Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - EXAMINING R&D PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE AVIATION</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


	EXAMINING R&D PATHWAYS
	TO SUSTAINABLE AVIATION

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
	AND TECHNOLOGY
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	MARCH 24, 2021

	__________

	Serial No. 117-6

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

	__________

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	43-797PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

	-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

	HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
	ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
	SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
	AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
	HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
	Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
	MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
	JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
	BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
	ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
	JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas
	PAUL TONKO, New York DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
	BILL FOSTER, Illinois MIKE GARCIA, California
	DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
	DON BEYER, Virginia YOUNG KIM, California
	CHARLIE CRIST, Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
	SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
	CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
	DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
	GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin PETER MEIJER, Michigan
	DAN KILDEE, Michigan VACANCY
	SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
	LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
	VACANCY
	------

	Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

	HON. DON BEYER, Virginia, Chairman
	ZOE LOFGREN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas,
	AMI BERA, California Ranking Member
	BRAD SHERMAN, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
	ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
	CHARLIE CRIST, Florida DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
	DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey YOUNG KIM, California


	C O N T E N T S

	March 24, 2021

	Page

	Hearing Charter.................................................. 2

	Opening Statements

	Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, Subcommittee on
	Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
	Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
	Written Statement............................................ 11

	Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
	Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
	Representatives................................................ 12
	Written Statement............................................ 13

	Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
	Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
	Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 14
	Written Statement............................................ 15

	Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
	Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
	House of Representatives....................................... 16

	Witnesses:

	Dr. Karen A. Thole, Department Head and Distinguished Professor,
	Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State
	University
	Oral Statement............................................... 18
	Written Statement............................................ 20

	Dr. R. John Hansman Jr., T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics &
	Astronautics and Director, MIT International Center for Air
	Transportation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Chair,
	FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC); Co-
	director, FAA Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels
	and Environment (ASCENT)
	Oral Statement............................................... 33
	Written Statement............................................ 35

	Mr. Steve Csonka, Executive Director, Commercial Aviation
	Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)
	Oral Statement............................................... 40
	Written Statement............................................ 42

	Discussion....................................................... 50

	Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

	Dr. Karen A. Thole, Department Head and Distinguished Professor,
	Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State
	University..................................................... 66

	Dr. R. John Hansman Jr., T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics &
	Astronautics and Director, MIT International Center for Air
	Transportation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Chair,
	FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC); Co-
	director, FAA Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels
	and Environment (ASCENT)....................................... 75

	Mr. Steve Csonka, Executive Director, Commercial Aviation
	Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)........................... 79

	Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

	Letter submitted by Representative Don Beyer..................... 92

	Letter submitted by Alternative Fuels & Chemicals Coalition...... 97


	EXAMINING R&D PATHWAYS
	TO SUSTAINABLE AVIATION

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
	Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
	Washington, D.C.

	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m.,
	via Webex, Hon. Don Beyer [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
	presiding.
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Beyer. Great, thank you. Good morning. Welcome to
	the first meeting or hearing of our Subcommittee on Space and
	Aeronautics, ``Examining R&D Pathways to Sustainable
	Aviation.'' So good morning. Welcome to our distinguished
	witnesses. Thanks for being here. I also want to welcome our
	new and returning Subcommittee Members to this first hearing. I
	also want to say happy birthday to the Ranking Member Dr. Brian
	Babin. I think you were 63 years old, Dr. Babin, something like
	that, yesterday?
	Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you so very much,
	Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman Beyer. OK. These are exciting times, Dr. Babin's
	birthday, humans are going back to the Moon in preparation to
	Mars for advancing scientific discovery and transforming the
	future of aviation. There's so much. And I really look forward
	to working with Ranking Member Babin and Ranking Member Lucas
	and our wonderful Chair, Chairwoman Eddie Johnson, on
	supporting a strong and bright future for America's space and
	aeronautics programs.
	One of the immediate challenges is the climate crisis, and
	today, we're considering aviation's role in how to address it.
	Typically, aviation only contributes about 2.5 percent global
	CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and that seems low, especially
	compared to, say, cars. However, with pre-pandemic global air
	travel growing at annual rates of three to five percent, it
	shouldn't come as a surprise that aircrafts'--aviation's global
	CO<INF>2</INF> emissions increased from 710 million tons in
	2013 to 905 million tons in 2018, and it's supposed to triple
	by 2050.
	Now, to its credit, the aviation industry has taken
	consistent steps to improve aircraft efficiencies, in part to
	reduce fuel costs. There are 70 to 80 percent more efficient
	aircraft engines, than there were those old turbocraft jet
	aircrafts in the 1950's, and efficiencies are expected to
	continue at one or two percent annually. But while these are
	important, they're not going to be sufficient to meet
	aviation's carbon challenge.
	The good news, in 2009 the industry adopted the goal of
	reducing aviation's carbon emissions by 50 percent of 2005
	levels by 2050, but that's going to need new technologies,
	increased efficiencies, and cleaner sources of energy. And I
	think we all believe that Federal Government R&D (research and
	development) is essential for the testing, demonstrating, and
	maturing solutions.
	So today, potential approaches include electrified
	aircraft, alternative airframe designs, more efficient
	energies, and, obviously, alternative jet fuels. Some companies
	are investing in one or more of these options. Europe, for
	example, is betting on hydrogen as a cleaner aviation solution.
	So how do these approaches compare, how do they
	contribute, what are the potential impacts on noise, air
	quality, cost, infrastructure, reliability, and safety? It's
	important we get these priorities right because, unlike cars or
	cell phones, changes to aircraft and aviation require very long
	timelines to develop, test, demonstrate, certify, and scale
	throughout the system.
	A 2016 National Academies report on ``Commercial Aircraft
	Propulsion and Energy Systems Research, Reducing Global Carbon
	Emissions'' recommended priorities in aircraft-propulsion
	integration, improvements in gas turbine engines, development
	of turboelectric propulsion systems, and advances in
	sustainable alternative jet fuels. So where does that research
	stand today? What more needs to be done?
	So bottom line, today, we need the cold, hard facts on the
	strengths, limitations, feasibility, and timelines of the
	pathways to sustainable aviation. In short, we need smart and
	strategic R&D. And sustainable aviation is not only essential
	for our climate; it's a competitive advantage and a cooperative
	opportunity. And given the devastating impacts of the pandemic
	to the aircraft industry, it's more important than ever that we
	build back better.
	[The prepared statement of Chairman Beyer follows:]

	Good morning, and welcome to our distinguished witnesses.
	Thank you for being here.
	I also want to welcome our new and returning Subcommittee
	Members to our first Space and Aeronautics hearing of the 117th
	Congress.
	These are exciting times. From returning humans to the Moon
	in preparation for Mars to advancing scientific discovery and
	transforming the future of aviation, there is much that lies
	ahead of us. I look forward to working with you and Ranking
	Member Babin on supporting a strong and bright future for
	America's space and aeronautics programs.
	Today we're considering the future of aviation and how we
	can ensure that the U.S. remains the leader for next generation
	aircraft and what R&D it will take to get us there.
	With the climate crisis and as countries move to create
	parameters for permissible aircraft--like Norway determining
	that all short-haul flights will be entirely electric by 2040--
	being a participant in the global marketplace of the future
	will require sustainable aviation.
	That means U.S. aviation won't have a competitive future
	without addressing climate impacts.
	Currently, aviation contributes about 2 1/2 percent to
	global CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. In the U.S., transportation is
	the most greenhouse gas intensive sector and in 2018 aviation
	accounted for 5 percent of all U.S. emissions.
	Pre-pandemic global air travel was growing at average
	annual rates of 3-5 percent and is expected to rapidly return
	as we get the pandemic under control.
	It should come as no surprise that aviation's global
	CO<INF>2</INF> emissions increased from 710 million tons in
	2013 to 905 million tons in 2018, with a projected tripling by
	2050.
	And that's just looking at CO<INF>2</INF>.
	According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
	Climate Change, aviation's total climate change impact could be
	from two to four times that of its past CO<INF>2</INF>
	emissions alone.
	To its credit, the aviation industry has taken consistent
	steps to improve aircraft efficiencies, in part to reduce fuel
	costs. Aircraft engines are 70-80 percent more efficient today
	than the turbojet aircraft of the 1950s, and efficiencies are
	expected to continue at 1-2 percent annually.
	But on their own, these improvements, while important, are
	not sufficient to meet aviation's future challenge.
	In 2009, the industry adopted goals to reduce aviation's
	carbon emissions by 50 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.
	Meeting even modest sustainability goals will require new
	technologies, increased efficiencies, and cleaner sources of
	energy. Federal government R&D is essential for testing,
	demonstrating, and maturing solutions.
	Today, potential approaches include electrified aircraft,
	alternative airframe designs, more efficient engines, and
	alternative jet fuels. Some companies are investing in one or
	more of these options. Europe is betting on hydrogen as a
	cleaner aviation solution.
	How do these approaches compare and how would they
	contribute to meeting aviation's climate challenge? What are
	their potential impacts on noise, air quality, cost,
	infrastructure, and reliability and safety?
	The R&D opportunities are many, but it's important we get
	the priorities right.
	Because unlike cars or cell phones, changes to aircraft and
	aviation require long timelines to develop, test, demonstrate,
	certify, and scale throughout the system.
	A 2016 National Academies report on ``Commercial Aircraft
	Propulsion and Energy Systems Research, Reducing Global Carbon
	Emissions'' recommended priorities in aircraft-propulsion
	integration; improvements in gas turbine engines; development
	of turboelectric propulsion systems; and advances in
	sustainable alternative jet fuels.
	Where does that research stand today? What more needs to be
	done?
	Bottom line: we need the cold, hard facts on the strengths,
	limitations, feasibility, and timelines of the pathways to
	sustainable aviation.
	In short, we need smart and strategic R&D.
	Sustainable aviation is not only essential for our climate,
	it's a competitive advantage and a cooperative opportunity. And
	given the devasting impacts of the pandemic to the industry,
	it's more important than ever that we build back better.
	Thank you and I look forward to our witnesses' testimony.

	Chairman Beyer. So thank you. I look forward to our
	witness testimonies. And let me--I recognize the Ranking Member
	of the Space Subcommittee, Dr. Brian Babin.
	Mr. Perlmutter. I think he decided to abandon us.
	Chairman Beyer. Well, you know, failing that,
	Representative Lucas, Ranking Member of the big Committee, I'd
	be happy to recognize you.
	Mr. Lucas. Well, I'll only pretend to be the esteemed
	doctor until he's able to return to us, but thank you, Mr.
	Chairman, for holding this hearing.
	Oklahoma is no stranger to being on the cutting edge of
	aviation. From the daring test pilots such as Tom Stafford and
	Gordo Cooper to other pioneering aviators like Jerrie Cobb,
	Oklahoma is well-represented by those who pushed the boundaries
	of flight. To this very day, Oklahoma's connection to aviation
	remains strong as the home of Tinker Air Force Base and FAA's
	(Federal Aviation Administration's) Mike Monroney Aviation
	Center.
	The aviation industry is a vital part of our Nation's
	economy. It contributes $1.8 trillion annually to the economy
	and is directly or indirectly responsible for more than 10
	million jobs.
	The Science Committee has jurisdiction over several areas
	of Federal aviation research, ranging from our drafting the
	research title of each FAA reauthorization to our oversight of
	NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space Administration's)
	aeronautics research mission directorate. The research carried
	out by NASA and FAA is then utilized by industry partners who
	integrate this knowledge into their existing fleets.
	Global air travel generates an estimated 2 to 3 percent of
	global greenhouse gas emissions. While we saw a reduction in
	the number of flights in the last year and a corresponding
	decrease in emissions, we know that these numbers will
	eventually rebound and increase. One estimate is that there
	will be roughly 10 billion passengers flying more than 12
	trillion miles annually by 2050.
	Today's hearing comes 2 weeks after we held a Full
	Committee hearing on the science of climate change. As that
	hearing made clear, we should focus on investing in research
	and development efforts, including R&D to give the aviation
	industry the tools they need to reduce emissions from flight.
	What we shouldn't do is allow ourselves to be subject to
	burdensome and unequal international mandates at the expense of
	our economic growth.
	The good news is that the aviation industry is already
	making progress in reducing emissions. Multiple domestic and
	international aircraft manufacturers have already made
	commitments to voluntarily reduce emissions. And we also will
	hear today about the research community and industry are
	teaming up to create innovative new ways to reduce emissions.
	For instance, we can help reduce emissions by researching new
	aircraft designs and the use of lighter materials to help
	reduce aircraft weight.
	Additionally, research is ongoing about the use of a
	variety of farm-produced commodities which could be blended
	into existing fuels and potentially reduce emissions.
	I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look
	forward to a productive discussion about how we can support
	research and development efforts, which will assist our
	aviation industry in the years to come.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

	Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
	Oklahoma is no stranger to being on the cutting edge of
	aviation. From daring test pilots such as Tom Stafford and
	Gordo Cooper to other pioneering aviators like Jerrie Cobb,
	Oklahoma is well represented by those who pushed the boundaries
	of flight. To this very day, Oklahoma's connection to aviation
	remains strong as the home of Tinker Air Force Base and FAA's
	Michael Monroney Aeronautical Center.
	The aviation industry is a vital part of our nation's
	economy. It contributes $1.8 trillion annually to the economy
	and is directly or indirectly responsible for more than 10
	million jobs. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over
	several areas of federal aviation research, ranging from our
	drafting the research title of each FAA reauthorization to our
	oversight of NASA's aeronautics research mission directorate.
	The research carried out by NASA and FAA is then utilized by
	industry partners who integrate this knowledge into their
	existing fleets.
	Global air travel generates an estimated 2-3 percent of
	global greenhouse gas emissions. While we saw a reduction in
	the number of flights in the last year, and a corresponding
	decrease in emissions, we know that these numbers will
	eventually rebound and increase. One estimate is that there
	will be roughly 10 billion passengers flying more than 12
	trillion miles annually by 2050.
	Today's hearing comes two weeks after we held a full
	committee hearing on the science of climate change. As that
	hearing made clear, we should focus on investing in research
	and development efforts, including R&D to give the aviation
	industry the tools they need to reduce emissions from flight.
	What we shouldn't do is allow ourselves to be subject to
	burdensome and unequal international mandates at the expense of
	our economic growth.
	The good news is that the aviation industry is already
	making progress in reducing emissions. Multiple domestic and
	international aircraft manufacturers have already made
	commitments to voluntarily reducing emissions. We will also
	hear today about how the research community and industry are
	teaming up to create innovative new ways to reduce emissions.
	For instance, we can help reduce emissions by researching
	new aircraft designs and the use of lighter materials to help
	reduce aircraft weight. Additionally, research is ongoing about
	the use of a variety of farm-produced commodities which could
	be blended into existing fuels and potentially reduce
	emissions.
	I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward
	to a productive discussion about we can support research and
	development efforts which will assist our aviation industry in
	the years to come.Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

	Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Big Chair Ranking Member.
	This is the first time I've done this, so I get things out
	of order. So what we also say this hearing will come to order.
	I brought my special gavel today. And without objection, the
	Chair is authorized to declare recess at any time.
	And I also want to note that the Committee is meeting
	virtually, so please keep your video feed on as long as you're
	present in the hearing. You're responsible for your own
	microphones. That is, our wonderful staff is not going to turn
	them on and off for you. And obviously, please keep them muted
	unless you're speaking. And if you have documents you wish to
	submit for the record, please email them to the Committee
	Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to this
	hearing.
	So now let me yield the chair to my good friend, Dr. Brian
	Babin, who is the Ranking Member of this Space Subcommittee.
	Dr. Babin?
	Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
	Chairman Beyer. Yes.
	Mr. Babin. Can you hear me?
	Chairman Beyer. Yes, perfectly, Brian. Thank you, yes.
	Mr. Babin. OK, good. It still shows that I'm muted on my
	computer. That's what was confusing me a while ago, and I
	apologize.
	But I guess before my opening statement I also want to
	just say thank you for what you said a while ago, Mr. Chairman.
	You and I have worked together for a number of years on this
	great Committee, and I really want to congratulate you on your
	chairmanship, and I'm looking forward to working with you,
	continuing to do that, and getting some great things done for
	our country and our space program. So with that I'll start my
	opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	If I had to hazard a guess, most of our constituents fly
	budget airlines, not business class, and certainly not private
	aviation. Roughly 1/3 of the cost of a flight comes from fuel,
	and nearly half for budget airlines. The less fuel you burn,
	the less emissions you produce. Passengers want cheap tickets,
	and we all want less emissions. Both lead to the same free-
	market forces that drive airlines to purchase efficient
	aircraft.
	This incentivizes aircraft manufacturers to produce more
	efficient aircraft and engines with little government intrusion
	into the market. Flights today are 50 percent more efficient
	than they were back in 1990, and each new generation of
	aircraft is 15 to 25 percent more efficient than the last.
	Separately, our Nation's airline industry already committed to
	carbon-neutral growth by 2030, and Boeing pledged to deliver
	aircraft capable of flying on 100 percent biofuels by 2030 on
	their own.
	This isn't to say that there's not a role for the
	government to play in advancing aviation sustainability. The
	FAA conducts research to certify new technologies that are
	safe, and NASA develops high-risk, high-reward technologies
	that the private sector is willing--or unwilling or unable to
	undertake.
	But we should be mindful of government intrusion into the
	market. The U.S. and Europe are embroiled in a nearly decade-
	long dispute over government aircraft subsidies. And last fall,
	the World Trade Organization (WTO) allowed Europe to implement
	over $4 billion in tariffs on U.S. products over a disagreement
	about the FAA and NASA research and development grants and
	subsidies. This followed a 2019 ruling by the World Trade
	Organization that allowed the United States to impose $7.5
	billion in tariffs on Europe over European Union loans to
	Airbus. Earlier this month, those tariffs were put on hold for
	a few months pending additional negotiations. And as we look
	toward supporting our Nation's aviation sector, we should
	maintain the principles that made us the world leader in
	aviation: free enterprise and free markets.
	Another thing we must consider is the impact on safety,
	which should be everyone's highest priority. Environmental
	research and development within FAA's RE&D (research,
	engineering, and development) account increased over 190
	percent from 2008 to 2021. Over that same time, the budget for
	safety research decreased.
	Unfortunately, we may be seeing the results of these
	policy decisions. In order to compete with the new Airbus
	A320neo, Boeing designed the 737 Max to be more fuel-efficient
	and produce less emissions. The existing 737 airframe was
	modified by adding larger and more efficient engines. Because
	of the larger size, the engines had to be moved forward and
	higher on the airframe to maintain ground clearance. Doing so
	altered the aircraft's aerodynamics and required a new
	maneuvering characteristic augmentation system, or MCAS, which
	we are familiar with over in Transportation. MCAS has caused
	the aircraft to pitch downwards in certain configurations and
	was featured prominently in the National Transportation Safety
	Board's Safety Recommendation Reports.
	Similarly, the Wall Street Journal published an article
	last Friday highlighting a recent incident involving an engine
	breaking apart over Denver. The article noted several other
	incidents of engine failures and engine cover damage over the
	last 5 years, one of which led to the first U.S. airline
	passenger fatality in nearly a decade. I'm not saying these
	accidents were caused by efforts to green aviation, but we
	should be reminded of Hoover Institute economist Dr. Thomas
	Sowell, who said ``there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.''
	As we discuss the benefits of sustainable aviation today,
	we should also discuss its costs, either at the potential
	expense of safety or to other areas of our economy. Upending
	existing infrastructure, promoting land-use change and
	monocrops, raising commodity and food prices, increasing
	transportation costs, increasing taxes, and the impact of
	diluting the value of retirees' savings to pay for all of it
	should all be reviewed very carefully and very critically.
	Green aviation not only requires a whole-of-government
	approach, but it also requires a whole-of-society approach.
	Luckily, the United States is the leader in aviation and
	science. Our industry and research communities are second to
	none. With FAA, NASA, DOE (Department of Energy), and other
	agencies providing fundamental basic research and industry-
	leveraging, market-based incentives, I am sure that we can meet
	any challenge presented to us.
	And with that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

	If I had to hazard a guess, most of our constituents fly
	budget airlines, not business class, and certainly not private
	aviation. Roughly a third of the cost of a flight comes from
	fuel, and nearly half for budget airlines. The less fuel you
	burn, the less emissions you produce. Passengers want cheaper
	tickets, and we all want less emissions. Both lead to the same
	free-market forces that drive airlines to purchase efficient
	aircraft.
	This incentivizes aircraft manufacturers to produce more
	efficient aircraft and engines with little government intrusion
	into the market. Flights today are 50 percent more efficient
	than they were in 1990, and each new generation of aircraft is
	10-25 percent more efficient than the last. Separately, our
	nation's airline industry already committed to carbon neutral
	growth by 2030, and Boeing pledged to deliver aircraft capable
	of flying on 100 percent biofuels by 2030 on their own.
	This isn't to say that there's not a role for the
	government to play in advancing aviation sustainability. The
	FAA conducts research to certify new technologies are safe and
	NASA develops high-risk, high-reward technologies, that the
	private sector is unwilling or unable to undertake.
	But we should be mindful of government intrusion into the
	market. The US and Europe are embroiled in a nearly decade-long
	dispute over government aircraft subsidies. Just last fall the
	World Trade Organization allowed Europe to implement over $4
	billion in tariffs on US products as a disagreement over FAA
	and NASA research and development grants. This followed a 2019
	ruling by the WTO that allowed the US to impose $7.5 billion in
	tariffs on Europe over EU loans to Airbus. Earlier this month
	those tariffs were put on hold for a few months pending
	additional negotiations. As we look towards supporting our
	nation's aviation sector, we should maintain the principles
	that made us the world leader in aviation--free enterprise and
	free markets.
	Another thing we must consider is the impact on safety,
	which should be everyone's highest priority. Environmental R&D
	within FAA's RE&D account increased over 190 percent from 2008
	to 2021. Over that same time the budget for safety research
	decreased.
	Unfortunately, we may be seeing the results of these policy
	decisions. In order to compete with the new Airbus A320neo,
	Boeing designed the 737 Max to be more fuel efficient and
	produce less emissions. The existing 737 airframe was modified
	by adding larger, more efficient engines. Because of the larger
	size, the engines had to be moved forward and higher on the
	airframe to maintain ground clearance. Doing so altered the
	aircraft's aerodynamics and required a new Maneuvering
	Characteristic Augmentation System, or MCAS. MCAS caused the
	aircraft to pitch downwards in certain configurations and was
	featured prominently in the NTSB's Safety Recommendation
	Reports. Similarly, the Wall Street Journal published an
	article last Friday highlighting a recent incident involving an
	engine breaking apart over Denver. The article noted several
	other incidents of engine failures and engine cover damage over
	the last five years, one of which led to the first U.S. airline
	passenger fatality in nearly a decade.
	I am not saying these accidents were caused by efforts to
	green aviation, but we should be reminded of Hoover Institute
	economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, who said ``there are no solutions,
	only trade-offs.'' As we discuss the benefits of sustainable
	aviation today, we should also discuss its costs, either at the
	potential expense of safety or to other areas of our economy.
	Upending existing infrastructure, promoting land-use change and
	monocrops, raising commodity and food prices, increasing
	transportation costs, increasing taxes, and the impact of
	diluting the value of retirees' savings to pay for all of it
	should all be reviewed critically.
	Green aviation not only requires a whole of government
	approach, it requires a whole of society approach. Luckily, the
	United States is the leader in aviation and science. Our
	industry and research communities are second-to-none. With FAA,
	NASA, DOE, and other agencies providing fundamental basic
	research, and industry leveraging market- based incentives, I
	am sure we meet any challenge presented to us.

	Chairman Beyer. All right. Thank you, Dr. Babin, very
	much.
	At this time I'd like to--well, before doing that, any
	other Member who would like to have an opening statement--
	please--in the record, just please submit it in writing and we
	will include it.
	[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

	Good morning. I would like to begin by welcoming Chairman
	Beyer as the new Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics
	Subcommittee for the 117th Congress. I also want to welcome
	back Ranking Member Babin and all the Subcommittee Members. I
	am excited about the future of space and aeronautics and I look
	forward to working with you.
	The climate crisis is affecting nearly every aspect of our
	existence-weather, shelter, commerce, natural resources,
	energy, environment, and so much more.
	Research is imperative to understanding and mitigating
	climate change impacts, and addressing climate change is an
	important priority for our Committee.
	We held our first Full Committee climate hearing last week.
	And I'm pleased, Chairman Beyer, that today's hearing will
	examine aviation's role in reducing carbon emissions.
	Aviation is one of the few industries that has provided a
	positive trade balance. Pre-pandemic, U.S. civil aviation
	accounts for about 5 percent of gross domestic product,
	including both direct and catalytic sectors, $1.8 trillion in
	economic activity, and nearly 11 million jobs, including
	285,000 jobs in my own state of Texas.
	Even closer to home, Dallas is a hub for domestic and
	international air travel, and I believe that developing
	innovations to enable sustainable aviation is the industry's
	future.
	Aviation's infrastructure is immense and changes throughout
	the system take time, in part, due to the need to meet high
	safety requirements for passenger air travel.
	That's why research and development is essential for
	advancing sustainable aviation technologies.
	However, the improvements that will lead to cleaner and
	more efficient aviation can't happen on their own. The people
	and workforce that bring the ideas from the labs and into the
	engines and aircraft are instrumental. To that end, our
	investments in R&D are also investments in sustaining our human
	capital leadership in aviation going forward.
	I thank our witnesses for being here and I look forward to
	your testimony.
	Thank you, and I yield back.

	Chairman Beyer. At this time I'd like to introduce our
	witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Karen Thole or Thole.
	Karen, you can fix it for me. Dr. Thole is the Department Head
	and Distinguished Professor of the Department of Mechanical
	Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. She co-chaired
	the 2016 National Academies' study ``Commercial Aircraft
	Propulsion and Energy Systems: Reducing Global Carbon
	Emissions.'' Her area of expertise is gas turbine heat transfer
	and using additive manufacturing to develop innovative cooling
	technologies. At Penn State she established two research
	laboratories that were both awarded the distinction of being
	Centers of Excellence in aerodynamics and heat transfer. She
	received--Dr. Thole received a bachelor of science degree and a
	master of science degree in mechanical engineering at the
	University of Illinois and her doctorate in mechanical
	engineering at the University of Texas Austin, so she's a
	Longhorn. So, Dr. Thole, welcome.
	Our second witness is Dr. John--R. John Hansman, Jr., a T.
	Wilson Professional of Aeronautics and Astronaut--Astronautics
	at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Hansman is
	also the Director of the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
	Technology) International Center for Air Transportation, and he
	additionally serves as the Chair of the FAA Research and
	Development Advisory Committee and Co-Director of the FAA
	Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment,
	also known as ASCENT. Dr. Hansman's research focuses on
	applying information technology on operational aerospace
	systems. He received his bachelor of science degree in physics
	from Cornell University and a master of science and a doctorate
	in some little college in Massachusetts called MIT. So welcome,
	Dr. Hansman.
	Our third witness is Mr. Steve Csonka, the Executive
	Director of the Commercial Aviation's Alternative Fuels
	Initiative, CAAFI, a public-private partnership working on the
	development and commercialization of sustainable aviation fuels
	(SAF). Previously, Mr. Csonka had positions--held positions at
	GE Aircraft Engines, American Airlines, and GE Aviation where
	he focused on a range of aircraft lifecycle activities,
	including conceptual analysis, design, manufacture, test, and
	certification, among other areas. He received his bachelor of
	science degree in aerospace engineering from Parks College of
	St. Louis University and a master of science degree in
	aerospace engineering from the University of Cincinnati. So
	welcome, Mr. Csonka.
	So as our witnesses should know, you have five minutes
	each for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony has--
	will be included in the record for the hearing, and I think
	most of us received your written testimony ahead of time, which
	I spent a long time with last night, fascinating. And when we--
	you have completed all three spoken testimonies, we will begin
	with questions, so each Member will have five minutes to
	question the panel. So let's start with Dr. Thole. Dr. Thole,
	the floor and the microphone are yours.

	TESTIMONY OF DR. KAREN A. THOLE,

	DEPARTMENT HEAD AND DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR,

	DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,

	PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

	Dr. Thole. Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member Babin, and
	distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
	opportunity to testify. As was stated, my name is Karen Thole,
	and the opinions expressed in my testimony today are that of my
	own and do not represent views of the Pennsylvania State
	University.
	Throughout my testimony, I will use information from the
	2016 National Academies' low carbon aviation study, which was
	commissioned by NASA and which I cochaired. Resulting from the
	2016 Academies report, the Chief Technology Officers of seven
	of the world's major aviation manufacturers jointly signed an
	agreement on a unified commitment to reduce commercial aviation
	emissions by half in 2050 relative to the levels in 2005.
	As Chairman Beyer has already mentioned, commercial
	aviation is responsible for between 2 and 2.5 percent of the
	total global CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, of which 90 percent
	comes from large single-aisle and twin-aisle aircraft.
	Resulting from the 2016 Academy report, four research
	approaches for sustainable aviation were recommended: 1,
	advances in aircraft propulsion integration; 2, improvements in
	gas turbine engines; 3, development of turboelectric propulsion
	systems; and 4, advances in sustainable alternative jet fuels.
	This past year, hydrogen has entered into the discussion
	for aviation and is being explored by U.S. industries and
	aggressively by the European Union. In my opinion, with strong
	support we can develop solutions starting with the use of
	sustainable alternative jet fuels progressing to turboelectric
	and hybrid electric propulsion systems followed by the use of
	hydrogen either for fuel cells or for producing synthetic
	fuels.
	In the near term, we should promote sustainable
	alternative jet fuels. These fuels already exist as a drop-in
	option certified for use in jet engines at up to 50 percent
	blend with kerosene, and with further development it may be
	possible to achieve 100 percent. Given our third panelist has
	expertise in this area, he can further elaborate.
	In agreement with the 2016 study, I believe the United
	States needs to invest in the development of new aircraft
	architectures that take full advantage and the potential
	benefits of turboelectrics and of hybrid electric propulsion
	systems. The Committee strongly recommended the development of
	turboelectric systems, which differ from all-electric and
	hybrid concepts because no additional batteries or fuel cells
	are required, both of which can add significant weight.
	Turboelectric propulsion systems do require high power
	generators, cabling, and power electronics. Unlike other
	propulsion systems--electric propulsion systems, they do make
	beneficial concepts such as distributed propulsion more
	feasible. Some hybrid electric propulsion systems may also be
	feasible in my opinion.
	Key to improvements, however, for both turboelectrics and
	hybrid electrics are continued improvements in both propulsive
	efficiency and in thermal efficiency of gas turbine engines,
	which is likely to produce the power by--the power for both.
	Many efficiency improvements can also be synergistic with the
	needs of our military's propulsion needs.
	Today's engines have propulsive efficiencies of up to 70
	percent and thermal efficiencies of up to 55 percent, both of
	which still have the potential to increase, which dramatically
	reduce fuel requirements. To improve propulsive efficiency,
	research is needed to make both evolutionary improvements, as--
	such as reducing fan pressure ratios and revolutionary
	improvements such as going beyond the traditional tube-and-wing
	platform.
	To support improved thermal efficiencies, we need to
	shrink engine cores while meeting or even increasing thermal
	efficiencies. Added to those recommendations in 2016, research
	is needed on developing high-temperature materials and
	coatings, as well as for 3-D metal printing. We need to be able
	to integrate reliable sensors to support high-fidelity
	simulation tools to reduce both development, time, and risks.
	Despite the ongoing discussions related to hydrogen as an
	aviation fuel, there are significant techno-economic and safety
	concerns. However, the United States needs to develop a long-
	term strategy on hydrogen for aviation to make sure we do not
	lag our foreign competitors. In that regard, Mr. Chairman,
	please make no mistake we are in a race particularly with China
	in the aviation industry, and whoever wins will have an
	economic and possibly military advantage that will result from
	a talented workforce. We need to invest now to make sure the
	United States is well-positioned to develop sustainable
	solutions and maintain our leadership in the aviation industry
	through strong partnerships between Federal agencies,
	industries, and universities.
	Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Thole follows:]
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Beyer. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Thole, very
	much. It will provoke many questions, which is good.
	I now recommend--or recognize MIT's Dr. John Hansman.

	TESTIMONY OF DR. R. JOHN HANSMAN JR.,

	T. WILSON PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS & ASTRONAUTICS

	AND DIRECTOR, MIT INTERNATIONAL CENTER

	FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION,

	MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY;

	CHAIR, FAA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

	ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REDAC);

	CO-DIRECTOR, FAA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

	FOR ALTERNATIVE JET FUELS AND ENVIRONMENT (ASCENT)

	Dr. Hansman. Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member Babin, and
	Members of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity to talk
	about this important topic today.
	As you guys have already noted, the impact of aviation on
	the environment is an increasing concern worldwide in that the
	aviation community is really highly motivated both in market
	reasons and international strategic reasons to improve its
	sustainability. There's lots of things we can talk about. I'm
	going to briefly discuss a few key areas today.
	First, you know, the first thing that motivates
	understanding how we mitigate aviation environmental impacts is
	understanding the mechanisms of impact, and modeling the
	impacts is sort of a full system level. So you mentioned
	greenhouse gas emissions. There was other impacts that we need
	to understand, for example, contrails. But we have to look at
	it in terms of the system level. You have to think about all--
	how we fly the airplanes, where we fly them. As you mentioned,
	aviation contributes about 2 to 3 percent of the greenhouse gas
	emissions, but they are injected high in the atmosphere where
	they have a higher impact, so you have to think about where you
	fly, what the markets are around the world. These things are
	not necessarily symmetric. And you have to think about it in
	terms of the lifecycle. So, you know, it may make sense to use,
	for example, hydrogen as a fuel but only if you get it from a
	sustainable source.
	The other thing I just mentioned as a fundamentalist that
	we need to think about aviation as a potential platform to
	monitor climate change mechanisms and risks both in terms of
	how we operate the airplanes but also as aviation platforms.
	And when you think about mitigations, I'm just going to
	separate them into three sort of timeframes. In the near term
	in the next 5 to 10 years we're going to have to figure out how
	to use the airplanes we have today more efficiently. You can't
	quickly--you know, even if you had a new technology, airplane
	technology, it's going to take 20 or 30 years to migrate into
	the fleet.
	So given that you have to use the existing airplanes,
	there's two sort of approaches that--one of them has already
	been mentioned. So drop-in sustainable aviation fuels are
	clearly important and can be used in our existing airplanes.
	Right now, we're limited to blends of less than 50 percent
	sustainable aviation fuels, so there's a need to get to 100
	percent so we can fully use that. The other thing you need to
	think about--again, this is a lifecycle and a system-level
	impact--is where do those fuels come from and do you have
	sustainable aviation fuel pathways that make sense from an
	overall societal standpoint?
	The second thing you can do in the near term is to fly the
	airplanes more efficiently. From a greenhouse gas emissions
	standpoint, most of the fuel is burned [inaudible] altitude
	improves or oceanic flight, so there are things that we can do
	to operate the airplanes more efficiently at altitude in terms
	of improving air traffic control, using the technologies of,
	for example, space-based surveillance to allow more direct
	routings to allow airplanes to be at their optimal speeds and
	altitudes.
	We can also slow down a little bit. It turns out we burn
	probably a little bit more fuel than we need to from the
	speeds. In the terminal area, arriving and departing, the main
	opportunity for efficiency is going to be not only efficiency
	but local air quality and noise.
	In the midterm we can think about new airplanes. And
	again, this is going to be 10 to 20 years out there. And the
	main thing we can do in R&D is to enable and de-risk new
	technologies and new configurations. NASA has shown in some
	other studies, the N+3 studies, for example, that there are
	potential for 50 to 70 percent improvement in fuel efficiency
	from new configurations, but these are too risky for industry
	to take on by themselves. [inaudible] been mentioned, I would
	say that the battery-based systems are going to be probably
	limited for short-range operations, but either hybrid systems
	or fuel cells may have some potential.
	Also in the midterm we need to think about how we scale up
	the sustainable aviation fuels to the full level. In the far
	term hydrogen might be an option. It's appealing because you
	don't have to basically put the carbon back into the fuel to
	make a synthetic electro fuel, but it's a tough problem. It's
	got a couple key areas. One is really the safety issue, so, you
	know, as we know from the images of the Hindenburg that, you
	know, hydrogen is explosive. You have to think about how do you
	protect a hydrogen airplane from, for example, a lightning
	strike and how do you inert the fuel? [inaudible]
	infrastructure of hydrogen. We have--there are design issues
	because of the way hydrogen is held and stored. And we also
	have to think about the indirect impacts of something like
	hydrogen. Hydrogen puts out more water vapor, so does that
	create, for example, more contrails where the contrails may
	actually have a knock-on effect.
	So there's a lot we can do, and I'm looking forward to the
	discussion.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansman follows:]
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Beyer. Dr. Hansman, thank you very much.
	And I now recognize Mr. Steve Csonka for your five minute
	testimony.

	TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVE CSONKA,

	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL AVIATION

	ALTERNATIVE FUELS INITIATIVE (CAAFI)

	Mr. Csonka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Esteemed Members of
	the Committee and Subcommittee, thank you for your general
	interest in aviation sustainability and your specific interest
	in sustainable aviation fuels, or SAF, and that's the
	nomenclature I'll use for the rest of this discussion with SAF
	being the sole focus of my remarks today.
	I'm going to dive right into the three themes that are
	representative of questions extended to me by Committee staff
	with respect to SAF.
	First, big question, how does SAF fit into the larger
	landscape of approaches and pathways to enable more sustainable
	aviation? I believe SAF represents the only viable approach for
	achieving any near-term, substantive, in-sector net carbon
	reduction. Further out in time, we might see more radical tech
	incorporated at rates that offset traffic growth driven by the
	aviation value paradigm. In the meantime, SAF scaling and usage
	can deliver a direct and proportional reduction in net carbon.
	SAF incorporation has no impact on any other parallel
	approaches to enable or improve sustainability via advancements
	in technology, operations, or infrastructure.
	Second question, what are the opportunities and challenges
	of SAF for reducing the aviation sector's carbon emissions? The
	opportunities include the fact that SAF is a drop-in fuel. It
	obviates the need for significant investments outside of the
	fuel production itself. Two, SAF are not hypothetical. We
	started using them commercially 5 years ago. Three, SAF are
	proven to lower net carbon emissions. Four, SAF will be free of
	sulfur and likely have lower levels of certain hydrocarbons
	responsible for tailpipe soot and criteria pollutants that
	affect air quality. Five, SAF can be produced from a very wide
	range of processes and feedstocks which recycle carbon from our
	biosphere or feedstocks from 24/7 waste streams of various
	human and circular economy industrial activities.
	On the other side of the spectrum, the challenges include
	SAF being a very nascent industry. We're just getting started,
	and every new facility is high on the cost curve. Given the
	nascent state, SAF production generally cannot compete with the
	cost of PETROJET at the current range of oil prices. The carbon
	reduction afforded by SAF is not yet broadly monetizable, and
	as a result of the inability of free-market economics to change
	this paradigm, policy is likely needed to affect change.
	Industrial system cost reductions are typically achieved
	through the continued introduction of new technology,
	utilization of lower-cost inputs, and via learning curve
	improvements and tech and supply chain scaleup. However, none
	of these can be achieved without initiating the first steps of
	expansion, again, likely only available through policy support
	and regulation.
	Third and finally, what research could be undertaken or
	accelerated by NASA and FAA to support SAF development and
	utilization to further reduce aviation environmental impacts?
	NASA has expertise in measurement analysis and characterization
	of the atmosphere and atmospheric impacts of aviation emissions
	constituents. Questions associated with SAF in these areas
	include, one, quantifying the impact of different hydrocarbon
	molecules in jet fuel, the resulting combustion constituents,
	and their contribution to greenhouse gas agents. Two, further
	work can be done on physical emissions measurements both on
	ground test and flying aloft using different formulations of
	SAF with varying chemistry. Three, work can be done to address
	the impacts and benefits of elimination of certain hydrocarbon
	compounds known to have difficulty in achieving full combustion
	and responsible for soot, PM (particulate matter), HAPS
	(hazardous air pollutants), and other things we care about.
	On the FAA side, they've been using several impactful
	programs to advance the modeling and understanding of ways to
	expedite SAF development and use, including the programs of
	ASCENT, CLEEN (Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise),
	and CAAFI. R&D associated with SAF in these areas includes,
	one, continuing to make progress on the modeling, referee test
	models, small-quantity fuel screening, clearinghouse assistance
	to continue to reduce the cost and time associated with
	industry qualification of additional SAF pathways. Using such
	models and knowledge development will help us move more quickly
	in the direction of higher allowable SAF blends or 100 percent
	SAF formulations that have been brought up a couple of times.
	Second, removing supply chain barriers through analysis,
	tool development, and facilitating broader industry engagement
	and collaboration. All of these efforts by NASA and FAA should
	foster more interest on the part of commercialization entities
	to consider SAF production by creating a better realizable
	value proposition than exists today.
	In summary, the opportunity for SAF is great. While the
	challenges for scaling remain abundant, the research
	capabilities of NASA and FAA and other agency partners are
	critical to enabling SAF maturation and improving aviation
	sustainability. Thank you for your attention, and I look
	forward to addressing your questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Csonka follows:]
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Csonka, very much.
	At this point I'd like to ask unanimous consent to include
	Congresswoman Julia Brownley of California on our Space
	Subcommittee for the purposes of this hearing. If there's no
	objection, Ms.--Julia, yesterday, by the way, gave a very
	passionate argument for SAF at a Ways and Means Committee
	Member hearing, so great to have you with us, Julia.
	Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
	Chairman Beyer. Let me begin by asking Dr. Thole. You--in
	fact, all three of you have talked about hydrogen and the
	difficulty with it, the safety, problems to be overcome. Why
	has Europe chosen hydrogen and charged forward with that when
	we've been so reluctant?
	Dr. Thole. That's a great question, Chairman Beyer. You
	know, I mean, I think that they are being pushed by Airbus,
	which is one of their manufacturers, and they have made a
	decision to go that direction. There are a lot of advantages of
	hydrogen. You know, the fuel--or the energy density content of
	hydrogen is superior, and it can be made using green
	electricity, although currently it's not, so there are a lot of
	advantages there. And I think Europe sees the advantages, and
	they are putting a lot of money into it.
	And so I can't really explain their rationale for doing
	this, but, you know, as I see it, I think there are a lot of
	challenges. There are a lot of challenges just from considering
	that the amount of space that hydrogen would require on an
	aircraft is three times larger than what we would--what we
	currently have. We have to store liquid hydrogen at minus 450
	degrees Fahrenheit, which is a challenge in itself. And----
	Chairman Beyer. And I guess all the opponents would have
	to do is say ``Hindenburg.''
	Dr. Thole. And Hindenburg, correct.
	Chairman Beyer. Dr. Thole, you--let me pivot because you
	talked a lot about design disruption. You know, the larger
	picture, moving away from SAF, and you totally confused me by
	talking about fan pressure ratio and nacelles and revolutionary
	improvements in traditional tube-and-wing platform and boundary
	layer ingestion configurations. Can you simplify that for us
	humble Members of Congress----
	Dr. Thole. Yes, so----
	Chairman Beyer. And the potential there?
	Dr. Thole. So if we want to improve the efficiency of our
	power generation on our aircraft, there's a big advantage to
	reducing fan pressure ratio and to have high bypass ratio
	engines. And so, you know, when you fly on an aircraft, right,
	and you look at the really big engines, you--they're huge. And
	right now, we're limited with the traditional tube-and-wing and
	landing gear constraints such that the nacelle can't grow any
	larger. And as the nacelle grows, in addition, you have
	additional weight and you have additional drag. So really our
	bypass ratios of our engines are somewhat limited at this
	point.
	The other alternative is to shrink the core engine, right,
	so we can shrink the core of the turbine, which allows more
	flow area, or perhaps we can develop a new overall aircraft
	propulsion integration system such that we could have
	distributed propulsion. And that's another way to do it. And
	that's what--and a disruption would be required for that.
	Chairman Beyer. Thank you. You know, I've long had an
	interest in this, and Senator Cardin and I have introduced
	legislation in the last Congress and will again, the Cleaner,
	Quieter Airplanes Act, to bolster the R&D we need for
	competitive future aviation sector. And this testimony is
	exactly what we need. And this is not accidental because I live
	about two miles from a national airport, so it's our number-one
	constituent complaint.
	Dr. Hansman, Norway is on track for full electrification
	for short-haul stuff by 2040. Do you see that electrification
	being--can we do that for short-haul? Should we be--where are
	we on electrification perspective?
	Dr. Hansman. So if you say--if by electrification you mean
	full battery, it's really going to be short-haul, but the
	problem that we have with airplanes is that airplanes have to
	carry the battery, so the figure of merit that we think about
	is something we call specific energy, the amount of energy you
	can get per unit pound. And basically the battery technology
	has been improving, driven by the automobile interest, but, you
	know, we're sort of getting to the point where it's much
	harder, and once we get to the point that it's really not an
	issue for cars, it's going to be hard to get that specific
	energy up high enough that it really makes big airplanes
	practical, particularly on even medium hauls. So I think it's a
	desirable goal, but I think it's going to be tough to do
	anything practical, right, other than relatively very short-
	range airplanes at a sort of limited scale.
	Chairman Beyer. OK, great. Thank you. My time is almost
	up, so let me yield now to our Ranking Member Dr. Babin if
	Brian is here.
	Mr. Babin. I am here. Can you hear me?
	Chairman Beyer. Yes, good, good. I can hear you, and
	charge. The floor is yours.
	Mr. Babin. OK. All right. Thank you very, very much.
	First off, I really appreciate the witnesses being here
	today. Dr. Hansman, the WTO recently ruled that Europe was
	allowed to implement $4 billion in tariffs against the United
	States, including aircraft tractors, ag products, and according
	to the World Trade Organization and the European complaint,
	this is based on NASA and FAA research and development
	subsidies, as well as tax breaks provided by the State of
	Washington. The U.S. has stated that it is now in compliance
	with the WTO order.
	Similarly, Europe claims that they are now fully compliant
	with the WTO ruling that allowed the U.S. to impose $7.5
	billion on European products despite the U.S. Trade
	Representative (USTR) arguing that they are not. NASA and FAA
	subsidies are small compared to the significant loan guarantees
	provided by European nations to Airbus.
	Given the fact that U.S. industry funds most of the $15
	billion annually spent on aviation research and development and
	that aviation is one of the largest sources of U.S. exports
	accounting for $148 billion in 2019 alone, is the small funding
	from NASA and the FAA worth the headache that it creates in
	terms of international trade and overall economic health of the
	U.S., Dr. Hansman?
	Chairman Beyer. Dr. Hansman, you're muted for the moment.
	Dr. Hansman. Sorry about that. Yes, I think there are some
	things that need to be funded by the either FAA or NASA. On the
	FAA side--and Steve talked about this a little bit--there's a
	need to fund those things that allow us to determine whether we
	can, for example, use synthetic or sustainable aviation fuels
	safely, so we have to think about the certification processes,
	so there's clearly a role there.
	There's a general role for NASA to be doing fundamental
	research that enables the knowledge and understanding of the
	mechanism, so there's clearly benefit to us. If we want to move
	the system to a more sustainable system, it won't be done by
	the industry alone.
	One of the things we did a few years ago, one of my
	students did a game theory analysis of, you know, what would
	incentivize improving the efficiency of airplanes? And it turns
	out it's very hard to take the risk and development time to do
	an airplane which would be fundamentally better. We know we can
	get 50 percent, 70 percent improvement in efficiency, OK, but
	this is too big a risk for an individual company to take on its
	own, so you need to do the underlying research to de-risk
	[inaudible] validation.
	Mr. Babin. OK. Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
	And, Dr. Thole, the market has already responded to
	sustainable aviation challenges, and companies continue to
	pivot operations. Flights today produce 50 percent less
	CO<INF>2</INF> as the same flight did in 1990, and each new
	generation of aircraft leads to a 15 to 25 percent improvement
	in efficiency per passenger mile. The vast preponderance of the
	$15 billion a year spent on aviation efficiency research and
	development is funded by the private sector.
	In January of 2021 the Boeing Company, a leading
	manufacturer of commercial jets, announced that they will begin
	delivering commercial airplanes capable of flying on 100
	percent biofuel by the end of the decade. Airlines for America,
	the U.S. airline trade group, pledged to improve fuel economy
	by 1.5 percent a year, have carbon-neutral growth by 2020, and
	reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 2050 relative to 2005
	levels.
	In August of 2020, the energy company Phillips 66
	announced plans to convert a facility in Rodeo, California,
	into the world's largest renewable fuels plant to support
	growing demands for these types of fuels. These impressive
	steps were taken by the U.S. private sector on their very own.
	How can we maintain this positive momentum and focus
	academia and industry efforts to solve this challenge? What
	high-risk, high-reward research should NASA support that
	industry is unable or uninterested in conducting? And what are
	the highest-priority safety research areas tied to sustainable
	aviation that the FAA should focus on?
	Dr. Thole. I think during my talk I actually outlined some
	of those, so, for example, if we focus particularly on thermal
	efficiencies and improving thermal efficiencies, I think there
	are a lot of areas that we can work on in particular looking at
	high-temperature materials. The other thing I'd want to point
	out is--Mr. Babin is that----
	Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am.
	Dr. Thole [continuing]. The amount of time to develop
	these new solutions is too long right now. It is--it takes a
	long time to develop new solutions. Part of that is because of
	our manufacturing requirements. The United States is one of the
	few countries in the world that can actually cast turbine
	blades, but those turbine blades come at a cost in terms of
	time and in terms of money. And I think that we need to develop
	better ways to do faster manufacturing and evaluate innovative
	solutions faster.
	I think academia has a large role to play. We usually
	generally focus on lower technology readiness levels. We--for
	successful universities to work in this field, we work closely
	with industry. This is not a field that you fund through the
	FAA or NASA without a partnership between the Federal agency,
	the university, and industry. If you want to be successful in
	this field, you have to work with industry. And many of our
	universities do. So the dollars you spend in research are not
	going into esoteric studies. They're going into real studies.
	Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Thole. And thank you, Dr.
	Babin.
	Mr. Babin. Thank you. My time is up, and I yield back.
	Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. My connectivity and my video have gone
	down the tubes here, and I don't know how much time I've spent
	or have any left at all, so I apologize.
	Chairman Beyer. That's all right. Thank you. Thank you,
	Dr. Babin.
	Let me now recognize Dr. Bera from California.
	Mr. Bera. Great. Great, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I may have--
	I've got poor internet connection right now as well, so let me
	know if my audio is not great.
	A question for Dr. Thole. You talked a little bit about
	turbo-electric. If you can kind of expand on that compared to,
	you know, the battery-charged electric and then also the role
	of maybe hybrid technologies as, you know, I think about the
	car I bought 15 years ago, it was a hybrid vehicle, and the
	next car I'll buy will be all electric and, you know, what role
	hybrid technology may play. So, Dr. Thole.
	Dr. Thole. Yes, that's a great question. So there's a
	spectrum, right? There's the conventional gas turbines that
	operate today that--the next phase off of that is what I would
	call turbo-electrics. Turbo electrics do not require batteries
	or fuel cells, but they do require motor generators and all of
	the auxiliary equipment along with that, and what they enable
	is a concept that I talked about earlier which is distributed
	propulsion, and that can have significant benefits or at least
	we believe that it will have significant benefits in overall
	reducing the amount of fuel needs. So that's the turbo-electric
	class.
	Then if you go to the next class, you have the hybrid
	electric class of engines or potential solutions. There are
	also a range of those. Generally, those still require a gas
	turbine as the power plant most likely, but perhaps a battery
	would be also put into the overall propulsion system to provide
	some power maybe during takeoff when more power is needed and
	so forth. So there are a lot of different hybrid electric
	architectures that are feasible, and companies are looking at a
	range of different architectures right now to see the
	tradeoffs.
	And then finally, you go to the last step, and the last
	step is maybe addressing your next car needs, and that's fully
	electric. And as already was mentioned I think by some of the
	other Committee Members, fully electric is a big challenge for
	large aircraft. And if you remember, 90 percent of the CO<INF>2</INF>
	emissions is coming from the large aircraft. To scale batteries
	and fuel cells to large aircraft, we do not see a path for that
	right now because if you look at the current energy density of
	batteries and what it would take to get there to implement
	solutions by 2050, there--it would require a major--you know, a
	major discovery, and we don't project that right now.
	Mr. Bera. Maybe for----
	Dr. Thole. I hope that answers your question.
	Mr. Bera. It does. And maybe for all the witnesses, then
	how should we be thinking about this as Congress? What are the
	investments we should be making if we're looking at turbo-
	electric as, you know, kind of the next step in reducing
	emissions and then, you know, the investments we might be
	thinking about making in hybrid electric if those are the more
	feasible paths and which of you----
	Dr. Thole. So the good news here is that both for turbo-
	electrics and hybrid electrics, considering that the gas
	turbine is still going to be the power plant, any investments
	that can be made in that area to increase the thermal
	efficiency is going to be--is going to impact both, the success
	of both.
	In addition, the research that is needed to do the
	propulsion aircraft integration will also impact both areas, so
	I think that is a key area to invest in.
	Dr. Hansman. Yes, I think the--one way to think of it is
	that these new hybrid electric or turbo-electric have to buy
	their way onto the airplane, so they either have to bring in
	[inaudible] efficiencies. So when we think about efficiency,
	there's something called the Breguet range equation, so you
	either have to improve the aerodynamics or you improve the
	energy consumption of the engines. So one of the nice things
	about particularly hybrid is you don't have to have a big
	engine for takeoff. Today, we [inaudible] because they have to
	be [inaudible] get away with a smaller engine so it might be
	more efficient. So we need to think about all of those pathways
	from the entire airplane system and how does the propulsion
	system improve the entire [inaudible].
	Mr. Bera. Right. And, Mr. Csonka, if you want to add
	something?
	Chairman Beyer. Mr. Csonka, you're muted for the moment.
	Mr. Csonka. My apologies. I would say the hybrid
	propulsion actually is the--a good first step that puts us on a
	pathway to expanding opportunities for other technologies down
	the road. So when you start the development of the hardware
	required to handle more electric power on the aircraft, you
	open the door up to the potential hybrid, and you potentially
	open the door up to further--more fully electric aircraft that
	don't appear to be on the horizon right now. So that's clearly
	where it has been a focus of NASA work over the last couple
	years, and that clearly would suggest continued effort because
	it's a good first step for the--for pathways that lie in our
	future but still remain somewhat uncertain.
	Mr. Bera. Great. And I see I'm out of time. Mr. Chairman,
	I'll yield back.
	Chairman Beyer. OK. Thank you, Dr. Bera.
	I now recognize the--Mr. Posey from Florida, who will be
	followed by Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Posey, the floor is yours. And
	you are muted.
	Mr. Posey. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
	for holding this hearing.
	I fully support the use of technologies to reduce
	emissions but have concerns for using feedstocks from crops and
	for the use of sustainable aviation fuels. My concern is that
	here we have, as in other parts of the world, we're devoting an
	increasing amount of land and resources to nonfood crops such
	as ethanol and now sustainable aviation fuels. You know, simply
	put, I think we should be growing crops for food and not for
	fuel.
	I recently was shown a white paper on sustainable aviation
	fuels from the International Council on Clean Transportation
	(ICCT) March of 2021, and the paper contained the following
	statement that I'd like to share with you. ``Increased demand
	for biofuels made from crops grown on dedicated cropland such
	as wheat or palm may displace commodity used for food and feed
	and increase the total agricultural area needed to meet the
	demand. The conversion of high-carbon stock forest, natural
	lands, and pastures to agriculture to meet the increased demand
	would release carbon from distributed biomass in soil and
	thereby would generate indirect emissions attributable to those
	biofuels.'' Those type of things often get forgotten and
	overlooked in the process.
	Mr. Csonka, in your testimony you state, ``Sustainable
	aviation fuels is not yet broadly monetizable and as a result
	of the inability of the free-market economics to change this
	paradigm, policy is likely needed to affect the change.'' Would
	one policy include a new renewable fuel standard (RFS) that
	would mandate volume production levels for sustainable aviation
	fuels, as happened with the ethanol fuels?
	Mr. Csonka. So let me address the first part of your
	question first. Yes, I understand ICC's position. I would
	suggest that that's somewhat of an alarmist position for an
	entity that's interested in other solutions for aviation. And
	what I would also say to you is that there are no crops being
	grown today for the production of SAF. It's fairly limited in
	supply.
	But I think the more interesting perspective, Mr. Posey,
	is that we--the aviation industry is very attuned to the
	criticisms associated with things that have happen in the past
	with respect to sustainability of feedstocks, and so it may
	surprise you that, as we look at the use of waste streams
	alone, municipal solid waste, forestry waste residues, wood
	processing waste, ag waste, waste food production oils,
	industrial off gases, and some amount of oil coming from crops
	that actually don't contribute to indirect land-use change can
	supply the full amount of fuel that we need for aviation.
	That's without dedicated energy crops. And the aviation
	industry is clearly focused where we need to be with respect to
	dedicated energy crops on ones that address sustainability.
	Secondly, with respect to the issue of policy, there are a
	lot of policy elements. Jet fuel actually does--is able to take
	advantage of RFS policy at it exists today, as well as tax
	treatment from a blenders tax credit perspective and things
	like the California low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) and other
	mechanisms in other parts of the world. So the policy does
	exist.
	Would the production of SAF benefit from refinements to
	those policies? Absolutely, and there is a clear effort right
	now in Congress to address perhaps the first challenge that the
	industry sees as trying to level the playing field between the
	production of sustainable aviation fuel and the production of
	renewable diesel. I just added up the statistics this morning.
	There are 6.9 billion gallons of renewable diesel capacity
	being planned today. That technology is completely applicable
	to the production of SAF. The issue for--the reason why that
	production is targeted to diesel is that diesel enjoys benefits
	from that policy that SAF doesn't, and so a blenders tax credit
	specific to aviation fuel is being proposed for renewable
	diesel to level that playing field and see some of that 7
	billion gallons of fuel production come in the direction of
	sustainable aviation fuel.
	Mr. Posey. I see my time is expired, so I yield back.
	Thank you very much.
	Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Posey. And, Mr. Csonka,
	thank you for that very clear description of where those
	biofuels are coming from. It was a fairly effective response to
	Dr. Babin's opening statement, so thank you.
	I'd now like to recognize Mr. Perlmutter, who will be
	followed by Congresswoman Young Kim from California. So, Mr.
	Perlmutter, the floor is yours.
	Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
	And this is to Dr. Hansman and Mr. Csonka. And it's--I'm
	coming at it a little different angle here. I'll give you some
	background. I've been working on helicopter fuel systems for
	the last few years. We've seen in--there's--the fuel systems
	have been very fragile. If there have been accidents, the
	helicopter blows up, burns everybody. And we recognized this
	back during the Vietnam War, and the military changed their
	fuel systems. But commercially, we haven't really done much
	until just now. There have been some very well-known high-
	publicity kinds of accidents where people were killed, and I
	guess what I'm saying is I just--it's hard--and, Dr. Thole, you
	were talking about this. How long, given the fleets that are
	out there, will it take to retool and revamp our engine systems
	for sustainability? I'm just trying to get new fuel systems in
	helicopters for safety purposes.
	So, Dr. Hansman, you started off talking about how long it
	will take to retool the entire fleet, so can you and Mr. Csonka
	and Dr. Thole expand on that for me, please?
	Dr. Hansman. Sure. So if--one way to think of it is if a
	brand-new technology came in, so if you go back and look
	historically at the jet engine, when the jet engine came in, it
	took 20 to 25 years for most of the airplanes flying to be jet
	aircraft. So in--another way to think of it is a commercial
	transport airplane is like a factory, so you're not going to
	throw away that factory. In fact, we don't have the capability
	to reproduce it. So even if you had the airplane ready to go
	and certified, it would take 20 years to propagate into the
	system.
	Now, let's step back and look at what it would take to get
	that airplane available. You need to design the airplane
	[inaudible] certification. One of the reasons--pardon me--why
	we are hesitant to go to new technologies is there's a huge
	risk in certification. If you go to a totally new technology,
	you don't necessarily know what will be--we need to do to make
	it fully safe, so it's easier to go to an existing--what Karen
	mentioned as a tube-and-wind configuration. We know how to do
	that. We know how to do the structures. We certainly know how
	to do the engines. So in order to stimulate a kind of
	revolution in--there are things we know we can do to make the
	airplanes much better, but nobody's going to take the risk. So
	this is really where we have to, as a collective, sort of go
	into that.
	So, now, the sustainable aviation fuels or the alternative
	fuels are a little bit easier because they can be used, as
	Steve said, as a drop-in, but you need to make sure that
	they're safe, so one of the challenges to go to 100 percent
	today is to make sure you haven't introduced a problem like
	leaking C-fuels or whatever that come due to the chemistry of
	the fuels. So we need, you know, to look at it as sort of a
	long-term process, all of the steps. We need to do what we can
	in the short term, but we need to invest to get the risk down
	so we can make the changes in the long term.
	Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So let me turn to Mr. Csonka
	for a second. So in my helicopter example, the military made
	changes 50 years ago. Commercially, we haven't made any
	changes, but now we're changing the fuel systems in new
	helicopters, but we still need to go retool the current fleets.
	So how would your drop-in fuels--I mean, what kinds of things
	do we have to worry about with your approach? And you're muted.
	Mr. Csonka. Yes. Yes, thanks. Thanks for the question. So
	the short answer is you have to take no changes with respect to
	the current or legacy or future fleet. The thing we have to
	keep in mind is that jet fuel is an extremely efficient,
	extremely safe fuel system. It's an energy system. And it's
	actually quite unparalleled. We've talked about hydrogen and
	other things, and there are tradeoffs associated with those. So
	jet fuel works.
	I think a lot of the changes that you're talking about are
	actually changes to the infrastructure of the vehicle itself,
	to delivery systems, fuel protection systems, et cetera. The
	beauty of a SAF approach is that all of that stuff can happen
	in parallel with the continued introduction of sustainable
	aviation fuel. And the reason that that can happen in parallel
	is because these molecules that we're producing synthetically,
	they are identical to the molecules that you find in jet fuel.
	There are no differences. We're not introducing something new.
	We're not introducing an ethanol molecule to a gasoline pool or
	a fatty acid methyl ester to a diesel pool. These are jet fuel
	molecules. So drop in, no change is required, it continues to
	enable the safety and efficiency in the system that we've come
	to know and love.
	Dr. Thole. If I could also say something unless the time
	is up.
	Chairman Beyer. Dr. Thole, go ahead, please.
	Dr. Thole. I--you know, I appreciate what Dr. Hansman said
	and, you know, he gave your timescale, but I also want to point
	to a counterexample. In 2016, Pratt & Whitney offered the gear
	turbofan. The gear turbofan reduces the amount of fuel needed
	by aircraft by about 100 gallons of fuel per hour, which is
	significant. Since 2016, there are already 10,000 engine orders
	for that engine. I can point to an equally successful program,
	the LEAP (Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion) program on the GE
	side, so the market is very hungry for this.
	While it will take some time to infiltrate the entire
	market, there are some success stories out there that are
	recent success stories that aircraft, as Chairman Beyer pointed
	out, you know, airlines are spending a lot of money on fuel,
	and so with fuel savings, they're going to buy these new
	engines, for example. Thank you.
	Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you very much. Thanks to our
	witnesses. I yield back.
	Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
	I now recognize and welcome to the Science Committee and
	the Space Subcommittee Congresswoman Kim. The floor is yours.
	Ms. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Beyer. I'd like to go
	directly to the questions and to all our witnesses. I want to
	thank you for joining us. This is a very enlightening session
	for me.
	You know, NASA Aeronautics in southern California has
	played a leading role in the new X-Plane flight demonstrators,
	including electric propulsion and low boom supersonic flight
	demonstrators. As NASA prepares to launch a new transonic
	truss-braced wing flight demonstrator, how can a national
	subsonic demonstrator support and accelerate adoption of
	innovative new structures, composites, and propulsion systems
	for commercial aviation that can help increase efficiency and
	reduce emissions?
	Dr. Hansman. So let me start on that. I think that the
	role of the X-Planes is to demonstrate the technology and
	provide a basis to de-risk it, to allow the industry to
	actually move forward on that. So the--the X-Planes, for
	example, the transonic truss-braced wing, it's not just that
	transonic wing, it's the set of tests that would be done on the
	airplane that would provide the basis. It would allow you to
	both design and certify airplanes in the future. So, again,
	it's--NASA is not a manufacturer. They're not trying to push an
	idea. They should be trying to do the knowledge discovery, the
	engineering that would support us in actually investing and
	making a new airplane configuration going forward.
	So I think it's an important role because there is--you
	know, these things take a long time and they're expensive to do
	these big test airplanes and to do the engineering right and
	get the information.
	Dr. Thole. Yes, I think the only thing I would add is I
	think the role of NASA is really critical in making sure that
	this industry take risks and can demonstrate risky
	technologies. And I think that's where NASA, again, working
	with the industries and universities, can play a major role.
	Ms. Kim. All right. I'll go to next question, actually,
	Dr. Thole, since you talked in your testimony, you remind us
	that China and the E.U. are also racing to develop sustainable
	aviation solutions. So what actions are currently taking place
	to ensure that the U.S. is a leader in sustainable aviation
	technologies, and where are further investments needed to
	remain competitive?
	Dr. Thole. Yes, so I will start off by telling you a
	little story, and I put this in my testimonial. You know, I
	have been approached on numerous occasions by colleagues in
	China working at very highly respected universities asking for
	me to work with them directly. And I was opened and--you know,
	given an opportunity to have an open spigot of money on any
	research I wanted to do. And so, you know, I didn't take that
	money and--because I am fortunate to be--you know, be well-
	funded by the--by industry as well as by FAA, NASA, and the
	Department of Energy. And so what's very key and what's
	important for us to develop a competitive workforce in this
	area and for us to keep that--to keep universities working in
	the space is to make sure that NASA Aeronautics is funded at a
	heavy rate, the FAA, the ASCENT program, which I also am a part
	of, you know, is funded at a high rate and particularly also
	the U.S. Department of Energy. So those--you know, those
	Federal funding agencies play a key role in making sure that,
	you know, we do maintain some--you know, some--we maintain
	leadership in the aviation industry.
	Ms. Kim. Thank you.
	Dr. Hansman. Yes, I think--sorry.
	Ms. Kim. Go ahead.
	Dr. Hansman. No, I was going to say I think we need to
	think about this strategically, so as Karen indicates, we need
	to make this as a strategic investment. [inaudible].
	Ms. Kim. Well, thank you. I wanted to put in the last
	thoughts and maybe if there was time I would like to hear your
	thoughts as well. You know, regarding the former U.S. Trade
	Representative Robert Lighthizer, he recently stated in an
	interview with Reuters that the U.S. and Europe should agree to
	cooperate in opposing any future hurtful subsidies used by
	China to buildup its commercial aircraft industry. And Mr.
	Lighthizer expressed frustration that current WTO rules would
	not prevent future subsidies by the European Union or China. So
	can you explain what can the U.S. do domestically to prevent
	predatory trade practices by other nations? Anyone can answer.
	Dr. Hansman. I think we're not experts on WTO policies.
	Dr. Thole. I would agree. We're not--I'm not an expert in
	this, so I----
	Ms. Kim. OK.
	Chairman Beyer. Congresswoman Kim, that may be a better
	question for the record, but----
	Ms. Kim. Yes.
	Chairman Beyer [continuing]. We'll get you to ask it as a
	Ways and Means Committee.
	Ms. Kim. I know my time is up, so if I can get an answer
	at a later time, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
	I yield back.
	Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much.
	I now recognize Congresswoman Lofgren, Chairman of the
	House Administration Committee and many other things.
	Ms. Lofgren. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. This
	has been an interesting hearing.
	And as everyone probably knows, I represent San Jose,
	California, and the San Francisco Bay area is very much on
	board with sustainable aviation fuel. In fact, I believe or
	have been told that two California airports, San Francisco and
	LAX, actually dispense most of the sustainable aviation fuel in
	use today.
	Now, I think part of the reason for that is the California
	Air Resources Board addition of sustainable aviation fuels as
	an eligible credit generator to the carbon--low-carbon fuel
	standard program, but there are still, I think, a few other
	barriers. And I'm interested--I probably--Mr. Csonka, you might
	be best to answer this but maybe others have comments, too.
	What can be done to reduce the price of SAF's as it compares to
	conventional jet fuel? And would Federal policy creating
	something like the California credit be part of that price
	reduction?
	Mr. Csonka. Thank you very much. And yes, absolutely.
	First, I concur with your belief and statement that the
	introduction of fuel to California airports of SAF is directly
	attributable to the policy associated with low-carbon fuel
	standard. And so in the comments that I made earlier about the
	need for policy to change the paradigm that exists in the
	marketplace today with carbon reduction not being recognized or
	monetizable, the California low-carbon fuel standard clearly
	does that, and it's--it has absolutely been responsible for the
	introduction of that fuel.
	There are other likely policy mechanisms that can come
	into play. Those--and there have been several think tanks and
	other folks who have looked at additional mechanisms for
	different kinds of policy support that could be brought into
	play. I'll refer you to the Atlantic Council's look at policy
	applicable to sustainable aviation fuel. But yes, a national
	LCFS system could address issues associated with potential
	shortfalls to the existing RFS policy. It can do some other
	things like level the playing field between all airlines with
	respect to whether one airline wants to be more progressive
	with SAF usage and another doesn't and helps create a level
	playing field there. So yes, there clearly are opportunities
	for mechanisms.
	The reason that the industry is clearly behind the
	blenders tax credit at present is to address this disparity
	with respect to existing policy between diesel and jet fuel but
	also because it's near term. We understand economics associated
	with producing fuel in California under the LCFS and with the
	existing non-level playing field, and the blenders tax credit
	proposal addresses that issue specifically.
	What becomes harder is something like what Congresswoman
	Brownley has proposed is a longer-term strategy for what
	actually moves us further in the direction of long term
	addressing these issues, and that's where it becomes very gray
	because we don't know, as an industry, what happens if RFS gets
	redone in some fashion. You know, what might happen at the
	Federal level to bring in new policy elements? And will
	significant regulation that requires multiple years be required
	to introduce that kind of legislation? So it's one of those
	things of, you know, a bird in the hand is worth two in the
	bush. That's why we have the focus on BTC today, and tomorrow,
	it becomes much less clear to us what appropriate policy
	mechanisms might be.
	Ms. Lofgren. I wonder if--you know, this has been a useful
	hearing for me to hear that, you know, a molecule is a molecule
	is the same as the other jet fuel, so what's the reason behind
	the current 50 percent blend limit?
	Mr. Csonka. So I said that all of the molecules in SAF are
	molecules that are currently found in jet fuel but not
	necessarily all of the molecules that are found in jet fuel.
	That's the difference. So we established initially a blending
	limitation to ensure that the full suite of molecules that
	we've been operating off of for the last six, seven decades
	still remains in jet fuel while we continue to learn more in
	this sector.
	The good news is or the bad news is the first couple
	pathways were limited in how much--how identical they were to
	the jet fuel they were replacing. We've got a couple pathways
	now. One's already approved and a couple or more on the way
	that now are producing a nearly identical replication of the
	full suite of molecules that we find in petroleum jet fuel, so
	those create the basis for us over the next couple of years to
	increase the SAF blending limit from its 50 percent maximum
	level today to perhaps fully drop-in 100 percent synthetic
	fuels tomorrow. And we're working diligently on the foundation
	of that strategy.
	Ms. Lofgren. Well, my time is expired, but let me just say
	I think that is exciting news given the role that aviation
	plays in climate change.
	So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much.
	Chairman Beyer. And thank you, Chairman Lofgren.
	And now one of our greatest enthusiasts of SAFs,
	Congresswoman Brownley from California.
	Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
	Ranking Member also for allowing me to participate in today's
	hearing.
	You know, I have been working on this issue and have
	reintroduced a bill that has a number of different policy
	mechanisms, including grants, tax credits, standards, as well
	as R&D funding.
	And I'm grateful for Mr. Csonka here today. Full
	disclosure, he has been extraordinarily helpful to my office in
	crafting legislation, so I'm greatly, greatly appreciative.
	And so, Mr. Csonka, my first question is to you. You know,
	as you know, my bill would fund a number of research priorities
	that industry experts have told me are important issues in need
	of more study. So one of these priorities is developing SAF
	that can be used without blending with fossil jet fuel. Another
	is studying the climate impacts of non-CO<INF>2</INF>
	greenhouse gas emissions from jet fuels like water vapor or
	contrails. What are these--why are these important research
	priorities for the industry?
	Mr. Csonka. So the first one is I personally answered that
	in the last question which is if we know that we need to count
	on sustainable aviation fuels to deliver carbon reductions that
	the industry has signed up for, that policymakers might be
	interested in, we need to remove artificial barriers long term,
	right? So external fans or foes of what we're doing [inaudible]
	look at the 50 percent blending limit as a hurdle, a limitation
	on how much benefit we can actually get from SAF. And so we're
	interested in removing those kinds of carriers and hurdles,
	letting the world know that, yes, we can go beyond the 50
	percent blend level.
	And so if we produce a fuel that delivers an 80 percent
	net lifecycle carbon reduction and we're able to use it at a 50
	percent level to get a 40 percent reduction, if we're able to
	use it at a 100 percent as a full drop-in, we get that full 80
	percent reduction. So that's why we're focused on that. And
	there is some more research and development activity that needs
	to occur that builds on work of the last five years through the
	National Jet Fuel Combustion Program and other work of NASA and
	FAA to continue to ensure that we move from the paradigm that
	we're in today, 50 percent maximum levels to 100 percent max
	levels.
	Ms. Brownley. I've got a couple more questions
	[inaudible].
	Chairman Beyer. Go ahead.
	Ms. Brownley. So, you know, to all the panelists, I just
	wanted to ask a very quick question and that in your opinion do
	we need more research before SAF is ready to be deployed at
	scale? Just yes or no.
	Dr. Hansman. Yes.
	Mr. Csonka. Yes.
	Dr. Thole. Yes. Yes.
	Mr. Csonka. Yes.
	Ms. Brownley. OK. And, you know, I guess I would like to
	delve into that deeper by your answers, but I don't think I
	have enough time, so I'll talk to you later about it.
	And the last question before I run out of time here is,
	Dr. Thole, you talked about China and the European Union. I was
	just wondering if you could tell me, you know, where is--we
	sort of--I think in this hearing sort of disclosed and
	uncovered where the United States is with SAF at this
	particular point and where it might be going in the nearest
	future, so where is exactly China and the European Union on SAF
	production?
	Dr. Thole. Yes, I think I will have to defer to Steve on
	this one. He probably is more aware of that than I am in terms
	of----
	Ms. Brownley. So you have talked more about hydrogen and
	other technologies, where they are ahead?
	Dr. Thole. They--oh, yes, that's right. They have made a
	committed effort to hydrogen right now, a significant financial
	commitment, and they are plowing ahead.
	Ms. Brownley. OK. So----
	Dr. Thole. And China on the--you know, what China is doing
	is they are developing an aviation ecosystem, right? Everything
	from airframers to engine companies and everything in between,
	so----
	Ms. Brownley. Very good. So, Mr. Csonka, is China doing
	SAF production as part of their portfolio here? No, none?
	Mr. Csonka. They are not.
	Ms. Brownley. OK.
	Mr. Csonka. They've done some demonstration work only.
	Europe produces about half, America produces about half of
	what's being produced today.
	Ms. Brownley. Very good. Well, it looks like my time is
	up. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me--this has
	been a great hearing, and I yield back.
	Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congresswoman Brownley, very
	much. And I'd really like to thank all of you.
	Dr. Thole, we heard your name pronounced six different
	ways today, which is fun, but----
	Dr. Thole. That's OK. I think I've answered to all of
	them, so I hope it's OK. It's Thole. It's Thole, but that's
	fine.
	Chairman Beyer. And I for one have been really impressed
	by the incredible range of knowledge that all three of you have
	brought to this, so I'm very, very grateful.
	I would like to ask for unanimous consent to introduce a
	letter from BIO that was sent and has been reviewed by
	Republican staff, so if no concerns, it will be part of the
	record.
	There--I think Members have two weeks to submit other
	additional statements, and we will try to get Congresswoman Kim
	an answer on USTR Lighthizer's concerns about China and its
	progress.
	So with that, I want to thank you very much again for
	being part of this, and I bring this meeting to a close. Thank
	you all for your testimony. Have a good, good spring and
	goodbye.
	[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was
	adjourned.]

	Appendix I

	----------


	Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Appendix II

	----------


	Additional Material for the Record
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>