[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONSTRUCTING A GREEN TRANSPORTATION POLICY: TRANSIT MODES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 19, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-5
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-187 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin, Ranking Member
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
South Dakota JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOHN J. HALL, New York
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
Gerard J. Waldron, Staff Director
Aliya Brodsky, Chief Clerk
Thomas Weimer, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement................. 5
Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon, opening statement................................... 6
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 7
Hon. John T. Salazar, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 8
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, opening statement........................... 11
Witnesses
panel i
Mr. Peter Varga, Chief Executive Officer, Interurban Transit
Partnership.................................................... 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 14
Additional Answers for the Record............................ 87
Mr. Andy Clarke, Executive Director, League of American
Bicyclists..................................................... 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 21
Mr. Chris Zimmerman, Board Member, Arlington County Board........ 26
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
Mr. John Boesel, Present and Chief Executive Officer, Calstart... 32
Prepared Statement........................................... 34
panel ii
Ms. Erika Guerra, Manager of Government Affairs and Corporate
Responsibility, Holcim (US) Inc................................ 52
Prepared Statement........................................... 55
Mr. Don Weaver, Highway Division Chairman, The Associated General
Contractors of America......................................... 63
Prepared Statement........................................... 65
Mr. Domenic Ruccolo, Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing,
John Deere Construction and Forestry Company................... 72
Prepared Statement........................................... 75
Additional Answers for the Record............................ 91
Submitted Materials
Submitted by Mr. Ruccolo, Joint Statement of CNH America LLC.
Caterpillar, Inc. Deere and Company, Submitted to the House
Science and Technology Committee Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, Hearing Examining Vehicle Technology Research and
Development Programs, March 24, 2009, Subcommittee by Domenic
G. Ruccolo..................................................... 101
Submitted by Mr. Ruccolo, Letter from Deere and Company to
Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, November 20, 2008, Submitted
by Domenic G. Ruccolo.......................................... 106
Submitted by Mr. Markey, Statement of the Pavement Preservation
Task Force of March 19, 2009................................... 123
CONSTRUCTING A GREEN TRANSPORTATION POLICY: TRANSIT MODES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., in room
2203 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer,
Inslee, Herseth Sandlin, Cleaver, Salazar, Speier,
Sensenbrenner and Blackburn.
Staff present: Danielle Baussan.
The Chairman. Good morning, and welcome to the Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Today our
hearing is on a green transportation policy.
At the end of this year, the Nation's primary
transportation legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, will
expire. Congressional reauthorization of a surface
transportation bill will occur at a pivotal time for the
country, for Congress and for the climate. As Congressional
leadership and the Obama Administration continue to work
towards goals of energy independence and fighting climate
change, transportation's contribution to global warming and the
potential to improve climate conditions cannot be ignored. This
is underscored by the 89 percent of Americans who believe that
transportation investments should support the goal of reducing
energy use. The U.S. transportation sector is responsible for
approximately one-third of our country's greenhouse gas
emissions. About 60 percent of these emissions are from
passenger vehicles. The United States has 4\1/2\ percent of the
world's population and 30 percent of the world's automobiles.
Seventy-seven percent of Americans use a single passenger car
to commute.
There are signs that the United States is moving in a new
direction. Studies show that we are now driving shorter
distances and taking mass transit in record numbers.
Transportation legislation should respond to this public demand
and support mass transit as a way to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Such legislation should also look at all modes of
transit. This includes the often-overlooked vehicle of our own
feet. Biking and pedestrian policies are thriving in
communities large and small, urban and suburban, and as my
colleague, Mr. Blumenauer, will tell you, sunny and rainy.
A discussion of climate change legislation and
transportation reauthorization would be incomplete without
examining transportation infrastructure policies and practices.
This includes the materials used in our roads and bridges, the
machines that move them and the people who build them.
Transportation emissions don't start at the end of the
tailpipe. Supporting lower-energy manufacturing procedures and
recycling for common transit materials can also reduce every
ounce of CO2 from the transportation sector along
with fuel-efficient heavy-duty machinery. Renovating existing
infrastructure to reflect low-impact design standards improves
water runoff and can increase air quality.
Congress must reroute its approach to transportation
policy. It must be acknowledge the indivisible link between
transportation and climate change by giving the public choices
in transit. People should drive because they want to, not
because there is no sidewalk leading to the train station or
because the city bus system does not expand into the suburbs.
By doing this, transportation policy helps meet our President's
environmental goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put a
stop to global warming. Congress can compound this
environmental benefit by supporting low-carbon fuels, vehicle
efficiency technologies and actions that reduce the emissions
inherent in our transportation system.
In a few short months, a climate bill and a transportation
bill will be presented to Congress. We must make sure that
these bills reflect the transportation needs of the public and
the environmental needs of the planet.
That concludes the opening statement of the chair.
[The statement follows:]
The Chairman. We now turn and recognize the ranking member
of the Select Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At
the beginning, let me apologize for leaving after my opening
statement but the Judiciary Committee is having a hearing on
ACORN's intimidation of voters and stuffing the ballot box, and
fair elections, I think, are a capstone of democracy so I will
be going there.
President Obama's budget blueprint recently estimated
climate change revenues, which is taxes by any other name, of
$646 billion by 2019. While this would represent one of the
largest new taxes in our country's history, President Obama's
estimates are likely low. A top White House economic advisor
recently told Senate staff that the actual revenues could be
two to three times higher. The global warming tax could reach
nearly $2 trillion.
Today we will receive testimony on parts of one sector of
our economy, transportation, that will come under the new
regulations and taxes under the Administration's proposal. In
assessing climate change legislation, I have repeatedly stated
that there are four principles that I will use to assess it:
impacts on the economy, environmental improvement,
international inclusiveness and technological development.
Today's hearing provides a great opportunity to focus on how
technology can improve our transportation sector.
This January I wrote EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to
highlight a Duke University study that found that 75 percent of
respondents misjudged relative fuel savings when efficiency was
expressed in miles per gallon. By contract, 64 percent
accurately judged savings when the efficiency was expressed in
gallons per mile. For example, in over 10,000 miles of driving,
an improvement from 10 to 20 miles per gallon saves
substantially more fuel than an improvement from 20 to 40. An
improvement from 10 to 11 miles per gallon saves nearly as much
fuel as an improvement from 33 to 50. This means that the
greatest fuel savings will come from improving the least-
efficient vehicles. Thus, trucks are the low-hanging fruit in
reducing fuel consumption. Despite this, federal policy has
focused almost exclusively on promoting hybrid passenger cars.
According to the Oshkosh Corporation, there are 90,000 refuge
trucks in the United States, meaning garbage trucks. Replacing
these trucks with hybrids would result in the same fuel savings
as replacing 2\1/2\ million passenger cars. Ten thousand hybrid
trucks would save 7.2 million gallons of diesel each year and
would reduce emissions by 83,000 tons. This would be like
taking every car in New York City off the road for 25 days. As
today's witness, John Boesel, the president and CEO of
CALSTART, wrote in his testimony, because of their high mileage
and fuel use, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles alone make up 7
percent total greenhouse gas emissions.
To remedy this oversight in federal policy, I have
introduced the Heavy-Duty Hybrid Truck Research, Development
and Demonstration Act of 2009. The Hybrid Truck Act is a
bipartisan bill that will create the federal government's first
grant program exclusively designed to promote hybrid trucks.
This bill can help truck manufacturers overcome technological
hurdles and to reduce the economies of scale. It will result in
more hybrid trucks, less fuel consumption and lower emissions.
The hidden tax will be added to our electric bills and into the
cost of every product we buy and it represents a fundamentally
different philosophy. While I am advocating a policy that
spends wisely to simultaneously reduce emissions and spur
economic activity, the President is advocating a staggering tax
program that threatens to consumer spending and business.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses to
identify other areas where federal policy can aid businesses in
developing the technologies we need to combat climate change,
and I thank the chair.
The Chairman. Great. I thank the gentleman.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent to introduce
into the record a statement by BASF discussing the importance
of preserving pavement. Without objection, it will be included.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I did appreciate what our ranking member said in terms of
setting the context. There is a lot that we agree with. I hope
at some point we can persuade him to look at the budget that
Mr. Obama has suggested to show where the money goes from the
cap and trade because it is not somehow disappearing into a
black hole in space but to be made available to reduce the
problems that average Americans face on an ongoing basis and to
be able to advance the vision. Much of what he articulated I
agree with.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate deeply your scheduling this
hearing and being able to deal with an important part of the
climate change equation and the livability of our communities.
As you pointed out, we are talking about a third of our
greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking about where most
Americans live, work and recreate. We have opportunities here,
and we will hear it from our witnesses, to be able to tie the
pieces together in a way that reduces greenhouse gases, that
inspires new economic activity that provides more choices for
Americans and leads us to a reduced carbon future. Despite some
of the political posturing we have heard, I do believe at the
end of the day we are going to find that there is a very
significant consensus that is emerging with the American
public, with people in business, labor, environment, the
professions, because there are opportunities and there is lots
of low-hanging fruit. Indeed, we will hear today about some
things just talking about picking fruit up off the ground and
they have in many cases multiple benefits in terms of improving
health to the individual, new economic activities, not just
saving the planet. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and to be able to explore with you the
big picture where we are looking at technology, economic
development, strengthening the communities, solving multiple
problems simultaneously. I am pleased that the President's
budget blueprint provides an opportunity to finance it, to be
able to encourage it and to be able at the same time to provide
support for businesses and American families in a way that they
will actually be better off not suffering from the consequences
of carbon pollution and climate change.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms.
Blackburn.
Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
welcome our witnesses. I also, as Mr. Sensenbrenner had
mentioned, have to step out. I am going to have to step
downstairs to see our air conditioning and heating
manufacturers that are in a meeting down there on some similar
subjects and then come back to join you, but I want to thank
you for the hearing and I do want to welcome all of you.
As you can hear on this panel, we will disagree about the
issue of global warming and climate change and the science that
is involved there, but one of the things I think that we all
agree on is that traffic congestion is a problem and that this
is something that does need to be addressed, and I would say, I
am one of those that says there is plenty that could be done
and should be done other than investing billions of dollars in
a high-speed rail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas but there are
other ways, low-cost ways to address the situation. There was a
study by the Texas Transportation Institute that included some
really commonsense approaches to this issue, freeway ramp
metering, traffic signal coordination, incident management,
high-occupancy toll lanes. Taken together, these measures would
reduce hundreds of millions of traffic hours, save billions of
gallons of gas and eliminate thousands of tons of emissions,
all of which are important to us.
So I think that investing highway money to correct
inadequate bridges and increase road capacity coupled with a
few simple improvements would significantly reduce emissions,
reduce fuel wasted and traffic congestion and move us in a more
commonsense approach along the way to solving the problem.
With that, I will yield back the balance of my time and
look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will submit my
full statement for the record, but I just wanted to briefly let
the panel know that I am very interested in energy independence
and trying to figure out where we go from here. I would like
you to address the argument that a lot of people talk about,
whether we should do maybe a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-
trade system, if you would, but I also wanted to commend the
second panel, John Deere. I am a farmer by trade, I run nothing
but green tractors, and I want to commend you for your fuel
efficiency efforts in that respect.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The statement follows:]
The Chairman. Great. Let me thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an abbreviated
statement.
I think we are at an unusual moment, and if you deny global
warming, that is fine. We are the only people on the planet
with a sizable group still saying that there is no climate
change, but we do have an unusual moment here and nobody can
argue that putting CO2 in the atmosphere is good no
matter what you believe. That just can't be good. I am trying
to find somebody who thinks that we need to suck it up. It is
not a good thing.
But some good things are happening. We are at a 52-year
high with transit ridership, and I think that is a good thing.
It was brought by two things: One, when we had the tremendous
rise in the price of a barrel of oil, which ran gasoline prices
up, and then the economy going down, people not able to buy new
cars and so they go to transit. And so what I think we have got
to do is figure out a way to create the most ecologically and
environmentally sensitive system of mass transportation on the
planet. Any nation who has a system superior to ours creates
embarrassment to us, and so I am interested in hearing your
ideas and suggestions and look forward to your comments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Great. The gentleman's time has expired, and
now we will move to our very distinguished witnesses, and our
first witness this morning is Mr. Peter Varga, who is the CEO
of the Interurban Transit Partnership. He is in charge of
operating the urban transit system in Grand Rapids, Michigan
called The Rapid. Grand Rapids has become a leader in green
buildings, mass transit and other environmental initiatives.
Mr. Varga previously worked in transit management and safety in
Muskegon, Michigan, and Santa Cruz, California. We welcome you,
sir.
STATEMENTS OF PETER VARGA, CEO, INTERURBAN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP;
ANDY CLARKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS;
CHRIS ZIMMERMAN, BOARD MEMBER, ARLINGTON COUNTY BOARD; AND JOHN
BOESEL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CALSTART
STATEMENT OF PETER VARGA
Mr. Varga. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Markey and
members of the Select Committee. This is really a great
opportunity for me.
We are a transit system that is quite successful in the
United States and growing and I think that is one of the
reasons why I am here because I want to talk about how you can
achieve 10 percent growth in transit, double the ridership in a
decade. We started the Authority about nine years ago. We have
expanded services over time and in fact, we are now
transporting 9.1 million trips a year and that is double of the
ridership that we had a decade ago.
The Grand Rapids region is quite well known for its
greening efforts and its green transportation. We are part of a
community sustainability partnership with cities, with
businesspeople and with universities. Eighteen percent of all
LEED projects in the United States come from Grand Rapids metro
region. We have the first rectory, the first church, the first
public museum, the first LEED-certified hospital and we at The
Rapid created the first LEED-certified public transit building
in the United States. We never anticipated being first but we
ended up being first, and being first, you can never change
that so we tried to herald it.
We are very well known for our sustainable practices. In my
testimony, I talk to your about central station project, which
is LEED. We are going to start using the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to expand our wealthy operations center, our
maintenance facility, and it is intended to be a LEED facility
as well. And because of our leadership in public transportation
sustainable practices, we are designated by the Sierra Club in
2008 as a Cool City along with Denver and Minneapolis.
In my testimony I give you several examples of public
environmental benefits of a public transit system but I wanted
to highlight one thing. Currently, there are more than 10
billion trips taken yearly on public transportation. With each
additional billion trips taken, oil consumption can be reduced
by 420 million gallons and our carbon footprint reduced by 3.7
million metric tons. Let us assume the 10 percent growth we
have done in Grand Rapids in public transportation trips. The
United States could save 141.9 million metric tons of carbon
emissions annually equal to 8 percent of total carbon emissions
from transportation and also save 15.2 billion gallons of fuel
per year. I don't know how we get from the Persian Gulf but if
it equals that, that would be worth it, wouldn't it?
I have also put in some more statistics and information in
my testimony talking about how individual actions impact the
environment and how we can reduce carbon footprint. I am not
going to go through them but I really wanted to talk to you
about investment in public transit. With an average return of
6.1 percent in investment, we could create millions of American
jobs, generate enormous public and private revenue and make the
country more economically and environmentally efficient. At a
time when our country has been calling for stimulus, sustaining
a 5.5 percent growth in public transportation would support 5.3
million jobs and a 10 percent growth could support 8.9 million
jobs.
So one of the things I did want to talk to you about is, I
have in my testimony how Grand Rapids specifically has
benefited from its public transit system. The highlights I
would like to say is, we are starting to do a BRT project under
Very Small Starts. We have completed a streetcar feasibility
study that shows that it is feasible in the downtown area and
we are trying to create a public-private partnership to develop
it because currently under the New Starts program we are
incapable of actually pushing streetcars forward. We have
significantly improved transit services in the last decade and
we doubled our ridership, as I said. The importance of this is
that I do believe that the United States can double its
ridership as well with the right kind of public investment. The
primary reason why I am here today is to give you the how can
Congress support local and regional public transit. You could
increase the availability of funds for fixed projects like our
proposed bus rapid transit project and others like light rail,
commuter rail and streetcar. You can make available for funds
for nonmotorized auctions such as walking and bicycling. You
can reduce the transportation cost for Americans through
investment of----
The Chairman. If you could summarize, please?
Mr. Varga. I will sum it. Sorry. In sum, I have indicated
in my testimony that there are several ways that federal
climate and transportation legislation can effect positive
change and I encourage you to take each one of those measures
that I have outlined and implement them because we don't have
enough time as we are trying to save the earth.
[Statement of Mr. Varga follows:]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Varga, very much.
I am going to allow the leading bicyclist advocate in the
Congress to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Blumenauer. I wouldn't say that where Mr. Oberstar
could hear you, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure today to have Andy Clarke. Andy is the
executive director of the League of American Bicyclists. Last
week he just hosted people from 47 States, several foreign
countries, over 600 advocates who were in and around the Hill
sporting our trademark bicycle pin. I first had an opportunity
to become acquainted with Mr. Clarke when he was advising the
Federal Highway Administration's Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center. He is a tireless advocate, extraordinarily
knowledgeable, and we are lucky to have him here today.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ANDY CLARKE
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr.
Blumenauer and members of the committee for the opportunity to
testify before you this morning on the important role that
bicycling can play in reducing oil dependence and global
warming.
Let me return the favor and acknowledge and thank
Congressman Blumenauer for his leadership on bicycling and
livable communities issues for passage last year of the bicycle
commuter tax provision and for your leadership of the
Congressional Bike Caucus, which I believe now boasts a
majority of House members.
Last week as you kicked off our 9th National Bike Summit,
we heard from the head of Copenhagen's bicycle program. Thirty-
six percent of trips are made by bicycle in this northern tier
city of 1 million people. Copenhagen is hosting the next round
of climate change talks in December and we hope delegates from
all over the world will see firsthand how a world-class city
thrives with bicycling at its core. Our summit participants
were obviously wired by the sheer numbers of cyclists and the
infrastructure that accommodates them yet the one critical
lesson we learned is that Copenhagen was not always a bicycling
paradise. In the 1970s their city streets, their squares, their
public spaces were overrun with cars. They chose a different
path and have seen bicycle use increase dramatically and now
have their sights set on a 50 percent mode share for bicycling
by 2015.
Of course, there is a big difference between Copenhagen and
U.S. cities. I mention it because they are actually changing
people's behavior and I think that is the key. Bicycling is
perhaps the ultimate zero-emission transport mode. We all know
that getting more people to ride or walk instead of driving
will help reduce emissions. The question is, will they actually
do it. We have the answer here in the United States in many of
our bicycle-friendly communities. For example, since 1991
Portland, Oregon, has seen a 490 percent increase in bicycle
traffic as their bikeway network has grown from 60 miles to 280
miles. In practical terms, that means that more than 16,000
cyclists now cross Portland's downtown bridges every day
instead of 2,500 in 1991. A green dividend has been calculated
for Portland's integrated transport investment. The average
Portlander drivers 4 miles less per day than the national
average, saving 2.9 billion miles of vehicle travel and keeping
more than $1 billion in the pockets of Portland residents.
Other cities that I document in my testimony such as New York,
San Francisco, Cambridge, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.,
have seen phenomenal bicycle mode share increases in recent
years because of the policies, programs and funding they have
invested to improve conditions for bicyclists.
So how can the federal government support bicycle travel?
Climate change legislation and the next transportation bill
will direct hundreds of billions of dollars to transportation
projects and it is essential that a significant percentage of
that investment completes bicycling, walking and transit
systems in our cities. A recent survey by the National
Association of Realtors found that close to 90 percent of
Americans agree with that approach. We must have a national
complete streets policy to ensure that all those funds improve
the safety and convenience of bicyclists, pedestrians, people
with disabilities, transit users and yes, even motorists.
On that point, let me reiterate that bicycling, walking and
transit rise and fall together. I am not pleading a special-
interest case today for bicycle enthusiasts. I am suggesting
that livable, sustainable communities are built on the ability
of people to walk, ride a bike and take transit for many of
their daily needs and that motorists and urban freight
providers will benefit from having fewer cars on the road.
Equally, I am not suggesting that everyone suddenly become a
60-mile round-trip Lycra-clad bicycle commuter. Our focus must
be on the 40 percent of trips in this country that are just 2
miles or less. Ninety percent of those trips are today made by
car. Those are the most polluting trips. These are the trips we
must make easy and convenient to be made by bike. This is where
the greatest potential lies to reduce climate emissions in the
years ahead.
Today's focus is obviously on climate change and oil use
and we support a greater emphasis on transit, more fuel-
efficient vehicles and hybrids, but I would be remiss if I did
not remind the committee as my colleague, Congressman
Blumenauer, has done, that when you encourage bicycling and
walking, you also help address the health, physical activity,
air quality, congestion and economic challenges faced by
individuals, communities and our Nation.
So thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[Statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Clarke, very much.
Our next witness is Chris Zimmerman. He is a member of the
Arlington County Board in Arlington, Virginia. He serves on the
board of directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority. We welcome you, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS ZIMMERMAN
Mr. Zimmerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Good morning and thank you for inviting me. I have
submitted a statement for the record. I think to make best use
of your time, I will just sum up a few of the things and will
be happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of the
statements.
Let me say first, Arlington, Virginia, right here across
the river is a community with a legacy of what is now called
smart growth, although when my predecessors started it, they
didn't have that word, and it wasn't so described, but in 2002
when the EPA gave out the first award for smart growth, the
first award for rural excellence was given to Arlington for the
success in planning and implementing the Roslyn-Boston metro
corridor, which has now become kind of a laboratory or
something people are coming to study to see what you can do in
what was not previously a real urban area but was kind of a
declining suburb and has been revitalized as a result of the
last generation and has now demonstrated that there is
tremendous potential in a fairly high-income growing area to
move people to alternative transportation, to reduce both car
ownership and car usage and vehicle miles traveled to eliminate
drive-only trips and single car occupancy at an impressive rate
and to do that by choice because people are opting to live
there. In fact, they have to pay a premium that has become
actually our biggest concern. But we have also seen at a
county-wide level not only in the areas where we have the
tremendous investment represented by metro rail that it is
possible to get more a transit-oriented, pedestrian-oriented
lifestyle and that people want it. So throughout our country we
have been approaching this in a similar fashion. We are a small
jurisdiction geographically. We have 200,000 people but we are
only 26 square miles, so we are comparatively dense. Our metro
corridors are only about 10 percent of the land area of the
county and that is where we have concentrated most of this
development, but even in the other areas we are using things
like better bus service, extensive bicycle network. We have
been implementing bike lanes on street as well as bike trails,
improving our sidewalk network. We have a complete streets
approach that was described by the preceding speaker that has
made it easier for people to get around and in fact people are
choosing more and more to walk, to ride bicycle and so on. Just
to give you a rough idea, between 1996 and 2008, our county
added 13,000 housing units, over 1,300 hotel rooms, 5\1/2\
million square feet of office space, 1.3 million square feet of
retail, over 23,000 residents and 11,000 workers. During that
same period traffic trends were basically flat and transit
ridership grew by 44 percent.
There are many other ways you can measure this. Just to
give you one example, if you simply look at who drives alone,
you know, how people get to work basically, if you look at how
people get to work in the Washington metropolitan region, about
three-quarters or so drive alone. Under the most recent survey
we have, which was 2006 before the big run-up of gas prices, a
majority of our residents do not drive alone to work. Only 47
percent of them do that. That is county-wide, not just the
metro corridors, whereas more than a quarter of them take the
train, 12 percent take the bus, 6 percent walk, 3 percent bike.
All those numbers are up since just 2000. In just the course of
this decade we have been able to move more and more people.
Again, they are doing it because they choose to do it because
we have made it attractive and increasingly it is what people
tell us they want to do.
I will say that the approach we have had is a comprehensive
one. It centers first on land use and key decisions that have
been made over the years in integrating transportation, but it
includes other components as well including a commitment to
alternative fuels, which we have, for instance, in our bus
system, which are CNG, to a green building policy. We had the
first green building policy in this region going back 10 years
ago now when not a lot of people knew what LEED was, and we
have approached it in little ways too with things like car
sharing. We have car sharing available. I should say we
somewhat copied Portland. We straight out stole your orange
poles that you put on the street there. That seemed like a good
idea. And so we have zip cars now, we have flex cars, and we
will invite any provider at every one of our metro stations and
in other places so that many Arlingtonians make that their
second car, including my family, instead of owning two cars.
You know, you don't need to pay the insurance on it but you
have the second car when you need it. So there are a lot of
little things you can do. We have a comprehensive
transportation demand management policy that relates to all new
development that promotes transit use, whether it is people
working in an office building or multi-family residential, and
I could go on but obviously time is limited.
Let me finally just say that I think there are a number of
things the federal government could do that would be more
helpful for this kind of policy including making transit
investments easier. Obviously we could use more funding but it
is also what you have to go through to get the funding and I
will mention that outside of metro corridors one of the things
we are trying to do is implement a streetcar like Portland's,
and there are many obstacles by the current state of federal
policy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Zimmerman follows:]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman. Just so you know,
Mr. Zimmerman, all the times that you mentioned Portland, this
hearing is Mr. Blumenauer's idea so one more idea we have to
run up the flagpole.
Our final witness is Mr. John Boesel, who is the president
and CEO of CALSTART, which is a nonprofit organization based in
California that works with public and private sectors to
develop advanced transportation technologies. We welcome you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BOESEL
Mr. Boesel. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate
this opportunity today. My organization has been working to
develop clean truck technology for the last 15 years. We are a
fuel- and technology-neutral organization so we work with
companies working on biofuels, natural gas, hybrid fuel cells,
et cetera. While we are regional sounding in name, we are
actually in this space working nationally. We have an office in
Denver, and our chairman is Fred Hansen, the general manager of
Trimet in Portland.
What is possible from the clean truck sector? I think the
California AB-32 climate change goals are possible relative to
this sector, meaning a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels
by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. I am a
technology optimist. I do believe it is possible. Next slide,
please. Actually the next slide after that.
[Slide.]
We have two key technologies that I think are ready and
available to go today, our hybrid trucks. We have got a variety
of different technologies, plug-in, hybrid electric and
hydraulic hybrid. All are viable. These are U.S. companies
producing these core technologies. We also have now three major
manufacturers that are producing natural gas trucks and I think
those are also ready to go and show a way to reduce our
dependence on oil. Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
A key for natural gas, a key fuel that we ought to just be
developing right away and doing what the Swedes are doing very
effectively is biomethane. It is taking biomaterial, putting it
in a digester, letting it cook for about 3 weeks, cleaning it
up and putting it into the pipeline or directly into vehicles.
The Swedes are doing this very effectively and they are in
compliance with the Kyoto Accord and it is something that is
there, low tech, ready to go. We should be doing it. Next
slide.
[Slide.]
And this slide just shows that the potential between
biofuels and hybrids is something we really ought to take
advantage of. Florida Power and Light has taken one of our
hybrid trucks, is running biodiesel-30 on it, and this truck
today is getting a 70 percent reduction or displacement of oil
between the hybrid technology and the biodiesel. So it is
something that is here and ready to go. I think there should be
continued support of both bio and renewable diesel as well as
investment in the next generation, green diesel technology,
which companies like UOP and Amerus are developing. Next slide,
please.
[Slide.]
I think there are going to be niche opportunities for pure
electric trucks. FedEx is deploying these delivery vans in
London, and I would say that one reason that they are doing it
is because of the congestion pricing policy in London has
reduced the cost of these trucks in the London area. Next
slide, please.
[Slide.]
I would say that--let me just make a few more comments on
technologies. Other viable approaches are fuel cells and
hydrogen. I think they are a little more of the R&D phase and
need additional investment in that area, and I would say that
the Federal Transit Administration has done a very good job of
helping develop that technology in buses. There is a very good
robust program in the last T bill and hopefully there will be a
low-carbon-bus R&D program in the next T bill. There are also
opportunities to advance the core diesel technology. There is
waste heat recovery, lighter weight materials, lots of
different approaches that we can use to make even basic diesel
technologies more viable and more efficient.
In summary, I just want to hit on some key policy
recommendations. First of all, I think the high price of oil
that we saw last year was the mother of all policies. It really
helped drive efficiency and improve the business case for all
the alternatives. It is clearly something in Europe and Japan
they have figured out how to send a consistent price signal at
the pump. On cap and trade, Congressman Salazar, to answer your
question, we do not see this having a material impact on demand
in the transportation sector. The price of carbon that we see
coming out of cap and trade would not significantly affect the
price at the pump, so we might see a 20- or 30-cent price
increase as a result of cap and trade but we don't think it
will materially impact demand. However, if there are auction
allowances we would certainly hope that they could be used for
transportation measures.
In the absence of a high price signal, I do think a new
energy bill that would extend the existing tax credits for
alternative fuel trucks and hybrid trucks is very important. On
page 6 of my written testimony, we have laid out specific
rebates that ought to be provided for hybrid trucks based on
the amount of battery capabilities of each truck.
And then lastly, I just want to thank the U.S. Army and the
Department of Energy and EPA for their programs in this area
and hopefully we can have an integrated approach going forward.
One last point is that I think T. Boone Pickens has done a
good job of helping to educate the Nation about the economic
problems associated with importing oil each year. Depending on
the price of oil, that price tag goes from $250 billion to $750
billion a year. We simply cannot keep affording that. We have
got consumer debt that is out of control. We have got budget
deficits that are out of control and our trade deficit, and
imported oil is a huge portion of that problem and it is time
to really address it. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Mr. Boesel follows:]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Boesel, very much.
Let me recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy
and for scheduling this hearing.
I am struck, Mr. Boesel, just talking about nuts-and-bolts
things that are possible right now that are within the window
of economic feasibility and with a little nudge might blossom
to make a huge difference, and our ranking member did talk
about the potential with trucking and we look forward to
working with you on those elements.
I have two questions that I would like to put to the panel.
One just deals with where my friend, the ranking member, left
off. He talked about the pool of money that could potentially
be generated, two thirds of a trillion dollars, perhaps double
that, but then ignores what happens with the money. The
President envisions that significant amounts of money would be
available to further incent energy efficiency, be available for
rebates for families to cope with challenges and to be invested
in other ways, and I just wonder if you could briefly touch on
ways that the money that may potentially be generated could be
spent in a way that could reduce the carbon footprint. For
instance, Mr. Zimmerman, you talked about struggling with FTA
to try and get them to just administer existing laws so you can
build streetcars and other things but what difference, what
could you do with those resources to build on the admirable
record of success that you have?
Mr. Zimmerman. Congressman, we would have a long list, but,
you know, to start, things like implementing obviously a
streetcar is an example where a comparatively small investment
can yield tremendous results in promoting not just transit use
but the compact development pattern that you need that is
really key to ultimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
the kind of smaller investments you can make--we did a transit
center, for instance, for a few million dollars, much of which
in fact was federal grant money through the CMAC program which
provided a transit nub in a place called Shirlington which is
actually right off a major highway, which is an example of a
compact development where you don't have big, you know--you
don't have a train but we are able in the area of about a
quarter of a cloverleaf to pack in a community that is very
desirable. People want to go to visit. There are now people
living there, working there, restaurants, and we have a transit
center that gets about 400 buses a day and carries several
thousand people. That was a comparatively small investment,
which, you know, a federal grant helped make possible. There
are all kinds of things like that you can do, and again, I
would stress also not just the money but how do you remove the
obstacles that make it so difficult to get that you say well,
for a few million dollars am I going to hold up my project for
years in process. That is a tough question for us.
Mr. Blumenauer. We want to come back to you in terms of
reauthorization. I want to just touch briefly with our other
panelists, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Varga. There is nobody that puts a
gun to the head of the people in Arlington or Grand Rapids that
forces them on transit, forces them to walk to work, to
bicycle. You have referenced in several ways the choices,
making the choices more attractive so that people can take
advantage of them. Would you like to elaborate on that for a
moment, Mr. Clarke, in terms of choice for our citizens?
Mr. Clarke. Thank you. We often hear that one of the
biggest challenges facing getting more people riding is
Americans' love affair with their cars. I believe Americans
have a love affair with their quickest, cheapest, most
convenient way of getting around, which we have done a very
good job of making driving recently. A soon-to-be-published
report comparing the U.S. and German transport policies shows
that Germans, who love their cars and fast cars as much as
anyone, have a 41 percent mode share for biking, walking and
transit. They have the choices, they have the options and they
choose the easiest and most convenient way of getting around.
In Copenhagen, again, the speaker at the National Bike Summit
said that is the reason why Copenhagers ride their bikes. It is
not because they are big environmentalists, it is not because
it is in their genes, it is because cycling is the easiest,
quickest, most convenient way of getting around. So I think
that is part of the trick and to refer back to your last
question, I took the precaution of talking to Roger Geller at
the city of Portland yesterday and he says that for about the
equivalent cost of 800 feet of the I-5 Columbia River Bridge
replacement project, they could effect a Copenhagen-style
transformation of Portland and achieve a significant mode shift
and mode change over a 15- to 20-year period. That seems to me
a wise and sensible use of resources that are there.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to get back to my opening statement because the--
could you address the argument of should we just put a carbon
tax on this and utilize that money to develop new greener
technologies and things like that or should we do the cap and
trade? Any of you can answer.
Mr. Varga. If I can address this, you should do anything
you can whether it is cap and trade or a carbon tax or taxing
vehicle miles traveled to get 250,000 cars off the road daily.
Only 54 percent of people have access to public transit. You
need to shift that so you need to use some of those revenues
from those sources to deal with the problems rather than the
current revenues that are available to increase public
transportation. So I would encourage all of you to look at
different kind of climate change legislation that uses those
mechanisms to fund these alternative sources of transportation.
Mr. Salazar. Which one would you prefer? I mean, a simple
carbon tax on emissions or----
Mr. Varga. To me, a simple carbon tax and an assessment on
vehicle miles traveled, a combination of those things so you
reduce also the vehicle miles traveled.
Mr. Salazar. Anybody else?
Mr. Zimmerman. Honestly, I think that any of these
approaches would help in almost any combination. Essentially
what Mr. Varga said is the most important thing, that you have
to make the incentives reflect the policy goals and I think you
have to make the price to be paid reflect the social cost, and,
you know, anything from raising the gas tax, you know, which
would help a lot, or something more sophisticated like a
vehicle miles traveled tax, which in some ways would be better
but harder to do, but really I think any of these things would
be better than where we have been and, you know, it is going to
be a matter obviously of what you can make work on, you know,
many of the levels. I wouldn't know how it would pick--in terms
of how it affects me at the local level, any of these things I
think would be helpful in getting the right outcomes.
Mr. Salazar. Anyone else?
Mr. Clarke. I must say, we as an organization don't have a
particular preference. We do know that as gas hit $4 a gallon
last year, our phones were ringing off the hook. Our events
were going crazy. In the Denver metro area, for example, their
Bike to Work Day grew from a steady 15,000 people a year to
over 25,000, almost 25,000 people because people were focused
on the price point, and clearly the price of gas and is a big
issue as to how people choose to travel. So whether that is the
right mechanism, we don't really have a horse in the race,
whether it is cap and trade, whether it is a carbon tax, but
the price of carbon certainly needs to be raised so we can pay
for any of these alternatives.
Mr. Salazar. Mr. Boesel.
Mr. Boesel. I would just say that in general I don't know
that a carbon tax is going to generate a higher price at the
pump than cap-and-trade program would. I think they end up--
when you see the proposals, they end up sort of having the same
net impact. So in terms of demand, I don't know that there is a
huge difference. I do think it is critical, you know, how the
revenues get spent. I want to applaud Mr. Sensenbrenner for his
bill talking about the need for additional funding for hybrid
truck R&D. We have got to find a way to fund projects like
that. And so I think that is critical. I will say that in
California there is a proposal being put forth to a commission
that is looking at how to revamp the State's funding system,
and one of those is that there be a surcharge on gasoline and
diesel, recognizing that a cap-and-trade program would not have
a big impact.
Mr. Salazar. And briefly, Mr. Boesel, you talked about
innovative technologies to create more efficiency, I believe,
in some of the work you are doing. Are you aware of Sterman
Industries in Colorado that uses an Apollo space mission
technology that has been able to increase internal combustion
engine efficiencies by as much as 40 percent?
Mr. Boesel. We are quite aware of that very impressive
firm, Mr. Salazar. I think they have got some very interesting
technology, and they are one of the reasons why I am an
optimist about what can be done to really cut oil use and
carbon emissions from the truck sector because there are
technical solutions out there. We just need the right kind of
policies that encourage that they be used, and I am afraid that
$2-a-gallon gasoline doesn't really do that.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Speier.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the panelists.
You know, I am struck by the statement I heard earlier
today that Americans love their cars fast, heavy and big, which
is all very true, and, you know, in California, where I am
from, we are all very sensitive to the environment being energy
efficient. We have got the AB-32 law on the books. But I go to
my local dealerships and they tell me that overnight the
popularity of hybrids dropped like a rock and the big, heavy
SUVs were once again popular. We are trying to direct Detroit
to build cleaner, more-energy-efficient cars and yet it is all
about supply and demand, and how do we address that?
Mr. Zimmerman. I will start. You know, I think again that
it is a matter of what we are incentivizing. I think while
there is undoubtedly some truth to the statement that this is
what people want, I think that is overstated because we have
essentially been subsidizing automobiles and penalizing other
things. If you create communities in which the only way to get
a quart of milk is to get in your car, then obviously you are
going to create great preference in driving, especially for
anybody who needs to be able to get a quart of milk. On the
other hand, I think the evidence indicates when you look
particularly at what has been happening in real estate over a
period of time, people are opting for other things. They are
paying a premium. You know, the biggest criticism that we get
of my community is gee, it is too expensive, everybody would
like to live there but, you know, that is telling you
something. We don't have enough competition in this kind of
thing.
Similarly, just on, you know, the straight-up question of
cars versus other things, if we are making automobile travel
easier because parking is free everywhere but you have to pay
to ride transit, well, you know, you are clearly giving
disadvantage. So I think that the overall incentive structure
will have a big impact and I think that that is implicit in the
point you were making that we saw a tremendous change in market
demand based on a fluctuation in a short period of time in the
price of fuel, so stabilizing the price of fuel at a more
realistic level, which would frankly be higher, reflecting the
other impacts of its consumption, would go a long way, I think,
to generating the right demand and allowing both manufacturers
to know not only of automobiles but of other products to know
that it made sense to invest in them and bring the return and
over time, you know, I think you are going to see the behavior
change as well, and again, I don't know the best way to do
that. If all you did was tax gasoline at a more sensible level
and stabilize the price at a higher level, you would have
tremendous effect on many of these other things we have worked
too. Some of them might work better. But somehow you need a
policy that does that. Otherwise I think we continue to get
into this fluctuation that you were describing, and the
complaint from people trying to do either policy at the local
level or manufacturing goods saying, you know, I can't count on
what is going to happen next.
Mr. Varga. What I would like to say is that you should
really incentivize public transportation, bicycling, walking
versus using your car where you are putting your investment. If
you are putting your investment into making it easier for
people to buy cars, use cars, then you are not creating the
kind of land-use patterns that really help people move to
communities where they can walk easily, take a bicycle, live in
a neighborhood, use public transit, get rid of their car. It
takes an adjustment. It took me an adjustment to get used to my
hybrid car, you know, and we have to think about what is
important. What is important is to save the earth. I mean,
there were two shows last night that talked about global
warming like we are still debating it yet we are dumping sand
on the beaches nearby here because the sand is being eroded
because of global warming. We are spending money the wrong way.
We should be spending our money incentivizing a change in
behavior and you have to change behavior.
Mr. Boesel. Maybe just to add to that and say that I do
think that the way we do our planning can really be improved,
and in California there has been new legislation passed, S.B.
375, that will require metropolitan planning organizations to
help come up with sort of a carbon footprint analysis and plan
to reduce emissions in vehicle mile travel. I think Mr.
Blumenauer is considering legislation along these lines that
might also be helpful at a national level. If we start building
in requirements that we reduce emissions through better
planning, lower-carbon trucks and through the goods industry,
then I think, you know, we can see some progress.
Ms. Speier. Let me just applaud that because it reminds me
a lot of the housing element requirements in California that by
virtue of requiring the housing element and having a percentage
of low-income housing, communities were forced to develop those
percentages. So it sounds like a good plan, Congressman.
Mr. Blumenauer [presiding]. We will talk. Thank you.
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
I am just wondering going forward, looking at our
transportation funding, you know, we have a transportation bill
coming up, we have all these great ideas for giving Americans
multiple transportation choices, which I really think this is
all about between single-occupancy cars, bikes, buses, trains,
sidewalks, you name it. How we should think about the division
of our financial resources between those? Has this group
thought about what the target ought to be for modes that have
the capacity to be safe, reliable and reduce, you know, our
impact on the environment? Should there be a target in that
regard regarding the disposition of our resources and how would
that target relate to where we are right now?
Mr. Clarke. I can't say that I have run this by my
colleagues on the panel here but speaking for the American
Bikes Coalition, which is a coalition of the national bicycling
organizations, the numbers that we are commonly using are
currently 13 percent of fatalities on our Nation's roads are
bicyclists and pedestrians, about 10 percent of trips are made
by foot and by bicycle, and we get currently between 1 and on a
good day 1\1/2\ percent of federal transportation funds being
spent on those modes, significantly less if you look just at
the safety funds. So there is clearly an imbalance that we
would like to see rectified. Our goal that we would like to see
in this reauthorization is to find a mechanism to double the
percentage of trips that are made by foot and by bike to get us
up to the levels enjoyed by many of our economic competitors
around the world and to do that through everything from school
programs which get people thinking the right way at an early
age right the way through complete streets policies, which are
supported by AARP and the Realtors and a variety of other
groups along those lines. So that is the kind of balance that
we would like to see more in the next transportation bill.
Mr. Zimmerman. When you consider that something like 60
percent of transportation emissions are generated by passenger
vehicles and that is about a fifth of the total of the U.S.
greenhouse, at least CO2 emissions, as I understand
it, I think there is an argument for targeting other modes and
trying to promote them but I would say it is not only a matter
of funding those but of how policy overall winds up
incentivizing what you do so for instance, you know, when you
have tax policy that is promoting free parking, that is a
factor, but you also have to consider how you give out whatever
money you give out so that if you had a policy that was
rewarding the kinds of investments not only in the modes you
want but also rewarding the supportive policies that, for
instance, we administer at the local level, I mean, most land-
use policy is local policy. Some states, you know, govern it
but mostly it is the most local thing done, and yet what you
need to do if you want to get a project funded whether it is a
road, transportation project or any of it, it doesn't really
depend on a whole lot of that and the practices in the past
have tended to be independent of that. In fact, they have
tended to promote exactly the wrong kind of thing. So, you
know, if somehow you were rewarded for the fact that you are
investing in existing commercial areas that you have land-use
policies that promote compact development and transit
orientation not just transit adjacency, rather than rewarding
people because they are going faster over longer distances
solely, I think that that can have a really big impact.
Mr. Inslee. So let me start at the beginning. If you don't
have a goal, you don't get there. I guess the question is,
should we have a goal for our transportation policy and
appropriation coming up here this year of a given----
Mr. Zimmerman. I would say yes.
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. Everybody is saying yes. Let me ask the
question first. It is a great panel. Of a given CO2
emissions per mile traveled in America, everybody is saying yes
to that, I assume. Is that----
Mr. Zimmerman. I would say yes but my only concern would be
when you try to set the goal nationally, you have to set it in
a way that doesn't wind up being too low but on the other hand
takes account of those areas that have already done some of the
right things and how do you not punish them for having done so.
I don't think it is an easy thing or a simple thing to do but
with that qualification, then I think, yeah, you should set
targets.
Mr. Inslee. A quick question. I have been talking to the
Better Place folks about establishing an electric
infrastructure for charging electric cars. I just got a
BlackBerry this morning about Spain moving in a very serious
way to provide a public infrastructure for charging electric
cars. We are now looking at some permitting issues up in the
State of Washington to allow that to move forward. Some people
have expressed concern about that ending up being a monopoly,
one company if they come in and provided all this
infrastructure. I think that can be handled but I just wonder
if you have any insights on how we provide this electric
charging infrastructure.
Mr. Boesel. That is a very timely question. I would say
first of all that I am very excited about the number of
electric vehicles or plug-in vehicles coming to the market.
There are plug-in hybrids. There are pure electric vehicles
that are coming. I think one of the real beauties of those cars
is that people will be able to recharge at their home and
people are finally looking at these cars as more urban city
cars and not trying to make them do the exact same thing that
your gasoline car could do. I think to a certain extent, the
initial rollout of these vehicles will not be dependent on
having a public infrastructure, and I think surveys show that
people would love to be able to charge at home. But I do think
that as we roll out this infrastructure, it is very important
that there be a consensus within the industry, within
utilities, car manufacturers, that we don't get into the beta
versus VHS kind of debate and we did that in the 1990s and we
ended up with two different types of charging plugs and now we
still have those out there and those same plugs are not
relevant to the next generation of plug-in vehicles. The good
news is that the wiring is there.
Mr. Inslee. With the chairman's permission, just one quick
question. Should we try to strive for some uniformity in a
charging system?
Mr. Boesel. Yes, we definitely should, and I think that is
a great role for government to really strive industry and get
people to cooperate and talk to each other.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenauer. Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for
their testimony.
I represent rural America. I represent South Dakota, and I
want to make sure that as we move toward a greener
transportation system that our needs and opportunities aren't
left out of the discussion. Our transit systems certainly may
not have developed quite as far as urban transit systems to
date but there are certainly challenges to overcome but
opportunities as well. The miles that we put on vans and buses
as most transit fleets offer services hundreds of miles away
from base communities is something that needs to be addressed.
Most towns in South Dakota have to compete with the cities for
the incentive grants offered by the Federal Transit
Administration and Federal Highway Administration to help
upgrade to greener and more-fuel-efficient vehicles. But many
folks that I hear from in South Dakota are excited to take part
in the new green transit system and are certainly doing their
part to reduce emissions, utilize homegrown clean biofuels and
become more energy efficient. Moreover, many of our towns face
the unique opportunity to be able to build up green fuel-
efficient fleets from the very beginning. For example, River
Cities Transit in the State's capital city of Pierre is at the
forefront of our State in utilizing E85 vehicles and other
fuel-efficient vans and buses. They are also working to
purchase the first hybrid van in the State to be able to used
for public transit and they are excited to see if hybrid
vehicles are a workable option in our State. Now, River Cities
Transit is also working closely with many of the nine sovereign
tribes in South Dakota to help them build up their fleets with
similar vehicles and encouraging their leaders to make smart
decisions now that will save both money and reduce emissions.
So I guess I am wondering to what extent your organizations
or other organizations that you are familiar with have been
reaching out to rural communities to share with them strategies
for developing green transportation systems as well as anything
that you are aware of in terms of organizations or initiatives
to reach out to Native American tribes.
Mr. Varga. I can talk a little bit about that. The issue
here is that, let us look at Europe. In Europe, you have rural
communities, you have urban communities, you have an integrated
transportation system, and using alternative fueled vehicles in
rural areas is really to an advantage but they have to connect
to someplace so they can go someplace so they don't have to
drive across the country to get somewhere. What we don't have
is an integrated transportation system in this country that
allows people to have choice. You take a smaller trip with a
van or a bus or a car that is alternative fueled to some train
station so you can get to a place, so you can go to the city
and move around really easily. You really have to focus on
investment across the country that gets you there. In rural
areas, true, there has to be some increased focus of providing
that support for transit to do that, and then in the cities you
have to make sure that there is more fixed guideway systems in
there so when you get there you can move around so you are not
stuck thinking I am leaving Pierre, I have to use my car to get
to Chicago.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate your points, and South
Dakota does not have Amtrak service.
Mr. Boesel. I just want to say, Congresswoman, that one of
the programs we are really working hard to develop is a fuel
called biomethane which is taken from biomass and it can be the
Swedes--I am not sure if you were here earlier when I mentioned
it but the Swedes are developing this fuel. It is a renewable
form of methane just like the natural gas that we use today,
and I think there is a tremendous opportunity for rural
communities, particularly agricultural industries, to take
advantage of that as a local fuel source. We would be very
interested in working with the groups in your State to help
develop that fuel.
Mr. Clarke. If I may, four very quick points. Number one,
one of our most favorite bicycle-friendly communities in the
United States is the Tucson area, and when they applied for a
designation as a bicycle-friendly community in 2006, they got a
gold designation, and included in their application, two Indian
Nations, the city, the county, the State DOT, the regional NPO,
and it was a truly regional application and was one of the
first times that that really had happened and all those
different parties had worked together to put together a program
like that. So we are beginning to be able to say yes, we can
answer that question in the affirmative.
The second thing I would say is that in many rural
communities they are an ideal size and setup, perhaps often
with the exception of the U.S. highway or State highway that
might run through the middle of them and be a significant
barrier. They are an ideal size and makeup for bicycling and
walking and we should not forget rural communities and small
towns in the application of enhancement and other funds to make
them more bicycle friendly and there are perfect examples like
the Mickelson Trail which are not only great transportation
corridors but a huge recreation opportunity, and studies from
the province of Quebec to the Outer Banks of North Carolina to
the city of Portland show enormous economic impact of cycling
on a local economy and the national economy and some of that it
is in my written testimony.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Clarke, and just for
the record, the Mickelson Trail is through the Black Hills of
South Dakota and very popular recreation, named after our late
Governor George Mickelson of South Dakota.
Mr. Blumenauer. I deeply appreciate your bringing back to
the notion of how we are going to meet the needs of all of
America. I have enjoyed our conversations about rural and small
town and the point you raise is one that I hope we can pursue
with the organizations that are represented here about scale of
community that we don't count some people out just because
there are artificial formulas or constructs where they don't
qualify and the other thing is just the capacity that there are
many communities that you represent where there may not be the
institutional support to be able to navigate these things and
being able to make them friendly is something and I appreciate
your continually bringing us back to it, dramatic lack of
attention to Native Americans where transit is awkward, but if
you don't drive you are in trouble, and the application of
technology, and I look forward to continuing that with you and
subsequent efforts because I think this is a missing ingredient
that doesn't get the attention and I appreciate your laser-like
focus.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. I too
appreciate your genuine interest in addressing the
infrastructure needs of communities large and small in every
region of the country, particularly throughout the Great Plains
region as we have discussed, both in farming and ranching
communities and Native American communities, and not just
developing new infrastructure but maintaining existing
infrastructure with this focus on transportation today. I
appreciate your sentiment. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Our chairman has a tradition of giving each witness 49
seconds to summarize their thoughts, if there is something they
want to punctuate or something that was left off, and we just
give each of you a quick minute to wrap up as you see fit. Mr.
Varga.
Mr. Varga. Thank you. One of the things that has not been
mentioned much is streamlining the whole federal process of
getting transportation dollars. It has taken us 9 years to
build a BRT project that is $40 million in cost. How civilized
is that? The other thing is, I think that land-use patterns
must be incentivized and tied to public transportation, tied to
all these forms of transportation. It is only use those energy-
efficient land-use patterns tied to transportation that is
going to change what we are trying to achieve here, so thank
you very much.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. I would go back to the one statistic that I
think is perhaps the most surprising, which even I have to keep
checking to make sure I am not making up, and that is that 40
percent of all the trips in U.S. metropolitan areas are 2 miles
or less. Those are the trips that we can have some impact over,
and I would close by saying that you may recall that in 1985
the World Bank famously issued a report on transport in China
that failed to mention the world ``bicycle.'' I would hate to
come back 25 years from now and look at climate change
legislation or a transportation bill passed in this Congress
that fails to really adequately address bicycling and walking
and transit.
Mr. Blumenauer. I think you are safe. Mr. Oberstar will
make sure of that.
Mr. Zimmerman.
Mr. Zimmerman. Thank you. I would just like to mention
quickly three things, the first what Mr. Varga said, tying
transportation to land-use policies I think is key, funding the
right things that right now only about 20 percent, I think, of
federal funding is transit, and making it easier to get that is
key, and then adjusting the other policies that, you know,
don't really make it possible to do. It is not only how hard it
is to get the grant but it is also what is rewarded and taking
into account things like housing costs and how they relate to
the overall benefits and that kind of thing will make the
biggest impact and ultimately allowing federal policy to
promote the kind of behavior that you are looking to see at the
local level that will really have an impact in this area.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. Thank you.
Mr. Boesel.
Mr. Boesel. Mr. Chairman, three last comments. One is that
I want to just emphasize that I think transit has been an early
adopter of clean, low-carbon, heavy-duty vehicle technology and
it often gets tested out and proved there in transit because of
the public funding of transit. Then it gets adopted later on by
the trucking industry and then later on by the commercial
construction equipment, and particularly as we look at greening
construction, highway construction, building construction,
there is a real opportunity to develop a lower-carbon off-road
vehicles, construction equipment to do that but it starts I
think with sort of a bus program, believe it or not. Secondly
is under the next T bill we would love to see much like we have
had the safe routes to school a low-carbon route to market for
trucks, a demonstration program where we take a corridor and we
say this is going to be a demonstration low-carbon goods moving
corridor. And then lastly is, I think there is a huge
opportunity if we do invest in this sector to be a world leader
in terms of heavy-duty green technology. We can be exporting
this product. In many countries, the biggest, fastest-growing
countries, 50 percent of their vehicle population are
commercial trucks and buses. They don't have the kind of per
capita vehicle ownership that we have in this country. So if we
develop this product we get it down to a decent price, it can
become an export product and can be a global solution.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. Thank you very much for helping us
build this record.
We are going to move to our second panel here. We are going
to have people dropping in and out, and as you have noticed,
this is broadcast, so there are people that are actually
monitoring, so we want to just drive ahead and not wait for the
chairman, so we will ask our second panel to come forward
because the second part of the equation that we are concerned
with deals with how we put these pieces together. There are so
many elements that are involved with our built environment and
the infrastructure that are profoundly affected by the carbon
input of how we build it, how we manage it, what we build it
from. We are pleased to have on our second panel
representatives that speak to construction materials, people
who can talk about how we actually--the practices in effecting
the building, and last but not least, some of the equipment
that is used by the materials and the people who build it.
Our first witness will be Erika Guerra, a manager of
government affairs and corporate social responsibility at
Holcim International, a leading global manufacturer of
construction materials. She is here today from Waltham,
Massachusetts, the chairman's home district, and has worked on
corporate sustainable development strategies and worked
throughout North and South America. We welcome you here today
and invite you to proceed as you are ready.
STATEMENTS OF ERIKA GUERRA, MANAGER OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, HOLCIM (US) INC.; DON WEAVER,
HIGHWAY DIVISION CHAIRMAN, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF AMERICA; AND DOMENIC RUCCOLO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SALES
AND MARKETING, JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION AND FORESTRY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF ERIKA GUERRA
Ms. Guerra. Well, thank you and I guess I will have a
little bit of a different accent from Massachusetts, so bear
with me with that, please.
Mr. Blumenauer. We often need an interpreter with our
chairman.
Ms. Guerra. Okay. So good morning and thank you for having
me here. It is a privilege to appear before you today. As you
said, I am responsible for government affairs and corporate
social responsibility of Holcim. We are one of the largest
producers of cement, and that is a substantial ingredient in
concrete. I want to highlight the need for increasing the use
of concrete to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Innovation is key to reducing CO2. Holcim
invests heavily in research and development with a focus on
optimizing our processes and creating products that provide
better performance with fewer natural resources. Holcim is
committed to reduce its net CO2 emission per ton of
cement. We have invested more than $2 billion over the last 5
years upgrading and expanding our facilities in the United
States. I commend you for your leadership in promoting
innovative solutions to reduce environment impact of
infrastructure construction.
Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, we are the leader
in the U.S. cement industry, serving 44 States. For the last 3
consecutive years we have been recognized as the leader of the
industry by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Holcim Limited
is a global company with operations in 70 countries and we are
engaged in the European emission trading system. We are working
with the subcommittee as part of the Energy Intensive
Manufacturer Group that appeared before this committee
yesterday at yesterday's hearing.
Concrete is the foundation of any modern society and it is
the second most used commodity in the world after water. Cement
is a critical component of concrete and when combined with
water and aggregate becomes the glue that binds the whole
mixture together. Cement gives concrete its strength and
durability. Nearly 50 percent of our product has an end use in
the public sector in roads, airports, bridges, hospitals and
schools. Cement is an energy-intensive material to manufacture.
However, it only constitutes approximately 15 percent of
concrete's volume. The first step in the manufacturing process
of cement is heating the limestone at extremely high
temperatures up to 2,000 degrees, which produces what we call
clinker, and I am introducing a new term here. This is the
energy-intensive part of manufacturing cement where 90 percent
of our greenhouse gases are generated. In very general terms,
there is a ton of CO2 emitted for nearly every ton
of cement produced. However, 50 percent of those emissions are
the result of a chemical reaction in the process which are
commonly referred to as process emissions. Another 40 percent
are the result of the fuel combustion to maintain those high
temperatures, and the remaining 10 percent is attributed to
electricity use and transport. As a result, this immense sector
accounts for 5 percent of global CO2 emissions and
it is forecast that the demand for the product will increase
over the next 30 years. It grows with the population.
Holcim has identified three primary areas of opportunity to
drive the reduction of greenhouse gases in cement production.
First, capital investment, technology and process innovation
can reduce the energy consumption of our facilities. Second,
the use of waste-derived fuels like scrap tires, like biomass,
like plastics, can reduce the CO2 intensity by
replacing fossil fuels like coal. And third, the use of other
industries' byproducts as supplemental cementitious materials,
second term, SCMs, can reduce the clinker content in cement. I
would like to focus on this last opportunity.
As I explained, the production of clinker is a major source
of CO2 emissions from cement manufacturing. We
should look for ways to reduce the amount of clinker in the
mix. Unfortunately, we lag behind many countries by requiring
inflexible recipes for cement instead of performance-based
standards that adapt the needs of a project like in the rest of
the world. Many projects can be done with a lower carbon
footprint if performance-based standards are accepted. However,
acceptance does not necessarily translate into use, especially
when it comes to infrastructure projects.
Holcim encourages the development of a unified performance-
based specification for cement with support from ASTM
International that ensures that cement produced in the United
States meets all technical requirements while affording
producers the opportunity to innovate and develop new products.
We believe that in order to be effective in the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions through the consumption of blended
cements, national acceptance of performance-based standards and
a preference for the use of these products needs to be led by
federal and State governments.
I sincerely thank you for your time and I again appreciate
this opportunity to speak about the linkages between
infrastructure development and global challenges of climate
change.
[Statement of Ms. Guerra follows:]
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. We appreciate your adding your
voice. It is something that I don't think is appreciated in
this broader conversation, and I appreciate your being part of
our hearing today.
Mr. Weaver, what do you do with all this cement?
Mr. Weaver. We are concrete pavers so that----
Mr. Blumenauer. I guess I should introduce Mr. Weaver as
the Highway Division chairman at Associated General
Contractors. As we all know, AGC is a leading advocate for
infrastructure investment at the federal level and I would say
at the State and local level as well. Mr. Weaver is vice
president of Weaver-Bailey Contractors of El Paso, Arkansas,
and we deeply appreciate your joining us today and the
leadership that AGC has been exhibiting on so many of these
interrelated problems.
STATEMENT OF DON WEAVER
Mr. Weaver. Thank you, and I do follow Scott Williams from
your district. He was chairman last year. And I will have
another accent that you haven't heard today. I will skip my
first paragraph.
AGC is the oldest construction association in the United
States representing contractors that build all forms of
infrastructure. Construction is the delivery system for a
cleaner, healthier and safer environment. Studies show that
improving our highway transportation infrastructure to allow
vehicles to move freely through existing bottlenecks will
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, increasing
transit ridership, which we have transit members that build
transit, by improving existing systems and constructing new
ones in congested urban areas will also have positive impacts
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As important as providing these needed infrastructure
improvements is the way these improvements are made. Our
industry has a long history of developing construction
techniques and practices that enhance the environment. The
federal government can assist in these practices by offering
appropriate incentives but it is important that we learn from
the lessons of the past and not try to mandate one-size-fits-
all solutions. In many cases recycling and reuse of
construction debris as cost-effective and would decrease the
amount of waste sent to landfills, may reduce transportation
costs, lower energy use and thereby reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. My own company, Weaver-Bailey Contractors, on three
jobs in the urban Little Rock area recycled over 500,000 square
yards of original interstate concrete pavement into 276,000
tons of base course that was put back underneath the highways
and reused. We estimate that that saved 18,400 loads of virgin
materials that would have been hauled to the jobsite from a
quarry up to 30 miles away, which caused a savings of 100,000
gallons of diesel fuel and it lowered the emissions caused by
the job. Similarly, recycled asphalt pavement allows
contractors to add milled asphalt to new mixes, lowering the
asphalt content of the new material, which saves oil, lowers
cost and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Every ton of
recycled asphalt from construction which uses the millings that
you see the milling machine results in elimination of .03 tons
of CO2 emissions. Some States are resistant to using
wrap and AGC believes incentives would help these States
overcome their reluctance.
Soil modification is another green practice that we use in
the highway business. In many construction situations, onsite
soils are not acceptable as sub-base materials. This requires
the material to be dug up and replaced so instead of removing
unsuitable material and putting it somewhere and digging up new
suitable material and replacing it, which causes scars on the
land, a variety of additives can be used--cement, lime, fly ash
and other chemicals--and this saves fuel and reduces the
emissions by the need to haul things off and haul things back
in and it also helps the traveling public with the decrease in
traffic.
It is important to note the construction industry is not in
itself a significant source of greenhouse gas. According to EPA
estimates, equipment used in construction generates only .86
percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions due to the
combustion of fossil fuel. AGC opposes government mandates to
modify equipment already in use or to replace such equipment
via regulation or contractual requirement. Such retroactive
requirements place a financial burden of a largely public
benefit exclusively on the private contractor. They also have
the potential to render a company's fleet prematurely obsolete
and wipe out its net worth, which is how we are able to find
jobs. However, improvements in greenhouse gas emissions could
be achieved by replacing older equipment with newer and more
efficient equipment. AGC recommends the creation of an
investment tax credit to encourage contractors to replace older
equipment with new models. Newer equipment is extremely more
energy efficient, it is operator friendly and safer and the new
engines are designed to have a lot lower emissions of
particulate matter and NOX Reducing particulate
matter and NOX and black carbon can have a positive
impact on global warming.
In addition to the environmental benefits from replacing
old equipment, there would be an economic benefit as well. With
the downturn in the construction market, contractors are
purchasing less equipment both for the current workload and the
future because our future market is uncertain. U.S. equipment
manufacturers have been forced to lay off a significant number
of workers because of the decrease of new equipment purchases.
While the recently enacted stimulus program provides
significant infrastructure investment, it does not create long-
term market opportunities. Until we have a full economic
recovery and we see what the new highway bill will be, a tax
credit would offer an incentive for contractors right now to
buy new equipment.
In conclusion, AGC believes that the efforts to further the
use of construction techniques and practices that have a
positive environmental impact should be encouraged. AGC
cautions against creating mandates that attempt to impose
specific construction practices. AGC believes that a
partnership approach will better results for achieving the
national goals. Opportunities will be available when surface
transportation reauthorization legislation is considered later
this year. AGC is evaluating proposals thus far including the
CLEAN TEA Act, and we look forward to working with this
committee in the future in trying to enhance our transportation
system and our environment. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Weaver follows:]
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. Thank you.
Our final witness is Mr. Domenic Ruccolo, senior vice
president at John Deere, the green equipment that our friend,
Mr. Salazar mentioned. He is responsible for sales and
marketing in the Worldwide Construction and Forestry Division.
He has previously worked in wholesale finance and directed the
Hitachi Construction and Mining Division. John Deere is a
leading provider of products and services for agriculture and
forestry, and we deeply appreciate your joining us today and
look forward to your testimony when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DOMENIC RUCCOLO
Mr. Ruccolo. Thank you very much. On behalf of John Deere,
I would like to thank the distinguished members of the
committee for the opportunity to testify today on constructing
a green transportation policy.
I also would like to go on the record for thanking Mr.
Salazar for his kind comments about our products and company as
well.
For 171 years, John Deere has enabled human flourishing by
offering solutions to those who produce food, fiber and food,
beautify and protect our environment and build and maintain our
homes and critical infrastructure. During this period, Deere
has invented, manufactured and sold worldwide hundreds of
models of construction equipment as well as the engines
powering them. Deere created these tools with a consistent
purpose: improving and efficiency. Just as productivity and
efficiency drive Deere's product innovation, we suggest that it
should also drive our Nation's infrastructure policy. America's
infrastructure directly affects economic, social and
environmental well-being. Every day we all rely upon our roads,
bridges, transit, rail and other infrastructure to survive and
thrive. Despite our dependence on it, the Nation has taken
infrastructure for granted and permitted it to fall into
disrepair without concern for its sustainability.
The Nation's current infrastructure has suffered from the
absence of a national vision premised on both robust funding as
well as the pursuit of the most productive and effective
projects. Actions in recent weeks reflect Congressional
leadership in creating this vision for infrastructure. It is
clear you appreciate something as significant as our
infrastructure requires significant funding. We also must make
sure this and future money is spent wisely and to do so we need
to incorporate principles of environmental sustainability into
our infrastructure policy.
John Deere believes one way to make infrastructure projects
greener is through the use of productive, efficient
construction equipment. The construction equipment marketplace
has consistently demanded machine productivity and efficiency
because fuel consumption is a primary operating cost for our
customers. In response, John Deere and other construction
equipment manufacturers expend substantial resources to ensure
their customers can get the most work out of every gallon of
fuel used. The federal government can take many steps to
support further efforts in the construction equipment industry
to improve equipment productivity and efficiency and reduce
environmental impacts. Collaboration between the public and
private sectors is needed to investigate and fund the research
and development of new standards and technologies to further
improve equipment productivity and efficiency. By recognizing
the essential road, non-road equipment will play in
transforming the transportation and other sectors of the
economy to achieve ambitious and necessary greenhouse gas
reductions, we can see that appropriate investment by the
federal government in the non-road technologies would create
substantial environmental returns. For example, creating modal
shifts from road transport to rail and public transportation
systems is one way to help offset the growth in greenhouse gas
emissions.
We strongly recommend that the federal government also take
steps to ensure construction equipment owners can more easily
purchase new technologies that excel in productivity,
efficiency and environmental sustainability and thereby build
infrastructure to the demand that the Nation demands. A single
piece of large construction equipment can cost several hundreds
of thousands of dollars. The development of tax incentives and
funding specific to the purchase of new equipment will remove
uncertainty for equipment owners who today face a risk that
inconsistent environmental and other regulations created by
States and locally may make equipment obsolete well before the
end of its useful life. On a larger scale, the federal
government can support greener construction practices and
techniques by incorporating environmental considerations into
infrastructure planning and funding decisions.
As a member of the United States Climate Action
Partnership, John Deere supports incorporating greenhouse gas
measurement and accounting in transportation, infrastructure
funding and planning. Incorporating such considerations,
however, needs to be coupled with an improvement to the
infrastructure project development and approval process.
Transportation projects often become bogged down for years in
inefficient and redundant processes, thereby increasing the
project costs and undermining the ability to improve the
environmental impact on our transportation system. An efficient
transportation system also provides many indirect benefits. For
example, improving our infrastructure, we will improve the
environmental sustainability of many green industries critical
to rural America including renewable energy specifically.
I would like to especially thank committee member Herseth
Sandlin for her support of woody biomass energy. Woody biomass
is a prime example of rural renewable resources that can help
meet our energy needs, address the challenges of climate
change, revitalize our rural communities and improve the health
of forests. Congress is in a position to unlock the enormous
potential of woody biomass by supporting not only the creation
of a market for it but also the creation of an infrastructure
system that enables its ready and cost-effective
transportation.
In concluding my remarks, I would be remiss if I failed to
mention another critical benefit Congress should consider in
its infrastructure policy debate and that is job creation. John
Deere witnesses firsthand the dramatic impact of the current
financial crisis on its workforce, dealers and customers. The
financial crisis has hit the construction industry very hard
with 21.4 percent unemployment and over 2 million construction
workers without jobs. The impact of the financial crisis
extends well beyond the construction industry to those skilled
and hardworking Americans who manufacture our vital
construction equipment. John Deere and others in the
construction equipment industry have been forced to lay off
many employees as a result of the plunging demand for
construction equipment caused by the financial crisis.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify
and I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruccolo follows:]
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Ruccolo, thank you for your testimony. I thank the
other witnesses as well but my questions go to you as it
relates to the Renewable Biofuels Facilitation Act. I
appreciate John Deere's support of this legislation that I have
reintroduced with Mr. Greg Walden of Oregon. We believe that a
key to fulfilling the renewable fuels standard that we passed
in 2007 is to ensure that cellulosic biofuels can be produced
from the greatest possible diversity of feedstocks in
communities across the Nation. This particularly affects any
region of the country with significant tracts of forestland, as
you indicated, including the Midwest, the Northwest, the
Northeast and the South.
Now, I know your company has developed specialized
equipment to collect woody biomass in forests and I hope that
you can share more about that with the committee, but I also
know that the company has been very active in South Dakota in
testing new farm machinery that is going to make it easier to
gather for producers, agricultural producers to gather and
process corn stover and other farm byproducts that can be used
for cellulosic ethanol production. So if you could expand on
those initiatives and elaborate on the necessity of these
projects if we are going to have greener fuel sources in the
future, and if you could also speak to some of the challenges
you are currently facing as you assist efforts to expand the
diversity of feedstocks for biofuels.
Mr. Ruccolo. Certainly I will try to hit on all of those
things. There were a number of topics in your question and I
will be glad to address that.
Relative to woody biomass, yes, we do have a product
essentially referred to as an energy bundler, if you will. It
goes about collecting residue off the forest floors, if you
will, either after a logging operation or just that it
naturally exists, and actually promotes the health of the
forest, if you will, also reduces certain risks, as you know,
of forest fires and essentially takes this residue and
compresses it in a way that creates kind of bundles of material
that can be used in cogen plants and so on as an alternative
form of energy and certainly one that is renewable. So on the
forestry front, that is the purpose of the wood biomass in
particular.
In terms of biomass that comes from either corn stover or
other forms of agricultural products, we have several projects
underway there in terms of really developing the technologies
associated with turning agricultural residue, if you will, into
other forms of energy, be it fuels or otherwise, and being with
the construction and forestry division and not the expert
necessarily on agricultural biomass efforts but would certainly
if there are more specific questions more than glad to take
those questions back and get back to the committee with those
specific answers.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. And also for the record,
just as Mr. Salazar mentioned his familiarity with John Deere's
equipment, I too spent many hours in my youth on the green
machines there on the family farm. Thank you for your
testimony. Thank you to our entire panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, we are reaching the wrap-up here but
I would like to pose to each of our panelists an opportunity to
maybe drill down for a moment about the incentives, the
government standards that were referenced and opportunities to
change the process. Part of what we have heard from our
witnesses so far is a little frustration at a time when it can
get a little complex. Mr. Zimmerman referenced his frustration
with not being able to actually get a project through the
federal process, which ends up providing delay, driving up
costs. Mr. Weaver, I think you referenced it. I am curious if
you would like to just start first talking about what the
government specs should be, how the federal government--we are
dealing with reauthorization now, the Surface Transportation
Act, which expires in 6 months and I think will be reauthorized
by this Congress. If you want to touch on how specifically you
think we can help by driving some different standards and
opportunities not just for pilot projects but maybe something
that is performance based that would enable us to make it
easier to use the new processes that you reference and to make
it easier to not have to jump through hurdles to be able to
incent some of the State or local governments to take some of
the innovations not just to be able to recycle but you are
saving landfill and energy. Would each panelist make a brief
comment about the specification issue?
Ms. Guerra. Thank you for the question, and it is certainly
a complex issue that this legislation will be addressing on
greenhouse gases and I think one of the first points is to look
at this legislation in a holistic way and really trying to link
in our case, you know, the intensity of cement and producing
greenhouse gases but with the benefits of concrete as an
efficient material when it comes to highway infrastructure.
In terms of the specs, I think there is lot that
government, federal government can do. There are specs for
blended cements or performance-based standards. The problem is
that they are not utilized across the board. There is only a
handful of States that recommend on their projects these
performance-based standards so I think there is an opportunity
to mitigate the impact of greenhouse gases by the usage of
blended cements if it is a federal mandate for performance-
based standards rather than just a recipe or a prescription of
cement. We don't need the same strength on our driveways that
we need on our highways and that will drive a lot of innovation
on our industry and the entire sector.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super.
Mr. Weaver.
Mr. Weaver. Yes. I would like to see the Department of
Transportation coordinate across all of their entities, federal
transit, federal highways, FAA, their specifications to be a
little more uniform on the use of recycled material and locally
available material rather than specking some exotic things that
has to be transported great distances like the FAA specs and
the federal highway specs are totally different. According to
her, the minimal cement content, the end result spec, let us do
our own mix designs on asphalt, concrete. We got to guarantee
it. Let us come up with what we think will work and prove it
rather than the State or the federal agency telling us what we
have to use.
Mr. Blumenauer. But making it performance based. As long as
it does the job----
Mr. Weaver. Yes. I would call it end result rather than
performance, but end result--if they want 3,500-pound concrete
that is going to last 50 years, instead of telling us how much
cement to put in it, we can substitute maybe some rock or some
sand, some locally available materials and make it denser and
better than what they specify.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Mr. Ruccolo. Getting back to the part of your question in
terms of maybe some of the frustration you sensed here,
especially in terms of the creation of incentives or some of
the inconsistencies in regulations from State to State or
municipality to municipality when it comes to some of the
requirements associated with equipment, I think one of the
things is that there has been some consistency in terms of what
the EPA has come out with where it kind of gets extrapolated,
if you will, at the State or local level I think is what causes
a lot of the uncertainty that Mr. Weaver expressed as well in
his opening statement and I think that into itself, finding
some mechanisms that do incentivize construction contractors,
if you will, construction equipment owners to acquire new
pieces that will move the needle, if you will, relative to
greenhouse gas and emissions and remove some of the fear in
terms of obsolescence that a lot of these new regulations are
causing I think is one that would be a great step forward
moving forward. And relative to the highway bill in particular
and the whole topic of infrastructure and where do we take the
infrastructure going forward for the Nation is certainly one
that is complex and I think the previous panel hit on a few
issues of where it has to be balanced. The infrastructure
requirements in rural America are certainly different than they
are in more-urban areas and it is going to be certainly a
difficult task in terms of achieving a balanced approach that
addresses and at least touches on the needs of all Americans.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, let me just express my deep
appreciation for your patience here with us today and laying
out a very strong case for an element that doesn't get
appropriate attention in our climate change discussion. A ton
of carbon being generated to create a ton of concrete is
something that I think people find sort of staggering if they
are not equipped with it, and I have been very impressed with
what your industry has done to try and develop a greener,
lighter carbon footprint and the construction industry, the
leadership that is being exhibited at some of the State and
local level is really remarkable. Your point about equipment
manufacturing, which is essential to all of this, we have got a
lot of equipment out there that actually does generate a
tremendous amount of pollution and is inefficient, but as Mr.
Weaver points out is an important part of the net worth of a
lot of small- and medium-size businesspeople and they are going
to need some help in the transition, and I think across the
board you are uncovering a series of elements that are very,
very important for us to consider in climate change, in
reauthorization, in what is going to happen in the next round
of economic stimulus because I don't think the economy is going
to rebound quickly, and transportation finance. So you have
really set the table here in an underappreciated part of the
committee's work and I appreciate deeply your helping us build
the record here today.
I wonder if we haven't exhausted your time and patience if
each of you might have a minute that you would like to offer up
to just kind of punctuate one item as we conclude the hearing.
Ms. Guerra. Yes, just to reiterate that the energy-
intensive part and the ton of CO2 generated in
cement, it can really be upset by all the benefits of concrete
usage. Cement is an energy-intensive product but it is only 15
percent of concrete, so there is a lot of opportunities to
really work on both ways to reduce our carbon footprint.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super.
Mr. Weaver. I want to help Mr. John Deere. We think that an
incentive, a tax incentive, whether it is targeted tax credit
or whatever to replace new equipment. With the money flowing to
the States now to rebuild the highways, a lot of contractors
will take old equipment, as I did this winter--I rebuilt a 24-
year-old piece of equipment and I didn't bring it up to current
standards but it is going to be good enough to last another 10
or 12 years. Had there been some kind of incentive there, I
wouldn't have rebuilt that, I would have went and bought a new
one for $300,000. But this money is coming and I think it is
time that people have a plan to replace their older equipment.
You know, on a personal note, Little Rock has over 60 miles
of bicycle pedestrian trails starting at the Clinton Library
and the centerpiece of it is the longest pedestrian bicycle
bridge in the United States and, excuse me, but it is named the
Big Dam Bridge. It goes over a dam.
Mr. Blumenauer. And Congressman Snyder is shamelessly
promoting it, that along with your streetcar. We appreciate
that. Thank you, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. Ruccolo. I would like to conclude by just saying the
topic of infrastructure spending is a tough one. It is one that
is extremely expensive. We fully understand and appreciate
that. We also I think all need to come to the realization the
cost of our failure to do so has got a tremendous cost as well
that maybe is not one that can be as easily defined, if you
will.
To Congressman Salazar's initial question about cap and
trade just to share Deere's view on that, our view is we are
very much in favor of a cap-and-trade system for the simple
reasons that it allows for greater flexibility but I think will
drive greater innovation and get us to the kinds of greenhouse
gas levels that are going to be necessary going forward.
Mr. Blumenauer. That is a great note on which to conclude
the hearing.
For the last 30 months I have been having conversations
with a variety of stakeholders including representatives of
each of your industries about how we should be rebuilding and
renewing America, what sort of vision we have going forward,
not just another transportation bill but the big picture that
each of you have referenced, and I must say that meeting with
250 stakeholders now over 2\1/2\ years and having a series of
conferences around the country--we will be in Atlanta again
this Monday--I am struck by the pockets of innovation that
people aren't aware of, the flexibility that is not maybe
necessarily associated with various sectors of the economy and
the potential of bringing people together. You may have noticed
that occasionally is a little controversial around there. There
is a little controversy, a little debate but what we are seeing
starting at the grass roots and as evidenced by your testimony
today that there are broad areas of consensus that can bring
people together to help solve economic problems, saving the
planet and making the quality of life improved for all
Americans, and we really appreciate your contributions for
advancing that debate and look forward to working with you and
the committee as we move forward. Thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]