Hearings to examine S.3135

Well, good morning and thank you all for being here. Appreciate it. Today we will be receiving testimony on S. 3135, the Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act, sponsored by Senators Sullivan, Lummis, Curtis, and Murkowski. This legislation is meant to address the serious safety issue for drivers of diesel trucks and equipment in certain parts of our country. And I know two of our witnesses have traveled very far to today and appreciate you all being here. Since 2010, to comply with EPA vehicle emission regulations for NOx, most new diesel engines have used a technology known as selective catalytic reduction, or SCR. SCR is an emissions control system that sprays diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, into the vehicle's exhaust stream to reduce NOx emissions. To maintain the proper function of the emissions control system, drivers must continuously fill the vehicle with DEF. To ensure compliance with emission standards, the EPA requires manufacturers to install on-board diagnostic sensors that detect when NOx emissions are too high, signaling that the vehicle is out of DEF. When the sensor detects an issue, it triggers the engine controls and software to severely limit an engine's performance through what is called a derate. That's about as technical as I'm going to get with you. When the vehicle derates, it cannot go faster than five miles per hour. However, vehicle derates are not limited to instances when the vehicle is out of DEF, but occurs at any time when the emissions control technology is not functioning correctly. Emissions sensor failures can cause these restrictions as well as prolonged cold weather, which can freeze DEF and prevent it from entering the exhaust system. No matter the reason, if the sensor detects an emissions system malfunction, a driver has just four hours to fix the problem before the five mile per hour restriction kicks in. This system response in rural and cold weather regions can and has resulted in farmers' tractors shutting down in the middle of a field during harvest season or stranded truckers in sub-zero temperatures on isolated roads in northern parts of the country. In 2021, sensor failures led to thousands of trucks across the country being derated and thus out of service for an immediate solution. To address this issue in emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances, in 2012, the EPA exempted emergency vehicles from this requirement when responding to an emergency. The Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act takes a similar approach by authorizing manufacturers to override the system in targeted or cold weather environments. By exempting diesel engine derates in Alaska and other parts of rural America where so many folks rely on diesel trucks and equipment for their livelihood and transportation needs, the bill seeks to address this critical safety issue. I want to thank my colleagues for championing safety in transportation and working to address the unique needs of Alaska, Wyoming, and other cold weather states. I'd also like to thank the Trump administration for recognizing the importance of protecting our America's farmers and truckers. Last year, EPA Administrator Zeldin issued guidance to allow more flexibility and longer warning times before derates occur and is gathering information to help fix this safety problem. So I look forward to this topic and I'll now recognize Senator Whitehouse for his opening statement.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm happy to discuss the diesel engine issue that Senator Sullivan and Senator Lummis are concerned about, but we also have to remember the last 14 months of Trump-Zeldin attacks on the bedrock policies that protect clean air and a safe and livable climate. They merit even greater attention as they harm every single American. Before the 1970 Clean Air Act, air pollution in the United States was at crisis levels. Smog blanketed large parts of the country. In the 1950s, scientists had discovered that vehicle emissions were a primary cause of smog. Vehicle tailpipes coughed out a long list of dangerous pollutants, including nitrous oxides, usually referred to as NOx. NOx causes lung disease, reproductive issues, birth defects, kidney problems, nerve damage, autoimmune disease, and cancer. NOx is the primary cause of smog formation. The smog of the postwar era seems like ancient history because the passage of the Clean Air Act drove down the primary smog-causing pollutants by nearly 80 percent. Title II of the Act requires EPA to set standards which drive down vehicle emissions. In response, manufacturers invented and implemented groundbreaking emissions control systems, including the system at issue today, which dramatically reduce NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. Diesel vehicles are a major cause of NOx pollution. In fact, diesel vehicles alone emit 27 percent of all NOx pollution nationwide. Diesel vehicles are equipped with an emissions control system powered by diesel emissions fluid, DEF, which breaks down NOx into nitrogen and water and reduces dangerous emissions by 90 percent. Senator Sullivan will shortly introduce his bill, the Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act. I appreciate his interest and advocating for his constituents, many of whom live in remote areas that experience extreme temperatures. This bill may target a problem that the EPA has already largely addressed and manufacturers already adapted to. We will hear more. The potential for diesel emissions control systems to fail below 12 degrees Fahrenheit from a cold start is a known issue that has already been addressed by EPA in 2009 and again last year. In both cases, EPA directed engine manufacturers to allow the vehicle to drive on for some distance. Now with a software update, that distance is up to 8,400 miles before the engine derates in response to a sensor telling it that the NOx control system is malfunctioning. While the vehicle is driving, my understanding is that heat from the engine keeps the DEF liquid liquid. That is unless the DEF tank is empty or malfunctioning, or in the case of a catastrophic engine failure unrelated to the DEF. There are examples we will hear about of circumstances where truck engines derate. But EPA is currently working on updates to the existing NOx standards for heavy-duty vehicles and just this month, the agency issued letters to the top 14 diesel manufacturers demanding relevant information on DEF failures. While EPA continues to address this issue, under President Trump and Administrator Zeldin, it has completely abdicated any and all responsibility to protect everyone's air and climate. In just the last 14 months, EPA has rescinded its greenhouse gas tailpipe emission standards, a rescission that by EPA's own estimate will cost consumers at least $580 billion and up to $1.4 trillion at the gas pump. That's money directly out of Americans' pockets and into the coffers of Trump's big oil donors. As the price of gasoline skyrockets due to Trump's war of choice in Iran, that transfer of wealth from Americans to big oil will only grow. Two, EPA has rescinded the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, defying the law, scientific evidence, and the lived experiences of millions of Americans. Climate change is already driving up the costs of property insurance, groceries, and electricity across the country, and EPA's retreat from its regulatory duties will turbocharge existing climateflation. Three, EPA's handed out dozens of regulatory exemptions to coal plants, letting them spew toxic mercury at will and raising the cost to consumers. EPA has rolled back the mercury and air toxic rule, dramatically lowering standards for emissions of mercury and other highly dangerous and often carcinogenic pollutants from power plants. Five, EPA's decided not to count the health costs associated with certain air pollutants, to only count costs to industry when they undertake their rulemaking cost-benefit analysis. The message is clear: costs to industry donors matter, costs to the public don't. EPA isn't enforcing regulations that are still in place. This is number six. Last year, EPA pursued 75 percent fewer legal actions against alleged polluters than it did in the first year of Biden's first term and 81 percent fewer than the first year of Trump's own first term in 2017. 2025 also saw a 36 percent decline in toxic substances inspections and a 29 percent drop in average penalties from 2024. There's a common theme here: polluters win. All these actions are being taken so the Trump's fossil fuel donors will be able to sell more oil, gas, and coal. And all of these actions cost Americans, all Americans, lots of money. Property insurance premiums are skyrocketing across the country, particularly along the Southeast and Gulf Coast, across the Mountain West, and in the hail belt of the Great Plains. In these places, many homeowners have seen their premiums double or triple in just the last few years. Many others have been dropped by their insurance company altogether as uninsurable. Unaffordable and unavailable property insurance portends a deep recession similar to 2008 as property values crash. The Economist magazine predicts a $25 trillion hit to property values around the globe. Fed Chair Powell noted last year before the Senate Banking Committee that climate risks will render entire regions of the United States uninsurable and therefore unmortgageable in 10 to 15 years. Food prices are being driven higher by extreme weather. Coffee, sugar, orange juice, chocolate, olive oil are just a few of the goods that have seen their prices spike in recent years due to unconstrained climate change. As storms along the Gulf Coast and wildfires out West become more frequent and severe, electricity prices have risen in those parts of the country. And NRDC estimates that pollution from fossil fuel combustion results in more than $800 billion in added healthcare costs a year in the United States. Under Trump and Zeldin, all of these things will get worse as they allow more and more and more and more pollution. This committee would do well to examine how a corrupt EPA is harming all Americans in addition to the matter at hand. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. And I'll now turn it over to Senator Sullivan for his remarks on the bill we are discussing this morning and to introduce our first witness, Ryan Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and my good friend Ranking Member Whitehouse. I'm after that opening statement, I get the sense you're going to support my bill, but maybe not some of the other things, but we'll we'll get there.

Always happy to work with you, Senator Sullivan.

I know, we have a very good working relationship. Madam Chair, I really appreciate you holding this hearing on my legislation that would fix an issue that I'm hearing from dozens of Alaskans that I represent, but it's more than just Alaskans, it's constituents, Americans in many other states that have cold weather. As I mentioned, this is a problem that my constituents brought directly to my office, and it's really about another EPA mandate that doesn't reflect the real world that impacts so many people outside of DC and in Alaska can literally be a matter of life and death. You've already explained it, Madam Chair, I'll expound a little bit more on the EPA emission rules that required nearly all new diesel engines during the Obama administration to install emissions control systems that use diesel exhaust fluid or DEF. To enforce compliance, EPA also required manufacturers to program automatic derate safeguards that limit engine power or even shut down the vehicle if the system detects a problem, such as low DEF levels or a malfunction in the emissions equipment. But as often happens, the people hit with these one-size-fits-all regulations from DC aren't the DC lawyers who wrote them, it's the truck drivers, mechanics, equipment operators, farmers out on remote highways doing the hard work that keeps our communities supplied and our economy moving. Why do I say that? DEF freezes at just 12 degrees Fahrenheit. Modern trucks have heaters to thaw them once the engine starts, and in normal winter conditions, those heaters generally do their job. But in places like Alaska, temperatures don't just dip below freezing for a few hours. They can stay well below -20 degrees at a time for weeks. As our witness Ryan Anderson is going to testify, we've had a very cold winter in Alaska. 20, 30, 40, 50 below zero for weeks on end in many communities in my state. When that happens, the emissions systems can stay too cold to reach ready status. The extreme cold can affect the sensors, pumps, and heaters that the emissions systems depend on. The sensors think that something is wrong, even when the engine itself is running just fine. The truck's computer reads that as a fault and starts reducing power, slowing down to as slow as five miles per hour and then, in some instances, shutting off the engine. When that happens in a city, it's an inconvenience. But when it happens on a remote highway in Alaska, where there's no cell service and the nearest help might be hundreds of miles away, it becomes a serious safety risk. Literally a matter of life and death. Don't just take my word for it. One of the calls my office received that led directly to this legislation came from a trucking company operating on the Dalton Highway. That's what we call the Haul Road, the only road that goes up to Alaska's North Slope. Think of the show Ice Road Truckers. That's the road. Those are the truck drivers. It's the economic lifeline of Alaska. One of their drivers was hauling north towards Prudhoe Bay, the biggest oil field in North America, during a blizzard. Temperatures were -45 degrees below zero. That's without wind chill. It was gusting at over 60 miles an hour, so the wind chill was probably in the 70 to 80 degree below zero temperature. The truck was practically brand new and properly winterized. Near Atigun Pass, the truck suddenly lost power when the DEF crystallized and the sensors registered a fault. The driver went from highway speed to crawling along at about five miles an hour in the middle of a blizzard while hauling a very heavy load through mountain terrain. There's no cell service on most of the Dalton Highway. He was lucky enough to call the dispatch on a satellite phone while idling in the brutal wind chills just to keep the truck from freezing solid. Not moving. Hours later, many hours later, another driver finally reached him and helped him. He survived, but the load had to be dropped and the company paid about $15,000 just to tow the truck back to Fairbanks. Madam Chair, stories like these are not unusual in Alaska. I hear them all the time from truckers and equipment operators and small businesses that rely on diesel equipment to do their job. I'd like to submit for the record these several additional testimonials from my constituents on exactly this problem.

Without objection.

These are the men and women, by the way, who keep our country moving. They haul food and fuel and the supplies that keep communities running. They produce American energy on the North Slope of Alaska, still the largest oil and gas fields in the country, which we need right now. And what they're telling us is simple. The rules coming out of Washington don't reflect the reality that they face on the ground. In Alaska, these failures can leave someone stranded in 50 below zero weather, hours away from help. This is a compliance trap and it's dangerous. My bill brings some common sense into the system. It directs the EPA to update its regulations to account for extreme cold and allows manufacturers to temporarily suspend automatic derate or shutdown functions during those extreme cold weather conditions. Common sense. I'm committed to working with the manufacturers, regulators, and the trucking industry and of course my colleagues here to get this right. But we have to start by listening to the people who are actually living with these everyday problems and not ignoring them. That's what my bill does. It listens to the working men and women of our country who keep our country and economy running and makes sure that federal policy reflects the reality they actually face on the road. And with that, speaking of roads and Alaska, Madam Chair, I'm very honored to introduce the Alaska Department of Transportation Commissioner Ryan Anderson. I've known Ryan, he's been a friend of mine, I've known him for many years. Commissioner Anderson has spent the last 25 years working for the state of Alaska. He moved to Alaska in 1993 and attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where he earned a degree in geological engineering. He also earned his professional civil engineering license in 2003. Before becoming commissioner in 2022, he served for six years as the Alaska Department of Transportation Northern Region Director, an area by the way larger than the state of Texas that stretches from the Gulf of Alaska to the Arctic Ocean and from the Bering Sea to the Canadian border. In that role, he oversaw construction, maintenance, and emergency response across some of the coldest and most remote terrain anywhere in the United States. Commissioner Anderson brings decades of on-the-ground experience managing infrastructure, equipment, and people in extreme Arctic conditions, which makes his perspective particularly valuable to today's discussion. Thank you again, Commissioner, for traveling about 4,000 miles to come to this hearing. It's always an honor to work with you and we want to work with you to keep Alaska's transportation system operating under some of the toughest conditions anywhere in the world, safe and effective, and with that, I'll ask the commissioner to give his opening statement.

Yes, I welcome Mr. Anderson and thank you for being here and you're now recognized for five minutes and thank you Senator Sullivan.

Thank you, Senator. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As the Senator said, my name is Ryan Anderson and I serve as the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Our department maintains Alaska's statewide transportation system, highways, airports, we have marine facilities, and we connect communities across Alaska, one of the largest and remote transportation systems in the nation. I have worked at Alaska DOT for more than 25 years and I'm here to share the challenges facing the operators and transportation providers who keep people, freight, and essential supplies moving across Alaska. Transportation systems in Alaska operate through some of the longest and most severe winters in the United States. In most of our state, winter conditions last six months or more. If you go into the Arctic, these conditions last eight months in the year. In interior Alaska, temperatures often fall between -30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit to -50 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, and this past winter, we had temperatures -60 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. During these times, crews work through darkness, they work through powerful storms, extreme cold, and they're often working independently where help can be many hours away by road or by air. And aviation is a lifeline across Alaska. More than 250 rural communities do not have road access. From food and mail to medical supplies, even medevacs, they arrive by aircraft. When snow removal equipment fails, runways can close until repairs are made, delaying flights carrying freight, essential supplies, as well as delaying emergency medical evacuations. Alaska's environment already puts people at risk. Now imagine if critical equipment that we rely on to reduce these risks isn't reliable. In Alaska, reliable equipment isn't just an operational issue, it's a life safety issue for us. Unfortunately, the reliability of the modern diesel emissions systems is making this already challenging operating environment even more difficult. Across Alaska, operators are reporting failures tied to diesel exhaust fluids and related emissions control systems during sustained cold weather operations. These systems can freeze, malfunction, or trigger automatic engine derates, as was discussed. In most places, that might mean a quick trip to the repair shop. But in Alaska, when equipment loses power in extreme cold and remote areas, the consequences are far more dangerous. These situations are not hypothetical. They are happening today on Alaska's highways where professional drivers are moving the fuel, food, and industrial supplies that communities across our state depend on. For our department alone, emissions control systems have become the single largest source of maintenance failures affecting our diesel fleet. Our fleet director estimates that 70 to 80 percent of diesel engine maintenance issues over the past two years are related to emissions control systems. On any given day, 10 to 30 percent of our heavy equipment fleet may be unavailable for service because of these faults. In one recent case, a maintenance unit had to be hauled more than 500 miles for repairs after an emissions systems failure. That single failure resulted in more than $45,000 in added operating and equipment costs and the equipment was out of service for a full year. In one rural Alaska community, a runway was temporarily closed after snow removal equipment experienced an emissions systems malfunction. There was no mechanic in the community, so parts and a technician had to be flown to an adjacent community and then transported by snow machine to get the runway back open and the equipment operational. And DOT is not alone. Commercial trucking companies, school transportation providers, fire departments, and the Alaska Railroad have all reported similar failures affecting operations. Transportation providers in interior Alaska have reported school buses experiencing DEF-related failures during extreme cold, forcing crews to respond immediately to move students off disabled buses and get them safely to school. Fire departments in some communities have also reported emergency vehicles sidelined by emissions system failures. Repairing these failures in Alaska is far more difficult than in most places. In many rural communities, mechanics and diagnostic tools simply aren't available nearby. When equipment fails, technicians and parts may have to travel hundreds of miles by aircraft or highway before repairs can even begin. And in aviation-dependent communities, it can take days before a mechanic even arrives. Alaska operators are adapting. DOT is rebuilding older equipment to ensure reliable equipment operations. Our largest school bus operator is converting its fleet to gasoline engines, and fire departments are rebuilding older trucks to ensure emergency vehicles remain dependable in extreme cold. In Alaska, emissions system reliability problems are increasing life safety risk for operators, raising maintenance costs, and reducing our ability to respond quickly when winter storms disrupt transportation routes. And these impacts extend beyond our communities. Alaskans care deeply about clean air and protecting our environment, but policies designed for moderate climates must also work in the extreme conditions where our transportation systems operate. The Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act provides a practical and targeted solution by recognizing the challenges of operating equipment in the sustained extreme cold. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I'll now recognize Senator Lummis to introduce our next witness, Todd Fornstrom.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Whitehouse. I want to thank the members of the committee, certainly want to thank Senator Sullivan for sponsoring this bill. This subject came to my attention when a constituent of mine in Cheyenne, Wyoming was imprisoned for fixing diesel engines so they would run in cold weather. And he was imprisoned not because he broke the law, but because he broke a rule. A rule that was created back here in Washington, D.C., where it never gets below zero, where it never gets below 10 degrees, by people who don't understand that there are other ways to protect the environment from NOx other than this one device that they require. So because they required this one device, no alternatives, diesel mechanics have been trying to keep these diesel engines running by altering the required emissions control systems. Thank goodness President Trump pardoned Troy Lake. It was an absurd result. You look at these big cities that are letting violent criminals go because they broke the law, and yet they threw a diesel mechanic, a good man, in prison because he's fixing diesel engines so they will run in cold weather, school buses, ambulances, trucks. I'm just so offended that our nation would do that to someone. And you have constituents, Senator Sullivan, that are being prosecuted under that same law. Hopefully they're not getting thrown in prison for it yet, but my constituent was. And there's a solution that can solve the air quality issues without shutting down the engines. And that's why I'm so grateful you're sponsoring this bill, Senator Sullivan, and I'm grateful that my Farm Bureau President, Mr. Fornstrom, would come today and testify about this. Todd Fornstrom is a fourth-generation farmer from Pine Bluffs, Wyoming. He works the land there alongside his father. He runs his own trucking and combining businesses. His dedication to advancing and advocating Wyoming agriculture and the Farm Bureau has earned him the trust of our Farm Bureau members who've elected him to serve a ninth term as president. You know, farming's tough work, sunrise to sunset, no days off. Everything goes wrong Friday after 5:00 p.m. I know it from personal experience. Mr. Fornstrom brings firsthand experience with these issues. And when the environmental policies that we invoke to protect our air makes it so we can't even run our equipment in cold weather, we've got to find a solution. And it can't be by electing Lee Zeldin to be the permanent director of the EPA. We know that the director's going to change. We know someday there's going to be a Democratic administration that's going to try to reverse everything that Lee Zeldin is doing at the EPA. And that's why it has to be in law, because we have to rationalize and bring common sense on issues that are being administered without any common sense. And this is one of them. So I'm so delighted Mr. Fornstrom is here today. He has personal experience operating in some of the harshest winter conditions in the country with heavy snowfall, high winds, temperatures very routinely below 20 degrees. We call that balmy, 20. You know, when it gets below zero, it's starting to get kind of cold. Those conditions present serious challenges for equipment and emission systems designed without reality in mind. So Mr. Fornstrom, thanks so much for coming. Thanks for your willingness to share your experience and perspectives with the committee today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, Senator Lummis. And Mr. Fornstrom, thank you and welcome, and please proceed with your statement.

Thank you. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the impact of diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, on the agricultural community. My name is Todd Fornstrom. I'm a fourth-generation farmer. I farm with my father outside of Pine Bluffs, Wyoming. We grow irrigated corn, wheat, alfalfa, dry beans, which are pinto beans. I operate a pellet mill, Premium Hay Products. I have a combining business and we have a trucking business, so we stay busy. It's an honor to represent nearly 12,000 members of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation and nearly five million members of the American Farm Bureau. Farmers depend on clean air and clean water. The natural resources impact long-term productivity, which is why the Farm Bureau supports policies that balance environmental goals with the economic and operational results. However, the requirement of DEF in agricultural equipment has created significant challenges for farmers across the country. While designed to improve the quality, operational and financial burdens for the agriculture sector have been increased. DEF became widely used on farms following EPA's Tier 4 emission standards. Today, most large tractors, combines, and sprayers all are required to have DEF to operate. Farmers have experienced several problems with the systems. Reliability in harsh operating conditions is a major concern. Farmers operate in extreme dust, dirt, temperature, and constant vibration. These DEF systems, including the tanks, pumps, and sensors, can struggle in those environments. In cold climates like Wyoming, DEF can freeze. Although the machines have heaters designed to prevent this, the systems do malfunction. And to keep those properly running, it's a major problem. If they fail, the engine can reduce power and shut down entirely, often during critical periods such as planting, harvesting, and feeding. The Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act addresses some of these concerns. The legislation would allow manufacturers to suspend automatic engine derates or shutdowns caused by the DEF malfunctions while temperatures are at or below freezing. It would also exempt for equipment, exemptions for equipment operating primarily in extremely cold regions. For farmers working in the harsh winter conditions, these changes are essential to maintaining reliable operations. Farmers also face contamination risks. DEF has to remain extremely pure to operate correctly, but farm environments are full of dust, dirt, and other contaminants. Even small amounts can cause system failures and shutdowns and costly repairs. These DEF systems rely heavily on electronic sensors. If a sensor detects a problem, even the machine can still run most of the time, but most of the time it automatically reduces power and goes into a limp mode or a derate mode, or it shuts down altogether. While designed for emissions compliance, these systems can disrupt critical farm operations that depend on the equipment running continuously and for long hours. Beyond reliability concerns, DEF has added significant cost to farming operations. Farmers must regularly purchase DEF and invest in proper storage systems to prevent freezing and degradation, another added cost. Many operations have installed heated and insulated tanks and special dispensing equipment also. Maintenance and repair costs can also be substantial. Maintenance on sensors, injectors are also expensive to fix. And these costs come at a time when farmers are already facing rising input costs, volatile commodity prices, and unpredictable weather. Profit margins in agriculture are already razor-thin, and these DEF requirements have added just another layer of financial and operational pressure. We appreciate the leadership of Senator Sullivan and Senator Lummis in introducing this legislation, which addresses the challenges of DEF systems pose on these cold climates. The agriculture community believes that Congress should go further and carefully weigh the environmental benefits of DEF systems against their reliability issues and economic costs. Farmers are calling on the elimination of DEF requirements on agriculture equipment so producers can focus on productivity, efficiency, and feeding the country. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And finally, we will hear from, and I'm going to say John Walk, but is it Walk or Walkie? Walk. The Director for Clean Air Programs and Senior Attorney at the National Resources Defense Council. Mr. Walk has spent his career in Washington, previously working at the EPA as an attorney in the General Counsel's office. He is, as I am, a graduate of Duke University, so we're looking pretty good this year. So Mr. Walk, welcome, and please proceed with your opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse, for the opportunity to testify today. I will start my statement with some reasons why I do not support today's legislation. Then my statement will address where congressional engagement is needed most, conducting crucial oversight and pushbacks against an executive branch carrying out historically sweeping, harmful attacks on Americans' health and air quality safeguards. Turning to S.3135. In response to concerns relating to cold temperatures impacting the DEF system, EPA has directed manufacturers both to update onboard software and design engines to be able to run for periods of time without NOx controls and without entering limp mode. Last month, EPA requested that manufacturers provide information to EPA within 30 days on DEF system failures. A public process administered by EPA, which would include public notice and comment opportunities, can solicit important data and information and is the appropriate avenue to address all relevant issues. I'm unaware of any other provision of the Clean Air Act that would exempt an entire state from any of the law's requirements as today's bill would do, or exempt activities anywhere in the country when it is, quote, impractical, regardless of cold weather, because of the word or in the bill. I urge Congress not to start here. Next, EPA Administrator Zeldin boasts that he has undertaken the largest campaign of deregulation in U.S. history. Since then, EPA has proposed or finalized rules to roll back strong Clean Air protections that allow dangerous air pollution to increase by hundreds of millions of tons. Last year, U.S. power plants that burn coal increased dangerous air pollution by the second most that they have over the past 30 years. Sulfur dioxide increased by 18 percent. Smog-forming NOx nearly 12 percent. EPA data show that the average amount of coal-fired electricity generation was dirtier last year than in 2024, the result of more coal being burned to generate electricity and a sign that owners are dialing back or turning off pollution controls. An article just yesterday shows that EPA is refusing to tell Americans what factors might be behind these pollution spikes or how the increases are consistent with Administrator Zeldin's pledge to ensure clean air for all Americans. This committee should bring Administrator Zeldin before it to answer these questions and to examine his rollbacks and pollution increases. The following's just a partial list of dangerous EPA rollbacks. EPA plans to roll back health standards for deadly soot pollution and reinstate unsafe standards. Independent scientists confirmed that this type of pollution results in many thousands of preventable deaths and hundreds of thousands of cases of avoidable asthma attacks. Not coincidentally, EPA abruptly announced in January it will no longer value health benefits from clean air safeguards, and EPA will assign these important benefits zero dollars. EPA will only count industry compliance costs. President Trump himself has issued seven different proclamations across six industries, exempting 180 facilities from hazardous air pollution standards. EPA has eliminated stronger standards for mercury and toxic soot pollution. EPA also repealed the need for continuous pollution monitors after Administrator Zeldin found that $1,167 per month for each piece of polluting equipment cost too much to disclose to Americans how much toxic emissions are coming into their communities. $1,167 cost too much to improve pollution control performance and compliance. EPA plans to roll back carbon pollution standards for power plants, and they've already rolled back the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases and repealed motor vehicle standards, as Senator Whitehouse said. This will mean annual increases of 410 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, 2.1 million tons of carbon monoxide, and over 270,000 tons of smog pollution. A reporter asked President Trump at the vehicle rollback announcement what he would tell Americans concerned about the rollback coming at a cost to public health and the environment. The President replied, I tell them don't worry about it because it has nothing to do with public health. He misunderstood that the rule will cost Americans more, and he concluded they'll have more money to spend for healthcare. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you, Mr. Walke. So, I'm going to recognize myself, we'll begin the questioning portion, and my first question is for Mr. Anderson. I think many of us, I guess you call us in the lower 48, Wyoming understands, but I don't think we really understand, I mean, I don't think we can fully grasp what cold weather really is. We think it's cold here, but obviously as you've so described, it's nothing like we see. So you want to make sure that we have safe, efficient, reliable transportation for the people and goods in your state. What is different with respect to public safety between a diesel engine derate that might occur in Washington, D.C. and one that could occur in the North Slope? You kind of alluded to this in your statements, but how would you say that occurs differently in Alaska?

Yeah, thank you, Senator. I'll use an example just from last night, when we got informed last night that the Dalton Highway north of the Arctic Circle closed again because of a powerful storm, wind, snow, and it'll be closed for probably well over 24 hours just because that's the situation up there. So our crews immediately go to work, and for us that's mobilizing the equipment that we have. We can't bring equipment from other locations, it'll take us six, 12, even 18 hours if it's coming from Fairbanks. So the real difference here is just that what we have and the resources that we have to work with for an event that happens and the response that's expected of us, of course the Dalton Highway is that lifeline for the oil and gas industry for the North Slope, it's our support arterial for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. And so there's a lot of pressure on us by industry and just that public safety piece where when people are stuck, it's not just our folks working, but it's the people that are trying to get through and get these materials and supplies delivered, and then the people on the other end that are waiting for them that all get delayed. And so when we have equipment fail, there's a cascading impact across the state, across all of those industries and the public.

How often do you hear from, how frequently are you hearing from people that are concerned or directly impacted by this? Is it a frequent?

Yeah, thank you, Senator. Absolutely. Just in the past as Senator Sullivan's and the Cold Weather Diesel Act has become more known in Alaska, we've had enormous amounts of people reach out, and it hasn't just been, so we have our statewide equipment fleet, which is thousands of pieces of equipment, but we also have the commercial trucking industry, enormous outreach from those companies and that discussion about, hey, this is really needed, we're making significant impacts into our older vehicles or significant investments in our older vehicles because we don't want to move forward with the newer vehicles. We've had fire departments come forward saying this is a problem for when we're trying to do active response activities. The school bus companies have come forward, they're concerned in rural Alaska, we're moving kids and it's 40 below. And if those school buses, and they have examples on when failures have occurred. So it really has been just across the board. And then the last, the Alaska Railroad reached out, I'm on the Alaska Railroad board as Commissioner of DOT, they reached out and said, yeah, this is impactful for our operations as well.

So let me just for somebody who's not as familiar with this issue, I'm getting familiar. You mentioned school buses, emergency vehicles, your trucks. This can also be personal vehicles if they're powered by diesel, is that correct? Like a truck, F-150 or something like that?

Senator, yeah, that's correct. And then a lot of folks in Alaska, when they have small pieces of heavy equipment, I mean, I just had an example just from yesterday, somebody reached out to me and they had a cabin out in rural Alaska and they had a small piece of diesel equipment out there and of course the system failed and they had to fly someone in with a helicopter to fix it. It's happening to people all across Alaska.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fornstrom, a farmer's livelihood obviously is closely tied, and when we enumerated everything you do, I'm like, I don't think this guy sleeps much because he's got, and that's what you farmers have to do, you can't just do one thing, you have to do a lot of different things to keep, but anyway, you rely on a successful yield for each growing season, and these yields are directly impact with, and you mentioned this in your statement, planting and harvesting and when that can occur. So could you say a little bit about the potential consequences of a derate for a farmer during these kinds of seasons when you're planting or harvesting?

Yeah, I had an example and this came to mind. We always, farmers are always looking for a good deal. I was at an auction looking for a piece of equipment and had a, the farmer that was selling the tractor, I asked him how good it was and told him what I wanted to use the tractor for and he's like, well, you don't want this one because if it goes into the derate mode, you won't be able to run your grain cart like you're wanting to. And that just halts harvest to a stop. So it is eliminating some of this equipment from different operations that farmers don't want to deal with. And they're choosing not to buy newer equipment.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse.

Thanks very much, Chairman. I can't come to a hearing about the Clean Air Act even on a very narrow topic without having to try to reckon with the behavior of Trump's EPA. The general destruction and non-enforcement of the Clean Air Act by this EPA is harmful to Americans, not only in their health but in their pocketbooks, and is in my view completely inconsistent with things that Administrator Zeldin said to this committee while he was seeking confirmation. The confirmed Zeldin and the seeking confirmation Zeldin are two very different creatures. I'd ask unanimous consent that an article about the air pollution spikes that have resulted from his policies be admitted into the record.

Without objection.

Things as simple as not counting health harms, only counting industry costs in a cost-benefit analysis, that doesn't even make sense, but EPA willingly goes there. And I'm happy to work with Senator Sullivan and Senator Lummis on a sensible solution to this, but it has to be founded in the recognition that this NOx pollution is actually dangerous. And to over-permit NOx pollution from tailpipes is a harm of its own. So I hope we can work on it with that realization as a baseline. I would also add that fossil fuel emissions have put us on the front edge of what I call the great climate insurance collapse, which is very real and very immediate in a great many states where flooding and wildfire risk are destroying homeowners insurance markets. And that cascades from homeowners insurance markets into mortgage markets, from mortgage markets into real estate markets, from real estate markets into the banking sector and generally into recession. Indeed, the former chief economist for Freddie Mac has predicted a 2008-style recession from this meltdown based only on coastal property value crash, without even considering the wildfire risks that the West is now experiencing. These warnings don't come from the environmental community, they come from the Fed, the Fed Chair. They come from Freddie Mac, their former chief economist. They come from the Economist magazine. They come from the International Financial Stability Board. They come from the board member of the biggest insurance company in the world, Allianz, and the CEO of the American insurance giant, Aon. They come from the former risk chief of Goldman Sachs. They come from the former head of the Bank of England. They come from the Mortgage Bankers Association, and they come in the form of an op-ed I wrote with Senator Shaheen. So we've got to be real about this. And while I look forward to working with my distinguished colleagues on solving this problem, to overlook all of that in the context of a hearing on the Clean Air Act is more than I can bear. Mr. Walke, you're from the NRDC, you published a comprehensive report in 2021 finding that the health-related costs of fossil fuel pollution are $820 billion a year from Americans. Could you just explain a little bit the conclusion that led to $820 billion free load for the fossil fuel industry and health harm to the American people?

Yes, Senator, thank you. We looked at the direct health impacts that would flow from fossil fuel air pollution, and that figure encompasses health hazards from cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, strokes, and overwhelmingly from about 107,000 premature deaths that are caused annually by fossil fuel pollution. And that's using government figures for assigning cost to that. Before the EPA eliminated them, that's the figure that we came up with.

And I often cite the International Monetary Fund analysis of the effective subsidy for fossil fuel, not immediate cash subsidies through the tax code, but the subsidy of being allowed to pollute for free, which even very conservative economists understand is bad economics, it violates the basic laws of a market economy. And their latest figure put it at $770 billion per year. That seems to track pretty well with your $820 billion number, doesn't it?

It does, but I would add that there are different ways of subsidizing fossil fuels. This administration has just rolled back motor vehicle standards that will cause Americans to spend over $1 trillion in added gasoline costs. And I just noticed in the newspaper this morning that gasoline prices had risen at the pump 17 percent just since the war was started in Iran. So these costs are additive, and that doesn't even include the 800 and something billion figure that we found in direct health costs.

Well, one side's cost is the other side revenue, and that's what they're interested in. Thank you very much, Chairman.

Thank you. Senator Lummis.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. This question is for Mr. Fornstrom and Mr. Anderson. You represent states that have cold weather, but also have significant transportation industries. Have you or an employee or in the case of you, Mr. Fornstrom, a Farm Bureau member, ever been stranded in the cold due to an improperly functioning DEF system?

Thank you for that question. I personally have never been stranded. I do my best to not buy anything that has DEF in it, but I do have to have some equipment that does have DEF. And the big worry with that is, as you know in Wyoming with our ranching as rural as it is, is that when these ranchers go out with this equipment and they are, you know, in Wyoming we're famous for ground blizzards where you can't see from me to you. And they feed their cattle a mile away from their house. If that equipment goes down because of a DEF problem, somebody's going to die. They're going to be frozen before they can make it back to the house. Those are real worries we have in Wyoming throughout the whole West. So.

Mr. Anderson?

Yeah, thank you, Senator. Yeah, I'm not an equipment operator, but I have been impacted. You know, when we've had road closures, I've been impacted by road closures and a lot of times in my role as commissioner, we're always looking at our performance as a department and how quickly we can open those roads. And we have had situations where it's, hey, this is taking us longer than it normally does. And when you dig in, it's because there's been equipment that's been down by these DEF issues. And so it is a real impact across the board from that perspective. And I've been in the shops with the mechanics, they've shown me the problems. You know, this is real. It's a real impact and it's having significant impacts to us.

Mr. Anderson, is there ever a case where there is plenty of DEF in the engine, but the DEF system still malfunctions?

Senator, yeah, there's from my discussions with our mechanics, there's a multitude of factors and ways that these systems malfunction. You know, with the engine derates, yeah, that's typical when our folks will be out in extreme cold temperatures trying to keep our roads open and then they can get stuck out 40, 50 miles from the nearest maintenance camp and now they have a piece of equipment that can go five miles an hour. That causes a lot of disruption to our services. But also our equipment, you know, when we're out working in these cold, cold temperatures, things freeze. And equipment isn't on all the time. And so if one of these systems and this fluid freezes, it crystallizes. And that causes other problems within the system to injectors, within the tanks, just multitude of factors that start causing reasons for malfunction. So it's not just limited to these derates. I mean, there's challenges where we just can't get the equipment started again.

Mr. Fornstrom, you mentioned that the mileage per gallon goes down when there's a DEF system installed. So does that mean that you're consuming more and polluting more because you're getting fewer miles per gallon?

Yeah, I guess the background on that is I've ran trucks since the early 90s. And when we started with the trucks, equivalent horsepower, size, all in the same weights, we could run between six, six and a half miles per gallon of diesel on those trucks. And that was a pretty good mile per gallon for us. As of late, if you talk to anybody who runs anything with DEF in it, they're hoping to get four miles per gallon. So I mean, you're 50 percent higher at least in the efficiency. And you know, I think the petroleum companies probably love that, but I'm not sure as a consumer of that diesel fuel at the prices they are now compared to what they were in the 90s, it's putting a real pinch point on agriculture.

So in the sense, one sense, the government trying to avoid NOx emissions is creating more emissions because they're driving down the mileage you can get on a gallon of diesel.

You know, emissions per gallon of diesel for sure. For sure.

Well, my time has expired, Madam Chairman, but the EPA under Obama knew. They knew that DEF systems didn't work well and posed a risk to public safety. And they mandated them anyway. What we need to do is in some ways what Mr. Whitehouse described. We do need to remediate NOx emissions. We need to reduce them. But there are ways to reduce them and still keep diesel engines running. That's what this bill is about. Thanks, Mr. Sullivan. I yield back.

Mr. Padilla.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've been listening intently to my colleagues both sides of the aisle, trying to keep an open mind here. But let me share the lens with which I'm approaching this conversation. Recognizing that the EPA recently rescinded federal vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and last year Congress, the Senate, voted to rescind California's Clean Air Act waiver authority. Now together those actions have significantly narrowed California's ability to protect our own communities, our own constituents from vehicle emissions. Now one argument for this bill is that regions with unique operating conditions deserve flexibility from the federal government and how they address emissions and emission requirements. Right? So that sounds common sense. But that argument cuts both ways. If we are being asked to consider cold weather states and whether or not they deserve flexibility to weaken emission requirements based on their unique conditions, Senator Sullivan, that's sort of what I'm hearing as the basis for this proposal, then I'm sure through the same logic California also deserves flexibility to meet its unique standards and air quality challenges. So my first question is for Mr. Walke. In your view, what are the public health consequences for states like California that have now lost both the federal floor and their own authority to go even further?

Thank you, Senator. I mean, it's well known that Southern California especially, but really the whole state faces some of the most challenging smog problems in the United States and those come overwhelmingly from motor vehicles that the Clean Air Act reserves to EPA or California with its special authority. And this administration has undermined that as you noted, so has this body. The emissions increases in NOx resulting from the roll back of the motor vehicle standards by this EPA, roll backs of power plant standards, the pollution spike from power plants, frankly overwhelms the NOx increases that might occur from the type of engines that we're talking today. So I'm kind of struggling with how to balance all that, but California is facing some of the worst of it from the roll backs, especially the motor vehicle standards and the California waiver kind of weakening.

Right. And I think it's a combination of not just the size of the population, size of the economy, aging infrastructure, growing infrastructure, along with topography and weather patterns that has resulted in the, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I checked the plurality of Americans living in non-attainment areas are the Southern California Air Quality Management District and the Central Valley. Just those two parts of California combined are the plurality of Americans living in non-attainment areas. And we can talk about what the state has done historically, what the state would like to do if the federal government allowed them to go further. Passenger vehicles is one thing, stationary resources, power plants, etc. is another, but it's areas of federal jurisdiction that are the biggest last nuts to crack. Think locomotives. Technology is leading us quickly if we let those seeking to innovate do so more aggressively but realistically balancing our economic growth. That's just one example. Let me also call out a remind ourselves colleagues that over the past year we've seen the EPA grant these exemptions from emissions and toxic pollution standards to a significant number of industrial facilities or sectors of the economy, often through mechanisms that bypass the normal notice and comment process. And the bill before us today again would add a statutory exemption on top of that administrative process. Mr. Walke, do you have any concerns that normalizing broad exemptions, even ones that seem targeted and reasonable on their face, could ultimately undermine the consistency and enforceability of the rules that everyone is supposed to be operating under and thereby distorting markets?

I do, Senator. And I think there are better solutions than exemptions, statutory exemptions. And I do want to emphasize that this exemption is not limited to Alaska. It's available to the entire United States. And in fact, it's not even limited to cold temperature because of the way that the bill is worded, ambient air temperature without regard to cold weather. That may be inadvertent, but that's what the bill says. So I think that there are solutions available through regulatory channels with greater technical expertise than I have or that this body has and I encourage those to proceed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thanks, Senator. Senator Sullivan.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank Commissioner Anderson in particular for his really excellent testimony. I want to help you help me and my colleagues set the stage a little bit here. So you're from Fairbanks. How cold was it this winter? I mean, in December, just December, it was really, really, really cold, wasn't it?

Yes, Senator, we had temperatures below 30 below for several weeks. It was actually a, I believe it was a 50-year record for cold temperatures in Fairbanks.

Yeah, and Fairbanks gets cold. Really cold. I used to live in Fairbanks. My wife's from Fairbanks. So that's consistent too, I think the month of December had 25 below for most of the entire month, right?

Yeah, that's correct. Along with the darkness.

Yeah. In the haul road, what we call the haul road or the Dalton Highway, explain that a little bit. It's about 500 miles from Fairbanks to Prudhoe Bay, Deadhorse, correct?

Yeah, that's correct. 500 miles, it's a combination of some pavement, but mostly gravel road surfaces.

Mostly dirt, mostly gravel, right? It's not even paved.

And in the wintertime we actually ice it. So we put ice on top to keep it smoother.

So those are the ice road truckers I was talking about. Tough duty. Dangerous duty. Without the DEF system. Absolutely. And then let's think if you're north of the Yukon River, my wife and I, we go up to the Yukon every summer, so we drive the haul road ourselves. But if you're north of the Yukon River, how many gas stations are between north of the Yukon River and Deadhorse?

In the winter, there's one gas station at a place called Coldfoot.

Okay. And that's, and that's about Yukon River to Deadhorse is about 350 miles, is that what that is?

Yeah, that's about correct.

So there's one gas station.

Absolutely.

Okay. So this is kind of the sense of the challenge in the fact that it's the economic lifeline of Alaska. Can you unpack that a little bit more again for the witnesses here? Why, what's, what's up in Deadhorse?

Yeah, the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, those are, I mean, that is the, you know, back in the '60s with the big oil finds in Alaska, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, you know, takes the oil. I think we're doing about 400,000 barrels. We're turning that around though, where it's going up fast, and so that's been super positive. But it really is, if you're in a lot of Alaska in the communities, I mean, the majority, I mean, that's, that's what drives our economy. That's the revenue that drives our state government across the board. Even our Permanent Fund Dividend, if you've heard of that, I mean, that's been generated from oil revenues based on the Prudhoe Bay oil fields.

And the country, especially now, needs that as well, right? Because we're producing oil in Alaska that Americans need.

Absolutely. A lot of it goes to California, but that's a whole another topic.

Let me ask this question. I thought your statistics in your opening statement were kind of shocking to me. I mean, I've been focused on this issue for a long time. You said, and I quote now, "The internal maintenance data and field experience indicate that between 70 and 80 percent of the diesel engine maintenance issues encountered in the past two years as part of the Department of Transportation Alaska are related to this DEF system."

That's correct. That's correct.

So how many pieces of equipment are we talking about? I mean, you have thousands of diesel equipment, don't you?

We run, yeah, we run, the DOT in Alaska runs the state equipment fleet for the entire state of Alaska. So it's thousands of pieces of equipment across the state.

And 70 to 80 percent of your diesel challenges with that equipment relates to this problem?

That's correct.

And 10 percent of the department at any point has unavailable equipment because of that?

That's correct.

So I want to just, so that's giant costs just to the department, correct?

Absolutely.

So let me ask you, Mr. Fornstrom, you talked about costs too to farmers. And I'm a big fan of America's farmers. But you mentioned this idea that, hey, a lot of times when commodity prices or farm prices are, you know, not as high as they need, your margins can be really, really low, right? To just be a farmer who can make ends meet. So what about, you mentioned briefly the costs of this for farmers. Is that something else that is not just huge costs to the Alaska Department of Transportation, but to farmers in Wyoming, isn't this kind of impacting your ability to make a livelihood?

Yes, you know, you mentioned prices being low, low would be great. The negative ones are the ones that hurt. And DEF, it adds to our cost of production. And everybody here knows that agriculture is a price taker. We can't add money to what we're charging for our wheat. So you will take it and you'll pay for it or you won't do it anymore. And DEF is nothing more than just an add-on for expense.

Well, thank you. Madam Chair, we need to work on this. You know, and to my colleague Senator Whitehouse, none of us are saying we shouldn't do anything about NOx and SOx, but we need to have regulations that actually are not one-size-fits-all that really, really penalize states like mine in a huge way, a reg written by lawyers in D.C. that don't have a clue about any of this stuff. Not a clue. And that's not right. That's not the way the federal government's supposed to work, and we're going to fix it. So thank you.

Look forward to working with you to do that. Senator Ricketts.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for coming to talk about this important issue. Diesel engines are an important part for many vehicles, including in the agricultural industry. In states like Nebraska, where we experience cold, though not as cold as Alaska, and highly variable weather, these systems face additional operational challenges. Nebraska agriculture producers report that emissions-related issues, particularly with DEF, the DEF systems, account for a majority of their machinery repairs, similar to what my colleague from Alaska was just saying. A major grievance is that when a DEF sensor fails or the system malfunctions, it often triggers limp mode, where a tractor or a combine loses power and speed, causing critical delays during planting or harvesting. During these seasons especially, farm operations rely on narrow windows to be able to do the planting or harvesting. If equipment malfunctions and a tractor derates during those windows, farmers can miss critical planting or harvesting timelines, which can negatively affect the entire season's crop yield. On top of failing engines, these failures can cost producers thousands of dollars in repairs and lost productivity. This is also a major safety hazard, especially in bitter cold weather. Allowing manufacturers to suspend engine derate or shutdown functions that operate in cold provides targeted regulatory relief for farmers, truckers, and Nebraskans. I applaud the Trump administration's EPA, who has recognized this challenge by publishing guidance that allows greater flexibility and longer warning periods before derate occurs. Mr. Fornstrom, how does the EPA guidance and this legislation in tandem provide long-term regulatory relief needed for our agriculture and trucking industries?

Thank you for the question. We all know out in the rural parts of America that these regulations, they move around so much. So this codification by the legislative body will be, it gives us a direction to head at least, and it takes away one of those questions that we'll have is when will it change and where will it go next.

And why is that important for farmers?

Well, we think on terms of years, not next week. I mean, I plant a crop that I'll harvest for the next five years. And in those planning, we need to know where things are going to be and, yeah, I mean, it's just a planning process. We need to know.

So certainty is a really important thing for farmers.

It's super important.

Right. So in the trucking industry, these system failures have also caused serious safety risks. The Clean Air Act regulations were not intended to jeopardize human safety or mobility, as my colleague from Alaska was talking about. Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting lives while maintaining practical and workable standards. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Fornstrom, can you speak to the safety and operational benefits of this legislation and how it will help address the challenges drivers and operators are currently facing?

Yeah. I live on a stretch of highway called Interstate 80, goes right through the middle of your state. Familiar with it, yes. In fact, I live on the other end of, I live right on the border. So we travel Cheyenne to Kimball, Nebraska, regularly. And on any given day, it doesn't matter if it's cold outside or hot outside, there'll be one to a half a dozen trucks in about a 70-mile stretch, and they're all parked alongside the road. And I've asked the local mechanics, what is going on with all these trucks? And they say most of the time it's an emission issue. It derates them, shuts them down, puts them on the side of the interstate. And if you've ever stopped on the interstate on I-80 and tried to get off the road far enough, you can't get far enough off the road. It's dangerous.

Yeah, it's dangerous. And you said that happens even in warm weather. So what are some of the other causes then of the emissions failures? So we talked about the cold. DEF isn't only a problem in the cold, it's a problem in the heat also. It degrades in the heat. So talk to me a little bit about that.

So when you add DEF, it actually can degrade in the heat, so if you get warm temperatures... Heat and sunlight. And so would that increase then, is that an issue where the NOx emissions are increasing and that's what causes the shutdown, or is it a system problem with the emission system somehow malfunctioning? You know, I don't know exactly how that system works. I would assume, I mean, you hear all sorts of situations, whether it's a sensor, whether it's a broken tank, whether it's, I mean, these systems are, they're plastic tanks. And where we're from, the roads aren't always smooth. In the wintertime, I guess everybody forgets that we shut these things off every so often. And when you shut them off, that's when it freezes, and then it breaks the tank.

Because it expands, the liquid expands and breaks the plastic tank.

It's like 50 percent water. So it expands the tank, breaks it, and then now you're sitting with a piece of equipment with a broken tank with no way for it to get the DEF.

Madam Chairman, do you mind if I let Mr. Anderson just respond quickly? Mr. Anderson, if you could just respond quickly to that as well.

Yeah, on the life safety issue, just imagine you're an equipment operator and it's 40 below, you're out trying to keep a road open so other people don't get stuck in those same conditions, and your equipment derates or it breaks down. I mean, you're there, help maybe hours away. I mean, we have good communication structures, but it still takes time. And now you're in a situation, an uncertain situation with snow conditions changing, weather conditions changing rapidly, and you're basically helpless. And that for us, you know, that's a real concern for our department.

Yeah, I think that's just kind of the point. Legislative reform that actually increases public safety is common sense, and I look forward to working with the committee on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ricketts. And Senator Sullivan has asked to ask a few more questions, so as the sponsor of the bill, go forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Walke, I wanted to look at a little bit of your testimony. You had mentioned in your written testimony, by the way, I read most of it, it was almost 30 pages, so very impressive. But you said that Administrator Zeldin in February took further action to quote, "address perceived concerns." So after listening to this testimony, do you think these are perceived concerns or real concerns? Perceived, perceived in my view is kind of dismissive, right? I got for the record a whole bunch of Alaskans who aren't perceived, these are real concerns. The commissioner just, I think, very, very strongly laid out real concerns. So when you say perceived, it's kind of dismissive of what we're talking about here. Is that your testimony? You think these are perceived concerns? Wouldn't you call them real concerns?

Senator Sullivan, these are absolutely real concerns. In my testimony, if I used that word, and I trust that I did, I thought it was in a quote. If it's not in a quote, then I withdraw the word perceived.

Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Look, I have a lot of respect for the NRDC and you guys have a lot of really smart attorneys, but you had also mentioned that the bill's unnecessary and harmful to the health of Alaskans. That's another quote. I mean, I know this DEF thing is really harmful to the safety of Alaskans. So, and again, we need to address the NOx and SOx issues, but you've got to do it smartly so you don't take one state that's got a lot of cold weather and presents really, really dangerous situations, let alone costs, which in our state are probably in the tens of millions that relate to this regulation. So is that still your testimony, or is your main testimony, hey, we shouldn't try to fix this through a law, we should try to fix it through the regulatory process?

My testimony is that the regulatory process can balance the very real NOx health concerns, the very real safety and access concerns in Alaska. I mean, we're hearing in this hearing that this is not just about Alaska. It's now about all NOx emissions control systems, apparently, including in warm temperatures, and the bill is written to apply it to the entire United States, and I just don't think that is a balanced...

Well, it's got a primary focus, the bill does, in this hearing does, primary focus on cold weather operations where the systems really freeze up. Let me turn to Commissioner Anderson again. One of the, you know, we're talking about the economy, we're talking about danger, we're talking about how you're having to clear roads. One of the testimony I want to make sure it's in the record, Madam Chair, from the Interior Alaska Fire Chiefs Association.

Without objection.

So they submitted testimony, and I thought this was very powerful because they're from the interior part of the state, Fairbanks and other, and the fire chiefs are saying, hey, we've got to fix this because our fire trucks don't work when we're going out to like, you know, address a burning building and people's lives are at stake, they're worried about the operational reliability of their fire trucks. So can you, Commissioner, I know this isn't exactly the DOT area, but it's safety and you're talking about safety, but our fire chiefs are also saying this is a big problem.

Yes, Senator, and that wasn't the only fire chief that commented. We also got others, even the Anchorage Fire Department, which Anchorage is our largest city in Alaska, put in testimonials about this problem as a concern, so it's a bigger issue, absolutely.

Yes, so and just again for our witnesses, Anchorage doesn't get as cold as Fairbanks usually, but this winter Anchorage has been 10, 15, 20, almost 20 below zero for, you know, decent part of the winter. So Anchorage has gotten really cold this winter too, so I'm glad you're saying that that's the other fire chiefs. Well, Madam Chair, I really appreciate you holding this hearing and I want to commend the witnesses, all the witnesses, and I want to thank you and Senator Lummis and Senator Ricketts and want to work with you and Senator Whitehouse on what I think this hearing clearly demonstrates there's a problem, right, a big problem. This is classic one size fits all and I'm just glad, knock on wood, nobody in my state has been killed yet because of this, because if you're stranded on the Dalton Highway and it's 50 below zero and you have no cell service, that's very high danger and we need to fix it. Thank you.

Thank you. Couldn't agree more. So with no further questions, I'd like to thank the witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation in today's hearing. Thank you. Senators who wish to submit written questions for the record have until 5:00 PM on Wednesday, March 25th to do so. The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the committee no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, April 8th and will be submitted for the record. With that, this hearing is adjourned and thank you all.