hunjo summit towards an overturf invigorated and inclusive economy. we decided on this theme because first we want to chart the course for economic growth and international cooperation, and second to building and third to meet goals. >> thank you, vice president yuanchao to have joined us and made the trip from beijing here. we will meet our chinese friends from 26th to 28th of june. we will pursue all those issues in our meeting of the new champions focuses particularly on innovation. but we also will try to be of

help for some preparatory work of the g-20 summit. thank you again for joining, and we wish you for all your reform processes. it's systemic reform, it's not individual reform. we wish you all the best. thank you, mr. vice president. [ applause ] january 22nd marks the 43rd anniversary in the court decision of roe v. wade legal e legalizing abortion in the

united states. donna crane talks about the decision to hear about women's reproductive rights. then david daleiden at the center for medical progress will talk about the role in the staff. you can join our conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> virginia senator tim kaine will hit the campaign trail in davenport, iowa friday to lend his support for hillary clinton. we'll take you there live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. monday, february 1st, our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern both on c-span and

c-span 2. we'll bring you live caucus coverage, taking your tweets and phone calls and texts. then a democratic caucus on c-span 2. see the event live in its entirety. be sure to stay with c-span and join in the conversation on c-span radio and at cspan.org. american history tv airs every weekend on c-span 3 all day saturday and sunday. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories, an interview with conservative commentator armstrong williams, part of the explorations in black leadership. >> we walked, and some people recognized my father because he had a strong reputation in the county. just before he was about to introduce strom thurmond, i held out my hand and i said, hello, senator. i hear you're a racist. and the senator said to me, you sound like a bright young man.

what grade are you in? when you graduate from high school, come intern for me and decide if i'm a racist or not. on the anniversary of the 1773 boston tea party, actors recreate the scene in the civic center house in boston. on the road to the white house rewind, the 1980 republican campaign with interviews of ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, john anderson and howard baker recorded by students at salem high school in new hampshire airing for the first time on national television. and at 4:00 on real america, 35 years ago this week, iran released 52 american hostages after holding them for 444 days. through archival photos and videos, we'll look back at the iranian crisis including president carter's announcement of a failed rescue attempt and the release of hostages.

for the entire american history tv schedule, go to cspan.org. the energy industry released developments in the senate industry. the senate is currently considering a bipartisan bill aimed at increasing private public partnerships in the energy sector. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. good morning. we will call to order the senate energy and natural resources committee. this morning we have a hearing on the status of innovative technologies within the automotive industry. the good news for me is i don't have to drive a lot here in washington, d.c., but i know there are a lot of people out on the roads yesterday. they were wondering what the new advances are in automotive

technology and industry and how they're going to handle the snow. we timed this hearing deliberately not just to occur with where we're starting with our bipartisan energy bill where we're looking to take that up at the first of next week on the senate floor, but we're also here this morning because the washington auto show is commencing. that show kicks off tomorrow, and while there's no substitute for going in person, we do have the ceo of the alliance of the automobile manufacturers here, mr. bayne wall. he's here to share his thoughts, so welcome to the committee this morning. it isn't just the auto show that makes this series timely. 17.5 million cars and trucks were sold. this banner year was spurred in part by low gas prices, and as we heard earlier, those prices

are projected to remain low throughout the year. the boost in sales is also by the tremendous innovation taking place in the auto industry right now, and i think that's a story that deserves more attention. we have seen dozens of fuel models emerge like the tesla s to the fuel cell powered mti to one that can run on natural gas and propane. at the same time we've seen exciting developments in everything from safety technology to self-driving cars which may offer their own energy and environmental benefits. i see today's hearing as an opportunity to learn more about significant innovation taking place within the auto industry, particularly as it relates to alternative fuels and lightweight materials which are at the heart of the department of energy's research activities and of this committee's jurisdiction. this is a look down the road, if you will. a chance for us to hear about the technologies that are emerging, to gain how they might affect our energy needs and to

understand the challenges that need to be overcome. this hearing is also a chance for us to recognize that the auto industry is facing heavy regulations right now, particularly when it comes to regulations. and while those particular regulations don't impact this innovation, it does affect the policies. another hearing is whether programs to support the innovation are written as intended, whether they are properly intended to help our auto industry compete and thrive. that brings us to the work that the d.o.e. is doing through its vehicle technologies office and labs. i've consistently added policies to the automotive sector. instead of picking one favorite technology or plowing our federal dollars into it, i'm convinced that the better path is to support research in a

wider range of possible winners and to let the markets and consumers determine which is best. here in this committee, i think we're on a good track. to work together our bipartisan energy bill provides several provisions to boost promotion in the automotive industry, and that includes a moderate version of the innovation act by senator peters, senator alexander and senator stabenow which will provide them a clear direction for its research mission. we've worked hard to make sure it's bipartisan, and we can make sure our innovative vehicle technologies are bipartisan, too. i'm looking forward to what the witnesses will provide. we do have a vote scheduled for 10:30 this morning, and i know the panel needs to leave by 11:30, so we will be expeditious here this morning. >> thank you for holding this important hearing. vehicles affect almost all americans, and today's hearing is a way to talk about the new

vehicle technology, so i'm interested in hearing from our panelists about the changes that we're seeing in the transportation sector. the u.s. auto industry has come back during the last seven years, and it has sold a record number of vehicles last year, but there is still a lot of work to be done. american vehicles are still very dependent on oil. in fact, our transportation is responsible for 77% of petroleum uses and nearly 30% of greenhouse gas emission, so while we have significantly reduced the use of oil in our traditional home heating, we need to focus our goal on the transportation sector. this is why the department of energy has had a longstanding relationship with the automotive industry to develop and deploy new and next generation research. the vehicle technologies office works with light duty automobiles as well as commercial trucks to conduct research to improve fuel efficiency standards and lightweight composite batteries and materials. side note, lightweight composites have driven great

transparency in the automotive industry and great benefits. bipartisan votes have been built by members of this committee that reauthorizes the vehicle technology office at the department of energy and directs a new focus on technology. i'm looking forward to working with the department on these key programs and exploring the ways in which these partnerships will help make additional modes of transportation effective. as the price of gas continues to drop in some areas even below $2, consumers are looking and returning to larger vehicles and suvs and looking to the university of michigan's transportation research institute. in the u.s. in 2015 were less efficient than the vehicles sold in 2014. this is the first time since 2008 that the average fuel economy has lowered.

the auto economy can be volatile and as we learned on tuesday, there will be a correction. so increasing the fuel efficiency of u.s. vehicles is one of the biggest steps we can take to save families more money by reducing the cost in helping reduce emissions. so in addition, they are promising new technologies today in alternative fuels, safety features, light composites. making the right investments can help bring this to scale. the laboratories are partnered with the industry for decades on cleaner and more efficient vehicles focused on incorporating more aluminum into auto manufacturing to make lighter vehicles. again, just to go back, they are in the plans and savings, so the technology from p & l in the

vehicles of the chevrolet max. in addition, the lab is working on game-changing technology using catalysts to produce fuels from plant matter that could change the future of our nation's energy economy. this is important work to help us diversify our sources of fuel and hedge against volatile energy markets for the future, but improving efficiency is also brought about by focusing on our freight network. each year 3 billion gallons of fuel is wasted due to congestion, and businesses across the country pay the price which is estimated at $27 billion a year in added transportation costs. so as our export economy continues to grow and as we produce great product, we have to get them to market, so that's why particularly the supertruck issue is very important. i know my colleague from michigan is here and she's been a leader in helping on this in order to achieve more fuel efficiency. meanwhil

meanwhil meanwhile,ie electrification can help a person save $12 million a year in fuel and reduce emissions by 12%. so they have worked to help drive down the cost of electric car batteries and improve performance, and in 2008 the average battery pack was more than $1,000 per kilowatt. today it's estimated to be less than $300. so this means vehicles can travel further and with better performance. but we need to continue to ensure that >> that is compared to almost 170,000 ghas stations across the united states of america. and, so, i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.

how we can continue to answer that part of the equation. and, of course, self-driving cars are an important aspect of the discussion of future automobiles and look forward to what witnesses might have to say on that. but secretaries have made a discussion on the fine points of partnership that drive successful innovation efforts. and i know the recent mission innovation that the secretary and the other private sector, like gates or pioneering are an important aspect for us doing our job here in making sure that we continue to have next generation technology so that the united states can continue to be a leader in this technology, manufacturing cars. thank you. >> thank you, senator. we will now turn to our panel.

i advise that each of you have five minutes for your testimony and we would ask you to try to observe that five minutes time line here so we can get to our questions of you. we have a very distinguished panel this morning led off by david friedman who is renewable energy department. thank you for joining us. we have the president and ceo of the aluns automobile manufacturers. and dr. chris gearhardt is the director at the national renewable energy lab. and the final member of the panel is the senior partner for

the boston consulting group. so welcome to each of you. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member and all of the members of the committee for the opportunity to be able to testify today. if we look at the world today, our national imperative is clear. we must win the clean energy race. we will capture a significant chair of the market, the job and the energy security and the other opportunities that will be created along the way. i help manage a portfolio to deliver on our mission.

as we heard earlier, 70% about 1/5 of household expenditures and nearly 1/3 of carbon emissions. other air pollutants that are harming our children and ur grandparents. first, using less energy. domestically produce alternative fuels with lower greenhouse gas emission. through our work at the national renewable energy lab, and with our other national lab partners, private sector partners and other key stake holders, we helped deliver significant results through secnologies that are on the market today.

each dollar we've invested has delivered about $70 in benefit to taxpayers. 70-to-1 ratio. and some of the higher technologies from that program are already making their way into the market. and the batteries from the chevy volt, the cadillac elr, the ford focus plug-in electric vehicles all tap into industry licensed technology developed at argon national labs. and thanks in part to technology developed, two companies today

are selling or leasing. while we're proud, there's a lot more to do. as president obama and others affirm at the mission initiative in november, solving our energy and climate challenges will require significantly accelerated development and innovation of new technologies. white we continue to lead the world on innovation, we've historically under-invested in clean energy. compared to the size of our economies, we've invested one-third of our competitors like china and japan. we will continue our electric and heavy duty vehicle work. we will also invest in other important areas like new fuels an engines to boost efficiency and renewable fuel use through other national labs. through cross cutting rnd

efforts and develop vanszed high strength materials to reduce cost, improve performance and enhance manufacturing processes for automotive use, such as the on going work mentioned before pacific northwest national labs, as well as come poz sieves there and with oak ridge national labs and across the country for our institute for advanced composites, manufacturing, innovation. in a safe, secure, reliable cost effective manner. including work at other laboratories. now, research in transportation mobility is also critical in order to identify untapped system level energy savings through connected and automated vehicles like those at the ann arbor connected vehicle test program. with programs like these and

support from you and the technologies you'll hear about, the industry and into the vehicles and highways across the united states. i look forward to working with congress and very much with this committee to further advance transportation technologies to create new jobs and industries while saving consumers and money. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. fried man. welcome. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate the chance to be here today. our guys and other oems are investing massively in rnd, $109 billion last year. that's roughly four times our economic way.

so we're prospering right now with sales. as i got up this morning and i looked at the weather and i realized i had to travel 20 miles and tried to figure out the best way to go. i took a path that was different than any other path i had taken. so a fashion that was quicker and is more fuel efficient. technology is bringing about a convergence. we want mobility to be cleaner, safer and more efficient. and that's exactly what we're doing here today. i thought i'd do it fairly quickly.

we do extensive polling. we do about 5,000 samples literally every day, 167 folks. as you can see, a hybrid becomes a proxy for other folks. and roughly 60% said they wanted a gas engine. if you look at the line over the last 2 1/2 years, you see the hybrid numbers falling, drifting down. and you see the gas number rising. that's a little counter intuitive. and what's going on is we've made progress that's so profound that when a consumer goes into a showroom, and the success of the conventional engine is making it

harder to justify delta electric. that's a challenge for us. the next slide speaks to a number of power train vehicles for sale. in 2008, there are roughly 21, 22 models. that is now close to 80. >> the next slide shows, it's really a profound success. it eat really a value of the investment. it's a 7 times increase the number of models.

so the models are in the showrooms. you can see, part of that was gas prices and part of that is the success of the conventional engine. it looks like synchronized swimming as you have with a direct relationship between gas prices and the sale of hybrids. and i'm moving quickly because i'm running out of time. i want to spend a second on safety. it's obviously an awful number that we're all working to drive down. 97% of those have nothing to do with human error. that's why technology is so important. technology can mitigate human error. the next slide puts the fatality

number into context. that's a 65 year line, the vertical bars are the absolute number of folks lost. it's roughly where we were in 1949. it's a function of improved crashworthiness technology. the next chapter of progress will come from the technology we're talking about here tonight. and i would make that point that i started with in terms of the math, all of these technologies are not on safety, they're not about green. it's about maximizing all of these social agendas. when you avoid a crash, it's very productive.

and though we appreciate the focus on innovations today and we focus on the convergence of these benefits, i think one last point, if i could, and that is the last slide shows the dilemma that we've got. this shows a 25 year pattern, the blue line is year-over-year change in hustled income, fundamentally flat: the salmon color is the price of the auto, which has been partly driven up by responsibleties. and the yellow line is interest rates. so in effect, we've financed the

ability of lower interest rates and longer materials. and as interest rates begin to rise, let us be mindful of this equation that produces a challenge that may have job implications in terms of the manufacture of vehicles but also, aadoption implications in terms of a fleet that's much more efficient. and, with that, i say thank you. >> thank you, mr. bainwol. very interesting. good morning. i'm genevieve cullen and i'm very pleased to be here today. the electric drive transportation is a cross industry trade association that is developing an infrastructure. today, electric drive is performing in light duty cars, trucks, buss and mobile equipment, offering clean, high

performance and efficient alternatives to oil. innovation is providing consumers with even wider vehicle options, enhanced performance and at reduced cost. these advances are also accelerating transformational changes in mobility overall, by connecting the power, transportation and communication sectors. this segment is from two vehicles to almost 40 vehicles for sale today are planned for the next model year. these vehicles include a range of profiles and vehicle cat goirs from economy to luxury with all electric ranges from 11 to 280 miles. 400,000 in 2016 and expected to triple in 2024.

over the past few weeks, autoand consumer shapes, a large array of electric drive vehicles including a new battery vehicle with a 200 mile range capability. behind the vehicles are innovations and investments that are enhancing performance and reducing the cost of batteries, fuel cell, components and materials. a notable example is the reduction in the cost of lithium ion batteries.

each of the post aut motive batteries give consumers control of their energy choices enhances stability and efficiency and enforced the increased use of renewable and distributed energy. at the same time, vehicling charging facilities have also expanded greatly. these numbers do not include private residential and a fast number of growing workplace charges available.

vehicle-based applications as well as increased are making it easier for drivers to evaluate and increase their electric miles traveled. hydrogen is emerging along with mass markets. in california, nearly 70 stations are scheduled to open in the next few years. public private collaborations are moving forward in other states. the continue um of technologies is not exclusive to electric drive, electric drive is, in many ways, prototype on the roads they demonstrate. so i will wrap this up and, to summarize, i will say that we are making great strides. but we are still in an emerging markt and we're pushing to deliver enhanced performance at reduced cost.

public private partnerships from technology to infrastructure buildout are critical to speeding those innovations. and we very much appreciate this community's recognition of that important work in 2012, supporting research congresswomanment and employment work in cars and trucks and the department of energy. again, i thank you for the funt to speak with you today and i look forward to your questions.

today, i'd like to talk to you about just a few of the national labs helping the automotive energy defeat these goals. connecting vehicles are all over the news. they're generally presented in the context of safety and convenience but also have a very big impact on energy and emissions. starting to quantify these impacts. one example of such rezeshlg in this area is connecting the traveler project. this is the e-funded project with the goals to develop algorithms to understand the driver's preference. it can be provided to the individual driver using realtime data. from this and other projects, it's clear that big data and cyber security are going to be increasingly important in the automotive industry.

they're also doing lots of work to accelerate the development and deployment of e rectory filled vehicles. we're using our expertise and simulation to help the automotive industry shorten design time and perform the performance of automotive batteries. one great example is a project to develop new computer-aided engineering tools, which the automotive industry can use to shorten time for battery development. wide band gaps semiconductor materials. these will make power electronic devices smaller, more efficient and able to operate at higher temperatures. for electric vehicles, what h this means is more efficient vehicles and more efficient charging stations. power america sponsored by the doe as the parter in ship rained together as the industry accelerates the development and

commercialization of these devices. >> vehicles will also become part of the ever-standing internet of everything. and then we're examining these interactions, the interactions between building energy systems, utility grid, renewable energy sources, and electric vehicles. and then we have world class facilities including the energy integration facility to study these interactions. and, as has been mentioned a few times, fuel cell electric vehicles are now commercially available. this has been made possible by more than a decade of innovation, supported by the fuel technologies office, resulting to the fuel cell systems. and this is fantastic. but there are still significant challenges to be met including the renewable hydrogen and the dwoopment of a robust fuelling infrastructure.

we're also parter ins in h 2 first collaboration with national labs but it is working with industry partners to find inknow vative solutions to a hydrogen infrastructure problems. the internal combustion engine is going to continue to be a central part of the transportation system. particularly for heavy duty transportation. ground breaking research has identified new combustion energy strategies. and will offer significantly higher energy and add lower emissions. ideally, launching an initiative across the lab system for the coopt mization of biofuels and engines. replacing with components made of wider levels can reduce vehicle mass by up to 20%, which was also a 12-16% fuel consumption and greenhouse gas

emissions. working to develop new, low cost, high speed, efficient manufacturing and process technologyings. so, in conclusion, there's a wide range of research underway that will achieve many benefits for the nation's transportation system, including energy e fi efficiency and driving ugs competitiveness. >> thank you, chairman. >> is better? wonder 68. . thank you. in the din u.s. ri. you know, increasing by 8%, since 200 9d.

it's increased by 5%. interestingly, consumers ensure that customers who want to buy cars from the car manufacturers who were going to take. we see today five areas of spend ing for car manufacturers today including specification, its connectivity, its active safety and then, you know, alternative driving. the inknow vaxs are true valuation by cost demand by also by technology code advancements. one is sbel commission and the other is hybrid vehicles and the next one is issue of sales. we see many improvements. and right now, all the advanced i believe objection, advanced k508ing and others, have new

efficiency improvements from 2009 to 2020. to 50% reduction of fuel e fi efficiency and emission, roughly a cost of $2,000 to $2500 per car. this is why we see today, a landscape that will continue for the foreseeable future. where naturally, these technologies will present the vast majority of the markets. meanwhile, the market for hybrids is being challenged. right now, for ten years at 3.8 pbt declining to 2.9% last year. the challenge is only 6% and agree to pay more for the greener and more efficient car. so that creates an unstable

market and is well below the cost with former incentives that have to remain. and then support of charging structure will be needed for this markets in the next few years. you would strongly agree that about 10% of weight reduction to fuel efficiency on each car with two to five dollars per pound per state. the two are steel and one is the say vailblety of these materials. it's true for advent steel and maybe for the cost of carbon fiber. the other thing is you'll agree that the right material for the

cost of the car is what needs to happen. and then technologies will be a main source of innovation. >> connectivity includes two areas. i would say this is with market developmenteds. but the other one is vehicle to pedestrian, vehicle to infrastructure which will require minimum adduction with safety and tracking regulation. and they will be needed for further regulation of this market. i see safety features today that are available with existing technology with the number of accidents on u.s. roads. we see the benefits of about $250 billion every year. the challenge is today, costing about twice more than customers unnaturally willing to pay.

and only going at a few percent. the cost would decrease by 200 and would be a naturally sustainable market. our next step is attractive safety. reducing the number of actions by 90% and therefore, reducing congestion and to improve the fluidity of traffic. further more, we think that's an intense environment. we could repolice station with the sale of automated cars. we could replace roughly a hundred thousand cars. which, you know, reduces number of cars on the road. improves traffic and has significant impact on efficiency. and therefore, is a major

challenge now to get to these as soon as possible. so, overall, these technologies truly deserve the attention with the important balancing act to think about, you know, where to spend for the consumers as many technologies today still cost more. >> thank you. i appreciate the testimony from each of you. it eets always interesting to hear where the exciting developments are. i mentioned in my opening that i'm in that group of lawmakers that's really reluctant for us and the government to be picking winners and losers, whether it's as it relates to to type of automobile or energy sources. and just kind of led me right

into this in acknowledging that some of the incentives and support that is we currently have are going to, in his opinion, need to be around for a while longer in looking at the chart that is you have provided us, it's clear that what has happened with a lower price of gasoline at the pump has influenced consumer decisions as to whether or not they're going with e lek strik or hybrid. can you kind of speak to this issue of, again, where we tried to pick a winner and loser in e merjting area from your members' perspective and preferences, how should the federal government handle or should they at all, in promoting fuel efficiency

related innovation that inadvertently or not, may push in a direction that perhaps does put us in a situation where we're picking the winners and losers. >> so the short answer is, our members prefer an approach that is technology neutral. and so that's the short answer. the longer answer is more complicated. we identify the with goal of reducing carbon, reducing fuel dependency. so all of those things are noble objectives. the complication comes from the nature of the regulatory regime and what we have is an approach in cafe that admits the measures epa measures by greenhouse gas and then there's an overlapping

state program from california, the zeb program, which is exz cuted in a bunch of other states with about 30% of the market. and the zeb program is effectively not technology neutral. it's eerts basically to comply to the fuel cell, in today's world, electrify case. so we're complying with different regimes with friction and added cost. and we g r get caught in the middle it eets a mandate on what consumers buy. and in a low gas, tax environment, low gas, consumers environment, consumers are moving away from the stated objections of electrify case and moving folks into smaller cars rather than trucks. it's a challenge. technology is ideal. we have to recognize that consumers are going to respond in a fashion that's rational for

them. and they're not into opt miezing policy. they're into maximizing their pocketbook. >> appreciate that. ms. cullen had mentioned in her testimony that contained within this bipartisan energy bill that we've mooifed out of committee and will have on the floor next week, that there are some provisions in there that are good for the industry. anything educational in that energy bill that the lawmakers or automakers are looking at and saying this is helpful for industry? >> yes, first of all, a major bill that has bipart san support is a wonderful gesture around the country it's a great symbol. >> we want it to be more than a symbol. we want it to update some policies. >> and it's good from a stand point of consumer confidence. modelled to purchasing big cost items like cars.

but, more specifically, there are provisions in the bill that are helpful. the critical minimal piece matters. i showed the chart as increasing price of scars. mostly, it's from compliance. to the extent that we can wrestle challenges down to critical metals where we're stabilizing supply and reducing cost and that allows people to buy new cars. that's terrific. that's very helpful. the via component that senator stabinaw brought to the table is very helpful. at the end of the day, v to b is estimated to address 80 pnt of all non-impaired accidents. so the true implications of that, the safe implications, are substantial. so is that's very helpful. >> i appreciate you bringing up the critical minerals bill.

you mentioned that as well as in context of materialblety. we don't want to go in the same direction with our critical minerals that we were headed when it came to vulnerability and relying on foreign sources for our oil. i think that's something that we're all the paying attention to. the 10:30 vote has started. i'm going to excuse myself in the committee and the senator will ask her questions and i will just ask her to go back and forth here.

so vehicle to vehicle technology, electronic technology, all the safety things that you're talking about that are so

we know that the latest manufacturing went to see to be able to help them continue the very exciting opportunity around the lum that. we know the f-150 has been able to take 700 pounds out of their truck by using aline up numb instead of steel. so composites in all of this. i wonder if you might just expand away in your written testimony about the importance of taking the existing program so that we can address what needs to be done around larger vehicles and trucks. >> our point of the

eligibilitity to suppliers. so that makes sense. >> great. >> and from your perspective, as well, how do you see that helping us as we're moving forward to tackle energy savings and so on. >> it's clear heavy vehicles are an incredibly important area. i think our supertruck program has shown that there's a lot of progress that can be had. that progress needs to be hacked up with investmenteds. especially when you consider long haul trucks account for 4% of having more resources, having more opportunity to invest, improving those technologies, is an important part of a balanced portfolio. >> thank you. >> in going to a north american autoshow, having a chance to sit in these vehicles which is very exciting to see what's happening, one of the things that i keep coming back to, and even in your chart, looking at

what consumers are choosing, and certainly gas prices, as we look at new technologies and so on. but when we look at this,what i hear all of the time from people, is a concern about lack of infrastructure. now, at the autoshow, you're saying hybrids with 120 water, you can plug it into a regular plug. but when i look at things like hydrogen fuel cell that is have huge potential, it seems to me that we have got to be focus much more aggressively that the gas station is also a service station. so anyone else that wants to respond. how do we get to where we get over the huge barrier of lark of

choice at the service station. >> yes, i agree. i understand. but i agree with you, particularly with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, that the lack of infrastructure is a big problem. and i think that's one of the big roles that the federal government can play, is to make sure that the technology for the infrastructure is as reed day as the vehicles are. the autocompanies have done a fantastic job. if you get a chance to drive the new vehicles, it will knock your socks off. they're really great. the drivers are going to want reliable fuelling stations every time they go there. and if they don't, we're going to have a false start. so that's why we're -- we've built a resourgs station specifically for the purpose of looking at the reliabilitity of

the hydrogen infrastructure, to make sure that the components are ready to identify mistakes. we're working with h2usa which is a partnership to try to identify what are the critical items to make sure that the infrastructure can get ready. >> if you could just briefly respond to that? >> i agree completely on the hydrogen infrastructure. pling plug in vehicles, it's more of a cell phone model. so responding to the needs of the work home and public are slightly different. and i would say that we are working, the industry, is working with department of energy and state and local

parter ins to actually build up those infrastructures on all of those levels. >> senator gardener? >> thank you very much, direct member. and thank you to the winces for your time today. particularly dr. gearhardt, welcome to the committee. i enjoyed driving for the first time hydrogen fuel vehicle, the headquarters last year. so it was a great opportunity to see the work that you are doing there. and, also, with the interest of members that senator gary peeters and i have created a smart smart transportation caucus. so if anybody is interested in those efforts and i would love to see you and talk to senator peeters and i for that. we have a range of issues that we can talk about. it's kind of fun to hear what everybody is working on. in colorado, of course, if you further from the moun tans to denver or to beaver creek and at

any time in the last several years, you've probably spent a couple of hours in traffic jams. the odds are we're not going to be drilling a new tunnel through the eisenhower johnson tunnels. so the solutions we have to look for are big time around this panel, vehicle-to-vehicle communications and alternative transportation, methods and modes. so just a couple of questions, i think, that go beyond this committee. we have questions with spectrum. how are cars going to communicate with each other. do we have enough spectrum to make sure that cars can communicate with each other. we have issues, the moral authority that are going to have to be determined. is a car going to make a decision to drive by itself to take the ditch to hit wildlife and maybe cross the road because there's another car coming. these are all questions that, overtime, are going to have to be worked out. it's the kind of communications

that an older vehicle makes. it's interesting in agriculture, of course, that we have been using driverless tractors for over a decade now. you can retrofit a 30 or 40-year-old tractor with a self-steering mechanism. what does it mean to solve transportation clogging the art ris of our transportation system to solve that problem chlgt and i know this morning, it was just recently announced that the national laboratory had i guess headed into an mou, the department of transportation in colorado for research on the i-70 and i-25 when it com congresswomans to vehicle-to-vehicle. >> so we see that for the road x program. the potential for using these automated, connected

technologies in really all aspects and they joined with national renewable energy lab, in particular, to bring in the fuel economy and the emissions aspect of it. so we're in discussions with them. we're looking at a number of possible projects where we can help c-dot by collecting data, providing analysis for the data for them. and concerning that these technologies do make the difference we make. so we're very excited about it. in particular, we haven't quite found the i-70 corridor project. but i'm really looking forward to the day that the car drives me rather than me sitting there in traffic. >> and what has research shown when it shows potential research connection. >> so we're working on modelling

it. right now, what we've seen, if we look at the energy impact, they can be dominated by several effects. if the dominant effect is to make the traffic flow much, much smoother, we will reduce the energy per mile driven significantly. the problem is now if we make it so convenient, will people drive more miles? that's the big research question that we're looking at now is what is the bounce back effect of having removed the barriers. and does that then drive the emissions up. and that's a tough nut to crack. it's as much about how consumers think and make decisions based on the information that they're

seching as it is on the technology. so i can't give you an answer right now. it could be anywhere from matter of law of the energy consumed to twice as much energy consumed. but it is going to be a big effect. and i think we need to understand that, once it is going to be as soon as possible. >> i think it would be a perfect solution to the victory over the senator and the new england pay trots later this weekend. so thank you very much. for the opportunity to be here with all of you today. >> dream on, senator. dream on. your dreams can last a few more days. >> the throw down. who expected that. >> senator warren. >> thank you. >> there are two weeks to repeal rule. you can paper over the rule with enough exceptions and alternatives that the rule becomes fairly meaningless.

it costs money toe make cars more efficient. you can be the win a head-on fight to roll back fuel standards. so it looks like the industry is trying to paper over it approach. the bill is nine specific safety technologies. car companies have already agreed to install several of them. so this is obviously not a big stremp. but the bill says that if any automaker installs three technologies from the list, they'll be eligible for a credit equal to at least three grams of carbon dioxide per mile toward their greenhouse gas emissions requirement. in other words, this gift to the

aut industry says you do what you already agreed to do and you can slide by with lower epa stand aurds. so i understand like a pretty slick operation. now, what i can't figure out is three safety figures should be worth exactly three grams of carbon dioxide per mile. you represent the aut i believe dust ri. and you eve been a vocal supporter of this provision. so can you tell me whether your industry suggested this number to the house of representatives or did the house republicans give you the number. >> i'd give you some context, if i could. >> we did not originate the number. so the house republicans gave you the number and put three grams on any of the safety features? >> this was a draft provision for the grams per mile.

safety and technology, which, as we've discussed today, have a value for the environment and have a value for congestion, have a value for safety and fuel efficiency. >> lot me stop you there. the question is not whether or not we're losing congestion, may or may not reduce pollution. i think this is a quite debatable point. as i understand it, economist joe cartwright puts it when it comes to pollution, the evidence there suggests that if you reduce congestion, people actually drive further and that more than off sets the effects.

i think this is related to the point that dr. gearhardt is just making. i have just one question. that is who passed away the number that it was three gram ares. if you're telling me the autoindustry didn't do it, then i want to know who did it. you say it's supported by scientific evidence, where does the number come from? >> this is the draft document. i don't know where the number came from. but it was an extraordinarily modest number. and in the context of the overall cafe target. >> well, i appreciate that you think it is a small number. but, you know -- >> it was, according. >> but we're not talking about teslas. what we're talking about are gasoline-powered engines here. and not meeting established epa standards. but i think that what's clear, and i asked for evidence on this, and you said no even though you're supporting this and saying it's backed up by

evidence, neeither the idea nor the number is backed up by any kind of research. in 2014, more than 32,00 people were killed in moet vehicle crashes. that's 32,000 reasons right there. car companies should make cars safer. and they should also meet their fuel economy obligations. period. safety features they don't want to do that, they should face the american people and explain how they want softer pollution standards. thank you, madame chair. >> may i respond? >> so we signed up for the cafe program. and as i noeted, it's a consumption mandate.

not a production mandate. i showed you the number of models that we've generated and put on showroom. so we're doing our part. if we were a production man date, the issue would be over. it's a plan date over consumers. and they're not buying the products that you want them to buy. >> but i asked for scientific evidence for how it is that we have this proposed to do what you're already doing. you're going to get credit. and, so far, all you've said is you're not the one who has it. >> we are out of time. and senator warren does have to vote. so maybe you can do that in response to another member. thank you. >> perfect. >>. >> thank you for holding this hearing on this very important and timely topic. my home state of montana is a big state, the fourth largest state.

it's not as big as alaska, i'm sure, but we're the fourth largest. we have a very dispursed population. we have the second highest rate of cut in the country. pln tan that's extensive travns poration system goes without saying, it's imperative that we keep people as safe as possible. today, we've touched on a role of regulation and standards and driving out innovation. my concern with mandates is they typically do more harm than good. they're often unattainable.

for example, only approximately 400,000 were plug-in hybrids not even reaching half of president obama's goal to have a nillon on u.s. roads by 2015. another case in point, in 2008, congressman dated freight control of certain hazardous materials. despite the best efforts, the come plexzty and sheer scale make full scale impose. additionally, president obama's fiscal year will request $4 billion for the development of autonomous vehicles. meanwhile, automakers are going to invest a hundred billion a year globally to produce

reliable, safe mobilitity solutions from private, nongovernmental sources. we should let consumers determine a markt for vehicles. not a bunch of washington bureaucrats. my question, as you know, public policies and regulations don't always align with the presence of consumers. could you expand upon your proviolation for productive relationship, and emphasize productive between industry and government. and how do you see reducing may actually benefit the insdus ri and benefit the consumer? >> that's a tough one. but easier than senator warren's question. thank you. the goal of fuel efficiency, those are the social goals.

and to get there, requires an investment on the part of oems. it requires consumers plan involved. and it requires government be in support of research help or infrastructure can produce the purchase of electric and hydrogen vehicles. once we've established we're shooting for a tar get, we've got to kpaser bait how we're going to get there. so we're kind of caught. we're engaged in research. we're producing mag nif sent project. we want these to succeed because we have to. both because it's good for the

environment, but, also, we have man dates to make that happen. but it's a trick because consumers do want to do what consumers do want to do. they are rational in behavior. consumers are mote vated by a different stand aurd. if they can save $5,00 and apply that to a college education, they may choose to do that. and then we're cog any sant. anr food on the table, they choose to do that. >> it may seem counterintuitive to some. but how do you see it benefits the industry and benefiting the consumer. >> i think where the government is most helpful is to get rid of regulatory friction. it's not a federal rule but it's a rule that affects 25% to 30%

of the country. we have the ntsa mpg requirement and the greenhouse gas requirement and they are not harmonized. if we can fwhun truth, it would easier to comply. it could speed up the production of the vehicles. there's a way to square it. but we have to get rid of regulatory burdens and there's a chance for it to succeed. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. sorry to be late. i was at an armed services hearing. first, i should say i'm excited that i just bout an electric car. and am looking forward to using it. one of the -- it seems to me and iowa poll gist if i'm repeating

because i haven't heard your testimony. but one of the most interesting aspecting of electric vehicles is the potential for a more efficient utilization of the grid because the fact that more people will charge their cars at night. when we have excess capacity and capability on the wires. is that something you discussed? and if you haven't, could you -- any one of you wish to address? >> thank you, senator. let me say a few words about that. because the department of energy, we just recently released the core of our plan. and as part of that effort there are over 220 products looking to improve the reliability, the resiliency of and the to ind grate energy such as wind power and solar power. a couple key parts of that are

steadying the ability to integrate electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, into the grid so at night, when you have wind blowing, you can use coast effective wind power. and i think that's a great example of why government has such a critical role in bringing these technologies to the marketplace and giving consumers more choices. if you look back over my lifetime, we have seen six oil change growths that have reversed economic growth in the united states. we have to look long term. because if all we do is look at the gas prices today, just like in 2007, we are going to drive the auto industry into sbo a ditch. we know to focus on investing to propro vid electrify occasion to

improve the grid to save people thousands ofs to tap into cleaner, lower carbon fuel choices and to give them more choice in the marketplace. gas prices are going to spike again and we have got to be ready. >> senator, in addition to the benefits of this mobile load that david mentioned, the rise of electrification. and it's distributing energy storage. new and post out motive batteries are being used -- >> like the tesla battery that came out -- >> correct. tesla's partnership with panasonic, the factory for building markets for energy

store ge in the battery segment. >> but what i think a lot of people don't realize is that a grid is like a church built for christmas day. it has room for all the parishoner. and you can reduce it at night without a dime of additional infrastructure. that is one of the attractive features of electric cars beyond bust on the fossil fuel prices. >> in fact, one of the earliest studies of this from one of the labs found that estimated that if 73% of the vehicle fleet were

electrified, you could fit it with existing grid capacity without adding a new generation. >> i missed your testimony. just a few seconds left. are there new technologies on the horizon? and where we on battery technology where we will have 200 and 300 mile range on a change? and what happened to the idea -- i knew a fella was going have batteries that are removeable and it's like trading in your propane tank. what happened to that idea? >> well, a couple words on that. first, i'm holding here a lith yam cell that uses the cobalt technology that was developed at the national labs. this kind of technology is now being licensed to the auto industry that is helping serve electric vehicles.

we are continuing to invest. we need to look at dramatically increasing our investments so consumers can have the 300 mile batteries -- >> and of course, battery development in battery technology have implications for roof top solar, for example, and again for grid stability, i think there is a national security interest here in decentralizing the grid so it's not subject to a central attack and it can more self healing if it has distributed storage. >> you are nodding. is that yes? >> it doesn't -- >> yeah, exactly. >> the one thin, i any as we go to extended range batteries for 200 miles or more, which is stully the trend, i think we

would need more than 20 2 20 volts installation. we will look for an upgrade. and support to the consumer. increased span and some point, some support at this local state and probably something we have to think about it f we want people to access more, new kors like the chevrolet bolt, which is offering more mileage. >> sure. i have one follow up question. oh, sorry. >> i object. no, go ahead. >> you are -- >> no, sorry. now i do object. are there any estimates of the number of -- i guess you told me -- you can go to 73% of the vehicles without changing the grid. do we have estimates of what

would be required to go to 220 for example? does that require something new to the house? isn't 220 what a clothes dryer uses? >> just quickly, so level one charging, standard 120 outlet. level two is 240 and that is what your drier plugs into and that will -- >> and the super chargers. >> that is 480 volts. that is more of a commercial and public installation. not something you likely have in your garage. >> how many people can have electric cars for short ranges. how many people use them for short trips? >> more than 80% of commuters travel less than 40 miles a day. and i think -- the charging patterns have showing that 80%

of charging happens at work and home. and the last 20% is public charging, and opportunistic charging. and not that that is unpoint. it has electric miles. in fact, the existing infrastructure is supportive. and the cost of installing two 40 level charging, they vary on how old your house is, if you have to replace the panel, have come down materially. >> we have a program called workplace challenge and focused on getting more and more companies, more companies to install the workplace charging even up to the 120 volt change. we are up to 250 partners. we are looking to double that.

if i can plub in at work, that could double the range i use on a battery. it's incredibly effective. >> there are charging stations in the senate garage. they charge an arm and leg besides the car. other than that, dwoe have them. thank you. >> senator? >> i noticed that no one answered senator king's question on what happened to the battery that you pop in and pop out? and i was very intrigued by that. because israel was doing that. the answer i got, i don't mean to do your job, but i think it was that israel is a very small country. so electric cars make sense and they don't have many brands of car. so the idea of that battery was that it could be a high percentage of israelis would have the same car and the same battery. i love the idea of it, but it

doesn't seem to work for the united states. is that kind of accurate? >> that is accurate. there are -- the additional challenge that the business modal not only requires a standardized vehicle and battery configuration. it contemplates you could have an invenation of expensive batteries waiting for people to come in and get them swapped out. >> which makes since if you have the same car. what i love about this, i could ask a question that has a sound effect in it. because of -- that's too bad. >> most countries other than the u.s. have abandoned the product. notably because of the real aisic challenge of the batteries not in the right places and we would be shipping batteries from one place to another. but fast charging at service stations is a solution that within 15, 20 minutes, you can

get 50 or 90 miles on your car and do you the last part of your travel. and that is probably the solution that is the most effective. >> that is the analysis. the opportunity cost with that much space that the owners of service stations have much higher value uses for those spaces. >> that in addition to giving senator king three extra minutes, i spent my two minutes and 15 seconds on answering his question. yeah. just here to serve my other colleagues. that's why i'm so popular. i was fascinated with all the testimony. and just mr. friedman, your testimony laying out all the incredible advances that we're

making. and including reducing the cost of high energy, high powered batteries by more than 45% in three years. i mean, this is very, very exciting. i think. and one thing -- we had a few years ago, i know the chairman remembers when we had members of the american energy innovation council. morgan augustine. a guy from san francisco. general jones, i believe. and they were basically saying that we used to spend a higher percentage of our gdp on energy research. and at a time where, you know, in the paper today, 2015, hottest year on record by significant margin over the

previous highest year, which i think was -- i know it was the previous year. and we have a real problem here. and so, my question is, it can be to anyone but especially mr. friedman, shouldn't we be spending more on basic research on this exact kind of research as a percentage of our gdp? >> well, in short, the answer is yes, absolutely. and in fact that is why president obama joined with 19 other world leaders in november in kicking off c#v$ effort call mission innovation, troying to get the united states and the globe to potentially as much as double spending on clean energy research and development. and putting that investment towards technologies that can be investible by industry. the way government works really

well. by working the tough problem, they are in position to hand off those advances to industry who can then provide more choices, more technologies, more options for consumers so we can develop the low carbon diet we need -- >> we have done it time and time again including -- making 30ssible a revolution we have had in getting gas and oil out of shale. that was a partnership and it came out of our national laboratories. and i just -- to me, i just think it's absolutely essential that we spend -- i know we do it in -- we need to do it more in health care. national institute of health needs funding for things like

alzheimer's. but the -- can you give me benefits on what the money are we spentsome. >> you talk about public health, they are public health issues. the investments we made in he i have diesel fuel engines, have a 70 to 1 benefit to cost ratio in the department of energy and investments. if you look over the last 20, 30 years, we have delivered a 24-1 benefit to cost ratio. it's clear when we invest and develop technologies that save lives, save fuel, cut carbon and oil use, we go back to taxpay taxpayers. and you talked about health care and pharmaceuticals. they spend about 50 times what we do on a sales basis on

research and development than we do on clean energy. we need to close that gap. >> okay, well, thank you. i know the chair -- the chairwoman at the beginning of this was talking about being technology neutral. and i've heard this analogy to a race and that you want -- you don't which horse is going to win the race. and having every horse on the track at the beginning is good. and, you know, we don't know if hydrogen now is behind. and by some analogies in the race. but you never know at the end what's going to be the technology that is -- wins the race. so i agree with the chair. >> thank you. i want to talk about what alaskans are talking about right now. trucks. because we drive a lot of

trucks. and i was prompted on this by senator danes who mentioned montana is big, alaska is big, a lot of open spaces. we haul a lot of gear. we just haul a lot of things. whether it's the boats or the fo four wheelers or the snowmachines or the stuck you bring around. we haul it in some of the worst conditions here in washington, d.c. is seeing here. we actually got real snow accumulation. so there is late of interest. where are we going when it comes to these technologietechnologie? i know that ford is works on a technology to run on gas and propane. absolutely that is interesting. but when we talk about a difference we are making with lighter vehicles to gain fuel efficiency, that's point. but you can't have it too light

or you have trucks slidinging all over the place, you can't haul what you need to haul. tell me where we are in meeting that consumer demand. because in certain parts of the country, and i would venture to say there are probably a lot of people here on the eastern seaboard that are interested in what is going on how we are making the trucks more fuel efficient, still safer and still very, very capable. and in addition to that recognizing that in places like alaska or minnesota, you have got some very cold temperatures. some of the things we are talking about with our fuels -- >> or me. >> oh, gosh. i'm looking at you at the other end of the table. my arctic caucus coach here.

but some of the issues that we face when we're dealing with colder temperatures and trying to meet the fuel standards and requirements, again, with trucks. where are we with trucks? somebody talk to me -- you all need to talk to me about trucks. that is what alaskans talk to me about. >>ly start with two points. first, at the end of the day, this is a consumption mandate and we have to respect what consumers want to do. the cafe program tries to do that by installing a program that is -- >> what? >> footprint based. so the 54-5 is a composite that is a weighed average, what cars get, what larger cars get, what trucks get. so it's all blended. it does provide before flexibility for trucks. now, moving forward in the out

years, the cliff or the rate of greeth in expectations for fuel efficiency for trucks is rising. it is a trick but it's not the same number as the 54-5. so our mission is for automakers to strive to comply with the obligations of cafe. but i think that part is in the early years working. >> where are we on the technologies and advancements? go ahead? >> senator, the choices in electric electr electricfication. and you will see fuel cell suv and cross overheeks. the automakers are meeting the demands of their consumers for drive train and capability as well as their drive cycles.

this are greated a a vances being knead in the next segment in medium duty. if you -- there are plug-in high drid trouble trucks. so when a utiliewutility goes o night, it can use electric power to activate a bucket. they can activate cleanly, safely because the workers on the ground can hear what the arm is doing. and in the weight scale, the heavy duty segment, there are fuel cell buses on the road now. they accommodate the heavier loads. they are optimized for that application. >> but we are not still seeing them in trucks? we're a three-truck family. and we're still lookingdww

but it's not as obvious because it's under the hood or in materials. for a truck, it's more valuable for a car because you use so much more fuel. so you can save money on fuel. the same hauling power, the same or better safeties with technologies that ford and gm and others have been helping lead the way on. nissan is about to introduce d e

diesel truck. >> dr. garhart? >> yeah, we a rooking at the various molecules we can get out of biomass and the fuel properties with the different molecules. combined in different ways and what we can get from petroleum, that is is going to enable i think the next generation of combustion improvements. we will continue to make improvements on internal combustion engines and renewing the feed stock in liquid fuels. i think those two together have a potential to give us fuel condominium and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

is there is a lot of room not just for engine efficiency but what we can do on the fuel side for biofeed stocks. >> senator king f you want to do wrap up question and then we're going let our panel go at 11:30 as promised. >> thank you. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. i think had is an important topic and i appreciate your allowing us to have this discussion. mr. mosket, i'm interested in the money and the finances of this. when will electric vehicles will fuelly competitive and not need a tax credit and particularly with regard to gas prices. i heard recently about one state, whose tax credit went away and sales plunged. the real question for any

renewable, when can it stand on its own two feet? and i like your thoughts on where it goes. and i realize there is a lot of speculation of gas prices. it's hard for anything to be competitive. your thoughts? >> so, i mean, as you said, you know, there's nothing sure about the future. but i think it will bsh may sake some time. that will be the short answer for a number of reasons. first, if we look today at the evolution of the cost of the technologies, i mean, they have consistently reduced that cost. but if we want to have powers that have 200 miles or plus driving range, we will need 50, 60 kilowatt batteries. you see what the cost is going to be.

so it will remain a significant cost. it depends on -- one of the break throughs to come up, i would say another 50% down. it's not impossible. but it's probably a few years out. it's also highly dependant on the price of gasoline. we need -- any where between 120 and $180 per barrel. and because consumers are looking for pay backs after typically three years to buy a fuel efficient vehicles, we are far from three years. >> the current plunge is oil prices is because of my decision to buy the electric car. >> that's the good thing. the more we improve conventional engines and the more we have battery technologies and fuel cell, the more we keep our prices down. that is a winning proposition

for the consumer and the country. but at the same time, it makes the life of a battery electric vehicle tougher in the long term. >> interesting you should say that. a professor friend of mine richard hill, a professor in the university of maine. he said oil prices in the future will be opposite of what you expect. if you expect them high and act accordingly that will create an excess supply which means they will be low. if you buy cars that have 8 miles a gallon. then you will have a contraction of bemand. always the opposite of what you expect. >> which means, i think maybe it's not the market that we have to let evolve naturally. i think this is what legislation is important. you get the opposite effect of

what you think you're going to get. >> madame chair? >> thank you to each of you for the contributions you provided to the committee here this morning. i think it's been useful. it's always nice to know what is new. i guess if we really want to touch it, feel it, go to the auto show. and see the advancements that have been made. but i think it is clear that we are moving forward in different spaces. quite honestly, the driverless cars are one that -- i'm going to take me a while to get comfortable with. but the advances we're making and ensuring there is a level of safety, a level of efficiency, all well responding to what the consume rers looking for and in a range that is affordable is good news for that. with that, i thank you for your contributions this morning and h