[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IT'S ELECTRIC: DEVELOPING
THE POSTAL SERVICE FLEET
OF THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 5, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-265 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Pat Fallon, Texas
Georgia Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Mark Stephenson, Director of Legislation
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 5, 2022.................................... 1
Witnesses
Ms. Tammy L. Whitcomb, Inspector General, United States Postal
Service
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Ms. Victoria K. Stephen, Executive Director, Next Generation
Delivery
Vehicle, United States Postal Service
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Mr. Kenny Stein, Director, Policy, Institute for Energy Research
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Ms. Jill M. Naamane, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure
Team,
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Mr. Joe Britton, Executive Director, Zero Emission Transportation
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents entered into the record for this hearing are listed
below and are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Statement for the Record of Rep. Jared Huffman; submitted by
Chairwoman Maloney.
* New York Times, article, ``How Hunter Biden's Firm Helped
Secure Cobalt for the Chinese;'' submitted by Rep. Comer.
* Washington Post, editorial, ``The Hunter Biden Story is an
Opportunity for a Reckoning,'' submitted by Rep. Comer.
* Letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Norman.
* Letter to National Archives and Records Administration;
submitted by Rep. Comer.
* NARA's Response to Rep. Comer's Letter; submitted by Rep.
Comer.
* New York Post, article, ``Hunter Biden's Firm Helped China
Gain Control of Electric-Car Mineral: Report;'' submitted by
Rep. Clyde.
* E&E Daily, article, ``Hunter Biden and the Cobalt Mine,
Explained;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.
* New Delhi, ``Joe Biden's Son Helped China Get Control Over
Vast Cobalt Mine in Africa: Report;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.
* Daily Mail, article, ``Hunter Biden's Private Equity Firm
Helped Chinese Conglomerate Buy American-Owned Cobalt Mine in
$3.8 Billion Deal: Purchase Helped China Company Gain World's
Largest Deposit of Precious Metal Used to Make Batteries for
Electric Vehicles;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.
* Fox News, report, ``Hunter Biden's Firm Helped Chines Company
Purchase Rich Cobalt Mine in $3.8 Billion Deal;'' submitted by
Rep. Clyde.
* Fox News, report, ``House Republicans Invite Hunter Biden to
Testify on Cobalt Mining, His `Expertise' on EV Batteries;''
submitted by Rep. Clyde.
* American Lung Association, ``The Road to Clean Air: Benefits
of a Nationwide Transition to Electric Vehicles;'' submitted by
Rep. Mfume.
* Journal Times, article, ``Spartanburg Fights Back to Keep
Oshkosh Defense Postal Fleet Project;'' submitted by Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez.
* Herald Journal, article, ``Why Oshkosh Corp. Didn't Build
USPS Vehicles in a Foxconn Facility in Mount Pleasant;''
submitted by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
* Letter from the Committee on Oversight and Reform; submitted
by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
* Statement of Senator Carper; submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
* U.N. Report; submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
IT'S ELECTRIC: DEVELOPING
THE POSTAL SERVICE FLEET
OF THE FUTURE
----------
Tuesday, April 5, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom; Hon.
Carolyn B. Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Cooper,
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez,
Tlaib, Porter, Bush, Brown, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch,
Johnson, Sarbanes, Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier,
Pressley, Comer, Jordan, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs,
Higgins, Norman, Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde, Franklin,
Fallon, Herrell, and Donalds.
Also present: Representative Jarod Huffman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
I would like to start by acknowledging the important
bipartisan work that the members of this committee did on the
Postal Service Reform Act--and thank Mr. Comer and the
Republicans on this committee--and this will be signed into law
tomorrow by the President of the United States.
Today, I hope we can come together on another common sense
step, cutting our reliance on fossil fuel and saving money in
the long-run by transitioning to an electric postal fleet. Just
yesterday, the United Nations issued a major scientific new
report warning that without immediate action shifting from
fossil fuels, we will not be able to keep global warming to
acceptable levels. This Congress must help the world avert a
climate disaster by moving from gas guzzlers to electric
vehicles now.
The Postal Service operates an aging fleet of roughly
230,000 vehicles, many of which need to be replaced. These old
postal trucks are often unsafe, have high maintenance costs,
and get terrible gas mileage at a time when we cannot afford to
continue polluting our environment.
The Postal Service began the process of acquiring a new and
improved fleet more than seven years ago. Last year, they
finally selected a contractor, Oshkosh Defense, to build the
New Generation Delivery Vehicle. The Postal Service signed a
10-year contract to order up to 165,000 vehicles. Under the
contract, Oshkosh must provide either internal combustion
engine or battery electric vehicles, in whatever amounts the
Postal Service orders.
Unfortunately, the Postal Service has stated that only 10
percent of the vehicles it purchases under the contract will be
electric, while the remaining 90 percent, up to 148,000
vehicles, will be gas guzzlers. This is simply unacceptable.
Nineteen of the hottest years on record have occurred since
2000. Extreme weather events are getting more frequent. One of
the most important steps we can take is to reduce the amount of
carbon we put into the atmosphere by burning less oil and gas.
Cutting our dependence on fossil fuels is also a national
security imperative. With Russia using oil sales to fund its
brutal war in Ukraine and Putin's price hikes hurting Americans
at the pump, there has never been a better or more important
time to invest in clean energy.
This is why the Biden administration is working to move the
country beyond fossil fuels and meet our obligations under the
Paris Agreement. Transitioning to electric vehicles, using
proven technology that is already on the road today, is a key
part of that effort, and the Postal Service should lead the
way.
Electrifying its fleet would also keep the Postal Service
competitive. EVs cost less to fuel up and to maintain over the
life of the vehicle. So, buying electric vehicles could save
the Postal Service money over time, even if the upfront price
is a little higher.
Major companies, from UPS to Amazon, have announced plans
to adopt all-electric fleets, not mostly electric fleets. They
are not talking about partly. GM says that they are moving to
an all-electric fleet. And car companies from Volkswagen to
Ford have committed to ramping up production of electric
vehicles in the coming years.
For months, the Postal Service claimed that it could buy no
more than 5,000 electric vehicles with its current funds, a
tiny fraction of its overall purchase. But after this committee
raised questions about the Postal Service's environmental
review, they changed their position and announced they were
doubling the initial order of EVs to 10,000.
But it is not enough. This is progress, but these EVs still
are only 20 percent of the initial order. And according to the
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which is here
today--they currently are reviewing this matter--the Postal
Service may be basing its estimates about the costs of EVs on
faulty assumptions. In their written submission to the
committee, GAO states that their preliminary analysis ``raises
questions'' about these estimates.
In particular, GAO found that the Postal Service used a gas
price of $2.19 per gallon that bears no relationship to the
reality of current prices, which are well over $4 and much
higher in some states. And they predicted that maintenance
would be more expensive for an electric vehicle than a gas
vehicle, even though the evidence shows just the opposite is
true. And if you talk to anyone who owns an electric car, they
say there is practically no maintenance cost.
Clearly, the Postal Service needs to reevaluate its
assumptions, and the Postal Service should also be doing more
to buy more EVs now, including both next-generation vehicles
and commercially available, off-the-shelf models.
The Postal Service currently has $23 billion of cash on
hand, the most in years. And the bipartisan bill I led with my
friend Ranking Member Comer provided $50 billion in financial
relief over the next 10 years. A small portion of those funds
can be used responsibly to buy more EVs.
I also believe Congress should provide additional funding
to ensure an all-electric postal fleet and be a good example to
the country, and this committee approved that funding last year
in the Build Back Better bill. We are now looking at a smaller,
scaled-down Build Back Better bill, and the funding for the
additional postal EVs could be in that bill.
Finally, the Postal Service can reduce upfront costs for
charging infrastructure by exploring partnership with private
companies as well as public-facing charging stations that could
increase Postal Service revenue. President Biden's bipartisan
infrastructure bill also includes funding for a national
network of charging stations, some of which could be located at
the Postal Service's over 31,000 post offices across this
country, many near highways, many in rural areas that would
need these charging stations. This should be looked at and
explored.
Electric vehicles are the vehicles of the future. To
continue purchasing gas-guzzling vehicles is not only bad for
the environment, it is bad for the Postal Service, it is bad
for its customers, and it is bad for America. It is bad for
national security policy. It is a bad policy decision.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Comer. I thank him for the leadership he provided in passing
the postal reform bill, and he is now recognized for as much
time as he may consume.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for holding
a hearing today.
Madam Chair, you and I just spent a year doing what
everyone thought was impossible in crafting a postal reform
bill that would actually become law. And we succeeded.
The agreement worked, in large part, because for once we
had a Postmaster General who actually had a plan for reform, a
plan to do what Congress could never do, fix the Postal
Service's broken business model. And my support, and the
support of many Republicans--in fact, over half of our
Republican conference--depended on Congress giving that plan a
chance to succeed.
But the bill isn't even the law yet, and Democrats are
going back on the deal. They want to mandate the Postal Service
buy at least 75 percent electric vehicles, to be a guinea pig
for their radical Green New Deal agenda.
In keeping with the majority's pattern this Congress,
today's hearing is about how to spend more money instead of
saving more money. That is going to change next January. Mark
my word.
While Republicans are not against the Postal Service
acquiring electric vehicles, we are against mandates that
ignore the business needs and the financial situation of the
Postal Service. Republicans believe the Postal Service must be
self-funded. This means the Postal Service should pay for its
own capital needs, like purchasing new vehicles.
Meanwhile, Americans can't afford to fill up their gas
tanks, let alone buy an electric vehicle. But that isn't
stopping Democrats from demanding your mailman has one. There
are many problems with the Democrats' plan, but one could be to
access the critical element needed to produce electric vehicle
batteries. And the President's own son has made it more
difficult to do that, Hunter Biden.
In 2016, Hunter Biden orchestrated the transfer of an
African cobalt mine from an American company to a Chinese
company, CEFC China Energy, dealing a severe blow to America's
access to cobalt. Cobalt is one of the most important
components of electric car batteries, solar panels, and other
forms of renewable energy, and the United States is losing to
China in a contest to secure cobalt.
This is a national security threat and a blow to America's
ability to lead in green technology. In fact, CEFC China Energy
thought so much of Hunter Biden's expertise that it paid
entities controlled by Mr. Biden and his uncle $4.8 million for
14 months of work.
What did China get for nearly $5 million? The American
people deserve to know. Since Mr. Biden is an expert in cobalt
mining operations, committee Republicans asked Chairwoman
Maloney to invite him here today to shine a light on the
importance of cobalt in electric vehicle production. Yet Hunter
Biden is not here today.
It is no wonder the Democrats didn't want to invite him and
he didn't want to appear today. Hunter Biden has profited in
the short term directly from America's long-term loss, and he
doesn't want to explain it to Congress and the American people.
We need him to provide answers about the sale of an African
cobalt mine that has greatly harmed our access to this critical
element, an element we need if we are going to convert to
electric vehicles.
Oversight Republicans have repeatedly called for answers
about Hunter's suspicious foreign business dealings, including
the sale of this mine, but we still haven't gotten any answers.
The American people deserve answers and accountability.
Since Hunter Biden didn't show up today, we are going to
hear from the Republican witness, Kenny Stein, who is the
policy director at the Institute for Energy Research, and thank
you for being here today.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
And I do want to note that recently you wrote to me saying
that you were interested in legitimate oversight instead of
playing ``political games.'' But bringing up Hunter Biden is
nothing but political theater, plain and simple, and you
obviously agree because you wrote to me yesterday, and less
than one business day after your original request to have Mr.
Biden, the ranking member's staff contacted me and others on
staff and asked for a different minority witness. And that
witness is appearing today.
So, even Fox News called it, your interview, ``a little
tongue-in-cheek'' with this approach of playing political
theater. This is important public policy. We just had a U.N.
scientific report that came out yesterday, saying that we are
in danger of losing life. We have a chance of combatting it by
lowering the amount of fossil fuel emissions in our country.
Converting to electric cars is one way to do it.
Seventy percent of the pollution comes from the fossil fuel
emissions, and we have to get off of it in order to save our
planet. This is serious, serious challenges for our life, for
our environment.
We now have a national security challenge. We need to get
off of Russian oil. We have to stop consuming so much oil. We
have to move to alternatives, and one great alternative is
moving to electric vehicles.
The private sector is doing that. They are way ahead of us,
and the largest fleet in the Federal Government is the Postal
Service. We should be setting an example.
We have expert witnesses that can go over the costs, the
accessibility, and other challenges that we confront that could
help saves lives, help our national security, help our
dependence on Russian oil, help us get off of it, and to move
us forward with a healthier, better environment. I would say
let us stop playing games and political theater, as you so
requested, and get back to the importance of this hearing.
I now recognize----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, Hunter Biden is an expert on
Russian oil as well. But with all due respect, when we talk
about converting to electric vehicles, rare earth minerals are
a huge component of that, and China has the competitive
advantage over us. And we need to talk about rare earth
minerals. So, Hunter Biden is obviously----
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Comer, you are not recognized.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. A rare earth mineral expert. If you
are going to pay millions of dollars to broker----
Chairwoman Maloney. If you are concerned about competing
with China, we have a bill on that we will be passing.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. The sale of a rare earth mine in
Africa to China.
Chairwoman Maloney. You are not recognized. I now recognize
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Comer. So, it is not political gamesmanship. It is
clearly an expert witness.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam----
Chairwoman Maloney. Let us get serious. Let us face these
problems and solve them.
OK, Mr. Connolly is now recognized for two minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair for holding today's hearing
on the U.S. Postal Service's future vehicle fleet. I think that
is our topic.
Among the first bills I introduced when I came to Congress
with the Oversight and Reform Committee was the Postal Service
Electric Motor Vehicle Act of May 2010, 12 years ago.
Unfortunately, we are only slightly closer to a green Postal
Service fleet today, 12 years later.
As co-chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental
Coalition, I remain committed to partnering with President
Biden to realize his long-term goal of running a Federal fleet
on 100 percent clean power. This moment is a once in a
generation opportunity to take electric vehicle technology,
which is hardly new, hardly guinea pig technology, to the next
level with the second-largest vehicle fleet in America and to
do so through union labor.
My own investigation and oversight work on green fleet
includes letters to Oshkosh, House leadership, and to
Postmaster General DeJoy, demanding investment in union-built
electric vehicles. I requested that the U.S. Postal Service
Office of Inspector General investigate whether the Postal
Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act in
the generation of the Economic Impact statement for the
purchase of its vehicle fleet.
I have repeatedly supported legislation to both fund and
require the purchase of an electric vehicle fleet, including in
the Build Back Better Act, the Postal Service Improvement Act,
and my own bill, the Green Postal Service Fleet Act of 2022,
which would require the Postal Service to procure at least 75
percent EVs in each purchase made against the Oshkosh contract.
Mr. DeJoy's investment in a fleet that is only 20 percent
EV is simply not enough. His decisions are antediluvian and
anachronistic. And we have reason to believe that the
assumptions Mr. DeJoy is using to justify his investments in
internal combustion technology fail to factor in fluctuations
in gas prices and the lower upkeep and maintenance/repair costs
for EVs.
In short, the Postmaster General appears to have cooked the
Postal Service books to justify a multibillion dollar
investment in outdated technologies that contribute to the
environmental degradation of our planet. We cannot and will not
go along with that. Let us move the Green Postal Fleet Service
Act and find additional ways to foster a robust electrified
Postal Service vehicle fleet of the 21st century that serves
this Nation and that serves postal customers.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Lynch, who is the chairman of the
National Security Subcommittee, for one minute.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As the sponsor of H.R. 3521, the Postal Service Electric
Fleet Authorization Act, I do welcome today's hearing to
examine how we can work with the Postal Service to facilitate
its transition to a modern electric vehicle fleet. I would like
to thank Chairwoman Maloney for her steadfast focus on this
issue, and I would also like to thank and recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, and the gentlewoman from
Michigan, Mrs. Brenda Lawrence, for their continued leadership
on postal fleet modernization.
According to a recent request that I made to the United
States Postal Service, our current postal vehicle inventory
consists of about 216,105 delivery vehicles. That is only
second to the Defense Department in volume of vehicles.
Over 136,000 of those vehicles, about 63 percent of them,
are so-called ``long-life vehicles'' that have been on the road
for an average of 29 years, which is about five years beyond
their expected service life. So, currently, there are no
electric vehicle--delivery vehicles in the existing postal
fleet, which is unbelievable, which accounts for about, like I
said, one-third of the entire Federal Government fleet.
To its credit, now the Postal Service is taking steps to
electrify a small percentage of its delivery truck fleet.
However, our interest in promoting the environmental
sustainability of our Federal agencies and reducing carbon
pollution in our communities demand that we energize and
greatly accelerate the agency's transition to electric
vehicles. So, we must--as the chairwoman says, we must lead by
example.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mrs. Lawrence for one minute for an opening
statement, and thank her and Mr. Lynch and Mr. Connolly for
their leadership--and Mr. Comer--for their leadership on this
issue.
Mrs. Lawrence. I want to thank the chair for holding this
important meeting.
As a 30-year veteran of the United States Postal Service
and a representative of the Motor City--Detroit, the city who
put the world on wheels--this hearing is particularly
meaningful to me. As the big three automakers led the way in
expanding access to electric vehicles, the United States Postal
Service, which owns, as we heard, the largest civilian fleet in
the Federal Government, they have an opportunity to champion
the leadership of President Biden and our auto industry to push
to electrify the Federal fleet.
Fortunately, the Postal Service is well positioned to not
only invest in a robust vehicle fleet, but their existing
nationwide footprint provides the perfect opportunity to
strength our companies' growing EV network.
I want you to know I am disappointed by the Postal
Service's initial purchase of the Next Generation Delivery
Vehicles. I believe, though, that there is still an opportunity
for the agency to substantially invest in electric vehicles in
subsequent orders.
I want to commend my colleagues on this committee for
fighting for the inclusion of dedicated funding--there is no
excuse--to purchase electric vehicles in the Build Back Better
Act, and I look forward to looking for additional avenues to
make this investment a reality.
If the Postal Service is going to invest in new vehicles to
be used for the foreseeable future, we must ensure that they
are doing so in a way that makes sense, both financially and in
a way that is a meaningful effort to protect the environment.
As we all know, the motto of the Postal Service is ``Rain,
sleet, or snow will not stop us from our appointed rounds.''
Well, we should not let the carbon footprint of the Postal
Service be one that would be harmful not only to America, but
to the world.
I want to recognize and thank the witnesses who are
testifying today, and I look forward to discussing how the
Postal Service can truly lead the way with electric vehicles.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
But before we continue, I ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Huffman be allowed to participate in today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I also have a unanimous consent
request to enter into the record two articles from two, I
believe, credible liberal publications, the New York Times and
the Washington Post. the New York Times article, ``How Hunter
Biden's Firm Helped Secure Cobalt for the Chinese,'' and the
Washington Post article, ``The Hunter Biden Story Is an
Opportunity for a Reckoning,'' into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Norman. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Norman. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
record a letter sent to Louis DeJoy on the great company that
is now operating in South Carolina and goes into detail on the
EVs.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Chairwoman Maloney. Now I would like to introduce our
witnesses for today. Our first witness is Tammy Whitcomb, who
is the IG, Inspector General, for the Postal Service.
Then we will hear from Victoria Stephen, who is the
executive director of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle at
the Postal Service.
Next we will hear from Kenny Stein, who is the policy
director at the Institute for Energy Research.
Next we will hear from Jill Naamane, who is the Acting
Director of the Physical Infrastructure Team at the Government
Accountability Office.
Finally, we will hear from Joe Britton, who is the
executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation
Association.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we may swear them in.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[Response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Thank you. Without objection, your written statements will
be made part of the record.
And with that, Ms. Whitcomb, you are now recognized for
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TAMMY L. WHITCOMB, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ms. Whitcomb. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss our work related to the
Postal Service's adoption of electric vehicles. Our mission to
ensure the efficiency, accountability, and integrity of our
Nation's Postal Service is something we take very seriously.
Last February, the Postal Service awarded a contract to
produce and deploy up to 165,000 new delivery vehicles over the
next 10 years. While the contract allows for both electric and
gasoline-powered vehicles, the Postal Service's current plan is
for most of the new vehicles to be gasoline-powered. We have
two recent reports related to this purchasing decision.
One of our reports was a research paper that identified the
opportunities and challenges for the Postal Service in adopting
these electric vehicles. We found electric vehicles are well
suited for most postal routes, and there are clear benefits to
their adoption.
For example, a large fleet of electric vehicles would help
the Postal Service decrease its greenhouse gas emissions and
encourage the growth of the electric vehicle market in the
United States. Additionally, electric vehicles are more
mechanically reliable than gas-powered vehicles and require
less scheduled maintenance. They would also result in the
Postal Service incurring lower and more reliable and stable
energy costs.
However, there are challenges associated with adopting an
electric vehicle fleet. The upfront costs are significantly
higher than gasoline-powered vehicles. The Postal Service would
need to pay a higher per-vehicle price and incur the cost of
installing the charging infrastructure.
The Postal Service has over 17,000 delivery units that may
host electric vehicles, and the cost and issues associated with
installing charging infrastructure will vary by each, depending
on the parking layout, power availability, and required
upgrades. Good planning, along with early and consistent
communication with local governments and utility companies,
could help overcome these challenges.
We found the Postal Service could save money in the long
term by deploying electric vehicles on certain routes, for
example, on longer routes and in areas of the country where gas
prices are traditionally higher. The Postal Service might also
be able to lower the costs associated with electric vehicles by
exploring different mixes of the type and number of chargers.
Because many delivery routes are short, it is unlikely that
every vehicle would need to plug into a charger every night.
There are two other factors that could significantly change
the cost-benefit analysis of purchasing electric vehicles,
Federal funding and local incentives. The Postal Service has
stated it could achieve full electrification of its delivery
fleet if Congress provided $6.9 billion. Incentive programs by
local utility companies might also help offset costs.
The Postal Service would not be the only logistics
organization using electric vehicles. As part of our report, we
looked at how other Federal agencies, foreign posts, and
companies in the logistics and shipping sector have deployed
electric vehicles. While their fleets are different in many
ways, their experiences may be informative. We found that they
used a wide variety of electric vehicles and charging
infrastructures, and they emphasized the importance of working
closely with local utilities and other stakeholders as early as
possible in the planning process.
Another report related to the purchase of new delivery
vehicles was an audit of the contract clauses. While we found
the contract was designed to mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse,
it could have been stronger. We recommended additional language
to encourage self-reporting by the contractor of potentially
inappropriate or illegal activity during the development and
production of these vehicles. Management agreed to make these
changes.
In response to a recently received congressional request,
we have initiated an audit focusing on the Postal Service's
vehicle acquisition process and its compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. We will also examine the
reliability and reasonableness of the Postal Service's
Environmental Impact Statement and its supporting analysis.
Another ongoing report focuses on whether the Postal
Service's vehicle maintenance facilities are ready for both the
electric and gasoline-powered Next Generation Delivery
Vehicles. We plan to release both of these reports later this
year.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you
today about this very important topic. We appreciate the
opportunity to discuss our work, and I am happy to answer your
questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Stephen, you are now recognized for your testimony. Can
you turn on your mic?
Ms. Stephen. Apologies. Is that better?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
STATEMENT OF VICTORIA K. STEPHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEXT
GENERATION DELIVERY VEHICLE, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Ms. Stephen. OK. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for
calling this hearing to examine the benefits, opportunities,
and challenges of electrifying the postal fleet.
My name is Vicki Stephen, and I am the executive director
of the Postal Service's Next Generation Delivery Vehicle
Program, which is a key component in our Delivering for America
Strategic Plan.
Replacing our aged fleet is a critical part of our
organizational transformation, but is by no means the only
critical part. We have many competing operational objectives to
address in the immediate term. The higher purchase and
infrastructure cost of the vehicle electrification adds tension
to that competition, especially considering it's not mission
critical.
Nevertheless, we understand the national interest in moving
toward an energy efficient and environmentally sensitive future
and are committed to doing our part. On March 24, we placed an
order for 50,000 vehicles of which 10,019 will be battery
electric, or BEVs, and assigned to the routes that present the
best initial application for such vehicles. This action
demonstrates our commitment to including BEVs as a significant
part of our delivery fleet and was carefully evaluated in the
context of our unique delivery mission, our policy mandates,
and organizational and financial constraints.
Under our universal service obligation, we deliver to 163
million addresses in all climates and landscapes six days a
week, and we must do so in a financially self-sufficient
manner. It is vital that we provide our carriers with
appropriate vehicles to support this specific and robust
delivery mission.
The urgent need to replace our vehicles is not in dispute.
Many of our 190,000 delivery vehicles are inefficient, and they
lack basic safety features and ergonomic features, including
air conditioning, airbags, antilock breaks.
I must stress that our vehicles cannot be compared to other
private delivery or Government fleets in nature, use case, or
scope. Understandably, there is interest in the vehicle cost,
and I look forward to articulating the factors that contribute
to cost today and note that the differential between the two
versions is comfortably within the range of commercially
available internal combustion, or ICE, and battery electric
vehicles.
As my written testimony describes in detail, we have very
specific vehicle requirements, including right-hand drive and
ergonomic features necessary to perform delivery to curbside
mailboxes, as well as ruggedized components built to support
the wear and tear of our postal delivery operations.
The NGDV program is just one part of our mixed delivery
fleet strategy. We will continue to purchase the types of
vehicles that best align with our routes. Any mix of
replacement vehicles will deliver significant reduction in
emissions and improvements in fuel economy over our existing
long-life vehicles.
I would note, however, that we have 12,500 routes over 70
miles in length that are not candidates for electrification
today, and another 5,000 that require all-wheel drive vehicles
due to extreme climate conditions. Electrification also comes
with the challenge of installing infrastructure at a multitude
of postal facilities. Our search for replacement vehicles began
in January 2015 after several years of industry outreach,
study, evaluation, and prototyping, we conducted a robust and
open production competition and awarded Oshkosh Defense a
manufacturing contract in February 2021.
The contract provides us with the ongoing ability to
purchase between 50,000 and 165,000 NGDVs that will be equipped
with either ICE or BEV power trains. NGDVs can be purchased in
any proportion throughout the contract life. However, our total
cost of ownership model points to a substantially ICE fleet due
to the higher acquisition and infrastructure cost for the BEVs.
Our procurement was deliberative. We considered the
characteristics of more than 200,000 carrier routes to assess
the appropriate vehicle for each and analyzed fuel and
maintenance savings. We found that the benefits are not enough
to overcome the higher costs over the 20-year life of the
vehicle.
We also followed all of the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act, including consultations with the EPA
and the Council on Environmental Quality and responding to
thousands of public comments. Our ultimate decision was
designed with enough flexibility to allow us to increase the
proportion of BEVs if financial circumstances change, and if
the use case continues to improve, as evidenced by our recent
purchase order.
The recent NGDV purchase contract was the culmination of
years of careful needs analysis and procurement discipline, all
linked to our unique operational imperatives. The opportunity
to electrify at least 10,019 delivery vehicles is a meaningful
step in the direction of broader electrification that is a
priority for many of our stakeholders.
So, thank you for the opportunity to address these matters,
and I welcome any questions that you may have.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stein, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KENNY STEIN, DIRECTOR, POLICY, INSTITUTE FOR
ENERGY RESEARCH
Mr. Stein. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in
this hearing. My name is Kenny Stein, and I am the policy
director for the Institute for Energy Research. We're a free-
market organization that conducts research and analysis on the
function, operation, and regulation of energy markets.
At the outset, I'll say the Postal Service is correct and
prudent in taking a gradual approach to introducing electric
vehicles into its fleet. As both the Service's record of
decision as well as the Inspector General's report make clear,
EVs are substantially more expensive than the internal
combustion alternative, due not just to the higher cost of the
vehicle itself, but the large expense needed to install
charging facilities for the new vehicles.
The same two documents make clear that this cost
differential is so great that the expected lower operating
costs of EVs over their lifetime does not make up for the
higher upfront cost, except in certain locations and certain
routes. And even those exceptions are based on certain
assumptions, and if those assumptions have proved overly
optimistic, EVs could actually end up being a long-term
financial drag on the Postal Service.
But beyond pure cost considerations, there's a number of
questionable assumptions that are underlying this predicted EV
transition. The cost of battery modules, which are the most
expensive part of an EV, have, indeed, been falling for many
years. But this price decrease cannot and will not continue
indefinitely.
Once manufacturing is optimized, companies are left with
the underlying cost of the mineral inputs of the battery. So,
nickel, cobalt, lithium, various rare earth minerals have seen
prices rise in recent years, and EV prices have had to increase
in tandem.
While there are research efforts underway to find
alternatives for some of these elements, fundamentally, you
always need a bulky battery to power an EV. Basic physics
limits how small an EV battery can get, and the fact that the
NGDV will need to have its batteries replaced within 10 years
increases the significance of this battery assumption because
it's not guaranteed that replacement batteries will be less
expensive than the many thousands of dollars that they cost
today.
It is also assumed that electricity prices will not
increase in the future. This is much of the basis for claiming
fuel cost savings over internal combustion engines. But over
the last several decades, electricity prices have been flat to
increasing in the United States.
There is no evidence for the often-asserted claim that more
renewable electricity generation will end up lowering
electricity prices. The evidence we have actually more often
suggests the opposite, that the higher the share of generation
from wind and solar, the higher electricity prices.
On top of those existing trends, forced and voluntary
transitions to EVs, as well as political pressure to increase
electrification, stands to increase demand for electricity in
the coming years. The infrastructure to supply this additional
demand is subject to delay and limitations due to environmental
objections or simple land use opposition.
So, all these factors--higher demand, costlier supply,
expensive transmission--mean that the expectation for the
future electricity prices must be higher prices, not lower. The
supply chain for electric vehicles also needs to be part of the
Postal Service's decision-making process. The supply
availability of many of the inputs for EVs is in doubt. Even at
the end of last year, nickel supplies were forecast to be short
by 128,000 tons in 2021, with a cobalt shortage of 1,800 tons.
Supplies are further forecast to be tight all the way
through 2025. Russia's invasion of Ukraine puts nickel supplies
on an even more uncertain footing, given that Russia produces
about 20 percent of the global supply of nickel.
A deficit in lithium is also expected by 2025. These
shortages cannot be quickly remedied. It takes many years to
bring a new mine into production. With prices of mineral inputs
high, there is a high likelihood of EVs being more expensive in
the near term. It's even possible that there will simply not be
enough minerals to meet the demand for electric vehicles.
While a Ford or GM can wait a few years to hit its EV sales
goal, the Postal Service needs their replacement vehicles
today. There is a very real prospect of EVs being delayed due
to supply shortages.
The source of the mineral inputs should also be a concern,
especially for this committee, given the discussion earlier.
While U.S. mines do produce some of the minerals which go into
EVs, the raw minerals are overwhelmingly processed outside the
United States. This is especially true for the components of EV
batteries, the supply chain of which is dominated by China.
China processes the majority of the world's cobalt, nickel,
lithium, manganese, and graphite as well as many rare earth
minerals. China also dominates finished battery production,
producing around 80 percent of the world's lithium ion
batteries.
Now there are currently companies building battery plants
in the United States and working on permitting mines, but
alternative supplies will take many years to come to market.
And again, the Postal Service needs their vehicles now. We can
hope that 5 to 10 years from now more of the supply and
processing needed for EVs will take place in the United States
or its close allies, but today, any increase in EV procurement
by the Postal Service will be enriching China.
The uncertainty around the utility of EVs for the Postal
Service, the high cost of EVs, and EV supply chain concerns all
point in the same direction for the Postal Service--caution.
These factors strongly support the service's decision to slowly
introduce EVs into their fleet.
These factors may change in the future, but as of today,
with the Postal Service having immediate need to replace its
aging delivery fleet, EVs are an unnecessary risk to the true
mission of the Post Office, which is to deliver the mail, not
to support larger micromanaging of the national motor vehicles
market.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Naamane, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JILL M. NAAMANE, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Naamane. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Postal Service's efforts to acquire electric
vehicles in its delivery fleet.
The Postal Service and the Federal Government rely largely
on gas vehicles to carry out a variety of Government missions.
In 2020, over 600,000 vehicles in the Federal fleet, including
the postal delivery fleet, traveled over 4 billion miles and
used an estimated 360 million gallons of gas and diesel.
Transitioning Federal fleets to electric vehicles will
represent a significant transformation for the Federal
Government. It will also require agencies to conduct sound
analysis to support their decision-making.
My testimony today will focus on preliminary observations
from ongoing work. Specifically, I will discuss tools the
Postal Service used to determine the number of gas and electric
delivery vehicles to purchase and factors affecting the Federal
fleet's transition to electric vehicles.
Last month, the Postal Service ordered 50,000 new delivery
vehicles, including about 10,000 that will be electric. To
inform its decision, USPS conducted a total cost of ownership
analysis of a range of types of vehicles. Information in this
analysis included the maintenance and fuel costs of each
vehicle.
It also developed a model that recommends the lowest-cost
vehicle for each delivery route and a mix of vehicles to
purchase each year. The model is based on a set of assumptions,
including information from the total cost of ownership analysis
and details on individual delivery routes. USPS told us the
model was one aspect of their decision-making, and although it
recommended purchasing zero electric vehicles this year, the
initial order included 20 percent electric vehicles.
Our preliminary analysis of the model raises questions
about the way in which certain assumptions estimate the costs
and benefits of the gas and electric vehicles. I'll highlight a
few examples.
First, the model we reviewed used a 2020 gas price that is
almost $2 per gallon less than the current national average.
USPS told us they continue to update their model, and we will
further evaluate how changing the price per gallon would change
the recommended vehicle mix.
Second, the model appears to assume maintenance would be
more expensive for electric vehicles than gas. This is
inconsistent with research we have identified, our interviews
with private delivery companies, and Postal Service documents
that show electric vehicles are expected to be less expensive
to maintain.
Third, the total cost of ownership analysis does not
include a reduction in emissions as a benefit of electric
vehicles. A separate USPS Environmental Impact statement found
that with no tailpipe emissions, electric vehicles would have
this benefit. In our ongoing work, we will test assumptions in
the models to understand how they affect the recommended
vehicle mix.
I'll turn now to factors that have so far affected the
widespread acquisition of electric vehicles in Federal fleets.
We have previously reported that these factors include the
higher upfront costs of electric vehicles and uncertainties
around the cost and installation of charging infrastructure.
Our ongoing work indicates that these factors remain relevant.
For example, USPS officials said the higher upfront cost
was a key factor in their decision-making. They estimate that
the new electric and gas delivery vehicles will not cost the
same until 2031. In addition, USPS estimates a range in the
cost of installing chargers depending on the site, and it is
uncertain whether older facilities have sufficient power
capacity to support the charging infrastructure.
In closing, some aspects of the transition to electric
vehicles may become easier to manage as the market evolves.
Other aspects will take some work to address. All aspects of
this transition, however, will require agencies to use
reasonable and current data and transparent analysis of costs
and benefits to support their decisions. We will continue to
assess these issues in our ongoing work.
This concludes my statement, and I'm happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much.
Mr. Britton, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOE BRITTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ZERO EMISSION
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Britton. Chair Maloney and Ranking Member Comer and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about the benefits of electrifying the
U.S. Postal Service.
My name is Joe Britton, and I'm the executive director of
the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a coalition
spanning the entire EV supply chain from vehicle to battery
manufacturers, to charging companies, to critical material
developers, to utilities.
We believe firmly in Postal Service electrification. With
set daily routes, routine idling, and overnight depots that are
ideal for charging, we believe these vehicles are the ideal use
case in the entire Federal fleet. Electrifying this vehicle
segment will deliver vast economic, environmental, and public
health benefits.
Independent studies show that electrifying these vehicles
could save the Postal Service $4.3 billion and that 97 percent
of these vehicles could be transitioned at a lower total cost
of ownership. This should be an enormous opportunity for the
Postal Service, but somehow this contract has veered off track.
The Postal Service initially announced it was going to
procure a swappable gas vehicle that could later be made
electric. After months of asking for detail about this
prototype, USPS acknowledged that a swappable drive train was
no longer part of their plans. Instead, they are now relying on
estimates that do not reflect the market for performance nor
pricing in comparing gas to electric vehicles.
For example, in deciding whether to go electric or remain
reliant on gasoline, USPS, as the chair has noted and GAO has
noted, they're relying on $2.19 per gallon gasoline, when
Americans today are paying twice that amount.
Even harder to believe is their assumption that gas prices
will be $2.55 in the year 2040. I don't think anybody in the
room today believes that gas prices are going to be 50 percent
cheaper 20 years from now.
And that's a real problem for the Postal Service because
the vehicles that they're proposing to procure only get 8 to 14
miles per gallon, which is lower than the 17 miles per gallon
of the 1988 Grumman they're replacing. After years and years,
decades, of technological innovation, it is indefensible that
these vehicles are not more fuel efficient.
USPS is also dramatically underestimating the capabilities
of electric vehicles. For example, in their benchmark EV, they
state that it should have a 94 kilowatt hour battery pack, but
that it would only get 70 miles of range per charge. The
standard in the marketplace is double that today.
We've only seen this poor a range to battery pack estimate
for extraordinarily heavy vehicles like Class A tractor-
trailers and semi trucks. It's unbelievable that this vehicle
would only get 70 miles of range.
The Postal Service is also claiming exorbitantly high
charging costs. And the Inspector General here today called
attention to their estimate that it would cost $18,000 per
charger, which is far more than the current Federal blanket
purchase agreement already negotiated to install these very
same chargers today.
And they project that a dedicated charger is needed for
every single vehicle. But with accurate route and range
estimates, we suggest two to three vehicles could effectively
share the same charger.
Ultimately, the Postal Service is relying on information
that is creating a skewed comparative cost projection. It
doesn't need to be this way. I think Mr. Stein and I would
agree that we could maybe look to the marketplace to see what
others are doing. They have already recognized the opportunity
of electrification and are locking in years of strategic
advantages over the Postal Service with their own fleets.
This includes bulk EV purchases from UPS and Amazon, 70
percent electrification goals from DHL, and 100 percent
commitment to electrification from FedEx. These companies
estimate 60 to 75 percent fuel cost savings and 50 to 80
percent savings on maintenance and service.
The Postal Service EIS is opaque and limited, but from the
little they have disclosed, it shows their assumptions are not
grounded in fact. Unless they reverse course, they will
continue to bear these unnecessary costs for both gasoline and
service and maintenance, whereas their competitors will not.
We urge the Congress to require the Postal Service to
rethink this contract and start with a transparent fleet
transition plan like states and other recipients of Federal
money are required to do today. This would not require the
disclosure of proprietary information. Rather, it would allow
USPS to produce a market analysis using transparent third-party
engineering and modeling to assess the feasibility of
electrification.
We think the answers will be clear and more closely reflect
the decisions being made by others in the free market.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, before we get into questions, if I
may, I ask unanimous consent to enter two letters into the
record.
The first is a letter from me to the National Archives,
asking for information about the sale of the cobalt mine from
the White House while Hunter Biden's father was Vice President,
and the Archivist's response, saying he could only provide to
the chair of the committee.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Chairwoman Maloney. We will now recognize Congresswoman
Kelly.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. OK, Congresswoman Kelly, you are now
recognized.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. All right. Well, I will just
recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
On March 24, the Postal Service placed its first----
Ms. Kelly [continuing]. Be able to----
Chairwoman Maloney. We will just continue right now.
On March 24, the Postal Service placed its first purchase
order of 50,000 vehicles with Oshkosh, and although the Postal
Service initially insisted it could buy only 5,000 electric
vehicles in this first order, it doubled that amount to 10,000
after this committee and others began to ask questions.
So, I would first like to ask Ms. Stephen, can you briefly
explain what changed the Postal Service's analysis to allow for
the increase of EVs in this purchase order?
Ms. Stephen. Yes. Am I on? Thank you for the question.
The first thing that is important to note is that the
Postal Service has committed to continuing to reassess changes
in the market. And so the point that you and some of the other
speakers have made today about changing fuel prices, $2.19 was
the price at the time that we prepared the analysis. We have
continued to do ongoing analysis on changing fuel prices and
sensitivity analysis to determine if that changes our mix.
It certainly does. Gas prices are higher today than they
were when we prepared the initial analysis. So, that's one
factor.
The other key factor is that through the efforts of you and
your colleagues, postal reform is making a big difference for
the Postal Service. It allows us the flexibility to consider
our capital position differently than prior to the passage of
postal reform.
So, between those two key variables, we were able to go
back and assess our ability to increase the proportion of
electric vehicles within our financial resources and within our
means, and we're happy to do that.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I am glad to hear that you are
going to reassess and see if we can move more to electric
vehicles, given the testimony really, actually, we received
today, and I am glad to hear that the postal reform bill is
making changes that are helping you reassess.
Yes or no, will the Postal Service provide the committee
with a copy of the analysis that you used to determine how many
electric vehicles to purchase? Yes or no, will you provide us
with that information, please?
Ms. Stephen. If it's specifically requested and protected,
yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
OK. The Postal Service now has roughly $23 billion on hand,
including $13 billion that is not allocated to pay down debt.
And this committee's bipartisan work will save the Postal
Service roughly $50 billion over the next 10 years. And we are
proud of that achievement, and we know that EVs are a good
investment for the future, for the environment, for our
country, for national security. We are asking you to go back
and look again and see if we can increase the purchase of the
EVs even more.
So, Ms. Stephen, given all of this, will the Postal Service
commit to conducting a new analysis of the EV costs and develop
a more aggressive proposal to buy more EVs? We heard several
criticisms from many of the panelists today of the analysis and
ways that it was possibly not accurate. So, could you go back
and develop a new analysis for us, given the changing
environment, given the changing environmental environment,
given the report from the United Nations, given the war in
Ukraine, which means we have to get off of oil faster and more
effectively?
Could you go back and please try a new analysis, given the
information we learned today and the changing world economy?
Ms. Stephen. So, we've committed to doing ongoing updates
as conditions change in the market. So, I don't think a new
analysis is required. I think the analysis that we prepared is
well designed to look at those variables and assess relative
impact. And I think it's also important to note that the $13
billion cash on hand that you referred to is also designated
for key fundamental investments that are part of our Delivering
for America Strategic Plan.
There have been many things that have gone underinvested
over the last many, many years, and so there are other
financial priorities that are competing for our resources to
make sure that we're addressing all of those needs in addition
to the delivery vehicles.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, GAO in their testimony said they
had analyzed the Postal Service's estimates and the cost of
buying and maintaining electric vehicles. So, I would like to
get their view on it now.
So, Ms. Whitcomb--no, Ms. Naamane, based on GAO's analysis,
did the Postal Service make assumptions that you believe are
unreasonable and need to be corrected?
Could you use the mic?
Ms. Naamane. Our work is still ongoing, and so, from our
preliminary observations, what we've seen in the documentation
the Postal Service has provided us so far, we have some
questions. We have questions about how current some of the data
is. We have questions about how reasonable some of the
estimates are. We have questions about how consistent it is
with other information that we've seen in the market and from
the Postal Service.
And so, as we continue our work, we will test these
assumptions. We'll gather additional insight from the Postal
Service and other sources and assess that against some
objective criteria to make our final conclusions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, thank you. I want to thank all of
the panelists.
I personally believe that the leadership of the Postal
Service relied on faulty assumptions and needs to go back to
the drawing board and come up with a much more aggressive plan
to electrify the fleet. Otherwise, they risk saddling the
Postal Service with an antiquated, gas-guzzling fleet for the
next 20 years.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Comer, you
are now recognized.
Thank you all for your excellent testimony.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, thank the
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Stein, I was somewhat criticized by my very good
friend, the chairwoman, for politicizing the importance of
cobalt and the need to have a witness talk about how important
cobalt is in the production of batteries for electric vehicles.
Can you kind of explain the importance of that rare mineral
cobalt in the production of electric vehicles?
Mr. Stein. Sure. So, cobalt is a crucial element in the
battery production process, which, among other elements, and
the key about cobalt, especially, among minerals is that it is
not found in all that many places.
It is--the largest mines, the largest production is in the
Congo, but the majority of the mines in the Congo are actually
owned by the Chinese state-owned companies and about 80 percent
of the cobalt processing happens in China itself.
So, if we are talking about national security issues, there
has been discussion of national security regarding oil, but
there is national security issues with the EV supply chain and
with renewables more generally, too.
Mr. Comer. So, let me get straight. Eighty percent of the
world cobalt market is now owned by China?
Mr. Stein. Well, the processing. We need to make a
distinction between the mining and the processing.
Mr. Comer. Right.
Mr. Stein. And the mining happens in Australia and the
Congo.
Mr. Comer. Right. Right.
Mr. Stein. But yes.
Mr. Comer. OK.
Mr. Stein. The actual processing.
Mr. Comer. So, in your opinion, it does harm our national
security if China has that much of a market share for the
production of cobalt?
Mr. Stein. One hundred percent, because we have just
recently have gotten to the point where we produce enough
energy domestically in natural gas and oil that we are,
largely--we are not truly self-sufficient but we are, largely,
able to operate independently from the international
conditions.
But when we are talking about renewables, this is--this
goes for solar as well as electric vehicles and batteries--all
batteries. The production process happens overwhelmingly in
China. So, we will be exchanging one dependence on oil for
another dependence on China, and I am not sure as a national
security tradeoff that that is an improvement.
Mr. Comer. Well, it seems odd that the son of our commander
in chief played a leading role in selling a major cobalt mine
in Congo to China. Does the United States have domestic sources
for these metals?
Mr. Stein. There are some potential domestic sources. I
believe it is the Twin Peaks Mine in Minnesota has the
potential for some cobalt production. But that is actually the
mine that several permits were just withdrawn by the Biden
administration for it.
So, part of the problem with cobalt is that it is pretty
dirty to develop and so environmentalists in the United States
don't like it being done here.
Mr. Comer. So, when environmentalists don't like mining for
cobalt but environmentalists want to shift American vehicles
from fossil fuels to electric vehicles and we need that cobalt
mine to produce electric vehicles?
Mr. Stein. Yes. The mining can be done in Congo by child
labor and the processing can be done in China with no
environmental standards. So, that way you get cheap electric
vehicle batteries.
Mr. Comer. Well, what impact will President Biden's use of
the Defense Production Act have on the supply of these metals?
Mr. Stein. Well, it could have a significant impact. But
that would involve using it to encourage domestic mining and
that, so far, has not been what he has tried to use the
Domestic Production Act for.
Now, he did--the Defense Production Act. Now, they have
tried to encourage--provide some funding for some domestic
processing of some of these rare earth, particularly the ones
that are mined in Mountain Pass, which is really the only mine
in the United States that produces a lot of these minerals. But
that, of course, is a long-term play. They have to build the
processing capacity. It doesn't currently exist.
Mr. Comer. So, the U.S. does currently have the ability to
process the minerals and metals needed for electric vehicle
manufacturing. But under the Biden administration, what does
that look like?
Mr. Stein. So, there is a mine, Mountain Pass, in
California that produces many of these critical minerals. But
right now, they have to be sent overseas to be processed. So,
the company that owns that mine is actually in the process of
trying to build domestic processing capacity but it does not
currently exist, and there is a lot of environmental permitting
that has to go into that because, again, this is a fairly
dirty--processing mining material is a fairly dirty operation.
Mr. Comer. Wow. Well, Madam Chair, it looks to me like
China has a competitive advantage in the rare earth mineral
market, which is essential for the production and manufacturing
of electric vehicles.
So, I think we definitely need to have a rare earth mineral
expert testify about how we can change the fact that China
controls the market on this. This just gives them a further
competitive advantage, and if we are going to do what I think a
lot of Democrats want to do in the Green New Deal and shift
everything from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, then we have
to have an honest conversation about the rare earth mineral
market and the importance to that in the manufacturing of the
batteries for electric vehicles.
So, I don't think it is political and, hopefully, we can
get to that point to where we can have a productive thorough
committee hearing about the rare earth mineral market.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
And from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Clyde. Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
I request unanimous consent to have the following articles
entered into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. The first article is from the New
York Post dated November 20, 2021, ``Hunter Biden's firm helped
China gain control of the electric car mineral'' report.
The second article is from E&E Daily. It is from January
21, 2022, ``Hunter Biden and the cobalt mine explained.''
The third article is from the New Delhi, published November
the 30, 2021, ``Joe Biden's son helped China get control over
vast cobalt mine in Africa'' report.
The fourth article is from the Daily Mail and it is from
November the 21, 2021, and it is entitled ``Hunter Biden's
private equity firm helped Chinese conglomerate buy American-
owned cobalt mine in $3.8 billion dollar deal purchase----
Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
Mr. Clyde [continuing]. To help China gain the world's
largest deposit.''
Chairwoman Maloney. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Clyde. I just--I just have two more. I just have two
more. That is all.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Quickly. We have got other things
to do.
Mr. Clyde. Very quickly. Very quickly.
And from Fox News, that Hunter Biden's firm helped Chinese
company purchase rich cobalt mine for $3.8 billion, and the
last one is from Fox News published just a few days ago, April
the 2, 2022, ``House Republicans invite Hunter Biden to testify
on cobalt mine.''
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton, you are now recognized.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate this hearing, Madam Chair. Bear
with me. I begin by asking what is one pound worth?
Ms. Naamane, yes or no, do you know what one additional
pound on a delivery vehicle is worth in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions? Yes or no.
Ms. Naamane. I don't have those exact numbers. We did see
in the Postal Service's Environmental Impact Statement that
there was a benefit for the electric vehicles and that was
something that was not included in the total cost of ownership
analysis.
So, we don't have the exact figures in how it factored into
the Postal Service's decision-making. So, that is something we
want to understand better as to what extent and how reduced
emissions factored into the decision-making since it was not in
the models.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Ms. Whitcomb, yes or no, do you know what one additional
pound on a delivery vehicle is worth in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions?
Ms. Whitcomb. No, I don't, and that is not something that
we included in this--in the paper that I just briefed.
Ms. Norton. All right.
How about you, Ms. Stephen? Yes or no, do you know what one
additional pound on a delivery vehicle is worth in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions?
Ms. Stephen. Yes. I am aware that it changes the vehicle
classification and it is aligned with a different level of
greenhouse gas emissions. But I don't know the specific value.
Ms. Norton. Well, all of that is understandable. It may
come as a shock that in our own research we found that one
pound could cost the planet 40 billion pounds of greenhouse gas
emissions. That is because one pound may be the difference
between a clean postal fleet and decades of deadly pollution.
Oshkosh Defense, who has been contracted to design and
manufacture the next generation delivery vehicle fleet, wants
us to believe that the truck and payload will have a combined
weight of 8,501 pounds on the dot--8,501.
At 8,500 pounds, the NGDV is within statutory requirements
for light duty vehicle efficiency standards, which would highly
favor an electric fleet. Toss in one more pound and it evades
this environmental protection. That is why, based on Postal
Services' estimated NGDV emissions, a one pound package adds up
to 2 billion pounds of carbon emissions each year and about 40
billion pounds over the life of the vehicle.
Ms. Stephen, was the Postal Service involved in decision
strategy calls or other communications either internally or
with Oshkosh that led to the 8,501-pound vehicle proposal?
Ms. Stephen. Not to my knowledge, although I would say that
their engineering development effort and the data that they
used to develop those values are very precise.
Ms. Norton. Did the Postal Service question why Oshkosh
submitted a proposal that was one pound above the range for
light duty vehicle efficiency standards?
Ms. Stephen. I am not aware that we questioned that.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Stephen, I am glad that more electric
vehicles are being purchased. Clearly, the 8,501 pound models,
2,941 pound payload capacity, is not core to operations. So,
would you consider shaving off a pound?
Ms. Stephen. I would want to see the data that is used to
support that analysis. I would prefer to respond when I can see
the data.
Ms. Norton. We will get you the data. But I have to be
honest, it looks like the Postal Service, Oshkosh, or both
deliberately juked stats, the statistics, to keep polluting and
keep dependent on oil.
So, Ms. Whitcomb, I look to getting to the bottom of this
with you, and I have to yield back the balance of my time now.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, is now recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair. Witnesses, thanks for
being here.
I think, obviously, us dealing with the Post Office trying
to electrify, obviously, it is a situation we need to deal in
this committee. It is under our purview.
But one thing that has already been clear that has come out
of this hearing so far is that we are trading the apparent
dependence on some portions of foreign oil at this point and,
frankly, because of reckless energy policy from the
administration, to a complete reliance on the Chinese with
respect to getting electric batteries for the Postal Service.
So, we are asking the American people to, literally, pay
billions of dollars for batteries that we are going to get from
the Chinese, sources from, under Mr. Stein's testimony, cobalt
being mined by kids in Africa, the same cobalt material which
is far more harmful to the environment, far more dirty than our
own environmentalists in the United States don't want us to
mine. They don't want us to mine it here but it is OK for kids
to mine it in Africa and for us to buy it from the Chinese.
Mr. Britton, a question for you. Mr. Stein's testimony
talked about, frankly, and how dirty it is to mine some of
these minerals. What is your group's position on advanced
nuclear reactors?
Mr. Britton. We don't have a position.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Britton, you are from the Zero Emission
Transportation Association and your organization, Zero Emission
Transportation Association, does not have an opinion on modular
nuclear reactors, advanced nuclear reactors, micro reactors
that can actually provide the energy output necessary to
provide the electric load that an electrified fleet from the
Post Office would provide? But your organization doesn't have
an opinion on this?
Mr. Britton. Well, we focus mostly on what propels the
vehicle itself and so it is gasoline, hydrogen, battery,
electric. So, that is typically where we focus. But I would be
happy to answer some----
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Britton, a quick question for you. If you
are going to plug an electric vehicle in, where are you getting
the electricity from to charge the battery?
Mr. Britton. From the grid.
Mr. Donalds. And where does that energy--how does the
energy that is on the grid get generated?
Mr. Britton. It depends on the region but it is a full
blend of whether that is coal, gas, renewables, nuclear.
Mr. Donalds. So, let me back up. We are talking about
trying to have vehicles be zero emission. It is a worthy goal.
It is a nice goal.
But the reality is, is that the energy necessary to charge
the vehicles still comes from the fossil fuels that the other
side of the aisle would want us to completely get away from
under the current energy proposals and projections and vision
from the Biden administration. Would you say that is correct?
Mr. Britton. Well, what I would refer you to which,
actually, is a pretty interesting comparison, so if you look at
the Union of Concerned Scientists' map for the entire U.S. they
actually map out what is the carbon equivalency for a gas-
powered car versus an internal combustion engine vehicle or in
an EV and what they find is that across the country it is often
100 to 200 miles per gallon equivalency when you look at the
carbon content.
So, point being is that in some regions, you might have a
cleaner grid. Other areas of the country you might have a
dirtier grid.
Mr. Donalds. Does that study take into account the
dirtiness of getting the rare earth minerals to create the
battery that goes into the car itself?
Mr. Britton. Yes. It is a full well to wheel analysis of
scope one, two, and three.
Mr. Donalds. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Stephen, quick question for you. If the Postal Service
was left to its own ability, would you be going down this line
of purchasing electric vehicles to the scale that the majority
party wants you to purchase electric vehicles?
Ms. Stephen. We would be purchasing the 20 percent that we
are taking forward in our acquisition today. That is an amount
that we can afford. There are benefits, particularly if applied
to the routes that have the right conditions where we can
actually capitalize on the benefits of an electric vehicle. The
more you drive the more you save.
Mr. Donalds. OK.
Ms. Stephen. So, the longer routes, routes that are between
40 and 70 miles in length, are really a sweet spot and the
OIG's independent TCO analysis found the same impact. Longer
routes give us the better opportunity for savings----
Mr. Donalds. Quick question because I am--quick question
because I am running out of time. I want try to focus this in.
Ms. Stephen. Yes.
Mr. Donalds. You are going to get funded--the Democrats
want to fund you to make these purchases more money above what
you are currently funded to run operations, or whatever we
backfill from the Treasury to keep you guys afloat. Are you
taking advantage of any other Federal subsidies in order to
make these acquisitions? Does that go into the analysis of
being able to buy electric vehicles at the Post Office?
Ms. Stephen. It will go into the analysis. We haven't
initiated that body of work yet. We just got the vehicle
contract signed. That will be in the process while we develop
infrastructure. So, we will absolutely consider it and have
plans in the works to assess available incentives.
Mr. Donalds. All right.
Real quick. Mr. Stein, I know we kind of talked about the
national security aspects of relying on China for electric
batteries. In your opinion, would that put us in a worse
position from a national security perspective than we currently
are with the oil and gas that we do import from several nations
around the world?
Mr. Stein. Certainly, 100 percent, based on today, because
most of our oil imports today actually come from countries like
Canada and Mexico. So, even the oil that we are importing isn't
necessarily from hostile nations and that has only been a
recent change in the last 10 years.
Mr. Donalds. Madam Chair, considering the fact that the
Chinese literally dominate the electric battery market, it
makes no sense at all why the U.S. Government should be giving
the Postal Service more billions of dollars to acquire
batteries that, literally, come from the Communist Chinese
Party and empowering them to put us at a disadvantage here at
home.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, I want to thank you for calling
this important hearing and for the excellent way in which you
are conducting it.
You know, climate change is a civilizational emergency
bearing down on us. We are seeing record forest fires
throughout the Western part of the United States consuming
millions of acres of forests.
We are seeing record drought throughout the Midwest, record
flooding on the East Coast, hurricanes at record velocity
smashing up against the Southern coast and the East coast of
the country.
We had a warning yesterday from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change that we are not remotely doing enough. This
is an emergency that we are in. We need all hands on deck and,
instead, we get a bunch of silly propaganda lectures about
Hunter Biden.
The climate benefits of electrifying the postal fleet are
significant. The Postal Service's 216,000 delivery vehicles
burn about 200 million gallons of gasoline each year, pumping
up the demand for gasoline and the price of gasoline.
A gallon of gasoline which weighs, roughly, 6.3 pounds
produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse
gases which will then linger in the Earth's atmosphere and
continue to heat and boil the planet for centuries.
Altogether, the Postal Service's gas-guzzling fleet emits
billions of pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse
gases every year.
Mr. Britton, tell us about what some of the concrete
climate benefits are that we will see if the Postal Service
does the logical thing now and electrifies its entire fleet.
Mr. Britton. Well, you bring up a good point, which is that
each and every year, and I think it was Atlas Public Policy
that estimated, that there is 12 megatons of carbon savings
that would be reduced every year.
And just for comparison, we actually put a fair market
price on that as the Federal Government through the tax credit
45Q, which is made available to coal companies, gas processors,
fertilizer plants, steam methane reformers, to reduce the
emission from those smokestacks.
If we allow, just as a comparison, the same level of
emissions reduction to be reimbursed through the 45Q tax
credit, we would be cutting a $6 billion check to the Postal
Service for the emissions reduction of electrification.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Ms. Stephen, is fleet electrification now
a goal of the Postal Service?
Ms. Stephen. I would say that the Postal Service is focused
on our core mission and on the strategies that we have outlined
within our Delivering for America Plan. The NGDV is a part of
that plan. But it is only one piece of the plan. We have many
other competing priorities.
Mr. Raskin. Well, right. We want to get the mail delivered
to our people. We want to do it six days a week and we want
to--you know, I don't want constituents calling me because the
mail is being delivered to the wrong place and all of that.
But within the category of this judgment, would the Postal
Service's preference be to have 100 percent fleet
electrification if the funding were available?
Ms. Stephen. If the funding was made available to us, we
would absolutely adjust our plans. Our plans today reflect what
we can afford within our own resources.
Mr. Raskin. Great. Well, look, I think we all share that as
a common goal then. You know, there may be a handful of people
left, unfortunately, who are still denying the reality of
climate change.
There may be some people who are so much in the thrall of
the oil and gas industry that they can't admit that the
survival of our species is in peril because of the dramatic
consequences of climate change all over the world with the
glaciers vanishing and the ocean levels rising and the polar
bears drowning because they are good swimmers but they are not
inexhaustible.
We are seeing dramatic evidence of the way that the climate
of the Earth is changing and some people just want to, you
know, stick their head under the sand, and it is the wrong way
to approach a catastrophe of this proportion.
So, this is a small step. We don't want to overstate it.
But it is a very significant one and, symbolically, it is
incredibly important and it will make a real difference in
terms of reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that
we are pumping into our own ecosystem.
So, I think at this point, Madam Chair, we have gotten
people who--the vast majority of the people who accept the
reality of climate change and the imperative of acting to
address it and those people who want to go back to rhetoric
that is now aging 10, 15, 20 years ago.
I yield back to you and thank you for this important
hearing.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is now recognized.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Madam Chair, pursuant to Clause 2(k)(6) of Rule 11 of
the rules of the House, I move that the Committee on Oversight
and Reform issue a subpoena to Hunter Biden as an additional
witness for this hearing.
Hunter Biden helped sell one of the world's largest cobalt
mines to China. Cobalt is a key component in batteries for
electric vehicles. It is obvious that Hunter Biden has a
valuable expertise which he can share with us today at this
hearing on electrifying the Federal fleet of postal vehicles.
So, Madam Chair, we should have him here at this hearing
and I urge my motion.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman has made a motion to
subpoena Hunter Biden. His motion is in order.
We have consulted with the parliamentarian and we will be
able to place this motion in abeyance and we will deal with it
before the end of today's hearing. This will be done out of
courtesy to the important witnesses that we have before us who
are here, and have to give adequate notice to all members.
We will consult with our members and announce a time to
return and dispose of this motion. Now we will move on with the
rest of the hearing. We have a serious hearing in front of us.
Let us move forward.
I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Biggs, for your
testimony.
Mr. Biggs. Well, thanks. I am happy to give testimony but I
will ask questions instead.
So when--I live in the West. We mine. Arizona is a mining
state. An electric vehicle requires elements that come from
mines. In fact, the batteries that they rely on come from the
ground.
There are so many innovations that have been put in place
for mining these critical minerals throughout the world but,
particularly, in the United States and in the Southwest.
And yet, we find that this administration, as well as
previous administrations, have continued to put speed sticks
down to prevent us from getting the mineral resources that we
need to actually build electric vehicles, build batteries,
build the craziest wind farms that you have, build the
materials necessary for solar.
So, you guys just don't want to mine. You don't want to
mine. You don't want to extract from the earth the gifts that
are necessary to implement your environmental goals and
strategies.
Mr. Stein, President Biden announced the use of the Defense
Production Act to boost mining of rare earth minerals, which
are necessary for electric cars in the U.S. Is that going to do
anything to help?
Mr. Stein. So in the announcement, the information that
they gave out, it didn't really say much about mining. There
was a lot of discussion of trying to increase processing in the
United States, which, of course, is important, too. But there
wasn't much action on the actual getting things out of the
ground.
Mr. Biggs. Well, can you discuss some of the issues that
will exist with regard to permitting rare earth mines and the
timeline for getting those mines up and running should this
administration ever decide that, hey, we want to be players in
the critical minerals?
Mr. Stein. Well, yes. It takes--at a minimum, you are
talking five to 10 years and that is assuming the permitting
goes well.
There are some mines that--I think the Twin Peaks Mine in
Minnesota may have had their first permit for 50 years, I
think--just had a few of them withdrawn. So, this is a long-
term thing. It takes many decades, especially given American
environmental standards.
So, if you actually want to do this, it would require a
sustained effort by multiple administrations forcing through
some of these environmental permits, fighting back against some
of the NIMBY-ism and environmental opposition to building these
mines, and I know that is a big problem in Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, when we think about it, and critical
minerals are necessary to build batteries and the vehicles
themselves that we are talking about today.
I can think of one country that has a substantial amount of
critical minerals and that would be Afghanistan. Can you
describe--I don't know if it is in your expertise--describe
some of the critical minerals that are available in
Afghanistan?
Mr. Stein. I am not familiar with the full inventory. But I
know that the USGS did do an estimate of the resources
available in the mountains in Afghanistan and almost all these
critical minerals were there and present in large quantities.
Of course, the question was how to actually build those mines
in the middle of a war zone. But yes.
Mr. Biggs. Right. And when we evacuated from Afghanistan we
turned those over to the Taliban, who is now engaged in
contractual relations with China to explore and extract.
Where are some other places around the world, and I am
thinking of China and other places around the world, that have
critical minerals that we would be reliant upon were we to
adopt this policy that we are discussing today?
Mr. Stein. Well, that is the key is that China processes
the majority of all these major minerals that go into EV
batteries. Now, not all the resources are in China, but they
have gone around the world and they have bought up mines. They
have bought off politicians. They work with people like the
Taliban, who we won't work with. They are open to all comers as
long as the resources get sent to China to be processed.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I am extremely alarmed at the anti-union
actions that Oshkosh has taken in recent months. Many of my
colleagues might not realize this, but Oshkosh's Wisconsin
facility has been a union facility for decades.
And for the record, Madam Chair, those unionized workers
are the ones who actually did the work to produce the products
and maintain the high standards of production that made Oshkosh
a competitor for this massive contract in the first place.
When Oshkosh submitted production proposals to USPS, those
proposals were based on capabilities demonstrated by the union
workers in Wisconsin, who represent countless combined years of
experience and expertise in their field.
So, Oshkosh's sudden decision to manufacture these trucks
in an unproven newly acquired facility with new hires is
nothing more than a bait and switch that betrays the very
workers who made Oshkosh the company it is today and have
proved that they have the skills to get the job done and get it
done right.
So, Madam Chair, I urge Oshkosh to end these blatant anti-
union actions and produce these vehicles in their tested and
proven Wisconsin facility.
And second, and this is something, Ms. Stephen, I hope you
do take back to leadership, we do need to talk about the
environmental shortsightedness of Postal Service's current
plan.
In February--in a letter in February that we posted to
Postmaster General DeJoy, Council on Environmental Quality
Chair Brenda Mallory, who has come to my district a number of
times, you know, she had warned that if the Postal Service
fails to improve its environmental review to meet its legal
obligations under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act,
then, quote, ``Congress or the Federal courts may compel USPS
to alter course.''
Like Ms. Mallory, the EPA, and so many of my colleagues, I
seriously doubt the Postal Service Environmental Impact
Statement meets its obligation as an independent agency.
Ms. Stephen, is it fair to say the Postal Service followed
its policies under NEPA and would, quote, ``emphasize
environmental issues and alternatives in the consideration of
proposed actions,'' which is a direct quote from USPS' own
policy on NEPA implementation?
Ms. Stephen. So, I would say that our team followed with
rigor the NEPA process. We put tens of thousands of person
hours.
Ms. Tlaib. So yes?
Ms. Stephen. Yes, we have followed rigors.
Ms. Tlaib. OK. So, if USPS actually lived up to its
responsibilities under NEPA, though, the Postal Service would
revise its EIS, and let me explain. Getting it right means
saving billions in maintenance and fuel costs and slashing
toxic pollution that is choking our communities.
I have one of the most polluted zip codes in the state of
Michigan. So, this is extremely important to my residents. USPS
has repeatedly acknowledged that electric vehicles are,
potentially, a better option in its responses to the inspector
general and the EPA. So, all we are asking Postmaster DeJoy and
USPS leadership to do is to stop intentionally making bad
choices, and let me explain, Ms. Stephen.
Right now, what is the maximum number of electric vehicles
and the minimum number of gas vehicles the Postal Service can
order and meet its contractual obligations right now?
Ms. Stephen. Fifty thousand, which is the size of the order
that we placed.
Ms. Tlaib. But there is room to buy more vehicles, electric
vehicles, way more, correct?
Ms. Stephen. Correct. But those would have to be justified
and funded.
Ms. Tlaib. I urge the Postal Service to revise its EIS to
bring itself back into line with the law and administrative
policy.
And what it is is this is a rare opportunity, because right
now you could be doing more and one of the things is the future
of, you know, I think, of our climate crisis and so forth.
But this is an opportunity I think you guys are short
falling, really not doing the maximum you could be doing in
that regard.
One of the things that I continue to hear from workers and
folks on the ground is that we didn't do our due diligence as a
Federal Government with the EIS and what they are saying is
that we didn't go farther, as Ms. Mallory, again, working for
the Biden administration, this is a person, again, that has
been on the ground talking to people--that looks like you all
might end up in court to compel you to comply with the NEPA
standards. Are you all aware of that?
Ms. Stephen. What I am aware of is that we have put a lot
of rigors into this and we built our alternatives to allow us
the flexibility to go from a minimum up to 100 percent battery
electric vehicles. We are balancing our financial resources
along with the intent to meet these environmental challenges.
So, it is a balance for beyond this.
Ms. Tlaib. So, do you think that Council on Environmental
Quality Chair Mallory is incorrect here?
Ms. Stephen. I do.
Ms. Tlaib. OK. So, you are probably going to end up in
court. Were you aware of that?
Ms. Stephen. I am aware of what is covered in the media. I
am also aware of----
Ms. Tlaib. No, no, this is factual. I don't really care
about the media. I have been involved with EIS processes as an
attorney, and if you are segmenting, if you are cutting up, if
you are doing it in a way and your interpretation of rigor, at
the end, if the result is not protecting the public, then you
are going to end up in court, ma'am.
Thank you so much. I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
You know, I think it is interesting that we have
politicians who are saying that union workers, I guess, are
more qualified than those that choose not to be in the union. I
would remind my friends across the aisle that it is the
employees that had the choice of going union or nonunion in a
right to work state, which is--South Carolina is a right to
work state and is where Oshkosh located their new facilities so
they can be competitive, and the employees do not have to go
there if that is not what they want.
But politicians, for them to be dictating who the Postal
Service can buy their vehicles from is laughable, to be honest
with you.
Ms. Stephen, let me run some figures by you. You know, we
have got my good friends across the aisle wanting to rely on
China for a product that is--that you have to have to produce.
Do you realize battery grade cobalt prices are up 119
percent from January 1, 2020, through mid-January 2022? Nickel
sulfate has gained 55 percent and lithium carbonate rose 569
percent.
Who pays the price on these increases? Regardless of what
the initial cost of the vehicle is, who bears that and is that
in the budget, that you know of?
Ms. Stephen. So our contract that we have signed stipulates
a specific price that we will pay for each vehicle. If there
are conditions in the market that are well beyond the
negotiated pricing, there is a procedural process through our
supply management processes to reassess and renegotiate.
Mr. Norman. But you would--you agree that with these
increases in prices that China that has sweatshop labor--with
China, that is not our friend--with China then as a communist
country, this could be a problem and what is to prevent them
from going up 600 percent? Anything?
Ms. Stephen. You know, the market is a challenge right now.
The availability of these resources is a challenge in many
ways.
Mr. Norman. They are a challenge because it is the policy
of this administration to, basically, sell out to China. Now,
you ask about some of the specifics of the product. What kind
of--when they gave you the--when they gave Oshkosh the mandate
to produce a product, they didn't just say let us just go
produce a product. They had specifications, didn't they?
Ms. Stephen. Absolutely.
Mr. Norman. All right. Would you walk me through the
requirements that you went through and the dollars that you put
to put prices on a product that was competitively bid and they
were the lower, which I would think my Democrat comrades would
like--less cost. Walk me through that process that you went
through.
Ms. Stephen. Yes, thank you. We initiated the process to
prepare for this solicitation in 2015. We have been developing
prototypes, working with industry, working with producers in
this field for many, many years and conducted an open
competitive production solicitation to arrive at our decisions.
I can tell you that Oshkosh Defense compellingly won this
competition. They had the highest technical scores. Our
employees who drove those vehicles rated them far and away more
favorably than any of the other models that were in
consideration and so their--their pricing was best. This was a
compelling example of a clear contract winner when this
contract award was made to Oshkosh.
Mr. Norman. So, for seven years, you invested your time,
your time, your talent to look at a--pricing a vehicle that
would be competitive. You didn't know who was going to bid on
this, did you?
Ms. Stephen. That is correct.
Mr. Norman. It was open to any and all comers?
Ms. Stephen. Yes, and we encouraged participation.
Mr. Norman. Yes. Well, it is an insult for some of the
questions you have had to endure and, particularly, the insult
about labor employees versus non-labor employees. And I admire
you for doing this and have you all--has your company ever--has
Oshkosh ever made a statement against a union?
Ms. Stephen. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Norman. So, if employees want to gather to--band
together and if they think a union is worth the dues that they
pay that comes out of their paycheck, they have got the freedom
to do it in a right to work state such as South Carolina.
Ms. Stephen. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Norman. Well, thank you for your time. I am about out
of time so I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. Bush, is recognized for
her five minutes.
Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Madam Chair, for
convening this timely hearing.
Electrifying the Postal Service fleet is an urgent priority
for environment and justice communities, including those in St.
Louis. We have a unique opportunity to reduce tailpipe
emissions and decrease cumulative pollution burdens that have
disproportionately harmed Black, brown, and indigenous
communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis.
The Postal Service's current procurement plan to continue
buying gasoline vehicles is in direct conflict with the
agency's policy to, quote, ``emphasize environmental issues and
alternatives and protect, restore, and enhance the quality of
the human environment,'' end quote.
It is also not in line with the policy to, quote, ``use the
NEPA process to assess reasonable environmental alternatives to
propose actions in order to avoid or minimize adverse
effects,'' end quote.
I am extremely troubled by the next generation delivery
vehicle proposed plan, which doubles down on decades of
pollution.
Ms. Stephen, is it correct that the Postal Service refused
to explore specific environmental justice mitigation options in
an expanded Environmental Impact Statement?
Ms. Stephen. I would say that the Environmental Impact
Statement supplement that was requested was not justified. Part
of that process demands the introduction of new information
that was not considered as part of the formal draft or final
environmental impact assessment process.
There were no substantive issues brought forward through
that process that had not previously been addressed--
considered, introduced, or addressed in the Postal Service's
Final Environmental Impact Statement. It just didn't rise to
the level that is required to consider a supplemental EIS.
Ms. Bush. OK. So, the fact that I was quoting the Postal
Service's response to the EPA comments in the NGDV Final
Environmental Impact Statement--OK.
The environmental racism on display from Postal Service
leadership is absolutely alarming. We have heard of no interest
in outside experiences and expertise that do not support
management's preference. In fact, Postal Service management did
not generally consider alternatives to the proposed plan. It
dismissed 100 percent, it dismissed 75 percent, and it
dismissed even 25 percent battery electric vehicle options.
As a Black woman with asthma from a community littered with
brownfields, I am offended, as a Congresswoman representing a
district where Black children have made 10 times more emergency
room visits for asthma than white children.
I am outraged. The Postal Service has a long history of
improving the lives of everyone by providing a critical public
service. The rejection of community-informed priorities by
Postal Service management is out of line with that history.
Ms. Naamane, is there anything preventing the Postal
Service from incorporating environmental justice into its
Environmental Impact Statement?
Ms. Naamane. That is not really in the scope of what we are
looking at. We are focused on the optimal mix model and the
total cost of ownership model, and the Environmental Impact
Statement is a separate process that is outside of the scope of
our current work.
Ms. Bush. So, left unchecked and without proactive measures
to serve the environmental justice community, the Postal
Service's sleight of hand will produce tens of millions of
metric tons of emissions over the NGDV's lifespan.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the chairwoman and our panelists for
appearing today. This is, certainly, a topic that needs to be
discussed--electrification of the postal fleet.
We have a constitutional obligation to support the Postal
Service and, of course, as part of the American narrative, you
know, where do electric vehicles fit.
And I would hope that this body has a reasonable and
prudent approach to this topic. But I find troubling though it
be it is quite easily observed that my colleagues across the
aisle are pushing electric vehicles no matter what.
If it is smart, they want electric vehicles. If it is not
smart, they want electric vehicles. They are not receptive to
reasonable arguments regarding just how effective and efficient
it could be.
But no one can argue the simple fact that we are
responsible for the people's treasure and American citizens are
watching hearings like this wondering just what is going on in
Congress.
We had two and a half million illegal crossings at our
southern border last year, 500,000 dedicated criminals. I am
not talking about family units that turn themselves in. I am
talking about what they call got-aways at the border.
These young men have plugged into the criminal networks.
They are coming here to do no good in our country. They had
80,000 last month pouring across our border. America is
watching and saying, what is going on in the Oversight
Committee? They are talking about electrification of cars.
So, let us talk about it. Rescue vehicles on our highways,
if you have been paying attention, are all powered by gasoline.
Mr. Stein, is that generally true? Highway service
vehicles, are they electric?
Mr. Stein. As far as I know, they are--.
Mr. Higgins. No, they are not. Of course, they run on
gasoline.
Every American has had some experience of running out of
fuel, the best of us, the most prepared. You get stuck in
traffic you didn't expect, there was a crash, something delays
your trip, and you are burning fuel you didn't anticipate. You
thought you had filled it up a couple of days before but you
did not.
For one reason or another, we have all run out of fuel.
What do you do? You get a ride to the nearest service station.
You buy a fuel can if you don't already have one. You get back
to your vehicle and put fuel in it. What are you going to do
with an electric car?
Mr. Stein, what are you going to do with an electric car if
you run out of juice on a highway?
Mr. Stein. You have to get it towed.
Mr. Higgins. You have to get it towed. Americans are
saying, hold on. We have to have our mail delivered.
Madam, what would the Postal Service do right now if a
Postal Service vehicle runs out of fuel on its route?
Ms. Stephen. A conventional vehicle today?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Stephen. Yes, we would call our local team and they----
Mr. Higgins. Yes. You would bring them gas pretty quick,
would you?
Ms. Stephen. That is right.
Mr. Higgins. What are you going to do if an electric postal
service vehicle runs out of juice?
Ms. Stephen. It is more challenging.
Mr. Higgins. You are going to have to tow it.
Ms. Stephen. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. So, listen, I say to my colleagues across the
aisle, maybe the time has come for this discussion but let us
have it honestly. It is not going to work. We are spending
billions of dollars of the people's treasure to accomplish some
dream, not to mention what my colleague has brought up.
The raw materials for these batteries are being mined by
child slave labor overseas. That raw product bought by China is
assembled, the finished product, by slave labor in China. Do we
support that?
For God's sakes, let us take a step back. As a committee,
we owe it to the American people that we serve. Take a hard
look at this thing. These patriotic intelligent young men and
women have come before us today. They are prepared to give us
answers.
The American people deserve the simple task that we
accomplish as their congressional servants that we ask the
right questions. The answers are before us. We are asking the
wrong questions. We have to reassess this--the realities of the
electrification of the postal fleet and perhaps my colleagues
can accept that simple fact.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I have a request that I made to the United
States Postal Service just to give me a summary of their
vehicle fleet, and I know we have a--I know we have a slide on
that. Yes, there we go.
[Slide.]
Mr. Lynch. So, we do have a dilemma where there are a lot
of very, very old vehicles that we have in service that are
high maintenance vehicles and on this chart. We are talking
about LLVs. Those are long-life vehicles. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, these are vehicles that have been on the
road for about 29 years, 4 or 5 years beyond their expected
service life.
And so what I might suggest to the Postmaster General is
there some way that--for those vehicles that are on their last
legs, literally, that are presenting a safety or a public
safety hazard, really, to--not only to the men and women who
drive them but also to the general public?
Is there a way we could phaseout those vehicles, replace
them in the short term with combustion engine vehicles, as
regrettable as that is, but to there and after? So, in the very
immediate term to take a certain percentage of those vehicles
and allow them to be replaced with combustion engines but for
the great majority, I would say 80 percent of these vehicles
that could be replaced gradually, I would like to see that, you
know, as a compromise invested in and acted upon by the United
States Postal Service.
Ms. Stephen, is that something that we can work out here
because the way this is going right now, to have such a small
number of electric vehicles--10 percent of the fleet--and to
commit the American people for the next 30 years to be burning
diesel and gas-guzzling, you know, vehicles?
You know, I have a high asthma rate in a lot of parts of my
district. I got a major postal facility, the general postal
facility at South Station. And then if you count up all those
individual post offices where they are hubs of transportation
in the local neighborhoods, it would be a huge benefit to a lot
of these people all over the country, Louisiana to
Massachusetts, if we could get clean on our postal fleet and
convert, you know, completely to electric vehicles. I just want
your thoughts on that.
Ms. Stephen. Well, I would say that the internal combustion
engine versions of the NGDV have significant improvements in
fuel economies and in environmental data versus our existing
fleet.
So, any level of investment----
Mr. Lynch. How do they compare to electric vehicles?
Ms. Stephen. Of course, electric vehicles are better. Of
course, they are better.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. I mean, a world better, right? I mean, you
know, we are talking zero emissions, right?
Ms. Stephen. Two hundred percent was the value. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. So, what I am suggesting is you are starting--
you are real--you are clearing a very low bar here. You know, a
vehicle that is burning diesel and has been on the road for 29
years, it is pretty easy to beat that----
Ms. Stephen. Certainly.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. Is what I am suggesting.
Ms. Stephen. Yes. Emission standards have, certainly, moved
on.
Mr. Lynch. So, what about the mix that--the way that we are
phasing this in? What is the critical path to get us to all
electric? What is the most efficient way?
And I don't want to wait 30 years for this to happen. I
would like it to happen tomorrow, if we could.
Ms. Stephen. Sure. So, the 10,000 vehicles of that 50,000
purchase that are battery electric vehicles, that is what the
Postal Service can fund within our own resources, right.
We have structured our contracts, and beyond the contract
itself we have structured the mechanism to allow us to apply
additional funding. We can even change the proportion of
electric vehicles for the ones that are already on order if
additional resources are made available.
We are similarly structuring flexibility in our planned
contracts for the infrastructure work. So, the Postal Service
stands ready to make these changes as resources are made
available either from our coffers, which we have already
demonstrated, or from other external sources.
So, we are ready to make those shifts as resources are
available.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I know I am running out of time here.
But we put $8 billion in the Build Back Better Act. I think $6
billion was for vehicles and $2 billion were for
infrastructure. And we have got to move it along here. We are
lagging desperately behind where we should be in making this
move.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for all your courtesy and for your
work on this issue as well. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
And the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Herrell, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stephen, it was stated earlier that the Postal Service
is well positioned then to electrify their fleet. But is that
exactly true, the entire fleet?
Ms. Stephen. Our focus has been on the replacement of the
delivery fleet, not our entire fleet.
Ms. Herrell. So, the top priority of the Postal Service is
still to deliver the mail in a timely fashion?
Ms. Stephen. Absolutely. That is mission critical for us.
Ms. Herrell. But and I just want to kind of go off what was
just being said. If you were to raise the number of electric
vehicles in your current order, where would you find the money?
I mean, because you are saying there is maybe some different
silos and so forth. Where would that money come from in terms
of your interior--your budget?
Ms. Stephen. So, those adjustments have already been made.
That was part of what allowed us to support the decision to go
from 5,000 electric vehicles to over 10,000. We were able to
look at our own resources. We have had some great progress
already, early progress, from the execution of our Delivering
for America Plan that is helping us find other resources.
And, of course, postal reform has allowed us to make some
shifts in resources. That 10,019 does--is the maximum that our
resources allow us to support today in light of all of the
other organizational priorities that are part of that strategic
plan.
Ms. Herrell. OK. So, if you were mandated to, say, increase
the number of electric vehicles, you don't--it would not have
an impact on the Delivering for America Plan?
Ms. Stephen. I mean, it could potentially. It, certainly,
presents a risk, right. Competing resources--you know, we want
to make sure that we are making good on all of the commitments
in Delivering for America. So, we need to be mindful of those
changes. It, certainly, introduces a risk. But it is not
something that we believe is insurmountable. We just need to
coordinate those initiatives and make sure that we have the
facilitated coordination between them.
Ms. Herrell. Right, because I think--what I think I am
seeing is, you know, we have got two different things happening
because this is going right at the heart of the Postal Service
Reform Act that we just passed, and now we are looking at
something that is actually going to compromise what we tried to
help the Post Office do. So, it makes no sense.
But what I am concerned about is what about the rising
costs in terms of future years? You know, how are you going to
subsidize yourselves to continue an increase in costs for an
electric vehicle fleet? Because the demand in terms of energy
and rare earth minerals, et cetera, is not going to go away.
So, how do you compensate for that?
Ms. Stephen. I would say that we are comfortable with the
10,019 that are in our acquisition today. Unless we have other
resources, we would not advance beyond that unless we either
find resources or they are made available to us. We feel that
that 10,019 is a manageable proposition within the scope of all
of the other activities that we have underway to support the
Delivering for America Plan.
Ms. Herrell. So--and I understand it. I mean, I get the
energy. I get the environment. I understand all that. But do
you think it is worth child safe labor to have these cars put
into your fleet? Yes or no.
Ms. Stephen. No.
Ms. Herrell. And there you have it, and I have to agree
with my colleague, Mr. Higgins. We should have a very honest,
transparent conversation for the American people about what
this means.
We have resources here at home but an administration that
refuses to allow us to tap these natural resources, and yet, we
turn the blind eye on child slave labor around the world and
somehow make it OK to invest in a fleet of electric vehicles
for the Post Office or whatever else the administration wants
to do.
Thank you for your honest answer in that question.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Brown, is now recognized for
questions.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for holding this
hearing and thank you for all the witnesses for joining us
today.
First, I would like to thank Congressman Connolly for
introducing the Green Postal Service Fleet Act. I am a proud
original co-sponsor of this legislation that would prevent the
new purchase of gas-guzzling vehicle fleets for the Postal
Service.
President Biden has made a clear and stated goal of
electrifying the Federal fleet and I fully support his
commitment.
Let us shift our attention to current events. Russia's
recent unprovoked and devastating war against Ukraine
underscores the urgency of eliminating our reliance on fossil
fuels so that no country is forced to bear higher energy costs
due to the behavior of an irrational, unpredictable, and brutal
war criminal.
Some propose increasing the production of fossil fuels here
in the U.S. But that is a very siloed approach that attempts to
address one global challenge at the expense of another.
Electric vehicle offers an opportunity to address multiple
challenges at once.
Not only do they reduce emissions to combat climate change
but they also secure America's energy independence while
providing the opportunity to create jobs and advance America's
competitive edge on the global stage.
Mr. Britton, how are President Biden's made in America
policies ensuring that electric vehicles create a win-win
scenario for the American people?
Mr. Britton. Well, thank you for the question. There is
actually a brand new automotive industry corridor that is
manufacturing and recreating communities all across not just
from Michigan and Ohio but down to Indiana, to Kentucky to
Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama.
We are seeing every single week a new announcement of more
jobs and more investments in this space, and it is imperative
for us to lean into this because we don't need to look too far
back to see what happened when we got caught from behind.
If you look in 2007, Americans, because of a gas price
spike like we are seeing today, started to turn to more fuel-
efficient foreign imports for their vehicles.
So, this is an opportunity for us to meet consumer demand,
create great and good-paying jobs, revitalize communities. So,
if you look at Rivian they took over a Mitsubishi plant. Tesla
has rejuvenated a plant. You look at Lordstown, they took over
a GM plant. These are opportunities for us to not only, you
know, look at the American consumer and the driver but create
jobs and drive down emissions, which are, obviously, important
for both climate change and public health.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. You actually touched on my
second question, which was about the jobs being created across
the country due to the President's commitment to expanding
domestic and industrial base for the EV supply chain. So, thank
you for that.
From charging infrastructure to the electric vehicles
themselves and the many components they require, the down
payments we make now on securing the American vehicle supply
chain will provide compounding benefits for the U.S. economy
far into the future.
Ms. Stephen, will postal routes change because of the
adoption of electric vehicles, and also will it save time on
mail delivery?
Ms. Stephen. So, I would say that the choice of the
vehicle--sorry, I lost where you were on the screen there. The
choice of the vehicle--I hate to say it in this way--doesn't
matter in terms of the efficiency except for having a right
hand drive vehicle that is purpose built for curbside delivery.
That is essential to our mission. The decision about
whether it is an internal combustion engine or an electric
vehicle doesn't affect the daily activities for the carriers
who are using those vehicles as long as it is the right
vehicle, that custom built right hand drive vehicle, that is
built for curbside mail delivery.
The source of the energy does not necessarily, we don't
anticipate, make a significant difference in how they would go
about conducting their work or develop any additional
efficiencies.
Ms. Brown. Thank you for that. So, what changes will the
Postal Service need to make to ensure the next generation
delivery vehicle is part of the solution in securing a win-win
electric vehicle future for the American people, Ms. Stephen?
Ms. Stephen. We stand ready to support this effort today.
We are excited to bring forward a green platform. Even though
we understand the desire to go further, we are really proud to
take forward a portion of the fleet that we can afford within
our resources, within our strategic plans, and be part of
building that future. We have done everything we possibly can
to create additional flexibilities that allow us to adjust to
go further if additional resources are made available.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. I think we all can agree that
more can always be done and the Postal Service is no exception.
But it is time that the Postal Service go all in on electric
vehicles, and I look forward to reviewing your plans to do so.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized.
Mr. Grothman. First of all, I would like to thank you all
for being here today. I know a lot of times in these hearings,
a lot of people don't come over here and I really appreciate
all you fine folks coming over here.
As I understand it, we have shifted, correct, Ms. Stephen,
from shifting away from electric vehicles and more toward, I am
sorry, shifted away from gas-powered vehicles and more toward
electric vehicles.
Do you think we will be able to, no problem, we will be
able to produce that many?
Ms. Stephen. I have the utmost confidence in our partner,
Oshkosh, to be able to produce whichever quantities of
whichever drivetrain we require.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Some of my colleagues proposed requiring
75 percent of the vehicles to be electric.
Do you think that is a reasonable possibility or do you
think that is really something that could not be handled right
now?
Ms. Stephen. I think it is a bit beyond what our estimates
say is possible. When we were asked by some of the
congressional committee members and staff throughout the last
year to assess how far we could go with our electrification,
the response we provided was 70 percent of our delivery fleet
acquisitions over the course of the decade could be electrified
if resources were made available.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Ms. Whitcomb, could you give me your
opinion on that?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, I think it is definitely something to
consider. Feasibility studies are critical. Some parts of the
routes are probably not well-suited. They might be too long for
an electric vehicle. So, there are some limitations.
But in our study, we found that there is definitely
opportunities for significantly more electrification of the
vehicle fleet.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I always care a great deal about the
people who put these vehicles together. I am going to ask Mr.
Stein a question, do you mind, and it is kind of a followup on
what Ms. Herrell said.
We look not just as the companies as building the vehicles,
but the components or the materials that are mined or put
together in other countries. Could you comment on the
difference between the type of people who are working to put
together the stuff for the gas-powered vehicles and the
electric vehicles.
Mr. Stein. Well, sure. That gets into the question of where
the minerals that come and go into these vehicles. And when we
talk about critical minerals, we talk about things like cobalt
and we talk about some of the rare earths that are processed in
China.
These resources, right now, they come from places where, in
the Congo, there is child labor. In China, there is an entire
race of people that are being enslaved for this sort of thing:
the Uyghur minority.
So, when these supply chains are stretched across the
world, which they certainly do, and they do in the part, and to
a certain extent in ICE vehicles they also do, as well, but
much more of that manufacturing capacity happens in the United
States than the----
Mr. Grothman. What was the last country you mentioned
there? I missed it.
Mr. Stein. China.
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Mr. Stein. Talking about the Uyghur minority, the Muslim
minority.
Mr. Grothman. I thought you mentioned another country, too.
OK. I know other people, they have always been out there
and out of side, out of mind, and they don't care how people
are being abused, but is that something that, as far as you
know, the United States in any area, cares about or do we just
buy from companies, whether it is, you know, the full
healthcare, you know, good pensions in France or Germany or
whether it is the Uyghurs and maybe very young people abroad,
is that something that you find here in America, we really
don't care who is producing it or do any companies care about
that?
Mr. Stein. Generally, most companies voluntarily make a big
effort to ensure that they are sustainably sourced, I guess,
like safely sourced. The Government also requires some of those
things, too. There are occasional laws, like the Uyghur
minority, there has been laws passed about using Uyghur slave
labor.
And, of course, that is in direct contrast to the way that
China operates, is they truly do not care. They don't care who
dies to get the product, as long as it gets to China.
And this is a big problem with buying so much, many of our
components that are processed in China. It is very hard to
trace the supply chain back to where it actually comes from, to
know whether there is slave labor used, to know what the
conditions are at mines in the Congo, that are in the middle of
war zones. So, you can't send health inspectors in to see what
is going on.
Mr. Grothman. For those of us who care about workers in
other countries, as well as just this country, then, do you
feel gas-powered vehicles would probably the labor that is
building them or putting together the components would be a
little more what we would expect in America?
Mr. Stein. Probably yes, just because so much more of that
manufacturing and assembly happens in the United States, so we
can actually supervise it. Certainly, some of the resources do,
that go into even the ICE cars do come from, perhaps, unsafe
areas, and areas where workers are abused, but yes.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, the Postal Service has with once ``in a
generation'' chance to replace its aging Grumman mail trucks,
which last came out of the assembly line in 1994. But instead
of looking to the future, the Postal Service plans for 90
percent of its new fleet to be gas guzzlers.
These trucks, as we have talked about this morning, get
only 14 miles per gallon, and less than 9 miles per gallon when
the AC runs. And this stands in sharp contrast to the private
sector, where major shipping companies are making great efforts
to reduce their carbon footprint.
For instance, FedEx and Amazon pledge to have their whole
operations be carbon neutral by 2040 and electric fleets are a
big part of that. UPS also made robust investments in
sustainable vehicles to become carbon neutral by 2050.
Mr. Britton, can you briefly give your experience working
with the private sector and give us a sense of whether FedEx
and Amazon can meet these goal pledges?
Mr. Britton. Well, actually, just last week, I was at the
Rivian plant and saw the Amazon vehicles firsthand. They have
ordered 100,000 of them. They are in production. And I think
that Amazon is going to be quite happy with the fuel savings.
We actually created a report and an analysis of how much it
costs to propel your vehicle with gasoline versus electricity,
and we did a comparison in 16 different states. We could
compare triple-A gas price data to Energy Information
Administration electricity data and we found that it is 500 to
600 times more costly to power your vehicle with gasoline. So,
I think both Amazon and FedEx will be quite happy with their
100 percent electrification plans.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, I bet they would.
Ms. Stephen, as your direct competitors electrify their
fleets, and we have cities and counties all over America that
are electrifying their buses, it blows my mind that the U.S.
Postal Service is taking such, you know, infinitesimal steps
toward electrification.
As your direct competitors electrify their fleets, how can
you justify transitioning just 10 percent of USPS' fleet to
electric vehicles?
Ms. Stephen. So, first, I would like to clarify that the
10,019 vehicles out of our 50,000 purchase, it is higher than
the 10 percent statistic. But the most important point why
there is a difference, our use case is different. It is
completely different.
The Postal Service drive cycle, as we refer to it, includes
hundreds of starts and stops throughout the day. Our carriers
are driving house to house, mailbox to mailbox. There is a
start and an acceleration, a stop, then the delivery of mail
into the mailbox, and then they start over again. And they do
that hundreds of times a day.
Typically, our competitors, when they drive down a similar
street will stop----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I just going to reclaim my time
now, I am sorry, I am going to reclaim my time because your
answer is warranting my asking Ms. Whitcomb, because the USPS
OIG noted in its own audit that frequent stopping may allow
delivery vehicles to increase efficiency through regenerative
braking, which is a standard vehicle in electric vehicles.
So, Ms. Whitcomb, what impact would the frequent stops have
on the overall life of an electric vehicle battery and,
consequently, the total cost of ownership.
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, in some cases, we thought it provided
some opportunities and so I am probably, maybe a little less
qualified than Mr. Britton to address the regenerative braking
issue, but we did address that in our work, that there are some
opportunities there in the use case the Postal Service provides
to enhance its use of electric vehicles.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, Mr. Britton, do you want to
answer that question and then answer, under the same driving
conditions, would an electric vehicle perform better or worse
than a gas-powered vehicle?
Mr. Britton. Well, it would perform better, and actually,
in some ways, the inverse of what you would expect with an
internal combustion engine vehicle, in an ICE vehicle, you may
get better gas mileage on the highway. For many EVs, the
starting and stopping, especially if you have strong
regenerative braking, will provide you greater range in city
driving, especially with use cases where you are starting and
stopping every 20 or 30 feet. That is especially important from
an emissions standpoint, though.
Your average internal combustion engine postal vehicle is
idling that entire time and emitting not only CO2, but other
pollution into the community that we do not need to do. And so,
the frequent start and stop makes it a perfect use case for
electrification.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And last, Ms. Whitcomb, assuming
that the adoption of electric vehicles will save the Postal
Service money in the long run, does USPS have the financial
resources to increase its percentage of electric vehicles?
Ms. Whitcomb. The Postal Service has a significant amount
of cash set aside for capital investments. Obviously, some of
that money is going toward its vehicle fleet, along with other
capital investments. And so, I think in our analysis, our model
showed that there are some benefits to subsidies to help the
Postal Service. It makes the cost-benefit equation better for
the Postal Service, but, obviously, the Postal Service is
investing its own cash right now in the electric vehicles.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentlelady.
And now the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson is now
recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are vehicles in the Postal Service fleet that are 30
years old. When would be a good time to transition to a less,
fuel-dependent fleet, if not now? Electric vehicles would
release less emissions, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,
and help lead our country in the right direction in combatting
the climate crisis, and electric vehicles will also save
taxpayers $100 million in costs for gasoline.
Ms. Stephen, based on an average price for gasoline as of
January 2021, it would cost $500 million to fuel the Postal
Service's internal combustion engine fleet to cover the 1.5
billion vehicle miles traveled annually at $3 a gallon, which
was the average price in January 2021; isn't that correct?
Ms. Stephen. I will assume that your data is correct.
Mr. Johnson. And using the June 2021 average price for
electricity and an electric fleet could cover the same number
of miles for hundreds of millions of dollars less; isn't that
correct?
Ms. Stephen. I don't know that it is correct. Part of what
the difference is how far you drive and----
Mr. Johnson. Just based on current figures----
Ms. Stephen. Sure.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Wouldn't the taxpayers save
hundreds of millions of dollars per year in gasoline costs if
we were to move to an electric vehicle fleet?
Ms. Stephen. The Postal Service funds those fuel costs, not
the taxpayers, and so there would be potential for----
Mr. Johnson. OK. You are right.
But the people who purchase stamps----
Ms. Stephen. Yes----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Who pay for the Postal Service--
--
Ms. Stephen [continuing]. That is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. They would suffer a cost, well,
let's just say the Postal Service can do business with an
electric fleet, operating, without having to purchase hundreds
of millions of dollars in gasoline per year. That would save
the customers of the Post Office, correct?
Ms. Stephen. Agreed.
Mr. Johnson. And the investment in an electric vehicle
fleet would not only insulate the Postal Service from high and
variable gasoline prices, but it would also diminish the cost
of potential increased miles traveled that were not budgeted;
isn't that correct?
Ms. Stephen. I would agree with your point.
Mr. Johnson. And in 2016, the Postal Service fleet traveled
203 million more miles than originally estimated, correct?
Ms. Stephen. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Johnson. And that required a purchase of 30 million
more gallons of gasoline than initially projected, correct?
Ms. Stephen. I believe so.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Naamane, rural communities are sometimes overlooked and
I am worried that they may not be able to benefit from the
technological advances of the electric vehicles. Have you
looked at the infrastructural demands for rural and low-income
communities and options for meeting that demand?
Ms. Naamane. We haven't looked at that specifically. We do
note that installation of charging infrastructure is a
significant factor that needs to be considered and can be a
challenge in determining the placement of the correct
deployment of the vehicles and providing the service that is
affected.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Whitcomb, according to the U.S. Postal Service OIG
report, a report published in 2021 showed that six electric
vehicles acquired in 2017 had reduced fuel consumption by 5,888
gallons and saved approximately $10,000 in fuel costs. Just six
vehicles.
Imagine if the entire fleet were to be replaced, what would
cost-savings and fuel consumption look like if every postal
vehicle were electric.
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, when we did our analysis of what would
happen if the charging infrastructure and the initial purchase
of the vehicles was subsidized, we found that there would be an
11 percent decrease in costs for the Postal Service moving
forward with an electric fleet. So, it has a significant impact
on the Postal Service's cost moving forward because of the fuel
costs reduction, energy-cost reduction, as well as the charging
infrastructure and maintenance reductions, as well. So, there
is definitely a positive impact moving forward.
The challenge is the upfront costs.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
My time is expired and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now recognized.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Whitcomb, has your office studied the impact of the 75
percent electric vehicle mandate on the Postal Service's
ability to implement the Delivering for America Plan?
Ms. Whitcomb. We have not studied a 75 percent requirement
at all as part of our work.
Mr. Cloud. Do you have plans to study that?
Ms. Whitcomb. We have not be asked to do that. We have been
asked to do some additional work to look at the Postal
Service's compliance with NEPA in its Environmental Impact
Statement and that is what we are doing, moving forward.
But if that 75 percent request comes our way, we will
definitely take a look at it.
Mr. Cloud. There was a post from the USPS Office of
Inspector General's LinkedIn account promoting your testimony
today on this hearing. It said: How the agency can acquire more
vehicles.
Are you here to promote electric vehicle purchases or are
you here as a nonpartisan witness?
Ms. Whitcomb. I am here as a nonpartisan witness.
Mr. Cloud. OK. I have a question for Mr. Stein.
What we have seen in the past right now is car prices are
going up dramatically. Used car prices are, I think, 40 percent
higher. New cars, electric car prices are also going up. We
have supply chain issues going on right now. The Biden
administration's solution to high gas prices has been to tell
everybody to buy an electric car, which for most people, that
is out of their price range.
Can you speak to the role that our supply chain's play in
obtaining necessary resources, such as lithium, cobalt for
battery-operated electric vehicles.
Mr. Stein. Right. So, all these minerals we have been
talking about are the, they go into the electric vehicle
batteries and they are the largest component of the cost of an
electric vehicle. So, as these prices skyrocket, and they have
partly to the war, but they also were rising even before on
supply chain issues, so that directly translates into higher
costs for electric vehicles.
I think Tesla has raised their prices twice just this year
because of these supply chain issues.
Mr. Cloud. OK. And has the Office of Inspector General,
have you looked at kind of a more comprehensive approach of
what this would mean as far as markets in general?
Ms. Whitcomb. We have note looked at that. We looked
specifically at the Postal Service and how the opportunities
and challenges. It is kind of a hot, the paper that we
published was kind of a higher-level look at opportunities and
challenges associated with electric vehicles at the Postal
Service.
Mr. Cloud. And what is the average expected lifespan for a
battery in an electric vehicle, in these electric vehicles?
Ms. Whitcomb. In our analysis, the model looked at 10
years.
Mr. Cloud. At 10 years?
Ms. Whitcomb. Uh-huh.
Mr. Cloud. And these need to last 20 years; is that what we
are saying?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, our analysis had a 20-year lifespan, uh-
huh, so one replacement of the battery.
Mr. Cloud. OK. And Mr. Stein, when it comes to batteries
and when it comes to, I mean, there is debate now on what
should the right mix be between electric vehicles, whether
there should be 20 percent, 75 percent. A lot of that is going
to depend on the region, the routes.
I live in, you know, rural Texas, so the routes are a lot
larger and the infrastructure is different, those kinds of
things.
Also, there is an extremely--can you speak to battery
performance when it comes to regionally, when it comes to
climate, when it comes to hot, extreme hot and cold
temperatures, seasonal, those kinds of things.
Mr. Stein. Right. That is an important operational variable
and that is actually discussed in both, the Record of Decision
and IG's report. And part of the problem is that that is very
uncertain. We do know that in very hot and very cold
temperatures, battery performance does degrade overtime, but
part of the problem is, as has already been discussed, the
Postal Service has a very unique way of operating, that Amazon
or UPS, they don't do the same thing. So, it is hard to even
take from their lesson of how their batteries have worked.
But even in, I think it was in the OIG report, they even
found that some of the, a lot of the proposed ranges, the
expected ranges actually didn't come through. I think it was
the German Deutsche Post had shorter ranges than they expected.
Amazon had some shorter ranges and that is because of the
actual operational use was different from the theoretical
range. So, I think that is part of what my point has been,
being very cautious about introducing electric vehicles until
we know how they actually perform in the use by the Postal
Service.
Mr. Cloud. So, you would advocate for a more gradual
implementation; is that what you are looking at?
Mr. Stein. I think 20 percent is a little higher than I
might go, but certainly for more than that.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
We will be voting on the motion to subpoena in five
minutes, so I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Kelly for her questions and we will be voting in five minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The global auto market stands at a crossroads today and
companies and countries, alike, are racing to see who will win
the EV race.
Mr. Britton, last year you said, and I quote, the choices
we face are stark. We either cultivate an advanced vehicle
sector or cede this economic opportunity to others. You then
explained how China's economy has captured the EV market, but
that the U.S. has the opportunity to reclaim its leadership in
this important transformation.
Mr. Britton, can you say more about what is at stake in the
global race for leadership in the EV market and how are
President Biden's policies helping the U.S. seize the
opportunity.
Mr. Britton. Well, thank you for the question. I think we
have heard a lot of talk about what other countries'
capabilities are. I don't think it is the American way to look
at strategic advantages that others have and then to shy away
from that battle. We know how to compete and we have won these
fights before, and we know that the consumer is going to be
demanding electric vehicles.
So, the opportunity before us is twofold. One is, are we
able to meet those consumer demands with domestically
manufactured vehicles by cultivated a strong industry, and
then, two, are we also able to drive the public benefits of
both, emissions reduction for a climate change, but also public
health.
And so, those two combinations are ones where we can drive
multiple values and do it in a way that makes everybody better
off. Even if you never get behind the wheel of an EV, the more
electric vehicles on the road benefits workers in those plants,
retail outlets in those communities, and then everybody who is
breathing in pollution today.
And one of the things that I would mention is we have,
many, many Americans, 40 percent of Americans are living in
areas with subpar air quality that is hurting their public
health and if you are an American of color, you are two to
three times likely to be part of that 40 percent that is
breathing in pollution. And Black and Brown Americans certainly
in the mid-Atlantic, studies have shown, breathe in 66 percent
of that pollution.
So, it is really important for us to look at the multitude
of values that we can drive down, whether that is economic
development and manufacturing or it is emissions reduction for
both, climate change and public health. Everybody can be better
off.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
And how do Federal purchasing decisions impact the domestic
EV market and how can we make sure that these purchasing
decisions deliver the greatest benefit possible to the American
people?
Mr. Britton. Well, I think the most important thing that we
can do is send the signal that this is an area that the
government and the Federal Government, in particular, is moving
in, and the Biden administration has already offered an
executive order that should be a clear signal to the Postal
Service that this is a direction that they ought to be going.
But, really, it is, you know, I don't think you even need
to look. You could look past the manufacturing benefits, past
the emissions reduction benefits. The Postal Service is set to
save $4.3 billion if they electrify. It is more expensive to
drive an internal combustion engine vehicle than an electric
vehicle. And their model relies on a 50 percent discount on
gasoline for the next 18 years. It then is taking the cost of a
charger and inflating it by a magnitude of 10 and tripling the
number of chargers that we need, and then they are assuming
that the range of these vehicles are half of what they can
actually achieve.
And so, if we had a model that reflected reality and was
based in fact, it would be an easy answer and a no-brainer that
is reflected in what their competitors are doing today; FedEx,
Amazon, UPS, everybody is moving in this direction, not from an
ESG sensibility, but because it is good for business and it is
good for their bottom line.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Ms. Stephen, does the Postal Service take these broader
policy goals into consideration when deciding whether to
purchase gas or electric versions of its next generation
delivery vehicle?
Ms. Stephen. Certainly, they are in consideration, but they
are also in the context of our Delivering for America Plan and
our internal resources and our need to be self-sustaining
financially. So, it is a balance of all of those factors.
Ms. Kelly. Did the Postal Service conduct any data-driven
studies to determine the optimum number of electric vehicles to
purchase, yes or no?
Ms. Stephen. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. Well, can you provide the committee with the
data and the study?
Ms. Stephen. If it is protected and specifically requested
through formal channels, we can followup on that, yes.
Ms. Kelly. And as we have heard, Mr. Britton, the purchase
of EVs under President Biden's ``Made in America'' policy would
reduce pollution, create jobs, advance U.S. leadership in
innovation and help make the U.S. a global leader in EV
production.
Ms. Naamane, would you say that purchase of such EVs would
be in the national interest of the United States?
Ms. Naamane. Well, the purchasing power of the Federal
Government is certainly a, can be a driver in the private
markets.
Ms. Kelly. I am out of time. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
We will now consider the subpoena motion and I now
recognize Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I move to table.
Chairwoman Maloney. All those in favor of tabling the
motion of the gentleman say aye.
Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
motion is tabled.
OK. I now recognize Mr. DeSaulnier. But he is not up there.
Mr. DeSaulnier, you are now recognized.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
having this hearing.
I wanted to ask all of the panelists, and thank you for
being here today, I have spent, I was able to get a bill with
$7 billion into the transportation infrastructure bill for
battery charging stations and fuel substations.
So, it strikes me that obviously the Postal Service, as a
retail, national sort of real estate asset, that looking at
infrastructure is part of not just transitioning the fleet, and
we have done a lot of work on this in California when I was on
the Transportation Committee and when I was on car fuel cells
having a former Republican Governor who talked about the
Hydrogen Highway.
So, my question is, how can we use the real estate assets
not only to help the Postal Service electrify its fleet, but
also to have charging and fuel-cell stations at postal
facilities, and I will just let you answer that question in the
order that you have testified.
Ms. Whitcomb. Sure. I can go first and then go down the
aisle.
Obviously, the Postal Service has an extensive nationwide
retail infrastructure. There are opportunities there, but there
are also challenges with doing that, and I can move to Ms.
Stephen. She can probably explain better some of the challenges
associated with that. But there is an extensive infrastructure
there that the Postal Service maintains.
Ms. Stephen. Thank you. I will go ahead and jump in, as
well.
So, we have more than 17,000 facilities where we are
planning to, if we fully electrified our delivery fleet, where
we would need some kind of charging infrastructure. We also
have additional retail facilities beyond that quantity, as
well. So, you are right, we definitely have a significant
physical presence.
One of the things that is important to us from a safety
perspective and a security perspective is that all of our
vehicles are behind what we call in the secured fence line.
There are reasons for not only security, you know, security of
the mail to make sure that it is only authorized personnel in
that space, but also for safety perspective; there is moving
vehicles, moving containers. So, it is really important to us
to consider this equation outside of that scope. So, perhaps,
on the front end of the postal retail parking locations, for
example.
We are willing to have the discussions. We are absolutely
willing to participate in those discussions. We do have
concerns about making sure that we continue to have
sufficiently available parking, especially during peak hours
for our retail customers who are coming to their local post
office to transact with us. So, that is important to us, and
making sure that, you know, that there is a way to take this
forward.
We are happy to have those discussions and entertain those
analyses and determine a place that we can help contribute. We
understand the importance.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks.
Ms. Naamane. And so, we have ongoing work that is looking
at opportunities and challenges of using postal facilities as
locations for public charging infrastructure. There could be a
number of different use cases for, that would make sense. There
could be some cases where it may not make sense. There could be
gaps in service for, in charging locations, for example, where
a Postal Service facility could maybe fill that gap.
But as Ms. Stephen mentioned, there are probably some
challenges, as well, the security and legal challenges, and we
will be looking at all of those in our ongoing work.
Mr. Britton. So, one of the things that I would recommend,
obviously diversifying the retail options for the Postal
Service has been something of a discussion in reform debates
for years, but part of the capital upgrades for charging is
some of the highest-cost expense. So, you could share the power
delivery if you are trenching and delivering new power to a
part of the Postal Service. Some of those chargers could be
behind the fence. Some could be in front of the fence for
customers.
And I think one of the areas that, you know, we want to set
the Postal Service apart is for consumers. So, we want there to
be an additional incentive for them to choose the Postal
Service over their other options. And so, if there is charging,
as more and more electric vehicles become part of the Federal,
individual light-duty fleet, we want to meet them where they
are at as consumers and they are going to be shopping and,
obviously, voting with their dollars. We want that to be with
the Postal Service. We believe firmly in charging options,
whether that is joint or something that is distinguished just
for retail customers.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks.
Mr. Stein. I will mostly defer to the post office. They
troubleshoot a lot of the issues, but the one thing I will say
is it does seem like the mission of the Postal Service is to
deliver the mail, not to provide charging services. So, it
seems outside the scope of their job.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And I appreciate that, but there is,
hopefully, we can be open-minded about effective and efficient
delivery of public services and I think we have real
opportunities if we are open to that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
We now have Mr. Fallon, the gentleman from Texas. I believe
he is remotely going to ask his questions.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
You know, electric vehicles aren't the magic bullet that so
many claim they are and you have to consider certain things.
The mining of the rare-earth materials, that in and of itself,
exhausts a tremendous amount of energy. In the mining process,
a significant amount of greenhouse gases are emitted. And a lot
of these processes in mining occurs in countries where health
and safety and environmental standards and precautions are
dramatically less stringent than they would be here in the
United States or in other developed nations.
The battery production for these also have an environmental
impact and it should be noted that about two to two and a half
tons of emissions are generated when you produce a BEV rather
than--a battery than you would in a combustion engine.
And then how the electricity is generated to actually
charge the BEV needs to be considered. We know that coal-
powered plants, of course, are the least ideal. We have
hundreds of those in the United States alone and it is
estimated that upwards of 60 percent of the electric grid in
our country is powered by fossil fuels. So, it is almost two-
thirds chance when you plug in that car to charge, it being
charged, ironically, by fossil fuels.
And, you know, studies have shown with the battery in
electric vehicles, the BEVs, may be responsible for greater
human toxicity and ecosystem defects than in an ICE equivalent,
due to the mining and the processing of the materials, the
metals to produce the batteries and as we just mentioned, the
mining and the combustion of coal to produce the electricity.
And most BEVs rely on lithium-ion batteries which are made from
critical materials, including as we talked about earlier,
cobalt, graphite, and lithium.
So, Mr. Stein, I am sure you are aware that most estimates
determine that the People's Republic of China produces 85
percent of rare-earth resources, 40 percent of the world's
copper, 30 percent of the world's nickel, and controls 70
percent of the world's cobalt-refining capacity, and nearly 60
percent of the world's lithium.
Would you agree that the U.S. must secure battery-related
resource supply chains as a matter of national security?
Mr. Stein. Certainly, if our goal as a country is to change
over to electric vehicles, then yes, we absolutely need to
secure those resources because we are, if we are talking about
national security, we don't want to just exchange buying
foreign oil from buying foreign batteries. So, the point, the
national security point should be to have these things produced
domestically.
Mr. Fallon. So, if we don't secure that, it is just
mentioned, rather than just, we are really just kind of trading
one, exchanging, I should say, one trade master for another,
whether it is Saudi Arabian OPEC as opposed to, you know, now
China; would that be a fair statement?
Mr. Stein. Sure. And, ironically, the last 10 years, we
actually have largely weaned ourself off of the oil coming from
these countries that hate us. So, we have just finally gotten
to that point and now we are talking about returning to
dependence on another country that hates us.
Mr. Fallon. So, maybe and just vernacular, one--several
steps forward and then even more steps back if we went this
route?
Mr. Stein. Right. It is not even, it is two steps forward
and four steps back.
Mr. Fallon. Yes. Yes.
And then are you also aware, Mr. Stein, that China owns or
finances 15 of the 19 cobalt-producing mines in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, which contains 60 percent of the world's
cobalt?
Mr. Stein. Yes, that sounds correct.
Mr. Fallon. So, the last question I have for you is, why
would our Democratic friends be pushing for more electric
vehicles in the U.S. Post Office fleet when they have not
secured the supply chain and the supply lines for resources
critical to the EV production?
Mr. Stein. Well, I think it is just an ideological
commitment to electric vehicles. This is the same problem that
we have with the ideological commitment to wind and solar
generation, even though those resources are, again, coming from
outside the United States. It is about outsourcing these
environmental harms to other countries so that we can pretend
that we are environmentally virtuous.
Mr. Fallon. Because we are just not there yet, are we, from
a technological standpoint? I mean, we may get there someday,
but we are just not there yet. It is not as efficient right as
it could be. The old nasty combustion engine vehicle seems to
actually be more environmentally friendly, when you consider
all things, than an electric vehicle, at least today; is that a
fair statement?
Mr. Stein. It depends on what weight you put at different
parts of the manufacturing process. Certainly, at the tailpipe,
ICE vehicles produce more emissions than an electric vehicle,
obviously, but what value, how many emissions is the worth to
have child slave labor in the Congo?
That is not a 1:1 comparison. It becomes a world tradeoff,
like, what do you prefer?
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Brenda Lawrence is now
recognized.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stephen, I would like to ask a few questions about the
internal discussions related to the public-facing electric
vehicle charging stations. In your testimony, you reference
that the USPS' role has not yet clearly defined this part of
the public-facing infrastructure.
So, my question is, has the Postal Service been involved in
discussions with other Federal agencies about the role the
Postal Service can play in this conversation in a proactive
manner as opposed to waiting for direction?
Ms. Stephen. The short answer to that is no. We certainly
have had discussions with various congressional staff members,
exploring the idea. We have not engaged other agencies to
pursue that.
Mrs. Lawrence. And why is that? Why haven't you?
Ms. Stephen. As Mr. Stein pointed out, it is not part of
our core mission. Our core mission is delivering mail and
making sure that we have the infrastructure to support or
operational needs for the electric vehicles that we take
forward through this process. So, we consider it beyond that
remit.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just want to push back on that because
your core mission isn't about dog bites, but the reality of
what has happened, and even safety of our carriers on the road,
I mean life dictates what your priorities are and I would hope
the Postal Service understands the need for priority when it
comes to being a part of the solution for carbon, for our
carbon footprint.
From an implementation standpoint, what are some of the
logistical challenges the Postal Service faces? How could we,
as Congress, help you address some of these concerns? Do you
need us to give you direction to make this one of your
priorities? And I would like to hear your comment on that.
Ms. Stephen. OK. Yes, certainly.
I think in terms of constraints, one of the top constraints
would be that we are not even sure that within statute, that we
have the right to establish this kind of a service. This would
not fall into postal products and, you know, supplies. It does
not fall neatly into the definitions of the types of products
and services that we offer. So, there is some opportunity to
assess what needs to be done legally to enable that. We would
not find it within the statute that controls that today.
From an implementation perspective, some of the challenges
are just understanding what the administration and Congress is
seeking to achieve. If the goal is to set up, you know, to
reduce range anxiety, for example, that might lead to a
different set of conclusions than just having a charging
station at every nearby postal facility. So, I think----
Mrs. Lawrence. So, Ms. Stephen, I have to ask this
question. We passed the Postal Service Reform Act----
Ms. Stephen. Yes.
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. Providing the agency additional
areas of revenue, while providing service to the public. We
know that we have had conversation about banking, about permits
and other things that are not within the core function of the
Postal Service but is a revenue stream.
And so, have you had internal conversations about using
these public-facing stations as an additional funding system?
Ms. Stephen. We have had a preliminary evaluation. We do
not think that public charging capabilities fall within what we
can provide as other postal products and services. So, our
initial read on the matter is that it is beyond our scope; it
is beyond our purview.
Mrs. Lawrence. Madam Chair, I would really like to continue
this discussion and to make sure that we are on the same page
with the Postal Service, because one of the things they wanted
was an opportunity to have additional funding opportunities.
And if you are going to have an electric fleet and it is
sitting there idle, the charging station and you can have an
opportunity to get additional funding.
So, I will yield back, but I want you to know that that is
something that I want to explore. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentlelady for her
question. She raised really good points.
And it certainly my understanding along the line of your
understanding that, of course, this would be covered in the
additional services that they could provide.
But let us keep on the hearing. Mr. Connolly, you are now
recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair and I am sorry, I have
multiple hearings and I have a bill on the floor, so I am
running around, so please forgive me for not being able to be
here the whole time.
Ms. Whitcomb, you are the Inspector General of the Postal
Service; is that correct?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, you mind turn--, yes.
We heard a little earlier than the assumption about the
price of gas in looking at costing the benefits of a fossil
fuel fleet versus an EV fleet was assumed to be $2.19; is that
correct?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, that is what we heard earlier. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I am having trouble hearing you. Can you----
Ms. Whitcomb. Sorry. I will scoot up.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. Whitcomb. The thing is on, yes.
Mr. Connolly. There you go. That is better.
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, is this better?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, my understanding is that was the gas
price at the time the Postal Service did its initial
assumptions.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. But they project that out.
Ms. Whitcomb. Right.
Mr. Connolly. So, what is the current cost of gasoline on
average in the United States, do you know?
Ms. Whitcomb. It is between $4 and $5, I believe.
Mr. Connolly. It is almost twice what they are assuming
already.
Ms. Whitcomb. Uh-huh.
Mr. Connolly. And, of course, we can't see the future.
Maybe we will come down to $2.19. Maybe it will go up.
In California, for example--there is also variability in
the states--in California, I believe the average cost of a
gallon of gasoline right now is hovering around $6; is that
your understanding?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. So, when the Postal Service says, well, in
looking at the cost benefit, you know, benefit, over 20 years,
the operating costs for a gas fleet will be $9.3 billion and
the operating costs for an electric fleet will be $11.6
billion. That is predicated on an assumption we now know to be,
at the very least, subject to great variation at any given
time; is that correct?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, if the $2.19 is what that is relying
upon, I would agree with you there, and these assumptions
change. And that is why modeling is so important, so that you
can put in different assumptions and adjust.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, that is right. What you assume can
determine the outcome.
Ms. Whitcomb. Right.
Mr. Connolly. And I am very worried about the assumptions
that went in or didn't go in to the environmental report that
the Postal Service came up with, gasoline being one of them.
Ms. Whitcomb. Uh-huh.
Mr. Connolly. Let's talk about maintenance.
What were the assumptions about the contrast of the cost of
maintenance of a gasoline diesel fleet versus an EV fleet, do
you know?
Ms. Whitcomb. I don't know specifically. I do know that
from what we have heard from other witnesses, that the
maintenance costs were assumed to be higher for an electric
vehicle fleet in the Postal Service's model. We did not analyze
that in our work.
Our model projected those maintenance costs to be lower.
Mr. Connolly. Lower, exactly.
Ms. Whitcomb. Right.
Mr. Connolly. So, if, and I am going to give you an
opportunity, Ms. Stephen, but that is of concern to me, too.
What were the assumptions about maintenance?
Anyone who owns an electric vehicle will tell you that the
maintenance costs to, for an EV are lower than what they paid
or would pay for a gasoline-or diesel-fueled vehicle.
Ms. Stephen, did you want to comment on that? I want to
give you an opportunity to.
Ms. Stephen. Absolutely. I would be pleased to.
So, first of all, the $2.19 data point----
Mr. Connolly. Well, we are going to move beyond that for a
minute. I thought you wanted to talk about maintenance.
Ms. Stephen. Sure. I would be happy to talk about all of
it.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. I don't mean to cut you off. I just have
limited time.
Ms. Stephen. It is OK.
In terms of the maintenance costs, the data that been
misunderstood by others who have had access to the data within
the model. The maintenance ratio of an ICE vehicle versus a BEV
vehicle for us in our analysis shows that it is 8 percent
lower. So, that is a data point that has been misunderstood in
the way that it has been represented.
It is lower. A BEV takes less maintenance. It has less
moving systems, so it is lower. It just has not been understood
correctly in the data.
It is also important to note that our costs reflect, we are
moving from 30-year-old vehicles with hardly any systems up to
a new standard, so there is additional maintenance.
Mr. Connolly. Believe me, I know. I have been working on
this issue for 14 years.
Ms. Stephen. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And I have been championing trying to replace
the vehicle fleet. I will say to you, historically, in 2009,
Ruth Goldberg, who was then the head of the Postal Regulatory
Commission, came to see me saying, what if we earmarked some of
the stimulus money, $3 billion at that time, to replace the
fleet.
And the then-Postmaster General used the same language Mr.
Comer used: We don't want to be Guinea pigs. And he rejected a
three-billion-dollar earmark to replace the entire fleet with a
hybrid fleet. And here we are 12 years later, making the same
arguments and having the same discussion.
And I worry, you know, we obviously can't afford another 30
years of an obsolete fossil-fueled vehicular fleet. And that is
my concern about the decision that has been made. In about 15
years, those vehicles will be obsolete.
I have run out of time. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very, very much for your
questions and your hard work in this area.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the
hearing.
Just to piggyback, no pun intended, on what was just said
by Representative Connolly, the Post Office has the opportunity
not to be a Guinea pig here, but to be a trailblazer and that
is what I think is creating a lot of the anxiety on the far
side of the aisle is the lost opportunity here for the U.S.
Postal Service to really lead the way when it comes to clean,
efficient, energy vehicles and addressing climate change.
We know we have got to take immediate action on this front.
Every report that comes out, kind of on a six-week basis, shows
that the problem is accelerating. So, the Federal Government
should be a leader in reducing emissions and transitioning to
greener technologies.
A quick advertisement here. That is why I was proud last
year to introduce the Federal Building Clean Jobs Act, which is
another example of where the Federal Government and associated
agencies can be trailblazers. That would require Federal
agencies to meet all their energy and emission goals for their
physical spaces by 2030.
But this hearing today about the Postal Service's
investment is obviously critical and I want to compare the
decision the Postal Service has made in the space to the
aspirations that the President and I would say, our country, is
laying out at this moment. In his first week of office,
President Biden recommitted us to the goals of reducing our
emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030.
So, Ms. Stephen, the Postal Service, as we have discussed
at length here today, recently purchased 50,000 vehicles, only
10,000 of which will be electric. Do you believe that the
Postal Service's current procurement plan of relying on gas-
powered delivery vehicles for the next 20 years lives up to the
national commitment that President Biden has articulated here?
Ms. Stephen. It is the best that the Postal Service can
elicit, given the resources that we have available today. You
know, we would love to do more. We simply don't have the
resources. We need to make good on our Delivering for America
Plan and the execution of all of those other capital and
strategies, as well. We are balancing both and trying to do the
best what that we can within our given resources to meet the
intent of those initiatives.
Mr. Sarbanes. President Biden also issued an Executive
Order calling for, quote, clean and zero-emission vehicles for
government fleets, including vehicles of the United States
Postal Service.
Ms. Stephen, again, the internal combustion engine delivery
vehicles that make up 80 percent of the recent order that was
placed by the Postal Service, quote, clean and zero emission, I
think I know the answer, but go ahead.
Ms. Stephen. So, my understanding of both of those
Executive Orders in the OMB's implementation memorandum, they
strongly encouraged the Postal Service to meet the goals and we
are doing everything that we can to meet those goals. There was
not a mandate for us in that; it was strongly encouraged and we
are responding in the best way we can within our resources.
Mr. Sarbanes. Last August, alongside auto executives, UAW
leadership, President Biden issued another Executive Order
calling for half of the new cars and trucks sold by 2030 to be
electric. On Friday, the Transportation Department issued new
fuel economy standards, requiring efficiency gains of 8 percent
in both 2024 and 2025, followed by a 10 percent increase in
2026, and further requiring that passenger cars and light
trucks achieve about 49 miles per gallon.
Ms. Stephen, yes or no, will the Postal Service commit to
ensuring that all next generation delivery vehicles it
purchases by 2026 get at least 49 miles per gallon?
Ms. Stephen. I don't think I have the information today to
make that commitment.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, it is a difficult one to make, given
the decision tree that we are discussing here today. And, look,
I understand the Postal Service is independent and, you know,
is not directly under the authority of the President and the
administration the way some other agencies are, but responding
to the climate crisis requires an all-of-government and all-of-
society approach.
And I just think that, I mean, I understand the constraints
that you are talking about, but I think there was a way, and we
are going to continue to pursue whether there is a way for the
U.S. Postal Service to stretch and reach for more ambitious
goals when it comes to these clean energy and energy-efficient
vehicles. So, we are going to continue to press on you. Thank
you very much for your testimony today.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your questions today. And
we now go to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Davis, you are
now recognized.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Davis? We can't hear you. Your mic
is not on. We can't hear you. There seems to be a technical
problem in reaching Mr. Davis.
The gentlelady from New York--nope, did he get on? OK. Mr.
Davis?
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, can we go to----
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think I am OK now.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Government Accountability Office and to all the rest
who are present, let me just say thank you. GAO has outlined
clear concerns about the methodologies used by the Postal
Service when developing its total cost of the ownership model.
We have spent a lot of time today talking about what the
Postal Service needs to correct with its existing purchase
order and contract. Now I would like to take a few minutes to
discuss what the Postal Service should do moving forward to
ensure that future acquisitions are done more effectively and
efficiently.
Ms. Naamane, GAO has spent significant time reviewing the
Postal Service's methodologies and analysis. What should the
Postal Service do to improve its analysis in future
acquisitions?
Ms. Naamane. Well, we are still completing our work, so we
don't have final recommendations yet. But one of the things
that we'll be looking at and asking the Postal Service about is
their process for updating their model. We've heard that
they've made some updates, and we understand that.
So, one of the things we want to understand further is what
kind of process there is to institutionalize updating those
assumptions and information in the model to make sure that they
are the best possible information so that the results that come
out of the model are reflective of current market conditions or
technological advances. So, before another order is placed, for
example, that the information is as sound and accurate and
reliable as possible.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Whitcomb, let me ask the same question to you.
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, I think we are--similarly to Ms.
Naamane, we are in the process of doing work on the Postal
Service's assumptions and how those assumptions were used in
preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. And so we will be
also looking for things like sensitivity analysis and other
things, looking for ranges of assumptions, not just individual
assumptions, and the ability for a model to be agile enough to
adjust to the significant, I guess, disruptions in the energy
sector that we've seen recently, both on the electric vehicle
battery components that you heard a lot about today, as well as
the prices of gas, gasoline, which are both kind of really have
been disrupted recently.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Whitcomb, let me just ask, I am specifically
concerned about the way the Postal Service went about the NEPA
process. What can the Service do in the future to ensure that
it is complying with both the letter and the spirit of the law
with respect to NEPA?
Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, it's something that we are looking at
right now, and we will definitely be evaluating the Postal
Service's compliance of NEPA as a part of that work. And if we
see issues there, we will be making recommendations to ensure
that that happens.
Mr. Davis. Thank you both very much.
And thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing.
And I think, hopefully, all of us are interested in the Postal
Service being able to electrify its fleet as quickly as
possible, as rationally and as feasible as possible. So, I
thank you very much for this hearing, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
you holding this hearing. I want to thank you and
Representative Connolly specifically for your work in this
ongoing effort to try to make sense of what I consider to be a
nonsensical position of Mr. DeJoy and the U.S. Postal Service.
Ms. Stephen, since everybody has been coming at you for
questions and comments and observations, I am going to try to
do the same thing here, not to pick on you, but to try to get
more information.
I understand, as has been said several times, that the U.S.
Postal Service Office of the Inspector General found that the
cost of an electric vehicle over 20 years would be 8.5 percent
lower than that projected of a gas-powered vehicle and the cost
of that vehicle. And yet, as has been stated here several
times, Postmaster General DeJoy still argues that electric
vehicles are not cost effective. Which sounds like fuzzy math
to me when you have the numbers to prove that they are, and
then you almost deny those numbers.
You are not a heart surgeon, and you are certainly not a
brain surgeon, but Postmaster DeJoy wants to position the
service, the Postal Service, to compete with companies, as he
says, such as UPS, FedEx, Amazon. And as has been stated, all
three of which have made aggressive efforts to electrify their
fleets. Those are who we are going to be competing with now and
into the future.
So, if you could rather subjectively give again some sort
of explanation as to why the Postal Service is only allocating
10,000 of the 50,000 in its initial order with Oshkosh, I would
appreciate your comments and your thoughts.
Ms. Stephen. Yes, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity
to address that.
I think the findings of the OIG, we were really pleased
when they took a look at our total cost of ownership model and
developed their own model independently to see some
consistency, and perhaps we'd be able to hear from the OIG on
that as well. What the OIG's findings revealed were very, very
similar to the Postal Service's modeling efforts.
When we look at the entire fleet, there is not, over the
course of the 20-year life of that asset, even though it's the
fuel is cheaper and, in theory, the maintenance is also cheaper
over that period of time, the savings from fuel and maintenance
benefits is not sufficient to overcome the higher investment
value that's required for electric vehicles.
And so----
Mr. Mfume. OK. And I kind of thought you were going to say
that.
Ms. Stephen. Yep.
Mr. Mfume. So, let me point out something else if there is
no cost difference there. The Congress has helped the Postal
Service fill its coffers with billions of dollars in the last
few years, and so if there was any shortfall, there is none
now. In 2020, this Congress approved an emergency $10 billion
Pandemic Relief Act to your organization, and just this year,
Congress passed Chairwoman Maloney's Postal Service Reform Act,
which will relieve the Postal Service of $107 billion in past
due amounts and future payments.
So, my current understanding is that the agency has right
now $24 billion in cash, according to information provided by
the Treasury. If that is so, why does the Postal Service and
Mr. DeJoy continue to argue that it is too expensive to
increase the proportion of electric vehicles in its order with
Oshkosh? Could you speak to that?
Ms. Stephen. Certainly. It has to do with our Delivering
for America plan, our strategic objectives and priorities. The
vehicle fleet implementation is a portion of those priorities
and funding requests, but it's a small portion by comparison.
We've deferred maintenance. We've deferred investments.
It's not just our vehicles that are long overdue to be
replaced. There are structural infrastructure-related things
that are part of what the Postal Service requires to operate
effectively and efficiently and over the course of decades to
come.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. I want to reclaim my time.
What we can't defer is what is happening in terms of the
health of Americans as a result of an enlarging carbon
footprint that now the United States Postal Service, which
operates one-third of all the vehicles in the inventory of the
U.S. Government, continues to ignore or delay or to put aside
the issues that deal with health. I have here a report from the
American Lung Association, which points out the dangers of
going down the path that the Postal Service is currently on by
refusing to electrify vehicles into the future.
And they talk about asthma. They talk about lung cancer in
communities, wheezing and coughing, shortness of breath among
children, and we know the cardiovascular harm. I could go
through a long list of things. This is one thing we can't
defer.
We cannot assume that people can still get sick,
chronically or otherwise, because we don't have the foresight
to recognize the real benefits in moving over time like FedEx
and Amazon and UPS toward electrical vehicles. So, it just--it
breaks my heart that there are the reasons which don't stand
the test in terms of the truth and reasons that are being put
forth to this committee repeatedly about why it is OK to,
again, get all these gas guzzlers for the next 20 years,
putting pollutants into the air, affecting the health of
people, and engaging us in a cost that could be, as you said,
deferred or certainly tamped down.
So, I am adamantly opposed to the position of the Postal
Service.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
And without objection, your report will be put in the
record.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez, is now recognized. Thank you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Stephen, in March of this year, the U.S. Postal Service
placed its first order of Next Generation Delivery Vehicles
with Oshkosh Defense. Is that correct?
Ms. Stephen. That's correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And what was that contract, that initial
contract valued at?
Ms. Stephen. I think it's been covered in the press. It's
$2.98 billion for 50,000 vehicles.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, nearly a $3 billion contract that
the United States Postal Service presently has with a defense
contractor in order to produce these internal combustion engine
vehicles--largely, largely. The initial order is for 50,000
Next Generation Delivery Vehicles, but from what I understand,
only about 10,000 are actually required to be battery electric
vehicles. Is that correct?
Ms. Stephen. That's correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, to summarize, the USPS has
contracted with Oshkosh Defense and is giving them $3 billion
to build around 50,000 vehicles, 10,000 of which must be
battery powered.
Now, you know, I think one note and element of context that
is important to mention is that this committee has a long
bipartisan history of oversight, particularly when it comes to
defense contracting. And this is one of the very few things
that we have been able to agree upon in the past. Even when
former Ranking Member Mark Meadows was here, this was something
that he--that concerned him, and I hope that our current
Ranking Member, we can continue to find agreement there.
Now, Ms. Stephen--and I will say one thing about Oshkosh
Defense is that they are union. They have union labor. Ms.
Stephen, would you say that part of the reason, and it was an
important consideration for Oshkosh Defense that they had a
unionized work force that the United States and the USPS would
be contracting with them to potentially work and fulfill this
contract?
Ms. Stephen. The solicitation from the Postal Service
requires domestic production only. It does not require
particular locations or work force.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. But was it a favorable element? Did
Oshkosh mention this? Was it something that was considered? You
know there are many different contractors that are capable of
domestic production.
Ms. Stephen. Sure.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And the President has very clearly
indicated a preference for union labor in domestic production.
Ms. Stephen. It is not a contract requirement. Therefore,
it was not an evaluation criteria or considered.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, it was not considered at all?
Ms. Stephen. It was not considered in the decision.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And as I understand, Oshkosh Defense
does have multiple manufacturing facilities in Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, that are made to build military vehicles. Correct?
Ms. Stephen. Military and other.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And they have a long history,
established history of this. We have heard from workers on the
ground that Oshkosh Defense has the capacity to build these
vehicles in their existing facilities in Wisconsin, yet we are
starting to see some troubling reports.
Madam Chair, for the record, I would like to submit two--
two reports, one from the Journal Times and the other from the
Herald Journal, ``Spartanburg Fights Back to Keep Oshkosh
Defense Postal Fleet Project'' and ``Why Oshkosh Corp. Didn't
Build USPS Vehicles in a Foxconn Facility in Mount Pleasant.''
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I would also like to submit to the
record a letter from the members of this committee regarding
concern about the fact that Oshkosh Defense is now moving their
facilities after they had won the contract.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Ms. Stephen, are you aware that the announcement that Next
Generation Delivery Vehicle fleet would be built in South
Carolina after the Oshkosh Defense initially won the contract
and having facilities in Wisconsin?
Ms. Stephen. Yes, the Postal Service was made aware of that
decision shortly before the public announcement, and it is a
decision that's at the discretion of the supplier.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, are you aware that Oshkosh Defense
might be trying to circumvent its longstanding contract with
the United Auto Workers work force in Wisconsin by essentially
building a brand-new facility after the contract was awarded in
a vacant warehouse in South Carolina?
Ms. Stephen. I have no awareness of that, but I would
encourage you to have that conversation with Oshkosh.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is USPS troubled by this timeline at
all?
Ms. Stephen. By what----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. By this timeline at all?
Ms. Stephen. Which timeline are you referring to?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The timeline of the fact that Next Gen--
they had secured Oshkosh. Oshkosh presented the contract with
their existing facilities. They have union labor. They were
granted a $3 billion contract under the USPS under the
leadership of DeJoy, and then after the ink was dry, it looks
like they are opening up a scab facility in South Carolina with
no prior history of producing vehicles in that facility.
Ms. Stephen. So, I think some of the facts about what was
represented in a proposal are not correct, and I would disagree
with those assertions.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. And so I would say that USPS is not
troubled by that timeline?
Ms. Stephen. I would agree with your statement.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize our last speaker, my colleague in Congress,
Congressman Huffman, who has developed several pieces of
legislation on this issue and worked with the committee on it.
Thank you for being here for the whole hearing. You are now
recognized for your five minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Chair Maloney, thanks so much for allowing me
to participate and for holding this important hearing.
I have been leading the charge for postal fleet
electrification along with my friend Representative Connolly
for nearly a decade now. I am proud to be cosponsoring the
Postal Vehicle Modernization Act with you, Chair Maloney, and
with Representative Connolly. And I am sorry that Congress may
have to legislate common sense, the same common sense that has
led all of the Postal Service's private sector competitors to
move quickly to all EV fleets without asking Congress for any
money to do it.
As we have heard from several expert witnesses, the
business case for doing this is a no-brainer. In fact, with EV
costs declining, EV technology improving, gas prices soaring,
and vehicle manufacturers moving away from internal combustion,
it would be really hard to cook up a model or a business case
that favors lumbering internal combustion vehicles that get an
average of 8.6 miles per gallon over EVs, the same EVs that are
going to be powering fleets at FedEx, Amazon, UPS, and DHS.
But that is exactly what the Postal Service did with this
contract and this program, calling for vehicles that are built
for obsolescence. They will literally be the last internal
combustion fleet vehicles on the road 20 years from now.
So, Ms. Stephen, you testified that the Postal Service's
sensitivity analysis on gas prices let you double the initial
order of EVs to just over 10,000. Does this mean that you are
also doubling the total fleet purchase from 10 percent to 20
percent?
Ms. Stephen. When you refer to the total fleet purchase,
are you referring to the 50,000? Just so that I'm clear.
Mr. Huffman. The entire contract, the entire contract.
Ms. Stephen. Oh, no. This is specific to this initial
investment decision. We've made this contract for 50,000.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. That is what I thought, and if the
only change is a slight increase to the initial order, it is
hard to see how this sensitivity analysis has really changed
much. It seems more like a reaction to the public criticism and
political pressure that you have been getting over buying
vehicles that will get 8.6 miles to the gallon.
Ms. Naamane, you testified that under the model GAO
reviewed, the Postal Service was showing higher maintenance
costs for EVs. Ms. Stephen just testified that that is
incorrect. It misunderstands the data. And so let me ask you,
were you correct when you said after reviewing the USPS model
it showed higher maintenance costs for EVs?
Ms. Naamane. This is one of the inconsistencies that we've
seen in the information that we've gotten so far from the
Postal Service. The--some of the information, including what
Ms. Stephen said today, is that the maintenance costs would be
less for electric vehicles. However, when we looked at the
formula in the model itself, in the Excel spreadsheet that
we've received of the model, we don't see that in--in that
formula. We see a different amount that's used in that model
that indicates that the maintenance costs would be higher.
So there's--definitely, it's an iterative process, our
ongoing work, and we'll get additional information from the
Postal Service and make our final conclusions.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Britton, in your colloquy with Representative Wasserman
Schultz, you highlighted another important discrepancy, the
assumption by the Postal Service that the start and stop nature
of many routes favored internal combustion engines when, in
fact, it is a strong selling point for EVs. Correct?
Mr. Britton. That's correct.
Mr. Huffman. And then there is the problem with the Postal
Service assumptions about EV range, a 70-mile vehicle range. In
your extensive work in this field, including the vehicles that
companies like GM, Ford, and Rivian are providing to private
fleets, did USPS use the correct assumption about battery
range?
Mr. Britton. No, it is far inconsistent with what we're
seeing in the marketplace, and I'll give you a couple examples.
The Ford E-Transit van gets nearly 2 miles per kilowatt hour in
the battery pack. The Workhorse C-Series gets 1.5 miles per
kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The Arrival van that is
being contracted with UPS gets 1.7 miles per kilowatt hour in
the battery pack.
The USPS assumption is that this vehicle gets 7/10 of a
mile per kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The only other
vehicle that we have seen that has that inefficient of an
electric drive train would be a Class A tractor-trailer or semi
truck fully weighted down. It is impossible----
Mr. Huffman. Got it. And if the----
Mr. Britton [continuing]. That a last-mile delivery truck--
--
Mr. Huffman. And if the model used the correct range
assumption, wouldn't that significantly affect the total cost
of ownership analysis, including the number of charging
stations needed to support these vehicles?
Mr. Britton. That's correct. You would not need nearly as
many charging stations as the Postal Service is asserting.
Mr. Huffman. And Ms. Naamane, you also flagged another
problem that the Postal Service initially didn't account for
the amount of air conditioning used in the real world. And when
you correct for that, the performance drops to 8.6 miles to the
gallon on average. Correct?
Ms. Naamane. Right. That's--that's another thing that we
saw in the model that we received from the Postal Service, that
the fuel efficiency used was around 15 miles per gallon, which
is the efficiency when the air conditioning isn't running, and
it's less when the air conditioning is running. We've heard
from the Postal Service that there is another place in the
model that may account for the use of the air conditioning, and
so that's something else that we'll be continuing to look at in
our ongoing work.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have learned a lot
today about errors and discrepancies that seem to go right to
the heart of this unusual decision that is so at odds with what
the private sector is doing.
Thanks so much for this important hearing.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, thank you for waiving on and all
of your hard work, along with all the committee members, on
this issue. Thank you so much. You made a very valuable
contribution.
I would now like to submit for the record an important
statement from Senator Carper on this critical hearing.
So ordered.
Chairwoman Maloney. And I would like to submit to the
record a new U.N. report--it literally came out just
yesterday--that makes clear that divesting from fossil fuels is
critical, and they warned that without immediate action
shifting from fossil fuels, we will not be able to keep global
warming to acceptable levels.
So, this is a critically important report. I urge everyone
to read it. And without objection, it now becomes part of our
record.
Chairwoman Maloney. I would now like to call upon my
colleague--thank him again for his valuable input on the reform
bill for the Post Office--for his closing statement.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here.
And I want to be very clear. Republicans do not oppose electric
vehicles. In fact, we do not oppose electrifying some of the
U.S. Postal fleet.
We raise a very valid concern, and I appreciate Mr. Stein's
testimony today and the questions he answered. The policies of
the Biden administration and his son Hunter have put us at a
severe competitive disadvantage to China in the world battery
market, which is essential to electrifying the Postal fleet and
electrifying the everyday, average vehicle.
It is a worthy cause to try to--to try to transfer from
fossil fuels to electric vehicles, but the policies in the
Biden administration are making that even more difficult than
the economics of it. For example, the Biden administration war,
war on coal is making it more difficult to mine coal and to
burn coal. I know that from being from a coal-burning state and
a coal-producing state.
You have to have coal to make electricity. You also have to
have natural gas to make electricity. We have a lot of problems
with our energy policy in America from the Biden
administration, and it is going to make electrifying vehicles
even more difficult.
I know a lot of Democrats think that if the average
American is upset with the high prices of gasoline, due
primarily to the Biden administration policies, then the
solution is very simple. According to Democrats, just go buy an
electric vehicle.
We don't have the infrastructure to electrify the fleet,
and I appreciate the Inspector General, and I look forward to
working with you in the future on Postal issues. She mentioned
in her testimony that in some of her analysis, it was cheaper
in some areas to electrify the vehicle. I am going to go out on
a limb and say those were the urban areas.
And my colleagues on the left that are advocating for
electrifying the Postal fleet and mentioned the private sector,
UPS and FedEx, and electrifying some of their fleet, those are
in the cities. If you close your eyes and you imagine the
Presidential map of the last four Presidential elections, you
see blue on the East Coast, blue on the West Coast, and a few
blue dots around America. And the rest of that map is red.
That red area like where I represent, where we represent,
we just don't believe that those rural areas are ready and have
the infrastructure for the postal fleet to be electrified. The
routes are longer. There are many more challenges than in the
more compact urban areas.
So, we have a long way to go in America to electrify the
Postal fleet. Besides, this committee's jurisdiction and this
committee's role, Madam Chair, is to save money. But yet every
policy and every committee hearing from my friends on the left
involve spending more money. When the Government spends too
much money, we have this thing called inflation. And that is
another challenge we have in America.
And last, the role of the Postal Service, right now we need
to focus on delivering the mail on time and doing it at a
break-even cost. That is why we supported the postal reform
bill.
I am very excited about the bill signing ceremony tomorrow,
Madam Chair, very excited about the Postal Service. I think
many of you know my grandmother spent her whole career as a
mail carrier, a rural mail carrier. I love the Post Office. I
am committed to saving the Post Office.
But we need to focus on improving the performance at the
Post Office and trying to get the Post Office to operate at a
break-even level because Congress is not going to continue to
provide bailouts to the Postal Service.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back and look forward
to many more discussions about the Postal Service in the
future.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and I thank
him for his participation today.
I want to thank everyone who participated. As we heard
today, the Postal Service can and must increase the number of
electric vehicles that it purchases. As the United Nations
warned just yesterday--couldn't be more on point for what we
are talking about today at this hearing--the time to combat
climate change is absolutely now. And the best way to do it is
to burn less oil and gas.
And the Postal Service cannot ignore its responsibility to
reduce the environmental impact of its fleet. The United
Nations says if we don't do this, we are facing dire, dire
consequences. And relying on gas guzzlers is also bad for
business, which is why the major automakers, the private
sector, and the Postal Service's competitors are all moving to
electric vehicles. Most of them already have.
We have heard from our witnesses today, including the
nonpartisan GAO, that the Postal Service based its decision to
buy tens of thousands of gas-guzzling trucks on faulty, wrong
assumptions. The Postal Service used gas prices that are just
half of what they are today and climbing.
They claimed electric vehicles cost more to maintain than
gas trucks. I have never heard that anywhere except for in the
testimony today, the exact opposite of the evidence and the
science and really the testimoneys of everybody here today. And
they ignored the benefit of lower emissions from taking
thousands of gasoline engines off the road, improving our
environment. And the scientists are saying this will save lives
of Americans.
I am very pleased and thankful to the Post Office and their
services today, and Ms. Stephen, in her testimony, thank you
for committing to provide this committee with the analysis that
the Post Office used to determine how many EVs to purchase. But
it is clear that the Post Office needs to go back to the
drawing board.
Today, I call on the Postal Service to listen to the
concerns of the Inspector General, the EPA, the GAO, and this
entire committee and conduct a new environmental impact study
and new cost estimate for electric vehicles. And if Oshkosh is
overcharging the Postal Service for EVs, they should
immediately renegotiate to a better price for America.
Finally, let me briefly respond to the repeated attempts by
my Republican colleagues to hijack this hearing to score cheap
political points that have nothing to do with health,
environment, or Postal Service. I will not play that political
game.
I intend to keep this committee focused on delivering for
the American people. I will not relent until the Postal Service
finally follows the private sector's lead and begins a real
transition to an electric fleet. Going electric is imperative
for our environment, for the Postal Service's bottom line, and
for our national security at a time when Putin is using fossil
fuels to finance atrocities against the people in Ukraine.
I want to sincerely thank all of my colleagues who
participated today and each of the witnesses for your valuable
testimony, your productive conversation.
And I would say that we as a committee, we as a Congress,
we as a country, have a singular opportunity right now before
us to choose to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, lower our
costs, protect our economy, and help save the planet. What is
not to like about going to electric vehicles? There are so many
wins for our country.
I want to thank everybody, and in closing, I want to thank
particularly our panelists again for their remarks. And I want
to commend my colleagues for participating in this important
conversation.
And with that, without objection, all members have five
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their
response.
I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]