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

96–022 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–731 

BLACK CARBON—A GLOBAL HEALTH PROBLEM 

WITH LOW-COST SOLUTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 5 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 8 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 9 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 10 

WITNESSES 

Schneider, Conrad G., Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force ........................ 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Johnson, Timothy V., Director of Emerging Technologies and Regulations, 

Corning Environmental Technologies, Corning, Inc. ........................................ 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Schaeffer, Allen, Executive Director, Diesel Technology Forum ......................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Singletary, Robert, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality ................................................................... 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Harris, Robert C., Jr., Vice President, Environmental and Program Management, Alabama State Port Authority ................................................................. 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

(1) 

BLACK CARBON—A GLOBAL HEALTH 

PROBLEM WITH LOW-COST SOLUTIONS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper (chairman 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Whitehouse, Inhofe, Sessions, and 

Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order, I think it already is in order. We are happy that you all are 

here on this beautiful, beautiful September morning. 

I am happy to be here with Senator Sessions and Senator Inhofe. 

Especially I want to acknowledge Senator Inhofe. I have been privileged to work with him on these issues and I think we are making 

good progress. We made good progress with the leadership of 

George Voinovich in previous Congresses. I saw him about 2 weeks 

ago and he was anxious to know that the work he pioneered is 

working and that we are continuing it. I think he could feel good 

about it. I know I do and I hope my colleagues do as well. Thank 

you. 

Today’s Subcommittee hearing will review the health impacts of 

black carbon and review cost effective technologies, strategies and 

Federal programs with the highest potential to reduce black carbon 

emissions. Senators will have 5 minutes for their opening statements. 

We will then recognize our panel of witnesses. Each witness will 

have about 5 minutes for their opening statement. If you go way 

over that, we will rein you in. If you don’t, we will be OK. 

Following the panel’s statements, we will have two rounds of 

questions. And I think we may have a vote around 11:45; we will 

see how that works. 

My colleagues and I were sent to Washington to govern and to 

find commonsense solutions to the challenges that face our Nation. 

I don’t believe that Americans are especially interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas. They are interested in good ideas, 

and they are interested in ideas that will work and that we can 

agree on to make our country better and our air cleaner. 
2 

Cleaning up black carbon and dirty diesel emissions provides us 

with an opportunity to work across the aisle, something that the 

three of us are pretty good at doing, but not all of us are as often 

as we should be. 

For folks that don’t know, black carbon emissions, sometimes 

called soot, are the dark particles emitted when fossil fuels, when 

biomass and biofuels are burned. Black carbon particles make up 

a large part of the Nation’s fine particulate matter, pollution. Once 

in the air, these black carbon particles absorb heat from the sun, 

causing a warming effect to the atmosphere, and can speed up the 

melting process for lands on snow or ice. 

Black carbon can also cause serious health impacts. These particles are pretty small, they get lodged deep in our lungs and cause 

respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer and 

even premature death. Indoor and outdoor emissions of black carbon are estimated to cause millions and millions of premature 

deaths worldwide each year. Many of these deaths occur overseas 

in developing countries. 

There is still much we don’t know about the health impacts of 

black carbon. That is why in 2009, Senator Inhofe and I asked the 

EPA to study black carbon and report back to Congress. We received that report about 3 years later, in 2012. Since then, the 

international scientific community has been very focused on this 

issue. 

I look forward to today’s testimony, we look forward to today’s 

testimony, to hear an update on the health and climate impacts of 

black carbon. Although we are still learning about the full extent 

of black carbon’s impact on our health and on climate change, we 

do know what it takes to reduce harmful emissions. And we have 

technology, technology that, as our witnesses know, especially one 

of you, technology that is designed and made in America, to reduce 

these emissions. 

Over half of our country’s black carbon emissions and a large 

part of global emissions come from older, dirty, diesel engines, the 

kinds of engines that we find in school buses and bulldozers and 

large vehicles and trains and boats and in trucks. As we will hear 

from our witnesses today, we have clean diesel engines made in 

America today that are reaching near zero emissions. Isn’t that a 

great success story? And while that is wonderful news, it was nothing to address the pollution coming from millions of engines already in use, likely to be operating and polluting for the next 20 

years. What do they say about diesel engines? The good news is 

they last a long time. And the bad news is that they last a long 

time. 

Despite new engine standards, the EPA estimates that there are 

some 11 million old diesel engines in America lacking the latest 

pollution control technology. In 2005, our friend, the former Senator, Governor George Voinovich, came to meet a number of us 

with an idea to address the dirty diesel engine backlog, which soon 

was signed into law as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, affectionately known as DERA. Through DERA, the EPA provided voluntary incentives to diesel engine owners to retrofit or replace their 

vehicles early. DERA turned out to be a great idea, not just a great 
3 

idea but actually great policy, averaging more than $13 in health 

benefits for every $1 in funding. 

Since it was enacted, DERA has helped replace or retrofit thousands of old school buses, 2,000 school buses in Mississippi alone. 

Since up to 90 kids can ride on an average school bus, that is up 

to 180,000 kids in Mississippi that are breathing better on their 

way to school because of this law. By cleaning up our school buses, 

DERA reduces our black carbon emissions and employs thousands 

of workers who manufacture, who sell or repair diesel vehicles and 

install the components in each State. It is a true win-win situation. 

In 2012, we reauthorized the DERA program through 2016, and 

made some changes to try to improve DERA’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, every year our President’s budget has decreased funding 

for the DERA funding. I appreciate the dedication to reducing the 

Federal deficit, but some investments are actually worth paying 

for, especially when they have a 13 to 1 payoff. Even during these 

challenging times, that is not a bad payoff or a bad return on investment. 

Cutting such a successful program is, I think penny-wise but 

pound foolish, which is why I am going to work with my colleagues 

here and across the Committee to restore funding for this effective 

law. 

Although DERA is a great success, more can be done to reduce 

our black carbon diesel emissions. For example, the bulldozers, diggers, backhoes that build the Nation’s infrastructure, transportation infrastructure especially, produce some 25 percent of America’s mobile diesel emissions, 25 percent. But because of who owns 

these construction vehicles and how they are used, DERA has not 

been as effective at reducing emissions for much of the Nation’s 

construction equipment. 

To better address this problem, last Congress I introduced the 

Clean Construction Act of 2011. Its commonsense approaches are 

simple. In the areas of poor air quality, Federal transportation 

projects should reduce, not increase, deathly diesel emissions. 

Major provisions of this legislation made it into the Senate-passed 

Transportation Reauthorization bill. I want to thank some of my 

colleagues who helped make that happen. Unfortunately, nearly all 

the language was subsequently removed during conference with the 

House. 

As we look to a new transportation bill, and we are always looking to a new transportation bill, it seems, I will continue my efforts, we will continue our efforts on that. 

In closing, we look forward to today’s testimony and we are looking forward to learning more about the health impacts of carbon 

and what more we could do, can do, and smarter ways to reduce 

emissions. I believe if we continue to work together on this issue, 

and I am encouraged that we will, we can build on the progress 

we have already made and use our resources wisely to reduce black 

carbon emissions at home and abroad. 

With that, I am delighted to turn it over to our ranking member, 

Senator Jeff Sessions. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 
4 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

My colleagues and I were sent to Washington to govern and to find common-sense 

solutions to the challenges facing our Nation. I don’t believe Americans are especially interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas. They want us to come up 

with ideas that will work and we can all agree on to make our country even better. 

Cleaning up black carbon and dirty diesel emissions provides us an opportunity 

to work across the aisle, something we do too rarely these days. 

For folks that don’t know, black carbon emissions—sometimes called soot—are the 

dark particles emitted when fossil fuels, biomass and biofuels are burned. Black carbon particles make up a large part of our Nation’s fine particulate matter pollution. 

Once in the air, these black carbon particles absorb heat from the sun—causing 

a warming effect in the atmosphere and can speed up the melting process if it lands 

on snow or ice. 

Black carbon can also cause serious health impacts. These particles can get lodged 

deep in the lungs and cause respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, asthma, lung 

cancer, and premature death. Indoor and outdoor emissions of black carbon are estimated to have caused millions of premature deaths worldwide each year—many of 

these deaths occur overseas in developing countries. 

There is still much we don’t know about the health impacts of black carbon. That 

is why in 2009, Senator Inhofe and I asked the EPA to study black carbon and report back to Congress. 

We received EPA’s report in 2012—and since then the international scientific 

community has been very focused on this issue. I look forward to today’s testimony 

to hear an update on the health and climate impacts of black carbon. 

Although we are still learning about the full extent of black carbon’s impact on 

public health and climate change, we do know what it takes to reduce harmful emissions. And we have technology that’s designed and made in America to reduce these 

emissions. 

Over half of our country’s black carbon emissions and a large part of global emissions come from old, dirty diesel engines. The kinds of engines you’d find in school 

buses, bulldozers and other large vehicles. 

As we will hear from our witnesses, clean diesel engines made in America today 

are reaching near zero emissions. While that is great news, it does nothing to address the pollution coming from the millions of engines already in use that will likely be operating—and polluting—for the next 20 years. 

Despite new engine standards, the EPA estimates there are 11 million old diesel 

engines in America lacking the latest pollution control technology. In 2005, our 

friend former Senator George Voinovich came to me with an idea to address the 

dirty diesel engine backlog—which soon was signed into law as the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Act (DERA). Through DERA, the EPA provides voluntary incentives to 

diesel engine owners to retrofit or replace their vehicle early. 

DERA turned out to be a great idea—averaging more than $13 in health benefits 

for every $1 in funding. Since it was enacted, DERA has helped replace or retrofit 

thousands of old school buses—2,000 school buses in Mississippi alone. Since up to 

90 kids can ride on an average school bus, that’s up to 180,000 kids in Mississippi 

that are breathing better on their way to school because of this law. 

By cleaning up our school buses and ports, DERA reduces our Nation’s black carbon emissions and employs thousands of workers who manufacture, sell or repair 

diesel vehicles and their components in each State. It is a true win-win. 

In 2010, we reauthorized the DERA program through 2016 and made some 

changes to try to improve DERA’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, every year the President’s budget had decreased funding for the DERA program. 

I appreciate dedication to reducing the Federal deficit, but some investments are 

worth paying for, even during these challenging financial times. Cutting such a successful program is penny wise and pound foolish, which is why I will work with my 

colleagues to restore funding for this effective law. 

Although DERA is a great success, more can be done to reduce our black carbon 

diesel emissions. For example, the bulldozers, diggers, and backhoes that build our 

Nation’s infrastructure produce 25 percent of America’s mobile diesel emissions. But 

because of who owns these construction vehicles and how they are used, DERA has 

not been as effective at reducing emissions from our Nation’s construction equipment. 

To better address this problem, last Congress I introduced the Clean Construction 

Act of 2011. This common-sense approach is simple: in areas of poor air quality, 

Federal transportation projects should reduce, not increase, deadly diesel emissions. 

Major provisions of this legislation made it into the Senate-passed transportation 
5 

reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, nearly all the language was subsequently removed during conference with the House. As we look to a new transportation bill, 

I will continue my efforts on this front. 

In closing, I look forward to today’s testimony to learn more about the health impacts of black carbon and what more we could do to reduce emissions. I believe if 

we continue to work together on this issue we can build on the progress we have 

already made and use our resources wisely to reduce black carbon emissions at 

home and abroad. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those good remarks, and thank you for the kind of leadership you provide to us. 

You set a good example on how the Senate ought to operate. 

I thought I would yield to Senator Inhofe. He has been active on 

this issue for a number of years and is our ranking member of the 

full Committee, formerly ranking member of the full Committee. 

Senator Inhofe, I would yield to you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. I do thank you. 

So that you will be aware, the five of you, and that we are aware, 

I am not on this Subcommittee. However, I was chairman of this 

full Committee when the Republicans were in the majority, and I 

am very active on it. This Committee has the largest jurisdiction 

of any committee in the U.S. Senate. It covers a lot of things. 

So I think that this issue, you are going to find during the course 

of this, is not really a partisan issue. So this is kind of an unusual 

subject that we are dealing with here. 

I think the chairman has done a good job explaining what black 

carbon is. Everybody knows what that is. I would like to say that 

we have, this has nothing to do with global warming or carbon dioxide. I do think it is important for all of us to understand that 

this is something that is very significant in the third world countries. I happen to kind of specialize in one area of Africa; in fact, 

I have made 127 African country visits. The one thing that is consistent throughout Africa is the harmful emissions that stem largely from the indoor use of cookstoves filled with tree bark and dung. 

According to a recent study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, black carbon causes 3.5 million deaths annually in these countries, I am talking about Africa now, which is more than malaria 

and AIDS combined. 

Now, that is incredible. But that is true. That is what we are 

dealing with here. So it is significant. One of the simplest ways we 

can reduce this type of pollution is to increase access to electricity 

in these poorer regions in the world. While many may not realize 

it, there are significant hurdles caused by U.S. policies that make 

it difficult for U.S. companies to invest in and build power plant 

projects in low-income areas. 

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, is a Government entity that facilitates investment in high-risk environments by providing political risk insurance. Many of the world’s 

poorest regions are also the most politically volatile. So many companies will not invest in these countries unless they have insurance 

that would cover their losses in the event the government seized 

their assets or something similar to that, which we know happens 
6 

quite often in the third world countries. OPIC sells insurance to 

cover this risk. 

Unfortunately, in 2007 a rider was attached to an appropriations 

bill that prohibits OPIC from writing insurance on projects that 

may increase greenhouse gas emissions. This language effectively 

prohibits U.S. involvement in power projects that use traditional 

fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas for the misguided goal of 

combating global warming. 

In reality, the only impact of this language is that it levies the 

cost of global warming regulations on the backs of the world’s poorest people. If we remove this language and OPIC was allowed to 

offer insurance to these projects, U.S. firms would be able to safely, 

cheaply and effectively generate electricity to the poorest areas of 

the world. This would enable these families to affordably use electric power stoves which would significantly reduce the risk of black 

carbon filling the homes as families’ meals are cooked. 

In short, you almost have to go there and see this, and see what 

they are using today. It is such a no-brainer that we ought to help 

them develop what they can to offset this. Small change in U.S. 

policy that wouldn’t cost a dime could dramatically reduce the 

number of deaths caused by black carbon pollution worldwide. I am 

eager to pursue a change in this law, so that we can help the most 

impoverished obtain access to cheap power and cleaner electric 

powered stoves. 

Domestically, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program has 

been a big success. It was created in the Energy Policy Act. Actually it was in a different committee, but it was at a time in 2005 

when I chaired this Committee. So we were very much involved in 

it. It provides Federal and State grants to manufacturers to rebuild 

diesel engines or install emissions reduction systems to diesel vehicles to comply with State and Federal laws. 

In 2010, when I was the ranking member of this Committee, I 

was one of the primary champions of this Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, with Chairman Carper and Senator Voinovich, who is no 

longer in the U.S. Senate. Each year, DERA helps clean up more 

than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and equipment across the 

country. 

What a lot of people don’t know is, and even my colleagues here 

are probably not aware that the majority of school buses that are 

powered by the diesel engines, and then of course the old ones that 

are still there, were manufactured not just in my State but in my 

city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. So we have an opportunity to do something about it. Robert, I appreciate very much your being here. And 

I will not be able to be here during your testimony but I have read 

it, and I agree with your efforts. We need to have your help along 

with the other members of this panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Sessions, for holding this 

hearing today. First, I should point out that black carbon has nothing to do with 

global warming or carbon dioxide. 
7 

It is, however, an important topic, especially on the continent of Africa. What a 

lot of people don’t know is that I have traveled to Africa more than any other Senator in the history of the United States. I have made 127 individual country visits, 

and the issue of black carbon has come up almost everywhere I’ve been—whether 

it’s Burundi or Zambia. 

Black carbon—the common name for fine particulate matter, or soot—is a pollutant that can cause negative health effects—and even death—when breathed in high 

concentrations. 

In lower income countries, like those in Africa, the problem is massive compared 

to the United States. These harmful emissions stem largely from the indoor use of 

cook-stoves fueled by tree bark, dung, and other high-pollutant, unhealthy materials. 

According to a recent study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, black carbon causes 3.5 million deaths annually in these countries—which is more than malaria and AIDS combined. 

One of the simplest ways we can reduce this type of pollution is to increase access 

to electricity in these poor regions around the world. And while many may not realize it, there are significant hurdles caused by U.S. policies that make it difficult for 

U.S. companies to invest in and build power plant projects in low-income countries. 

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is a Government entity that 

facilitates investment in high-risk environments by providing political risk insurance. Many of the world’s poorest regions are also the most politically volatile, so 

many companies will not invest in these countries unless they have insurance that 

would cover their losses in the event the government seized their assets or something similar to that. OPIC sells insurance to cover this risk. 

Unfortunately, in 2010, a rider was attached to an appropriations bill that prohibits OPIC from writing insurance on projects that may increase greenhouse gas 

emissions. This language effectively prohibits U.S. involvement in power projects 

that use traditional fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas for the misguided goal 

of combating global warming. In reality, the only impact of this language is that 

it levies the cost of global warming regulations on the backs of the world’s poorest 

people. 

If we removed this language and OPIC was allowed to offer insurance to these 

projects, U.S. firms would be able to safely, cheaply, and effectively generate electricity for the world’s poorest. This would enable these families to affordably use 

electric-powered stoves, which would significantly reduce the risk of black carbon 

filling homes as family meals are cooked. 

In short, a small change in U.S. policy—that wouldn’t cost a dime—could dramatically reduce the number of deaths caused by black carbon pollution worldwide, and 

I am eager to pursue a change in this law so that we can help the most impoverished obtain access to cheap power and cleaner electric-powered stoves. 

Domestically, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program has been a big 

success. It was created in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and provides Federal and 

State grants to manufacturers to rebuild diesel engines or install emission reduction 

systems to diesel vehicles to comply with State and Federal emission requirements. 

In 2010, when I was Ranking Member of this Committee, I was one of the primary champions of the DERA Act of 2010 with Chairman Carper and Senator 

Voinovich, which reauthorized the program through 2016. 

Each year, DERA helps clean up more than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and 

equipment across the country, which has reduced emissions while employing thousands of workers who manufacture, sell, or repair diesel vehicles and their components in each State. I am proud to say this bill was signed into law on January 

4, 2011. 

The voluntary DERA program has been utilized by Oklahoma to effectively reduce 

a real pollution risk in a cost effective way. We’ll hear the specifics about this from 

Mr. Singletary, but among other things, we’ve been able to replace dozens of old 

school buses with up-to-date vehicles and install upgraded equipment on hundreds 

of others. 

I want to thank Robert for taking the time to come up and discuss how this program has been implemented by our State. He works in the Air Quality division of 

the General Counsel’s office at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

and has been instrumental in ensuring the program’s effectiveness. Robert, thanks 

again for being here. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Inhofe, thank you. Thanks for coming 

by and joining us and for your steadfast support on this front. It 

is great to work with you. 
8 

Senator Sessions is next, and then Senator Boozman, welcome, 

and Senator Whitehouse, welcome. If you would like to make a 

statement as well, you are welcome to do that. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Senator Inhofe knows what he is 

talking about when he talks about Africa. We should call him the 

Senate’s Ambassador to Africa. No one has been there more, and 

been in some of the most remote areas and met with real people. 

I think that insight into the advantage of electricity over burning 

of waste products is certainly valuable to us all. 

Matter of fact, I have heard it said that the life span of people 

in a country where electricity is readily available is twice that 

where it is not. So there are all sorts of advantages for having electricity. In the long run, I think even a less than perfect plant would 

be better than burning individual fires in people’s homes, wouldn’t 

you agree, Jim? 

Senator INHOFE. I would. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, you are a great leader, we 

thank you for that. We just had a big announcement about carbon 

dioxide standards last week. We are on a positive note today, this 

is something we can really agree about. You have been an advocate 

for these reforms for some time. 

Last year, due to the work of Chairmen Carper and Inhofe, the 

EPA issued a 388-page report to Congress on black carbon and 

found that the United States contributes 8 percent of global emissions of black carbon. A key source of that in the United States is 

diesel exhaust emissions from large trucks, ships, trains, school 

buses and construction equipment. The remaining 92 percent 

comes from outside the United States. Globally, black carbon comes 

often from pollution in underdeveloped nations, as we have discussed. 

Other key findings of the EPA report is that substantial progress 

has been made and is being made in reducing carbon emissions 

from diesel engines. EPA data shows that black carbon emissions 

from mobile sources, vehicles, dropped more than 30 percent from 

1990 to 2005, and that ‘‘continued reductions are expected for mobile sources in the next two decades.’’ In fact, the EPA report says 

‘‘total mobile source black carbon emissions are projected to decline 

by 86 percent by 2030 due to regulations already promulgated.’’ 

So we will hear today from Bob Harris, from the Port of Mobile, 

a typical industrial activity active port, on the things that they 

have done and some of the grants that Federal money provided 

helped them make major progress. The Department of Energy report in 2009, Light Duty Diesel Vehicles, Market Issues and Potential Energy and Emission Impacts, was a report I asked for in 

2009. I wanted to get a comparison of the characteristics of dieselfueled vehicles with those from the hybrid vehicles, E85-fueled vehicles and other normal gasoline vehicles. 

The report found ‘‘Diesel vehicles show a fuel economy advantage 

of 20 to 40 percent over gasoline vehicles, depending on the size 

and duty requirements of the vehicles.’’ The report identified ‘‘several impediments to the market success of diesel vehicles in the 
9 

United States, including more stringent Federal and State standards for emissions, cost premiums, they cost more for diesel vehicles, limited availability of light duty diesel vehicles and higher retail prices for diesel fuel than conventional gasoline.’’ And we know 

that Europe uses a good bit more of diesel engines in their normal 

automobile fleet. 

Mercedes Benz in Alabama builds the M class and the GL class 

at their Tuscaloosa, Alabama facility. They come with this most 

modern Bluetec diesel engine. Their fuel economy for the E250 

Bluetec engine is 45 miles per gallon on the highways. And the 250 

Bluetec has a 33 percent advantage in the city and combined EPA 

fuel economy over the gasoline counterpart, and a 50 percent advantage in highway fuel economy. They tell me that the payback 

for the engine is immediate and it has a higher resale value. 

So there are a number of programs that we have. GAO has 

issued a report saying that there are 14 programs that provide 

grant or loan funding to reduce mobile source diesel emissions, disbursing $1.4 billion from fiscal years 2007 to 2011. Perhaps we 

could combine some of those, create some efficiencies and it would 

probably be appropriate for us, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, to 

evaluate how we can make this program work even better. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very, very much, Senator Sessions. 

Thanks for letting me be your wingman here. 

Senator Boozman, if you would like to make your comments now, 

please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Sessions. Again, I appreciate you for holding today’s 

Subcommittee hearing. 

I have been glad to work with you to reduce harmful emissions 

and make our air cleaner. Senator Carper, Senator Inhofe, Senator 

Sessions and others have been true leaders, for example, in the 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. 

Diesel engines are vital to our economy. We know that older diesel engines contribute about 50 percent of our Nation’s black carbon emissions. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA, has 

received very broad bipartisan support, and I was pleased to be the 

lead Republican on efforts to secure adequate funding during the 

112th Congress. I now work on this issue as a member of the Appropriations Committee. DERA supports funding for retrofits of 

diesel engines, reducing harmful emissions by as much as 90 percent. 

Clean air is not a partisan issue on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, 

we have seen this Administration’s proposed to slash funding for 

this funding by 70 percent, while continuing to waste money on far 

less effective environmental initiatives. For example, they continue 

to aggressively pursue the greenhouse gas emissions standards 

that will cost American jobs without having any significant impact 

on the climate. 

On the other hand, with DERA and similar efforts, we work together to protect our air and resources. This type of conservation 
10 

and protection will continue to receive broad bipartisan support on 

Capitol Hill, because we see clear, science-based evidence that the 

policy will address a legitimate problem and have a substantial impact. 

Again, I appreciate the hearing today, and I appreciate working 

with you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you all for 

being here. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just say we very much welcome your 

statement, we welcome your participation. This is a great bipartisan issue and if we work together it is amazing what we will get 

done. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I agree. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Whitehouse, good morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Carper and Senator 

Sessions, for hosting this hearing and for the terrific way that you 

are working together on this issue. 

We are all very aware of the health effects of black carbon 

through asthma and bronchitis and lung cancer. It is also a potent 

climate pollutant, running hundreds of times more dangerous or 

more impactful on global warming than carbon dioxide. Thankfully 

it is not up there for as long. But while it is, it does a lot of global 

warming damage. Then of course it falls, and when it lands on 

snow and ice, it reduces the albedo, the shininess, so it absorbs 

more heat and there is more melt, and on you go. 

So it has both health and climate effects. I think this is an area 

where we cannot only work together as a Nation, but also work 

internationally. I traveled with Senator McCain to China over the 

August recess. It looked like we landed at dusk. There was a big 

time change, so I wasn’t really exactly sure what time it was. It 

wasn’t dusk, it was mid-afternoon. It just looked like dusk because 

the pollution was so bad over Beijing. It has gotten to the point 

where the Chinese government is getting a bit anxious about popular unrest on this subject. So they are really serious about cleaning this up, and black carbon is a good place to work together 

internationally as well. 

I would like to ask your consent, everybody’s consent, if I could 

enter an article from MIT Technology Review into the record, and 

just close by observing that this is solvable problem. Solving it will 

benefit American manufacturing and protect public health and 

move us forward on climate change. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
11 
12 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So again, my thanks for the wonderful 

way the two of you are working together. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much, without objection, we will 

be happy to do that. That is a publication that comes to our house 

every month. My wife says, why do they send us this? I said, we 

had a son that went to school there. And I said, Martha, we have 

paid for this subscription more times than you can count. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. One of our colleagues who is not with 

us today, he would like to talk about the 80-20 rule and explain 

how he had great success for many years when Ted Kennedy was 

with us. Our colleague is a very conservative Republican from out 

west and was able to work with a pretty liberal Democrat. I said, 

what is the key to your success? He always said, it is the 80-20 

rule. And I said, what is that? He said, Senator Kennedy and I 

agree on 80 percent of the stuff, we disagree on the other 20 percent of what we try to do is focus on the 80 percent where we 

agree, to see what we can get done. This s just a great example 

of the 80-20 rule. 

And my staff reminded me, and I want to thank our staffs, Democrat and Republican staff, reminded me that for every $3 that we 

invest in DERA, in those funds, for every dollar, excuse me, that 

we invest in DERA, we get a $3 leverage from State funds, local 

funds, private funds. So it is a great way to leverage additional 

moneys on a three to one basis. 

The last thing I would say before we recognize our panel, is a 

question that I ask of all of us from time to time, is it possible to 

clean our environment, clean our air and create jobs at the same 

time. And we will hear from Mr. Johnson and probably others on 

this panel, we will probably get the answer, and the answer is very 

encouraging: yes. 

So our panel today, Conrad Schneider, very nice to see you again. 

Welcome, thanks for joining us. You are the Advocacy Director at 

the Clean Air Task Force. Thank you very much. 

Next is Timothy V. Johnson, Tim Johnson. Tim Johnson is a popular name here, you know, with one of our colleagues from South 

Dakota. This Tim Johnson, though, is the Director of Emerging 

Technologies and Regulations at the Corning Environmental Technologies, Corning, Inc. 

Next we have Mr. Allen Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer, nice to see you. 

He serves as the Executive Director of the Diesel Technology 

Forum. Thanks so much. 

And next Bob Singletary, an attorney at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 

And finally, Robert C. Harris, Jr. He is the Vice President of Environmental and Program Management at the Alabama State Port 

Authority. It is great to see you. 

I would ask you to keep your statements to about 5 minutes. If 

you go way over that, we will rein you back. Otherwise, you will 

be good to go. So thank you all for joining us. Your whole statements will be made part of the record, and we look forward to 

hearing from you and having a good conservation. 

Mr. Conrad Schneider. 
13 

STATEMENT OF CONRAD G. SCHNEIDER, ADVOCACY 

DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Senator Carper, Ranking Member 

Sessions and other members of the Subcommittee. Good morning. 

My name is Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director of the Clean 

Air Task Force. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak 

to you today. We are an advocacy group really focused on clean air 

and climate issues. 

I would like to talk about the public health and environmental 

threats posed by black carbon emissions and two cost-effective 

ways that the Federal Government can reduce them. First, fully 

fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, DERA. And second, enact 

Senator Carper’s Clean Construction Act as part of the next Transportation Reauthorization Bill. 

DERA, as we have heard, is a highly successful program and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Clean Construction, which has been 

endorsed in principle by my organization and the Associated General Contractors, provides a unique opportunity to integrate and 

streamline clean air measures into project delivery while providing 

support for contractors to clean up dirty equipment and protect 

public health. 

Diesel engines are known for their durability. But older engines 

emit a toxic mixture of tiny black carbon soot particles and gases 

from the burning of diesel fuel and lubricating oil that go from the 

end of the tailpipe directly to your lungs. At highest risks are commuters and people living or working in proximity to truck traffic, 

construction or other heavy equipment. 

Nationally, diesel exhaust poses a cancer risk that is three times 

higher than the risk from all other air toxics tracked by EPA combined. Premature death, lung cancer, heart attack and stroke have 

all been tied to diesel pollution. Estimates show that for every dollar spent on reducing black carbon and the other components of 

diesel exhaust, $13 would be avoided in health damages. 

Moreover, black carbon is a potent global warming agent. It 

warms the atmosphere by absorbing sunlight and radiating heat 

into the air, much like an asphalt parking lot on a summer day. 

Black carbon can darken snow and ice directly, accelerating melting. It is about 2,000 times more potent than the equivalent 

amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and the United 

States has the highest per capita emissions in the world for black 

carbon, 57 percent of which comes from diesels. 

Retrofitting these engines with filters and/or accelerating the 

turnover to new cleaner engines equipped with filters offers one of 

the few actions that will have immediate climate benefits, complementing long-term efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact, diesel 

particulate filters are the only emission control technology that can 

virtually eliminate black carbon particles from diesel exhaust, with 

over a 90 percent effectiveness. 

While EPA has mandated tighter emissions rules on new diesel 

engines, most of the 11 million heavy duty engines in use today 

lack these filters. Unfortunately, the rate of fleet turnover to new, 

cleaner engines slowed during the recession. And more dirty diesels 

are likely to be with us even longer than we expected. More years 

and more miles by older engines means more pollution. So we need 
14 

to address the pollution from the existing fleet. In 2005, Congress 

and the Administration enacted DERA, a federally sponsored voluntary grant and loan program to do just that. 

Since its inception, EPA estimates that DERA has cleaned up 

more than 50,000 diesel vehicles, resulting in the reduction of thousands of tons of fine particles, and created over 10,000 jobs. The 

program was originally authorized at $200 million per year for 5 

years and since that time, over $500 million has been appropriated, 

$300 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. 

Throughout the program’s history, DERA has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, most recently demonstrated by its reauthorization for another 5 years in 2010. It was reauthorized at a smaller 

amount, $100 million and funded in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 at 

$60 million. But the funding has declined every year since, due to 

the current budgetary situation. The current House and Senate Interior Appropriations bills include less than $20 million for this 

program. 

We are missing an enormous opportunity for improving public 

health and the environment by failing to fully fund it. It is backed 

by a uniquely broad coalition of States and localities, environmental, health, user and industry groups that all support funding 

because of its sound environmental health and budgetary policy. As 

Senator Carper said, it is a win-win-win. 

We wrote earlier this year asking that Congress fund DERA at not less than $20 million. It is our hope that Congress will continue 

to provide leadership on this issue. We urge you to do so. 

One sector that has been underserved by DERA and other existing programs is construction. Construction contractors are not always well positioned to take advantage of these programs, which 

have required a competitive grant application process. There is a 

better way: clean construction as a part of project delivery in the 

Transportation bill. Modern pollution control equipment is being 

used across the country in building projects, originating in the Big 

Dig and in the Lower Manhattan reconstruction after 9/11, and 

construction clean contract specifications have been adopted by 

New York, New York City, Illinois, Rhode Island and most recently 

by the city of Chicago and in New Jersey. 

Taking the lead from these States and working with contractors 

and the environmental community, you, Senator Carper, crafted 

the Clean Construction Act of 2011. Provisions included in the Senate version of last year’s MAP–21 bill, but unfortunately did not 

survive in the conference committee and were not included in the 

final bill as enacted. This is regrettable. This type of program, if 

included as part of the reauthorization when MAP–21 expires next 

year, would reduce the amount of harmful black carbon emissions 

emitted by older construction equipment, working on federally 

funded transportation projects. 

Your approach would accomplish this by ensuring that diesel 

construction equipment employs modern engine and pollution reduction technology through a requirement in funding, and it is 

capped at 1 percent of project cost. In MAP–21, we estimated that 

this would generate $200 million per year to clean up this construction equipment, and we estimated that the bill would eliminate 
15 

9,000 tons of black carbon soot, and avoid nearly 1,000 premature 

deaths each year. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of these two 

important opportunities to reduce black carbon emissions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony and for your leadership for eons on these important issues. 

Mr. Johnson, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND REGULATIONS, CORNING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, CORNING, INC. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sessions, members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and 

also the staffers. We realize the key role that you play here as well. 

Senator CARPER. We realize that, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. I work for Corning, Incorporated. I am a technology scout for the company. It is an honor and pleasure to help 

you understand the issues around diesel emissions and how remediation is a winning proposition for all stakeholders, and I mean 

all the stakeholders. 

Corning, Incorporated is one of the oldest companies in the 

world. We date back to 1850. We invest very heavily in R&D, and 

as a result of that, we have obtained, or were awarded, four Presidential National Medal of Technology Awards, four, in addition to 

the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award and many other awards recognizing our relationships with our employees and our community. 

I am a recognized expert in diesel emissions and vehicle emissions in general, and keep a keen eye on future developments and 

openly share my knowledge with industry and government, so we 

can work together to reduce the harmful environmental impact of 

vehicles. 

My colleague just gave a great overview, and he provided you 

with a very thorough fact-based assessment in the written testimony. So I won’t spend a lot of time on that. 

I do have some facts here that you might find surprising. Diesel 

exhaust is all around us, and is quite toxic. Untreated diesel engines will emit about 10 million to 100 million particles per milliliter. That is the volume in the curved part of my little finger, 100 

million particles in that little volume. And each one carries toxic 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic agents deep into your 

lungs. It is no wonder that the World Health Organization has labeled it as a carcinogen. That is their highest designation and it 

warrants action. 

There are other organizations as well, as reputable, that have declared it as toxins. 

This is quite urgent, because we are all exposed. When you drive 

on the freeway, the air entering your cabin in your car has five 

times the toxic components of background air. When you take a 

breath on the order of 1 million to 10 million particles enter your 

lungs. One breath, 1 million to 10 million. Seventy percent of those 

are retained. 

Effective and inexpensive technologies are available to clean this 

up. In 2007, the USEPA set limits on diesel pollution for new 

trucks and engines that resulted in the use of a diesel particulate 

filter, which my company makes. These amazing devices remove 

more than 99 percent of these fine particles from the exhaust. In 

fact, they are so effective that they act like a huge vacuum cleaner. 
38 

The air going into the engine has higher concentrations of fine particulates than the gas coming out of the tailpipe. 

The more you drive these engines with diesel filters, the cleaner 

the air gets. Even in pristine Corning, New York, we have a lot of 

cows there. And this cleans the environment even better. 

The technology is a major cornerstone of the emissions control industry, and generates high quality jobs. According to the manufacturers of the Emission Controls Association, in 2012, $12 billion of 

economic activity and 65,000 high-paying U.S. jobs were generated 

in the vehicular emission control industry, and more than $2 billion of this was from diesel truck controls. 

We just announced a new plant in Corning, New York, $245 million investment, 250 employees and a huge cornerstone, again, to 

the region of western New York. The plant is intended to build 

components that will be exported to China, if you can believe that. 

So it is a significant environmental impact. 

DERA, of course, is central to this. Mr. Schneider gave all that 

justification. Remember, 13 to 1 dollar benefit cost ratio. It is unbelievable. 

And one last thing, as Steve Jobs would so effectively say when 

describing the coolest part of a new product, the filters take out 

more than 90 percent of the carbon black. This is a proven global 

warming agent, thousands of times more potent on a pound for 

pound basis than CO2. And about 30 percent of the carbon footprint 

of trucks. So this is a major side benefit that we cannot discount. 

I thank you very much for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 
39 
40 
41 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for great products and for a terrific 

testimony. 

Mr. Schaeffer. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN SCHAEFFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DIESEL TECHNOLOGY FORUM 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Good morning, Senator Carper, Senator Sessions 

and Senator Boozman. Thank you very much for the opportunity 

to be here. 

The Diesel Technology Forum is a not for profit educational 

group that represents the Nation’s leading diesel engine vehicle 

and equipment manufacturers, fuel refiners and emissions control 

technology companies as well as allied organizations. We have submitted a detailed written statement for the record today. 

I would like to address four points in my oral statement, however. First is to highlight the importance of diesel power to the 

U.S. economy. Diesel engines are a significant part of the U.S. 

economy, contributing about $480 billion annually, and are a dominant feature of 16 key sectors of the economy, from agriculture to 

wholesale trade. 

Diesel engine fuels and technology manufacturing is a job engine 

in every State, and accounts for about one and a quarter million 

jobs, engineering, manufacturing and servicing in every State in 

America. And the technology is not only important to the U.S. 

economy, but I would also like to highlight its role in the black carbon inventory. While about half of the U.S. economy depends in 

some way on diesel technology, diesel engines play a declining role 

in the emissions of black carbon. According to the 2012 EPA black 

carbon report to Congress, the U.S. accounts for about 8 percent of 

global black carbon emissions. Of that, 52 percent comes from mobile sources, and 93 percent of that is attributed to diesel engines. 

Senator Carper, as you stated in your opening remarks, the EPA 

projects this to decline by 86 percent by 2030, largely due to controls on new engines. In fact, the California Resources Board similarly concludes that by 2014, in 14 short months from today, diesel 

emissions will make up just 9 percent of all soot in California. 

The second point I would like to make is that these major reductions in black carbon emissions are a result of the new generation 

of clean diesel technology that offers significant fuel savings and 

emissions reductions and is widely accepted. That is where the 

largest clean air and climate benefits are being delivered. 

The diesel industry has been on a journey of continuous improvement to reduce emissions to near zero levels. Thanks to billions of 

dollars in investments and the innovation of diesel engine manufacturers and suppliers, we fundamentally transformed diesel engines to a near zero emissions technology. And clean diesel, as we 

refer to it, is clean engines, advanced fuels and emissions control 

technologies. 

Exhibit 1 to my right outlines that journey for heavy duty onroad commercial trucks and buses, showing particulate matter, of 

which black carbon is a component and oxides of nitrogen have decreased by 98 percent relative to an engine manufactured in 1988. 

As depicted in the next exhibit, not only are these new engines 

near zero emissions but they are also gaining acceptance in the 
42 

trucking industry and delivering tangible clean air benefits today. 

Based on our research, almost one in three heavy duty trucks on 

the road today is now of 2007 or newer vintage of clean diesel 

standards. These engines are found in delivery trucks, buses, fire 

trucks, short haul and long haul truck and tractor combinations in 

communities all across America. Their use has already contributed 

to a reduction of 27,000 tons of particulate matter and almost 1 

million tons of nitrogen oxide emissions. While preserving this impressive clean air performance, truck and engine manufacturers 

are now embarking on another journey, one requiring more investment and innovation to meet requirements to reduce CO2 emissions 

and improve fuel economy by somewhere between 6 and 23 percent 

over the next 6 to 8 years, in compliance with new EPA and 

NHTSA regulations. 

This journey to clean diesel technology is not limited to heavy 

duty on-road commercial trucks, but has been underway across the 

board for all diesel engines and applications. As shown in the next 

exhibit, you can see that diesel engines, which make up two-thirds 

of all farm and construction equipment, are now in the final phase 

of their journey for meeting some of the near zero standards for 

some of the largest earth moving and marine workload kinds of engines. These so-called Tier 4 standards have already been met with 

the smaller and higher volume off-road engines and equipment. 

The third point I would like to make today is on the matter of 

existing engines, and there are effective technical strategies to reduce those emissions from existing engines. And there is a continued need for the government incentive programs to encourage their 

adoptions. 

Senator Carper, you have been a leader in the forefront of this 

battle since 2005, and we thank you for that. Under your leadership, we have made two great accomplishments, in the funding of 

the program and its performance. 

According to the EPA’s second report to Congress, between 2008 

and 2010, the program retrofitted, repowered or replaced over 

52,000 older engines found in a wide variety of applications, resulting in about 12,000 tons of PM emission reductions and 200,000 

tons of NOx reduced at the same time. 

Let me emphasize, we believe there is still plenty of work to do 

that will allow more need for these programs. Further EPA action 

to reduce levels of allowable emissions of ozone and meeting new 

particulate standards will make the need even greater. DERA has 

provided important Federal funds in a very competitive process 

that other programs should aspire to, and has been able to leverage 

those dollars, leverage roughly $3 in non-Federal funding for every 

$1 in Federal funding to make these air quality benefits. 

The other provisions that we looked for help in reducing emissions include the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement 

Program of the MAP–21, the transportation legislation, which allows that particulate matter non-attainment areas may spend up 

to 25 percent of their CMAQ allocation toward retrofitting diesel 

engines. 

Finally, black carbon reductions from new technologies are likely 

to have a measurable impact in reducing and mitigating the impact 

of a warming planet. These reductions and these new engines have 
43 

had significant benefits, as I have outlined. According to some scientists, emission reductions from diesel engines in the U.S. may 

mitigate up to 15 percent of the U.S. contribution to a warming 

planet. Climate scientists estimate that clean diesel technologies 

deployed in California alone may mitigate global warming effects 

by 5 percent to 15 percent. 

The success of these strategies has not gone unnoticed by the 

international community, and in part because of the success in reducing black carbon here, the United Nations Environment Program, UNEP, is working with partners across the globe to urge the 

adoption of clean diesel fuel and engines. 

So in conclusion, diesel engines play a significant role in the U.S. 

economy and the U.S. is a leader in clean diesel technology that 

improves air quality and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions of particulate matter, of which black carbon is a component. Thanks to the investment in cleaner fuels, emissions and 

emissions control technologies, diesel emissions have fallen by orders of magnitude to near zero levels. While new engines are meeting near zero standards, older engines and existing equipment still 

have distinct economic value to tens of thousands of small businesses out there. Incentive programs such as DERA and CMAQ go 

a long way toward helping those small businesses do better with 

their emissions. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaeffer follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Schaeffer. 

Mr. Singletary, welcome aboard. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SINGLETARY, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. SINGLETARY. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking 

Member Sessions and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. 

My name is Robert Singletary, and I serve as the supervising attorney for the Air Quality and Land Protection Divisions at the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. I have been 

asked to provide testimony today regarding the implementation of 

the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act in Oklahoma, and the resulting 

reductions in diesel emissions and the associated impacts on air 

quality. 

The State of Oklahoma has participated in the DERA program 

since 2008. During this period, Oklahoma has administered funds 

allocated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in an 

amount of just over $4.3 million. The majority of those funds, approximately $3.1 million, came via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Aside from the funding provided through 

ARRA, the annual funding allocated to Oklahoma by EPA for ERA 

projects during this period was between approximately $190,000 

and $295,000 annually until fiscal year 2013. In addition, the State 

of Oklahoma has contributed just over $300,000 in State matching 

funds. 

Since beginning participation in the program in 2008, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has overseen the completion of approximately 413 DERA projects, including the replacement of 118 older diesel school buses with new vehicles meeting 

more stringent emission limits, the installation of diesel particulate 

filters and related technologies on 18 school buses, the installation 

of diesel oxidation catalysts on 82 school buses, the installation of 

closed crankcase ventilation systems on 125 buses, and the installation of auxiliary heaters on 55 buses. 

Diesel engines are designed to have very long operating life 

spans and many of the buses that have been replaced in Oklahoma 

were more than 20 years old. It is not uncommon for diesel school 

buses of that age to have emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides that are 65 to 95 percent greater than 

those of the new school buses. Similarly, and of particular relevance to the black carbon discussion, it is not uncommon for fine 

particulate matter, PM2.5 emissions, from older diesel buses to be 

90 percent greater than the newer certified models. 

Installation of certain retrofit technologies also greatly reduces 

the percentages of PM2.5 emissions. For example, the installation of 

diesel particulate filters reduces PM2.5 emissions by 50 to 60 percent and the installation of diesel oxidation catalysts reduces such 

emissions by nearly 30 percent. 

In total, the projects administered by the Oklahoma Department 

of Environmental Quality have resulted in emissions reductions 

over the life of the replaced or retrofitted equipment by approxi-
54 

mately 21 tons of PM2.5, 37 tons of hydrocarbons, 172 tons of carbon monoxide, and 353 tons of NOx. In addition to the emission reductions that are directly attributable to the replaced or retrofitted equipment, the DERA program 

has also provided the State with an opportunity to educate school 

districts regarding the economic and health benefits that are associated with implementing anti-idling strategies. These strategies 

can significantly reduce the overall emissions from these diesel engines, whether or not they are replaced or retrofitted. And they 

also significantly reduce the exposure to impacted children to concentrated levels of these pollutants. Moreover, any school or school 

district participating in the program was required to implement an 

anti-idling policy across its entire fleet. 

Based on the reductions in the proposed funding allocations for 

the upcoming year, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality chose not to participate in the program next year. However, the agency continues to support the voluntary nature of the 

DERA program and the opportunity for States to implement it at 

the State level. Assuming a funding level that is sufficient to warrant the minimal administrative burden that is associated with implementing the program, the resulting emissions, especially in light 

of the sensitive population impacted, justify the agency’s continued 

participation in the program. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Carper, members of the Committee, 

for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared testimony of Mr. Singletary follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Singletary. When we mentioned 

the idling strategy, I was in a school not long ago where the school 

buses had gathered to take the students home. And the point you 

made is a really good one, all these kids have to walk by their 

buses, through their buses in order to get on the buses. That is a 

very good point. If they are idling, if they are not idling, if they 

stop the idling, you save fuel and probably save some lives as well. 

That is a great point. Thank you. 

Mr. Harris. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. HARRIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, ALABAMA 

STATE PORT AUTHORITY 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Sessions and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss black carbon emissions and the 

Alabama State Port Authority’s positive experiences to reduce diesel emissions and leverage Federal financial support under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. 

My name is Bob Harris and I oversee environmental and Federal 

programs for the Port Authority. The Authority represents the public cargo terminals at the Port of Mobile, which is currently the 

13th largest of the Nation’s 150 commercial deepwater seaports. 

The Alabama State Port Authority’s economic value in Alabama 

alone tops $18.7 billion and directly and indirectly generates over 

127,000 jobs. 

The Alabama State Port Authority is one of three commercial 

deepwater U.S. seaport authorities that owns and operates a 

freight railroad. The Authority’s terminal railway consists of 75 

miles of track and operates 10 diesel-powered locomotives. The terminal railway is the largest public seaport owned and operated terminal railroad in the Nation, handling over 133,000 cars annually. 

In and around port communities, the seaport industry is increasingly factoring air quality when addressing port operations. Cargo 

handling equipment, trucks, locomotives, tugboats, dredges, ferries 

and ships mostly rely on diesel engines for power. Older diesel engines can emit elevated levels of particulate matter and nitrogen 

oxides which can contribute to air quality concerns. 

In 2008, the Alabama State Port Authority began pursuing the 

goal of voluntarily reducing emissions at the Port’s terminals by 

seeking funding assistance made available through the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program to purchase a new class of fuel efficient, low emission locomotive engines. The Port’s objective was to begin converting its 10 locomotives to cleaner burning, more efficient engines 

that met Tier 2 emissions standards. 

In 2011, EPA awarded the Port a $953,921 grant to improve air 

quality through assistance funding from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010. The Port Authority’s $1.58 million project 

would repower a 1980 diesel electric switching locomotive with 

state-of-the-art GenSet technology with a goal to significantly reduce existing locomotive emissions by up to 95 percent and reduce 

fuel consumption by 50 percent. 
59 

GenSet technology replaces a single large diesel engine in the locomotive with two smaller engines that can be shut down or operated depending on power demand requirements. Without compromising traction and power, this approach conserves fuel and reduces noise during operations by using only one engine in low 

power applications and powering up both engines in higher power 

demand applications. The Port Authority took delivery of the first 

retrofitted engine in February 2013. 

In follow up to our positive experience with DERA, the Port Authority looked to build on the program’s success. The Port Authority sought out and has received a $1.35 million grant under DERA 

2012 to repower two more terminal railways circa 1980 diesel electric switching locomotives. It is estimated that this $2.02 million 

repower project will reduce particulate matter emissions by 60 tons 

over the lifetime of these two engines. Additionally, these two engine repowers will generate an estimated 43,000 gallons of diesel 

fuel savings annually. 

The Alabama State Port Authority applauds the Subcommittee 

for its past leadership in support of the DERA grant program and 

for its ongoing leadership in addressing black carbon impacts. The 

Port Authority thanks the members for the opportunity to speak on 

our experiences with this critical program, and I am happy to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Harris, I am glad you came today. I am 

glad you all came today, but I said to Senator Sessions, what compelling testimony. I would just say to my colleagues, think about 

this. For every $1 that we appropriate for DERA, it leverages $3 

additional. And for every $1 that we appropriate through DERA, 

we get about $13 worth of health savings. So if you think about the $1 from DERA that leverages the other $3, if you multiple three times $13, you actually get for every $1 

in DERA spending, we are getting about $39 worth, if my math is 

right, about $39 worth of health benefits. Pretty compelling. 

And the point that you made, Mr. Harris, about the fuel savings 

as well on the locomotives that you have in, is it Mobile? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. That is very compelling. We have to figure out 

a way, these numbers are just too compelling, we have to figure out 

a way to get some additional moneys moved, Federal moneys 

moved through the appropriation process into this program. 

Before we get started with questions, I just want to first ask 

unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from the President and CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, 

Kurt Nagle, I expect you know him. Kurt Nagle, in support of fully 

funding DERA at the authorized levels. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
65 
66 

Senator CARPER. I want to go back to, if I could, Mr. Johnson, 

to something that you said. I was telling Jeff here that my primary 

vehicle for moving around the State of Delaware is a 2001 Chrysler 

Town and Country minivan. We bought it the year that I stepped 

down as Governor of Delaware in 2001. And it now has 353,000 

miles on it. It has the original engine, original transmission, original owner. And my wife says to me, when are you ever going to 

buy a new vehicle? And I say, why? In fact, it is in the shop today, 

but just for an oil change. We started changing oil last year. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Before that, all we did is wash it every 2 weeks. 

But someday, I will have to get a new vehicle, and Jeff was telling me about some of the vehicles they make down in Alabama 

that are highly energy efficient diesel-powered vehicles, clean emissions, low emissions, which is very compelling. Made here with 

American technology. 

I just want to go back to something you said, Mr. Johnson. Sometimes when we are driving down the highway in Delaware in my 

like-new Town and Country minivan, we will have on the air conditioning. Days like this we don’t, and we will just circulate the outside air through the vehicle. 

You made a statement included in your comments, you talked 

about the level of emissions that we breathe in when we do that. 

Would you just revisit that for us again, please? I just want to hear 

this again. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for the chance to clarify the statements 

and elaborate a little bit more. Coming out of the tailpipe of an 

unfiltered diesel engine, the particle concentrations are 10 million 

to 100 million per milliliter. By the time it reaches the car, the car 

behind the truck or even the car a couple cars behind the truck, 

it is diluted a thousand times. So if you recall the arithmetic here, 

you go from 10 to the eighth down to 10 to the fifth, but then every 

breath that you take is about 100 milliliters. So you add another 

10 to the 2 and you end up with 1 million to 10 million particles 

per breath. 

Now, in your cabin, I used to work in cabin air filtration earlier 

in my career, and I was astounded that the air in your car changes, 

even if the fan is not on, about three times a minute. That was 

back then. I don’t know what they are today. But you are essentially bringing in high volumes of fresh air into your vehicle. And 

this air has very high contaminant levels, when you are on the 

freeway. 

Another comment that I would like to make is that freeway exposure is not limited to vehicles. In California, a study in Toronto, 40 

percent to 50 percent of the people in those cities live within 500 

yards of a highway or a major thoroughfare. These are referred to 

as tunnels of pollution, and this affects the children’s lung capacity, 

asthma, and other things that are lifetime illnesses, lifetime, it is 

carried over for a lifetime. So when you are talking 40 to 50 percent of the population living within these freeways, vehicular emission control takes a whole new meaning. That is in L.A. today, with 

the tightest regulations in the country, the world. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. 
67 

One question, if I could, for both Mr. Schneider and Mr. Singletary, then I will kick it over to Senator Sessions. As you know, I 

have another day job, you may know I have another day job as the 

Chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, with my ranking member on that Committee, Tom Coburn. 

We try very hard to make sure we are getting better results for 

less money, not duplicating efforts in the Federal Government. Can 

you talk just a little bit about why, despite the overall success of 

the Clean Air Act in improving our air quality, we need programs 

like DERA and Clean Construction to reduce black carbon pollution? Mr. Schneider. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Sure, Senator, that is a great question. I think 

the answer primarily is that the Clean Air Act is a regulatory program. It tells you what you can’t do or how much pollution you 

can’t emit. It does not provide necessarily incentives or subsidies 

or whatever for pollution reduction. So it is a regulatory-based program. 

And so for these diesel particulate filters that we are talking 

about, they are very effective at taking pollution out of the air, but 

they don’t necessarily confer a benefit on the companies that have 

to install them. In fact, a lot of the companies that have bought 

what we call the existing diesel fleet, when they purchased them, 

they met the clean air standards that EPA had set. Now what we 

are seeing is they need to do better, it would be great if they could 

retrofit. Because those companies don’t experience a direct benefit 

to that, the benefit is really a public good. So it makes sense for 

the Government to have a role in providing some incentives to help 

them do that. 

Now, that might not be true for a repower like the GenSet, and 

the situation that was described in Mobile. That would be a situation where you get the double benefit. But the filter doesn’t really 

get you a fuel economy benefit. So that is a big part of it. 

States do have the ability, particularly as Mr. Schaeffer mentioned, that we may be seeing tighter PM and ozone standards in 

the future. States do have the ability to require these retrofits, as 

California has tried to do as part of their State implementation 

plans. So it is possible to order these retrofits. But in many areas, 

you are probably not going to see that. If we want to experience 

the benefits of these retrofits, it is a great step to have the Federal 

Government step in with DERA and Clean Construction and lend 

a helping hand. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Mr. Singletary, same question, please. 

Mr. SINGLETARY. Senator, in regard to the DERA program, I 

think the best benefit of the program is that it is assisting these 

school districts, some of them who are struggling financially to replace these aging fleets. It would be very difficult on a mandatory 

basis to make them do that. So the voluntary nature of the program, helping them to address those, especially considering the 

sensitive population that is most impacted. In Oklahoma, we are 

currently in attainment for all the NAAQs, so we don’t have the 

ability to go back, especially in regard to mobile sources, but even 

stationary sources, and achieve tighter reductions from existing 

sources. So a voluntary program like that that provides an incen-
68 

tive for the school districts to come forward and try and replace 

those buses prior to the life span of the bus, or retrofit the buses 

to lower those emissions is very helpful. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I want to ask a number of questions, and maybe briefly go through and give us some perspective 

on where we are. Mr. Harris, thank you for your leadership at the 

State docks, Port Authority. Do you believe the diesel engines are 

environmentally beneficial, a modern, efficient diesel engine? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, Senator, very much. There have been tremendous advances in diesel engine technology over the last several 

years. A modern diesel engine is very much environmentally 

friendly technology. 

Senator SESSIONS. Share with us how much it takes per engine 

to retrofit it in the way you suggested with two different engines 

that combine, if needed, for extra power and get a 50 percent fuel 

reduction. What does it cost, so people know, to actually accomplish 

that per engine? 

Mr. HARRIS. It costs approximately $1.6 million per locomotive to 

do that rebuild with the GenSet technology that we have adopted. 

Senator SESSIONS. So the Federal grant money was very helpful 

in helping you make that decision? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes. The Federal grant money allowed us to go that 

extra step to put in place a more emission-efficient technology and 

a fuel-efficient technology. 

Senator SESSIONS. Does a complete new, actually two complete 

new engines replacing one, Mr. Johnson, you have a filter that can 

go on an existing engine, as I understand it. Is that correct? How 

much does it cost to install your product? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It depends, of course, on the vehicle. Looking at a heavy duty truck, it is on the order of $5,000 to $7,000 per truck. 

Now, keep in mind that these trucks are still worth $50,000 to 

$70,00, even $100,000. So it is a relatively small investment on a 

truck that is worth an order of magnitude more and will be in service for 5 or 10 years. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Singletary, thinking about thousands of 

school buses there, I calculated one time, I spent a full year of my 

life on a school bus, an hour just about in the morning and an hour 

home in the afternoon, for many years. What about new engines? 

Where are we heading with new engines? Is there a movement toward the more modern diesel engines or are school systems still 

using a gasoline engine? What do you think is best environmentally? 

Mr. SINGLETARY. Senator, I believe the majority of the fleet in 

Oklahoma are diesel buses. Obviously the newer diesel buses, you 

have emissions in regard to PM that are 93 percent less than some 

of the older buses that are in place. Like I said in my direct testimony, some of the buses that we have replaced through our program were over 20 years old, some approaching 30 years. So there 

are some significant reductions between the standards when they 

were manufactured and the newer 2011 and newer models. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Schneider, do you have any observation 

about the choice that a school system has in buying a new bus? 
69 

Should they consider a modern diesel or would, from an environmental perspective and cost perspective, be smarter to buy gasoline? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Typically what we find is that the school bus 

fleets are running on diesel. And the choice that they typically face 

is whether and how fast to replace those older diesel buses with 

new ones versus taking the money maybe through a DERA program or whatever and install a diesel particulate filter on them. 

Both are very effective. But we have found that you can retrofit 

and clean up an entire fleet through retrofits probably more efficiently and more cost effectively than replacing it. But some of the 

school districts have the capital budget to be able to replace their 

fleets. 

Senator SESSIONS. But just as vehicles turn over, and some have 

to be replaced, do you have an opinion which would be preferable? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think the industry standard is diesel. 

Senator SESSIONS. When you look at the overall cost and the advantages, I guess I am wrestling with the question, should we do 

more to incentivize the new vehicles also, not just retrofitting old 

ones. But diesels last a long time, some are 30 years old, still running, is that correct? 

I see Mr. Schneider and Mr. Johnson are nodding. Do you have 

some old ones? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, Senator, the locomotives that we have discussed were purchased in 1980. So we are talking 40-plus years. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, 1980 was 40 years ago? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I am kind of kidding. 

Well, we are making progress with the new ones. One of my staff 

people in Alabama commuted about 50 miles a day. And she 

bought a Volkswagen Beetle diesel and was getting 52 miles to the 

gallon. Now, that is significant, that really started my inquiry into 

the advantages, one way or the other, as to diesel engines as compared to gasoline engines. And that was better than hybrid engine 

cars yet. So it was a matter of real importance. 

We have also a representative here from NAVASTAR who builds 

fabulous diesel engines in Alabama. We are proud of them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. These are important 

issues. What I like about this whole process, to me, it is a win-win 

in the sense that we are getting better gas mileage, bringing down 

the costs to the purchaser of the vehicle, getting better environmental impact and having the savings more than pay for the cost 

of the engine. So I think that is a good step for us to take, and 

thank you for your leadership. 

Senator CARPER. It doesn’t get much better than that. It is a 

great combination. Win-win-win. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I did note for the record here 

and offer for the record a summary of the GAO report on the various programs. This one is entitled Fragmented Federal Programs 

That Reduce Mobile Source Emissions, which is what we are talking about, Could Be Improved. That is the title of it. So one of the 

things we ought to look at is maybe exactly where we are targeting 

our resources, maybe we don’t need quite so many programs, we 
70 

could actually get more money that could go out to transform our 

fleets. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. And with that, that will be part of 

the record. Thanks so much. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
71 
72 

Senator CARPER. Senator Boozman, welcome aboard. Thanks so 

much for being here. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, and I have enjoyed working with 

you on this issue very, very much. I agree with Senator Sessions, 

I think the GAO says that we are spending over a billion dollars 

in ancillary stuff and needing to consolidate, fund the programs 

that work. Seriously, I asked Philip about the funding that had 

gone forward in the House. I think it is about $19 million, which 

is interesting. That is three times what the Administration has 

asked for, and this very difficult time I think really illustrates how 

important a lot of people feel like this program is. 

I think we all agree that this black soot is extremely toxic, and 

again, as the Chairman has pointed out and Senator Sessions, the 

bang for the buck with three to one leveraging, and then also the 

health care costs. It really does seem to be something that is a little bit of a no-brainer. 

Mr. Singletary, you mentioned that Oklahoma is not partici- pating. Is that because under the current funding of the $6 million 

or whatever projected that it is not worth the administrative cost 

to the State to go forward? 

Mr. SINGLETARY. Yes, Senator, that is correct. I believe the pro- posed allocation for States last year was just over $71,000. The 

agency made the determination that the commitment of agency resources to implement that, that we could achieve better impact on 

air quality in Oklahoma by focusing those efforts elsewhere. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So we are in a situation now where we have 

cut the funding and proposed funding and things such that we are, 

it is basically administrative costs, and we are not going to get a 

whole lot done. Can you all comment about that? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think you 

are exactly right. We have seen from the beginning of the DERA 

program adequate funding levels really drive results. And we can 

focus on larger numbers of fleets and vehicles and equipment and 

machines and that was done in the early parts of the program. 

Now we are getting into more specific and difficult areas and 

ones that are quite significant. As Mr. Harris outlined, the cost to 

upgrade existing locomotive technology is quite significant and far 

beyond that of a single school bus. So as we get into diminishing 

funds, we can also run into a situation of diminishing returns, as 

we are unable to fund larger projects and we have situations that 

were just described. So I think as the agency has focused increasingly, I believe, this year on port activities, and those are some of 

the larger ticket items. So that will create some imbalances probably in how funds are allocated throughout the country. Just by the 

nature of the situation that we find ourselves in, not because of 

agency choice. 

So I think a more fully funded program of course would benefit 

more parties, more entities, both large and small. 

Senator BOOZMAN. What is the average age of the truck fleet? 

And you might comment on the diesel fleet. Then also you have the 

heavy equipment, the earth movers, things like that. 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Sure, thank you. I happen to have some specific 

data from Arkansas. Senator, in your State, about 24.7 percent of 

all commercial vehicles registered in the State today, and that is 
73 

Class 3 through Class 8, the smallest commercial trucks up to the 

largest tractor trailers, 24.7 percent of those are 2007 and newer. 

So they include the latest emissions control technology. 

From a national perspective, about 11 percent of the trucks out 

there today are 2010 and newer. Those also incorporate very low 

emissions, NOx reduction technology. So the fleet is improving in 

its average age. But we did go through a period of time during the 

2008 through 2011 period, particularly, when the purchases of new 

technology were delayed because of the recession and the uncertainty about the economy. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So part of that too was the uncertainty about 

the equipment also, wasn’t it, in the sense that new technology, nobody really understood? I guess that was really pushed forward in 

a hurry. And there was concern about adequate testing. 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. I think it is fair to say there was some uncertainty about the new technology and whether or not it would perform as suggested. Within the trucking industry, adoption of new 

technology, of any kind of new technology there is uncertainty. So 

that is correct. 

I wanted to answer the off-road question a little bit. The average 

age of the off-road fleet is a really difficult question and one that 

we don’t have the benefit of vehicle registration data. So what we 

find, though, in our sort of analysis of the situation, the best we 

can, find that those machine and pieces of equipment that are 

highly used, like backhoes and wheel loaders and dozers, are replaced quite often, because they are the primary tools of construction. There are some very old cranes and other machines that perform unique activities. But they only perform them in a very 

unique and limited period of time. So it is not like they are being 

used every day. They may be 20 years old, but they may only be 

being used a few hours each year on a very specific task. We are 

not able to really provide the average ages of all those machines 

and equipment. There are just too many and to many diverse 

types. 

Senator BOOZMAN. If they are like my little tractor on my little 

farm, a lot of it is old. 

Tell me, Mr. Singletary, you mentioned the voluntary nature of 

this. Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. SINGLETARY. I think that is a big plus to the program, is the 

voluntary nature. Like I said, the buses are the vehicles that we 

are primarily targeting in Oklahoma. Our school buses, school districts, especially during tough economic times, replacing a school 

bus is $80,000, $85,000. So any amount that can be offset through 

a grant program to replace a 30-year-old bus is something that is 

very helpful to get those old buses off the road. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and again, I appreciate you 

and Senator Carper working together. I think this is great. There 

is lots of stuff going on up here, but this is a great example of us 

really trying to come together and get some common ground and 

provide adequate funding for what appears to be from the studies 

and listing of people like yourselves that are out there every day 

fighting the battle of trying to control these things, a very worth-
74 

while program. So hopefully we can work together to get the adequate funding that we need. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do have one comment to make. This is a very 

valuable program, obviously, for all the stakeholders. But it is oversubscribed. Six entities apply and only one gets it. So as long as 

there are volunteers that wish to use this technology, it is a great 

investment for everybody. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, if it goes down to $6 million, it is going 

to be way over-subscribed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Boozman, I don’t know if you want one of those $5,000 filters on your tractor or not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. It does raise the question of what we can afford, how many hours a vehicle is being used, how much we can 

afford to put in the older vehicles. We are not able to just completely eliminate that fleet. But looking at the numbers, the improvement we are seeing is rather remarkable. The trends are really, really good. 

I noticed, and I mentioned the school bus manufacturing in Oklahoma, but those engines are made by NAVASTAR in Huntsville, 

Alabama, those diesel engines. Each one of them that goes out is 

very much an improvement on the environment. 

Mr. Johnson, did you want to comment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. The $5,000 to $7,000 that I quoted, much of 

it is engineering. It is labor to design the equipment, install it, 

monitor it and so on. The actual hardware is much less than that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Are there things that we might could use that 

would be less efficient but more affordable for a small farm tractor 

or something of that kind? Have any technology improvements 

been made there? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That raises an interesting question. Companies 

like mine invest in markets that look promising. So the interesting 

thing about DERA is that it was an incubator for a wide range of 

retrofit technologies. 

So I am quite confident that if the market is there, the technology will be developed to address the market need, whether that 

market need is for a $1,000 system or a $150,000 system. So this 

is an incubation program in a lot of ways. 

Senator SESSIONS. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. It has been really extraordinary. 

We have about 5 minutes to go, so we are going to ask maybe one 

more question, then we will have some questions for the record. I 

want to thank Senator Sessions, I really want to thank our staffs 

for the work that went into this. 

Again, for Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schaeffer if I could, this will be 

my last question here today. Both of you mentioned in your testimony the cutting edge diesel technology that American companies 

have developed and are manufacturing here in the U.S. Mr. Johnson, I believe the comment you made was that you are building a 

new clean diesel manufacturing facility as we speak in New York, 

is that right? 

All right. Can you talk about why this country, how did we end 

up as a leader, if you will, in clean diesel technology and what it 
75 

has meant for economic development and trade deficits in this 

country? Are there any programs or anything that the Federal Government can do to keep us on the cutting edge? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, that is an excellent question that I look at all 

the time. First of all, regarding the first part of your question on 

why the United States is leading this technology. I saw a presentation given just last week by Cummins. They showed, and others 

have shown the same thing, where the technology follows the regulation. Whenever there is a regulatory shift, there is a technology 

shift, for whatever reason. It is a very clear relationship. 

We have the tightest regulations in the world on vehicles here 

in the United States. That is why we are a leader in developing 

these technologies. 

With regard to exports, this plant that we are building is being 

designed to meet the worldwide requirements for our products. And 

the intent is to put a lot of the product into export from this plant 

to meet the needs in China and India. 

The reason that we built it here, quite simply, is because of the 

tax incentives that we received at the State level and hopefully 

from the Federal level as well. They were instrumental in helping 

us make that decision. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Schaeffer, please. 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

The recent economic study that the Diesel Technology Forum 

commissioned, which was completed by Aspen Environmental 

Group and M.Cubed, found that diesel engines, fuel and equipment 

are very high value as exports and account for about 4.4 percent 

of all exports. That is about a $46.2 billion annual figure. 

In the course of doing that, we learned that about one in four of 

all diesel engines produced in the U.S. is destined for a market 

overseas. So diesels are a high value export. The technology is really in the forefront, not only of reducing emissions but also the 

kinds of things that are highly valued; fuel efficiency, reliability, 

durability, and performance that diesel offers. The U.S. manufacturers and the members of our organization have really been the 

forefront of making the billions of dollars of investments that have 

been necessary to produce these products that people want to buy 

around the world. 

So in terms of things that can be done, certainly incentives to encourage more research and development, the Department of Energy’s Super Truck program is doing a great job in facilitating new 

fuel-efficient truck technology for the next century. And incentives 

to help fleets create and invest in new technology were mentioned 

earlier. I think those are important considerations. We are seeing 

those play out right now in the agricultural sector, where many 

farmers have taken advantage of some tax advantages that have 

allowed them to invest in a lot of new equipment the last few 

years. 

So that is better fuel-efficient technology for them, and fewer 

emissions for our environment. So those are very important programs. 

Senator CARPER. Excellent. That is all we have time for today, 

time is running out on the clock. Again, thank you so much for 
76 

being here, thank you for the great work that you are doing in this 

arena, whether you happen to be doing the R&D, manufacturing 

the technology, implementing the technology, in ways that are just 

very, very encouraging. 

I usually take the train down in the morning and go back at 

night. A lot of times I walk down the platform to get on the train 

in the morning when I catch it, and I stop and talk to people, mostly from Delaware but some from Pennsylvania or New Jersey. And 

they say, how are you doing, how are you doing, I have a friend 

when you ask him, how are you doing, he says, compared to what? 

Well, I almost always say, I am happy. People say, how can you 

be happy? You are going to work, and don’t you work in the Senate? That must be a terrible place to work these days. If they could 

be with us today, they would see why I am happy. I am happy and 

I am encouraged. In adversity does lie opportunity, thank you, Mr. 

Einstein, for that quote. But there is plenty of adversity, reliance 

on foreign oil, fossil fuels, creating a lot of pollution, climate 

change, health care problems for young people and old, all kinds 

of adversity. But there is real opportunity here, there is real opportunity in a cost effective way to address those elements of adversity 

and actually do them a lot better, and at the same time, create jobs 

and create economic activity here in our country. 

Thank you for remind us that it is possible to do it and do well 

at the same time. This is a great example. And a great example 

for us to focus on that 80-20 rule here in Washington, DC. This is 

certainly that 80 percent that we can agree on. 

And we just need to bear down and do more. Thank you so much. 

We have 2 weeks for Senators to submit their questions and materials for the record. We just ask that you respond promptly to 

those questions. 

Again, thank you for a great job. Terrific panel. We have four or 

five of us here today, I wish everybody on the Committee could 

have actually been a part of this hearing. They would have been 

as happy as I am and as encouraged as I am. 

Thank you so much. With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ