The best federal approach to ensuring cleaner, more resilient transportation and infrastructure is to enact policies that provide flexibility, foster innovation, and allow the private sector to continue responding to consumer-driven demand. According to witnesses at today’s Committee hearing, such an approach is more feasible when compared to adopting sweeping and costly one-size-fits-all mandates.
“Making our communities more resilient and reducing the environmental impacts of transportation require solutions based in reality, not fantasy. The sweeping mandates that would come with proposals like the Green New Deal assume that government knows best, ignore the realities of our economy, and would cost as much as $90 trillion dollars, according to one new study” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO). “Our Committee has a track record of passing bipartisan legislation that encourages cleaner transportation and responds to challenges posed by the environment and natural disasters by building more resilient infrastructure. I look forward to continuing to work to find more of those bipartisan solutions.”
Dr. Thomas P. Lyon, Dow Chemical Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology, and Commerce, University of Michigan highlighted two main points in his testimony today: the need to focus on market-based solutions, and the dangers of the federal government picking winners and losers in technologies. Excerpts from Lyon’s testimony:
“Economists have long advocated market-based solutions to environmental problems. This approach minimizes the total cost of achieving a given level of environmental protection, and provides dynamic incentives for innovation in pollution control.”
“A market-oriented approach would take a modest view of government’s ability to lead the deployment of any particular technology. Mandating technology choices in downstream markets risks creating cycles of hype and disappointment or creating ‘lock in’ to an inferior technology.”
“U.S. policy towards alternative fuels has vacillated over time as favored technologies rose and fell.”
“Market-based instruments allow for innovation and flexibility on the part of the private sector. This is especially important in the heavy truck market, which relies primarily on diesel fuel. Cummins and Tesla are producing electric heavy trucks. Toyota is testing heavy trucks powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas trucks are also being developed. It is too early to tell which of these fuels will be best, so it’s important for policy to allow for flexibility. Mandating a specific technology could lock the industry into an inferior option.”
Nancy Young, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Airlines for America highlighted how the aviation industry is implementing market-based solutions to reduce emissions. Excerpts from Young’s testimony:
“U.S. airlines have been able to deliver tremendous economic output while reducing our emissions through reinvestment in technology and more fuel-efficient operations on the ground and in the sky. Indeed, today’s airplanes are more technologically advanced – they are quieter, cleaner and use less fuel than ever before – and airlines are flying them in ways that take maximum advantage of the technology within the constraints of our current air traffic management (ATM) system.”
“U.S. airlines and aircraft operators have been able to invest billions of dollars to upgrade their fleets with newer, quieter aircraft that produce less noise and fewer emissions.”
“…Scaling up supply and making SAJF [sustainable alternative jet fuel] cost-competitive may well be the most significant challenge to its full-scale commercial deployment. A key role that A4A and its member airlines are playing as end-users of such fuels is to send appropriate market signals to would-be producers, the farmers and others who generate energy feedstock, and investors in the alternative fuels industry…. Our vigorous pursuit of SAJF has sent an unmistakable signal: U.S. airlines are committed to making SAJF viable and will do their part to overcome the obstacles that may stand in the way.”
James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, McWane Inc., highlighted some of the challenges faced by water utilities when deploying new technologies to address environmental impacts, as well as some actions Congress can take to help utilities realistically meet those challenges. Excerpts from Proctor’s testimony:
“The upfront costs of implementing a system-wide technology project can be prohibitive for small utilities, which can preclude adoption even with the opportunity for greater long-term benefits.”
“In many cases redundant, conflicting, or outdated regulations at the state and federal levels, and among the various states, can create lengthy, complex, and costly approval processes. These regulatory obstacles not only slow the approval of technology directly, but also impede the creation of partnerships that could provide a source of expertise and funding that would accelerate deployment.”
“Congress should also encourage regional cooperation among utilities and remove barriers to the use of private capital as a supplement to public funding.”
“Congress should also direct EPA to conduct a review of existing regulations to identify and address barriers to implementation of smart water solutions.”
Proctor also addressed infrastructure resiliency, including bipartisan legislation approved last Congress that is helping communities better prepare for and respond to disasters. Excerpted from Proctor’s testimony:
“This Committee introduced and passed the bipartisan DRRA and other disaster recovery provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which support and incentivize states and localities to adopt enhanced mitigation measures to protect lives and taxpayer dollars.”
“The competition for these resources will create an incubator for best practices, lessons learned, and great ideas for projects and programs that can be tailored at the state and local level to reduce the risks unique to those communities.”
“The critical next step for these pre-disaster mitigation programs is building capacity at the state level to identify risks and cost-effective projects, then facilitating the development of effective and efficient grant applications and awards.”
For more information from today’s hearing, click here.
