U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–875 PDF 2018

UPDATE ON THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL 

ECONOMY PROGRAM (CAFE) AND GREENHOUSE 

GAS EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 12, 2017 

Serial No. 115–86 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Chairman 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virgina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 4 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

WITNESSES

Mitch Bainwol, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers ...................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 99 

Forrest McConnell III, President, McConnell Honda & Acura, on Behalf of 

the National Automobile Dealers Association ................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 104 

Dave Cooke, Ph.D., Senior Vehicles Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists .... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 107 

John Bozzella, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Global 

Automakers, Inc. .................................................................................................. 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Proposed Rule, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Parts 531, 533, and 536, Federal Register, 

December 28, 2016, submitted by Mr. Olson ..................................................... 93 

Letter of December 11, 2017, from Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, to Mr. 

Shimkus and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................ 95 

(1) 

UPDATE ON THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL 

ECONOMY PROGRAM (CAFE) AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR 

MOTOR VEHICLES 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta (chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection) presiding. 

Members present: Latta, Shimkus, McKinley, Kinzinger, Barton, 

Upton, Blackburn, Harper, Lance, Olson, Bilirakis, Johnson, 

Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Walberg, Walters, Costello, Carter, Duncan, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Tonko, 

Green, Matsui, McNerney, Welch, Clarke, Ca ́ rdenas, Ruiz, Peters, 

Dingell, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, Staff 

Assistant; Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; 

Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Wyatt Ellertson, Professional Staff 

Member; Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Paul 

Jackson, Professional Staff Member, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; 

Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Mary Martin, 

Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Katie McKeogh, Press Assistant; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Everett 

Winnick, Director of Information Technology; Andy Zach, Senior 

Professional Staff Member, Environment; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, 

Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Jeff 

Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jean Fruci, Minority Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; 

Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rick 

Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 

2 

Environment; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; and C.J. Young, Minority 

Press Secretary. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, good morning. The joint subcommittee will now 

come to order. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being with 

us this morning. Today we are here to discuss with stakeholders 

the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program, or CAFE, at the 

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, NHTSA, 

and the greenhouse gas emissions standards at the U.S. EPA agency that govern fuel economy standards. 

NHTSA’s CAFE program was established by Congress in 1975. 

The goals of the program are to improve vehicle fuel economy, reduce oil consumption, and secure the Nation’s energy independence. 

The CAFE program has undergone major changes and modifications in the past four decades, both because of political and economic forces. 

Less than 10 years ago, and on top of the CAFE program, the 

EPA standards were created to incentivize the production of more 

efficient vehicles that will use less fuel and emit less carbon dioxide. 

In addition, various States have enacted their own standards 

with respect to automobile emissions. The combinations of these requirements has created an incredibly complicated regulatory 

scheme. 

Improving fuel efficiency and achieving energy independence are 

important goals. That said, real-world facts and data must drive 

regulatory decisions that impact such an important and far-reaching part of the American economy and consumers’ daily lives. 

The previous administration announced an attempt to create a 

national standard which included a plan for NHTSA and EPA to 

work together to avoid conflicting regulations. 

Whatever progress had been made on that front was undone, 

however, when earlier this year EPA issued its final determination 

that the standards for model year 2022 and 2025 are appropriate. 

EPA took this action without coordinating with NHTSA, clearly 

undermining their earlier pledge. The result is that automobile 

makers potentially found themselves in a position where they are 

in compliance with one Federal program but out of compliance and 

subject to penalty with another. 

This type of fragmented regulation harms our economy, our 

workers, and our consumers. The automobile industry is a huge 

source of American jobs, including nearly 100,000 Ohioans. 

A hallmark of the American automobile industry has been the 

ability to innovate and build cars that American drivers want to 

buy. But outdated, conflicting, or impossible-to-meet Government 

regulations get in the way of this type of innovation. 

3 

It is a rare event, to say the least, for policymakers in Washington to have better ideas about how to meet consumer demand 

than consumers themselves. 

All too often, Washington stands in the way, particularly when 

it creates unnecessary confusion with conflicting rules. 

My constituents know what type of vehicles work best for their 

family and their budget. That may change over time, and each 

American family should be able to make their own choice without 

the Federal Government putting an extra strain on their finances. 

Also, there is a real risk that the costs associated with duplicative Federal and State fuel economy standards could force families 

to choose older cars without the benefits of new safety technologies. 

NHTSA’s safety mission and statutory obligations must remain 

its guiding principle. When we are just starting to turn the corner 

after many challenging years, it is disheartening, but not surprising, to see the EPA rush out a final determination in the waning hours of the last administration. 

I am interested in hearing from our witnesses about industry’s 

experience attempting to navigate this tricky regulatory terrain 

and what can be done to help support choice for American consumers and jobs across the country. 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and I yield 

at this time to the gentlelady from Tennessee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

Good morning, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here this morning. 

Today we are here to discuss with stakeholders the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program, or CAFE, at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that govern fuel economy standards. 

NHTSA’s CAFE program was established by Congress in 1975. The goals of the 

program are to improve vehicle fuel economy, reduce oil consumption, and secure 

the Nation’s energy independence. The CAFE program has undergone major 

changes and modifications in the past four decades—both because of political and 

economic forces. 

Less than 10 years ago, and on top of the CAFE program, the EPA standards 

were created to incentivize the production of more efficient vehicles that will use 

less fuel and emit less carbon dioxide. In addition, various States have enacted their 

own standards with respect to automobile emissions. 

The combination of these requirements has created an incredibly complicated regulatory scheme. Improving fuel efficiency and achieving energy independence are 

important goals. That said, real world facts and data must drive regulatory decisions that impact such an important and far-reaching part of the American economy 

and consumers’ daily lives. 

The previous administration announced an attempt to create a national standard 

which included a plan for NHTSA and EPA to work together to avoid conflicting 

regulations. Whatever progress had been made on that front was undone, however, 

when earlier this year the EPA issued its Final Determination that the standards 

for model year 2022–2025 are appropriate. EPA took this action without coordinating with NHTSA, clearly undermining the earlier pledge. 

The result is that automakers potentially find themselves in a position where they 

are in compliance with one Federal program, but out of compliance and subject to 

penalties with another’s. 

This type of fragmented regulation harms our economy, our workers and consumers. The automotive industry is a huge source of American jobs including nearly 

100,000 Ohioans.1 

A hallmark of the American automotive industry has been the ability to innovate 

and build cars that American drivers want to buy. 

4 

But outdated, conflicting or impossible-to-meet Government regulations get in the 

way of this type of innovation. It is a rare event, to say the least, for policymakers 

in Washington to have better ideas about how to meet consumer demand than consumer themselves. All too often Washington stands in the way, particularly when 

it creates unnecessary confusion with conflicting rules. 

My constituents know what type of vehicle works best for their family and their 

budget. That may change over time and each American family should be able to 

make their own choice without the Federal Government putting extra strain on 

their finances. Also, there is a real risk that the costs associated with duplicative 

Federal and State fuel economy standards could force families to choose older cars 

without the benefits of new safety technologies. NHTSA’s safety mission and statutory obligations must remain its guiding principle. 

When we are just starting to turn the corner after many challenging years, it is 

disheartening, but not surprising, to see the EPA rush out a Final Determination 

in the waning hours of the last administration. 

I am interested in hearing from the witnesses about industry’s experience attempting to navigate this tricky regulatory terrain, and what can be done to help 

support choice for American consumers and jobs across the country. 

Thank you for being here today and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate so 

much that you and Chairman Shimkus have called this hearing. 

Studies have shown that the higher purchase price of cars under 

a stricter CAFE under these 2025 standards would eliminate a lot 

of consumers from buying new cars. 

There is between 3.1 and 14.9 million American consumers that 

would fall out of the new-car marketplace. Now, this is where there 

is a tension and a friction that we need to talk about: When is 

something counterproductive? 

And, of course, in Tennessee we have a lot of auto manufacturers. This is what they tell me: Whether they are with Nissan or 

Toyota or Volkswagen or GM, it does not matter. They want realistic standards. They want something that will—they will be able 

to meet the expectation of American consumers and deliver a product that is, first of all, safe and that consumers are going to be safe 

in these automobiles. 

So I thank the chairman for the hearing. I think this is time for 

us to talk about what is realistic, what is achievable, and what will 

deliver a safe product for the American consumer, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the subcommittee ranking member, 

the gentlelady from Illinois, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CAFE and greenhouse gas emission standards have been critical 

tools to improve fuel economy and reduce carbon pollution. 

The CAFE program was born out of the energy crisis in the 

1970s. Now those standards are helping us address the even greater threat of a changing climate. 

Strong standards have a more immediate consequence for American consumers: big savings at the pump. In the midterm evaluation finalized in January, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that the model year 2022 to 2025 greenhouse gas emission 

standards will save consumers $92 billion over the lifetime of their 

5 

vehicle—obviously, not each one, together $92 billion. Industry has 

criticized the standards for 2022 to 2025 as too costly. That criticism is not supported by the facts. 

The EPA found that meeting the standards is not only technologically feasible but also cheaper than expected. In fact, the cost 

estimate per vehicle has gone down over $200 since 2012. 

Ambitious standards have driven innovation, which has, in turn, 

lowered costs. The last time we held this hearing in September of 

2016, John German of the International Council on Clean Transportation testified, quote, ‘‘During the course of my 40-year career, 

initial cost estimates for complying with emissions and efficiency 

requirements have consistently been overstated, not some of the 

time or even most of the time, but all of the time.‘‘ 

Nevertheless, the standards face resistance. I often hear companies call for greater regulatory certainty and more time to comply 

with the rules. But this time, the EPA actually finished its work 

ahead of schedule.’’ 

So what did the automakers do? Petition for a redo, and the 

Trump administration was all too happy to comply. No matter how 

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt or others want to explain the decision to reopen the midterm evaluation, the end result is clear: dirtier, less efficient vehicles. 

Calls for harmonization between CAFE and greenhouse gas 

standards are just further efforts to weaken the standards. 

I am especially confused why the auto industry would be so opposed to strong standards when the automakers are promising 

fleets of energy-efficient autonomous vehicles. 

If AVs are actually going to be electric vehicles, I would think 

compliance should be easy. As we discuss the future of these standards, family budgets and public health hangs in the balance. This 

is not the time to ignore facts under the industry pressure. 

We need to continue the progress toward greater fuel efficiency 

and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

And I now yield to Congresswoman Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Schakowsky. 

NHTSA’s CAFE standards and the EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles are win-win. They are good 

for consumers who save billions of dollars at the pump over the 

lifetime of their vehicles. 

They are good for the environment. The standards significantly 

reduce emissions for the transportation sector, the only sector in 

which energy efficiency has grown worse over the past 15 years in 

this country. 

And they are good for the American workers. They spark the development of innovative technologies that create profits and support jobs. 

Many companies understand this and support the NHTSA and 

EPA standards. Even those companies critical of the standards are 

shifting to efficient engines and electric vehicles in response to consumer demand for cleaner cars. 

In light of the widespread support for improving fuel economy, 

I am disappointed with the Trump administration’s decision to revisit the standards for model years 2022 to 2025. 

6 

It is clear the administration is simply intent on weakening the 

progress we have made so far. That is why I will be introducing 

a bill to codify the NHTSA and EPA standards. These standards 

are written in 2012 with the support of the auto industry, environmental groups, and States. 

My legislation maintains the Federal Government and auto manufacturers’ promise to American people, a promise for cleaner and 

efficient cars that cost less at the pump and that are better for the 

environment, health, and the future of our children and grandchildren. 

I look forward to continuing to engage with the committee on 

this issue. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair 

now recognizes the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Illinois, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, before I do my opening statement, 

I get 15 seconds for a point of personal privilege? 

Thank you. Two pictures I want to identify for folks—you will all 

appreciate this. This is a tweet I got from my colleague from Texas, 

who is not paying attention, talking about the next streak, and 

then the next photo will—if you put that up—that’s actually 

what—Mr. Olson, are you paying attention? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I thank you for correcting the record and starting a new streak. 

Mr. OLSON. For the second time in 16 years. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would just—we saw your tweet earlier, so—I 

know my colleagues because of Mr. Olson and how he acts, and we 

appreciate that. So thank you very much. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman is recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. One of the costs of this energy and environmental 

regulation from the Obama administration is the one we will address today that targets fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks. 

EPA estimated total cost in excess of $200 billion by 2025, much 

of which will show up in the form of higher sticker prices for new 

vehicles. 

And although the agency claims offsetting consumer savings 

from lower fuel costs, we now know that this was based upon inaccurate projections of rising gas prices as well as other assumptions 

that are proving to be off the mark. 

It is time to review these rules to see if they are a good deal for 

consumers or whether they can be improved upon. Fortunately, 

regulations contain just such a review, the so-called midterm evaluation. 

The regulations were finalized in 2012 and included progressively stricter standards all the way out to 2025, more than a decade into the future. 

7 

For this reason, it was decided to revisit the standards midway 

through the process to see if standards for model years 2022 to 

2025 need to be adjusted in light of changed circumstances. 

In 2016, EPA commenced its midterm evaluation and was poised 

to make a final determination by April 2018. But after the elections, EPA accelerated its time line and rushed the final determination out the door last January. 

This determination concluded that standards are fine as they are 

and don’t need to be changed. The good news is that Administrator 

Pruitt found this process to be completely unacceptable and has reopened the midterm evaluation with the original deadline of April 

2018, after which the agency may proceed to a rulemaking to 

change the targets for 2022 through 2025. 

Part of this hearing is to get input from those who make cars 

and trucks as well as those who sell them about their contributions 

to the midterm evaluation and what they would like to see come 

out of the process. 

The stakes are high for automakers and auto dealers. But they 

are higher still for consumers. The average price of a new vehicle 

has risen to $35,000 in 2017. These regulations are a contributor 

to the increase. 

EPA estimated cumulative price increases of nearly $3,000 per 

vehicle by 2025, and the real number may prove to be higher. 

Worst of all, the biggest sticker shock may be on the vehicles 

that matter most to middle America. Granted, a Toyota Prius or a 

Smart car may be fine for some people, but many of my constituents need family-size vehicles or pickup trucks for work, and it is 

these larger vehicles that may take the biggest hit. 

We need to make sure that the future targets under this program maintain vehicle choice and affordability. 

In addition to the midterm evaluation, we also need to evaluate 

whether we have a uniform set of rules for the Nation. 

Recall that since the 1970s the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, or NHTSA, had exclusive authority to set vehicle 

fuel economy standards. 

But the Obama administration decided that the EPA and the 

California Air Resources Board should do so as well. So now we 

have three agencies all regulating the same thing, and, not surprisingly, there are discrepancies emerging. 

Looking ahead, we need to ask whether we still want three agencies involved in the fuel economy and why we gave California so 

much more power than any other State in the Union. 

It all comes down to what is best for the consumer. Vehicle purchases are second only to home purchases in terms of their consumer impact, and I hope this hearing helps us strengthen our understanding of what we need to do to make these regulations as 

consumer friendly as possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

One of the costliest energy and environmental regulations from the Obama administration is the one we will address today that targets fuel efficiency and greenVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:29 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X86CAFEUPDATESCANS031618\115X86CAFEUPDATEPENDING
8 

house gas emissions from cars and light trucks. EPA estimated total costs in excess 

of $200 billion by 2025, much of which will show up in the form of higher sticker 

prices for new vehicles. And although the agency claims offsetting consumer savings 

from lower fuel costs, we now know that this was based on inaccurate projections 

of rising gas prices as well as other assumptions that are proving to be off the mark. 

It is time to review these rules to see if they are a good deal for consumers and 

whether they can be improved upon. 

Fortunately, the regulations contained just such a review—the so-called midterm 

evaluation. The regulations were finalized in 2012 and included progressively stricter standards all the way out to 2025—more than a decade into the future. For this 

reason, it was decided to revisit the standards midway through the process to see 

if the standards for model years 2022–2025 need to be adjusted in light of changed 

circumstances. In 2016 EPA commenced its midterm evaluation and was poised to 

make a final determination by April of 2018. 

But after the elections, EPA accelerated its timeline and rushed the final determination out the door last January. This determination concluded that the standards are fine as they are and don’t need to be changed. 

The good news is that Administrator Pruitt found this process to be completely 

unacceptable and has reopened the midterm evaluation with the original deadline 

of April of 2018, after which the agency may proceed to a rulemaking to change the 

targets for 2022–2025. 

Part of this hearing is to get input from those who make cars and trucks as well 

as those who sell them about their contributions to the midterm evaluation and 

what they would like to see come out of this process. 

The stakes are high for auto makers and auto dealers, but they are higher still for consumers. The average price of a new vehicle has risen to $35,000 in 2017, and 

these regulations are a contributor to the increase. EPA estimated cumulative price 

increases of nearly $3,000 per vehicle by 2025, and the real number may prove to 

be higher. 

Worst of all, the biggest sticker shock may be on the vehicles that matter most 

to Middle America. Granted, a Toyota Prius or a Smart car may be fine for some 

people, but many of my constituents need family-sized vehicles or pickup trucks for 

work, and its these larger vehicles that may take the biggest hit. We need to make 

sure that the future targets under this program maintain vehicle choice and affordability. 

In addition to the midterm evaluation, we also need to evaluate whether we have 

a uniform set of rules for the Nation. Recall that since the 1970s the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had exclusive authority to set vehicle 

fuel economy standards, but the Obama administration decided that EPA and the 

California Air Resources Board should do so as well. So now we havethree agencies 

all regulating the same thing and not surprisingly there are discrepancies emerging. 

Looking ahead, we need to ask whether we still want three agencies involved in fuel 

economy and why we gave California so much more power than any other State. 

In conclusion, it all comes down to what is best for the consumer. Vehicle purchases are second only to home purchases in terms of their consumer impact, and 

I hope this hearing helps us strengthen our understanding of what we need to do 

to make these regulations as consumer-friendly as possible. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 

of his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the Environment Subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from New York, for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, and thank you to our witnesses. Thank 

you, Chair Latta, Chair Shimkus for holding today’s hearing. 

NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards 

and EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standards have played a critical role in saving consumers money at the pump while reducing 

carbon pollution. 

CAFE standards were established in 1975 by the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act to reduce our Nation’s reliance on foreign oil, 

9 

and since 2009, EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standards have 

become increasingly important in our Nation’s efforts to address 

climate change. 

Last year, transportation surpassed the electricity sector as the 

largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. According to the EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks, light-duty vehicles accounted for nearly 60 percent of the 

United States transportation emissions and approximately 16.5 

percent of total domestic emissions in 2015. 

No serious effort to reduce emissions can ignore emissions from 

light-duty vehicles. The current standards are estimated to lead to 

the reduction of carbon emissions by 6 billion metric tons for vehicles within model years 2012 through 2025. 

In addition to the pollution reduction, CAFE standards are estimated to save consumers some $1.7 trillion at the pump from vehicles produced between 2011 and 2025. 

Improving vehicle efficiency has truly been a win-win outcome. 

We have come a long way since the 1930s. Over the past four decades, the Federal fuel economy program has evolved considerably 

to give automakers significantly greater flexibility. 

Today, manufacturers are not forced into a single compliance 

path. Each manufacturer has its own fleetwide standard that reflects the vehicles it produces to meet its customers’ demands. 

But in the 15 months since our last hearing on this subject, we 

have seen major changes at EPA. As part of the 2012 agreement 

between President Obama and the auto industry, EPA agreed to 

conduct a midterm evaluation to determine whether assumptions 

made about technology development and costs in 2012 were still accurate and still reasonable. 

Last summer, EPA began its midterm review. The agency examined a wide range of factors and built an extensive public record 

on the appropriateness of greenhouse gas standards for model 

years 2022 through 2025 vehicles. 

Along with the NHTSA and the California Air Resources Board, 

EPA issued the July 2016 draft technical assessment report and 

sought public comment. 

EPA also sought public comment on the proposed determination 

that the greenhouse gas standards for model years 2022 through 

2025 vehicles remain appropriate. 

The technical assessment and ensuing comments provide a robust and conclusive record. EPA standards are feasible and can be 

met at lower costs than originally estimated. 

EPA’s current estimate is an average per-vehicle cost of $875 to 

meet these standards. This estimate is lower than the initial estimate of $1,100 per vehicle, which EPA found reasonable in its 2012 

rule and much lower than consumers can expect to save at the 

pump over the life of the vehicle. 

In January, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy issued a 

final determination that the targets should remain in place up to 

2025. 

I believe that was the correct decision. But despite the extensive 

record established by EPA, in March Administrator Pruitt announced his decision to reopen the midterm review. Weakening 

10 

these standards would be bad for consumers, the environment, and, 

certainly, American competitiveness. 

I have tremendous faith in America’s manufacturers. There is no 

doubt they will continue to be able to meet these achievable goals. 

In fact, the evidence is clear that technology adoption rates have 

occurred more quickly than EPA’s initial expectation. 

Last year, former EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet 

McCabe testified before this committee that there are more than 

100 individual model year 2016 vehicle versions already meeting 

model year 2020 standards or later. 

As automakers continue to innovate, it is clear that multiple 

technology pathways, including existing off-the-shelf technologies, 

will allow them to achieve existing model years 2022 through 2025 

standards, particularly given the flexibility of the program. 

So thank you again to the chairs for today’s joint hearing and 

thank you to our witnesses for being here. These are incredibly important programs for the sake of our constituents’ wallets and our 

Nation’s efforts to reduce pollution. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, 

the gentleman from Oregon, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman. 

Good morning, everyone. Today’s hearing touches on a prominent 

point of frustration for many Americans, and that’s the duplicative 

Government programs that increase costs and decrease choices for 

consumers. 

Specifically, we are talking about the differing fuel economy 

standards under programs administered by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

While NHTSA has been charged with implementing fuel economy 

standards for motor vehicles since 1978, I believe, the Obama-era 

EPA developed its own standard under the Clean Air Act in 2009. 

So, in order to coordinate these different requirements, the 

Obama administration created the national program. Unfortunately, the national program has failed in its attempt to develop 

a single national standard, which causes uncertainty around the 

multiple policies and creates barriers to innovation and growth. 

Under the current scheme, it is possible that automakers will 

find themselves in full compliance with one Federal regulatory 

standard but running afoul of another. 

This is true even though the previous administration explicitly 

told this committee during a hearing last Congress that they would 

work together to avoid this very result. 

Since then, we have seen activity that completely undermines 

the national program and works against the Obama administration’s promise of coordinated regulatory efforts. 

11 

Under the midterm evaluation schedule, NHTSA and EPA were 

to jointly issue their respective determinations on the model years 

2022 through 2025 standards. 

This was supposed to happen in April of 2018. However, the EPA 

then abandoned this commitment and rushed through its final determination without coordination with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just 7 days before President Trump was 

sworn into office. 

I look forward to receiving an update from our witnesses today 

on how they are dealing with different requirements. We want to 

know how these different regulatory schemes impact consumers 

and learn more about better ways to ensure the Federal fuel economy standards are met without creating unnecessary paperwork or 

administrative burdens that serve only to drive up costs for American families. 

As currently constructed, it’s been estimated these programs will 

raise the average price of a new vehicle by almost $3,000. That’s 

no small amount and one that will undoubtedly price many Americans out of the new car market. 

Although the goals of these varying programs are important, we 

must never forget that we do in Washington have a real impact on 

consumers across the country. 

Government works best when it identifies clear problems and offers clear instructions for how to solve those problems. Federal programs that overlap or conflict do nothing to help protect the American people. 

It’s our job to ensure that our laws and the implementation of 

them advance public policy goals, and, if they need correction or 

clarification, it’s what we are here to do. 

So I want to thank our witnesses again for participating in our 

discussions today, and the American people deserve a Government 

that removes barriers to innovation and growth and avoids unnecessarily driving up costs for consumers. 

I look forward to your testimony, and unless any other Member 

wants the balance of my time, I will return the balance of my time. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning. Today’s hearing touches on a prominent point of frustration for 

many Americans: duplicative Government programs that increase costs and decrease choices for consumers. Specifically, we’re talking about the differing fuel 

economy standards under programs administered by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

While NHTSA has been charged with implementing fuel economy standards for 

motor vehicles since 1978, the Obama-era EPA developed its own standards under 

the Clean Air Act in 2009. 

In order to coordinate these different requirements, the Obama administration 

created the National Program. Unfortunately, the program has failed in its attempt 

to develop a single national standard, causing uncertainty around the multiple policies and creating barriers to innovation and growth. 

Under the current scheme it is possible that auto makers will find themselves in 

full compliance with one Federal regulatory standard, but running afoul of another. 

This is true even though the previous administration explicitly told this committee 

during a hearing last Congress that they would work together to avoid this very result. 

12 

Since then, we’ve seen activity that completely undermines the National Program 

and works against the Obama administration’s promise of coordinated regulatory efforts. Under the Midterm Evaluation schedule, NHTSA and EPA were to jointly 

issue their respective determinations on the model year 2022–2025 standards. This 

was supposed to happen in April of 2018. 

However, EPA abandoned this commitment and rushed through its final determination—without coordinating with NHTSA—just 7 days before President Trump 

was sworn into office. 

I look forward to receiving an update from our witnesses today on how they are 

dealing with the different requirements. We want to know how these different regulatory schemes impact consumers, and learn more about better ways to ensure the 

Federal fuel economy standards are met, without creating unnecessary paperwork 

or administrative burdens that serve only to drive up costs for American families. 

As currently constructed, it has been estimated that these programs will raise the 

average price of a new vehicle by almost $3,000—that is no small amount and one 

that will undoubtedly price many Americans out of the new car market. Although 

the goals of these varying programs are important, we must never forget that we 

do in Washington has a real impact on consumers across the country. 

Government works best when it identifies clear problems and offers clear instructions for how to solve them. Federal programs that overlap or conflict do nothing 

to help protect the American people. It is our job to ensure that our laws and the 

implementation of them advance public policy goals, and if they need correction or 

clarification, we do so. 

I thank our witnesses for appearing before us today to address this important 

topic. The American people deserve a Government that removes barriers to innovation and growth, and avoids unnecessarily driving up costs for consumers. 

I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time, 

and the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A little over a year ago, the committee held a hearing on the 

technical assessments report produced by the National Highway 

Transportation and Safety Administration, the EPA, and the California Air Resources Board, and that report formed the basis for 

all three agencies’ decision in January to move forward with the 

proposed light-duty vehicle standard for models produced from 

2022 to 2025. 

Unfortunately, as with many other decisions and regulations 

needed to improve public health, the environment, and consumer 

benefits, the Trump administration is moving to weaken these important standards. 

The administration complied with a request from the auto industry to reopen the midterm review and reconsider the current greenhouse gas emission target for light-duty vehicles equivalent to 51.4 

miles per gallon by model year 2025, and this review could potentially lead to a weakening of the standard. 

I believe that if the U.S. oil industry is to remain competitive in 

the global market, we must reject efforts to move backwards. These 

targets are critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute greatly to the ongoing threat of climate change, and we 

must meet these goals to reduce harmful emissions that endanger 

public health. 

13 

Air pollution and carbon emissions from the transportation sector 

are significant in many of the world’s urban areas. 

The fastest-growing markets for auto are in Asia, especially in 

India and China. These are the same countries whose large cities 

experience chronic poor air quality that creates significant public 

health problems. 

Understandably, several countries, including Britain, France, 

India, and China this year, announced ambitious goals to restrict 

or eliminate sales of new gas and diesel cars within the next few 

decades. 

And the auto industry claims that it can’t meet stricter fuel efficiency and emission reduction goals by 2025. But their efforts to 

seek harmonization through credits and so-called credit banking 

will only serve to undermine and erode the laudable goals previously set by the Obama administration. 

Meanwhile, the auto industry has already received a sizeable advantage from the Trump administration: an indefinite delay of the 

civil penalty increases for CAFE violations that were finalized at 

the end of last year. 

Industry must find ways to continue their investment in vehicles 

that are more fuel efficient, particularly those that don’t rely on 

fossil fuel for power. 

The joint standards developed by NHTSA and EPA in conjunction with the State of California are ambitious but, clearly, achievable. 

They will deliver tremendous benefits to consumers and make 

our Nation more energy secure. It will also play a critical role in 

our effort to slow the pace and severity of climate change, and lowering emissions will improve air quality and public health. 

We know that technologies to produce more efficient and less polluting vehicles are available and affordable today. Those vehicles 

must be produced, and they must be marketed with at least the 

same level of resources used to market the large, inefficient sport 

utility vehicles currently being pushed by industry, and there is 

simply no justification for easing up on this important effort that 

will benefit the public health, the environment, and American manufacturers who will reap the benefits of our Nation being out front 

instead of being dragged behind. 

I don’t know if anybody else wants my time. If not, I’ll yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Good morning. A little over a year ago, the committee held a hearing on the Technical Assessment Report (TAR) produced by the National Highway Transportation 

and Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The report formed the basis for all 

three agencies’ decision in January to move forward with their proposed light duty 

vehicle standards for models produced between 2022 and 2025. 

Unfortunately, as with many other decisions and regulations needed to improve 

public health, the environment, and consumer benefits, the Trump administration 

is moving to weaken these important standards. The administration complied with 

a request from the auto industry to re-open the midterm review and reconsider the 

current greenhouse gas emission target for light duty vehicles equivalent to 51.4 

miles per gallon by model year 2025. This review could potentially lead to a weakening of the standard. 

14 

I believe that if the U.S. auto industry is to remain competitive in the global market we must reject efforts to move backwards. These targets are critical to reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions that contribute greatly to the ongoing threat of climate 

change. And, we must meet these goals to reduce harmful emissions that endanger 

public health. 

Air pollution and carbon emissions from the transportation sector are significant 

in many of the world’s urban areas. The fastest growing markets for automobiles 

are in Asia, especially in India and China. These are the same countries whose large 

cities experience chronic poor air quality that create significant public health problems. Understandably, several countries, including Britain, France, India, and 

China, this year announced ambitious goals to restrict or eliminate sales of new gas 

and diesel cars within the next few decades. 

The auto industry claims that it cannot meet stricter fuel efficiency and emission 

reduction goals by 2025. But their efforts to seek harmonization through credits and 

so-called credit banking will only serve to undermine and erode the laudable goals 

previously set by the Obama administration. 

Meanwhile, the auto industry has already received a sizable advantage from the 

Trump administration—an indefinite delay of the civil penalty increases for CAFE 

violations that were finalized at the end of last year. 

Industry must find ways to continue their investment in vehicles that are more 

fuel efficient, particularly those that don’t rely on fossil fuel for power. The joint 

standards developed by NHTSA and EPA in conjunction with the State of California 

are ambitious, but clearly achievable. They will deliver tremendous benefits to consumers and make our Nation more energy secure. They will also play a critical role 

in our effort to slow the pace and severity of climate change. And, lowering emissions will improve air quality and public health. 

We know that technologies to produce more efficient and less polluting vehicles 

are available and affordable today. Those vehicles must be produced, and they must 

be marketed with at least the same level of resources used to market the large, inefficient sport utility vehicles currently being pushed by industry. There is simply no 

justification for easing up on this important effort that will benefit public health, 

the environment, and American manufacturers, who will reap the benefits of our 

Nation being out in front, instead of being dragged behind. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and this now 

concludes our Member opening statements. 

The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members’ opening statements will be made part of 

the record. 

Again, we want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us 

today and taking time to testify before our subcommittees. Today’s 

witnesses will have the opportunity to give 5-minute opening statements followed by a round of questions from Members. 

Our witness panel for today’s hearing will include Mr. Mitch 

Bainwol, president and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Mr. Forrest McConnell III, president, McConnell Honda and 

Acura, Montgomery, Alabama, on behalf of the National Automobile Dealers Association; Dr. Dave Cooke, senior vehicle analyst, 

Union of Concerned Scientists; and Mr. John Bozzella, the president and CEO of Global Automakers. 

We thank you again for all being here, and, Mr. Bainwol, you are 

recognized for your 5-minute opening statement. 

Thanks again for being here. 

15 

STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; FORREST MCCONNELL III, PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL HONDA & ACURA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION; DAVE COOKE, PH.D., 

SENIOR VEHICLES ANALYST, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; AND JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS, 

INC. 

STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL 

Mr. BAINWOL. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and members of the 

distinguished committee. 

I have an extensive deck to go through, and so I ask for your patience because I am going to zip through it fairly quickly. 

I am here today on behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. We are 12 manufacturers from the U.S., from Europe, and 

from Japan. We represent about 80 percent of the cars on the road 

in the U.S. 

So let me jump in. I’ve got eight points to make. First point— 

next slide—is that sales have peaked. We went through 7 years of 

growth. We are a cyclical industry. We have now peaked. 

If you look at the bottom right, you will see that, year over year, 

we are now down about a point from the first 9 months of ’16. You 

also see a very significant shift in the fleet mix. Cars, over the 5 

years, are down 19 percent. Trucks, over the 5 years, are up 38 

percent. 

Point 2: There has been very broad and strong support for harmonization from environmental voices. Chris Grundler is a senior 

career guy at EPA who opens up his presentations around the 

country with a picture of the planet and talks about the importance 

of saving the planet. 

So his bona fides in this area are strong. He says, ‘‘I am all in 

on harmonization. It should not be acceptable for an automaker to 

pay penalties under CAFE.’’ The ICCT testified here before and 

said, ‘‘Based on the well-designed EPA flexibilities, a harmonized 

One National Program would best be addressed with NHTSA’s program matching EPA’s.’’ 

The Obama DOT talked about building a single fleet of U.S. vehicles, helping to reduce costs and regulatory complexity. Carol 

Browner:‘‘A clear and uniform national policy is not only good news 

for consumers, but also good news for the auto industry, which 

would no longer be subject to a costly patchwork.’’ We still are. 

And, of course, the President of the United States, President 

Obama, when he was in office: ‘‘clear certainty that will allow these 

companies to plan for a future, in which they are building cars of 

the 21st century.’’ 

So there is strong support from, really, both sides of the aisle. 

Point 3: The determination, as has been suggested in some of the 

opening statements, was rushed. On November 29th, that was a 

screen shot of the EPA website, which talked about the determination coming out in April of 2018 simultaneously with NHTSA. 

November 30th, the screen shot disappeared. It was like those 

old Soviet photos where the picture of the guy leaves and, bingo, 

16 

they are gone. So the process changed. The determination was 

rushed. 

The industry is completely united on the idea of rebooting the 

MTR. Eighteen CEOs from all the major companies that operate in 

the U.S.—some of whom are based here, some of whom chose to invest here—all signed a letter asking that we not prejudge the outcome but that we reboot the MTR to the original schedule that was 

promised when the deal was done in 2011. 

Next slide. Point 4: Reality is now contradicting theory. When 

the final determination came out in January, the line was, ‘‘the 

automakers were overcomplying, everything is fine.’’ 

A few weeks later, NHTSA came out with new evidence on compliance and showed that, for ’16 and ’17, we are now undercomplying. So the reality on the ground is undercompliance in ’16-’17. 

Point 5: The math here is really, really important. If you go from 

10 to 20 mpg over a thousand miles, you save 50 gallons. If you 

go from 40 to 50 over a thousand miles, you save 5 gallons. There’s 

a 10-to-1 multiplier focusing on the front end of the curve rather 

than the back end of the curve. That suggests that the most important thing you guys can do is to make sure that fleet turnover happens as rapidly as possible. 

This next slide shows that the bulk of the savings through 2025 

has already been realized. NHTSA has proposed through 2025, in 

terms of gallons saved, 179 million gallons. 

If you take 2021 and you plus it up 1, 2, or 3 percent, you get 

somewhere between 97 and 99 percent of the savings. So we can 

talk about this big gap in terms of the politics of the issue. But in 

terms of the substance, through 2025 we’re 97 percent to 99 percent there. That’s pretty impressive. 

I am really running out of time. Gas prices were profoundly 

wrong—point 6. That’s changed the fleet mix in a dramatic way. 

What you see here in this next slide is a—four lines. The 54 line 

is the original deal. The 51.4 line is the same deal recalculated 

with the change in the fleet mix. 

And the third line is if you recalculate based on the subsequent 

fleet mix changes where the deal now is. That’s not a stringency 

adjustment. That is where the number now is, roughly, 50. 

The final point here is that consumers have a very important 

role in this. This is a program that gets measured by what consumers buy, not by what we produce. They are saying they’d like 

fuel economy, but they are not willing to pay for it. 

I will go through, if I can, just two slides. One in three said they 

would pay nothing for additional fuel economy. One in 10 would be 

willing to pay more than 2,500 bucks. And then, finally, because 

they say they like fuel economy, it’s important to understand contextually where it fits. 

Affordability and reliability are top priorities. Fuel economy and 

safety follow. So when a consumer goes into the showroom, they’re 

looking for lots and lots of factors and lots of features. 

Fuel economy is one of those, but it’s not the sole determinant 

of their choice. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:] 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McConnell, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF FORREST MCCONNELL III 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, ranking members of this joint 

subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on the topic of 

fuel economy. 

My name is Forrest McConnell. I am a third-generation Honda 

dealer from Montgomery, Alabama. I am also former chairman of 

the National Automobile Dealers Association, which represents 

over 16,000 dealers who employ 1.1 million people. 

I’ve been in the car business for about 40 years selling fuel-efficient Hondas through good times and bad. But one thing never 

changes. People buy new vehicles based on two factors: one, does 

it fit their needs, and two, can they afford it? 

So how fuel economy is regulated is very important to my customers. Mr. Chairman, Rube Goldberg would be proud of the convoluted way our Nation regulates fuel economy. 

As Members know, there are not one but three fuel economy programs that automakers must follow. These different fuel economy 

programs are administered by three different agencies—NHTSA, 

EPA, and the California Air Resources Board—under three different sets of rules pursuant to three different laws, potentially resulting in three different standards, all of which must be separately followed. 

These sometimes contrary regulations were labeled by the 

Obama administration as One National Program, but they’re actually three separate programs. 

When Congress established CAFE, they gave NHTSA the sole 

authority for setting fuel economy standards. To avoid a patchwork 

of State standards, Congress also correctly preempted States from 

regulating fuel economy. 

Since 2009, we’ve had something very different. Multiple regimes 

under the One National Program flow from judicial and executive 

branch actions. This program put EPA in charge of setting fuel 

economy policy and allowed California for the first time to set its 

own standard. 

These actions have undermined the CAFE program that Congress created. Congress should return to one actual fuel economy 

program. There are benefits to having regulatory clarity. 

For example, the CAFE program was written to regulate fuel 

economy. When setting standards, NHTSA must balance job loss, 

consumer choice, safety, and market demands. 

In contrast, the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate fuel 

economy. The EPA is not required to balance factors such as consumer choice, safety, or job loss when setting a standard. 

California’s regulation only considers economic factors in that 

State, which is why it makes poor national policy. California and 

every State is expressly—expressly—preempted from regulating 

fuel economy. Yet, this has been ignored since 2009. 

All this unnecessary regulation costs money. Multiple fuel economy regimes harm customers because auto manufacturers must 

charge more for the cars that customers want to subsidize the cars 

the regulators demand. 

39 

These regulatory costs help make the One National Program the 

most expensive set of rules ever, at a cost of $209 billion. Now, I’ve 

never seen a billion dollars, but I understand it’s a lot of money. 

This will raise the average price of a vehicle nearly $3,000 and 

will price over 6 million people entirely out of the new car market. 

America will benefit from returning to one real national fuel 

economy program established by Congress. This is not a new idea. 

In 2011, the House passed a bipartisan bill sponsored by Congressman Upton that would have re-established CAFE as the sole 

fuel economy program. 

Mr. Chairman, we can do better than this Rube Goldberg way of 

setting fuel economy policy. Let’s bring accountability back by returning to one national policy. This approach will create continuous 

fuel economy improvements that customers want and that they can 

afford. The power rests with you. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnell follows:] 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, and at this time, Dr. Cooke, 

you’re recognized for 5 minutes. Thanks for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE COOKE 

Dr. COOKE. Thanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and ranking 

members. 

My name is Dr. Dave Cooke, and I am a senior vehicles analyst 

with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy organization whose primary mission is to ensure that policy is crafted 

on the best available science without political interference. 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment this morning on the current fuel economy and emission standards. Transportation is now 

the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, 

and the 2012 to 2025 light-duty vehicle standards represent the 

largest single step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 

oil use in the U.S. 

One National Program recognizes the independent authorities of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and California, as well as the States 

that follow California’s lead on tailpipe pollution regulations. 

At the same time, it helps provide a coordinated approach to 

achieving reductions in oil use and emissions that allows manufacturers to be able to design a single fleet capable of complying with 

all fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations, should they 

choose to. 

Separately, California and other States have adopted a Zero 

Emissions Vehicle program in order to address air quality issues. 

These States currently face $37 billion in annual health impacts related to passenger vehicle pollution. 

By 2030, the ZEV program will cut that by 35 percent. While increasing the sales of electric vehicles will ultimately help manufacturers comply with greenhouse gas regulations, that is not the program’s primary purpose, and it appropriately is not part of One 

National Program. 

Of course, the implications of One National Program extend beyond national security and under EPCA or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

These cost-effective standards help put money back into the 

hands of consumers by saving them money at the gas pump. Improving the efficiency of new vehicles is especially critical for lowerand middle-class families who spend a greater share of their income on fuel, and these standards disproportionately benefit those 

individuals by making the new and used car market more fuel efficient. 

The efficiency of cars and trucks continues to improve as a result 

of these standards, with SUVs showing some of the greatest levels 

of improvement year over year precisely because these size-based 

standards encourage manufacturers to offer more fuel-efficient options in all vehicle classes. 

And even as the fleet is becoming more efficient, automakers are 

setting sales records. At the same time, the success of these standards cannot be taken for granted. Suppliers have invested nearly 

$50 billion building and expanding factories around the U.S. as a 

46 

result of the certainty these standards provide, growing manufacturing jobs by more than 20 percent. 

Anything done to weaken the standards and undermine those investments could have drastic consequences for a supplier base with 

a broad national footprint and, in turn, the U.S. economy. 

This technology investment is part of why we are confident that 

manufacturers can achieve the 2025 standards. Automakers have 

barely begun deploying many off-the-shelf technologies that can improve the efficiency of conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, and 

new unanticipated developments continue to emerge that can reduce fuel use even further. 

As a result of this progress, NHTSA and EPA were able to jointly 

show in the technical assessment report that cost to comply with 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards had declined. 

As required under the midterm evaluation process agreed to by 

all parties to the One National Program, EPA reviewed the comments on the TAR and moved forward with the determination on 

whether its standards for 2022 to 2025 remained appropriate. 

Based on the best available economic and technical data, including data provided by manufacturers, EPA concluded that the 2025 

standards remained appropriate. In fact, EPA agreed with our assessment that the data shows that manufacturers could meet even 

stronger standards by 2025. 

But the agency chose instead to leave the standards as is to provide the certainty needed for continued investment and efficiency. 

By seeking to renegotiate the terms of the One National Program, automakers are injecting uncertainty into the progress, stymieing progress and forestalling investment. 

This directly harms consumers and risks long-term impacts for 

the industry. Ceding leadership as the rest of the world moves forward signals a repeat of the failings that required American taxpayers to bail out the industry in 2008, and suppliers could exit to 

China or Europe in response. 

Rather than wriggling out of their commitment to seek relief, as 

the alliance puts it, ‘‘any way we can get it,’’ manufacturers should 

be doubling down on improving efficiency to protect American investment and American jobs. 

One National Program is working now to provide fuel savings for 

Americans, improve national security, and reduce emissions. But 

this progress is in jeopardy as a direct result of automakers’ recent 

actions to undermine these standards. 

It is critical to continue to hold automakers accountable for the 

promises they have made to the American people. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:] 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Bozzella, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Chairman Shimkus, 

Ranking Member Schakowsky, Ranking Member Tonko. 

On behalf of the Association of Global Automakers, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

Global Automakers represents the U.S. operations of international automobile manufacturers that design, build, and sell cars 

and light trucks in the United States. 

Our member companies have invested $59 billion in U.S.-based 

facilities and directly employ over 100,000 Americans. Our members are building cars and trucks that are more fuel efficient and 

cleaner than ever, and making tremendous strides in vehicle electrification. 

Our future progress in reducing emissions and fuel consumption 

depends on a number of factors, some of which are not fully within 

the control of manufacturers. 

The most important factor is the customer. As we have seen, 

when gas prices are low, fuel economy is less important to customers when they purchase a new car or truck. 

Government regulations are also important. Manufacturers are 

required to produce vehicles to meet regulatory requirements that 

may have been set in different times and under very different circumstances. 

To that end, as we talk about the fuel efficiency of vehicles, we 

should also talk about the efficiency of public policy. The auto industry, Federal Government, and State of California established 

One National Program, ONP, to address the fact that multiple 

agencies across 15 jurisdictions were using different tools to regulate similar aspects of the vehicle. 

The resulting program aims to harmonize CAFE and GHG standards for light-duty vehicles. The ONP provides substantial yearover-year reductions in petroleum consumption across the Nation 

for all light-duty vehicles while reducing unnecessary regulatory 

duplication. 

Recognizing the nationwide benefits produced by the Federal program, California accepts compliance with Federal standards as 

compliance with its GHG program. 

But despite ONP’s efforts to better align, notable differences 

among the programs remain. That makes no sense. 

The current scheme creates friction and drag in the system that 

slows innovation and imposes unnecessary compliance costs ultimately borne by consumers, with no added environmental or energy benefits. 

In fact, under the current standards, as you have heard, a manufacturer could comply with one standard but not the other. 

This is a prescription for wasted time, talent, and resources 

which would be more productively directed toward engineering and 

other challenges associated with actually reducing vehicle emissions. Some of these problems can be solved in a straightforward 

manner. 

56 

In mid-2016, Global Automakers and the auto alliance jointly 

submitted a petition to EPA and NHTSA requesting regulatory 

changes permissible within the statutory constructs of each relating primarily to the banking accruing and applications of credits 

and process improvements that will promote additional innovative 

technologies with real fuel savings benefits. The agencies should respond to this petition without delay. 

These regulatory changes, however, cannot fully address the differences in Federal statutes, which means that legislation is necessary. 

Global Automakers supports congressional action to provide 

greater certainty and consistency between the Federal programs. 

These problems all have solutions. We simply haven’t put them 

to action, and that creates a dilemma. The auto industry is in the 

middle of fundamental transformations to electrification and automation. 

The cars we sell today need to be able to generate the resources 

to fund these transitions, and we need to be thoughtful about public policy to support these efforts. 

Finally, it’s critically important that all of the parties remain at 

the table to work through these issues. It is far preferable that we 

resolve these issues without litigation or a retreat from One National Program. 

Those paths would only create uncertainty, which would discourage investments in innovation and freeze further progress in emissions reductions. 

Global Automakers remains committed to a harmonized national 

approach, and we look forward to working with you toward that 

goal. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:] 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much and we appreciate your testimony, and we will now move into our question-and-answer portion 

of the hearing. 

I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. McConnell, as a dealer, how can you tell the subcommittees 

about consumer trends, especially with respect to the types of vehicles they are purchasing today? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Thank you very much for your question. 

You know, the customer makes their own decision of what car to 

buy. You can build cars. That doesn’t mean that the customers— 

the demand is there. 

So the two things that I’ve found is customers buy their needs 

for a car. For example, we had a customer the other day. She was 

pregnant, with her second child. Big soccer mom. 

You know, they had moved from a smaller car up to Odyssey 

minivan that suits her needs. But the demand for cars right now 

is, 63 percent of the people are trucks versus about 34 percent cars. 

So it’s changed tremendously in the last couple of years, and that’s 

because the price of gas went down from $4 a gallon basically into 

the $2s. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Bainwol, with the current rules and regulations in place, do 

we in fact have one national standard for CAFE and greenhouse 

gas emission standards? 

Mr. BAINWOL. We do not, effectively. 

Mr. LATTA. And how did the EPA’s less than 7-week process from 

public hearing to final determination impact the midterm review? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well, it disconnected first from NHTSA. So, if you 

go back to 2011, there was essentially a trade, and the agreement 

was the industry would agree to very ambitious, aggressive targets 

over a very long period of time through 2025. In exchange, the industry would get a commonsense analytic lookback to make sure 

that the projections were accurate, and we would get one national 

program. 

What we’ve gotten is neither. We are pledged to try to get there, 

but we do not have one national program, and the midterm review 

was premature. 

When the TAR came out, we asked for an extension. We were 

told, ‘‘Don’t worry, there’s going to be plenty of time.’’ The extension request was denied. 

When the original proposed determination came out, we asked 

for an extension, and it was denied. And over the course—we had 

about 20 days over the course of the Christmas holidays. And so 

everything was very compressed, and there was a very strong disagreement about the substance of the report, which we never really 

got to work our way through. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask you this, because I believe that you made 

some comments, and were any of the flawed assumptions that you 

raised addressed by the agency? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Not really, and I think it’s worth pointing out 

there has been an attitude on the part of some that the TAR and 

the subsequent work was the Holy Grail—that it was without dispute. And I would just simply like to point out that the EPA made 

69 

many assumptions, and if you go through and just look at the 

points, they’ve been proven false. 

There was a massive failure on projecting gas. The fleet mix 

question was completely butchered. There was a view that we were 

overcomplying, and we were under complying. So we can talk about 

the substantive value of that report under which the midterm was 

set and was finalized. But they made mistakes that were really 

quite profound. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask you, because you’re pointing out all these 

mistakes. And your pointing these mistakes out—what did they 

say? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well, originally, they said there would be time to 

talk about it later on, and we kind of lost that time. 

There are substantive disagreements. We believe—I think the 

most important mistake, in our view, is just the amount of electrification necessary to comply. 

They believe we can comply over the schedule with minimal electrification. We believe much more is required, and if you look at 

the purchase pattern in the marketplace, that’s the real problem. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Mr. Bozzella, if I could, in my last minute here—by having different standards from multiple agencies leads to automakers building cars consumers are not buying, what effect will that have on 

jobs and growth in the United States auto industry? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think it certainly could have a fairly significant 

impact on jobs and on the growth of the industry. 

You know, what’s happening here is we are having to waste time 

and resources on compliance when we ought to devote that time 

and resources to innovation that improves fuel economy. 

So with one standard, what you can do is focus that investment, 

and it’s massive investment, and all of you know and many of you 

on both sides of the aisle have praised that investment. Many of 

you represent States and communities where you see that investment firsthand. 

What we want to make sure is every dollar of those investments 

is focused on improving fuel economy as opposed to efforts to comply for the sake of compliance with no benefit. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and at 

this time the Chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Illinois, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would just like to point out this is the 2-year 

anniversary of the Paris Accords and, unfortunately, in my view, 

the United States is no longer part of that. And it seems to me that 

what’s being considered today might actually increase the pollution 

caused by weakening fuel economy standards. 

So the plea for harmonization between EPA’s and NHTSA’s program isn’t about aligning different regulations. It’s about weakening fuel economy standards. 

All the credits that the automakers want to be added to 

NHTSA’s program are going to cause stagnation of fuel economy’s 

goals and not harmonizations. 

Dr. Cooke, let me first ask you, are these programs working, and 

are U.S. cars more efficient and less polluting than they used to 

be? 

70 

Dr. COOKE. Absolutely. Vehicles have gotten significantly more 

efficient over the past 5 years. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are the yearly goals for the two programs stifling innovation, or actually helping to drive it? 

Dr. COOKE. I think the fact that fuel economy is improving and 

that you see continued new research—every, you know, announcement from automakers shows that they’re investing and that this 

is driving innovation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And as I understand, the car makers want to 

reinstate expired credits from earlier years when standards were 

much more lax, and they want to extend the life of those credits 

from 5 to 11 years, and they want to add a whole new category of 

credits to the mix, and they want to relax the caps on their ability 

to transfer the credits they earn on their cars to their pickup 

trucks. 

Dr. Cooke, have I left anything out in that list of what they 

want? 

Dr. COOKE. No, I think that sounds about right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Do automakers, Dr. Cooke, really need such a 

substantial expansion of credits to meet the fuel economy standards? 

Dr. COOKE. No, I think the TAR and the work since the vast 

body of evidence shows that there are plenty of technologies that 

they could be applying to their vehicles in order to meet the standard, and if they met the CAFE standard, which they’re trying to 

weaken through these credits, they would be in compliance with 

the EPA standard as well. So—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If automakers were to get all the retroactive 

credits they’re asking for, what would this mean for real improvements in fuel economy, going forward? 

Dr. COOKE. The vast volume of credits could really offset and 

forestall continued investment in inefficiency, and so you could see 

manufacturers using their credits to stall progress on the fuel economy of the pickup trucks that many drivers are looking to purchase, and that affects our ability in the long term as—through the 

midterm process, that would set up a trajectory where we have 

weaker vehicles going into the 2022 model year and the standards 

are then further weakened through this lack of progress, and we 

could see 8-to-10-mile-per-gallon reduction in the 2025 targets as a 

result. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, while we are on the topic of credits, car 

makers have complained about the fact that the EPA has allowed 

them to get extra credits for using certain technologies like stopstart ignitions systems, but NHTSA has not given them credits. 

I am referring to off-cycle credits. We are told that NHTSA needs 

to harmonize with the EPA and allow these credits to count retroactively toward both emissions goals and fuel economy standards. 

So Dr. Cooke, aren’t these off-cycle technologies already factored 

into NHTSA’s fuel economy goals? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes, that’s right. NHTSA explicitly excluded them 

from the 2012 to 2016 regulations when they set the standards. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And, in fact, didn’t NHTSA intentionally set 

its fuel economy goals lower than EPA’s emission goals precisely 

because its program didn’t include these credits? 

71 

Dr. COOKE. That’s right. Its standard was about 1 mile per gallon 

lower as a result. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And if NHTSA were to allow off-cycle credits 

to apply retroactively to its already discounted fuel economy standards, shouldn’t it also reset those standards to make them more 

stringent? 

Dr. COOKE. That’s correct. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So do you buy the estimate that this would raise the cost of a car $3,000? Does that take into account what the 

lower gas price would be? 

Dr. COOKE. I have no idea where that $3,000 number is coming 

from. It is outdated. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Environment, the gentleman from Illinois, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess, first, following a couple of the lines of questions, to the 

automakers, first of all, it’s just a—it’s just a thank you, and to the 

auto dealer. 

You represent America, in which you raise capital, assume a 

risk, try to prove it’s a good, and try to sell a good. You pay living 

wages. Many times you pay health benefits. You’re paying taxes to 

the country. You’re paying local taxes that fund our schools, our 

towns, and our communities. You probably are supporting local 

sports leagues and sport teams and stuff like that. 

So I always get frustrated when we bring people before us who 

are doing everything we ask, and they seem like they’re on trial 

and that they’re under attack. It just—it is unfortunate. 

So, first of all, thank you. Now, to the point—part of this debate 

is that Obama administration moved the goalpost in this midterm 

review. Is that correct? Mr. Bainwol and then Mr. Bozzella. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes, it is correct. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And your request is what? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Our request is simply to go back to the original 

Obama time line. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. And have a fact-based, evidence-driven process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because—and you want that because? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Because we need to get it right. It is critically important to the customer, it is important to investors who are investing in this country, and it is important for all of us who care about 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving fuel economy. 

That is why. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And isn’t it safe to say that when you do a formula, over time variables in the formula could change? 

Mr. BAINWOL. That’s correct, and they have changed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And then give me some examples of those changes 

in those areas. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well, we talked about the gas price reality, and 

there’s nothing that drives behavior in the marketplace more than 

the price of gas. So that’s the biggest factor, and that has changed 

the fleet mix, and that has changed ultimately the compliance reality. So we are now undercomplying. 

72 

And I think it’s important to point out there are two different 

programs. EPA was estimated to save something like 65.6 billion 

gallons. The NHTSA program was going to save something like 

65.3 billion—essentially, the same thing. 

And we are complying with the more numerically stringent EPA 

program. So, in the discussion of harmonization, that doesn’t 

change. We are not touching the EPA at all. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me go to the—Mr. McConnell, just from your 

observations of the consumers in this process and based upon this 

discussion, the consumers have changed in their choices of what 

they want to pull off the lot, right? And can you give me that observation? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes. The one thing I wanted to mention, the 

$3,000 additional cost to my customers is from the three rules—the 

total cost. It’s in the Federal Registry. 

The TAR is in a rule. Customers, as you in life, they make decisions, times change, you have different stages, you have different 

desires. But, you know, Congress got it right the first time by not 

having a patchwork. 

You want to consider affordability to customers and their consumer choice, and they get the car that fits their needs, and the 

one thing I want to point out is, this is the customer’s money. 

A regulator can demand a certain car gets built. But a customer 

has the right to spend his money. Maybe it’s a Prius because that 

works for you. Maybe you have to have a truck because you have 

a business, and that’s how you earn your livelihood. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Let me reclaim my time because I am running short. But I am from rural America. We like big vehicles. We 

like big trucks. So I know what’s being sold in, as we say, my neck 

of the woods. 

Let me finish with the auto manufacturers, and this may not be 

a surprise to some of my friends. There is a Government initiative, 

Co-Optima, which is underway to define and understand the costs 

and benefits of high-compression engines and high-octane, low-carbon fuels. 

If your industry were to go in that direction, what do you think 

it would mean in terms of emission reductions or consumer affordability for vehicles in the model year 2021 and beyond? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well, high-octane absolutely has value in terms of 

fuel efficiency, and I’ve seen it estimated something in the order of 

4 or 5 percent as a plateau shift. 

So there’s real value on high-octane, and then there’s a question 

of how you get it, and on that question we’re a little bit agnostic, 

but we’d be happy to work with you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But certainty is part of that process too, right? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Bozzella? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. I think you have to look at the vehicle and 

the fuel are one system. And so that’s what’s driving that type of 

work, right. So, if you have more efficient engines and cleaner engines you want to have a fuel that matches one system. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Excellent. I yield back my time. 

I thank the chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

73 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Dr. Cooke, as I mentioned in my opening statement, this committee received testimony that automakers are already ahead of 

schedule to meet standards for upcoming model years. 

Did the TAR find that the targets for later model years can be 

met by mostly efficiency improvements to gas-powered engines? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes, that’s correct. There’s not a significant deployment needed of electrification. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And numerous comments to the TAR and proposed determination outlined a number of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions that are commercially available. 

Your testimony mentions a number of proven technologies have 

not been widely deployed. Some of these have existed for years but 

still are only found in 10 or 20 percent of new vehicles. 

Dr. Cooke, can you discuss how off-the-shelf technologies could be 

more widely adopted? 

Dr. COOKE. Sure. I think you look at what Ford has done with 

its turbocharged downsized engines, where you can provide equivalent amount of power from a smaller engine. Even they haven’t sort 

of moved that technology across the board, and they’re certainly a 

leader, and other vehicle manufacturers can either move in that 

same direction with something that’s proven or define a new pathway, and we are seeing those developments routinely come out in 

new announcements every few months. 

Mr. TONKO. Why haven’t these commercially available technologies been adapted more quickly? 

Dr. COOKE. I think one of the challenges is that product cycles 

are long. They’re about 5 years, and so it does take time to redesign a vehicle. 

But, at the same time, we’ve seen instances where, for example, 

Toyota’s large trucks haven’t seen a power train upgrade in a decade. 

So I think there’s inconsistency in the industry in how quickly 

they’re moving these technologies through. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And would additional vehicle models meet higher fuel efficiency 

standards if more of these commercially available technologies 

were more broadly utilized? 

Dr. COOKE. Absolutely. There is plenty of room for them to meet 

the standards. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

It’s also my understanding that there are also several other wellknown technologies that are under development and will very likely provide alternative cost-effective pathways toward meeting these 

standards. 

Dr. Cooke, is that accurate? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. I think one of the things that the modeling 

shows and the fact that the TAR was done both by NHTSA and 

EPA using slightly different assumptions and different modeling 

results resulted in a number of different pathways that manufacturers could choose to meet the standards. 

74 

So it’s a robust analysis that proves that there are multiple pathways of getting there. 

Mr. TONKO. And despite the likelihood of these technologies become available in the near future, is it accurate that EPA did not 

consider them when determining the appropriateness of the model 

years 2022 to 2025 standards? 

Dr. COOKE. I think there are a number of technologies which 

have been developed since EPA’s proposal that show that we can 

go even further, and developments that were completely unanticipated, not just when the agencies wrote the original rule but even 

since the final determination. 

Mr. TONKO. And why do you believe the EPA and manufacturers 

have consistently underestimated how fast technologies can be developed? 

Dr. COOKE. It’s obviously in their interest to only provide regulators data which will result in the standards that are most easily 

achievable. So, at the same time, I don’t understand fully why they 

underestimate what their engineers are capable of. But history has 

certainly shown that to be true. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, thank you, Dr. Cooke. 

I think it’s clear that these standards are achievable. They’re 

cost effective and appropriate, and I have full faith in American 

automakers as well as the existing flexibility of the program to 

reach these standards. 

So I can’t support the uncertainty created by reopening the midterm review determination. 

Dr. Cooke, last week Administrator Pruitt testified before this 

committee that the midterm evaluation process was flawed because 

it did not happen at the April 2018 deadline. 

I know we are used to EPA missing deadlines, but is there anything in the regulations that prevented EPA from evaluating the 

appropriateness of the standards before April 2018? 

Dr. COOKE. No. Absolutely not. And given the long product cycles, more advanced notice is preferable. 

Mr. TONKO. And do you think there’s anything included in the 

TAR or the determination that makes it incomplete or inaccurate? 

Dr. COOKE. I think there was a fairly thorough analysis. It was 

1,200 pages and 4-plus years of careful technical and economic 

analysis, many studies, many peer-reviewed studies, many 

benchmarking tests in their own labs. There was a lot of data that 

this was based on. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to deviate a little bit from this issue over the ’22 to ’25 

series and more looking—there was a comment earlier in one of the 

opening statements about safety. 

I am still curious. I see there are competing reports out there, 

depending upon your perspective, of whether or not the efficiency— 

and Congressman Tonko and I work together frequently on legislation over efficiency. 

75 

So, as an engineer here in Congress, I like the idea of efficiency 

but I also want to measure the, I suppose, the cost-benefit ratio of 

what’s it doing on safety. 

Because some cars are getting lighter. They’re using more aluminum, less steel. But yet, you will hear some reports will talk 

about the fact that in real-world conditions there are more accidents, more people—last year, we had an increase in deaths on the 

highways. So others will say under a model situation, if all cars 

were the same size on the highway, there wouldn’t be. That’s not 

the real world. 

So I would like to hear back a little bit from you about the safety 

aspects when we continue this, because I want us to continue down 

the road of increasing efficiency of our cars. But I don’t want to do 

it at the risk of our people that are driving the cars. So that’s my 

first question, and I want to get, if we could, just some quick responses back to safety. 

Mr. BAINWOL. I’ll jump in. You have hit, obviously, a very important point, and it’s one of the reasons why EPA jumping ahead of 

NHTSA was a problem. NHTSA, under statute, has to look at a 

range of factors, including safety. 

EPA does not. So your concern about safety is valid, and it ought 

to be incorporated in the analysis, and so I think it’s a good thing. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. He’s 100 percent right. The good thing about 

what Congress set it up with CAFE is, you had to consider safety 

was one of the factors. 

EPA does not. California does not have to consider anything but 

economic factors only in that State, and as you know they’ve reduced the massive cars tremendously so that—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Well, let me, if I could, reclaim—let me ask a 

more definite—rather than to keep it open ended. Do you think increasing the efficiency has caused or contributed to the increased 

accident rate or fatalities on our highways? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I don’t know if I have the expertise to answer 

that question. But I will say that Congress got it right because 

they required CAFE to consider safety, and EPA does not have to 

consider safety at all. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I am running out of time on this, but—— 

Dr. COOKE. There is no evidence to support the conclusion that 

these are having an adverse effect on accidents. 

Mr. BAINWOL. But what we do know is that the older the car, the 

bigger the safety risk. A new car has technology to avoid accidents. 

A new car has structural integrity and is better maintained. 

So, if your priority is safety on the roads, the ability to move fleet 

turnover is crucial. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am sorry I didn’t call on you, Mr. Bozzella. 

During the testimony—Dr. Cooke’s testimony, I saw your body 

language was very illuminating—that you were shaking your head. 

Do you want to express yourself in the time—I’ve got a minute and 

13 seconds left—either one of you, to say where you disagree with 

Dr. Cooke? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think—and, again, I appreciate Dr. Cooke’s testimony—but I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the 

notion of credits. 

76 

It’s almost as if they’re gifts that have been delivered from some 

magical place. The fact of the matter is these credits are the result 

of investments that car companies have made that have resulted 

in progress. 

So they’ve made more achievement, and so this credit is a reward 

for innovation. It’s actually earned for the investment that companies are making. And so the point of this is not—we are almost 

having an abstract conversation about credits. 

It’s really important to recognize that these are important tools 

in the toolbox, because what they do is they encourage innovation 

and they also help balance and smooth the ups and downs of product development cycles in a program where year-over-year fuel 

economy increases are required. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Bainwol, do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. BAINWOL. That was the right analytic answer. My body language was, I was just imagining Dr. Cooke running a car company, 

because he seems to have a vision that is profitable, but real car 

companies have apparently not the capacity to do that. So—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to grant the State 

of California a so-called waiver to adopt its own air pollution standards for vehicles. 

Approximately a dozen States have adopted California standards 

as well. Mr. Cooke, can you please tell us why California was given 

the ability to adopt its own emission standards? 

Dr. COOKE. Sure. California’s leadership predates the Clean Air 

Act. They were the first body to regulate tailpipe emissions from 

the vehicle industry. 

Ms. MATSUI. And also because of the huge pollution that they 

had in the State also? 

Dr. COOKE. Exactly. 

Ms. MATSUI. When California applies for a waiver to set its own 

standards, what conditions does the EPA consider while deciding 

whether to grant that waiver? 

Dr. COOKE. First, it’s important to point out that the default is 

that the waiver is accepted unless it meets one of three criteria: either that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious, so not a 

well-thought-out standard—inconsistent with EPA’s authority 

under the Clean Air Act, or not compelling or extraordinary circumstances, and I think it’s very clear when you look at the 

wildfires burning why the greenhouse gas emission standards are 

compelling and, clearly, the air quality issues in California create 

extraordinary circumstances for ZEV. 

Ms. MATSUI. So has the EPA ever revoked one of California’s 

waivers? 

Dr. COOKE. No waiver has ever been revoked once it’s been 

granted, and it’s not even clear what the process would be to do 

so. 

77 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. There are over 25 million registered cars and 

licensed drivers in the State of California. I am particularly interested in how CAFE standards and greenhouse gas emissions standards impact drivers in my State and across the country. 

Mr. Cooke, I think we’ve heard this here before, but I’ve heard 

the argument that the vehicle efficiency standards raise costs for 

consumers. But I understand your organization has found otherwise. Do you know how much money drivers are saved because of 

the standards on a per-vehicle basis? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. Consumers would stand to save about a little 

over $3,000 on the purchase of a new car or about nearly $5,000 

over the lifetime of a purchase of a new truck, and that’s at gas 

prices that we are at now. 

Clearly, if they increase in the meantime that would be significantly higher. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. And do Americans generally support strong fuel 

efficiency standards? 

Dr. COOKE. Absolutely. Poll after poll shows that folks support 

strong fuel economy standards. Seven in 10 Americans specifically 

support Government setting strong fuel economy standards, and 

that finding crosses aisles. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Mr. Cooke, you mentioned that both the EPA and your organization found manufacturers could meet stronger standards than are 

currently written for 2025. 

What data and information do you study to come to this conclusion? 

Dr. COOKE. Sure. 

You know, the analysis that’s been conducted has been extensive. 

But each month that passes, we see a new data point. 

The fact that both EPA’s and NHTSA’s models confirmed that 

the costs had come down shows robust evidence. Then vast amount 

of peer-reviewed literature the EPA has been generating. 

The Indiana University study that was funded by the alliance actually shows that hundreds of thousands of jobs are created as a 

result of these standards. So there are positive economic outcomes, 

new data based on suppliers that ICCT has put out. I mean, the 

list is extensive. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. And as I mentioned earlier, the International 

Energy Agency has found that the transportation sector is the only 

sector in which energy efficiency has grown worse in this country 

over the past 15 years. 

Have you seen any factors, Mr. Cooke, here in the United States 

that explained this trend? Why do you think we’ve become less efficient in the transportation space while more efficient elsewhere? 

Dr. COOKE. I think one of the things that’s critical is the result 

of the mix shift. So we are seeing a swing back to the purchase of 

larger cars and trucks—SUVs and pickups. And so it’s really critical that these standards remain strong because they drive improvements across those vehicles and ensure that cars, trucks, and 

SUVs get more efficient over time. 

And so we’ve seen a plateau as a result of that fleet mix, but 

these standards will continue to drive that and put us back on the 

right course. 

78 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back, 

and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding, and I want to thank all of you for being here and spending 

time with us today on this really important issue, and it’s essential. 

We’ll start with Mr. McConnell. I know it’s been mentioned prior 

but in your testimony you state that the national program set by 

the last administration raised the price of each vehicle by nearly 

$3,000, and that doing so will price out over 6 million people from 

the new car market. 

Can you please explain how you arrived at those numbers and 

how consumers would react, based on your experience? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Well, the $3,000 is the total cost for the three 

rules. It’s been noted in the Federal Register. The most important 

thing to know is fleet turnover. 

You know, everybody here is—we’d be in agreement on one 

thing. We want the fleet to turn over faster to put more people in 

more fuel-efficient cars. And so, if you make them unaffordable or 

you make them not as desirable with the customer, you have less 

people buy cars. So that’s it. 

To give you an example, the structure that you had set up under 

CAFE was the right one. I don’t think you want California setting 

the standard for the rest of the country, and I will give you one 

example. 

There is probably many of you in here that own a black car. California CARB had proposed a regulation called cool paint—cool 

paint. They would eliminate black cars because they become hotter 

and you have to run your air conditioner a little bit longer. I don’t 

know what Uber would do without a black car but it would be 

a—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. I have a black car, too. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. So it’s just—it’s what the customer wants. 

Mr. KINZINGER. That’s real? They actually considered banning 

black cars? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes. It’s black paint. It’s called a cool paint. 

You can look it up. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And is it fair to say that the dealers are concerned that these rules will force them into a position in which 

they won’t be able to provide the cars and trucks to people that 

want to buy and have prices they can afford? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. That’s right. You know, ultimately we buy the 

cars that the manufacturers make. They sit on our lots. We own 

them. But ultimately, to put them in the fleet, the customer has 

to make a decision, and any business that’s successful has to consider what the customer wants—can they afford it? And 90 percent 

of the cars are financed in this country. 

There is not one bank—I’ve asked at least 12 banks—that will 

not loan additional money just because your car gets better gas 

mileage. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So most of the people in this room could probably 

afford a more expensive car, but there’s a vast majority—it seems 

like kind of a regressive tax, in essence. 

79 

Mr. Bozzella, from automakers, engineers in the Department of 

Energy, and many other technical experts—and I know Mr. Shimkus touched on this—but I understand there’s been an ongoing 

evaluation of how high-octane, low-carbon fuels such as midlevel 

ethanol blend can help reduce emissions and improve efficiency 

when used with new optimized engines. 

In its most recent request from comments on the midterm evaluation, EPA specifically asked for information about the impact of 

high-octane fuel, and Administrator Pruitt also mentioned consideration of high octane in his responses to questions in this committee’s hearing with him last week. 

What types of work have automakers undertaken to help evaluate the benefits of high-octane fuels? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Thanks, Congressman. 

As you are aware, we are constantly researching and working on 

the combinations of vehicle systems, power train systems, and 

fuels. I mentioned in response to Mr. Shimkus’ question that you 

have to think of it as one system—hardware software, engines and 

fuels—and so we are constantly evaluating new fuel and engine 

combinations, and we think octane certainly contributes to efficiency, and so there’s an opportunity there, right. The way to think 

about it is, we can—you know, that brings additional benefits to 

the process while we are still working on gasoline-powered engines. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So you’re talking about, you know, obviously, 

that innovation and experimentation. You state in your testimony 

that the current system is stifling innovation and resulted in increased costs for consumers. Can you explain what factors are predominantly driving this increased cost for consumers? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. It’s primarily the bureaucratic drag of trying 

to comply with three different fuel economy systems as well as a 

technology-forcing mandate managed by three different agencies 

across 15 jurisdictions. 

It doesn’t really make much sense. I think if we can get further 

alignment and ultimately to one national program as we all—that 

was the aspiration we all had—we will be able to devote that investment, those substantial resources ,to improving fuel economy 

and reducing emissions. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So in the couple seconds I have left, will the existing gap between Federal and State programs, if they’re not harmonized, do you expect to see that gap increase over the years? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. There is no question about it. 

Mr. KINZINGER. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back and the Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chairman. I thank the gentleman 

from Illinois for giving me 5 seconds there. 

I thank the members of the panel this morning. Dr. Cooke, do 

you think the current standards have helped make the American 

auto manufacturers more competitive? 

Dr. COOKE. I do. I think we saw what happened when they’re allowed to sort of stagnate. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Well, how do you think—and you 

have already sort of answered this question, but how do you think 

80 

the regulations have driven employment with U.S. automakers, 

and is this hurting the industry? 

Dr. COOKE. I am sorry. You said employment, correct? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. How is it driving employment? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. The fact that you are moving forward with new 

research and development on new technologies, this is providing a 

catalyst for increased investment, not just at automakers but specifically it’s drawing suppliers to invest in the U.S. as well, and 

they are a critical tool and they outnumber automaker manufacturing 3 to 1. So it’s driving investment in new technologies that’s 

supportive of increased job growth. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And is it hurting the automakers to have to hire 

these people or—— 

Dr. COOKE. They don’t seem to be—you know, many automakers 

are seeing extremely high profits right now, and I defer to them on 

whether they feel like their industry is failing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. What about harmonization? How difficult 

do you believe that it is—the automakers can meet the different 

sets of standards that we are hearing about this morning? 

Dr. COOKE. It’s not very difficult at all, and particularly when it 

was pointed out explicitly in the rulemaking exactly the pitfalls 

that would face them and exactly the differences between the two 

programs, and that was finalized as—you know, when they signed 

off on One National Program, and nothing has changed about One 

National Program since they signed off on those rules. They were 

well aware of the differences between the two programs, and it 

seems that they are choosing instead to invest in compliance with 

just one. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. You’re answering my questions pretty directly here, Dr. Cooke. I appreciate that. 

You mentioned that off-the-shelf technologies already available 

would greatly increase fuel efficiency if it was employed. Could you 

expand on that a little bit? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. So the fact that automakers have invested and 

that there are proven technologies shows that the potential is 

there. 

But it takes time to move them across the remainder of their 

platforms, because a new car is redesigned every 5 years, and 

maybe there’s a significant refresh in the middle at about the 3- 

year mark. 

But, because of that, it takes a long time for even technology that 

is ready to go to get into the fleet. 

But what we’ve seen established is that there are a plethora of 

these technologies that are well established, everyone understands, 

and are still in the low fractions of the fleet. 

And so over time, there’s plenty of room for improvement without 

having to resort to the most expensive technologies. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So there is a internal combustion research facility at Sandia Labs there in Livermore, which is near my district. 

How effective is that, do you know, in terms of providing technology that automakers can use to increase their efficiency? 

Dr. COOKE. I am not aware of that specific lab. But the National 

Labs in general do play a significant proving ground for some of 

81 

the more advanced types of combustion technologies, and they’re 

certainly—you know, we’ve heard the Co-Optima program. 

That was in coordination with National Labs, and investment in 

that basic science, just as in any other field, certainly plays a 

strong role in development of advanced technologies. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, you point out that fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards have benefited our economy, our environment, and saved consumers billions. 

Since these standards are working, why is the industry seeking 

to halt this progress and move backwards and maybe hurt itself? 

Dr. COOKE. That is a very good question. I think you look at 

what the industry could be doing, and they could be moving forward. 

But we also look at the history of what they have done in the 

past, and I think there is a little bit of a return to that mindset 

when you look at testimony in front of House committees over the 

past 35, 40 years. This is par for the course. They continue—automakers routinely say, ‘‘We can’t possibly hit that target,’’ and they 

are still standing. So—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. The chairman is going to cut me off, so I am 

going to yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. I didn’t cut you off yet. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to—a lot 

of good questions asked on both sides. I want to bring my historical 

perspective into play here for a moment. 

I was co-chair of the Auto Caucus for a lot of years. Bipartisan 

caucus. We all want better fuel efficiency. Consumers want that. 

We have made some wonderful strides. Real kudos to the industry for where we are and, frankly, because we have gas prices—saw 

prices this weekend for $2.24 a gallon. That’s a lot better than 

$3.84 8—almost 9 years ago. 

And I would dare—when we worked with the industry and with 

the administration on getting better fuel economy standards, it was 

never the intent of this Congress and, frankly, I didn’t think it was 

the intent of the administration, the Obama administration, to 

have something that was different than One National Program, 

and we thought that that was going to be the case. I think they 

indicated that back in 2009 and again in 2012. 

And I would—Mr. Bainwol, your testimony here, I think we were 

all surprised, based on their testimony earlier on and where they 

ended up, literally, as Chairman Walden said, just a week before 

the election, or a week before the end of the Obama presidency. 

When we worked with the industry and with the administration 

on establishing the time frame for mileage, we put in the provision 

that, in 2018—years down the road—that there would be a look 

back: Can the industry actually make these changes at what, hopefully, would be a reasonable price for consumers? 

I wouldn’t say it was set in to halt the progress. It was to actually measure the science, the efficiencies, and the new vehicles as 

to whether they would meet those. 

82 

Then it was 54 miles per gallon. It was revised down a little bit, 

so it’s about 50. I am averaging here. But, under the rules, I mean, 

Mr. Bainwol and Mr. Bozzella, I think your best answer—the industry, if you didn’t have that look back—what will it take to actually meet 50 miles per gallon, literally, in the year, what, 2024, 

2025? Mr. Bainwol. 

Mr. BAINWOL. A tough question. I think the premise that we are 

going to halt progress is false. The only question here is the degree 

of the slope, and we want the slope of progress to be one that’s consistent with selling cars and encouraging the fleet turnover, and 

that’s really what all this boils down to. 

So I understand we live in a political system and rhetoric gets 

heated. But we are talking about getting to the Obama numbers 

and beyond at some point over time, and the question is how do 

we manage this in a fashion that’s consistent with marketplace realities? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes, and just to add to that: I think we are making outstanding progress. There is no question about that. 

Mr. UPTON. Yes. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. The question really is, Are we testing the assumptions we made? For example, it’s unclear to us really what types 

of technologies will be into the cars and trucks that people will 

need to buy in 2025. 

There is not a single gasoline-powered engine that meets those 

standards today. So I think we should be honest and straightforward about the types of technology pathways we are going to see 

forward—more electrification, more hybrids. 

And so really this is about not only making sure we get the assumptions right for innovators and investors, but also that the customers recognize what the marketplace will look like and are prepared. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bainwol, as you know, my colleague and friend 

from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, and I have introduced legislation 

called the Fuel Economy Harmonization Act of 2017 that is designed to correct the inconsistency of having three different standards, in essence, and go back to one. 

What are your thoughts on that legislation? 

Mr. BAINWOL. We think it’s a terrific bill. We think that the impact of the bill is to reduce regulatory friction, and by reducing regulatory friction, that allows for compliance strategies that make 

sense, and you end up reducing the cost of product, enhancing the 

ability of people to buy those cars, and that’s crucial to employment 

in your States. So it really is very valuable. 

And in terms of dollars, I was told the other day—I am not sure 

where the data comes from, but if anywhere near the magnitude 

is right—a billion dollars in savings in terms of costs translates 

into a thousand dollars on the bonus for a guy who works on the 

line. 

So this is a multibillion-dollar savings in terms of the regulatory 

friction. That means real disposable income for the workers of this 

industry. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [presiding]. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

83 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. 

Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a lot of questions. I am going to go to my last one first, 

because I want to follow up on my colleague from Michigan. 

When we are talking about—first of all, I am an idealist. Someday we are going to bring permanent peace between Michigan and 

California—that’s my goal here—because I think we all want to 

have a better environment. 

But when we talk about the assumptions that were made when 

these standards were, here is one example of a technology I would 

like to pursue. Could all of you answer this question quickly? 

Was it not assumed that there would be a far higher penetration 

in the market of electric vehicles? And people keep making this 

comment that the companies aren’t building EVs. 

But is it not a fact that the consumer is not buying EVs? They 

don’t believe that there is an infrastructure in place, and even the 

13 States that have ZEV mandates that should be putting them 

into their fleet are not buying them. Quickly. 

Mr. BAINWOL. So yes, yes, and yes. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. You absolutely are correct. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Dr. Cooke. 

Dr. COOKE. There was little penetration of electrification assumed, and 41⁄2 percent in California right now, electric vehicle 

penetration. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. But a half a point nationwide. 

Mrs. DINGELL. And it was—that’s a part of the problem. And I’ve 

talked to Governor Brown. And we are eliminating the tax credit 

for the EV in the tax bill, and right now we are losing money on 

those electric vehicles. 

Dr. Cooke, how do we get at that? 

Dr. COOKE. Sorry. Say that again. 

Mrs. DINGELL. How do we get at making the consumer want to 

buy that electric vehicle? 

Dr. COOKE. I think the fact that we are at nearly 5 percent in 

California shows that, if you put the incentives in place, you do 

drive—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. But the incentives are in place—the same incentives, quite frankly, sir. The tax credit is there. The infrastructure 

needs to be built out. So do we have to work together? 

All right. I am going to go to my other questions, because I actually think we are more together than people are thinking. So I 

would like to ask Mr. Bainwol and Mr. Bozzella, are the members 

of your trade associations committed to continued fuel economy improvements that are balanced, both technological feasibility and 

consumer affordability? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes. So life does not end in 2025. We know that, 

and we are—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. Are you for post-2025 standards, which I, by the 

way, am and want to talk about it. 

Mr. BAINWOL. That conversation has to happen, yes. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. I would agree to both points. We are committed to improving fuel economy and over the long haul. 

84 

Mrs. DINGELL. This question is for all witnesses, and please answer yes or no. 

Do you believe that there is a benefit for having a single set of 

fuel economy standards across the country? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, under NHTSA. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Dr. Cooke. 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. No? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Oh, yes? OK. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. And isn’t what the Obama administration tried to 

do in 2010 and 2012 with the creation of one ONP—having a unified approach between NHTSA, EPA, and CARB—isn’t that what 

they tried to do? 

Mr. BAINWOL. It was the goal, but it was broken at the end of 

the administration. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. McConnell. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I believe that Congress had it right the first 

time not to have a patchwork, that NHTSA should be in charge. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Dr. Cooke. 

Dr. COOKE. That was the goal and is still in place. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. It was the aspiration, and it hasn’t been realized. 

Mrs. DINGELL. And, in fact, EPA and NHTSA both clearly stated 

in their joint MPRM issued in 2012—I have it right here—the need 

to create a unified approach so that the manufacturers could design 

one fleet of vehicles to comply with both programs. 

And isn’t it true that the 2012 joint final rule had two main 

phases, the first being CAFE standards from model years 2017 to 

2021 and then separate projected standards from model years 2022 

to 2025? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Dr. Cooke. 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. So it is my understanding that, when the 

2012 joint final rule was released, that the 2022 through 2025 

standards were what was called augural standards—in other 

words, estimated—which represent NHTSA’s best estimate of what 

would be maximally feasible at that time. Is that correct? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I just represent the consumer who wants to be 

able to afford the vehicle. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. Dr Cooke. 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. John. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. So, right now, we are going through the midterm review as we speak. Whether some of you like it or not, it’s 

very important. 

We are in the early process, but it’s important that it play out 

and encourage stakeholders to engage responsibly towards a negotiated solution that continues the gains we’ve seen in fuel economy 

85 

since 2012, takes current conditions and real-world data into account, and establishes standards past 2025. 

People aren’t talking about who’s at the table. We need all the 

stakeholders, including California, and quite frankly, I trust Governor Brown and Mary Nichols—you can quote me on that today— 

at that table, the Trump administration, automakers, and the environmentalists—it was California I trusted—around the table and 

working productively in order to make it happen. 

Was that not the strength of the original agreement, all the players at the same table giving people certainty and investing for the 

customer? A failure to reach a negotiated solution will result in less 

certainty for the industry, weaker standards, and less savings at 

the pump for consumers. 

With that being said, there are still ways that we can improve 

our fuel economy systems while the midterm review is playing out. 

This is for all the witnesses. Even though we all—and I am out of 

time. I have to quit, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are close to out of time. You going to—was 

that a question or are you just filibustering or what are you—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. Well, I actually had a bunch more, but I will put 

them in the record. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. I just looked up. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. How fortunate we have the gentleman from Texas, 

who is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank my friend, who graduated from West Point. 

Congratulations one more time, the big victory Saturday—Army 

again beat Navy for the second time in now 16 years. 

With all due respect to my friend from Michigan, I am a bigger 

optimist. I believe that maybe today we can have this dream: California and Texas working together as opposed to California and 

Michigan on these issues. 

Mrs. DINGELL. How about all three? 

Mr. OLSON. Pardon me? 

Mrs. DINGELL. How about all three? 

Mr. OLSON. All three works, too. 

I thank the Chair and welcome our four witnesses. A special welcome, Mr. Bainwol. We share a common bond, my friend: I was 

Rice University, you got an MBA from Rice University, and my 

first question is for you, Mr. Bainwol. 

In your testimony, you talked about how the 2012 final rule projected a very different mix of cars and trucks than we see on the 

road today. 

Any business has the same motto: The consumer comes first. Can 

you talk about how consumer preferences shapes your ability to 

make these rules workable? How do these put the consumer first? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So both the CAFE program and other Government 

programs that are mandates are mandates not on what we 

produce, but on what people buy. 

So, in effect, the consumer—it’s not just a phrase—the consumer 

is king, because they dictate the success of these programs. And 

when consumers don’t buy what policymakers want, it’s not the 

86 

consumers’ fault. They’re expressing their own market opinions 

about what’s right for their families. 

And what we’ve seen over time with the plummeting in the price 

of gas is a very different mix of purchases in the marketplace—so 

pickups, trucks, SUVs, crossovers—and that has made life more 

complicated. 

Now, there is something called a footprint. So the footprint accommodates some of the fleet mix, but it doesn’t accommodate 

other dimensions of the fleet mix, including power train choices. 

Mr. OLSON. Doesn’t that show the need for an adaptable, responsive set of rules across the country? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes, it sure does. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. Another question for you, Mr. Bainwol, and you, 

Mr. Bozzella. 

I would like to discuss the harmonization of rules you all work 

under. To what extent does the lack of harmonization between the 

two Federal programs impact consumers and innovation? 

Mr. BAINWOL. It’s basically what I would call a Government externality. The Government is imposing costs on the marketplace 

that consumers then have to absorb. 

And so it is a problem. It make fewer people able to buy cars, 

it retards the process of fleet turnover, and it has bad social outcomes. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Bozzella, sir. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. And I would just add to that, why, if we are trying to achieve one goal, would we have different tools in different 

toolboxes? What that does is it creates compliance for the sake of 

compliance without benefits to consumers, and I think we got to 

get back to benefits for consumers. 

Mr. OLSON. If this is so controversial, then why did the Obama 

administration grant your consideration of your petition last December? Any idea why? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Had there been a different outcome in the election, 

perhaps we’d be having a more rational conversation about harmonization. So I think some of this gets filtered through the lens of 

national politics. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I agree with that, Congressman. You ask a great 

question. We are very close. We are very close. We have the same 

aspirations and desires, and what we want to do is to create better 

benefits, more fuel economy, and reduced emissions for consumers, 

and let’s focus on that. 

Mr. BAINWOL. And could I add also? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAINWOL. The conversation we are having today has a feel 

that somehow that there’s a problem, and what we really need to 

understand is we should be celebrating success. I mean, I had that 

one slide that showed, if you take the 2021 numbers and you add 

1, 2, or 3 percent, we are at 97 percent realization of fuel savings. 

That’s pretty darn good. Now, we have invested $100 billion a year in safety, fuel economy, technologies like AVs, and we are producing dividends for the 

marketplace. 

That’s a good story, and we should be thankful for the success 

of this program. And now what we are talking about doing is findVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:29 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X86CAFEUPDATESCANS031618\115X86CAFEUPDATEPENDING
87 

ing a way to make the economics of the program—the regulatory 

piece of the program—more efficient so that more consumers can 

benefit from new cars. 

Mr. OLSON. And, well, too, I see you guys make a great difference. My first car was a 1977 Silverado pickup truck. Just one 

cab, nothing behind the seats. That truck, you could watch the gas 

gauge go down as you hit the gas pedal. Just boom, maybe 8 miles 

per gallon. 

I now have a 2014 Silverado crew cab—big cab, big truck. I drove 

from Houston, Texas, to watch my high school play in San Antonio—a basketball game—and drove back on one tank of gas. 

I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by asking unanimous consent to enter into the record a Federal Register from Wednesday, 

December 20th, about the proposed rule I was talking about. Department of Transportation and Safety—NHTSA, 2016, 10135. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is there objection? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much. I am proud to represent 

California but also equally proud of the fact that California has led 

the way, sometimes with hiccups and fits and starts, but California 

has improved its emissions standards and has set the tone quite 

often. 

Let me just give you one example. There are three generations 

between me and my grandson now—myself, our four children, and 

my grandson. 

I used to tease my kids that used to not be allowed to play outside sometimes—I grew up in Los Angeles when I was a little 

boy—because of the smog, and then I used to tease my kids that 

they never had that problem. They never had to deal with a smog 

alert. 

But yet, we have to be careful, because the last thing I want is 

for my 18-month-old grandson, for me or his parents or his teachers to say, ‘‘You can’t play outside.’’ We have to be careful and 

make sure that whatever we do, we preserve the environment for 

our children and we make sure that whatever it is that we do improves on everything that we’ve done in the past—the knowledge, 

the technology that we are capable of. 

So my statement is that fuel efficiency is an important goal 

across the board. It also allows low-income and middle-class families to have access to cars that run economically. Less money goes 

to the gas pumps and more stays in their pockets. That’s a good 

thing. The One National Program also gives low-income folks access to used cars that are fuel efficient. It also impacts the air we 

breathe. 

My district and many in southern California have dealt with 

wildfires late in the season, last week and ongoing, as we speak. 

It is no coincidence that these fires are devastating our communities with greater frequency and ferocity. California has been a 

leader in fuel efficiency and emission standards, and the Nation 

needs to follow suit. 

88 

Dr. Cooke, can you please talk a little bit about the California 

emission standards? 

Dr. COOKE. Yes. So tailpipe standards that were originally set 

formed the basis for Federal action, and the reason why we can 

breathe in Washington, DC, is largely a result of the fact that California set those standards way back in the ’60s, and that trend has 

continued with Tier 1 standards and Tier 2 standards that were 

first set in California and then essentially codified by the Federal 

agencies and that, again, happened with the LEV 3 standards that 

are part of the Advanced Clean Cars program. 

So we’ve seen this trend over and over. But, at the same time, 

California is still struggling to meet its air quality goals for 2030. 

And so that’s why we have the Zero Emission Vehicle program. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Well, California has approximately—approaches 

about 40 million people. It is still, what, the fifth, sixth largest 

economy. It bounces around there. 

So the bottom line is anytime you’re that large and you’re that 

impactful, especially economically with all the issues that are going 

on with the population and also with the business, which is to me 

is a good thing—I am very proud to be from California and the fact 

that we, if we were our own country, would be ranked fifth or sixth 

largest economy in the world. 

So, that being the case, it is complicated but it’s not impossible 

for us to continue to thrive and strive to be better and cleaner and 

more efficient and to drive the markets as well. 

Dr. Cooke, I would also like to see if you could respond to the 

idea that the former NHTSA standards with rules designed by 

Congress were preferable to the current One National Program. 

Who does the former NHTSA standards benefit, by and large? 

Dr. COOKE. So the single number standard, and one of the reasons why we moved to the size-based standard, was especially detrimental to the domestic manufacturers, and it advantaged imported vehicles, and so folks who sell more cars and less trucks. 

The fact that we have a size-dependent standard now helps drive 

investment and competitiveness of the Big Three as well as it does 

Honda and Toyota. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So, if I heard you correctly, the current One National Program benefits mostly foreign vehicle makers? 

Dr. COOKE. No. Sorry. Prior to the One National Program attribute size-based standards. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

Dr. COOKE. You know, the old CAFE program used to benefit primarily the imported vehicles, which is why, frankly, CAFE stalled 

for 20 years. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. All right. 

Well, thank you very much, and to go off what one of my colleagues said, again, to add a famous quote, ‘‘You can’t always get 

what you want, but you can get what you need,’’ and I think that’s 

the balance we are trying to strike here. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

89 

You know, we are talking about achieving certain fuel standards, 

and we’ve kind of touched on it, kind of bounced around a little bit 

about it. But we are talking about the consumer benefit, too. 

There has to be a balance between the two, and we are trying 

to hit our standards that are set forth to us. When Congress had 

to look back in 2018, I think that was a look back of not only seeing, hey, is it feasible for the industry to hit it, but is it cost productive, too? 

So looking forward, what is this going to cost our consumers? 

And this is open. I am really not too worried about who takes it. 

What is this going to cost us? 

I mean, we see vehicles rising each day in cost. I drive an F–250 

crew cab diesel—same vehicle I’ve driven for the last, I guess, 17 

years. The exact same vehicle I bought in 2000 versus today is 

about $50,000 difference in price. 

Is that due to the regulations we are putting on us? Is that being 

passed on to the consumers? Mr. Cooke, do you want to take that? 

I see your finger on the button. 

Dr. COOKE. Yes, I would. I mean, I think one of the things that’s 

really important to recognize is what’s causing the increase in retail price today. 

You know, entry-level vehicles today cost the same when adjusted for inflation as they did 10 years ago. So it’s not the technology that’s driving people out of the market. 

If you want to look at what’s the biggest factor that’s causing the 

increase in retail price, it’s the fact that now we are selling more 

SUVs and pickup trucks, which do have higher profit margins. 

So—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, no, no. My F–250 Lariat crew cab four-wheel 

drive, I paid just below $30,000 for that vehicle. So in 17 years the 

inflation has increased $50,000? I mean, we’ve seen that increase 

across with pay wages and grocery prices? All of them have inflated 

100—what is that? Someone help me with the math there. Well 

over 100 percent? 

Dr. COOKE. So I just want to flag that I was specifically talking 

about the entry-level vehicles. When you look at trucks and SUVs, 

what we’ve seen is a large increase in profit margin as a result of 

moving to higher and higher luxury trims. That’s why the fact that 

you have, like, a $65,000 F–150 now at the King Ranch version— 

those SUVs have always been higher profit margins, but we’ve 

seen—— 

Mr. MULLIN. So, but what I am saying is, is this being passed 

on to the consumer? What we are seeing by fuel savings, because 

we are talking about keeping more money in the pocket—I think 

my colleague from California said that—if they can’t afford the vehicle to begin with, then what difference does it make? 

Mr. Boswell—Bozzella, I am sorry. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. It’s OK. Bozzella. Thank you. 

Mr. MULLIN. Bozzella. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. You’re right. There is more technology in vehicles 

today than there ever has been. These cars are cleaner, safer, and 

more fuel efficient than they ever have been and, of course, there 

has to be some cost associated with that. 

90 

The real question is not only the cost, but the cost combined with 

where the market ultimately needs to go, and I think, to your question, I think we have to be clear that we need more electric vehicles, more higher priced, more expensive technologies in order to 

really drive the shift that we are looking for here. 

Mr. MULLIN. Go ahead, Mr. McConnell. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes. You make a great point. I will say that the cars that are $15,000 or less have been regulated out of existence. 

The cost is $3,000 a car. 

I know Dr. Cooke is an extremely smart gentleman. But he keeps 

talking about what can be built. But the question is, you can’t save 

anything on fuel economy until you’re able to afford to buy the car. 

Mr. MULLIN. Agreed. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. And 6.8 million people will be knocked out by 

a $3,000 price increase, and that’s done because 90 percent of the 

people finance a vehicle, and that takes people’s debt-to-incomeratio out, it knocks them out of the new car market. 

We are all about fleet turnover. Until somebody buys something, 

and you can build whatever, but as you said, a smart business has 

to listen to the customer, and we are—— 

Mr. MULLIN. So is it reasonable then—on what we are trying to 

do here, is it reasonable to say that a customer is going to be able 

to afford it and see the cost savings—to be able to pay the difference of what we are going to spend trying to get to fuel standards, what they’re going to save on gas? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. The realities of the market, though, when the price of gas goes from $4 to close to $2, their savings are cut in 

half. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. So people make a decision based on what’s best 

for them, as they should, and the National Automobile Association 

and dealers, we want to sell whatever the customer wants—EV, 

whatever it may be. But it’s the customer, and that’s the one thing. 

We are—I live my life, and I know dealers—we want higher gas 

mileage. But you know what? You have to listen to the customer— 

what they can afford and what they want, not necessarily what 

Washington wants or California wants. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you have a couple of 

guys from Texas and one from Oklahoma. 

I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding 

this hearing, though. But transportation is a leading source of carbon dioxide emissions. 

I have a very urban district in Houston, an industrial district 

with refineries. By the way, our gasoline over the weekend—the 

lowest price I found was $1.99 per gallon, and even with a $57 barrel of oil, there’s a benefit from having a refinery down the road. 

But Houston is a car-dependent city. Ninety-four point four percent of all our households have a car, and each household has at 

least 1.8 cars. My wife and I, I think, share five cars in different 

locations. 

91 

After Hurricane Harvey hit, nearly a million cars will be replaced in the Houston metro area, with analysis estimating that 30 

to 40 percent will be new vehicles. The standards are more important than ever when it comes to helping our air quality in Houston. 

One of the things I am concerned about, the lower market penetration for electric vehicles anywhere except in California, and we 

have some in Houston. But, you know, you’re not going to drive 

from Houston to San Antonio—that’s 199 miles—on an electric car 

that may not—you know, you have sit and let it charge up for a 

few hours when you get there. 

So Mr. Bainwol, how has the low price of gas affected purchasing 

habits among consumers when they come to fuel economy? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So, in a profound way. The average age of a car 

is about 11 years old, and when you think about the improvement 

in the conventional engine, there’s two factors going on. 

If you turn in a Camaro for a Camaro or a Civic for a Civic, 

whatever the case may be, over 11 years you have got about a 25 

percent increase in fuel economy, on average. 

So you have a combination of two effects. One is the improvement of the engine, and the second is the lower price of gas. The 

combination of the two has made electrification kind of a niche 

product, and it’s just an economic reality. That may change over 

time. 

But those two factors, the starkness of the improvement and the 

lower price of gas, combined to really impact penetration. 

Electrification of the fleet nationwide in 2017 is 0.5. If you look 

at the numbers of gas, in ’08 it was 97.6 percent of the marketplace. In ’17, it’s 96.9 percent. It has moved less than a point in 

a decade. 

And what’s happening with—electrification is coming out of the 

hide of hybrids. So we are at a very, very slow uptick in terms of 

these alternative power trains. At some point it may take off, but 

we are not there yet. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, people will typically vote with their pocketbook. But you’re right, you’re going to hear all of us have different 

cars. 

Again, I like big trucks, and so in Texas I bought a Tahoe in ’06. 

I couldn’t get better than 16 miles per gallon. But the new Tahoe 

I bought in 2016, we are getting 24 miles per gallon at certain 

times. And so you’re right, it has increased, and people are going 

to vote with their pocketbook, and unless you can have a product 

that can do—— 

And following up, were there any models of vehicles from the 

same year that an equally priced hybrid version of the vehicles outsold the nonhybrid version? 

Mr. BAINWOL. I’m not fully aware of the marketplace to that degree. But there are examples where the hybrid has been priced at 

the same levels as a conventional engine, and people still choose 

a conventional engine. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I can think of one particular example. The Lincoln had a hybrid and a nonhybrid priced at identical price. Customer had a choice. Seventy percent chose the nonhybrid, and 30 

percent chose the hybrid. Same cost. 

92 

Mr. GREEN. Well, that’s still better than 5 percent penetration of 

electric vehicles in California and a half a point for the rest of the 

country. 

Mr. Cooke, regarding the proposed legislation by Representative 

Upton and Representative Dingell, can we know the full effect that 

the legislation will have on GHG and CAFE standards while the 

EPA’s midterm review is still not completed? 

Dr. COOKE. No. It’s difficult to say. All we know is that in the 

short term it sets it up for long-term failure. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

time, and I guess I batted cleanup today. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think you did. Thank you. Gentleman’s time is 

expired. 

Seeing no further Members wishing to ask questions, I would 

like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Before we 

conclude, I would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent. 

Mr. Olson’s already was taken care of. We have a letter from the 

Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. I think it’s been 

viewed by the minority, and without objection, that gets accepted. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members 

that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for 

the record, and I ask that witnesses submit their response within 

10 business days upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the joint subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

Æ