today we are here to discuss the stakeholders corporate average fuel economy program at the national highway transportation administration in the greenhouse gas emission standards at the us epa agency that governs fuel economy standards. this program was established by congress in 1975 and the goals of the program are to improve vehicle economy, reduce oil consumption and secure the nation's energy independence. the program has undergone major changes and modifications the past four decades both because of political and economic forces. less than ten years ago and on top of the program the epa was created with the device more efficient vehicles that will use less fuel and less corporate backside. in addition various states have enacted their own standards with respect to automobile admission. the combination of these departments is created and incredibly compensated regulatory scheme improving fuel efficiency and achieving energy independence is an important goal. real-world backs and data that impact such an important far-reaching part of the american economy and consumers daily lives. the previous administration announced an attempt to create a national standard which included plans for epa to work together to work to avoid conflicting regulations. whatever progress has been made on that front however this year the issue their final determination that the standards for model year 2022 and 2025 are appropriate. epa took this action coordinating undermining the earlier pledge. the result is that automobile makers potentially found themselves in a position where they are compliant with one federal program but out of compliance in another. this type of fragment of argument hearts are consumers and economy. the industry is a huge source of 100,000 ohioans. it has been the ability to innovate cars that american drivers want to buy. government regulations get in the way of this type of innovation. it is a rare event to say the least for policymakers in washington to have a better ideas of consumer demands and consumers themselves. all too often washington stands in the way particular it creates unnecessary confusion with conflicting roles. my constituents know the type of vehicles that work best for the family and budget and that may change over time but they should be able to make their own decision without government strain on their finances. there is a real risk for the cost for the standards could force families to choose older cars without the benefit of new safety, technology. we were just starting to turn the corner after many challenging years and it is disheartening but not surprised they rushed out a final determination in the final hours of the last administration. i look forward to hear what can be done to help support consumer and jobs across the country. thank you for being here and i yield at this time to the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate so much that you and chairman of called this hearing. studies have shown that the higher purchase price of cars under a stricter café, under these 23 bystanders that would eliminate a lot of consumers from buying new cars. there is between 3.1 and 14.9 million american consumers that would fall out of the new car marketplace. this is where there is friction that we need to talk about. when something is counterproductive and in tennessee we have a lot of auto manufacturers. this is what they tell me. whether they are with nissan or toyota or volkswagen or gm it does not matter. they want realistic standards, they want something that they will be able to meet the expectation of american consumers and deliver a product that is first of all safe. ... >> it has gone down over $2000 since. >> it has in turn lower costs, the last time we heard it they testify, during the course of my 40 year career, initial cost estimates are complying with efficiency requirements have consistently been overstated have been here companies call for greater regulatory certainty and more time to comply, this time the epa finishes its work ahead of schedule better they do, petition for redo. no matter how administrators want to explain the decision to reopen the midterm evaluation, the mid result is clear. dirtier, less efficient vehicles cause for harmonization between café and greenhouse gas standards adjust for their efforts to weaken the standards for confused as to why the automakers are opposed to this when you promised autonomous vehicles. if a be are actually going to be elected vehicles, i think compliance should be easy. as we discuss the future of the standards family budgets and public health hangs in the balance. this is not the time to ignore facts in the industry pressure. we need to continue the progress to greater efficiency. i now yield. >> the café standards and greenhouse gas emission standards are win-win. they're good for consumers who say billions of dollars at the pump over the lifetime of the vehicles. they're good for the environment. they significantly reduce admissions from the transportation sector, the only sector in which it has grown worse over the last 15 years in this country. and good for the american workers. this sparked development and support jobs. many companies understand this and support the standards, even those critical of the standards are shifting to efficient engines and electric vehicles in response to cleaner cars. this i'm disappointed with the trump administration decision to revisit the standards from 2022 - 2025. seems their intent on weakening the progress we've made. i'll be in reducing the bill to codify the epa standards. they're written was support of the auto industry. legislation maintains that promise to american people, a promise for efficient cars that cost less at the pump and are better for the environment, health and future of our children and grandchildren. i look forward to continuing to engage on this. >> the chairman now recognizes the chairman of the environment subcommittee for five minutes for an opening statement. >> before i do, i like 15 seconds for point of personal privilege. >> two pictures i want to identify for folks, this is a tweet i got from my colleague from texas who is not paying attention talking about the next streak, and then the next photo mr. olson are you paying attention, i think you for correcting the record and starting a new streak. resell your tweet earlier. i know they would appreciate that. thank you one of the costliest energy and environmental regulations from the obama administration is when will address the targets fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks. the estimated total cost in excess of $200 billion by 2025. march will show up in higher sticker prices for new vehicles. we know that this is based on inaccurate places another assumptions that are off the mark. it's time to review the rules to suit their good deal for consumers they can be improved upon. the so-called midterm evaluation regulation finalized included stricter standards on the to 2025. more than a decade in the future. we decided to revisit midway through to see if standards need to be adjusted in light of changed circumstances. in 2016 they're poised to make a final decision. after the election they accelerated the timeline and rushed it out the door last january. this meant that standards were defined and it need to be changed. the administrator found this to be -- and as a result the deadline of april 2018 the agency may proceed from a rulemaking from 2022 - 2025. part of this is to get input about the contributions of the midterm evaluation of what they would like to see ahead for the process. stakes are high but higher for consumers. the average price of the vehicle has risen to $35000. these are contributor to the increase. cumulative price increases by 2025. the rule number may prove to be higher. the biggest sticker shock might be on medical americans. a smart car maybe five for some people who many of my new family size vehicles or trucks for work. the seas vehicles that might take the biggest hit. we need to make sure future targets maintain vehicle choice and affordability. we need to evaluate if we have a uniform set of rules for the nation. since the 1970s the national safety had fuel economy standards. now we have three agencies regulating the same thing. not surprising their discrepancies. looking ahead we need to decide if you still want three agencies involved and why we gave california so much more power. comes down to its best for the consumer. vehicles are second totally . i hope this helps strengthen our understanding of what we need to do to make these as consumer friendly as possible. i yell back. >> the chair recognizes the environment subcommittee ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for holding a hearing. this is corporate average fuel economy. the standards have played a critical role in saving money at the pump reducing carbon pollution. these were established in 1975 by the energy policy and conservation act. since 2009 the greenhouse gas emission standards have become important in a patient effort to address climate change. lester they surpass electricity sector according to the epa light duty vehicles account for nearly 60% of the united states transportation omissions 60.5% of the emissions in 2015. the current standards are estimated to lead to the reduction of carbon emissions by 6 billion metric tons for vehicles in years 2012 to make 2025. café standards are estimated to save 1.7 trillion to dollars at the pump for vehicles produced 2011 - 2025. we've come along way since the 1930s. over the past four decades the program has evolved to give automakers greater flexibility. today manufactures are not forced into a single compliance, each manufacturer has its own standard and tries to meet its customers demand. fifteen month since then we've seen changes at the epa. husband is the 2012 agreement epa agreed to conduct midterm evaluation to determine were still accurate or reasonable they built an extensive public effort greenhouse gas standards for model years 2022 - 2025 vehicles. along with that epa issued the don't july 2016 draft assessment report and sought public comment. they also sought public, for models 2022 - 2025 vehicles remain appropriate. the technical assessment provide a robust and conclusive record. epa standards can be met out or caused the originally estimated. it's an average cost of $875, this is lower than the initial estimate per vehicle which epa found reasonable limits 202012 rule. and much lower than consumers can expect to save at the pump over the life of the vehicle. the target should remain in place up to 2025. i believe that was the correct decision but despite bad to march administrator pruitt announced his decision for the midterm review. we clean standards would be bad it. i have tremendous faith in manufactures. no doubt they will continue to meet these achievable goals. technology adoption rates have occurred more quickly than the original expectation. last year janet mccabe testified before the committee that there more than 100 individual model year or later. as they continued to innovate multiple technology pathways including existing off the shop chef technology -- thank you for the chairs for the join hearing. thank you to our witnesses for being here. the support programs for the steak of our constituents wallets in our efforts to reduce pollution. i'll back. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman from jet organ for five minutes. the money. today's hearing touches upon frustration which is the duplicate of government program and increase costs for consumers. the differing fuel economy standards in the environmental protection agency. while this has been charged with implementing fuel economy standards since 1978, the obama era epa develop its own standard in 2009. in order to cornet these they created the national program. the national program failed to develop a single national standard. under the current scheme. automakers could find themselves in compliance with one federal standard but running a fall of another. this is true even though they told this committee during the hearing less congress that they would work together to avoid this. we've seen programs that works against the obama administration's progress of coordinated efforts. under this there to jointly issue their respective determinations on the model years 2022 - 2025 standards. this was supposed to happen in april 2018. epa abandon this and rush through its final determination without coordination just seven days before president trump was sworn into office. i look forward to receiving an update and would like to know how these regulatory schemes impact consumers and better ways to make sure standards are met without having unnecessary burdens that serves only to drive up the costs. these programs will receive a price of the vehicle $3000. the snow small amount. the goal of these programs are important, we must never forget that we do have a real impact on consumers across the country. federal programs that overlap or conflicts to nothing to protect american people, it's our job to make sure the laws and implementation if any correction or clarification, that's over here to do. i think our witnesses for being here today. the american people deserve a government that uses innovation and growth. leo back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee the genre from new jersey for five minutes. >> a little over a year ago they held a hearing about a report produced by the epa in california board in that form the basis for all three agencies decision to move forward with the light dizzy standards for models produced in 2002 in 2005. unfortunately the environment and consumer benefits the trump administration is moving to weaken these. complied with the request to open the midterm review and reconsider the greenhouse emission targets equivalent to 51.4 miles per gallon. this could potentially lead to a weakening of the standard. if the oil industry is to remain competitive we must reject efforts to remove backwards. that's critical for greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. air pollution and carbon emission from the private sector are significant in many areas. the fastest growing markets are the same countries whose large cities experience chronic poor air quality that creates significance health product problems. britain, france, india and china set ambitious goals just restrict or eliminate diesel cars. the oil industry claims it cannot meet these goals by 2025, but their efforts to seek harmonization through credits and credit thinking only serve to undermine the goals previously set by the obama administration. the oil industry has already see a sizable -- industry needs to find ways to continue their investment vehicles particularly those that don't rely on fossil fuels. the joint standards in conjunction with that are ambitious but achievable. the make our nation more energy secure. will play a critical role in our effort to slow the pace and it will improve your quality of public health. we know technology is available and affordable today to produce vehicles. must be marketable with the same level of resources used for large sport-utility vehicles. there's no justification freezing up on this effort that will benefit those who reap the benefits of our nation being out front instead of being dragged behind. someone once my time is fine if not a back. >> this concludes our member opening statements, remind members that pursuant to the committee roles all opening statements will be made part of the record. i think our witnesses for being here today for testified before the subcommittee. witnesses have an opportunity for five-minute opening statements. witness panel includes mitch, presidency of my automobile manufacturers. first mcconnell the third, on behalf of the national automobile dealers association, doctor dave cook and mr. john the president ceo global automakers. we thank you for being here. >> thank you chairman. i have an extensive list to go through. i asked for your patience. i'm here on behalf of the alliance of automobile manufacturers. twelve from the u.s., europe and japan represent 80% of the cars in the u.s. i've eight points to make. the first is that sales have peaked. we went through several years of growth and have now peaked. if you look at the bottom right year-over-year we are taught about a points for 2016. there is a significant shift in the fleet mix. cars are down 19%. checks are down 38%. there is by support from environmental cases. there's a picture of the famine talks about the importance of saving the planet. he says well then on harmonization. it should not be acceptable to penalties on the café. they said based on the well-designed flexibilities would best be addressed with the nits a program the obama talked about a single fleet helping to produce cost and regulatory complexity. carol browner not only needs for consumers but for the auto industry which will no longer be part of a costly patchwork. and obama said clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for future building cars in the 21st century. their strong support on both sides. .3, determination of both sides have been rush. the 29th there talked about the determination, and out in april 2018 simultaneously with nancy. november 30 it disappeared. just like old soviet photos and then they're gone. the determination was rushed. the industry is reunited, 18 ceos son based here all signed a letter asking me not prejudge the outcome but re- reboot it to the original schedule promised when the deal is done in 2011. reality is now contradicting theory. when the final determination came on january the line was that the outer makers were over complying. later they show that for 16 and 17 were now under complying. snouts under compliance and 16 and 17. .5. the math is really important. if you go from 10 - 20 mpg over 1000 miles you save $50000. if you go 40 to 50 safe $5. attend one multiplier focusing on the front end of the curve rather than the backend. most important thing you can do is make sure fleet turnover as rapidly as possible. the bulk of the savings is over to been realized. that's a proposed 179 million gallons. take 2021 push it up one, two, 3% you get about 99% of the savings. we can talk about this big gap in terms of politics but in terms of substance were 97 to 99% there. that's impressive. >> gas prices were profoundly wrong, that has changed the fleet mix in a dramatic way. we see here in the next line as for lines. this is the original deal, the other line is the same do recalculated the change in the fleet mix. the third is if you re- calculate based on fleet exchanges were now lives. that is where it's roughly 50. consumers have a very important role. they would like fuel economy but not willing to pay for. one of through pay nothing for additional fuel economy. one in ten would be willing to pay more than 2500. some point understand where it fits. our top priority is fuel economy and safety. they're looking for many factors features, fuel economy is one but not the sole determination. >> mr. schama, ranking member. thank you for allowing me to testify. my name is force mcconnell, third-generation honda dealer a foreman chairman of the auto mobile association. i've been in the car business for about 40 years selling fuel-efficient hondas through good times and bad. one thing never changes. people buy new vehicles based on two things, does it fit their needs, and can they afford it. how fuel economy is regulated as important by customers. goldberg would be proud of the convoluted way our nation regulates fuel economy. they're not one but three fuel economy programs that automakers must follow. these programs are administered by three different agencies. the three different sets of rules pursuant to three different laws potentially three different standards, all of which must be separately followed. the sometimes contrary regulations are actually three separate programs. when congress established café they gave nets of the soul economy for setting fuel economy standards. congressman preempted states from regulating fuel economy. since 2009 we fed something different. multiple regimes from judicial and executive branch. this put epa in charge of and allow california to set its own standards. these have undermined the café program the congress created. congress has returned to one program. there are benefits to having regulatory clarity. the café program was written to regulate fuel economy. when sending standards they must balance job loss, consumer choice, safety, market demands. in contrast, the clean air act was not designed for that. california's regulation considers economic factors in that state which is why it makes for national policy. california and other states are preempted from regulating fuel economy yet it's been ignored since 2009. all of this costs money. these harm customers because auto manufacturers must charge more for the cars that they want to subsidize those that regulators demand. these help make the national program most expensive set of rules ever at the cost of 209 billion. the average price will raise for a new vehicle over $3000 and will price 6 million people out of the new car market. america will benefit from returning to one read national if you can't reprogram. this is done a new idea. in 2011 the house passed a bill that would have reestablished café is the sole fuel economy program. we can do better. let's bring accountability back by returning to one national policy. this approach will create continuous improvements that customers want and can afford. the power rests with you. thank you. >> thank you. >> a morning. my name is doctor dave cook. the senior analysts. a nonprofit advocacy organization his mission is to ensure policies crafted on the best science without political interference. transportation is now the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states. unlike today's standards represent -- in the u.s. one national program recognizes independent authorities of highway traffic association in california in the states that follow california's sleep. it helps provide a coordinated approach to achieving reductions in oil use that allows manufacturers to design a single fleet capable of complying with all regulations should they choose to. separately, california and other states have adopted a zero missions program to address air quality issues. they currently state $37 billion in -- the program would cut that by 35%. while increasing the sales electric vehicles will ultimately help manufacturers comply that is not the program's purpose and not part of one national program. the implications of one program would have cost effective standards to help money back into the hands of consumers. it would save money at the gas pump. improving the efficiency of nucleavehicles is critical for e and lo lower-class families. the efficiency of cars and trucks continue to improve as a result. with suvs showing some of the greatest improvement because the size based standards encourage manufacturers to offer more fuel-efficient options vehicle classes. as it's becoming more efficient automakers are setting sales records. suppliers have invested nearly $50 billion expended factories run the u.s. as a result. growing manufacturing jobs by 20%. anything done to weaken the standards could have a drastic consequences for supplier base the technology investment is why were confident manufacturers can achieve the 2025 standards. automakers have billy begun a new anticipated developments continue to emerge that can reduce fuel use further. as a result, knit set in epa were able to show the cost to comply with gas admission standards had declined. as required under the midterm evaluation process, epa reviewed the comments and move forward with the determination on other standards. based on economic and technical data epa concluded the 2025 standards remained appropriate. they agreed with our assessment. the agency chose instead to leave the masses and provide certainty needed for continued investment. by seeking to renegotiate the one national program automakers are putting uncertainty in the process. this harms consumers and risks long-term impacts. the signals a repeat of the feelings that required taxpayers to bail out the industry in 2008 rather than getting out of their commitment, manufacturer should be doubling down on improving efficiency to protect american investment in american jobs. one national program is working now to improve national security and reduce omissions. this is in jeopardy as a result of recent actions. it's critical to hold automakers critical to the promises they made. >> thank you for your testimony. >> on behalf of the association of globe automakers, you for the opportunity to testify. globe automakers represents automobile manufacturers that design, build trucks in the united states. the companies have invested $59 million in us-based facilities and directly employ over hundred thousand americans. the building cars and the more fuel-efficient and cleaner than ever. our future progress in reducing emissions and fuel consumption depends on factors, some of which are not fully within the control of manufacturers. as we've seen fuel economy is less important to customers when they purchase a vehicle, government regulations are also important. manufacturers are required to meet regulatory requirements that may have been set in different times. to that end, as we talk about the fuel efficiency vehicles we should talk about the efficiency of public policy. the auto industry, and state of california have one national program to address the fact that multiple agencies across jurisdictions were using different tools to regulate similar aspects of the vehicle. the program aims to regulate's café for light-duty vehicles. the omp provides reductions in petroleum while reducing unnecessary regulatory duplication. recognizing the nationwide benefits, california accepts compliance with federal standards as compliance with its federal program. despite efforts to better or align notable differences among the programs remain. that makes no sense. it creates friction in the system that slows renovation and imposes unnecessary costs with no added environmental benefits. under the current standards a manufacturer could comply with one stander but not the other. this is a prescription for wasted time, talent and resources which should be more productive in engineering or actually reducing emissions. some of these can be solved in a straightforward manner. the epa requested regulatory changes permissible within the statutory constructs relating to the banking of credits and process that will promote additional technologies with three pure savings benefits. the agency should respond without delay. these changes cannot fully address the differences in federal statutes which means legislation is necessary. these problems all have solutions. we just have not put them in action. that creates a dilemma. the auto industry is in the middle of fundamental transformation automation. the cars we sell need to generate resources to fund these transitions. we need to be thoughtful to public policy. finally, it's important that all of the parties remain at the table to work through the issues. this more preferable to resolve these without litigation or retreat from a national program. that create uncertainty which would discourage innovation and freeze further progress. globe automakers remains committed to a national approach and look for to working with you toward the goal. thank you. >> will now move into the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. i will recognize myself in five minutes. as a dealer, how can you tell the subcommittee about these trends especially with respect to vehicles there doing with today. >> thank you. the customer makes their own decision. you can build cars but that doesn't mean the demand is there. for example, we had a customer was pregnant with her second child. soccer mom. they move from a smaller car to nfc minivan. but the demand for cars right now is 63% of people are trucks versus 34% cars. it has changed tremendously because the price of gas went down from $4 a gallon. >> thank you. with a current rules and regulations in place to have one national standard for café and greenhouse gas emission standards? >> and how does the epa impact the midterm review? >> it disconnected first from that's it. if you go back to 2011 there is essentially a trade. the industry would agree to these targets through 2025 and exchange they would get common sense look back to make sure the results were accurate. we have gotten either. we do not have one national program. in the midterm review was premature. when it came out we asked for an extension in that extension request was denied. over the course we had about three days over the christmas holidays. everything was compressed and there was a strong disagreement about the substance of the report. >> where any of the assumptions that you raised address by the agency? >> not really. there has been an attitude on the part of some that the tar and subsequent work was the holy grail, without dispute. epa made many assumptions. if you go through a look at the points, they have been proven false. there is a massive failure on projecting gas. the fleet mix question was butchered. there's a view that were over compliant and were under compliant. so we can talk about the value of that report to which the midterm was set but they made mistakes that were quite profound. >> when you're planning to these mistake. >> originally they said we could talk about it later on. we have lost that. >> the most important mistake in our view is the amount of -- to comply. they believe they can comply with minimal if you look at the purchase pattern in the marketplace, that's real problem. >> by having different standards what effect would that have on jobs and growth in the auto industry? >> i think it could have a fairly significant impact on jobs and on the growth of the industry. what's happening is that were having to waste time and resources on compliance when we should devote that time and resources to reason innovation that improves fuel economy. so you can focus that investment than many of you represent states and community free see that investment firsthand. we want to make sure every dollars focused on improving fuel economy as it opposed to efforts of complying for the sake of complying. >> recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes. >> this is the two-year anniversary of the paris accord. unfortunately, in my view the united states is no longer part of that. seems to me what's being considered today might increase the pollution caused by a weakening fuel economy standards. the plea for harmonization between the epa program is in about a lying name different regulations it's about weakening fuel economy standards. the credit that they want to be added will caustic nation and fuel economy goals and not harmonization. doctor cook, are these programs working? our u.s. cars more efficient less polluting than they used to be? >> absolutely. vehicles have gotten more efficient of the last five years. is it stifling innovation or helping. >> i think the fact that it's improving in you senior research automakers show that their investing. >> as i understand carmakers want to reinstate expired credits from earlier years when standards were more lax and they want to extend those from 5 - 11 years. they want to add a new category of credits and relax the caps on their ability to transfer the credits they earn on their cars to the pickup trucks. have i left anything out? >> no. i think that sounds right. >> to automakers really need such substantial expansion of credits to meet the standards. >> no, i think the tar work since the vast body of evidence shows there are technologies they could apply to meet the standard. if they met the café standard which they're trying to weaken through the credits they would be in compliance as well. >> if automakers were to get all the credits are asking for all of this mean for real improvements in the fuel economy going forward? >> it could have said continued investment in efficiency. you can see manufacturers using their credit and to install progress on the fuel economy and that affects our ability in the long term through the midterm review process with set up a trajectory where we have weaker vehicles going into the 20 to 22 model year and then further weakened through this progress. >> while we're on the topic of credits, carmakers have complained about the fact that the epa has allowed them to get extra credits for using certain technologies like fast start emission systems. i'm referring to off cycle credits. were told that the needs to harmonize with the epa and allow these credits to count retroactively towards emission goals and fuel economy standards. are these off cycle technologies already factored into the fuel economy goals? >> yes. they excluded them from the 2012 to may 2016 regulation when they set the standard. >> did they intentionally set the fuel economy goals lower than the epa goals because it's program did not include this credits? >> is about 1 mile per gallon lower. >> if nasa were to to apply this to at standard and also reset the standards to make them more stringent? >> that is correct. by the estimate that this would raise the cost of a car $3000, does that take into account what the lower gas price would be? >> i have no idea where that number is coming from. it is outdated. >> thank you. i yells back. >> thank you. >> following a few questions, to the automakers it's just a thank you to the auto dealer you represent america which you raise capital, assume a risk and tried to sell a good. he played living wages and health benefits, taxes to the country, local taxes, you're probably supporting local sports leagues and teams. was get frustrated when we bring people before us when we bring people before us and they seem like there on trial and under attack. it's unfortunate. part of the debate is that the obama administration moved the goalpost in this review is that correct? >> yes. and your request is, what? >> to go back to the original obama timeline and have a fact-based, evidence driven process. >> in you want that because? >> we need to get it right. it's important to the customers and investors in all of us who went to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. >> when you do a formula over time, variables could change? >> that's correct, and they have changed. >> we talked about the gas price reality. there's nothing that drives behavior in the marketplace whether the price of gas. that's changed the mix and ultimately the compliance reality. it's important to point out two different programs, epa was estimated to save $65.6 billion. the notes a program essentially the same thing. were complying with another program. the discussion of harmonization doesn't change. were not touching epa at all. >> from your observation of the consumers in the process and based upon the discussion, consumers have changed the choices of what they want to go off the lot. >> the 3000-dollar additional costs to customers is from the total cost. tar is not a rule. customers make decisions. in times change. congress got it right the first time by not having a patchwork. you want to consider affordability and they get a car that fits their needs. this is a customer's money. the customer has the right to spend his money. maybe it's a previous if that works for you. maybe you need a truck. >> on from rural america, we like big vehicles and big trucks. i know what is being sold in mina of the woods. finish with this. there's a government initiative underway to the find and understand the costs and benefits of high-octane, low carbon fuels. if your industry were to go in that direction forwarded me for consumer affordability in 2021 and beyond? >> i've seen it estimate around for 5% there's value on high-octane and a question on how you get it. >> think you have to look at the vehicle and the fuel are one system. desperate striving network. efficient engines. >> the gentleman yells back. i recognize the ranking member of the -- subcommittee. >> doctor cook, as i mentioned this committee received testimony that there already ahead of the standards. did you find that the targets could be met by mostly efficiency improvements? >> that's correct. there's not a significant deployment needed. . . . . even they haven't moved that technology across the border and they are certainly a leader. other vehicle manufacturers are in moving in that same direction with times was something that's proven where to find a new pathway in which those developments routinely come out of new announcements every few months. >> way but these commercially available to elegies come out more quickly? >> i think one of the challenges is they are about five year times years so it does take time to redesign the vehicle but times at the same time we have seen instances where our example toyota's large trucks have a powertrain upgrade in a decade so i think there's inconsistency in the industry and how quickly they are moving these technologies through. >> thank you and if more of these technologies were more broadly applied? >> absolutely there's plenty of room for them to meet standards. >> is also my understanding that there are several other well-known technologies, and will likely provide alternative cost-effective pathways toward meeting these standards. dr. todd herzog is that accurate? >> one of the things modeling shows and using slightly different assumptions and modeling results resulted in a number of different pathways that manufactures could choose so the robust analysis proves that there are multiple pathways pathways. >> despite the likelihood of these technologies becoming available in the near future is it accurate that epa did not consider them when determining the appropriateness of the model years 2022 to 2025 standards? >> there are number of technologies which have been developed since epa's proposal that show they can go even further and developments that were completely unanticipated not just when agencies were the rule but in the final determination. >> why do you believe epa manufactures have consistently underestimated how fast technologies can be developed? >> it's obviously in their interest to only provide regulators data which will result in the standards that are most easily achievable. at the same time i don't understand fully why they underestimate what their engineers are capable of but history is certainly shall not to be true. >> thank you doctor is it's clear these standards are achievable cost-effective and appropriate. i have full times full faith in american automakers as well as the flexibility of the program. i can't support the answered the created by reopening the review determination. >> administrator pruitt testified before this committee that the midterm evaluation process is flawed because it did not happen by at april 28 deadline. is there anything in the regulation of prevented epa from evaluating the appropriateness of the standards before april 2018? >> absolutely not given the long product cycles. more dance notices preferable. >> do think there's anything determined in the determination and makes it incomplete or inaccurate? >> i think there was a fairly thorough analysis, 1200 pages in four plus years of technical and economic analysis that many peer-reviewed studies benchmark tests in their own labs. there was a lot of data. >> thank you very much aware that i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to deviate a little bit from this issue over the 22 to 25 series. there was a comment earlier and one of the open statements about safety. i'm still curious i see the there are competing reports out there depending on your perspective of whether or not the efficiency and congressman tonko and i worked together frequently on legislation over efficiency so as an engineer in congress i like the idea of a deficiency of what i also want a measure that i suppose is a benefit ratio cost-benefit ratio and what's it doing on safety. some cars are getting lighter and they are using more aluminum and less steel. i began to hear some reports and we'll talk about the fact that in real world conditions last year we had an increase in deaths on the highway. others will say under model situation if all cars are the same size on the highway there wouldn't be but that's not the real world. i'd like to hear back from you about safety aspects. i want us to continue down the road increasing the efficiency of our cars but i don't want to do it at the risk of people that are driving the cars. that's my first question and i wanted get some quick responses back on safety. >> i will jump in. you made obviously very important point is one of the reasons epa jumping ahead there was a problem. the statute has to look at a range of factors including safety and epa does not. so your concern about safety is valid and it ought to be incorporated in the analysis. >> e. is 100% right. the good thing about what congress set up with café is you had to consider safety was one of the factors. epa does not, california does not have to consider any of the economic factors. only in that state in michineau they reduced the massive cars tremendously. >> let me ask more definitely to keep it open-ended. you think increasing efficiency has caused or contributed to the increased accident rate and fatalities on our highways? >> i don't know if i have the expertise to answer that question but i will say congress got it right because they required café to consider safety and epa does not have to consider safety at all. >> i'm running out of time. >> there is no evidence to support. the conclusion that these are having an adverse effect on accidents. what times but we do know is fielded a car the bigger the safety risk. a new car has the technology to avoid accidents. a new car has structural integrity and is better maintained so if your priority is taking it on the road the ability to -- is crucial. >> during the testimony, doctors cooke's testimony i heard language that was very eliminating and you were shaking your head. do you want to express yourself in the third team seconds teen seconds i have left where you disagree with stock or subseven? >> i appreciate this testimony but i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of credits. it's almost as if they are gifts that have been delivered from some magical place. the fact of the matter is these credits are the result of investments the car companies have made that have resulted in progress so they have made more achievement and so this credit is a reward for innovation. it's actually earned from by the investment companies. the point is not an abstract conversation. it's really important to recognize that these are important tools in the toolbox because what they do is they encourage innovation and they also help balance and smooth the ups and downs of product development cycles in a program where fuel economy increases are required. >> do you have anything to add to that? >> my body language was i was just imagining doctors cooke he seems to have a vision that is profitable where car companies have apparently not done that. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. the clean air act gives the epa the authority to grant california waivers verses standards. mr. cooke can you tell us why california was given the ability to adopt its own emission standards? >> california's leadership predates the clean air act. they were the first body to regulate tailpipe emissions from the beer goes, from the vehicle industry. >> also because of the pollution they had in the state also. >> exactly. >> when california would california apply for a waiver to set its own standards would conditions of the epa consider to grant epa? >> it's important that the waivers except did either that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious and not a well thought out standard inconsistent with authority under the clean air act or not compelling or extraordinary circumstances. i think it's very clear when you look at the wildfires burning by greenhouse gas emissions standards are compelling and clearly the air quality in california creates extraordinary circumstances. >> no waiver has ever been revoked and it's not even clear what the process would be to do so. >> barrel for 25 new registered cars and licensed drivers in a state of california times california. i'm particularly interested in how café standards including times including gas emission standards impact drivers in my state and across the country. mr. cooke i've heard the argument that the efficiency standards raise costs for consumers but i understand your organization has found otherwise otherwise. do you know how much money divers have saved because of the standards on a per vehicle basis? >> consumers stand to save a little over $3000 on the purchase of a new car or nearly $5000 over the lifetime of the purchase of a new track. those are the gas prices we are at now. clearly if they increase in the meantime -- it would be higher. >> do americans support strong efficiency standards? >> absolutely. seven in 10 americans specifically support government setting strong fuel economy standards in that finding spans across the aisle. >> mr. cooke you mentioned the. and the organization found manufactures can meet stronger standards for 2025 prewhat data and information of the studied to come to this conclusion? >> the analysis that is being conducted as been extensive but each month at passes we need a new data point. the fact that both epa models have confirmed the standards that the cost of come down shows robust evidence of vast amount of peer reviews in the bassman of literature that the epa has been generating indiana university study funded by the alliance actually shows hundreds of thousands of jobs are created as a result of the standards. there are positive economic outcomes. new data based on suppliers, the list is extensive. >> as i mentioned earlier the international energy agency has found that the transportation sector has found energy visions he has grown worse. have you seen factors in the united states that explains this trend and why do you think we become less efficient in the transportation space while more efficient elsewhere? >> one of the things that is critical as a result of the makeshift. we are seeing a swing back to the purchase of larger cars and trucks. suvs and pickups so it's really critical that the standards remain strong. they drive improvements across as vehicles and ensure that cars trucks and suvs get more efficient over time. we have seen a plateau as a result of that but the standards will continue to put us back on the right course. >> think you and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. they get really and i want to thank you all for being here and spending time with us today on this really important issue. we will start with mr. mcconnell. i know it's been mentioned prior put in your testimony you state the national program set by the last administration will raise the price of each vehicle by nearly $3000 in doing so will price out over 6 million people from the new car market. can you please explain how you arrived at those numbers and how consumers would react based on your experience? >> $3000 of the total cost for the three rules. it's been noted in the federal register the customer the most important thing to know is turnover. everybody here would be in agreement on one thing. we want to put more people in more fuel-efficient cars so if you make them unaffordable for not as desirable with the customer you have less people buying cars. to give you an example structure that you had set up under fa is the right one. i don't think you want california setting the standard for the rest of the country. they are probably many of you in here that on a black car. california cars had proposed a regulation on cool paint. they would eliminates black cars because they come harder and you have to run your air conditioner little bit longer. >> i have a placard to. it's really actually considered banning black cars. >> yes. it's called cool paint. you can look it up. >> is it fair to say that the dealers will be forced into a position where they won't be over by cars and trucks to people to want to buy a prices they can afford? >> ultimately the cars at the manufactures make the saddam lockley on them. the customer has to make a decision and any business that is successful has to consider what the customer wants and can they have hoarded. 90% of the cars that are financed in this country there is not one bank and i've asked at least 12 banks will not loan additional money if your car gets better gas mileage. most people this times in this room can probably afford a more expensive car but it's a regressive tax. mr. bozella for automakers and many technical experts and i know mr. shimkus touch on this there has been an anti-wishon of how high out 10 in low-carbon fuel can reduce emissions and improve efficiency when used with new optimized inventions. epa specifically asked for information about the impact of high out pain fuel and administrator pruitt mentioned consideration of high octane in responses to questions in the committee's hearing last week. what steps of automakers times automakers taking to obey with the benefit of high octane fuels? >> things congressman. as you are aware we are constantly researching and working on the combinations of vehicle systems powertrain systems and fuels. i mentioned in response to mr. shimkus' question you have to think of it as one system, hardware software, engines and fuels. we are constantly evaluating fuel and engine combinations. there's an opportunity there. the way you think about it is that rings additional benefits to the process while we are still working on gasoline-powered engines. >> obviously innovation and experimentation you state in your testimony the current testimony stifles innovation and results in increased costs for buyers. >> is primarily the bureaucratic drag trying to comply with three different fuel economy systems as well as technology forcing mandate managed by three different agencies across the jurisdictions. doesn't really make much sense. i think if we can get further alignment and ultimately to one national program with the aspiration we all had we would able to devote that investment go substantial resources to improving fuel economy. >> in the couple of seconds that i have left will be existing gap between the state programs do you expect to see that gap over the years? >> the gentleman yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. thank you mr. chairman nye think the gentleman from illinois for giving me five seconds. i thank the members of the panel panel. mr. cooke to the current standards of health make the auto manufacturers more competitive? >> i do. i think we saw what happened when they were allowed to stagnate. >> think you. and you have answered this question but how do you think the regulations have driven employment with automakers and this is hurting the industry? cid said employment, correct? >> how was it affecting of employment? >> the fact that you are moving forward with new research and development on new technology this is providing a catalyst for increased investments not just at automakers that specifically is drawing suppliers to invest in the u.s. as well. they are a critical tool in the automaker manufacturing 321. that supported an increase job growth. >> is it hurting automakers to have to hire these people? >> they don't seem to be, many of automakers are seeing extremely high prophets right now. i would defer to them on whether they feel their industry is failing. >> how difficult do you believe it is to meet, the automakers to meet the different standards we are hearing about this morning? >> it's not very difficult at all particularly when it was pointed out that supposedly in the rulemaking exactly the pitfalls and the differences between the two programs. that was finalized when they signed off on one national program and nothing has changed about the national program since they signed off on those rules. they were well aware of the differences between the programs but they are choosing instead to invest in compliance. >> you are answering my questions. directly and i appreciate that. you mentioned off the shelf technology is available and would greatly increase fuel efficiency if it was deployed. could you expand on that a little bit? >> the fact that automakers have invested that there are proven technology shows the potential is there. it takes time to move them across the remainder of their platforms because the new cars redesigned every five years and there is a significant refresh in the middle at the three-year mark. because of that it takes a long time for technology that is ready to go to get into the fleet that what we have seen established there are a plethora of these technologies that are well-established that everyone that understands that are still in the low fraction of the fleet. over time there is plenty of room for improvement without having to resort to the most expensive technologies. >> there's an internal combustion research facility that is near my district. how effective is that in terms of providing technology that automakers can use to increase efficiency? >> i'm not aware of that specific lab at the national labs in general to play that gave the cant proving grounds for advanced combustion technology and i have heard of a program and coordinate show with national labs that invested in that basic science just as in any other field certainly plays a strong role in development of the technologies. >> fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards have affected our economy. since the standards are working why are you seeking to hault the progress and move backwards? >> that is a very good question. you look at what the industry could be doing and they could be moving forward but we also look at the history of what they have done in the past and i think there is a little bit of a return to that mindset when you look at testimony of the house committees over the past 35 or 40 years. this is par for the course. automatic gears -- automakers say we can't possibly hit that target and they are still standing. >> the chairman is going to cut me off so i will yield back. >> the jama kneels back to the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for five times five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. a lot of good questions asked on both sides. i want to put my historical perspective into play. i was cochair of the auto caucus for many years. we all want better fuel efficiencies. consumers want data we have made wonderful strides in the industry and frankly because we have gas prices this weekend for $2.24 a gallon and that's a lot better than $3.84. almost nine years ago. when we worked with the industry and the administration on getting better fuel economy standards it was never the intent of this congress and frankly i didn't think it was the intent of the administration administration, the obama administration to have something that was different from that one national program and they indicated that in 2009 and again in 2012. mr. bainwol your testimony here i think we are all surprised based on their testimony earlier on and where they ended up as chairman walden said a week before the election. a week before the end of the obama presidency. could all of you answer this question quickly? was at not they would be a far higher penetration in the market of electric vehicles and people keep making the comments that companies -- is it not a fact that the consumer doesn't believe there's an infrastructure in place in the 13 states that have mandates that when you are putting them into your fleet are not buying them. >> yes, yes and yes. you absolutely are correct. >> there's little penetration of a lot education in four and a half percent in california on behalf of point nationwide. >> and that's part of the problem. i talked to the governor and we are eliminating the tax credits in the tax bill in right now we are losing money on those electric vehicles. how did we get it back? >> say that again. >> how do we get at making the consumer want to buy electric vehicles? >> will we or nearly 5% in california and with the incentive in place. >> but this and -- incentives are in place, the same incentives serve. if the structure needs to be built out so do we have to work together, and i'm going to go to my other question. i think i actually think we are more together than people are thinking so i'd like to ask mr. mr. bainwol and mr. bozella is there technological feasibility and affordability? >> are you for post 2025 standards which by the way i want to talk about. >> that conversation has to be talked about. >> we are committed to improving fuel economy over the long-haul. >> this question for all witnesses and please answer yes or no. you believe there's a benefit to having a single set of fuel economy standards across the country? >> absolutely. >> yes under nhtsa. >> yes. >> yes, okay and given what the obama administration try to do in 2010 and 2012 with 101 p. having a unified approach with nhtsa is not what they tried to do? >> it was the goal. >> mr. o'connell? >> i believe that congress had it right the first time that they have the patchwork of nhtsa. >> dr. cooke. >> it was the aspiration and it hasn't been realized. >> epa nhtsa clearly stated in the mpr issued in to talk whenever i hear the need to create a unified approach so the manufacture couldn't assign one fleet of vehicles to comply with both programs. isn't it true that the rules had to mainstays for model years 217 to 2021 separate for model years two thousand 22 through 2025? >> yes. >> it's my understanding when the 2012th rule was released that the 2022 through 202025 were called estimated which represents nhtsa's best estimate what would be feasible at the time. is that correct? >> yes. >> the consumer that wants to be able to afford a vehicle. >> dr. cooke. >> yes. >> okay so we are going through right now we are going to the midterm review as we speak. whether some of you like it or not it's very important. we are in the early process and it's important to play out and encourage stakeholders to engage responsibly towards a new negotiated solution that continues to gain fuel economy takes real-world data into account and establishes standards. people are talking about at the table. we need all stakeholders and quite frankly i thought governor brown and the trump administration -- sit around a table and work productively in order to make it happen. was that not the original agreement all the players at the table giving people certainty for the customer? a failure to meet a negotiated solution will result in weaker standards and less savings at the pump for consumers. with that being said there are still ways we can improve our fuel economy system while the midterm review is playing out. even though and i'm out of time. >> you are out of time. is that a question? >> i actually had a have a bunch more but i will put them in the record. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. how fortunate we have the gentleman from texas who is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank my friend who graduated from west point. congratulations one more time for your victory saturday army against navy for the second time in now 16 years. with all due respect to my friend from michigan i'm an optimist. california and texas thank with california and michigan on these issues. >> how about all three? >> all three works too. a special welcome mr. bainwol. you have an mba from rice university and my first question is for you mr. bainwol. your testimony talked about how the 2012 firewall project that cars and trucks than we see on the road today. they have the same motto, the consumer comes first. can you talk about how consumer presidents shapes your ability to make these rules work and how did he do these put the consumer first? >> the campaign program and other government programs in mandates are mandates not on what we produce but what people buy so in effect the consumer is king. they dictate the success of these programs have my consumers don't lie what policymakers want its not the consumers fault. they are expressing their own market opinions about what's right for their families and what we have seen over time with the plummeting price of gas is a different mix of purchases in the marketplace from pickups trucks suv's crossovers and that is made light more complicated. there isn't something on the footprint. if a brand accommodates some of the fleet mix but it doesn't accommodate other dimensions including powertrain choices. >> is that shook the need for an adaptable response a set of rules across the country? >> yes, sure does. >> another question for you mr. mr. bainwol and for you mr. bozella. i would like to discuss the carbon of station or rules. how does that impact consumers and innovation? >> it's basically what i would call a government externality. consumers have to absorb so it is a problem. it makes fewer people able to buy cars. it retards the process and it has a bad social outcomes. >> i would just add to that's why it we are trying to achieve one goal would we have different tools and different toolboxes? what that does is it creates compliance without benefits to consumers and i think we have to get back to benefits for consumers. >> this is so controversial and why? your consideration and your position of last december. >> had there have been a different outcome in election perhaps we'd be have -- having a more rational conversation. it has filtered through the lens of national politics. >> i agree with that. we are very close. we have the same aspirations and desires but what we want to do is to create better benefits more fuel economy and reduced emissions for consumers and let's focus on that. >> i have also the conversation we are having today has a feel that somehow there's a problem. what we really need to understand this week should be celebrating success. that one slide shows if you take the 2021 members one numbers and add one, two or 3% we are at 97% realization of fuel savings. that's pretty darn good. we have invested 100 olein dollars a year to safety fuel economy technologies and we are producing dividends for the marketplace. that's a good story and we should be thankful for the success of this program and now what we are talking about doing is finding a way to make the economics of the program the regulatory piece of the program more efficient so more consumers can benefit. >> my first car was a 1977 pickup truck. as you hit the gas pedal may be a miles per gallon today now have a 2014 crew cab. i drove from houston texas to watch a basketball basketball and drove back on one tank of gas. i'd like to close by asking to print to the record of federal register of the opposed roll the department of public transportation nhtsa 0135. >> is there objection click here none so ordered. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. and thank you very much. i'm proud to represent california but also equally proud for the fact that california's lead the way sometimes with fits and starts the california's improved its emission standards and it set the tone. let me just give you one example example. there are three generations between me and my grandson now myself my four children in my grandson. i used to tease my kids that we used to not be allowed to play outside sometimes. i'd grew up in los angeles and when i was a little boy because of the smog of nice to tease my kids that they never had that problem. they never had to deal with the smog alert yet we have to be careful because the last thing i want is for my 18-month-old grandson for me his parents or his teachers to say you can't play outside. we have to be careful to make sure whatever we do we preserve the environment for our children and we make sure whatever it is we do improves on everything we have done in the past and the technology that we are capable of. my statement is fuel efficiency is an important goal across-the-board. it also allows low-income and middle-class families to times have access to cars to run economically. that money goes to the gas pumps and more stays in pockets and that's a good ring to one national program gives low income folks access to used cars that are fuel-efficient. it also impacts the air we breathe. my district and many in southern california dealt with wildfires. last week ongoing as we speak. it's no coincidence that these fires are devastating or communities with greater frequency and ferocity. california has been a leader in the nation needs to follow suit. doc or cooke can you talk about the california emission standards? >> yes. tailpipe standards that were originally set formed the basis for federal action and the reason why we can breed in washington d.c. is largely a result of the fact that california's set those standards way back then. .. >> at the same time california still struggling to meet its air quality goals for 2030. that's how we have zero admission program. >> telephone you have or approaches 40 million people. as the six largest economy in the bottom line is, anytime without large and that impactful economically especially with all the issues going on with the populations in the business which to me is a good thing, proud to be from california and if our own country would be the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. it is complicated but not impossible for us to strive to be more efficient drive the markets as well. of us like to see if you could respond if the former standards design takeovers were current in what national program former standards would benefit by march. >> this number standard is especially detrimental to the domestic manufacturers. the advantage imported vehicles. folks who sell more cars and less trucks. the fact that we have a size -dependent standard now helps drive competitiveness of the big three as well as honda and toyota. >> so the one national program benefits mostly foreign vehicle? >> prior to the one national program attribute size based standards the old café program is to benefit primarily the imported vehicles which is why café stall for 20 years. >> thank you. to go off of what my colleagues says, you can always get what you want, but you can get what you need. i think that's the balance were trying to strike. >> we recognize gentlemen from oklahoma. >> were talking about achieving certain fuel standards and we have touched and bounced around about it for talk about the consumer benefit too. there has to be a balance between the two. were trying to get our standard said and covers has to look back in 2018 the need to see if it's feasible for the industry to hit it, but is it cost productive too? looking for, what will it cost our consumers? a matured battery takes this question. what will it cost us? we see vehicles rising each day and cost. i drive in f2 crew cab diesel. same vehicle for the 17 year. it's the same vehicle i bought in 2000 except it's about $50000 difference in price. is that due to regulations were putting on us? set being passed on to consumers? >> one thing that's important to recognize is what's causing the increase in retail price. entry-level vehicles today cost the same adjusted for inflation as ten years ago. it's not technology driving people out of the market. the biggest increases now are selling more suvs and pickup trucks which have high profit margins. >> my f2 50 lariat crew cab, four-wheel-drive, i pages below 30,000 dollars for the vehicle. seventeen years, inflation has increased $50000. we've seen that increase with pay wages and grocery prices come all inflated, someone help me with the math, well over 100%. >> i was specifically talking about entry-level vehicles. using a large increase in profit margin the fact that you have a 65000-dollar f1 50 now at the king ranch person, those suvs have always been higher profit margin. >> is it being passed on to the consumers? i think mcauley from california said that. if they can afford the vehicle to begin with what difference does it make. >> the way. there is more technology vehicles has been. the cars are cleaner and safer and more fuel-efficient. question is not only the cost but the cost combined with where the market ultimately needs to go. we need to be clear that when a more electric vehicles a more higher-priced expensive technologies in order to drive the shift that were looking for. >> the cars that are $15000 or less have been regulated out of existence. doctor cook is a smart gentleman but he keeps talk about what can be built, but the questions you can't say anything a fuel economy until you are able to afford to buy the car. 90% of the people finance vehicle. that takes the debt to income ratio out the new car market. until somebody buy something, you can build whatever is my business has to listen to the customer. >> is it reasonable to say the customer will afford it and see the cost savings to pay the difference of what were going to spend and what they'll save on gas? >> when the price of gas goes from four to close to to the savings are cut in half. people make a decision based on what's best for them as they should. we want to sell whatever the customer wants. whatever it may be. that's the one thing we want higher gas mileage. but you have to listen to the customer, what they can afford and what they want, not what washington or california once. >> thank you mr. chairman. it will couple guys from texas and one from oklahoma and i want to thank the ranking member from holding the searing. transportation is a leading source of carbon dioxide emissions. of an urban district are gasoline over the weekend the list price i found was a dollar 99 per gallon even with 57-dollar about barrel oil there's a benefit to having a refinery down the road. houston is a car dependent city. 94% of the households have a car. ellie every household has 1.8 car. my wife and i share five cars in different locations. after hurricane harvey hit nearly a million cars will be replaced in the area in 30 to 40% will be new. the standards are more important than ever when it comes to helping air quality in houston. i'm concerned about the low market penetration anywhere except california. we have some in houston you're not gonna drive from houston to san antonio on electric car that you have to sit let charge for a few hours. so how has the low price and gas affected purchasing habits among consumers? >> the average age of a cars 11 years old. when you look at the improvement of the conventional engine retraining a camaro for camaro or civic versus wiki have about a 25% increase so when is the improvement in the ancient the second is the low price of gas. the combination has made electrification a niche product. that might change over time but those factors combined to impact penetration 2017 -- balance .5. if you look at the numbers of gas in 2008 it was 95.6% it has moved less than a point in a decade. it's coming out of the hybrids. rather slow uptake, at some point it might take off but we are not the area. >> people typically vote with their pocketbook. all of us have different cars and needs. i like big trucks i bought a tahoe in 2006 but i couldn't get more than 16 miles per gallon. but the new one i bought in 2016 were getting 24 miles per gallon and certain times. so you're right, people will vote with their pocketbook unless you have a product following up with her any models of vehicle from the same year that he fully price hybrid versions that oversold hybrid versions? >> there are examples when the hybrid has been priced at the same as a conventional engine and they still choose the. >> i can think of one example, the lincoln had a hybrid in a nonhybrid. the customer had a choice, 70% chose the night hybrid. >> regarding the proposed legislation by representative upton, do we know the full effect while the epa's midterm review is still not completed? >> no. in the short term et cetera for long-term failure. >> thank you for the time. >> sin no firmer further questions like to thank her witnesses for being here. like to include the following documents for the record by unanimous consent. a letter from the voter equipment association that's without objection. % to committee rocio ten business days to cement questions for the record. as witnesses to summit their response within ten business days. the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> tonight on c-span2, three former white house chief of staff discussed the legacy of the clinton administration. the u.k. youth parliament to bates issues affecting young people in britain. democrat serena state legislators made in washington at the state innovation exchange. >> at a symposium on the legacy of billli

Related Keywords

United States , Paris , France General , France , United Kingdom , Texas , Iran , Washington , Illinois , California , Togo , Russia , Michigan , West Virginia , Oklahoma , India , Tennessee , Houston , West Point , Britain , Americans , America , Soviet , American , Dave Cook , Los Angeles , Carol Browner , Janet Mccabe , Todd Herzog ,