U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

67–290 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–38 

ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON POLICIES TO REDUCE OIL CONSUMPTION 

THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES 

AND ACCELERATED DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRIC-DRIVE VEHICLES, AS 

PROPOSED IN S. 734 AND S. 948 

MAY 19, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee ....................................... 5 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 

Crane, David, President and CEO, NRG Energy, Inc., Princeton, NJ ................ 36 

Cullen, Genevieve, Vice President, Electric Drive Transportation Association . 23 

Davis, Patrick, Program Director, Vehicle Technologies Program, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy ................. 9 

Ghasemi, Seifi, Chairman and CEO, Rockwood Holdings, Inc., Member, Electrification Coalition, Princeton, NJ ..................................................................... 14 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon .................................................... 3 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 2 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator From Michigan ......................................... 7 

Van Amburg, Bill, Senior Vice President, CALSTART, Pasadena, CA ............... 28 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 53 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 69 

(1) 

ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, 

chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I think we’ll go ahead and get started. Senator Murkowski is delayed just a few minutes, but asked us to 

start without her. She will be here shortly. 

Thank you all for coming to testify today. Give us your thoughts 

on 2 important bills: S. 734 and S. 948. These are both bills aimed 

at accelerating the development and deployment of advanced vehicle technologies. 

The topics that we’re discussing today have been a high priority 

for the committee for some time. These bills are constructive steps 

forward in dealing with our energy security, economic security and 

ultimately our competitiveness internationally. So I commend the 

authors of the legislation. 

I’m sure there will be plenty of debate about the causes and 

short term fixes for high prices of gasoline at the pump. I think the 

case has been settled for some time that now that the economic and 

national security costs of our current reliance on oil are unacceptable. I don’t think there’s any real debate that the only way we’re 

going to substantially affect that cost to our economy and to many 

of ourselves, our consumers, is to reduce the amount of oil we use 

in transportation. 

This means both increasing the efficiency of traditional combustion engines and increasing alternatives for powering vehicles. 

They’re promising technologies today in alternative fuels, in increasing energy efficiency and in light weight materials. But because they are new and produced on smaller scales they are not yet 

seen as widely commercially available and viable. Other technologies remain in even earlier stages, need more research and development before they’re commercially ready. 

These bills that we’re discussing today will focus on both of these 

areas. Senator Stabenow’s bill will provide a useful structure to do 

the research and development programs at the Department of Energy as well as providing tools to effectively partner with industry 

to quickly bring advances to the commercial marketplace. It also 
2 

brings more focus to the important medium and heavy duty vehicle 

segment. This is an area where substantial fuel savings opportunities exist. 

Senators Merkley and Alexander joined together in a bill. They 

had Senator Dorgan, who is on this committee in the last Congress, 

also joined with them in the previous Congress with the bill, providing for a targeted approach to overcoming initial barriers to 

widespread deployment of light duty vehicles powered by electricity. The benefits replacing some portion of oil use with domestically generated and comparatively cheap electricity are obvious. 

This likely accounts for the strong vote that their legislation received in this committee in the last Congress. I believe the vote 

here in our committee was 19 to 4 in reporting that legislation. 

So once again this is a very timely topic. We look forward to getting people’s updated views on the issues. 

Senator Murkowski has just arrived. Let me call on her for any 

opening comments she has. Then we’ll call on our 3 colleagues to 

give us their views. 

But, Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

Good morning to Senator Alexander, Senator Merkley. Senator Stabenow, I also want to thank you for your hard work on this legislation that we have before us today. 

Earlier in the week we considered several bills that are designed 

to increase domestic energy production. Now we’re going to be looking at the other side of the equation with a few of the goals, the 

bills, that we are putting before us that look to reduce demand. In 

my mind those are both going to be necessary goals for the foreseeable future. Both supply and demand matter and the policies that 

we can consider here in this committee, I think should reflect that. 

As I’ve said a number of times, this is an exciting time to be 

working on vehicle legislation. I think that the automobile industry 

is once again entering a period that will be marked by tremendous 

strides in innovation. Advanced technologies are already allowing 

us to use fuel more efficiently. With the prices at the pump hovering or above $4 a gallon, that’s something that we can all appreciate. 

For the first time in a long time it also appears that the internal 

combustion engine is facing some real competition. That’s a fine 

thing. Electric vehicles are perhaps the most promising of several 

technologies that could, over time, dramatically reduce our Nation’s 

oil consumption. I think every member of our committee would 

agree that electric vehicles have great potential. We want to see 

them transform the industry. 

Mr. Chairman, as you’ve noted, both of the bills on today’s agenda were considered and reported by our committee last Congress. 

While I hope we’re able to overcome some of the issues and come 

to a bipartisan consensus on a path forward. I do have some concerns, perhaps some greater than others that will need to be resolved before I can offer my full support. 
3 

Of course, the cost is at the top of my concern list. On Monday, 

the Federal Government hit its debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion. Given 

the huge amount of work that it will take to balance the budget 

we need to be careful as authorizers to make sure that everything 

that we pass is well justified. One of the best ways to ensure that 

our work keeps moving through the legislative process will be to 

make sure that it’s fully paid for whether by repealing old authorizations or applying some of the revenues from new energy production. 

But beyond cost, we also need to consider the design of each of 

these policies. 

With respect to the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act, I believe 

that a national plan is quite relevant. I also believe that deployment communities have considerable merit. But I think we need to 

be careful. Just a handful of communities will be selected and public money could very well crowd out the private investments that 

are now being made. I’ve got some questions about the number of 

communities that should be created, the funding limits for those 

communities and the technologies that should be eligible for deployment with them. 

With respect to the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act, I certainly 

appreciate the desire to streamline the current tangle of authorities 

for the Vehicles Technology program. While I agree that one umbrella authority would be an improvement I do have some concerns 

about the size of the umbrella that this bill envisions. There’s a 

role for the Federal Government to pay in vehicle research. But it 

is entirely possible to expand that role too far, especially as we’re 

dealing with our debt and deficits. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing this morning as we 

learn more. To work with you to advance responsible policies that 

reduce our Nation’s fuel consumption. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Why don’t we hear from 

our colleagues in the order that they appeared here. 

Senator Alexander, did you want to go first? Do you want Senator Merkley to go first? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Let Senator Merkley go first. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Merkley, why don’t you go ahead? We’ll 

hear from you 2 and then from Senator Stabenow. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Ranking 

Member Murkowski and members of the committee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you in partnership with my colleague, Senator Alexander on a topic both of us feel is very important to the future of our Nation. It addresses one of the biggest 

issues that faces America, namely America’s addiction to imported 

oil. 

We’re the largest consumer of oil in the world. We depend on foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for more than 50 

percent of that oil. Many of these countries share neither our security interests nor our values. 
4 

Transportation is the circulatory system of our economy. Without 

it, we can’t survive. Yet, with 95 percent of transportation powered 

by oil we have a system in which instability in the Middle East or 

natural disasters far from our shores or even market manipulation 

can cause a heart attack in the American economy. Heart attacks 

in the economy are not good. 

We need to take charge of our economic health, our economic future which means breaking our addiction to foreign oil. Since cars 

consume one-third of our oil, powering cars by electricity is a powerful strategy toward that end. A number of reasons why investing 

in electric vehicles is good. 

First, they promote fuel efficiency. It’s a surprise to many that 

burning fuels create electricity and delivering that electricity to 

cars is more efficient than actually burning the fuel in individual 

cars. So we get more bang for our energy buck. 

Second, electric fuels promote fuel diversity. Since electricity for 

cars can be generated from a diverse set of fuels including coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectricity, wind, geothermal, solar and so 

forth. 

Third, because of that diversity, the price of electricity has low 

volatility insulating America from the type of gasoline price spikes 

that we’re currently experiencing. 

Fourth, electric vehicles eliminate pollution from the tailpipe. 

Our fleet today emits pollutants that lead to asthma and contribute 

to global warming. Electric vehicles are clean, as electricity they 

use. Fortunately that electricity is getting cleaner. 

Fifth, the fuels that provide us with electricity will come right 

here from America creating jobs at home. 99.99 percent of the fuels 

we use to create electricity are here in America. We import .01 percent from Canada. 

By meeting our transportation energy needs from domestic fuels 

we reduce economic and security risks. We reduce our trade deficit. 

Half of our trade deficit comes from importing oil. When we replace 

imported oil with red, white and blue American made energy, we 

create jobs here at home. 

Sixth, the battery capacity of an electric vehicle fleet is a positive 

in that it can eventually create the capacity to even out electricity 

demand. For example, in some parts of the country cars can take 

advantage of surplus nuclear energy at night, base load energy. In 

other parts of our Nation, car batteries can help absorb surplus 

supply of wind energy. 

So let me turn to the design of the bill. Three main concepts. 

First is to prove the concept of electric vehicle deployment in targeted deployment communities. It accomplishes this by providing 

competitive grants to communities to accelerate investments in 

electric vehicle infrastructure including charging stations, code updates, work force training and so forth. In this sense it’s really taking on the chicken and the egg problem. 

Communities are reluctant to build the necessary infrastructure 

until there are enough individuals with cars. Individuals are reluctant to buy until the infrastructure exists. The goal of these deployment communities is to learn from the challenges in diverse areas 

in order to develop the best strategies to promote effective, cost efficient deployment. 
5 

A second main goal is to expand the use of vehicles in fleets. Our 

bill provides competitive grants to companies that have fleets such 

as rental car or taxi cab companies and also to change the law so 

the Federal Government could purchase electric vehicles. 

Third, investing in breakthrough battery research to bring down 

the cost and improve the battery life. This type of research will enable us to have batteries that are more affordable, last longer on 

each charge and extend battery life as well as reduce electric vehicle component costs and reuse spent batteries. It also creates competition to reach the standard of a 500 mile battery and awards a 

prize in that competition. 

Now there is a significant cost as our Ranking Member pointed out, pegged at $3 billion over 5 years. To place that into context 

during that 5 year period we will spend approximately $1.5 trillion 

on imported oil. So this bill calls for us to spend $1 for every $2,000 

we spend overseas out of our economy so that we can stop sending 

those dollars out of our economy. 

Keep them here. Keep them creating jobs here. Have those dollars circulating through our grocery stores, our small businesses, 

our Main Street businesses. So by spending a fraction of what 

we’re popping out overseas we can greatly strengthen our economy. 

I think both of us are deeply committed to finding that offset that’s 

necessary when we come to the point of passing this legislation. 

So in closing, for the American economy to thrive we need to 

have a smart energy policy that breaks our addiction to imported 

oil. Accelerating the deployment of electric vehicles is a key piece 

of that strategy. It will improve our national security. It will create 

jobs by spending our energy dollars here at home. It will improve 

our environment. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Alexander. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, distinguished colleagues, I appreciate the invitation to try to take 3 to 5 minutes to persuade you to do again what 

you did last year which is to report the Promoting Electric Vehicles 

Act to the floor. One difference is the price of gasoline is higher this 

year than it was last year. The bill costs less this year than it did 

last year. 

Last year’s vote was, as the Chairman said, by bipartisan vote 

of 19 to 4. This is an appropriate role for the Federal Government. 

8 to 15 pilot communities, battery research, short term, the billion 

dollars we saved in authorization, we saved by avoiding duplicating 

other programs. Finally if you believe the solution for $4 gasoline and high energy 

prices is finding more American energy and using less, this is the 

best way to use less. Electrifying half our cars and trucks would 

reduce our use of foreign oil by one-third. Saving money on fuel 

and stopping the sending of billions of dollars overseas. 

So instead of making the speech about—with the rest of my time, 

let me tell you a story. It’s the story of Ross Perot and how he 
6 

made his money. Back in the 1960s he noticed that the big banks 

down in Dallas were locking their doors at 5 o’clock. They had all 

these big computers that they weren’t using at night. 

So he made a deal with the banks. Sell me your unused computer time. Then he went to the States and made a deal with the 

States to use that cheap computer time to do all their data. He 

made a billion dollars. 

In the same way, we’ve got an enormous amount of unused electricity at night. Conservative estimate is that we have 65 to—we 

have an amount of electricity that’s unused at night. It’s equal to 

the output of 65 to 70 nuclear power plants between 6 a.m. and 6 

p.m. I suspect that’s probably our greatest unused resource in the 

United States. 

If we were able to use that resource to plug in cars and trucks 

at night, we could electrify half our—well, 43 percent of our cars 

and trucks without building one new power plant. We could plug 

them in at night at electrify 43 percent of our cars and trucks without building one new power plant. Very ambitious goal to electrify 

half our cars and trucks, take a long time to do it. But it’s the best 

way to reduce our use of oil. 

Another reason I think this will work is because it’s easy for consumers and I am one. For 2 years I drove a Toyota Prius that had 

an A123 battery in it. It increased my mileage up to 80 or 90 miles 

per gallon. I just plugged it in at night at home. 

I’ve now got a Nissan Leaf. I live in an apartment nearby. I plug 

it in at night. I don’t even have a charger. I just plug it into the 

wall. I can drive a couple of hours every day without buying any 

gas. Plug it in at night, had no problems. 

For that reason almost every car company is now making electric 

cars. So if extra electricity is available and they’re easy to use and 

car companies are making them, then why do we need the government to be involved? It’s a good question. 

One is the urgency of the problem. Four dollar a gallon gasoline 

is killing our economy, throwing a big wet blanket over it. The only 

solution is to find more and use less and this is the way to use less. 

Now to my Republican colleagues. 

One, we’ve been saying for 3 years in our caucus, find more, use 

less. We criticize Democrats for wanting to find more—for wanting 

to use less without being serious about finding more. We’re subject 

to the same criticism if all we want to do is find more and don’t 

have a credible way to use less. This is the best way to use less 

oil. 

Second, a criticism is this interferes with the marketplace. It 

does that, but in a short term, in a limited way. Short term incentives to jump start nuclear energy, to jump start natural gas truck 

fleets, to jump start electric cars for 4 or 5 years, I think are appropriate given the urgency of the problem. If I’m here in 5 years, I’ll 

be the first to say this should be the end of it. If not, I’ll come back 

and argue for its repeal. 

Third, and this is my list of arguments to my Republican colleagues. Conservative groups across the county have said national 

security demands that we do this. Gary Bauer, President of American Values, Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious 

Liberty Commission, have endorsed our bill saying that national 
7 

security concerns overwhelm any opposition to it. It’s the best way 

to displace our use of oil. 

Finally can we afford it? It’s a billion dollars cheaper. It is an authorization bill. Within the money we spend every year we should 

be setting priorities. This should be a priority. 

There’s some suggestion that this committee should also appropriate the money. I would respectfully suggest that we’re in a 2- 

year period where we have no earmarks because authorizers didn’t 

like appropriators authorizing. Let’s be consistent and say to authorizers, you shouldn’t be appropriating. Let’s just do the job of 

authorizing and then work together. Senator Merkley and I are— 

have pledged to each other that should you report it and it come 

to the floor we’ll work together to try to pass it without adding to 

the debt working with the Appropriations Committee. So in summary, thank you for the time to address $4 gasoline 

and high energy prices. We need to find more American energy and 

use less. The single best way to use less is to jump start electric 

cars and trucks. 

You approved it once before. The problem is worse than it was 

then you last approved it. The bill costs less than when you last 

approved it. It’s an appropriate role for the Federal Government. 

We’ll work with the appropriators if you report it to find a way to 

enact it without adding a penny to the debt. 

Thank you for your time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both very much for your strong advocacy for the bill that the 2 of you have introduced. 

Senator Stabenow has the other bill that we are looking at today. 

I want to give her a chance to briefly describe that bill before we 

call our panel of experts. 

If you have to go on to other business, we understand that. 

Thank you again for being here. 

Senator Stabenow. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, before my colleagues leave, I just want to thank Senator 

Merkley and Senator Alexander for a thoughtful and I think, exciting piece of legislation to really move us forward on all of the 

issues that you talked about, but certainly energy independence, 

national security. Wwe already have, with the investment we made 

in advanced batteries last year in the Recovery Act, an example of 

what you can do with a relatively small amount of dollars that create an explosion of private investment in battery technology. Senator Alexander, you mentioned A123 batteries. Their first manufacturing facility is in Michigan and so we are proud that you are 

using that battery technology. 

But it’s about jobs for us as well. That’s the one thing I would 

add. This is very much about jobs. So, thank you for your efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, my bill and I want to thank Senator Wyden for 

co-sponsoring it, really is a partnership with this vision of moving 

us forward on electricification which I think is incredibly important. The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act does a couple of things. 

Both allows us to broaden. 
8 

So we’re looking at a variety of technologies which I know the 

Chairman is very interested in as well. That we are looking at a 

variety of opportunities to look at technologies that get us off of foreign oil but also to look at batteries in a broader sense. Right now 

we’re looking at automobiles. That’s important. That’s a great first 

step. 

But I have seen trucks, not just service trucks, panel trucks like 

Fed Ex or UPS or others, but large trucks now that have the capacity to use battery technologies. Then talk about getting us off of 

foreign oil and using less gas. If we can take those technologies and 

move them to large vehicles we are doing even more. 

So, the bill that I’ve introduced which is very similar to the one 

passed last year, last September by the committee, looks to do that, 

bring all of the advanced technology partnerships together in one 

place. But broaden the way we’re looking at it. This is enjoy—this 

enjoys the support of the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, Electric Drive Transportation Association, Hybrid Truck 

User Forum, Alliance of Auto Manufacturers as well as a number 

of individual manufacturers, suppliers and environmental groups. 

This helps support our manufacturers and suppliers to make the 

most fuel efficient vehicles through a wide variety of technologies, 

which of course, will save consumers money at the gas station, reduces dependence on foreign oil and creates jobs which is so important for us. We are putting through S. 734. We’re putting a framework together for vehicle research and development within the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Program. 

We are improving the program to go beyond the traditional partnerships. As I mentioned by including suppliers because component 

parts whether it’s batteries or other component parts that have motors, engineering parts and so on, is important. Including medium 

and heavy duty trucks and that technology is very important for 

us in terms of saving energy. 

Under the bill Department of Energy would form public/private 

partnerships with companies of all sizes, with universities, other 

groups, to work on a broad range of innovative technologies like 

electric cars, hybrids, natural gas, advanced batteries, would look 

broadly at what we can do to jump start a number of technologies. 

I should finally just point out there is no price tag in the bill. It 

remains the job of the appropriators to decide where the funding 

will come from. We used the term such sums as are appropriated. 

We also keep the cost to a minimum by specifically directing the 

Department to avoid duplication with other agencies. 

So again, thank you Mr. Chairman. I think it’s very important 

that we bring our activities together in one place and focus them 

more on ways to really get us off of foreign oil by great American 

ingenuity and technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Stabenow for 

your leadership on this legislation. We appreciate your early and 

strong advocacy for what we’re trying to consider today. 

Why don’t we call our panel of witnesses today? Let me ask them 

to come forward. I’ll introduce them at this time. 

We have Mr. Patrick Davis, who is the Program Manager with 

the Office of Vehicle Technologies in the Department of Energy. 
9 

We have Mr. Seifi Ghasemi, who is a Board Member with the 

Electrification Coalition also, Chairman and CEO of Rockwood 

Holdings in Princeton, New Jersey. Thank you for being here. 

Ms. Genevieve Cullen is Vice President of the Electric Drive 

Transportation Association. 

Mr. Bill Van Amburg is the Senior Vice President with 

CALSTART in Pasadena, California. 

Mr. David Crane, who is President and CEO of NRG Energy in 

Princeton, New Jersey. 

So thank you all very much for being here. If each of you could 

take about 5 minutes and give us the main points you think we 

need to understand from your testimony. We will include your full 

testimony in the record as if read. So you don’t need to go through 

all aspects of it. But again, we appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Davis, why don’t we start with you and tell us the Department of Energy’s view on these 2 bills and anything else you think 

we need to understand. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK DAVIS, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Advanced Vehicles Technology Act and the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011. 

The transportation sector accounts for approximately two-thirds 

of the U.S. oil consumption and contributes to one-third of our Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. After housing, transportation is 

the second biggest monthly expense for most American families. As 

the President said in his recent energy speech, ‘‘In an economy that 

relies so heavily on oil rising prices at the pump affect everybody.’’ 

In addition the President outlined a portfolio of actions which if 

taken together could cut U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025. 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Vehicle 

Technologies Program develops and promotes energy efficient, environmentally friendly transportation technologies that will reduce 

petroleum consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions while 

meeting driver’s expectations of vehicle performance. Few technologies hold greater promise for reducing our dependency on oil 

than electric vehicles. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, the 

President spoke of his goal to have the United States become the 

first country with a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. 

Meeting this goal will help the U.S. become a leader in the clean 

energy economy while capitalizing on the ingenuity of American industry. 

In 2009, the U.S. had only 2 factories manufacturing advanced 

vehicle batteries and produced less than 2 percent of the world’s 

hybrid vehicle batteries. But over the next few years, thanks to investments from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 

battery and electric drive manufacturing, the U.S. will be able to 

produce enough batteries and components to support 500,000 electric drive vehicles per year. High volume manufacturing coupled 
10 

with battery technology advances and material cost reductions will 

lead to a drop in battery costs of approximately 50 percent by 2013 

compared to 2009 making electric vehicles accessible to more consumers. 

Making our cars and trucks more efficient is one of the easiest 

and most direct ways to limit our petroleum consumption and save 

consumers money. To help increase the fuel economy of the vehicle 

fleet DOE is investing not only in electric vehicles, but also in higher efficiency combustion engines, vehicle light weighting, ethanol 

and biofuel development, fuel cell electric vehicles, manufacturing 

and vehicle electrification deployment. The Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 includes several important provisions to promote 

near term deployment of electric drive vehicles which complement 

and supplement the Department’s ongoing activities. 

The Department recognizes the potential benefits of activities 

such as those proposed by the National Plug in Electric Vehicle Deployment program including technical assistance, work force training and a targeted communities program to facilitate the rapid deployment of plug in vehicles. We believe that such an effort will 

help create models and facilitate the local leadership necessary for 

faster, easy adoption across the country and would be a natural extension of the activities undertaken through our Clean Cities Program. The coalitions that comprise the Clean Cities network bring 

together State and local governments, early adopter fleets, local 

utilities, infrastructure developers and other key stakeholders to 

help advance the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles. 

These partnerships are proven and effective resources for sharing 

information at the local level and are prime to support the roll out 

of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure. We believe that both 

the work force training as well as the technical assistance component of the proposed National Deployment Program are vital to the 

successful roll out of electric drive vehicles. Again, the Department 

is well positioned to disseminate information and provide training 

and technical assistance to communities seeking to accelerate EV 

deployment. 

As an example the Clean Cities network is working today to 

share best practices and lessons learned about permitting and inspection processes as well as opportunities for code official and first 

responder training. The program authorizes by the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011 would complement several of the Department’s current activities focused on increasing vehicle energy 

efficiency. The Department supports an integrated portfolio of advanced vehicle and fuel research development demonstration and 

deployment activities. Ultimately Senate 734 would further support 

the widespread commercialization of advanced vehicle and fuel 

technologies to reduce U.S. oil consumption, strengthen our economy and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. 

In summary, the Department’s transportation portfolio will save 

consumers money, reduce our dependence on oil, reduce/lower our 

environmental impact and keep America on the cutting edge of 

clean energy technologies enabling us to build a 21st century clean 

energy economy. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss 

these issues. I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 
11 

1http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/vehicleslfs.pdf 2http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm 

3http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprintlsecurelenergylfuture.pdf 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK DAVIS, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, VEHICLE TECH- NOLOGIES PROGRAM, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department’s advanced vehicles 

technology programs. The Administration is still reviewing S. 734 the Advanced Vehicles Technology Act and S 948 Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 and does 

not have a position on either bill at this time and so this statement will provide 

only general DOE comments. 

The transportation sector accounts for approximately two-thirds of the United 

States’ oil consumption and contributes to one-third of the Nation’s greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions.1 After housing, transportation is the second biggest monthly expense for most American families.2 As the President said in his recent energy 

speech, ‘‘In an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect 

everybody.’’ Emphasizing that ‘‘there are no quick fixes,’’ the President outlined a 

portfolio of actions which, taken together, could cut U.S. oil imports by a third by 

2025. These include programs that would put one million electric vehicles on the 

road by 2015. 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE’s) Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) develops and promotes energy-efficient, environmentallyfriendly transportation technologies that will reduce petroleum consumption and 

lower GHG emissions while meeting drivers’ expectations of vehicle performance. 

VTP’s activities promote energy security, environmental, and economic benefits in 

both the near-and long-term. 

Few technologies hold greater promise for reducing our dependence on oil than 

electric vehicles. In his 2011 State of the Union address, the President spoke of his 

goal to have the United States become the first country with a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Meeting this goal will help the United States become a 

leader in the clean energy economy, while capitalizing on the ingenuity of American 

industry. Manufacturing products needed for the clean energy economy will generate long term economic strength in the U.S., creating jobs across the country while 

reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. 

EERE investments past, present, and future are critical to achieving this goal. In 

2009, the U.S. had only two, relatively small, factories manufacturing advanced vehicle batteries, and produced less than two percent of the world’s hybrid vehicle batteries.3 But over the next few years, thanks to investments from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) in battery and electric drive 

component manufacturing, and electric drive demonstration and infrastructure, the 

U.S. will be able to produce enough batteries and components to support 500,000 

plug-in and electric vehicles per year. High volume manufacturing, coupled with 

battery technology advances, design optimization, and material cost reductions, 

could lead to a drop in battery costs of 50 percent by 2013 compared to 2009, which 

will lower the cost of electric vehicles, making them accessible to more consumers. 

Further policies and research are needed to build on the work under the Recovery 

Act. That is why the President’s FY 2012 Budget proposes a new effort to support 

electric vehicle manufacturing and adoption in the United States through new consumer rebates, investments in R&D, and competitive programs to encourage communities that invest in electric vehicle infrastructure and regulatory streamlining. 

Specifically, the Budget proposes to: transform the existing $7500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the 

point of sale; advance innovative technologies through new R&D investments, building on Recovery Act investments, by investing $588 million for vehicle technologies 

at DOE; and reward communities that invest in electric vehicle infrastructure 

through a $200 million program which provides an incentive for communities to invest in electric vehicle infrastructure and remove regulatory barriers. 

GENERAL COMMENTS ON S. 948, THE PROMOTING ELECTRIC VEHICLES ACT OF 2011

The investments that we have made through the Recovery Act as well as those 

in the Budget align with many of the priorities that are reflected in the Promoting 

Electric Vehicles Act of 2011—though we do not take a position on the bill itself. 

Below, I will discuss some of the priorities included in this bill: 

One of the main elements of the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act is a deployment 

program in which communities would be chosen on a competitive basis to receive 
12 

grants that would be used to support integration of electric vehicles through means 

such as installing charging infrastructure, updating building codes. The Administration is supportive of this concept, which is why the President’s Budget includes $200 

million to reward communities for leadership in reducing regulatory barriers and 

developing comprehensive electric vehiclefriendly infrastructure. 

Specifically, this funding will support a competitive program within the Department of Energy to help communities across the country become early adopters of 

electric vehicles through regulatory streamlining, infrastructure investments, vehicle fleet conversions, deployment of EV incentives (e.g., parking, HOV access) partnerships with major employers/retailers, and workforce training. The FY 2012 Budget includes a proposal that would allow up to 30 communities across the country 

to receive grants of up to $10 million each on the basis of their ability to demonstrate concrete reforms and to use the funds to help catalyze electric vehicle deployment. This approach builds on bi-partisan proposals and ideas including some 

developed by the sponsors of this bill. 

The Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 includes provisions to promote nearterm deployment of plug-in electric drive vehicles, many of which may complement 

and supplement the Department’s ongoing activities, funded both through the Recovery Act and annual appropriations. However, as stated previously, the Administration is continuing to review this extensive bill and does not have a position on 

it at this time. 

S.948 includes provisions which would support technical assistance, workforce 

training, and a targeted communities program to facilitate the rapid deployment of 

plug-in vehicles. The bill’s targeted deployment program would offer communities of 

different sizes in various parts of the country an opportunity to execute various deployment approaches and develop best practices that can be shared nationwide to 

address critical questions about planning and managing vehicle and charging infrastructure deployment. 

The Department notes that the community selection criteria includes an emphasis 

on diversity of climate and type of electric utility. Such diversity in pilot programs, 

particularly across electricity-generation sources, would be crucial for estimating the 

environmental impacts of expanded adoption of plug-in electric drive vehicles. 

DOE is already examining ways to work more closely with communities on vehicle 

electrification and infrastructure deployment, particularly in connection with our 

Clean Cities Program. The coalitions that comprise the Clean Cities network bring 

together state and local governments, early adopter fleets, local utilities, infrastructure developers, and other key stakeholders in a community to advance the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles. These public private partnerships are proven and 

effective resources for sharing information at the local level and are primed to support the rollout of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure. Our goal is to better 

understand how the Department can support local community efforts to deploy EVs 

and infrastructure. 

To maximize the effectiveness of the targeted communities program, the Department would seek to coordinate this effort with related ongoing projects to deploy 

electric drive vehicles and infrastructure. Our Recovery Act projects for transportation electrification are building critical expertise through large-scale vehicle and 

infrastructure deployment, collecting data on vehicle-grid interaction and producing 

valuable lessons learned that can support and help to accelerate future deployments 

in other communities. We note that the deployment community selection criteria as 

outlined in the legislation, is crafted to help ensure that the selected communities 

stand up as models for deployment across the country. 

We also believe that technical assistance is vital to the successful rollout of any 

proposed national deployment program for electric drive vehicles. The Department 

is well positioned to disseminate information and provide training and technical assistance to communities seeking to accelerate EV deployment. As an example, and 

as noted earlier, the Clean Cities network is primed to share best practices and lessons learned about permitting and inspection processes, as well as other local ordinances and opportunities for code official and first responder training. I would like 

to note, however, that the Department plays a supporting role in the development 

of model codes and standards. In regard to this provision, we can bring value to the 

process because of our extensive experience working with code development organizations (CDOs) and standards development organizations (SDOs) to facilitate consensus around the development and adoption of vehicle-and infrastructure-related 

codes and standards. We are also working to enable the harmonization of codes and 

standards at an international level collaborating with the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Transportation, as well 

as with the private sector. Standards and codes for electric vehicles must be con-
13 

sistent with the broader Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) effort led by 

NIST. 

The Promoting Electric Vehicles Act includes several other significant provisions 

in addition to the National Plug-in Electric Drive Deployment Program; I will briefly 

comment on several of them here. 

• The bill authorizes a R&D program focused on advanced batteries, electric drive 

components, and other technologies supporting the manufacture and deployment of electric drive vehicles and charging infrastructure. These priorities are 

aligned closely with ongoing activities in the Vehicle Technologies Program— 

specifically, our Batteries and Electric Drive Technology subprogram, which includes advanced battery R&D and advanced power electronics and electric machines, as well as our Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing subprogram, 

which includes work to examine vehicle and infrastructure interface issues 

through testing and evaluation. Notably, the President’s FY 2012 Budget request will significantly broaden R&D investments in technologies like batteries 

and electric drivesincluding an over 30 per cent increase in support for vehicle 

technology R&D and a new Energy Innovation Hub devoted to improving batteries and energy storage for vehicles and beyond. • The bill focuses on Federal electric vehicle upgrades. I note that the Administration shares your commitment to upgrading the federal fleet and is finalizing 

the procurement of 100 electric vehicles. • The bill also discusses partnership with the private sector surrounding vehicle 

upgrades, an area where Administration policies are strong. Specifically, we recently announced the Clean Fleets partnership. This program is focused on 

working with private sector partnerships to help them become leaders in deploying advance vehicles—including electric vehicles—and technical assistance 

is a critical component of the program. In fact, DOE has developed a wide range 

of technical tools to help partner companies to navigate the world of alternative 

fuels and advanced vehicles. A diverse collection of cost calculators, interactive 

maps, customizable database searches, and mobile applications puts vital information and analysis at fleets’ finger tips. This is just one example of our activities in this area—and shows how important we think it is to offer technical assistance. 

• We also understand and appreciate the Committee’s interest in a technical advisory committee focused on plug-in hybrid vehicles. We place great value in independent reviews and external input to our program. You may be aware that the 

National Academy of Sciences National Research Council conducts independent 

biennial reviews of both our lightduty and heavy-duty vehicle research programs. 

• With respect to the new loan guarantee authorities included in the bill, we are 

continuing to evaluate these proposals. At a minimum, we would want any credit assistance to be the most efficient and effective means of achieving policy 

goals, and therefore any new authorities should comply with Federal credit policies to mitigate cost and risk to the taxpayer. 

COMMENTS ON S 734 THE ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2011

While the Administration is still reviewing S 734 and has no position on the bill 

at this time, it appears that the program authorized by the bill could complement 

several of the Department’s current activities focused on increasing vehicle energy 

efficiency. The Vehicle Technologies Program is meeting the transportation challenge with an integrated portfolio of advanced vehicle and fuel research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities. We are accomplishing this work in 

collaboration with industry leaders, national laboratories, universities, state and 

local governments, and other stakeholders. S. 734 could further support the widespread commercialization of advanced vehicle and fuel technologies to reduce U.S. 

oil consumption, strengthen our economy, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse 

gas emissions. That being said, we suggest that the Director of the program be appointed by the Secretary within the Office of Vehicle Technologies itself to facilitate 

better coordination across activities with similar goals and work. 

Further, it also appears that Section 102 ‘‘Sensing and Communications Technologies,’’ would unnecessarily duplicate the existing research, development, and 

demonstration efforts of the Department of Transportation’s National Intelligent 

Transportation Systems Program. We recommend against such duplicative Federal 

programs. 

In sum, the Department’s transportation portfolio will save consumers money, reduce our dependence on oil, lower our environmental impact, and keep America on 

the cutting edge of clean energy technologies, enabling us to build a 21st century 
14 

clean energy economy. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss these issues, 

and I welcome any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ghasemi, we’re very glad to have you here. Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SEIFI GHASEMI, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., MEMBER, ELECTRIFICATION COALITION, PRINCETON, NJ 

Mr. GHASEMI. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and members 

of the committee, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you regarding our Nation’s dangerous dependence on imported oil and the enormous opportunity presented 

by the electrification of transportation. While I’m here largely to 

discuss the Promoting Electric Vehicle Act of 2011, I would first 

like to take a moment to thank this committee for its ongoing effort 

to improve our Nation’s security. I would also like to specifically 

recognize Senator Stabenow’s legislation for highlighting the importance of research and development as we adopt new technologies. 

The Promoting Electric Vehicle Act of 2011 introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley and Lamar Alexander, in both my view personally and that of the Electrification Coalition represents a critical 

step in ending the very real economic and national security threats 

posed by our dependence on imported oil. 

I am Chairman and CEO of Rockwood Holdings, a global chemical company that employs 9,600 men and women in 100 facilities 

around the world. I was born in 1944 in the Town of Mashad in 

what is now called the Islamic Republic of Iran. I came to the 

United States in 1966 to complete my education at Stamford University. In 1970 I went back to Iran to teach at the University and 

work in the manufacturing sector. 

All was well until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. At that time 

I had 3 strikes against me. I had gone to school and worked in the 

United States. My wife was an American and Jewish. I had been 

a vocal opponent of the mullahs. 

Thankfully my wife and son were visiting the United States 

when the revolution occurred. I fled and met them months later. 

I was one of the very lucky ones. 

This is a very significant part of why I am here. I feel very passionate about the issue of our dependence on oil from those parts 

of the world. I know what oil dependence means. It means that the 

in power, oil producing nations such as Iran to defy U.S. Foreign 

Policy since they know we need their oil to run our transportation 

system. 

Oil dependence means that the enabled foreign governments to 

impose unreasonably high gasoline prices on U.S consumers who 

have no alternative but gasoline to run their cars and get to work. 

In 2008 alone, the United States sent $388 billion overseas to pay 

for imported oil, half of our National Trade Deficit. Department of 

Energy researchers have estimated that the economic cost of U.S. 

dependence on imported oil at $500 billion just in 2008 and have 

added up to more than $5 trillion since 1970, a third of our total 

national debt that we are all so concerned about now. 
15 

Between 2001 and 2008 the average price of gasoline increased 

from $1.46 to $3.27 costing typical households $2,115 a year in fuel 

expenses. Some Americans today are paying more for gas than they 

are paying for food. It would be ideal, obviously, if there was a free 

market solution. But there is not free market for oil, far from it. 

Today more than 90 percent of proven conventional oil reserves 

are controlled by foreign governments whose interests are often at 

odds with ours. The fundamental reason for America’s dependence 

on imported oil is the energy demand of the transportation sector. 

Transportation now accounts for approximately 71 percent of 

American oil consumption. Any shortage of oil will cause a massive 

destruction of transportation system threatening our national security and economic stability. 

But there is a solution. An electrified transportation sector is a 

viable alternative. We are not saying it’s the only alternative. But 

it is a very viable alternative. 

Electricity is a diverse, domestic, stable, fundamentally scalable 

energy supply whose fuel inputs are almost completely free of oil. 

The Promoting Electric Vehicle Act of 2011 is a great first step toward energy independence. The act would create a competition for 

cities and towns would compete to be elected as deployment communities where all of the elements of electrified transportation system are deployed at scale. These communities would move electrification beyond a niche product into a dominant concept. When 

the plan is implemented it would accelerate the production of electric vehicles, components and infrastructure across the country. 

Right now my company, Rockwood, is spending more than $100 

million to expand our operations in the United States in places like 

North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada. But the fact is that Chinese 

electric vehicles will need our materials as much as any other countries. As an American I want those electric cars made in the United 

States. 

Let’s not go the direction we have gone with personal computers. 

Designed by Americans but made overseas. A strong manufacturing sector is critical to a strong economy. A strong auto industry 

is critical to a strong manufacturing sector. 

The auto industry in the United States can be the world leader 

in a game changing technological leap forward by making the electric cars of the future. The opportunity before this committee and 

indeed before the entire Senate is tremendous. I truly believe that 

dependence on imported oil is a clear and present danger to the national security and economic stability of the United States. 

We can end our dependence on imported oil. We have the technology. The first step is passing the Promoting Electric Vehicle Act 

of 2011. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ghasemi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEIFI GHASEMI, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, ROCKWOOD

HOLDINGS, INC., MEMBER, ELECTRIFICATION COALITION, PRINCETON, NJ 

Good morning, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members 

of the Committee. I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak 

to you regarding our nation’s dangerous dependence on petroleum, and the enormous opportunities presented by the electrification of transportation. 
16 

While I am here largely to discuss the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011, 

I would first like to take a moment to thank this committee for its ongoing efforts 

to improve our nation’s energy security. I would also like to specifically recognize 

Senator Stabenow’s continued dedication to electrification. As her bill today highlights, research and development will continue to play a critical role as we adopt 

new technologies, and we look forward to working with her moving forward. 

I am proud to serve as a member of the Electrification Coalition, an organization 

made up of a group of business leaders who represent the entire value chain of an 

electrified transportation sector and who are committed to promoting policies and 

actions that facilitate the deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale. 

The Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011, introduced by Senators Jeff Merkley 

and Lamar Alexander, in both my view personally and that of the Electrification 

Coalition, represents a critical step forward in our nation’s effort to reach that goal, 

helping us toward ending the very real economic and national security threats posed 

by our dependence on oil. 

This is an issue I am very passionate about. 

I am Chairman and CEO of Rockwood Holdings, a global specialty chemicals and 

advanced materials company that employs 9,600 men and women in 100 facilities 

around the world. 

I came to Rockwood through a route that is probably a little unusual. 

I was born in 1944 in the town of Mashad in what is now called the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

When I was 15, I went to a special school organized and run by the international 

oil companies that, at the time, had the concession for the exploration, production 

and refining of the oil from Iran. When I graduated, I was offered a scholarship by 

the oil companies to go to graduate school with a condition that I would come back 

and work for them. But by then, I knew where I wanted to be: I came to the United 

States to complete my education at Stanford University. 

After I completed my education, I went to work with William Lear—the man who 

developed the Lear Jet—on his project to develop and build a steam-powered automobile. Even back then, we were looking for better, safer alternatives to oil. Steampowered cars and trucks did not turn out to be the route to the future, but working 

on them helped shape mine. 

In 1970, my wife—a third-generation American descendent of Russian Jewish immigrants—and I moved to Tehran, initially to teach at the university. I continued 

my work there in the manufacturing sector, working with the National Iranian Steel 

Industries Company to help develop a steel industry in Iran. It was an exciting, 

challenging time for me, my wife, and my son . . . until the Iranian Revolution in 

1979. 

At that time, I already had three strikes against me. I had gone to school and 

worked in the United States. My wife was an American and Jewish. And I had been 

a vocal opponent of the mullahs. 

Thankfully, my wife and son were visiting the United States when the revolution 

occurred. I fled, and met them there months later. I was one of the lucky ones. 

And that is a very significant part of why I am here today. 

This is not just dollars and cents to me. 

I know what oil dependence means. I know that the mullahs are still in power 

today at least in part because the West cannot and will not take overt action against 

a major oil-producing nation. Oil dependence distorts American diplomacy, subverts 

American goals, and forces us to accommodate hostile, brutal governments. 

The vulnerability of global oil supply lines and infrastructure has driven the 

United States to accept the burden of securing the world’s oil supply. Much of the 

infrastructure that delivers oil to the world market each day is exposed and vulnerable to attack in unstable regions of the world. According to the U.S. Department 

of Energy, each day more than 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies must transit 

one of six maritime chokepoints, narrow shipping channels like the Strait of 

Hormuz between Iran and Oman. Even a failed attempt to close one of these strategic passages could cause global oil prices to skyrocket. A successful closure could 

bring economic catastrophe. 

To mitigate this risk, U.S. armed forces expend enormous resources patrolling oil 

transit routes and protecting chronically vulnerable infrastructure in hostile corners 

of the globe. This engagement benefits all nations, but comes primarily at the expense of the American military and ultimately the American taxpayer. A 2009 study 

by the RAND Corporation placed the cost of this defense burden at between $67.5 

billion and $83 billion annually. 

And the threat to our economy is no less real. 

In 2008, when oil prices spiked, Americans consumed nearly 20 million barrels 

of oil a day—one-fourth of the world’s total. We imported 58 percent of the oil we 
17 

consumed, leading to a U.S. trade deficit in crude oil and petroleum products that 

reached $388 billion—56 percent of the total trade deficit. That figure fell back to 

$200 billion in 2009, but jumped to $265 billion in 2010. In the first quarter of 2011, 

with near-record volatility in oil markets and high prices driver by turbulence in 

the Middle East, the United States ran an $84 billion deficit in petroleum trade over 

a three month period. In March, crude oil and petroleum products accounted for 65 

percent of the monthly U.S. trade deficit, a figure which eclipsed otherwise strong 

growth in U.S. export strength. 

And the steps we usually would take to help strengthen the economy and create 

jobs in times of weakness are just as easily overcome by oil price volatility. The total 

effect of changes to the federal tax code from 2001 to 2008 code was a decrease in 

annual federal income and estate taxes by about $1,900 for the median household. 

But a typical household’s energy costs rose more than that. In other words, every 

penny that the most Americans saved due to federal income and estate tax cuts over 

those eight years was spent on higher gasoline bills. 

At the beginning of 2001, oil prices were steady at $30 per barrel. Over the subsequent five years, prices steadily rose, reaching $75 per barrel in June of 2006. After 

retreating slightly, benchmark crude prices jumped 50 percent in 2007, from $60 per 

barrel in January to more than $90 in December. In 2008, oil prices soared rapidly, 

eventually reaching their all-time high of more than $147 per barrel on July 3. 

Prices only came down when demand plunged along with the global economy. And 

now, with prices at the pump once again on the rise, we must ask ourselves how 

many times we must repeat this damaging cycle? Many of the underlying fundamentals that pushed oil prices to record levels are pushing them up once again 

today. Oil demand continues to recover, both in the United States and abroad. Unrest in the Middle East is only driving prices up faster. Historically, crude oil costs 

of more than 4 percent of gross domestic product have occurred concurrently with 

recessions. At between 4 and 5 percent of GDP, oil spending is reaching dangerous 

levels once again. Our nascent economic recovery is at risk. 

It would be ideal if there was a free market solution to these threats. But there 

is no free market for oil. Far from it: today, more than 90 percent of proved conventional global oil reserves are held by national oil companies that are either fully or 

partially controlled by foreign governments whose interests are often at odds with 

our own. As long as we remain dependent on those nations, we remain vulnerable. 

At the crux of America’s oil dependence is the energy demand of the transportation sector. Transportation accounts for approximately 71 percent of American oil 

consumption. Cars and trucks are 94 percent reliant on oil-based fuel for their energy, with no substitutes immediately available in anything approaching sufficient 

quantities. Any shortage of oil will cause a massive disruption of the transportation 

system, creating significant difficulties in day-to-day life which will inevitably lead 

to chaos. Put another way, when prices go up, we have only two choices: drive less 

or pay more. This is unacceptable. 

A new path forward begins with a statement of fundamental fact: As long as our 

cars and trucks are powered by internal combustion engines, we will continue to be 

dependent on oil. The solution can be found in something that nearly every single 

one of you has either on your belt or on the table in front of you. The lithium ion 

batteries that power our cell phones and laptop computers can one day form the nucleus of an electrified transportation sector that is powered by a wide variety of domestic sources: natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. No one fuel source—or producer—would be able to hold our transportation 

system and our economy hostage the way a single nation can disrupt the flow of 

petroleum today. 

Electricity represents a diverse, domestic, stable, fundamentally scalable energy 

supply whose fuel inputs are almost completely free of oil. It would have clear and 

widespread advantages over the current petroleum-based system: 

1) Electricity is Diverse and Domestic: Electricity is generated from a diverse 

set of largely domestic fuels. Among those fuels, the role of petroleum is negligible. In fact, just 1 percent of power generated in the United States in 2009 

was derived from petroleum. An electricity-powered transportation system, 

therefore, is one in which an interruption of the supply of one fuel can be made 

up for by others. 

This ability to use different fuels as a source of power would increase the 

flexibility of an electrified light-duty vehicle fleet. As our national goals and resources change over time, we can shift transportation fuels without having to 

overhaul our transportation fleet again. In short, an electrified transport system 

would give us back the reins, offering much greater control over the fuels we 

use to support the transportation sector of our economy. 
18 

Moreover, while oil supplies are subject to a wide range of geopolitical risks, 

the fuels that we use to generate electricity are generally sourced domestically. 

All renewable energy is generated using domestic resources. We are a net exporter of coal, which fuels about half of our electricity. Although we currently 

import a net of approximately 11 percent of the natural gas we consume, more 

than 80 percent of those net imports were from North American sources (Canada and Mexico) in 2010. And in fact, recent advancements in the recovery of 

natural gas resources from unconventional reservoirs like shale gas, coal bed 

methane, and tight gas sands have led to wide consensus that our domestic undiscovered technically recoverable reserves are well in excess of 1,000 trillion 

cubic feet. We do import a substantial portion of the uranium we use for civilian 

nuclear power reactors. Forty-two percent of those imports, however, are from 

Canada and Australia. 

2) Electricity Prices are Stable: Electricity prices are significantly less volatile 

than oil or gasoline prices. Over the past 25 years, electricity prices have risen 

steadily but slowly. Since 1983, the average retail price of electricity delivered 

in the United States has risen by an average of less than 2 percent per year 

in nominal terms, and has actually fallen in real terms. Moreover, prices have 

risen by more than 5 percent per year only three times in that time period. 

This price stability, which is in sharp contrast to the price volatility of oil or 

gasoline, exists for at least two reasons. First, the retail price of electricity reflects a wide range of costs, only a small portion of which arise from the underlying cost of the fuel. The remaining costs are largely fixed. In most instances, 

the cost of fuel represents a smaller percentage of the overall cost of delivered 

electricity than the cost of crude oil represents as a percentage of the cost of 

retail gasoline. Second, although real-time electricity prices are volatile (sometimes highly volatile on an hour-to-hour or day-to-day basis), they are nevertheless relatively stable over the medium and long term. Therefore, in setting retail rates, utilities or power marketers use formulas that will allow them to recover their costs, including the occasionally high real-time prices for electricity, 

but which effectively isolate the retail consumer from the hour-to-hour and dayto-day volatility of the real-time power markets. 

By isolating the consumer from the price volatility of the underlying fuel 

costs, electric utilities would be providing to drivers of grid-enabled vehicles 

(GEVs)—vehicles propelled in whole or in part by electricity drawn from the 

grid and stored onboard in a battery—the very stability that oil companies cannot provide to consumers of gasoline. 

3) The Power Sector has Substantial Spare Capacity: Because large-scale storage of electricity has historically been impractical, the U.S. electric power sector 

is effectively designed as an ‘on-demand system.’ In practical terms, this has 

meant that the system is constructed to be able to meet peak demand from existing generation sources at any time. However, throughout most of a 24-hour 

day—particularly at night—consumers require significantly less electricity than 

the system is capable of delivering. Therefore, the U.S. electric power sector has 

substantial spare capacity that could be used to power electric vehicles without 

constructing additional power generation facilities, assuming charging patterns 

were appropriately managed. 

4) The Network of Infrastructure Already Exists: Unlike many proposed alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, the nation already has a ubiquitous network 

of electricity infrastructure. No doubt, electrification will require the deployment of charging infrastructure, additional functionality, and increased investment in grid reliability, but the power sector’s infrastructural backbone—generation, transmission, and distribution—is already in place. 

Based on these and other advantages, a wide array of automakers is beginning 

to introduce grid-enabled vehicles into the marketplace. There are important differences in drivetrain architectures, with some vehicles relying solely on battery 

power (electric vehicles, or EVs) and others augmented by liquid fuels as well (plugin hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs). All told, automakers worldwide are developing dozens of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. By 2013, more than 40 models 

could be available to consumers. 

From just a handful of units introduced in 2010, the industry is beginning to scale 

up. Announced North American production capacity will exceed 100,000 vehicles in 

2012 and 350,000 by 2014. (These figures do not include trucks.) Additional volumes 

will reach the U.S. market from OEM plants overseas, particularly in the next two 

years. 

High penetration rates of GEVs could radically minimize the importance of oil to 

the United States, strengthening our economy, improving national security, and pro-
19 

viding much-needed flexibility to our foreign policy while clearing a path toward 

dramatically reduced economy-wide emissions of greenhouse gases. No other alternative to petroleum can claim these widespread advantages. 

The logical next question is how we can successfully devise and deploy an electrified transportation system. Here’s what we need to avoid: it has now been more 

than 10 years since traditional hybrids were first introduced in the United States. 

And despite government support and record high gas prices for part of that time, 

there are still only 1.9 million hybrids on the road in the U.S. today—out of approximately 250 million light-duty vehicles in the fleet. 

We cannot let electric vehicles turn into another niche product. We cannot allow 

their use to be limited to the environmentalists and technological enthusiasts who 

will buy those first waves of them. To make our nation’s investment worthwhile— 

and, more importantly, to truly combat our oil dependence—we must put ourselves 

on the pathway toward millions, then tens of millions, and then hundreds of millions of electric cars and trucks. 

It is not as simple as flipping a switch. Electrification on a mass scale is an enormously complex undertaking. The issue is not simply one of putting electric cars 

into showrooms. At the most basic level, the first commercially available EVs and 

PHEVs will be significantly more expensive than their internal combustion engine 

counterparts. The existing tax credits help offset that cost, but they hardly represent a transformative policy framework that will give consumers the necessary 

confidence to adopt a fundamentally new technology. For electrification to appeal to 

consumers, it will truly ‘take a village.’ 

For example, drivers will want to know that installing a charger in their garage 

will be a seamless and simple process that isn’t bogged down by weeks of red tape. 

For EV drivers, they will want access to some amount of public charging infrastructure so that they can feel confident as they complete a Saturday full of errands and 

shopping—or take the family on the highway for the great American road trip. 

The proactive engagement and support of utilities will be absolutely critical. 

Smart charging will make EVs and PHEVs an asset for the grid, but dumb charging 

will make them a liability. One analysis by EPRI found that plugging in just one 

PHEV to charge at 220 volts overloaded 36 of 53 transformers examined during 

peak hours and 5 of 53 transformers during off-peak hours. We are all excited about 

the benefits of using EVs and PHEVs to fill valleys in utility load curves, but this 

will only work if consumers have the ability to receive information that incentivizes 

them to charge their cars at night. Yet, most public utility commissions don’t encourage or allow time-of-use pricing. 

The bottom line is that, for this technology to succeed, the vehicles will need a 

network of support—both in terms of regulations and infrastructure. Without that, 

they will be relegated to niche product status. Consumers will have poor experiences, many of the 3,000 utilities in the U.S. will play an absentee role—at best— 

in the process, and we will have invested billions of dollars in a battery industry 

that finds stronger roots in Europe (where fuel prices are higher) and in China 

(where the public imperative is already stronger). We have to recognize that such 

a network of support does not currently exist in most places in the U.S. 

That is where this crucial legislation comes in. 

The Promoting Electric Vehicles Act would initiate a competition in which specific 

geographic areas would vie to be selected as large-scale deployment communities: 

areas in which all of the elements of an electrified transportation system are deployed simultaneously and at scale, thereby providing a crucial first step toward 

moving electrification beyond a niche product into a dominant, compelling, and ubiquitous concept. These deployment communities would be selected on a competitive 

basis. The most attractive regional bids would demonstrate a clear path to successful integration of GEVs, including: 

—A supportive regulatory environment that facilitates concepts like utility investment in upgraded physical and IT assets; time-of-use pricing; and a seamless process for permitting and installing level II EVSEs in residential consumer garages. 

—Support and participation from a broad swath of stakeholders, including state 

and local governments, utilities, utility regulators, large local employers, universities and others. 

—A diversity of business plans, allowing innovators and entrepreneurs to explore the most effective and efficient models for deployment. 

In sum, successful bids should be those in which all of pieces have been brought 

together—autos, infrastructure, favorable regulatory environment, interested consumers—to ensure that large scale deployment of GEVs has the best chance of success. 
20 

Once selected, deployment communities would be eligible for amplified, targeted, 

and temporary financial incentives for consumers, infrastructure providers and utilities. Upon completion of the program, the Secretary of Energy would be required 

to produce a final report evaluating its success, challenges and lessons learned as 

well as recommending whether to promote further deployment of electric vehicles. 

If the conclusion is that further deployment is warranted, the Secretary would provide recommendations on how many additional cities to select, updates to the selection criteria, changes to incentive structure, and whether other forms of energy storage should be included. If fully implemented, the legislation would aim to deploy 

a total of 400,000 grid-enabled electric vehicles and their infrastructure in the first 

deployment communities over a three-year period. 

We believe this approach is critical to avoiding the pitfalls of the past. These deployment communities would: 

1) Demonstrate Proof of Concept Beyond Early Adopters: A deployment community approach would drive significant penetration of GEVs into a limited 

number of auto markets, as opposed to very shallow penetration in many auto 

markets. By demonstrating the benefits of grid-enabled vehicles in a real world 

environment, this deployment plan will make consumers, policymakers and industry aware of the tremendous potential of electrification of transportation. 

In general, consumers are probably unaware that GEVs have evolved to the 

point where they can meet most individuals’ daily driving needs. In addition, 

electric drive vehicles generally have faster acceleration and operate more quietly than internal combustion engine vehicles. They hold out the promise of offering drivers a wide range of features, based on the electronic package in the vehicle, that are beyond our imagination today in the same way that iPhone applications would have been beyond our imagination a decade ago. 

The problem is that consumers are not aware of the opportunities presented 

by GEVs and are not yet convinced that they can operate reliably and 

affordably at scale. Concentrating investments and other efforts in a limited 

number of communities will accelerate the opportunity to demonstrate that 

grid-enabled vehicles can meet drivers’ needs. In addition, these projects will 

demonstrate that a community is capable of putting the infrastructure in place, 

operating the vehicles over their lifetimes, and disposing of them after their 

useful life has ended, all in a manner that profits the participants in the value 

chain. 

2) Facilitate Learning by Doing: While GEVs present a great opportunity, 

their deployment also raises a number of questions. Deploying large numbers 

of GEVs in concentrated areas will allow for the collection of information and 

experience that is needed to successfully deploy GEVs nationwide. It will help 

automakers learn how much consumers are willing to pay up front for a car 

that costs less to operate and has a lower total cost of ownership over its lifetime. It will allow utilities and charging station providers to learn when and 

where drivers want to charge their vehicles. It will allow utilities and other 

aggregators to learn who can best sell power to drivers and what types of rate 

structures meet both drivers’ and utilities and aggregators’ needs. 

Deployment communities will also help determine whether there is a viable 

business model for public charging infrastructure. It is clear that for GEVs to 

succeed there must be a model in which each party in the value chain is able 

to operate profitably, or in which the government determines that, as a matter 

of public policy, certain aspects of the system should be publicly supported in 

a manner that facilitates further competition. Deploying GEVs in a series of geographic regions around the country where resources can be concentrated and 

data can be collected and studied will ultimately accelerate wide-scale GEV deployment. Therefore, rather than allowing the market to develop scattershot 

across the country, it is critical that the market be encouraged to develop at 

a deliberate pace in clearly identified geographic regions in which a large number of vehicles can be deployed in a relatively short period of time. 

3) Drive Economies of Scale: Concentrating resources in a limited number of 

geographic areas will allow participants in the GEV value chain to take advantage of economies of scale, particularly with respect to the deployment of charging infrastructure. Utilities will incur fixed costs to support the operation of 

GEVs; those costs will be more affordable if spread over a greater number of 

vehicles. Power providers also can reduce the cost of charging infrastructure 

through economies of scale. While it is unclear how many public vehicle chargers will be necessary for a GEV transportation system to operate smoothly in 

a given community, it is clear that some public charging facilities will be needed. 
21 

Previous pilot studies demonstrate that the cost of installing charging facilities can be reduced significantly when groups of facilities are installed at once. 

Furthermore, these geographic concentrations will stimulate demand for gridenabled vehicles at a rate that is likely to be far greater than if the vehicles 

are simply purchased by early adopters scattered around the United States. 

Early on in the process, this higher level of demand will simply be the result 

of magnified consumer incentives. Subsequently, as individual metropolitan 

areas gain exposure to GEVs and confidence increases, adoption rates should 

be measurably expedited. 

In order to be selected, a community will need to present a comprehensive proposal, similar to bids to host the Olympic Games. Such a proposal would need to 

show capability and buy-in from a wide range of public and private players, including local governments, utilities, major employers, and more. 

Cities and communities throughout the nation will be eligible to compete for selection as a deployment community. And the bill makes it clear that in selecting deployment communities, DOE should seek areas that are diverse regionally, geographically, climactically, in terms of their urban and suburban composition, size, 

typical commuting patterns, and type of electric utility. 

We believe we will also see an important diversity in the business models that 

innovators and entrepreneurs will present to explore the most effective and efficient 

models for deployment. Again, the advantage of a competitive, market-based plan 

like this is that the best ideas have the opportunity to rise to the top. 

We believe the result of passing this legislation will be a great competition, a race 

to the top as communities fight to present the most fertile ground for an exciting 

new technological rollout. Even those that are not ultimately selected will have, in 

order to compete, taken steps that will ultimately make the adoption and deployment of electric vehicles and infrastructure more achievable within their borders. 

We’ve already seen cities and other localities across the country taking the first 

steps toward electrification, whether it is installing charging infrastructure, buying 

the vehicles for city fleets, or some combination of both and more. They see the benefits and are eager to take the next step. If we pass this legislation, I think we will 

see cities once again, as they have in the past, playing the role of experimenters 

and leaders in this exciting new technology. 

Incidentally, let me address a concern that others have brought up about this very 

aspect of the deployment community idea: that it overly concentrates resources in 

a small number of communities. 

I strongly disagree with this criticism. 

First, these plans do nothing that would limit or impede the current nationwide 

incentives for electric vehicles. Today, a maximum tax credit of $7,500 on qualified 

electric drive vehicles exists nationwide. Additional credits exist for infrastructure. 

This bill does not in any way impact the maximum vehicle tax credit available to 

consumers nationwide. What we are talking about is added incentives, which will 

spur added demand. 

Second, the benefits accrue far beyond the deployment communities themselves. 

While money will flow into these communities, they should more correctly be 

thought of as funnels through which a substantial portion of the funds will flow on 

their way elsewhere around the country. Much of the money that flows through deployment communities will end up in the towns and cities where the vehicles and 

charging infrastructure and their components are manufactured. When a factory reopens in a depressed area to build or support these vehicles—as we’ve already seen 

in places like Elkhart, Indiana and Livonia, Michigan—that is a real and tangible 

benefit for hardworking Americans. 

Third, if this program succeeds, it will drive down costs for electric vehicles for 

consumers throughout the nation. It will also set the nation on a path toward greater energy security and economic prosperity through sharply reduced oil dependence. 

This effort is about building a new transportation system from the ground up in a 

fiscally responsible, competitive fashion. That’s good for the entire nation. 

While electrification of the light-duty, personal-use passenger vehicle market is 

the most important long-term objective for increased energy security, the early development of the GEV industry will benefit from a more diverse market. Particularly during the period from 2011 to 2015, commercial and government vehicle fleets 

could represent a large share of the market for plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles. In fact, recent purchase announcements by a host of commercial entities— 

General Electric, FedEx, Frito Lay, Hertz, Enterprise, and PG&E to name a few— 

suggest that this dynamic is already rapidly emerging. 

Commercial and government fleet operators should be well-prepared to address a 

number of the early challenges constraining adoption of grid-enabled vehicles. By 
22 

matching the proper vehicle, battery and drivetrain technology to required payload 

requirements, drive cycles, and usage profiles, fleet operators can minimize upfront 

investment costs. Total investment in public and private charging infrastructure can 

also be efficient and optimized. Perhaps most importantly, grid-enabled vehicles 

could appeal to a significant number of fleet operators in a short timeframe. In that 

case, fleet operators would account for important early demand volumes in the development of the large-format battery industry in addition to catalyzing the rampup of electric drivetrain component supply chains. 

Nonetheless, the supply chains for many of the grid-enabled vehicles that will appeal to fleet operators—particularly light-and medium duty trucks—are still developing, and vehicles are being produced annually in the tens, not the thousands. This 

translates into a high cost structure—one that will certainly come down over time 

as the industry grows. However, cost reductions could be accelerated through limited public policies designed to minimize risk to early adopters. 

Recognizing these opportunities, the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act offers targeted, temporary incentives to both the public and private sectors to encourage early 

fleet adoption of plug-in vehicles. Commercial entities that commit to purchasing 

significant volumes of GEVs would be eligible for grants to help offset upfront costs 

of vehicles and infrastructure. The bill also authorizes funds to be made available 

to federal agencies to help offset the incremental costs of electric drive. 

In summary, this bill recognizes a simple fact: electrification will not move past 

niche product status without careful policy coordination designed to overcome early 

obstacles. I fully understand that this is a challenging time for suggesting increased 

government expenditures for any project, no matter how worthwhile. However, certain aspects of the threat of oil dependence and the solutions contained in this bill 

make this a unique issue. 

First is the urgent national security threat posed by our dependence on oil. While 

we cannot and should not ignore costs, threats to national security have always occupied a unique place of priority in our budget considerations. And make no mistake: the dangers posed by our oil dependence are not theoretical. Our safety and 

security are threatened by oil dependence, and every single day that we do not act 

is another day that we remain vulnerable. 

Second is the economic cost of inaction. Department of Energy researchers have 

estimated that the economic costs of U.S. oil dependence were $500 billion in 2008 

alone—and more than $5 trillion since 1970. 

And perhaps most telling: every American recession for almost four decades has 

been preceded by—or occurred concurrently with—an oil price spike. Simply put, 

you cannot have a healthy economy when energy prices are too high. This is something I cannot emphasize strongly enough: electric vehicles in general, and these 

proposals to deploy them in particular, not only can help strengthen our economy, 

but are critical to it. 

I work in a manufacturing business. 

Right now, we are spending more than $100 million to expand our operations in 

the United States, in places like North Carolina, Michigan, and Nevada. 

Now here is the truth: Rockwood Holdings is expanding, and will continue to expand wherever electric cars are made. As Chairman and CEO, I can tell you that 

Chinese EVs need the materials we supply just as much as any other country’s 

automobiles. But as an American, I can tell you this: I want those cars made here. 

Let’s not go in the same direction we have gone with personal computers: designed by Americans and made overseas. A strong manufacturing sector is critical 

to a strong economy, and a strong auto industry is critical to a strong manufacturing sector. So how can our auto industry revive itself, and regain the global stature it once had? It can be the world leader in a game-changing technological leap 

forward by making the electric cars of the future. 

The opportunity before this Committee, and indeed before the entire Senate, is 

tremendous. It may also be one of our last chances. I truly believe that oil dependence is a clear and present danger to the national security and the economic stability of the United States. We have made some progress in recent years, but now 

it is time to take the leap. We can end our dependence on oil once and for all, and 

the first step is passing the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011. 

Thank you again for your time and attention. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Appreciate your being 

here to testify. 

Ms. Cullen, go right ahead. 
23 

STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ELECTRIC DRIVE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

Ms. CULLEN. Good morning, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking 

Member Murkowski, members of the committee. I’m Genevieve 

Cullen, Vice President of the Electric Drive Transportation Association. I’m pleased to be here today to discuss S. 948, the Promoting 

Electric Vehicles Act and S. 734, the Advanced Vehicle Technology 

Act. 

The Electric Drive Transportation Association is the cross industry trade association promoting the advancement of electric drive 

technology and electrified transportation. Our members represent 

the entire value chain of electric drive including the leading and 

emerging vehicle battery and component manufacturers, as well as 

electricity providers, smart grid and infrastructure developers. Collectively our membership is building the vehicles, hybrids, plug-ins 

and fuel cells, as well as the infrastructure of an electrified fleet. 

We are investing aggressively and moving forward rapidly in expanding electric drive options to consumers. Plug-in passenger cars 

and trucks are already on the road and more than 20 models of 

battery electric, plug in and hybrid vehicles will be available by 

2013. Across the country collaborative efforts between utilities, 

charging infrastructure providers, governments and auto makers 

are underway. They are preparing communities, grids and consumers to take advantage of grid connected vehicles. 

In addition to the consumer interest in the arrival of grid fueled 

or plug-in vehicles. The ability of the grid to displace oil consumption also has significant national security and economic implications. The acute pain currently being felt at the pump, while not 

inconsequential, is just a recurring symptom of the larger problem, 

our dependence on foreign oil. 

We import more than half of our needs, as has been noted here 

today. Transportation accounts for 72 percent of that consumption. 

Electricity on the other hand is domestically produced from diverse, 

conventional and renewable resources. 

The energy security benefits of electric drive are accompanied by 

the economy wide benefits of growing U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership. Electrification of the fleet also has substantial 

documented benefits to public health and the environment. Still 

with all these potential benefits reaching commercial scale on a national basis is an enormous undertaking. 

There are 250 million light duty vehicles on the road. It will take 

about 20 years to turn the fleet over. The industry is working to 

bring multiple vehicles to market in the next couple of years. We, 

our members, are working to ensure that consumers in communities have the information they need to maximize their benefits. 

For national security, economic and environmental reasons we can 

and we should accelerate these electrification efforts with Federal 

policy. 

My statement for the record provides more detail, but I just 

wanted to highlight a couple elements of the bills before the committee. 

S. 948, the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act, takes a comprehensive approach to plug-in vehicle development and deployment. We 

support the establishment of a national program that includes 
24 

planning, technical assistance and work force training. These programs are vitally important to achieving mass market penetration 

at a national scale in the near term. 

Support for community deployment as part of a national effort 

can help move regional markets and can help aggregate information on charging needs and habits, grid integration and successful 

collaborative models between public and private stakeholders. We 

support giving the Department of Energy flexibility in determining 

the size and number of communities with the goal of maximizing 

both the distribution and the effectiveness of the effort. We would 

like to continue to work with this committee to identify the most 

effective balance between the national and community deployment 

programs. 

Further as vehicle electrification includes diverse technology configurations that meet equally diverse transportation needs. We also 

believe it is appropriate to include recognition of the applicant community’s efforts in deploying fuel cell electric vehicles in the program as the House counterpart bill does. We also support the bill’s 

effort to promote electrification in private and Federal fleets which 

can play a significant part in moving markets and in helping manufacturers achieve economies of scale. However, we would like to 

see a comprehensive approach that recognizes all the electric drive 

technologies including fuel cells and hybrids and provides flexibility 

in meeting fleet needs while reducing oil consumption in building 

markets. 

S. 734, the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Act provides an important road map for Federal vehicle technology research and development. The bill would ensure that the Department of Energy 

pursues a portfolio of technologies that includes near, medium and 

long term technology development. We strongly support such an 

approach. 

Another key element of S. 34 is its recognition of the extraordinary potential for efficiency advances in the medium and heavy 

duty segment. Although they are 4 percent of the vehicles on the 

road, they represent 20 percent in gas and diesel consumption. The 

U.S. is a leader in medium and heavy duty vehicle electrification, 

but emerging technologies are expensive to develop and to deploy. 

Public/private investment can help speed the performance advances 

in technology cost reductions in this segment of the market. 

Taken together these bills can advance us toward our national 

goals of reduced dependence on foreign oil, increased competitiveness in the global energy technology market and a more sustainable transportation sector. I thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN, VICE PRESIDENT, ELECTRIC DRIVE

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the 

committee. I am Genevieve Cullen, Vice President of the Electric Drive Transportation Association. I am pleased to be here today to discuss S.948, the Promoting 

Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 and S. 734, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 

2011. 

I would also like to express our appreciation for this Committee’s early and ongoing work on alternative fuels and vehicles and your recognition of the importance 
25 

of electric drive technologies in reducing dependence on foreign oil in the transportation sector. 

The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), founded in 1989, is the 

cross-industry trade association promoting the advancement of electric drive technology and electrified transportation. EDTA members include the leading—and 

emerging—vehicle, battery and component manufacturers, as well as electricity providers, smart grid and infrastructure developers and others. 

Collectively, our membership is building the vehicles—hybrids, plug-ins and fuel 

cells—and infrastructure of an electrified fleet. Because electric drive can be configured in many combinations and applied across vehicle platforms (including cars, 

trucks, buses and even bulldozers), it is able to meet the multiple, diverse demands 

of consumers and industry while displacing imported oil with domestically produced 

electricity. 

Industry is investing aggressively and moving forward rapidly in expanding electric drive options to consumers. Plug-in passenger cars and trucks are already on 

the road today and more than twenty models of battery electric and plug-in hybrid 

vehicles will be available by 2013. 

Across the country, in states including Arizona, Washington, Oregon, California, 

Michigan, Tennessee and Texas, collaborative efforts between utilities, electricity infrastructure providers, governments and auto makers are underway, preparing communities and consumers to take advantage of grid-connected vehicle options. 

In addition to the consumer interest in the arrival of grid-fueled (or ‘‘plug-in’’) cars 

and trucks, the ability of the grid to displace oil consumption also has significant 

national security and economic implications. Reliance on oil, and hence the global 

oil market, is extremely costly to us as a nation. The acute pain currently being felt 

at the pump, while not inconsequential, is just a recurring symptom of the larger 

problem of our dependence on foreign oil. We import more than half our oil needs 

and transportation accounts for 72 percent of that consumption. Electricity, on the 

other hand, is domestically produced from diverse conventional and renewable 

sources. The energy security benefits of electric drive are accompanied by the economywide benefits of growing U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership—instead of 

spending about $380 billion a year to pay our foreign oil bill. At the micro-level, 

electricity is 1/4 to1/5 the cost of oil—3 cents versus 12-15 cents per mile. 

Further, electricity prices are more stable and do not exhibit the volatility of gas 

prices. It is estimated that each one dollar increase in the annual average price of 

a gallon of gasoline reduces average American household discretionary spending by 

roughly ten percent. 

Electrification of the fleet also benefits public health and the environment. According to an EPRI/NRDC study, plug-in vehicles, even charged from a national grid 

that is dominated by coal, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one third compared to conventional vehicles. Pure battery and fuel cells vehicles use no petroleum 

and have zero tailpipe emissions. 

Still, with all of these potential benefits, reaching commercial scale on a national 

basis is an enormous undertaking. There are 250 million light duty vehicles on the 

road and it takes an estimated 20 years to turn over the fleet. The industry is working to bring multiple vehicles to market in the next couple of years and we are 

working to ensure that consumers and communities have the information they need 

to maximize the benefits of grid-connected vehicles. For national security, economic 

and environmental reasons, we can—and we should—accelerate these electrification 

efforts with federal policy. 

As set out in the EDTA Policy Action Plan, we support a comprehensive push toward electric drive that includes a robust public and private commitment to advancing technology breakthroughs with research and development. The Action Plan also 

calls for a national initiative to promote deployment of plug-in electric drive vehicles 

that includes support for regional deployment efforts. 

The bills before the committee today will help to advance electrification in the 

near term and ensure our technology leadership over the longer term. Deployment 

support and a consistent research and development policy will reinforce and expand 

what the market is doing, while creating U.S. jobs, increasing global competitiveness and enhancing our national security. 

My statement for the record provides more detailed comments on the bills, but 

I would like to briefly highlight some particular areas. 

S. 948, the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011, would create a national program that includes deployment planning on a national scale, technical assistance, 

that would include training on codes and standards for building and safety inspectors, best practices for infrastructure permitting and inspections, as well as workforce training for state and local government who need assistance in designing and 
26 

implementing their deployment programs. These programs are vitally important to 

the goal of achieving mass market penetration at a national scale in the nearer 

term. 

Support for community deployment, as part of a national effort, can help move 

regional markets and can help aggregate information on charging needs and habits, 

grid integration and successful collaborative models between public and private 

stakeholders. We support giving the Department flexibility in determining the size 

and number of communities, with the goal of maximizing the both the distribution 

and the effectiveness of the effort. We would like to continue to work with the committee to identify the most effective balance between national and community deployment programs. 

As vehicle electrification includes a variety of technologies and configurations, we 

also believe it is appropriate to include recognition of the applicant communities’ efforts in deploying fuel cell electric vehicles in the program, as in the House counterpart bill. 

The bill includes important provisions to promote adoption of plug in vehicles in 

private and federal fleets, which can play a significant part in moving markets and 

achieving economies of scale. However, we would like to see a comprehensive approach that recognizes all of the electric drive technologies, including fuel cells and 

hybrids. A comprehensive approach will provide flexibility for meeting fleet needs 

while reducing oil consumption and helping to build markets for advanced vehicles, 

components and infrastructure. 

S. 734, the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Act, provides an important roadmap 

for federal vehicle technology research and development. The bill recognizes the importance of a portfolio approach, not only in electric drive, but across conventional 

and alternate vehicle technologies. There are many synergies in vehicle systems improvements; federal research and development policies should maximize the overlapping values of these developments. Advances in battery and energy storage technology and reductions in costs can benefit hybrid, plug-in and fuel cell vehicles. 

The Advanced Vehicle Technologies Act would also ensure that the Department 

of Energy maintains a portfolio of near, medium and long term technology development activities. We strongly support such an approach. Incremental advances in existing technologies can have great benefits for the current fleet. But, as has also 

been noted here today, a consistent and forward-looking energy research policy is 

also needed to identify the transformational technologies whose development cycles 

may be longer than industry can support alone. 

Another key element of S. 734 is its recognition of the extraordinary potential for 

advancement in the medium and heavy duty segment. Medium and heavy duty vehicles consume more than 52 billion gallons of fuel each year and are responsible 

for 21 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Efficient hybrid and plug-in hybrids can increase the vehicles’ efficiency by 20 to 50 percent. 

Battery electric medium and heavy duty vehicles eliminate oil use entirely. Increased efficiency also means reduced emissions. For example, putting 10,000 hybrid 

electric trucks to work would reduce diesel fuel use by 7.2 million gallons per year 

and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 83,000 tons. 

The U.S. is a leader in medium and heavy duty vehicle electrification but emerging technologies are expensive to develop and deploy. Public/private investment can 

help speed the performance advances and technology cost reductions in this segment 

of the market. 

Together, these bills can advance us toward our national goals of reduced dependence on foreign oil, a more sustainable transportation sector and increased competitiveness in the global energy technology market. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and look forward to your 

questions. 

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

S. 948 

TITLE I National Programs 

EDTA supports the establishment of a national program to help deploy plug-in 

electric vehicles and infrastructure. With an overall goal of electrification of the 

fleet, we recommend that the required planning and petroleum reduction goal-setting include all the electric drive technologies. 

For grid connected vehicles, EDTA supports a robust national-scale effort that 

helps communities to plan and execute transportation electrification. 
27 

We support establishing national Technical Assistance and Workforce training 

programs as part of that effort. These should be of sufficient scale to meet national 

needs and national scale goals. 

REGIONAL DEPLOYMENT

It is important to establish the right synergy between the national program and 

the community deployment strategy to ensure that the overall effort moves us toward electrification nationally: The combined program should reinforce the efforts 

that are underway, help new ones begin and serve as a real time information source 

for the public and private stakeholders. We agree with the discretion provided to 

the Department to determine the appropriate number of communities and size of 

awards. 

As vehicle electrification includes a variety of technologies and configurations, we 

also believe it is appropriate to include recognition of the applicant communities’ efforts in deploying fuel cell electric vehicles in the program, as in the House counterpart bill. Alternatively, the criteria for evaluating applications to communities could 

also recognize communities that are also planning for, and investing in, fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure. 

ACCESS TO CAPITAL

EDTA supports expansion of loans and loan guarantees for fleet and battery purchases and infrastructure installation. Easing access to capital helps to build industry economies of scale, speed deployment and advance energy storage options for 

utilities and others power providers while minimizing federal outlay. 

FEDERAL FLEETS

S. 948 also promotes the adoption of plug-in electric drive vehicles in federal fleets 

by providing funds for purchasing vehicles as well as transparency and accountability for their use, which EDTA strongly supports. However, EDTA supports increasing the overall electrification of the federal fleet and we would also like to see 

a comprehensive approach that recognizes all of the electric drive technologies, including fuel cells and hybrids, which will provide flexibility for meeting fleet needs 

while reducing oil consumption and helping to build markets for advanced vehicles, 

components and infrastructure. 

PRIVATE FLEETS PROGRAM

Accelerating the adoption of electric drive in private fleets will help manufacturers achieve economies of scale while helping businesses reduce their fuel costs. We 

support the bill’s proposed private fleet program but would like to work with you 

to identify the most effective size for eligible fleets. While it is appropriate that the 

program leverages large volume purchases by setting a 100 vehicle threshold, it may 

also be useful to provide a mechanism to allow smaller fleets to access this option. 

Including a small fleet-set aside or a purchase aggregation option would help smaller businesses with car and truck fleets to avail themselves of more efficient vehicle 

options. 

TITLE II Research & Development 

We support S. 948’s expanded commitment to research and development Public 

and private investments are essential to accelerate technology breakthroughs for vehicles, components, infrastructure and grid integration and will help us reduce dependence on foreign oil and enhance our ability to compete in the global advanced 

energy market. 

Regarding the Section 204, authorizing a National Academy of Sciences study on 

collection and preservation of data collected from plug-in vehicles, due to the privacy 

and potential record-keeping liabilities for multiple information stakeholders, we 

would suggest that there be an opportunity for stakeholder input in the required 

recommendation for procedures, technologies and rules relating to the collection, 

storage and preservation of such data. 

TITLE III Miscellaneous 

UTILITY AND DISTRIBUTION PLANNING

Title III establishes a utility planning process for plug-in electric drive vehicles 

under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. As fuel and power providers, utilities need to identify demand and energy management and smart grid integration 

strategies. Protocols for the interaction of utilities and charging infrastructure entities will also need to be identified. The key is establishing the right balance between 
28 

national standards for charging technologies and flexibility in business models. Our 

members are currently reviewing the Section 301 federal regulatory directives to ensure that these are achieved. 

BATTERY DISPOSAL

Regarding the bill’s provisions prohibiting disposal of advanced batteries used in 

plug-in electric drive in landfills, we believe that at this time it is more appropriate 

to conduct a study to identify specific environmental risks and the best options for 

safe recycling and ultimate disposal before an outright ban is imposed on all advanced battery disposal. In the interim, promoting secondary uses of automotive 

batteries and advanced materials will ensure that these batteries remain in use beyond their automotive life and that their valuable components are recovered 

S. 734 

EDTA also strongly supports Senator Stabenow’s portfolio approach to vehicle 

technologies research, development and deployment. The bill authorizes a comprehensive program that recognizes the increasing role of sensing technologies and 

telematics and the need for advanced manufacturing to accompany advanced technology. Electrification has enormous potential in medium and heavy duty vehicles 

and will be critical in meeting new fuel economy and emissions standards. Establishment of a program to advance medium and heavy duty commercial and transit 

vehicles will provide a path for greater industry and government cooperation in 

speeding the development and adoption of electric drive truck technologies. 

Battery recycling research and development is also important in establishing secondary value streams of critical components and helping industry meet the highest 

environmental standards for recycling. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Van Amburg, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF BILL VAN AMBURG, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

CALSTART, PASADENA, CA 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, committee members and guests, thank you very much for 

this opportunity to talk about how to reduce oil use in transportation via advanced vehicle technologies and fuels. 

As we noted in our written testimony, the U.S. really stands at 

a very important opportune point right now in its history. Several 

of the technologies that we’re really talking about today and would 

be affected by these bills represent areas of keen American leadership in technology. They can support expanded job growth, both in 

our manufacturing base and in new high tech jobs that we hope to 

create. 

These are jobs that would be in our traditional manufacturing 

sectors. Such as the upper Midwest, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, but as well in manufacturing in high tech sectors all across 

the United States. These efficient technologies also lead directly to 

reducing oil consumption. 

Now my organization, CALSTART, has been intimately involved 

with advanced transportation technologies since 1992 when we 

were founded, across all fuels and tech. Our mission is really to 

grow this industry with the goals of creating jobs out of it, reducing 

emissions and increasing energy security in the transportation sector. We work with more than 150 companies and agencies to 

achieve this, everything from the large truck and car OEMs and 

suppliers down through mid and small sized technology innovators 

bringing new technologies to the market. 

Now we’ve said this several times, but transportation does account for 70 percent, roughly, of the petroleum used in this coun-
29 

try. So it’s a key target. The committee is right to focus its efforts 

on this. It often is not a well recognized fact. If we want to move 

the needle on energy security, we really need to focus on the transportation sector. 

Now a driving force of our work and for policies that we would 

recommend is to avoid what we call silver bullet single solutions. 

To support and encourage something we call silver buckshot. A 

portfolio approach of multiple technologies and multiple fuels 

which we think is what it will take to achieve oil use reduction and 

other co-benefits that we’re trying to achieve such as emission reductions. 

Now at its core there are really 2 strategies on the vehicle side, 

if we want to attack oil consumption, use less fuel to do the same 

work, really efficiencies such as in hybrids and electrics. Switch the 

fuel you use to alternative or biofuel or non-petroleum sources such 

as natural gas. Even better and we’re starting to really see this capability grow right now is to combine these 2 strategies such as approaches as biofuel or natural gas hybrids that we’re starting to 

see. 

It’s also, of course, important to know that we make sure that 

policies promote change across vehicle platforms. Now we all know 

passenger cars are pretty frankly, sexy. They get a lot of attention. 

But when we really look at, as we noted from some of the other 

speakers, for our goods movement, for commerce in this country, 

trucks and buses do the bulk of the work and they use about a 

third of the fuel. 

So it’s very timely. These bills do take on looking at how do we 

address bringing in the medium and heavy duty sector. It also happens on a per vehicle basis that it’s big bang for the buck. These 

large vehicles use far more fuel on a platform basis than cars do. 

They have a tremendous opportunity for cost effective fuel savings, 

as we go forward. 

It’s also an industry segment and I’ve spent my last 10 years in 

this. That is, facing new regulatory requirements from EPA. It’s set 

for greater fuel economy in this sector. Partnerships to assist this 

sector would be especially timely. 

The technologies and fuels needed to reduce oil consumption are 

just available though. That’s something that really has changed. 

It’s been a sea change in this country from the last 10 years. They 

are ready to move forward as we outlined in our written comments. 

Certain sectors, in fact, our prime areas of U.S. leadership, and I 

would call out medium and heavy duty hybrid and electric vehicles 

as an area where the United States currently leads the world in 

that technology sector. 

Now in working with manufacturers, suppliers and fleets trying 

to look across multiple technologies and fuels, they’ve identified 

with us kind of the key areas that would help the industry to move 

forward. 

They believe that this would be in purchase assistance to these 

early vehicles. 

Getting deployment going when we have low volumes and high 

costs. 

Longer term partnerships on research and development focused 

on efficiency and oil consumption reduction. 
30 

Partnerships with industry to help them shift their manufacturing to these new technologies. 

Now in terms of the legislation you’re considering based on the 

policy drivers I’ve mentioned, CALSTART supports the Advanced 

Vehicle Technology Act. 

It does focus on greater efficiency as a policy outcome. 

It encourages innovation across vehicle platforms, not just light 

duty. 

It addresses a key concern which is consistent R and D. 

We believe it will drive continued job growth in areas of strategic 

advantage to the United States. 

We’re also very intrigued with the Promoting Electric Vehicles 

Act. 

It is bold. 

It targets vehicle deployment across multiple vehicle types which 

is key. 

It really aligns with the Administration’s goals of expanding Federal Government purchases of advanced and all fueled vehicles. 

All of which are good. We would encourage that we look at these 

bills across a portfolio approach though, not a single issue. Really 

try and build a portfolio for this Nation across multiple, all fuels 

and technology approaches. 

Again, going forward we believe good policy that establishes performance goals is inclusive of a range of technologies and fuels and 

targets key areas of need that help encourage industry growth will 

reduce oil consumption, enhance energy security and also create 

jobs in this country. 

Thank you very much for the time to address you today. Looking 

forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Amburg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL VAN AMBURG, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CALSTART, 

PASADENA, CA 

CALSTART thanks the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, its 

chairman, ranking member and its members for the opportunity to testify and share 

our knowledge with you on policies to effectively reduce oil consumption in transportation via advanced vehicle technologies and fuels, including electric drive technologies. 

The United States stands at an opportune moment with these new transportation 

technologies. Several of these technologies are areas of U.S. leadership with significant job growth potential if they are expanded. They also directly reduce oil use via 

increased energy efficiency or fuel switching, providing an avenue for reducing oil 

imports, cutting operational costs for users, as well as reducing air emissions and 

improving air quality. The adoption of advanced technologies also importantly supports U.S. manufacturers building these leading-edge products here and for export 

to the international market. 

CALSTART via its national programs together with its industry, fleet and public 

partners, is working to speed the development and market adoption of high-efficiency, clean transportation technologies, such as hybrid and electric drive, and alternative and clean fuels, for the light (passenger car), medium and heavy-duty vehicle platforms—cars, trucks and buses. Via specific programs, such as our national 

Hybrid and Advanced Truck Users Forum (HTUF) partnership with the U.S. Army, 

our renewable natural gas (RNG) efforts, electric vehicle infrastructure and biofuel 

projects, we have identified the key benefits and also barriers to progress which we 

welcome the chance to explain. There is an opportunity for smart, targeted partnerships between industry and government to speed the impacts—in oil reduction and 

job growth—from these new capabilities. 

Our testimony will follow this outline: A brief introduction to CALSTART; the 

Multiple Solutions Needed to Reduce Oil Use; a brief overview of the State of the 
31 

1The NAC is the Army’s outreach arm to the commercial transportation industry, and is 

charged with both understanding the capabilities of the commercial vehicle industry and working to increase the capabilities of the industry to build advanced vehicles and technologies that 

can support emerging Army and military needs. 

Industry; and Gaps and Barriers. The legislation you are considering will be discussed as part of this structure. 

What is CALSTART? 

CALSTART is North America’s leading advanced transportation technologies consortium. It is a national, fuel and technology neutral, non-profit organization with 

more than 150 private industry company as well as public agency members. It is 

dedicated to expanding and supporting a high-tech advanced transportation industry that addresses energy security through reducing imported oil use while also reducing air emissions and creating economic opportunity. We operate across all fuels 

and technologies, and across all vehicle platform sizes, from two-wheeled vehicles 

through heavy-duty trucks. We target those solutions that can achieve multiple benefits. 

CALSTART serves as an unbiased, strategic broker to spur advanced transportation technologies, fuels, systems and the companies that make them. It works 

across four areas to expand and support this industry: operating technology development and demonstration programs with industry partners; consulting to ports, fleets 

and others on implementation of new fuels, vehicles and technologies; providing 

services to industry members to expand their capabilities; and supporting and guiding the creation of policies that increase the efficiency and reduce the emissions of 

U.S. transportation. 

CALSTART plays a leading national role in facilitating the development of advanced propulsion systems and alternative fuels. For example, it helped create the 

capability for heavy-duty hybrid drive systems in transit buses in program partnerships with DARPA, and now leads efforts in advanced commercial vehicle hybrids, 

fuels cells, hydrogen and biofuels. Founded in 1992, CALSTART is headquartered 

in California but operates nationally in its programs. 

As one example of CALSTART’s work across multiple technologies and fuels, one 

of our major programs in efficiency and oil reduction is the Hybrid and Advanced 

Truck Users Forum (HTUF). HTUF is operated by CALSTART in a unique partnership with and under contract to the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC)—National Automotive Center (NAC)1. Its 

focus is to speed the development and deployment of dual-use (military and commercial) technologies to increase the efficiency of commercial and military vehicles. 

It initially targeted market growth in promising hybrid-electric and hybrid-hydraulic medium-and heavy-duty drivelines and then electric vehicles, and now is expanding focus on alternative fuel-hybrids. The goal is to build a competitive, sustainable medium-and heavy-duty hybrid and efficient vehicle market. By working 

with first-mover fleets and targeting their vehicle performance needs for efficiency 

with industry partners, HTUF has proven to be a highly successful program to 

jump-start the commercial hybrid, electric and efficient truck industry in North 

America. Its track record of success, and the results in terms of industry development and product launches, has benefited truck makers and suppliers as well as 

military planners keen on supporting a dual-use commercial manufacturing capability for advanced trucks. HTUF is credited with removing one to two years from 

the product development cycle, and now works with more than 80 national fleets 

representing more than 1-million vehicles on the road, and all major truck makers 

and system suppliers. 

Another example is in renewable natural gas (RNG), a domestic, bio-based form 

of natural gas that adds additional domestic supply and can even further reduce 

emissions from clean natural gas. CALSTART developed first partnerships with 

Sweden, an early leader in the use of RNG for transportation, and has helped focus 

partnerships and funding on its production and use in the U.S. Each region of the 

nation has unique fuel opportunities, from waste and bio sources, that can be 

tapped to create transportation fuel. CALSTART has been active in working with 

second generation biofuel companies to assist their growth, as well. 

Similarly, besides work on the vehicle development side, CALSTART since its beginnings has been very active in electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and technology and built out with partners an initial 500 site recharging network for EVs 

in the mid 1990s. Today the organization is active in understanding with first movers the best strategies for new recharging site deployment at home and work site, 

and in particular the opportunities for commercial vehicle recharging. 
32 

MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS NEEDED TO REDUCE OIL USE

To successfully increase our national energy security and reduce our dependence 

on oil, particularly imported oil, requires a suite of technology and policy options 

and approaches. While it is tempting to fix on attractive single solutions, 

CALSTART strongly believes there is no ‘‘silver bullet’’ able to address our national 

energy challenges, no one fuel or technology that alone can effectively reduce our 

petroleum use to the degree needed. Rather, we have followed and recommend a 

‘‘silver buckshot’’ strategy, advocating a portfolio approach to policy, technology development and market support decisions. 

However, it is also important to note that focus is critical when it comes to the 

long term goal of reducing our oil dependence and imports. In considering the bills 

before you and others that may be proposed, this committee is rightly addressing 

the most important single sector when it comes to oil use: transportation. Nearly 

70 percent of the oil used in the United States goes for transportation according to 

the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Some assume that there is more oil used in 

power production or other uses. However, that is not the case. Therefore, to effectively address energy security and oil use, we must make transportation the top 

focus of our national efforts. 

There are two main strategies to successfully reduce oil use in transportation, and 

both are required to be effective: 

1. Use less fuel to do the same work—in other words, increase efficiency, such 

as with hybrid, electric drive and other technologies; and 

2. Switch to non-petroleum fuels, such as natural gas and bio-based fuels. 

Where these strategies can be combined, as in alternative fuel hybrids or other 

approaches, you can further increase your effectiveness in cutting oil use on a per 

vehicle basis. This is an area of high interest for technology and product development going forward and CALSTART is operating several projects around this combination strategy. 

At the same time, while it is critical to support technologies and fuels furthering 

these strategies, it is equally important to drive these strategies across all vehicle 

types. Partly because they achieve the highest visibility, passenger cars have received the bulk of the attention in the past when it comes to research and development partnership funding and in manufacturing assistance and market introduction. However, there is both a need and a strategic opportunity for greater focus on 

commercial vehicles—the medium-and heavy-duty trucks and buses that move most 

of the goods and provide the services in our country. Medium-and heavy-duty vehicles use roughly a third of the fuel consumed in U.S. transportation, and on a single 

vehicle basis are easily the highest fuel use vehicles on our roads. The fuel saved 

by a single truck can equal the fuel savings from ten to thirty or more cars. They 

represent a ‘‘big bang for the buck’’ opportunity for oil reduction that has been insufficiently addressed. However, this is not an argument to switch efforts from cars to 

trucks; rather, it is a request to include trucks (medium-and heavy-duty vehicles) 

with cars in all your policy decisions to increase their effectiveness. 

There is a strategic opportunity in this sector, as well, for economic leadership 

and job growth. The U.S. is currently the world leader in advanced efficiency technologies for trucks and buses, particularly in hybrid and electric drivelines, presenting a tremendous opportunity for job growth and even for expanded exports. A 

recent Duke University—Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness 

report identifies these technologies as areas in which the United States has a strategic advantage as an early leader. The particular areas it researched were electric 

hybrid and hydraulic hybrid drive systems and the growing high tech component industry supply chain in the United States to produce them. Indeed, CALSTART sees 

a tremendous opportunity for export of such components and products, given U.S. 

leadership. We are currently working on a program to develop industry partnerships 

for product export opportunities in these technologies to China with our U.S. industry partners. We have already seen growth in exports of such products as advanced 

natural gas engine systems from North America. 

Additionally, UCS and CALSTART last year completed a report on the economic 

and job growth opportunities from high efficiency trucks. Called ‘‘Delivering Jobs.’’ 

it documented that 124,000 jobs can be created along with $24 billion in economic 

savings over the next two decades through expansion of efficiency throughout medium-and heavy-duty vehicles. 

This is of even greater importance given the emerging regulatory pressure to increase efficiency from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are currently in a 

joint rule making process leading to the first standards for fuel efficiency in me-
33 

dium-and heavy-duty vehicles. The rules should be finalized this summer and go 

into effect as early as 2014. Policies that can support the industry’s work to develop 

and produce these new technologies will be extremely timely and helpful. 

In view of the above observations, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act (AVTA) 

you are considering can be of great assistance to industry to address both greater 

efficiency and the integration of non-petroleum fuels in vehicles. We applaud its inclusion of medium-and heavy-duty vehicles together with passenger cars and light 

trucks, as we strongly believe this properly acknowledges the contributions of both 

segments of transportation to oil use and its reduction. We need strategies to reduce 

oil use across all vehicles platforms, and the approaches will vary across vehicle 

sizes. It may sound trivial, but a big rig or refuse truck is not a car! While the high 

level strategies required are the same, as noted above, the state of technology and 

the effectiveness of different solutions will vary by size, use and type of vehicle. The 

AVTA could provide this segmented approach, because of its design, allowing custom 

strategies by vehicle type across all vehicle types. 

The proposed legislation also sends an important longer term signal that is critical to manufacturers and suppliers in the light, medium-and heavy-duty vehicle industry. Research and development efforts to date have often suffered from on-going 

changes in focus and sometimes the selection, in our view, of single solutions rather 

than encouraging multiple solutions based on performance outcomes. They also have 

short funding horizons that do not align with the four to five year development cycle 

of technologies into products, or the longer cycle needed to justify investment in new 

technologies. A multi-year horizon for a partnership and development process better 

fits what industry has said would assist it to focus its investments in new efficiency 

and fuel technologies. 

By way of example, recently CALSTART completed the report, ‘‘Speeding High Efficiency Truck Adoption: Recommended Policies, Incentives and Investments.’’ It was 

performed via research and a task force of industry stakeholders, including fleet vehicle users, manufacturers and suppliers. The findings from the report are highly 

instructive. First, they identify the top measures the industry feels would speed the 

development, production and purchase of more-efficient vehicles. 

The top measures identified by industry were those measures to assist vehicle 

purchase, thus encouraging greater production and supporting industry investment, 

and longer term R&D efforts, to partner with industry to keep the next generation 

of technology in the product ‘‘pipeline’’ and moving to market. The AVTA would address one of the top two areas of need that industry has identified as prime barriers 

to its progress and therefore to achieving faster and greater oil reduction. 

Secondly, it makes a strong case that R&D and other investments and partnerships need to focus on results that achieve multiple benefits, or co-benefits. For instance, while reducing oil use is critical for energy security, it would be counter-productive to reduce oil use through policies that increase emissions and therefore reduce air quality, or which export jobs from the nation. The most valuable approaches achieve these multiple benefits. Greater efficiency and targeted fuel 

switching can meet these goals. 

The report attempts to quantify and monetize these co-benefits, in the form of the 

public value provided—in this specific case—by greater efficiency in vehicles (in the 

report, trucks and buses). There are significant co-benefits that can be achieved 

with efficiency in vehicles, including direct energy security savings and criteria 

emission reductions. In place of efficiency as a metric, oil reduction could be a metric 

as well, assuming emission reductions and other benefits are met. In the face of limited resources and increasing needs for reductions in oil and emissions, we likely 

cannot afford only single benefit outcomes. Driving multiple solutions that can 

achieve these multiple benefits is smart public policy and also supports industry 

competition and growth. 

It is also worth noting in this context that the Obama Administration has just 

announced its plan to form a partnership with private fleets to speed their purchase 

of advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles. As part of this partnership, the 

President also made a commitment that by 2015 the federal government will purchase only alternative fuel, hybrid or electric vehicles for replacement vehicles in its 

fleets. This is a dramatic proposal, and one in principal CALSTART very much supports as it has the government ‘‘walking the talk’’ on petroleum reduction with its 

own assets. If actually enacted, this will send a strong signal to industry as well 

as contribute useful purchase volumes to help decrease costs. In this regard, the 

Promoting Electric Vehicles Act certainly aligns with part of the Administration’s 

goals and could help to support it. It will be important to understand potential overlaps between the legislation and executive branch commitments. 

This legislation also rightly encourages electric drive vehicle deployments across 

vehicle weight classes, taking advantage of the breakthroughs now occurring in elec-
34 

tric trucks and buses. By also targeting deployments in those regions most interested in and supportive of the technology, it can also support regional energy solutions, which, as highlighted earlier in these comments, is an important consideration for successful U.S. energy policy. 

There is certainly pragmatism and some focus to be gained from legislation and 

approaches encouraging important segments of this overall portfolio, which can be 

centered on specific driveline technologies or specific fuel types. CALSTART supports many of these specific approaches, but strongly encourages their consideration 

as part of a larger policy strategy and portfolio. Individual solutions should be supported as they combine as part of a broader strategy—for instance, a balanced policy 

of both increased efficiency and increased fuel switching. Longer term, CALSTART 

strongly supports moving to performance-based approaches to encourage this balance, with incentives and R&D driven and rewarded by their ability to achieve the 

multiple outcomes (oil reduction, emission reduction, job growth) desired. 

STATE OF THE INDUSTRY

Advanced technologies for efficiency, and effective alternative and bio-based fuels 

available for switching, are at a new threshold level in America: they are ready for 

greatly expanded deployment, support and use. Approaches that ten years past were 

still in early or developmental stages are more mature and increasingly cost effective, particularly on an operational basis when capital costs for ownership can be 

reduced at the time of purchase. The currently high cost of fuel is an important additional inducement to consider these technologies and fuels. However, the great 

price volatility of fuel confuses manufacturers and users alike in terms of when to 

make investments in vehicles with these technologies and fuels. Both the bills the 

committee is reviewing attempts to address the reality of these technologies and address some of their barriers. 

Higher vehicle capital costs—in the form of incremental cost beyond the conventional vehicle—are generally still relatively high because of low volume production 

and first or second generation designs. This is certainly the case with hybrid electric 

and hybrid hydraulic technology in commercial vehicles, and to a similar extent 

with natural gas and other dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, still in low volume 

early production. Hybrid technology in trucks, for instance, is roughly ten years behind its introduction in cars—they are different market segments. Additionally, 

there are also some barriers in terms of first-time costs for fueling infrastructure 

in the case of certain fuels and technology. This is true of the re-emergence of electric drive in passenger cars and its new emergence in all-electric commercial trucks. 

It is also one of the barriers to be addressed with natural gas and other gaseous 

fuels, though growing business opportunities exist for private infrastructure development. 

Having observed the early market stage of these technologies and fuels, it is important to note their potential effectiveness. Natural gas has made a strong case for 

itself in high fuel-use medium-and heavy-duty bus and truck platforms, particularly 

in locations where there is sufficient fueling demand to support investing in fueling 

infrastructure. All truck makers now have natural gas models. Transit and school 

buses, refuse collection trucks and cargo haul tractors are examples of growing early 

markets for natural gas vehicles. Infrastructure installed for these uses can have 

multiple uses for other natural gas vehicles, including light duty cars and pickups. 

The business case for a user is the low cost of the fuel which is significantly under 

current diesel and gasoline costs. Natural gas, while currently certified to the same 

emission levels as diesel and gasoline, has the potential for significantly lower emissions, as well. Several current and potential R&D projects are aimed at the next 

generation of ultra low emission natural gas engine. Hybrid technology, now established in cars, is just now entering early production in trucks but has attracted 

every truck maker to the early market with several platforms. The first production 

units were hybrid electric designs; this year the first hybrid hydraulic systems will 

enter production. Best uses include and provide options to transit bus, refuse collection, as well as any type of delivery vehicle, from parcel and package through heavy 

food and beverage tractors. Hybrid technology is now expanding into the tractortrailer market in heavy regional delivery applications. While it provides some value 

today in long haul trucks, it is not as well suited to provide reductions in that application currently as are other technologies, though that is likely to change over time. 

The business case is highly driven by fuel savings and some maintenance savings 

(such as brakes). All electric vehicles can perform exceptional roles in the light duty 

arena for commuting, urban delivery, and fixed route, return-to-base operations. 

Similarly, the medium-and heavy-duty electric truck and bus market is starting to 

grow by targeting similar applications. Ranges of 70-100 miles per day in delivery 
35 

and shuttle operations are starting to show potentially strong business case benefits 

and are proving out their ability to perform the mission. The advances in energy 

storage during the last fifteen years has provided this base and will now continue 

to improve, at reduced cost, over time. 

From this plateau and these initial capabilities, the focus of development efforts 

is now on better system integration and design engineering to reduce manufacturing 

costs in most of these systems. There is also increased interest in designs that can, 

in the future, combine alternative fuels with greater efficiency, such as with natural 

gas hybrids. Transit bus users are exploring this potential, and there is interest in 

refuse and other higher fuel use applications. Because of increasing pressure to reduce emissions under new EPA ozone rules now under review, there is also growing 

interest in zero-emission transportation, including zero emission freight haul, particularly in larger urban regions with large port and distribution operations. 

CALSTART is now working to outline a multi-year project to commercialize zeroemission freight haul vehicles around a major corridor in Southern California which 

will have need of further developments in all the technologies and fuels mentioned 

above. 

So far, unlike what befell the U.S. automotive industry until just recently, the 

leaders in these medium-and heavy-duty technologies are U.S.-based manufacturers. 

This is a significant advantage to the nation. However, that leadership is not assured. More than six truck makers and ten system makers are now developing products in first applications, but the effort has not yet achieved critical mass. To break 

out, these first efforts must succeed and expand. 

GAPS AND BARRIERS

Given these observations, CALSTART has identified with its industry and fleet 

partners the core needs for continuing momentum in technologies and fuels that reduce oil use, and they fall along the general stages of development: 

• Need for consistent, targeted funding of research and development in advanced 

vehicles systems and partnerships to assist manufacturers transition to new 

technologies • Need for funding partnerships with fleets and manufacturers to speed pilot 

projects and validate performance and reliability • Need for fleet-focused purchase assistance in the early market stage to speed 

introduction and rapidly increase manufacturing volume 

In terms of R&D, the core technology development needs now are for improved 

system integration and manufacturability, reduced energy storage costs specific to 

commercial vehicle designs, efficient components (to enable even greater fuel economy gains in all vehicles, and more capable hybrid and electric vehicles), optimized 

and downsized engines, advanced combustion schemes, power generation, lightweight materials, and advanced control systems. 

The commercial vehicle segment has not been a high enough priority for funding 

in the past. It has also been assumed that investments made in passenger cars are 

sufficient to support commercial vehicle needs. The truth is, there are important differences between commercial and consumer—truck and car—vehicles in terms of 

duty cycles, system architectures, market needs and business cases. A portfolio of 

smart, targeted funding over a multi-year period and covering all the stages identified above and aimed at the needs of the commercial industry would have significant impacts. 

No one approach alone will provide the full solution needed. Similarly, no one policy approach is sufficient. We strongly encourage a portfolio approach to technologies and fuels, balancing the strategy to achieve the end goal of reduced oil use 

via efficiency and fuel switching, or their combination. 

It is important to note that assistance is needed now. The industry is at a critical 

stage and on the threshold of a successful launch. However, this launch can also 

be viewed more broadly as the first stage of a transformation of transportation technology. What is required is a commitment to a portfolio of change over a longer term 

to send clear policy signals to the end user and manufacturer. Ideally, the level of 

partnership should be commensurate with the needs and the challenge. 

Again, thank you to the committee, members and staff for the opportunity to provide this testimony and share the progress to date we have seen in advanced efficient technologies and fuels that can reduce oil use and emissions in cars, trucks 

and buses of all sizes. These technologies are areas of U.S. national leadership, and 

together with the other benefits, can be important for job creation, export opportunities and economy growth. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 
36 

Mr. Crane. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CRANE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NRG 

ENERGY, INC., PRINCETON, NJ 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator Stabenow, Senator Franken. 

For the average American commuting in a gasoline fuel vehicle, $4 a gallon equates to approximately $200 a month. In Houston 

and Dallas, where our eVgo electric vehicle fueling package is being 

sold now, we offer an electric vehicle owners the opportunity to 

downsize that $200 a month to $89 a month, allowing an extra 

$111 a month or more than $1,300 a year. Money that can be used 

to build a better life. 

Above that with each electric vehicle that displaces a conventional vehicle we take a little step as a Nation toward eliminating 

our country’s 4 decade long dependence on foreign oil. We take a 

little step toward improving the air quality in our cities and towns 

which is deteriorating from tailpipe emissions. We take a step toward a consumer product driven revolution that will foster American technology, American entrepreneurs and American jobs. What 

will be a new and exciting sector of the economy. 

The goal of Congress at this critical juncture in the electric car 

revolution must be to turn each such little step into tens of millions 

of little steps that collectively make a giant leap forward toward 

national energy independence. 100 million electric vehicles, which 

would represent one out of every 3 vehicles on American roads, 

would eliminate our country’s oil imports from the Middle East. 

This is a worthy objective and we applaud you for focusing on this 

compelling national opportunity. 

As you do, however, we ask you to keep in mind that the electric 

vehicle revolution, like all great consumer product revolutions, will 

be driven primarily by the private sector and by the American consumer. There is much that you can do to enhance and accelerate 

the EV breakthrough. So long as everyone recognizes that the government’s role is to support and supplement, not super cede private 

sector initiative. 

So let me tell you a little bit about what the private sector is already doing to accelerate EV deployment. Significant market penetration of electric vehicles depends on 4 things, the car, the sticker 

price, the cost of use and the convenience of use. The car and the 

sticker price depends upon the auto makers. At NRG we’re taking 

on the cost of use and the convenience questions. 

Principally by attacking range anxiety, which is the single greatest drawback commonly associated with electric vehicle ownership. 

Our new enterprise called eVgo has begun a $25 million program 

to install a network of fast chargers around both Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth. By next year any EV driver in those cities typically 

will never be more than 5 miles away from one of our convenience 

chargers. 

We bundle unlimited and free access to these public chargers 

with a home charger purchased and installed in the EV owner’s garage and with all the electricity that EV owners can use for the flat 

fee of $89 a month. No matter what happens in the Middle East 

that fee is fixed for 3 years. 
37 

It’s cheap, easy, convenient and with it, the EV owner’s range 

anxiety instantly becomes range confidence. I can tell you while it’s 

still early days, we have gotten a very high percentage of EV owners in Texas signing up for our plan. We’re working on plans to 

bring this eVgo network to other suitable locations around the 

country. Other companies are developing similar plans in other cities. 

So what is it that the government can do? 

The government can help by assisting American consumers get 

over the high initial cost of owning EVs during this period when 

manufacturers are still going through the expensive process of 

ramping up large scale production both of electric vehicles and of 

electric vehicle battery packs. 

The government can help by creating and encouraging a range 

of convenience benefits for electric vehicle owners including most 

notably, giving electric vehicles access to HOV lanes on the Federal 

highway system. 

The government can help starting right here in your committee 

by reporting out S. 948. We suggest only that you scrub the bill to 

ensure that it in no way disadvantages communities and companies 

that take early action to promote electric vehicle ownership. Provide electric vehicle infrastructure on their own initiative. 

For as we have seen in the area of mobile telephony is where the 

U.S. Government facilitates rather than frustrates the private sector that American jobs are created and the American consumer 

benefits. In this case from a revolutionary product that ultimately 

will make the average American’s daily life cheaper, easier, cleaner 

and more fun. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID CRANE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NRG ENERGY, INC., 

PRINCETON, NJ 

Thank you, Chairman Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, 

and distinguished Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

before you today on the topic of one of the most exciting technological innovations 

of our era—the electric vehicle. 

INTRODUCTION

Today America is experiencing ‘‘de ́ja` vu, all over again’’. As the U.S. summer driving season approaches, gasoline prices have risen above $4/gallon in large parts of 

the country and the cost of one fill up of a full size SUV is trending towards $100. 

And not only is there absolutely no assurance that the gasoline price increases will 

moderate, every American knows that their hard won income going into their gas 

tank is headed from there straight overseas to help less than friendly foreign regimes. 

With the continued instability in the oil producing regions, we all face the prospect that soon may come a day when the long lines and short tempers of the 1979 

oil crisis again visit our shores and make us wish we could procure gasoline at any 

price. Back then, the U.S. Government responded by enacting higher CAFE standards and lower speed limits and by encouraging car pooling through the creation 

of ‘‘HOV’’ lanes, none of which have worked over the ensuing thirty plus years to 

curb our country’s addiction to foreign oil. 

But now, for the first time, technological innovation has produced a solution that 

has the potential to break our dependence on foreign oil. Mass produced plug in 

electric vehicles, powered by batteries with a range double that of the distance driven by the average American vehicle on any given day, are coming to various markets around the country as we speak produced by multiple American and global car 

manufacturers and start ups and more are on the way. 
38 

The electric vehicle revolution is happening and it will be driven, as it should be 

in the United States, by the private sector and by the American consumer. What 

the U.S. Government needs to decide is whether it wants to be a catalyst or a hindrance to the accelerated deployment of electric vehicles. Given the enormous geopolitical and balance of trade benefits to that will inure to the United States as a 

result of substantially reduced dependence on foreign oil, we feel strongly that the 

Government should support and supplement, but not supersede, the private sector’s 

initiatives in this critical area. 

EVGO

Our view is that vehicle ownership in the United States is primarily about the 

car, the cost (sticker price and operating cost) and the convenience of ownership and 

use. The car and the sticker price depend upon the automakers. Our company, NRG 

Energy, aims to address comprehensively the cost of use and the convenience questions. We have established a new enterprise, called eVgo, which has announced and 

begun implementation of a plan to turn the ‘‘range anxiety’’ normally associated 

with electric vehicle ownership into ‘‘range confidence’’. In order to do this, we already have begun a $25 million program to install a network of convenience fast 

chargers around both the Houston and Dallas Fort Worth metropolitan areas. 

We bundle free and unlimited access to this ‘‘freedom station’’ charger network 

with the purchase and installation of a 220 volt ‘‘home charger’’ in the EV owner’s 

garage and all the off-peak electricity the EV owner can ‘pump’ into $89/month 

charged through the car owner’s home electricity bill. Not only is our eVgo package 

exceptionally convenient, both from an ease of use perspective and from a billing 

perspective, it provides the opportunity for breathtaking cost savings to the American driver who otherwise will be averaging $150-200/month in gasoline bills at $4/ 

gallon. 

Our subscription model is a very different approach from the way Americans are 

used to paying for fuel, but I can assure you that they get it. While it is still early 

days, we are pleased to report that an overwhelming majority of electric vehicle buyers who have received our eVgo sales presentation have signed up for one of our 

plans. 

What we have done is just the beginning. Our freedom charger network in Houston and DFW will be fully built out by next year. We also are working on plans 

to expand these comprehensive charging networks to other cities around the United 

States. And we are not alone. Other companies, some in similar lines of business 

as NRG, have announced plans and begun efforts to deploy public charging infrastructure. 

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Like most new technologies, the cost of electric vehicles must come down in order 

to bring about mass adoption. But we have also learned through talking with our 

own customers and many others around the country, that auto buyers are becoming 

more and more excited about the value proposition of electric vehicles. Drivers have 

started to become enamored of the idea of conveniently charging their electric vehicles in their home overnight while sleeping, filling up their cars with fuel at a fraction of the cost per mile of gasoline, and the reduced maintenance on a car that requires no oil changes or tune-ups. 

The growth in demand and supply of electric vehicles can be accelerated with 

smart government policies designed both to enhance the convenience of electric vehicle ownership and to provide direct and indirect financial support aimed at helping 

consumers and businesses get over the initial high costs of new technologies like 

EVs, advanced batteries, and charging networks. 

Regarding convenience, there is much the Government can do at low to no cost. 

It can train. It can promote electrical standards and processes to expedite the installation of home and community chargers. It can require preferential parking allocations for EVs at Government facilities and can encourage the same at privately 

owned parking facilities. Most importantly, the Government can acknowledge that 

its decades-long attempt to promote car pooling has failed and it can declare that 

all HOV lanes in the interstate highway system henceforth are instead zero emission lanes. All of this, as I said above, the Government can achieve for little to no 

money. 

At today’s hearing, we are discussing the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 

(S. 948). This act would authorize the funding of deployment communities to encourage the more rapid deployment at scale of electric vehicles. We think there is a very 

real role for deployment communities as envisioned in the current Senate bill provided that the bill is modified to reflect that the leading deployment communities, 
39 

to a certain extent, are already being identified by private sector decisions, such as 

charger networks sufficient to provide full range confidence, as well as the current 

EV makers selection of the markets to which they wish to allocate their EV product. 

To our way of thinking, such communities are best thought of as ‘‘early deployment communities’’—places that the private sector has identified as having most of 

what it takes to make it attractive to invest in EV infrastructure. Of course, residents of these communities still need the key policy drivers for EV deployment— 

a break on the initial cost of the first wave of electric vehicles. 

However, not all communities are such attractive targets—for example, they may 

be too small or have too weak a distribution grid to attract early private infrastructure investment. Despite this, we believe EV infrastructure deployment should occur 

across the country, in a variety of communities, and for that reason the deployment 

community concept as laid out in the bill is a great way to jump start early EV 

adoption in such communities. 

But we think the bill should also be clarified to ensure that any community in 

which a private entity commits to deploy a critical mass of charging infrastructure 

should also qualify for additional cost sharing for cars and chargers—and additional 

incentives for the community itself to deploy convenience benefits. In fact, by 

leveraging private investment, we believe this approach, in combination with the existing deployment community concept, can spread existing federal dollars over more 

communities in more states, and help deploy more electric vehicles—leading to an 

earlier end to our dependence on foreign oil. 

In closing, let me say that this is an exciting time to be in the electric vehicle 

infrastructure business. I believe electric vehicles represent the next great consumer 

revolution, much like we have seen with the personal computer and cell phones. 

Buyers around the country have had the chance to see these cars and test drive 

them. A lucky few now already own a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf. Their response, 

and the EV ownership experience more generally, have been overwhelmingly positive. Government policy obviously affects the auto industry but, for all Americans, 

the car purchase decision fundamentally is consumer-driven. At NRG, we believe 

electric vehicle policies like those I have described today actually represent something we have needed as a country at least since 1979—a consumer-driven energy 

policy for the United States. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you all very much for your 

testimony. 

Senator Coons has to be over on the Senate Floor to give a 

speech. So I—at least I was advised of that. I wanted to give him 

a chance to ask his questions so he can take my place as the first 

questioner. Then we’ll go to Senator Murkowski and the other 

members and then I’ll ask my questions after the others have completed. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for accommodating my schedule. Thank you very much for convening this 

hearing on these 2 important pieces of legislation by Senator Stabenow and by Senator Merkley and Senator Alexander, who were 

here before. 

I’m from a State that happens to have a strong and early interest 

in the electrification of vehicles. I believe, as I think many of us 

do, that this has enormous potential for America’s manufacturing 

future, for America’s energy independence, for allowing us to retake the lead in the global manufacturing and delivery of cutting 

edge vehicles. So I’m strongly supportive of the Merkley/Alexander 

bill and hope to be joining them in actively supporting its adoption. 

Mr. Davis, if I might. One of my concerns is about the speed of 

the adoption of some of the critical provisions of the bill. In particular, deployment communities if we are to authorize a significant 

investment that will, I think, result in valuable learnings about 

what kinds of consumer issues are arising in the deployment of 
40 

charging stations and in the adoption of electric vehicles, not just 

by 2 to 3 percent of the population, but more broadly by up to half. 

There are some critical learnings there. If it takes 3 to 4 years 

for the Department to issue regs and do the competition and roll 

it out, it may miss a critical window. What reassurance can we 

have that the Department is prepared and able to rapidly act on 

the deployment community’s concept? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Senator for the question. 

I think we would act very quickly as we did in the Recovery Act 

projects where a month after passage of that legislation we had a 

solicitation on the street. We had projects selected approximately 

in August of that year. So that’s about 6 months after passage of 

the legislation. Then we went through the contracting process and 

most of those projects were in place within a year of passage. 

So we would act, hope to act, as quickly in this regard to implement this program. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. I think that would add a lot of confidence to folks who are looking to support this because I think 

early adoption speed is critical. 

Second, as we move forward in advancing battery technology and 

battery research. As Senator Stabenow referred to earlier, there 

was some key investments being made. Ms. Cullen, I’d just be interested in your assessment of vehicle to grid potential. 

The University of Delaware has done some fairly cutting edge 

work in this. There’s an early stage deployment underway. I’ve 

been really struck at the capacity of a future electric vehicle fleet 

to do what a number of the panelists have referred to, use the excess capacity, the enormous excess capacity that’s there. Then help 

with grid load balancing. 

What’s your view about how promising vehicle to grid technology 

is? 

Ms. CULLEN. Senator, you are right. It is a promising part of the 

grid fueled equation. At the moment we are making the vehicles 

work as vehicles. 

But the grid has enormous spare capacity. Vehicles can serve as 

an energy storage device and can maximize the efficiency of the 

grid’s existing capacity. Going forward vehicle to grid capabilities 

will enable the consumer and the utilities to both maximize the 

benefit of grid fueled transportation and allow the energy stored in 

the mobile load in the cars to serve as load leveling as in managing 

variable sources like renewable power. Over time if we reach the 

mass penetration that we’re hoping for that serve, as in fact, you 

know, a larger mobile load available to the grid. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Ms. Cullen. 

Mr. Crane, if I might. You raised some questions about making 

sure that the bill as it comes out of committee as it goes to the 

floor, not needlessly compete with or interfere with private sector 

efforts. I just want to commend NRG for the eVgo deployment 

you’re describing. 

My hope is that we will work to find a way that the match level 

and the timing and the details of the deployment community’s portion of this bill will in fact, complement those places in the country 

where there is some early stage deployment. Any more detailed 

comments about how you’d accomplish that objective? 
41 

Mr. CRANE. A couple things. We’ve had experience in the past 

couple years dealing with the executive branch of the Federal Government. There’s a strong strain in the Federal branch that if the 

private sector is willing to do something than the government 

shouldn’t be spending money in that area. 

So what—since this bill, if passed and appropriated, you know, 

put some pretty big incentives to become a deployment community. 

You don’t want the private sector to hold off investment hoping 

that, you know, that you could get that money. The other thing is 

we don’t want to have to compete against people who are getting 

things for free from the Federal Government. Even as we speak the 

package we’re offering in Houston has been duplicated in the city 

of Austin at a much lower rate because they were given a bunch 

of free chargers as part of the stimulus package. Of our $89 package, approximately $30 a month is actually to 

pay for the cost of the charger that goes into your home. So you 

just have to be careful about the effect, the potential for distortions. 

Having said that, we think if the deployment community thing is 

done right, it can be very effective. As long as early—as long as 

communities that go early are not prejudiced relative to other people who may be waiting to start. 

Senator COONS. Thank you for the input. Thank you to all the 

members of the committee. I am particularly grateful for the hard 

work the Electrification Coalition has done and SAFE has done in 

advocating for this. I look forward to supporting this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for accommodating my schedule. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 

the witnesses here this morning. I have to tell you that when we 

first looked or when I first looked at the community deployment, 

I thought this is not going to work in my State. The range is just 

too great. 

I forget which one of you mentioned range anxiety. But when it’s 

365 miles from one big town to the only second other big town, 

there’s a lot of anxiety along the road. But we’ve got a lot of island 

communities. Island communities that are powered by hydropower, 

clean energy resource that we’re looking at and saying we could 

make a difference here. So again the technologies are exciting. 

I wanted to ask you a question, Mr. Davis, about the legislation 

that we have before us, S. 948. The proposal there as contrasted 

with the Administration’s proposal. Their FY 2012 budget request 

seeks to provide up to 30 communities with up to $10 million each 

to help deploy the electric vehicles under 948 the number is going 

to rise 25 fold, 250 million per community. So we’ve got 2 proposals. One with $300 million in total funding. Another with $2 billion in total funding. Which is the right number 

to begin really moving out? Is it somewhere in between or can you 

speak? Because there’s a lot of ground in between $300 million and 

$2 billion. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, I appreciate your question, Senator. Fully recognize the large difference between the 2. However, the goals of the 

2 programs are similar. 

To work with cities to remove barriers to EV adoption. 
42 

To streamline permitting. 

To put in place policy measures. 

Ultimately to help install charging infrastructures as well as encourage vehicle adoption. In the Administration’s program, which was a $200 million total effort, we envisioned up to 30 awards up to about $10 million each. 

We did envision that as a shorter term program than what’s envisioned in the bill. We would like to get it out quickly and help jump 

start this market. 

Obviously the larger program in the bill would last longer term. 

Help us move farther down the road, if you will. Sorry for the driving metaphor. 

But I think ultimately the most important thing is to balance the 

roll out of vehicles with programs like this. So obviously our shorter term and smaller effort as proposed by the Administration needs 

to be—needs to work in concert with the roll out of vehicles and 

the numbers of vehicles as they roll out. Same thing with the larger program, you wouldn’t want to pre-build infrastructure before 

the vehicles are there. 

So we would have to look carefully at the proposed introduction 

of those vehicles and time it with the implementation of the larger 

program. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask a question that is often asked 

here in this committee. That’s whether it’s appropriate that we be 

picking winners and losers. We’re talking about electric vehicles 

here. Sometimes we don’t have a very good track record when we 

try to pick who we think the winners should be. 

Should we consider allowing natural gas and other alternative 

fuels to at least qualify, especially if it looks like these fuels are 

going to be more cost effective or if perhaps electric vehicles aren’t 

going to be available in sufficient quantities? I throw that out to 

the panel. Because I think it is something that we need to discuss 

here. 

Mr. Ghasemi. 

Mr. GHASEMI. Thank you. Our proposition here is that our national security and economic stability is threatened by imported oil. 

Whatever we can do to reduce imported oil, we are for it. 

If we can drill more and we have the reserves, do that. We 

should support that. 

If we can increase fuel efficiency so that we use less gas, that 

would be good. 

If we can use natural gas to power our heavy trucks, that’s a 

good idea. 

What we are saying is that electrification of transportation is a 

technology that we have. The technologies in your hand or in your 

pocket, or in front of you in form of the cell phones and laptops 

that you have, that—a bigger version of that lithium ion battery 

will drive the car. There is nothing new about this. 

We have the infrastructure. Every house in this country has a 

garage. Every street has a lamp post. 

Therefore, electrification of coalition presents a very immediate 

and interesting option. That’s what we are asking for your support. 

We are not asking for your support at the exclusion of other alternatives. 
43 

The other alternatives are good. They have their own merit. I 

hope that there is enough money to push all of these programs. 

But electrification is a technology which is here and it can be 

done very quickly. I think adoption of that and the rate of production, you mentioned about are the cars available? The cars are 

going to be made available if the consumers demand them. The 

consumers will demand that if the infrastructure is there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You all seem to be nodding your heads. So 

I will take that as assent. 

Mr. Van Amburg. 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. I would just build on that in the sense that 

I think 2 things. I firmly believe that electric drive technologies, 

hybrid, electric and others are real strategic opportunity for our 

country right now. I do think that we have some opportunities we 

do want to push forward. 

Having said that, I do think that we really do need to have this 

portfolio of approaches. So as you, as a committee, and as the Senate looks at these various bills that will be coming forward. I think 

it would be good to be looking at having a portfolio of choices that 

we can have. 

Whether those happen in one very large bill which is often very 

difficult to pass or a smart collection of smaller bills that can put 

together the different fuels and technology approaches that really 

are on the cusp and need to be pushed forward. We would certainly 

approve of that. 

I think down the road I would recommend that one of the things 

we should be thinking about is performance standards. I think having incentives of R and D based around the performance goals we 

want to achieve. Let’s say it’s energy security, petroleum reduction. 

Then allowing whatever can best achieve that to move forward 

and get incentives or support would be a wise strategy to look at. 

I think now we certainly see a couple of key strategic opportunities 

for key technologies to move forward. But I think long term we 

should be thinking about performance based standards. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think it’s a great hearing. I’m just really 

glad we’re having this. Thank you both to the chairman and the 

ranking member. 

Electric vehicles and hybrid electrics along with biofuels are 

going to be key to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and imported oil in the future. Mr. Ghasemi, I agree with you. It’s a national security issue. 

I’m proud to say that according to the Department of Energy’s 

Clean Cities Program, St. Paul based twin cities, Clean Cities Coalition displaced 134 million gallons of gasoline, more than any 

other coalition from 2005 to 2009. St. Paul has been partnering 

with the Department to roll out electric vehicle charging stations 

and purchase electric vehicles for the city fleet which is something 

that government can do. So I think they would be well positioned 

to take advantage of the policies that we’re discussing in these 

bills. 
44 

I have a few questions just about the overall technology and the 

different models for charging vehicles. I’d just like to throw this 

out. I’ll throw this to anybody. 

The Israeli model to me is very interesting which is essentially 

if you use propane you use your propane tank and then you go in 

and you go to the hardware store or the propane store and get a 

full tank. You hand in your empty tank and get a full tank. So in 

Israel what they’re talking about is you drive up to the charging 

station, I guess. They just, 

[pop], pull out your battery and, 

[pop], and put in a charged one. 

I mean, I think it’s good mainly because of the sound effects. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. But also it seems it would be fast and then 

the charging station would have the technology to charge. You 

wouldn’t have to do that yourself at home. Although I think doing 

it at home is not such a bad idea. 

What are the strengths of that in this country and the shortcomings? I understand Israel is a smaller country. 

Mr. CRANE. If I could—well first the fact that it’s a smaller country is important. 

Senator FRANKEN. That’s why I mentioned it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CRANE. Yes. I think the second thing is that in Israel a large 

number of the cars are company cars. Apparently, I’m no expert on 

this, but Israelis are used to a uniformity of car choice that we 

think American consumers would not accept that people want to 

want them because one of the things about taking batteries in and 

out is you have to have a fairly standard configuration of where 

that battery is on the car and what it looks like. 

The third thing from our perspective and I should say the company that’s doing that in Israel also wants to do things in the 

United States. So they would have a very different point of view, 

you know, from our company. But I think the third thing that concerns us is that the battery pack is the most expensive part of the 

electric vehicle. 

So the battery switching model requires that you have an inventory of spare batteries and the equivalent of service stations in this 

country. From our perspective we don’t see how that could possibly 

be the most cost effective model to have to stockpile an inventory 

of what’s the most expensive part of the car. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, but presumably, you know, you’d just be 

charging it and then giving that one to the next car. I mean, it 

wouldn’t be that—— 

Mr. CRANE. No, but I mean when you limp into a station if they 

don’t have a charged battery, you know, so—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Right and you’d have to have—yes, yes. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, there needs to be a cushion, you know, in terms 

of—— 

Senator FRANKEN. OK, but you’re a kind of company there being 

competition. Is anybody from a company or from a standpoint of 

not in competition? 

Ms. CULLEN. Senator, I have members who are in various models 

of—— 
45 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. 

Ms. CULLEN. Charging. As Mr. Crane points out there are areas 

in which battery swapping actually is suitable. It’s Hawaii, Israel, 

perhaps the island communities that Senator Murkowski talked 

about where there is a uniformity in battery and in cars. 

Again, as was pointed out there is a great diversity in cars and 

batteries and that cost carrying an inventory of these batteries is 

expensive. The beauty of the electrification—the suite of electrification technologies is there’s a lot of different vehicles and configurations. There’s a lot of ways to go about charging. 

If you want to be a person like Senator Alexander said, he 

doesn’t even have a charger. He just uses the 120. He just, you 

know, plugs in at home. Whether you want to have a 220 charger 

to speed things up. Whether you want to charge at work and have 

that as your primary charge spot. There are lots of options that— 

Senator FRANKEN. What I liked about charging at night, of 

course, is something you mentioned, which is you can do it in off 

peak hours. I think that would be a wonderful way. I know I’m 

running out—I’m out of time. 

But I think that’s a wonderful aspect of this which is that we 

have this excess capacity that we could be using at night. That’s 

when the wind blows more often than during the day. So this intermittent technology, like wind, could be of greater use. 

I think that’s another—that’s an advantage to doing it, obviously 

at home. But at the charging station they could use the benefit of 

that as well. 

Thank you. I’m out of time. But this is, you know, an unbelievable potential. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, again, Mr. Chairman 

and Ranking Member Murkowski for holding the hearing. To all of 

you, I think this is a very, very important discussion. Personally 

I believe that as whether it’s from jump starting the economy or 

getting off of foreign oil or jobs. I mean, when you look at what we 

can do around energy, having a comprehensive energy policy, being 

aggressive, being focused on where we can save dollars, save energy. This really is the discussion that I think we need to be having. 

I would say just to start and I have some questions. But I think 

it’s important to note that we really have moved down the road. I 

mean, we’re half way down the road on advanced batteries and 

electric vehicles. I think this is important to note. 

I mean, we—just as we have done, I think, back starting maybe 

before but certainly 1916 with incentives on oil and gas exploration 

which made sense to be able to drive a new industry. We were putting incentives in. We put incentives in on loan guarantees or on 

nuclear. 

We do various things to be able to encourage technologies that 

we think are important. We did that in the Recovery Act with the 

$2 billion in batteries investments. Which have really exploded in 

terms of what we’ve been able to do already. 

But we’ve also done that in tax policy with things like up to 

7,$500 to purchase a new vehicle. I mean, we have started down 

this road. So my interest and sense of urgency about what we’re 
46 

talking about with Senator Merkley and Senator Alexander’s legislation is it completes that. 

So we’re not leaving it half way there because it deals with concerns of anxiety of consumers about can I use this? Is it comfortable? Is it easy? It deals with the infrastructure and the other 

needs that we have. 

At the same time I think, as I said, regarding my legislation, it 

is very important that we look at everything. So that we’re—and 

I think it’s very compatible to do both. My question is, starting 

with Mr. Davis, talking about batteries. 

We’re told that because of the investments we’ve already made, 

we’re starting from making 2 percent of the world’s advanced batteries and that by 2015, it will be 40 percent. If we can actually 

make that happen, that’s pretty extraordinary in just a few years. 

But and a lot of that’s happening in Michigan. I’m very proud of 

that. 

But can you speak about steps that the Advanced Technologies 

Program can take to work with private businesses to drive down 

costs, to really help, continue to help create the batteries and other 

ways that the Department of Energy can help to deploy these new 

technologies effectively? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you for the question, Senator. Also thank you 

for the State of Michigan and the battery manufacturing facilities, 

that are being built there and the cost share provided that matched 

the government $1.5 billion with their own $1.5 billion to build $3 

billion in battery manufacturing. That is partly what is going to 

bring the cost down. 

But in addition to the cost reductions through high volume manufacturing there will be an evolution of that manufacturing process. In addition we’re seeing great improvements in the laboratory 

that are going further reduce that cost. We think today we’re looking at a model battery cost of about $600, $650 per kilowatt hour 

just a couple—just last year we were at $800 per kilowatt hour, the 

year before about $1,000 per kilowatt hour. We measure that cost 

in a peer reviewed modeling process that looks at the cost of today’s best technology if produced in mass quantities. 

So we’re very confident that the cost of batteries is coming down. 

We see things in the laboratory now that are going to lead to a battery cost in the middle of this decade of about $300 per kilowatt 

hour. Still not where you would ultimately want to be, but getting 

pretty close. 

So, as was pointed out by Mr. Crane, the battery is the most expensive component in electric vehicles today. It is critical to get 

that cost down. But the good news is we’re on the right pathway 

to get to do so through our R and D supported by the Department 

of Energy. We have a clear pathway to get to a reasonable cost in 

the middle of the decade. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Just very quickly, Mr. Van 

Amburg, when you talked about trucks, medium and heavy duty 

vehicles, could you just speak for a little bit more about the opportunities that exist in that area and what Department of Energy can 

do to help facilitate that? 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. I think it’s a twofold strategy right now. No. 

1 it is a very exciting area because I think it’s been underserved. 
47 

I think we have focused and rightly, we have focused on light duty. 

But I think we’ve left a big area underserved. 

There is this current technology area and I would say it’s hybrid 

electric, hybrid hydraulic—— 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. Plug in electric and pure electric. There’s just 

a range of technologies available are really world leadership areas. 

I think the 2 biggest areas we need to do there are we need to 

focus on better engineered and integration designs for future 

versions. I think the Department of Energy can be of tremendous 

help I think in the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act. That could 

be one of the target areas. 

But No. 2, I think we need to deploy vehicles. One of the concerns that I have right now with our growing leadership in advanced batteries is that we have to have the vehicles to put them 

in or we won’t have the markets for this great production capability 

we now have. So I think the bills that really can move vehicle volumes forward are critical. I don’t think that’s been a primary areas 

that DOE feels is within its purview for the most part. They do try 

to sync up with it. 

I think if there can be more efforts to really push what’s the good 

work out of the lab into the next step in deployment and linking 

those efforts together that would be very beneficial. But getting 

more vehicles on the road in trucks, in particular right now, would 

be critical to getting the volumes up and the prices down. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me just follow up on this idea of how do we get more vehicles 

deployed. It seems to me that maybe I’ll address this to Mr. Davis. 

The Federal Government is a very large purchaser of vehicles. Do 

we have an idea as to what percent of the vehicles the Federal 

Government is planning to purchase in 2012, for example, Fiscal 

Year, will be electric or electric hybrid vehicles or vehicles even operating on natural gas, something other than just gasoline powered 

vehicles? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you for the question, sir. 

We’d be glad to follow up with the precise numbers. I’m going to 

work from memory here. The Federal fleet is about 600,000 vehicles. We purchase about 60,000 vehicles per year. 

The good news there is with the Presidential directive issued earlier this year we’re moving to by 2015 essentially having all those 

purchases be alternative fuel vehicles. So we are very rapidly moving in that direction. I don’t have the precise number of vehicles 

that would be purchased in 2011 or 2012 that meet those criteria, 

but be glad to follow up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are those criteria performance based? Is that 

like Mr. Van Amburg was talking about? I mean are those—do you 

say to agencies and departments of the Federal Government 

through that directive, you know, choose something other than gasoline or something that gives us substantially improved vehicle fuel 

efficiency to the extent it does use gasoline? 

Mr. DAVIS. So the goal is by 2015 to have all those vehicles be 

alternative fuel vehicles. What are we talking about there? We’re 

talking about electric vehicles. We’re talking about vehicles that 
48 

run on biofuels or natural gas or propane. So they are vehicles that 

essentially supplant petroleum. 

The CHAIRMAN. So a hybrid electric Prius, that I now drive, 

would not qualify. 

Mr. DAVIS. I’m not—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Because it does use gasoline. 

Mr. DAVIS. I think I’d have to follow up on that. 

Senator STABENOW. I’m just going to interrupt. If it was a Chevy 

Volt, it would qualify. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Even though it uses gasoline. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. I’m not sure all the rules that would govern those 

purchases have been finalized yet. But we’d be glad to follow up 

and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be useful to know the extent to 

which the Federal Government is leading by example in this area 

and how it’s chosen to do so. 

On the issue of local governments, you know, every city and town 

in the country has a fleet of garbage trucks. What is in place now 

to encourage and assist those communities and towns, cities and 

towns, to find alternative fueled garbage trucks whether they’re 

electric or natural gas or whatever? Does anybody know? 

Is this something that you look at, Mr. Van Amburg or not? 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. We do look at it. We’ve had a partnership for 

the last 10 years with the U.S Army actually, the National Automotive Center out of Warren, Michigan, with a hybrid truck users 

forum. Now it’s dealing with electric and advanced trucks. 

We’ve tried to work with the refuse industry. There’s been a pretty good penetration actually, of natural gas vehicles into the refuse. 

Industry is about on the order of around 17,000 or so—or actually 

around 3,000 refuse trucks that are natural gas right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Out of how many? 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. The fleet is around 90,000 plus. So there’s still 

a huge backlog of potential vehicles that could be—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So a little over 3 percent? 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. Yes. Yes. So we have a long way to go in that 

area. I think some of what could be helpful is incentives or goals 

that people could set out with some assistance to achieve those 

goals in each of these sectors. 

There’s opportunities in each of the vehicle sectors including the 

medium and heavy sector. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ah, yes, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would like to point out that are Clean Cities Program operates almost 100 clean city coalitions across the country 

and works with local communities to promote alternative fuel vehicle purchases and infrastructure. One of the things that has been 

stressed in the almost 20 years of their existence is natural gas vehicles and vehicles such as delivery trucks and refuse vehicles. As 

pointed out by Mr. Van Amburg, natural gas is particularly good 

choice in that area as well as hybridizations since refuse vehicles 

stop and start a lot. 
49 

The CHAIRMAN. But I’m right, am I not, that the Clean Cities 

Program is a program to share information and provide technical 

assistance. It is not—it does not carry with it any financial incentives or requirements or anything like that? 

Mr. DAVIS. Primarily what it does is help local communities and 

share information and facilitate, but we do run an annual solicitations through the Clean Cities Program that help pay a percentage 

of the incremental cost of vehicles or more importantly in the case 

of natural gas, establish infrastructure because the infrastructure 

in natural gas fueling station can be a significant barrier to putting 

in place vehicles. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. My time is up. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I’m just curious to know 

whether the garbage trucks that are run on natural gas are any 

quieter at 5:30 in the morning than the garbage trucks in my 

neighborhood which I have to believe are probably not powered by 

natural gas. But if it is that’s a huge breakthrough and we want 

to encourage that. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CULLEN. Senator, there are electric garbage trucks that are 

silent. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Are they? There we have it. There we have 

it. 

Mr. Davis, I want to ask you about the situation with the batteries and Senator Stabenow is gone now. But you were discussing 

just a moment ago about the joint venture with DOE and the State 

of Michigan and the benefits that we have seen there. Just this 

morning I was just handed this article a few minutes ago. 

But apparently in Energy Daily, this morning there’s a story 

about what they call a corporate breakup between Johnson Controls and SAFT. Those 2 were working on this joint battery venture. They got $300 million from DOE from stimulus funds, another $150 million from the State of Michigan that you just referred to. 

But apparently there’s been this breakup here. The article goes 

on to say that this is clearly a bad time for this to be coming about 

because a whole handful of other—of vehicle manufacturers are in 

line waiting for these batteries. Whether it’s Ford’s first plug in, 

they’re scheduled to go to market 2012. They’re waiting for these 

batteries. 

The point of the article is it says, it’s pretty unclear as to the impact that this breakup might have on what’s going on with the development and deployment of the batteries. Can you give me an update or let me know what’s happening here? 

Mr. DAVIS. Sure, I’d be pleased to. Thank you. 

The battery manufacturing portion of the Recovery Act includes 

6 major battery manufacturing facilities. So we’re talking about 

one here. That one is a contract with Johnson Controls. They’re 

subcontractor is this joint venture between Johnson Controls— 

SAFT. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

Mr. DAVIS. So our relationship, our contractual relationship, is 

with Johnson Controls, the parent of that. The subcontract is with 
50 

Johnson Controls-SAFT. I have talked to the head of Johnson Controls battery work. This should not impact our program at all, 

should not impact the building of their facilities which is underway 

right now. 

There will be some, you know, legal actions between those 2. 

They’re going to work out their dissolution. But we don’t expect it 

to impact our project or the delivery of batteries. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So even though they had the contract to 

build this out and this contract is not going forward, that’s not 

going to somehow or other, delay the roll out or—I mean, we’ve got 

a lot of Federal dollars that are on the line here that we want to 

see deployed and moving. You seem pretty confident this isn’t going 

to be an issue. 

I appreciate it may just be one of 5. But again, you’ve got $300 

million here from DOE. I think we’d like to know that that’s going 

to actually end up in advancing these technologies. 

Mr. DAVIS. Sure. Under that contract they are building 2 separate facilities. Johnson Controls—now of course, this just happened. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. It just happened yesterday. So we are going to be 

working with Johnson Controls to work through this process and 

ensure there’s no delay. But our initial read is it shouldn’t delay 

the construction of those factories. 

My understanding is that part of the reason that the dissolution 

is happening is the—as you look forward there’s disagreement 

about how much investment is going to have to be provided by 

companies to keep these—this technology and these factories viable. So in Johnson Controls position is this is actually a step forward to ensure viability in the long term. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’m sure DOE will be keeping a close eye 

on it. 

Mr. Ghasemi, you have spoken very clearly, very articulately 

here about our need to reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. I absolutely concur. I agree with you. We need to do more. 

It goes back to Senator Alexander’s very neat bumper sticker. We 

need to produce more and use less. 

One of the things that concerns me is our growing reliance on 

foreign sources for our minerals. When we’re talking about batteries as we just are here, I think we recognize that whether it’s 

permanent magnets or batteries, we’ve got to get back to these raw 

component parts that come from the Earth. Unfortunately when 

we’re talking about rare Earth minerals the vast majority, some 97 

percent of that right now is coming from China. 

Do you worry as much about our increasing reliance on others 

for those very critical elements that we need to reduce our reliance 

on foreign sources of oil? I’d hate to trade our reliance on foreign 

oil for our reliance on foreign minerals. So I’m just curious for your 

perspective on that. 

Mr. GHASEMI. Thank you, Senator. That’s an excellent question, 

obviously. 

I think that the difference between electric cars and gasoline cars 

when it comes to that issue is that if you have an electric car every 

morning for it to go the distance you don’t need to put any rare 
51 

Earth into it or any mineral into it. You just put electricity in. So 

making electric car battery is a onetime effort. Once you have it 

the cars can drive for many years. 

The second thing is that we have enough of these cars most of 

these materials can be recycled. I mean, if you had 150 million of 

these cars running around and each year we were recycling 10 percent of them that would almost give you enough of these materials 

to make the new car. So the reliance on those critical materials is 

an issue that should be addressed. 

I think the United States needs to make sure that those sources 

are there. I’m very happy to say that a few—2 years ago we worked 

very closely with the Department of Energy to make sure that one 

of those resources which is lithium is properly made in the United 

States. So I think those efforts should continue. 

But the magnitude of the dependence gets significantly reduced 

if you are driving these electric cars verses gasoline which we need 

every morning. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. I thank all the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Just 2 real quick questions. 

One, we’re talking, Mr. Van Amburg, you talked about silver 

buckshot. There’s one piece of the buckshot that I didn’t hear about 

today and it was hydrogen. Does anyone have—and I notice that 

the Administration in their budget request reduced the request for 

funding for hydrogen. 

Where are we on hydrogen because it, you know, I’ve been driven 

in hydrogen vehicle that was fabulous. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Senator. I should note that in the State 

of Minnesota one of the major leaders in this areas, 3M, is helping 

push the technology forward. DOE has funded hydrogen for some 

years and fuel cell technology and happy to report that the cost of 

fuel cell technology has decreased rapidly, approximately 80 percent since 2002. Right now we’re at about $51 per kilowatt with 

our ultimate goal to get to about $30 per kilowatt to be competitive 

with current technology. 

We do recognize that our strategy is to sustain a balanced research and development portfolio with an emphasis on nearer term 

technologies such as batteries and electric drive. The fuel cell program is still robustly supported and looking at nearer term applications such as stationary fuel cells and a fork lift as an early market 

opportunities to get fuel cell manufacturing ramping up to the 

point where it could more readily enter the vehicle market. 

Mr. VAN AMBURG. Senator, if I could just add to that. I think Pat 

rightly identifies where some of the key first markets really are 

looking to be in fuel cells. But there is another one and that interestingly is the transit bus marketplace. 

A transit bus is often because of their platform size and the fact 

that they’re out in the middle of cities and get seen a lot and the 

emissions are pretty critical, are early leaders in technology. They 

led in natural gas. They led in hybrid. 

We’ve been working on a national program with the FTA, the 

Federal Transit Administration on this. What we’re seeing, as what 

Pat said, not only the costs come down on the fuel cells. But the 
52 

life cycle lengthen out because you really need it to be much longer 

than it is. 

We’re seeing 6,000 to 10,000 hours now which really starts to get 

us into some interesting useful lives in a transit bus platform. But 

it’s also using a fuel cell that’s more similar to a stationary fuel cell 

in size so the cost points don’t have to come down quite as much 

as you would in a car. So we’re thinking transit bus operations may 

be another place where we’ll see fuel cells in the nearer term. 

Senator FRANKEN. Miss Cullen. 

Ms. CULLEN. If I may, the Electric Drive Transportation, as I 

pointed out, we represent the whole spectrum of electric drive technologies, which includes fuel cells because that’s what a fuel cell 

creates is electricity. So hydrogen powered fuel cells are very much 

within the gambit of the technologies that we’re promoting. My 

members in the automotive and in the medium and heavy duty 

side are very much pushing forward on fuel cell vehicle applications. 

They’ve made substantial investments on their own and worked 

with the Department of Energy. They’re hoping that the Department of Energy will continue its commitment to those technologies. 

They are pushing toward, as you’re probably aware, rolling out 

automotive in the light duty segment in the 2015 timeframe. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. One last and it may sound like a 

small concern, but I think there’s concern among the blind community about electric vehicles and that they don’t make sound. We’re 

talking about the garbage truck at 5 in the morning or whatever. 

Is there—what is the consideration there for pedestrians and, I 

mean, most of us hear before we step off a curb. We hear the thing 

coming. What kind of considerations are being made there? 

Ms. CULLEN. The automotive industry is working closely with 

NTSA and they are communicating with each other on establishing 

a uniform set of sounds, a safety standard. For instance on creating 

a signal to those who need it without—while maintaining the lower 

noise profile of electric drive vehicles. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. 

Ms. CULLEN. For instance the Nissan Leaf has a low speed sound 

that you can hear outside the vehicle but not inside the vehicle. 

Standardizing the sound is another consideration that the companies are talking about so that everyone would recognize it as an oncoming vehicle opposed to having a series of ringtones, for instance. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. OK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, did you have additional 

questions? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I don’t. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all very much. I think it’s been a useful hearing. We appreciate your excellent testimony. 

That will conclude our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(53) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF DAVID CRANE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. I’m happy to hear you’ve been able to design a charging network to 

provide charging for electric vehicles in the Houston and Dallas areas with your own 

funds. Obviously, it’s too early to tell how the economics of those plans will work 

out. With regard to other cities where you might roll this out in the future, are 

there common features you’ll be looking for? Are there communities that because of 

size, density, or other factors, where you don’t currently see your model working? 

Do you see the government only having a role in those communities, or can they 

simply take a lesser role in communities with a higher commercial potential for private actors? 

Answer. We’ve seen very encouraging early results in Houston and Dallas, and 

our hope is to soon expand beyond Texas. There are three key factors we analyze 

initially when considering new markets: 1) Projected supply of electric vehicles; 2) 

Regulatory framework and its potential impact on third-party charging providers; 

3) The interest of local utilities in working with us. Of these, projected EV supply 

is particularity important; the success of our business depends on generating subscription package revenues. 

When companies like ours make significant private sector investment in communities, there is less of a need for government support and, as a result, more government dollars can be sent to smaller, less dense communities. We believe it is crucial 

for the government to focus on cost effectiveness: deploying the most vehicles, in the 

most cities—for the least number of public dollars. 

Question 2. You obviously see the potential for enough market penetration in electric vehicles to support your business model. What gives you the confidence in the 

market to make the substantial up-front investments you’re currently making? 

Answer. First, we are encouraged by automakers’ commitment to EVs. Nissan and 

GM have rolled out production vehicles, while Ford, BMW and others have models 

on the way. Another key driver is the significant private investment we’ve seen in 

EV charging infrastructure, batteries and other technologies—from companies like 

ours and others. Third, we see a growing weariness from consumers when it comes 

to high and volatile gasoline prices, and a general sense that shipping billions of 

dollars overseas for oil is not a good thing. EVs are gaining popularity as a potential 

remedy for these things. Finally, we see enormous potential for EVs to bring about 

the next consumer technology revolution—and there is real value in NRG being a 

first-mover in this area. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID CRANE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

TAX CREDITS VS NEW PROGRAMS

Question 1. As you know, the tax credit for alternative fuel infrastructure expires 

at the end of this year. If it comes down to a decision between creating new programs and extending existing tax credits, which would you consider more important? 

Answer. The existing tax credits—both for EV infrastructure and for EVs themselves—are important to our business. Building our public networks comes at significant cost. For example, each of our public ‘‘Freedom Stations’’, containing a Level 

2 and a DC charger, costs well over $100,000 installed. As we build out our networks in early years, defraying these costs through the infrastructure tax credit is 
54 

extremely important. That said, we do see a cost-effective ‘‘Deployment Community’’ 

playing a very important role in bolstering EV readiness in typical cities across the 

country, and especially in smaller, less dense communities. 

EVGO

Question 2. Please summarize the scale of investments that NRG is making in 

Dallas and Houston. How many customers will those programs be able to accommodate? 

Answer. Our initial investment in Houston will be around $10 million, and we 

plan to exceed that number in Dallas. Every EV charging package we sell today includes a Level 2 home charger installed at no up-front cost to our customer. This 

robust home charging network combined with the 50 Freedom Stations we plan to 

install in Houston and the 70 planned for installation in Dallas-Forth Worth will 

accommodate more than the projected number of EV buyers in each city in coming 

years. 

TEXAS

Question 3. NRG chose two cities in Texas to launch its eVgo program. Can you 

describe any competitive advantages those cities, and potentially the state of Texas 

itself, hold for the deployment of electric vehicles? What made NRG choose cities 

in Texas over communities in other states? 

Answer. NRG has a large presence in Texas today, including our retail businesses 

Reliant Energy and Green Mountain Energy. As a state, Texas has long prided itself 

on welcoming new ideas and clearing regulatory hurdles to realize these new ideas. 

Texas also has a competitive retail electricity market, which enables us to work 

with a variety of energy retailers, to offer eVgo to a variety of customers. In addition, Houston has a robust electric distribution system that can accommodate significant EV penetration. For all these reasons, Houston has proven to be a great 

launch pad for eVgo. The city, one of the country’s energy hubs, has a robust car 

culture and an intense focus on public and private sector innovation. 

NONFINANCIAL BENEFITS

Question 4. In your testimony you mentioned there are several policies that the 

government could enact at very little cost, including convenience measures such as 

zero emission lanes and preferred parking spots. Please describe the impact you believe those policies could have on electric vehicle sales and deployment. 

Answer. Convenience benefits excite consumers, and that is very important to us 

because the success of our business depends on the sales of charging packages to 

actual EV buyers. A recent Accenture consumer survey on EVs confirmed that benefits like priority parking and zero emissions lanes are potentially large consumer 

catalysts in the decision to buy an EV. Americans spend a lot of time in their cars, 

and EVs represent a new and exciting way to drive. If we can add further conveniences to the EV driving experience like those mentioned above, we will add even 

greater momentum to the overall EV movement. 

COMMUNITY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM (S. 948)

Question 5. How can a community deployment program for electric vehicles be 

structured to ensure that public money does not crowd out private investment? Do 

you believe S. 948 strikes an appropriate balance? 

Answer. When companies like ours make significant private sector investment in 

communities, more government dollars can be sent to smaller, less dense communities. We believe it is crucial for the government to focus on cost effectiveness: deploying the most vehicles, in the most cities—for the least number of public dollars. 

We believe that S.948 could this crucial role, with certain changes to the bill to ensure cost effectiveness and to make sure the procedural requirements for a successful application do not prevent or inhibit private investment in publicly available 

charging equipment. 

COMMUNITY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM (S. 948)

Question 6. In your testimony, you introduced the concept of ‘‘early deployment 

communities’’ and recognized that significant private investment is already being 

made in some communities to facilitate the deployment of electric vehicles. Please 

expand on this concept, and any advantages it may offer. 

Answer. The key to the early Deployment Community concept—to any Deployment Community concept—is that taxpayer dollars need not be spent to duplicate 

charging infrastructure investments being made by the private sector. For example, 
55 

if significant private charging equipment investment has already been made in a 

community, it would not make sense to require that community to start over from 

square one—e.g., by building a wide ranging stakeholder group to support investment in charging equipment—in order to qualify for federal benefits. If such a community can show that is has the proper investments, agreements, and plans in 

place, its citizens and in certain cases businesses, should qualify for convenience 

benefits, and additional incentives to buy EVs and install charging equipment. 

RESPONSES OF BILL VAN AMBURG TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. You make a strong case for increased focus on medium and heavyduty trucks for research and development, as Senator Stabenow’s bill outlines. Arguably, existing R&D authority as well as such programs on the deployment side 

such as Clean Cities should be sufficient to allow the Department to address this 

need. In your view, what’s the main value of the structure laid out in S.734? 

Answer. The structure laid out in S.734 has several very valuable elements, not 

least of which is the specific recognition of medium and heavy-duty vehicles as a 

targeted area of R&D. S.734 provides and providing a suggested allocation of resource for this segment that matches its fuel use impact. In the past, medium-and 

heavy-duty vehicles have not received commensurate support in Department budgets, normally funded—if at all—to significantly lower levels than light-duty passenger cars. Indeed, many of the specific heavier vehicle programs were funded via 

Congressionally-directed projects. Even the Department’s 21st Century Truck Program (21CTP) often lagged for insufficient resources, as noted in the National Academy of Sciences report. Again, this is not an argument against light-duty vehicle 

investments, but is an argument for balanced investments that include the larger 

and higher fuel use commercial vehicle platforms. U.S. firms are now world leaders 

in several important technology categories for commercial vehicles (hybrid and electric technology in particular, to a great degree thanks to programmatic support and 

focus from the Department of Defense), in contrast with other technology areas that 

are dominated by companies outside of the U.S. This is important from a job creation and retention perspective, and there is a strategic opportunity to maintain our 

leadership through consistent and focused R&D co-funding with industry. 

Another important design element of S.734 is its language opening up Department program considerations to a broader array of firms, especially medium-and 

heavy-duty vehicle component and system suppliers and technology developers. 

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are vital players and have always been 

included at the center of Department programs, but spurring innovative new technology requires tacit inclusion of the supply and developer segment. These companies have been arguably under-served, yet they are increasingly where innovation 

and new technology originates and where early support, in particular R&D, needs 

to focus resources. This approach matches what is a concurrent trend in the automotive and truck industry to increasingly ‘‘push down’’ technology and system development from OEM to Tier 1 and other suppliers. The current and successful ARPAE program has shown a strong model for assessing and targeting technology 

innovators at the early stage of development. Previously, the DARPA Advanced Vehicle Program of the mid 1990s stood out for its portfolio approach to technology 

development, funding innovative technology developers in a fast-track approach to 

drive power system and alternative fuel development and demonstration. Heavyduty hybrid drivelines were a significant and notable outcome of these efforts. In 

the national Hybrid Truck Users Forum (HTUF) program which CALSTART operates in partnership with and under contract to the U.S. Army TARDEC-National 

Automotive Center (NAC), the focus has been to move from R&D to broader deployment and validation stages, which is another under-served but critical stage in vehicle commercialization. Yet even at this stage, a continued focus on the supplier segment, together with the OEMs, is vital for successful pre-production and production 

launches. New technology commercialization benefits from and requires greater inclusion of the industrial segments most active in developing innovative designs and 

systems. S.734 recognizes this and includes the ‘‘wiring instructions’’ in its language 

that encourages it. It also encourages the Department to connect its programs more 

explicitly with other complementary programs which operate at different stages of 

the commercialization process. This echoes another observation of the National 

Academy of Sciences review of the 21CTP. This could assist with a more seamless 

and connected national approach to driving innovation, from R&D to validation and 

demonstration through early deployment. 

One final area of design in S.734 that we believe would be of crucial importance 

is its longer timeline and consistent focus on developing higher efficiency tech-
56 

nologies. We have researched the key barriers to faster and more effective advanced 

vehicle development and deployment with OEMs, suppliers and vehicles end-users, 

and their responses have been unambiguous. They can most benefit from three 

areas of support: 1) End-user purchase assistance (such as vouchers or tax credits) 

to speed early production vehicle deployments; 2) Consistent and multi-year R&D 

and validation funding partnerships; and 3) Assistance to shift manufacturing capabilities to new technologies. S.734 addresses the issue of consistent and longer term 

R&D partnerships. 

The Department has tried to address this on its own but resources have varied 

considerably year by year and the focus has shifted across various technology and 

fuel solutions making longer term investments by industry more difficult. More consistent long term investment signals would give industry greater confidence in their 

own investment decisions and would better leverage any public funding. S.734 does 

not pick a specific technology or fuel solution, but instead targets outcomes: greater 

efficiency. In essence, it is outlining a performance standard against which R&D decisions can be measured, without specifying the specific fuel or technology to achieve 

it. We believe this can open up and spur innovation. Those technologies of high interest, such as electric drive systems, would benefit under such a design, but so 

would other innovative approaches such as hydraulic hybrids, alternative combustion cycle engines, active aerodynamics and other technology. 

Moreover, the longer program horizon would set this goal in place over multiple 

years, rather than just a single year or program solicitation. It would send a signal 

that for half a decade at least, greater fuel efficiency was the driving force of Department R&D efforts across all vehicle platforms. Given the new, first-time fuel efficiency regulations being placed upon medium-and heavy-duty vehicles, and the expanded fuel efficiency requirements for light-duty cars and pick-ups, the timing and 

timeline of such an R&D effort could not be more opportune. 

The Chairman is right to observe that existing authority likely exists for the Department to proceed in the manner outlined above but funding allocations have not 

matched this model, in particular for medium-and heavy-duty vehicles. S.734 would 

provide strong Congressional wiring instructions for the Department in funding allocations and program focus for spurring greater efficiency in vehicles. 

Question 2. I’m interested in the programs you’ve seen to aid in the deployment 

of heavy-duty fleet vehicles such as buses and refuse trucks. Beyond research and 

development are there gaps remaining in the federal programs that we could help 

fill in order to allow more deployment of alternative fuel vehicles in this segment? 

Answer. The single biggest gap at the federal level is assistance that directly 

spurs the purchase of early production (low-volume) advanced, efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. The U.S. would greatly benefit from more consistent R&D funding, as noted in question one, but we have generally done a better job at the R&D 

level than at the deployment level. From a commercialization perspective, it is the 

equivalent of leaving the race when the finish line is in sight. Indeed, the U.S. has 

been a world innovator in several technology categories but often does not reap the 

benefit of its inventions when it comes to production and manufacturing because it 

does not consistently help new technology ‘‘cross the chasm’’ from demonstration to 

deployment. This has a social cost in terms of lost jobs and manufacturing. 

This is particularly an issue with new vehicle technologies, which often face a 

steep cost premium in early low volume production because of limited production 

scale, supply chain costs and initial engineering designs. Limited, short term assistance at the right time in these markets could have a huge benefit in moving U.S. 

technology more effectively from prototype to product. 

This is a major issue in the medium-and heavy-duty vehicle arena even more so 

than light-duty. For instance, while there is a $7500 tax credit for electric passenger 

cars at the federal level, there is no equivalent for what are the first hybrid and 

electric trucks and buses. Given that a truck or bus can use ten to thirty times or 

more fuel than a car, targeted federal assistance could also have huge fuel efficiency 

leverage and outcomes for the same amount of funding. For instance, a hybrid 

refuse truck would likely reduce its fuel burn by 20-30 percent, cutting petroleum 

use by well over a thousand to two thousand gallons per year per vehicle. A passenger car rarely even uses 500 gallons total. Again, this is not an argument against 

light-duty incentives at all; it is an argument for balanced and commensurate assistance aimed at policy outcomes. Indeed, there is currently no federal level deployment assistance, including no tax credits, for medium-and heavy-duty hybrid, electric or natural gas vehicles. 

The most successful current program to change purchase decisions and spur advanced vehicle purchase and deployment is a state program, operated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Known as the Hybrid Truck and Bus Voucher 

Incentive Program (HVIP), the program is designed as a point-of-sale purchase 
57 

* Graphic has been retained in committee files. 

voucher for medium-and heavy-duty hybrid (all types, electric and hydraulic) and 

electric trucks. These trucks are in their initial early production, low volume stage. 

HVIP voucher amounts have been set at roughly half of the incremental cost of 

these vehicles—the level fleets and manufacturers agreed was sufficient to cover the 

extra costs not yet paid for by the fuel saving benefits of the trucks. HVIP is slated 

to last roughly 4-5 years and is in its second year; to date this single state program 

has spurred nearly 1,000 hybrid and electric truck purchases and deployments in 

fleet use. The California Energy Commission recently built on HVIP’s success by 

adding funds to HVIP to better assist electric trucks, and then crafted a separate 

but equivalent program for natural gas and propane truck purchases. The design 

is the same: to reduce the upfront cost of early production vehicles sufficiently to 

spur fleet purchase. 

Illinois’ EPA office operates another interesting program called the Illinois Clean 

Diesel Program. While not as targeted as HVIP, it does greatly streamline the grant 

funding process for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA). Fleets and manufacturers alike agree that long form, proposal-based grant programs are costly for them 

to pursue, delay timing on purchases and have little to no certainty of outcome. 

They are useful, but not as effective at deployment as would be desired. In contrast, 

the Illinois Clean Diesel program is notable for streamlining the process by establishing set funding amounts available for different technology options fleets can 

chose, and then a first-come first-served short application form to qualify. This 

greatly reduces fleet proposal writing and quantification effort, and allows them to 

focus on procurement decisions. 

It is worth noting that in the heavy transit bus world there is an existing structure in place to assist with alternative fuel and advanced bus purchase. Under the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formulas, the federal government pays for 80 

percent of new bus purchase costs with local agencies paying 20 percent. This formula has encouraged agencies to increase their purchase of natural gas and hybrid 

transit buses because it has the effect of reducing the incremental cost impact to 

them. There is no such support for school buses or smaller privately run shuttle or 

circulator buses, however. These were some of the successful operating examples 

noted in a recent study ‘‘Speeding High Efficiency Truck Adoption: Recommend Policies, Incentives and Investments’’, CALSTART 2011 (http://calstart.org/Libraries/ 

Publications/SpeedinglHigh-EfficiencylTrucklAdoption.sflb.ashx). Highlighting 

the success of these examples, and based on research and data from fleets and industry, the report then recommended that the ideal structure for spurring faster deployment of high efficiency trucks and buses would be a performance-based purchase voucher at the federal level. In essence, the voucher would provide a purchase 

incentive to a range of solutions that achieved different levels of fuel efficiency improvement (above any levels required by regulation). In the report, a draft voucher 

framework was proposed that would be partly based on the early market incremental costs and partly on the ‘‘co-benefits’’ achieved through greater efficiency. For 

instance, beyond the direct fuel savings to fleets, a more efficient truck through its 

operation has petroleum reduction and energy security benefits to the nation, in addition to emission reduction benefits. These were factored into the voucher levels to 

reflect the higher benefits provided by reducing fuel use in the highest fuel using 

vehicles. A potential high efficiency voucher based on these parameters is illustrated 

below, as cited in the report:* 

This voucher uses fuel efficiency as the metric. Petroleum reduction could also be 

used as a metric, in which case emission reduction benefits would need to be ensured in to qualify. 

Such a voucher could be managed through existing federal programs but would 

require a change in approach for those programs. For example, Clean Cities could 

serve as a logical channel for expanding deployment via purchase vouchers. However, the program would need to be both better funded, and then operated—at least 

in part—as a disperser of vouchers to qualified purchasers, rather than as occasional source of grant fund solicitations. This change actually could serve to greatly 

strengthen and better utilize the Clean Cities structure and role in deployments. 

The downside of Clean Cities is that it does not reach the entire nation; though 

it does touch most of the regions with impacted air quality. Alternately the Department’s national solicitations that do focus on deployment could do so in the form 

of a performance-based purchase voucher. 

Another possible approach would be to authorize a voucher structure via the national Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, which currently is 

partly allocated to each state by formula. Some of the block grant funds could be 
58 

dedicated or allocated specifically to vehicle deployment using a voucher formula, 

with disbursement authority left to the state. 

A third structure could be to add additional descriptive language for the use of 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds emphasizing that they may 

be used for advanced and alternative fuel vehicles, and suggesting a performancebased voucher as an effective tool for streamlined success. CMAQ funds can be used 

for clean vehicle deployments, but this is not widely used or understood by the receiving agencies. Such language could clarify and encourage the practice. 

Finally, a structure like the Diesel Emission Reduction Act could be augmented 

with a directive that some of the funds be used for streamlined deployment. DERA 

funds have been popular but focus mostly on retrofit kits and involve complicated 

long-form proposals be submitted. A simplified voucher approach could be a useful 

addition to the program and could be administered by each region, allowing regional 

differences to be reflected. Having noted this, DERA funding is currently zeroed out 

in the Administration budget. EPA’s SmartWay program is an example of an existing program that programmatically could administer such a streamlined voucher, 

though additional funding would be required. 

RESPONSES OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Critics of this approach might argue that powering vehicles from the 

grid requires too many changes in behavior from the consumer so it is unlikely 

these vehicles will be able move beyond niche markets. Can you give us any insights 

from the manufacturers in your coalition on how they see electric vehicles moving 

to mass-market status? 

Answer. Increased electrification of the vehicle fleet is already occurring, but the 

speed of adoption is variable, based on technological advances, reduced market hurdles for vehicles and infrastructure, and consumer education about grid-connected 

vehicles and their benefits. 

Announced production plans, as assembled in the Department of Energy status 

report issued in February of this year, show aggressive production schedules for the 

manufacturers included in the survey. The report illustrates that leading vehicle 

manufacturers (not all leading manufacturers were included in the tally) already 

have plans for cumulative U.S. production capacity of more than 1.2 million electric 

vehicles by 2015. 

EDTA member companies have announced varying production targets and have 

plans for (or are already) rolling out vehicles in initial markets to be followed by 

national expansion. While their plans differ, they share an ambitious commitment 

to achieving electric vehicle adoption on a national scale. The right national policy 

initiatives can help speed the fulfillment of that goal. 

Demand has been rightly noted as an essential component of commercial-scale 

adoption in the near term. Grid-connected transportation options provide consumers 

with savings on fuel and maintenance, freedom from price-volatility and the opportunity to reduce oil use and emissions. But consumers need to understand how these 

benefits apply to them and how these vehicles fit their driving needs. 

While ‘‘plugging-in’’ is a new practice for fueling, it is not new to consumers who 

now routinely come home and recharge their phones, laptops and iPods—or seek out 

an outlet at a coffee shop or airport when travelling. Daily and opportunistic charging is increasingly integral to the way we live and work. 

Multiple market analyses show that consumers want electric alternatives in 

transportation, either because electricity is cheaper than gas, is cleaner than gas, 

is a domestic fuel that they can access at home or because electric drive has great 

performance. Often, consumers realize it’s all of the above. 

However, consumer education is clearly needed. Buyers need credible, accessible 

information to identify the best configuration for their driving needs and their options for recharging. 

It is expected that most drivers would do the vast majority of charging at home. 

Their workplace would be second. While plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) 

will have longer absolute range without charging, drivers with pure battery electric 

vehicles (BEVs) and those who want to extend the battery-only propulsion of their 

PHEVs will want accessible and convenient public charging options, in parking garages and retail stores, for instance. 

EDTA is engaging in a national consumer education effort through our website 

GoElectricDrive.com and with coordinated efforts with our members in roll out markets and service territories. There are also numerous independent initiatives being 

undertaken by electric utilities, local governments and public interest organizations. 
59 

As part of a national electrification effort, information sharing and coordination 

across these initiatives will help reduce the costs of assembling and disseminating 

important information about vehicle and charging choices, performance, safety and 

costs. Coordinated education efforts also leverage research and readiness efforts that 

have already been completed. 

Question 2. In your written testimony, you pointed to the need for access to capital in order to achieve economies of scale. Obviously, the members of your association are in very capital-intensive industries. Can you talk at all about why the existing programs at the Department of Energy, such as the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program and the Loan Guarantee Program, are unable to meet 

the need? 

Answer. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program (ATVM) and 

the Loan Guarantee Program are both important programs that help reduce the cost 

of capital and leverage private sector investment in advanced vehicle manufacturing. The programs are already building U.S. manufacturing while contributing 

to job growth in the advanced energy sector. And because the loans are repaid with 

interest, taxpayers get a return on their investment while the national return on 

investment includes jobs and increased competitiveness in the global advanced energy market. 

The scope of these successful programs could, however, be expanded to recognize 

other advanced vehicle opportunities. For example, the ATVM program is limited 

to light duty vehicles. Medium and heavy duty vehicles and related component manufacturing in the U.S. would grow with access to the program. 

Support for fleet purchases is also a worthwhile expansion as first-cost hurdles 

are even more challenging in large purchases. Beyond the benefit to the fleet buyer, 

those large purchases also help to build the market for new technologies and speed 

achievement of economies of scale that will bring costs down. 

RESPONSES OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

TAX CREDITS VS NEW PROGRAMS

Question 1. As you know, the tax credit for alternative fuel infrastructure expires 

at the end of this year. If it comes down to a decision between creating new programs and extending existing tax credits, which would you consider more important? 

Answer. Recognizing that sobering economic realities require tough choices, we 

believe that reducing our dependence on foreign oil must be among our priorities. 

To achieve that major goal, there is no single silver bullet policy. Changing the way 

we transport people and goods will require a comprehensive approach. Such an approach should include incentives to reduce market hurdles, such as the critically important tax credit for alternative fuel infrastructure that will help consumers and 

businesses install recharging equipment for plug-in vehicles. 

A comprehensive approach should also reinforce deployment efforts that cities and 

regions around the country are making—or planning to—make. By leveraging individual, business and local and state government interest and investments, a comprehensive electric drive policy will accelerate adoption of the technology and help 

us achieve a more secure country, a stronger economy and a cleaner environment. 

COMMUNITY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM (S. 948)

Question 2. In your written testimony, you note that you would like to ‘‘continue 

working’’ with the committee to strike the right balance between national and community-oriented deployment programs. Can you provide further thoughts on what 

type of changes, if any, you’d seek to this bill? 

Answer. Our goal is national-scale deployment of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure. In establishing national programs for technical assistance and workforce 

training alongside concentrated community efforts, we would like to ensure that one 

effort does not supplant the other. While we have not, as an organization, identified 

the exact proportions of the complementary efforts, we would like to see the national 

program on a scale that meets the national opportunity, and we would like to see 

the deployment efforts be sufficiently numerous to reinforce the national effort while 

serving as area-specific deployment models. 

HOUSE BILL

Question 3. To the extent possible, please summarize EDTA’s views on H.R. 1685, 

the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act. 

Answer. EDTA has not taken an official position on H.R. 1685. Directionally, our 

goal is national-scale deployment of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure. In es-
60 

tablishing national programs for technical assistance and workforce training alongside concentrated community efforts, we would like to ensure that one effort does 

not supplant the other. While we have not as an organization identified the exact 

proportions of the complementary efforts, directionally we would like to see the national program be on a scale to meet the national opportunity and the deployment 

efforts be sufficiently numerous to reinforce the national effort while serving as 

area-specific deployment models. 

RESPONSE OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1. Ms. Cullen, as you note in your testimony, my Advanced Vehicle Technology Act (S.734) would ensure that the Department of Energy is working with industry on a wide range of technologies such as electric vehicles, hybrids, medium 

and heavy-duty trucks, fuel cells, batteries and other technologies. Can you please 

describe the benefits of such an approach and what steps the Department of Energy 

can take to offer a level playing field for all advanced vehicle technologies 

Answer. A portfolio approach to vehicle technologies is important because the 

transportation sector is both large and diverse. A research and development policy 

should look at all of the options that can meet the needs of the sector, and the programs should reflect the varying stages of development, deployment challenges and 

petroleum displacing potential of the portfolio’s technologies. 

For instance, electrification is a continuum of technologies. The U.S. will need efficient hybrids, zero-petroleum battery electric and fuel cell vehicles for different applications and for meeting petroleum and emissions reduction goals 

The Department of Energy should operate under a consistent, long-term framework that ensures continuity in their efforts across the portfolio and allows the Department to pursue near, medium and long term solutions. 

RESPONSES OF SEIFI GHASEMI TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. As you may know, we’ve been working on a number of proposals to 

help accelerate the deployment of advanced technologies in the United States. We’ve 

heard testimony in the past that our competitors, such as China, are moving aggressively to provide market support and insure low-cost capital is available for these 

new technologies. Based on your experience with an international company, how do 

you assess the current position of the United States in terms of competitiveness in 

these growing markets? 

Answer. As a general matter, the United States is at a competitive disadvantage 

to European nations, Japan and China with respect to the deployment of advanced 

electric drive vehicle technology, particularly with respect to vehicle adoption in the 

short-to medium-term. Although there are several challenges that plug-in vehicles 

must overcome to become mainstream products, the threshold challenge may be 

their substantial up-front cost premium, a premium that is unlikely to be recovered 

over the vehicle’s life based on current vehicle costs, in the absence of any government incentives. 

Plug-in vehicles typically are more expensive than gasoline vehicles, primarily due 

to the cost of their batteries. That additional cost is offset by lower fuel and maintenance costs. Because gasoline costs are substantially higher in Europe than in the 

United States, cars that operate on electricity have a comparative advantage in Europe over the United States. Moreover, smaller electric cars that travel shorter 

ranges may be more consistent with the typical European car than the typical 

American car, easing the consumer transition from a gasoline to an electric drive 

vehicle. At the same time, if Europeans drive fewer miles overall than Americans, 

that could increase the payback period of the vehicle, perhaps dampening demand 

somewhat. 

Electric drive vehicles may also be at an additional comparative advantage in Europe because they are needed to meet European greenhouse gas (GHG) emission requirements. Europe’s regulation of GHG emissions is more stringent that the United 

States’ approach. In order to meet their regulatory obligations, European automakers are looking increasingly at alternative fuels. Electricity offer the greatest 

opportunity for GHG emission reduction for vehicles, suggesting greater interest in 

electric drive vehicles to help meet emissions requirements. 

China also appears to be at a comparative advantage to the United States with 

respect to the deployment of electric drive technology, however, for different reasons. 

Chinese leaders have identified vehicle electrification as a high strategic priority, 

viewing domestic deployment of GEVs as a relatively straightforward energy security strategy. As the Chinese economy has grown rapidly, oil consumption has out-
61 

paced production, requiring an increase in imports. Between January 2004 and September 2009, Chinese oil imports grew by 80 percent. 

Growing Chinese oil demand has been driven by the transportation sector. In 

2007, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast that annual light-duty vehicle 

sales in China would surpass those of the United States in 2016, but did so in 2009. 

Total light-duty vehicles sales in China were 13 million compared to 10.4 million 

in the United States, and this growth is forecast to continue for decades. In 2008, 

there were 65 million registered vehicles in China, a figure forecast to rise to 150 

million in 2020 and nearly 230 million by 2030. 

The impact of this growth in vehicle ownership will depend heavily on technology. 

Based on existing technology and policies, the IEA forecasts that roughly two-thirds 

of global oil demand growth will occur in China and India in coming decades, with 

nearly one-third of all growth occurring in the Chinese transport sector. If electric 

drive technologies are deployed in high concentrations, the growth in Chinese oil demand clearly could be curbed, and imports could be reduced from their current baseline forecasts. 

Chinese leadership also is dealing with consequences of urban pollution. Many cities are highly polluted and adding hundreds of millions of cars to the nation’s fleet 

will exacerbate this problem. Therefore, China has also identified electrification as 

a critical environmental sustainability measure that will support economic growth 

with cleaner transportation services. 

Perhaps most importantly, China has identified electric vehicle manufacturing as 

a strategic industry that will allow it to maintain its global manufacturing dominance. Chinese automotive production in China in 2009 was 13.6 million vehicles 

making China the largest auto producing nation in the world. Production is expected to reach 30 million vehicles by 2030. While this growth is significant, the 

bulk of this production currently feeds domestic demand. Due to the significant 

technological and scale advantages that the established global automotive manufacturers have in internal combustion engines, it is also unlikely that Chinese automakers will be able to organically establish a strong global presence. 

Electric drive vehicles, however, will introduce a value chain shift that could favor 

China from both a technological and from a supply chain perspective. As a major 

supplier of lithium batteries for cell phones, China has established the production 

capability and value chain to cost-effectively produce lithium batteries in scale. 

China also is advantaged in electric motors due, in part, to its position in rare earth 

materials production. Rare earth materials, specifically neodymium, contribute approximately 30 percent of the material cost of permanent magnet motors, one of the 

key motor types used in electric propulsion systems. 

China has supported its electrification strategy with credible, long-term public 

support. In 2009, the central government began an initiative to develop sufficient 

electric vehicle infrastructure for large scale deployment in about 20 cities. Wuhan, 

a city of more than 9 million people, is the lead city in the project. It is working 

with Nissan to develop the infrastructure, and the automaker will provide the city 

with 600 EVs at no cost. This will be followed with infrastructure investments over 

the succeeding four years in the cities of Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and several 

other cities ranging in size from 1 to more than 10 million people. The government’s 

initial goal was to have installed capacity to produce 500,000 grid-enabled vehicles 

by 2011. 

These initiatives are naturally supported by government funding. Ten billion yuan 

($1.5 billion) has been set aside to nurture research and development. The government is also offering a 60,000 yuan ($8,800) per-vehicle incentive for EVs and a 

500,000 yuan ($73,000) incentive on bus purchases. China has provided battery and 

GEV companies with generous low-interest loans from state banks and has a multiyear technology development program on which it spent over $160 million between 

2006 and 2008. State Grid, the largest state-owned utility, is planning the construction of charging infrastructure. 

Despite the aggressiveness of China’s approach to EVs, it still faces many of the 

same challenges that EVs face elsewhere. Consumer acceptance is still a large unknown. The costs of ownership will have to come down significantly as government 

subsidies and incentives disappear. Even when the total cost of ownership becomes 

favorable for EVs, the up-front vehicle cost will still be significantly higher than conventional vehicles and the payback period is longer than most consumers or commercial fleet owners are willing to accept. A vehicle financing market, virtually nonexistent in China, could help overcome this challenge, as could a market for used 

automotive grade batteries. Notwithstanding these challenges, there is no doubt 

that China is making a substantial effort to make EVs work in an effort to become 

world leaders in this technology. 
62 

* Chart has been retained in committee files. 

The comparative advantage that plug-in vehicles have in Europe as a result of 

fuel prices and in China by virtue of the government’s commitment to their success 

is one that poses meaningful risks to the United States. The automobile manufacturing value chain is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the United States economy each year. We do not want plug-in vehicle technology that was developed in 

the United States to be exported and manufactured abroad, further eroding the 

United States’ manufacturing base and exporting U.S. jobs. 

That concern can be seen, for instance, in the global development of the advanced 

battery industry. The battery is likely to be the single the most expensive component in most plug-in vehicles. In fact, over the life cycle cost of owning and operating a plug-in vehicle, much of the value that currently is captured by gasoline 

suppliers and the gasoline supply chain will be captured by the battery manufacturers and their supply chain. We should all prefer to see as much of that value as 

possible stay in the United States and support American jobs. Without proper support, however, that may not occur. As the Department of Energy data depicted in 

the accompanying chartzzzz8 shows, most of the global production of advanced batteries takes place in Asia, with growth in China and Korea eroding Japan’s dominance in this market. In the absence of U.S. government assistance, this trend 

might continue, foretelling the continued decline of the automotive sector in the 

United States with all of its attendant consequences. 

We believe that in the very long run, electrification of light-duty vehicles may be 

nearly inevitable because electricity is more secure, stable, reliable and cleaner than 

petroleum. If we do not take the steps necessary to accelerate that transformation 

beyond what might occur in the absence of government incentives, other nations will 

make that transformation first, capturing much of the value created by the new 

transportation economy. Government incentives are needed, therefore, to accelerate 

the transformation in the United States and promote our competitiveness in this 

market for decades to come. 

Question 2. The capital intensity of both the manufacturing and supporting infrastructure for electric vehicles seems like it would be daunting for new entrants. Yet, 

that’s where much of the early technological innovation is usually introduced. Can 

the grant programs envisioned in this bill be sufficient to entice entrepreneurs as 

you describe in your testimony? 

Answer. We believe that the grant programs envisioned in the Promoting Electric 

Vehicles Act will be sufficient to entice entrepreneurs to participate in the plug-in 

vehicle market. First, many of the companies that are involved in the plug-in vehicle value chain already are relatively small and/or new companies, and possess the 

entrepreneurial character I described in my testimony. New companies have been 

established to develop and market electric vehicle supply equipment (chargers), software to support the vehicle charging process, vehicle batteries, and vehicles themselves. In fact, there may be more startup companies developing plug-in vehicles 

than any other category of alternative vehicles in recent decades. Even when existing companies are entering this space, they often are doing so through their nontraditional business units. 

Second, we believe that the deployment community approach facilitates the entrance of entrepreneurs into this market. There are several challenges to the widescale adoption of plug-in vehicles where government incentives can help overcome 

crucial obstacles. The nature and character of those obstacles, however, may vary 

from community to community. By focusing some portion of the government’s overall commitment to plug-in vehicles in a limited number of communities through a 

flexible grant program, it is possible to narrowly tailor the use of the funds to address specific problems in the participating communities. Reducing the size of the 

challenges to ones faced by particular communities may allow smaller companies 

without the resources of larger established companies to compete and provide their 

solution. This approach not only creates opportunities for smaller entrepreneurial 

companies that may have solutions to the challenges faced by a particular community, but also will help ensure that the government earns the greatest payback on 

its investment in plug-in vehicles. 

RESPONSES OF PATRICK DAVIS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. With regard to deployment communities for electric vehicles; the Administration’s approach appears to contemplate distributing smaller grants to a 

greater number of communities, than is contemplated in S. 948. Has the Department been able to gather any information on the needs of various communities in 
63 

1See http://www.fueleconorny.gov/feetechlenginelmore.shtml 

order put in place the various pieces of infrastructure that will be needed? How can 

we be certain that the grants are the right size to have the desired effect? 

Answer. While the proposed competitive community grant program, by itself, 

would not be enough to achieve the President’s goal of putting one million electric 

vehicles on the road by 2015, it would help to achieve this ambitious goal by providing an incentive for communities to invest in infrastructure, complementing investments that have already been made under the Recovery Act Transportation 

Electrification demonstration program. Moreover, the grants through this program, 

modeled after ‘‘Race to the Top,’’ would leverage benefits beyond their immediate 

monetary value by rewarding communities that can demonstrate a broader plan to 

facilitate EV readiness through steps like streamlining codes and regulations to 

make it easier to install infrastructure. The Department has examined various ways 

to implement the proposed program, considering options for the potential number 

of communities and amount of funding per award, among other factors. Although 

there would be a cap on the amount of funds available for an individual award, communities will be able to propose funding amounts that they believe will meet their 

needs and allow them to implement the programs proposed in their applications. In 

addition, to help inform decision-making, the Department has obtained input from 

various stakeholders over the last year. For example, in July 2010, Clean Cities 

hosted the Plug-In Vehicle and Infrastructure Community Readiness Workshop, 

which provided both an opportunity for the Department to hear from local communities about their needs as well as a forum for technology deployment experts to 

share best practices and lessons learned. While the Department does not share the 

details of its solicitation plans with potential applicants, the Clean Cities network, 

which includes more than 80 locally-based coalitions, is an important resource for 

understanding community experiences with vehicle and infrastructure deployment 

and is helpful for identifying ways in which the Department can support local efforts. 

Question 2. In your comments on S. 734 you mention that the section on ‘‘Sensing 

and Communications Technologies’’ appears to be duplicative of a Department of 

Transportation program. Does DOE currently conduct research in this area within 

the Vehicle Technology Program? Is the language in S. 734 on ‘‘coordination and 

nonduplication’’ requiring the Secretary to ensure activities do not duplicate programs in other research agencies ineffective to deal with this? 

Answer. The Department’s Vehicle Technologies Program does not currently conduct vehicle-tovehicle sensing and communications technology research, but in accordance with non-duplication provisions in S. 734, would work closely with the Department of Transportation to leverage and complement, rather than duplicate, 

their ongoing research activities with regard to vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. 

Question 3. You spoke a bit about advances in fuel economy technology in such 

things as electric drive that can make a big difference in coming years. Can you 

speak a bit more about the opportunities with existing technologies like turbo or 

super charging? What are the emissions and fuel economy opportunities there? 

Answer. Engine downsizing and technologies such as turbo charging can increase 

fuel economy by 7.5% or more.1 The auto industry is relying, in part, on these technologies to meet corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards through 2016, 

while simultaneously meeting applicable emissions standards. Both turbocharging 

and supercharging enable engine downsizing and higher efficiency by compressing 

air entering the cylinders, thereby increasing power produced from a given engine 

displacement. In case of turbocharging, additional benefit is utilization of waste heat 

energy of the engine exhaust for the compression of intake air. We envision the future CAFE regulations to necessitate broader introduction of these technologies. 

R&D opportunities in this area include cost reduction through novel high strength, 

high temperature materials and innovative bearing technologies, improving modeling capabilities for high speed gas flows, as well as development of designs suitable for very small air charging devices. It is important to note that air charging 

devices for turbocharging and supercharging represent just one of many technologies 

that will allow continuing improvements in the fuel efficiency of internal combustion 

engines. Others include new combustion regimes, advanced fuel injection systems, 

novel propulsion materials, advanced sensors and control algorithms, and reduction 

in friction and parasitic losses. 
64 

RESPONSES OF PATRICK DAVIS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

COMMUNITY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM FUNDING (S. 948)

Question 1. Please state the administration’s views on the most appropriate funding levels, per community and overall, for a one-year, three-year, or five-year deployment program. Answer. The Administration has proposed a $200 million competitive community grant program, which would support up to 30 awards of up to $10 million each. The 

Department views this as a nearer-term effort that, if funds are appropriated, it 

would execute quickly, with projects of 1—3 years in length. 

ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (S. 948)

Question 2. Please state the administration’s views on whether alternative fuel vehicles aside from electric vehicles should be eligible for the targeted community deployment program. 

Answer. The Administration is committed to taking bold steps to make the transportation sector more energy efficient. These efforts include the historic investments 

in advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, public transit, and high speed rail under 

the Recovery Act, as well as the ambitious new fuel economy standards put into 

place for cars and trucks—which will raise average fuel economy to 35.5 miles per 

gallon by 2016, and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles 

covered. The Administration is also taking steps to encourage the use of biofuels. 

The Department continues to support programs such as the Clean Cities Initiative 

that cover a broad portfolio of petroleum reduction strategies. 

These actions are already helping to lower transportation costs by reducing our 

dependence on oil, provide more transportation choices to the American people, and 

revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector. But we need a sustained effort, and focusing on electric drive vehicles offers an opportunity to quickly reduce our dependence 

on petroleum, which is why the President set an ambitious goal that by 2015 we 

would have 1 million electric vehicles on the road, becoming the world’s leader in 

advance vehicle technologies. To help reach this goal, the Administration supports 

a number of steps to speed up the adoption of electric vehicles, including more effective tax credits for consumers, research and development, and a new competitive 

grant program to support communities that create an environment for widespread 

adoption of these advanced vehicles in the near term. 

With new electric drive vehicles beginning to enter the market, and with auto 

manufacturers announcing new roll outs over the next couple of years, now is the 

right time to support local community efforts to overcome critical barriers to successful market introduction and initial growth. The competitive community grant 

program would support highly-leveraged projects to deploy an early electric vehicle 

charging infrastructure, appropriately streamline permitting processes, and implement innovative incentive programs that facilitate market growth and catalyze private-sector investment. 

CURRENT VTP FUNDING REQUEST (S. 734)

Question 3. The Department requested $588 million for the Vehicle Technologies 

Program for Fiscal Year 2012. How is that funding split between light duty and 

heavier vehicle classes? How is it split between various technologies and research 

areas? 

Answer. With the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget request of $588 million, 

the Vehicle Technologies Program plans to continue its support of a broad range of 

advanced vehicle technologies including electric drive, advanced combustion, fuels, 

and materials technologies that are applicable to light-, medium-, and heavy-duty 

vehicles (see table below for split among research areas). Of the total requested 

amount, $200 million would support a new competitive grant program to help communities accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles, with a focus on efforts related to electric charging infrastructure. The remaining $388 million would support 

work related to light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as work that crosscuts vehicle classes, including enabling technologies and outreach, deployment, and 

analysis activities. The precise division of FY 2012 funds for work supporting different vehicle classes will depend on the selection of projects under a recently-closed 

FY 2011 solicitation and new solicitations planned for FY 2012. The program’s best 

estimate at this time, however, is that approximately $290 million would support 

work related to light-duty vehicle technologies, approximately $46 million would 

support work related to medium-and heavy-duty technologies, and approximately 

$250 million (including the $200 million for the competitive community grant program referenced above) would support activities that do not easily align with a par-
65 

ticular vehicle class. It is important to note that the program’s support for lightduty vehicle technologies generally reflects their significant contribution to highway 

transportation use, compared to other vehicle classes: light-duty vehicles account for 

76% and heavy trucks account for 19% of U.S. highway transportation energy use 

(buses and medium trucks account for the remaining 5%). 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM FY 2012 CONGRESSIONAL 

BUDGET REQUEST 

Activity FY 2012 Request 

($000) 

Batteries and Electric Drive $188,000 

Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing $58,000 

Advanced Combustion Engine R&D $49,000 

Materials Technologies $38,000 

Fuels Technologies $18,503 

Outreach, Deployment, and Analysis $236,500 

TOTAL $588,003 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM (S. 734)

Question 4. Please provide the committee with a list or table showing federal appropriations to the Vehicle Technologies Program over the past ten years. 

Answer. The following table outlines federal appropriations to the Vehicle Technologies Program over the past ten years: 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

FY 

2004 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 

2007 

FY 

2008 

FY 

2009 

FY 

2010 

195,855 190,403 185,095 177,620 171,952 186,271 183,580 208,359 235,916 304,223 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM (S. 734)

Question 5. S. 734 would authorize work on basic research, applied research, development, demonstration, engineering, construction, manufacturing, and commercial application activities. it would also create several new programs. Will you compare what this bill authorizes and requires to the current scope of activities at 

DOE? How are DOE’s resources currently split between those processes? 

Answer. Within the Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) supports applied research, 

development, demonstration, and deployment. Approximately 90% of its current 

budget covers applied research, development, and demonstration, and approximately 

10% covers deployment activities. The Department’s Office of Science supports basic 

research, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) focuses on 

high-risk, high-payoff, early-stage applied research, which, if successful, is transferred to VTP or to the private sector for continued development. All three offices/ 

programs coordinate very well with one another and staff communicate regularly. 

While S. 734 would authorize construction and manufacturing, historically, VTP has 

not been involved in the installation of manufacturing facilities. American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) manufacturing projects are the exception. The Recovery Act provided an opportunity to grow our nation’s domestic manufacturing capacity for electric drive vehicle components—with Recovery Act funds, 

VTP awarded $1.5 billion to U.S.-based manufacturers to produce batteries and 

their components and to expand battery recycling capacity and $500 million to U.S.- 

based manufacturers to produce electric drive components for vehicles, including 

electric motors, power electronics, and other drivetrain components. 
66 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM (S. 734)

Question 6. Last Congress, in questions that were asked for the hearing record, 

the Department noted that it had no issue’’ with this bill as long as it was ‘‘intended 

as a supplemental authorization to previous authorizations.’’ Please explain that 

statement. Does the Department support the consolidation of all of its existing vehicle technology authorities into one simpler and more straightforward authority? 

Answer. Generally, the Department supports the consolidation of existing vehicle 

technologies R&D authorizations for appropriations into a simpler and straight-forward authority. The previous bill covered a broad technology portfolio that included 

the advanced technologies currently addressed in the Vehicle Technologies Program, 

as well as hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle technologies currently addressed in the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Program; however, it authorized specific funding 

levels that the Department believed may not have been alone sufficient to appropriately support activities in both programs. In contrast, S. 734 authorizes funding 

levels ‘‘as may be necessary.’’ 

RESPONSES OF PATRICK DAVIS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1. The Department of Energy via the National Energy Technology Laboratory awarded approximately $45 million in grants to automotive and engine 

manufacturers under the Systems Level Technology Development, Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles program. What is the status of the program including the project teams led by Ford, Delphi and Bosch, specifically regarding the federal funds already allocated, the stage of each project, the federal funds 

pending for each project, and the timeline for project completion and their subsequent fuel economy gains? 

Answer. The Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles Program 

includes projects with Ford, Delphi, Bosch, and Cummins. All projects are well 

under way and making progress. The status of the Ford, Delphi, and Bosch projects, 

specifically, is as follows: 

• Ford has been allocated $6,478,340 and has completed concept evaluation of 

new engine architecture and systems, performed single cylinder engine and flow 

reactor analyses for advanced lean combustion capability, and initiated CAD design of the new multi cylinder engine components and systems. The pending 

Federal funds are $8,521,660. The project is scheduled to end on 12/31/2014 

with a demonstration of a 25% fuel economy improvement in a mid-sized sedan 

using a downsized, advanced gasoline turbocharged direct injection (GTDI) engine while meeting Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions on the FTP-75 cycle (Federal Test 

Procedure). 

• Delphi has been allocated $4,788,205 and has completed initial development 

work on needle bearing camshafts, electric cam phasers, electric water pump, 

electric oil pump, cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), thermal management, and advanced valvetrain systems and has begun integration/testing on a 

base engine. Work has also commenced with single-cylinder engine testing. The 

pending Federal funds are $2,692,377. The project is scheduled to end on 8/31/ 

2014 with a demonstration of a 35% fuel economy improvement over the base 

engine while meeting Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions on the FTP-75 cycle. 

• Bosch has been allocated $5,500,000 and has completed an initial 1D engine 

model and installed a homogenous charge compression ignition (1-ICCI) mule 

engine at the University of Michigan. An initial prototype boosting system has 

been designed for the test engine. The pending Federal funds are $6,182,468. 

The project is scheduled to end on 9/29/2014 with a demonstration of a 25% fuel 

economy improvement over the base engine while meeting Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions on the FTP-75 cycle. 

Question 2. Mr. Davis, I noticed in your testimony that the Department of Energy 

was still reviewing my legislation, but had a possible concern about duplication with 

efforts at the Department of Transportation regarding sensing and communication 

technologies. I know that the Department of Transportation has been working on 

sensing technologies to promote safety, but this section is intended to encourage research and development of sensing technologies specifically interacting with the 

electric grid and even vehicle to vehicle interactions. 

I agree that we should be taking steps to avoid duplication, which is why I’d like 

to point out for you that within Section 101 of my legislation, page 11, there is a 

phrase to ensure that the Department of Energy does not duplicate work being done 

by other agencies. 
67 

Therefore, I’d like to ask you if there are any other areas where you see the possibility for duplication and encourage you to work with me to ensure that we address 

those issues. 

Answer. The Department agrees that R&D of sensing technologies is important, 

especially for vehicle-to-grid applications, and the Department has efforts helping to 

establish standardized vehicle-to-grid communications. We will work closely with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT), which is very active in this area (and in 

vehicle-to-vehicle interaction, in particular), to leverage resources and expertise and 

avoid duplication of effort. We understand that the Department of Transportation 

is conducting research related to battery safety that may lead to regulation and we 

will need to coordinate with DOT in that area as well. We know of no other R&D 

areas of obvious duplication and will continue to work closely with our Federal partners at DOT, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Defense to 

ensure our programs are well-coordinated and highly-leveraged to make the best use 

of taxpayer dollars. 

Question 3a. I like the idea of helping communities coordinate to deploy electric 

vehicles and charging stations, provide technical assistance, and upgrade various 

local and state regulations. This all can help to spur these technologies nationwide. 

With so much interest in deploying these technologies, how will you determine 

which communities will receive this grant funding, and how many communities do 

you anticipate will eventually receive funding? 

Answer. The Department would select proposals for award using a robust merit 

review process that involves an independent panel of subject matter experts who 

carefully evaluate each proposal against the specific criteria published in the funding opportunity announcement. While the specific selection criteria have not been 

finalized, we envision factors such as the following as being important to a successful application: 

• Does the community have credible plans to overcome permitting barriers? • Has the community engaged the right partners and key stakeholders to be successful? • Has the community proposed innovative incentives to promote adoption? • How is the community using local and private funds to highly leverage the 

available Federal funds? • Does the total number of charging points proposed represent a very high value 

for the funding? 

With the amount included in the budget request, we plan to award up to 30 

grants to strategic, local community partnerships across the country, with individual awards of up to $10 million each. Given auto manufacturers’ plans to sell 

electric vehicles in cities across the country, we do not expect to focus on a limited 

number of geographic areas and instead expect to select projects based on their 

merit using criteria such as those listed above. 

Question 3b. I like the idea of helping communities coordinate to deploy electric 

vehicles and charging stations, provide technical assistance, and upgrade various 

local and state regulations. This all can help to spur these technologies nationwide. 

As a follow up, how will DOE work to ensure fairness for neighboring communities that are not chosen, but are close to deployment communities? Will this policy 

hamper development in areas not chosen? 

Answer. The Department would select proposals for award using a robust merit 

review process that involves an independent panel of subject matter experts who 

carefully evaluate each proposal against the specific criteria published in the funding opportunity announcement. Cities and communities would be encouraged to 

form strategic local/regional partnerships and submit a single proposal. Areas that 

are not selected for funding under this competitive opportunity, however, would still 

benefit from the library of resources available through the Department’s Clean Cities initiative. These include cost calculators and electric vehicle supply equipment 

(EVSE) mapping tools, guidebooks to facilitate permitting, and a host of other training and information resources. Another important attribute of the Clean Cities initiative is its unique ability to share information across its nationwide network of 

more than 80 local coalitions, as well as to neighboring communities. Not only would 

the competitive grant program provide an excellent opportunity to document valuable lessons learned and best practices that can be communicated publicly, but the 

areas selected would comprise a new network of experts to serve as models and a 

resource for other communities interested in electric drive vehicle deployment. 

Question 4. I support the idea of using deployment communities to assist with 

electric vehicle adoption nationwide. I also believe that it is important to establish 

the right balance between national and community deployment. Most vehicles remain idle at home or at work 80 percent of the time. While it is important to up-
68 

grade the communities’ ability to provide public charging to consumers, I also believe we should give incentives directly to the consumer to install charging stations 

at home. For early adopters, the majority of charging will be done at home. 

How do we find the right balance between incentivizing electric vehicle deployment within particular communities and ensuring we are allowing for this development nationally? 

Answer. Although the Department cannot provide funds to support electric drive 

vehicle deployment in every community across the country, there are programs and 

policies that can support any community interested in accelerating local market 

growth. For example, the Department would select projects for award under the 

competitive community grant program giving consideration to factors including (but 

not limited to) whether it has credible plans to overcome permitting barriers, whether it has engaged the right partners and key stakeholders needed to be successful, 

and whether it has proposed innovative incentives to promote adoption. Programs 

and policies to address these factors may be easily transferable, and communities 

that meet these criteria and are selected for funding would serve as models that 

provide important lessons learned, share their experiences, and communicate best 

practices to the benefit of communities nationwide. In addition, the existing tax 

credit of up to $7,500 for electric drive vehicles provides an incentive to potential 

users nationwide. The President has proposed transforming this tax credit for purchasers into a credit for the seller or the person financing the sale. The credit would 

be passed through to consumers, giving them the ability to receive the benefit of 

the credit at the point of sale to provide an even greater, up-front incentive for consumers interested in electric drive vehicles. These programs and policies are designed to enable early market success, reduce technology cost, and remove barriers 

such as onerous permitting processes—which, in turn will facilitate technology introduction across the country. 
(69) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

May 9, 2011. 

THE DETROIT NEWS

ASIAN POWER EMBRACES ADVANCED-TECH VEHICLES

By CHRISTINE TIERNEY 

Shanghai—During the first 80 years of the auto industry, American and European 

automakers didn’t have to worry about pollution or oil supplies. Oil was plentiful 

and gas was cheap. But by the time China got into the car business, those concerns 

loomed large. 

China’s huge cities already were choking in smog, and the world’s oil reserves 

were expected to dwindle. Even while Chinese automakers were learning the basics 

of carmaking a few years ago, planners in Beijing set out to develop an electric car 

industry that wouldn’t rely on oil. 

China’s automakers don’t seem any closer now than others to solving the technological challenges that have stumped the industry: how to pack more energy in batteries while reducing their size and cost. Chinese auto executives admit they have 

a long way to go to master the technology. 

But American, European and Japanese auto executives and officials are taking 

China’s efforts very seriously. The Chinese government has set ambitious production 

targets and will provide close to $15 billion between now and 2020. 

Half the money will go toward research and development of ‘‘new energy vehicles,’’ 

a term that covers plug-in and electric cars. But money also will be spent on infrastructure, such as the installation of 36,000 charging outlets in Beijing within three 

years, and pilot projects in 25 cities. 

‘‘Where they’re ahead is at the political commitment level,’’ said Oliver Hazimeh, 

a partner at PRTM, a Waltham, Mass.-based consulting firm, which conducted a 

study with the World Bank on China’s electric car plans. 

‘‘The Chinese government is very strongly behind electrification, and they also 

have the raw materials,’’ lithium and rare earths used to make components for electric cars, Hazimeh said. 

The implications for the United States and other countries are huge: Because of 

the size of its market, China is likely to influence standards and technological 

choices, and its carmakers will want to compete globally with plug-in and electric 

cars. 

LAWMAKERS SLAM INCENTIVES

BYD Ltd., a leading Chinese automaker, aims to export electric cars to the United 

States and Europe next year. 

Already, U.S. lawmakers claim that some of China’s electric car policies, notably 

its incentives, discriminate against U.S. and other foreign brands. 

According to China’s New Energy Vehicle Development Plan, the government 

wants 1 million hybrid vehicles and 500,000 plug-in and all-electric vehicles on China’s roads by 2015. By 2020, it wants 5 million plug-in and electric cars in circulation, with some private analysts estimating the figure will be higher. 

By then, China aims to have between three and five proficient electric car manufacturers and two or three battery specialists. 

‘‘People are taking this seriously,’’ said Michael Dunne, president of Hong Kong 

investment advisory firm Dunne & Co. ‘‘What the government wants to happen usually happens in China, even though the road getting there often looks muddled.’’ 

The motivation driving China’s strategy is geopolitical, he said. ‘‘It’s 90 percent 

about energy security, and less than 10 percent about the environment.’’ 
70 

Other countries also have set goals, emission rules and incentives to encourage 

the use of electric cars. President Barack Obama said in 2008 he wants to see 1 

million plug-in and electric cars on American roads by 2015. Chancellor Angela 

Merkel wants to have 1 million electric cars in Germany by 2020. 

A bill before Congress would offer grants and other incentives to help establish 

10 electric car ‘‘deployment communities.’’ Meanwhile, the Chinese are ready to offer as much as $15,000 in incentives in 

some cities—more than what’s available to consumers in California. And ‘‘they have 

large-scale pilot projects, much larger than those in other regions,’’ said Hazimeh. 

EXECS AWARE OF CHALLENGES

At the Shanghai auto show last month, Chinese automakers displayed a raft of 

electric cars—the BYD e6, a Great Wall electric SUV, the Chery Riich M1-EV and 

the BAIC C30. 

U.S., European and Japanese executives touring the show said Chinese production methods had improved, but didn’t see any technological breakthroughs. Chinese 

auto executives are candid, too, about the challenges. 

At a conference in Shanghai last month, an executive with Jianghuai Automobile 

Co., a state-owned firm that has sold 585 electric cars to its employees and those 

of other state-owned firms on a trial basis, said it’s not ready to sell electric cars 

to retail customers. 

‘‘Our technology doesn’t allow us to sell to retail customers,’’ Yan Gang, vice president of Jianghuai Automobile, told the CBU 2011 Global Automotive Symposium. 

‘‘Retail customers are too demanding.’’ 

Wu Jianzhong, chairman of Zotye Holding Group, was clearly discomfited when 

asked at the conference about a Zotye-made electric taxi that caught fire in April 

in the city of Hangzhou. Wu apologized and said a center would be established to 

monitor the electric taxis. But he wouldn’t discuss the event, pending an official inquiry. 

‘‘The incident caused huge damage to us,’’ Hu Jiangyi, deputy sales director of 

State Grid Corp., commented later. 

Despite the mishaps, China’s automakers are ramping up plans to produce electric cars, with most of the output slated for municipal, provincial and federal fleets 

in the next few years. 

State-owned BAIC Group, a Beijing-based manufacturer, is new to the electric car 

business but expects to produce 150,000 new energy vehicles by 2015, up from 3,500 

this year, Deputy Chief Engineer Lin Yi said. 

Jianghuai Automobile, based in Hefei, hopes to be making 100,000 new energy vehicles a year by 2015. 

But some manufacturers question how the government’s funds are being allocated. ‘‘Money is going to those who don’t need it,’’ said Deng Zhongyi, vice president 

for sales at BAK Batteries. ‘‘Most battery producers are private companies, and 

most battery producers are pretty weak.’’ 

In China’s fragmented auto industry, many firms will fall by the wayside in the 

years ahead, but a few contenders are likely to emerge, analysts say. 

BYD, a leading manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries, has won investor backing 

from U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett and has joined forces with Germany’s Daimler 

AG to develop electric cars for the Chinese market. 

‘‘There’s a favorable environment here for electric vehicles,’’ Daimler CEO Dieter 

Zetsche told reporters at the Shanghai auto show. 

Given the size of China’s market—more than 18 million vehicles were sold last 

year—the government’s push to develop alternative technologies is logical, he said. 

‘‘They can’t develop the way Europe and the United States did, with the current 

technology.’’ 

STATEMENT OF NGVAMERICA 

INTRODUCTION

NGVAmerica is pleased to offer the following written statement with regard to 

this hearing. NGVAmerica is a national organization dedicated to the development 

of a growing and sustainable market for vehicles powered by natural gas and biomethane. NGVAmerica represents more than 130 member companies, including: vehicle manufacturers; natural gas vehicle (NGV) component manufacturers; natural 

gas distribution, transmission, and production companies; natural gas development 

organizations; environmental and non-profit advocacy organizations; state and local 

government agencies; and fleet operators. 
71 

The purpose of the Committee’s hearing on May 19, 2011 is to receive comments 

and hear testimony concerning ‘‘policies to reduce oil consumption through the promotion of advanced vehicle technologies and accelerated deployment of electric-drive 

vehicles.’’ The hearing announcement specifically references S. 734 and S. 948. 

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES SHOULD BE A PART OF FUTURE ENERGY LEGISLATION

Today, natural gas vehicles are uniquely positioned to help the United States 

achieve a number of critical policy objectives. The increased use of natural gas vehicles can reduce our dependence on foreign oil while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and urban pollution. And, equally important, increased use of natural gas vehicles will benefit the economy by stimulating demand for domestic natural gas and 

by lowering fuel cost to businesses, fleets and consumers that operate natural gas 

vehicles. Thus, energy legislation that is intended to reduce reliance on oil consumption should also seek to promote the use of natural gas vehicles. We are pleased 

to see that S. 734, ‘‘The Advanced Technology Vehicle Act of 2011,’’ specifically recognizes the need to includes natural gas vehicles, compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas vehicles in future federal research, development and demonstration 

activities. We agree with the bills focus on targeting near-term strategies as well 

as long-term strategies that will reduce transportation reliance on petroleum. And 

we agree with the focus on assisting and partnering with industry in the development of light and heavy duty natural gas offerings. One area where we would offer 

a recommendation for improving the bill would be to point out that the medium and 

heavy duty program called for in Title II should also include liquefied natural gas 

fueling infrastructure in addition to compressed natural gas fueling infrastructure. 

Given the fact that the bill specifically identifies LNG elsewhere, this omission appears to be unintentional. 

Another area where, in our estimation, the bill could be improved would be to specifically identify natural gas utilities as stakeholders and partners who can aid in 

the development of natural gas vehicles. The bill specifically identifies electric utilities but does apparently recognize a similar role for natural gas utilities. 

Prioritizing among the many technologies identified in S. 734, however, will be 

difficult. We hope that the committee and members of Congress will work with the 

Department of Energy to ensure that adequate funding is provided for natural gasrelated activities given the significant near-term and long-term opportunities it presents for reducing petroleum reliance. 

The House of Representatives has already introduced HR 1380, a bill intended to 

promote the use of natural gas vehicles. We would urge the Committee Members 

to support the HR 1380 when it is introduced in the Senate. HR 1380 is discussed 

in greater detail below. 

AN ABUNDANT AND ECONOMICAL DOMESTIC RESOURCE

Reliance on foreign oil exacts a high toll on the U.S. in terms of direct economic 

costs and indirect energy security costs. In the past three years (2008—2010), the 

US spent nearly $700 billion on imported petroleum. More recently, the tab for imported oil has been much higher as oil prices have once again exceeded $100 per 

barrel. In the coming decade, the EIA forecasts total expenditures for petroleum imports to top $3.3 trillion dollars. See EIA, 2011 Annual Energy Outlook , Table 11 

(April 2011). Our reliance on oil not only affects our trade balance but makes the 

U.S. vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. And high oil prices results 

in a windfall for regimes that may not be friendly to the U.S. Fortunately, the U.S. 

has an unprecedented opportunity to displace petroleum with domestic natural gas. 

In the past several years, a wealth of new data has been developed demonstrating 

that the U.S. has an abundant supply of readily available, economically priced natural gas. 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, the Potential Gas Committee and 

other expert bodies now estimate that we have up to a 100 years supply of natural 

gas. The Potential Gas Committee’s 2011 bi-annual report indicates that the U.S. 

now has a total future supply of 2,170 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is 89 

Tcf more than estimated in the 2009 report. As was the case with the 2009 report, 

the 2011 report includes the highest resource estimate in the Committee’s history; 

PGC has now been estimating natural gas supplies for 46 years. 

Increased demand for natural gas helps to keep our economy growing by supporting new jobs and economic development. In 2008, U.S. production of 20 Tcf of 

natural gas supported nearly 3 million jobs (‘‘The Contributions of the Natural Gas 

Industry to the U.S. National And State Economies’’, IHS Global Insight 2009, p.1) 

Even a modest increase in demand for natural gas as a transportation fuel could 

create tens of thousands of jobs associated with producing natural gas. 
72 

Natural gas also benefits our economy because it is a low cost energy that helps 

businesses grow while at the same time controlling costs. Natural gas is priced 

much lower than petroleum. The two fuels no longer track one another and haven’t 

for many years. The current contract price for natural gas (NYMEX May delivery) 

is $4.377 per million Btu, which equates to a per-barrel of oil price of only $25.39 

at a time when oil is trading well above $100 a barrel. The difference in price relates to the fact that petroleum prices are set by world markets. An increase in demand in China or India leads to an increase in the cost of oil consumed here in the 

U.S. However, the same is not true for natural gas. The U.S. market for natural 

gas is currently insulated from most overseas events. Given the fact that large 

quantities of natural gas cannot be readily shipped from North America to other 

markets, the supply and demand for natural gas here in the U.S. set the price that 

U.S. consumers pay. Because of the abundant supply of natural gas that exists here 

in the U.S., natural gas prices relative to oil prices are expected to remain much 

lower in the coming years. In fact, the EIA estimates that differential between diesel fuel and natural gas for transportation could be as much as $2 per diesel gallon 

equivalent in the future. 

TRANSLATING OPPORTUNITY INTO ADVANTAGE

How should we use this natural gas? Market price signals tell us that transportation fuel and vehicles are the highest valued application of all natural gas uses. 

Outside the U.S., demand for natural gas vehicles is growing at a rapid pace. In 

the last seven years the market for NGVs has more than tripled with a compound 

growth rate of over 17 percent per year. In fact, NGVs are the fastest growing alternative to petroleum vehicles in the world. In 2003, there were only about 2.8 million 

NGVs globally. Today, there are over 13.2 million NGVs in operation worldwide. 

This rapid growth points to the fact that rapid scaling up of NGVs is possible. The 

International NGV Association forecasts that, by 2020, there will be 65 million 

NGVs on the world’s roads. Unfortunately, the U.S. currently ranks fourteenth in 

the world in total number of NGVs. 

Most of the new natural gas vehicles sold outside the U.S. are either conversions 

of light-duty gasoline vehicles or are produced by light duty OEMs, including: Ford, 

GM, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Fiat, Volkswagen and Mercedes. Fiat alone 

makes 14 separate NGV models, and more than 100,000 NGVs were sold in Italy 

in 2009, comprising some 7% of the new vehicle market. Most U.S. manufacturers 

currently offer natural gas vehicles in places like Europe, South America and Asia, 

but only Honda currently offers a light duty OEM NGV product—the Honda Civic 

GX. 

For a number of reasons, including the sheer geographic size of America, the 

strategy of the US NGV industry has been to focus on high fuel-use fleets: trash 

trucks, transit buses, short-haul 18-wheelers, school buses, urban delivery vehicles, 

shuttles of all kinds, and taxis. Today, the U.S. only has about 120,000 NGVs. Vehicle demand has been growing, but slowly. However, because of the large fuel use 

per-vehicle, the amount of natural gas used (and petroleum displaced) has been increasingly at a robust pace. NGVAmerica estimates that, last year, natural gas vehicles used about 43 billion cubic feet of natural gas. That is the equivalent of about 

320 million gallons of gasoline that was not imported. At today’s fuel prices, this 

represents about a billion dollars not spent on foreign oil. 

Fortunately, the U.S. currently leads the world in offerings of new medium-and 

heavy-duty NGVs. In the past several years, virtually all the major truck and bus 

manufacturers in the U.S. have begun offering factory-built NGVs. The impressive 

list of manufacturers includes: Kenworth, International/ESI, Peterbilt, Mack, American LaFrance/Condor, Crane Carrier, AutoCAD Truck, Capacity, Thomas Built Bus, 

Blue Bird Bus, Optima, NABI, El Dorado, New Flyer, Daimler/Orion, Freightliner, 

Gillis, Workhorse Chassis, Elgin, Allianz/Johnston, Schwarz, and Tyco. 

Manufacturers are betting that the U.S. will get serious about its desire to displace petroleum demand and increase the use of alternative fuels like natural gas. 

With proper government policies, like those proposed in S. 734, and incentives, like 

those proposed in HR 1380, sales of these trucks and use of natural gas could grow 

substantially in the coming years. NGVAmerica estimates that current fuel consumption of natural gas for vehicles could grow to one and a quarter trillion cubic 

feet or the equivalent of about 10 billion gallons within 15 years. At the level of 

fuel prices currently projected, that would lower fuel costs to businesses by up to 

$20 billion a year and reduced payments for imported petroleum by more than $40 

billion per year. 

NGVAmerica believes that there could be a substantial market for natural gas vehicles in all applications. However, the most immediate opportunity for displacing 
73 

petroleum and increasing the use of natural gas as transportation fuel lies with 

light-, medium-and heavy-duty fleets—especially trucks, buses and other heavier vehicles. As noted above, America currently has a large selection of medium and heavy 

duty vehicles available here in the U.S. This is significant since trucks are the economic lifeblood of America. Everything we buy moves by truck. Reducing the cost 

of trucking reduces the cost of everything, benefiting businesses and consumers 

alike. 

ENACTING MEANINGFUL POLICIES

Currently, NGVs cost more to buy than comparable gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. But they cost less to operate. The more miles a vehicle is driven each year, 

the faster the payback and the more likely the owners can justify the investment 

in NGVs. For some of the most fuel intensive fleets and vehicle applications, NGVs 

already are economic. However, to expand the use of NGVs and maximize NGVs’ 

oil displacement potential, the first-cost or incremental cost of NGVs needs to be 

brought down rapidly. And this will only happen with large scale production and 

increased economies of scale. H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give 

Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011 provides the means to accelerate demand for NGVs and to help manufacturers achieve economies of scale and buildout much needed fueling infrastructure. HR 1380 would provide federal incentives 

for the production, purchase and use of natural gas vehicles and the expansion of 

the NGV fueling infrastructure. 

It is important to note that there is no free market when it comes to the leading 

transportation fuel, i.e., petroleum. It is significantly distorted by the cartel power 

of OPEC. All other transportation fuels and technologies are at an extra-market economic disadvantage. Nothing would please OPEC more than for Congress to assume 

that, left on its own, the marketplace would solve the problem of our addiction to 

foreign oil. Federal intervention to offset the policies of OPEC is essential. 

That is why NGVAmerica strongly supports H.R. 1380, and hopes similar legislation will be introduced in the Senate soon. There is broad bipartisan support for this 

bill. Although only introduced on April 6th, H.R. 1380 already has 186 bipartisan 

co-sponsors. As proposed, these incentives would be available for only a five year 

period. During that time and long thereafter, it would make NGVs the economic 

choice for many more fleets. This legislation would accelerate NGV use, which, in 

turn, would bring more NGV manufacturers into the market, increase competition 

and drive down the first-cost premium of NGVs. 

NGVs are a here-and-now technology. This fact is highlighted by the investments 

and commitments by fleets already taking place in the market place in the U.S. 

Highlighted here are some of the growing examples of how natural gas is helping 

meet the needs of fleets: 

• AT&T operates more than 2,400 vehicles powered by natural gas and has a goal 

of expanding the fleet to 8,000 by 2013; 

• UPS has more than 1,100 natural gas powered vehicles, and is expanding its 

fleet of vehicles powered by liquefied natural gas. The company has said it 

would convert a much larger share of its trucking fleet to LNG if the fueling 

infrastructure was in place; 

• The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority earlier this 

year held a retirement ceremony for its last diesel bus, and 2,221 of its buses 

are now running on compressed natural gas; a number of the other smaller 

transit agencies around the country have successfully switched their entire fleet 

over to using natural gas. In Washington, DC, the local transit authority operates nearly 500 natural gas transit buses, and several feeder systems (outlying 

counties) also operate natural gas buses. 

• Ryder System Inc. is purchasing 202 heavy-duty natural gas vehicles that will 

be used in its Southern California network; 

• Waste Management, the largest refuse company in the country, has more than 

900 vehicles running on either compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas; 

• The Dallas Area Rapid Transit system recently announced it will purchases 452 

natural gas powered transit buses—the largest single order of natural gas transit buses currently in place. 

As these fleet examples highlight, NGVs do not need technical breakthroughs to 

capitalize on the potential of natural gas as a transportation fuel. What is needed 

most is to grow demand for these vehicles faster. Federal leadership in leading the 

way and providing incentives will make this happen. By providing critical incentives, the NAT GAS Act would help jumpstart that growth. In addition, federal 

agencies can help by implementing rules that are favorable to the increased use of 
74 

natural gas and by leading by example through the purchase of natural gas vehicles 

for their fleets. And while NGVs do not need technological breakthroughs to be commercial, NGVs can be further improved by, for example, integrating hybridization 

technology with natural gas power. Therefore, it is important that the federal government support research, development and demonstration programs, like the ones 

proposed in S. 734, because, as that bill notes, manufacturers have ‘‘increasing limited resources’’ for such activities. Federal assistance and public private partnerships can ensure that natural gas vehicles continue to improve over time, delivering 

increased performance and delivering increased fuel efficiency. 

CONCLUSION

The U.S. has an unprecedented opportunity to displace petroleum with domestic 

natural gas. Now is the time to act to encourage the increased use of natural gas 

vehicles. We have an abundant supply of readily available, low-cost domestic natural gas. The fact that this fuel is domestic, low-cost, and clean means that America 

can achieve multiple national goals (energy security, clean air, economic security) 

all the while helping fleets and businesses to lower their costs, thus improving economic prosperity. Today, nearly every major truck or bus manufacturer in the U.S. 

is now offering factory-built NGV models. Federal policies and incentives, however, 

are needed to aid in the successful market penetration of these vehicles and to help 

accelerate their use so that the benefits of increased natural gas use can be realized. 

THE PEW, 

CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, 

Washington, DC, May 18, 2011. 

Hon. HONORABLE JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen 

Building, Room 304, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen 

Building, Room 304, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: 

In light of the Committee’s May 19 hearing on policies to reduce oil consumption, 

the Clean Energy Program of the Pew Charitable Trusts would like to urge prompt 

consideration of legislation that would accelerate the deployment of electric drive vehicles in the United States. Such legislation includes Senator Stabenow’s Advanced 

Vehicle Technology Act of 2011 (S. 734) and Senator Merkley and Alexander’s Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 (S. 948), each of which would make great 

strides in weaning our nation from oil and developing clean and home-grown transportation alternatives. 

National policies that promote vehicle electrification are critical to reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, reinvigorating U.S. manufacturing and minimizing 

environmental impacts while enhancing the nation’s competitiveness in the global 

clean energy economy. As the attached Detroit News article illustrates, rapid expansion of the Chinese electric car industry is of potential concern to U.S. executives 

and officials. If the United States committed to deploying 10 million charging stations and making 25 percent of new vehicles electric by 2020, it would yield benefits 

that could help strengthen economic, national and environmental security far into 

the 21st century. 

In 2009, this country imported 11.7 million barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products per day. At $100 a barrel, this amounts to sending foreign countries—some of them hostile to U.S. interests—more than $1.1 billion to meet our 

daily energy needs. To ensure stability in the world oil markets, American troops 

are deployed on oil-security missions, costing U.S. taxpayers $67 billion to $83 billion a year, according to the Rand Corporation. Furthermore, increasing domestic 

crude oil production—by 11 percent in the Obama administration—has not prevented gas prices from rising at the pump. 

Meanwhile, increasing demand for electric vehicles has resulted in new battery 

and component manufacturing facilities across the United States. The Department 

of Energy estimates that the United States will have the capacity to produce 40 percent of the world’s advanced vehicle batteries by 2015, and other experts predict 

that battery manufacturing could grow to $100 billion a year by 2030. Investments 

in charging infrastructure offer significant economic opportunities as well. The U.S. 

market for supply and installation of residential charging points alone is expected 

to reach almost $1 billion by 2020. 
75 

Electric vehicles emit far fewer greenhouse gases than conventional vehicles. Although power plants use various types of fuel to generate electricity, even plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles powered by older coal plants emit approximately 25 percent 

fewer greenhouse gases compared with conventional vehicles. With transportation 

accounting for nearly one-third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, broad adoption 

of electric vehicles will dramatically lower this sector’s greenhouse pollution. 

To fully realize the benefits from large-scale adoption of electric vehicles, national 

policies are needed to help stimulate demand and ensure that electric vehicles do 

not encounter technical or logistical obstacles. The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act 

would call for a broad research and development program on advanced vehicle materials, technologies, and processes that can substantially reduce or eliminate petroleum use and emissions by passenger and commercial vehicles. The Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011 would create short-term deployment communities across 

the country to help spur market penetration of electric vehicles and to serve as laboratories for modeling nationwide electrification. These bills embrace positive and 

significant steps towards relieving our oil dependence, and we urge their passage 

in Committee and in the full Senate. 

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to 

contact Shannon Heyck-Williams in our government relations department at (202) 

887-8801, or sheyck-williams@pewtrusts.org. 

Sincerely, 

PHYLLIS CUTTINO, 

Director. 

BETTER PLACE, 

May 20, 2011. 

Hon. AL FRANKEN, 

309 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR FRANKEN: 

We noted with interest your question regarding various paradigms of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure deployment and charging services at the Senate Energy 

Committee’s May 19th hearing on legislation to promote transportation electrification technologies. In particular, we were pleased to learn of your interest in the battery switch model currently being deployed by Better Place in country-wide networks for Israel, Denmark, and Australia, as well as commercial demonstrations in 

China and the US. The mission of Better Place is to eliminate our dependence on 

oil and the way we do that is by making cars that don’t use oil less expensive and 

more convenient than ones that do. 

With that said, please allow us to clarify some things that were not made clear 

at the hearing. 

The battery-separation model pioneered by Better Place is designed to eliminate 

three major barriers to mass adoption of electric cars—cost, convenience and range. 

With our service, the consumer buys the car—but not the battery. As a result, electric cars on the Better Place network are NOT premium cars—they are priced similarly to their gasoline equivalents. The first car on the Better Place network will 

be the Renault Fluence ZE, a five-passenger, high performance sedan that consumers in Israel and Denmark will be able to purchase later this year together with 

an eMobility subscription to Better Place at roughly the same price they would pay 

to own a comparable gas car. 

To address convenience and range, Better Place deploys infrastructure in two 

parts. First, charge points enable the car to be plugged and charged at home, at 

work, and at strategic public locations. Second, Better Place deploys a network of 

battery switch stations, which switch a depleted battery out for a full one in about 

two minutes—faster than it takes to fill a tank of gas. Better Place demonstrated 

this ‘‘instant charge’’ technology in a Tokyo taxi commercial scale pilot in 2010, in 

which the automated battery switch process averaged 59.1 seconds. 

The net result of the Better Place model is a guaranteed mobility service that can 

move electric vehicle adoption from a niche product to a mass market solution, giving consumers a vehicle ownership experience that is not subject to the volatility 

of prices at the pump. That, we believe, is a market-based solution that tips the 

market and breaks dependence on oil for cars in a decade or less. 

The issues raised at the hearing appeared based on perceived complexity and cost 

of battery switching. The solution is not free, but it is far more economical, even 

in the US, than sending billions of dollars overseas for foreign oil. Moreover, the 

global economics of electrification and the Better Place solution is sound, since there 

are two driving market forces at work today, rising oil prices and the declining cost 
76 

of batteries. That is why Better Place has raised $700M from private investors, including some of the world’s largest banks such as HSBC and Morgan Stanley. 

Our commercial networks in Israel and Denmark are slated to open at the end 

of this year, and our network in Australia will get underway in 2012. At the same 

time, the Chinese government is taking aggressive action to become the capital of 

the electric car industry, and government and industry there are increasingly embracing the battery switch model. Recently, we announced an agreement with China 

Southern Grid, one of the world’s largest utilities, to collaborate on EV charging and 

battery switching technology, starting with the metropolitan area of Guangzhou, the 

third largest city in China. 

With our first global headquarters in Silicon Valley, we are actively engaged in 

leading EV markets in North America (California, Hawaii, Toronto) to pilot and 

scale EV charging networks. You may want to speak with your colleague from Hawaii, Senator Daniel Inouye, who was present last month as we inaugurated a demonstration charging network in his state. Next year Better Place plans to launch a 

public-private partnership program in the San Francisco Bay Area that will deploy 

a regional corridor of battery switch stations to serve a fleet of sixty zero emission 

taxicabs. 

Witnesses at the ENR hearing appeared to discount the applicability of the model 

beyond small countries; however, the fact of the matter is that there is no way to 

offer unlimited drive in an all-electric car along vast distances without switchable 

batteries. We have had the pleasure of hosting several of your Senate colleagues at 

our Global Visitor Center in Israel, as well as former Governor Tim Pawlenty, and 

we invite you to do the same. 

By visiting our home page at http://www.betterplace.com you can see a short video 

explaining our solution and showing our battery-switch system, called ‘‘Drive * 

Switch * Go.’’ 

Once again, thank you for your interest in EVs in general and the battery switch 

model in particular. We hope these clarifications are useful to you, and we would 

welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you or your staff may have 

about Better Place. 

Sincerely, 

MIKE GRANOFF, 

Head of Oil Independence Policies. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE PISTOR, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL

ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association thanks you for allowing 

us the opportunity to provide testimony as the Committee considers S. 948, the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011, introduced by Senators Merkley and Alexander. 

NEMA is the trade association of choice for the electrical manufacturing industry. 

Founded in 1926 and headquartered near Washington, D.C., its approximately 450 

member companies manufacture products used in the generation, transmission and 

distribution, control, and end-use of electricity. My comments are submitted on behalf of the member companies of the NEMA Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment and 

Systems (EVSES) Section which manufacture products or assemblies installed for 

the purpose of safely delivering and managing electrical energy between an electric 

vehicle and an electrical source. 

NEMA is committed to the integration of EVs into our transportation economy. 

We applaud the leadership demonstrated by Senator Merkley and Senator Alexander in crafting a bill that takes a major step forward in preparing our infrastructure for the deployment of electric vehicles. 

Rapid deployment of electric vehicles requires robust market penetration of charging infrastructure—at home, at the office, and on the road, from coast to coast. 

EVSES put the consumer in control of their recharging needs. With various payment methods, voluntary interaction with the electric grid, and the ability to charge 

the vehicle when power is at its cheapest, EVSES makes owning and operating an 

electric vehicle cost-effective, safe, and convenient. 

NEMA supports many provisions in S. 948. Investment in deployment programs 

will help to identify the challenges facing EV adoption and best practices for overcoming these challenges. When shared with other communities across the country, 

our national approach to incorporation of EV and EVSE will be much more informed. NEMA also supports programs designed to assist both the federal government and private sector in upgrading their fleets to electric vehicles. Fleets often 
77 

lead the way in adopting new technologies and in this case, have the most to gain 

in terms of energy savings. Reducing barriers to adoption is important. 

We recognize that in addition to this Committee, other committees of jurisdiction 

will have an important role to play a successful legislative strategy, and we hope 

this Committee will work closely with them. NEMA supports a multi-year extension 

and expansion of the Section 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property tax 

credit, currently set to expire in 2011. 

Because safety is paramount, NEMA believes this credit should expressly allow 

all necessary electrical equipment, infrastructure, and installation costs that are 

necessary to deliver power to charge the electric vehicle. Further, NEMA is committed to the proposition that installation of EVSES and related equipment be done 

in compliance with the National Electrical Code. 

Because the rollout of EVs requires a robust infrastructure strategy, we are 

pleased to offer our support of these provisions in the Promoting Electric Vehicles 

Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SHANE KARR, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE

ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) appreciates the opportunity 

to express our views on S. 734, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, and 

S. 948, the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2011. The Alliance is a trade association of twelve car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler 

Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, 

Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars, Toyota Motors, Volkswagen Group and Volvo Cars. Auto manufacturing is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, supporting 8 million private-sector jobs, $500 billion in annual compensation, 

and $70 billion in personal income tax revenues. Together, Alliance members account for nearly 80 percent of annual motor vehicle sales in the U.S. 

We commend the sponsors of S.734 and S.948 for their leadership in promoting 

the successful deployment of advanced technology vehicles. Automakers are fully engaged in development of vehicles and advanced technologies to help reduce gasoline 

consumption and emissions, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There is no 

silver bullet or single technology that will solve this nation’s energy and environmental challenges. Meeting the diverse and complex requirements of the transportation sector will only be possible through a portfolio of advanced powertrain technologies. We’d like to take this opportunity to provide general feedback on both 

S.734 and S.948. 

S. 734: ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2011

Even in the face of the worst economic circumstances in decades, automobile manufacturers have worked hard to maintain our research and development efforts on 

a broad portfolio of advanced vehicle technologies. We are pleased that S. 734 recognizes the critical importance of ongoing research to develop and commercialize next 

generation technologies. As you know, the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Program, enables the Department to partner with automobile and truck 

makers, suppliers, academia and the national labs to carry out a broad array of advanced technology vehicle and component part research and development programs. 

S. 734 reauthorizes and updates the program, emphasizing the need and opportunity for automakers and suppliers to partner with DOE to develop and implement 

technologies for more fuel efficient vehicles. The research, development, deployment, 

and commercial applications projects promoted by this legislation will help accelerate the production of the next generation of vehicle technologies, which in turn 

will help reduce our nation’s dependence of foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Alliance appreciates Senator Stabenow’s efforts to promote jobs in the 

auto sector and speed the production of advanced vehicle technologies. 

S. 948: PROMOTING ELECTRIC VEHICLES ACT OF 2011

We agree with the vision of the bill’s authors that strong federal involvement is 

needed to help make communities across the nation ready for greater deployment 

of electric drive vehicles. Achieving widespread acceptance of these technologies will 

require aligning regulatory efforts; developing a supporting infrastructure; providing 

research and development; providing incentives for consumer adoption; and removing other market barriers. S. 948 includes provisions that contribute to progress on 

many of these fronts. 
78 

As an industry, however, we have concerns about an approach that would limit 

investments to a handful of communities, particularly at such an early stage of electric vehicle deployment. Attempts to prejudge the market bring tremendous risks, 

and the problem is compounded by making just a few large bets, particularly so 

early in the process. Using the grant program to ‘‘seed’’ activities in as broad a number of communities as possible is a more appropriate and equitable solution for the 

American public—avoiding limitations on automakers’ potential customer base for 

these vehicles and maximizing the chances of success for public investments overall—even if this means that any individual deployment community would receive 

less total funding. 

In addition, electric drive vehicles need to be developed in the broadest possible 

ways—with hybrid, battery electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles offering 

unique benefits in different vehicle segments. For this reason, we believe this legislation should allow manufacturers, fuel providers, and communities the flexibility 

to invest in multiple electric drive pathways, including fuel cell electric vehicle and 

related hydrogen infrastructure, which are not currently included in S. 948. 

Finally, for any technology to be successful it must be consumer driven, and a national program that helps the consumer with the most pressing need, residential 

charging, offers the best opportunity for sustainable growth and deployment of electric drive vehicles. Business models must be developed that will allow the private 

sector to deploy charging infrastructure in the full range of residential situations including high rise, garden apartments, town houses. A range of innovative solutions 

to address the challenges facing both residential and workplace charging should be 

funded and we believe the most efficient solution is to build on the Department of 

Energy’s existing programs. 

Automakers are committed to advancing electric mobility. Our member companies 

have already announced plans to launch plug-in hybrid, extended range hybrid, battery electric, and fuel-cell vehicles in the coming model years, and are hard at work 

developing the next generation of electric drive vehicles that will follow. We look forward to working with the Committee, Senator Merkley, and Senator Alexander to 

address the infrastructure and consumer acceptance issues that will be so important 

to the ultimate success of these vehicles, and their contribution to our national 

goals. 

CONCLUSION

S. 734 and S. 948 highlight the role advanced technology powertrains will play 

in enhancing energy security and reducing GHG emissions. Automakers are investing and will continue to invest in these technologies. Their success will depend on 

consumer acceptance, affordability, and an infrastructure to support these vehicles. 

We also want to remind and encourage the Members of the Committee to support 

an approach to vehicle fuel economy requirements that results in a single, national 

fuel economy standard—one that recognizes and balances the challenges inherent 

in bringing these technologies into the marketplace, understanding and effectively 

accounting for the technological feasibility, safety, and economic practicability, including impact on U.S. jobs. Automakers are currently working constructively with 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board on a single, national program for 

model years (MY) 2017-2025. This is a difficult process involving significant assumptions and uncertainties. It is imperative that the necessary analyses and studies be 

completed and fully evaluated prior to these standards being set. This will help ensure that a single, national program for fuel economy and GHG emission standards 

exists and that it continues to provide clarity and certainty, without pricing consumers out of the market or preventing them from choosing from a broad range of 

vehicles and technologies that can meet their diverse needs. 

The Alliance looks forward to working with the sponsors of these bills and the 

members of this Committee. Thank you for considering our views. 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION

In the past several Congresses, numerous pieces of legislation were introduced 

that would have incentivized the development, production and use of various alternative fuel vehicles, notably vehicles that operate on compressed natural gas (CNG), 

biofuels, ethanol, hydrogen and electricity. Unfortunately, in many cases this legislation neglected to also support propane autogas as a vehicle fuel and propane 

autogas vehicle alternatives. This makes no sense, considering that propane autogas 

is also defined in law as a clean alternative fuel. 
79 

The National Propane Gas Association is concerned that legislation such as the 

Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, while well-intentioned, falls short because 

it would fund Department of Energy (DOE) research and development and commercial application projects for hybrid, electric, hydrogen, and compressed natural gas 

vehicles and related technologies, but leaves out equally useful and relevant propane autogas vehicle alternatives. Passing legislation that incentivizes only one, or 

a select few, fuels places the Congress in the position of ‘‘picking winners’’ among 

alternative transportation fuels. Alternative fuel choices should be made by the marketplace, by the companies, fleets and consumers across the country who are tasked 

with making individual decisions about which alternative fuels and vehicles suit 

their needs best. The government should not intercede in this process. 

At the end of the day, the propane industry is seeking parity in government treatment of alternative fuels. In fact, we believe that, given a level playing field, propane autogas and autogas vehicles can play a lead role in addressing many of the 

stated objectives outlined in the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, most notably improving United States-based vehicle technologies that reduce our dependence on petroleum based fuel, improving emissions, and improving consumer choice 

of vehicle technologies. Propane autogas has everything going for it except inclusion 

in this legislation: 

• Propane autogas is a clean American fuel.—98.7% of U.S. propane supply is 

produced domestically, the balance coming largely from Canadian imports. 66% 

of propane supply is derived from natural gas production. This compares very 

favorably to the current U.S. transportation sector which is 95% reliant on petroleum, 60% of which comes from overseas. Even better news is that U.S. propane production from natural gas is expected to increase rapidly between 2010 

and 2020 (See Appendix). • Propane autogas vehicles have a positive emissions reduction profile.—Propane 

autogas vehicles are 19% lower in CO2 emissions than gasoline powered vehicles. Propane autogas vehicles also produce significantly lower particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon emissions than gasoline 

or diesel vehicles. • Propane supply is abundant.—In 2010 the North American market (U.S and 

Canada) was a net exporter of propane. This trend is likely to continue as shale 

gas, and natural gas liquids production in conjunction with shale gas, increase. • Propane autogas vehicles are here now.—Over the past several years, more and 

mcommercial, state and local government fleets have been transitioning to propane autogas as a cost-effective, environmentally sensitive domestic fuel. 

Propane autogas is easily the most accessible alternative transportation fuel currently available in the marketplace and is the most popular alternative transportation fuel worldwide. Recognizing this market, Ford and General Motors are now 

producing propane autogas vehicle platforms and many smaller companies are now 

converting existing vehicles to run on propane autogas. With gasoline and diesel 

prices rising fast and our country’s continued reliance on foreign oil it would be a 

mistake for the government to limit consumer choice in the alternative fuel vehicle 

marketplace by promoting one or more alternative fuels to the detriment of others. 

In sum, propane autogas is a clean, domestic and abundant fuel that is already 

displacing imported petroleum products in the American marketplace. The propane 

industry conceptually supports the goals of the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 

2011. However, we strongly urge the Committee, when considering this legislation, 

to abide by the principle of fuel neutrality by including an equitable ‘‘all of the 

above’’ approach that includes propane autogas opportunities to federal alternative 

fuel vehicle programs. 

As an industry, we the look forward to working with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as our partners in the broader alternative fuel industry 

to craft smart equitable alternative fuel transportation solutions for the American 

public. 

APPENDIX.—NPGA STATEMENT ON THE ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ACT (S. 734)

PROPANE IS A DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED ENERGY SOURCE. 

DOMESTIC PROPANE SUPPLY IS EXPECTED TO GROW OVER TIME

Sources of U.S. Odorized Propane Supply 

In 2010: 

• Domestic refinery and natural gas plant production of propane accounted for 

98.7 percent of total U.S. consumer grade (odorized) propane supply, with net 
80 

1 In both 2009 and 2010, excluding Canadian imports, the U.S. was a net propane exporter 

to the rest of the world 2 Refineries produce both propane (60%) and propylene (40%). Propane and propylene are both 

widely used in the chemical feedstock market. Only a very small amount of propylene is sold 

into the consumer market for niche uses such as welding; the vast majority of propylene is used 

as chemical feedstock. Natural gas plants produce almost entirely propane, with very little propylene. 

propane imports accounting for the remaining 1.3 percent. Most of the net imports came from Canada, with the remainder imported via LPG tanker ship 

from a variety of international sources.1 Hence, more than 99% percent of U.S. 

odorized propane supply was produced in North America. 

• From a resource perspective, about 78.5 percent of the odorized propane consumed in the U.S. was sourced from hydrocarbon resources (crude oil and natural gas liquids) produced in the U.S. An additional 5.5 percent was sourced 

from hydrocarbon resources (crude oil and propane from natural gas liquids) 

produced in Canada. Hence, about 84 percent of the odorized propane consumed 

in the U.S. in 2010 was produced from North American hydrocarbon resources. 

—This percentage has been increasing for the last several years. In 2007, about 

75 percent of odorized propane consumed in the U.S. was produced from 

North American hydrocarbon resources. 

• 66 percent of the odorized propane consumed in the U.S. was produced as a coproduct of natural gas production, and separated from the natural gas stream 

at gas processing fractionation plants, along with ethane, butane, and other 

LPG products. Gas processing plants separate the natural gas liquids—ethane, 

propane, and butane—from wet gas that comes from producing gas and oil 

wells. 

• 32 percent of the odorized propane consumed in the U.S. was produced by U.S. 

crude oil refineries alongside the production of gasoline and distillate fuel oil.2

—We estimate that 13 percent of the odorized propane consumed in the U.S 

was produced in U.S. refineries from oil produced in the U.S, about 5 percent 

of the odorized propane consumed in the U.S. was produced in U.S. refineries 

from crude oil imported from Canada, and one percent from crude oil imported from Mexico. 

PROPANE SUPPLY OUTLOOK

The propane supply outlook is very positive. The percentage of odorized propane 

produced from North American hydrocarbons has been increasing for the last few 

years, from 75 percent in 2007 to 84 percent in 2010. This trend is expected to continue as recent changes in domestic natural gas supply outlook are expected to increase the volume of propane produced from natural gas processing facilities. 

• The propane supply outlook is primarily dependent on North American natural 

gas and crude oil production trends. More than 84 percent of the odorized propane consumed in the U.S. is produced from natural gas and crude oil produced 

in North America. 

• The U.S. EIA is projecting domestic crude oil production to increase steadily 

over the next 10 years, increasing by more than 10 percent between 2010 and 

2020. 

• ICF and most other industry experts are projecting U.S. natural gas production 

to increase substantially in the next 10 years. The U.S. EIA is projecting total 

dry gas production to increase by 10 percent between 2010 and 2020, with shale 

gas production increasing by 71 percent. ICF is projecting higher growth with 

U.S. natural gas production to increase by about 30 percent between 2010 and 

2020. The growth in natural gas production is expected to result in significant 

growth in liquids production. 

—U.S. reserves of natural gas liquids have been increasing steadily since 2003, 

with a total increase of about 37 percent from 2003 through 2009. Growth in 

2009 alone exceeded nine percent. 

• Most of the growth in natural gas production will come from the new shale gas 

resource base. Much of the shale gas resource base is ‘‘wet’’ gas with a high proportion of natural gas liquids. 

—ICF estimates that shale gas resources that would be economically producible 

at $5.00 per Mcf (slightly above today’s natural gas prices) exceed 800 TCF, 

and include more than 25 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. These new 
81 

resources are roughly equivalent to the total level of existing proven reserves 

for U.S. natural gas liquids production, and are expected to result in steady 

growth in natural gas liquids production as these resources are developed. 

• On a $/Btu basis, the value of natural gas liquids currently is well above the 

value of the natural gas itself. Given recent changes in natural gas supply outlook, this disparity is expected to continue. 

—As a result, the economics of natural gas exploration and development have 

shifted in favor of ‘‘wet’’ gas with a higher percentage of liquids—and a higher 

percentage of propane. 

• Production of propane from natural gas is expected to increase rapidly between 

2010 and 2020, leading to a substantial increase in North American propane 

supplies exported to international markets if domestic demand does not increase. 

IMPACT OF POTENTIAL NEW CONSUMER PROPANE DEMAND ON PROPANE MARKETS

• Since 2004, domestic production of propane and propylene has been relatively 

stable, while total demand has been falling. 

—According to API, consumption of consumer grade propane has fallen by about 

23 percent from peak demand levels in 2000. 

—Demand for propane/propylene used as a petrochemical feedstock has varied 

from year-to-year around the long term average. 

• Since 2004, propane/propylene imports have been declining, while propane/propylene exports have been increasing. 

—In 2009 and 2010, excluding Canadian imports, the U.S. was a net exporter 

of propane/propylene. 

• These trends are expected to continue in the future. 

—Continuing improvements in end-use propane efficiency due to higher appliance energy standards and improved building efficiency codes are likely to offset most if not all growth in consumer propane demand in the next few years. 

—Propane production from natural gas is expected to grow steadily as natural 

gas production increases, providing additional propane supply for both the petrochemical and consumer propane markets. 

• The existing propane supply and distribution infrastructure was designed for a 

significantly larger market than exists today, and remains generally sufficient 

to support significant growth in propane demand. 

—Regional changes in demand and supply patterns are likely to require new 

infrastructure investment regardless of potential growth in demand. 

• Despite the decline in U.S. demand, propane/propylene prices have remained 

more closely linked to the international oil price and propane prices than to natural gas prices. This price relationship is likely to continue regardless of foreseeable increases or decreases in domestic demand for propane/propylene. However, as propane supply increases, propane prices are likely to decline somewhat 

relative to gasoline and diesel fuel prices. 

Æ