmental
initiatives as a charter member of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
and the first railroad in CCX, North America's first greenhouse gas
emissions trading market. Amtrak has already committed to the largest
voluntary emissions reduction plan for diesel fuel use in the United
States. In addition, Amtrak passengers can now purchase carbon offsets
for their rail trip with Internet ticket purchases.
Conclusion
The key to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions
is reducing fuel consumption in transportation. America's freight and
passenger railroads offer a simple, cost- effective and meaningful way
to help do this, thereby helping to ensure a sustainable future for our
planet.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meenan. You're the next witness, please. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. Meenan. Thank you. Today I wanted to focus my remarks
on the commercial airlines' outstanding record of greenhouse
gas efficiency, our proactive commitment to further limiting
our emissions footprint, and the complementary role that
Congress can play.
However, I would also note the crippling fuel price crisis
the airlines are enduring, which inextricably linked to the
broader energy transportation and climate change policies
underpinning today's hearing.
We seek your help in ensuring policies that will alleviate
this crisis and allow us to get on with our business. A
vibrant, competitive, and growing aviation sector is a key part
of climate--the climate change solution.
Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly
strong track record, which is often overlooked or misstated. We
contribute just 2 percent of domestic greenhouse gases,
compared to 25 percent for the balance of the transportation
industry. This is no small achievement, given that commercial
aviation is essential to our economy and supports nearly 9
percent of U.S. employment.
Today's airplanes are not just smarter, they're quieter,
cleaner, and use less fuel than ever before, because we fly
them smarter. U.S. airlines have been able to deliver more
value by constantly improving fuel efficiency through
reinvestment in technology and more efficient operations. And,
in fact, we improved our fuel efficiency by 110 percent between
1978 and 2007, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon
dioxide savings, roughly the equivalent of taking 18.7 million
cars off the road in those years. U.S. carriers burned almost 3
percent less fuel in 2007 than in 2000, but carried 20 percent
more passengers and cargo on a revenue/ton-mile basis.
Today, our planes are as fuel efficient as compact cars,
but carry more goods and people over six times faster, and our
jets are five to six times more fuel efficient than corporate
jets.
The Air Transport Association carriers are highly motivated
to continue this trend, and have made a commitment to improve
fuel efficiency by an additional 30 percent by 2025. Moreover,
recognizing that today's carbon-based fuel supply can only take
us so far, ATA and its airlines are making extensive resource
commitments to stimulate the development of commercially
viable, environmentally friendly alternative fuels through the
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Congress can
take action to complement our efforts by ensuring that our
Nation's outdated air traffic control system is modernized to
permit more direct routes, serving an--saving an additional 10
to 15 percent in fuel and emissions.
Further, we urge Congress to reinvigorate NASA's and the
FAA's Environmental Aeronautics Research and Development
Programs with specific respect to mitigating the impacts of
climate change on aviation. Congress can support data-driven
transportation planning that includes airlines, FAA, the
airports, and State and local governments.
Finally, and most time critical, we urge Congress to act
now to address the fuel price crisis. Even before the recent
sustained fuel price spikes, fuel was the airline's largest
cost center. Fuel prices now average 30 to 50 percent of an
airline's operating expenses, costing between $41 billion in
2007, projected to grow to $61 billion this year. I think it's
fair to say that the market has long sent a--the commercial
airlines the price signal, which some now want to pile onto
with cap-and-trade and further limits to the industry's ability
to reinvest.
Unfortunately, the last several months, that price signal
has turned into a fuel price crisis of epic proportions. This
country's airlines expect to lose in the range of $10 billion
this year, a loss on par with that of the worst year in the
industry's history. High fuel prices are the sole reason for
this situation.
Unlike the temporary revenue hits of 9/11 and other time-
demand shocks, the airlines are now facing a massive structural
cost increase.
Let me try to add some context. More than 14,000 airline
jobs have been cut so far this year, and that's just the tip of
the iceberg. Scores of communities stand to lose all scheduled
air service by early next year. More airlines, in addition to
the nine that have already filed for bankruptcy or stopped
operating, will simply shut down.
So, why should this Committee care that the airlines are on
the brink of financial disaster--some would say, about to
implode? The answer is simple. The Nation's economy is
intrinsically linked to the viability of the air transportation
system. If the airlines continue to spiral downward, so will
the economy. Aviation contributes $690 billion to the U.S.
gross domestic product. That's 10 million new jobs.
So, I take this opportunity at this hearing to ask you
again to work with us to address this crisis. And I'd be happy
to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meenan follows:]
Prepared Statement of John M. Meenan, Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer, Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Air Transport Association (ATA) airline
members transport more than 90 percent of all U.S. airline passenger
and cargo traffic.\1\ Our airlines take their role in controlling
emissions very seriously. Recently, there has been a great deal of
focus in Congress on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in particular, and
how this Nation might achieve reductions in these emissions while
maintaining economic stability and enhancing energy independence.
Commercial aviation has a vital role to play in this regard. Also, as
strong supporters of sound transportation planning, the airlines
appreciate the Committee's interest in the potential impacts on
transportation that might result from changes in climate. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ATA airline members include ABX Air, AirTran Airways, Alaska
Airlines, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Continental
Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal
Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Midwest
Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, UPS
Airlines and U.S. Airways. Associate members are: Air Canada, Air
Jamaica Ltd. and Mexicana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction and Overview
For generations, flying has contributed to a better quality of life
in America. Commercial aviation has been essential to the growth of our
economy, yielded breakthrough technologies, brought people together and
transported critical cargo--all while achieving an exceptional
environmental track record. Today's airplanes are not just smarter--
they are quieter, cleaner and use less fuel than ever before--but we
also fly them smarter. That's why our industry represents just 2
percent of all GHG emissions in the United States while driving three
times more economic activity. But we are not stopping there. The
initiatives that we are undertaking to further address GHG emissions
are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our fuel consumption,
GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts while allowing
commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key contributor to the
U.S. economy. I want to emphasize three points that are essential to
moving our emissions-reducing efforts forward within a framework of
sound transportation planning, energy and climate change policy:
First, commercial airlines are and have long been extremely GHG
efficient. For the past several decades, commercial airlines have
dramatically improved GHG efficiency by investing billions in fuel-
saving aircraft and engines and innovative technologies like winglets
and cutting-edge route optimization software. Fuel is our largest cost
center, which, long before the current fuel price crisis created the
economic imperative that we continuously improve fuel and GHG
efficiency. And while commercial aviation accounts for only 2 percent
of domestic man-made GHG emissions, we shepherd this to good use,
driving a far larger percentage of economic activity, not only
directly, but also indirectly, as a necessary element in the airport
and tourism sectors and in all business sectors that rely on the rapid
delivery of goods and human resources.
Second, ATA airlines are proactively committed to further limiting
their GHG footprint through a set of measures that will simultaneously
address climate change and energy independence while preserving
economic stability and the opportunity to grow. At the core of these
measures is the ATA carriers' commitment to an additional 30 percent
fuel efficiency improvement by 2025--improvement that only comes from
the airlines' investment in new aircraft, new aircraft engines,
navigation aids and enhanced operational procedures. In addition, we
are dedicating ourselves to developing commercially viable,
environmentally friendly alternative jet fuel, which could be a game-
changer in terms of aviation's output of GHGs. Moreover, we are central
stakeholders in partnering efforts to modernize the outdated air
traffic management (ATM) system and to reinvigorate research and
development in aviation environmental technology, both of which can
bring extensive additional emissions reductions.
Third, there is a critical role for the Federal Government to play
in energy, transportation planning and climate change policy to
complement the airlines' efforts. While the ATA airlines' 30 percent
fuel efficiency improvement target will be met through the airlines'
own investments and operating initiatives, the other measures in the
package require a significant measure of congressional support. Also,
sound transportation planning at all levels of government can help
minimize the impacts on transportation from potential climate change
effects.
Just as we ask Congress to continue to work with us, we also urge
Congress to calibrate Federal energy and transportation policy and any
climate change-related legislation so they do not work against our
efforts. Last week, ATA announced a revised 2008 forecast: the U.S.
airlines expect to lose in the range of $10 billion this year--a loss
on par with the worst year in this industry's history. Soaring fuel
prices are the sole reason. Congress must help get these prices under
control. Moreover, while the Senate recently declined to go forward
with the GHG cap-and-trade program proposed in the Lieberman-Warner
Climate Security Act, which would have applied an additional fuel
surcharge on airlines' jet fuel, we understand that many in Congress
still are interested in applying such proposals to aviation. Not only
is an additional ``price signal'' unnecessary for our industry, but
recent events have shown the crippling effects that exorbitant fuel
prices can have. We urge Congress to adopt sound energy, transportation
planning and climate change policies that avoid counterproductive,
punitive approaches that further siphon away funds that the airlines
otherwise could use to invest in newer aircraft and other fuel- and
GHG-saving measures.
Commercial Aviation Is Extremely GHG Efficient
Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly strong
track record that is often overlooked or misstated. U.S. commercial
aviation contributes just 2 percent of domestic U.S. GHG emissions.\2\
To put that into context, with passenger vehicles (cars and light duty
trucks) alone accounting for over 17.5 percent,\3\ as illustrated in
Figure 1, road transport accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. GHG
emissions and power plants account for over a third.\4\ The picture is
similar when viewed on a global basis. Worldwide commercial aviation
contributes just 3 percent of man-made GHGs.\5\ To put this into
perspective, cattle and other livestock account for approximately 18
percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
most recent general inventory reports commercial aviation's
contribution to the total GHG emissions in 2006 was 2.04 percent. EPA,
Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 (April 15,
2008) (hereinafter EPA GHG Inventory 1990-2006) at pages ES-4 and 21
(``in 2006, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,054.2''
teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq)) and
Table 2-15 at pp. 2-22 & 2-23 (``Commercial Aircraft--Domestic''
account for 143.6 Tg. CO2 Eq.).
\3\ EPA GHG Inventory 1990-2006, Table 2-15 at pp. 2-22 and 2-23.
\4\ EPA GHG Inventory 1990-2006.
\5\ It is estimated that on a worldwide basis, commercial aviation
accounts for approximately 3 percent of total GHGs, while at the same
time contributing over 8 percent of the world's economic activity. See
International Air Transport Association, Debunking Some Persistent
Myths about Air Transport and the Environment.
\6\ United Nations, Livestock Environment and Development
Initiative, Livestock's Long Shadow--Environmental Issues and Options
(2006) at p. 271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1--U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 Percent of the Inventory
Source: U.S. EPA Data 2005
At the same time, commercial aviation is critically important to
local, national and global economies, enabling a large percentage of
U.S. economic output. A July 2007 study by the FAA found that the
national economy is highly dependent on commercial aviation, which is
directly or indirectly responsible for 5.2 percent of U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP), $1.1 trillion in U.S. economic activity (gross
output), an estimated 9.5 million jobs, and $322 billion in
earnings.\7\ Placing our economic output side-by-side with our GHG
output, it is clear that commercial aviation is an extremely GHG-
efficient economic engine, bringing good ``bang'' for our GHG ``buck.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S.
Economy (July 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have been able to deliver such strong economic output while
reducing our emissions by continually improving our fuel efficiency
through reinvestment in technology and more fuel-efficient operations.
In fact, U.S. commercial airlines (passenger and cargo combined)
improved their fuel efficiency by 110 percent between 1978 and 2007,
which (given the one-to-one relationship between fuel consumption and
carbon dioxide (CO2)) has resulted in 2.5 billion metric
tons of CO2 savings--roughly equivalent to taking 18.7
million cars off the road each of those years. Further, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics data confirm that U.S. carriers burned almost
3 percent less fuel in 2007 than they did in 2000, resulting in
absolute reductions in GHG emissions, even though they carried 20
percent more passengers and cargo on a revenue ton miles basis.
Commercial aviation's GHG efficiency compares very favorably to
other modes and other sectors. While commercial aviation improved its
per-passenger fuel efficiency from 1990, freight trucks showed the
reverse trend, with GHG emissions growing faster than vehicle miles
traveled.\8\ EPA also has confirmed that passenger vehicles have lagged
far behind aircraft in fuel and GHG efficiency.\9\ (See Figure 2).
Within the aviation sector, it is important to remember that different
types of commercial aircraft have vastly different impacts on the
environment. Commercial jets are five to six times more fuel efficient
than corporate jets. The math is simple: carrying 200 people and cargo
across the country in a single plane burns a lot less fuel than 33
separate corporate jets, each flying six people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA GHG Inventory 1990-2006 at 3-8.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2--In Contrast to Personal Vehicles, Airline Fuel Efficiency Has
Improved Substantially Since 1990
U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue this trend. Fuel,
long one of the two highest costs for airlines, is now our largest cost
center, averaging between 30 and 50 percent of total operating
expenses. In fact, jet fuel costs to the U.S. airlines in 2008 are
projected to be $62 billion or more, breaking the 2007 record of $41.2
billion, resulting in what some analysts are likening to the economic
effects of the
9/11 terrorist attacks.\10\ As shown in Figure 3, the price change
alone between 2004 and year-end 2008 is the equivalent of 267,000
airline jobs or the purchase price of 286 new narrow-body jets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See J.P. Morgan Securities North America Corporate Research
(April 15, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3--2008 Jet Fuel Expense Will Break 2007 Record
Total Expense (Excluding Taxes and Into-Plane Fees) Will Exceed $60
Billion
Note: Value in parentheses below year is average price paid
excluding taxes, into-plane fees, pipeline tariffs and hedging costs
Sources: ATA, Energy Information Administration, Department of
Transportation
And contrary to popular belief, the airlines cannot pass on
significant portions of these costs. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure
4, today's U.S. domestic air fares remain below 2000 levels, although
fuel prices have tripled. While a slightly more robust international
aviation market has allowed today's systemwide fares to increase
approximately 3 percent above 2000 levels, this hardly makes up for the
three-fold increase in fuel prices over the same period. Thus, we have
an unrelenting economic imperative to reduce fuel consumption.
Figure 4--As of Early 2008, Domestic Airfares Remain Below 2000 Levels
While Jet Fuel Prices Have Tripled
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Source: ATA passenger revenue report (mainline + regionals).
ATA Airlines Are Proactively Committed to Further Limiting Their GHG
Footprint
In light of the current and sustained fuel price crisis, the U.S.
airlines are being forced to put down capacity for air services. Should
we be able to get fuel prices down to more reasonable levels and turn
the economy around, we would hope to see a return to growth in U.S. air
passenger and cargo services. Under such a scenario, some growth in
aviation emissions is predicted. However, this growth must be kept in
context. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is
considered the authority on this issue, has determined that under the
most likely scenario, CO2 from global aviation in 2050 will
account for only about 3 percent of total man-made CO2
emissions and that aviation's overall GHG impact will be around 5
percent.\11\ Yet even though those remain relatively small numbers, ATA
carriers are relentlessly pursuing measures to further limit their
emissions footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ IPCC, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (1999) at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5--ATA's 30 Percent Fuel Efficiency Goal Will Translate into
CO2 Savings
At the core of our efforts, ATA carriers have made a commitment to
achieve an additional 30 percent systemwide fuel efficiency improvement
through 2025, on top of prior improvements. That equates to an
additional 1.2 billion metric tons of CO2 saved--roughly
equivalent to taking over 13 million cars off the road each year. (See
Figure 5). To accomplish this, our airlines plan to continue the
tremendous investments in new equipment and in operational innovations
that have allowed us to attain such great fuel efficiency improvements
in the past. We are leaving no stone unturned. Some examples of our
efforts include:
Upgrading Fleets. Even in the highly constrained financial
environment we have been in for some time, ATA airlines have
been expending billions to upgrade their fleets through
investments in new airframes and engines, removing less fuel-
efficient aircraft from their fleets, installing winglets to
reduce drag, altering fan blades and other measures aimed at
improved aerodynamics. As a critical element of our commitment
to achieve an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement
by 2025, Boeing estimates that the North American carriers will
spend approximately $730 billion on new aircraft through
2026.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Boeing Company (2008).
Introduction of Innovative, Cutting-Edge Technologies. Our
airlines also are investing millions of dollars in technologies
to make existing airframes more efficient. For example, the
airlines have undertaken equipage for Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) approach procedures, which provide navigation
capability to fly a more precise path into an airport. ATA
airlines also have developed software to analyze flight paths
and weather conditions, allowing aircraft to fly more direct,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
efficient routes (subject to air traffic approval).
Improved In-Flight Operations. ATA airlines are doing all
they can within the existing ATM system to utilize programs to
optimize speed, flight path and altitude, which not only
reduces fuel consumption and emissions in the air, but avoids
wasting fuel waiting for a gate on the ground. In addition to
pursuing the use of RNP approach procedures at additional
locations, ATA carriers have worked with FAA to pioneer
protocols for continuous descent approaches (CDAs), which
reduce both emissions and noise, and we are doggedly pursuing
implementation of CDAs where the existing ATM system
allows.\13\ Further, our carriers are implementing Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) satellite tracking
technology, which avoids the circuitous routings that occur
with today's radar-based systems. Demonstrating that the
efforts extend to the smallest details of airline operation,
our members also have worked on redistribution of weight in the
belly of aircraft to improve aerodynamics and have introduced
life vests on certain domestic routes, allowing them to overfly
water on a more direct route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For example, one ATA carrier is achieving an average savings
of 1,300 pounds of CO2 savings per flight for approaches
into the Atlanta airport.
Improved Ground Operations. ATA airlines also are
introducing single-engine taxiing when conditions permit,
redesigning hubs and schedules to alleviate congestion and
converting to electric ground support equipment when feasible.
Further, they are improving ground operations by plugging into
electric gate power where available to avoid running auxiliary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
power units and using tugs to position aircraft where possible.
Reducing Onboard Weight. ATA airlines continue to
exhaustively review ways, large and small, to reduce aircraft
weight--removing seat-back phones, excess galley equipment and
magazines, introducing lighter seats and beverage carts,
stripping primer and paint and a myriad of other detailed
measures to improve fuel efficiency.
Second, recognizing that improving fuel efficiency with today's
carbon-based fuel supply can only take us so far, ATA and its airlines
are making extensive resource commitments to stimulate the development
of commercially viable, environmentally friendly alternative fuels. As
a framework for doing this, we are a founding and principal member of
the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), a
consortium of airlines, government, manufacturers, fuel suppliers,
universities, airports and other stakeholders who hold the various keys
to research, development and responsible implementation of alternative
jet fuels. Developing alternative jet fuels is a ``higher hurdle'' than
developing alternative fuels for ground-based units, as jet fuel must
meet rigorous FAA specifications, which include reliability and
stability at altitude and in greatly varying temperature and pressure
conditions to ensure safety. Thus, absent a cooperative initiative like
CAAFI, fuel providers almost certainly would not undertake the
investments needed to clear this higher hurdle, opting instead for the
surer payoff at ground level.
While each entity involved in CAAFI has a role to play, our
airlines understand that--as end users of the ultimate product--they
must not only make clear their specifications for alternative jet
fuels, but also signal the market that we will financially back fuels
meeting those specifications. On Earth Day this year, the ATA Board of
Directors took another significant step in this regard, issuing the
``ATA Alternative Fuels Principles Document.'' Among other things, that
document stipulates that ATA carriers require that any future
alternative jet fuel be more environmentally friendly, on a life-cycle
basis, than the jet fuel available today. Through CAAFI and other
partnerships, we are undertaking the work to be sure that tomorrow's
alternative jet fuel meets that criterion. And accomplishing that will
ensure the full decoupling of growth in aviation demand from growth in
GHG emissions.
Third, while ATA airlines are doing all that they can to promote
efficiencies within the current ATM system, the limitations of that
system account for 10-15 percent of unnecessary fuel burn and resulting
emissions. To address this, and to achieve much-needed modernization of
our outdated ATM system, ATA and its carriers are working with FAA and
other agencies on a fundamental redesign of the system through the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) project and on various
regional airspace design initiatives. ATA is supporting this
modernization initiative through our ``Smart Skies'' program.\14\
However, congressional approval, including fair and equitable
distribution of costs among all system users, is needed before
significant progress can be made in implementing this system.
Congressional authorization and implementation of this initiative will
bring 10-15 percent additional savings on top of the ATA 30 percent
commitment. (See Figure 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Smart Skies'' is a national campaign led by ATA airlines,
which advocates modernization of the U.S. ATM system and its funding
mechanisms. For more on this initiative, see the Smart Skies website,
at http://www.smartskies.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 6--CO2 Saved Under ATA and NextGen Initiatives
(As if NextGen Implemented in a Given Year)
Fourth, at the same time ATA and its members are pushing the
envelope with existing technology, we continue to contribute to work
that will advance new technology. For example, ATA participates in key,
joint government/stakeholder initiatives, including the Steering
Committee of the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise & Emissions
Reduction (PARTNER) and the Environment and Energy Subcommittee of the
FAA Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee. While
additional evolutionary environmental improvements are in the pipeline
as a result of such initiatives, revolutionary environmental
breakthroughs can only come about through the reinstatement of
significant Federal investments in basic aeronautics research and
development programs at NASA and FAA. Indeed, Pratt & Whitney's new
geared turbofan engine, which offers both noise and emissions benefits,
as well as many features of Boeing's more environmentally efficient 787
were spawned through such programs. As we have noted in other contexts,
however, congressional funding to NASA and FAA for aeronautics research
and development--specifically including for environmental projects--has
been cut significantly (by about 50 percent) in the past 8-10 years,
compromising the public-private partnership for exploring and bringing
to market products with significantly improved environmental
performance.\15\ Thus, we continue to urge Congress to provide this
needed funding, which also is critical to preserving America's
competitiveness in aeronautics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ While later funding cuts were even more drastic, a 2002 study
by the National Academy of Sciences observed:
In constant year dollars, NASA funding for aeronautics research was
cut by about one-third between 1998 and 2000, reducing the breadth of
ongoing research and prompting NASA to establish research programs with
reduced goals, particularly with regard to TRL (technology readiness
level). This significantly reduces the likelihood that the results of
NASA research will find their way into the marketplace in a timely
manner, if at all. The ultimate consequence is that the Federal
expenditures are inconsistent with the long-term goal of support for an
aviation enterprise compatible with national goals for environmental
stewardship.
See National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Aeronautics Research
and Technology for Environmental Compatibility, For Greener Skies:
Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation at 44 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress Should Complement the Airlines' Initiatives, Through Sound
Energy, Transportation Planning and Climate Change Policies
We are confident that the measures ATA is undertaking and
supporting will continue to limit and reduce aviation's emissions
footprint, such that commercial aviation will remain a very small
source of GHG and other emissions. However, Congress has a key role to
play. First, as noted, congressional approval for implementation of a
modernized ATM system is critical, as is reinstatement of funding for
research and development programs to foster aviation environmental
technology breakthroughs. Further, while Congress generally is
supporting several alternative fuel research programs, specific support
and funding should be provided for the development of environmentally
friendly alternative jet fuels. Thus, while a central focus of today's
hearing is on how climate change may impact transportation and
transportation infrastructure, we must also remain focused on how
improving air transportation infrastructure can help minimize the very
GHGs of concern.
As this Committee is aware, in March 2008 the Transportation
Research Board issued a special report on the ``Potential Impacts of
Climate Change on U.S. Transportation.'' That report identified threats
that aviation (as well as other modes of transport) may face under
certain climate change scenarios. Many of the recommendations called
for further coordination among Federal, state and local agencies in
conducting research and transportation planning to mitigate climate
change impacts. ATA strongly supports data-driven, coordinated
transportation planning, which can help ensure cost-effective
deployment of resources. To this end, we work closely with FAA, state
governments, the airports and local communities in aviation-related
transportation research and planning. Congress should continue to
support FAA's role in such planning initiatives.
Just as we ask Congress to work to complement airline GHG
initiatives, we also urge Congress to calibrate Federal energy policy
and any climate change-related legislation so they do not work against
our efforts. As noted, ATA's recently revised 2008 forecast shows that
the country's airlines are likely to lose in the range of $10 billion
this year--a loss on par with the worst year in this industry's
history, with soaring fuel prices as the sole reason. Congress must
help get these prices under control. The $62 billion (plus) that the
airlines will spend on fuel this year is at least $20 billion more than
last year and slightly more than our combined fuel bill for the first 4
years of this decade. Sadly, 2008 could turn out to be the worst year
in the industry's history. Unlike the temporary revenue hits from SARS,
9/11 and other one-time demand shocks, the airlines now are facing a
massive structural increase--with no end in sight--in a virtually
uncontrollable cost. Moreover, there is little low-hanging fruit left
to harvest. Unfortunately, not even Chapter 11 can lower the price of
fuel.
To many Members of Congress, $10 billion is not a lot of money. Let
me add some context. More than 14,000 airline jobs have been cut so far
this year, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. By cutting
capacity, scores of communities stand to lose all commercial air
service by early next year. Orders for new planes have been slashed and
hundreds of older, less efficient planes have been taken out of
service. We are burning through cash at unprecedented rates, barely
surviving from month to month. The nation's airlines will never fully
recover from this economic blow, and more airlines--in addition to the
nine that already have filed for bankruptcy or stopped operating--may
simply shut down. That means even more job losses and untold harm to
families and the economy.
Committee members and Congress, for that matter, may ask why the
country should care that its airlines are on the brink of financial
disaster and--some would say--about to implode. The answer is simple:
this Nation's economy is inextricably linked to the viability of its
air transportation system. If the airlines continue to spiral downward,
so will the economy. Aviation contributes $690 billion to the U.S.
GDP--that's equal to heating oil costs for 376 million households for
one winter, 24 million new cars and 10 million new jobs.
If Congress does not turn things around very soon, the impact on
the country's economy will be even worse. Analysts are predicting that
a 20 percent reduction in capacity may not be enough to save the
industry. Based on the communities that stand to lose service, airline
hubs will be decimated, tens of thousands more jobs will be eliminated
and tourist destinations will be devastated by huge cuts in the number
of flights. Realistically, rural areas will be hit the hardest by the
cuts, leaving thousands of square miles without air service.
Not only must Congress act with sound energy policy, but it also
must forbear from adopting climate change policies that would further
exacerbate the fuel price crisis. While the Senate recently declined to
go forward with the GHG cap-and-trade program proposed in the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would have applied an
additional fuel surcharge on airlines' jet fuel, we understand that
many in Congress still are interested in applying such proposals to
aviation. Not only is an additional ``price signal'' unnecessary for
our industry, but recent events have shown the crippling effects that
exorbitant fuel prices can have. We urge Congress to avoid
counterproductive, punitive approaches that further siphon away funds
that the airlines otherwise could use to invest in newer aircraft and
other fuel- and GHG-savings measures.
Conclusion
I close by asking you to note the achievements that commercial
airlines have made in reducing fuel burn and GHGs, particularly when
compared to other industries, and the actions that we are taking to
continue our progress in this regard. While we are fully committed to
working with Congress and are asking for congressional leadership and
support in each of the areas I have described, we are not asking you to
work for us, we're asking you to work with us in addressing these
environmental, energy and transportation concerns. We also are urging
you to refrain from adopting policies that would work against our
efforts. A vibrant, competitive and growing aviation sector is a key
part of the solution, not an impediment to ensuring a future where a
strong economy, freedom from foreign oil and cleaner air are the order
of the day.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Meenan. We do care,
obviously. And we thank you for your testimony.
And now, Mr. Treadwell?
STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR,
U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
Mr. Treadwell. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice
Chairman. Thank you for having me here today.
On behalf of my fellow U.S. Arctic Research Commission
commissioners, this is a very important thing to consider in a
hearing on climate and transportation, is the Arctic.
During this International Polar Year, the United States and
other nations are laying down an Arctic Observing Network to
better understand, model, and predict the vast changes coming
to the northern part of the globe. This hearing has been
focusing both on climate and its effects on transport, and then
transport and its effects on climate.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, acting on
our Commission's recommendation, has commissioned an
Interagency Research Plan on Arctic Infrastructure, in light of
climate change. And this will cover many climate impacts on
transportation in the Arctic, including roads, maritime
transport, and the need for improved oil-spill research in ice-
covered waters.
I'm going to focus, today, however, on shipping. The Arctic
Council's eight nations with indigenous participants in the
global shipping industry are conducting an Arctic Marine
Shipping Assessment, due to be published in 2009. I've given
you a brochure about that assessment. While science is finding
the Arctic to be suddenly and surprisingly accessible, our
assessment is finding that regular Arctic ocean shipping tied
to specific resource development projects, tourism, or serving
the needs of Arctic communities is large now, and is growing.
For the United States, it's necessary to recognize the Alaska
purchase in 1867 made us an Arctic nation. Great circle air
routes through the Arctic currently carry the bulk of travelers
and air cargo between these continents. Today's Arctic
infrastructure is global infrastructure.
In the 21st century, Arctic seaways have the potential to
serve as a major venue for shipping between these continents,
as explorers envisioned as early as 500 years ago. Much of our
work as a Commission is to ensure that the U.S. Government does
its homework--homework we believe is necessary in response to
an accessible Arctic Ocean.
Let me focus on five points and direct the Committee to
sources of additional information.
First, climate is changing to create an accessible Arctic.
Sea-ice coverage is reducing in both area and thickness faster
than our climate models predicted. This, combined with the
advent of more efficient ice-breaking technology and global
demand for Arctic resources, works to make Arctic shipping more
economically feasible and attractive to investors. In a set of
slides I've given you, we can show the ice minimums in 2002 and
what they've receded to 2007, and a second set of slides
explains some changes in shipping technology, ice-breaking
technology that--they're making icebreakers are more efficient.
Second, Arctic residents, governments, and industry are
assessing both the opportunities and the challenges of an
accessible Arctic. Within these assessments is a fundamental
question. Will trans-Arctic seaways be as important to global
shipping as the Panama and Suez Canals, or will the Arctic
Ocean continue more as a venue for shipping in and out of the
Arctic itself, for tourism, local needs, and bringing natural
resources to market?
Third, policies are being conceived, developed, and
implemented toward a goal of ensuring that shipping in the
Arctic is, to quote my colleague at the Department of State,
Assistant Secretary Dan Sullivan, ``safe, secure, and
reliable.'' To me, those three words have large meanings.
``Safe'' refers to protecting human life and mitigating any ill
effects shipping will have on the environment, biodiversity,
cultures, and traditions of the Arctic. Likewise, navies and
coast guards must expand their capacity to ensure security for
those ships, particularly those carrying strategic commodities.
And finally, the word ``reliable'' refers to issues raised by
the shipping industry itself. The Arctic Ocean is a patchwork
quilt of tolls and regulations by several coastal nations. The
U.S. Arctic Research Commission continues to urge the Senate to
accede to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea,
which will help set some of the rules in the Arctic related to
shipping.
Fourth, strong research programs are needed in the Arctic
Ocean, and some of that research is on deadline. Decisions to
be made by governments on climate issues require an
understanding of what is happening in the Arctic Ocean, the
Greenland Ice Cap, and the changing heat, freshwater, and
greenhouse gas budgets of the Earth. There are several wildcard
issues related to Arctic shipping identified through the AMSA
process, and these include understanding the effects of air
pollution and noise from ships on the ecosystem.
Finally, and fifth, an accessible Arctic means a need for
investment. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has recognized that
and reported legislation calling for construction of two new
polar-class icebreakers for the Coast Guard and the Nation
while maintaining the existing fleet in working condition. We
believe these ships will be used, as they are now, as research
platforms and as the visible U.S. maritime presence in these
regions. But, the advent of Arctic transportation means the
other, more traditional missions of the Coast Guard will take
center stage. And these ships are needed to provide the same
protections U.S. Coast Guard affords the rest of the Nation--
search and rescue, law enforcement, border protection,
environmental protection, and spill response.
An accessible Arctic also means new, expanded routes for
U.S. military sealift to move assets from one part of the world
to the other. In Coast Guard, our polar icebreakers are an
essential component to guarantee this polar maritime mobility
exists.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we understand it's our Nation's
goal, expressed with other nations, to reverse the trend of
climate change caused by humans. In the Arctic, research to
support adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change is
high on our agenda. But, as more forces than climate are
working to produce an accessible Arctic, it's essential our
Nation act now. Under the principle of freedom of navigation,
global shipping could come to our doorstep, whether we invite
it or not. And whether you envision the Arctic Ocean as an--as
a new seaway for trans-Arctic shipping, competitive with Panama
and Suez Canals, or only foresee an expansion of the current
shipping in and out of the Arctic, the time to prepare is now.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Treadwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mead Treadwell, Chair,
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Mead Treadwell. Since 2006, I have chaired the
U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC).\1\ As a senior fellow at the
Institute of the North, based in Anchorage, Alaska, and in the private
sector, I have worked for much of my career on the economics,
feasibility, and sustainability of Arctic transportation in shipping,
pipelines, railroads, tourism and aviation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, the seven
Commissioners of the USARC are appointed by the President and report to
the President and the Congress on goals and priorities for the U.S.
Arctic Research Program. That program is coordinated by the Interagency
Arctic Research Policy Committee, (IARPC) chaired by National Science
Foundation Director Dr. Arden Bement, who is also an ex-officio member
of the Commission. See www.arctic.gov for Commission publications,
including the Commission's 2007 Goals Report.
\2\ The Institute of the North, www.institutenorth.org, founded by
former Alaska Governor and U.S. Interior Secretary Walter J. Hickel,
has programs that focus on economics and policy related to management
of common resources, onshore and offshore. Our work in Arctic
infrastructure (including energy, transportation and telecommunication)
supports the work of the eight-nation Arctic Council and the
circumpolar, regional governments of the Northern Forum. Our defense,
security and geography studies stem from Alaska's unique, strategic
location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of my fellow Commissioners, thank you for your invitation
to be here today. The Arctic component to this hearing is essential.
During this International Polar Year, the United States and other
nations are laying down an Arctic Observing Network \3\ to better
understand, model and predict the vast changes coming to the northern
part of the globe. The Arctic Council's eight nations, with indigenous
participants and the global shipping industry, are conducting the
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, due to be published in 2009.\4\
While science is finding the Arctic to be suddenly, and surprisingly
accessible, our assessment is finding that regular Arctic Ocean
shipping, tied to specific resource development projects, tourism, or
serving the needs of Arctic communities is large now, and is
growing.\5\ New Arctic-capable ships are under construction in
Southeast Asia and Europe. That trend brings with it the need for new
policies--rulemaking, research, and investment--by governments of the
Arctic region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AON report is here: http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/iarpc/
start.jsp. Pending legislation to support the Integrated Ocean
Observing System is needed to assure that studies of Arctic climate
changes will be initialized and maintained. These are important to
understand the processes that affect the ice cover and circulation of
the Arctic Ocean and thus shipping.
\4\ AMSA is led by the U.S., Canada, and Finland, and is Chaired by
Dr. Lawson Brigham, Deputy Director of the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission, a former U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker captain. For details
on AMSA. See: http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsa.
\5\ See slides, attached, and the website for June 5, 2008 Arctic
Transportation Conference sponsored by DOT/MARAD. See: http://
www.marad.dot.gov/Arctic%20Conference/Arctic%
20index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, it is necessary to recognize that the Alaska
Purchase in 1867 made us an Arctic nation. Our ocean boundaries are
more than the Atlantic and Pacific. In the 20th century, the advent of
aircraft, missiles, and missile defense made the Arctic region a major
venue for projection of power and a frontier for protecting the
security of North America, Asia and Europe. Great circle air routes
through the Arctic currently carry the bulk of travelers and air cargo
between these continents. Today's Arctic infrastructure is global
infrastructure. In the 21st century, Arctic seaways have the potential
to serve as a major venue for shipping between these continents, as
explorers envisioned as early as 500 years ago.
Much of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission's work is to encourage
the U.S. Government to do its homework--homework that is necessary in
response to an accessible Arctic Ocean.\6\ In today's testimony, I will
focus on five points, and direct the Committee to sources of additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See USARC's summary report on goals and objectives for Arctic
research 2007 for the U.S. Arctic Research Plan, www.arctic.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, climate is changing to create an accessible Arctic. Sea ice
coverage is reducing in area and thickness faster than our climate
models predicted.\7\ This, combined with the advent of more efficient
icebreaking technology, and global demand for Arctic resources, works
to make Arctic shipping more economically feasible and attractive to
investors.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See National Snow and Ice Data Center's website at: http://
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.
\8\ See slides, attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Arctic residents, governments and industry are assessing
both the opportunities and the challenges of an accessible Arctic.\9\
Within these assessments is a fundamental question: Will trans-Arctic
seaways be as important to global shipping as the Panama and Suez
Canals? Or, will the Arctic Ocean continue more as venue for shipping
in and out of the Arctic itself, for tourism, local needs, and for
bringing natural resources to market?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See AMSA: http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsa and Arctic Shuttle
Container Link Study conducted for the State of Alaska and the Port of
Adak by the Institute of the North and Aker Arctic. See: http://
www.institutenorth.org/servlet/content/studies.html. Also see the Sept.
2004 Arctic Marine Transport Workshop report here: http://
www.institutenorth.org/servlet/content/reports.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, policies are being conceived, developed and implemented
toward a goal of ensuring that shipping in the Arctic is, to quote my
colleague at the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Dan Sullivan,
``safe, secure and reliable.'' \10\ To me, those three words have large
meaning. Safe refers to protecting human life, and mitigating any ill
effects shipping will have on the environment, biodiversity, cultures
and traditions of the Arctic. Likewise, navies and coast guards must
expand their capacity to ensure security for those ships, particularly
those carrying strategic commodities. Finally, the word reliable refers
to issues raised by the shipping industry. The Arctic Ocean is a
``patchwork quilt'' of tolls and regulations by several coastal
nations. Arctic shipping will grow when rules are certain and when
products can be delivered competitively with other routes. This means
on a time and cost basis, not just on shorter distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/
19arctic.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=shipping%
20Arctic%20sullivan&st=cse&oref=slogin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, a regime for safe, secure, and reliable shipping is
something our Nation can lead in developing, through existing
mechanisms like the International Maritime Organization, the Arctic
Council, and--when acceded to by the U.S.--via the Law of the Sea
convention. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission continues to urge the
Senate to accede to this convention.
The United States last revised its Arctic policy in 1994. While
environmental protection was then made a principal objective, climate
change and growth in Arctic shipping were not contemplated.\11\ As the
Executive Branch currently conducts a review of U.S. Arctic policy, the
Commission has urged consideration of policies to ensure safe, secure,
and reliable shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The current State Department summary on Arctic Policy lists
the six principal objectives of Arctic Policy. See: http://
www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/arc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, strong research programs are needed in the Arctic Ocean,
and some of that research is on deadline. The U.S. Arctic Research
Commission has developed a set of research goals related to shipping,
and those goals will be included in the report due to Congress in 2009.
Decisions to be made by governments on climate issues require
understanding of what is happening in the Arctic Ocean, the Greenland
icecap, in the changing heat, freshwater and greenhouse gas budgets of
the earth.
Several ``wild card'' issues related to Arctic shipping have been
identified through the AMSA process and will be included in the
Commission's goals for shipping research as part of the 2009 report.
These include understanding the effects of air pollution and noise from
ships on the Arctic ecosystem. As well, the tradeoff between warming
effects of ship emissions in the Arctic and potential reduced emissions
from shipping worldwide, due to shorter routes, is a goal of study.
Also, the U.S. and Iceland are cooperating on development of hydrogen
technologies. The prospect of hydrogen-powered ships, under development
by Iceland, is of interest to the entire Arctic community.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, acting on the
USARC's recommendation, has commissioned an interagency research plan
on Arctic infrastructure, in light of climate change. This will cover
many climate impacts on transportation in the Arctic, including roads,
maritime transport, and the need for improved oil spill research in
ice-covered waters.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Under the leadership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Cold
Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, in Hanover, N.H., the plan
will cover research and development goals for civil works and housing
(including permafrost and shoreline erosion), oil spills, energy use,
and marine transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nations are mustering bathymetric and seismic expeditions to
delineate the extended continental shelf of the Arctic region, for new
territorial claims allowed under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And as those claims by some nations could make
parts of the Arctic Ocean legally less accessible to research, the
science community is pressing to ensure greater access with the
diplomatic community.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The USARC has been informed by the Department of State that
applications from the U.S. to Russia for approval to conduct marine
scientific research in Russia's Exclusive Economic Zone was denied 11
of the 13 times requested between 1996 and 2006, and 6 of the 14 times
between 1992 and 1995 (Personal communication to the Chair and
Executive Director of the USARC, April 7, 2008).
See also this appeal was submitted by the USARC, and others, to the
U.S. Department of State.
Appeal to the U.S. Department of State
In anticipation of the meeting of ministers from the five
Arctic coastal nations
In Ilulisat, Greenland, on May 28, 2008
As you, representing the United States, meet with representatives
from other Arctic coastal states, to discuss the future of the Arctic
Ocean, we, representing the U.S. science community working in this
region, make this appeal: please take all necessary effort to enable
research to thrive by ensuring free and open scientific access to the
Arctic. The open nature of the Antarctic Treaty, and the free support
of and exchanges in science, have been the hallmark of international
cooperation on that continent for 50 years. The Arctic also would
benefit from such openness.
We especially urge the coastal Arctic states to remove obstacles to
ship access for research in the Arctic Ocean. In recent years,
important scientific expeditions have been canceled through parts of
the Arctic due to the expense and complications of national rules for
foreign ships wishing to enter the Exclusive Economic Zone of certain
Arctic nations. Further, some ships--whose voyages were solely
dedicated to research--have been categorically denied access. We are
concerned that Arctic nations' expanded jurisdiction of the ocean
floor, that will come about through Law of the Sea claims, threatens to
further limit the full range of customary research activities that need
to be conducted by scientists in the Arctic. Although it may be useful
to ensure rights of inspection for such vessels, there are many
benefits to be derived from open access for scientific purposes.
Second, please address the well-documented need for sharing of data
that has been, or will be, collected in the Arctic Ocean region. We
appeal to nations to continue to make available previously collected
data, and to commit to further sharing of new data collected within
jurisdictional borders.
Knowledge gained from Arctic research is important to the entire
world. Policy decisions on climate change, energy, environment, human
health, security, commerce, and other subjects will be made by many
nations based on this knowledge. Scientific research should be based on
sound conclusions drawn from valid data, unfettered by national
borders.
Thank you for your attention to these issues. We wish you a
productive meeting.
Signed by the following four organizations:
Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (www.arcus.org),
representing over 5,000 scientists worldwide from 51 member
institutions
Consortium for Ocean Leadership (www.oceanleadership.org)
representing over 10,000 scientists from 95 member institutions in the
U.S. and Canada
Marine Mammal Commission (www.mmc.gov)
U.S. Arctic Research Commission (www.arctic.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth and finally, an accessible Arctic means a need for
investment. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has recognized that, and
reported legislation calling for construction of two new Polar class
icebreakers for the Coast Guard and the nation, while maintaining the
existing fleet in working condition.\14\ The U.S. Arctic Research
Commission has urged the President and Congress to move expeditiously
in building and maintaining those ships. Certainly, they will be used
as they are now--as research platforms and as the visible U.S. maritime
presence in both polar regions. But the advent of Arctic transportation
means the other, more traditional missions of the Coast Guard will take
center stage. These ships are needed to provide the same protections
the U.S. Coast Guard affords the rest of the nation: search and rescue,
law enforcement, border protection, environmental protection and oil
spill response.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See USCG authorization bill reported in the Senate: http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/c110UjJvKU.
\15\ See attached letter March 18, 2008 from Alaska Governor Sarah
Palin to President Bush. See also the attached memorandum for the Joint
Chiefs of Staff that was received by the USARC on June 8, 2008. Both
documents refer to national needs for new icebreaker capacity. The 2006
National Research Council's study ``Polar Icebreakers in a Changing
World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs'' can be accessed here: http://
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aid to commerce is an important mission of our Great Lakes
icebreakers. Under a regime worked out with Canada, the St. Lawrence
Seaway/Great Lakes system has become an important part of the global
transportation network. The Executive Order signed by President
Franklin Roosevelt, committing icebreakers to support U.S. maritime
commerce could apply to the U.S. Arctic as well.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See: http://www.conservativeusa.org/eo/1936/eo7521.htm Ex.
Ord. No. 7521. Use of Vessels for Ice-breaking Operations in Channels
and Harbors. Ex. Ord. No. 7521, Dec. 21, 1936, 1 F.R. 2527, provided:
1. The Coast Guard, operating under the direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury, is hereby directed to assist in keeping open to
navigation by means of ice-breaking operations, in so far as
practicable and as the exigencies may require, channels and harbors in
accordance with the reasonable demands of commerce; and to use for that
purpose such vessels subject to its control and jurisdiction or which
may be made available to it under paragraph 2 hereof as are necessary
and are reasonably suitable for such operations. 2. The Secretary of
War (Army), the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Commerce
are hereby directed to cooperate with the Coast Guard in such ice-
breaking operations, and to furnish the Coast Guard, upon the request
of the Commandant thereof, for this service such vessels under their
jurisdiction and control as in the opinion of the Commandant, with the
concurrence of the head of the Department concerned, are available and
are, or may readily be made, suitable for this service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar class icebreakers also support the essential mission of
national presence in the Arctic and the Antarctic, both in maintaining
our position and in supporting freedom of navigation. Indeed, an
accessible Arctic Ocean also means new or expanded routes for the U.S.
military sealift to move assets from one part of the world to another.
Coast Guard polar icebreakers are an essential component to guarantee
that this U.S. polar maritime mobility exists.
Shipping and research activities in the Arctic depend today on a
strong system to predict ice conditions, provided by satellites above,
and analysis by our Navy/NOAA/Coast Guard National Ice Center, near
here in Suitland, Maryland. Current activity in the Arctic depends on
good meteorology, developed in cooperation with our neighbors.
Appropriate spill response and search and rescue require additional
investment. My predecessor, George Newton, as Chair of the USARC has
spoken of the necessity for an ``Arctic 911'' capability, and led the
effort to encourage the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA)
to add the Arctic region to the oceans of the world supported by
notices to mariners. The question of where we need new port facilities,
as safe harbors and transshipping points, is yet to be fully addressed.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we understand it is this Nation's goal--
expressed with other nations--to reverse the trend of climate change
caused by humans. In the Arctic, research to support adaptation to and
mitigation of climate change is high on our agenda. But as more forces
than climate are working to produce an accessible Arctic, it is
essential that our Nation act now. Research, policies and coordinated
investment in infrastructure will ensure safe, secure, and reliable
Arctic shipping. Under the principle of freedom of navigation, global
shipping can come to our doorstep whether we invite it or not. Whether
you envision the Arctic Ocean as a new seaway, for trans-Arctic
shipping, competitive with the Panama and Suez Canals, or only foresee
an expansion of the current shipping in and out of the Arctic, the time
to prepare is now.
Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
The testimony is impressive, and I thank each one of you
for your contribution.
I want to ask Mr. Friedman a question. Concerns about
whether ethanol is actually better than gasoline, in terms of
its emissions of greenhouse gases. Do you think we should put
stronger requirements on greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol
producers?
Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, basically, we need strong greenhouse gas requirements
on every fuel that is used in transportation. The science on
the global warming reductions associated with ethanol is
continuing to evolve. What we're learning is that corn ethanol
may not be as good for the climate as we once thought. Both for
those reasons and for concerns about food prices, we need to
basically evolve from corn as an ethanol source, to waste
products, to wood products in order to produce ethanol. These
so-called cellulosic ethanol resources, if done sustainably,
can dramatically cut global warming pollution and can be part
of a broader solution that includes renewable electricity and
clean hydrogen, but we're not going to get these solutions
unless we have a low carbon fuel standard, a policy that is
going to require all fuels to get better over time. And we
probably also won't have this unless we make sure we have the
vehicles out there--the plug-in hybrids, the fuel-cell
vehicles, the electric vehicles--that can use these cleaner
energy resources.
Senator Lautenberg. Let me ask you--you identify corn for
the problems that it creates and--by way of shortages and other
things--forgive me, they've managed to break the code here--
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg.--and is there any improvement, vis-a-
vis emissions, if sugar ethanol is introduced? Is that
substantially more efficient? I heard what you said. You said
all fuels should be examined for----
Mr. Friedman. It does look like sugar-based ethanol--for
example, the sugar cane used in Brazil--can be reduce global
warming pollution. But, even there, anytime we talk about using
a crop to make fuel, we need to make sure that, by using that
crop for fuel instead of food, we're not encouraging someone
somewhere else to cut down a forest to replace that fuel.
That's the real dynamic that we have to avoid here.
So, some sugar-based ethanol could make a lot of sense;
but, too much, and it may actually contribute to either
deforestation or clearing of land that could actually generate
more global warming pollution than you could save.
Using food for fuel is a tricky proposition, and it's
definitely something that, I think, with good investment in
cellulosic ethanol, especially from waste products, that we can
move away from over time. It can potentially form the base for
what we're doing right now.
Senator Lautenberg. Is the technology available to make the
conversion to using waste products to fuel the development of
ethanol--to the point now that it can be done in the volumes
that matter?
Mr. Friedman. Well, thankfully, we're about to find out.
There has been significant investment in cellulosic ethanol
plants--in part, funded by the Department of Energy and work by
Congress--but right now we don't have large-scale production of
those fuels; it's probably going to take several years before
we will see if we can, for example, get cellulosic ethanol for
only, say, $2.00 a gallon. If we get the breakthroughs we need,
it will become one of the added biofuel resources.
Senator Lautenberg. But, the union is concerned about the
time that we have to make changes in global warming--
significant changes--and asked for far larger reductions than
almost any other really responsible organization. If we don't
have the ability to produce products in sufficient volume for
several years, it doesn't sound like we're on a good track to
get going on what we need to do currently.
Mr. Friedman. Well, that's a great point, and that is part
of the reason why it's not only about pushing better fuels,
it's also about getting vehicles and more alternatives to
vehicles out there. We're not going to solve global warming
with a single silver bullet, with the wave of a magic wand. We
need a portfolio of options and a portfolio of policies.
Biofuels, I think, will be able to be a part of that, but we
can't expect them to carry the whole load.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, we're all hoping for a silver
bullet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I ask, with the indulgence of Senator
Stevens, for one more question that----
Even with fuel efficiency improvements, airplanes, Mr.
Meenan, will not be as efficient as trains, particularly for
journeys of 400 miles or less, and particularly in highly
populated areas. Doesn't it make sense, environmentally as well
as economically, to invest more in rail? Shouldn't we be
encouraging--and I ask this for any one of you who would like
to respond--shouldn't we be encouraging the most efficient
travel possible? And as it appears now, it's rail. Any comments
on that?
Mr. Meenan. Senator, I think----
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Meenan?
Mr. Meenan.--I think the second part of your question was
the answer that I would give you, which is, we should be
encouraging the most efficient--energy efficient transportation
possible. In some markets, that may be rail. It may be, in a
very high-density market, that may make perfect sense. But, in
other markets, similar distances, you may not have that
density, and air is a better energy-efficient alternative than
200 cars making that trip, for example.
So, we're open to all kinds of--we also believe, though,
that public investment ought to also be directed at finding
more efficient ways--energy-efficient ways of advancing air
transportation, as well. And that's one of the reasons we're
encouraging more investment in alternative fuel research for
aviation.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but, also, a question that's often
raised, as you well know, sir, is whether or not distances to
travel have to figure into the best manner to transport people.
And when you see--in Europe, for instance, if you want to go
from Brussels, where we have our NATO headquarters, to other
cities, like Paris, when you have an hour-and-20-minute ride
for 200 miles, it's hard to find an airplane trip that you can
take there. So, that has to be a consideration, as well as
population density.
Mr. Meenan. But, there are also differences in existing
infrastructure in Europe that are not necessarily replicated in
the United States, so that we couldn't, for example, have all
destinations within 400 miles of Washington, D.C., linked by
rail, I don't believe, and do it efficiently, but we could do
it in certain high-density corridors.
Senator Lautenberg. I'll take no longer. We will keep the
record open for questions.
Senator Stevens?
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Been an
interesting hearing.
You know--and, Mr. Friedman, I respect your comments, but I
don't see anything that is dealing with the basic balance of
cost against change, particularly in terms of some of these
ethanols. Ethanol costs a great deal more, really, than oil or
gas right now, and it's subsidized. We took away all the
subsidies for oil and gas in the past, but we're applying them
now to ethanols. The more ethanol, more subsidy. How do you get
down to balancing the overall cost to the Nation of this
change?
Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
First, I would say there are definitely still substantial
incentives for petroleum fuels, whether they be tax credits or
access to public lands--and, in fact----
Senator Stevens. I hate to interrupt you, but there is no
such thing as access to public lands right now for oil and gas
exploration; it has just actually been static now for at least
10 years.
Mr. Friedman. But, I think, when we look at the cost of
ethanol, this is one of the reasons why we do need the
incentives, in order to get the prices down.
Senator Stevens. Well, the incentives are adding to the
cost to the public. It's just a question of whether you put it
on the taxpayer or on the purchaser of the ethanol. Ethanol is
so subsidized today, it's limited in expansion. Why rest on the
ethanol alternative?
Mr. Friedman. Well, one of the great things that I think
you point to is, actually, what we need to do is move away from
simple tax credits for any one specific fuel, and, instead,
move tax credits to performance basis. You should get a higher
tax credit if you're a lower-carbon fuel. If we encourage
performance, then the best solutions will emerge. Maybe it
will, maybe it won't, be ethanol. Maybe it will be low-carbon
electricity, maybe it will be hydrogen. But, if we encourage
increased performance, maybe we can even get refineries to
improve their efficiency so there's a little bit less global
warming pollution associated with gasoline. Performance-based
standards are the key.
So, I do agree that we need to move away from, maybe,
specific products, and move toward performance, and especially
global warming performance, when we look at our incentives.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Hamberger, all you need to do is find
me the money to build about 150 miles of railroad, and we could
be connected to the Canadian rail system and have a lot cheaper
transportation in the long run. You think you could find that
kind of money, 150 miles, these days?
Mr. Hamberger. Well, I know that your former colleague,
Senator Murkowski, believed very strongly in that, as well,
and--I don't know where that planning process is. I believe the
Canadian and the U.S. governments were supposed to put together
a commission to take a look at that.
Senator Stevens. And we should, we really should. I think
that the difficulty is the people don't realize the great
efficiency of the rail system, particularly in places like we
live, in Alaska. As Mr. Treadwell could tell you, that the
advent, now, of thinking we're going to have trans-Arctic
steam--or ship transportation is sort of hard to realize, it
might come true. Barring that, Mr. Treadwell, how does it look,
as far as getting the kind of agreements that would be
necessary to use the Arctic for surface transportation?
Mr. Treadwell. Well, as you know, the Senate is
considering--excuse me. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
As you know, the Senate is considering approval of, or
accession to, the Law of the Sea Treaty. And the Law of the Sea
Treaty, basically, deals with the territorial issues. Under the
United Nations, we already have participation in the
International Maritime Organization. The Coast Guard is doing
bilateral discussions right now with the Russians about the
Bering Strait, sometimes now referred as the Bering Gate. But,
something to consider is the fact that we can probably agree
fairly quickly on new rules for the Arctic, but the issue is
new investment needed for the Arctic, as well, that we have
coordinated investment in the St. Lawrence Seaway, for example,
and that may be something the Nation wants to look at in the
Arctic with other nations.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much for the hearing, Mr.
Chairman. I really think that until Americans wake up to the
fact that we're sending out our capital overseas to buy oil we
could produce here at home, we're not going to see the capital
formation that's necessary to make the changes that all of you
agree seems to be necessary in our transportation system. I
just don't see the ability to add the cost of this change on
the taxpayers. It should come from increased revenue from
activity in the United States of producing our own oil and gas.
Everyone talks about how much we'll save at the pump. They
don't understand, the real savings comes from the job creation
and the increased activity in this country that would come from
producing our own supply of oil and gas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. I do have some questions I'd like to
submit for the record, but I have to go to another----
Senator Lautenberg. I agree. I would just take a moment to
respond to my eloquent friend from Alaska and say that the full
measure of the cost of getting more material from those sources
is not simply the cost for the material--oil, in particular--
but our costs for then protecting these states and their
governments, and the cost is substantially higher. And I think
that if we continue to want to compete there, then the costs
for fuel is going to go substantially higher than it is now,
and presents the question for us.
Senator Thune?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this--thank the Chair and the Vice Chair for holding
the hearing on the impact of the transportation sector on
climate change, and vice versa.
I think it's important that, whenever you talk about the
topic of transportation's impact on carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions, to start with the energy bill of
2007. In addition to the historic increase in vehicle fuel
efficiency standards and other energy efficiency programs, the
bill also included an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard.
The 2007 energy bill requires the use of 36 billion gallons
of renewable fuel by the year 2022, and it also includes
significant requirements for life-cycle greenhouse gas emission
reductions. In fact, under the bill, new corn ethanol plants
must product ethanol with a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions. And when you start talking about
advanced biofuel and cellulosic ethanol, which constitutes the
majority of the new Renewable Fuel Standard, those have to have
a 50 percent reduction and 60 percent reduction in life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular gasoline.
So, this was a landmark piece of legislation that I don't
think can be overlooked. We need to start discussing the
transportation sector's impact on greenhouse gas emissions. And
moving forward, we've got to continue to meet the challenges of
high fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions with commonsense
policies that reduce those emissions while, at the same time,
helping U.S. businesses stay competitive, keep our economy
growing and family budgets intact.
So, I wanted to make that general observation with regard
to the RFS, but I guess I'd like to, more specifically, ask a
couple of questions of the panel, and maybe get a reaction in
terms of--and I'd direct this, I guess, to Mr. Meenan, to start
with--but, if there was a policy that we could put in place,
what's the single most important policy this Committee could
pursue that would help with airline industry--the increase in
fuel costs that you're dealing with, with fuel efficiency,
trying to lower your fuel bills and decrease greenhouse gas
emissions? That's something--we all see the spike in everything
in the economy right now, but airline ticket fares are no
exception--I know, driven by the high cost of fuel. Any
thoughts about that?
Mr. Meenan. Senator, without any question. The subject was
addressed yesterday by Northwest's Chairman and CEO in his
testimony up here. We believe that getting after some of the
speculative pressure in the oil market would be the most direct
and immediate means of driving some of that cost out of the
price of a barrel, at this point. Experts in the field say that
it could drive the price down as much as $40-$50 at a single
sweep. Even assuming that that may be an exaggeration--even
$20, even $5 would be a marked improvement from where we are
today. We see no risk in getting after a little bit more
regulation, a little bit more focus on what's going on in that
market today. As you know, we're trading as many as 20 paper
barrels of oil for every single barrel of actual product that's
used. That suggests to us that there's a lot of froth in the
market that might be reduced by getting after the speculative
pressures.
Senator Thune. Does your organization--have they taken any
kind of position on--specific piece of legislation or way of
going about doing--I know a number of proposals that are
swirling around out there.
Mr. Meenan. Senator, we're working with a number of
different members who are proposing a variety of different
measures. And right now we're trying to, sort of, hone in on
whatever the most effective vehicle will be, and go with that.
But, it's--the debate is still swirling, at this point, but I--
we're hopeful it's going to get resolved in the next few days,
if at all possible.
Senator Thune. Anybody else care to comment on that? I know
I directed it to the aviation industry, but any, just, general
thoughts about specific remedies that Congress could pursue
that--policies that would help address----
Mr. Hamberger. To the availability and price of fuel?
Senator Thune. Yes.
Mr. Hamberger. I don't know how my friend to the right will
react to this, but are part of a coalition pushing coal-to-
liquids, and believe that that would certainly provide both a
domestic and a reliable source at a reasonable rate.
Senator Thune. Yes, if--maybe, direct this to your friend
to the right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. My left, your right.
But, with respect to the whole issue of the RFS and
biofuels and everything else, how do you see the--sort of, the
movement of the next-generation biofuel, cellulosic ethanol,
as--with respect to how it will contribute to reducing
CO2 emissions and the broader issue, I suppose, of
climate change, but the impact that that might have on our
transportation infrastructure if we move more to biofuels?
Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Senator.
I expect that the potential is out there for the
sustainable production of maybe 40-50 billion gallons of
biofuels over the next 30, 40, 50 years, significantly less
than some people are pointing to. But, one of the most
important things we have to realize is that, as we tackle
global warming pollution, as we tackle oil dependence, we need
to make sure we're not creating any tradeoffs between the two.
We need to focus our research, our incentives on the best of
the biofuels, the cleanest of the biofuels. We also need to do
the same when it comes to any fuel.
When it comes to coal-to-liquids, look, if coal-to-liquids
can get a dramatic reduction in global warming pollution, the
same as renewable electricity, then it belongs in the mix.
Right now, all the data shows that making liquid coal can
potentially double global warming pollution.
So--but, as long as we have a fuel policy based on
performance standards and incentives based on greenhouse gas
performance standards, I don't think we have to have these big
debates over which fuel is the best, which fuel is the worst.
As long as we guide the performance, the market is going to
figure out which are the most cost-effective options out there.
We also have to remember that the Renewable Fuel Standard
isn't enough. It really only covers about 10 percent of the
market. That's why we need to move to something like a low-
carbon fuel standard to broaden out what we're doing.
Senator Thune. But, the RFS does have----
Senator Lautenberg. Senator, may I ask, how much more do
you have? We are going to keep the record open for questions,
if we could wrap it up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Thank you for that not-so-subtle hint.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. That's how I got to be Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Well, it'll get us both to lunch, I guess,
but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. I will, I'll submit any other questions I
have for the record.
Senator Lautenberg. If you have one more----
Senator Thune. No, that's all right. I just wanted to ask--
I guess, in--just as a quick follow-up on----
Would you all not concede, however, that the RFS, inasmuch
as it is only--we say we use 140 billion gallons of fuel every
year in this country--even if we get to 36 billion gallons, 21
billion of which will be cellulosic--that that is going to have
a significant impact because of the requirements we imposed in
the Renewable Fuel Standard on reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions--that that's
going to have a positive impact?
Mr. Friedman. Great question. And the portion of the
Renewable Fuel Standard that does have greenhouse gas
standards, I think, will have a clear and positive effect. One
of the challenges, though, is that on the order of 13 to 14
billion gallons of corn ethanol remains completely unregulated
when it comes to global warming pollution. It was grandfathered
in as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Honestly, if you look at the potential land-use impacts and
increased global warming pollution from some of those fuels, we
could end up with only a very small benefit from the Renewable
Fuel Standard, as written. This is why, again, we need to
eventually move beyond turning food into fuels, even just
simply for climate reasons. And this Committee, I think, has a
role to play in all of these things.
One of the other things I definitely want to urge this
Committee to do is to exercise its oversight powers, as well,
on the Department of Transportation to make sure that our
upcoming fuel economy standards are as strong as they can be.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the panel for your
testimony. Appreciate it.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
With that, we thank you again, to the witnesses, and we'll
keep the record open.
We're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California
The transportation sector is a significant contributor to global
warming.
Approximately 33 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the
United States come from transportation. And 72 percent of the
transportation sector's emissions are generated by road use.
The movement of goods has a real impact on air quality and global
warming emissions. Freight transportation still largely relies on
fossil fuels and consequently produces significant greenhouse gas
emissions.
As a percentage of all mobile source emissions, heavy-duty truck,
rail, and water transport together account for more than 25 percent of
CO2 emissions, approximately 50 percent of NOX
emissions, and nearly 40 percent of particulate (PM) emissions in the
United States.
My home state of California has long suffered from air quality
problems from transportation emissions. According to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), approximately 75 percent of diesel particulate
emissions in California are related to goods movement.
In addition, CARB has attributed 2,400 premature deaths to diesel
emissions and estimates that the health costs of diesel emissions could
be as high as $200 billion in 2020.
The movement of people and goods is vital to our economy, but it
clogs our roads, fouls our air, pollutes our water, and creates safety
issues.
For example, idling in traffic congestion is a tremendous source of
carbon dioxide emissions and fuel. Billions of gallons of fuel are
burned by vehicles stuck in traffic. This type of congestion stifles
our economy and uses our energy resources and produces greenhouse gas
emissions that are contributing to global warming.
Through the use of traffic signal timing and other technologies we
can reduce idling, which can make a significant contribution to
reducing GHG emissions.
In addition, we can help reduce congestion and the growth of
highway demand by shifting trips to other modes of travel. Making more
trips by biking, walking, carpooling, and reducing the number of trips
necessary, by telecommuting, for example, could help reduce GHG
emissions as well.
A combination of strategies including land use and increased public
transit ridership could significantly reduce transportation-related
CO2 emissions.
By reducing congestion we can also improve the quality or the air
we breathe and improve public health.
However, in addition to working to reduce GHG emissions to limit
future warming, we also need to prepare our transportation system to
withstand the unavoidable impacts of global warming.
Recent studies by the Transportation Research Board of the National
Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
underscore the need for adaptation planning at the state and local
levels.
Six of the Nation's top ten freight gateways, which are centers for
economic activity, will be at risk if sea levels rise.
60,000 miles of coastal highways already experience coastal storm
flooding and wave action. This number is certain to increase with
rising the sea levels, leaving communities vulnerable to ocean waves
and cutting off evacuation routes.
Climate change will have significant impacts on transportation,
affecting the way U.S. transportation interests plan, design,
construct, operate, and maintain infrastructure.
That's why I am pleased the Committee is holding this hearing to
examine the impacts of climate change on the transportation sector.
I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing. We are
looking at these issues in the Environment and Public Works Committee
as well. A cap and trade system to control carbon pollution could
provide substantial revenue to address carbon emissions in the
transportation sector.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses before us today.
______
Prepared Statement of Captain Mary Ann Schaffer, Chairperson, Aviation
Sustainability and Environment Task Force, Air Line Pilots Association,
International
On behalf of the 54,000 airline pilots represented by the Air Line
Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I am pleased to offer this
testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee. We appreciate the
Committee's interest in climate change and the impacts on the
transportation sector and are pleased to share our perspective.
It may not be apparent why ALPA would have an interest in this
subject, so I will explain. ALPA's motto, since its beginning almost 77
years ago, has been ``Schedule with Safety.'' A former FAA
Administrator and others have dubbed ALPA the ``conscience of the
airline industry'' and in that role, we take very seriously the need to
ensure that any new operational measures are fully understood and
thoroughly considered before implementation. Pilots literally sit at
the intersection of new technology, operational measures, air traffic
control procedures, and varying aircraft capabilities. This gives us a
unique vantage point to see and experience first hand what well-
intended, but unrealistic operational procedures can do to safety
margins.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, a recently designed descent path into a major east
coast airport required pilots to cross closely spaced points at
successively lower altitudes. The points were too close together to
allow pilots to meet the restrictions using advanced aircraft
navigation computers resulting in increased pilot workload in a
critical phase of flight. The procedure was revised based on pilot and
controller feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another principal reason for our interest in this subject is the
need to ensure the ongoing viability, what we call the sustainability,
of our airline industry. We recognize all too well that our employers
are under tremendous financial stress due to the record high cost of
fuel and pressures from environmental concerns to reduce fuel
consumption and corresponding emissions. Pilots have a genuine ability
to help their airlines burn less fuel, and thereby put less noise and
tailpipe emissions into the environment. Pilots look for opportunities
to reduce fuel burn and do so every day.
Pilots and the airline industry as a whole have already made great
strides toward reducing total fuel burn, noise, and tailpipe emissions.
We believe Congress should take this into account when it considers any
legislation regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. I will discuss
later the extraordinary investments that our employers have made to
reduce consumption and pollution.
With oil peaking near $140 per barrel, airlines are parking
airplanes because they can no longer afford to fly them, name-brand
legacy carriers are looking for mergers in order to survive, airlines
are spending about 40 percent of their revenues on fuel, and airline
pilots are facing an uncertain future in an industry unstable because
of this energy crisis. Already this year, four carriers have shut down
entirely and more than 14,000 airline jobs have been eliminated.
Airlines and aviation face unique challenges. First are the long
and expensive lead times for the research, development, design, and
certification implementation for new technologies. Second is the lack
of any economically viable alternative to fossil-based fuel.
Compounding these issues is the lack of a comprehensive national energy
policy that addresses the short and long term needs of our
transportation systems.
ALPA's Work to Improve the Environment
As evidenced by the creation of our President's Task Force on
Aviation Sustainability and Environment, ALPA takes environmental
concerns very seriously. We are, and will continue to be, part of the
solution as evidenced by the following activities:
ALPA is participating in the work of Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI), which involves the
airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and the scientific community
collaborating to find new and better sources of fuel for
aviation.
We are also a member of the Advisory Board for the
Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions
Reduction (PARTNER) effort and the FAA's Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO) Environmental Working Group.
Our most recent success story: ALPA was a principal co-
sponsor of a two-day conference for more than 200 government
and industry participants in March, called Aviation and the
Environment: A Primer for North American Stakeholders. The
purpose of the forum was threefold:
1. Put the environment debate into context and educate the
members of the co-hosting associations on the basic facts.
2. Examine some of the policy options, measures and decisions
proposed to curtail and reduce overall noise and emissions.
3. Provide a platform to communicate aviation's already
impressive gains in the reduction of noise and emissions and
highlight ongoing industry environmental initiatives.
Safety and Operations
Airline pilots can, and do, save fuel and emissions through
operating techniques. Safety is our utmost concern, of course, but
where safety is not impacted, airline pilots will reduce fuel usage
through such measures as:
Single-engine outbound taxi--Under certain conditions, it is
not necessary that all aircraft engines be operated to taxi on
the ramp or on taxiways. When conditions permit, only one
engine may be started out of two or more available engines
until reaching the end of the runway for takeoff.
Engine shut-down during inbound taxi--Once the aircraft has
exited the landing runway and is headed to the gate or parking
stand, one or more operating engines may be shut down either in
the taxiway environment or on the ramp.
Technology enhanced departure procedures--New procedures are
being developed with the aid of Area Navigation (RNAV) and
Required Navigation Performance (RNP) technology which permit
shortening the distance and time traveled during approach and
departure.
Optimal altitude--Each jet aircraft, based on weight and
ambient conditions, has an optimum altitude where fuel burn is
minimized. To the extent that conditions and circumstances
permit, pilots may request that optimal altitude in order to
conserve fuel, which reduces emissions.
Optimal-speed flight plans--Planning and operating a flight
at an efficient speed can save fuel. Pilots can optimize fuel
burn based on aircraft weight, winds, and atmospheric
conditions.
Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA)/Optimized Descent Procedure
(OPD)--Normal approach and landing procedures require an
aircraft to reduce power, descend to a new altitude, and then
add considerable power to level off and fly straight and
level--that process may be repeated several times during any
approach and landing. A new approach procedure, the CDA, or
what we refer to as an OPD, is being developed that permits
pilots to reduce power on all engines and not use significant
thrust until safety concerns dictate establishing a stabilized
approach configuration just before landing. This procedure
cannot work at all airports at all times due to operational
constraints, but at those locations where it can be used, it
can save substantial fuel on a single approach.
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)--Taking advantage
of improved technology, appropriately equipped aircraft can now
fly with 1,000 feet--compared with 2,000 feet previously--
vertical separation at higher altitudes. This operational
change added six additional useable altitudes increasing the
opportunity for pilots to fly their aircraft at the optimal,
most fuel efficient altitude, in addition to permitting much
greater airspace utilization.
Aviation's Enviable Environmental Record
Aviation arguably has the most successful record of limiting its
impact on the environment while increasing its productivity of any
industrial sector. Airlines have greatly reduced carbon-based emissions
through engine technology which reduces fuel burn and emission of
undesirable gases and particulates. Compared to aircraft in use in
1972, the U.S. airline industry now carries six (6) times more payload
using 60 percent less fuel and has reduced by 95 percent the number of
people significantly impacted by aircraft noise.\2\ This outstanding
record of environmental achievement has resulted almost entirely from
the airlines continually demanding new aircraft from the manufacturers
that burn less fuel, carry greater payloads, and create less noise.
Boeing is preparing for the first flight of the B-787; due to its
cutting edge technology, that aircraft is designed to use 20 percent
less fuel--and thereby create 20 percent less GHG emissions--than
current aircraft of the same size. This aircraft is just one example of
the kinds of investments that the airlines make in a very heavily
capitalized industry; those investments should be taken into account by
any legislation that deals with fuel conservation and GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision Statement,
Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions,'' Report to the U.S.
Congress, December 2004; see also, ``Aviation and the Environment: A
Pilots' Perspective,'' British Air Line Pilots Association, March 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
As described, the airline industry has already made great progress
toward reducing GHG emissions without the creation of a new commodity
market that would funnel its assets to other industries and
entities.\3\ That said, the industry does need your help to boost our
great progress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The International Civil Aviation Organization held a 2-day
conference June 18-19 in Montreal to discuss carbon markets and their
application to aviation. These voluntary and mandatory markets are
maturing around the world and stand ready to envelop the aviation
industry in a commodities market for carbon that will divert needed
financing from true fuel savings initiatives.
Provide sufficient and timely funding to the FAA for
necessary improvements in the U.S. National Aviation System
(NAS). Funding the national airspace system modernization
components needed to enhance aircraft efficiency, safety, and
capacity will help in reducing delays, fuel consumption, and
emissions. Implementation of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NEXTGEN) could eliminate as much as 15
percent of today's delays, increase safety and capacity, and
concurrently reduce emissions. Funding important studies like
wake vortex investigations will also help. More information and
understanding of wake vortex patterns around runways will allow
spacing of traffic on the runway based on real hazards--a more
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
accurate standard than the currently used mileage separation.
Continue funding for important infrastructure improvements
including runway and taxiway additions and improvements. Poor
airport design, including those with intersecting runways,
increases taxi time and increases fuel use. Adding high-speed
taxiway exits from runways can reduce runway occupancy time
thus increasing airport capacity. Additional runways, like
those in progress at Seattle-Tacoma and Washington Dulles
airports, reduce fuel wasted in holding patterns and long lines
of aircraft waiting for take-off.
Give greater support to research for alternative fuels which
are renewable, pollute less or not at all, and are less
expensive than today's fuels. Because of aircraft engine design
and extreme atmospheric conditions at altitude, the airline
industry relies entirely on petroleum-based fuels; it cannot
currently substitute ethanol or other fuels as some industries
are able to do.
Avoid adding economic burdens, in the form of market-based
measures, to an already crippled industry. Such measures as
planned to take effect in Europe and proposed in the Lieberman-
Warner bill are biased against the airline industry and do not
provide sufficient re-investment of revenue for new aviation
technologies and fuel. These carbon cap-and-trade schemes are
designed to provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions--
our industry already has that incentive and is continually
searching for more ways to reduce fuel use and emissions.
Diverting funds needed for new, more fuel efficient aircraft
and alternative fuels research will only slow these efforts.
Work with the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) to establish emissions standards and operating measures
for uniform application across this global industry.
Conclusion
Aviation is a good news story; we safely move hundreds of millions
of passengers around the world in comfort, at great speed, and with
less impact on the environment than any other mode of transportation in
history. However, aviation is a visible target and has drawn the
attention of numerous groups around the world who condemn the industry
for being a driver of projected climate change.
As pilots, we deal with facts, and the facts clearly show that
while aviation is a contributor of greenhouse gas and other emissions,
it plays only a small role in the overall issue. Indeed, we could
ground the entire world's fleet, and not have a significant effect on
the climate change issue. The industry is poised to make great strides
in reducing emissions through technology and operating procedures. We
believe that the best way to achieve those results is the same way that
we have made such great advances thus far, namely, through industry's
investments in increasingly advanced technology.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We urge
Congress' support of our ongoing and future efforts to reduce
aviation's environmental impacts.
______
Railway Supply Institute, Inc.
Washington, DC, June 30, 2008
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Re: June 24, 2008, Full Committee Hearing on ``Climate Change Impacts
on the Transportation Sector''
Dear Mr. Chairman,
The Railway Supply Institute appreciates the opportunity to submit
comments to the Committee for the record on the contributions of the
transportation sector to address climate change, and the potential
impacts of climate change on the Nation's transportation
infrastructure.
Established in 1908, RSI is the international trade association of
the rail and rail rapid transit supply industry. We have over 200
members who provide goods and services to our Nation's freight and
passenger railroads as well as our rail transit systems. RSI estimates
that the domestic railway supply industry approaches $25 billion in
annual revenues and employs 150,000 people.
Many Americans are still trying to understand what climate change
is and what needs to be done to address it. What Americans do
understand is the cost of oil and the penalties we all must pay for
being overly dependent on foreign oil. The fact remains that the more
we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels the more likely we are to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that impact climate change.
Transportation consumes 7 out of every 10 barrels of oil consumed
in the United States. Highway transportation dominates both energy use
and GHG emissions, accounting for 72 percent of transportation energy
use and carbon emissions in the Nation. The United States
transportation system is the largest in the world, is a major source of
global GHG emissions, and is almost entirely responsible for our
Nation's dependence on oil as the major source of energy. While the
United States has only 4.5 percent of the world's population, it uses
25 percent of the world's oil. About 60 percent of U.S. oil is
imported. Clearly this suggests that until we have alternative fuels
that can be economically employed on a wider scale, we must depend more
on encouraging the development of the most efficient modes of
transportation. In turn, that will help us achieve a reduction in GHG
emissions.
Rail transportation is efficient and we need to focus more
attention on investing in rail as a way to fight GHG emissions, reduce
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and improve fuel efficiency. The
transportation investments made now will impact future transportation,
environmental and social investments so we need to start getting these
decisions right. Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution has
suggested that ``America's transportation policy is adrift with no
clear goals, purpose, or ability to meet today's challenges''. He
suggests that policymakers are too focused on highways and transit and
have ignored passenger and freight rail which may be part of the
solution to addressing other key policy issues (such as dependence on
foreign oil, congestion and climate change).
Increased passenger rail should be part of the transportation modal
shift required to address the proliferation of greenhouse gas
production, while maintaining mobility. Furthermore, a strong, national
railroad infrastructure helps to achieve some of our Nation's critical
policy objectives:
reducing carbon emissions;
reducing congestion on our highways;
improving transportation safety;
reducing airport congestion;
efficiently utilize land for transportation purposes
reducing dependence on foreign oil; and,
enhancing our ability to move vast numbers of people in
emergency evacuation situations (e.g., 9/11 or Katrina).
The 1973 events in the Middle East, which the French refer to as
the ``oil shock'' changed the way of life for many in that country. The
price of oil quadrupled and French policymakers saw only one way out
for France--energy independence. The thought of being dependent for
energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East
disturbed many French people. In the 1970s, the French decided that
they could no longer afford to have an economy so dependent on imported
oil.
Now the U.S. is facing a 2008 ``oil shock'' and the answer is not
to manipulate the cost of oil downward or drill for more oil offshore
as some have suggested. No, the answer is energy independence first
through utilizing the most efficient modes of transportation and then
through alternative energy sources.
While we may argue over the method employed by the French--higher
oil taxes and a move to nuclear energy--there is no arguing over their
strategy to stop depending on imported oil to fuel their economy.
Today, the French are energy independent and are among the world
leaders in lowering GHG emissions. One of the ways they have achieved
this is by investing in electric high speed rail corridors throughout
the country. Meanwhile the U.S. struggles with its addiction to oil and
stands by idly as others develop energy efficient and carbon friendly
high speed rail systems.
We know that the high cost of fuel in Europe and Asia has promoted
development of high speed rail and the results have demonstrated that
once reliable and convenient rail passenger service is available it
begins to impact mode-shifting away from the higher carbon producing
modes, particularly as the cost of auto and air travel increase.
Cost alone is not the true measure of our transportation policy.
There is a cost of carbon, a cost of congestion and a very high cost of
having a transportation system that is overly dependent on foreign oil.
Transportation policy must focus on a reduction in vehicle miles
travelled (VMT), less dependence on foreign oil, lower greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, alternative to short distance air travel, reduction in
congestion and realistic alternatives to driving.
Finally, it is important to note that 2 years ago the Center for
Clean Air Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology released a
report on High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. This
report used the 11 federally designated high speed rail corridors in
the U.S. to estimate the annual GHG benefits if these high speed rail
systems were developed as planned. The report concluded that high speed
rail development in these corridors ``will generate substantial GHG
savings in all regions''. All the evidence on fuel efficiency and
carbon emissions points to the need to begin implementing these
corridors now. We know what needs to be done and we need to find the
will to do it.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Simpson,
Executive Director--Washington.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Alterman, President,
Cargo Airline Association
My name is Steve Alterman and I am President of the Cargo Airline
Association (``the Association'' or CAA), the organization representing
the interests of the leading U.S. all-cargo air carriers before
Congress, Federal administrative agencies and the various states and
localities throughout the United States.\1\ I also have the honor of
being the current Chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee of the
FAA's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC).
On behalf of our air carrier association members, I appreciate the
opportunity to comment briefly on aviation's place in the debate over
global climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. air carrier members of the Cargo Airline Association are
ABX Air, Air Transport International, Atlas Air, Capital Cargo, FedEx
Express, Kalitta Air and UPS Airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, it is important to note that the all-cargo airline
industry, and indeed the aviation community generally, has a record of
achievement that clearly demonstrates a commitment to environmental
sensitivity. For example, comparing the year 2007 with the year 2000,
U.S. commercial airlines consumed 3 percent less fuel in 2007, while at
the same time transporting over 20 percent more passengers and cargo.
Moreover, between the years 1978 and 2007, fuel efficiency has improved
by 110 percent.\2\ Therefore, the aviation sector of the economy has
been able to stabilize its contribution to total greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions at approximately 2 percent of the total GHG emissions in the
United States.\3\ While this record is enviable, it cannot and should
not end the discussion of the future course of the climate change
debate in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although not directly related to the global climate change
debate, it is also significant that the industry's commitment to noise
abatement has resulted in over a 90 percent reduction in the population
exposed to significant aircraft noise since 1978.
\3\ In contrast, electric utilities contribute over a third of the
total GHGs and the ``emissions'' of cattle and other livestock
contributes approximately 18 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For their part, U.S. airlines are not simply resting on their past
accomplishments. As noted in the statement submitted to the Committee
by John Meenan, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of
the Air Transport Association (ATA) on June 24, 2008, ATA member
airlines have already committed to an additional 30 percent system-wide
fuel efficiency by the year 2025. The major cargo carriers are included
in this commitment and Cargo Airline Association members have been in
the forefront of developing and implementing new operational procedures
and technologies that will increase efficiency and decrease fuel burn.
These efforts will continue as the industry continually upgrades its
aircraft fleet and works with the manufacturing sector on airframe and
engine technology and with the Federal Government on a new generation
of more environmentally sensitive aviation fuels.
At the same time, the industry alone cannot achieve the
enhancements that will be necessary in the coming years--especially in
the current chaotic airline environment.\4\ Rather, both the
legislative and administrative branches of government must recognize
both the past achievements and future challenges in fashioning a
program to ensure that the airline community meets its environmental
goals--goals based on sound environmental science balanced with the
operational realities of the air transportation system. If there were
any doubt that Congress is fully engaged in the issue of global climate
change, that doubt should be erased in reviewing the recently-
introduced Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036).\5\ However,
this proposed legislation would only exacerbate an already untenable
position in the airline community. While not directly addressing the
airline industry, the provisions of this bill would impose a
substantial indirect fuel tax that would be paid to the oil companies
and would not in any way address aviation environmental issues.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ With fuel prices hovering around the $135 per barrel level,
airlines have been forced to take drastic action to simply stay in
business.
\5\ It appears that this legislation will not move forward in this
session of Congress, but it is likely that the same or similar
legislation will be introduced early in 2009.
\6\ The funds collected in this manner would simply reimburse the
oil companies for the tax imposed on them and would not be funneled
into aviation projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What, then, should Congress do to address environmental issues in
the aviation community? First, it should be recognized that FAA
Reauthorization is, among other things, an environmental imperative.
Quite apart from the ongoing debate over FAA funding, both the House
(H.R. 2881) and the Senate (S. 1300) reauthorization bills contain a
number of environmental initiatives that are necessary if the industry
and government are to move forward to meet the environmental challenges
of the coming years.\7\ The most far-reaching program is the proposal
to establish a government/industry consortium to develop, mature and
certify ``continuous lower energy, emissions, and noise engine and
airframe technology'' (CLEEN), with the following specific goals to be
accomplished by September 30, 2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These challenges include, not only managing aviation's impact
on global climate change, but also dealing with the continuing issues
of aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions that affect local air
quality.
Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions by increasing fuel efficiency by 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percent relative to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft technology.
Development of certifiable engine technology that reduces
landing and takeoff cycle nitrogen oxide emissions by 50
percent, without increasing other gaseous or particle
emissions, over the International Civil Aviation Organization
standard adopted in 2004.
Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces
noise levels by 10 decibels at each of the certification points
relative to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft technology.
Determination of the feasibility of the use of alternative
fuels in aircraft systems, including successful demonstration
and quantification of the benefits of such fuels.
Determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft
technologies may be used to retrofit or re-engine aircraft to
increase the integration of retrofitted and re-engined aircraft
into the commercial fleet. See, Section 602 of S. 1300.
In addition, the proposed legislation establishes various
environmentally-based pilot programs and permits airports to undertake
studies and to apply for grants targeted to reducing adverse affects of
aviation activity on the environment at their airports. Taken together,
these initiatives would build on the progress already made in reducing
the impact of aviation on the environment.
The reason for detailing these prospective provisions is to
emphasize that there are ways that the government and industry can
together address aviation environmental issues by recognizing past
successes and building on them--without imposing punitive taxes that
would further cripple an already reeling industry. If it is impossible
to enact a reauthorization package before the end of the current
Congress, the Association urges the Senate to attempt to find another
vehicle that would permit these important environmental provisions to
move forward.
Similarly, the FAA must be ``encouraged'' to expedite its program
to modernize the airspace system. While this modernization has its
roots in safety, efficiency and capacity gains, it also has a major
environmental component. When more direct routings and approaches are
possible, the immediate result will be less fuel use and a concurrent
reduction in all emissions. The Association is encouraged by the
appointment of a new FAA Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning and anticipates that this move will lead to short-
term gains that might otherwise be delayed. However, the modernization
program in general is a difficult major paradigm shift in the way
traffic is managed and the FAA, industry and Congress must work
together to ensure its success.
Finally, a unique opportunity may present itself when looking at
the interrelationship between FAA Reauthorization and the environmental
challenge. In view of the current impasse over FAA financing, all
parties to the debate should be looking for a compromise funding
solution. One such possible compromise might have positive
environmental consequences. If the current excise tax system for
commercial aviation were eliminated and replaced by an expanded fuel
tax, carriers would have the incentive to save fuel by accelerating
fleet modernization and the environment would benefit in the form of
significantly decreased emissions.\8\ In addition, as noted by the
Department of Transportation Inspector General in a report dated March
3, 2008,\9\ ``. . . we found that jet fuel consumption is a better
proxy for system use of the NAS than the current aviation excise taxes
. . .'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Association does not specifically endorse such a system of
FAA funding but feels that it should be explored as a potential
compromise as the reauthorization debate moves forward. No final
position on this type of funding can be taken until more details are
developed.
\9\ Department of Transportation Inspector General Report CR-2008-
028, ``Use of the National Airspace System'', March 3, 2008.
\10\ The Report goes on to conclude that fuel consumption is not a
perfect measure of system use, but it clearly indicates that such a
measure is clearly better than the existing system. Department of
Transportation Inspector General Report CR-2008-028, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, we urge Congress to recognize the environmental
record of the aviation industry when taking action in the sphere of
global climate change. In addition, consideration should be given to
finding a way to enact legislation that implements those portions of S.
1300 that have environmental consequences. In the interim, the members
of the all-cargo air carrier industry will continue to explore ways to
improve its environmental performance while ensuring that it can
continue to service its shipper clients around the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to file these comments. If the
Committee has any questions with respect to the positions advanced,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
______
National Association of Railroad Passengers
Washington, DC, June 24, 2008
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The National Association of Railroad passengers appreciates your
providing a forum to consider how the transportation sector can
innovate and adapt to address increased demand in a manner which
mitigates the negative impacts of global climate change. I ask that
this letter be made part of the record in today's hearing.
Based on 2005 data reported last year by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Amtrak energy consumption per passenger-mile was 17 percent
lower than by airlines and 21 percent lower than by automobiles.
However, these numbers may understate the rail advantage because:
1. Amtrak ridership has increased since 2005 while its energy
consumption has been reduced.
2. While airlines and auto owners are constantly investing in
newer, more fuel-efficient units, Amtrak's youngest locomotives
are 7 years old; the main fleet of road diesels was acquired
between 1996 and 2001. The well-known Acela train sets, due to
safety-related design changes, will remain over-powered until
additional passenger cars can be added.
3. Oak Ridge numbers do not reflect the added environmental
damage that results from high-altitude emissions; there
apparently is not yet scholarly agreement on how to quantify
this added impact.
4. Externalities:
(a) The ability of trains to stimulate pedestrian- and
transit-friendly development in town centers such as at
Washington Union Station and in many other Amtrak-
served communities of all sizes.
(b) Good intermodal connections among trains and other
forms of transportation make public transportation more
attractive by more closely emulating the auto's
flexibility. Of particular note this summer is the
planned August opening of the St. Louis Gateway Station
which will give St. Louis Amtrak and Greyhound
passengers their first attractive, visible terminal,
and connection to local buses and the highly successful
light rail line (that serves both the airport and
Illinois suburbs).
Amtrak is now in its sixth year of increasing ridership, one of
many indications that Americans remain way ahead of policymakers in
willingness to embrace energy-efficient travel. President Bush and many
other leaders tend to focus on ``technology'' as the solution to our
climate change and energy problems but to overlook the fact that the
most feasible ``technology'' we have at our disposal is adequate
development of train service, which our Association has been promoting
since our founding in 1967.
As Americans across the Nation struggle with record fuel prices and
rapidly congesting roadways, the choice to ride trains, to some extent,
has become a forced one--at least where seats are still available for
sale. Amtrak's nationwide ridership jumped 11 percent in the last 7
months--clear evidence that Americans are turning to intercity
passenger trains in reaction to skyrocketing gas prices and turmoil in
the airline industry.
Now, the Nation needs to address the consequences of funding
priorities that continue to neglect rail-transport--relative both to
rail-development needs, and to Federal spending on other modes of
transport. When people read reports of your good work on S. 294 and the
House's recent passage of H.R. 6003, they are tempted to think that
spending priorities have changed and ``real'' passenger train
development is just around the corner. Last week's action on Fiscal
2009 funding by the House appropriations subcommittee brought us back
to reality. Tough budget limits and heavy demands by other programs
limited the increase in passenger train spending to $144 million--
enough to cover the back pay recommended by Presidential Emergency
Board 242 and increase the tiny U.S. DOT fund for matching state
investments to $60 million from the current $30 million.
Options to augment appropriated funds for passenger trains include
an allocation of revenues from any cap and trade bill that may
eventually become law, as well as tax credit and tax exempt bonds which
Congress has considered as a high speed rail funding source.
We, as a nation, have too long been building cities predicated
largely upon the assumption that every citizen has an auto. Instead of
planning communities which take into account the changes that come with
economic and population growth, we have continually utilized
instruments and methods to delay facing the consequences of this
growth. This is reflected in the growing cost of transport. A new
Brookings Institute report says transportation is now the second
largest expense for most American households--consuming on average 20
cents out of every dollar. The Surface Transportation Policy Project
previously documented that transport takes a bigger share of household
income where public transport is less developed. Auto-oriented housing
configurations, in large part, limit the short-term relief the
transportation sector can provide.
Long-term costs benefit analysis of our options underscores the
importance of today's decisions and how they will shape the landscape
and potential of our future cities and networks. By expanding passenger
train capacity, we can quickly allow more Americans to use trains to
cut transportation costs, avoid traffic stress and air travel
headaches, and minimize our oil dependence and negative impacts on
climate change. Beyond that, we will lay the foundation for enabling a
growing share of our population to enjoy the economic and quality-of-
life benefits that come with pedestrian-friendly development.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Ross B. Capon,
NARP Executive Director.
cc: The Honorable Ted Stevens
Other Committee Members
______
National Business Aviation Association, Inc.
Washington, DC, June 23, 2008
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inouye:
As the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
considers climate change issues, I would like to take this opportunity
to reaffirm general aviation's commitment to reducing aircraft
emissions and protecting our environment. On behalf of our 8,000
members across the country, National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA) acknowledges that when it comes to general aviation operations,
environmental stewardship is an imperative. We continually work to
develop reasonable and balanced policies that support the industry's
twin objectives of promoting mobility while minimizing its
environmental footprint.
Although the industry represents a tiny fraction of transportation
emissions, general aviation has long led the way in promoting advances
aimed at minimizing its environmental footprint. For example, 20 years
ago, the industry developed winglets for general aviation aircraft,
which optimize aircraft performance and flight range, and contribute to
a more efficient fuel burn, thereby reducing emissions. This equipment
is now in place on a large number of general aviation aircraft.
The industry continues to reduce engine emissions through new
technologies, which means that today's aircraft engines are cleaner,
quieter, and more fuel-efficient than ever. In fact, general aviation
turbine engines today are an average of 30 percent more fuel efficient
than those certified in 1976--and 50 percent more fuel efficient than
those introduced in the 1960s.
Operational improvements supported by general aviation have also
resulted in system efficiencies that help the environment Over 3 years
ago, NBAA members began equipping aircraft--at their own cost--with
cockpit technology allowing for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums,
or RVSM, which effectively doubled the system's airspace capacity.
General aviation was also at the forefront of the development of
automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B), the cornerstone for
aviation system modernization and capacity expansion, because it allows
for optimal efficiencies in routing, approaches and other uses of the
aviation system.
In addition, NBAA members supported the development of precision
approach procedures, which likewise produce efficiencies by enabling
operators to custom-tailor flight paths, minimizing fuel burn and
noise, while preserving operational safety.
Going forward, NBAA will continue to look for ways to further
reduce our environmental footprint.
We also believe that an effective way to reduce emissions is to
continue the work already done to implement a more efficient Next
Generation, or ``NextGen'' aviation system based on satellite
technology. The Government Accountability Office has cited FAA data
showing that ``the full implementation of NextGen could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft by up to 12 percent by 2025.''
NBAA commends the Commerce Committee for its work to modernize our
system and expedite the transition to NextGen. We support the recent
Senate agreement on FAA funding and look forward to working with the
Committee to complete work on FAA reauthorization and aviation system
modernization this year, so that the potential for significantly
reducing aircraft emissions can be fully realized.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like
additional information.
Regards,
Edward M. Bolen,
President and CEO.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. John Porcari
Question 1. What do you believe is the appropriate role for state
transportation decisionmakers and planners in combating climate change?
Answer. The next authorization of the highway/transit program
provides an opportunity to begin incorporating climate change
considerations into Federal transportation policy. The challenge in
this authorization will be to institute effective policies for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate
change, while minimizing Federal regulatory burdens and ensuring that
the transportation system continues to deliver a high level of
accessibility and safety for passengers and freight traffic.
There are many ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation
sector. Some solutions, including development of cleaner vehicle
propulsion technology and fuels and improving fuel economy will largely
be in the hands of manufacturers. GHG emissions can also be lowered by
reducing transportation demand, including that in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT); improving system operations and driver behavior; and
providing modal alternatives. State transportation decisionmakers and
planners may opt to pursue these options, but may be limited in part by
funding and authority for implementing these various strategies.
Major manufacturers are already working on the development of much
more fuel-efficient vehicles, including conventional gas/electric
hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and electric-
powered vehicles. These innovations have the potential to provide a
giant leap in energy efficiency and to reduce GHG emissions, without
sacrificing safety or mobility. These types of breakthroughs are vital
not only for reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. but also for reducing
GHG emissions around the world, including developing countries. States
can incentivize the adoption of these new technologies in many ways,
including for example through the provision of tax credits or matching
funds, leading-by-example in state fleets, and through support for
pilot projects such as new fueling infrastructure.
Beyond technological improvements, effecting a policy shift toward
smart, green and sustainable growth requires transportation planners
and land use planners to align interests to create new and redeveloped
places that reduce dependence on driving. Mixed-use, interconnected and
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods providing access to homes, jobs,
schools, and other destinations will help reduce trip-induced
emissions.
Recent evidence shows that VMT growth trends may be tapering off:
rather than growing at 2 percent or more annually, VMT has been
increasing at a modest one-half of a percent since 2004. And as we have
all witnessed, VMT in recent months has declined further in response to
sharply higher gasoline prices and economic forces. The recent VMT
trends suggest that VMT growth is abating on its own, thereby lessening
the need for Federal VMT reduction mandates. However, as long as VMT
from carbon-based fuels is contributing to GHG emissions, we must link
transportation and land use decisionmaking to reduce our dependence on
oil and encourage the kind of land development and transportation
choices that result in more climate-friendly, energy efficient, lower
cost options for Americans.
While better land-use planning can be an effective tool in reducing
GHGs and the growth in VMT, most land use decisions tend to be under
local government control and not the purview of the states. It is
imperative however, that states not be left out of the critical
pathways for decisionmaking, as regional, multi-jurisdictional and
multi-state issues are important aspects of planning effective
strategies to reduce GHGs. Recent focus on Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to combat climate change would be improved by
consideration of the appropriate state role during the process from
planning to implementation. The challenge of addressing climate change
should be done as part of the existing statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning process. The planning process provides the
appropriate venue for States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) to develop strategies for reducing GHG emissions from the
transportation system, adapting the transportation system to the
impacts of climate change, developing our land sustainably, and
increasing the absorption of GHGs. And while funding is necessary for
those responsible for the planning stage--which may be at any level of
government, and if at the local level, can be enhanced by input from
the state--the significant resources that are provided for the
implementation of projects to combat climate change should be accorded
primarily to states for prioritized investment reflecting the scope of
needs across the state.
GHG emissions should be addressed through a new framework that
takes into account the global nature of the challenge. This framework
will likely require new Federal direction, rather than relying on
existing conformity requirements under the Clean Air Act, which are
designed for pollutants that can be controlled on a local and regional
basis. The air quality benefits of this process are difficult to
discern, and compliance with the transportation conformity requirements
has become increasingly complex and costly. The air has become cleaner
in recent years, but much of the improvement has resulted from
technology and increasingly effective EPA regulations requiring a
transition to clean vehicle engines and fuels. Should a GHG conformity
process be considered, it is important that states play a significant
role in the development of this strategy, to ensure that GHG impacts
are considered at a regional level and not at the level of individual
projects.
Question 2. As users of climate information and services, what type
of data is most important to you and how do you think the Federal
Government can improve the climate information and services it
provides?
Answer. Much more data and information is needed regarding climate
change adaptation and the potential impacts from rising temperatures on
the transportation system. The following information would be helpful
to state Departments of Transportation:
Notification of high temperature days and the likelihood of
forest fires, to allow states to prepare for and conduct
evacuations.
Notification of changes in precipitation patterns and
specific severe weather events. Flooding stresses the capacity
of drainage systems, disrupts traffic management, and increases
highway incidents and damages pavement structure.
Information regarding sea level rise and impacts to coastal
areas. This information will allow the states to minimize
disruptions in connectivity and access to the transportation
network and provide reliable transportation services.
Information regarding storm activity, which can lead to
service disruption and infrastructure damage. Advanced
notification will assist the states to better prepare for and
conduct evacuations.
Information regarding average temperature increases, which
may require changes in materials, maintenance and operations.
Additionally, prior to requiring states to measure GHG emissions,
EPA and FHWA must work with the states and MPOs to develop functional
GHG emissions models. Models are necessary to determine the overall
statewide emissions and the emissions benefits of selected emission
reduction strategies.
Much more data will be needed to better understand and address
transportation related emissions and mitigation strategies,
particularly freight-related GHG emissions. Federal funding assistance
will be needed to test, implement and evaluate a variety of solutions
to address climate change.
States are at various stages of tackling climate change and new
data needs are emerging daily. States will need assistance in
identifying effective strategies for their particular region and
circumstances. AASHTO is establishing a Climate Change Program that
will assist in identifying additional data needs and will work with the
Committees of jurisdiction in Congress as well as with EPA and U.S. DOT
to tackle these important issues.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper to
Hon. John Porcari
Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in
Environment and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses
have called for a freight fund and single freight policy. This is
because freight is moved by multiple modes of transportation on each
trip--truck, train and ship. The system works better when we plan for
the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. It
occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the
train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What
can we do during the transportation reauthorization to shift our policy
toward moving people and goods instead of moving cars, trucks, ships,
etc.?
Answer. AASHTO's authorization recommendations include an approach
to reforming the planning and project selection process which addresses
precisely this question. AASHTO's proposal closely parallels ideas
recommended by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission. We recommend a five-step process: First, Refocus
highway and transit programs, for the most part, on objectives of
genuine national interest. Second, Set national goals through which the
objectives can be achieved. Third, Direct states and MPOs through their
long-range plans to set targets through which they will seek to meet
the national goals. Fourth, Select investments which will help to
achieve those targets. Fifth, Measure improvements in performance which
show the progress being made toward achieving those targets and report
on the results. It is during the project selection phase when state
DOTs and MPOs would determine which projects or mix of projects would
best help meet the goals and targets in question. At that point, they
would have to get specific and determine which improvement in which
mode would be the best solution to the problem.
One key way to ensure effective decisionmaking and investment at
the state level is to provide sufficient flexibility to states to shift
resources between programs and modes. Flexibility across the programs
and modes combined with performance measures will greatly improve the
mode-neutrality of planning and implementation and improve the outcome
of Federal investment for a better transportation system.
Question 2. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to
meet increasing demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same
time, more people are turning to transit as a clean, affordable way to
travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average
needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to
transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to
serve the public in an era of high gas prices?
Answer. From our perspective in Maryland, the answer is no--Federal
investment is not adequate to serve our bus and rail transit needs. Our
local communities and large municipalities are struggling to meet the
needs of rapidly growing bus demands, and the Federal New Starts
program is underfunded and ill-constructed to help communities tackle
other transit needs.
AASHTO's transit authorization proposal calls for progressively
increasing funding for transit over the six-year authorization period,
totaling $93 billion over the six-year period. In addition, the
proposal calls for establishing transit-supportive policies to enable a
doubling of ridership to more than 20 billion by 2030 and 50 billion by
2050.
In Maryland, our climate change commission report calls for
doubling transit ridership by 2020 but we will need significant support
from the Federal Government to do this and urge Congress to consider
supporting at least the level of funding proposed by AASHTO. The
economic downturn and higher gas prices are impacting the ability of
many states to increase transit options. Obviously Maryland, compared
to less-urbanized states, can and will rely more heavily on transit to
solve our transportation issues, however, AASHTO's call for increased
transit investment is a clear sign that transit is seen as part of the
solution for states across the Nation.
Question 3. Several studies have shown that transportation plans
are far more efficient and more effective at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions when they are integrated with local land use and development
plans. What role should the Federal Government play in helping ensure
that its transportation investments are paired with good local land-use
decisions to ensure that maximum the taxpayers' investment and to
reduce emissions? What are state governments doing to address this?
Answer. The statewide and metropolitan planning process requires
consideration of ways to ``promote consistency between transportation
improvements and State and local planned growth and economic
development patterns.'' By maintaining this provision, Congress should
continue to encourage strong linkages between transportation and land
use plans.
States are increasing their efforts to link transportation and land
use planning, while respecting local government's traditional role in
making land use decisions. In States that are seeing increased growth,
the current relationship has caused tensions. This said, many local
governments are beginning to adapt their land use plans to encourage
more energy-efficient land use patterns. AASHTO's authorization
policies ask Congress to support these State and local efforts by
increasing funding for joint initiatives to coordinate transportation
and land use planning, including creation of a new Transportation and
Land Use Program to replace the existing Transportation Community and
System Preservation (TSCP) Program. Under this proposal, the former
TCSP program would be transformed into a merit-based, competitively
awarded discretionary program funded at $100 million per year, with
increased funding and emphasis on sustainability and quality of life.
Funds would be allocated through a competitive application process by
USDOT to States, MPOs, or local governments for:
Programs and projects that support focused growth, infill
housing, and transit-oriented development.
The integration of context sensitive solutions.
Programs that support local planning and policy programs and
local technical assistance to better link transportation and
land use strategies to preserve fragile natural and human
environments.
Programs and projects that improve connectivity within and
between modes for passenger and freight traffic and use
operations and management strategies to improve efficiency of
the transportation system, avoiding the need for capacity
increases.
Programs and projects to ensure efficient access to jobs,
services, and centers of trade.
Transportation programs to reduce GHG emissions and increase
GHG absorption.
AASHTO's authorization proposals also call for Congress to increase
the Federal share for transportation projects explicitly designed to
support sustainable land use and focused growth strategies and to
reduce the rate of growth of VMT. Finally, AASHTO is calling on
Congress to provide funding for transportation from climate change
legislation to help address GHG reduction. A strong state role will
help improve the viability of the investment decisions.
Question 4. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided
into agencies responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I
was Governor of Delaware, I found that if we decided to build a road,
we could get 80 percent of the funding from the Federal Government. If
we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 50 percent.
However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in
passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact
the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the
development of an integrated, efficient transportation system?
Answer. As the Secretary of a multimodal agency, I agree that the
current system is flawed and needs to be revised. Inadequate
investments have resulted in gaps in our transportation system,
lowering transit or rail ridership, increasing aviation and highway
congestion, raising VMT and GHGs, and lowering system effectiveness for
all users. Investment in multi-modal projects and intermodal connectors
should be enabled through changes in flexibility, funding levels, the
provision of contract authority, and through a more equitable and
simplified Federal approval process.
AASHTO's authorization policies call for the Federal share of
transit projects (including New Starts) to be a minimum of 80 percent
and for the establishment of a dedicated account for intercity
passenger rail funded at an 80 percent Federal share for capital
improvement projects. This Federal allocation requirement would aid in
the selection of intermodal infrastructure investments and help move us
closer to a seamless transportation system.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Thomas J. Barrett
Question 1. The Federal Government has ceded most of the
decisionmaking about what types of transportation assets are built and
used by most Americans to the states, localities, and private sector.
While this decentralized control of planning has certain benefits, it
also presents challenges to ensuring that nationwide goals are achieved
in a uniform fashion, particularly in the face of a rapidly developing
crisis like climate change. Do you believe that we must reassert a
strong Federal role in planning and shaping transportation
infrastructure and usage to ensure that nationwide goals are achieved,
such as reducing fuel consumption and emissions?
Answer. We need to proceed carefully in addressing the challenges
of greenhouse gas emission reductions and fuel economy in the
transportation sector while maintaining the mobility and connectivity
that is critical to national economic growth. Finding a balance between
these goals, through fuel economy standards and in other ways, is best
achieved through uniform national standards rather than a patchwork of
different requirements across the states. We continue to believe,
however, that regional transportation investment decisions themselves
are best made by State and local governments because they know the
transportation problems in their areas and can work with us to tailor
the best options to address those problems.
Question 2. Did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) base the new fuel economy standards in its notice of proposed
rulemaking on the average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and
light trucks for model years 2011-2015 on the assumption that gas
prices would be only $2.31 per gallon in 2015? If so, can you explain
to the Committee the foundation of this extrapolation? What is the
relationship between this number and the fuel economy standards that
the NHTSA will ultimately issue?
Answer. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency used the
reference case in the most up-to-date Department of Energy/Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) gasoline price projections then
available. The retail fuel price forecasts presented in EIA's Annual
Energy Outlook 2008 span the period from 2008 through 2030. Measured in
constant 2006 dollars, the reference case forecast of retail gasoline
prices during calendar year 2015 is $2.32 per gallon, $2.42 per gallon
during 2020, rising gradually to $2.51 by the year 2030 (these values
include Federal, State, and local taxes).
Gasoline prices, along with other economic and engineering
assumptions, can affect the stringency of the standards. NHTSA sought
comments on its assumptions for gasoline prices. The comment period
closed on July 1, 2008. NHTSA is currently evaluating the comments it
received. These comments will be considered in determining the final
assumptions and the final standards.
Question 3. What is the methodology that the NHTSA uses to classify
cross-over vehicles as either passenger cars or light trucks in the
NHTSA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
Answer. The NPRM followed NHTSA's regulatory definitions for
classifying vehicles as passenger cars or light trucks. The definitions
are contained in 49 CFR Part 523. Essentially, a vehicle may be
classified as a light truck for one of two reasons: either because (1)
it has off- highway capability, or (2) it has some functional
characteristic that makes them ``truck-like.'' If a vehicle does not
meet the definition of ``light truck,'' it is classified as a passenger
car.
A vehicle is off-highway capable, and therefore a light truck, per
523.5(b), if it is either 4WD or over 6,000 lbs GVWR and meets 4 out
of 5 ground clearance characteristics, like approach angle, departure
angle, running clearance, etc.
Alternatively, a vehicle may be classified as a light truck if it
is designed to perform at least one of the following functions, as laid
out in 523.5(a):
It transports more than 10 persons;
It provides temporary living quarters;
It transports property on an open bed;
It provides greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying
volume; or
It permits expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying
purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes by removing or
stowing the back seats to create a flat surface. (Starting in
MY 2008, vehicles may qualify as light trucks under this
criterion if they have 3 rows that fold or stow to create a
flat surface.)
NHTSA sought comment on its classification system in the NPRM and
is currently deliberating on this issue in developing the final rule.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Thomas J. Barrett
Question 1. There has been significant Federal research undertaken
on technologies to reduce the emissions of trucks that move freight.
Can you tell me what parallel efforts have been made by your agency
regarding freight rail?
Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration and the rail industry
are pursuing several research programs focused on locomotive emissions
reduction. For example, FRA has provided grants to Norfolk Southern
Railroad and its partners, General Electric and New York Air Brake for
the LEADER (Locomotive Engineer Assist/Display Event Recorder) project.
The LEADER project is a tool for assisting locomotive engineers to
operate trains more efficiently by maximizing the use of braking and
power. The project has been successful in providing fuel savings (and
therefore reducing emissions) of 15 percent.
In addition to the LEADER project, FRA has developed an in-situ
emissions measurement system. This device is a portable emissions
measurement system that will allow easy and frequent emissions
measurement. Currently it measures some criteria pollutants (such as
NOX), but it does not measure particulate matter (PM).
Future research will focus on PM measurement. Emissions measurement at
regular intervals can promote engine efficiency, thereby reducing
NOX and other pollutants.
New research promises exciting future opportunities in emission
reductions. The U.S. Army has sponsored a locomotive development
program for a fuel cell locomotive, which has the potential for greatly
reduced emissions. Locomotive manufacturers are also working to develop
a road hybrid locomotive which captures the energy dissipated in
dynamic braking.
The rail industry is pursuing a number of initiatives. One of the
more successful areas are so-called Genset locomotives that use three
smaller (700 HP) size truck-type diesel engines, which can be
automatically turned off when the tractive effort demand is less than
the peak demand. These ``switcher'' locomotives save 50 to 60 percent
in fuel consumption, thus substantially reducing overall emissions.
Burlington Northern (BN) and Union Pacific (UP) already use switchers
in California and Texas. The Genset concept is being extended to road
locomotives with four 700 HP diesel engines for the equivalent of a
3000 HP locomotive. The industry has also adopted Auto Stop/Start
systems (which allow locomotives to be shut down to reduce idling and
the related emissions) and Auxiliary Power Units (APU) are also being
used by the industry to provide air and heat instead of idling
locomotives for these needs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper to
Hon. Thomas J. Barrett
Question 1. The transportation sector is responsible for about \1/
3\ of our greenhouse gas emissions, making it among the largest
emissions sources in our economy. How should U.S. surface
transportation policy be updated to support the goals of climate change
legislations? Should the transportation sector be responsible for \1/3\
of the emissions reductions necessary to meet targets science says is
necessary?
Answer. In 2007, the transportation sector accounted for 28 percent
of total greenhouse gas emissions and 34 percent of carbon dioxide
emissions (2007). The CO2 emissions of the combined
commercial and residential electric power sectors, however, accounted
for 39 percent of CO2 emissions, making electric power
generation the largest source of CO2 in our economy.
Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies vary in their cost-effectiveness,
and generally stationary source measures have been found to be more
cost-effective than transportation mitigation strategies.
As we develop strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we
must be mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays in
sustaining and improving our economy, facilitating our trade, and
ensuring the Nation's mobility and connectivity. Our approach for
reducing emissions focuses on: improving vehicle efficiency; increasing
the use of alternative fuels; advancing the efficiency of the
transportation system (often by promoting market-based measures, such
as congestion pricing); and improving our understanding of the impacts
of climate change on transportation infrastructure. Additionally, while
mandates and regulations have their place, new technologies and private
sector innovations should be at the center of our national effort to
curb emissions. We must address climate change in a way that does not
compromise the competitiveness of our transportation providers or the
shippers and passengers that rely upon them.
Question 2. Airport congestion is a major problem. We've seen many
airlines shift toward flights consisting of many short hops rather than
longer direct flights. Couldn't much of this short-hop air travel be
shifted onto passenger rail if we put the resources into developing a
network of convenient, high-speed service? Would that help relieve
pressure on our airports? What would be the impact on greenhouse gas
emissions?
Answer. As part of its environmental review of proposed airport
enhancement projects, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
examines whether other modes of transportation or other congestion
management actions might be appropriate alternatives or satisfy part of
the demand for air travel as part of environmental review of proposed
capacity enhancement projects. Passenger rail travel may be competitive
for some trips greater than 150 miles in markets with frequent rail
service such as through the Northeast Corridor, or mid-range trips
between 250 and 500 miles where connections are direct and efficient.
Travelers consider time, cost, and frequency of service in making
choices about how they travel. In addition, the experience of the
European Union, which has \1/3\ the land area and a more highly
urbanized population than the United States shows that passenger rail
services require enormous subsidies.
Current tools for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from
different modes of transportation are limited, except for aviation. The
FAA has developed the System for Assessing Aviation's Global Emissions
(SAGE) model. SAGE is recognized as one of the premier models in the
world for analyzing aviation greenhouse gas emissions and has been used
by the United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization and
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. DOT's Center for Climate
Change and Environmental Forecasting has funded some work on tools to
compare emissions across modes, and FAA is doing extensive research on
identifying emissions from aviation.
Question 3. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided
into agencies responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I
was Governor of Delaware, I found that if we decided to build a road,
we could get 80 percent of the funding from the Federal Government. If
we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 50 percent.
However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in
passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact
the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the
development of an integrated, efficient transportation system?
Answer. Federal surface transportation programs have increasingly
emphasized flexibility for States and local areas to choose
transportation solutions that best meet their needs. This flexibility,
however, has been limited by spreading Federal transportation funds
over more than 100 programs and the proliferation of project-specific
Federal earmarks. The Administration's new plan to refocus, reform and
renew the national approach to highway and transit systems in America--
announced on July 29--would consolidate Federal programs into a
manageable few, and give grantees the authority to make worthwhile
infrastructure investments, regardless of whether those investments
involve transit or highway projects. The proposal also increases the
way communities can fund projects with innovative financing mechanisms,
such as private activity bonds, State infrastructure banks, and Federal
credit flexibility.
Question 4. We have had hearings in both this Committee and in
Environment and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses
have called for a freight fund and single freight policy. This is
because freight is moved by multiple modes of transportation on each
trip--truck, train and ship. The system works better when we plan for
the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. It
occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the
train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What
can we do during the transportation reauthorization to shift our policy
toward moving people and goods instead of moving cars, trucks, ships,
etc.?
Answer. Building intermodal connections that provide real value to
system users should be a central national goal, but the constraints on
cross-modal funding in current law frustrate that objective. We address
this problem directly in our recently announced reform proposal.
For instance, the proposed metro mobility program is applicable to
areas with populations greater than 500,000, areas that collectively
generate 42 percent of the Nation's annual vehicle-miles traveled. This
program enables performance-based transportation funding to supplant
program and modal specific funding constraints. Funding is awarded
through a competitive process, allowing multimodal flexibility in
selecting projects for the movement of people and goods. Program
projects must be Title 23 or Title 49 eligible, both of which include
the flexibility to advance intermodal projects.
Further, the proposed metro mobility and Federal interest highway
programs target Federal funds on elements of the system that are in the
national interest. This focus of Federal funds on areas of national
interest enables State and local governments to direct their own funds
to projects that meet State and local mobility priorities, regardless
of mode. By allowing more local control of transportation funding,
decisionmakers most familiar with the movement of people and goods in a
particular area can develop intermodal projects that provide the
greatest benefits and the greatest return on the Federal dollar.
In regard to providing effective transportation access to America's
treasures, such as our national parks, forests, and refuges, the
Administration proposes combining the existing Federal Lands Highway
Program with Transit in the Parks and Tribal Transit Programs to
promote integrated transportation solutions where congestion is
becoming a problem.
Finally the Department's reform proposal also increases flexibility
that stakeholders have to tap into existing financing mechanisms.
Removing the national volume cap of private activity bonds (PABs) would
allow greater private sector, tax-exempt investment in highway and
freight transfer facilities. Enhanced flexibility for State
infrastructure banks (SIBs) would allow States to capitalize SIB
accounts to provide loans or other forms of credit to public and
private entities for eligible highway, transit, and rail projects. And
reform of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) would broaden the availability and enhance the attractiveness
of TIFIA credit assistance, allowing flexibility to structure credit
support for vital, non-mode specific infrastructure projects, including
intercity bus and passenger rail.
Question 5. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to
meet increasing demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same
time, more people are turning to transit as a clean, affordable way to
travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average
needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to
transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to
serve the public in an era of high gas prices?
Answer. The Federal investment in public transportation has
increased significantly over the last few years. Annual Federal funding
for public transportation increased from $7.6 billion in 2005 to $9.5
billion in 2008. The Administration's FY 2009 Budget proposes a total
of $10.14 billion in Federal spending on public transportation, an
increase of $644 million over 2008. This is a record level of funding
and will help provide more transit service to accommodate increased
demand.
High gas prices increase both ridership on public transportation
and the cost of operating public transportation. Due to high gas
prices, public transportation ridership increased 2.4 percent for the
12 month period ending in May 2008, over the previous 12 month period.
The increase in ridership has helped cover the incremental costs
associated with increased capacity utilization.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dr. James M. Turner
Question 1. The recent National Research Council report on the
impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation recommended that
scientists develop and implement monitoring technologies that could
provide advanced warning of pending infrastructure failures due to
weather and climate extremes on transportation facilities. Can you
describe how NIST will respond to this recommendation?
Answer. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
is directly addressing the recommendation of the recent National
Research Council report that scientists develop and implement
monitoring technologies that could provide advanced warning of pending
infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes on
transportation facilities. NIST is currently running a competition for
proposals focused on developing solutions to the challenges of
inspecting and monitoring civil infrastructures. The competition,
``Advanced Sensing Technologies for the Infrastructure: Roads,
Highways, Bridges and Water Systems'', is aimed at enabling the
development of sensing systems for the effective measurement of
characteristics such as fatigue, corrosion, stress, usage, and damage
in these infrastructures. The sensing systems and measurements will
provide critical information for infrastructure decision-makers as they
reevaluate design standards in light of new climate extremes.
NIST also has ongoing research programs on predicting the response
of structures simultaneously exposed to multiple climatic hazards
(e.g., high winds and storm surge), real-time infrastructural
performance monitoring to provide advanced warning of pending
transportation infrastructure failures due to weather and climate
extremes, as well as the materials research aimed at improving the
resilience and durability performance of infrastructural materials. The
President's 2009 budget includes an initiative to look at Disaster
Resilient Structures and Communities. This initiative will enable the
development of a robust capability to predict the effects of hazards on
the performance of complex infrastructural systems, such as roads,
highways, and bridges, and is ideally suited to address the types of
infrastructure failures that are predicted to accompany climate change.
Question 2. What do you see as the greatest gap or deficiency in
scientific research and information that NIST can address relating to
climate change and transportation issues?
Answer. NIST has identified as a gap the need for developing
sensing systems and measurements to provide critical information for
transportation infrastructure decision-makers as they reevaluate design
standards in climate extremes.
NIST also fulfills the need to develop the measurement science that
rigorously monitors the impacts of the U.S. transportation
infrastructure on climate change. A few of the activities in this area
that NIST is currently addressing are:
The composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels and
oil to allow confidence in trading in low to high sulfur
content fuels in competitive markets. This covers everything
from measures and standards for fossil fuels and biofuels, and
from train cars of coal to gallons of gasoline at the pump.
Air Quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
dioxide that enable automotive manufacturers to meet
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and generally
allow industry to tune and trade their emissions through the
EPA sulfur dioxide cap and trade system.
Composition of refrigerants in automotive air conditioning
systems to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons and find replacements
that minimize impacts on air quality and ozone in the upper
atmosphere.
Production of roadway materials, and the composition,
strength, and durability of road and bridge materials and
construction techniques to minimize GHG emissions.
Lightweight metal forming and composites to enable
manufacturers to have high performance, high durability and
safe materials to increase efficiency in the automotive and
aerospace industry.
Development of the measurement science and standards
infrastructure to support the development and implementation of
advanced alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen or biofuels.
Developing Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid
electrical vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Thomas C. Peterson
Question 1. In your opinion, what challenges do climate scientists
face when attempting to produce and deliver climate information and
services that are useful to transportation planners?
Answer. There are two main challenges that we face. The first is
understanding the exact needs of transportation planners. This means
knowing what weather and climate conditions impact transportation and
exactly what types of information and data about these weather and
climate conditions transportation planners require. The second
challenge flows directly from the first, namely, developing the climate
information at the temporal and spatial scale transportation planners
need. For example, a person planning an upgrade to a railroad track
needs to know the temperature and precipitation extremes that the track
is likely to experience not for the track as a whole but at critical
locations along the track because the temperature extremes and
precipitation level may affect the performance of the facility.
Question 2. How is NOAA trying to address these challenges?
Answer. To better understand user needs, NOAA actively engages with
the transportation community. For example, in 2007, NOAA hosted a
specialized Data Users workshop to identify the requirements of the
energy, insurance, and transportation sectors, with respect to data and
information needs in the context of a changing climate. Also in 2007,
the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology convened the
Third National Surface Transportation Weather Symposium. These meetings
brought weather and climate information providers together with
transportation planners to, among other things, enhance understanding
of the weather and climate information needed for transportation
decision support. Furthermore, NOAA personnel serve on the Committee on
Climate Change and U.S. Transportation initiated by the Transportation
Research Board.
NOAA is working to expand weather services to encompass customer-
focused climate services as well as to help fulfill NOAA's strategic
goal of supporting the Nation's commerce with information for safe,
efficient and environmentally sound transportation. This takes on many
forms. For example, NOAA has developed the Pacific Region Integrated
Climatology Information Products and the Pacific Regional Integrated
Science and Assessment (Pacific RISA), as well as RISAs in other parts
of the country, to provide the climate information needed in the
Pacific to manage risks and support practical decision-making in the
context of climate variability and change. NOAA is working with the
Federal Highway Administration to update atlases of maximum 100-year
60-minute precipitation estimates on a fine enough scale to improve
design flow estimates for improved design of highways.. The challenges
of producing accurate climate model output at spatial and temporal
scales fine enough for transportation planners are great and this is a
research effort currently underway at NOAA and elsewhere. While the
ultimate payoff on the promise of this work is still unrealized, NOAA
is providing up to date output of this research which is growing
increasingly useful to decision support. NOAA is providing climate
model output that has been reprocessed to scales that are fine enough
to provide the location specific information that transportation
planners need. As hurricanes anywhere in the world impact shipping,
NOAA is leading the creation of an International Best Track Archive for
Climate Stewardship tropical cyclone database so planners can see
exactly where hurricanes have been in the past. NOAA is providing the
basic weather and climate data and information from the U.S. and around
the world that transportation planners need to respond real time to
weather and design transportation infrastructure to operate smoothly
for climatic conditions anticipated over its lifetime.
Question 3. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
released its first assessment of weather and climate extremes in North
America. Could you explain the significance of climate extremes, how
such extremes may change in the future, and the expected impacts that
these changes will have on transportation infrastructure and planning?
Answer. As described in our paper on the implications of climate
change on transportation,\1\ transportation is sensitive to changes in
extremes. The release of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
report on weather and climate extremes in North America \2\ is quite
relevant to transportation planning. Below is a table combining key
information from the CCSP report on extremes and the National Research
Council (NRC) report on impacts of climate change on U.S.
transportation. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Peterson, Thomas C., Marjorie McGuirk, Tamara G. Houston,
Andrew H. Horvitz and Michael F. Wehner, 2008: Climate Variability and
Change with Implications for Transportation, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/
sr290Many.pdf, 90 pp.
\2\ CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate.
Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific
Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald A.
Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and
William L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 164 pp. Available from
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/finalreport/
default.htm
\3\ Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, National
Research Council, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S.
Transportation: Special Report 290, The National Academies Press,
Washington, 296 pp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood of
Extreme and Continued Future Key Impacts on Transportation
Direction of Change Changes in this
Century
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warmer and fewer Very likely \4\ Positive impact on many forms
cold days and of transportation by, for
nights example, causing less ice
buildup on marine
superstructure and easier
maintenance of railroad
tracks. However, in parts of
Alaska where remote mines
depend on ice roads, warming
will limit the length of
time that the ice roads will
be open. Also, the thawing
of permafrost caused by
warming in the Arctic will
result in subsidence of
roads, rail beds, bridge
supports (cave-in),
pipelines, and runway
foundations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Very likely
means 9 out of 10
times.
Hotter and more Very likely Increased railroad track
frequent hot days buckling and highway
and nights along rutting, more difficult
with more frequent outdoor maintenance, and
heat waves and decreased lift-off load
warm spells limits on airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More frequent and Very likely Increased flooding of
intense heavy roadways, increases in road
downpours and wash outs, overloading of
higher proportion drainage systems, increases
of total rainfall in soil moisture to the
in heavy point where they may affect
precipitation structural integrity of
events roads, bridges and tunnels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases in area Likely \5\ in Negative impacts on river
affected by Southwest U.S. transportation routes and
drought increased susceptibility to
wildfires causing road
closures.
\5\ Likely means 2
out of 3 times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More intense Likely Greater probability of
hurricanes infrastructure failures,
increased damages to road
signs, lighting fixtures,
and damages to harbor
infrastructure from waves
and storm surges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Thomas C. Peterson
Question 1. Over the past month, we've seen yet another disturbing
trend in the Arctic. According to the National Snow and Ice Data
Center, the average ice melt rate this May was 3,000 square miles per
day faster than last May. As a result, the Arctic ice is now at the low
levels seen at this time last year--leading to a likely repeat of last
year's unprecedented ice melt.
Answer. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is closely
monitoring sea ice conditions. While you are correct that melt rates
were especially fast in May, the rate of ice loss subsequently slowed.
As of early September 2008, the data at NSIDC actually show slightly
more Arctic sea ice than at the same time last summer. Data for August
indicate the second lowest August sea ice extent.
Question 1a. At what point do we stop saying that each year's
record, extreme ice-melt is a fluke and conclude that this is a new
state of the Arctic that is here to stay?
Answer. With the current major loss of multi-year ice it would be
very difficult for the sea ice to return to conditions of the 1980s.\6\
Sea ice is retreating faster than anticipated by the models run for the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.\7\
Contributions to this trend include a run of warm years due to natural
variability plus an anthropogenic global warming signal produced rapid
sea ice loss involving ice/ocean feedbacks (from albedo change) leading
to a new state for Arctic sea ice. Models predicted summer sea ice loss
after 2050, but because of the combination of these three factors, the
Arctic appears now to be on a fast track for summer sea ice loss over
the next decades. According to scientists at the NSIDC, the summer
Arctic Ocean might be ice-free as early as the year 2030.\8\ An ice-
free ocean in summer would be a new state of the Arctic. Due to natural
variations in weather patterns, the transition to this new state will
not be a smooth process, but will instead be manifested as a jagged
series of ups and downs in ice extent from year to year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jinlun Zhang, Research Scientist at the Polar Science Center
ran a sea ice model backward to see what it would take to return the
ice to conditions before the recent melting. His model results
indicated that it would take six to ten cold years, the likelihood of
which is small. This work has not yet been published.
\7\ Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M.
Serreze (2007), Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.
\8\ Renfrow, S., 2007: Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record
Lows, NSIDC Arctic Sea
Ice News, 1 October, http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/
20071001_press
release.pdf
Question 1b. Has the decrease in ice thickness affected the melting
of sea ice in the Arctic?
Answer. The decrease in ice thickness has impacted the melting of
Arctic sea ice as the extent of ice at the end of summer depends
strongly on how thick the ice was the previous spring, at the start of
the melt season. The thinner the ice in spring, the more easily it is
melted out in summer. Thin ice is also more vulnerable to mechanical
breakup by storms. As the ice breaks up it becomes easier for the
individual chunks (termed floes) to melt. The sea ice cover has thinned
substantially over the past few decades, and this has contributed to
record low September ice extents that have been observed in recent
years, such as in 2007.
Question 1c. Can we expect for ice thickness to continue to
decline?
Answer. We expect ice thickness to continue to decline. Already
more than half of the older, thicker sea ice in the central Arctic
Ocean has been lost. This is part of a feedback cycle. Thinner ice in
spring means more open water through summer. Dark open water areas
absorb more of the sun's energy than the brighter ice cover. This helps
to melt more ice, meaning even more open water. More heat in the ocean
also results in slower ice growth in autumn, so that the ice the next
spring is even thinner than before.
Question 1d. A scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data
Center has projected that without ``an exceptional sequence of cold
winters and cold summers'' historic levels Arctic sea ice will not
rebuild. What is the likelihood of several unusually cold winters and
summers occurring given current climate projections?
Answer. The Arctic region always has, and always will, be home to
strong natural climate variability. Model results out of the University
of Washington \9\ suggest that it could take six cold years to rebuild
the thicker sea ice. The likelihood of six cold years in a row is
small. A series of cold winters and summers is certainly possible, and
the sea ice might recover somewhat in response. However, such recovery
would only be temporary, and is expected to become less and less likely
as the years pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Jinlun Zhang, Research Scientist at the Polar Science Center
ran a sea ice model backward to see what it would take to return the
ice to conditions before the recent melting. His model results
indicated that it would take six to ten cold years, the likelihood of
which is small. This work has not yet been published.
Question 2. Our Nation has billions of dollars invested in
transportation infrastructure for the movement of goods and services--
infrastructure that will be impacted if transport patterns radically
shift due to a warming, ice-free Arctic that opens new shipping routes.
When will our ports, rail lines and other transportation infrastructure
start to see the impact of such changing marine transport routes? Will
it be sudden and disruptive, or a gradual change that our economy can
slowly adapt to?
Answer. At this point, it is difficult to ascertain when we can
reasonably expect Arctic shipping to begin, because significant
uncertainty exists about further sea ice melting, technology,
infrastructure construction, and international treaties. Large scale
shipping across a relatively ice free summer Arctic is unlikely to
happen in the near future. Nevertheless, the U.S. and other Arctic
nations are closely examining potential shipping routes in the Arctic
Ocean. The effect of shipping on Arctic sea ice, and the reformation of
sea ice each year, should be considered before such shipping begins.
Further, the loss of Arctic sea ice is likely to coincide with
other climate change impacts to transportation infrastructure
elsewhere, such as compromised rail track due to extreme heat, storm
surges and changes in water levels at ports, and extreme weather
events, which will impact roads and bridges for trucks. A comprehensive
response to climate change is necessary. Any change in international
shipping routes can be expected to result in gradual change in freight
movements as the transportation sector considers new infrastructure to
take advantage of Arctic shipping and begins shifting freight movement
patterns.
On June 5, 2008, the Maritime Administration hosted an Arctic
Transportation conference. The conference brought together industry,
governmental and international transportation officials to focus on the
careful and principled development of the immense Arctic Region as an
emerging and valuable alternative ocean highway that will provide
shorter travel distances for much of the world's international commerce
and help relieve existing vessel congestion at the two major inter-
ocean canals. Conference members also discussed infrastructure impacts
of transport of freight that may result from shifting ice conditions in
the Arctic region. Conference members also considered port
infrastructure policies and development that will be necessary for safe
and environmentally sound transportation of freight in the Arctic
region. The Maritime Administration is following up to ensure that
potential Arctic transportation programs are established and has
created a Marine Excellence Transportation Center for Arctic
transportation policies.
Question 3. Given that it can take 10 years to build a polar
icebreaker, when should the U.S. Government make the policy commitment
to acquiring new icebreakers for the Coast Guard?
Answer. The Administration is currently conducting a policy review
and an analysis of mission and infrastructure requirements in the
Arctic, so it is premature to speculate on whether or when such a
commitment could be made.
Question 3a. The Senate Coast Guard authorization bill currently
contains language providing for the construction of new polar
icebreakers and the maintenance of the current fleet. Some members of
the U.S. Senate, though, are trying to strip that language out of the
bill. What would be the implications if our government fails to
recapitalize the Coast Guard's fleet of polar icebreakers?
Answer. POLAR STAR was commissioned in 1976 with a designed service
life of 30 years. POLAR STAR is currently ``in commission, special''
caretaker status in Seattle, WA with a support crew of 34. POLAR STAR
is not operational. The medium-class HEALY, a very capable science
platform, was commissioned in 1999 with a 30 year designed service
life, and will be operational for at least another two decades. Under
current asset use assumptions, a major overhaul to reactivate and
extend the service life of POLAR STAR or to further extend POLAR SEA's
service life would be needed to extend the Coast Guard's heavy
icebreaking capability past 2014. If the Coast Guard no longer has
heavy icebreaking capability, the U.S. could look to assets not owned
by the U.S. Government to meet any heavy icebreaking requirements.
Question 3b. What do you believe this would do to U.S. capabilities
in the Arctic? Should the government consider this a national security
issue?
Answer. Loss of U.S. heavy icebreaking capacity may impact the
government's ability to access and exert jurisdiction over some waters
in the ice-covered high-latitude Arctic. This could limit our ability
to establish maritime domain awareness, assert sovereignty over our
waters and Exclusive Economic Zone, and preserve our right to transit
international straits. The Administration is currently conducting an
Arctic policy process that should address national and homeland
security issues.
Question 3c. How would this impact our Nation's research and
monitoring capabilities in the Arctic?
Answer. Without heavy icebreaking capabilities, research and
monitoring in the high Arctic would be limited to the Arctic summer.
Due to its robust science capability, the medium-class icebreaker HEALY
is the predominate icebreaker used for research support in the Arctic,
including the mapping of the outer-continental shelf, so there should
be minimal impact on the current research program. The HEALY would not
be able to support all of the current research programs if the non-
science or non-Arctic missions traditionally performed by the heavy
icebreakers POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR were transferred to the HEALY.
U.S. research in the Arctic is frequently conducted on-board
icebreakers operated by other countries, notably Canada, Sweden, and
Russia. We will continue to work with our international partners and
would need to collaborate more closely with these partners and look at
heavy icebreaking vessels not owned by the U.S. Government to continue
the research and monitoring capabilities where there are heavy
icebreaking requirements.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dr. G. Edward Dickey
Question 1. Which of the recommendations you discussed in your
testimony would be performed best by the states and which ones would be
suited best for the Federal Government?
Answer. The study committee of which I was a member specifically
mentioned a leadership role for the Federal Government in four of the
recommendations I discussed in my testimony: Recommendation #4:
improving communications among transportation professionals, climate
scientists, and other related disciplines, Recommendation #8:
reevaluating and developing appropriate new design standards to
accommodate climate change, Recommendation #11: new transportation
planning regulations requiring inclusion of climate change in
transportation and land use plans, and Recommendation #12: reevaluating
the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
(See response to question #2 for more specifics.) The Federal
Government is also mentioned as a partner in research to develop more
transportation-relevant decision support tools (Recommendation #5) and
to develop and implement sensors and other ``smart'' technologies for
long-term monitoring of climate change effects on transportation
infrastructure (Recommendation #7).
No recommendations were targeted solely for state action.
Nevertheless, state agencies are mentioned as important partners in
several recommendations: Recommendation #1: inventorying critical
infrastructure facilities (along with local governments and private
infrastructure owners), Recommendation #2: incorporating climate change
into investment decisions (along with local governments and private
infrastructure owners), Recommendation #3: adopting strategic, risk-
based approaches to decisionmaking (all levels of government),
Recommendation #5: developing decision-support tools (along with
Federal research agencies and universities), Recommendation #9:
rebuilding or constructing new infrastructure to higher standards in
vulnerable regions (along with Federal funding agencies), and
Recommendation #13: providing incentives for regional and multi-state
structures to address the regional effects of climate change (along
with the Federal Government).
Please note that the recommendations referred to in response to
this question and subsequent ones are keyed to my oral testimony. The
numbers will sometimes differ from those contained in the Committee
report (Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S.
Transportation, TRB, 2008) because the report recommendations were
combined or otherwise reorganized in the testimony in the interest of
brevity.
Question 2. How would you suggest Congress or the Federal
Government proceed to implement the National Research Council's
recommendations you outline in your testimony?
Answer. The next steps for Congress and Federal agencies to
implement the first four recommendations best suited for Federal action
listed in the response to question #1 are detailed here:
a. Recommendation #4: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT),
the U.S. Geological Survey, and other relevant agencies should
work together to institute a process for improved communication
among transportation professionals, climate scientists, and
those in other relevant scientific disciplines, and establish a
clearinghouse for transportation-relevant climate change
information.
b. Recommendation #8: U.S. DOT should take a leadership role
along with professional organizations in the forefront of civil
engineering practice across all modes to initiate immediately a
federally funded, multiagency research program, focused on
reevaluation of existing design standards and development of
new standards as progress is made in understanding future
climate conditions and the options available for addressing
them. A research plan and cost proposal should be developed for
submission to Congress for authorization and funding. In
addition, it was recommended that U.S. DOT take the lead in
developing an interagency working group focused on adaptation.
(In the interest of time, this recommendation was not included
in the oral testimony.)
c. Recommendation #11: Congress in reauthorizing current
surface transportation legislation should modify Federal
planning regulations to require that climate change be included
as a factor in the development of public-sector, long-range
transportation plans; eliminate any perception that such plans
be limited to 20 to 30 years; and require collaboration in plan
development with agencies responsible for land use,
environmental protection, and natural resource management to
foster more integrated transportation-land use decisionmaking.
d. Recommendation #12: The Federal Emergency Management Agency,
which acts as the insurer of last resort for homeowners in
designated flood hazard areas, should reevaluate the risk
reduction effectiveness of the National Flood Insurance Program
in view of projected increases in intense precipitation and
storm activity from climate change. At a minimum, updating
flood insurance rate maps to account for sea level rise and
incorporate land subsidence should be a priority in coastal
areas.
Question 3. Does the Federal Government have the organizational
infrastructure in place to be responsive to those recommendations? If
so, can you please identify that organization or office?
Answer. I believe the organizational infrastructure is in place to
start the implementation process. The study committee tried to be as
specific as it could regarding which level of government and which
Federal agencies should carry out the recommendations. Each
recommendation identifies the organizational element the Committee
believes is best suited to lead in implementing the recommendation;
these are indicated in my response to question 2.
Question 4. In your opinion, what would be an appropriate timeline
to implement the recommendations?
Answer. Implementation of the recommendations can begin almost
immediately, without awaiting Federal action. For example, state and
local governments and private owners of infrastructure can begin to
inventory critical infrastructure (Recommendation #1) and incorporate
climate change into investment decisions (Recommendation #2).
Recommendations that build on existing experience can also be
implemented rapidly. Two examples include making transportation an
integral part of local emergency response plans, building on experience
of locations where evacuation planning and emergency response are
already part of transportation operations (Recommendation #6) and
developing a mechanism for sharing best practices regarding responses
to climate changes, building on existing technology transfer mechanisms
(Recommendation #10). Other recommendations, however, will involve a
long-term effort [e.g., reevaluating design standards (Recommendation
#8), establishing better communications among transportation
professionals, climate scientists, and other relevant scientific
disciplines and creating an information clearinghouse (Recommendation
#4)] or require new legislation [e.g., transportation planning
regulations (Recommendation #11)].
Question 5. As users of climate information and services, what type
of data is most important to you and how do you think the Federal
Government can improve the climate information and services it
provides?
Answer. One of the first tasks of transportation professionals is
to identify the types of climate data they need to incorporate climate
change into investment and engineering decisions. For example,
transportation decisionmakers need to know which climate changes pose
the greatest risks for their regions, what the impacts are likely to be
at as fine-grained geographic scales possible (e.g., extent of
incursion from sea level rise and storm surge combined with land
subsidence) along coastal areas, and their likely timing. Information
on the changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events is
often more relevant than changes in the means and medians of
distributions of the various measures of climate, such as temperature
and precipitation. Many of these data are beyond the current state of
the science. Nevertheless, Recommendation #4 suggests a process for
relevant Federal agencies to take the lead in furthering information
sharing and establishing a clearinghouse for transportation-relevant
climate change information as it becomes available.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Stevens to
Dr. G. Edward Dickey
Question. Transportation is the largest industrial contributor of
emissions to our atmosphere. Our society cannot function without
transportation, however. How can we balance the need for transportation
and the need to curb emissions?
Answer. Transportation emissions are a function of the volume of
traffic (i.e., ton miles or passenger miles) handled by each of various
modes of transportation and the emissions intensity (e.g., emissions
per ton mile) for each type of traffic. An increase in total
transportation activity can be accompanied by a decrease in total
emissions by the transportation sector by adapting technologies that
reduce emission intensities (e.g., hybrid automobiles) and by
redistributing traffic from a more emission intensive mode to a less
emission intensive mode, e.g., by shifting commerce from trucks to
railways or waterways. In encouraging modal shills care must be taken
to ensure that public policy does not result in perverse outcomes by
causing traffic to shift from a more intensive mode to a less emissions
intensive mode with more circuitous routes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
David Friedman
Question 1. On April 22, 2008, the NHTSA released a notice of
proposed rulemaking that would increase fuel economy standards for all
cars and light trucks by 4.5 percent per year between 2011 and 2015.
Mr. Friedman, do you agree with the assumptions NHTSA relied upon to
calculate maximum feasible fuel economy standards?
Answer. To put it simply, NO.
Through the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress
led the Nation forward on fuel economy for cars and light trucks for
the first time in more than three decades. But, instead of setting
maximum feasible fuel economy standards as required by law, NHTSA did
the bare minimum allowed by Congress due to a variety of faulty
assumptions.
Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should
put cars and trucks on a path to 42 mpg by 2020 and at least 50 mpg by
2030. This would cut global warming pollution from new cars and trucks
in half by 2030 and would save about 50 billion barrels of oil through
2050.
A recent UCS report indicates that automakers can cost-effectively
boost the fleetwide average fuel economy of cars and trucks to 42 mpg
by 2020 and to more than 50 mpg by 2030,\1\ with a modest 25 percent
penetration of hybrids by 2020.\2\ Yet the recent notice of proposed
rulemaking just barely gets cars and trucks on the road to the 35 mpg
minimum by 2020, and assumes that hybrids don't enter the market until
2014. Yes, despite the fact that there are more than one million
hybrids on the road today, in 2008, and that the Toyota Prius is the
9th best-selling car in America, the analysis NHTSA used assumes
hybrids won't reach the market until 2014. People are not sitting
around waiting for a hybrid to show up on a dealer's lot in 6 years.
They are on 6 month wait lists to buy one because they are already so
popular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/redesign-documents/clean_vehicles/
UCS-Setting-the-Standard.pdf
\2\ http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-fuel-economy-
proposal-star-0111.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of additional flaws in the base analysis that
unnecessarily limit the benefits from the rule by limiting the
application of available technology:
While gasoline prices soared above $3 per gallon this winter
and have hovered around $4 per gallon this summer, NHTSA relied
on projections of $2.25-$2.50 per gallon.
While carbon dioxide futures are currently trading at more
than $40 per metric ton in Europe, NHTSA used a value of $7 per
ton. NHTSA even considered $0 per ton to be in the range of
possible values. In the face of numerous economic analyses
which indicate that combating global warming will greatly
reduce the cost of adapting to climate change, factoring a $0
value into the rule is unacceptable.
NHTSA left out the military and strategic costs of America's
oil addiction.
NHTSA assumed light trucks would grow in market share, but
between 2005 and 2008 the market share of light trucks sold
from January to May dropped from 54 percent to 48 percent.
NHTSA based its rulemaking on costs and benefits on the
margin rather than the total costs and benefits of improved
standards.
For more details on these, and other flaws in the base
analysis, please see UCS's formal comments on the NPRM.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/UCS-2011-
2015-CAFE-Comments
.pdf.
Changes along these lines would redirect NHTSA's rule and EIS to
illustrate the full potential of fuel economy standards. NHTSA's own
analysis confirms that simply using more realistic gas prices or
switching to an analysis based on total benefits would have led them to
propose a fleetwide average of at least 35 mpg by 2015--five years
earlier than the required minimum.\4\ Given the urgency of global
warming, and the fact that removing CO2 early on is
essential to reducing the risks of dangerous climate change, NHTSA is
significantly underestimating the potential environmental impact of
increased fuel economy simply because they are failing to exercise
their legal obligation to set standards at maximum feasible levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pages III-6, IX-12 and IX-13. in NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis for their proposed fuel economy standards for Model
Year 2011-2015 cars and light trucks.
Question 2. When predicting the future costs of greenhouse gas
emissions, NHTSA cites a $7 per ton value on global warming pollution.
The Europeans assign a value of $40 per ton. Which value do you believe
best approximates the costs of global warming? Why?
Answer. Both are too low, but at least the value from Europe is a
start. The value in Europe is based on ``avoidance costs,'' i.e., what
it might cost to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Given that
impacts like the death or displacement of tens of millions in India due
to sea level rise, or the cost of increase air pollution in the U.S.
from warmer temperatures, devastation of spring and summer water
supplies in places like California that rely on snow melt for drinking
and irrigation, and many other impacts, the cost of climate change is
going to be much higher than the cost of avoiding the worst impacts.
Research, such as the Stern report, indicates that costs of ignoring
climate change may be as high as 5 percent of GDP while the cost of
avoiding climate change may only be 1 percent of GDP.
Further, Europe's current targets are not strong enough to avoid
the worst impacts of climate change. Our world needs to dramatically
cut global warming pollution if we are to avoid the worst impacts of
climate change. For the U.S., that means cutting global warming
pollution by 80 percent by 2050, plus significant progress along the
way.
Question 3. As users of climate information and services, what type
of data is most important to you and how do you think the Federal
Government can improve the climate information and services it
provides?
Answer. The list of important data is both too long and beyond my
expertise to comprehensively discuss here.
When it comes to improving climate information and services, first
and foremost, the Federal Government needs to provide adequate funding
to NASA, NOAA, EPA and the other important agencies that are part of
the front line in developing information on the science, impacts, and
solutions to climate change. Climate change represents the single
biggest environmental security threat facing the Nation and the world
and these agencies should be funded at a level that recognizes this.
Further, the scientists and others working at government agencies
should never be allowed to be muzzled and in fact, should be given
clear protections in law when they speak out either about the
importance of the problem or about the abuse of science within their
agencies.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
David Friedman
Question. There have been several tax incentives targeted toward
alternative fuel vehicles, including hydrogen fuel cells, mainly for
passenger vehicles. Do you see similar value in adapting those
incentives to other modes of transportation, such as rail, or more
specifically fuel cell yard locomotives?
Answer. Tax incentives can be very useful tools and should be put
to work in ways that provide clear benefit to the Nation in return for
the taxpayer dollars that are provided. This means their magnitude
should be directly tied to the performance or benefits provided. The
greater the benefit, the greater the incentive.
That said, there are clear limits to what tax credits can do and
they should not be seen as substitutes for a strong cap and trade
system plus specific standards such as vehicle greenhouse gas
standards, low carbon fuel standards, and policies to reduce vehicle
miles traveled.
To the specific question of rail yard locomotives, while the
greenhouse gas benefits are not very significant, there are substantial
local air quality improvements to be made in urban rail yards, ports,
airports, and other commerce/shipping hubs that can be provided through
electrification (whether through batteries or hydrogen fuel cells).
Well designed tax incentives to encourage electrification of these
commerce/shipping hubs could make sense, but the performance metrics
associated with those tax credits should be based on both global
warming pollution and public health performance. Many sensitive
populations have their lives deeply impacted by these facilities and
their needs and health should be addressed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper to
David Friedman
Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in
Environment and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses
have called for a freight fund and single freight policy. This is
because freight is moved by multiple modes of transportation on each
trip--truck, train and ship. The system works better when we plan for
the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. It
occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the
train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What
can we do during the transportation reauthorization to shift our policy
toward moving people and goods instead of moving cars, trucks, ships,
etc.?
Answer. If the goal is to shift moving people and goods in ways
that will address global warming, save money, and reduce our oil
addiction a top priority in the transportation reauthorization should
be to tie Federal funding to the lifetime global warming pollution
performance of any project funded. At the end of the day, the Federal
Government's strongest transportation infrastructure tool is the power
of the purse and tying that purse to performance metrics linked to
global warming pollution will help deliver what we need.
Question 2. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to
meet increasing demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same
time, more people are turning to transit as a clean, affordable way to
travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average
needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to
transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to
serve the public in an era of high gas prices?
Answer. No, the Federal investment in public transportation needs
to be stepped up to help make the country more energy independent, to
save consumers money and cut global warming pollution. As of 2001, less
than one-third of the U.S. population lived within about a block of a
bus line, while only about 40 percent lived within a half mile.\5\ The
situation is even worse for rail, where only about 10 percent of U.S.
population lived within a mile of a rail stop, while only about one
quarter lived within five miles.\6\ We need to prioritize greater
access to transit for Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001
National Household Travel Survey, Center for Urban Transportation
Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, February 2007.
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge, of course, in today's economy, is where to get the
money? And the answer is user fees for highway and other road travel.
We need to transition to user fees tied to congestion, pollution, and
other important impacts that are not currently included in the daily
cost of driving and that are relieved by increased use of public
transportation. This is just basic economics, people should pay for the
impacts of their road travel and the payments should be given right
back to consumers in ways that mitigate the problems.
Question 3. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided
into agencies responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I
was Governor of Delaware, I found that if we decided to build a road,
we could get 80 percent of the funding from the Federal Government. If
we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 50 percent.
However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in
passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact
the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the
development of an integrated, efficient transportation system?
Answer. The same fundamental thing missing from America's broader
energy and climate policy is also absent when it comes to
transportation planning--an actual plan! Instead of looking at
individual modes, we need to look at transportation, and all energy
use, as a system and we need a comprehensive, long-term plan to move
that system in a way that preserves mobility while saving money,
cutting oil use and reducing pollution.
There will always be a need for specialized groups within DOT in
order for the agency to operate, but there needs to be a systems group
that helps bring together each of the pieces to see how they work as a
whole. This is similar to some of what has happened in the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy group at DOE. EERE has individual
projects focusing on many alternative fuels and technologies, whether
hybrids or fuel cells or biofuels or conventional vehicles and fuels.
But recently, after encouragement from outside studies, they have
created a whole group dedicated to looking at all the options at once.
This will allow them to compare and contrast the options. Their work is
in its early stages and it will not give us black and white answers,
but it helps point to the more comprehensive approach that is needed.
All of that said, if such a systems group is to be created, DOT
will need more people and resources in areas that have gotten less
emphasis, such as public transit and fuel economy.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Stevens to
David Friedman
Question. All modes of transportation currently rely on fossil
fuels and there are no readily available alternatives. Since demand for
oil is steadily increasing, how do we balance the need to increase
domestic production of oil with a transition to alternative energy
without compromising our transportation needs?
Answer. Thank you for this question.
Honestly, the data does not support the existence of a conflict
between domestic production of oil and alternative energy because
domestic production potential is too small and too long-term. Current
debates around drilling in off-limits areas of the outer continental
shelf highlight the issue. According to analysis from the Energy
Information Administration, new OCS resources will not deliver in any
significant amount until 2020, will have an insignificant impact on oil
and gasoline prices even then, and will deliver only about 0.2 million
barrels of oil per day, or 3 billion gallons of oil per year, between
2020 and 2030.\1\ In comparison, EISA requires the use of at least 20
billion gallons of advanced and cellulosic ethanol by 2022, or the
equivalent of 15 billion gallons of oil per year. The potential for
low-carbon alternative fuels dwarfs what is available from drilling on
off-limits areas of the OCS and drilling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EIA, ``Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas
Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf,'' 2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even ignoring the significant delays and low volume potential of
resources such as off-limits OCS, the U.S. faces a fundamental mismatch
between demand and domestic supply of oil. We simply cannot drill our
way to improved energy security because our oil resources represent
less than 3 percent of the world's supply while use about 25 percent of
the world's oil.
This fundamental mismatch points to the need for climate and energy
policy that prioritizes reductions in demand while maintaining mobility
and shifts to alternatives to oil.
We have ignored rising demand for transportation fuel over the past
two decades. Fuel economy was stuck in neutral while driving continued
to grow. These are mistakes we cannot afford to repeat.
Last year's energy bill (EISA) represented a good start by
requiring the first mandated increase in fuel economy standards since
the program first began. The Commerce Committee showed wisdom by
including language that ensured that 35 mpg by 2020 was only a minimum,
but NHTSA has not followed up on that wisdom and is only just barely on
track to meet that minimum despite its own analysis indicating that
existing conventional technology can bring cars and trucks to 35 mpg by
2015, 5 years earlier. Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists
indicates that the combination of existing technology and conventional
hybrids would enable cars and trucks to go even farther on a gallon of
gasoline to 42 mpg by 2020 and to 55 mpg by 2030.
Taking this path toward improved energy security (42 mpg by 2020,
55 mpg by 2030) would cut consumer costs at the pump by half and would
reduce global warming pollution from new vehicles by the same amount.
By 2030 the country would be saving about 4.5 million barrels of oil
per day compared to business as usual*2 million barrels per day more
than if we just did the minimum required by EISA. At today's oil price
of more than $120 per barrel, that represents a national savings of
nearly $200 billion-a-year. When compared to the potential for 0.2
million barrels per day from off-limits OCS and effectively no consumer
savings, it is clear that drilling should not be a priority, while
efficiency should receive significant added policy attention.
In addition to increased fuel economy, consumers need alternatives
to cars and trucks. This will require increased funding for transit,
car-pooling, and telecommuting. In sharp contrast to some recent
proposals, highway trust funds should not be diverted away from these
alternatives. In fact these alternatives need significantly more
funding, which could be raised from per-mile fees that would cover
wear-and-tear, the costs of congestion, and the environmental and
energy security costs of oil use.
Finally, since cars and trucks will remain an important part of
personal mobility, additional renewable energy resources must be
developed. This means increased reliance on low-carbon biofuels made
from waste or other biomass resources that do not put pressure on the
agricultural system. In the longer run it means a transition to cars
and trucks that rely on electricity and hydrogen instead of liquid
fuels. Significant amounts of electricity and hydrogen can be produced
from renewable, domestic resources and will ultimately allow us to end
our reliance on oil.
Thank you.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Ed Hamberger
Question 1. One method of regulating greenhouse gas emissions is a
cap and trade system. How do you see an overall cap and trade system
influencing the transportation marketplace?
Answer. It would depend on the scope of the cap and trade system.
For example, a cap and trade system that covered only the power
generation sector would affect the mix of commodities carried by
freight transporters as (1) the power sector moved away from carbon-
intensive fuels such as coal; and (2) the sector passed the subsequent
higher costs of electricity production on to manufacturers, farmers,
retailers and other commercial enterprises.
A broader, economy-wide cap and trade system covering all sectors,
including transportation, would likely lead to higher fuel prices and
higher transportation rates. How these higher costs would ultimately
play themselves out among all economic sectors is difficult to
ascertain beforehand. Depending upon the stringency of the cap and the
costs of compliance, one potential outcome is that the relative fuel
efficiency of rail over truck transport would lead to a relative shift
in freight traffic from truck to rail.
Question 2. What impact do you think such a cap and trade system
would have on overall coal loadings in the railroad industry?
Answer. It would depend upon the nature of the cap and trade system
that was enacted. A cap and trade system incorporating a ``safety
valve,'' such as that found in S. 1766, would have a less significant
impact on coal loadings than the system in S. 2191, which does not
contain a safety valve. A second consideration would be the extent to
which the emissions reduction timetable in a particular cap and trade
system is in alignment with the expected commercial availability of
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Phasing in carbon
reduction limits over a time period sufficient to allow CCS to mature
would ensure that utilities are not forced to abandon coal generation
as an option.
Question 3. As users of climate information and services, what type
of data is most important to you and how do you think the Federal
Government can improve the climate information and services it
provides?
Answer. The rail industry depends more heavily on Federal weather
data than it does on Federal climate data. Weather data is critical to
day-to-day rail operations. Climate data is only relevant in terms of
very long-term trends.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Ed Hamberger
Question. As efforts are made to reduce the carbon footprint of
individual modes, such as the experimental fuel cell locomotive under
development--is there anything the Federal Government can or should do
to promote or accelerate research and development of new technologies?
Answer. We regret that the House is presently considering
legislation to promote technologies to increase the fuel efficiency of
medium-to-heavy duty commercial trucks--but not similar legislation to
promote locomotive technologies. We find it similarly unfortunate that
the Department of Energy for many years has funded heavy-duty truck
fuel efficiency research, but not rail fuel efficiency research. We
believe that public policymakers should treat both modes similarly.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas Carper to
Ed Hamberger
Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in
Environment and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses
have called for a freight fund and single freight policy. This is
because freight is moved by multiple modes of transportation on each
trip--truck, train and ship. The system works better when we plan for
the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. It
occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the
train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office.
Answer. The industry has recently adopted a series of 11 principles
that it plans to use to evaluate proposals to establish a Federal
freight fund. These principles are attached.
Question 2. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided
into agencies responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I
was Governor of Delaware, I found that if we decided to build a road,
we could get 80 percent of the funding from the Federal Government. If
we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 50 percent.
However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in
passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact
the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the
development of an integrated, efficient transportation system?
Answer. Freight railroads are the backbone of North America's
freight transportation network, accounting for more than 40 percent of
all freight transportation. Yet capacity limits threaten to reduce the
freight rail market share as well as encumber any expansion of
passenger rail in coming decades. To address this economic and
environmental challenge, the rail sector supports enactment of S. 1125,
the ``Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act.'' In terms of
funding from the Federal Government, see answer to #1 (above).
Association of American Railroads
Final AAR Principles on Federal Funding of Freight Rail
There is a growing consensus that the Nation faces transportation
challenges that could threaten the competitiveness of U.S. producers
and products and the mobility of our citizens. The opportunity exists
for railroads to play a significantly-expanded role in addressing
growing transportation congestion and related societal problems such as
pollution, safety, and energy independence.
Railroads are private companies that invest 17 percent of their
revenue on capital spending for plant and equipment, a figure higher
than virtually any other industry and five times the average for all
manufacturing. Despite this record level of investment, future
expenditures necessary to expand capacity to fully meet projected
demand for railroad services and to meet other national objectives will
be considerable.
The rail freight community is prepared to contribute private
capital to fund its share of proposed partnerships with the public
sector. Public benefits--such as congestion mitigation and pollution
reduction--which can result from projects associated with expanded
freight utilization--are valid policy objectives for which public
funding is appropriate. Public-private partnerships do not represent a
subsidy of private beneficiaries, since a rail carrier will contribute
commensurate with any benefits it may realize when it chooses to
participate.
If government policymakers determine that projects provide public
benefits worthy of support, then policymakers must be willing to commit
public funds commensurate with that determination, rather than relying
on freight railroads to cross-subsidize the projects to the detriment
of their own investment needs. Private freight railroads should be
expected to participate financially in individual projects, but only
based on the direct benefits they will receive.
It is essential that private railroad investment continue to focus
on network expansion and renewing and refreshing existing
infrastructure. Railroads cannot also support the public's
participation in and benefits derived from infrastructure projects.
Accordingly, AAR subscribes to the following eleven Federal funding
principles, which fall into three categories. The first nine principles
assure that Federal funding will create sustainable partnerships with
public entities while maximizing the public benefits found in rail
projects. The tenth promotes freight rail as a solution to looming
transportation challenges. The eleventh clarifies that grade
separations do little to benefit rail capacity or rail productivity.
1. Federal funding and policies must not reduce and should
encourage private investment in the Nation's rail system.
2. In all public-private partnerships, public benefits should
be funded by public funds, and railroad benefits should be
funded by railroad funds.
3. The same funding principles should apply to projects
involving other modes of freight transportation.
4. If the Federal Government establishes a freight fund to fund
public benefits of freight rail projects, funding should not be
extracted from freight transportation providers or their
customers or disadvantage the economics of rail transportation.
Further, freight railroads should not be required to assess or
collect any fees. The rail logistics system should not be
saddled with increased costs to fund public benefits, either
directly or through a freight fund.
5. Federal fees associated with a freight fund should preempt
state and local fees, unless there is mutual agreement among
the parties.
6. Any involvement by a rail carrier in public-private projects
must be strictly voluntary.
7. Federal funding of public benefits must not be in lieu of
the enactment of Federal investment tax incentives for
increased private investment.
8. Federal funding must not be conditioned upon a change in the
present economic regulation of the rail industry or other
industry concessions.
9. Federal funding must be executed in a manner that preserves
the rail industry's current ownership rights.
10. Federal freight investment should focus on key
transportation projects with significant public benefits, such
as eliminating rail chokepoints, improving service to shippers,
facilitating international trade, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, cutting vehicle miles traveled, and improving
safety. Such projects should be selected based upon
standardized, agreed-upon methodology.
11. Grade separations must continue to be regarded as primarily
beneficial to the highway/road user. They do little to increase
freight rail capacity or improve rail productivity.
Additional AAR Principles on the Reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU
In addition to its principles on Federal funding of freight rail,
AAR's principles for the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU include:
Support for separate funding for the Section 130 program;
Support for separate funding for intermodal connectors;
Support for funding for Operation Lifesaver;
Opposition (on economic grounds) to a thaw of the freeze on
longer and heavier trucks operating on the interstate highway
system; and
Support for public private partnerships such as CREATE and
the New Orleans gateway project.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Stevens to
Ed Hamberger
Question. Rail transportation is the most efficient in terms of
miles per gallon of diesel (over 400 mpg). What can be done to get more
passengers and freight on railroads while keeping in mind both still
require other modes of transportation?
Answer. Comprehensive, reliable, and cost-effective rail service is
critical to our nation, and that, in turn. requires having adequate
rail capacity. Railroads must be able to both maintain their extensive
existing infrastructure and equipment and build the substantial new
capacity that will be needed to meet much higher future freight and
passenger transport demand.
Our privately-owned freight railroads are working hard every day to
help make sure America has the rail capacity it needs. They're re-
investing record amounts in their systems ($420 billion from 1980 to
2007, or more than 40 cents out of every revenue dollar), adopting
innovative new technologies and operating plans, and forging
partnerships with each other, other transportation providers, and
customers.
Policymakers can help ensure that more freight and passengers move
by rail by addressing a number of serious impediments to meeting the
rail capacity challenge. A few of these impediments arc discussed
briefly below.
Local Opposition to Rail Projects
Under existing law, state and local regulations (other than local
health and safety regulations) that unreasonably interfere with rail
operations are preempted by Federal regulations. These Federal
regulations protect the public interest while recognizing that our
railroads form an integrated, national network that requires a uniform
basic set of rules to operate effectively.
Nevertheless, rail expansion projects often face vocal,
sophisticated opposition by members of affected local communities. In
many cases, railroads thus face a classic ``not-in-my-backyard''
problem--even for projects for which the benefits to a locality or
region far outweigh the drawbacks.
In the face of local opposition, railroads try to work with the
local community to find a mutually-satisfactory arrangement, and these
efforts are usually successful. When agreement is not reached, however,
projects can face seemingly interminable delays and sharply higher
costs.
Often, local communities allege violations of environmental
requirements to challenge a proposed project, even though detailed
environmental reviews, when required, already identify the impacts of
rail projects and determine necessary mitigation measures. Railroads
understand the goals of environmental laws and appreciate the need to
be responsive to community concerns, but community opposition to rail
operations can be a significant obstacle to railroad infrastructure
investments, even when the opposition has no legal basis.
Policymakers can help by taking steps to shorten the time it takes
for reviews of rail expansion projects in ways that do not adversely
affect the quality of those reviews.
Financial Sustainability
Because U.S. freight railroads are overwhelmingly privately owned
and must finance the vast majority of their infrastructure spending
themselves, capacity investments carry substantial financial risk.
Accordingly, these projects must pass appropriate internal investment
hurdles--i.e., the investments will be made only if they are expected
to generate an adequate return. That's why policymakers should say no
to the re-regulation of railroads.
Prior to 1980, decades of government over-regulation had brought
U.S. freight railroads to their knees. Bankruptcies were common, rates
were rising, safety was deteriorating, and rail infrastructure and
equipment were in increasingly poor condition because meager rail
profits were too low to pay for needed upkeep and replacement.
Recognizing the need for change, Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act
of 1980, which partially deregulated the rail industry.
The record since Staggers shows that deregulation works. Since
1981, rail traffic is up 95 percent, rail productivity is up 163
percent, and average inflation-adjusted rail rates are down 54 percent.
And rail safety is vastly improved--the train accident and employee
injury rates have plunged since Staggers. Our privately-owned, largely
deregulated freight railroads competing fairly in the transportation
marketplace have produced the best freight rail system in the world.
Despite the severe harm excessive rail regulation caused prior to
Staggers and the enormous benefits that have accrued since then,
legislation has been proposed--most recently, S. 953/H.R. 2125 (the so-
called ``Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007'') in
the 110th Congress--that would re-regulate freight railroads.
Re-regulation is bad public policy and should be rejected. It would
prevent railroads from earning enough to make the massive investments a
first-class rail system requires. As the Congressional Budget Office
has noted, ``As demand increases, the railroads' ability to generate
profits from which to finance new investments will be critical. Profits
are key to increasing capacity because they provide both the incentives
and the means to make new investments.''
Under re-regulation, rail earnings, and therefore rail spending on
infrastructure and equipment, would plummet; the industry's existing
physical plant would deteriorate; needed new capacity would not be
added; and rail service would become slower, less responsive, and less
reliable. It would mean less freight moving by rail when we should have
more.
As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently noted,
``Without a doubt, rates have decreased for most shippers, and most
shippers are better off in the post-Staggers environment than they were
previously. This outcome suggests that widespread and fundamental
changes to the relationship between the railroads and their customers
are not needed.''
Public Involvement in Freight Rail Infrastructure Investment
Rail transportation demand is projected to rise sharply in the
years ahead as our population and economy grow. The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) recently forecast, for example, that U.S. freight
railroad demand will rise 88 percent by 2035.
Railroads will continue to spend massive amounts of their own funds
to address their capacity challenges. However, they are, and will
continue to be, unable to pay for the socially-optimal amount of rail
capacity.
The magnitude of the looming freight rail capacity issue was borne
out by a recent study by Cambridge Systematics, a prominent economic
and transportation consulting firm. The purpose of the study, which
focused on 52,000 miles of primary freight rail corridors, was to
estimate the cost of the expansion in rail capacity necessary for
America's freight railroads to handle the 88 percent increase in rail
traffic forecast by the DOT for 2035.
The study found that if rail capacity needs are not properly
addressed, by 2035 some 16,000 miles of primary rail mileage--nearly
one-third of the 52,000 miles covered in the study--will be so
congested that a widespread service breakdown environment would exist.
(Today, less than 1 percent of rail miles are that congested.) Because
our rail system is interconnected, this outcome would mean that
America's entire rail system would, in effect, be disabled.
Class I railroads are anticipated to be able to generate (through
earnings growth from the additional traffic and productivity gains)
only $96 billion of the $135 billion needed for new capacity identified
by the Cambridge Systematics study. Addressing this shortfall is
critical if railroads are to fulfill their potential in meeting
America's freight transportation challenges.
One way to help bridge the funding gap is through tax incentives
for rail infrastructure investments. S. 1125/H.R. 2116 (the ``Freight
Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007) calls for a 25
percent tax credit for investments in new track, intermodal facilities,
yards, and other freight rail infrastructure projects that expand rail
capacity. All businesses that make capacity-enhancing rail investments,
not just railroads, would be eligible for the credit.
A rail ITC would addresses the central challenge of how to move
more freight without causing more highway gridlock or environmental
degradation. For a railroad considering whether to fund an expansion
project, an ITC would reduce the cost of the project, raising the
likelihood that the project will be economically viable. It would help
worthwhile projects get built sooner, but would not be enough to cause
economically-unjustified projects to go forward.
An ITC would also stimulate the economy. U.S. Department of
Commerce data indicate that every dollar of freight rail infrastructure
investment that would be stimulated by a rail infrastructure ITC would
generate more than three dollars in total economic output. Each $1
billion of new rail investment induced by the ITC would create an
estimated 20,000 jobs nationwide. The benefits to our economy would be
broad and long lasting.
Policymakers should also support a short line tax credit. Since
1980, more than 380 new short lines have been created, preserving
thousands of miles of track (much of it in rural areas) that may
otherwise have been abandoned. In 2004, Congress enacted a 50 percent
tax credit (``Section 45G'') for investments in short line track
rehabilitation. The focus was on assisting short lines in handling the
larger and heavier freight cars that are needed to provide their
customers with the best possible rates and service.
Since Section 45G was enacted, hundreds of short lines have rapidly
increased the volume and rate of their track rehabilitation and
improvement programs. Unfortunately, Section 45G expired in 2007.
Pending legislation in Congress (S. 881/H.R. 1584, the ``Short Line
Railroad Investment Act of 2007'') would extend this tax credit and
thus preserve the huge benefits it delivers.
Finally, a more pronounced use of public-private partnerships would
help get more freight on our rails. Public-private partnerships reflect
the fact that cooperation is more likely to result in timely,
meaningful solutions to transportation problems than a go-it-alone
approach. Without a partnership, projects that promise substantial
public benefits (including reduced highway gridlock and highway
construction and maintenance costs, reduced pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions, and enhanced mobility) in addition to private benefits
are likely to be delayed or never started at all because it would be
too difficult for either side to justify the full investment needed to
complete them. In contrast, if a public entity shows it is willing to
devote public dollars to a project based upon the public benefits that
will accrue, the private entity is much more likely to provide the
private dollars (commensurate with private gains) necessary for the
project to proceed.
Partnerships are not ``subsidies'' to railroads. Rather, they
acknowledge that private entities should pay for private benefits and
public entities should pay for public benefits. In many cases, these
partnerships only involve the public contributing a portion of the
initial investment required to make an expansion project feasible, with
the railroad responsible for keeping the infrastructure productive and
in good repair.
Promoting Passenger Rail
Freight railroads are successful partners with passenger railroads
all over the country. Around 97 percent of the 22,000 miles over which
Amtrak operates are owned by freight railroads, and hundreds of
millions of commuter trips each year occur on commuter rail systems
that operate at least partially over tracks or right-of-way owned by
freight railroads.
The potential national benefits of a strong national passenger rail
system are significant. The key question is: under what circumstances
can freight and passenger interests advance this worthy goal?
U.S. freight railroads are moving more freight than ever before,
and demand for freight rail service is projected to grow sharply in the
years ahead. Passenger rail growth would come on top of growth in
freight traffic. That's why, going forward, capacity will likely be the
single most important factor determining our ability to provide the
high quality rail service that will be essential for both freight and
passengers.
While recognizing existing Amtrak statutory authority regarding use
of freight railroad- owned facilities, the AAR has developed principles
which we believe should govern new passenger rail use of freight-owned
facilities:
Freight railroads should not be forced to give passenger
railroads access to their property; rather, access should be
voluntarily negotiated.
Freight railroads should be fully compensated for the use of
their assets by passenger trains.
Freight railroads should be adequately protected from
liability.
Freight railroads should not be asked to pay for capacity
increases needed to accommodate passenger service.
These principles are grounded in the tremendous importance of
freight railroads to America. Freight railroads lower shipping costs by
billions of dollars each year and produce an immense competitive
advantage for our farmers, manufacturers, and miners in the global
marketplace. If passenger railroads impair freight railroads and force
freight that otherwise would move by rail onto the highway, those
advantages would be squandered. Moreover, highway gridlock would
worsen; fuel consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions would
rise; and our mobility would deteriorate--outcomes that are contrary to
the goals of expanding passenger rail in the first place
For these reasons, passenger rail progress must be complementary
to--not in conflict with--freight rail development.
That said, there clearly are substantial public benefits from
expanded passenger rail. Indeed, as at cost of auto and air travel
continue to increase and the prospect of a carbon-constrained future
increases, we have an opportunity--and the need--to make far more
concerted efforts than we have in the past to more fully capture the
economic, environmental, and social benefits of reliable, convenient,
and comprehensive passenger rail service.
But in order to be a true transportation alternative for Americans,
passenger rail, like freight rail, cannot be achieved on the cheap.
Without significant additional investment in infrastructure and
equipment, Amtrak will not be able to handle all the people that want
to use it and we will fail to capture all of those benefits.
We believe that future passenger rail initiatives, especially
regional or national highspeed initiatives, will require separate
assets dedicated to passenger operation. This more visionary approach
would enable faster and more reliable passenger service and minimize
the substantial operational, engineering, legal, and other impediments
that often hinder the ability of freight railroads to accommodate
passenger trains.
This approach will be costly, but so will any approach to
meaningfully enhance passenger rail. Freight railroads believe that the
public benefits of a truly attractive and competitive national
passenger rail capability will exceed public costs, and look forward to
continue to work with all appropriate parties to make those benefits a
reality.
One way railroads are doing this is by working closely with Amtrak
to alleviate problems that are hindering Amtrak's performance and
reliability. Individual freight railroads are currently working
directly with Amtrak to identify areas where targeted infrastructure
improvements that eliminate chokepoints can be made, and where
dispatching and maintenance practices can be improved. Joint,
cooperative efforts like these are far more likely to result in
meaningful improvements than a punitive approach. Imposing monetary
penalties on freight railroads based on Amtrak on-time performance, for
example, would be neither constructive nor appropriate.
Other Transportation Modes
Obviously, neither freight or passenger railroads operate in a
vacuum. Trucks, for example, are and will continue to be absolutely
critical to freight transportation and to our economy. That's why
significant attention must be paid, and appropriate resources devoted
to, other transportation infrastructure. Working as a whole, our
various transportation networks will help ensure that freight and
people can get to where they need and want to be efficiently and cost
effectively.