today were here to discuss the stake owners at the national highway safety administration in the greenhouse gas emission standards this program was established by congress in 1975. the goals are to improve fuel economy and secure the nation's energy and independence. it has undergone changes and modifications both because of political and economic forces. lesson ten years ago the pa was said to incentivize more efficient vehicles to use less fuel and carbon dioxide. states have enacted standards with respect to automobile omissions. this has created a complicated regulatory scheme. improving efficiency and energy independence are important. real-world fashion data must have an impact on the far-reaching economy. the previous administration announced an attempt to create a national standard to work together to avoid conflicting regulations. whatever progress has been made epa issued a final determination for model year 2022 and 2025 is appropriate. they took the actions out clearly undermining the earlier pledge. automobile makers potentially found themselves in a position compliant with one program but out of compliance with another. this harms our economy, workers and consumers. the industry has 100,000 ohioans. the hallmark of the industry is to innovate built cars. but outdated government regulations get in the way. it's a rare event for policymakers in washingtonettero make consumer demands. washington stands in the way it creates confusion with conflicting roles. my constituents know what vehicles work best for the family budget they change over time. also, there is a risk the cost associated with federal and state's standards could choose them to choose older cars without the benefits of safety technology. must remain the guiding principle. were starting to turn the corner after many challenging years. it's disheartening. i'm interested in hearing about the experience to navigate the trip this tricky terrain and what can be done to help support consumers across the country. i think our witnesses for being here. i yelled to the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you. i appreciate that you have called this hearing. studies have shown the higher purchase price of cars under stricter café under the 20, 25 standards would eliminate consumers from buying new cars. between 3.114.9 million american consumers that would fall out of the new car marketplace. this is where there's tension to talk about. when is something counterproductive? tennessee we have a lot of auto manufacturers. whether with nissan, toyota, volkswagen or gm it doesn't matter. they want realistic standards, they want something that they can meet the expectation of american consumers and deliver a product that is first of all safe. the consumers are going to be safe these automobiles. i think the chairman for the hearing. i think it's time t what's realistic, achievable and what will deliver safe product for the american consumer. >> thank you. the chair recognizes subcommittee ranking member, the gentle lady from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you. café and greenhouse gas emission standards are critical tools to improve fuel economy. the café program was born out of the energy crisis in the 70s. those are now helping us address greater threat of the changing climate. strong standards have a more immediate consequence. big savings at the pump. the midterm evaluations in january the environmental protection agency estimated 202s emission standards will save $92 billion over the lifetime. industry not each one together. industry criticize the standards as too costly. that criticism is not supported by the fact. it's not only technologically feasible is gone to $200 since 2012 the last time we held this hearing in september 2016 john german testified quote during the course of my 40 year career initial cost estimates for complying with the missions have consistently been overstated. nevertheless, standards face resistance. often here for companies to call for greater uncertainty more time to recall the rules. what are the automakers do? they're all too happy to comply. the matter how they want to explain the decision the end result is clear. dirtier, less efficient vehicles. calls dust further efforts to weaken the standard. i don't know why they be so close to strong standards when automakers are promising energy-efficient autonomous vehicles. i think compliance should be easy as we discuss the standards public health hangs in the balance. we need to continue the progress toward greater fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions. i now yield. >> thank you. the pa's standards for lack of vehicles are win-win. they're good for consumers who save money at the pump over the lifetime of the vehicles. figure for the environment. the reduce emissions for the transportation sector, the only sector in which it has grown worse over the past 15 years. and go for the american workers. they spark development, many companies understand it and support epa standards. even companies critical of the standards are shifting response to consumer demand. i'm disappointed with the trump administration decision to revisit the standards from 2022 - 2025. it's clear their intent to weakening the progress we've made so far. so i'm going to introduce a bill, the standards are written in 2012 with the support of auto industry. my legislation maintains the promise to american people. they cost less at the pump. better at the -- thank you, i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. i recognize the chairman of the subcommittee for five minutes for an opening statement. >> before could i get 15 seconds to point of personal privilege. thank you two pictures i want to identify, this is a tweet i got from my colleague in texas was not paying attention. talking about the next streak will put that up i thank you for collecting the record and starting a new streak. we saw your tweet earlier. i know my colleagues because of mr. olson and how he asked. so, thank you very much. the gentleman is recognized. >> one of the costliest regulation is one we will address today that targets fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. we estimate cars in excess of $200 billion much of which will show up in higher sticker prices for newer vehicles. although they claim savings for lower fuel costs, we know it's based upon inaccurate projections another assumptions that are proving to be off the mark. it's time to review to see if there good deal for consumers or they can be improved upon. fortunately they contain the so-called midterm evaluation. they're finalized in 2012 and have stricter standards out to 2025. for this reason will revisit it way through the process to see if standards for model years 2022 - 2025 need to be adjusted. in 2016 we looked at midterm evaluation to make a final determination by april 2018. after the election they accelerated it and rush it out the door last january. this concluded that standards are fine and don't need to be changed. the good news is they found the process to be unacceptable. is reopen the midterm evaluation with the original deadline. the agency might proceed to a rulemaking to change targets. part of the hearing is to get input for those who make cars and trucks and those who sell them about their contributions and what they would like to see come out of the process. stakes are high, there higher for consumers. the average price of a new vehicle has risen to $35000. they are contributor to the increase. epa estimated price increases by 2025. the real number might be higher. the biggest sticker shock might be in the vehicles that matter most. a tired appraiser smart car might be fine for some but many of my constituents the family says vehicles or trucks for work. these larger vehicles might take the largest hit. we need to make sure they maintain choice and affordability. in addition we need to evaluate if we have a uniform set of rules for the nation. since the 70s national highway safety administration had exclusive authorities. the obama administration decided the epa in california resources board should do so. we have three agencies regulating the same thing. not surprisingly there are discrepancies. looking ahead we need to ask if we want three agencies involved in the fuel economy and why we gave california so much more power than other states. what's best for the consumer. vehicle purchases are second only to home purchases. i hope this strengthens our understanding to make these regulations as consumer friendly as possible. >> thank you. we now recognize the environment subcommittee ranking member the gentleman from new york. >> thank you to our witnesses for holding the hearing. this is corporate average standards they played a critical role in saving consumers money at the pump and reducing carbon pollution. standards were established in 75 to reduce our nation's reliance on foreign oil. since 2009 the sortant in our nation suffered to address climate change. of greenhouse gases. according to the inventory light duty vehicles accounted for nearly 60% of the admissions and 16.5% of total domestic emissions in 2015. those serious efforts the current standards are estimated to lead to the reduction of emissions by 6 billion metric tons in addition, standards are estimated to save $1.7 trillion at the pump for vehicles produced in 2011 and 2025. come along way since the 1930s. for the past four decades the program has evolved to give automakers greater flexibility. today manufactures are not forced, each manufacturer has a fleetwide standard that reflects the vehicles to make customers demands. since her last hearing, it is seen major changes that epa. as part of the agreement between obama and the auto industry epa agreed to conduct a midterm evaluation. with assumptions made were still accurate and reasonable. last summer epa began its midterm review. they examined factors about the public record on the appropriateness of great skin standards. along with the california air resources board, epa issued a july technical assessment report and sought public comment. they also wanted public comment on the proposed determination from 2022 - 2025. the technical assessment provide a robust and conclusive record. standards can be met at lower cost than originally estimated. the current estimate is average per vehicle cost of $875 to meet the standards. this is lower than the initial estimate of $1100 which epa found reasonable in the 2012 rule. and much lower than consumers can expect to save at the pump. in january gina mccarthy issued a final determination the target should remain in place. i believe that was the correct decision. despite the record established, the administrator announced his decision to reopen the midterm review. we clean standards would be bad for consumers, the environment and american competitiveness. i have tremendous faith in the manufactures. no doubt they will meet these goals. the evidence is clear that technology adoption rates have occurred more quickly. last year janet mccabe testified before the committee the more than 100 individual model year 2016 vehicle versions meeting 2020 standards for later. as automakers continue to innovate multiple technology pathways including existing off the shelf technologies will allow them to achieve 20222025 standards. thank you to the chairs for the join hearing thank you to our witnesses for being here. these are important programs. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from oregon for five minutes. >> good morning. today's hearings talks about the duplicate of government programs and increase costs and decrease choices for consumers. talking about fuel economy standards and the environmental protection agency. has been charged with implementing standards since 1978, the obama era epa developed its own standard in 2009. to coordinate these requirements the obama administration created the national program. that failed in its attempt to develop a single national standard which creates barriers to innovation and growth. under the current scheme it's possible automakers could find themselves in compliance with one federal standard but running afoul of another. even though the administration told this committee during the hearing they would work together to avoid this. we've seen activity that undermines the program and works against the promise. under the midterm evaluation schedule they were to jointly issue their respective coordination on the standards. this is supposed to happen in april of 2018. however epa abandoned this commitment and rush through the final determination without coordination just seven days before president trump was sworn in. i look forward to receiving an update. we want to know how the schemes impact consumers to learn about better ways these standards are met without unnecessary paperwork that serve only to drive up costs. has constructed these programs will raise the average price biomes $3000. that will price many americans out of the new car market. although the goals are important we must not forget that we do have a real impact on consumers across the country. the government works best when it offers clear solutions. programs that overlap or conflict it's our job to make sure laws in the implementation advance public policy goals. i think our witnesses for participating today. the american people deserves a government to remove barriers. i look forward to your testimony. if the other member wants a balance my time i will you'll back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the ranking member the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you. a little over a year ago we held a hearing produced by the national highway transportation and safety administration in the california resources board. that formed the basis for the agency's decision to move forward with light duty standards from 2022 in 2025. other things need to improve, the trump administration is moving to weaken these. they complied with the request to open the midterm review and reconsider the target for light-duty vehicles equivalent to 51.4 miles per gallon. this could lead to a weakening of the standard. if the oil industry is to remain competitive we have to reject efforts to move backwards. these contribute greatly to the ongoing threat of climate change. we must meet these goals, air pollution and carbon emissions are significant. the fastest growing markets are in asia, india and china. these are the same questions where they have chronic poor air quality several countries including britain, france, china have ambitious goals to eliminate the sales of diesel cars in the next few decades. the auto industry says they can't meet those goals by 2025 but efforts to seek harmonization through credits and credit banking only serve to undermine the goals set by the obama administration. the oil industry has received a sizable advantage in a delay and increases for violations filed last year. industry must find ways to continue their investment particularly those that don't rely fossil fuel for power. the goals are ambitious but achievable. they will deliver benefits to consumers and make the nation more energy secure. the play a critical record in the lowering omissions and improve air quality and public health. technology is to produce -- they must be produced and marketed with the same level of resources used to market the large sport-utility vehicles currently being pushed by industry. there is no justification that will benefit and the american manufacturers that will reap the benefits. it i don't know if anybody wants my time so i will you'll back. >> thank you. this concludes our opening statements. the chair will remind members that pursuant to the rules opening statements will made part of the record. we think the witnesses for being here today to testify. today some witnesses will have five minutes followed by a round of questions. our witness panel includes the president ceo of alliance automobile manufacturers. on behalf of the national automobile dealers association, doctor dave cook, senior vehicle analyst mr. john -- presidency of global automakers. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i have a extensive -- to go through. i'm here manufacturers. were 12 from the u.s., europe and japan represent about 80% of the cars. have a points to make. the first point is that sales had picked. we went through seven years of growth. we have now peaked. if you look at the bottom right you'll see year-over-year we are down about a point, you'll also see a significant shift in the fleet mix. cars are down 19%. trucks are up 38%. there has been very broad and strong support from environmental voices. chris is a senior career guy who opens up his presentations with a picture of the planet and talks about the importance of saving the planet. he says i'm all in on harmonization. another maker should not have to pay penalties under this. based on the flexibilities harmonize program would best be addressed with mrs. program. it talked about building a single fleet of vehicles, browner, no good news for consumers the good news for the auto industry which will no longer be subject to this. president obama what an office clear certainty that allows these two plan for future. strong support on both sides of the. determination has been suggested was rush. november 29 there was a screenshot the talked about the determination coming out simultaneously. november 30 the screenshot disappeared. it's like pictures of the photo at the guy leaves and then they're gone. the process change. the industry is united on rebooting. eighteen ceos that operate in the u.s. some base to some investors they signed a letter asking we don't prejudge the outcome that we reboot to the original schedule that was promised. the next lie, reality is contradicting theory. when the determination came on january the line was that the automakers are over compliant and everything is fine. then they came out with new evidence and said that we are under compliant. .5, the math is very important. go from ten to make 20 mpg over 1000 miles you say 50 gallons. there's a ten to make one multiplier focusing on the front end of the curve rather than the backup. the most important thing you can do is sleep turnover happens rapidly. this shows the bulk of the savings has been realized. --'s proposed, if you take 2021. epic is somewhere between 9797% of savings. you can talk about the politics for the substance, i'm out of time. gas prices were wrong, that is change the fleet mix in a genetic way. when you see in the next five this for lines, the 51.4 line is the same deal with the change in the fleet mix. the third line is to recalculate where the deal now is. the final point is that consumers have an important role. programs that get measured by what consumers five. they would like fuel economy but are not willing to pay for. one in three said they would pay nothing for additional fuel economy. one in 102500 bucks. it's important to understand where it fits. affordability and liability are top priorities. when i consumers go into a showroom they're looking for features, fuel economy is one of those. thank you. >> mr. mcconnell you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for allowing me to testify. my name is force mcconnell, a third-generation honda we represent over 16000 dealers who employ 1.1 million people. i've been in the car business about 40 years. one thing never changes, people buy new vehicles based on two factors, does it fit their needs and can they afford it. how fuel economy is regulated is very important. goldberg would be proud of the convoluted where nation regulates fuel economy. they're not one but three programs that automakers must follow, these programs are administered by three different agencies. under three different rules pursuant to three different wolves potentially resulting in three standards all that must be separately followed. they sometimes contrary regulations labeled by one national program but there are three separate programs. we establish café they gave them the soul economy for the standards to avoid a patchwork of state standards. congress preempted states from regulating fuel economy. since 2009 we've had something different. multiple regimes go from judicial and executive branch actions. this put epa in charge of setting fuel economy policy and allowed california to set its own standards. these actions have undermined the café program that congress created. . . . . more for the cars that customers want to subsidize the cars to regulators demand. these regulatory costs help make the program the most expensive set of rules that are at a cost of 209 billion. i've never seen a billion dollars but i understand it is a lot of money. this will raise the average price of the vehicle nearly $3,000 will price over 6 million people entirely out of the new car market. america will benefit from returning to one program established on congress. this is not a new idea. in 2011 the house passed a bipartisan bill that would have reestablished the fuel economy program. we can do better than this way. let's bring accountability back by returning to one policy. this will create the continuous fuel and proved that the customers want and that they can't afford. the power rests with you. >> thanks for your testimony. good morning mr. chairman i am a senior vehicle analyst, nonprofit advocacy organization whose primary mission is to ensure policy is crafted on the best available science without political interference i appreciate transportation is now the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states and 2012 to 2025 light-duty represent the largest step to reducing. one national program recognizes the independent authority of the highway traffic administration environmental protection agency in california as well as the states that follow california's lead. at the same time it helps to provide a coordinated approach to achieving reductions in oil use in emissions and allow manufacturers to be able to design a single fleet capable of complying with all greenhouse regulations should they choose to. separately california and other states have adopted a program in order to address air quality issues. they currently face 37 billion in annual health impacts related to the vehicle pollution. by 2030 there will cut by 35% while increasing the sales of you at vehicles will ultimately help comply with greenhouse gas regulations tha but it's not the programs purpose and is not part of one national program. of course the implications of one national program extend beyond national security. these cost-effective standards help put money back into the hands of consumers by saving them money at the gas pump. improving the efficiency is especially critical for lower and middle class families who spend a greater share of their income on fuel and the standards disproportionately benefit those individuals by making both the new and used car market more efficient. the efficiency continues to improve as a result of the standards with suvs showing some of the greatest levels of improvement year-over-year precisely because the site space to standards and encourage manufacturers to offer more fuel-efficient options and all of the vehicle classes and even as the fleet is becoming more efficient the automakers are setting records. at the same time the success of the standards cannot be taken for granted. suppliers invested nearly 50 billion building and expanding factories around the u.s. as a result of the certainty they provide very a growing manufacturing jobs by more than 20%. anything done to weaken the standards and undermine those investments could have drastic consequences for the supplier base with a broad national footprint. the technology investment is part of why we are confident that manufacturers can achieve standards. automakers have barely begun to employ these technologies to improve the efficiency of the gas powered vehicles and new unanticipated developments continue to emerge that can reduce even further. as a result of the progress, we were able to jointly show in the technical assessment report for the costofthe costs to comply wl economy greenhouse standards have declined in as required under the midterm evaluation process agreed to by all parties epa reviewed the programs and moved forwarhadmoved forward onn whether the standards remained appropriate. it's the best economic and technical data and putting that by manufacturers and included the standards remained appropriate in fact they agreed with our assessment that shows manufacturers can need stronger standards by 2025 but they chose to leave the standards as it is to provide the certainty needed. by speaking to renegotiate the terms of the national program automakers are injecting uncertainty in the process. this harms consumers and risks long-term impacts for the industry. the leadership as the rest of the world moves forward signals a repeat to require taxpayers to bail out the industry in 2008 if they can ask i can exit china o. in response rather than redoing the commitment to seek relief anyway we can get it manufactures should be doubling down on improving efficiency to protect the investment in american jobs. one program is working to provide fuel savings for america, improve national security and reduce emissions at this progress is in jeopardy of the direct result of the actions to undermine the standards. it's critical to continue to hold them accountable for the promises they made to the american people. >> on behalf of the association of global automakers thank you for the opportunity to testify today. representing the u.s. operations of international automobile manufacturers the member companies have invested $59 billion in us-based facilities had directly employ over 100,000 americans. members are building cars and trucks that are more fuel efficient and cleaner than ever and making tremendous strides in vehicle electrification. future process depends on a number of factors some of which are not fully within the control of manufacturers. the most important factor is the customer. as we have seen when gas prices are low, fuel economy is less important to the customers when they purchase a new car or truck. government regulations were also important. manufacturers are required to produce to meet requirements that may have been set in different times and under very different circumstances. to that end as we talk about the fuel efficiency vehicles we should also talk about the efficiency of public policy. the auto industry cut federal government an in the state of california established a national program to address the fact that multiple agencies across 15 jurisdictions are using different tools to regulate similar aspects of the vehicle. the program aims to harmonize the café standards for light duty vehicles. it provides substantial year-over-year reductions to the petroleum consumption across the nation from all light duty vehicles while producing unnecessary duplication. recognizing the nationwide benefits produced by the federal program, california accepts compliance with federal standards as compliance in its program at despite the efforts to better align notable differences among the programs remain. that makes no sense. this scheme creates friction in the system that slows down innovation and imposes necessary compliance costs ultimately borne by consumers with no added energy benefits. in fact, under the current standards as you've heard, a manufacturer could comply with one standard of the other. this is a prescription for wasted time, talent and resources which would be more productively directed towards engineering and other challenges associated with actually reducing the emissions. some of these can be disturbed he wa assaulted a straightforwad manner. the auto alliance with either they petitioned the epa requested regulatory changes permissible within the statutory constructs of each related primarily to the banking and applications of credits and process improvements that would promote additional technologies with real fuel savings benefits. the agencies should respond without delay. these regulatory changes, however, cannot fully address the differences in federal statutes which means that legislation is necessary. global automakers support congressional action to provide consistency between federal programs. these problems all have solutions. we simply haven't put into action and that creates a dilemma. the auto industry is a fundamental transformation to electrification and automation. the cars we saw today need to be able to generate the resources to fund these transitions, and we need to be thoughtful about the public policy to support these efforts. finally, it is critically important all the parties remain at the table to work through these issues. it's far preferable that we resolve the issues without litigation or retreat from one national program. those paths would only create uncertainty which would discourage innovation and free is further progress in reductions. global automakers remains committed to a harmonize national approach and we look forward to working with you toward that goal. thank you and i will be happy to answer any questions. >> we appreciate your testimony and will move into the question and answer portion of the hearing i will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. how can you tell the subcommittee that the trends especially with respect to the type of vehicle they are purchasing today? >> is your microphone on please? >> thank you for the question. the customer makes their own decision on what car. that doesn't mean that the demand is there. so the two things i found this for example we have a customer the other day pregnant having her second child, soccer mom. they moved from a smaller car to the odyssey minivan to assess their needs but the demand for cars right now is 63% of the people are trucks versus about 34% cars, so that's changed the last couple years and that is because the price of gas went down from $4 a gallon basically. >> thank you. with current rules and regulations in place, do we in fact have one national standard for the emission standards? >> we do not effectively. >> how did the epa suddenly processed the hearing to find a determination? >> at first disconnected so if you go back to 2011, there was a trade and the agreement was the industry would agree to a very ambitious targets who are overlong period of time 2025 and exchange the industry would get a commonsense analytical look back to make sure the projections were accurate, and we would get a national program. what we've gotten is neither. we are trying to get there but we didn't have one national program and review was pretty much over when they came out we asked for an extension and were told there would be plenty of time, the request was denied. anwhen aand that determination t we asked for an extension and it was denied over the course of about 20 days of the christmas holiday everything was very compressed into there was a strong disagreement about the substance of the report which we never got to work our way through the i think it is worth pointing out there's been an attitude on the part of some that the work was the holy grail without dispute and i would like to point out they made many assumptions and if you look at the point they've been proven false if there was a massive failure. there was the view that we were over and i'm are complying so we can talk about the substantive value of the report under which it was finalized, but they make mistakes that are quite profound >> and pointing the mistakes out, what do they say? >> originally they say it is a good thing to talk about later on. we believe i think the most important mistake in our view is a the amount necessary to comply. they believe they can comply or schedule the medium of much more is required if you look at the purchase pattern in the marketplace, that is the real problem. >> by having different standards from the agencies, what effects thawith effectsthat have on job? >> i think it could have a fairly significant impact on jobs and the growth of the industry. what is happening here is your having to waste time and resources on come by and when we ought to devote the time and resources to innovation that improves the economy so with one standard you could focus that investment. we want to make sure every dollar of those were focused on improving fuel economy as opposed to efforts to comply with no benefit. >> thank you very much. my time is expired and recognize the ranking member from the committee, the gentleman from illinois. >> i would like to point out the anniversary of the paris accord. and unfortunately in my view the united states is no longer part of that. it seems to me what is being considered today might actually increasing. the police pull harmonization between the programs isn't about aligning different regulations, it'it's a weakening the fuel economy standards. all the credits but the automakers want to be added to the program are going to cross the stagnation of fuel economies, rules. let me first ask you or these programs working and are they less polluting than they used to be? >> absolutely. they've got ten more efficient over the past five years. do you have any goals for the program stifling innovation or helping to drive that? >> i think the fact that you see continued new. they will want to expired credits from earlier in the year when they were much more waxed and to extend the life from five to 11 years and they want to add a whole new category to the mix to transfer the credits they want. that sounds about right. automakers need a substantial number of credits to meet the standards. >> the obvious evidence shows that there are plenty they could be applying to the vehicles and if they met the standard they are trying to weaken through the credits, they would be in compliance while >> what would this mean for the real. you could see manufacturers using their credits to install progress on the economy of the pickup trucks. the standards are then further weakened by the progress. >> while we are on the topics, the eta has allowed them to get extra credit for using certain technologies. we are told to allow them to count retroactively towards the mission goals and fuel economy standards. or these already in the fuel economy goals? >> they exclude them from the regulations. >> didn't they intentionally set them lower than the epa precisely because it didn't include these credits? >> if they were to allow off cycle credits attractively to its already discounted fuel economy standards, shouldn't it also agrees that the standards to make them more stringent? >> that's correct >> do you buy the estimate that this would raise the cost of a car $3,000 does that take into account with a lower gas price would be? >> i have no idea where that 3,000-dollar number is coming from. it's outdated. >> the gentl gentle leader yielk into the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee on the environment, from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. first following a couple of questions, to the automakers into the auto dealers you represent america in which you raise capital, assume the risk and try to sell a good. you pay living wages and health benefits to. you're paying local taxes that fund the schools and towns and you probably are supporting local sports leagues and things like that. we bring people before us and they feel like they are on trial and under attack. it's unfortunate, so first thank you. part of the debate is that obama administration moved the goalpost is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and the request is what? >> to have a fact based process of. it's important to the investors in the country and for all of us who care about reducing the emissions. >> isn't it fair to say when you do a formula over time, variables can change the. it's important to point out that there are two different programs to save like 65.6. in the discussion, that doesn't change. >> from your observations of consumers in the process and based upon the discussion that the consumers have changed. can you give me the observation? >> $3,000 a half different stages in different desires. they get the card that fits their needs and this is the customer's money. a regulator can demand a certain car but the customer has the right to spend his money. maybe you have to have a truck because you have a business. i'm from rural america and we like big vehicles and big truc trucks. let me finish with the auto manufacturers as and this may not be a surprise to some of my friends, the government initiative underway to define and understand the costs and benefits of high octane and low carbon fuels. if your industry were to go in that direction what did you think it would mean in terms of emission reductions or can number affordability for 21 and beyond? it's been four or 5% and then there's the question of how you get it. >> certainty isn't part of that process. >> the vehicle and the fuel are one thing so that's what is driving that kind of work so you have more efficient engines and a fuel that matches the one system as i mentioned in my opening statement we've received testimony that automakers are already ahead of schedule. did they find that they can be met by most efficiency in the ends? >> that's correct. numerous comments to the determination o of coin a number of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are unforgivable. the testimony mentions a number of technologies that haven't been widely deployed int in somf these have existed for years but still are ten or 20% of new vehicles. can you discuss how they can be more widely adopted? they haven't moved the technology across the board and there are other vehicle made jurors giving the same direction with something proven there are new announcements every few months. >> why haven't these technologies been adopted more quickly? >> one of the challenges is they are about five years so it does take time to for example a large trucks haven't seen a power upgrade in the decade so i think there is an inconsistency in the industry and how quickly they are moving the technology through. >> additional models meet the standards of more of the commercially available technologies were more broadly utilized. it's my understanding there are several technologies under development for the cost-effective pathways meeting the standards. is that accurate? >> one of the things the modeling shows is using slightly different assumptions for the pathways the manufacturers can use to meet the standards come,s a revised analysis that proves there are multiple pathways to get there. >> despite the likelihood of the technologies becoming available in the near future is it accurate that the epa did not consider when determining the appropriate use of 2022 to 2025 standards the proposal shows we can go even further evinces the final determination whether you thinthink they've underestimatew fast they can be developed? >> it's in their interest to provide regulators data that will result in the standards that are most easily achievable. i don't understand what they are capable of that history has shown that to be true. >> the standards are achievable as well as the program to reach the standards so i can't can see the uncertainty created by the determination. the process was flawed because it didn't happen at the april 2018 deadline and is there anything in the regulations that prevent the epa from evaluating the appropriateness of the numbers before april 2018? i think there was a fairly thorough analysis. any benchmarking tests. with that i yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. whether or not the efficiency of soap as an engineer i like the idea but also want to measure that it's a cost-benefit ratio because some cars are getting lighter and you will hear some reports talk about the facts and others will say in the model situation at all cars are the same size on the highway but isn't the real world so i would like to hear back a little bit from you about the safety aspects because they want us to continue down the road increasinincreasing the efficier cars but i don't want to do it at the risk of our people that are driving the car so that is my first question. under the statute they have to o look at a range of factors. epa does not, so your concern about safety is valid and ought to be incorporated in an analysis. >> the good thing about the way the congress set it up is safety was one of the factors. the epa does not and california does not have to consider and as you know they reduced the car is tremendously. >> do you think increasing efficiency dips caused or contributed to the increased rate of difficultie fatalities e highway is? >> i will say that the congress got it right because they required them to consider safety into the epa doesn't have to consider safety at all. there is no evidence to support the book on inclusion that these are having an adverse effect on accidents. what we do know is the order of the car, the structural integrity is better maintained, so if your priority is safety on the roads and the ability to move the fleet turnover is crucial. >> during the testimony i have a minute and 13 seconds left to. >> i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of credits it's almost as if thethey've been delivered from someplace. these credits are the result of investments card companies have made that have resulted in progress so they've made more achievement so this credit is a reward for innovation. it's actually the investment companies are making so the point is important to recognize what they do is encourage innovation and also help them once and smooth the ups and downs in the program where the increases are required. >> he seems to have a vision that is profitable but not apparently the capacity to do that thank you mr. chairman. the clean air act gives the authority to grant so-called waivers to adopt the standards approximately a dozen states have adopted the standards as well as. can you tell us why they were given the authority to adopt the standards? >> they were the first body to regulate. >> and also because the pollution they had in the state as well. it has accepted either o the regulations were arbitrary and capricious with authority and of the clean air act or not compelling or extraordinary circumstances and i think it is clear when you look at why they are compelling and they create the circumstances of. i think we've heard this before but i heard the argument did you know how much money drivers safe because the standards on the vehicle basis? >> they save on the purchase of a car or $5,000 over the lifetime of the purchase of a new truck as they increase in the meantime it will be significantly higher. >> folks support the standards seven out of ten support the government fuel economy standards and that finding crosses the aisle. it's currently written for 2025. what data and information do you study to come to this conclusion? >> the analysis that has been conduct did but each month that passes we see the new data points. the epa has been generating indiana university study that was funded by the alliance shows hundreds of thousands of jobs are created as a result of the standards so the positive economic outcomes and new data. the international agency now has the transportation sector have you seen factors in the united states why do you think we've become less efficient in the transportation space while more efficient elsewhere? >> one of the things that is critical as the result of the makeshift. suvs and pickups so it's critical that they remain strong because the drive improvements across the vehicles and ensure cars, trucks and suvs get more efficient over time and so we have seen a plateau as a result. the gentle lady yields back thank you for yielding and i want to thank you for being here to spend time with us on this important issue. we will start with mr. mcconne mr. mcconnell. doing so will price of 6 million people from the car market. can you explain how you arrived at the numbers and how consumers would react based on your experience? >> dot $3,000 is a total cost that has been noted and affordable register. the most important thing to know is fleet turnover to put people in more fuel-efficient cars. the structure was a right one. there's probably many of you that own a black car. california proposed a regulation called cool paint that would eliminate lack cars because they become harder and you have to run your air conditioner a little bit longer. it will force them in the position they won't be able to provide the cars and trucks people want to buy at prices they can afford. >> we buy cars and the base it n the loft but ultimately the customer has to make the decision and can they afford it. there isn't on one bank i passet least 12 diploma flowing additional money just because your car gets better gas milea mileage. it seems like a regressive tax. from the automakers and the department of energy is how those can help reduce erosion and improve efficiency. they asked for information about the high-octane fuel and mentioned the consideration with response to the hearing last week. >> we are constantly working on the combination of the systems and a mentioned in response to mr. shimkus hardware software engines and fuels we are constantly evaluating the combinations and octane contribute so there's an opportunity there by th but a wo think about it is that brings additional benefits processed oil you're working on the gasoline powered engine. >> the current system is stifling innovation. can you explain what factors are driving the increased cost for consumers? >> is trying to comply with different fuel economy systems as well as technology forcing mandate if we can get further alignment to one program we will be able to devote that investment to improve the fuel economy. >> the existing gap do you expect to see that increase over the years? >> there is no question about it. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> i think the gentleman from illinois for giving me five seconds. doctor cook, do you think the current standards of health make the manufacture is more competitive? >> we saw what happened when they are allowed to stagnate. is this hurting the industry? how is it driving employment? >> the fact that we are moving forward with new research and development technologies is providing a catalyst for increased investment not just automakers but supply is to invest in the u.s. as well and they are a critical tool 3-1 so it is driving investment in technologies that is supportive of the job increase. is it hurting the automakers to have to hire these people? >> many are seeing high profits right now it's not difficult at all particularly when it was pointed out in the rulemaking the pitfalls that face them and that was finalized when they signed off on one program and nothing has changed since they signed off on those fools they were well aware of the differences between the two programs and it seems that they are choosing instead to invest in compliance. >> you are answering my questions pretty directly. you mentioned off-the-shelf technology is available and will briefly in creas increase effic. can you expand on that a little bit? >> the fact that automakers have invested in the proven technologies shows the potential is there and it takes time to move them across the remainder of the platforms because a new cathe newcar is redesigned evere years and at about the three year mark at p. because of that it takes time for the technology that is ready to go but what we have seen established is that there are a plethora of these technologies that are well-established and are still in the low fraction of this week so there's plenty of room for improvement without having to resort to the most expensive technologies. >> there's an internal combustion facility in my district. how effective is that in terms of providing technology automakers can use to increase the efficiency? >> i'm not aware of the specific lab but in general they do play grounds for the types of technologies and coordination with investment in basic science justhe basicscience just as anyd certainly plays a strong role for the advanced technologies. >> they have benefited the economy, the environment and sends it is working it maybe hurts itself. >> that is a very good question. you look at what the industry could be doing that we look at what they have done in the past and i think there is a little bit of a return to the mindset when you look at testimony in front of house committees the past 35, 40 years, automakers routinely say we can't possibly hit that target and they are still standing. >> of the chairman is going to cut me off so i won't yield ba back. the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> and a lot of good questions asked on both sides. i was the cochair for a lot of years. we all want better fuel efficiency. we have made real strides. we have gas prices for 224 this weekend it's a lot better than the 3848 or nine years ago. when we work with the industry and the administration on getting better fuel economy standards it was never the intent of the congress or the administration to have something that was different and one national program and we thought there was going to be the case and they indicated that back in the 2009 and 2012. we were all supposed where they were a week before the election or before the end of the obama presidency. when we worked with the industry and administration on establishing a timeframe, we put in the position that years down the road there would be a look back and they made these changes have thought would be a reasonable price for the consumers. i wouldn't say about this to halt the progress tha progress n measure to efficiencies and the new vehicles as to whether they would meet those but then it was revised down a little bit. under the rules i think your best answer is the industry if you didn't have to look back what would it take to meet 50 miles per gallon literally and the year 2024, 2025? >> i think the premise is false. we want the scope of progress to be consistent with selling cars and that is what all this boils down to so the rhetoric gets heated into the question is how we manage this in a fashion consistent with marketplace realities. >> there is no question about that. the question really is are we testing the assumptions we made? it is not clear what technologies will be in the cars and trucks people need to buy in 2025. there isn't a single gasoline powered engine that meets the standards today so we should be honest and straightforward about the technology pathways people see going forward. so this is about not only making sure we get the assumptions right for innovators and investors but also that the customers recognize that the marketplace will look like and are prepared. as you know my colleague and friend from michigan introduced legislation called the fuel economy harmonization act of 2017 that is designed to correct the inconsistency of having three different standards in essence and go back to one. what is your thought on that legislation? >> we think it is a terrific bill and the impact is regulatory friction and by reducing the regulatory friction there lies the strategies that make sense and you end up reducing the cost of the product enhancing the ability of people to buy those cars and that is crucial to the employment in the states and then in terms of dollars i was told the other day i'm not sure where that data comes from but if anywhere near the magnitude is right million dollars in savings in terms of cost translates into a thousand dollars on the bonus for a guy that works on the line so this is a multibillion dollar savings in terms of the regulatory friction and that means real disposable income for the workers of this industry. >> ..

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Japan , Paris , France General , France , United Kingdom , Texas , Washington , China , Illinois , California , Oregon , Michigan , West Virginia , India , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , Britain , Americans , America , American , Dave Cook , Gina Mccarthy , Janet Mccabe ,