1

1

2

3

4

PUBLIC HEARING 5

before 6

THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 7

and 8

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 9

regarding 10

2017 AND LATER MODEL YEAR LIGHT

- DUTY VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS 11

EMISSIONS AND CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS 12

held at 13

MARRIOTT COURTYARD DETROIT 14

333 JEFFERSON AVENUE 15

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 16

on 17

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2012 18

at 19

10:00 a.m. 20

21

22

23

24

252

EPA PANEL MEMBERS: 1

Margo Oge, Director 2

Office of transportation and Air Quality 3

Chet France, Director 4

Assessment & Standards Division, QTAQ 5

Steven Silverman, Attorney 6

Office of General Counsel 7

NHTSA PANEL MEMBERS: 8

Ron Medford, Deputy Administrator 9

Jim Tamm, Chief 10

Fuel Economy Division 11

Rebecca Yoon, Attorney Advisor 12

Office of Chief Counsel 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

253

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

Testifier Page 2

Opening remarks by Ms. Oge 12 3

Opening remarks by Mr. Medford 15 4

Remarks by Congressman John Dingell 18 5

Bob King 21 6

President, United Auto Workers 7

Larry Schweiger 26 8

President/CEO, National Wildlife Federation 9

Mike Robinson 34 10

Vice President, Sustainability and Global 11

Regulatory Affairs, General Motors 12

Dr. Mark Cooper 39 13

Director of Research, Consumers Federation 14

Of America 15

Sue Cischke 42 16

Group Vice President of Sustainability, 17

Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford 18

Motor Company 19

Alex Cornell du Houx 48 20

Truman National Security Project and 21

Operation Free 22

Jay Wilton 51 23

Vice President of Engineering Planning and 24

Regulatory Compliance, Chrysler 254

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifier Page 2

David Foster 57 3

Executive Director, BlueGreen Alliance 4

Dan Pelissier 61 5

President, UAW Local 163 (General Motors 6

Romulus Engine) 7

Mike Stanton 65 8

President/CEO, Association of Global Automakers 9

Don Chalmers 68 10

Chairman, National Automobile Dealers 11

Association; President of Don Chalmers Ford 12

Tom Thias 80 13

Sundance Chevrolet 14

Doug Fox 84 15

Ann Arbor Automotive, President 16

Ron Krupitzer 87 17

Vice President Automotive Market, American 18

Iron and Steel Institute 19

Neil Carter 92 20

Veteran 21

Mitch Bainwol 95 22

President/CEO, Alliance of Automobile 23

Manufacturers 24

255

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifier Page 2

John Juriga 99 3

Director of Powertrain, Hyundai/Kia American 4

Technical Center 5

R hett Buttle 104 6

Director, National Outreach & Government 7

Affairs, Small Business Majority 8

Dr. Andrew Brown, Jr. 107 9

Executive Director and Chief Technologist, 10

Delph i Corporation 11

Christine Dingeman 112 12

Consumers Union 13

Robert Bienenfeld 114 14

Senior Manager, Environmental and Energy 15

Strategy, American Honda Motor Company 16

Tracy Woodard 126 17

Director, Government Affairs, Nissan 18

Mr. Sharif Sokkary 131 19

Citizen 20

Bob Honeyman 134 21

Citizen 22

Al Williams 138 23

Climate Equity Fellow for the Detroit NAACP 24

256

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifier Page 2

James Jacobs 14 4 3

President, Macomb Community College 4

Reverend Peggy Garrigues 153 5

Pastor, Clawson United Methodist Church 6

Brenda Archambo 155 7

Citizen 8

Gil Archambo 158 9

Citizen 10

Julie Lyons Bricker 161 11

Executive Director, Michigan Interfaith 12

Power & Light 13

Tim Schacht 162 14

Citizen 15

Tom Zerafa 164 16

Citizen 17

Robin Eckstein 167 18

Truman National Security 19

Deborah Bakker 171 20

Senior Manager of Regulation and 21

Certification Department, Hyundai Technical 22

Center 23

Hilary Sinnamon 174 24

Environment Defense Fund 257

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 2

Testifier P age 3

Joe Kubsh 179 4

Executive Director, Manufacturers of 5

Emission Controls Association 6

Dr. Mihai Dorobantu 184 7

Director of Vehicle Technologies and 8

Innovatio n, Eaton Cooperation 9

Charles Griffith 187 10

Climate & Energy Program Director, Ecology 11

Center 12

John German 191 13

International Council on Clean 14

Transportation 15

Luke Tonachel 198 16

Senior analyst, Natural Resources Defense 17

Council 18

Matt Ross 202 19

Veteran 20

Jody Shaw 206 21

Dire ctor, Technical Marketing & Product 22

Research, United States Steel Corporation 23

THE RAGING GRANNIES 216 24

258

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifier Page 2

Doug Richman 219 3

Kaiser Aluminum 4

James Crowfoot 228 5

University of Michigan 6

Walter McManus 233 7

Research Professor 8

Jeffrey Breneman 238 9

U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars 10

Judy Lindberg 250 11

Citizen 12

Kerry Ebersole 252 13

Pew Environmental Group 14

Steven McKinley 255 15

Honeywell Turbo Technologies 16

Jessica Surma 260 17

Environment Michigan 18

Karyn Schmidt 262 19

American Chemistry C ouncil 20

Ahmina Maxey 268 21

East Michigan Environmental Action Council 22

Bruce Benda 270 23

Bayer MaterialScience 24

259

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifie r Page 2

Diane Crawford 274 3

Sierra Club 4

Jonathan Morgenstein 276 5

Truman National Security Project 6

Sandra Turner

- Handy 280 7

Michigan Environmental Council 8

Greg Adams 282 9

SABIC 10

James Blain 287 11

PEP Stations 12

Rev. Charles Morris 289 13

St. Christopher Parish 14

Marc Sommer 294 15

Ohio Sportsman 16

Henry Pollack 289 17

University of Michigan, Professor, Geophysics 18

Robe rt Bailey 300 19

Citizen 20

William Bryce 303 21

Southeast Michigan Jobs with Justice 22

Frank Hammer 304 23

Southeast Michigan Jobs with Jus tice 24

2510

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifier Page 2

Jim Egged 308 3

Citizen 4

Brad van Guilder 311 5

Sierra Club 6

Donna Walker 316 7

Sierra Club 8

Gerald Hasspacher 317 9

Citizen 10

William McMaster 321 11

Taxpayers United Michigan Foundation 12

Dele Akinpelu 323 13

Wayne State University 14

Ayddeji Akinpelu 325 15

Wayne State University 16

Ade Abdalla 327 17

Energy/Efficiency & Environmental Health Services 18

Kwebena Johnson 328 19

Legacy Electric Vehicles 20

Dan Lombardo 330 21

Citizen 22

Charles Altman 333 23

Citizen 24

2511

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1

Testifier Page 2

Italia Millan 338 3

Citizen 4

Don Hughes 339 5

Citizen 6

Jim Richardson 341 7

Citizen 8

Leon Linderman 343 9

Citizen 10

Kimberly Hill 346 11

Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2512

MS. OGE: Good morning. Could you 1

please take your seats. 2

Good morning. I'd like to welcome you 3

to today's public hearing. My name is Margo Oge. I'm the 4

Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality 5

within the Environmental Protection Agency, and with me 6

today also is my colleague Ron Medford on my right. Ron is 7

from NHTSA. Ron and I are going to be the presiding 8

officers for this public hearing today. 9

We have over 90 individuals and 10

individuals that are representing organizations that have 11

signed to testify today. We're also very honored to have 12

Congressman Dingell. The Congressman, I don't have to 13

int roduce him to you. He's the Congressman of the great 14

State of Michigan, 15th District, and he's also known as the 15

Dean of the House of Representatives. So we're honored to 16

have him here today. 17

CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: Thank you, Madam 18

Chairman. 19

MS. OGE: I want to thank each one of 20

you for taking the time to participate today in this very 21

important process. 22

Today EPA and NHTSA will be hearing 23

testimony on a proposal to establish greenhouse gas 24

emissions and fuel economy standards for light

- duty vehicles 2513

for model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards 1

as of last November would achieve 163 grams of CO2 per mile 2

CO2 equivalent in 2025. This is equivalent to 54.5 miles 3

per gallon if vehicles were to meet this level, this 54.5 by 4

using fuel economy improvements. 5

This program is projected to save about 6

4 billion gallons of oil, 2 million metric tons of 7

greenhouse gas emissions for the lifetime of those vehicles 8

sold in the year 2017 to 2025. Higher costs for this 9

vehicle technology will add on an average of about $2,000 10

for consumers buying a new vehicle in 2025. However, these 11

consumers will save on an average of $6,600 in fuel savings. 12

That is about $4,400 net savings. And for this estimate we 13

are assuming that the gasoline prices in 2025 will be 14

approximately the same level as they are today. 15

Th e proposal is built on the success of 16

the first phase of the national programs for model years 17

2012 to 2016. As you know, those standards were finalized 18

last April, and continuing the national program will ensure 19

that all manufacturers in this country can continue to build 20

a single fleet of used vehicles that will satisfy 21

requirements of both federal agencies, NHTSA and 22

Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California 23

programs. 24

President Obama announced the proposal 2514

for continuing the national program last July. NHTSA and 1

EPA issued a Notice of Intent last August outlining our 2

plans for a proposal, and this is the proposal that we are 3

seeking comments today. The State of California and 13 auto 4

manufacturers -- 13 auto manufacturers who represent 5

approximately over 90 percent of the U.S. vehicle sales 6

provided letters of support for the proposal. The United 7

Auto Workers and many other governmental organizations also 8

support the announcement. 9

I just want to note a very important 10

element of this program. The program covers a wide range of 11

light

- duty vehicles including cars, pickup trucks, light 12

pickup trucks, SUVs and minivans. 13

Now, our agencies have designed the 14

proposed standards to preserve consumer choice; that is, the 15

proposed standards should not affect consumers' opportunity 16

to purchase the size of vehicle with the performance, 17

utility and safety features that meet their needs. This is 18

because the standards are designed as not to create 19

incentives of manufacturers of any particular size. So, for 20

example, this is not an incentive to downsize the vehicle. 21

Today's hearing allows interested 22

parties, all of you gathering together to provide comments 23

to the proposal in person. There will also be a public 24

hearing this coming Thursday in Philadelphia and also a 2515

third public hearing in San Francisco on January 24th. 1

In addition there is a written comment 2

period that will remain open until February 13th. The 3

comment period was originally scheduled to end January 30th; 4

however, we extended it to February 13th to provide 5

ad ditional time for the public to comment. 6

The agencies expect to take final action 7

on this proposal at late summer of this year. 8

Now I would like to introduce my 9

colleagues represented here with me on the panel today. 10

Chet France on my left. Chet is the Director of our 11

Standards Division and is physically located in Congressman 12

Dingell's district in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 13

And also with him

-- with us is Steven 14

Silverman. He's with the Office of General Counsel. 15

At this time I'd like to turn it over to 16

my colleague Ronald Medford who will give his introductory 17

remarks and introduce his team. 18

MR. MEDFORD: Good morning, everyone. 19

Thank you Margo, and, Congressman Dingell, thank you for 20

taking the time to be here today, and thank everyone for 21

taking the time to attend today's hearing. 22

I'd first like to introduce the panel 23

members from NHTSA who are sitting to my right. 24

First is James Tamm, Chief of our Fuel 2516

Economy Division, and Rebecca Yoon who is the attorney 1

advisor for the Office of Chief Counsel of NHTSA. 2

Today's hearing provides opportunity for 3

the public to present oral comments regarding the Agencies' 4

proposed 2017 and later model year light

- duty vehicle 5

greenhouse gas and corporate fuel economy standards. 6

On November 16, EPA and NHTSA introduced 7

joint agency documents related to the Notice of Proposed 8

Rulemaking. They included a preamble, two preliminary 9

regulatory impact analysis documents and one from each 10

Agency -- one from each Agency, and a technical support 11

document. These documents describe in some detail the 12

proposed regulations and provide supporting information and 13

analysis that support the proposal. 14

In addition, NHTSA issued a draft 15

environmental impact statement for the proposed fuel economy 16

reg ulations. The draft EIS compares the environmental 17

impacts of the proposed fuel efficiency regulations with 18

those of the regulatory alternatives presented in the 19

analysis. 20

Today's hearing provides opportunity for 21

the public to comment on both the proposed rulemaking 22

documents and the draft EIS. The written comment period as 23

Margo mentioned will close for the EIS on January 31st, and 24

the extension for the NPRM to February 13th. 2517

Today's hearing is scheduled to run 1

until about 7:00 p.m., though we will be here as long as it 2

takes to allow everybody who wants to testify to do so. We 3

will use panels to speed up the process. The list of 4

preregistered panel members and their order is provided wit h 5

the agenda at the reception table. We request that each 6

person keep their testimony to 5 minutes if possible. We 7

know that ten was the allotted time, but I think we have 8

like 30 additional people signed up since we originally 9

scheduled this. If anyone wishing to testify here hasn't 10

already signed up, please do so at the reception table. 11

Whether or not you testify, we would like everyone attending 12

today's hearing to sign in at the registration table. 13

Please plan to go straight

-- we'll plan 14

to go straight through the panels and only take a couple of 15

breaks during the day, as the court reporter is going to 16

need some time during the day to take a break. 17

After today the official record of the 18

hearing will be kept open for 30 days for any speaker 19

wishing to submit rebuttals or make any corrections to the 20

remarks for the record. 21

If you would like a transcript of 22

today's proceedings you should make arrangements either with 23

the registration desk or directly with the court reporter. 24

We will also make the transcripts available on our website 2518

and in the public docket for the rulemaking. 1

This hearing will be conducted 2

informally and formal rules of evidence will not apply. 3

Residing officers, however, are authorized to strike 4

statements from the record which are deemed irrelevant or 5

needlessly repetitious to enforce reasonable limits on the 6

duration of statements of any witness. 7

Before we begin, we're going to ask 8

Congressman Dingell to make a few remarks and after that we 9

will call the first panel. 10

CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: Thank you. 11

I want to commend the two agencies, EPA 12

and NHTSA, and I want to commend our two chairmen for their 13

leadership and work in this matter. 14

This is an extraordinary event. Out of 15

respect for all of our witnesses and the two agencies, I 16

will limit my remarks to a few off

- the

- record -- or rather 17

outside my testimony remarks and will submit my testimony 18

with your permission, Madam Chairman, for the record. 19

My name is John Dingell. I'm a member 20

of Congress in the 15th District. It is my purpose today to 21

testify strongly in favor of the proposal upon which this 22

panel is engaged and to point out that after years of 23

fighting which goes back to 1968 when Congress introduced 24

the first legislation to have clean air, we have now come to 2519

this extraordinary agreement on fuel efficiency standards on 1

automobiles. 2

And the two agencies, EPA and NHTSA, are 3

to be commended for their work as are the members of the 4

labor movement represented here this morning by my friend 5

Bob King, and also the automobile companies for their hard 6

work. 7

And special commendations to California 8

for their cooperation in this in responding to the 9

rema rkable leadership of President Obama and the 10

Administration which has literally squared the circle in 11

that they had brought together all of us on a single 12

standard for fuel efficiency for the automobiles and 13

light

- duty trucks for many years to come. This is an event 14

which I must say ranks with the loaves and fishes. 15

Having said this, the events through the 16

American consuming public, the industry, our concerns over 17

the environment, our concerns about autos and automobile 18

production, getting the economy going back are going to be 19

enormous. 20

So with those remarks, I express my 21

congratulations to the two agencies. I thank the President 22

for what he has done. I look forward to seeing to it that 23

these regulations are adopted. They are in the public 24

interest, and they are very much a matter of genuine concern 2520

to the nation, and when adopted will be a matter of singular 1

appreciation because of the benefits they will confer on 2

eve rybody: industry, labor, the consuming public and the 3

environment. 4

Having said that, I ask that my entire 5

statement be inserted in the record, and I will look forward 6

to hearing as much as I can of this testimony before I have 7

to leave to get back to Washington for some votes today. 8

Thank you, Madam Chairman, thank you, 9

Mr. Chairman. 10

MS. OGE: Thank you, Congressman 11

Dingell. 12

MR. MEDFORD: Just a few more rules as 13

we're calling up the first panel. If your comments today 14

are going to be directed toward the draft EIS and the 15

environmental impact statement we request that you 16

specifically mention that before you begin your comments 17

since we're combining the hearings for those two proposals. 18

There's also no need to identify that 19

your comments are directed toward the proposal. We will 20

assume that everything is directed toward that unless you 21

state otherwise. 22

When the witnesses on the panel have 23

finished their presentation, we will have an opportunity 24

here on the panel to ask questions related to the testimony. 2521

The witnesses are reminded that any false statements or 1

false responses to questions may be a violation of law. 2

So I think we're ready to call the first 3

panel. I think the first panel is Bob King and Larry 4

Schweiger. If you come up and go to the table and be so 5

kind as to write your name on the little sign and put it in 6

front of you so we can all know who you are. 7

And if you would be so kind for the 8

purposes of the court reporter making sure she gets the name 9

and the affiliation of your organization, start your 10

testimony that way. 11

So we will begin first with Bob King. 12

MR. KING: Yes. My name is Bob King and 13

I'm President of the United Auto Workers International 14

Union. 15

Thank you for the opportunity to be here 16

today. As you know, the UAW represents just under a million 17

active and retired members across a diverse range of 18

industries and occupations. Over 150,000 UAW members work 19

in the light

- duty vehicle and parts industry that the 20

p roposed rules cover. 21

It's an honor to be here this morning on 22

behalf of our membership to voice UAW's full and strong 23

support for the proposed rules, regulating greenhouse gas 24

emissions and fuel economy. The proposed rules are 2522

sensible, achievable and needed. They are good for the auto 1

industry and its workers, good for the broader economy, good 2

for the environment and good for our national security. 3

Adopting the proposed rules will give an 4

additio nal boost to the revitalization of the auto industry 5

that began with President Obama's courageous action in the 6

depths of the industry's crisis to save American 7

manufacturing jobs by giving GM and Chrysler the breathing 8

room they needed to restruct ure. 9

After a painful process in which workers 10

and retirees made significant sacrifices, the industry is 11

coming back strong. Our units with collective bargaining 12

agreements with Ford, General Motors and Chrysler include 13

substa ntial investments by all three companies, in some 14

cases bringing back work from overseas. 15

The 20,000 UAW

- represented hourly jobs 16

that will be protected and added over the next four years 17

will have a substantial and positive ripple effect 18

throughout the supply chain as well as the local 19

communities. 20

One important reason we are so confident 21

that the industry's future

-- in the industry's future is 22

that we are excited about the new green technologies th at 23

are being developed in the United States and produced in 24

UAW

- represented facilities. The drive to bringing 2523

innovative fuel

- saving technologies to market is 1

transforming the auto industry in the United States in 2

creating good jobs in the research labs to the factory 3

floor. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have made 4

unprecedented commitments to invest billions of dollars in 5

their U.S. operations over the next few years and in every 6

case the investment of supporting new vehicles and 7

powertrains that will be more efficient than the previous 8

generation. 9

This includes an exciting advance such 10

as 8

- , 9

- speed automatic transmission, both dual clutch and 11

conv entional, and engines that feature advanced valve timing 12

and gasoline direct injection, downsized and turbocharged 13

engines, and vehicles that are considerably lighter than the 14

previous generations but retain the same size. Technology 15

such as start/stop systems and electric

- powered steering are 16

also making a contribution to vehicle efficiency. 17

There's a common element in all of these 18

technologies. They are all now or will soon be produced by 19

UAW members and factories located in the United States, and 20

that's just the beginning. 21

UAW members are also producing new 22

technologies that may not reach large volumes for many years 23

but represent the long

- term future of the industry. That 24

includes hybrid transmissions, electric drive components, 2524

lithium ion battery packs, and plug

- in and pure electric 1

vehicles. 2

Although most auto makers will continue 3

to meet fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions through 4

improvements in conventional vehicles, we are excited that 5

these new transforming technologies are being produced by 6

UAW members. These are the automotive jobs of the future. 7

We are very pleased that they are starting to ramp up here 8

in the United States. 9

Thanks to the fresh start President 10

Obama gave to the domestic auto industry, new labor 11

agreements that are the result of innovative, 12

problem

- solving approach in bargaining and the strong 13

transparent working relationships we have with UAW 14

employers, the U.S. auto industry is growing and adding 15

employees. These proposed rules are the cornerstone of that 16

growth. It provides certainty as manufacturers map out 17

their product investment plans. 18

I want to underscore why we believe the 19

drive to increase fuel efficiency and reduce tailpipe 20

pollution is creating jobs in the U.S. auto industry. 21

One obvious reason is that consumers are 22

demanding more fuel

- efficient vehicles, and meeting that 23

demand is an increasingly important part of the business. 24

In an age of rising and volatile fuel prices, American 2525

families want to save money on fuel. 1

A second, more fundamental reason is 2

because the technology needed to improve efficiency and 3

reduce pollution represents additional content on each 4

vehicle. That additional content must be engineered and 5

produced by additional employees. 6

Last year the UAW and the Natural 7

Resources Defense Council and Larry's organization, The 8

National Wildlife Federation, produced a report called 9

Supplying Ingenuity. That report identifies more than 500 10

separate facilities in the United States, employing over 11

150,000 people, where some or all the employees are working 12

to invent, engineer, or produce advanced vehicles and fuel

13

savings components. These are real jobs supporting real 14

American families. 15

Also I want to say that UAW believes 16

that the auto manufacturers, all the companies that 17

participated in the technical discussions about these 18

proposals and signed a letter of commitment to support its 19

frameworks deserves tremendous credit for their commitment 20

to dramatically increase the efficiency and reduce the 21

emissions of vehicles sold in the United States. 22

This is a testament to good government. 23

It shows how government can bring disparate stakeholders 24

together to solve problems that are important to the 2526

American public. These proposed rules will reduce the 1

pollution that contributes to climate change, significantly 2

reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and save American 3

families money at the pump. They will also create jobs in 4

the auto industry and throughout the economy. 5

That's an incredible set of positive 6

effects from these proposed rules, and it sums up why the 7

United Auto Workers are in strong support of these 8

proposals. 9

President Obama and his Administration, 10

including the two agencies here today, did a tremendous job 11

in developing the proposed rules. We thank the President 12

for all the great work he has done to strengthen the 13

American auto industry and automotive communiti es. 14

Thank you very, very much for your time 15

and consideration. 16

MR. MEDFORD: Great. Thank you. 17

Mr. Schweiger. 18

MR. SCHWEIGER: Good morning. 19

I am Larry Schweiger and I am the 20

President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. I 21

wanted to say thank you, Director Oge and Deputy 22

Administrator Medford, and also recognize my good friend 23

Congressman John Dingell for your steady hand in Washington. 24

On behalf of our 4 million members and 2527

supporters, it is my pleasure to speak this morning in 1

support of these proposed landmark standards. I'm pleased 2

to be here with Bob in Detroit today. As a one

- time GM 3

mechanic, I expect to be even more thrilled when I walk 4

through the auto show this afternoon. 5

In 2009 when the tide was flowing 6

against the auto industry, the National Wildlife Federation 7

stood up to support the auto recovery package. At the time 8

I believed that the U.S. auto industry could innovate and 9

build the kind of clean cars and trucks the consumers and 10

environment increasingly demand. 11

America needs a strong, clean industrial 12

sector that employs billions with good jobs while producing 13

the most efficient products possible. Our members depend on 14

all kinds of vehicles from small hybrids to cars to pick

- ups 15

to off

- road vehicles. We still believe in the potential of 16

the American auto industry. 17

Over the past two years, the hard 18

working people here in Detroit and in Ohio and Missouri and 19

North Carolina and all across the country have been proving 20

dramatically that they have what it takes for America to 21

lead in a prosperous clean energy future. Their efforts, 22

combined with these new standards, and effective public and 23

private investment show how an industry can be retooled to 24

be vibrant in the present and even more relevant and 2528

powerful in the future. Strong standards through the 1

2025 year are critical to staying on this path. 2

The standards are also an example of how 3

an industry and labor and the conservation community can and 4

must work together to use the Clean Air Act as a tool for 5

innovation and to solve critical and environmental energy 6

and economic changes we face today. 7

These standards deliver. 8

I've spent the past eight years all 9

across America talking to our members and many others who 10

want to see America's outdoor heritage sustained and 11

preserved for their children. All too often our huge demand 12

for oil stands in the way. 13

Car bon pollution is warming our climate 14

locally and worldwide. These changes threaten people and 15

global security right now, and they are a most profoundly 16

threatening force against the future of wildlife. Rising 17

temperatures, flood, fires, droughts and ecosystem 18

alterations are creating direct habitat loss, increased 19

invasive species and other threats for wildlife species, and 20

many of those species may not adapt. 21

The 20 million barrels of oil America 22

uses every day accounts for 40 percent of the U.S. carbon 23

pollution load that causes climate changes. Meanwhile, when 24

drilling projects go wrong, whole ecosystems are threatened 2529

by disasters like the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, and 1

smaller leaks and spills like the recent Enbridge oil spill 2

here in Michigan. Recent pipeline spills do grave harm 3

right in our backyards: to residents, to wildlife like 4

herons, muskrats, and ducks and geese and destroy decades of 5

community efforts that were intended on restoring rivers 6

like the Kalamazoo. Today we have real opportunity to 7

combat these threats. 8

The proposed 2017 through '25 standards 9

will double the fuel economy for our cars, SUVs and pickups 10

from today's levels to an average of 54.5 miles per gallon 11

by 2025. These vehicles will save Americans 4 billion 12

barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon 13

pollution. 14

Taken together with light

- and heavy

15

duty standards being implemented now, the proposed standards 16

will cut carbon pollution by over 650 million metric tons by 17

year by 2030, about 10 percent of the total carbon pollution 18

today. This is a historic step forward to combat our 19

climate challenge. 20

Together these standards will cut our 21

demand for oil by 3.4 million barrels per day; more than all 22

the oil we get today from the Persian Gulf, Venezuela and 23

Russia combined. 24

As we are ensuring that every car and 2530

truck uses less fuel, steady expansion of electric and 1

advanced vehicle technology can lead us even further into 2

mass markets, high performance vehicle fleet that uses 3

little oil and produce nearly zero pollution. 4

Deep cuts in the oil we need means less 5

pressure for risky new drilling projects in the Arctic or 6

for clear cutting forest for Canadian tar sands. It means 7

less need for new pipelines, fewer leaks and fewer threats 8

to people, wildlife and our public lands. 9

These standards show we can take real 10

steps to roll back climate changes and protect wildlife for 11

generations yet to come. 12

These standards just don't deliver for 13

America's outdoor heritage

- consumers save big as well. 14

The proposed standards will save Americans a half trillion 15

dollars. That's tens of billions of dollars a year 16

American families and businesses can spend at home building 17

jobs instead of sending overseas for oil. Families and 18

businesses will save more than $4,000 on the lifecycle cost 19

on a car or truck after accounting for the cost of the more 20

fuel

- efficient vehicles. 21

For household budgets doubling fuel 22

economy is like cutting the price of gasoline in half. For 23

thos e concerned about cutting dependence on foreign oil and 24

reducing pain at the pump, the best place to drill for oil 2531

is under the hoods of our cars. 1

These standards bring innovation and 2

fuel savings to owners of all kinds of vehicles for many of 3

our members, the outdoor traditions that mean the most to 4

them including getting together with family and friends, 5

loading gear into the truck and heading outdoors to hunt and 6

fish. Across the country, communities and businesses th at 7

depend on outdoor recreation depend on these trips. For 8

those who rely on larger vehicles, high gas prices hit 9

particularly hard, and achieving robust fuel efficiency is 10

critical and welcome. 11

Fortunately, today's fuel economy 12

standards don't just focus on cars but ensure improvements 13

across all vehicle sizes and types to achieve an overall 14

increase in fuel economy and reduction in pollution. An 15

innovation is delivering far better efficiency together with 16

improved power and performance. The standard is essential 17

to deliver cars and trucks that work in the outdoors and for 18

it. 19

The proposed standard is also critical 20

to regain and sustain our leadership in the most advanced 21

vehicle technologies including hybrid electric cars and 22

trucks. These technologies will be critical to combating 23

high fuel prices and environmental challenges into the 24

future and the competitiveness of the American auto industry 2532

in a changing world. 1

Investments in cutting edge electric 2

vehicles and other innovations increase fuel efficiency 3

across the board, and long

- term targets create certainty in 4

a world tyrannized by volatile oil prices and availability. 5

Together we must work to build a robust network of 6

innovators, suppliers and caring consumers to lead in the 7

global economy for the auto industry's future. 8

And it's working now. 9

National Wildlife recently released the 10

report that Bob mentioned that makes it clear that we are 11

creating -- there's now over 300 companies in 43 states 12

engaged in adding over 100,000 jobs in the past year 13

building and selling next generation autos and trucks. 14

That's what it means and why it matters 15

for America to lead the clean energy economy. The standards 16

you are considering today are essential for sustaining that 17

progress, and for these reasons that's not surprising. 18

A recent survey by Consumers Reports 19

found that 93 percent of the public is in support of 20

stricter fuel economy standards. The public understands how 21

the fuel standards work. They work for wildlife, they work 22

for American families and they work for the auto industry 23

and autoworkers and for the overall economy. 24

We thank the agencies for your clarity 2533

of vision and perseverance in developing these standards. 1

We will be submitting additional technical comments and 2

appreciate your consideration today. 3

Thank you. 4

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you both. 5

Do my colleagues have any questions? 6

MS. OGE: I just want to thank both of 7

you for taking the time to testify. We're looking forward 8

to your written testimony and also looking forward to having 9

the technical dialogue with both of your teams, as well as 10

looking forward to finalize this proposal. 11

Thank you. 12

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 13

The court reporter would like to receive 14

if possible a copy of your full written or oral testimony. 15

She can use that for completing the transcript, or give it 16

to the desk. 17

MS. OGE: So we have a tough court 18

reporter. She's going to tell you when to slow down. 19

So I'm going to call the second team, 20

the second panel: Mike Robinson, Mr. Mark Cooper, Sue 21

Cischke, Mr. Alex Cornell du Houx

-- I hope I pronounce your 22

name right

-- and Mr. Jay Wilton. 23

Good morning. 24

We'll start with Mr. Robinson. Good 2534

morning. 1

MR. ROBINSON: Good morning, Director 2

Oge. 3

My name is Mike Robinson. I'm Vice 4

President for Sustainability and Global Regulatory Affairs 5

at General Motors. 6

On July 29th, 2011, President Obama 7

announced the Administration's intentions to adopt a 8

national program to address vehicle greenhouse gas emissions 9

and fuel economy for the years 2017 and beyond. 10

GM Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson joined 11

the President and others that day because we were encouraged 12

that this commitment provided the opportunity to continue 13

the national program approach in setting fuel economy 14

standards that was started with the 2012 to 2016 federal 15

rules. The Administration and many other interested partie s 16

came together that day because we agreed that such a 17

national approach was paramount and could accomplish much to 18

address the nation's energy and environmental priority. 19

We only knew the framework of the 20

proposed regulations at that time, but we made clear that we 21

were prepared to work with EPA and NHTSA to flush out the 22

details. In that regard I appreciate the opportunity to 23

testify today to reaffirm GM's commitment to that process we 24

talked about in July and to comment briefly on the proposed 2535

rules of the two agencies. 1

First, let me underscore that General 2

Motors supports the joint proposal from EPA and NHTSA to 3

address 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles. Most 4

importantly, the proposal intends to minimize the 5

destructive impacts of having multiple programs at the 6

federal and state levels. On this note, we also want to 7

commend the State of California and the California Air 8

Resources Board for their collaboration in working towards 9

this national approach and program. 10

We welcome the opportunity to work with 11

the agencies as they finalize the proposed regulations. In 12

this regard, there were three specific remarks that I would 13

ma ke today: first, reiterate the need for a comprehensive 14

mid

- term review; second, comment about the flexibility and 15

credits in the proposal; and, third, make one specific 16

suggestion for improvement in the proposal. 17

As this proposal makes many optimistic 18

assumptions and sets goals all the way out to 2025, 13 years 19

from today, it is imperative that we collectively check the 20

validity of those assumptions as we move through that 21

extended period of time. We suggest not only one formal 22

mid

- term review as the agencies themselves have planned for 23

the proposal, but a series of smaller technical and detailed 24

focused check

- ins on the key assumptions contained in this 2536

proposal. These check

- ins will allow the program to stay on 1

track and lead to the best long

- term results. Of course, 2

the more formal mid

- term review is also essential since 3

NHTSA must itself conduct a separate rulemaking to set the 4

requirements under the CAFE law for the final four years of 5

this period. 6

But you have my commitment that we will 7

provide whatever data, analysis, and input we can to help 8

the agencies to make judgments and course corrections along 9

the way

. 10

Moving into my second comment, General 11

Motors fully supports the flexibilities in this proposal. 12

Some may criticize them, but the flexibilities included go 13

directly towards real CO2 reduction and the furthering of 14

advanced t echnologies. 15

The flexibilities do provide some 16

compliance opportunity for the manufacturers in the future, 17

but importantly these are already assumed in both of the 18

agencies' assessment of the future of fuel economy levels 19

that are anticipated under this proposal. As a result they 20

are absolutely necessary for us to achieve the equivalent 21

compliance levels anticipated. 22

Finally, a specific concern that we have 23

with the proposal is related to the treatment of so

- called 24

upstream electricity emissions. EPA has couched the 2537

quantification of upstream emissions at 0.0 grams per mile 1

as a "flexibility" for automakers. This characterization is 2

really inappropriate and could lead EPA at some point to 3

reduce or eliminate this so

- called flexibility. At its 4

core, the problem is that the word flexibility suggests some 5

measure of choice or control. However, automakers control 6

neither the feedstocks nor the conversion processes for 7

generating and creating electricity. Suggesting that at 8

some point we could or should be responsible for these 9

emissions is worrisome to us. To the degree that these 10

emissions are going to be addressed by government, 11

legislators and regulators need to create a program to do so 12

directly, not indirectly through further restrictions on 13

vehicles. With due respect, we have a tough job ahead of us 14

as it is. 15

Let me also note that the proposed 16

standards will not be easy; they will be difficult and they 17

will be expensive. The success of our current new offerings 18

in the marketplace like the Chevy Malibu, Equinox, Cruze and 19

the Volt convince us we are on a good path toward meeting 20

these early requirements the proposal will create, but we 21

will need further breakthroughs in technology and good 22

customer acceptance of the additional vehicle changes, 23

technologies and costs that will be associated with 24

providing the vehicles needed in the future years to allow 2538

us continued success in meeting the aggressive requirements 1

down the road. 2

Clearly this proposal represents a 3

dramatic attempt to advance the mutual goals of CO2 4

reduction and increased energy diversity. The mid

- term 5

review is essential to make sure that we also revisit the 6

assumptions inherent in establishing these goals to make 7

sure we have not overwhelmed technology development or the 8

needs of consumers or their willingness to accept and pay 9

for the associated changes in vehicles. 10

In conclusion, we urge both EPA and 11

NHTSA to continue the strong leadership role they have 12

displayed at the federal level with an integrated approach 13

that addresses infrastructure of vehicles themselves, fuels, 14

and customer behavior as well as all other sectors of the 15

economy. This proposal is a positive first step and a good 16

foundation on which we can all build. 17

We intend to provide detailed technical 18

written comments to amplify on some of these points and to 19

comment on issues raised by EPA and NHTSA in the NPRM. 20

And I'm glad to answer any additional 21

questions you may have as a panel. Thank you. 22

MS. OGE: Thank you. 23

Mr. Cooper, good morning. 24

MR. COOPER: Thank you, Madam 2539

Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of 1

Research of the Consumers Federation of America. 2

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to 3

testify today because our analysis of the standards proposed 4

by NHTSA and EPA find they are a landmark in the U.S. energy 5

policy that will deliver major economic security and 6

environmental benefits to consumers and the nation while 7

putting the U.S. auto industry on a path to global success. 8

By far, the single largest benefit is 9

the reduction of consumer expenditure on gasoline and the 10

decrease in the cost of driving. For the typical consumer 11

who purchases a new auto that complies with the 2025 12

standard with a 5

- year auto loan, the average life of auto 13

loans these days, consumer pocketbook savings will be 14

immediate and substantial. 15

Higher fuel economy standards lower the 16

cost of driving from the first month. They are cash flow 17

positive because the reduction in gasoline expenditures is 18

greater than the increase in the monthly payment to cover 19

the cost of fuel saving technology. At the end of the auto 20

loan the consumer will have saved an average of $800. By 21

the tenth year the vehicle will have generated an average of 22

over $3,000 in savings. Therefore, the resale value of the 23

vehicle is likely to be much higher. 24

These potential consumer benefits come 2540

at a moment when American consumers are in desperate need of 1

relief from rising and volatile gasoline prices. Gasoline 2

prices set a record in 2011 in both nominal and real terms, 3

averaging $3.53 per gallon. This week's price is a record 4

for the month of January, and that clobbers the economy and 5

the consumer pocketbook. 6

Household gasoline expenditures set a 7

record in 2011 reaching an average of over $2,850 per year 8

which means that gasoline expenditures were 40 percent 9

higher than expenditures on home energy, electricity, 10

natural gas and heating oil. Ten years ago gasoline 11

expenditures were 13 percent lower than home energy and that 12

is why consumers are so troubled by gasoline prices. 13

But rising gasoline prices have also 14

changed the structure of the cost of driving. Ten years ago 15

the cost of owning a vehicle as reported in the consumer 16

expenditure survey was the largest single component of the 17

cost of driving by far, about three times as high as the 18

cost of gasoline. In 2011 the cost of gasoline will equal 19

or exceed the cost of ownership in the consumer expenditure 20

survey. This is an entirely new automobile market. 21

Given the burden on household budgets 22

and the continuing problem of oil vulnerability, it is not 23

surprising to find that in our surveys, over a dozen in the 24

past six or seven years, we find that three

- quarters or more 2541

of respondents are concerned about gasoline prices and 1

dependence on Mideast oil. They get the fact oil imports 2

are a political problem. 3

They think it is important to reduce oil 4

consumption and they support higher fuel economy standards 5

as a way to do so. Almost two

- thirds of the respondents' 6

records supported 60

- miles

- per

- gallon standards with a 7

payback of three to five years, and this proposed standard 8

meets and exceeds that. They also think a higher standard 9

will be good for automakers. 10

So if there is one thing you take away 11

from this hearing today, remember this is a consumer benefit 12

program. This is a wonderful consumer program. In fact, we 13

estimate that 80 percent, 500 billion of the $600 billion of 14

total benefits are the consumer savings. So this is a 15

consumer program. 16

But indirect national benefits are also 17

really important. Reducing oil consumption and imports by 18

over 4 billion barrels or almost 4 billion barrels will keep 19

$370 billion in the domestic economy, and that creates jobs. 20

It will lower the price of gasoline by 25¢ a gallon. It 21

will reduce vulnerability to oil price shocks. It will 22

reduce the number of troops we have in harms way and with 23

aircraft carriers running around the Straits of Hormuz. 24

Everyone has to get that important benefit. 2542

The simple fact of the matter is that 1

with every scenario considered by the two agencies the 2

benefits vastly exceed the costs, and everyone gets that. 3

That's why you heard labor, you have heard the 4

environmentalist, you've heard automakers and you've heard 5

consumers support this program. 6

Simply put, these standards may well be 7

the most important energy policy of the last quarter of a 8

century. They are a win

- win

- win for consumers, for the 9

economy, for national security and the environment. 10

I urge you to adopt it. Thank you. 11

MS. OGE: Thank you. 12

Miss Sue Cischke. Good morning. 13

MS. CISCHKE: Good morning. I am Sue 14

Cischke, Group Vice President of Sustainability, Environment 15

and Safety Engineering for Ford Motor Company. 16

It's a pleasure to be here today to 17

provide our perspective on this very important rulemaking. 18

Just over two years ago I was here commenting on the first 19

nationally harmonized greenhouse gas and fuel economy 20

regulations and encouraging the continuation of a harmo nized 21

requirement beyond 2016. We applaud the combined efforts of 22

EPA, NHTSA and CARB, and this proposal provides our industry 23

both a single program moving forward as well as a regulatory 24

framework that enables manufacturers to plan and invest in 2543

the future with confidence. We are committed to working 1

with you to finalize these regulations. 2

The standards proposed are aggressive, 3

but so are the demands from our consumers for greater fuel 4

efficiency. As a result, we are continually investing in 5

our product strategy to improve the fuel economy and reduce 6

the greenhouse gases of our fleet. Starting this year, 7

one

- third of our vehicle lineup will offer a model that 8

achieves at least 40 miles per gallon. In addition to the 9

Transit Connect Electric, last year we delivered our first 10

all

- new Ford Focus Electric. Later this year we will start 11

production on our C

- Max Energi plug

- in. And just last week 12

we announced and unveiled our next generation 2013 Fusion 13

Hybrid, and an all

- new 2013 Fusion plug

- in hybrid. Our 14

commitment goes beyond our products, and we also have set a 15

goal to reduce facility emissions of CO2 by 30 percent by 16

2025 on a per

- vehicle basis. You will continue to see us 17

offer more great products with advanced, innovative 18

technologies to improve the fuel efficiencies of our 19

vehicles and to deliver outstanding quality and features 20

that our customers desire. 21

The key is to ensure that the proposed 22

targets do not outpace consumer demand or the affordability 23

of the technologies needed for compliance. As a full

- line 24

manufacturer we are challenged to meet a broad range of 2544

customer wants, such as function, performance, comfort and 1

convenience, safety, and, of course, fuel economy. And all 2

of these attributes need to come together in a line of 3

vehicles that consumers afford. After all, attainment of 4

our national goals for CO2 reduction and energy security 5

cannot be met by niche products and technologies. It does 6

little good to produce vehicles with improved fuel 7

efficiency unless those vehicles are actually purchased by a 8

wide range of American consumers. 9

Further, the technologies must be self

10

sustaining in the marketplace and not dependent upon 11

long

- term government subsidies. That philosophy has been 12

the basis of Ford strategy since 1903, however I wasn't 13

the re at the time. 14

We must also acknowledge that market 15

success is dependent upon many factors outside of our 16

control, such as the price of fuel, the state of the 17

economy, or the availability of affordable technologies and 18

materi als. The further we look into the future, the more 19

difficult it is to predict these factors with accuracy. The 20

proposed rule extends to the 2025 model year which is an 21

unprecedented time frame in the context of fuel economy 22

regulations. This presents a significant challenge for 23

manufacturers. While the establishment of longer

- term 24

standards provide manufacturers with targets for future 2545

product planning investment, the longer time frame leads to 1

greater risk that the assumptions underlying the standards 2

do not come to fruition. For example, if a lack of adequate 3

infrastructure hinders the introduction of new fuel

- saving 4

technologies or if fuel prices turn out to be substantially 5

lower than anticipated, it might be necessary to change the 6

standards in order to avoid damage to American jobs and the 7

U.S. economy. 8

This is why the proposed mid

- term 9

evaluation of the 2022 to 2025 greenhouse gas standards is 10

so vital to this joint proposal. As proposed, the mid

- term 11

evaluation provisions require EPA to make a fresh 12

determination regarding the appropriateness of the proposed 13

2021 model year standards after considering a variety of 14

factors and soliciting public comments. This process will 15

take place concurrently with NHTSA's process for setting 16

final standards for 2022 to 2025 model years. The mid

- term 17

evaluation is an essential check point to ensure that the 18

standards for these models are consistent with evolving 19

market conditions. The existence of a robust, meaningful 20

mid

- term evaluation process is critical to Ford's support 21

for this rulemaking package. 22

Turning now to the more specific 23

elements of the proposed rulemaking, we support the relative 24

manner in which car and truck targets have been set to 2546

reflect their respective capabilities to improve fuel 1

economy. This is based primarily on the agencies' updated 2

analysis of full

- sized trucks from the 2012 to 2016 3

rulemaking. In particular, EPA acknowledged that it had 4

"underestimated the impact of the different pickup truck 5

model configurations," in the model year 2012 to 2016 rule. 6

They further acknowledged that the "very largest light 7

trucks have significant load

- carrying and towing 8

capabilities that make it particularly challenging for 9

manufacturers to add fuel economy

- improving technologies in 10

a way that maintains the full functionality of those 11

capabilities." We concur with the agencies' analysis and 12

conclusions. 13

In general, we continue to encourage the 14

agencies to take a holistic view of the transportation 15

sector to encourage the implementation of technologies and 16

strategies whose benefits might otherwise be reflected in 17

the formal fuel economy test procedures. 18

Manufacturers are developing more 19

innovative in

- vehicle systems such as more efficient air 20

conditioning, use of refrigerants with lower global warming 21

potential, and improvements in energy management and 22

aerodynamics. These technologies provide a real

- world 23

benefit for drivers but are not fully reflected on the fuel 24

economy label. We commend the agencies for acknowledgin g 2547

these technologies in the rulemaking. 1

Further, we anticipate working together 2

to establish the correct methodologies to account for the 3

benefits of driver

- activated technologies. For example, 4

coaching systems result in more fuel

- efficient driver 5

behavior as well as eco

- route planning tools can provide a 6

significant improvement in real

- world fuel economy. Also, 7

market fuel quality, particularly octane level, can have a 8

significant positive impact on all on

- road vehicles and 9

should, therefore, be a key part of our national strategy to 10

improve energy security. 11

Once again, we appreciate the 12

opportunity to provide our testimony on this important 13

rulemaking. We are continuing to review all the different 14

aspects of the proposal and we plan to provide detailed 15

written comments aimed at achieving and finalizing 16

regulations consistent with the commitment that all parties 17

have made to this national program. 18

Thank you. And I'll be able to take 19

questions at the end of the panel. 20

MS. OGE: Thank you. 21

Mr. Alex Cornell du Houx. 22

Could you pronounce your name for us. 23

MR. CORNELL du HOUX: Cornell du Houx. 24

You are very, very close. 2548

MS. OGE: Good morning. Thank you. 1

MR. CORNELL du HOUX: Good morning, 2

Madam Chair and members of the panel. 3

My name is Alex Cornell du Houx and I 4

represent Brunswick, Maine in the state legislature, and I 5

also work with the Truman National Security Project and 6

Operation Free. 7

I have been in the military since 2002 8

and I served in Iraq with the Marines in the infantry. 9

When I served in Iraq with the Marines 10

in and around Fallujah I came across a line of cars, trucks, 11

and tractors as far as the eye could see. We decided to 12

investigate and finally reached the end of the line to find 13

that they had been waiting in 100

- degree heat all day for 14

gasoline and diesel, and it really struck me how dependent 15

this nation was on this single source of energy and how 16

crippled it made them. They were so desperate for this 17

single source of energy that when the curfew came, they 18

didn't care that we had shot over their heads to break up 19

the line. And then it made me think about our country, and 20

it made me pause and think about how the United States was 21

dependent on this single source of energy and how 22

essentially we are forced to line up to countries like Iran 23

and Venezuela for this single fuel. 24

So this is one reason I joined Operation 2549

Free, a coalition of veterans and national security 1

organizations that have come together to focus on this and 2

make us more secure because this will boost their economy, 3

it will increase our environmental health and to make sure 4

that we have a more secure America. 5

Our military leaders have taken note, 6

and the DOD, the nation's largest energy consumer, has a 7

goal to reduce their carbon pollution by 20 percent by 2020. 8

The Quadrennial Defense Review stated although they produce 9

distinct types of security and economic stability 10

challenges, climate changes are inexplicably linked. CIA 11

also opened a center on climate change. 12

The Army has one of the largest electric 13

vehicle fleets in the world, over 4,000 vehicles aimed to be 14

by three years. The Air Force will have 50 percent of its 15

aviation fuel from biofuels by 2016. The Marines, where I'm 16

from, will lead the way and they're aiming for a 30 percent 17

energy reduction by 2015. The Navy is launching what they 18

call the great green fleet by 2016, which includes hybrid 19

destroyers and F

- 18s that run off the bio

- fuel. The Navy 20

also aims to reduce petroleum fuel in its commercial feet by 21

50 percent by 2015. 22

When I was in Iraq I saw our dependence 23

on oil was a constant threat to our security and 24

independence. The Department of Defense has set ambitious 2550

goals to reduce our dependence on oil and improve fuel 1

standards because they understand the risks it poses to our 2

nation. 3

And this is not just a lesson from the 4

military. Our addiction doesn't only affect our national 5

security; it's detrimental to our economic security as well. 6

Every day we are sending $1 billion a day overseas to pay 7

for oil many of which could be staying here in this country 8

supporting our own economy. Nearly half of the oil used is 9

from cars and light trucks. So increasing fuel efficiency 10

will have a tremendous impact. 11

Our $1 billion a day dependence on oil 12

makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes. Not 13

only does cutting our dependence on oil make us more secure, 14

it invests hard

- earned American money back into our economy. 15

This standard for cars and light t rucks 16

by 2025 is the single best step we can take right now to 17

curb this dangerous addiction to oil. It will help my 18

community and countless communities around the nation to 19

improve their economic security. It will also keep America 20

competitive with foreign automakers, many of which already 21

have higher standards of their own than ours, and it would 22

increase our national security making us more independent in 23

keeping billions of dollars out of the hands of people who 24

don't have America's interest at heart. 2551

By implementing the standard we will be 1

taking control of our energy future and creating a more 2

secure America. 3

Thank you. And I'll be happy to answer 4

questions. 5

MS. OGE: Thank you for testifying; 6

thank you for your service. 7

So the last member of this panel is 8

Mr. Wilton. 9

Good morning. 10

MR. WILTON: Good morning. I am Jay 11

Wilton. I am Chrysler Group's Vice President of 12

Engineering, Planning and Regulatory Compliance. I 13

appreciate the opportunity to comment today on EPA's and 14

NHTSA's proposed national greenhouse gas and fuel economy 15

rules. 16

Ch rysler recognizes the benefit to the 17

country of continuing the national program to address fuel 18

economy and greenhouse gases. EPA and NHTSA began this 19

program in 2009 with standards for model years 2012 through 20

2016 and now the agencies are continuing it for model years 21

2017 through 2025. 22

The challenge of meeting the proposed 23

standards must not be underestimated. We believe it's 24

important to observe that reaching the projected overall 2552

average of 163 grams per mile of carbon dioxide in model 1

year 2025 will have to be achieved within 13 years or 2

approximately two product cycles. 3

However, Chrysler fully supports the 4

goals of this program. Sergio Marchionne, our CEO is also 5

the CEO of Fiat, which is the industry's fuel economy leader 6

in Europe. He understands and endorses these commitments 7

and is determined to pursue the product actions necessary 8

for Chrysler to meet these 2017 and beyond goals. 9

Chrysler and Fiat have already begun 10

transforming the fleet with fuel efficiency improvements on 11

our flagship Chrysler 300 Sedan, which achieves the best in 12

class 31 miles per gallon with its new HB transmission and 13

our recently revealed Dodge Dart with its 1.4

- liter 14

multi

- air engine and 6

- speed dual dry clutch transmission. 15

Chrysler is also working on the advanced 16

technology of vehicles for tomorrow with the planned launch 17

of the Fiat 500 electric vehicle and our collaborative 18

efforts with the Department of Energy to develop plug

- in 19

hybrid electric technology for our minivan and our Ram

- 1500 20

pickup. 21

Chrysler strongly supports a single 22

harmonized national greenhouse gas and fuel economy 23

performance standard. It allows manufacturers to offer 24

vehicles that customers want to buy and at prices they can 2553

afford. The availability of supporting cost

- effective 1

technologies along with the aforementioned custome r 2

considerations will provide the proper measure of 3

performance for the proposed program. 4

Chrysler will support the final rules if 5

they reflect the commitments and the foundational principles 6

of the framework agreement. These foundational principles 7

are one, strong performance requirements; two, a mid

- term 8

review to assess customer acceptance; and, three, the broad 9

use of incentives to encourage technology innovations and 10

early integration into production vehicles. 11

We believe the mid

- term review is 12

critical in determining whether the customer is buying and 13

will continue to buy the technology packages needed to 14

comply with the standards year over year. Efforts to search 15

for parameters that measure potential customer acceptance 16

must not lose sight of the most important question, are they 17

buying the product. Measuring whether customers will buy 18

what we offer even next year is challenging. Speculating as 19

far as 13 years in the future holds significant uncertainty 20

and risk. A mid

- term assessment of the underlying 21

rulemaking assumptions provide a credible and equitable 22

mechanism to adjust standards for future consumer and 23

technology uncertainties and is a primary reason Chrysler 24

supports this program. 2554

I would also like to make some comments 1

on other provisions of the proposed rule. 2

First, Chrysler agrees with setting the 3

truck performance requirements based on the underlying 4

physics of these types of vehicles. We believe the proposed 5

2017 through 2025 standards support this premise and correct 6

the deficiency of the 2012 through '16 rule which overlooked 7

these factors. 8

The truck standards for 2012 through '16 9

model years were not supported by fundamental science, 10

accommodating that science which seemed to be restricted by 11

statutory directions to not back

- slide on standards from 12

previous years. 13

The 2017 through 2025 truck standards 14

are challenging while respecting the utility of these 15

vehicles and their importance to the nation's economy. 16

Second, Chrysler supports the additional 17

detailed proposal for capturing off

- cycle fuel economy and 18

greenhouse gas improvements. The agencies wisely built on 19

this facet of the 2012 through '16 regulation that 20

recognizes improvements in fuel economy and greenhouse gases 21

that are not captured in laboratory tests but do have real

22

world reductions for our consumers. 23

And, finally, there are references to 24

minimum penetration levels in various aspects of the 2555

proposed rule. These thresholds are unnecessary in our 1

opinion and serve as potential disincentives to invest in 2

new technologies. We propose that all actions be recognized 3

as they had historically been on a per

- vehicle

- so

- equipped 4

basis. This is an equitable approach where every vehicle 5

built with the required technology for our customers is 6

acknowledged. If a minimum penetration rate is required, a 7

manufacturer may be discouraged from pursuing innovative 8

technologies with uncertain acceptance and possibly no 9

credit or payback. 10

In conclusion, I want to reiterate 11

Chrysler's support of the single harmonized national 12

standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. We 13

look forward to continuing to work with the agencies 14

throughout the rulemaking process and after the final rul e 15

is published later this year. 16

I appreciate the opportunity to testify 17

and would be happy to answer questions as well. 18

MS. OGE: Thank you. 19

Any questions of the panel? 20

MR. MEDFORD: No. I'd like to thank 21

everybody. 22

MS. OGE: I have one question for 23

clarification for Mr. Robinson. 24

You mentioned the importance of the 2556

mid

- term review, but also you mentioned the importance of 1

having more frequent reviews of the program. 2

Could you just elaborate a little bit 3

what that means. 4

MR. ROBINSON: Sure, I'd be glad to, 5

Chairwoman. 6

The mid

- term review is going to be some 7

period from today. It's, depending on how you want to 8

define the beginning of it, at least five years from now, 9

probably more. 10

Through the comments you heard from 11

other panelists and myself, there's a lot of uncertainty 12

between now and then. It would be our expectation and hope 13

that the agencies would solicit, invite and act upon 14

continuous data and analysis that we can provide along with 15

data and analysis from other sources, obviously, to make 16

informed judgments along the way so that we don't wait. If 17

there are obvious events that occur, if there are things 18

that are not coming true that are assumed in the rulemaking, 19

then adjustments would be made instead of waiting for a 20

mid

- term course correction. That's all we're talking about. 21

MS. OGE: Thank you. 22

Any questions from the panel? 23

Thank you. I want to thank the panel. 24

So I'm going to wish Ms. Cischke publicly a wonderful, 2557

healthy, well

- deserved retirement. 1

(Applause) 2

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. I think we are 3

ready for the next panel. 4

I would just remind the speakers that 5

the court reporter would really like to have a copy of the 6

testimony. 7

Good morning and welcome, Mr. Foster. 8

MR. FOSTER: Good morning. Thank you 9

very much. 10

Good morning, Distinguished Members of 11

the Panel. My name is David Foster and I'm Executive 12

Director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a national partnership 13

of America's largest labor unions and environmental 14

organizations uniting more than 15 million members and 15

su pporters in support of the clean energy economy. 16

I would first like to commend the Obama 17

Administration and specifically the White House Council on 18

Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency 19

and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for their 20

outstanding leadership on this critical issue of fuel 21

standards. America's working families continue to struggle 22

to fill their gas tanks in a steady but slow economic 23

recovery. But with your leadership we have an opportunity 24

to help save consumers money at the gas pump, create and 2558

preserve American jobs and strengthen the economy by setting 1

strong fuel standards. 2

The BlueGreen Alliance strongly supports 3

the light

- duty vehicle standards for model year 2017 to 2025 4

that will raise fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon, 5

nearly double what today's fuel efficiency standard is and 6

limit the greenhouses gas emissions as it's been noted to 7

163 grams per mile. 8

The proposed standards build upon the 9

success of the current round of standards for model years 10

2012 to 2016. Combined with this program, by 2025, the U.S. 11

can save an estimated 12 billion barrels of oil, equivalent 12

to four years of oil consumption from our current U.S. 13

light

- duty vehicle fleet, and 6 billion metric tons of CO2, 14

the equivalent of one year of total U.S. CO2 pollution by 15

implementing these proposed standards. 16

Every day our country sends an estimated 17

$1 billion to foreign countries for oil. Strong standards 18

will keep more of the dollars here in the United States and 19

move America to a more efficient advanced vehicle fleet 20

creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, economic 21

opport unities both inside and outside the auto industry. 22

Based on the agencies' initial technical 23

assessment, the net consumer savings of fuel expenditures 24

will be very substantial and will provide much needed relief 2559

at the pump. By developing and producing advanced fuel

1

saving technology in the United States, automakers and 2

suppliers can create quality jobs and provide the clean, 3

fuel

- efficient cars and light

- duty trucks consumers want. 4

The automakers are already making these 5

investments in response to the historic clean 2012

- 2016 6

standards as well as the growing consumer demand. From 7

pickup trucks to sedans the American automakers are 8

introducing models with clean fuel

- efficient technology into 9

the marketplace. Models such as the redesigned Ford 10

Explorer SUV and the plug

- in hybrid Chevy Volt I think 11

demonstrate the range of conventional and advanced 12

technology improvements available to consumers today. 13

In 2008 we saw the consequences when 14

automakers had difficulty responding to consumer shifts in 15

response to volatile fuel prices. So these strong 16

feasibility standards will provide long

- term certainty to 17

the industry and ensure that innovation continues and re cent 18

investments in advanced technology pay off. They will also 19

set the stage for weaning America off oil dependence for 20

good and for the long

- term reductions in greenhouse gas 21

pollution we need to create a sustainable clean energy 22

economy. 23

Evidence already exists that bringing 24

cleaner vehicles into the market creates American jobs. We 2560

have, by example, the Advanced Technology Vehicle 1

Manufacturing loan program that will preserve or create 2

nearly 40,000 jobs in the U.S. auto sector, retooling 3

America's factories to produce advanced technology vehicles 4

and their key components. 5

The battery and electric drive component 6

ramp program is helping establish the United States as a 7

world leader in the production of this exciting new 8

automotive technology. 9

We also request continuing federal 10

programs to support these auto industry efforts in retooling 11

to meet the demand for cleaner, more efficient cars. And 12

we're committed to advocate with you for this important 13

support for our domestic industry. Consumers looking to 14

purchase vehicles in the next few years are expressing 15

interest in higher fuel economy. Building the next 16

generation of advanced vehicles in the United States will 17

create tens of thousands of new engineering and 18

manufacturing jobs and strengthen America's rebounding 19

sector. 20

This is a unique opportunity to fulfill 21

your commitments to create American jobs, protect consumers 22

whether they drive a car or truck from high gas prices and 23

to cut America's dependence on foreign oil. Our 15 24

BlueGreen Alliance partners and their 15 million members are 2561

committed to promoting the fact that green auto jobs are a 1

win

- win for all Americans, and we're committed to raise 2

awareness among consumers of the significance of these fuel

3

saving technologies. 4

So, as you finalize the light

- duty 5

standards, we look forward to continuing our engagement with 6

your agencies and the other stakeholders working to 7

implement the strong standard which will maximize oil 8

savings and reductions of greenhouse gas pollution. They 9

are the secret to strengthening the U.S. auto industry. 10

They will increase the deployment of advanced technology, 11

protect U.S. automotive jobs and create more opportunity for 12

American workers. 13

So we applaud the efforts undertaken so 14

far and believe that strong feasible standards can guarantee 15

the best possible outcome for American workers, our 16

communities, the economy and the environment. 17

Thank you. 18

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 19

Mr. Pelissier. 20

MR. PELISSIER: Pretty close. 21

MR. MEDFORD: Sorry. 22

MR. PELISSIER: Thank you. My name is 23

Dan Pelissier. I'm the president of UAW Local 163 located 24

in Westland, Michigan. Local 163 has been in existence 2562

since 1942. We have approximately 2,000 members at eleven 1

workplaces. 2

Our two biggest units by far are engine 3

plants. One, Detroit Diesel, is owned by Daimler Trucks and 4

produces engines for over

- the

- road trucks and other 5

heavy

- duty applications. We also have a unit on the Detroit 6

Diesel Campus, City of Detroit Filter Operations, which 7

produces pollution

- control equipment for these large 8

engines. Although neither of these are affected by the 9

rul es that is the subject of today's hearing, I want to 10

recognize that Local 163 has experienced the increase in 11

jobs that can come with sensible regulation. 12

The other engine plant represented by 13

Local 163 is General Motors' Romulus engine plant. Romulus 14

Engine opened in 1975. Since 1975 Romulus Engine has 15

produced 17 million engines, and since its conversion to 16

making gasoline engines in 1985 has built engines for 17

General Motors products mostly, including many V

- 6 and V -8 18

and larger displacements over 6 liters in some cases. 19

The plant also has been well

- known for 20

its quality and productivity achievements over the years 21

and has been the most productive V

- 8 plant in North America 22

several times. However, over the years, the actual demand 23

for those engines in their current configuration has not 24

been what it was during the day of 17 million in annual 2563

sales. 1

And like any manufacturing facility, we 2

alway s have to think about future product possibilities. No 3

program runs forever. Preserving and expanding employment 4

is always a concern for the union. We need new investment 5

to retool our plant for the latest technology. 6

One trend that is driving technology is 7

the desire by consumers to save fuel. The fuel economy and 8

tailpipe pollution proposals we are discussing today gives 9

manufacturers additional certainty so they can invest in 10

producing more fuel

- efficient products. These are huge 11

investments, and added certainty helps. 12

Romulus engine plant learned last fall 13

that we are going to be the beneficiaries of a large 14

investment by General Motors that will retool our plant to 15

make some of GM's most efficient engines. 16

GM will invest $385 million at our plant 17

to establish for the first time in our plant's history the 18

production of 4

- cylinder engines. I can't say anything 19

about the details of the engine or the products that it will 20

power, but I can say that this is obviously very good for 21

the future of our facility. 22

This investment was made possible by 23

many factors, not the least of which is the new national 24

agreement between GM and the UAW that was bargained by UAW 2564

President Bob King and Vice President Joe Ashton. 1

But it's also clear the commitment GM 2

made to increase the efficiency of its vehicles all the way 3

to 2025 and the desire of consumers to save money on fuel 4

means that many more vehicles will have an option for a 5

4- cylinder engine. After all, who would have thought that 6

Buick cars would be equipped with so many 4

- cylinder 7

engines. 8

That's why Local 163 sees a direct 9

connection between the proposals under consideration here 10

today and the jobs of the future at our plant. We will 11

provide GM customers with an engine that is more efficient, 12

yet gives them the performance they want. The adoption of 13

these proposals will improve the environment, reduce our 14

dependency on foreign oil and create jobs for autoworkers, 15

and that is why the UAW is here to offer our support. 16

Thank you. 17

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you both. 18

Do my colleagues have any questions? 19

Thank you so much for your testimony 20

today. 21

I think we're ready for the next panel. 22

MS. OGE: Like to call Mr. Mike Stanton, 23

Doug Chalmers, Tom Thiel, Doug Fox, Ron Krupitzer, Robin 24

Eckstein, Neil Carter and John Juriga. 2565

Good morning, Mr. Stanton. Welcome. 1

MR. STANTON: Thank you very much. 2

My name is Mike Stanton, and I am 3

President and CEO of the Association of Global Automakers. 4

We represent international motor vehicle manufacturers, 5

original equipment suppliers and other automotive

- related 6

trade associations. Our members' market share and U.S. 7

production is just about 40 percent. 8

Global Automakers and its members have 9

always endorsed a comprehensive and harmonized national 10

approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving 11

fuel economy. The alternative to having complied with a 12

patchwork of state requirements would add significant cost 13

resulting in higher vehicle prices with no corresponding 14

environmental or energy benefits. We have been working with 15

the EPA, DOT and CARB to create a program that meets our 16

national and environmental and energy objectives while 17

providing manufacturers with flexibility and lead

- time 18

necessary to design and build advanced technology vehicles 19

that will provide consumers a wide full range of vehicle 20

choices. This NPRM brings us another step closer to the 21

goal of having a long

- term single national program. 22

The standards proposed by the agencies 23

are extremely stringent and are based on a large number of 24

assumptions about technology and the auto market over the 256 6

next 14 years. By extending the standards for many years 1

into the future, the agencies provide manufacturers with 2

substantial lead time which is of great value in compliance 3

planning. On the other hand, the long time frame means the 4

standards in the later years will be based on some 5

assumptions. And for this reason we support the proposed 6

mid

- term review to reassess the stringency of the standards 7

inclu ding technology penetration rates, fuel costs and most 8

importantly consumer acceptance. 9

So we also support the flexibility 10

mechanisms and credits that the agencies propose to make 11

available. These provisions enhance the ability of 12

manufacturers to meet market demand while maintaining the 13

emissions and energy benefits of the program. They also 14

provide another means of dealing with the uncertainty 15

associated with the out year standards. The various credits 16

work in different ways, all of which are extremely 17

important. The credit banking and trading system provides 18

an incentive for manufacturers to implement advanced 19

technologies at early dates. 20

Off

- cycle credits provide incentives for 21

manuf acturers to pursue technologies that produce benefits 22

in actual on

- road driving but are not measured using the 23

FTP. Advanced technology credit provides an incentive for 24

manufacturers to continue to develop and market these 2567

technologies which have the potential for substantial 1

long

- term improvements in fuel efficiency and emission 2

performance. 3

Air conditioning

- system credits provide 4

manufacturers flexibility in pursuing a variety of 5

enhancements to system efficiencies and the use of advanced 6

low global warming refrigerants. We see these flexibility 7

mechanisms as an essential part of the program. 8

We also support the credit

- based 9

compliance option for the methane and nitrous oxide 10

standards as well as the new upward adjustment approach to 11

allow these emissions to be included with the carbon dioxide 12

emissions. However, we see no need for the proposed 13

prohibition on the use of different compliance options for 14

nitrous oxide and methane in the same year. This 15

restriction limits manufacturers' compliance flexibility but 16

with no clear environmental benefit. 17

With regard to the proposed requirement 18

for testing to measure nitrous oxide emissions beginning in 19

model year 2017 we urge EPA to reconsider the 20

cost

- effectiveness of this requirement. The quantity of 21

these emissions is quite low and we see no indication that 22

they will become an important factor in climate change in 23

the future. Testing for this substance will require 24

expensive new analyzers. The performance remains to be 2568

determined. We urge the agency to allow manufacturers to 1

continue to demonstrate compliance using the pre

- 2017 2

analysis

- based methodology in 2017 and thereafter. The EPA 3

could monitor these emissions and adopt new test

- based 4

requirements in the future should the emissions grow in 5

significance. 6

And, finally, Global Automakers supports 7

the case

- by

- case small volume manufacturers approach. It 8

allows the flexibility that this small segment of the 9

industry needs while also mandating requirements necessary 10

to control greenhouse gases. We also support the 11

harmonization of the definition of small volume 12

manufacturers. 13

Obviously, we will have written comments 14

which will expand on these points as well. To emphasize, we 15

strongly support the program, we strongly want to work with 16

you and will work with you in the process involved in the 17

final standard and the mid

- term review. 18

Thank you. 19

MS. OGE: Thank you. 20

Don Chalmers, good morning. 21

MR. CHALMERS: Good morning. 22

My name is Don Chalmers. I'm Chairman 23

of NADA's Government Relations Committee and President of 24

Don Chalmers Ford in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. I traveled 2569

here yesterday from Santa Fe, New Mexico, and I might ask 1

the Committee's indulgence. I have had a personal thing 2

come up and I have a plane to catch, and if you could ask 3

any questions of me right after my testimony I would 4

certainly -- 5

MS. OGE: We'll do that. 6

MR. CHALMERS: Thank you very much. 7

Today I would like to make three main 8

points. First of all, NADA supports one workable national 9

fuel economy program. 10

Secondly, NADA wants the highest fuel 11

economy that we can get as long as the mandates are feasible 12

and affordable as customers do have choices. 13

And, third, the proposal dramatically 14

underestimates cost impacts on new vehicles. 15

NADA supports the single national 16

program governing light

- duty vehicle fuel economy as that is 17

what Congress sought in 2007 when it enacted the Energy 18

Independence and Security Act. But dealers are concerned 19

about the accelerated schedule in this proposal. The 20

mandates for model year 2011 to 2016 just now being 21

implemented aggressively move up the 2020 goal of 35 miles 22

per gallon by four years. If this proposal aims to set 23

mandates for model years 2017 through 2025, five of the 24

thirteen years out in the future will more than double the 2570

fuel economy of the vehicles I now sell. 1

Sure, manufacturers need adequate time 2

to achieve compliance. And as a businessman, dealers 3

appreciate regulatory certainty, but we question whether 4

setting fuel economy mandates so far out makes sense when 5

critical variables like fuel prices, consumer behavior and 6

creditworthiness are paramount. If anything, this 7

contradicts Congress's intent that such standards be set in 8

5- year or fewer intervals. Moreover, any supposed certainty 9

may be fleeting given the proposal's mid

- term review could 10

result in even stricter mandates for model years 2022 to 11

2025. 12

The showroom realities I see suggest 13

that we should take the time to evaluate how consumers react 14

to the higher -m ileage/higher

- cost vehicles manufacturers 15

will build in the next few years. In other words, if we 16

want, if we wait two years, manufacturers would still have 17

the time necessary to comply and we would all have better 18

data on which to make decisions. Sales of new vehicles were 19

12.7 million last year, a far cry from the 17

- plus million 20

in the high water market in the mid 2000s, but much better 21

than the 10.4 million sold in 2009. 22

Dealers embrace the pivotal role we are 23

playing to help lead our nation back to the road of 24

prosperity, but we are wary of anything that might depress 2571

sales and turn back the gains being made. Simply put, 1

before rushing head

- long into a new set of mandates aimed at 2

doubling today's fleet fuel economy, we need to know better 3

what the ramifications will be. 4

To work, fuel economy rules must require 5

improvements that are affordable. Why? Because you can 6

mandate what the manufacturers must build but you can't 7

dictate what consumers will buy. If our customers do not 8

purchase these products, we all lose. 9

Not that we're not suggesting the 10

proposal is technologically infeasible. For example, my 11

manufacturer Ford Motor Company has or can develop the 12

engineering and manufacturing expertise necessary to comply, 13

but at what costs. Our concern is for our customers and the 14

prices that they will face. 15

When prospective purchasers come to my 16

s howroom, they have choices, even if their car just broke 17

down that morning on the way to work and they definitely 18

need to get there. I'm always delighted when they buy a new 19

car or truck. But if they can't afford what I've got to 20

sell or if what I'm selling fails to meet their needs, we 21

can always walk over to my used vehicle lot or explore the 22

option of having my service department fix up their old 23

vehicle. And you can trust that my many competitors in the 24

used car sales and service business will jump at the 2572

opportunity to offer these option if I don't. So if new 1

mandates are achieved

-- if new mandates are to achieve the 2

efficiency and emissions target sought, they must not 3

undermine vehicle affordability or performance. 4

By EPA's own estimates, current prices 5

would go up over today $3,200. I heard different numbers 6

thrown around, but a third of that are the mandates that are 7

just now going into effect through 2016 and then another 8

$2000, or a little over 2,000 on the mandates from 2017 to 9

2025, which will total in today's dollars $3,200 over 10

today's prices. This would raise payments between $60 and 11

$70 a month in a typical automobile loan. 12

Lenders look when they approve the loan 13

at advancing or loaning between 18 and 20 percent of the 14

buyer's monthly take

- home pay. If marginal credit is 15

involved, that drops to 12 to 15 percent. Someone suggested 16

you just put $3200 more down on a car loan, but this is 17

pre tty naive and really not connected to the reality of 18

today's showroom. 19

I asked my sales manager to give me a 20

couple of recent examples of how this would affect our 21

customers. And he said, How many do you want? And I just 22

brought two here today that I can talk about. I can't give 23

names for privacy reasons, of course, but I've got a single 24

male, bought a car from me in the month of December. He has 2573

a modest income of about $24,000. He has very good credit. 1

He had saved and has a down payment of $2,000, was 2

interested and bought a new Ford Fiesta. 3

The finance source gave him a qualified 4

approval that said his maximum payment could be no more than 5

$350 a month. We negotiated it down to that and today he is 6

driving a new Ford Fiesta. But if the price had been 7

another $3200 this customer would not have gotten this 8

vehicle. Very likely, and this is just speculation on my 9

part, would have ended up in my used car department buying 10

an older car. 11

The second example is a middle

- aged 12

couple, came in

-- when I say middle

- aged, they're around 13

55, and I hope I don't insult anybody by that. They were 14

looking at a new Escape. They had an income of $3500 a 15

mo nth but they had marginal credit. Down payment was their 16

trade

- in. Their trade

- in was a 200,000 mile used Ford 17

Taurus. They were qualified by the finance source to a 18

maximum payment of $570 a month. They could have been 19

looking at an Escape hybrid but they couldn't afford the 20

additional cost of the hybrid. They certainly could not 21

afford another $3200 increase in price and would have kept 22

their old Taurus, fixed it up, or bought a used car. 23

The results of both these examples are 24

the same: no new efficient vehicles would be on the road 2574

today. I would have lost a sale, someone would

-- there's a 1

loss of jobs and in manufacturing the new vehicle that 2

wasn't sold. Basically everybody loses, including the 3

environment. 4

In Oklahoma where I grew up, we would 5

say it doesn't make any difference if beans are only a 6

nickel a bushel. If you can't get the nickel, you can't buy 7

the beans. And, so, if they can't get the loan for the 8

vehicle, then they wouldn't get the car that they wanted 9

that we all want them to have. 10

As I said before, the proposal indicates 11

that by 2025 the average price of the new light

- duty vehicle 12

will increase by some $3200 over what it is today. 13

A study that the NADA will release next 14

month will raise significant concerns regarding how the 15

proposal calculates retail price impacts. By using a more 16

realistic analytical approach, our initial analysis shows 17

the proposal underestimates the cost at retail and suggests 18

a compliance

- related price increase in my showroom could be 19

at least 60 percent higher than that which would be up to 20

$5,000 inc rease. 21

NADA also will soon release a look

- back 22

at the 2002 to 2010 medium

- and heavy

- duty truck emissions 23

mandates revealing the EPA underestimated the average 24

compliance cost by a factor of three. This look

- back shows 2575

what can happen when a regulatory proposal seeks to set far 1

in the future mandates based on far in advance predictions. 2

Importantly, it will also document the 3

widely recognized market disruptions that occurred as a 4

result. Like the l ight

- duty vehicle customers, commercial 5

truck buyers seek out alternatives when faced with 6

unreasonable regulatory mandates. 7

In closing, I ask only that you take 8

into account the market realities of the showroom. If the 9

new vehicles manufacturers must produce fail to meet the 10

needs, desires or financial constraints of car and truck 11

buyers, those buyers will seek out and find other options. 12

Again, dealers support a national 13

program for improved light

- duty fuel economy, but one 14

consumers are willing and able to buy into. 15

On behalf of NADA, thank you again for 16

the opportunity to present these views. I know that they're 17

different than other people that came up here. But if we're 18

all thinking the same way, we're all not thinking. 19

If you have questions, I'll be glad to 20

answer them. 21

MS. OGE: Thank you, Mr. Chalmers. 22

Any questions for Mr. Chalmers before he 23

leaves? 24

MR. MEDFORD: No. I think we'll look 2576

forward to the new data that you mentioned. 1

MR. CHALMERS: Thank you. 2

MS. OGE: Well, I have a couple of 3

questions. 4

So in your testimony, you clearly spoke 5

about the cost, and we can sit here and question you. The 6

purpose of this public hearing is to get input so we can 7

refine the final language. 8

You did mention, however, the benefits 9

that the consumer will get out of this action, for example, 10

our analysis is in 2025, just from the 2025 new vehicle, the 11

cost of that new vehicle would be $2,000

-- consumers will 12

save over $6,000 in fuel savings assuming the gasoline price 13

is the same as today in 2025, and in that the consumer will 14

save $4,000. 15

Would you please comment what is NADA's 16

position on that? 17

MR. CHALMERS: Thank you for the 18

question and I appreciate it. I probably didn't explain 19

things right. 20

You used 2,000. I used 3200 because I'm 21

adding the extra

-- 22

MS. OGE: I understand. Let's stay with 23

the 2025 $2,000 and the benefit, the consumer benefit. 24

MR. CHALMERS: I would agree and I think 2577

all dealers agree and I want to sell very fuel

- efficient 1

cars. And if we sell more fuel

- efficient cars, there are a 2

myriad of benefits that can happen. But, again, if the 3

customer can't get the financing for that car, then it makes 4

no difference and if he can save as much or even more, and 5

that depends on the consumer, if they can save as much or 6

even more than what their monthly payment goes up, it 7

wouldn't make any difference if the finance source will not 8

finance the car in the first place. Finance sources do not 9

look at how much you're going to save in fuel economy. They 10

want to know what your income is today and what the car 11

payment is today. They don't look at fuel economy. 12

And because of that, we will have a 13

group of people that fall off and would not be able to have 14

access to the new fuel

- efficient cars that will be coming 15

out. And, unfortunately, it's the people that fall off and 16

don't get access are the people that probably need it the 17

most and can least afford it. Other people that can't 18

afford it, they could write a check for the car or have 19

excellent credit and much more capacity to borrow, they will 20

gain, but we would lose a significant percentage of the 21

marketplace. 22

MS. OGE: And one more question, and 23

then you can go back home. Thank you for coming. 24

I'm somewhat mystified by your 2578

testimony. You're representing the Ford dealers. 1

MR. CHALMERS: Yes. 2

MS. OGE: And we just had Sue Cischke 3

from Ford testifying on the program and clearly sees also 4

the same concerns about the long

- term of the standards, but 5

the support of a mid

- term review to reassess where we're 6

going to be in the 2018 time frame. 7

So Ford thinks that they are going to 8

sell more cars, that's why they're supporting it. What do 9

you think? Why is there this disparity between what the OEM 10

is saying, that they support this program with the way that 11

we have structured it, and you represent the Ford dealers, 12

you believe that's not a good deal for consumers, for your 13

customers. Can you explain those, please, for the public 14

record what is the disconnect that I see. 15

MR. CHALMERS: Well, first of all, I'd 16

like to congratulate Sue who's a friend on her retirement 17

and Ford won't be quite the company that it was the day she 18

leaves. 19

And I do believe we have a little bit 20

different view. And, again, we all need to say what we 21

think, and we don't have to think to be in lock step. We 22

may be closer together in our thoughts than we may think. 23

We are concerned that the further out that we try to guess 24

what the marketplace is going to be like, the more 2579

inaccurate we're liable to be. And if we waited and 1

gathered information the next couple of years of what is 2

happening and how consumers are reacting to the 2011 through 3

2016 standards, if we waited a year and a half, two more 4

years, Ford Motor Company would still be able to comply with 5

the technology required to meet the standards we're talking 6

about, but we would have a whole lot more data on where 7

we're heading and it would be more accurate. So we would 8

end up with a better decision. That's Number 1. 9

The second thing that I just can't quite 10

get around is the affordability from a finance standpoint, 11

not from a long

- term look at payment versus gasoline. It's 12

whether you can get qualified for a loan in the first place. 13

That's my expertise. And that's what happens on the 14

showroom floor. The bankers or anybody can get a chart and 15

compare the payment to the fuel savings, and I don't know 16

much about how to

-- the technology required to reach these 17

standards, but I do know exactly what my finance sources, 18

all of them look at, and they'll look at a payment versus 19

someone's disposable income. And if it's greater than what 20

they need regardless of how much they're going to save in 21

fuel economy, they won't

-- they do not finance that car, 22

and that's the reality of vehicle financing today. 23

MS. OGE: Thank you. 24

Now I'm going to go to Mr. Tom Thias. 2580

Good morning. 1

MR. THIAS: Good morning. 2

I want to thank you all for being here. 3

I've been in the car business not as a dealer but as a 4

salesman for a quarter of a century. And I think all of us 5

in this room or maybe a few do not or have not recalled the 6

1970s with the oil embargo. That was not an annoyance for 7

just a weekend; that went on for months and months and 8

months, which began all this to begin with I believe in 9

1977. That was the direct response to this. 10

Let's come to the current era. It was 11

four years ago about this time when the cost of a gallon of 12

gasoline for the average person and businesses and companies 13

began to creep up. If we go four years ago, it was about 14

$2.65 at this time. By May I recall the panic when it 15

went -- April when it pushed over three; and then in June 16

and July and August when it pushed four. The talking heads 17

on the radio were talking about

-- in fact, certain ones 18

were castigating us because, gee, it's $8 a gallon in 19

Europe. Frankly, we were being strangled when it went past 20

$3.50. 21

GMAC U.S.A. went out

-- GMAC Canada went 22

out in September

-- went out in August of '08. GMAC U.S.A. 23

went out

-- this is the leasing companies

-- went out in 24

August. Why? Because you had hundreds and hundreds of 2581

these full

- size trucks that were put out three years earlier 1

with a residual value in place that we cannot sell on our 2

lots nor could GMAC in their normal returns put these 3

vehicles onto the dealer lots, these program cars. 4

Each one hit General Motors and Chrysler 5

in a liquidity situation. They had to cover each one and 6

they would continue to come in from three years previous and 7

two years previous as far as they could see for the next two 8

and a half years. That may have been why they had to beg 9

for the money to cover it. All right? 10

By December of that year after GM had 11

gone through its troubles, and Chrysler, the cost of a 12

gallon of gas went back into the low twos. We have no 13

control over this. Those of you who drove in today and 14

gassed up your tanks, as of last Tuesday, at least in the 15

Lansing area, it was $3.69 a gallon for regular. And, 16

again, we have no control over this. There's ominous things 17

on the horizon. You have probably heard the $4

- plus this 18

summer. That is why we're here. 19

What we have done so

-- what we can say 20

now is that we are prepared. Four years ago, we didn't have 21

the vehicles. Now for General Motors we have the Chevy 22

Cruze. It gets 42 miles a gallon, and that's an average on 23

the highway, two or three miles each side. We have the new 24

Chevy Sonic. And this Cruze, by the way, is the highest 2582

selling car in the country, second I think in rank with the 1

Focus. And the new little car, the Sonic from Chevrolet 2

rated at 40. The new E

- assist coming up, the full

- size 3

Buick LaSabre on the ground now using electric lithium 4

batteries with an AC motor is rated at 36 miles a gallon. 5

My point is we are on the way. 6

Technology is marching on and I could go on for hours but 7

let me keep this short. 8

The amazing Chevy Volt, the extended 9

range electric vehicle. On the Monroney sticker, and that's 10

the window sticker in the window, from last year's 2011 11

Volt, the EPA stated this: If you drive an average of 12

45 miles between charges, you will average 168 miles per 13

gallon. 14

Now, the EPA says that 80 percent of the 15

population drives 40 miles a day on average. Now, think 16

about that for a minute. There is just a storm of negative 17

press against the Volt. Not the Leaf, not the upcoming Ford 18

Focus, from certain walks it is relentless from newspapers 19

and this and that. 20

This vehicle is phenomenal. It can go 21

101 miles

-- let's not get into the product, I don't want to 22

sell you one here today. The point is you have the Ford 23

Focus coming out, you've got other

-- if we look at it down 24

at the auto show where I'm headed next, you have a whole 2583

area called Electric Avenue. Everybody is getting in on it, 1

and I think certain powers to be are very afraid. They will 2

do whatever they can to stop this. And that may have been 3

why gas went to $4 in '08, but that's my speculation and 4

I'll stay away from that. 5

One more thing. The complaint in these 6

small little cars

-- and, quite frankly, the Volt is a 7

comfortable car. It will do 101 miles an hour in 0 to 6.89. 8

First, my local utility, Board of Water 9

and Light of Lansing says this on their website, you can 10

check it out, cost to charge about a buck twenty a day. 11

That's if you're running the 25

- to 50

- mile range. Folks, 12

that's $36 a month plus a gallon of gas or two. 13

The average person is driving 20, or 14

buying two gallons of gas a day driving that 25 to 40

- 45 15

miles. That's $8 a day, that's $240 a month, that's $7,200 16

over three years. The Impala brand new gets an average of 17

23. 18

My point is if I'm spending $36 a month 19

plus a couple gallons of gas versus $240 in a vehicle like 20

the Volt and the Leaf and the Ford Focus CV, I'm going to 21

save $7,200 over two years. And if I'm leasing it at $399 a 22

month, and I think the Leaf and the Volt are at the 40

- 50 23

somewhere, take that 7200 bucks I'm not spending away from 24

the $399 a month on the lease, your net cost to drive is 2584

about 7200 bucks over the three years. Maybe I'm pushing it 1

too far. It's coming. 2

And finally, Bob Lutz, former Vice 3

Chairman of General Motors last Tuesday introduced Via 4

Motors. They are there. They're outfitting the OEM GM 5

pickup trucks, vans and Suburbans for the SUVs all electric, 6

40

- mile range. Cost to charge, $2 a day. Average fuel 7

economy -- this is their information, not mine

-- 100 miles 8

a gallon. 9

Now we're going to do and we're going to 10

go out with this over the next

-- until the next 2025, and I 11

tell you now we're ready for it, as far as the abilities we 12

have for these vehicles to kind of offset that high dollar 13

gas. They don't have us anymore. 14

And that's my statement. Thank you. 15

MS. OGE: Thank you. 16

Mr. Fox, good morning. 17

MR. FOX: I hate to follow that. 18

I am Doug Fox, owner of Ann Arbor 19

Automotive. We're a group of automotive retail dealerships 20

in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and I'm here to speak strongly in 21

favor of proposed standards fully effective in 2025. 22

I'd just like to share a little bit 23

about our experience and what we see in Washtenaw County. 24

Our customers strongly desire more fuel

- efficient vehicles. 2585

Our sales were up in 2011 over 20 percent, and that was 1

largely driven through the sales of fuel

- efficient 2

clean

- burning vehicles, many of which were hybrids. 3

There's tremendous interest, as the 4

gentleman that preceded me so elaborated on, in electric 5

vehicles. We have consumers that are just waiting with 6

bated breath for the new Nissan Leaf and the new Mitsubishi 7

i Car which will go on sale later on this year in this part 8

of the country. So we're very, very excited about that. 9

I think there seems to be universal 10

agreement I think from everyone that we've heard today that 11

everyone feels we should reduce our dependence on petroleum, 12

and these standards, of course, move us in that direction. 13

If I could just speak a little bit to 14

the gentleman that had to leave early. In terms of the cost 15

and the concern that you might say, Well, geez, we're retail 16

guys up here, we sell these cars, why aren't we concerned so 17

much about these numbers that are being thrown around about 18

the increased costs to the consumer, 3,000, 5,000, I saw a 19

number as high as $9,000 somewhere the other day. 20

I guess I have a lot of faith in the 21

future of technology and where things are moving in our 22

industry, and I think if you look at past history, where we 23

are today, and where we were 25 years

- 30 years ago, 24

performance vehicles had to be V

- 8, had to have 400 cubic 2586

inches of displacement. Today we can exceed those kind of 0 1

to 60 numbers with six cylinders, 25 percent less 2

displacement in the engine. 3

I feel that if you make some pretty 4

obvious assumptions that technology will continue to 5

improve, it's not going to stand still, and it's not going 6

to get worse. We don't know what the true cost of these 7

improvements will be in 2025. If you look at the cost

-- if 8

you went back in 1999, 13 years ago and showed drawing and 9

specifications for an iPad or a Kindle to an electronic 10

company and said what would it cost to bring it to market in 11

1999, it wouldn't be $199, it would be way higher than that. 12

So, I think for us to try to peg what these fuel economy 13

standards will actually cost in terms of the price of the 14

vehicle today in 2012, it's a pretty fast

- moving target. 15

So, I'm going to bet on the optimistic side and say that it 16

is probably not going to be as detrimental to sales as some 17

might think. 18

Lastly, I would just like to echo what 19

Congressman Dingell said, that this truly is a remarkable 20

moment in time. From almost everyone that I've heard speak 21

today, we really have, as he put it, squared the circle, and 22

there are really just winners here, everyone seems to win on 23

this deal. 24

So I'm strongly in support of it and I 2587

appreciate you hearing my comments. 1

MS. OGE: Thank you. 2

Mr. Krupitzer. 3

MR. KRUPITZER: Good morning. 4

My name is Ron Krupitzer, Vice President 5

of Automotive Market for the American Iron and Steel 6

Institute. 7

On behalf of the AISI I would like to 8

thank the Chairpersons Oge and Medford for conducting this 9

hearing today and also for the amazing work that was done 10

over the last several years by your agencies in preparing 11

the NPRM and supporting technical documents. We've had a 12

chance to work in part with some of your engineers and I 13

think it's been a great experience for us. 14

I would like to address the panel today 15

on two major issues with respect to how the regulations will 16

affect, first, the use of steel in future vehicles, and, 17

secondly, greenhouse gas emissions. 18

On that first subject, AISI recognizes 19

that the new regulations will influence car companies to 20

consider mass reduction as a high priority. 21

I would like to state for the record 22

that the steel industry has a history of providing mass 23

reduction for light

- duty vehicles; most recently, in fact, 24

by developing advanced grades of advanced high

- strength 2588

steels for this purpose. These steels have tremendously 1

improved strength over conventional mild steel, enable parts 2

really to be thinner and lighter while carrying the same 3

required loads. 4

In May of this year the "Great Designs 5

in Steel" seminar featured Ducker Worldwide who reported 6

that our new steels are now the fastest growing automotive 7

material in today's new car and truck. So, in fact, you can 8

see that these grades have already provided affordable mass 9

reduction for car makers in this decade. 10

Ducker also forecasted the acceleration 11

in the growth of these advanced steels between now and 2025. 12

This increase in growth rate is expected largely because of 13

the new regulations which will demand, in fact, further 14

improvement in fuel economy and associated mass production. 15

These advanced steels in the new vehicles today average 16

around 17 percent which have grown from zero since about 17

2002. That 17 percent can possibly triple by 2025. 18

A nd much work was necessary to grow to 19

this level, in fact starting with projects like the 20

ultralight steel research project that the global steel 21

industry completed in 2002, to work that's now being done by 22

the Auto Steel Partnership which includes Chrysler, Ford and 23

General Motors and the North American steel companies. 24

We've also had tremendous support in our development work 2589

with the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Advance 1

Materials Partnership. 2

Because of work like the lightweight 3

front end structure project and the future generation 4

passenger compartment, we actually accelerated the use of 5

these new steels in use in vehicles today. 6

Now, for the future, 2017 to 2025, the 7

subject of today's hearing, the AISI together with the world 8

steel producers under WorldAutoSteel, completed a study in 9

May of this year called FutureSteelVehicle. This study 10

examined the future of efficient structures for electrified 11

power

- train vehicles like battery electric or plug

- in 12

hybrids. Twenty new grades of high strength steels were 13

included in this study compared to our previous work, and it 14

dramatically increased steel's portfolio of choices for car 15

makers to use in making light cars and trucks. Many of the 16

newest grades actually have strengths over 1000 MPa. And 17

just to calibrate you, that's well over five times the 18

strengths of conventional steels in vehicles. 19

So, such results in these studies 20

surprised even us with mass reductions in some cases of 35 21

percent in the body structure in the FutureSteelVehicle 22

project. 23

Now, such high reductions are really 24

because of these extremely high strengths that are now 2590

available and the new manufacturing processes that are also 1

available to suppliers like tailor rolling, hot stamping, 2

for example, extremely strong B

- pillars and very safe 3

interior passenger compartments. FutureSteelVehicle results 4

reinforce the forecast by Ducker that these grades should 5

continue to grow at least out towards 2020. 6

So, the results of the FSV study has 7

been shared with North American car manufacturers. More 8

importantly it shows that significantly more mass reduction 9

can, in fact, result from the use of these newer steels. 10

What is also important in this study is that while we 11

compare different materials in this engineering work, we 12

found that many of the costs in carbon emission consequences 13

of this study resulted in the most favorable conclusions 14

from steel. 15

So, this takes us to a discussion of 16

what's the best way to make a green vehicle to keep 17

greenhouse gases at the lowest possible level. 18

Now, on this second subject, the effect 19

of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, I 20

wanted to cite some work at University of California

- Santa 21

Barbara, University of Michigan and other places that will 22

be identified in our written comments, that have pointed out 23

already or done research on the value of life

- cycle 24

assessment in determining the true impact of vehicles on 2591

greenhouse gas em issions. 1

Additionally, recent studies at UC Davis 2

have examined the consequences of continuing to apply only 3

tailpipe emissions

-- that is driving cycle

-- regulations, 4

whereby ignoring some of the critical upstream sources of 5

greenhouse gases. And I know General Motors earlier today 6

commented on the upstream emissions concerns. 7

Well, for example, in recent LCA case 8

studies by Geyer at UC Santa Barbara, he did a Sun to Wheels 9

Study, and in Ricardo's recent publications preparing for a 10

life cycle CO2 measure we saw that these organizations also 11

support the fact that materials and manufacturing emissions 12

are becoming a bigger and bigger part of total emissions, so 13

we can't ignore them. 14

LCA methods are perhaps the most 15

straightforward way to account for total emissions in 16

vehicles. It's important, therefore, that LCA methodology 17

be considered, although sometimes it's considered difficult 18

or complicated. Fortunately, some work UC Davis has pointed 19

to a rather simple method of using a bill of materials that 20

all car makers use to build their cars and trucks as a way 21

to calculate those upstream factors in emissions. 22

So what I'd like to conclude with is a 23

recommendation, and that is that I feel and the American 24

Iron and Steel Institute feels and the World Steel 2592

Organization feels that considerable collaboration is really 1

necessary among car companies, regulators and suppliers to 2

establish a firm methodology for fairly accounting for life

3

cycle emissions in vehicle regulations. 4

The steel industry stands ready to 5

participate in a multifunctional working group with the EPA, 6

NHTSA and automakers and their suppliers to address this 7

important challenge. We believe it is possible to develop 8

and test such LCA methods in time for the mid

- term review 9

established for this regulatory period, but we have to start 10

right away. 11

Thank you very much for your attention. 12

MS. OGE: Thank you. 13

Mr. Neil Carter. Good morning. 14

MR. CARTER: Good morning. 15

My name is Neil Carter and I'm here on 16

behalf of many veterans like myself. I also point out the 17

many problems in the Southwest Region of Afghanistan in 18

2008. 19

This is considered a turning point in 20

the native land to the war with Afghanistan because from 21

2003 up to this point the U.S. was more heavily invested in 22

Iraq, and once the native coalition had taken over the 23

Afghan mission. 24

My unit suffered particularly heavy 2593

losses in the spring and summer of that year and 1

subsequently from insurgents. As a Marine Corps officer, I 2

mostly operated in the Combat Operation Center or the COC at 3

the battalion headquarters. This is located in the very 4

middle of the camp in close proximity to the Marine living 5

quarters. Within the COC there were dozens of 6

communications data and other information systems many of 7

which were classified set up for battalion staff and other 8

personnel. This included laptops, radios and also 9

telephones. All these systems as well as the lighting in 10

the COC required a maximum amount of power in order to 11

maintain 24/7 operations. The generator ran nonstop 12

throughout the entire deployment. This generator was 13

connected to a fuel line that pumped fuel from a large drum 14

that was positioned about 30 meters from the COC. 15

Every day an Afghan gentleman would 16

drive this fuel truck through the operating systems and 17

security checks; drive up to the drum and refill more 18

generator fuel. The reason why the drum is positioned so 19

far from the COC was so that the Afghan trucker cannot get 20

too close to the COC and potentially view classified 21

material and hear any discussion pertaining to operations. 22

Not a single day went by in Afghanistan 23

when I saw the truck refueling in the COC while wondering 24

not only how long the U.S. taxpayer could afford to pay for 2594

all this oil we were going through, how could we continue to 1

depend on someone who is not an American who was in daily 2

combat operations with us. 3

While I had no reason to believe that 4

the trucker would turn against us or sabotage our operation 5

or worse, I also had no belief

-- no reason to believe that 6

he would not. I was sure that like anyone else, he was only 7

trying to make an honest living, but the fact that American 8

lives depended on whether or not we had enough fuel to run 9

the COC. In a few instances the trucker didn't even show up 10

which severely impacted daily operations and put lives in 11

danger. I knew there had to be a better way. 12

Being in one of the volatile regions in 13

Afghanistan for eight months gave me time to contemplate and 14

speculate. I often thought about how we as a military could 15

operate using less oil and paying less on our host nations 16

to fuel our machines. During one of those blackouts when we 17

had run out of fuel, could we have gotten more information 18

up to our men in the field a little faster and maybe saved a 19

life or two. 20

The United States of America has some of 21

the smartest minds in the world. President Kennedy drew on 22

the impossible and after a few short years after his 23

historic speech there was an American walking on the moon. 24

I know we can do the same today to develop cleaner, more 2595

efficient methods to power our machines because at the end 1

of the day American lives depend on it. 2

Thank you, and I'd be happy to take any 3

questions. 4

MS. OGE: Thank you for your testimony. 5

Thank you for your service. 6

I'm going to go to Mr. Mitch Bainwol. 7

Good morning. 8

MR. BAINWOL: Good morning. Thank you 9

for your time and service. 10

My name is Mitch Bainwol and I'm the CEO 11

of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an association 12

of 12 vehicle manufacturers representing roughly 13

three

- fourths of the cars sold in the United States. 14

Two years ago the Alliance testified in 15

support of the 2012

- 16 greenhouse gas and fuel economy rule, 16

encouraged EPA, NHTSA and the California Air Resources Board 17

to continue the Single National Program beyond 2016. We 18

continue to support having a Single National Program and 19

appreciate your efforts to pursue this goal. 20

Of course, much has changed since 2009. 21

For one thing, automakers now are driving the country's 22

economic recovery. Autos represent the largest 23

manufacturing sector in the United States, and our sales are 24

viewed as a leading economic indicator. Today, our industry 2596

supports 8 million American jobs, $500 billion in industry 1

compensation and $70 billion personal tax revenues. 2

Automakers and suppliers are adding tens of thousands of 3

jobs here in the United States. 4

Another significant change is that 5

automakers are offering more fuel economy or fuel

- efficient 6

choices than ever before. 265 models that achieve 30 miles 7

per gallon or more on the highway. That's a 65 percent 8

increase over model year 2010. 9

The unprecedented effort of the coming 10

13 years to further our country's energy and environmental 11

goals will succeed only, only if consumers buy the 12

fuel

- efficient technologies that we will be offering. 13

Looking into the future, consumer 14

purchasing patterns will be the biggest unknown. Besides 15

fuel economy, we know that consumers demand affordability, 16

safety, convenience and utility. One challenge we have is 17

that fuel economy considerations often rank below those 18

other factors. Fuel prices are especially difficult to 19

predict and have a huge impact on how consumers weigh fuel 20

economy at the dealership. That's why it's critical that 21

the final rule include a rigorous mid

- term review with a 22

clearly defined process for its implementation. 23

During the review, the agencies should 24

seek expert peer

- reviewed information including the input of 2597

the National Academy of Sciences to answer these questions: 1

Are the costs of advanced technologies declining as 2

expected? Are researchers making the breakthroughs 3

anticipated? What's happening with fuel prices, and how are 4

consumers responding? What impact are the new requirements 5

having on sales and on employment? How are the new rules 6

impacting vehicle safety? What's happened with fuel 7

quality? Will liquid fuels support the fuel

- efficient 8

technologies that have been introduced? Will the new 9

charg ing infrastructure be available to enable plug

- in 10

hybrids, battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles to 11

penetrate the market at the levels predicted? 12

Of course, the ultimate question will be 13

whether mainstream consumers will be able and willing to 14

purchase the technologies needed to achieve the country's 15

fuel economy, energy security and environmental goals, 16

particularly as the federal and state incentives are phased 17

out. Thus, in addition to the questions I have identified, 18

the agencies should really focus on consumer purchasing 19

behavior. 20

Before concluding, let me briefly touch 21

on three additional points. 22

First, let consumers determine the 23

winning fuels and technologies. Ultimately consumers should 24

decide what best meets their needs. Vehicles that run on 2598

gasoline, diesel, biofuels, electricity, hydrogen and 1

natural gas will all play a role in improving fuel 2

efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3

Second, the rule needs to fit into 4

comprehensive energy policy. For instance, the proposed 5

rule indicates that the agencies expect electric vehicles to 6

become an increasingly large part of the car market; yet, 7

the rule leaves open the possibility of requiring 8

manufacturers to account for upstream emissions

-- this is 9

what Mike Robinson spoke about

-- from electricity 10

generation in the event that the Administration is unable to 11

control these emissions through other channels. If programs 12

to address upstream emissions are needed, then let's put 13

them in place with appropriate upstream regulations, not by 14

imposing additional burdens on automakers. 15

Finally, manufacturers should be 16

encouraged through flexibilities and incentives to implement 17

verifiable innovations that enhance vehicle safety, that 18

explore new technology applications and reduce CO2 19

emissions. The Alliance will be providing in

- depth written 20

comments focusing on how best this can be accomplished. 21

The rulemaking under consideration today 22

will govern vehicle production 5 to 13 years from now. It 23

comes on the heels of a 5

- year rulemaking that cost 24

automakers approximately $52 billion, a higher cost than any 2599

previous rulemaking. The agencies predict that the 1

additional greenhouse gas reductions and fuel economy gains 2

from this rule will cost an additional 133 to 157 billion 3

dollars. This unprecedented effort and expense will further 4

our country's important energy and environmental goals, but 5

only if consumers purchase the more fuel

- efficient and 6

climate

- friendly and more expensive vehicle technologies. 7

Thank you for this opportunity. 8

MS. OGE: Thank you. 9

I keep on mispronouncing your last name. 10

What is your last name? 11

MR. JURIGA: Juriga. 12

MS. OGE: Juriga. Good morning. 13

MR. JURIGA: Good morning. 14

As Ms. Oge mentioned, my name is John 15

Juriga. I'm the Director of Powertrain for the Hyundai Kia 16

American Technical Center and I'm here to speak on behalf of 17

Kia Motors Corporation. 18

Before discussing the proposal, I would 19

like to take a few moments to talk about Kia's 20

earth

- friendly initiatives so we can better understand Kia's 21

perspective. Kia is the automotive industry's current fuel 22

-- one of the, Kia, automotive industry's fuel economy 23

leaders. We're one of the fastest moving global automotive 24

brands. When Kia Motors introduced the EcoDynamic sub

- brand 25100

in 2009, it demonstrated the company's global commitment to 1

developing innovative fuel

- stretching and emissions

- cutting 2

technologies, and in less than three years we are already 3

delivering dramatic results. 4

Last year, Kia introduced its first 5

hybrid in the U.S. market and the Kia Rio will also be the 6

first non

- luxury or hybrid vehicle to offer idle stop and go 7

technology which turns off the engine when the vehicle is 8

not in motion. Both the Kia Optima Hybrid and the Rio 9

achieve EPA fuel

- economy ratings of 40 miles per gallon 10

while delivering class

- leading horsepower. And the Optima 11

holds the world record for the lowest fuel consumption by a 12

gasoline hybrid traveling through all 48 contiguous U.S. 13

states and needed less than six tanks of gas to cover nearly 14

8,000 miles, an average 64.5 miles per gallon. 15

Kia is also actively working with the 16

U.S. Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Laboratory to 17

develop advanced vehicles including fuel cell technology. 18

In December, Kia began selling the company's first electric 19

vehicle in the domestic Korean market and we have announced 20

plans to launch a CUV

- style EV for global markets in 2014. 21

And now to the proposal. 22

I want to start by saying that Kia 23

emphatically supports the proposal and believes that it is 24

important for the agencies to set tough but feasible 25101

standards while providing flexibilities which allow each 1

automaker to maximize their strengths in achieving the 2

standards. That being said, Kia has a few comments about 3

the proposal which we will mention here and go into more 4

detail in written comments. 5

Sort of the technical side, based on 6

research that we have conducted, Kia believes the methods 7

suggested by the agencies for nitrous oxide which must be 8

measured starting in 2013 are not fully proven and 9

developed. Kia prefers the bag method analysis of 10

measurement to minimize reduction of testing throughout. 11

However, the NDIR and FTIR bag analysis methods currently 12

have repeatability and practicality concerns. We support 13

the measurement but recommend that it be revisited in a time 14

when there is improved and accurate and more efficient means 15

available. 16

Kia supports the use of A/C menu fo r 17

determining air conditioning system credits but supports an 18

increase in the maximum amounts of credits permitted if we 19

were able to demonstrate an emission reduction greater than 20

the items provided in the menu. However, since the new AC17 21

test procedure has not yet fully been developed, Kia 22

recommends that EPA retain the idle test as an option until 23

the AC17 has been proven to be more reliable rather than 24

requiring the use of the AC17 procedure at the beginning of 25102

2017. 1

Additionally, Kia requests the 2

industry -- for industry consistency that EPA set more 3

detailed guidelines for the framework to prove out the A/C 4

system durability. It's unclear how A/C system durability 5

is defined. 6

Kia appreciates these substantial lead 7

times for these regulations which will provide stability in 8

long

- term planning. However, Kia believes it is important 9

for the agencies to include mid

- term evaluations to allow 10

for revisions if some of the assumptions made in the 11

drafting of the rule are not proven to be correct. Even 12

though Kia supports the standards, Kia recognizes it is 13

difficult to accurately predict the outcome

-- to accurately 14

predict how to deliver the 2025 technology in that time 15

frame. Consumer acceptance of those technologies and costs 16

will also be a challenge. The mid

- term review will help us 17

ensure that the standards are robust for all OEMs near to 18

the time frame of implementation. 19

Kia plans to move fast to advance our 20

technologies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve 21

fuel economy, and we are committed to contributing to the 22

sustainability of our plans. 23

Thank you for this opportunity to 24

provide our viewpoint and we'll be providing written 25103

comments as well. 1

CHAIRPERSON OGE: Thank you. Any 2

questions from the panel? 3

MR. SILVERMAN: One question

-- one 4

question for Mr. Krupitzer. 5

MR. KRUPITZER: Yes. 6

MR. SILVERMAN: The agency had an 7

extensive discussion of safety in the proposal. I'm 8

wondering if you would say a little bit about that and if 9

there are any safety implications for use of that steel. 10

MR. KRUPITZER: Thank you for asking the 11

question. Those comments will be covered in our written 12

comments. Because of the time today we didn't get into it 13

in much depth. 14

I think in general with regard to 15

safety, we have done quite a bit of research over the last 16

10 or 15 years in the steel industry. We have proven beyond 17

a doubt that it's very possible to use lighter structures 18

and achieve equivalent test performance on safety. 19

I think that the new Kahane report is 20

very interesting

-- we're still analyzing it, by the way

-- 21

and the vehicle

- to

- vehicle situation is a different story. 22

But I think that in general we don't have any objections to 23

the initial conclusions that were drawn in that study, which 24

really points out the importance of the footprint 25104

methodology in defining, you know, your basic vehicle 1

structure. 2

So, again, steel provides with its high 3

strength varieties the opportunity to reduce the mass in a 4

given footprint, which I think is critically important as 5

suggested in that Kahane study as being probably the primary 6

factor in determining how effectively we can design vehicles 7

to be safe in collisions within the fleet among different 8

size vehicles. 9

So without changing the laws of physics, 10

I think that this regulation should not have a serious 11

impact on the progress that we're making now on the safety 12

of vehicles on the road. 13

MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you. 14

MR. MEDFORD: Okay, thank you very much. 15

I think we're ready for the next panel. 16

We have Rhett Buttle, Christine 17

Dingeman, Robert Honeyman, Al Williams, Bob Bienenfeld, Ann 18

Mesnikoff, Andrew Brown, Sharif Sokkary. 19

If you would write your name on one of 20

those tents it would help the recorder. 21

Okay, Mr. Buttle. Thank you. Good 22

afternoon. 23

MR. BUTTLE: Thank you. Actually, I 24

have to run out after I testify to catch a flight. 25105

MR. MEDFORD: Okay. Thank you. 1

MR. BUTTLE: Good morning. My name is 2

Rhett Buttle. I am the National Outreach & Government 3

Affairs Director for Small Business Majority. 4

For those of you who aren't familiar, 5

the Small Business Majority is a nonpartisan, small business 6

advocacy organization that is founded and run by small 7

bus iness owners. We represent the 28 million American small 8

businesses who are self

- employed or own a small business 9

with up to 100 employees or under. Our organization uses 10

scientific research, economics and opinion to understand and 11

represent the interest of small businesses. 12

Solutions to our country's economic 13

malaise start with our small businesses, but the government 14

must support them if we are going to harness their powerful 15

roles as job creators. Small businesses have a potential to 16

stimulate the economy but they need smart policies to help 17

them do so, such as stronger fuel efficiency standards. By 18

concentrating their efforts on raising the requirements 19

automakers must meet, legislators can help entrepreneu rs 20

save money and give them the boost they need to rebuild 21

America. We know this from our research. 22

The rising cost of fuel is a key area 23

where the government can help small businesses. We released 24

a national opinion poll in September of last year that found 25106

that 87 percent of small business owners believe it's 1

important to the United States to take action now to 2

increase fuel efficiency in cars and light truck. A 59 3

percent majority described this as very important. 4

Moreover, small business owners in influential automotive 5

states such as Michigan, Ohio and California demonstrated 6

equally strong support for these stringent standards. 7

Our survey also found 71 percent of 8

small business owners believe American car companies do not 9

innovate enough, and 73 percent believe the federal 10

government should do more to make them innovate. Therefore, 11

it's not surprising that 80 percent of small business owners 12

suppo rting requiring the automotive industry to increase 13

fuel

- efficiency standards to 60 miles per gallon by 2025 an 14

even a higher standard than the 54.5 miles per gallon 15

standard the Obama Administration proposed in November. 16

Small business owners know they'll 17

benefit from strengthened fuel economy standards. The 18

proposed rules are right on par what entrepreneurs told us 19

they want

- improved fuel standards that have the power to 20

cut long

- term business costs. Stronger standards are a 21

surefire way to help small business owners to save money on 22

fuel, invest in their companies and their time. 23

Of the employees we polled, the rising 24

cost of doing business came in as their top concern 25107

including rising fuel cost. This helps explain why so many 1

small business owners believe in stronger fuel economy 2

standards have the potential to boost their bottom lines. 3

In fact, 87 percent of small business owners agree that 4

improving innovation and energy efficiency are good ways to 5

increase prosperity for small businesses. If lawmakers are 6

going to meet entrepreneurs' needs, raising fuel economy 7

standards is a great way to start. 8

Though higher standards, the money small 9

busin ess owners and consumers will save on gas will better 10

equip the American public to foster economic growth by 11

patronizing businesses everywhere, by promoting business 12

everywhere. We support raising the fuel economy standards 13

because it will be a boon to small business in our economy. 14

Thank you very much. 15

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 16

Does anyone have any questions? We 17

understand you have to leave now. 18

Thank you very much. 19

MR. BUTTLE: Thank you for your time. 20

MR. MEDFORD: Next, Dr. Brown. 21

DR. BROWN: Thank you very much. I 22

appreciate the opportunity, Deputy Administrator Medford, 23

and Director Oge, good to see you again, and my friends Jim 24

Tamm as well as Chet France. 25108

Good afternoon, and thank you for the 1

opportunity to appear before you today. 2

I am Dr. Andrew Brown, Jr., Executive 3

Director and Chief Technologist for Delphi Corporation. I 4

am also a recent past president of the Society of Automotive 5

Engineers and I am currently Chair of the National Research 6

Council Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. 7

Delphi is a leading global supplier of 8

mobile, electronic and transportation systems, including 9

powertrain, safety, thermal controls and security systems, 10

electrical/electronic architecture and in

- car entertainment 11

technologies. 12

As a major automotive advanced 13

technology supplier, Delphi has a significant interest in 14

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and we appreciate the 15

opportunity to comment directly. 16

We support the continuation of a 17

national program that incorporates energy efficiency and 18

emission reduction benefits, while remaining technology 19

neutral without favoring selective approaches. 20

We support the existing credit options 21

and applaud the agencies' efforts to extend additional 22

flexibility for off

- cycle credits. 23

Being green is a vital everyday aspect 24

of doing business that touches all industries. It is no 25109

longer a niche movement. But the automotive industry in 1

particular has made a strong commitment to be more 2

sustainable and efficient throughout its supply chain. 3

The future of transportation rests on 4

the steady pillars of environmental care, safety at all 5

levels, the ability to communicate with other vehicles and 6

with the infrastructure we rely on when we drive. 7

These safe, green and connected 8

solutions must be the foundation of the quest for a green 9

and sustainable mobility industry. 10

To this end, I would like to share five 11

important concepts that Delphi feels will help the 12

automotive industry move toward a greener future. 13

First, internal combustion engines, 14

ICE's, both gasoline and diesel, will continue to improve 15

and, therefore, be a major propulsion source for years to 16

come. We as an industry and you as a government agency 17

should be supporting efforts to improve current internal 18

combustion engine technology. And we urge the EPA and NHTSA 19

to take a careful look at the contributions that can be made 20

by both gasoline and diesel engines. 21

Second, vehicle electrification is 22

shaping the future of automotive power and propulsion and 23

will continue to do so for many years to come as more 24

drivers look to hybrid electric vehicles and start/stop 25110

technology as a way to improve their efficiency and green 1

vehicle choices. This market is expected to grow steadily 2

for the foreseeable future and will be affected by global 3

government regulations. 4

Third, this rulemaking will enable the 5

consumer to experience the inherent value of technologies 6

that have a reasonable payback period. 7

Fourth, the air conditioning system is 8

the highest ancillary load on the system. We highly support 9

the EPA's proposed credit system to incentivize 10

energy

- efficient HVAC technology that can reduce the fuel 11

needed for the air conditioning system by 40 percent. 12

Finally, I recommend that the National 13

Research Council technology cost estimates and 14

implementation cadence data be included in the agencies' 15

analyses and be considered a primary source of information. 16

Industry reports and other analyses can also be used to 17

provide even more insight and sensitivity. 18

I would now like to turn to specific 19

technologies which we as Delphi believe are solutions to the 20

joint EPA/NHTSA emissions and fuel emissions standards. 21

As I said earlier, the best potential is 22

with improved internal combustion engine technologies. 23

Delphi has a strong portfolio of ICE

- compatible technologies 24

including direct injection fuel systems and advanced fuel 25111

injectors for alternative fuels, such as E

- 85 ethanol and 1

compressed natural gas, variable valve lift and electric cam 2

phasing to improve engine performance over the full engine 3

operating range and reduce pumping losses. Multi

- strike 4

emissions systems to improve advanced high dilution 5

combustion schemes, fuel delivery modules with brushless 6

fuel pumps to reduce parasitic losses, and evaporative 7

emissions canisters with heated purge to improve canister 8

purge efficiencies under low conditions common with hybrid 9

vehicles. 10

Second, Delphi has a proven track record 11

in achieving energy and emissions reductions in diesel 12

technology. Specifically, Delphi's direct injection fuel 13

systems and linear oxygen sensors support diesel combustion 14

with urea dosing systems, ammonia sensors and particulate 15

matter or soot sensors help meet stringent emissions and on

16

board diagnostic requirements. 17

Finally, Delphi also has a portfolio of 18

pr oducts that will help electrify the vehicle. Some of 19

these products include traction inverters, DC to DC 20

converters, battery packs, battery controllers, hybrid 21

control systems and chargers. 22

I would also like to mention that Delphi 23

holds a unique position in the automotive aftermarket by 24

having the ability to apply knowledge from its original 25112

equipment heritage to products that support emissions and 1

fuel requirements well into a vehicle's long lif e. 2

New technologies benefiting fuel economy 3

and emissions anticipated to be ready for the 2017 to 2025 4

time frame include waste heat recovery, intelligent 5

transportation systems and cost reductions for electric 6

drive electroni cs. 7

In conclusion, Delphi appreciates the 8

opportunity to comment on this Notice of Proposed 9

Rulemaking. Again, we feel a national program that 10

incorporates energy efficiency and emission reduction 11

benefits should remain technology neutral. I think you can 12

see that Delphi has taken this approach in order to provide 13

its customers the broadest range of technologies to meet 14

their individual requirements. 15

In addition, existing credit options and 16

addit ional flexibility for off

- cycle credits provide an 17

incentive for the industry to look across the entire 18

automobile for solutions. 19

Thank you very much, and I'm available 20

for any additional input and clarification. 21

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you, Dr. Brown. 22

Miss Dingeman. 23

MS. DINGEMAN: Thank you. 24

My name is Christine Dingeman. I live 25113

in Rochester Hills, Michigan. I am a volunteer for the 1

Consumers Union, but I am here on my own behalf today. 2

I would like to speak in favor of the 3

54.5 miles per gallon target for cars and light trucks by 4

2025. I've been waiting for this since 1979 when the oil 5

embargo caused all the lines at the gas station. I think 6

it's taken way too long to get here. 7

I have many reasons to support this 8

measure but I am going to share just a few today. 9

We must reduce our dependence on oil 10

foreign and domestic for the security of our nation. Our 11

dependence on fossil fuels weakens our ability to remain an 12

independent nation free of imports of foreign nations or 13

corporate interests. Increasing fuel efficiency will lead 14

to alternative fuels and eventually to cars and trucks that 15

don't rely on fossil fuels at all. This will result in a 16

more secure nation. 17

We must protect our environment. About 18

half of the oil we use fuels our cars and trucks. It also 19

pollutes our air causing serious health effects and wreaks 20

havoc on our environment with oil spills and pipeline leaks. 21

As the mother of an asthma suffer and 22

the widow of a lung cancer victim, I am very concerned with 23

the rise in respiratory diseases over the last 10 to 24

20 years. My husband never smoked; he was a marathon 25114

runner, yet he died of lung cancer. Cleaner air means a 1

healthier population and a huge savings for the nation on 2

medical costs. 3

Third, we must reinvigorate our economy. 4

Increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks 5

will generate jobs not only in the auto industry but in 6

alternative fuel cell development and other related 7

companies. This will provide consumers with greater vehicle 8

choices and significant savings on fuel costs. As we, 9

consumers, purchase new more efficient vehicles, we will 10

help put people back to work while saving in our own 11

pocketbooks. 12

This is an important issue to me and I 13

am in total support of the 54.5 miles per gallon target. 14

I thank you for hearing my comments 15

today. 16

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 17

Mr. Bienenfeld. 18

MR. BIENENFELD: Good afternoon. I'm 19

Robert Bienenfeld, Senior Manager of Environment and Energy 20

Strategy in the Product Regulatory Office of American Honda 21

Motor Company. 22

We appreciate the opportunity to share 23

with you Honda's thoughts on this joint EPA and NHTSA 24

proposal for a national greenhouse gas and fuel economy 25115

standard for the light

- duty vehicles for the model years 1

2017 to 2025. 2

This NPRM builds upon the important 3

foundation established by the seminal greenhouse gas and 4

CAFE standards adopted for the '12 to '16 model years. 5

These newly proposed standards represent an ambitious, 6

challenging, and dramatic set of goals for most of the 7

automobile industry. 8

Honda has long advocated for fuel 9

economy standards, and by inference lower greenhouse gas 10

emissions, as well as a single national standard. Over the 11

last year and a half, Honda has worked cooperatively with 12

NHTSA, EPA, the White House and the California Air Resources 13

Board towards the development of these proposed rules. We 14

have committed significant resources to provide information 15

to these agencies in the development of the rules including 16

making our top technology executives available to them. 17

These proposed regulations set forth in 18

the NPRM when harmonized with the proposed regulations now 19

under consideration in California have the potential to 20

simplify and rationalize OEM obligations throughout th e 21

United States. Without these harmonized regulations, there 22

is a significant risk that OEMs would face fragmented, 23

conflicting and burdensome regulation of fuel economy and 24

greenhouse gases. There's a strong likelihood that the 25116

California regulations, which likely would be adopted by 1

additional states, would diverge from the Federal 2

Regulations resulting in a patchwork of standards that 3

differed in stringency, testing requirements, and 4

flexibilities throughout the country. 5

Honda has long advocated for technology

6

neutral performance

- based standards. These are important 7

principles for several reasons. First, technology

- neutral 8

is important because these standards would be in place for 9

more than a dozen years into the future. It is impossible 10

to predict the potential advances that would be made over 11

this time in each and every technology. Technology

- neutral 12

standards help to assure that favoritism in 2012 does not 13

lead to failure in 2020. And just as importantly, each OEM 14

will have different capabilities with respect to each 15

technology, and favoritism for a technology necessarily 16

results in, intentionally or not, favoritism for an OEM. 17

Secondly, performan ce

- based standards 18

are the best way to assure that regulations result in the 19

greatest advance possible for our social goals. 20

It is in keeping with these two 21

foundational principles, technology

- neutral and performance

22

based standards, that we offer the following suggestions for 23

improving the 2017 to 2025 proposal. 24

In the 2012 to '16 regulation EPA set 25117

the CO2 value for the electric portion of the plug

- in 1

electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles to zero as 2

an incentive for OEMs to bring these relatively expensive 3

vehicles to market. This incentive was capped both in terms 4

of volume and timing. These constraints have been weakened 5

by their extension through 2025. Honda believes that th is 6

policy is misguided and creates significant incorrect 7

perceptions about the relative merits of these technologies. 8

We agree with most of the environmental community that the 9

social benefits must be understood and measured on a 10

well

- to

- wheel basis. It is clear that there are no special 11

virtues to be associated with tailpipe greenhouse gas 12

emissions if the well

- to

- tank emissions are high. 13

Additionally, without a comprehensive 14

well

- to

- wheel assessment of greenhouse gases, EPA and others 15

who rely on EPA's assessments will improperly favor or 16

signal preferred technologies rather than providing 17

technology

- neutral standards. 18

We think the solution to quantify 19

well

- to

- wheel greenhouse gas emissions is already within the 20

government's grasp. The Department of Energy uses a 21

respected, widely accepted model called GREET, and the NGOs, 22

academics and the federal government itself use GREET to 23

model policy choices when considering light

- duty vehicles 24

and their impact on the greenhouse gas emissions. We 25118

believe it makes sense for EPA to adopt DOE's GREET model in 1

order to evaluate the well

- to

- wheel impact on various 2

technologies. 3

EPA has solicited comments on its 4

proposal for advanced technology multipliers as a means to 5

facilitate market penetration of the most advanced vehicle 6

technologies as rapidly as possible. Honda supports the 7

proposed multipliers for EV, PHEV, and fuel cell 8

technologies. EPA requested comment on the idea of 9

including natural gas vehicles in the technology 10

multipliers. Natural gas vehicles can reduce CO2 as much as 11

25 percent simply through changing the fuel from gasoline to 12

natural gas. In addition, there is a new

- found abundance of 13

this clean domestic fuel. Together these attributes mean it 14

makes sense to include natural gas vehicles in the advanced 15

technology multiplier. 16

However, EPA intends to use the SAE 17

utility factor in calculating the contribution of each fuel 18

in climate change in the future bi

- fuel vehicle, which Honda 19

believes will virtually eliminate any regulatory 20

differentiation between a dedicated and the bi

- fuel natural 21

gas vehicle to detrimental effect. Therefore, Honda 22

suggests that EPA instead add dedicated natural gas vehicles 23

to the EV and fuel cell electric vehicle group of 24

technologies and add bi

- fuel natural gas vehicles to the 25119

PHEV group of technologies with respect to the multiplier. 1

EPA and NHTSA propose for the 2017 to 2

2025 periods to radically alter the light

- duty truck curves 3

from their '12 to '16 slopes. The agencies have proposed 4

dramatically increased stringency for the smaller footprint 5

truck and little or no stringent increases for the larger 6

footprint trucks. Honda previously shared data with the 7

agencies indicating that if any change were to be made to 8

the curves, it was more appropriate to flatten out th e 9

curves or moderate the increase in stringency for the 10

smaller footprint trucks and to increase the stringency for 11

the larger trucks. In other words, Honda believes that 12

smaller light trucks are being unfairly singled out for 13

increases in their standards, especially compared to the 14

larger vehicles. This obvious

-- this is obviously because 15

the smallest trucks will have an annual increase of around 4 16

percent while the largest truck will have an annual increase 17

of less than 1 percent. 18

Subsequent to the publication of the 19

NPRM, on December 7th, 2011, the University of Michigan 20

issued a study by Whitefoot and Skerlos. Honda agrees with 21

their conclusion. And I'm quoting: "In the near term, the 22

analysis suggests that the slope of the function determining 23

fuel economy targets based on vehicle footprint should be 24

flattened for both passenger cars and light trucks and even 25120

further for light trucks. 1

Additionally, the agencies' own data 2

show this to be true. Simply looking at the EPA's and 3

NHTSA's estimates for the compliance cost differences 4

between passenger cars and trucks, both agencies estimate 5

lower compliance costs for trucks than passenger cars, and 6

this is primarily due to an imbalance in the light truck 7

slope and a much more stringent burden being placed on the 8

lower sales volumes of the smaller light trucks and little 9

to no additional stringency being put on the larger light 10

trucks. 11

EPA and NHTSA believe that full

- sized 12

pickup trucks have unique challenges in improving fuel 13

economy and GHG emissions due to payload and towing 14

requirements. Honda believes that vehicles other than full

15

size pickup trucks should receive similar consideration in 16

preserving their utility. SUVs and minivans, for example, 17

are often fully loaded by families resulting in expectations 18

or coming from expectations of 7

- or 8

- passenger seating 19

capabilit ies while maintaining payload and towing 20

functionality. Similarly situated vehicles ought to be 21

treated the same. 22

We've singled out these key issues for 23

comment while recognizing that there is much to appreciate 24

and support in this proposed regulation. The agencies are 25121

to be commended for the depth and breadth of their research 1

and analysis. The addition of a thoughtful and reasonable 2

approach to off

- cycle credits is exciting to us and we 3

believe will result in the introduction of many new and 4

innovative technologies. 5

The proposed mid

- term review seems 6

appropriate to us and we believe it will be essential to 7

checking progress and making necessary adjustments that 8

cannot be foreseen from this early date. 9

Thank you very much. 10

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 11

Miss Mesnikoff. 12

MS. MESNIKOFF: Thank you. I'll try to 13

speak as slowly as I can. I tend to speak very fast so if 14

I'm going too quickly .... 15

Thank you for the opportunity to testify 16

today. I am Ann Mesnikoff. I'm the Director of the Sierra 17

Club's Green Transportation Campaign. 18

On behalf of Sierra Club's 1.4 million 19

members and supporters, Sierra Club applauds EPA and NHTSA 20

for proposing to strengthen vehicle efficiency and 21

greenhouse gas standards for model year 2017 to 2025 cars 22

and light trucks. Together with the standards for 2012 to 23

2016 vehicles this Administration has put new cars on the 24

path of being twice as efficient as new cars today. By 25122

2025, the new vehicles are expected to average 54.5 miles 1

per gallon and emit 162 grams per mile of greenhouse gas 2

pollution delivering to consumers vehicles down the road 3

according to the agencies will average 37 miles per gallon. 4

These standards are the biggest single 5

step we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 6

tackle our oil addiction. Cars and light trucks drive our 7

addiction to oil to consume over 8 million barrels of oil a 8

day and CO2 nearly 20 percent of U.S. climate

- destructing 9

pollution. Our oil addiction drains our economy as much as 10

$1 billion every day costing jobs and threatening our 11

national security. 12

As we noted in our report to hear on the 13

issues of the American Securities Project, much of our oil 14

comes from countries at high risk of instability several of 15

which work actively against U.S. interests. Recent 16

developments with Iran are yet another reminder of this 17

fact. 18

The progress EPA and NHTSA have made in 19

tackling our oil addiction and slashing pollution through 20

setting standards together has been breathtaking after 21

decades of inaction on vehicle standards. Over the past 18 22

months the Administration has worked together with the 23

California State officials to engage the public, the auto 24

industry and auto workers as well as the environmental 25123

community and others. 1

The process has resulted in the proposal 2

we are commenting on today. Sierra Club with other groups 3

formed a coalition so that we could educate the public, our 4

members, and decision

- makers of the importance of 5

strengthening vehicle standards. In Washington the 6

coalition was confident that the technology would be 7

available to transform new cars by 2025. The 8

Admini stration's proposal makes enormous progress towards 9

that goal and the events that will deliver our future are 10

huge. 11

By 2030 we will be using 1.5 million 12

barrels less oil every day due to these standards. 13

Consumers will save more than $3,500 at the pump even after 14

paying for the fuel

- saving technology. Savings will be even 15

greater if gas prices rise above current levels. According 16

to DOT and the EPA these standards will save our economy and 17

consu mers more than 311 to 421 billion dollars. These 18

hundreds of billions of dollars will translate into new 19

jobs. 20

The report from Ceres estimates that 21

nearly half a million jobs may be added to the economy 22

between jobs and the auto industry. 23

Finally these standards will keep 280 24

million metric tons of carbon pollution out of the 25124

atmosphere. That's the equivalent of shuttering 72 coal

1

fired power plants for one year. 2

Americans want choices in the vehicle 3

market but they do not want to guzzle gas nor do they want 4

to waste billions at the pump. Americans consistently 5

support higher standards and are willing to pay more to save 6

oil. We can now be confident that technology once used to 7

make vehicles more powerful will be used to improve fuel 8

efficiency from improving the internal combustion engine, 9

better transmissions, high strength lightweight materials, 10

and to hybrid and plug

- in vehicles. 11

The EPA and NHTSA both note the proposed 12

standards preserve consumer choice. The fact is that these 13

standards enhance consumer choice. Consumers today already 14

enjoy a full range of more efficient and less polluting 15

vehicles. The new analysis shows that new vehicles 16

purchased last year averaged a half mile more per gallon 17

than those in 2010, an improvement that saved $722 million 18

at the gas pump where consumers bought 214 fewer billion 19

gallons of gas than the year earlier. 20

This year Automotive News included in 21

its top ten new things in 2011 Ford's EcoBoost engine for 22

its F

- 150 pickup truck, the top selling vehicle in the 23

country. The Automotive News wrote a year ago, "Who would 24

have guessed that Ford's F

- 150 pickup buyers would prefer an 25125

EcoBoost V

- 6 to a traditional V

- 8?" This shows that the 1

technology exists and has been put to work to improve the 2

efficiency and reduce emissions from even the largest pickup 3

trucks and the consumers will choose to buy better mileage. 4

The new proposed standards will continue 5

to improve technologies and push them into the market. They 6

will unleash innovation and create jobs. There's already 7

been a dramatic shift among automakers from being a "can't 8

do it" street to one that is innovating and touting change. 9

Thirteen automakers are publicly supporting these proposed 10

standards. 11

There are several issues we will comment 12

on in depth in the docket including the issue of the zero 13

emissions electric vehicles but also the need to address the 14

outdated testing methods used for measuring vehicle 15

efficiency standards, which in part result in the 16

discrepancy between standards as they are proposed and what 17

consumers will see in their dealership lots. 18

There is no doubt with these standards 19

that these are the biggest single steps we can take to move 20

Americans beyond oil and curb carbon pollution. However, 21

more needs to be done. Even with more efficient vehicle 22

standards, we must increase our transportation choices to 23

reduce how much people drive and reduce the carbon content 24

of the fuels we use. When it comes to vehicles, however, 25126

President Obama and EPA and NHTSA have guaranteed progress 1

for the next 13 years. We urge EPA and DOT to finalize 2

strong standards in July. 3

Thank you very much. 4

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 5

Ms. Woodard. 6

MS. WOODARD: Thank you. Good 7

afternoon. 8

My name is Tracy Woodard and I am 9

Director of Government Affairs at Nissan North American. My 10

responsibilities include ensuring that Nissan is positioned 11

in the U.S. market to sell cars Americans want to buy and to 12

make sure we do so in a way that promotes safety and a 13

cleaner environment. I am pleased to have the opportunity 14

to testify here today and to offer Nissan's support for the 15

national program and the current proposal. 16

As you know, Nissan is a global 17

automotive manufacturer offering a full line of light

- duty 18

motor vehicles in the United States and throughout the 19

world. Nissan currently has over 11,000 employees in the 20

United States, as well as three domestic production plants 21

with an annual production capacity of nearly 1 million 22

vehicles. Nissan supports the national program and remains 23

committed to the regulatory program as set forth in the 24

notices of intent and the proposed rule. 25127

Nissan expects its fleet during the 1

model years covered by this rulemaking to include a diverse 2

array of technologies and powertrains in order to meet the 3

aggressive proposed targets. Nissan remains dedicated to 4

continued improvements in gasoline

- powered vehicles, safe 5

mass reductions, and advances in traditional hybrid 6

technology. 7

Nissan has also led the way in investing 8

in zero emissions technology for the mass market. We have 9

been working with governments on every level to prepare 10

infrastructure and in supporting the government programs to 11

ensure the long

- term viability of low and zero emission 12

vehicles. 13

Nissan's commitment to the proposed rule 14

is premised on a robust and comprehensive mid

- term 15

evaluation for the model years 2022 to 2025. The standards 16

are extremely aggressive and extend beyond current 17

development planning periods. The agencies have assumed a 18

sign ificant amount of technology advancement, consumer 19

acceptance, and fleet shift during these model years 20

covered. 21

The ability of auto manufacturers to 22

meet these standards will depend not only on our commitment 23

to incorporate additional and transformational technologies 24

but also on factors external to vehicle design and 25128

engineering. The mid

- term evaluation is essential to 1

ensuring that the standards remain technologically and 2

economically feasible during those time periods. 3

The proposal also represents a 4

significant leap forward in advancing more environmentally 5

friendly vehicles and zero emissions transportation. 6

As a leader in electric powertrains, we 7

brought to market the all

- electric Nissan Leaf in December 8

of 2010. Already, we have sold more than 9,800 Nissan Leafs 9

in the U.S. and about 20,000 around the world. The Nissan 10

Leaf is a full service family sedan designed for range, 11

functionality, and safety and has received a combined miles 12

per gallon equivalent rating of 99. The Nissan Leaf is a 13

top safety pick by the Insurance Institute for Highway 14

Safety and the first all

- electric car to earn an overall 15

five star safety rating from NHTSA. The battery contains 16

air

- cooled stacked laminated battery cells and is located 17

below the front seats and rear foot space, keeping the 18

center of gravity as low as possible and increasing 19

structural rigidity compared to a traditional 5

- door 20

hatchback. 21

In the near future Nissan plans to 22

introduce electric vehicles in other market segments 23

including the luxury market. 24

Nissan is currently building a battery 25129

production facility plant in Tennessee which we expect to 1

complete in late 2012. When the plant is at its full 2

capacity, Nissan will be capable of domestic production of 3

200,000 advanced technology batteries annually. The battery 4

plant will be located adjacent to Nissan's vehicle assembly 5

plant in Smyrna which is being retooled to accommodate 6

production of up to 150,000 electric cars annually. 7

Combined vehicle and battery production at these facilities 8

will create up to 1300 U.S. manufacturing jobs when the 9

plants are operating at full capacity. 10

While Nissan has invested heavily in 11

batteries and electrical powertrain technology, optimal 12

environmental benefits as a result of zero emission electric 13

vehicles requires sustained industry

- wide investment in this 14

t echnology. This, in turn, depends largely on the extent to 15

which infrastructure is developed and consumers adopt these 16

technologies. 17

The production credits in the proposed 18

rule are essential to incentivizing continued manufactu rer 19

investment in these advanced technologies, increasing their 20

rate of adoption and the rate by which the United States 21

will realize a zero emission society. 22

We will provide more extensive written 23

comments to support the agencies' efforts to promote 24

transformational change to enable advanced technology like 25130

battery electrical vehicles to gain a strong foothold in the 1

new vehicle market. 2

We also understand that certain groups 3

have raised concerns about upstream emissions from 4

energy

- producing facilities that power the grids that charge 5

the vast range of consumer goods including electric 6

vehicles. The solution to the issue of emissions from 7

energy production facilities is not to discourage t he 8

proliferation of electric vehicles or other consumer goods 9

by devaluing their contribution to a cleaner environment. 10

Discouraging that fleet by diminishing the way in which the 11

environmental benefits are presented to the public will only 12

serve to reduce the market for electric

- powered vehicles, 13

delay further serious advancements in low emissions 14

electricity and perpetuate the domination of 15

emission

- producing internal combustion engines. We support 16

the continued focus on tailpipe emissions in this program. 17

While we have no control over the energy production 18

facilities or their emissions, we also support public and 19

private efforts to move the power supply towards renewable 20

energy sources. 21

The national program represents a 22

significant step forward in reducing greenhouse gas 23

emissions and fuel consumption through a unified federal and 24

state regulatory structure. We appreciate the efforts of 25131

federal agencies and California in providing a regulator y 1

program that allows for one product pathway to compliance 2

and that includes incentives to promote longer term public 3

policy. 4

We look forward to continuing to work 5

with you towards a final regulation and implementation of 6

t he program. 7

Thanks. 8

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 9

I think

-- is it Mr. Sokkay? 10

MR. SOKKARY: Sokkary. 11

MR. MEDFORD: Sokkary. 12

MR. SOKKARY: Yes. Thank you 13

Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to members of the panel. I do 14

appreciate this opportunity to speak before you today. 15

The intent of my comments today are to 16

support the adoption of 54.5 miles per gallon fuel 17

efficiency standards to give my perspective on how this is 18

critical to our national security. I base my remarks on my 19

11

- year career as a Marine Corps officer and being deployed 20

to Afghanistan once, and my policy knowledge of the greater 21

Middle East developed through my travels there. I must also 22

point out that I am here today speaking for myself and not 23

the Department of Defense or the United States Marine Corps. 24

All here know the shocking numbers, 25132

$1 billion a day overseas to pay for our oil. It is also 1

common knowledge that much of this money goes to governments 2

and organizations that do not support American interests or 3

intentions. Our enemies benefit both from the money that 4

can be funneled to forces in conflict with our troops and by 5

giving the enemy a strategy target that will be able to 6

affect U.S. actions. 7

The clearest evidence I have of this 8

latter point is that my attack helicopter squadron was 9

tasked with providing security for Iraqi oil pipelines while 10

I was in Iraq. This was an additional task once we were in 11

country and it came about because the insurgents discovered 12

that one of the ways they could have a great effect on the 13

security and stability of the situation was to attack the 14

pipelines and disrupt the flow of oil that was critical to 15

the Iraqi government and American forces. 16

I should also point out that our 17

services with attack helicopters were in high demand, and 18

while this new task did not sacrifice our critical support 19

to U.S. forces, it was one more task and a litany of 20

requirements that kept us very busy and stretched thin. 21

I believe the reason the pipelines were 22

considered important enough for us to protect was the 23

critical need for oil. This need was driven by the 24

requirements in country and our unquenchable thirst for it 25133

at home. If the free flow of oil is not as critical to us 1

or our allies we will not have to dedicate assets such as 2

the aircraft pilots from my squadron to protect such 3

infrastructure, and the enemy will not be able to target 4

such things in order to harm our strategic interest s. 5

The way to lessen this critical need of 6

oil is to decrease the demand. Because almost half the oil 7

we use goes to fueling our cars and trucks, one of the most 8

effective ways to decrease the demand is to improve the 9

efficie ncies of these cars and trucks. The new standards of 10

54.5 miles per gallon will go a long ways towards achieving 11

this efficiency. 12

I would like to close with a general 13

comment on standards. As a Marine Corps officer I had the 14

privilege of leading some of the best men and women in the 15

world. Given their training, dedication and professionalism 16

I knew that anything I tasked them with they could 17

accomplish. This was a testament to them as individuals and 18

their families for making them the people they were, but 19

also critically it was because the Marine Corps set high 20

standards for all Marines to follow and then hold every 21

Marine to those standards. 22

I believe there is analogy to the 23

current debate on fuel economy standards. Many see the 24

standards of 54.5 as a high standard to meet, but by 25134

creating this high standard, you can leverage the training, 1

dedication and professionalism of U.S. auto industry workers 2

and engineers. I have no doubt we will be able to make 3

fleets of cars that are more efficient and will continue to 4

rival the best in the world. 5

Thank you. 6

MR. MEDFORD: Mr. Sokkary, thank you for 7

your testimony. Also thank you for your service to our 8

country which is much appreciated. 9

Mr. Honeyman. 10

MR. HONEYMAN: Thank you for allowing me 11

to speak. 12

I am Bob Honeyman. I'm a local guy. I 13

grew up in Detroit, spent 25 years in Ann Arbor, got 14

diverted to South Florida for a couple of decades but now 15

I'm back home. The cold is much better. 16

I'm not employed by Consumers Union, it 17

may be indicated in your notes. I am just a guy. I was 18

a sked by Consumers Union to speak to the panel. 19

So, you know, one of my early exposures 20

to EPA was down in South Florida. When I moved down there, 21

I was shocked that every year in order to renew my tags, I 22

had to go to a facility and have a tailpipe inspection. And 23

I guess it was because the air quality in Miami and South 24

Florida was less than desirable. 25135

But about a dozen years ago, I was 1

looking, you know, for the tag application and the piece 2

abou t the tailpipe inspection was missing. So I called to 3

find out and I was told that because air quality had 4

improved enough, the testing requirement was gone, it was no 5

longer required, which, you know, said several things: one, 6

it says that regulation does work, and it says also that not 7

all federal programs have lives of their own. They do end. 8

There's a myth that unregulated free 9

markets are the most efficient in the world. The problem 10

with that is that, you know, no one looks at the hidden 11

costs, you know. We know about scrubbers on coal

- fired 12

plants and we know about the emission standards that were 13

set up by EPA for the auto industry. You know, those 14

essentially actualized the hidden costs, made them up front 15

costs, made them cheaper, and forced the consumer to bear 16

the burden which is where, you know, those costs should be 17

felt. 18

I'll give you Fukushima as an example of 19

hidden costs that, you know, had the right regulatory 20

environment been in place, Japan and the surrounding area 21

wouldn't have to deal with that calamity. 22

One of the things that struck me in 23

preparing for this was that we all think the United States 24

is the most innovative country of creators, you know, 25136

there's no problem that we can't solve. Yet, I found a 1

paper that was presented to

-- a background paper presented 2

to the UN

- sponsored commission on sustainable development a 3

year ago written by Ann Early and Green Wieskal. 4

They compared fleet efficiency across 5

different countries, and while the U.S. showed 25 miles per 6

gallon in 2008, I was surprised, China is 40 percent better, 7

and Europe and Japan are 80 percent better. So the modestly 8

regula ted auto industry in this country failed to come up 9

with the innovations that created fuel efficiency that the 10

rest of the world is able to benefit from. 11

So in my mind, it is incumbent upon us, 12

upon the EPA to create the standards that create the 13

requirements that the auto industry clearly can live up to 14

because it's being done elsewhere in the world. 15

The hidden costs to 25 miles per gallon, 16

the domestic fleet consumed something like 3.2 trillion 17

bar rels of oil in 2008. We imported 4.2 trillion barrels in 18

2008, and we added nearly $400 billion to our trade deficit. 19

Nearly half the trade deficit was because of oil that was 20

imported. 21

You know, everything being equal, 22

ignor ing population growth, you know, if we held up the 23

efficiency of the fleet, then my calculations, for what it's 24

worth, we'd save approximately a million and a half to two 25137

-- I'm sorry, one and a half trillion to two trillion 1

barrels of oil a day, which is, you know, in the 2

neighborhood of $150 billion of imports that we no longer 3

have to fund with currency outflow. 4

You know, to ignore the fact that the 5

biggest exports in this country over the last 25

- 30 years 6

have been jobs, the currency that's sitting out there is 7

just immense. It's several trillion dollars, maybe more, 8

sitting in, you know, Asia and other places. 9

Fortunately, we have, you know, annual 10

budget deficits so that our largest export is treasuries, 11

otherwise we might have a serious problem with the daggers 12

and all. But clearly it's something that we have to handle. 13

Even reducing the trade deficit by 20 percent, which is what 14

I figured roughly the

-- 15

MR. MEDFORD: Can I ask you in the 16

interest of time to wrap it up. 17

MR. HONEYMAN: Sure. I'm just about 18

done. 19

That still saves a lot of currency that 20

is going offshore. 21

And, finally, the regulation makes 22

capitalism work better. And I look at the EPA as clear 23

evidence of how it works and how it works well. 24

Thank you. 25138

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 1

And Mr. Williams. 2

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 3

My name is Al Williams. I am Climate 4

Equity Fellow for the Detroit NAACP. 5

First I would like to say thank you, and 6

am extremely elated to be here today to present our comments 7

on the proposed vehicle standards on behalf of the Detroit 8

NAACP and all the NAACP branches in the State of Michigan. 9

We are fully engulfed in an environment 10

of social justice issues and we see environmental justice as 11

a social justice issue. So when we heard of the Obama 12

Administration and the proposed landmark fuel economy carbon 13

pollution standards that would double car and light truck 14

fuel economy by 2025, we were ecstatic, absolutely ecstatic 15

and are doing all that we can to make sure that the 16

community knows, African

- Americans, fellow Detroiters 17

throughout Metropolitan Detroit understands the importance 18

of the standards. 19

You know, the U.S. economy

-- or the 20

U.S. has been a world leader in a number of different 21

things, but our policies on transportation and fuel 22

efficiency and greenhouse emissions have been to say the 23

least one of the worst across the world. 24

Our fuel taxes are amongst the lowest in 25139

the world and we greatly lag behind Europe and Japan when it 1

comes to setting effective efficiency standards. The 2

2012

- 2016 rule took a giant step towards catching up to the 3

new proposed rule for 2017 to 2025. And it will extend the 4

progress and set longer term requirements. 5

The consistent long

- term signals will 6

help manufacturers plan for ongoing technology developments; 7

and, once again, we applaud the EPA, NHTSA as well as DOT as 8

well as California and the Obama Administration for taking 9

another large step along a long road to sustainable 10

transportation systems. 11

So, for us, you know, this is about 12

countenance. For the NAACP these proposed standards will 13

help families, families with passenger cars, light trucks, 14

SUVs. It will help them save money, put more money back in 15

your pocket. To extend the standards enacted last year that 16

cover vehicles sold in 2012

- 2016 will raise the average fuel 17

economy by 2016, but the first ever fuel

- efficiency 18

standards for medium

- and heavy

- duty trucks from 2014 to 19

2018 will also be enacted this year. So, the common sense 20

standards that are represented here will be our largest 21

reduction in oil consumption in the history of the United 22

States of America. 23

This means cars, light trucks will go 24

twice as far on a gallon of gas, and families and small 25140

businesses will spend half as much on gas to get to where 1

they need to go on a daily basis, which is absolutely 2

important. 3

These standards mean reducing our 4

dependence on foreign oil and it also, as was said earlier, 5

will strengthen national security. In 2010 the United 6

States imported more than 4.3 barrels of oil

-- 4.3 billion 7

barrels of oil sending billions and billions of dollars to 8

other nations where our economy suffered immensely and 9

struggled. 10

These proposed standards will reduce oil 11

consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution. 12

They will reduce dependence on oil by 4 billion barrels 13

which is very, very significant, and it will slash 2 billion 14

metric tons on greenhouse gas emissions. 15

As I said earlier, the average American 16

household spends approximately $2,000 per year on gasoline. 17

I don't know if I have $2,000 a year to spend on gasoline 18

anymore, but the daily gasoline costs in the United States 19

is astronomical. And adopting these standards of fuel 20

efficiency and emissions performance, to take it to 54.5 21

miles per gallon by 2025 will save me, my mom, my family and 22

consumers across the country about $6,000 a year, maybe 23

more, which is very significant, and when it can go to so 24

many other places to do so many other positive things other 25141

than going to a foreign oil distributor. 1

Promoting fuel efficiency will create 2

high quality jobs right here in the United States. As said 3

earlier, one of the biggest things they outsourced in the 4

past 20 years has been jobs, and the City of Detroit has 5

felt it more than anybody else, I would say. Better fuel 6

economy standards will improve our competitiveness and 7

advance vehicle technologies and stimulate inno vation, 8

economic progress and, most importantly, energy 9

independence. 10

So my hat goes off to the Obama 11

Administration, the EPA, NHTSA, DOT for taking these very, 12

very important steps. And having these hearings here today 13

dur ing the auto show and to have people like President Bob 14

King and UAW sign on in support of this is very important, 15

very important to not only the political talking hands of 16

the world but it's even more important to my grandmother who 17

stays on Dexter and Davison and still drives a car from the 18

1980s and has spent so much of her, I don't know, constant 19

income that comes the same amount every month on gas that's 20

fluctuating almost every day now to help her save money to 21

put towards my son's college career or to put towards the 22

business on her street to stay in business. I mean, that's 23

absolutely important to functioning for cities like Detroit 24

who are not functioning as well as they can. 25142

I want to bring this back to laymen's 1

terms. These proposed standards will save the wildlife and 2

the environment. The standards will cut 2 billion tons of 3

carbon pollution, which helps our wildlife. It will reduce 4

our need for oil, like I said before, eliminating the 5

consumption of 4 billion barrels of oil. And it will save 6

consumers money, it will save consumers money, put more 7

money back into our pockets so we can help the economy on 8

our own. 9

And last but not least, the most 10

important thing, which transcends through lives, I believe, 11

is it creates jobs. It will create jobs. I said this, 12

NAACP has for years, if you want to reduce crime, create 13

jobs. The EPA is doing that and helping other doing that. 14

And I applaud you for tha t. 15

And, then, last but not least, our 16

historic addiction to dirty oil has been absolutely 17

astronomical. And if you ask me, it's taken its toll on a 18

number of different occasions and really has put the United 19

States at the bottom of the barrel on a number of different 20

levels. 3.4 billion barrels of oil a day. Three times as 21

much oil as would be produced from the controversial 22

Keystone pipeline, which means we will save much more oil 23

than that pipeline from Canada to Texas will produce. And 24

then, you know, we're cutting our intake of oil. 25143

So I applaud the EPA; I applaud NHTSA. 1

NAACP stands behind this. There's community of colors 2

throughout the City of Detroit and Metropolitan Detroit. 3

We support you. We've been to Chicago in support of this. 4

We will go to Philadelphia in support of this. We will 5

stand up in support of this, and we applaud the EPA, the 6

Obama Administration as well as all the automakers who have 7

partnered up in support of this. 8

Thank you very much. 9

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 10

Any questions from our colleagues? 11

Listen, we'd like to thank each and 12

every one of for your testimony today. We're going to take 13

a 30

- minute break now and come back with Panel 4 in 30 14

minutes, so that will be 1:50 sharp. 15

(A recess was taken from. 16

1:20 p.m. to 1:58 p.m.) 17

MS . OGE: So we will start the afternoon 18

with our next panel: James Jacobs, Brenda and Gil Archambo, 19

Pamela Ortner, Reverend Peggy Garrigues, Julie Lyons 20

Bricker, Mr. Timothy Schacht, Mr. Tom Zerafa, and Miss Robin 21

Eckstein. 22

If you could please take a seat, 23

indicate the names in the signs in front of you, and I would 24

ask you to speak slowly, not too slowly, but slowly enough 25144

so your comments can be recorded. 1

So we will start with Mr. Jacobs. I 2

unde rstand that he has another appointment and he needs to 3

leave after his testimony. 4

MR. JACOBS: Thank you very much. Thank 5

you for indulging me. 6

Thank you for the opportunity to testify 7

before this public hearing. My name is Jim Jacobs. I am 8

the President of Macomb Community College, which is located 9

in Southeast Michigan. Macomb Community College provides 10

learning experiences to more than 59,000 students annually 11

and it is the largest grantor of associate degrees in the 12

State of Michigan. 13

By virtue of our location and long 14

history of partnership with the auto industry, which is 15

heavily concentrated here, we are uniquely able to comment 16

on the education and training issues affecting the auto 17

industry in consequence of the 2017 and later model year 18

light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and corporate 19

average fuel economy standards. 20

The auto industry has been undergoing 21

profound radical technological and business changes over the 22

years. The production of clean, fuel

- efficient vehicles and 23

their key components is now a major driver of industry 24

growth and job opportunities. According to the study by the 25145

UAW and the National Wildlife Federation and the National 1

Resources Defense Council, there are now more than 150,000 2

workers nationwide working on the production of 3

fuel

- efficient vehicles. Adding technology to these 4

vehicles to enhance fuel efficiency and reduce emissions 5

creates jobs, because new work is needed to research, design 6

and manufacture and install these devices on trucks and 7

cars. 8

The recovering auto industry as a whole 9

has added 100,000 jobs last year and is on track to add 10

another 60,000 jobs this year. Many of these jobs will be 11

in the area of advanced internal combustion engines, hybrid 12

powertrains and electric vehicles, and many of them are 13

located here in Southeast Michigan. 14

Our college is providing the training to 15

these workers who will need to build the clean, fuel

16

efficient cars of the future. For our region and the United 17

States auto industry the future is now. 18

We collaborate with three sets of 19

partners as we redefine and develop major curriculum changes 20

in response to changing the automotive technology. The 21

first and foremost is industry itself. We maintain strong 22

linkages to many companies and industry associations for 23

expressed purposes of anticipating and defining work force 24

means. One particularly strong example is the Michigan 25146

Academy for Green Mobility Alliance Or MAGMA. It's a 1

Michigan regional skills alliance which includes members of 2

all the major automobile manufacturers in Michigan

- 3

Chrysler, Ford, GM and Nissan and Toyota; major automobile 4

suppliers like Delphi, Denso, Eaton and many others, battery 5

manufacturers including LG Chemical, A123 as well as major 6

industry associations and educational institutions. This 7

agency has taken a lead in redefining and endorsing courses 8

in curriculum in advanced automotive technology. 9

The second set of collaborators are 10

government agencies, primarily in the form of funding for 11

grants in developing and disseminating curricula. One 12

example of such grants is the Department of Energy's 13

Electric Drive Vehicle Grant to educate and prepare the 14

technical and scientific workforce for the emerging electric 15

vehicle industry. 16

Another is the National Science 17

Foundation Grant to fund a new Center for Advanced 18

Automotive Technology located at Macomb Community College. 19

This advanced technology education center is one of the 41 20

national centers sponsored by NSF and will be central for 21

development and dissemination of advanced automotive 22

technology programs in content not only to Michigan but 23

nationally. 24

Our third set of partners are other 25147

educational institutions. Through our educational 1

connections and innovations we work with the universities 2

and community colleges in Michigan and nationwide to develop 3

and promote the education of technicians and engineers in 4

the technologies that will enable dramatic fuel improvement 5

for the U.S. fleet and will assure technological leadership 6

of the domestic industry. An example of our educational 7

institution collaboration is the Automotive Communities 8

Consortium, a national collaborative network of 18 community 9

colleges led by Macomb which is designed to facilitate the 10

college

- to

- college institutional peer learning environment 11

for sharing best practices in education in com munity. 12

As of today, Macomb Community College 13

has a hybrid electric vehicle curriculum, an alternative 14

fuel certification and a renewable energy certificate. 15

These lead to Associate Degrees in Automotive Technology, 16

Electronic Engineering, and Automated Systems and are 17

designed to lead to a wide range of jobs in emerging fields 18

and curricula in the 4

- year degree programs. 19

Macomb Community College offers five 20

exclusive courses: Hybrid Electric Vehicle Fundamentals, 21

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Power Management, Introduction to 22

Electric Vehicle Propulsion Systems, Motors and Control for 23

Electrical Vehicles and Institutional Industrial 24

Applications, Sensors and Control Systems. 25148

Macomb Community College also offers 1

Advanced Energy Storage for Mobile Applications, Electric 2

Line and Smart Grid Design, Principles of Hydrogen Fuel 3

Technology, a Capstone Electric Vehicle Build program. 4

These courses are designed to be transferred to Wayne State 5

University's Bachelor of Science and Electric Transportation 6

Program which is an excellent example of how partnering can 7

lead to programs that cleanly articulate with one another. 8

This coordination benefits both industry and their 9

requirements for appropriate skilled workforce and students 10

who wish to advance their education most efficiently. 11

Macomb and other educational providers 12

fully recognize the importance of the technological 13

volatility in today's automobile industry. We're committed 14

to responding quickly to the needs of this industry and of 15

the communities we serve so that our students will continue 16

to enter the workforce fully prepared to contribute to the 17

renovation of the U.S. auto industry. 18

We look forward to working with our 19

partners in industry, education, and the government to 20

continue the education and training of the future work force 21

in the new automobile industry that will be created with the 22

standards that you've proposed. 23

Thank you very much. 24

MS. OGE: Thank you. 25149

Ms. Pamela Ortner. 1

Good afternoon. 2

MS. ORTNER: Good afternoon. 3

My name is Pamela Ortner and I am a 4

Michigan Nurse Advocate working with Healthcare Without 5

Harm. Healthcare Without Harm is an international coalition 6

of more than 430 organizations in 52 countries working to 7

transform the healthcare sector worldwide without 8

compromising patient care so that it is ecologically 9

sustainable and no longer a source of harm to public health 10

and the environment. I appreciate this opportunity to 11

comment on the proposed standards and EPA's and NHTSA 12

efforts to protect the public's health through the 13

implementation of this rule. 14

My father if he was still living would 15

be 107 years old today. He worked most of his working life 16

at the Ford Motor Company Highland Park Plant. He was the 17

cost analyst for the operation. I became aware at an early 18

age of the impact of the auto industry and it was an 19

important part of my life and my community. I grew up in 20

Detroit. 21

In 1988, I became involved in a campaign 22

to close an incinerator in my community and I began to 23

become aware of public health impacts from different types 24

of industry. It was common sense to me that this was a 25150

nurse's role. 1

It made sense to become involved in the 2

effort to shutter the incinerator, and I have since been 3

interested in supporting the work of the Environmental 4

Protection Agency, especially as it relates to the auto 5

industry. 6

In 1995 the Institute of Medicine report 7

on Nursing Health in the Environment validated my work and 8

the work of nurses to be involved in environmental health 9

issues. The report called for an integration and 10

enhancement of environmental health in nursing education 11

practice and in research. According to the IOM, if 12

environmental health hazards and health effects are to be 13

recognized and dealt with effectively it is of fundamental 14

importance that all healthcare providers have a clear 15

understanding of the association between environment and 16

health. 17

I'm attending the hearing today to urge 18

the EPA and President Obama to keep these proposed standards 19

as strong as they are. We recognize how important they are 20

for so many reasons. They're going to save our communities 21

and our individuals money at the pump which will strengthen 22

our economy, clean up our air, create jobs, increase our 23

independence on oil and combat climate disruption. Harmful 24

air emissions will be reduced by 297 million metric tons by 25151

the year 2030 if these standards are put into place. 1

The question about climate science and 2

climate change, when the news reports it, the news 3

reporting for saying there is climate change is 50 percent, 4

and the news reporting for scientists' reports that say that 5

it is not, in fact, happening is 50 percent. But, actually, 6

local public health departments around the country now are 7

puttin g programs into place to protect our population from 8

climate change. 9

Human health effects of climate change 10

can cause an increase

-- will cause an increase in 11

heat

- related mortality in cities, increase in allergins, 12

increase in rates of water and foodborne diseases, increase 13

in vector

- borne diseases such as malaria, cholera, Dengue 14

and plague and increase in skin temperature. 15

Ground level ozone as we know causes 16

health problems because it irritates the mucous membranes, 17

damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes 18

the lung to other irritants. 19

Particulate matter, which is part of the 20

emissions, can damage lung issue, aggravate respiratory and 21

cardi ovascular diseases and can alter the body's defense 22

systems against foreign materials, can cause cancer and 23

premature death. 24

Sulfur dioxide is

-- the immediate 25152

effect is bronchial restriction, and people with asthma are 1

more sensitive to the effects of SO2; probably likely 2

because of preexisting inflammation that is associated with 3

asthma. 4

Nitrogen dioxide can irritate the lungs 5

and mucous membranes, aggravate asthma, cause bronchitis and 6

p neumonia and lower resistance to respiratory infection. 7

But those who are most vulnerable will 8

be most affected. Our bodies are becoming alarming 9

reflections of the toxic chemicals in the air. Pregnant 10

women exposed to air pollution are more likely to have 11

smaller babies and give birth prematurely. Studies have 12

found that exposure to air pollution during pregnancy 13

significantly reduces fetus size, and that women who live in 14

regions with high carbon monoxide levels or fine particulate 15

pollution were approximately 10 to 25 percent more likely to 16

have a preterm baby than other women, especially if they 17

breathe polluted air during the first trimester or the last 18

month of pregnancy. 19

Seniors exposed to air pollution are 20

more likely hospitalized for pneumonia or health problems. 21

There are over 1.1 million senior citizens in the United 22

States. Studies have found that seniors who are exposed to 23

NOx and fine particulate matter were more than twice likely 24

to be as likely to be hospitalized for pneumonia, which is a 25153

leading cause of illness and death in the elderly. 1

In addition, exposure to carbon monoxide 2

increased the likelihood that seniors with heart problems 3

would be hospitalized. 4

I just want to talk about briefly asthma 5

and the incidence of asthma in Michigan. 6

There are over 744,000 adults living 7

with asthma in Michigan and over 225,000 children. The 8

total estimated incremental cost, direct costs of asthma and 9

that's emergency room visits and pediatric hospital stays 10

currently is over $1 billion in the State of Michigan. 11

Much like lead exposure, there is little 12

scientific debate about the harmful effects of climate 13

change and these pollutants from car emissions. The 14

proposed rule will save lives, protect the health of 15

millions and bring about an action that is long overdue. 16

There are many of us in Detroit that have been waiting for 17

this to happen for a long time. We can and must act to make 18

sure that we protect the most vulnerable among us. 19

Thank you. 20

MS. OGE: Thank you. 21

Now I'm going to call on Reverend Peggy 22

Garrigues. 23

Good afternoon. 24

REV. GARRIGUES: Yes. I'm Reverend 25154

Peggy Garrigues from the Clawson United Methodist Church. I 1

speak as a person of faith and a religious leader. 2

When my son Isaac was five years old we 3

had to twice take him to the emergency room for asthma 4

attacks because of air pollutants. We had good insurance, 5

so he's doing fine now, but many who will be impacted by the 6

health issues related to air pollution cannot afford good 7

insurance. 8

My Christian faith tells me to care for 9

the poor, the orphan, the widow, the least of these. 10

Reducing the pollution we put in the air is a way of caring 11

for the most vulnerable that we are called to care for as 12

people of faith. 13

In 2006 I took a group of college 14

students to New Orleans to help clean up after Hurricane 15

Katrina. We saw firsthand the devastation and destruction 16

from a major storm and especially what was caused in poor 17

neighborhoods. 18

As global temperatures increase because 19

of the increase in greenhouse gases, major storm events 20

increase in frequency and intensity and will cause more 21

destruction, especially among those most vulnerable. 22

Along with my Christian faith teaching 23

me to care for those most vulnerable, it also teaches me to 24

be a good steward of God's creation, so anything we can do 25155

to decrease greenhouse gases we put into the air is a way of 1

caring for God's creations as well as the vulnerable. 2

The official stance of the United 3

Methodist Church which I am a part of is that war is 4

incompatible with Christian teaching. The more we depend on 5

foreign oil, the more we are likely to be going to war over 6

oil resources especially in the Middle East. So the less we 7

depend on foreign oil by increasing our use of fossil fuels, 8

the less the incentive to go to war. 9

So, these standards, these proposed 10

standards will be an important step to helping people of 11

faith to live out their values and create a better world for 12

all of God's children. 13

MS. OGE: Thank you. 14

Now I am going to call on Miss Brenda 15

and Gil Archambo, both of you. 16

MS. ARCHAMBO: And I'm Brenda. 17

MS. OGE: Welcome. 18

MS. ARCHAMBO: Thank you. 19

Good afternoon. Thank you for the 20

opportunity to testify today. We certainly appreciate it. 21

My name is Brenda Archambo, and I live 22

on Black Lake in Cheboygan County. That's in the northeast 23

lower peninsula. 24

I am an angler and I'm also President 25156

and founder of Sturgeon for Tomorrow. Sturgeon for Tomorrow 1

is a non

- profit organization dedicated to the rehabilitation 2

and recovery of the Majestic Lake sturgeon which in Michigan 3

is a threatened specie s. 4

Michigan wildlife and national resources 5

are the backbone of our $5 billion recreational tours and 6

economy. The Great Lakes are a national treasure. 7

Michigan's wildlife is as unique as the shape of its 8

shoreline and the variety of habitat found within its 9

borders. Whether it's a moose in the Upper Peninsula or a 10

musky in Lake St. Clair or the iconic lake sturgeon in 11

northern lower peninsula, wildlife helps define Michigan's 12

sense of place. It's part of our state's history and it's 13

inseparably linked to its wildlife, and it's really what 14

makes us pure Michigan. 15

And as a sportswoman I am particularly 16

concerned about toxic pollution spewing from tailpipes and 17

then falling from the air onto our lakes and rivers and 18

forests polluting the environment and accumulating up the 19

food chain as fish and wildlife consume that contamination. 20

This directly affects many species including water fowl, 21

walleye, perch, bass, musky, and the iconic lake sturgeon, 22

all are revered in front of our state's 23

angling/hunting/conservation heritage. 24

Safeguarding our natural resources is 25157

important to those of us who are Michiganders who hunt and 1

fish and spend time in the woods and on the waters, but it's 2

also a wise investment in our economic future. Reducing 3

pollution from automobiles will help protect our 4

longstanding investment in our outdoor heritage. The 5

difference today is that we have the technology and the 6

feasibility and affordability to solve this problem. 7

The proposed fuel efficiency standards 8

for cars and light trucks as well as medium

- and heavy

- duty 9

trucks are bringing exciting, new, sparkling vehicles to 10

dealers and driveways right now. And the new proposed 11

standards would extend these benefits doubling the fuel 12

economy of our cars, SUVs and pick

- ups to an average of 54.5 13

miles per gallon by 2025. 14

Taken together the new and proposed fuel 15

economy standards cut our demand for oil by 3.4 million 16

barrels of oil a day. It's really unconscionable that we 17

are such addicts to this oil. That equates to nearly a 18

third of today's transportation fuel use. It's more than 19

all the oil we get today from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela 20

combined. 21

These new standards could also cut 22

carbon pollution by over 600 million metric tons, about 10 23

percent of total U.S. carbon pollution today. Deep cuts in 24

the oil we need means less need for construction of new 25158

pipelines, fewer leaks and threats to people and wildlife 1

and our public and private land. It shows we can take real 2

steps to roll back climate change and protect wildlife for 3

generations to come. By utilizing our environmental laws we 4

can help rid the air and water of harmful pollutants and 5

restore the health of our ecosystem, and while these 6

standards are critical for wildlife, making our cars and 7

trucks more efficient also means hundreds of billions of 8

dollars in savings for families and businesses, thousands of 9

new jobs and greater energy security for our nation. 10

I strongly urge the EPA to move forward 11

and finalize strong fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas 12

standards that cut oil use and reduce carbon pollution 13

ensuring our outdoor legacy for future generations. Now and 14

in the future the EPA and other federal and state and 15

environmental laws can help ensure that the legacy we leave 16

our children is a clean and healthy planet. 17

Thank you. 18

MS. OGE: Thank you. 19

Does Gil have anything to add, any 20

comments? 21

MR. ARCHAMBO: Yes. I'll be very brief. 22

MS. OGE: Thank you. 23

MR. ARCHAMBO: Good afternoon. 24

My name is Gil Archambo. I live in 25159

Cheboygan, Michigan. I am a UAW retiree and a former 1

building and electrical contractor. I'm also an avid 2

sportsma n and a member of numerous conservation clubs. I've 3

always driven a light

- duty pickup truck for my entire 4

life -- well, my adult life, because living in the north 5

woods and getting into the wilderness and out in the great 6

waters, I had to have the horsepower to haul heavy equipment 7

such as boats, 4

- wheelers, snow machines and ice fishing 8

shanties. 9

One of my passions is ice fishing. 10

Guiding anglers, families, and especially our next 11

generation out onto the ice to teach them about the 12

longstanding winter ice traditions. 13

There's nothing better than getting out 14

on the ice in the wintertime and bringing home a nice mess 15

of fish for dinner, being mindful, however, that Mi chigan 16

posted 120 fish consumption advisories in 2010. 17

I'd love to have my truck with increased 18

fuel efficiency while not compromising any horsepower. 19

Moreover, fuel efficiency deeply cuts the carbon pollution 20

from automobiles that contribute to our warming climate that 21

is causing iconic species to disappear and threaten the 22

future of many others. Autos are the largest contributor to 23

carbon pollution in the U.S. after power plants. 24

The new proposed fuel economy standard 25160

would cut demand for oil by 3.4 million barrels per day. It 1

would save Americans over $100 billion per year, and it cuts 2

gasoline consumption by one

- third -- that's huge

-- and 3

reduces our climate pollution by 8 percent annually. 4

Strong standards together with American 5

innovation and public and private investments in advanced 6

manufacturing and advanced battery technology have begun 7

bringing high quality jobs back to our communities across 8

the country and positioning American auto and auto component 9

manufacturers as leaders in cutting edge technology. For 10

example, while the U.S. had just two factories making 11

advanced batteries in 2009, this year U.S. manufacturers are 12

expe cted to supply 20 percent of the world's advanced 13

vehicle batteries. One study cites 38,000 jobs in Michigan 14

alone, that already tied to the work on clean air efficiency 15

and auto technology. 16

I support making our nation's cars a nd 17

trucks more efficient to reduce the carbon emissions from 18

exhaust that is driving a warming climate which increases 19

the threat to American wildlife and our conservation 20

heritage. 21

We welcome the Administration's 22

leadership in developing a coordinated fuel efficiency and 23

greenhouse gas standard. This is something we have to 24

encourage and have sought for very long time. 25161

Thank you very much. 1

MS. OGE: Thank you both of you. 2

Miss Julie Lyons Bricker. 3

Good afternoon. 4

MS. BRICKER: Thank you. 5

I'm Julie Lyons Bricker and I'm the 6

Executive Director of the Michigan Interfaith Power & Light. 7

It's a nonprofit organization that helps interfaith houses 8

of worship in the State of Michigan learn how to be more 9

energy efficient, learn about renewable technologies and 10

also practice other sustainability measures. 11

On the whole, our membership supports 12

the clean air efforts and they have started signing on to 13

the clean air promise, so as the Director, we will certainly 14

help continue bringing clergy to make statements and sign 15

letters to the editor and pen op

- eds for this and other EPA 16

initiatives coming down the line. 17

But, really, I'm here today as a mother. 18

And I think these vehicle standards are a great step in the 19

right direction to help tackle global warming. I applaud 20

the Obama Administration, the EPA and the NHTSA for 21

releasing these standards, and I have hopes that the future 22

40 years will be even more successful than the EPA's past 23

40 years in terms of keeping our environment clean and 24

cleaning the water and air. 25162

One of the things I didn't consider 1

until I heard the Archambos' testimony here is about what my 2

kids will have access to whenever they're teenagers and 3

young adults wanting to spend time in the environment; and, 4

so, I think we have to keep in mind not only what's 5

happening now but for their generation and their kids and 6

their kids' kids. 7

In closing, I think these standards 8

present a huge win on many fronts for the environment, the 9

economy and for national security. 10

Thank you for your time. 11

MS. OGE: Thank you. 12

Mr. Timothy Schacht. 13

MR. SCHACHT: Hi. I'm Tim Schacht. I'm 14

a veterinarian in private practice with my wife here in the 15

City of Detroit, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak 16

to the committee. 17

I would like to commend the EPA, the 18

Obama Administration and the automobile industry for the 19

long, overdue attention now being given to the issue of 20

inefficiencies in how Americans power their cars. The 21

collaboration between government and private enterprise that 22

has targeted an increase in the fuel use standards for 23

domestic automobiles is welcome news for many years. Under 24

these new rules, Americans will be safer due to less 25163

reliance on oil imports from regions that have proven to be 1

dangerous to work with and because of the promise of less 2

pollution emitted from our tailpipes. 3

Americans will be wealthier due to less 4

money being sent offshore and, instead, available to be 5

spent within our own economy. Americans will also be 6

enabled to further capitalize on technologies both existent 7

and in development that will help achieve the reasonable and 8

attainable standards agreed hereto. 9

Of concern to me, however, is the risk 10

that these goals will be undercut and their benefits a false 11

promise. It is incumbent on government to protect the 12

interests of citizenry, not special interests. The failure 13

of past efforts to enact fuel efficiency standards that 14

bring about meaningful change has proven very costly. 15

My wife worked for EPA in the 1970s. 16

She was in Washington for the 1979 oil crisis and the 17

hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran. It was 18

clear to her that America having not learned from the 1967 19

oil embargo and the 1973 oil crisis should develop a 20

national energy policy to protect us from such problems. 21

Nothing happened. 22

As a consequence, our nation has spent 23

trillions of dollars to kill thousands of people in order 24

that we might prop up a self

- destructive, random and 25164

rudderles s energy strategy. Maybe it is true that the 1

events of the last 40 years have finally taught us what 2

1967, 1973 and 1979 did not. I certainly hope so. 3

However, the proof will be in the 4

pudding. Thus far all we have are words on paper and I 5

support those words. However, it is the actions these words 6

will direct that are of greatest importance. If the intent 7

of this directive is undermined or circumvented, then 8

clearly as a nation we will have been misgoverned and will 9

continue to live in denial of our complicity in a failed 10

energy strategy that has cost us vast fortunes and untold 11

human suffering. 12

Thank you. 13

MS. OGE: Thank you. 14

Mr. Tom Zerafa. 15

MR. ZERAFA: Thank you, and thank you 16

for the panel being here today to honor us here in Detroit 17

and our State of Michigan. And thank you to my esteemed 18

colleagues at this table for your testimony as well. 19

I'm a native Detroiter. I've lived here 20

all my life in the area. I grew up in the southwest side of 21

Detroit right in the center of the Ford Rouge Plant, the 22

Cadillac Plant and the Fleetwood Plant, and I remember 23

growing up that most people that worked in the factory 24

didn't live too long after they retired from the factory 25165

because of heart disease, cancer, and various other diseases 1

because of the lack of environmental practices that were 2

happening in those auto industries at that time. The 3

average person, the average male died shortly within 4

five years of retirement if not before back in those years. 5

I remember very much many of our neighbors' funerals during 6

that time. 7

I thank the Obama Administration in 8

particular for making this an urgent matter, to reduce our 9

carbon footprint in the auto industry through the work 10

that's being done to bring better standards to our auto 11

industry for better fuel

-- better use of fuel, better use 12

-- to reduce our use of fossil fuels and to promote safer 13

ways of engineering our automobiles and other forms of 14

transportation through more natural means, through 15

electricity, through the battery and through other means 16

right now. 17

I guess a question I would have for 18

those of us who are currently driving and who intend to be 19

driving our current vehicles for a while yet, possibly up to 20

and beyond when these new standards take place is will we be 21

able to retrofit our cars that we own at that time to the 22

new standards, will there be a means of doing that. That 23

might be something that needs to be looked into, rather than 24

having to purchase a brand new vehicle and for some of us 25166

maybe not in the position of buying one at that time. So 1

that might be something to be looked at. I haven't heard 2

that proposal yet from anyone so far since I've been here, 3

but that's a concern I have. 4

Again, you know, the need to reduce our 5

carbon footprint is very obvious with the winter we're 6

having right now in Michigan and throughout the Midwest. I 7

mean, it was 50 degrees out earlier today. This is not 8

Michigan weather. And a lot of that is due to what we have 9

put into the air. Anyone who contests that there is no such 10

thing as man

- made pollution is wrong, because I believe a 11

lot of this has been made by the human race and that has had 12

an effect on the warming of the seasons to a point where 13

they're unseasonable right now. And we are going to pay a 14

price for it during the course of our lives. 15

But I say charge forward with this 16

program and I hope that

-- I know that we will all benefit 17

from it in the long run. 18

And I guess just one more thing I wanted 19

to add that as we're working on the auto

-- working on, you 20

know, the automobile, that we're also looking at other means 21

of transportation as well to develop cleaner standards and 22

that is public transportation. By the year 2025 I'm going 23

to be 74 years old at that time. It's hard to believe that 24

and that's not that many years away, and I hope I don't have 25167

to be driving at that point. I hope that I'll be able to 1

hop on a bus or hop on a train or hop on a light rail at 2

some point, because there's going to be a time when I'm 3

probably going to be more of a danger to the road than an 4

asset. And, so, I hope that the auto industry people that 5

are here and everybody else and certainly the Administration 6

will take that into consideration to put their

-- bear their 7

muscle to develop those types of transportation to a more 8

safe way and a more environment to protect the public. 9

Thank you so much. 10

MS. OGE: Thank you. 11

And the final member for this panel is 12

Ms. Robin Eckstein. 13

Good afternoon. 14

MS. ECKSTEIN: Thank you, ma'am. 15

Robin Eckstein. 16

First of all, thank you very much for 17

letting me be here and speak. I think it's a great part of 18

our government that you guys have these public hearings and 19

allow our input into your agency. I think that's awesome. 20

My name is Robin Eckstein. I'm here 21

with the Truman National Security project, but mainly I'm 22

here as a veteran. I think I have seen kind of firsthand 23

how our inefficiencies with fuel has really affected us and 24

especially our troops. I was stationed in Bagdad at the 25168

Baghdad International Airport right after the initial 1

invasion in Iraq in 2003 as a truck driver, and my mission 2

while I was over there was to be in these convoys 3

transporting fuel and water to various outposts around 4

Baghdad and the surrounding area. 5

And every day when we rolled outside the 6

gates it was a roll of the dice, whether we were going to be 7

shot at, have IEDs, be blown up by enemy fire. And it 8

began -- it was obviously very clear that this was a bad way 9

of doing things because we were transporting all this fuel 10

in these very inefficient vehicles to the forward operating 11

bases where, again, the fuel was being used very 12

inefficiently. 13

And it became my mission after I got out 14

of the military to see that changes like that, changes 15

happen. I may have taken off my uniform, but I'm continuing 16

my service for my country by coming to meetings like this 17

and letting people know that it is a national security 18

issue, too. I know you've heard from a lot of 19

environmentalists, faith groups and jobs and stuff about how 20

important it is for fuel efficiency standards but I think 21

one of the biggest is national security and our troops. And 22

I know the Iraq war is over, but there's still the 23

Afghanistan war going on, and let me tell you it's even more 24

expensive to get the fuel transported over there. 25169

The military has seen that this is a 1

problem and is already moving into a positive direction. 2

They're testing new fuel

- efficient vehicles for the military 3

to use. And, frankly, if the military can do it, I don't 4

see why the United States can't for the rest of us. And I 5

really think that the EPA moving in this direction is so 6

positive because

-- you know, my sister recently had a baby 7

and I've got this great niece now and I don't want her to 8

have to grow up and be in the military and have to be in a 9

convoy and get shot at because they're doing things 10

inefficiently. And fuel efficiency standards is kind of a 11

no

- brainer. 12

And, like I said, if the military is 13

already doing it there's no reason why the United States 14

can't get behind them and continue making the changes that 15

we need to see. 16

So I'm definitely in support of 17

strengthening the fuel efficiency standards that the Obama 18

Administration has brought forward. 19

I thank you very much for having me in

. 20

MS. OGE: Thank you for coming and thank 21

you for your service. 22

MR. MEDFORD: Thomas, I don't have your 23

name on my list and I can't read it from here, but you asked 24

a couple of questions and

-- 25170

MR. ZERAFA: Yes, I did. 1

MR. MEDFORD: Your first one is a 2

challenging one which is about retrofitting. 3

I think most of us know, most of the 4

activities of fuel economy involve new powertrains, they 5

involve aerodynamics, they involve new materials that are 6

strong that weigh less. 7

The only area I can think of is low 8

rolling resistant tires and at NHTSA, DOT, we are working on 9

some information to rate the new tires for rolling 10

resistance and fuel economy. So that would be one area that 11

we can provide information on. 12

Your other question was about what to do 13

with public transit in this region, and I just want to point 14

out that the Department is working very closely with the 15

Mayor and the Governor in this state to improve the public 16

transit here in Detroit specifically but in the state 17

overall. So I think from that front there's a lot of 18

tra nsportation support particularly with Detroit. 19

MS. OGE: Any other questions from the 20

panel? 21

Thank you. Thank you for coming 22

forward. 23

MR. MEDFORD: So I think we're ready for 24

the next panel. 25171

Good afternoon, everyone. Get started I 1

think Deb Bakker needs to leave soon, so we'll start with 2

you, Ms. Bakker. 3

MS. BAKKER: Good afternoon. I'm 4

Deborah Bakker, Senior Manager of Regulation and 5

Certification Department at Hyundai Technical Center, and 6

I'm speaking today on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company. 7

It is a pleasure to be here today to 8

provide our perspective on this very important rulemaking. 9

We appreciate the significant effort on the part of all the 10

agencies and the difficult task of developing feasible and 11

harmonizing national greenhouse gas emission standards. 12

Before discussing the proposal, I'd like 13

to take a few moments to talk about Hyundai's thoughts on 14

fuel efficiency and our efforts and successes in this area. 15

Hyundai is one of the industry's most 16

fuel

- efficient automakers. We are on track this year to 17

surpass the government industry fuel economy target of 35.5 18

MPG for the 2016 model year. Currently four Hyundai models 19

- Sonata hybrid, Elantra, Veloster and the Accent

- achieve 20

EPA highway fuel economy ratings of 40 MPG. 21

We're the only automaker that provides 22

the fleet

- wide fuel economy performance in our release of 23

monthly sales figures, and these 40 MPG models account for 24

one

- third of our U.S. sales in 2011. 25172

In 2010 we publicly pledged to reach 1

50

- plus MPG for our fleet by 2025, and in our discussions 2

with the agencies on this rulemaking we have consistently 3

supported the standard in excess of 50 MPG. We continue to 4

strongly support the agencies on this rulemaking. We 5

believe it's the right thing to do for the environment and 6

for the nation's energy security. 7

Hyundai agrees with many of the 8

flexibilities and credits provided in the proposal. We 9

support the credit and banking provisions and continued 10

application of off

- cycle credits for technologies whose 11

benefits cannot be counted for on the city and highway 12

cycles. Hyundai believes off

- cycle technology is an area 13

that is ripe for innovation and can provide important gains 14

in real

- world fuel economy. 15

Now that the agencies have quantified 16

the value of various off

- cycle technologies in a menu 17

format, Hyundai asks that the EPA and NHTSA allow the menu 18

credits to be used in the 2012 to 2016 model years. In 19

addition, we recommend that the agencies eliminate the ten 20

gram cap on menu technologies. EPA plans a cap because the 21

menu technologies are based on limited data. However, 22

Hyundai agrees with the agency that the credits offered are 23

con servative and that the cap is not necessary. 24

Hyundai also appreciates that there are 25173

a number of flexibilities in the proposal that address OEMs' 1

different strategies for creating a fuel

- efficient fleet. 2

For example, some OEMs are focusing resources on electric 3

vehicles and they are receiving credit multipliers for 4

expanding that technology. Others are improving the fuel 5

efficiency of cargo

- carrying larger pickup trucks, and the 6

agency is providing incentives to improve those 7

technologies. Some OEMs plan to be fuel efficiency leaders 8

for gasoline vehicles in the 2017 to 2025 time frame, and 9

the California Air Resources Board is proposing to allow 10

those OEMs to offset part of the zero emission vehicle 11

mandate for a limited time through over

- compliance in 12

challenging GHG/CAFE standards. We appreciate the 13

government's recognition of these varying OEM strategies by 14

providing a variety of incentives to maximize performance in 15

each area. 16

Hyundai also appreciates the substantial 17

lead time for these regulations which will provide stability 18

for long

- term product planning. Hyundai supports the 19

mid

- term evaluation because it provides an opportunity to 20

ensure that the details of the program are appropriate. 21

Although we believe the proposed 22

requirements are feasible, Hyundai recognizes that it's 23

difficult to perfectly predict out to the 2025 time frame 24

the necessary technologies and costs and consumer acceptance 25174

of those technologies. The mid

- term review will help ensure 1

that the requirements are sound closer to the time of 2

implementation. 3

Thank you for the opportunity to comment 4

today and we will be submitting written comments with 5

additional details. 6

MR. MEDFORD: Okay. Do we have any 7

questions before she has to leave? 8

Deb, I have just one thing. You 9

commented that there are limits on the credits that you ca n 10

get based on the menu but I think we also said in the 11

proposal that if you provide data that support greater 12

credits that can be considered and greater credits can be 13

given. 14

You're aware of that; right? 15

MS. BAKKER: Right. We're just saying 16

that for simplicity's sake we wanted to opt into the menu 17

rather than generating the data. We wanted to be able to go 18

to the ten gram cap. 19

MR. MEDFORD: Okay. Thank you. 20

Okay. Next. Miss Hilary Sinnamon. 21

MS. SINNAMON: My name is Hilary 22

Sinnamon from the Environment Defense Fund. On behalf of 23

the Environmental Defense Fund and our more than 700,000 24

members nationwide, I sincerely thank you for the 25175

opportunity to testify today on this landmark proposal to 1

address the extensive climate disrupting pollution from 2

passenger vehicles and to provide consumers nearly double 3

the fuel efficiency of today's cars and light tr ucks. 4

As Pulitzer prize winning author Thomas 5

Friedman recently wrote: "This is a big deal." Increasing 6

the efficiency of our passenger fleet is one of the most 7

effective things you can do to reduce our dependence on oil 8

and will likely be one of President Obama's greatest climate 9

and energy security legacies. 10

The United States consumes more than 19 11

million barrels of oil a day which is nearly a quarter of 12

the oil consumed in the entire world and more than all 13

European Union nations combined. Our nation's fleet of cars 14

and light trucks, the focus of this proposal, consumes more 15

than 8.6 million barrels of oil per day, 45 percent of total 16

U.S. petroleum consumption. 17

Ove r half of the oil we use each day is 18

imported from foreign countries, many of which do not like 19

us. The U.S. consumes nearly 25 percent of the world's oil 20

production, but controls less than 2 percent of the supply. 21

We send over $1 billion a day overseas to pay for oil. The 22

majority of it goes to nations deemed dangerous or unstable. 23

As General Anthony Zinni said, "We will pay to reduce 24

greenhouse gas emissions today or we will pay the price 25176

later in military terms. And that will involve human 1

lives." His statement underscores why we need to act now. 2

We need to reduce the amount of oil we 3

consume in the U.S. by a lot. Thankfully, we've already 4

taken the first step. In 2010 the agency finalized the 5

first phase of fuel

- efficiency and greenhouse gas standards 6

for model years 2012 to 2016 vehicles which are already in 7

showrooms and on roads today. Those standards will make the 8

first dent in the oil dependence by reducing consumption by 9

1.8 billion gallons over the lifetime of the vehicles. That 10

is a lot of petroleum but it is not enough. That's why this 11

proposal to further improve fuel efficiency of model years 12

2017 to 2015 is very important. It will further reduce our 13

oil consumption by 4 billion gallons. When this program is 14

fully implemented we will reduce our daily consumption by 15

more than we import from the entire Persian Gulf today. 16

The high price of oil threatens our 17

fragile economy. In fact, the price of a gallon of gas is 18

up 10 percent since January of last year, 25 percent since 19

January of 2010, and 100 percent since January of 2009. At 20

today's average gas prices consumers are spending more than 21

$1 million a day to fuel their passenger vehicles, the 22

largest household expense after housing. These high fuel 23

prices leave consumers with less money to spend elsewhere. 24

We need to put some of that money back into consumers' 25177

pockets. 1

Based on the projected future savings 2

from today's proposal, vehicle owners could save more than 3

$4,000 over the life of their new vehicle, offsetting the 4

higher vehicle cost in under four years, and that's at 5

today's fuel prices. Consumers who buy a vehicle with a 6

typical 5

- year loan will see immediate savings about $12 a 7

month. 8

This proposal also comes at a time when 9

we're seeing a strengthening industry. In fact, at the Auto 10

Show here last week Detroit was called a beacon of hope for 11

the global auto industry. That's because of the double 12

digit growth in passenger vehicle sales in 2011 and 13

projected similar growth for 2012. And much of these gains 14

are coming from cleaner, more efficient vehicles. 15

Our petroleum addiction also has 16

significant environmental consequences. The combustion of 17

oil in our nation's fleet of light

- duty vehicles emits about 18

20 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon 19

dioxide and other potential heat

- trapping gases contribute 20

to climate change, which can threaten us at home and abroad. 21

The number of people at risk due to 22

droughts will increase, because many low

- rainfall areas are 23

projected to receive less rain and because rising 24

temperatures and evaporation will cause soils to dry. 25178

Seasonal snowpacks in the Western United States will shrink, 1

endangering water supplies relied upon by Western 2

communities. The number and extent of wildfires, insect 3

outbreak s, and tree mortality in the interior West and 4

southwest and Alaska will likely expand. And damaging 5

impacts outside of the United States may harm our trade, 6

humanitarian, and national security interests. 7

National disasters in 2011 wielded the 8

costliest toll in history

- a massive $380 billion worth of 9

losses from earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, 10

wildfires and tsunamis and more. And that figure does not 11

include the expenses associated with sickness or injuries 12

triggered by the disasters. 13

If finalized, stronger fuel efficiency 14

and GHG standards for passenger vehicles could reduce carbon 15

dioxide pollution by more than 6 billion tons over the life 16

of the program, the equivalent to the total CO2 emissions 17

for the entire United States in 2010. It would be the 18

biggest step our nation has taken yet to address climate 19

change, and many believe it would be the single biggest step 20

any nation has taken so far to address global climate 21

change. 22

In conclusion, I would like to say that 23

Environmental Defense Fund is proud to be among the 24

manufacturers, the automakers, the economists, the health 25179

and environmental advocates, the states, the national 1

security groups, the small businesses and the consumers who 2

all agree that cleaner, more efficient vehicles are a step 3

forward for American families and businesses. 4

Thank you. 5

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 6

Now we'll go to Mr. Kubsh. 7

MR. KUBSH: Thank you. 8

Good afternoon. My name is Joe Kubsh. 9

I'm the Executive Director of the Manufacturers of Emission 10

Controls Association, and I am pleased to provide comments 11

in support of EPA's and NHTSA's proposed rulemaking on 12

light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and 13

corporate average fuel economy. We believe an important 14

opportunity exists to significantly reduce greenhouse gas 15

emissions and improve fuel economy from passenger cars, 16

light

- duty vehicle trucks and medium duty passenger 17

vehicles. 18

MECA is a nonprofit association of the 19

world's leading manufacturers in emission control technology 20

for mobile sources. The experience of our industry over the 21

last 40 years vividly demonstrates the connection between 22

vehicle emission regulation and economic development. Prior 23

to 1970 our industry did not exist, but with the enact ment 24

of the Clean Air Act in 1970 our industry has flourished, 25180

developing successive generations of technology to meet 1

ever

- tightening regulatory standards. 2

In 2010 alone our industry generated 3

approximately $12 billion of economic activity in the United 4

States and accounted for approximately 65,000 jobs mostly in 5

manufacturing. EPA's greenhouse gas emission standards on 6

light

- duty and heavy

- duty vehicles are aiding in the 7

development of a thriving U.S. industry focused on a wide 8

range of technologies that can reduce vehicle greenhouse gas 9

emissions. 10

As detailed in EPA's proposal there are 11

a large set of technology combinations that are available to 12

further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger 13

vehicles and light

- duty trucks including fuel efficient 14

advanced gasoline and diesel powertrains. MECA, like many 15

commented already today, supports performance

- based 16

standards that are technology neutral. 17

Implicit in federal and state greenhouse 18

gas emission analyses is the ability of these advanced 19

powertrain options to meet the applicable criteria pollutant 20

emission standards. All of these advanced light

- duty 21

powertrain options combined with the appropriately designed 22

and optimized emission control technologies will be able to 23

meet all current and future federal and state criteria 24

emission requirements. In this manner, advanced emission 25181

controls for criteria pollutants enable advanced powertrains 1

to also be viable options for reducing greenhouse gas 2

emissions. In many cases the application and optimization 3

of advanced emission control technologies on advanced 4

powertrains can be achieved with minimal impacts on overall 5

fuel consumption. Auto manufacturers will also take 6

advantage of synergies between advanced emission control 7

technologies and advanced powertrains to assist in their 8

efforts to optimize their performance with respect to both 9

greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant exhaust emissions. 10

Advanced diesel emission control 11

technologies like particulate filters with lower 12

backpressure characteristics, selected reduction catalysts 13

with improved performance at lower exhaust temperatures and 14

SCR catalysts coated directly on particulate filter 15

substrates are examples of emerging diesel emission control 16

technologies that will allow future diesel powertrains to 17

not only be as clean as gasoline engines from a criteria 18

pollutant perspective, but diesel powertrains will deliver 19

improved fuel consumption characteristics and lower 20

greenhouse gas emissions. The use of diesel particulate 21

filters also delivers significant reductions in black carbon 22

emissions from diesel engines, a combustion emission that 23

also has important climate change impact. 24

For gasoline vehicles, direct injection 25182

technology enables gasoline engines to achieve fuel 1

efficiency and is expected to be a dominant pathway to 2

meeting future light

- duty gas emission standards. Again, 3

emission controls like secondary air injection systems and 4

3- way catalysts ensure that these more fuel

- efficient 5

gasoline engines meet tough EPA or California criteria 6

emission regulations. Advanced gasoline emission controls 7

catalysts are available and will continue to evolve and be 8

optimized to ensure that future gasoline direct injection 9

engines will meet the toughest criteria pollutant emission 10

standards with minimal impacts on overall vehicle exhaust 11

system backpressure and fuel consumption. 12

Under lean combustion conditions similar 13

emission control technology used on diesel vehicles can be 14

used to reduce emissions from lean, gas direct injection 15

powertrains. These include the particulate filters to 16

reduce PM emissions, SCR catalysts and/or lean NOx adsorber 17

catalysts known to reduce NOx emissions. Lean NOx adsorber 18

catalyst performance has a high degree of sensitivity to 19

fuel sulfur levels. The current EPA fuel sulfur limits for 20

gasoline are too high to allow lean NOx adsorber catalysts 21

to be a viable NOx control strategy for future fuel

22

efficient gasoline lean burn engines that employ direct fuel 23

injection technologies. MECA believes that EPA should lower 24

gasoline fuel sulfur limit to a 10 ppm national average and 25183

its pending Tier 3 light

- duty vehicle emission standards 1

proposal to allow NOx adsorber catalysts to be used on such 2

vehicles in the future in order to provide additional 3

options for improving the efficiency and reducing greenhouse 4

gas emissions from gasoline vehicles. 5

The performance of advanced emission 6

control technologies for advanced diesel gasoline and 7

natural gas

- fueled powertrains can also be optimized to 8

minimize nitrous oxide and methane greenhouse gas emissions 9

from future light

- duty vehicles consistent with the limits 10

EPA set for these important greenhouse gas emissions in 11

their initial round of light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas 12

emission standards. 13

Emissions controls for gasoline and 14

diesel engines can also be used with low carbon alternative 15

fuels, but it's important that the specifications associated 16

with any low carbon fuel should be compatible with the use 17

of available exhaust emission control technology. 18

To conclude, MECA commends EPA, NHTSA 19

and California for taking important steps to further reduce 20

greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for light

21

duty vehicles. Our industry is prepared to do its part and 22

deliver cost

- effective advanced emission control 23

technologies to the market for these more fuel effic ient 24

vehicles. 25184

Thank you for this opportunity to 1

provide comments on this proposal. 2

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 3

Mr. Dorobantu. 4

MR. DOROBANTU: Madam Director, 5

Mr. Administrative Director, I am Dr. Mihai Dorobantu, 6

Director of the Vehicle Technologies and Innovation team at 7

the Eaton Cooperation's Vehicle Group. I want to thank the 8

agencies for the opportunity to give testimony regarding the 9

proposed rule. 10

Eaton is a leading diversified, global 11

power management company with sales in 2010 of about $13.7 12

billion. We are fundamentally committed to helping the 13

world use less energy and use energy safely. Our innovative 14

technologies help customers manage electrical, hydraulic and 15

mechanical power safely and efficiently. In addition, these 16

four management technologies help customers control costs 17

and reduce the energy requirements. 18

Eaton has been actively helping 19

automotive and truck manufacturers to improve the efficiency 20

of their vehicles for over 100 years and we will continue to 21

deliver innovations that differentiate manufacturers in the 22

marketplace. We are a global leader in advanced engine 23

valve train systems, superchargers, and traction modifying 24

devices. We are also a global producer of fuel emission 25185

control devices and electrical vehicle charging stations. 1

Eaton provides automotive and truck manufacturers with 2

technical solutions that improve fuel efficiency and reduce 3

emissions without compromising performance. 4

It is the products and technologies from 5

Eaton's automotive operations that will be the focus of my 6

testimony today. 7

We manufacture engine subsystems such as 8

supercharger

- based boosting, variable valve activation and 9

cylinder deactivation products that contribute significantly 10

to the improvement in emissions and fuel economy driven by 11

the proposed standards. We believe our products and 12

technologies will offer OEMs attractive, practical choices 13

to comply with the standards and derive economic benefit 14

across the entire segment. 15

There are many stakeholders in the 16

light

- duty vehicle market that are pressed by commercial and 17

social responsibilities to improve performance, reduce fuel 18

consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What 19

brings us all together is the realization that reducing the 20

emissions and fuel consumption is also a business advantage 21

in the long term. If the new standards are carefully chosen 22

and implemented, they can drive benefits to a broad spectrum 23

of stakeholders by reducing the total cost of operations for 24

customers, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, 25186

fostering innovation, and creating high

- value jobs while 1

fundamentally improving our environment. 2

Eaton appreciates the agency's use of 3

sound economic analysis and in

- depth technology reviews 4

during the rulemaking process. We believe that the 5

framework outlined in the NPRM is a good step towards the 6

final regulation that will foster innovation, foster both 7

techn ology and competition while maintaining fleet diversity 8

and incentivizing over

- achievement of emissions and fuel 9

economy targets. It is important that certain principles 10

outlined in the notice are further developed in the upcoming 11

period. 12

Eaton believes it is vital that the rule 13

maintains the flexibility to adapt the solutions that can be 14

rapidly adopted by OEMs and accepted by consumers. An 15

example is the increased use of supercharged and mild hybrid 16

technolo gies that provide fuel savings and performance with 17

return on investments that is acceptable to the average 18

consumer. 19

The proposed rule provides regulatory 20

incentives that foster innovation and technology deployment. 21

We believe that many of the technologies needed to achieve 22

the proposed standards are available. Some are already in 23

use, while others will benefit from the new paradigm these 24

proposed regulations will provide. Working with our OEM 25187

partners, Eaton looks forward to providing high performance 1

and cost

- effective fuel efficient technologies. Eaton is 2

looking forward to participating in the rulemaking process 3

with specific comments to the EPA and NHTSA on the proposed 4

rule in the near future

. 5

Thank you. 6

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 7

Mr. Griffin. 8

MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Deputy 9

Administrator and Director Oge, and thank you all for your 10

time here t oday. 11

Good afternoon. I am Charles Griffith, 12

Climate & Energy Program Director at the Ecology Center, an 13

environmental nonprofit organization based in nearby Ann 14

Arbor since 1970. I am here to express my organization's 15

stron g support for the proposed standards. 16

The Ecology Center has had a long 17

history of involvement in the promotion of policies to 18

encourage the improvement in vehicle fuel economy and reduce 19

greenhouse gas emissions. Currently we are coordinating the 20

Built By Michigan campaign, an effort to advance policies in 21

the state as well as nationally that help promote the sale 22

and use of electric vehicles and other advanced vehicle 23

technologies. Our effort includes businesses, loca l 24

government officials, electric vehicle enthusiasts and 25188

others who share a common interest in ensuring that the U.S. 1

auto industry remains a leader in the development of these 2

emerging technologies and to support a range of policies and 3

other programs that can help to support their 4

commercialization and manufacture here in our state and 5

across the country. Clearly the proposed standards that we 6

are discussing here today represent one of those needed 7

policies. 8

There are some other specific comments 9

in support of the proposed standards I would like to make 10

today. 11

One is that the proposed standards 12

continue the attribute

- based structure and requirements for 13

steady improvement that were established in the current 14

standards. When first proposed by the agencies in 2009 15

following the historic 2007 Energy Independence and Security 16

Act, this new approach represented a breakthrough in 17

regulation for this sector. Not only were the requirements 18

more fairly applied among vehicle manufacturers but the 19

rules also more effectively stimulated innovation by 20

requiring improvements across all vehicle sizes and classes. 21

The rules also included provisions that help ensure the 22

continued production of domestic fuel

- efficient vehicles, 23

and we support those as well. 24

Second, we do like the longer time frame 25189

contained in the proposed rules. By looking out further 1

into the future the rules can ensure consistency of approach 2

and allow manufacturers to better plan for the vehicles that 3

they will need to develop. While we do have some concerns 4

about the proposed mid

- term review providing an opportunity 5

to slow progress, we understand the need for potential 6

adjustments due to many unknowns that far into the future. 7

We are hopeful that such a review will show that even more 8

progress is achievable. 9

We are especially supportive of the fact 10

that the proposed rules will not only lead to significant 11

reductions in petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions, 12

but that they will also lead to big savings by consumers at 13

the pump as well as to the economy generally. The estimated 14

consumer savings of approximately $3,000 to $4,400 in net 15

lifetime savings is almost certainly a conservative estimate 16

when considering likely increases in the fuel prices and 17

improvements in technology. The estimated social level 18

benefits of $311 to $421 billion are, therefore, li kely 19

conservative as well. We certainly think that consumers and 20

businesses alike who rely on transportation will all 21

significantly benefit from having the 300

- plus billion 22

dollars more in their pocketbooks to spend on other things. 23

Equally impressive are estimates of job 24

creation and benefits to the manufacturing sector. 25190

According to research commissioned by Ceres more than 1

500,000 new jobs would be created as a result of the new 2

standards, many of them here in Michigan. Another study on 3

the automotive supply chain for fuel

- efficient vehicle 4

technologies found there were already more than 150,000 5

people employed in the advanced engine, transmission and 6

other electric vehicle supply sectors with over 38,000 of 7

those jobs here in Michigan. Jobs in these automotive 8

supply chains could be expected to nearly double with the 9

implementation of the new proposed standards. 10

It's important to note that while 11

significant job losses have been sustained in the automotive 12

industry in recent years, investments and new fuel

- efficient 13

technologies now provide a strong basis for new 14

manufacturing job growth, providing even greater 15

competitiveness for the U.S. going forward. The proposed 16

standards along with other policies to facilitate research, 17

development, and commercialization of new technologies will 18

help to ensure those job gains continue to be realized here 19

in the region as well as in the U.S. more broadly. 20

The Ecology Center would also like to 21

express support for the flexibility mechanisms in the 22

proposed standards, and in particular the incentives for 23

electric vehicles, plug

- in electrics and fuel cell vehicles. 24

As I stated earlier, support for these 25191

emerging technologies is critical if we are to maintain U.S. 1

leadership and encourage new manufacturing opportunities 2

here at home. We do agree, however, that the incentives 3

should be phased out over time so the full emissions of 4

these vehicles can be accounted for. We, therefore, support 5

the decrease in the incentive multiplier and the proposed 6

manufacturer caps on the 0

- gram per mile value for upstream 7

emissions. 8

Beyond the direct benefits of the 9

standard, the Ecology Center would like to commend the EPA 10

and NHTSA on its successful negotiation that is reflected in 11

the standards we are discussing here today. It is no small 12

feat to be able to bring together such a broad 13

representation of interests including the automotive, 14

environmental and consumer groups as well as the State of 15

California to negotiate a rule that all parties can support. 16

We believe it is important to recognize the successful 17

process that the agencies have managed and led, including 18

the cooperation between the two agencies itself. 19

In closing, we would like to thank the 20

agencies for their exceptional work on these proposed rules 21

and for the opportunity to speak here today. 22

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 23

Mr. German. 24

MR. GERMAN: Hello. My name is John 25192

German. I am happy to present comments on the proposed 1

vehicl e standards on behalf of the International Council on 2

Clean Transportation. 3

ICCT has broad expertise in all 4

transportation areas and our primary mission is to help 5

regulatory agencies worldwide reduce air quality pollutants 6

an d greenhouse gas emissions. 7

While the U.S. has consistently been the 8

world's leader in reducing pollutant emissions, U.S. 9

policies on transportation fuel efficiency and greenhouse 10

emissions have been far less effective. The 2016 rule took 11

a giant step towards catching up and the proposed rule would 12

extend the progress and set longer term requirements. We 13

applaud EPA, NHTSA, along with California, the 14

Administration and the vehicle manufacturers for taking 15

another large step along the road to a sustainable 16

transportation system. 17

My comments today will focus on the 18

conservative nature of the technology benefit and cost 19

analyses of the rule. I will also touch upon the safety 20

benefits of the rule and suggested improvements in program 21

design and off

- cycle credits. Alan Lloyd's testimony next 22

week on behalf of ICCT will focus on the standard 23

development process and on suggestions for improvements on 24

some of the credits. ICCT will provide detailed written 25193

comments to the docket and will also address additional 1

issues such as the consumer welfare and the interim review. 2

The opportunities to improve efficiency 3

in the near term are far larger than most people realize. 4

The internal combustion engine is widely perceived as 5

century

- old technology that is at the end of its 6

development, but the reality is exactly the opposite. 7

Computer simulations, computer

- aide d design are enabling 8

vastly improved designs and technologies. On

- board computer 9

controls provide unprecedented integration of engine, 10

transmission and hybrids operation. Instead of slowing 11

down, the pace of technology development just keeps 12

accelerating. 13

The sophistication of assessing 14

technology efficiency improvements has been increasing as 15

well. To support development of the 2025 standards EPA 16

contracted with Ricardo to conduct full

- system simulation 17

modeli ng of the latest technology developments. 18

ICCT has been intensively involved in 19

the simulation modeling process for the last two years. It 20

is very clear to us that the technology being assessed by 21

Ricardo are on the conservative side. In fact, this is 22

unavoidable due to the restriction to the currently 23

available data and engine maps. Engine technology is 24

improving much faster than we can keep up with, and engines 25194

better than those modeled by Ricardo are already in 1

de velopment. For example, the diesel maps used by Ricardo 2

for the U.S. simulations are already out of date, and ICCT 3

has already recontracted with Ricardo to rerun the diesel 4

simulations for Europe using maps representative of the 5

latest diesel technology. 6

Another example is the engine map for 7

the gasoline engine with boosted

- EGR which is higher fuel 8

consumption than a similar concept in development by the 9

energy absorption. 10

This rapid technology improvement can 11

also be seen by looking at historical data. The 2001 12

Natural Research Council report found that turbocharging and 13

downsizing could improve fuel economy by 5 to 7 percent. 14

The most recent estimates in the draft RIA found this 15

benefit is now two to three times higher. This is not due 16

to the older estimates being wrong, but rather to rapid 17

improvements in combustion and turbocharging technology over 18

the last 10 years. 19

By comparison, the 2025 rules are 20

13 years away. The efficiency estimates in the draft rule 21

are actually quite conservative and there should not be any 22

consideration of rolling them back. 23

Computer simulations will especially 24

impact lightweight material design. In the past 25195

optimization of materials was a long, slow process of 1

gradually changing a few parts of the time to avoid 2

unanticipated problems with safety, ride, noise and 3

vibration. 4

The recent development of sophisticated 5

and accurate vehicle simulations is opening up a new world. 6

The initial use of these models was to improve safety 7

design. The simulations were so effective that 5 star crash 8

ratings became almost universal and NHTSA had to revise 9

their rating criteria. The simulations are continuing to 10

rapidly improve to the point where they are starting to be 11

used to simultaneously optimize the material composition, 12

shape and thickness of every individual part, including 13

secondary weight reductions. 14

The shift in material design 15

capabilities also impacts the cost to reduce vehicle weight. 16

The studies in progress by Lotus and FEV are using highly 17

sophisticated simulation models to optimize part material 18

and design. The results of these studies will be far more 19

accurate of future designs and they must be used to assess 20

the costs of weight reduction for the final rule. 21

ICCT is also paying FEV to do additional 22

teardown cost assessments in connection with our work in 23

Europe. These include updating the future hybrid costs, new 24

cost assessments for advanced diesel engines, basic 25196

start/stop systems, manual transmissions and cool EGR 1

systems. These results will be shared with EPA and NHTSA as 2

they become available. 3

ICCT will address the safety issues in 4

more detail in our written comments including the results 5

from DRI's latest safety analysis. 6

I will just make two quick observations. 7

First, every time Kahane reanalyzes the impact of mass 8

reduction on fatalities, the fatality increase goes down. 9

More importantly, the coefficients in Kahane's modeling 10

reflects the material composition in historical vehicles. 11

This is dominated by conventional steel. This modeling 12

implicitly assumes that lighter vehicles do not change 13

material composition. However, future weight reduction will 14

be accomplished primarily with use of high -s trength steel 15

and aluminum, both of which have better crash properties 16

than the standard steel. Their use will improve vehicle 17

crash performance and reduce fatalities, even in small cars. 18

In fact, Honda has moved aggressively towards the use of 19

high strength steel in small cars, in part due to the safety 20

benefits. 21

ICCT strongly supports the overall 22

program stringency. However, we are concerned some 23

cost

- effective reductions may not be achieved due to certain 24

elements found in the performance rule. 25197

One of ICCT's guiding principles is that 1

standards should be technology neutral. The proposed 2

provisions to assign zero carbon emissions to electric

- only 3

operation and for artificial credits for certain pickup 4

truck technologies distort the compliance system and reduce 5

the overall benefits of the program. The separate footprint 6

curve to cars and light trucks also distort the requirements 7

by making it easier for vehicles classified as light trucks 8

to comply. A single footprint function would still give 9

larger trucks a less stringent target to meet while avoiding 10

vehicle classification games. 11

Another guiding principle is the 12

requirement should properly represent in

- use emissions. Our 13

concerns here center on the off

- cycle credits and the 14

failure to include non

- CO2 climate forcing agents such as 15

black carbon. ICCT supports the concept of off

- cycle 16

credits. However, we will provide detailed wri tten 17

suggestions on how to better implement them so that they are 18

valid and avoid double counting. 19

In closing the ultimate goal is to 20

create a sustainable transportation system. ICCT looks 21

forward to working with everyone involved including, first 22

of all, including the federal and state agencies and vehicle 23

manufacturers to help shape the best policies and programs 24

to meet our clean air, energy security and climate change 25198

objectives. 1

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 2

Luke Tonachel. 3

MR. TONACHEL: Good afternoon, and thank 4

you for the opportunity to testify today. 5

My name is Luke Tonachel, and I'm a 6

senior analyst in the Energy and Transportation Program at 7

the Natural Resources Defense Council. 8

I am pleased to be here on behalf of 9

NRDC's 1.3 million members and on

- line activists. 10

The proposed standards are a giant step 11

forward. The standards are good for the environment, 12

consumers, and the economy. The standards ensure that as a 13

nation we are investing in our future instead of being 14

beholden to a status quo of heavy dependence on oil which is 15

fueling dangerous emissions of carbon pollution and draining 16

our economic wealth. 17

These standards present the U.S. with a 18

choice on how to spend a half trillion dollars over the next 19

20 years. A half trillion dollars is a conservative 20

estimate of the value of the fuel savings from this program 21

from 2017 to 2030. Without the standards we will 22

unnecessarily send $350 billion overseas to OPEC and other 23

oil

- producing countries. We will also pad the revenues of 24

the oil industry by another $150 billion. 25199

By raising standards to the equivalent 1

of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, we'll invest that 2

$500 billion back into our economy and create almost 500,000 3

new jobs while cutting carbon pollutio n. 4

Under the rule, the U.S. would invest 5

about $300 billion in new vehicle technologies bringing 6

cleaner, more fuel

- efficient cars and trucks to the 7

marketplace. Consumers would have an additional $200 8

billion in their pockets to spend on the economy, thanks to 9

the fuel sipping vehicles. 10

Making better vehicles means more U.S. 11

jobs. A recent report from the investor group Ceres 12

estimates that the auto industry investments and consumer 13

savings triggered by the proposed standards would generate 14

484,000 jobs across the country. This is not surprising. 15

NRC recently partnered with the UAW and 16

the National Wildlife Federation to quantify the jobs being 17

spurred by the current 2012 to 2016 standards. In our joint 18

report, "Supplying Ingenuity," we found that over 150,000 19

workers are currently employed in 300 automotive supply 20

companies across 43 states to make parts that enable cars 21

and trucks to cut pollution and go further on a gallon of 22

gas. 23

Consumers win under this proposal 24

because they have more choices of cleaner, fuel

- efficient 25200

offerings in the showroom. As the agencies' analysis shows, 1

consumer s will have net savings of up to $4,400 over the 2

life of their vehicle under the standard. Importantly, for 3

most consumers that finance their vehicles, the net savings 4

will be brought home immediately. 5

Under the standards the combination of 6

fuel expenditures and new car payments will be lower in the 7

first month. By 2030 the aggregate national savings will 8

provide the equivalent of an annual tax rebate of $330 for 9

every American household. 10

Consumers want cleaner, more 11

fuel

- efficient vehicles, and they are buying them. 12

According to data from the University of Michigan, the 13

average fuel economy of new vehicles since data was first 14

collected in October 2007 has been increasing year over 15

year. 16

Improved efficiency is being achieved 17

across the fleet. Gone are the days when the V

- 8s were 18

king. 6

- and 4

- cylinder engines are the norm with thrifty 19

4- cylinders being the most popular choice. The agencies' 20

analysis shows the internal combustion engines will continue 21

to reign through the 2017 to 2025 standards. Over 80 22

percent of new vehicles in 2025 will be internal combustion 23

engine cars and vehicles with more advanced and innovative 24

engines, transmissions and bo dies. 25201

Hybrid electric and plug

- in electric 1

vehicles will continue to grow in the marketplace, but most 2

new cars and trucks under the standard will run solely on 3

gasoline, just less of it. In addition to using less gas, 4

these new vehicles will cut emissions of dangerous global 5

warming pollution in half compared to today's average 6

vehicles. 7

NSRC estimates that the 297 million 8

metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions in 2030 from the 9

standards is equivalent to avoiding the annual emissions 10

from 76 coal

- fired power plants. 11

These standards will help protect our 12

economy by helping reduce extreme weather events such as 13

hurricanes, heat waves and floods. 14

The national program and this latest set 15

of standards are examples of good government. Despite the 16

gridlock in Congress, the EPA, NHTSA and the California Air 17

Resources Board have demonstrated an effective partnership 18

to develop policies that meet the objectives of the Clean 19

Air Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 20

Each agency has played an important and 21

critical role in shaping this proposal. This proposal is 22

also a product of discussions with the automotive industry, 23

labor, environmental, and consumer stakeholders, and the 24

result is a strong set of standards. 25202

In conclusion, the U.S. has an 1

opportunity to invest half a trillion dollars over the next 2

20 nears. Implementing the 2017 to 2025 standards will 3

allow us to invest that money in America. It will promote 4

vehicle technology leadership, protect the environment, help 5

consumers and create U.S. jobs. 6

Some in Congress seek to disrupt t his 7

standard

- setting process. If they were to succeed, 8

Americans would be robbed of more choices of cleaner, more 9

efficient vehicles, the automotive industry would struggle 10

under the market uncertainties driven by volatile fuel 11

prices, and the nation would be faced with greater oil 12

dependence and pollution. The agencies should forge ahead, 13

keep the model year 2017 to 2025 standards strong and make 14

them final this summer. 15

Thank you for your attention. 16

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 17

Mr. Ross. 18

MR. ROSS: Distinguished Panel, my name 19

is Matt Ross. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 20

I was leading soldiers into Iraq the 21

first day of the war in 2003. There I was awarded the 22

Bronze Star and the Presidential Unit Citation. Today I'm 23

here to talk to you from the Truman National Security 24

Project in view of some encouragement to bolster our 25203

national security. 1

Several weeks into the invasion in Iraq, 2

I was setting up a Tactical Operation Center. We were just 3

north of the Euphrates River. Baghdad had not yet fallen. 4

A plane zoomed above the treetops too low even for close air 5

support. The surface

- to

- air damaged A10 Thunderbolt crashed 6

a couple hundred yards from our position, and we pulled back 7

as the uranium

- depleted ammunition started to kick off. 8

A few days later I was sitting in the 9

pilot ejection seat reflecting on our purpose for being 10

there, and I was looking out over our JP8 fuel trucks and 11

they were parked in front of the rusting Iraqi oil 12

infrastructure, and I realized this country doesn't have 13

many assets. About the only thing of value here are the 14

gigantic oil reserves, and as our President George W. Bush 15

put it, America is addicted to oil. 16

So lack of a forward

- thinking energy 17

policy has created this unsustainable dependence on foreign 18

oil by this great country of ours. We have just 3 percent 19

of proven world reserves, and we use approximately 20

25 percent of global oil production. The military cost of 21

sustaining and securing this foreign oil is terrible. 22

Former CIA director James Woolsey 23

clearly stated the case: Except for our own Civil War, this 24

is the only war we have fought where we are paying for both 25204

sides. We pay Saudi Arabia $160 billion for its oil, and 3 1

or 4 billion of that goes to the Wahabis that teach children 2

to hate. We are paying for these terrorists with our SUVs

- 3

a clear and present case to be sure. Other hostile 4

governments like Iran and Venezuela of course use our petrol 5

dollars against us in other ways. 6

The Pentagon knows well how oil impacts 7

national security. The DOD is, of course, the largest 8

single user of petroleum in the nation. So the most 9

powerful military force on the planet could not function 10

without it. As a result, the U.S. military is actually 11

taking major steps towards clean, renewable energy 12

production. For instance, out at Fort Carson, Colorado, the 13

Army has partnered with a local energy provider to build a 14

floatable tank solar array that powers some 540 homes. The 15

Navy has already commissioned its first electric drive 16

surface warfare ship in the U.S. Makin Island and 17

additionally they intend to employ a carbon

- neutral carrier 18

strength force group using bio

- fuel and nuclear power by 19

2016. Clearly our military leaders have identified energy 20

as a national defense issue. 21

There are enormous negative 22

externalities for burning fossil fuel that jeopardize our 23

national security. In February 2010 the Pentagon p ublished 24

the first quadrennial defense review which specifically 2520 5

addressed climate change. Climate change will contribute to 1

food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease 2

and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate 3

c hange alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an 4

accelerant of instability of conflict placing a burden to 5

respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the 6

world. You've all heard the U.S. military referred to as 7

the 9 -1- 1 of the world. That's why I'm here. 8

So, in addition to these extreme weather 9

events that may lead to increased demands for defense 10

support to civilian authorities for humanitarian assistance 11

or disaster response both within U.S. and overseas, in 2008 12

the National Intelligence Council judged more than 30 U.S. 13

military installations were already facing elevated volatile 14

risks from rising sea levels. So to be clear, the Pentagon 15

is not prone to shall I say "save the polar bears" typ e 16

crusades. So clearly if the Pentagon is taking steps in 17

this direction, this is a clear and present threat to 18

national security and we need to pay attention. 19

We've known for decades that fossil 20

fuels cause serious environmental harm and now it's clear 21

that they're endangering our national security. 22

So we are extremely privileged to live 23

in this great nation. Like the A10 Thunderbolt the U.S. is 24

resilient, well built, battle

- tested. However, the fossil 25206

fuel addiction we have threatens our national security much 1

as the Iraqi anti

- aircraft crews threatened that A10 2

Thunderbolt. 3

Now, the pilot ejected seconds before 4

his plane crashed and parachuted to safety. We as a na tion 5

don't have that option. We need to change the course on the 6

energy policy before it's too late. The new EPA proposal 7

for 54.5 miles per gallon is a great step in that direction. 8

Thank you. 9

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. We would like 10

to thank you for your testimony and we would like thank you 11

and appreciate your service to our country. Thank you very 12

much. 13

MR. ROSS: You're welcome. 14

MR. MEDFORD: Mr. Shaw. 15

MR. SHAW: Good afternoon and thank you 16

for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide 17

comment on proposed CAFE rules. 18

My name is Jody Shaw. I'm the Director 19

of Technical Marketing & Product Research for United States 20

Steel Corporation. 21

My role within U. S. Steel is to assist 22

the automotive industry to make the best use of our product 23

vehicle structure in all applications and to ensure U .S. 24

Steel is producing the products that the automotive industry 25207

requires today and in the future. 1

I'm also the Chairman of World 2

Automotive Steel, the automotive applications organization 3

for the World Steel Association representing 17 global steel 4

companies that provide the vast majority of the steel for 5

the 16 million vehicles globally produced each year. 6

The goal of WorldAutoSteel is to 7

demonstrate the advantages of steel in vehicle design as 8

well as establish the technical requirements of steels in 9

future vehicles. 10

The message I'm providing you today 11

complements the position taken by the global steel industry 12

and the other pro -e nvironmental stakeholders who share the 13

objectives of reducing the carbon footprint of motor 14

vehicles. 15

U.S. Steel supports the objectives of 16

the EPA and NHTSA to improve fuel economy and reduce the 17

greenhouse gas emissions associated with light vehicles. We 18

also support the Energy Independence and Security Act of 19

2007 and the President's May 21st, 2010, request that the 20

EPA and NHTSA work together to develop a national program 21

that would produce a new generation of clean vehicles in 22

response to the country's goal of reducing carbon emissions 23

and reducing oil consumption. 24

CAFE was initiated in 1975 in the wake 25208

of the 1973 oil embargo with the objective of reducing 1

dependence on foreign oil. That program adopted miles per 2

gallon measured in the equivalent tailpipe grams of CO2 per 3

mile as the method to achieve reduction in oil consumption. 4

It was the right approach to achieve this stated objective. 5

However, extending that same measure 6

towards the new objectives of reducing greenhouse gas 7

emissions will not achieve the intended outcome, but in 8

contrast it will result in increased total energy use and 9

CO2 emissions. In fact, the magnitude of these unintended 10

consequences will increase as the fuel economy in grams of 11

CO2 per mile become more stringent between now and 2025. 12

To explain, a vehicle consumes energy 13

and emits CO2 during all phases of its life which includes 14

manufacturing , driving and end

- of

- life disposal. 15

Considering all phases of a vehicle's life accurately 16

measures its true carbon footprint. 17

In today's vehicle the driving phase CO2 18

emissions represents 85 percent of the vehicle's total 19

carbon footprint which allows the regulators to ignore the 20

other phases of impact. However, as fuel economy 21

requirements double from 27.5 miles per gallon today to 54.5 22

miles per gallon in 2025 the driving phase conditions will 23

be cut in half, thus increasing the importance of the other 24

vehicle savings. 25209

Also consider that many of the 1

technologies and materials necessary to achieve these fuel 2

economy improvements are energy and CO2 intensive in the 3

manufacturing phase and will increase the vehicle's 4

manufacturing phase CO2 emissions altering end

- of

- life 5

impact in both relative and absolute measures. 6

Several recent studies demonstrate that 7

vehicles aiming to achieve the future fuel economy and 8

tailpipe emission targets will have a 50/50 split between 9

CO2 emissions associated with the driving phase and other 10

phases. Under the proposed regulation 50 percent or more of 11

the total CO2 emission associated with these future vehicles 12

will fall outside of the regulation. 13

So how does this conflict with the 14

national objective of using CO2 emissions and energy use of 15

vehicles to address climate change? As I stated, many 16

technologies are required to achieve the proposed 54.5 miles 17

per gallon target of high manufacturing emissions. Examples 18

of this: The materials that compete with steel such as 19

aluminum, magnesium and carbon fiber, which are 6 to 20 20

times more energy

- and carbon

- intensive in the manufacturing 21

phase on a pound

- per

- pound basis. 22

While these materials may improve fuel 23

economy and tailpipe CO2 emissions in the driving phase, 24

those improvements are not sufficient to offset the upstream 25210

CO2 emissions associated with producing these materials. 1

To address these unintended consequences 2

and achieve optimal environmental resource allocation, 3

future regulations should evaluate CO2 emissions associated 4

with all the vehicle's life. This will ensure that 5

technologies are not deployed and improve the driving phase 6

emissions while increasing a vehicle's overall carbon 7

footprint. 8

In this regard we have been working with 9

EPA and NHTSA over the past several years to consider the 10

more appropriate methodology which resulted in Section 3.G.5 11

of the NPRM requesting additional information on this topic 12

for which I would like to thank and commend the EPA and 13

NHTSA for their open

- mindedness on this issue. 14

There are many advantages to a vehicle's 15

CO2 regulatory approaches and corporate lifecycle thinking 16

over the current tailpipe emissions approach, beyond the 17

obvious advantage of actually achieving the intended outcome 18

of reduced energy use and CO2 emissions. 19

First, such an approach will enable 20

vehicle makers with increased design flexibility in 21

complying with the regulation which will result in lower 22

cost vehicles and improved environment performance. 23

Vehicle makers can provide an example 24

that the lowest lifecycle CO2 technology solution is also 25211

the low cost solution. In contrast, the same examples also 1

demonstrate that the selection of technology to improve fuel 2

economy and tailpipe emissions alone would have resulted in 3

increased manufacturing costs while increasing the carbon 4

footprint of the vehicle. Regulations that drive vehicle 5

makers towards solutions that increase cost and total carbon 6

emissions does not make sense. Regulations that incorporate 7

lifecycle thinking will address such unintended 8

consequences. 9

A second advantage is that it would 10

drive the vehicle supply chain to reduce the carbon 11

intensity of their products because of the commercial 12

advantage you would provide them; that is, low carbon 13

suppliers would provide a competitive advantage to their 14

customer, the vehicle manufacturer, in complying with the 15

regulations. Regulations properly executed result in a race 16

to the CO2 bottom as manufacturers compete to be the low 17

carbon supplier. The studies sponsored by the steel 18

industry and conducted by the University of California at 19

Davis proposes a methodology for CAFE regulation that 20

incorporates lifecycle thinking while maintaining the simple 21

grams of grams of CO2 per mile metric on current EPA/DOT 22

vehicle stickers. And that will dovetail into the existing 23

CAFE regulations. This methodology addresses the unintended 24

consequences and results in real carbon reductions associated 25212

with vehicles using information readily available to the 1

vehicle makers. 2

This proposed lifecycle methodology 3

still needs further development in order to be incorporated 4

into regulation, but great strides are being made and should 5

be ready for trial in the coming years. Already several 6

automakers are utilizing lifecycle tools during vehicle 7

design. The steel industry is building a consortium of 8

stakeholders to further develop this lifecycle methodology 9

and identify the details to ensure its feasibility and 10

regulations. Properly devised, we believe lifecycle tools 11

incorporated into the regulation will result in a better 12

framework that increases flexibility for auto designers and 13

improves transparency while enhancing the environmental 14

integrity of the underlying regulation. 15

The current 2017

- 2025 light

- duty vehicle 16

emissions proposals call for a mid

- term evaluation that will 17

lead to a final agency action. We believe that a complete 18

evaluation of the feasibility of incorporating lifecycle 19

thinking into vehicle emissions regulations is possible 20

within the mid

- term evaluation phase. 21

We will continue to work closely with 22

EPA and NHTSA on this issue and urge the agency to actively 23

solicit advice and input from multidisciplinary experts 24

prior to the mid

- term review. 25213

In the 110

- year history of the United 1

States Steel Corporation, we have conducted ourselves 2

according to a framework of sustainable business conduct and 3

corporate citizenship established by one of our founders, 4

Elbert H. Gary. These principles known as the Gary 5

principles are established in nine uncomplicated statements. 6

The first of these statements is I 7

believe that when a thing is right it will ultimately and 8

permanently succeed. In light of that principle, lifecycle 9

thinking applied to climate change regulations is the right 10

thing, and I believe it will ultimately succeed; however, 11

ultimately could be a long time with unintended and harmful 12

consequences occurring before the right thing is finally 13

employed. 14

We have an opportunity here to implement 15

the right solution in the near term and avoid unintended 16

consequences. Vehicle emission regulations that incorporate 17

lifecycle thinking is the right approach to achieve positive 18

environ mental economic objectives. Accordingly we urge 19

regulatory policymakers to begin to investigate the 20

application of lifecycle analytics and metrics into future 21

vehicle emission regulations. 22

Thank you. 23

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. 24

Questions from any of my colleagues? 25214

MS. OGE: I have one question for 1

Mr. Shaw. 2

Thank you for your testimony. 3

So your proposal for the lifecycle 4

analysis for steel and high strength steel material, is your 5

proposal also applied for every substantive and every 6

material that is used in the car anywhere from fabrics to 7

plastics to graphite? That's one question. 8

The second: Have you talked to the 9

OEMs, because what you are suggesting is that they would be 10

responsible to do lifecycle analysis for the material they 11

are using in addition to the other materials to give us for 12

the standards. 13

So two questions. 14

Thank you. 15

MR. SHAW: Thank you. 16

Yes. The intent and the examples we 17

provided in our discussions with the EPA and NHTSA would 18

include all the materials, but there's a bill of materials 19

that are associated with the vehicle, and it's a standard 20

deliverable that every vehicle comes with, and those can be 21

interpreted with the database as the materials. 22

So I agree that for OEM to chase the 23

target footprint for the whole supply chain for the 24

thousands of suppliers that produce the vehicle won't be 25215

possible. The approach we are recommending uses the 1

database which are available such as the national GREET 2

model that have this data already included in there and it 3

comes very simplified, and there are examples by the OEM of 4

the production vehicles today that have done that. 5

And, also, we have shared this with, at 6

the recommendation, to the Alliance of Automotive 7

Manufacturers and made the same kind of discussion. Of 8

course, adding another layer of regulation on top of these 9

ones were not seen very positively. 10

So, when we got through the presentation 11

of this idea of design increases design flexibility; they 12

saw an opportunity in that they would have more ability to 13

comply with the regulations; and, so, they were interested 14

in more information, and we will continue to work with them. 15

We think we can have a reasonable solution by the interim 16

review. 17

Thank you. 18

MS. OGE: Thank you. 19

MR. MEDFORD: I'd like to thank the 20

panel for your testimony this afternoon and for your 21

indulgence and your time. So thank you very much. 22

MS. OGE: Before we have our next panel, 23

there's a request by a group of ladies that have asked to 24

briefly make some statements for this public hearing, so I 25216

will ask them to come forward. If I pronounce your names 1

right, but Nancy Goedert and Sharon Strus and Carolyn 2

Dougherty and April Mitchell. If you could please have a 3

seat. What would you like to do? 4

So for the reporter, you need to say who 5

you are. 6

MS. GOEDERT: This will only take about 7

three minutes. We are the Raging Grannies, and we have a 8

couple of songs, quick songs for you. 9

Nancy Goedert, G -O-E-D-E-R- T. 10

MS. STRUS: Sharon Strus, S -T-R-U- S. 11

MS. DOUGHERTY: Carolyn Dougherty. 12

MS. MITCHELL: April Mitchell. 13

THE RAGING GRANNIES: The people in cars 14

go round and round, round and round, round and round. The 15

people in the cars go round and round all through the town. 16

The people in the street go cough, 17

cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough. The 18

people in the street go cough, cough, cough, all through the 19

town. 20

We Grannies out here say Clean up it, 21

Clean it up, Clean it up, we Grannies out here say Clean it 22

up, we want it now. 23

MS. GOEDERT: And we have one more. 24

THE RAGING GRANNIES: Let's not buy an 25217

automobile that pollutes air, water and field. We demand 1

earth friendly cars, so Earth won't become like mars. We 2

must care for Mother Earth so she can keep on giving birth 3

and sustain our lives in a healthful way. Let's resolved to 4

do it today. 5

MS. DOUGHERTY: I have a question. 6

Just from what I had heard, there's so 7

much progress with computers and all the materials, the use 8

of materials and the strengthening of the field and 9

et cetera, it seems like there should be periodic 10

improvements, you know, sort of getting it all together and 11

there must be a way that people are communicating with each 12

other, I suppose. So that seemed interesting. 13

MS. OGE: I want to thank

-- you're 14

known as the Raging Grandmas. We thank you all for coming. 15

MR. MEDFORD: This is the best 16

entertainment I've ever had in a hearing. 17

MS. OGE: Let's give them a hand. 18

Now we're going to go our next panel. I 19

hope the next panel will be as entertaining. 20

So I will ask Jody Shaw, Doug Richman, 21

Jim Crowfoot, Walter McManus, Jeffrey Breneman and Judy 22

Lindberg to please come forward. 23

I'm going to apologize for asking the 24

panel to come forward. We're going to take a 10

- minute 25218

break because the reporter needs a break. Without her, we 1

have no record and we need that accurate so she's in charge 2

for the time

-- for this panel. Thank you. 3

(A short recess was taken) 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25219

1

MS. OGE: Hello I think we're ready to start. 2

Can you please take your seats? So forgive us for the 3

interruption, but we're ready to start. So we will 4

start with Mr. Doug Richman. And I'd ask you to please 5

state your name and do speak slowly, not that slow, but 6

you know, sufficiently slowly so your remarks can be 7

recorded. 8

MR. RICHMAN: Okay. Good afternoon. And my 9

name is Doug Richman. I'm Vice

- President of 10

Engineering at Kaiser Aluminum, and I'm here today 11

representing the Automotive Transportation Group of the 12

Aluminum Association. And I want to sincerely thank 13

the panel for allowing us this opportunity to comment 14

on this regulation, regards as an extremely important 15

piece of regulation and one that has a major potential 16

impact on the automobile transportation future of our 17

nation. 18

We recognize that developing a comprehensive 19

national fuel economy regulation is a formidable task 20

with profound consequences, and we want to sincerely 21

congratulate the agencies on the outstanding job. We 22

sincerely see it as an outstanding body of work and the 23

conclusions are realistic, attainable and will achieve 24

our national objectives in energy so we think it's an 25220

outstanding job and a credit to all of the agencies and 1

individuals who are involved. It's been a pleasure to 2

work with the organizations. 3

My comments today will address the issues of 4

the advanced materials as they are applied and referred 5

to within the context of the NPRM strictly delegating 6

our comments to the materials portion only. And as 7

part of our testimony today, we'd like to enter four 8

recent documents into the record. I'll briefly 9

summarize them. These comments and printed copies will 10

be submitted with our written testimonial in response 11

to the document. 12

The four studies that we would like to enter 13

are first the Ducker Worldwide survey of materials used 14

in the auto industries of 2012 projecting material 15

usages out to 2025 in response to anticipated changes 16

in fuel economy regulation be the first one. The 17

second one we're going to enter into the record is a 18

recent study conducted by DuPont where they surveyed 19

automotive OEM and Tier 1 supplier executive engineers 20

on their perspectives on the role of advanced materials 21

in meeting future fuel economy and CO2 emissions 22

requirements. The third document we'll enter is 23

comments made by Honda Motor Company at a recent 24

international auto body symposium in Michigan here, and 25221

t he fourth one, the fourth document is a lifecycle 1

study recently completed by the European Union as part 2

of their effort in support of the regulations on CO2 3

emissions in Europe. All four of those actual 4

documents will be s ubmitted. 5

I'll just make some brief comments. The 6

Ducker study, which we just completed late last year, 7

concluded that to achieve the fuel economy objectives 8

and CO2 emissions requirements required by 2025, the 9

average vehicle in North America will have to be 10

reduced in weight by about 375 pounds. They came to 11

that conclusion in discussions with OEMs and Tier 1 12

suppliers. Of that 375 pounds, aluminum will play a 13

significant role. Aluminum content today in the 14

average vehicle in North America is 347 pounds of 15

aluminum or 9% of the curb weight of the vehicle. That 16

aluminum content is expected to increase to 550 pounds 17

per vehicle by 2025 to support fuel economy and 18

efficiency improvements that are required. In that 19

sense, aluminum will contribute about 60% of the weight 20

reduction that's anticipated for the overall average 21

vehicle by 2025. 22

The second study conducted by DuPont recently 23

was again a survey of automotive industry executives 24

and engineers, and in that study that group indicated 25222

aluminum was identified as the most helpful material in 1

helping them meet their fuel economy and efficiency 2

objectives through 2025, confirming much of the same 3

information that the Ducker study had found. 4

The third document item that we'll enter is 5

comments made by Honda Engineering, specifically by 6

their senior vice

- president of R&D activities for the 7

America's, Frank Paluch, and his comment, "Based on our 8

current understanding, we believe we're approaching the 9

practical limits in the application of traditional 10

materials. It will be increasingly difficult or 11

impossible to meet the future fuel efficiency and 12

carbon dioxide emission requirements with vehicle 13

bodies made with traditional materials." And in that 14

context we view Honda as among the growing number of 15

OEMs that recognize that future vehicle design 16

requirements will depend upon lighter, stronger and 17

more crash

- absorbent materials like aluminum in the 18

future. 19

The fourth item that we'd like to enter into 20

the record is this recent study by the European Union 21

on CO2 lifecycle emissions, and in the NOI for this 22

NPRM, new vehicle lifecycle analysis was discussed and 23

the European study confirms much of the statements that 24

are in the NPRM, the environmental impact statements 25223

associated with this NPRM. The study supports the 1

conclusion that weight reduction with aluminum and 2

high

- strength steel achieves significant use

- phase CO2 3

emissions reductions that more than offset and more 4

than outweigh the additional emissions created during 5

the vehicle production. Those findings are very 6

consistent with the EPA drafts and whatnot, 7

environmental impact statement. 8

Now when we discuss weight reduction, we 9

always have to keep in mind safety considerations. 10

There's a constant debate and concern about the 11

relationship between weight and safety. The aluminum 12

industry shares and supports the agencies' priority for 13

continuous improvement in vehicle safety. Weight 14

reduction has been certainly identified as an important 15

part of a comprehensive vehicle fuel economy 16

improvement initiative and that must be implemented in 17

a manner that preserves or enhances vehicle safety. We 18

support that. 19

Developing an appropriate assessment of 20

potential weight reduction strategies requires a very 21

thorough and complete understanding of the independent 22

influences of vehicle mass, vehicle size, design 23

technology and safety features that are implemented in 24

a vehicle. Unfortunately, limitations and available 25224

data, predominantly historical data, and currently 1

available modeling technologies make it virtually 2

impossible to separate the independent influence of 3

those separate technologies. It's even more difficult 4

to predict the impact of weight reduction as we look 5

forward in the 2025 timeframe and try to anticipate 6

improvements in vehicle safety engineering, fundamental 7

design and also the deployment of new and advanced 8

safety enhancing technologies. 9

In the face of this difficulty in assessing 10

the data, we'd like to congratulate the NHTSA for their 11

thorough, thoughtful and professional approach taken in 12

analyzing the relationships in trying to separate the 13

relationships between these virtually inseparable 14

engineering parameters. 15

Considering the uncertainties involved in the 16

weight versus safety debate, we believe the agencies' 17

position on vehicle weight reduction represents an 18

objective, well reasoned assessment of the available 19

information and is appropriately conservative. We 20

believe the future has a lot of improvement in it an d 21

we expect that to be materialized. That will 22

probably -- we expect that will be the subject of the 23

midterm assessment of the regulations as we go forward. 24

They'll be some body of data to support better 25225

separation of the weight versus safety issue. 1

Recent studies by the NHTSA and reflected in 2

the NPRM indicating the down

- weighting, not downsizing, 3

down

- weighting of large and midsize vehicles will have 4

a neutral or positive impact on overall fleet safety 5

while improving fuel economy. In this vehicle segment, 6

automakers have been using lightweight materials, 7

including aluminum, for some time, and from all we can 8

see, that use of the lightweight materials is 9

increasing in this market sector. 10

With respect to smaller vehicles, the data is 11

clearly difficult to separate and those clear 12

conclusions on safety versus weight have been, have 13

been extracted from the data. Due to that uncertainty, 14

the NPRM does not anticipate significant mass reduction 15

in vehicles below 3000 pounds. Analytical studies 16

provided by the Aluminum Association, and others, 17

sug gest that vehicle size, not weight, is the largest 18

determinant of vehicle safety. We believe that in the 19

near future advancements in small vehicle design and 20

deployment of lightweight body structures, including 21

aluminum, will achieve significant weight reduction 22

while preserving vehicle size and improving safety 23

performance, and we think again that will be something 24

we'll review with you all at the midterm review of the 25226

progress in the CAFE re gulation. 1

Turning to the size

- based standard, the 2

Aluminum Association continues to support the agencies' 3

use of the size

- based footprint approach to regulating 4

both fuel economy and CO2 emissions. We believe this 5

approach recognizes and in fact encourages 6

manufacturer's aggressive development and 7

implementation of advanced fuel efficiency improvement 8

technologies throughout the vehicle fleet. 9

Administering a comprehensive size

- based 10

standard is an important and complex task, to be sure. 11

The NPRM, this NPRM, clearly identifies that the EPA 12

will use annual assessments of vehicle footprint, fuel 13

economy and performance and the sales mix to establish 14

OEM fleet fuel economy targets for each year. The 15

Aluminum Association believes this approach assures 16

OEMs receive full credit for design

- related 17

technologies implemented throughout the fleet, while 18

assuring that we achieve our overall objective for fuel 19

economy improvement of the total fleet. 20

As we think about light

- weighting and 21

advanced materials, the other question that comes up 22

after safety is cost. Clearly strong, affordable 23

carbon reducing materials are being used at an 24

increasing rate to meet down

- weighting objectives now 25227

and in the future. Aluminum is widely recognized as a 1

cost

- effective choice for reducing weight in automotive 2

bodies, individual components, and vehicle structures. 3

As auto makers turn to greater use of aluminium, 4

secondary weight reductions are emerging as a major 5

cost savings enabler. As we get larger and larger 6

weight reductions, we're able to make larger and larger 7

reductions in vehicle support systems. 8

Vehicle weight reduction allows reducing 9

size, weight and cost of powertrain, transmission and 10

chassis components, the secondary weight reduction 11

factors in a vehicle. Without sacrificing performance 12

or safety of the vehicle, cost savings from these 13

secondary weight reductions can offset and have in fact 14

prov en to offset in a lot of cases the majority of the 15

cost improvements associated with moving to advanced 16

materials, whether that be advanced aluminum, 17

high

- strength steel or in some cases composites. 18

So in conclusion, we see that weight 19

reduction, weight optimized future vehicles and 20

components will take maximum advantage of available 21

engineering materials. These materials are continually 22

being improved to further enhance the ability of auto 23

designers to design efficient vehicles. Materials 24

including aluminum, high

- strength steel, magnesium and 25228

composites will all find use in the vehicles of the 1

future, they'll work

-- live together in more efficient 2

vehicle structures. 3

Aluminum offers a unique combination of 4

attributes including low weight, high strength, 5

excellent energy absorption capability, natural 6

corrosion resistance at a reasonable cost. For thos e 7

reasons, we believe aluminum will play an increasing 8

role in the optimized vehicle of the future. Thank 9

you. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy 10

to -- 11

MS. OGE: Thank you. Now I'm going to call on 12

Mr. Jim Crowfoot. 13

MR. CROWFOOT: I appreciate this opportunity 14

to testify. My name is James Crowfoot. I testify this 15

afternoon from two perspectives. One perspective, my 16

concern for my grandchildren and all the children of 17

their generation, and I hope the children born after 18

them, and from the perspective of someone who's spent 19

his life working on the questions of un

- sustainability 20

a nd sustainability in a major research university in a 21

college that has devoted much of its efforts and 22

attention to this work. 23

I want to strongly support the standards 24

being proposed and the processes by which thes e 25229

standards have been arrived at. There's no question 1

that you have paid attention to the science, the 2

natural sciences and the social sciences as you've 3

proceeded in coming to these standards and working on 4

refining them. And the college of which I've been a 5

part of all of my adult work

- life is committed to those 6

sciences and is pleased that the work that you included 7

in the standard. 8

Similarly, I'm very impressed by the use of 9

the multi

- stakeholder approach, the policy making and 10

rule setting that has been manifested in this process. 11

This is cutting edge, it's not something that has 12

characterized policy making in many areas of our 13

national and state policies in the US and major 14

accomplishments have occurred in this way. 15

Interdisciplinary use of sciences is very 16

present in the standard and in the multi

- stakeholder 17

process and is very much to be applauded. Obviously, 18

the standard builds on an acknowledgement of the 19

realities of global climate change or climate 20

disruption. Coming to Detroit today in mid January and 21

the outdoor thermometer in my Prius is registering 52 22

degrees Fahrenheit was a constant reminder that for all 23

of my years living in the Midwest I've shoveled the 24

least snow this winter, and I've yet to really pull out 25230

my heavy

- duty winter coat, and this data is congruent 1

with the pattern data as we look back. One of my 2

favorite bays in Michigan when I was in my thirties and 3

forties, I'm now in my seventies, would freeze over 4

nine winters out of ten. In the last 15 years, it's 5

one year out of ten. So we are experiencing climate 6

change and disruption. The only thing that is off the 7

pattern of the science that has so informed me is that 8

it's happening much more rapidly. What I'm 9

experiencing this January was what I was reading about 10

being projected for 2030, 2040 for the locality in 11

which I live. So from the point of view of what has 12

been occurring in relation to the CAFE standards, 13

automobiles, and all the related questions, this 14

represents a very large and major step. 15

But now back to my reason for being here. My 16

primary reason, my grandchildren and all the children. 17

We must acknowledge at this point that the standard 18

over 50 miles per gallon is a way that we can most 19

quickly refer to it is all too low, all too low. We 20

must acknowledge at this point the best that I can say 21

and my peers who study un

- sustainability is that yes, 22

this will reduce the accelerating emission of 23

greenhouse gases globally. It will reduce the rate of 24

increase. It won't stop it, and it obviously won't 25231

reverse i t. 1

We also have to say, those of us who work in 2

this field, to our grandchildren. You asked me about 3

what I understand and what I can expect in my lifetime, 4

two root issues that I have not heard referred to this 5

afternoon. In my lifetime, born in 1939 to the date 6

our economic output globally has radically changed and 7

it now is growing exponentially higher at a rapidly 8

increasing rate. And more familiarly to all of you, 9

the human population has done the same. When I was 10

born there were about two billion people on the planet, 11

seven billion plus now, headed for a minimum of nine 12

billion, probably more likely 12 billion humans on the 13

planet. This is unsustainable. It represents our 14

entrance into a crisis for human civilization. It's 15

already affecting us. I refer to the weather. We can 16

look at our economy and the global economy. As I look 17

to the lives of my grandchildren and their peers, I am 18

deeply worried. And I have to admit that my best 19

estimate and those of my peers is that there probably 20

is a slightly higher probability that their lives will 21

at best be severely disrupted if not checked by the 22

pattern that we are in and we are headed to. 23

So from their perspective, I hope they would 24

applaud us today if they paid attention to the historic 25232

context in which so many of us have struggled and 1

continue to struggle to make the positive progress 2

manifested in the room today. I hope they'd at least 3

acknowledge that we have made some baby steps. But as 4

we do it, and we applaud each other and all of our 5

p eers who aren't here who are responsible for this 6

progress, I hope that we will keep all of the children 7

and their futures in mind, and all of the data that 8

indicates yes, this is a meaningful step. But the 9

biggest part of the value of this step, in my judgment, 10

is its educational value. 11

Sitting here today was wonderful for an hour 12

and a half waiting. It was one of the few times I 13

haven't minded waiting to hear from all of the peopl e 14

who spoke before me. I was so moved by people arguing 15

about lifestyle assessment, by the grandmothers who 16

were here, and most of all by people in our Armed 17

Forces from Iraq bringing back their wide

- awake opening 18

c onsciousness developing experiences from being the 19

implementers of our current policy which attends with 20

it great military costs and the risk of life and loss 21

of life. So it's a pleasure to be here. It's a 22

pleasure to be educated and to hear from the people 23

who've been testifying. I would only ask that the 24

record show the perspective of the grandchildren and 25233

the generations I hope will follow them who really are 1

in a bind because the way of which we're proceeding is 2

fundamentally not sustainable. Thank you. 3

MS. OGE: Thank you. Now I'm going to call 4

Mr. Walter McManus. Good afternoon. 5

MR. McMANUS: Thank you for allowing me to 6

participate today and to comment on the proposed rules 7

to extend the National Program beyond the average fuel 8

economy standards and greenhouse gas standards that 9

h ave been set for 2012 through 2016. 10

My name is Walter McManus. I'm a Research 11

Professor of Decision and Information Sciences at 12

Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. I

-- prior 13

to this

-- I was at University of Michigan for five, 14

six years and I worked at JD Power before that for five 15

years, and before that I was at General Motors for 16

about a decade in forecasting market analysis and 17

strategy and also new product development. I want to 18

emphasize that my comments today are my own 19

professional opinion and don't reflect the

-- 20

necessarily reflect the opinions or the views of my 21

employer or anybody else. 22

I've been looking at these issues for a long 23

time, and one of my first studies of the impact of fuel 24

economy and miles per gallon and fuel prices on profits 25234

was in 2005, and at the time I predicted that if fuel 1

prices spiked about 50% above where they were, that 2

there would be billions of dollars lost by the Big 3

Three, Detroit Three, because of their dependence on 4

SUV's and large pickups, which at the time I would not 5

call gas guzzling, but I think I changed my view on 6

that. 7

As it turned out, in 2006 and '7 and '8, I 8

grossly underestimated the extent of the devastation 9

that was to come. And I believe that the National 10

Program is supposed to establish aggressive and 11

coordinated greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards 12

for passenger cars, light trucks and medium duty 13

passenger vehicles to alleviate some of the risk that 14

we saw firsthand here in Michigan and are just now come 15

out of. But for the National Program to be successful, 16

NHTSA and EPA had to work cooperatively with lots of 17

stakeholders, and I think they and the automakers and 18

all of the stakeholders are to be commended for 19

establishing and sticking to this joint rulemaking 20

process. 21

I've written about lots of things over the 22

past decade or so and I, you know, my top

- level 23

conclusion is that with, with higher fuel economy 24

standards, there's no doubt in my mind that the 25235

domestic industry can drive innovation, generate jobs 1

in Michigan and around the country, capture investment 2

in a leading edge in the American multi

- billion dollar 3

global market for clean technology. 4

I want to talk about a couple of studies in 5

particular, and there are others that are listed in my 6

comments. The most recent study I've done, I sort of 7

sat back a little and tried to understand how auto 8

companies and other investors make decisions about 9

investments in new technologies that are risky, and the 10

report is called "Investor Behavior in Advanced Vehicle 11

Technology and Development Employment." My goal was to 12

help analysts and forecasters better understand how 13

investors behave, including automakers, in the 14

automotive industry. And it is well known, in the 15

financial communities at least, that the conventional 16

financial valuation approach to investments undervalues 17

investment projects in new technologies. My analysis 18

suggests that by taking account of flexibility and 19

properly valuing it, the market for alternative 20

powertrains -- sorry the proposed fuel economy standard 21

is 54 and a half miles per gallon by 2025 will give 22

automakers and their customers greater flexibility in 23

adjusting to unpredictable, but inevitable, oil price 24

volatility and spikes in the future. 25236

Correctly recognizing the investment and the 1

flexibility in the investment decisions, this value 2

will encourage automakers to increase the pace of 3

investment in new powertrain technologies and, in turn, 4

the investments encouraged, thus encouraged will be 5

reflected in higher profits, more employment and 6

greater prosperity in Michigan and the country. The 7

future market for alternative powertrains is highly 8

uncertain, but as time passes, automakers and consumers 9

will learn more about alternative powertrains and some 10

of the uncertainty will be resolved. 11

Automakers today face a choice. A, wait to 12

decide whether to invest until the uncertainty has been 13

resolved or B, make an initial investment now that 14

keeps their auto

-- the powertrain options for the 15

automaker open. If the market takes off, then waiting 16

could, in retrospect, be a disaster as the automakers 17

face huge investment share of the market. If the 18

market takes off, the waiting could be a disaster in 19

retrospect. A foothold investment or a toehold 20

investment , B, the B strategy avoids this disaster by 21

giving the automaker flexibility. The flexibility has 22

a very high value in such an uncertain market. The 23

conventional approach forces financial analysts to 24

treat a complex investment project that goes on for 25237

several years as a single decision. The critically 1

important value of flexibility in that decision

- making 2

process is ignored. The conventional approach thereby 3

discourages investments in new technologies in an 4

uncertain market. Using the conventional approach, 5

investment in alternative powertrains doesn't make much 6

sense. If automakers currently are incurring losses, 7

why should they invest in more? 8

Some automakers have begun to use some 9

financial valuation approaches that recognize or allow 10

them to put a dollar value on flexibility. These 11

approaches include decision and risk analysis and real 12

options analysis. Advantages of these new tools is 13

that they incorporate market and regulatory 14

uncertainty, provide a financial value for flexibility 15

that can justify additional investment, give a more 16

accurate understanding of the project's value. 17

In the future, alternative powertrains may be 18

very profitable. Investment today in alternative 19

powertrains preserve the option to take advantage of 20

that outcome. By adopting these kinds of tools, 21

automakers have the potential to realize great 22

improvement in profit. In an uncertain world, these 23

approaches encourage investment projects that are 24

robust across a range of possible outcomes. 25238

Flexibility is rarely incorporated in conventional 1

investment valuation, but it's critical in surviving in 2

this uncertain market. And I'll end there, since I 3

went over my time. Thank you. 4

MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Breneman, good 5

afternoon. 6

MR. BRENEMAN: Hello, everyone. I'm Jeff 7

Breneman, the Executive Director of the US Coalition 8

for Advanced Diesel Cars. The members of the Coalition 9

are a group of leading automotive suppliers employing 10

tens of thousands of Americans and we appreciate the 11

opportunity to submit the following testimony here in 12

Detroit, the global epicenter of manufacturing and 13

innovations. 14

Our Coalition members are on the forefront of 15

innovation in every technology that will be used to 16

improve fuel efficiency during this rulemaking period. 17

We are not here today to ask for any incentives for 18

diesel technology in the CAFE rulemaking. Our members 19

strongly believe that automotive policies should be 20

technology neutral and rely strictly on 21

performance

- based standards. 22

The Coalition strongly supports the 23

Administration's twin goals of increasing fuel economy 24

and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We appreciate 25239

the tremendous efforts that has been required to create 1

the regulatory framework with the California industry 2

and other stakeholders in order to meet these important 3

national policy goals. The Coalition knows that the 4

ingenuity and resourcefulness of the world's best 5

engineers, not only here in Detroit, but all over the 6

globe, are up to the task of achieving both the 7

goals through

-- both goals through advanced 8

technology. 9

In just the last decade we have witnessed the 10

commercialization of many advanced technologies. In 11

model year 2012, consumers can choose from advanced 12

turbo charged 4

- cylinder gasoline engines providing 13

over 40 miles per gallon with a comparable power of a 14

traditional 6

- cylinder gasoline engine from only a few 15

years ago. One of the top

- selling pickups now offers a 16

popular turbo charged 6

- cylinder in addition to the 17

traditional V

- 8 that provides comparable performance 18

and significantly improved fuel economy. More 19

importantly, consumers are choosing the more 20

fuel

- efficient options when buying that popular light 21

truck model. 22

Americans can now choose the fourth 23

generation of a popular hybrid that has sold over one 24

million vehicles in the last decade. They can choose a 25240

plug

- in hybrid. They can choose a full electric 1

powertrain. They can even choose a natural gas 2

vehicle. They have technology options such as 3

start/stop, cylinder deactivation, and yes, they have 4

many models of clean diesel to choose from. Today's 5

hearing is an important part of the process so that 6

will provide long

- term stability for the automotive 7

industry. 8

Additionally, in large part thanks to these 9

aggressive goals, we can witness one of the most 10

transformational decades of innovation in the history 11

of the automobile. This is an exciting time, and the 12

regulatory agencies here today can be a true partner in 13

this historic time. 14

To ensure that we spur not only innovation 15

but broad innovation that will include multiple 16

technology paths, public policies, regulations and 17

incentive plans must be technology neutral. Gov ernment 18

should set the goals, even aggressive goals, that 19

inspire the freedom to innovate, and then get out of 20

the way. State, federal and public officials and 21

regulators must resist the temptation to pick winners 22

a nd losers; to let politics and fads enter the debate 23

or to engage in centralized planning in a highly 24

complex industry. 25241

Market acceptance is also critical to define 1

the best technology or portfolio of technologies 2

necessary to reach the targets set by governments. The 3

Coalition believes that today's advanced vehicle 4

technologies will offer Americans real opportunities to 5

immediately and significantly reduce our dependence on 6

petroleum, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide 7

consumers significant savings on fuel. 8

Too often when government attempts to spur 9

the adoption of better fuel economy and environmental 10

policies for the light

- duty market, they allow the 11

perfect to be the enemy of the very good. By looking 12

to end all petroleum use in the future, current 13

policies are unwittingly preventing consumers from the 14

opportun ity to realize significant fuel savings and 15

significant improvements in greenhouse gas emissions 16

today. By rewarding technologies that the federal 17

government believes will be the best solution in the 18

undetermined future, the federal government is actually 19

creating disincentives for automobile manufacturers 20

from bringing new innovations and technologies to 21

market that, in fact, are more suitable for the driving 22

habits of Americans today. 23

In 2006, the EPA released data showing that 24

Americans are now driving more miles at highway speeds 25242

than in 1975 and federal test procedures were designed 1

to implement. Despite the fact that the majority of 2

miles traveled are at highway speeds, policymakers have 3

focused on urban driving technologies that are not well 4

suited for highway speeds and do little, sometimes even 5

providing a negative benefit for fuel economy and CO2, 6

when driven outside of the urban cycle. Yet consumers 7

are savvy and demonstrated the dedication to research 8

advanced vehicle technology and choose the platform 9

that best meets their needs. When given the choice, 10

ov er 30% are choosing the diesel option, and less than 11

10% are choosing the hybrid option, clearly reflecting 12

their understanding the majority of their miles are 13

accumulated at highway speeds. 14

Federal government's favoritism of 15

hybridization and electrification continues in EPA and 16

NHTSA's joint NPRM with two areas of particular concern 17

to the Coalition. First, the NPRM presents a process 18

of incentivizing specific technologies by establishing 19

and awarding credits for "game changing technologies," 20

such as a hybrid trucks and electric vehicles. 21

Additionally, the NPRM continues to ignore the EPA and 22

NHTSA's own data that shows the majority of miles 23

traveled by the average American are on highway 24

conditions instead choosing to favor and reward a 25243

technology that is best suited to city driving and 1

start/stop conditions. The Coalition continues to 2

advocate for policies that incentivize game

- changing 3

fuel savings by rewarding outcomes, not implementation 4

of a specific technology. 5

In the NPRM, EPA and NHTSA outline proposals 6

that offer manufacturers incentives to incorporate 7

game

- changing technologies into the full

- sized pickup 8

truck market. These incentives in the form of credits 9

come in two forms. One will provide credits to 10

manufacturers to produce hybrid electric pickup trucks, 11

another will award credits to manufacturers that 12

produce pickup trucks that meet a similar 13

performance

- based standard. 14

EPA and NHTSA argue the HEV technology in 15

pickup trucks is an emerging technology that faces 16

substantial challenges in gaining initial market 17

penetration. The Coalition finds this argument tenuous 18

on a number of levels. First, the Coalition believes 19

the HEV technology, which has been on the market for 20

over a decade, is not an emerging technology today, and 21

certainly will not be an emerging technology in 2017 22

when these credits are set to go into effect. To the 23

contrary, light

- duty HEV's have been a viable option 24

for a number of consumers, particularly those who drive 25244

in urban conditions. It might be considered an 1

emerging application of an existing technology, but it 2

certainly cannot be described as an emerging technology 3

almost 20 years of being on the market, which will be 4

the case when this rule goes into effect. In fact, the 5

GMC Sierra and Chevy Silverado hybrid applications in 6

the truck segment have been on the market for nearly a 7

decade. 8

Second, EPA and NHTSA state that because of 9

the substantial cost required to produce full

- sized HEV 10

pickup trucks, automakers have difficulty justifying 11

the investments necessary to produce these vehicles 12

without a government incentive. The Coalition believes 13

that government incentives to create a market for 14

specific technologies are the wrong path to achieve 15

fuel efficiency gains and emissions reductions. 16

Examining consumer acceptance of alternative vehicle 17

technologies in light

- duty vehicles where hybrid 18

technology is already well established foreshadows the 19

pratfalls of choosing a single technology winner for 20

the full

- sized pickup truck segment on a technology 21

neutral approach that promotes all advanced 22

technologies will achieve real results. 23

Current take rates for passenger HEV's 24

clearly demonstrate consumer hesitance to invest in a 25245

vehicle that, while it's fuel efficient on the test 1

cycle, does not fulfill their driving needs. When we 2

refer to take rates, we're referring to the percentage 3

of consumers who purchase an advanced te chnology 4

powertrain over a standard gasoline powertrain when the 5

option exists on the same vehicle. 6

From June 2010 to June 2011, the average take 7

rate for HEV's was 5%. That means consumers chose a 8

standar d gasoline engine over the HEV version of the 9

same vehicle 95% of the time. Comparing that to the 10

take rate of the clean diesel technology over the same 11

period, consumers chose the diesel option over the 12

standard gasoline version 39% of the time. While both 13

technologies offer comparable fuel savings over a 14

standard gasoline vehicle, diesel technologies lower 15

purchase price, and greater functionality proved more 16

attractive to consumers than the HEV. The Coalition 17

recognizes there are some popular vehicles such as the 18

Toyota Prius that only offer the HEV option, therefore, 19

do not factor into that average take rate referenced 20

above. However, when provided the option, the vast 21

majority of consumers are still choosing the standard 22

gasoline vehicles over HEV. 23

EPA and NHTSA do not show any market data to 24

suggest consumers will treat full

- sized HEV pickup 25246

trucks any differently. In fact, consumers have 1

already displayed significant reluctance to make an 2

investment in a full

- sized hybrid truck. In model year 3

2010, consumers showed the GMC Sierra and Chevy 4

Silverado hybrid .23% of the time preferring the 5

gasoline option in more than 99% of the cases. This 6

amounts to 1165 hybrid models out of nearly 500,000 7

Sierra and Silverados sold in 2010, yet the incentive 8

assumes consumers will flock to this option. 9

Despite inquiries to the agencies and with 10

suppliers, we are unaware of any data the demonstrates 11

that most full

- sized pickup truck owners accumulate the 12

majority of miles under urban conditions and duty 13

cycles. Conversely, these light trucks will be 14

burdened with carrying the significant weight of the 15

battery technology at highway speeds while using a 16

gasoline or a diesel

- powered engine. 17

By driving conditions that do not utilize the 18

benefits of hybridization, it is unclear that the fuel 19

economy gains and emissions reductions have predicted 20

to result from this game

- changing technology are 21

actually attainable. The Coalition strongly believes 22

that skewing the market through incentives and credits 23

in favor of one technology that consumers may not want 24

will leave innovations to current technology that will 25247

produce real fuel economy gains and emissions reduction 1

on the table. Instead, the Coalition urges the EPA and 2

NHTSA to pursue only the performance

- based standard 3

credit outlined in the NPRM and apply such standards 4

across all vehicle classes. 5

By focusing on outcomes, not specific 6

technologies, EPA and NHTSA will unleash American 7

innovation and ingenuity to identify and develop the 8

suite of technology solutions that we need to meet 9

consu mers' disparate driving needs. This would 10

naturally include all forms of advanced technology 11

vehicles in every class, but only those for which 12

there's a market. Set the bar, and American innovation 13

will meet the goal. 14

The Coalition sees no benefit in maintaining 15

a performance

- based credit and a separate credit for 16

full

- sized HEV pickup trucks when the latter can, and 17

should, qualify under a strictly performance

- based 18

str ucture. Instead of sending a strong signal to both 19

manufacturers and consumers that hybrid trucks 20

represent the best technology option, EPA and NHTSA 21

should make the case for any technology that meets the 22

aggressive guidelines set forth by the NPRM. 23

The Coalition believes that following an 24

evolutionary path that capitalizes on the innovative 25248

technologies that are available and cost effective in 1

the near and medium term, EPA, and NHTSA, and the 2

consumer will all achieve the desired results of 3

greater fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. 4

Unfortunately, the NPRM seems to outline more of a 5

revolutionary path without guaranteeing the real 6

results. 7

During the comment period for the model year 8

2012

- 2016 joint rulemaking on CAFE, the Coalition 9

argued that regulation does not accurately account for 10

real

- world driving conditions. EPA's own data from its 11

'06 study confirms that the average Americans 12

accumulate the majority of their miles at highway 13

conditions. In spite of this, calculations that 14

indicate drivers accumulate the majority of their miles 15

in urban conditions were utilized for the model year 16

2012

- 2016 rule, and again are used in the model year 17

2017

- 2025 proposed rule. 18

Interestingly, EPA is not using its own data 19

and public information to calculate the accurate fuel 20

economy for CAFE despite the fact that it already 21

utilizes the '06 data to calculate the societal 22

benefits resulting from the implementation of advanced 23

vehicle technology. Because the calculations used for 24

this rule inaccurately reflect

-- 25249

MS. OGE: Excuse me. We have a lot of people 1

waiting. We're running a little bit late. Thank you. 2

MR. BRENEMAN: Sure. The regulatory agencies 3

certainly understand the gap between lab certification 4

and real

- world fuel consumption keeps growing each and 5

every model year. The NPRM states that EPA and NHTSA 6

are considering significant changes to the test 7

procedures. The agencies have also stated they lack 8

the statutory authority to change some of these 9

calculations. If EPA and NHTSA have determined that 10

they lack the authority to update the calculations to 11

reflect the real

- world driving habits of the current 12

American drivers, the agencies should educate Congress 13

on the impacts of this flawed statute and formally ask 14

for the statutory authority from Congress to update 15

these calculations. Instead, we're moving forward in 16

yet another rulemaking process using 1975 calculations 17

that will lock in these inaccuracies for the next 18

decade and beyond. 19

The Coalition recognizes no single technology 20

will benefit the needs of every driver by re warding 21

outcomes. We are confident that our efforts to reduce 22

petroleum use will be successful in the near and 23

long

- term. Performance

- based target incentives will 24

unleash a new era of innovation in Detroit and across 25250

the globe on an entire portfolio of technologies that 1

is needed in the driving habits. This is how we will 2

truly realize game

- changing improvements in fuel 3

efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gases. Thank 4

you. 5

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 6

MS. LINDBERG: My name is Judy Lindberg. 7

MR. MEDFORD: We don't want to cut you too 8

short, but we're really running very late. 9

MS. LINDBERG: My name is Judith Lindberg. I 10

am a retired registered nurse. I was born and raised 11

in Detroit and I'm now living in Marysville, Michigan, 12

which is a community about 55 miles northeast of here. 13

I came here today to urge the adoption of the proposed 14

standards of 54.5 miles per hour for passenger cars and 15

trucks by 2025. 16

The science of global warming is irrefutable 17

and the growth of greenhouse gases must be stopped. 18

According to EPA, these proposed standards will cut 19

greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion metric tons per 20

year. Health experts tell us that declining air 21

quality has been a major cause of the increased 22

incidents and severity of asthma as well as many other 23

respiratory problems. As a nurse, I have seen this. 24

And we are not the only nation recognizing 25251

the threat of greenhouse gases and the resulting global 1

warming and health issues. Worldwide there is support 2

to do something about it, and I believe that American 3

ingenuity should be leading the way. For years after 4

the oil squeeze of the mid 1970's I have been waiting, 5

hoping, urging our federal government to take the 6

initiative to encourage fuel

- efficient cars as part of 7

a national energy policy, but it was not my government, 8

but the Japanese, who led in this direction with the 9

introduction of the Prius. It could have been us. 10

Finally, in 2010, the EPA and the DOT put us 11

on the right trajectory with the finalization of fuel 12

efficiency standards for new cars 2012 to 2016. I 13

appla ud the leadership of the Obama Administration and 14

I urge the administration to continue through, even 15

though there is a political pushback about rampant 16

government regulations. Please be mindful that 17

electric cars require energy to recharge, and in 18

forming new regulations that this energy is accounted 19

for in the final miles per gallon figures. 20

I am not a nurse

-- I am a nurse. I am a 21

nurse. I'm a little bit nervous with all these s uits 22

around here, intimidating. But I'm a nurse and not an 23

engineer. I'm cognizant, though, that it will be 24

difficult. It doesn't sound as difficult as I thought 25252

it might have once been after listening to the 1

test imony today. But my story is that in 2008, I had 2

to replace my car and I wanted to buy American. I'm a 3

Detroiter. By then, global warming, gas prices and 4

health concerns could not be ignored, and I wanted to 5

be a good citizen of the earth so I looked for an 6

economical, fuel

- efficient car. There were very few 7

American options. Again, it was the Japanese who 8

filled the bill. I bought a Honda Fit. 9

I'm encouraged by the American man ufacturers' 10

recent progress and with the adoption of these proposed 11

standards I think they'll have a concrete goal and can 12

stop whining and show the world American ingenuity. 13

Thank you for allowing me to testify to day. 14

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. Anybody 15

have any questions? Thank you panelists for your 16

testimony. 17

I'd like to call the next panel, please. 18

Good afternoon. So as you guys all appreciate, we're 19

running very late and if I could ask you to really try 20

and stick to five minutes so that everyone that's 21

really come today will have an opportunity to testify 22

before midnight, it would be really appreciated. Let's 23

see. Is Kerry Ebersole here? Kerry, you can go. 24

MR. EBERSOLE: Thank you and good afternoon. 25253

I'm Kerry Ebersole, a Michigan representative with Pew 1

Environment Group's Clean Energy Program here in 2

Michigan leading advocacy effort. We're here today to 3

support the rule as proposed, a fleet

- wide average 54.5 4

miles per gallon fuel economy for model 2025 year 5

vehicles and encourage the agencies not to allow the 6

fi nal standards to be weakened during the midterm 7

review period. 8

It's entirely fitting that we're here in 9

Detroit, the Motor City, birthplace of American auto 10

industry and now the engine of its rebirth. It's a 11

town that's faced extraordinary adversity in recent 12

years, but now we're shifting gears, thanks to the 13

recovery of the auto industry and in the spirit of 14

Detroit, the spirit of reinvention. 15

We need to look no further than spirit of 16

reinvention and action in electric vehicles like the 17

Chevy Volt, Ford Focus electric and up and coming 18

Chrysler models. It's electric vehicles like these 19

that will, in part, help automakers reach these fuel 20

economy standards powered by the growing advanced 21

battery manufacturing industry here in Michigan at 22

places like Dow Chemical, Johnson Controls, LG Chem and 23

A123 Systems. 24

Over 38,000 auto workers work in 97 25254

facilities across our state manufacturing the clean and 1

efficient technology that goes into our automobiles. 2

The fuel economy standard proposed by the Department of 3

Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency wi ll 4

slash 2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas 5

emissions. Raising fuel economy standards 54.5 miles 6

per gallon will reduce our consumption by 4 billion 7

barrels. That's good news for our environment, but 8

better news for consumers. 9

The average American household spends $2000 10

per year on gasoline, consumers will save up to $6600 11

in fuel costs over the life of a model year 2025 12

vehicle and pass that savings on in the form of lower 13

fuel prices for reduced consumption. 14

As you know, the public strongly supports 15

reducing US oil dependence through higher fuel economy. 16

Our bipartisan poll commissioned in July 2011 found 17

that 91% of Americans identify US dependence on foreign 18

oil as a threat to our national security, and 19

significant bipartisan majorities in every region of 20

the country believe that adopting stronger fuel economy 21

standards is the best way to lessen that dependence. 22

This rule as proposed is a significant mile 23

per gallon standard increase from 2007 and will save 24

consumers money at the pump, blunt the economic and 25255

national security threat presented by oil dependence 1

and price volatility and help American manufacturers 2

develop new technologies that spur investment and 3

research development and production of advanced 4

vehicles. 5

We need, we need further innovation to drive 6

both our economic prosperity and benefits to our 7

economy -- I'm sorry, benefits to our environment. And 8

I think you'll find greater fuel economy is where the 9

rubber meets the road. Thank you. 10

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. Mr. 11

McKinley. 12

MR. McKINLEY: Steve McKinley. Thank you 13

and good afternoon. My name is Steve McKinley, and I'm 14

the vice president of Engineering for the America's for 15

Honeywell and Turbo Technologies, a business unit of 16

Honeywell. 17

As a Fortune 100 company, Honeywell products 18

span global industries, including aerospace, automate d 19

controls, performance materials, transportation. 20

Within these disciplines, Honeywell has more than 21

130,000 employees, including nearly 20,000 engineers 22

and scientists, invents and manufactures technologies 23

to address challenges linked to global macro trends 24

such as safety, security and energy efficiency. 25256

On behalf of Honeywell and Honeywell Turbo 1

Technologies, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for 2

a few moments on the issue of light

- duty vehicle 3

greenhouse gas emissions and corporate average fuel 4

economy standards. In short, Honeywell supports the 5

National Program of increasing fuel economy and 6

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A harmoni zed 7

regulatory structure allows OEMs to define product 8

pathways forward toward compliance. This, in turn, 9

allows suppliers to focus research and development in 10

order to provide the most substantial short and 11

long

- te rm benefits. 12

As a leading provider of turbo

- charger 13

technologies for more than 50 years, Honeywell is 14

already working with nearly every global automaker to 15

reduce -- to enable reductions in greenhouse gas 16

emissions and fuel consumption. Turbo technologies 17

enable greenhouse gas reductions by facilitating engine 18

downsizing, replacing large engines with smaller, more 19

efficient engines with improved emissions and fuel 20

economy without sacrificing performance consumers want 21

and depend upon. Downsized turbo

- charged engines can 22

increase fuel economy from 20 to 40% in gas and diesel 23

applications, respectively, relative to larger 24

natio nally aspirated engines they are replacing. 25257

Research and development into yet more advanced turbo 1

technologies is already underway. We believe and 2

continue to demonstrate that the internal combustion 3

engine has a lot of potential still remaining. 4

Particularly during the later years covered 5

by this rulemaking, more advanced technologies are even 6

more likely to enable compliance with the standards. 7

The movement towards new powertrain technologies on the 8

other hand is laudable but limited. The vast majority 9

of the new vehicle fleet during the next decade, at 10

least, will likely remain internal combustion engines. 11

These are the vehicles which will contribute to the 12

vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions reductions 13

achieved under these requirements. As such, it is our 14

position that regulatory rules should not favor new 15

powertrains or specific technologies at the expense of 16

technologies capable of achieving substantial gains in 17

the near and midterm. The program should instead 18

remain technology neutral and recognize all significant 19

performance improvements. 20

The singular focus on new powertrain 21

technologies overlooks the improvements becoming 22

available as new downsized boosted engines and new 23

turbo technologies are developed. And I would point 24

out that we already are applying turbo technologies n ot 25258

only to clean diesel and downsized gasoline engines, 1

but to hybrid vehicles and even compressed natural gas 2

powered vehicles. 3

Incentives focused on new powertrains only 4

for model years 2017 through 2021 may inadvertently 5

divert investment and resources. As the agencies 6

recognize, turbo technologies will contribute 7

significantly during the model years covered by this 8

rulemaking, the agencies should commit during the 9

mid

- term review to evaluate the availability of more 10

advanced turbo technologies and to ensure an equal 11

production incentive as any ongoing incentive provided 12

to battery technology. 13

While turbo charging reflects the majority of 14

car sales in other parts of the world like Europe, 15

currently at more than 60% penetration, we're just 16

starting to see the widespread adoption of this 17

technology in the United States. Turbo penetration has 18

gone from 4% to more than 10% in only the past few 19

years. At Honeywell, we expect that number to increase 20

to more than 23% in the next five years, and by 2025 21

there are industry estimates suggesting turbo 22

penetration approaching 80% of sales. Conversely, 23

artificially pushing investment toward battery

- powered 24

vehicles places more reliance on an uncertain 25259

technology and its ability to meet the policy 1

objectives of substantial movement in greenhouse gas 2

emissions and fuel consumption reductions. 3

Within the current rules, I would 4

respectfully point to incentives favoring hybrids and 5

electrification and non

- urban cycles as being 6

misplaced. Also by the time these rules go into 7

effect, the idea that hybrid electric technology should 8

be incentivized as emerging belies their availability 9

for more than a decade, although new applications may 10

be tried. Government incentives to create a market are 11

not a guarantee for success, and internal combustion 12

engine technology should be considered on an equal 13

footing as battery technologies because they offer more 14

certain, well

- defined benefits, and are proving 15

successful in the marketplace. There are examples of 16

turbo 4

- cylinder gasoline engines providing more than 17

40 miles per gallon with the comparable power of a 18

traditional 6

- cylinder gasoline engine from only a few 19

years ago. 20

Like many of our technology partners and 21

competitors, Honeywell would ask the Administration to 22

broadly spur innovation with technology

- neutral public 23

policies, regulations and incentive plans. We are not 24

opposed to new goals, even those considered very 25260

aggressive goals. Like many who have spoken on this 1

issue, Honeywell believes the best interest of the 2

company can be achieved by rewarding outcomes as 3

opposed to specific technology. 4

Thank you very much. 5

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Miss Surma. 6

MS. SURMA: Hello. My name is Jessica Surma 7

and I'm the Federal Field Associate with Environment 8

Michigan, a statewide citizens

- based environmental 9

advocacy group. I thank the EPA and the Department of 10

Transportation for providing a venue and for the time 11

allotted me to share my comments. 12

Strong clean car standards are the single 13

biggest thing we can to get America off oil and cut 14

global warming pollution all while saving consumers 15

money at the pump. To fully realize the standards' 16

benefit, the Obama Administration should push ahead 17

with the strongest possible clean car standards 18

equivalent to at least 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 19

and keep them free of loopholes that could un dermine 20

their environmental benefits. 21

These environmental benefits are significant 22

right here in Michigan. According to a report released 23

by the Union of Concerned Scientist and the Natural 24

Resource Defense Council, these standards would reduce 25261

carbon emissions by 7.3 million metric tons per year in 1

Michigan. By the year 2030, the proposed standards 2

would cut annual global warming pollution by roughly 3

280 million metric tons nationwide, which would be 4

roughly equivalent to shutting down 70 coal

- fired power 5

plants for one year. This is essential to the health 6

and stability of our state and country. 7

In the past few years we have seen more and 8

more extreme weather fueled by global warming. These 9

events reinforce that we must act now to tackle this 10

problem. The Obama Administration should be applauded 11

for introducing these standards to help address this 12

problem. These standards will also generate 13

significant savings for Michiganders. According to the 14

same report, here in Michigan the proposed standards 15

will reduce gasoline consumption by 622 million 16

gallons. This would mean 976 million dollars of net 17

savings. This brings down to $240 of savings per 18

household per year. Michigan families will surely 19

benefit from such savings. 20

While the standards are beneficial and 21

feasible on paper, public opinion can be a significant 22

factor as well. As a field organizer, it's my job to 23

talk to people on the street, our organization's 24

members, student groups, local elected officials and 25262

community leaders. I've personally talked to hundreds 1

of people who support the EPA's work, and our staff has 2

gathered thousands of comments in favor of the new 3

clean car standards, which we will submit in writing at 4

a later date. 5

My experience with Environment Michigan is 6

echoed by national numbers. A recent poll by Consumer 7

Reports show that 77% of respondents agree that 8

automakers should produce more fuel

- efficient vehicles 9

and that the government should increase standards and 10

enforce them. 11

The proposed standards are an economic and 12

environmental win for Michigan and the U.S. Combined 13

with the widespread support that exists on this issue, 14

it's clear that these standards should be a priority. 15

On behalf of Environment Michigan, I strongly urge the 16

EPA and the Obama Administration to promptly f inalize 17

these standard that will accelerate the United States 18

away from oil. 19

Thank you for the opportunity to testify 20

today. 21

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Miss Schmidt. 22

MS. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. I'm Karyn 23

Schmidt. I represent the American Chemistry Council. 24

The American Chemistry Council itself represents the 25263

leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry 1

and ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make 2

innovative materials that make people's life better, 3

healthier and safer. 4

A key family of such materials is very 5

exciting for all of us here today, very exciting, very 6

exciting. And that's applause, thank you, thank you. 7

I've been trying to get a little energy in the room. 8

Plastics. Our member company manufactures 9

plastic and plastic composites, and these are materials 10

that will be extremely important as we move forward in 11

implementing the new CAFE standards. Our plastics 12

division at ACC represents America's plastic makers and 13

addresses the use of plastics in automotive 14

applications. 15

Now what are plastics? This is where it gets 16

really exciting. Plastics encompass a wide range of 17

polymeric materials. It's not just a handful of 18

things. Plastics make up thousands of different kinds 19

of substances. A car might have, for example, 20

polymeric in padding in seating, polycarbonate 21

headlamps and polypropylene bumpers, so there's three 22

different kinds of plastic right there. Plastics are 23

also used to make plastic composites and the composite 24

material is generally defined as any combination of 25264

polymer matrix with a fibrous reinforcement. These are 1

very high

- tech, modern, innovative exciting compounds. 2

A composite is a plastic in which fiber like carbon or 3

glass or Kevlar has been added for strength or 4

stiffness. 5

Now why do we care? Well the plastics 6

industry cares deeply, of course, and wants everyone 7

else to share in our excitement about these materials, 8

and the auto industry is excited too. The use of 9

plastic composites in automobile manufacture has risen 10

significantly in the recent years and, in fact, 11

document s a substantial change in vehicle composition 12

for model year 1995 to 2007 with a 25% increase in the 13

use of plastics and plastics composites from that 14

period. So we're very excited to move forward. 15

Now here today we're going to comment very 16

very briefly on a few high points. We're going to 17

leave the majority of our detailed comments for the 18

written submission, but we do want to state on the 19

record that we support the CAFE standards moving 20

forward. We think that they are aggressive but 21

achievable, and in particular, we support the credit 22

approach taken by the agencies and the specific fuel 23

efficiency goals and time limits proposed in the 24

standard. We are not going to comment on the levels 25265

proposed themselves except to reaffirm that the levels 1

proposed by the agencies, in our view, are 2

technologically feasible and economically practical as 3

a matter of statute. 4

The American Chemistry Council's plastics 5

division would like commend both EPA and NHTSA on its 6

approach and on this proposal. We believe the proposal 7

takes a huge step forward in increasing fuel efficiency 8

requirements in automobiles. 9

The plastics divisions has long been a 10

supporter of research to understand how plastics can be 11

used in automobiles to decrease vehicle weight an d 12

otherwise impart performances and safety benefits. We 13

support research to understand the feasibility of 14

plastic composite intensive vehicles, or PCIV's. While 15

today's average U.S. light vehicle contains about 330 16

pounds of plastic composites or about 80% of total 17

vehicle weight, a plastic composite intensive vehicle 18

contains a minimum of 30% by weight of lightweight 19

plastics and composites in one or more subsystems 20

beyond interior trim. 21

Why is this important? The proposed rule 22

makes clear the relationship between fuel savings and 23

lightweight of the vehicle. The proposal acknowledges 24

that mass reductions of vehicle can be achieved in many 25266

ways, including material substitution, design 1

optimization and part consolidation. We agree. PCIV 2

research amply documents the technological feasibility 3

of designing and building vehicles with 30% or more 4

plastic and plastic composites, and in our view, the 5

agencies' application of mass reduction of up to 20% 6

relative to model year 2008 levels is appropriate and 7

achievable. 8

But there's more. Plastics are about more 9

than just light

- weighting of vehicles, plastics and 10

polymer composites have enabled some of the most 11

significant vehicle safety innovations in the past 12

several decades including seat belts, airbags, child 13

safety seats, and the same sources of these innovations 14

still hold significant untapped potential to further 15

enhance vehicle safety. 16

We agree with the agencies that it is 17

important that the CAFE standards be set in a way that 18

does not encourage manufacturers to respond by selling 19

vehicles that are in any way less safe. In particular, 20

we agree with and support the standard applied in 21

assessing compliance strategies, and this is 22

articulated as no adverse effect on overall fleet 23

safety. 24

In the last five years the plastics industry 25267

has worked aggressively to better understand how 1

plastics can be used to enhance safety in automobiles 2

and we will continue to do so. Congress recognized the 3

importance of enhanced automobile safety by investing 4

nearly $2 million over a four

- year period and to 5

building an ongoing partnership between the plastics 6

indu stry and NHTSA, and through this partnership, NHTSA 7

has initiated and is currently implementing a safety 8

roadmap for future plastics and plastic composites 9

intensive for vehicles. 10

This project is already yielding fruit, as 11

ongoing research is helping to improve the performance 12

of plastic and composite material components. We 13

support NHTSA'S sustained work to implement the safety 14

roadmap. 15

My last comment. Aren't you excited? The 16

proposed rule contains an option for off

- cycle 17

technology credit but, unfortunately, the off

- cycle 18

credit in the proposed rule does not recognize the 19

thermal control benefits of polycarbonate in automotive 20

glazing. The formula does recognize the benefits of 21

certain types of glass in controlling solar radiation 22

in parked vehicles, but in contrast, while 23

polycarbonate glazing provides some solar control in 24

relation to engaging this proposed baseline, the 25268

benefits accrue in a broader range of scenarios in 1

which the effect of solar radiation is absent or less 2

pronounced. These include nighttime and overcast days 3

as well as those times when the vehicle is in motion. 4

More detailed comments will be presented by other 5

colleagues later today, but we do urge that this will 6

make and consider a parallel credit that fully 7

recognizes thermal control benefits of polycarbonate in 8

glazing applications. 9

Thank you very much for your attention. I 10

hope that you all now understand how exciting plastics 11

are. ACC very much appreciates the opportunity to 12

participate. 13

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you for your testimony. 14

Ms. Maxey. 15

MS. MAXEY: Good evening. My name is Ahmina 16

Maxey. I'm with an organization called East Michigan 17

Environment Action Council. We do work in southeast 18

Michigan around environmental protection, environmental 19

justice, and we've been located in Michigan, been here 20

around for 40 years, and so I'm here to thank EPA and 21

thank NHTSA for these really strong standards, and I 22

really just want to voice my support for them. 23

Also Detroit is a city that is burdened with 24

a lot of air quality issues and a lot of environmental 25269

air quality issues, and so improvements in fuel economy 1

will really improve conditions here in the city as far 2

as, like I said, air quality. We have four major 3

freeways that cut right through the heart of the city. 4

We also have some of the highest

-- we have the highest 5

asthma rates in the state with three times the

-- three 6

times the average asthma rate of the rest of the state, 7

and so I'm really excited about this. Also as a 8

consumer I'm also really excited for my next car to 9

have such high fuel economy standards. 10

In addition, I guess I wear multiple hats. 11

I'm a young professional here in southeast Michigan. I 12

want to stay in Michigan but I don't want to have to 13

rely only a car that will really be a gas guzzler, and 14

so this is something that is really exciting. 15

And then also I have a family that works 16

within the automotive industry, and so in light of 17

what's recently happened, this is something that's 18

really a great development to see that I know that 19

there'll be opportunities in the future for innovation 20

and things like that. 21

I'm not going take up a lot of time. I just 22

wanted to comment, show my support, and then also just 23

say that this is something that's really exciting so 24

I'm hoping. I'm really excited to see what's going to 25270

come. 1

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you for your testimony. 2

Mr. Benda. 3

MR. BENDA: Thank you very much. My name is 4

Bruce Benda and I'm head of the Automotive 5

Transportation Business for Bayer MaterialScience, LLC. 6

I'd like to thank the EPA and NHTSA for giving me the 7

opportunity to comment on these CAFE sta ndard 8

proposals. 9

For those that don't know, Bayer 10

MaterialScience is a part of the Global Bayer Group and 11

one of the leading suppliers of high technology 12

innovative materials such as polycarbonate, which was 13

referred to by the ACC earlier. Polycarbonate is a 14

clear, durable organic polymer with a low density, 15

which makes it light weight. It is processed at a 16

relatively low temperature and is very appropriate as a 17

glass alternative for automotive glazing, and the 18

temperature is very important there. We support the 19

agencies' decision to consider only net weight 20

reduction of vehicles that will not compromise overall 21

vehicle safety. 22

Bayer MaterialScience has a rich history for 23

contributing to automotive safety standards and is 24

dedicated to developing innovative, high

- performance 25271

materials giving automakers a choice of materials when 1

it comes to meeting the CAFE requirements. We believe 2

that the off

- cycle credit that is being proposed fails 3

to capture or incentivize the thermal control benefits 4

of the technologies such as polycarbonate gl azing. 5

Therefore, in the final rule, the agencies should 6

expand the off

- cycle credit or add a corresponding 7

credit to account for these thermal control benefits of 8

innovative technology such as polycarbonate glazing. 9

Polycarbonate would help automakers to meet these CAFE 10

requirements and reduce greenhouse gases by providing 11

increased insulation benefits, contributing to net 12

weight reduction of the vehicle, offering more 13

aerodynamic styling options to the manufacturer and 14

lower CO2 emissions over the lifecycle of 15

polycarbonate. 16

We support the comments that you will hear I 17

believe in the next session from our industry 18

colleagues from Sabic relating to thermal conductivity 19

and the off

- cycle credit. Using polycarbonate as a 20

glazing material contributes to lower thermal 21

conductivity. This benefit of polycarbonate will 22

contribute to better energy efficiency in all types of 23

vehicles. Thus, we reiterate our support for an 24

expansion of the off

- cycle credit to account for this 25272

benefit or the addition of a new corresponding credit. 1

For years, automotive manufacturers have used 2

polycarbonates and polycarbonate composites in the 3

manufacture of their vehicles. Polycarbonate glazing 4

allows for integration of parts that was previously not 5

possible. This can contribute to vehicles being 6

lighter in weight without compromising structural 7

integrity of the vehicle. Polycarbonate can be used 8

for better insulation benefits which can reduce demand 9

on the vehicle's battery and HVAC units, thereby 10

reducing greenhouse gases. 11

Polycarbonate has an extensive history of 12

serial applications in the automotive glazing industry. 13

These applications now include rear side windows, 14

sunroof systems, panoramic roof systems and transparent 15

rear body parts. Polycarbonate is also recognized by 16

authorities around the world, including the United 17

Nations Economic Commission for Europe. This material 18

is less than half the density of glass, enabling weight 19

reductions of up to 50%. This weight reduction 20

contributes to CO2 emissions being cut by up to 728 21

pounds per vehicle over a vehicle service life of 22

95,000 miles, compared to cases where glass is used. 23

The weight reduction due to polycarbonate use also 24

would take place above the belt line in the vehicle 25273

achieving not only better fuel efficiency, but also 1

greater stability by lowering a vehicle's center of 2

gravity. 3

Bayer MaterialScience has developed also 4

transparent tinted colors of polycarbonate specifically 5

for glazing that filter out the large portion of sun's 6

infrared rays which minimizes the amount of energy 7

ent ering into the vehicle. The glazing made of 8

polycarbonate also offers benefits in terms of thermal 9

insulation mentioned earlier, thanks to the plastic's 10

thermal conductivity, which is roughly five times lower 11

than that of glass. In cold weather conditions, this 12

increases the temperature of the internal surface of 13

the polycarbonate glazing inside the vehicle 14

significantly, which in turn, cuts the energy needed to 15

heat the vehicle and also improves comfort. Both 16

features can improve vehicle energy management reducing 17

fuel consumption and subsequent CO2 generation. 18

An independent study indicates that when 19

studying polycarbonate versus glass over the life of a 20

product, which will be made from initial production to 21

the usage of the product to the waste phase, 22

polycarbonate can help substantially reduce CO2 23

emissions. To give you an example, one kilogram of 24

polycarbonate saves 14 to 22 kilograms of CO2 emissions 25274

over the lifecycle of the material. If all of the 1

car's windows, with the exception of the windshield, 2

were made of polycarbonate, that would be approximately 3

a total of 33 pounds of plastic on average. The lower 4

fuel consumption would cut CO2 emission by up 730 5

pounds per vehicle over the vehicle service life. You 6

don't need to start smashing windows to know that 7

polyca rbonate also has a significant impact strength 8

advantage over glass. With polycarbonate's superior 9

impact resistance, it can contribute to safety by 10

improving passenger retention in the event of a crash. 11

And last but not least, is the wide choice of 12

styling options with polycarbonate. This design 13

flexibility of windows can contribute to better 14

aerodynamics for vehicle manufacturers, which, of 15

course, leads to lighter

- weight vehicles and better 16

fuel economy. 17

In closing, we'd like to express our support 18

and thank you again for the opportunity to speak. 19

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. Ms. 20

Crawford. 21

MS. CRAWFORD: Mine is two minutes or less. 22

Good evening, and thank you for allowing my testimony 23

at this joint EPA and NHTSA hearing on Vehicle Fuel 24

Economy and Greenhouse Gas Standards. My name Diane 25275

Crawford and I am an active and a lifelong native 1

Detroiter from the Great Lakes State of Michigan. I'm 2

a Spartan too. I am an active citizen up supporting 3

and working with the Sierra Club learning to plan and 4

to do constructive, positive activities in the 5

community to improve our environment. I do believe 6

that we can all help. 7

Increasing new vehicle efficiency standards 8

to 54.5 miles per gallon is doable by 2025 because it 9

will allow citizens to get better mileage and can 10

reduce the cost at the pump hopefully as well as 11

significantly decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. 12

Foreign oil dependency must definitely 13

cont inue to decline. I urge you to remain diligent and 14

vigilant about your emissions. Stay the course and 15

continue to protect us because we are depending on you. 16

As a former educator, the No Child Left Behind Act for 17

public schools was supposed to improve schools, 18

students and staff, but it failed. Detroiters deserve 19

to breathe cleaner air. Our asthma rates are too high 20

and it is a killer in Detroit. 21

My two great grandnieces, ages five and 22

seven, love to pretend they are driving my car like I 23

did as a child, and many of you too. By 2025 I look 24

forward to my great grandnieces driving me in a cleaner 25276

air, more fuel efficient car that has significantly 1

reduced greenhouse gas. 2

Finally, continue to reduce our dependency on 3

foreign oil. Thank you again for coming to Detroit the 4

Motor City and working collaboratively. We appreciate 5

your efforts. My hope is that the best is yet to come. 6

Thank you. 7

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you for your testimony. 8

Mr. Morgenstein. 9

MR. MORGENSTEIN: Good afternoon. Thank you 10

for having he here. My name is Jonathan Morgenstein 11

and I've served over 20 years in the Marine Corps 12

Reserves both enlisted and as an officer. And today 13

I'm not speaking on behalf of the Department of Defense 14

or the Marine Corps. And although I'm here with the 15

Truman National Security Project, Operation Free, these 16

words are my very own; however, I want to draw on that 17

National Security Military Service including two tours 18

in Iraq to communicate with you today because I believe 19

strengthening fuel efficiency standards is essential 20

for the future of America. 21

If I may, let me ask you to look actually 22

backwards briefly, and I want to show you an 23

alternative path we could have walked if we had done 24

this decades ago, a world with 54.5 miles per gallon 25277

requirements starting in 1970. Think of a world where 1

Saddam Hussein languished as a ruler of a poor country, 2

resources insufficient to build a huge army and 3

threaten anyone outside of his own borders; a world 4

where bin Laden didn't have Gulf oil money to develop 5

global reach; a world where Iran didn't have the 6

petrocash to develop a nuclear weapon; however, instead 7

we've walked this path. 8

Because we've retained these low CAFE 9

standards, our oil addiction has poured hundreds of 10

billions of petrodollars into the pockets of 11

auth oritarian regimes and extremists around the world. 12

As a result, we the United States, have fought three 13

major wars in the last 20 years. Right now we are 14

staring down the prospects of a fourth war with the 15

regime in Tehran. Every one of these conflicts are a 16

direct result of our addiction to oil. However, this 17

isn't just an abstract idea of national security on a 18

grand level, this is personal to me and to every man 19

and woman who's worn our uniforms in the Middle East 20

and Central Asia. CAFE standards are personal to tens 21

of thousands of men, women and children who've lost 22

loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan or come home wounded. 23

Friends of mine such as Second Lieutenant John 24

Wroblewski and Sergeant Bill Cahir gave their last full 25278

measure of devotion to their country in these wars. 1

Lieutenant Wroblewski ambushed and killed in 2004 while 2

leading patrol in Ramadi, Iraq. Robo, as his f riends 3

called him, he was one of the best Marine Officers of 4

our generation. I'm not here to reargue the merits of 5

the Iraq War, but supporters and detractors alike 6

almost acknowledge this truth: without America leading 7

global addiction to Saddam's oil, Saddam Hussein would 8

never have been either powerful enough or threat enough 9

to us or our allies for us to care enough to engage in 10

militarily. Ultimately, it was oil that dragged Robo 11

into that valley where insurgents stole from him the 12

greatness for which he was destined, stole from his 13

wife, her newlywed husband, and stole for me a peer, a 14

friend and a role model. 15

Sergeant Bill Cahir wanted nothing more than 16

to make his country and world a better place. We 17

served together in Ramadi in 2004. Bill came home and 18

returned to his noble journalistic career, and in 19

pursuit of continued greater service, he ran 20

unsuccessfully for congress in northern Pennsylvania. 21

I remember talking with Bill by phone shortly after his 22

electoral loss. He wanted to continue serving so he 23

said he'd like to do one more tour in Afghanistan. He 24

re turned from that tour in a coffin. When a sniper in 25279

the Helmand River Valley took his life, he also took a 1

husband and a father of twins who had not yet been 2

born. They stole from all of us a man who would be 3

doing great things for America and this world. 4

We all know why Bill was in Helmand that day, 5

it was because Osama bin Laden in his warped extremist 6

vision fueled by petrodollars for decades allowed him 7

to build al

- Qaeda into a global threat. Oil did not 8

fund the Taliban sniper who murdered Bill, but Uncle 9

Sam's oil addiction definitively dragged Bill and his 10

Marine Corps brothers and sisters into those mountains 11

and valleys. Strengthening CAFE standards will bring 12

neither Robo nor Bill back to us, but it will reduce 13

our addiction and restrict the flow of cash to 14

insidious men around the globe. 15

When we talk about economic benefits of 16

raising CAFE standards, and they are great, when we 17

talk about the environmental benefits, which are 18

enormous, we can talk about a thousand ways it will 19

improve national security of the United States of 20

America, let me leave you with this: If we implemented 21

these CAFE standards or higher 40 or 50 years ago, the 22

flow of oil money would have slowed considerably. We 23

would have undermined these radical and authoritarian 24

regimes that threatened our world. It would have 25280

deprived these violent men of the money they need to do 1

violence, and as a result, John Wroblewski and Bill 2

Cahir would likely still be with their wives, would be 3

with their children and still be my friend. And so I 4

ask you, I implore you to continue to increase these 5

standards. Do so now so that ten years from now we 6

won't be having the exact same conversations asking why 7

more of America's greatest men and women have 8

sacrificed everything because of our addiction to oil. 9

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. And for others that 10

have joined you today, we really appreciate the service 11

that you've provided the country. It's really a great 12

thing for us to celebrate. Thank you for coming today. 13

Last now turn to Ms. Turner

- Handy. 14

MS. TURNER

- HANDY: My is name Sandra 15

Turner

- Handy, and I work for the Michigan Environm ental 16

Council, and I am here in support of the new proposed 17

emissions standards and I want to thank you guys in 18

advance for allowing me to speak this afternoon. 19

Improving fuel economy is an economic, social 20

as well as an environmental justice issue. The rising 21

cost of oil has depleted much of society's spending 22

dollars resulting in many changing plans on simple 23

things like going out to dinner, a movie and on how to 24

travel or if they will travel. This has lessened the 25281

amount of dollars circulating in our economy. Socially 1

it creates a class of haves and have

- nots. Many of the 2

more the have

- nots spend on fuel, lessens the amount 3

one has to improve their economic status. 4

Finally, fuel emission has become an 5

environmental issue on many levels. One, it is a clear 6

contributor to greenhouse gases resulting in climate 7

change. On summer days in the City of Detroit it 8

results in ground

- level smog. Two, the emissions from 9

gas and diesel

- powered engines contributes to 10

particulate matter to our air forcing a quality of air 11

that becomes a clear and present danger to the health 12

of the humans in this society. This leads to number 13

three, which is the environmental impact which impedes 14

one's health. The rate of asthma in Detroit, as 15

mentioned earlier, is three times that of the rest of 16

the State of Michigan. Heart disease and other 17

respiratory illnesses are on the rise. Take a look at 18

where freeways are developed. Freeways cut through 19

neighborhoods of low income people of color. Take a 20

look as you ride through my city and see no barriers as 21

freeways bump directly upon residential areas. Take a 22

look at freeways in the suburbs. Freeways run along 23

commercial districts, meaning the highest level of fuel 24

emission contaminants is participated among the low 25282

income communities of color. If you have yet to 1

understand how the current fuel standards directly 2

impact health, then I ask you to pay attention to the 3

steady rise in that health care cost. 4

New and proposed fuel and carbon pollution 5

standards will create new jobs in manufacturing and 6

related areas, which will help to improve our economy. 7

It will also lessen the cost to import oil. The 8

standards will improve one's social life with more 9

dollars to save and spend with less in the gas tank. 10

The standards will reduce greenhouse gases that 11

contribute to climate change and improve air quality. 12

Finally, the proposed standards will assist 13

in mitigating the health impact experienced by 14

residents. Thank you. 15

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. I'd like 16

to thank everyone on the panel for your patience today 17

and for your testimony, and we're ready to call the 18

next panel. Thank you. 19

You can go ahead and begin, if you'd like. 20

MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. Good 21

afternoon. My name is Greg Adams. I'm Vice President 22

of Automotive of SABIC Basic Industries Corporation, 23

which is a global supplier of lightweight plastic 24

materials to the automotive industry. 25283

SABIC's Innovative Plastics business, 1

formerly known as General Electric Plastics, pioneered 2

the use of lightweight engineering thermoplastics and 3

composites in the automotive industry, and we continue 4

those efforts today with new and exciting solutions. 5

I'm here today to talk about one of those solutions, 6

advanced polycarbonate glazing, which provides 7

substantial off

- cycle reduction in air conditioning 8

load. 9

In recent years, our subsidiary, Exatac, 10

developed a polycarbonate automotive glazing technology 11

capable of meeting regulatory and long

- term durability 12

requirements. Exatec's plasma

- coated polycarbonate 13

glazing resists deterioration and allows the glazing to 14

withstand weathering conditions. Already prevalent in 15

rooflites, Exatec's polycarbonate glazing technology is 16

beginning to be used in backlites and fixed windows 17

behind the A pillar. 18

Polycarbonate glazing technology provides 19

three independent greenhouse gas reduction and fuel 20

economy benefits. First, polycarbonate is lightweight, 21

up to 40% lighter than glass. In one of our fleet test 22

vehicles, we eliminated 26 pounds by replacing the 23

glass sunroof panels and fixed glazing behind the A 24

pillar with polycarbonate glazing. 25284

That weight savings doesn't come at the 1

expense of performance. Polycarbonate glazing with 2

market

- ready coatings technology provides durable high 3

optical clarity. Our fleet vehicles employing 4

polycarbonate glazing, along with rear wipers and 5

defrosters, have been on the road and testing for over 6

four years. 7

A second benefit of polycarbonate glazing is 8

that because it is injection molded, the glazing can be 9

suitably shaped and combined with other features. For 10

example, a backlite, frame and liftgate can be 11

consolidated, saving piece and assembly costs and 12

providing opportunities to design a more aerodynamic 13

vehicle. 14

The third benefit of polycarbonate glazing is 15

a substantial off

- cycle reduction in air conditioning 16

load as a result of polycarbonate's very low thermal 17

conductivity as compared with glass. Basically, 18

polycarbonate glazing insulates the passenger cabin, 19

helping to maintain a comfortable cabin temperature, 20

thereby reducing the load of the air conditioning 21

system. 22

The agencies have proposed an off

- cycle 23

credit for glazing that reduces air conditioning load 24

by reducing solar radiation transmission into the cabin 25285

interior . That credit focuses on the reduced air 1

conditioning load needed to cool down a vehicle cabin 2

that was heated by the sun, and will primarily benefit 3

certain reflective glass technologies. We applaud the 4

agencies for proposing this solar controlled credit; 5

however, it only captures one phenomenon by which 6

glazing can reduce air conditioning load and the 7

associated tailpipe emissions. 8

Glazing can also inhibit heat transfer from 9

warmer outside air into the cooler conditioned air of 10

the cabin. The polycarbonate glazing performs 11

especially well in this respect. Polycarbonate glazing 12

reduces the air conditioning load needed to maintain a 13

comfortab le temperature, once that temperature is 14

reached. As a result, this benefit is realized not 15

only when a standing vehicle is exposed to sunlight, 16

but also when the vehicle is moving, and at times when 17

solar radiation is absent or reduced, such as on cloudy 18

days or at night. This insulation benefit is 19

independent of and in addition to the benefits of solar 20

control and should be recognized as such. The two 21

credits could certainly co

- exist. They would 22

acknowledge real

- world effects and would provide OEMs 23

with greater flexibility in meeting the proposed 24

emission targets. 25286

Our written comments will detail a method for 1

quant ifying the off

- cycle benefits from polycarbonate 2

glazing, which is supported by two peer

- reviewed 3

papers. We urge the agencies to carefully consider 4

modifying the proposal to capture the insulation 5

benefits provided by polycarbonate glazing. 6

In addition to polycarbonate glazing 7

technology, SABIC Innovative Plastics offers a number 8

of other lightweight products that can advance the 9

goals of this rulemaking. In fact, our various plast ic 10

products can comprise the entire front six inches and 11

most of the rear six inches of a vehicle, including 12

lights, grills, fasciae, bumpers, energy absorbers, 13

structural reinforcements, liftgates and more. In 14

addi tion to these familiar mature parts of the car, we 15

have developed products such as the plastic steering 16

wheel which will provide future weight benefits as 17

they're incorporated into vehicle designs. We are also 18

developing composite materials that can reduce vehicle 19

mass and enhance design. 20

We believe that the technology of lightweight 21

materials will advance substantially in the years 22

covered by this regulation, as will our understanding 23

of the benefits these materials can provide. We look 24

forward to working with our OEM and our Tier customers 25287

to determine the most cost

- effective and safest ways to 1

incorporate advanced lightweight components and 2

structural elements into the vehicles and components 3

they manufacture. 4

Thank you for the opportunity to testify 5

today and for your kind attention. 6

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much Mr. Adams. 7

Mr. Blain. 8

MR. BLAIN: I'm Jim Blain, president of PEP 9

Stations, Livonia, Michigan. We are a premier premium 10

American manufactured electric vehicle charging station 11

and service provider. I'm here today to comment on the 12

agreement reached between the Obama Administration and 13

the automobile manufacturers on the proposed 54.5 miles 14

per gallon fuel economy standards. But most 15

importantly, I want to talk to you today as a 16

registered architect with over 30 years of 17

architectural experience regarding the charging 18

infrastructure that will be needed to reach these fuel 19

economy standards. 20

Imagine for a moment that you will not need 21

to drive to a street corner gas station to get any of 22

your energy needs, and I say this because I know this 23

may strike you as unusual, but all the infrastructure 24

for our energy, for our transportation needs in the 25288

future exist in all the commercial buildings we have, 1

this building and all the other buildings, it's all 2

there. The days of going to the street corner, like I 3

said, to get your transportation energy are going to be 4

coming to an end. All the buildings today around the 5

country are charging batteries all day long. They're 6

charging laptop batteries, cell phone batteries, and 7

power tool batteries. Everything is there, and all 8

we're going to do is we're going to charge a battery in 9

the parking lot. 10

The charging station, which we manufacturer 11

and sell, will become nothing more than an amenity to 12

the building. It will be like restrooms, handicapped 13

parking, wall duplexes. It will be in everybody's 14

building, and you will no sooner go into a building and 15

ask may I use the restroom and somebody say well we 16

don't have any. Every building has restrooms. Every 17

building is going to have a charging station, just like 18

every building has an outlet. And building owners will 19

need these for their customers, their tenants and their 20

clients. This day is upon us and it's not in the 21

future. 22

I live in this world. I drive a Volt. I get 23

the equivalent of 150 miles per gallon. It costs me 24

about 50 cents an hour to charge my Volt. I have an 25289

app on my phone, it tells me when it's charged. In the 1

last 1200 miles I saved $200 and 55 gallons of 2

gasoline. I drive about 17,000 miles a year, which is 3

probably pretty typical, and that amounts to about 4

$3000 and 800 gallons in savings. If you consider that 5

over the lifecycle of a car, you can see that there's 6

tremendous savings opportunities. In fact, the 7

proposed fuel economy standards in corresponding miles 8

per gallon metric may be an obsolete measurable in the 9

next ten years. It's not the future, it's not science 10

fiction, it's happening right now, it's happening right 11

here in Detroit. Greater fuel economy will build a 12

better future for years to come. Thank you. 13

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Reverend Morris. 14

REV. MORRIS: Thank you very much. I want to 15

thank you for the opportunity to address the members of 16

the Assessment and Standards Division of the U.S. EPA. 17

Again, my name is Charles Morris. I'm a Catholic 18

priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit and administer of 19

St. Christopher Parish in the City of Detroit. I'm 20

also the founder and the current public policy d irector 21

of Michigan Interfaith Power & Light, non

- profit 22

representative of 150 houses of worship and faith

- based 23

institutions of higher education across the State of 24

Michigan. Nationally, the Interfaith Power & Light 25290

movement has chapters in 38 states that serve 14,000 1

congregations. 2

I want to commend the EPA and the Obama 3

Administration for the proposed CAFE standards as well 4

as other rule changes that they are implementing. This 5

will result in several positive outcomes. First of 6

all, it will help Americans wean off foreign oil and 7

make our nation less vulnerable to foreign manipulation 8

of markets, and as we just heard in the last panel, the 9

poignancy of the necessity of that. It will save 10

Americans money, we just heard, at the gas pump. 11

Secondly, in a peak oil world, not only will 12

oil be more expensive to extract, but will require much 13

more energy

- intensive extractive measures with greater 14

deleterious effects in terms of environmental health 15

and create global warming emissions in the extractor 16

process and the impact on local indigenous populations. 17

On e needs look no farther than the skyrocketing 18

environmental justice and health costs to the 19

aboriginal people of Alberta with three times 20

greenhouse gas emissions over traditional forms of 21

extraction and the resource allocation of water to see 22

that alternative extraction of methods of oil such as 23

the tar sands are not sustainable for the long haul. 24

On other hand, the new fuel economy standards will save 25291

an estimated 2 and 1/2 million barrels of oil per day, 1

more than double the amount of that the proposed 2

Keystone Pipeline can produce. 3

Three. Climate change will, according to the 4

consensus of climatologists, and one noted just down at 5

the end of the table here, have horrific impacts on our 6

future in terms of droughts and flooding, disease 7

vectors, species extinctions, and more intense storms. 8

This portends all kinds of potentially horrific 9

scenarios, with trillions of dollars of costs and 10

untold human misery, from environmental refugees to 11

pandemics, from crop failures to political instability. 12

The proposed CAFE standards will help, although not 13

enough, but it will help to mitigate the sharp rise of 14

greenhouse gases behind climate chaos. 15

Fourth. As we just heard in the panel 16

before, in our cities such as in the southwest Detroit 17

area, in particular, where traffic is most intense, the 18

exhaust from cars and trucks have a horrific impact on 19

the health and development of those who are most 20

disadvantaged, the children of minorities and seniors 21

who live in these low

- income communities. High rates 22

of childhood asthma, heart trauma, cancer, and the list 23

goes on, are too often characteristic of life in these 24

distressed communities. 25292

Catholic social teaching addresses the answer 1

to the question that the lawyer asked Jesus in Luke 2

chapter 10:29, "Who is my neighbor?" Does my neighbor 3

include those whose voices haven't been heard at the 4

table? The poor? Non

- human life? Future generations? 5

The answer, according to the three tenets of Catholic 6

social teaching, is an unequivocal "yes." For Catholic 7

social teaching in this case are underlined by three 8

pertinent principles. Prudence. The virtue of 9

prudence compels to act like the precautionary 10

principle, which is derived from prudence, to address a 11

problem now before it becomes worse, especially if that 12

worse scenario is supported, as it is in this case, 13

overwhelmingly by scientific evid ence. 14

Second, the Common Good. We are in 15

solidarity with one another. Contrary to certain 16

current threads in the polity, we are called to act in 17

the interest of the commons. We are all in this 18

together, including non

- human life and our children and 19

our children's children to the 7th generation. And it 20

is the charge, your charge, you know, the agencies such 21

as the Environmental Protection Agency carry forth the 22

cudgel of protecting the commons for all us and for the 23

future. 24

And Priority For the Poor, the real wealth of 25293

our society is found in how we treat the "least among 1

us." As Matthew says, we have a moral obligation to 2

our least advantaged brothers and sisters to ask what 3

kind of world and quality of life do we bequeath to 4

them? 5

In taking the morally right action, we create 6

a better world for all. 26 billion dollars left 7

Michigan last year to pay for fossil fuel. What a 8

difference it would make for jobs and for the quality 9

of life if most of those dollars could remain in our 10

state and serve as a catalyst for economic development. 11

Dollars that stay in the community carry a multiplier 12

effect. What if our motto

-- 13

MR. MEDFORD: I'm not used to interrupting 14

priests, but in the interest of time I ask that you 15

complete your

-- 16

REV. MORRIS: I've got two sentences left. 17

MR. MEDFORD: Good. That's great. 18

REV. MORRIS: As a pleasant peninsula would 19

be as true for the next generation. As we face our 20

carbon constrained future, the fuel efficient and 21

electrified vehicles on display at the North American 22

Auto Show portend the can

- do attitude of Detroit and 23

America. We are poised, once again, to be a world 24

leader in a future that is cleaner, sustainable and 25294

more just for all God's children. 1

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 2

Mr. Sommer. 3

MR. SOMMER: Thank you. Good afternoon, 4

everyone. I appreciate you all sticking it out. I 5

know it's been a long day. My name is Marc Sommer and 6

I represent not only the sportsmen and women of the 7

State of Ohio, but I also did most of my work while 8

working with the National Wildlife Federation. 9

Having worked for the Department of Natural 10

Resources for 18 years and educating sportsmen and 11

women on how to do it, how to get out there and hunt 12

and fish, this task that I took on with the National 13

Wildlife Federation was a no

- brainer, because what it 14

gave me an opportunity to do is actually go out there 15

and talk to them about how they can further their 16

conservation efforts in the state. We talk about 17

species extinction, we talk about extirpation, we talk 18

about the buckeye tree finally ending up in the State 19

of Michigan, which some might think was funny, 20

depending on which football team you're rooting for, 21

but it gave me an opportunity to get out there and ta lk 22

to some of these sportsmen and women. And the common 23

thing that I noticed when I was out there was these 24

same people that out there hunting and fishing are the 25295

ones that are working in these plants. They're the 1

ones building these engines. They're the ones talking 2

about all this technology. We don't do these things 3

systematically, we do them systemically. The people 4

building the Dynamax engine down in the DMAX plant in 5

D ayton, which by the way was 20% fuel efficient 6

improvement over last year's model. If I went in that 7

plant and asked those people who wants to leave for the 8

day and go hunting and fishing, I'm pretty sure a lot 9

of them would have left with me that day. 10

These are the people who were our nation's 11

original stewards. When we look back at Teddy 12

Roosevelt, we can back long before Teddy Roosevelt and 13

we see the people that were hunting and fishing, 14

running trap lines were our original environmentalists. 15

They were the ones that cared about it. They were the 16

ones that wanted to make sure that those species were 17

always there; that the turkeys, wild turkeys gone from 18

the State of Ohio, will eventually be reintroduced and 19

found in every single county. 20

These standards that we're talking about are 21

not just about getting better gas mileage, we are 22

talking about emissions and we've heard all about those 23

today. We've heard about what the harm can come from 24

those emissions. The people that we educate, it's not 25296

just about giving them a car that gets better fuel 1

effici ency, it's about helping them understand what is 2

my role now. So the sportsmen and women that I talked 3

to, it was an awareness campaign for the National 4

Wildlife Federation, it wasn't to go out there and say 5

you drive a truck and you only get 12 miles per gallon. 6

The purpose behind the initiative was to make them 7

aware of the technologies that are available; to show 8

them that things are being done right here in this 9

coun try so that in ten years from now when they go to 10

get a different truck, they go to get a different SUV, 11

they are educated on what's best to look at when they 12

go to get something new. 13

Kind of in closing, I was in D.C. working 14

with, of all people, politicians. For some reason, 15

that's where they hang out, and one of the staff 16

members said something that I kind of cringed at when I 17

heard it. He said to me that the person that he was 18

working for didn't necessarily want to jump full 19

throttle into all of this. He said, what about the 20

other countries? Why don't we wait and see what 21

they'll do? Probably not the best attitude. If we 22

think back in time, I'm pretty sure that Henry Ford 23

didn't say well, you know, these horses are not too 24

bad. Maybe I'll just put this little car idea on hold. 25297

The same thing can be said when the Cuyahoga River 1

caught on fire around Cleveland, people didn't sit back 2

and say, eventually it will float down river and the 3

fire will be put out. No. What they did was they 4

rallied around an environmental catastrophe and what 5

has now become as a result of that what we all refer to 6

as Earth Day. 7

We are a country that is based on innovation. 8

We innovate and we evolve based on improving our 9

qualities of life, and that's exactly what these 10

standards are helping us do. They're helping us save 11

money at the pump, which is the only place we can 12

affect the bottom line of what we do with fuel. We are 13

cleaning up the air, we are cleaning up the 14

environment, and as many people earlier today have 15

talked about, we're ensuring that future generations 16

have the choice as to whether or not they hunt and fish 17

in a clean environment. 18

The last thing I want to say, and I'll be 19

finished, we do live in a country where we innovate and 20

we have done so in the past because we want to evolve 21

and make things good, great and better. These 22

standards are set up to do that. And I don't only look 23

back the standards that we have put forth today over 24

the last several years, but I also put forth the 25298

ability for the EPA to regulate these things for the 1

purpose that they were founded for. That is why they 2

are here, that is why they were put into place, and 3

that is why we should trust their judgment going into 4

these negotiations. Thank you. 5

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 6

Mr. Pollack. 7

MR. POLLACK: Good afternoon. My name is 8

Henry Pollack, and I'm a Professor of Geophysics and a 9

Climate Scientist at the University of Michigan in the 10

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. 11

As a contributing author to the 2007 12

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth 13

Assessment Report and currently expert reviewer of the 14

forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report now in draft form, 15

I'm pleased to see real steps being taken to curb 16

greenho use gas emissions that are changing earth's 17

climate. These proposed fuel efficiency standards will 18

by 2025 reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an amount 19

that is equivalent to one year of the total emissions 20

of carbon dioxide by the United States. In other 21

words, in the 14 years that these standards will be in 22

effect, the USA will produce from all sources, 23

including the light

- duty vehicles to which these 24

standards will apply, the equivalent of only 13 years 25299

of carbon dioxide. Let me put that one year, one 1

avoided year into a global perspective. The rate of 2

increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 3

currently about two parts per million each year, and at 4

this current rate of annual increase, the atmospheric 5

concentration of carbon dioxide will grow by 28 parts 6

per million by the end of 2025 and will reach even more 7

dangerous levels by mid century. 8

Currently , the USA produces about one

- sixth 9

of the global carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore, 10

the USA is responsible for about one

- sixth of the 11

increase in atmospheric CO2. An avoidance of 12 months 12

of US carbon dioxide emissions between now and 2025 is 13

equivalent to a two

- month avoidance in the global 14

growth of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Stated another 15

way, adding 28 parts per million of carbon dioxide to 16

the atmosphere will take 168 months under a business as 17

usual scenario, about 170 months if these new fuel 18

efficiency standards are implemented. Please be 19

assured that I am not denigrating this modest avoidance 20

resulting from the proposed emission standards. To the 21

contrary, I applaud the standards as an ambitious step 22

in the right direction. The purpose of presenting 23

these numbers is simply to show the enormity of the 24

problem we face if we are to arrest climate change in 25300

this century. We will need to take a great many more 1

steps such as this if we are to avoid the more 2

disruptive consequences of anthropogenic climate 3

change. 4

I urge the EPA, as well as the Departments of 5

Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, indeed, 6

the entire federal government to step out boldly and 7

quickly in partnership with the private sector wherever 8

possible to engage in essentially energy reform 9

measures. The journey of a thousand miles begins with 10

a single step and we need to run, not walk, forward 11

with a host of other energy efficiency standards and 12

alternative energy sources before we will begin to make 13

a substantial difference in arresting climate change. 14

Thank you very much for taking this first 15

step. Thank you. 16

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you for your testimony. 17

Thanks to all of the panelists for their testimony and 18

a gain, thank you for staying late and staying with us 19

to testify. 20

We're ready for the next panel, please. Mr. 21

Bailey, you can go ahead. 22

MR. BAILEY: Thank you. I'm Robert Bailey, 23

and I'm a Michigan resident, former Research Engineer 24

at Fords Motor Company now retired. 25301

MR. MEDFORD: Congratulations. 1

MR. BAILEY: And among other things I'd like 2

to do today is to second the expressions of Mr. Blain 3

and Mr. Morgenstein. They fill in nicely with my train 4

of thought presentation here. 5

The Ford family has long pursued green 6

products, electric powered vehicles and plug

- in hybrids 7

d riven by lithium batteries, and the

-- although Ford 8

is not the first to produce these sorts of vehicles, 9

one that is much like what Ford may well produce 10

relatively soon is the Toyota plug

- in Prius that is due 11

to show up in March. It runs 13 miles in electric

- only 12

mode with fully charged batteries. They claim on their 13

relatively simplified Toyota cycle that this vehicle 14

produces the equivalent of 87 miles per gallon. I 15

could comment later on what that might imply for the 16

federal city/highway cycle. 17

Now the media have declared that the Ford 18

C- Max car, which is likely to appear sometime this 19

year, runs 30 miles per gallon on full charge. So you 20

can imagine with that advantage over the Toyota vehicle 21

that both those vehicles might do rather well on the 22

city/highway federal cycle. 23

Now an example of Ford's pursuit of green 24

vehicles has been the Ford EcoBoost Engine, which a 25302

version of could be used on the hybrid eventually, and 1

that engine has the advantage that using the 2

displacement of fuel economy, the emissions of a 3

6- cylinder engine you can do the work of 8

- cylinder 4

engine, a rather significant engineering step forward, 5

and it shows the environment in which the hybrid has 6

been growing up and the sort of challenge that's been 7

presented to it to live up to the Ford tradition. 8

Now once we have this picture of a vehicle 9

that can go 30 miles without recharging, without using 10

the energy in the gas tank, this gets people in 11

metropolitan areas to work. And if one lives in a 12

world that Mr. Blain was explaining, you now plug in 13

your C

- Max hybrid to your employer's electrical grid 14

and while you're working eight hours, it gets all 15

charged up and is now ready to go 30 miles back to your 16

house without using any gas. That's rather impressive. 17

I don't want to swear that the media is right on that 18

exact number, we'll see when it actually comes out. 19

There are very good engineers at Ford working on this. 20

I've known some of them. I'm confident that they will 21

do very well in pursuing that sort of a goal. 22

The next

-- 23

MR. MEDFORD: Just about out of time Mr. 24

Bailey. 25303

MR. BAILEY: The main point I wanted to make 1

is there's a whole lot of techniques that are usable to 2

reduce the weight of the vehicles. A 30% reduction in 3

that weight raises that mileage up to 45 or 50 miles 4

without using gasoline, and that is a game changer. 5

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 6

Mr. Bryce. 7

MR. BRYCE: Good afternoon. My name is 8

William Bryce. I am the organizer for Southeast 9

Michigan Jobs with Justice. We are a coalition 10

organization and bring together labor, community and 11

religious organizations to campaign for justice in the 12

workplace and communities where working people work and 13

liv e. We are part of a network of coalitions in over 14

40 cities locally. We have over 20 member 15

organizations ranging from small peace groups and 16

environmental groups and environmental groups to labor 17

unions with thousands of members, for example Southeast 18

Michigan -- I'm sorry. For example, the Service 19

Employees International Union Healthcare Michigan is a 20

part of our organization, they have over 18,000 21

members. The Sierra Club is also an affi liate. 22

Our organization is indeed growing and I 23

believe that we can safely say that we represent 24

thousands of people in the Detroit area. As the 25304

organizer of Southeast Michigan Jobs with Justice I 1

have responsibility for overall coordination of our 2

efforts and mobilizing affiliates to turn out members 3

for various political actions. 4

My colleague, Frank Hammer, has been working 5

on the Green Jobs issue with our jobs committee for 6

several years. He has a specific understanding of this 7

matter necessary for thoughtful comment on CAFE and has 8

the added advantage of a lifetime in the auto industry 9

where I think we all know that CAFE has been discussed 10

with great passion for many years. So I turn over to 11

Frank. 12

MR. MEDFORD: Okay. 13

MR. HAMMER: Good evening. I'm a 32

- year 14

veteran of the auto industry. I worked in production 15

and skilled trade in the GM auto plant outside of 16

Detroit in Warren, Michigan. I served ten years in the 17

International Union and I'm now happily retired. I can 18

tell you that while I was an officer of my local union 19

I can still remember letters and, in fact, I brought 20

one with me just in case you want to see one. 1991 21

where there were letters going to Senator Riegle 22

warning about the increase in the CAFE standards, and 23

this has been an ongoing chorus between the company's 24

and my union for years, and so I'm happy to say that I 25305

see that we're maybe now have tilted onto the other 1

page and we're now both advocates for higher f uel 2

efficiency standards, and I welcome this opportunity to 3

support what you're doing. 4

I have had experience in CAFE standards over 5

the years, first of all, fighting the higher standard 6

while I was on staff. I can still remember the UAW 7

corralling staff members to have a rally in support of 8

save our trucks, save our jobs and things of that order 9

all against the CAFE standards. But what I did learn 10

when I was a future product sourcing rep in Pontiac, 11

Michigan at the Powertrain facility was that every 12

engine and every transmission designed started with 13

what is the government's CAFE standard. That's how 14

powerful the standard is. It established everything 15

for every new generation of engine and transmission. 16

Now I've heard various arguments in favor of 17

the standards. I'm not convinced about the one that 18

sa ys it's a job creator, and you have to understand 19

that I'm a little bit gun shy on the question of job 20

creation because in my 32 years experience I've seen 21

the whole industry go down to about 100,000 whereas 22

when I hired at GM, we were at 450,000 so in all those 23

years we always heard about job creation, job creation. 24

So I think the verdict on that is out. I think it 25306

might create jobs, and it also might eliminate jobs. I 1

don't know. 2

I am here as a member of the Jobs With 3

Justice which represents an integrated body of unions, 4

and I think that when the name was first coined, Jobs 5

With Justice, there was probably no thought given to 6

climate justice, and I want to sort of piggyback on 7

what Mr. Pollack said in a previous panel that today 8

that climate change is real. I'm very happy to see the 9

website of the EPA carry information about climate 10

change. I wish it was more linked to the question and 11

the discussion of fuel efficiency standards. It seems 12

to be in separate worlds and it should be combined 13

together that the reason we have to increase fuel 14

efficiency and to other measures is because we have a 15

very serious danger coming down the pike and that's the 16

consequences of global warming and climate change. 17

So I think that in terms of EPA's 18

considerations that the standard should be, does what 19

we do help to effectuate a slowing down of global 20

warming, and that that is the highest standard that we 21

should be measuring all of what we do in this industry 22

and other industries as well. 23

Raising the standards will help reduce the 24

consumption of fossil fuels, and for that reason alone, 25307

I support your efforts. However, there is a problem, 1

and I think that there's been some discussion on the 2

web, for example, that higher standards might just let 3

people drive cars some more, and that we have to take a 4

complete measure of where the fuel, the higher fuel 5

efficiency standards in terms of overall carbon 6

emissions, we have to get a whole measurable picture. 7

The weaning of us off oil addiction will 8

require more than efficient cars. It seems to me that 9

the EPA with the Department of Transportation should 10

accelerate giving choices to Americans in regards to, 11

for example, public transportation. And if you've been 12

tuned in to our metropolitan area, there's been a lot 13

of debate going on whether we're going to have a light 14

transit line up and down Woodward, which, by the way, 15

we used to have many years ago, we used to have 16

trolleys. Yeah, we'd like to get them back. It's a 17

different age and if we rely on public transit, we can 18

also begin to reduce carbon emissions. The same goes 19

for a high speed rail line that was discussed between 20

Chicago and Detroit. 21

The higher standards are achieved through the 22

hybrid and electric cars is all well and good, but if 23

the electric cars are plugged into coal

- fired plants, 24

all we're doing is removing the problem one step 25308

removal out of sight of out of mind, and it seems to me 1

a holistic approach says not only do we have to improve 2

t he efficiency standards, but we have to link that to 3

the use of renewable energies and not, not coal. 4

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Thank you Mr. 5

Hammer. I think we'll move on to Mr. Egged. 6

MR. EGGED: Well before I like really 7

introduce myself, I want to thank you five because just 8

sitting here for the three panels that I have, I'm 9

surprised you guys aren't downing aspirin like candy. 10

I mean you're inundated with a bunch of good 11

information, but it's all coming at you all at once. 12

Anyway. 13

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 14

MR. EGGED: My name is Jim Egged and 15

52

- years

- old but I'll be 53 in March, and I've been an 16

envir onmental activist all my adult life and most of my 17

adolescence. And I have not yet been blessed with 18

grandchildren, but, you know, I'm sure they'll be 19

forthcoming soon. And eventually those grandchildren 20

will have grandchildren and want to leave a legacy of 21

environmental activism for the future inhabitants of 22

the planet and just like my parents left to me. All 23

right. 24

And so in adopting these standards the 54 and 25309

1/2 miles per gallon by 2025, I know that the EPA in 1

its goal, you know, using the Clean Air Act to set the 2

greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicle fleet of 3

163 grams of, you know, that's all a bunch of technical 4

stuff like Dr. Pollack who, I read his book too, I love 5

that, A World Without Ice. 6

Anyway. In addition to the ecological impact 7

this will have, I think it's also the biggest single 8

step that the US has ever taken to reduce its 9

dependence on foreign oil, which the military guy down 10

there at the end, you know, has a lot to say about 11

that, you know, from the first couple panels ago. 12

Anyway. The money saved also will allow consumers to 13

spend money elsewhere, you know, because if they're not 14

spending money at the gas pump, they'll do what I call 15

super stimulating the economy, you know, that's an old 16

economic term that I just made up. Anyway. You know 17

th ey can take the money, you know, that was stimulus 18

for the economy, spending it frugally and saving it, 19

and then again, re

- stimulating it into the economy, 20

thus, super stimulating it. So there's lot involved 21

here. 22

Now in any case, it's not like the technology 23

isn't there. Automakers will be able to comply with 24

the new proposed standards because I'm sure that you've 25310

already gotten because you've talked to Bob King, 1

you've talked to the Ford guy and the to the GM lady or 2

the other way around. 3

MR. MEDFORD: Ford lady, GM guy. 4

MR. EGGED: And Chrysler guy. So you know, 5

that it's all there. 13 major automakers signed 6

preliminary agreement and worked out with the White 7

House and most automakers agree that the existing 8

technologies can be used to achieve the plan's goals. 9

These are technologies such as turbo charging, direct 10

fuel injection, 8 to 10 speed automatic transmissions, 11

electric drive and other fuel saving emissions, and 12

that comes from Edmunds.com. Anyway, these 13

technologies are on display as I speak right down the 14

street the Cobo Hall and so guys like, you know, Dan 15

Akerson, Alan Mulally, Sergio Marchionne and Jim Lentz, 16

they all support this. 17

The only, you know, like one concern I have 18

is to raise is like the mid

- term review. As a retired 19

firefighter, because that's what I did for a living, by 20

the way, and background in science. I have two 21

undergraduates, two baccalaureate degrees in science, I 22

realize the importance of the review process. I just 23

don't want this review to be an opportunity for the 24

industry to slow or procrastinate these standards to 25311

the point of non

- implementation. The automakers did 1

say that they could achieve these goals, that doesn't 2

mean that they'll be in a hurry to do so, and I'm sure 3

you understand that. I would like to urge both 4

agencies to keep both the standards in place for all 5

nine years, thus, letting the mid

- term review

-- not 6

allowing the mid

- term review to slow the process down. 7

The review should be opportunity to make this program 8

stronger. 9

And one last thing. The electric vehicles 10

are treated as 0 emissions which kind of allows for 11

the, you know, like a little cheating, I guess, on 12

other end. So perhaps the cap of the special treatment 13

of electric vehicles could be strong enough to not 14

reduce the oil saving benefits, which is part of the 15

purpose of the standards. And thank you guys for 16

sitting here for so long listening to all this. 17

MR. MEDFORD: Sounds like you've been here 18

all day too since early this morning, and thank you for 19

coming. 20

Mr. van Guilder. 21

MR. VAN GUILDER: Good evening. My name is 22

Brad van Guilder. I'm the staff person in Michigan 23

with the Sierra Club, and again, I'd like also thank 24

you for staying here and having this hearing all day 25312

here in Detroit. I would like to address a policy 1

point or two and also relate the experience of myself 2

and my father as consumers attempting to make 3

responsible vehicle choices that actually reflect how 4

some of those policies are actually seen by consumers 5

who are, you know, ultimately the people who are going 6

to end up being affected by this. It's extremely 7

important that EPA is part of setting national 8

standards the combined objectives for both vehicle 9

efficiencies and establishing a greenhouse gas emission 10

standards. Mobile source pollution from cars and 11

trucks and the transportation sector are a large 12

contributor to air pollution generally, and cli mate 13

change in particular. These emissions have 14

historically been more difficult to address than point 15

source pollution. These standards lay out steady 16

improvement in fuel efficiency, an historic step in 17

significan tly addressing climate change. By setting 18

the standards to model year 2025, manufacturers will 19

have a timeline necessary for a far more stable 20

industry. More importantly, these standards will drive 21

technology developments, material science, energy 22

storage, alternative fuels, and moving beyond the 23

internal combustion engine. 24

With all of these technology innovations, I'm 25313

concerned about how the greenhouse gas emission 1

equivale nts will be calculated. This is especially 2

important to ensure the integrity of a policy intended 3

to substantively address climate change. The full 4

lifecycle of any fuel with a propulsion system must be 5

accounted for whether electricity derived from coal and 6

the mining thereof, or bio

- fuels derived from fossil 7

fuel

- intensive agriculture. 8

One of the criticisms I have heard is concern 9

that the upfront cost of these vehicles may be hig her 10

as these new technologies are applied in large 11

quantities of scale will help curb higher costs of the 12

vehicles. However, the cost over the life of the 13

vehicle has clearly been shown to be lower to 14

consumers, and we all get the larger benefit of public 15

health improvements and the associated costs of those 16

public health improvements. 17

The financial industry should modify its 18

lending practices to address the new economics of clean 19

energy efficient technology. For example, energy 20

efficiency mortgages allow a prospective home buyer to 21

lower the cost for their mortgage because they have 22

lower utility bills that are factored into their 23

ability to pay their mortgages. A similar 24

reconsideration of the economics of a fuel efficient 25314

vehicle should be applied with proper oversight of the 1

financial industry. 2

Finally, I'd like to speak as a consumer. In 3

2009 both my father and I were considering purchasing 4

new vehicles. Up to that time, most innovations in the 5

auto industry were being applied to allow for 6

production of larger vehicles instead of dramatically 7

reducing fuel consumption. These new standards change 8

the calculus and address pent up demand for vehicle 9

that use far less fuel. I was looking for a small 10

vehicle with good gas mileage that met my needs for 11

hauling small items. I was very interested in the 12

Honda Fit. It was frustrating with Honda going back 13

and forth over whether they would produce a hybrid 14

version of the Fit, and I'm sure many other 15

manufacturers have dealt with similar kinds of 16

questions, and it's not just Honda. I could not delay 17

my purchase any longer when Honda announced that it 18

would produce a hybrid version of the vehicle, but they 19

would not sell it in the United States because of the 20

apparent perception that the vehicle would not satisfy 21

the performance expectations of consumers in the United 22

States. I hope these new standards that will address 23

the desires of all consumers and not just those that 24

have been shaped by decades of advertising. 25315

I think the consumers in the US are more than 1

willing to embrace a new energy economy that is driven 2

by more than the price of gasoline exceeding more 3

dollars for the gallon. My father's vehicle purchase 4

was a good example. My father is a decorated World War 5

II veteran, a retired airline mechanic and diehard 6

buy

- American union guy. He'd only driven a large van 7

or pickup for over 25 years. He was looking for an 8

alternative to his 12

- passenger V

- 10 van that got 8 to 9

12 miles per gallon that he was using as his regular 10

vehicle to drive to the grocery store. He shocked 11

everyone when he bought a third

- ge neration Toyota 12

Prius. I'd like to take credit for that, but I knew 13

nothing about it. He went out and bought that vehicle 14

on his own. But he was absolutely fascinated with all 15

the innovations that came with that vehicle, all the 16

various tools on that vehicle that told him how he 17

could be more fuel efficient driving that vehicle. And 18

he even jokes that he's afraid that the gas might go 19

stale in the tank because he doesn't use the gasoline 20

fast enough in the tank. Now no disrespect to my 21

father or anyone else of his generation, but if a salty 22

old dog like my dad can embrace a new energy, a fuel 23

efficient economy, then this country is finally ready 24

to do it. 25316

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 1

Miss Woods

-- Walker, I'm sorry. Ms. Walker. 2

For the reporter, that's Donna Walker. 3

MS. WALKER: Yes. Thank you. My name is 4

Donna Walker, resident of Detroit and a member of 5

Sierra Club. I think I'll go over like a little bit of 6

my work and my riding history. But today you're 7

sitting in here and it was 52 degrees today in Detroit 8

Michigan. 9

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 10

MS. WALKER: Lovely. Would you believe I 11

used to work, my job in the '90s was to make sure to 12

monitor those out in the street repairing water mains, 13

and in 1994 in this week, this period of time, it was 14

17 degrees below zero. Also my son lives in northern 15

Michigan. He's a letter carrier so I always watch the 16

weather. There's no snow up there, no snowmobiling, no 17

skiing, and he can't go ice fishing. There are 18

impacts. Michigan, even in northern Michigan, there's 19

big changes taking place in the weather. 20

Okay. I used to own a Chevy Metro. At one 21

time I owned three of them. I gave them to 22

grandchild ren. 42 miles to the gallon highway, and GM 23

stopped making it. It had a cast iron engine, it was 24

wonderful, but they stopped making it. Not enough 25317

profit? In '78 I owned a 2

- cylinder Honda car. Oh I 1

loved that car, 54 miles to the gallon, and I drove to 2

Toronto and Wisconsin and gas at that time was 50 cents 3

a gallon. That's no longer allowed, and I wish it 4

could be brought back so on Jefferson and Woodward I 5

could just drive it. 6

The Smart Car, I'd go out and buy a Smart 7

Car. They tell me in Europe the Smart Car gets 67 MPG; 8

here 40, and I'm not buying that car. I used to have a 9

Metro, did the same thing. 10

Now you talk about loss of jobs, when gas 11

goes to $7 a gallon in this economy, we're not going to 12

be able to buy cars or fill them up with gas, and there 13

will be great job loss because who's going to be able 14

to afford to buy them? 15

Okay. And the last thing is, if we fail to 16

implement such standards, many of us in this room in 17

2025, we're going to look back with great anguish and 18

regret and say to ourselves, why didn't we do it then 19

b ecause things are changing. Thank you. 20

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Mr. Hasspacher. 21

MR. HASSPACHER: My name is Gerald 22

Hasspacher. I'm a retired teacher, and I'm a 23

practicing registered nurse. I'm one of two citizens 24

on the City of Warren Environmental Committee, I'm a 25318

co

- chair of the Green Cruise, which is a celebration of 1

non

- fossil fuel transportation, a week before the Dream 2

Cruise, just the opposite. We'll have our seventh one 3

this year, bigger and better than ever. I'm also the 4

chairperson of Southeast Sierra Club Green Schools 5

Promotion Committee, and over the past three years I've 6

given 28 presentations to schools to help them become 7

official Michigan Green Schools because Michigan has a 8

2006 law whereby if a school qualifies, they are 9

designated an official Michigan Green School. 10

In my presentation I touch on sustainability, 11

energy, ocean water, fresh water, Michigan native 12

plants and animals, trees and transportation. And when 13

I get to transportation, this is the prop that I use, 14

and I bring somebody up and lift it up, and it's 20 15

poun ds, and 20 pounds is what

-- how much CO2 comes 16

from each gallon of gas that we burn, and kids are 17

surprised by that. And so we discuss it and I tell 18

them that the CO2 that's going in the air is not going 19

to come out for the next hundred years, and all the 20

problems that we've been discussing couldn't possibly 21

change for the next hundred years, and tomorrow when 22

everyone turns on their cars it's only going to get 23

worse. And so I ask them questions about that. I say, 24

you think, that when you're driving down the expressway 25319

and you're passing all those cars that they're thinking 1

oh my goodness, I'm putting so much CO2 in the air, and 2

they go no. And I say if it was orange coming out of 3

our tailpipe, do you think we'd be concerned, and they 4

go yes. 5

And so we go back and we talk about how that 6

CO2 effects everything. We talk about how the Arctic 7

will be gone by 2030, and I ask them where will you 8

find a polar bear, no, not in the water, no, not on the 9

land. Somebody usually, it's in the zoo, yes. And is 10

anyone giving money for the polar bears to help them, 11

and I assume well I don't know why because be 12

interesting to find out what the money's going to. We 13

talk about Antarctica as being the size of the United 14

States plus six Californias and an average mile high in 15

ice, and what would happen to the cities in the United 16

States and worldwide if even part of that melts, and I 17

tell them if you're standing on the shore in Florida 18

and the water goes up this much, how far do you have to 19

move back. And they take their guesses and I tell them 20

well you have to go over a mile back. And so that CO2 21

heats up, the thermal expansion and the melting water 22

is going to put a lot of cities at risk. We talk about 23

less fresh water. We talk about the danger to Michigan 24

plants and animals. We talk about loss of Michigan's 25320

tree canopy and in fact this is happening worldwide. 1

And things that I stress to them are take ownership of 2

the earth that they're inheriting, and I try to empower 3

them to be better stewards of the earth through tips 4

but what I can't tell them is how dire things seem to 5

be because science tells us that if we don't turn this 6

around soon, it's going to be catastrophic and there's 7

nothing that they're going to do. 8

So last week I was giving a presentation and 9

a sixth

- grader put up his hand he said, you know, I 10

don't believe in global warming, and I said well, you 11

know, there's an election coming up and two parties and 12

one of them pretty much agrees with you and you're 13

entitled to your opinion, but what I would ask you to 14

do is talk to your teacher about the science of it, not 15

the politics, not the blog, not the talk show hosts, 16

look at the science and that's what I'm asking you to 17

do today for those kids that sit on that floor and look 18

up with those bright eyes and just soak this stuff up 19

and are crazy about environment to do for them. Thank 20

you very much. 21

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much, and thanks 22

to all the panelists for your staying so late, 23

appreciate your testimony, appreciate your interest in 24

the issue. 25321

I think we're ready for everyone else that's 1

listed to testify. I think we can fit you at the table 2

now. So if you come forward and put your names on a 3

name tag, we'd appreciate it very much. Is Mr. 4

McMaster among the group here? 5

MR. McMASTER: Yes. 6

MR. MEDFORD: You're first when you're ready. 7

MR. McMASTER: Thank you for the opportunity 8

to speak. I am Bill McMaster and I'm state chairman of 9

Taxpayers United Michigan Foundation. We are a 10

statewide organization concerned about tax hikes and 11

defense of our state constitution relative to tax hikes 12

as well as the environment. We are quite surprised and 13

disappointed that EPA has taken this course of 14

mandating a 54.5 increase in gas mileage at this time. 15

The reason being is is that no sooner do you accomplish 16

the 32 milestone but here we have another one that is 17

on top of that. 18

The Michigan climate being what it is is a 19

state that uses larger cars; avoids smaller cars. It 20

is basic rule of driving that a smaller car doesn't 21

have that much clearance when you've got five or six 22

inches of snow falling. When you have further families 23

of three and four children or grandchildren, to 24

transport them in a small car compact or subcompact or 25322

electric car is impossible. The state has grown with 1

good highways over the years as the auto industry has 2

grown and native Michiganians very much appreciate 3

being able to use the independence of our cars as we 4

see fit. 5

The pollution of gasoline by increasing the 6

10% of ethenol has been a major disservice to motorists 7

in Michigan because ethenol doesn't get as good of gas 8

mileage as gasoline, and secondly, it fosters a 9

pollution and a fire hazard at the pump and in 10

operation. You may have noticed that only newer cars 11

are able to use ethenol and that they do so with a 12

warning at the pump that it explodes when you have any 13

kind of a spark, including when you slide off your 14

seat. 15

This idea that the auto companies endorse 16

this concept is measured by the fact that the reason 17

they approved it, they will tell you candidly, and 18

endorse your 55 benchmark is because they're worried 19

about individual states like California making a higher 20

standard than other states and requiring the 21

manufacture of certain vehicles to different standards 22

in different states. 23

This idea that the Obama Administration can 24

come into this state and declare to me and my family 25323

and our statewide membership that we're going to have 1

to get along with smaller cars is not acceptable and we 2

will resist that. It is our hope, frankly, that these 3

kinds of unreasonable standards based on, in some 4

cases, as far as global warming and other factors, a 5

kind of science that may better be administrated or 6

administered through different administration and we 7

will work for the election of a different 8

administration next year. Thank you. 9

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Let's go

-- we'll 10

come back to the end to answer any questions or ask of 11

them that you have, but the two brothers that are here, 12

it looks it's Dele and Ayodeji. I'll have you say your 13

last name. Maybe you can help us with that. You 14

can -- are you going to break up the five minutes and 15

share your testimony or

-- 16

MR. AKINPELU. Yes. 17

MR. MEDFORD: Whoever would like to go 18

first, go ahead. Just state your name and your 19

affiliation. 20

MR. AKINPELU: Hi, everyone. My name is Dele 21

Akinpelu, that's how you pronounce it. That's a typo, 22

but that's fine. 23

Yes. Good evening everyone. I am an 24

environmental science student at Wayne State University 25324

and also a current organizer with Sierra Club and I 1

think the push that Obama, President Obama has for the 2

54.5 miles per gallon call for each

-- for the new 3

vehicles is a good step forward, a step in the right 4

direction. I think that it's something that's been 5

long needed for this economy and for our future and for 6

current citizens of United States of America, and I 7

think it's a great idea because well we all know 8

that -- well some of us don't agree that carbon dioxide 9

is contributing to climate change where science proves 10

it has been for the last, you know, couple of decades, 11

and if you can, you know, look at current graphs, 12

Keeling curves and things of that sort that point to 13

that such a thing is existing; that global climate 14

change is existing, it has been continuing, and we can 15

even feel the effects here in Michigan and different 16

places globally. 17

So I feel that's a great push forward, you 18

k now. Me coming from a scientific background I know 19

how the importance of achieving this step and milestone 20

forward, you know, because the United States should be 21

on the frontline as far as having a greater 22

sustainability tract, if you will, when it comes to the 23

automotive industry as well as producing manufacturing 24

vehicles, and so we compete also on an international 25325

level with our Asian and Chinese counterparts that are 1

producing also in vehicles as well who have currently 2

been exceeding and doing better as well as there gas 3

per mileage compared to United States. I currently 4

driver a Ford Taurus and it's a flex

- fuel vehicle which 5

I purchased with my father about three years ago, and 6

it has been running well compared to my brother, who 7

has a Chevy Lumina? Yes, some sort of race addition or 8

something. But as far as gas mileage, I like the bang 9

for the buck, and I understand it does use ethanol as 10

well, which is cheaper, but at the same rate it runs 11

out quicker which isn't almost a great thing but. 12

MR. MEDFORD: Maybe we should hear from your 13

brot her now. 14

MR. AKINPELU: Hi there. My name is Ayodeji 15

Akinpelu, also a Wayne State student studying 16

environmental science and biology, also geology. I 17

believe this is a positive push to get, to get 18

everyon e, specifically the United States, to increase 19

their gas per mileage. Even though California does 20

have a higher standard compared to the rest if the 21

United States, I believe that it's no excuse for, 22

especially for Michigan, Detroit, you know, us being 23

the Motor City where once was called Motor City now 24

it's maybe called the agricultural capital of the 25326

world. 1

Throughout the past couple of years I mean 2

the different corporations, GM, Ford, they have been 3

manufacturing some pretty good car, but

-- pretty good 4

vehicles, not cars, but they always still lack when it 5

comes to MPG's. They can never actually, you know, 6

compare to the European counterparts. I mean Ford 7

finally has it right. Don't get me wrong, I'm not 8

trying advertise for Ford or anything like that, but 9

they actually have taken I guess a paradigm shift to 10

the point where they're not only looking at it from a 11

cost

- effective standpoint, but also looking at it from 12

an economical standpoint and some more of an intuitive 13

aspect as well. Apart from that, apart from that, 14

they -- it's just a push in the right direction, you 15

know. It actually makes the automotive manufacturers 16

strive to hit that pinnacle because other European 17

markets such as Lexus, you know, such as BMW, such as 18

Mercedes Benz, they've already been hitting these 19

points, getting their cars that hit these miles per 20

gallons about decades ago, 20 or 30 years ago, and 21

that's with like Generation 2 or, or, the Generation 3 22

Mercedes M5. They've already been doing these 23

technologie s. Why are we so slow? Why are we so slow 24

to catch on? 25327

So I think Obama's actually in the right 1

direction, it may be a push, but I think it's a push in 2

the right direction. 3

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 4

Mr. Abdalla. 5

MR. ABDALLA: Good evening. I'm Ade Abdalla. 6

I'm the co

- founder, president, CEO of Energy/Efficiency 7

Environmental Health Services and Walking on Water 8

Environmental Stewardship of Recreational Services. 9

Our mission is to establish a worldwide foundation and 10

universal philosophy to mobilize humanity to recreate 11

optimal ecological conditions for the enjoyment and 12

preservation for Mother Earth. With that being said, 13

naturally, I applaud your efforts. I'm in favor of 14

President Obama's new proposed standards for the auto 15

industry. I think this is a step in the right 16

direction. 17

If you had an opportunity to go over to Hart 18

Plaza, at the foot of Hart Plaza is a statute and it 19

says Gateway to Freedom. And I think it's appropriate 20

that you chose Detroit to start these hearings because 21

imposin g these standards on the auto industry is a step 22

to help us free ourselves from the effects of importing 23

so much oil and being dependent on oil while 24

simultaneously doing stuff about carbon emissions. 25328

I like to tell people that our organization's 1

vision and mission statement is based on the theology 2

of ecology that you will find in the first seven days 3

of creation in the Book of Genesis. If you take time 4

time to review it, you'll see during the first five 5

days God created the environment, and on the sixth day 6

he created man. So I tell people if we do not protect 7

the environment, if we do not maintain the environment, 8

then we cannot exist. So it's not a matter of going 9

green, it's a matter of common sense. 10

Now thank you for giving me a chance to 11

testify today and go on record in favor of these 12

improvements. 13

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 14

Mr. Johnson. 15

MR. JOHNSON: How are you doing? 16

MR. MEDFORD: Good. How are you? 17

MR. JOHNSON: Pretty good. Thank you for 18

inviting me. I know you guys have been here all day 19

but I'm really excited about you guys being here. 20

Because I wanted to let everybody in this room the 21

technology is here. I'm an entrepreneur, I've seen it, 22

I've driven it. I'd like to invite you all back in 23

June when we have our prototype running. 24

Right now in America did anyone know that we 25329

had electric vehicles here 100 years ago, but it phased 1

out because there were no standards to support it? 2

Industry and commercialization pushed it by the 3

wayside. As a matter of fact, over 100 years ago 4

diesels ran on peanut oil. The very first diesel 5

engine made by Rudolph Diesel was ran by peanut oil, 6

but those things were pushed to the side because there 7

were no standards. There really wasn't any 8

understanding of what those emissions are doing to the 9

environment, but now there is understanding. Now there 10

are a lot of exciting opportunities. 11

As a startup, I'm working with other startups 12

and it's just so much energy and the technology is here 13

form a large vehicles too to run on

-- get up to 100 14

miles per gallon right at the Auto Show, if you get a 15

chance to go over there. As a matter of fact, they 16

started with the Hummer. I was in the military when 17

they were working with it, 100 miles per gallon. The 18

technology is there. And we have one car 150 miles per 19

gallon, that's the Volt, and then the new Ford Fusion 20

in at 100 miles per gallon. So the technology is 21

there. So if the standards are pushing it, the 22

standards are supporting it, then the companies will 23

keep up. As a matter of fact, I like what one of the 24

brothers said where we're lacking behind because we 25330

have not kept up, there hasn't enough notice. 1

Right now China has been replacing the US as 2

the number one manufacturing, manufacturing production. 3

Right now there they're up 18 million and we're just 4

reaching 12 million because of the crisis we had here. 5

And Japan is number two. We're number 3. So we have a 6

lot of catching up to do, but these standards and other 7

incentives in place are forcing us to compete, forcing 8

us to catch up, forcing us to look at the new 9

technology. And what it's doing with the big OEMs like 10

Ford and GM, they're working with the smaller 11

companies. I get a lot of calls from Ford and GM 12

engineers as we look at new technology. Ford and GM, 13

they don't have the budget, the research and 14

development budget to look at every new technology out 15

there, but us smaller companies, we have the time, we 16

have the energy to develop these technologies. After 17

we prove the commercial ability of them, then Ford and 18

GM comes in and purchases or purchases them from us. 19

So a really exiting environment and I thank you 20

gentlemen for coming here. 21

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. 22

Mr. Lombardo. 23

MR. LOMBARDO: Hello, my name is Dan Lombardo 24

and I'm a peace activist for creative nonviolence in 25331

the Catholic Worker Tradition, and I'd like to make two 1

points. My other, my other full

- time occupation is 2

being a laid off electrician. I'm a laid off 3

construction electrician right now, and my first poin t 4

is about the government mandates work in innovations 5

need a push, for instance, light bulbs. I'm happy to 6

report that I went to Home Depot the other day and they 7

have LED light bulbs, and I think they work real well. 8

I tried them out, they worked great. EPA has the 9

Energy Star program that's helped us pick light bulbs 10

and I appreciate your work on that. So I have 11

governments around the world are also banning 12

incandescent light bulbs, so that's why government 13

mandates do work. 14

My second point is little different than 15

you've heard. It's on our addiction to reducing our 16

independence on oil to reduce the likelihood of future 17

wars. And what I have here is an article from the New 18

York Times, February 1st, 2006, and it's the day after 19

the State of the Union Speech, and I'll read first line 20

of the second paragraph. The most striking 21

declarations Mr. Bush said America is addicted to oil. 22

So I think what he meant by addicted, is by addiction 23

he means we hurt ourselves and others. We hurt 24

ourselves by contributing to climate change. I'm sure 25332

you probably heard about global warming and all that so 1

I thought I'd take a different approach to it. I'd 2

like to focus on how it hurts other people. 3

The control of oil is a major factor in the 4

decision to go to war. And so I got another articl e 5

here, it's from the Washington Post September 15th, 6

2002, and that's when the Bush Administration was 7

trying to sell the war to us in September. The first 8

paragraph goes, a US

- led ouster of Iraqi President 9

Saddam Hussein could open up a bonanza for American oil 10

companies long banished from Iraq. Scuttling oil deals 11

between Baghdad, Russia, France and other countries and 12

reshuffling the world petroleum markets. That's 13

according to officials. So that goes without saying I 14

thing that oil companies are addicted to profits. And 15

a little

- known fact is that eight civilians are killed 16

for every soldier killed. Our addictions to oil are 17

killi ng civilians, and I have some pictures here. This 18

is war creates refugees, pictures of refugees here, and 19

war creates destruction and psychological trauma. 20

There's a picture of a little girl being traumatized. 21

War creates physical trauma. Here's a picture of a 22

little girl who's been burned and she's in her pajamas. 23

Figure that out. War causes more psychological trauma. 24

The soldier in this picture has blood on his foot, on 2533 3

his boot, and there's a newly orphaned child with her 1

parent's blood splattered on her. That's a pretty 2

tough one. This one's tough too. War causes death. 3

Here are dead children in a homemade casket, a grieving 4

father with more caskets in the background. This one I 5

like a little bit better. The picture I like is a 6

picture of children that are apparently safe, although 7

I think it's Iraqi children. Little kid has a funny 8

look on his face. 9

So anyway, I'm concerned that you'll allow 10

too many loopholes in these pretty good standards Obama 11

has come up. My question is how many loopholes you'll 12

allow in these in light of what it could be possibly do 13

to children. Thank you. 14

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you very much. Okay. 15

Mr. Altman. 16

MR. ALTMAN: Thank you. I'm from Royal Oak, 17

Michigan, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in 18

favor of the proposed standards. I'm also a peace 19

activist, and as you might imagine a proposal that 20

would lead to more peaceful world, I'm for it. 21

In 2007, former Reserve

-- Federal Reserve 22

Chairman Alan Greenspan, a Republican, wrote in his 23

book the Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, 24

I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to 25334

acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is 1

largely about oil. But he wasn't alone in this belief. 2

A UPI poll taken in the same year found that 32% of 3

people thought the oil in Iraq was a major factor for 4

going to war. Another 41% felt it was a factor, and 5

o nly 24% felt it wasn't a factor at all. This is a 6

stunning admission or statistic. It means that most 7

Americans believe that we should go to war to feed our 8

demand for oil, a demand that exceeds our capacity to 9

produce the oil within our borders. 10

Today we know the cost of that decision to go 11

to war. Nearly 4500 American soldiers dead, 32,000 12

wounded, tens, if not hundreds of thousands, with 13

traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress 14

disorder. According to the National Priorities Project 15

website cost of the Iraq war is 800 billion dollars, 16

but that's just the allocated funds. 17

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize

- winning 18

economist, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard professor, wrote 19

book called The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True 20

Cost of the Iraq Conflict. Three trillion dollars for 21

a war. But those are just the costs to the United 22

St ates. What about the cost to our coalition partners? 23

What about costs to Iraq? A hundred thousand, over a 24

hundred thousand Iraqis dead and over four million 25335

Iraqis displaced. All told, the war has had a huge 1

cost to the world, to the United States and the world. 2

But I have other questions. Is it moral to 3

fight a war for oil? And what kind of nation would 4

fail to take the steps within its power to reduce its 5

consumption to better match it's productive capacity 6

for oil such that it could avoid a future war for oil? 7

We've just finished fighting what most would agree in 8

part, or in large part, was a war for oil. You'd think 9

that we would do everything in our power to avoid the 10

"need to fight" such a war in the future. 11

I believe that these new standards in that 12

they would potentially reduce the consumption of oil 13

could lead to a more peaceful world, and I urge th eir 14

adoption with one caveat, that is that the standards 15

don't lead to the consumption of other scarce 16

resources. 17

Thank you for the opportunity to testify 18

today. 19

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Altman, and 20

thank all the panelists. 21

I just have one small thing, and that's, Mr. 22

McMaster, the one thing that is a misperception by many 23

people about the standards that we're proposing is that 24

it will force people to drive certain kinds of 25336

vehicles, and these standards are really written for 1

every size vehicle. They're separated by light trucks 2

as one set of standards with standards or targets of 3

fuel economy is a change depending on the footprint or 4

size of the vehicle, and the same set of standards

-- 5

separate set of standards for passenger cars, and the 6

derivation of the 54.5 comes from the best estimate 7

that we have now on the combination of cars and trucks 8

that people buy in the different size categories, but 9

the actual standard that will be yielded at that time 10

will depend on what people do decide to buy and, 11

therefore, the compliance obligations for the 12

manufacturers will be based on whatever people buy. So 13

that trucks and cars in exactly the same variety that 14

exists today, as long as consumers want to buy them, 15

manufacturers will sell them and will be ava ilable. 16

We've heard in other news stories that these 17

standards will make people buy small cars, and I just 18

wanted to make sure that you're aware that these 19

standards set targets for fuel economy for every size 20

vehicle and really is intended to preserve both 21

consumer choice in the kind of vehicle that people 22

choose to buy, improving fuel economy for each size, 23

but I just wanted to make sure. 24

MR. McMASTER; can I have 30 seconds to 25337

respond? 1

MR. MEDFORD: Yes. 2

MR. McMASTER: Consumer preference for 3

whatever size car and whatever gas mileage is pretty 4

well demonstrated in the marketplace. When the Ford 5

150 was again this past 2011 the most popular American 6

made car in the United States, that is a pickup truck, 7

and it does have the EcoBoost and what have you in it 8

now. 9

Sec ondly, Michigan is a natural resources 10

rich state. We have considerable oil and gas deposits, 11

and the Obama Administration has prohibited our 12

drilling for known reserves, particularly under the 13

Great Lakes from drilling from the shore. 14

Now the last thing is the president of

-- or 15

chairman of General Motors Atkinson is on record, I 16

think foolishly, of saying that he is a proponent for 17

increasing the price of gasoline to at least $5 a 18

gallon so that he can force people into smaller cars. 19

That's a despicable thing for a government

- run auto 20

industry to propose to the people who disagree with him 21

substantially. Thank you. 22

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. Thanks to everyone. 23

Thank you for coming and thank you for your testimony. 24

I think we have in the audience now four more 25338

people so if the rest of the folks waiting would come 1

up and put your name on your tag. 2

MR. MEDFORD: Miss Millan, you can you go. 3

Are you ready? 4

MS. MILLAN: Hello. My name is Italia Millan 5

and I live in Auburn Hills, Michigan. I've worked for 6

the auto industry for over a decade. My husband still 7

works there. We know transportation plays a very 8

important role in our economy. Also our and many other 9

families depend on this industry to make a living. I 10

w as always proud of the work I did as an auto industry 11

employee, but I must confess that I also felt guilty 12

due to the fact that we didn't offer the consumers a 13

vast array of fuel

- efficient vehicles which had a 14

smaller impact on our environment. After all, a 15

healthy environment is a synonym of healthy 16

communities. 17

Let's remember that in 2009 greenhouse 18

emissions, including CO2, were finally recognized at 19

pollutants dangerous to human health. Interestingly as 20

was published by the EPA that in that same year mobile 21

sources generated at least one third of all greenhouse 22

emissions in the US, and this is a growing trend. 23

I limit my driving and I carpool when 24

possible, but I cannot control what other people do. I 25339

believe that besides people, businesses and the 1

industry must also have a moral obligation and strive 2

to offer the best products in every sense of the word 3

that they can, and that the government must make sure 4

social and environmental justice happens. I'm happy to 5

see them on board with a stronger fuel

- efficiency 6

program. 7

When I decide to replace my car, I want my 8

family and all the American public to have more options 9

of fuel

- efficient vehicles; therefore, I applaud and 10

support President Obama's goal for a strong federal 11

greenhouse gas and fuel economy program. I expect all 12

vehicles, small, luxury, SUV's, pickups and even 13

electric and hybrid which are called clean, but use 14

coal

- fired plant energy sources, to be held to these 15

same strong standards. I believe this program will 16

create more jobs, drive innovation and competitiveness 17

up, help people save money on gas, especially during 18

tough times, reduce our dependence to foreign oil and, 19

most important, help curb down pollution. 20

T hank you for the opportunity to testify 21

today and for taking my comments into consideration. 22

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you for your comments. 23

Mr. Hughes. 24

MR. HUGHES: Good evening. My name is Don 25340

Hughes. I'm a resident of Auburn Hills, Michigan. 1

I've worked in the automotive industry for 14 years now 2

and I applaud the Obama Administration for proposing 3

this historic fuel economy/greenhouse standards that 4

will reduce our dependence on oil and cut carbon 5

pollution. I feel this is necessary for us to become 6

competitive in a world market. Although strides are 7

being made within the automotive industry, legislation 8

such as this can help drive the industry to invest 9

money and resources into this type of technology. And 10

we all know that everybody is trying to save money, and 11

the things that get prioritized are those that are 12

regulated, and as much as we don't want to be 13

regulated, sometimes it's necessary to fuel that 14

innovation and invest that money. 15

In turn, I think this will create jobs, 16

create new innovation, it will drive us to be leaders 17

in the industry. If we don't improve these standards, 18

we'll be driven out of the market by foreign 19

competition. By setting these standards, we hold the 20

industry accountable, make these changes happen, and 21

ensure job security for the thousands of workers for 22

years to come. Not only this, but this will also save 23

money for consumers, reduce emissions making the world 24

a cleaner place and reduce our dependence on foreign 25341

oils. 1

I want to thank you for taking my comments in 2

consideration and allowing me the opportunity to speak. 3

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you for your comments. 4

Mr. Richardson. 5

MR. RICHARDSON: Hi. My name is Jim 6

Richardson. I'm from Royal Oak, Michigan. First of 7

all, I'd like to welcome you guys to our fair city. 8

MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. 9

MR. RICHARDSON: I've worked in the 10

automotive industry for a long time. All of us have 11

seen the shocks that sudden spikes in oil will cause. 12

Back in the '70s if you remember the gas lines, a few 13

years ago oil prices went up, crashed our economy. 14

Righ t now there's many people out of work because of 15

that. A couple ways that you can go through to take 16

care of, reduce the reliance on oil thereby taking our 17

economy and insulating it from those price shocks is 18

one of two things: Reduce the demand for oil or find 19

oil. There's only a certain amount of oil left on this 20

planet. There's no way that you can flip a switch and 21

automatically get more oil. That leaves us with 22

reducin g our consumption. Reducing the demand will be 23

there and help insulate our economy from spikes in oil 24

prices. 25342

I really praise the Administration on coming 1

up with these historic fuel standards and emission 2

standards. They're long overdue. They should have 3

been upgraded years and years ago. Maybe then we 4

wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. 5

The new standards will reduce emissions from 6

automobiles, which is one of the leading emitters of 7

greenhouse gases by about two billion metric tons per 8

year. That's equivalent to 474 coal

- fired plants. What 9

it will also do, it's also thought that these standards 10

will go through and reduce oil consumption by 1.5 11

million barrels a day by the year 2030. In my opinion, 12

that's fantastic. Number one, no one wants to have 13

dirty air and I already mentioned about how oil affects 14

our economy. To achieve these new standards, companies 15

are going to have to come up with new innovations, and 16

and new innovations are going to drive investment in 17

companies. They're going to go through

-- they're 18

going to hire people. I had seen something where, and 19

quite honestly I can't remember where I saw it, but 20

over 450,000 are thought will be created based upon 21

these new standards. That's a whole heck of a lot more 22

than the Keystone XL Pipeline. I feel that the 23

Administration should go through and set these 24

standards and make them effective in July. 25343

The one thing that I do question is I feel 1

there should be a cap on the amount of when they're 2

looking at emissions, electric vehicles, though they 3

emit nothing, the electricity still a lot of it comes 4

from coal

- fired power plants. There should be a 5

mechanism in place when judging the amount of emissions 6

coming out of the vehicles that take in account the 7

electricity that's being generated from the coal

- fired 8

power plants thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse 9

gases emitted into the atmosphere. 10

That's all I have to say. Thank you very 11

much for letting me testify. 12

MR. MEDFORD: You're very welcome. 13

Mr. Linderman. 14

MR. LINDERMAN: I'm Leon Linderman. I don't 15

represent any particular interest group, I just come as 16

a citizen. I too want to welcome you and appreciate 17

the opportunity to testify. 18

As we speak, we're facing a meltdown of polar 19

icecaps and other weather

- related changes. The threat 20

to human and animal life as well as vegetation around 21

the world. The new standards will help but for me they 22

raise critical additional questions, which I now want 23

to share with you as a way to perhaps change your 24

perception of the problem or encourage you to consider 25344

it anew as bigger and more dangerous to the planet. 1

Do the standards go far enough to counter the 2

threats? Do they raise the MPG standard high enough 3

and do so quickly enough? Do we need a national, a 4

strong national program to organize and fund 5

development of alternative energy sources like wind and 6

solar? Are the standards comprehensive enough? Thus, 7

it's not only important to increase MPG, but to reduce 8

all greenhouse gas emissions from any and all sources. 9

And in the handout that I

-- that you had for us that I 10

read today, I don't know if it addressed the danger of 11

other greenhouse gases, or at least not very carefully, 12

but I thought it only addressed the danger of CO2, or 13

primarily addressed the danger of CO2 while ignoring 14

the very real danger of other, of other greenhouse gas 15

emissions. 16

Also, why wait until 2017 when threatening 17

environmental degradation is already upon us? To 18

require that the preponderance of the spike is 19

achieved, what if a new administration 2012 or 2016 20

isn't attuned to the problem? I believe that America 21

has the scientific and engineering ability to move 22

ahead even more rapidly than this program seems to 23

offer and that Americans want us to lead, lead in the 24

world. 25345

It seems to me that the great crisis of this 1

new century is upon us; that we must bring much more of 2

our natural and native resource fullness and 3

inventiveness to the problem than we seem to be doing. 4

Studies of the triple bottom line, people, profit and 5

the planet, show that they're mutually reinforcing. So 6

increasing our response toward a protectiveness

-- 7

response toward a protectiveness toward the environment 8

will enhance our prosperity. Thank you. 9

MR . MEDFORD: Thank you. Mr. Linderman, I 10

just want to make sure that you understand there are 11

standards that since the president came into office 12

there are three sets of standards that have been 13

published, the first one is for 2011 alone for fuel 14

economy, and then jointly with EPA on greenhouse gases 15

and fuel economy for '12 through '16, so those 16

standards are just kicking in this year for '12 and go 17

through '16, and '17 will pick up and continue those 18

on. So there have been pretty aggressive fuel 19

standards, fuel economy and greenhouse standards since 20

2011 right on now through these proposals for 2025. So 21

I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that, and 22

that these standards are really only about greenhouse 23

gases and fuel economy for automobiles, specifically 24

light passenger vehicles, which include trucks, light 25346

trucks and passenger cars. But they're also

-- we just 1

fin ished this past year in 2011 all set of fuel economy 2

and greenhouse gas regulations for heavy

- duty trucks as 3

well. So it's not all greenhouse gas, it's not all 4

sources, but it is all sources for those that involve 5

the EPA side, light vehicles. 6

MR. SILVERMAN: If I could add. It does 7

regulate all the greenhouse gases emitted by these 8

vehicles, for example, air condition or refrigerants 9

are addressed by this proposal as well as CO2. 10

MR. LINDERMAN: But it's limited to vehicles. 11

MR. SILVERMAN: It's limited to vehicles. 12

MR. LINDERMAN: My contention is it's 13

aggressive, but not aggressive enough, given the 14

proportions of the problem. 15

MR. SILVERMAN: There is some permitting 16

being done now for individual stationary sources. 17

MR. MEDFORD: Finally Miss Hill. 18

MS. HILL: My name is Kimberly Hill and I'm a 19

policy manager for Detroiters Working for Environmental 20

Justice, and I would like to thank the EPA and all of 21

the other federal agencies that are represented here 22

today and for allowing us to be able to speak about 23

this very important issue. 24

Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice 25347

appreciate certainly the EPA and the other agencies 1

that are involved in this effort, and President Obama's 2

commitment to clean energy in helping communities. 3

This decision has far

- reaching implications. Not only 4

will it create more green jobs, but more importantly, 5

it will significantly curb carbon pollution, which is 6

the leading cause of global warming. This decision is 7

particularly beneficial to many urban communities 8

because of extreme and constant exposure to carbon 9

pollution and high unemployment rates. Obama's 10

proposed clean car standards would stimulate the 11

creation of thousands of new clean energy jobs in 12

Detroit and throughout Michigan, and in order to 13

maximize this opportunity, we need to ensure that these 14

standards are implemented as written without any 15

loopholes. 16

Detroit has seen, as I'm certain that you've 17

heard firsthand, what the collapse of an auto industry 18

can do to a city. The urban revival in this city has 19

received international coverage. We can and we will 20

come back as a thriving and sustainable center of the 21

Midwest, but we're going to need a healthier 22

environment and new clean energy jobs, and for that, 23

we're going to need for these clean car standards to be 24

implemented. 25348

And one of the things that I very briefly 1

wanted to state is the importance of the Environmental 2

Justice perspective heard earlier in these discussions, 3

and so it was good you had a diversity of panelists, 4

bu t it would be

-- I think that there has to be more of 5

a concerted effort to make sure that Environmental 6

Justice organizations are also included in those 7

earlier discussions. So we're glad that many of you 8

are here, but as you can tell in the audience, there's 9

not too many people left. The reason that's important 10

is because of the far

- reaching implications that 11

marginalize low income communities are the one that are 12

most impacted by these decisions. And so although we 13

appreciate the auto industry having some 14

representation, it is very important, and this is 15

certainly another issue that we perhaps can take up 16

with the automobile industry, but to make sure that 17

these particular cars are affordable. And so the 18

Environmental Justice community throughout the country 19

and I'm sure as you'll travel to other cities will 20

express this sentiment. Thank you. 21

MR. FRANCE: Thank you. We appreciate your 22

testimony, we appreciate you spending the evening with 23

us. Thank you. 24

(The proceeding was concluded at 7:33 p.m.) 25