 It's so great, of course, to be invited to a session like this. There's a lot of people who I think can contribute to some of the most important problems on Earth, including my friend and colleague, Sunita, is here. So when I get to go before Sunita, I know I've been invited to a good event. And I like to go before her because her presentations are better than mine always. So that's good. I can't speak to you with the same depth as many of the professors can speak to you about individual items. I'm going to try to take a broad look. It's what MBAs do, and it's certainly what CEOs do. We take broad looks, and then we sort of tell people to handle it. But and I don't mean to be glib about that. I just mean to say what I'll hopefully give you is a broad perspective about how industry is looking at things, and then you can take it from there. Before I do that, though, I'm going to do just a brief introduction. I just kind of want you to know like where I come from and what matters to me because I think it forms probably give you some context into why I'm doing what I'm doing. And then I'll talk just a very briefly about Cummins. I promise it's not going to be an ad, but many of you probably know Cummins as an diesel engine company. So you might be, why are they at a hydrogen conference? So I thought I might just say two seconds about that. And then I'll get into hydrogen, et cetera. OK, so introducing myself. The older I get, the more I like to use 10-year-old pictures of me to introduce myself. I'd just like to remind myself and others that I was young once. But that's me at 10 with my mom and my brother. We grew up just down the road. I went to elementary school at Willow Elementary School, which is at the other end of University Avenue before you cross 101. And my mom and dad were both from homes where they left before high school was over. And they married very young. They met at San Jose State University and got married very young. And I was born not too long after they were married. And so they had a, how do I describe it, tumultuous early years in their marriage. And it ended abruptly after six years. So my parents were divorced when I was just six. And my brother was two. And then my mom was on her own. And she had just finished a year of school. She moved in with another family. So there was another divorcee with two kids. So we were like the Brady bunch, but with divorcee moms. It was an interesting group. We all stayed in bunk beds. That's when we went to James Flood School. But the point is, my mom had to figure out how to raise these two unruly children. You can see we had not combed our hair all year. That's the best looking picture we had from this year, by the way. But she did. She went back to college at night. She got her occupational therapy degree. We were on welfare during several of those years. And she used government services to support her, but still kept going to school and working all the time, working. And because of that, I stand before you. So I just wanted to just note the fact that I come from a place where I think my mom really kind of lifted us. And without that, I just appreciate the fact that I'm here because others helped, I guess. And that's kind of where I start my, how I think about my obligations as a CEO and a leader are to recognize that not everybody starts from the same spot. And we have to figure out what we're going to do to give everyone a shot to become their own personal CEO or whatever is they want to do. This is my family today. Two daughters, they're to my left and right there at this table. We had this wonderful bubble inside of a tragedy, which was COVID-19, that my daughters both are grown. They're out there. We had to go through that whole empty nest syndrome where they left and our wonderful daughters left and did what they're supposed to do is get a job and work and support themselves. And they lived in New York City. And New York City was, as you know, one of the ground zero areas in the US when COVID. So they all said, we need to leave. And they drove home and spent five months with us, with their boyfriends, a roommate, and a cat. And fortunately, I had to upgrade my internet right before they came. So we had really good internet. And we all worked in there from work from home. And so as a CEO, I learned about why working from home works. I learned about how to get along together as a family. I learned about their boyfriends. Their boyfriends lived with us for five months. Think about that for just a second. The chances that I would live with my girlfriend's parents for five months were no chance. There was no chance I was going to do that. And they did. They did. He made music in the basement. And the other one worked online. So it was amazing. It was amazing. It was the most remarkable five months of my entire life. I'm so grateful for it. So it's just an interesting silver lining in a pretty terrible cloud. So Cummins is 60,000 people. So very global. We're pretty much everywhere in the world. And we're there because we spent 25 years trying to get everywhere in the world. And we started our effort in that in the early 60s. So we started going abroad from the US in the early 60s. And the reason is that diesel engines had significant economies of scale, especially in R&D. If we could spend a lot of money developing engines, we could then sell. And we could sell more. We could spend more. That was essentially the idea. The more we can sell, the more we can spend. Because everybody made their own. Everybody made their own. When Cummins started 100 years ago, everybody made their own gasoline engines. And nobody wanted a diesel engine. And we were the startup company that said, no, you should use a diesel engine in the US anyway. We licensed it, of course, from MAN and Rudolph Diesel in Germany. But anyway, once we got it here, we were the company trying to start to get everyone to do diesel. And then fast forward, many, many years later, our goal was to keep spending to develop technology. Eventually, it was all about air emissions. Once the Clean Air Act started, we needed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year figuring out how to get nitrous oxide and sulfur oxide out of our exhaust. And the more we spent, the better we could do it. So we were trying to always go global. So we're all over the world. We have a lot of people. But interestingly enough, as much as we did all that, we have now doubled our R&D spending in the last six years. And the reason is that our industry is changing fast. How many of you think by 2050, there will be still diesel engines running in the world? Raise your hand. OK, that's not bad. That's actually more than the average crowd, by the way. Even fewer, say that. My estimate is not very many. Doesn't mean zero, maybe, but not very many. And by not very many, I mean 5%. It was the number that are today, maybe. So it's buggy whip. So it's going out of fashion. So we had to figure out how to do it. So we are now spending on technologies for diesel engines the same amount as we're spending for diesel engines every year. We basically double our spending. And guess how many new customers we'll have in trucks and buses and all that? It's none. It's the same number. We're developing three powertrains for pretty much every vehicle, which from a financial point of view isn't awesome, as you'd guess. So that's an interesting challenge. We can come back and talk about that if you want to. But lots of R&D. And we are scaled to spend a lot in R&D. That's how we're built. OK, I'm pressing the laser. So like a lot of companies, Cummins has a zero carbon pledge. And again, many of you probably read these and go, yeah, right. I think for us, we have a mission statement. It's the one up on the left. It's making people's lives better by powering a more prosperous world. That's our mission statement. And when we did our work after the Clean Air Act to clean up our engines and develop technology that we could sell around the world, essentially it saved the company. And we were OK. But every other year, the truck market would fall. We would lose money. Then we'd make some money and lose some money. So we were the number one diesel supplier in the US. And we basically lost money or got close to losing money every three or four years. So really not that profitable a company. And when we invested to take criteria pollutants out of diesel and then sold it globally, we became profitable and have been profitable ever since. So I guess the point is that our company figured out how to make cleaning up things make us more profitable, if you know what I mean. That was our lesson from that. And so since our mission statement has always been about trying to figure out how to innovate and make the world a better place, the question is how to line up our business strategy with our mission statement with sustainability. And climate change essentially allowed us to do that. So we've pretty much aligned the entire company strategy around trying to figure out how to make technologies that make it a more sustainable planet. You'll see we have our own take on that. So us doing the 2050 pledge was essentially us restructuring the strategy of the company. It was a big deal for us. And we organized it, as almost all companies do, we looked at our facilities and our supply chain like everybody else does, and taking out plastics and doing all those other good things that everyone should do, by the way. And then we also looked at the communities and figured out we operate in a lot of places in the world where there's no water. Most of the countries we operate in, women do not have the same opportunities as men. So we have initiatives in our communities to try to make them better, economically viable, more sustainable places. But really our game in climate change is our products. 98.7% of our carbon impact is by our products. And we are a measurable amount. Diesel engines, for sure, and Cummins diesel engines are a measurable amount of carbon in the atmosphere. So we have to, if we don't move, it's kind of like, I don't know what I say to my grandkids about that. Not acceptable. So we have to move. And so destination zero, because of course we all have to have good tagline, destination zero is our thing to get our products down to meet our carbon, our zero carbon pledge. OK, so what is destination zero? This is where I told you we have our own take on it. So we exist in all the industries. Professor Zhang, I can't remember which of the Professor Prince or Zhang put it up. But the industries that we cover are all the industries that are not easy to abate. So most of us, I think, probably believe that by 2030 we'll be driving an electric car just about to purchase one, already have three, whatever. Electric cars are just going to win. Everyone knows that they're going to be fine in the US. We're going to charge at home. It's going to work. The industries that we're in, it's not so simple. The duty cycles are really different. Like to do a mine truck versus a on highway truck versus a van, those duty cycles are nothing the same. They're not like a sedan versus a pickup truck versus a SUV. Those duty cycles are all almost the same. These are really, really different. Power, load, time, et cetera. So it's hard to abate these sections. So we're trying to look across those and figure out how we're going to get all those to zero. And our view is the best way to do it is as follows. Lower emissions today. Reduce well the wheel. I mean, that's obvious to those of you that are economists or engineers. But it's remarkable how much of the world, especially governments and city governments, really just want it to look good. Like I want battery buses because they look and smell clean. And by the way, smell matters. Like we don't want to smell anything. But it isn't going to make our carbon problem go away if we use coal power to charge them. So well the wheel, wide-scale adoption. Again, that would not be important maybe at some level. But for a company that sells things for profit, if people don't buy it, it doesn't matter how good it is. Because then you just go out of business. You're A123 in batteries. Great idea out of business because nobody's buying them. And then achieve zero emissions by 2050. Of course, you have to hit the target. Lower emissions today is where I wanted to focus just for a second. There's a bunch of people in my industry who think the best solution here is green grid, then require all trucks be battery or most say battery, but battery or fuel cell. By 2035, go to zero and leave it alone until then. Don't make me do anything else until then, until 2035. The reason is it's not a green grid anyway. I'm wasting money doing these hybrid solutions. They're not that good. And by then, I'll have really good batteries. All of you will help them develop really good batteries or really good fuel cells. And they'll say, see, I'll just buy those. And then all the trucks will be green. And that'll be the best for me. And it's really attractive sounding because then you don't have to do a lot of engine. You don't have to spend twice as much money on R&D for the same number of customers. The problem with that is we keep adding carbon to the atmosphere in big numbers until then. We just did one little calculation. It's a little lame. But we just did a calculation that compared if we changed our mix today from diesel engines to natural gas engines in significant proportion. Right now, we sell about 5% of our engines are natural gas. We just moved that up to, say, 25, which we could do pretty much with current infrastructure. We wouldn't have to change very much at all. We already have all that stuff. And then went to hybrids in 2027. Then went to batteries, not even 100%, 75%. And then the rest was low carbon or partial carbon fuels. How much in North American heavy-duty trucks would we emit in carbon in tons? It's the green one. The other one is we did the industry one 2035. The black one was just go to 2035, then go all zero from then on. The problem is it's way worse. That's three years, by the way, the difference between those end points is three years of all the trucks on the road running. It's a big difference. Only point I'm trying to make is start now. So all the proposals that say, wait till it's ready, till the technologists save us, I think are just postponing action. It would be my view. OK, I'm going to switch to hydrogen. So hydrogen, this was the page where I could give you all kind of statistics about the industry, how much hydrogen produced, what industries. But the good thing is our two lead professors already covered that, which is why I didn't put any bullet points. I just thought I'll see what happens. They already covered it. I'm not going to say it. Hydrogen, they already covered it. Hydrogen looks like a big opportunity because it can store. It actually can be a transportation fuel. It already used in a lot of industries that are really dirty. So if we can decarbonize it, that's one of the best opportunities to decarbonize those industries. Big darn deal. Our problem is dispatchability and cost. Dispatchability and cost, which I thought Professor Prince did a really good job of covering. So it's not about whether it's good. It's about whether the cost and dispatchability works. It's only about that. And I thank you for putting up that study, by the way. I read that study. There's been several really good studies comparing battery electric to fuel cell electric in trucks, for example, which is one of the biggest applications. And they all come out exactly the same. Depends on charge time, dwell time, et cetera. But they're basically the same answer. I mean, in our scope here for the economic work, doesn't matter. They're fine. Both fine. The issue is, is there a charging infrastructure or a hydrogen infrastructure? So people like me aren't going to decide whether fuel cells or batteries win. It's all going to be about what infrastructure is built and what the cost is. That's simple. OK. So the hydrogen council formed because we recognize two things. One is hydrogen is not a transportation fuel today because it's too expensive and not available. Two is it's not going to be available and cost effective unless we have what people kind of term a hydrogen economy. Unless there's multiple uses of hydrogen, it's not going to make it as a transportation fuel. There has to be other things you're going to do with it because there's no way to get there to build all the stations and everything. If you don't have any trucks that run on it, you're not going to have trucks that run on it until you have stations. And you're just going to chase your tail and you're not going to get there. So how are you going to get there? You're going to have to have a hydrogen economy use it for storage, use it for steel, use it. That's the only way it's going to get there. So the idea is we need some scale to the whole operation or it's not going to happen. That's number one. Number two is we need something like 111 or it's not going to work. So we all came together and said, what is industry going to do about that? We were not convinced that government was going to solve it. That's not surprising, nor should they have to. So what's industry's role? And we got this hydrogen council together. And you can look across the name. These are big companies. These are companies with enormous resources. And the weird thing is when you go to these meetings, by the way, we haven't gone to them physically for a couple of years. But I went to them when it started several years ago. And when you go to them, all the CEOs show up. Not one or two. All the CEOs of those companies show up. Airbus, all of them. And they sit in the hotel room. They listen to the plan area, which is really boring. And then they all meet in the corners of all these offices and talk about what we're going to do together to do a project. I mean, all over the place. They meet and talk and figure out what to do. Which is exactly what you want us to do. So we're all spending money collaborating with each other, trying to do projects that actually, because it turns out almost every hydrogen-driven, especially for transportation or chemicals or ammonia, it's all out of the money. None of it makes sense today, economically. Without subsidy or significant carbon pricing, it's not close. If I made you a fuel cell truck, which I have made a few, it would cost you a half a million dollars. $600,000 maybe is what I could make it for. $600,000. I can sell you a diesel truck for $150,000. And it'll run better, go better. So the point is, it's not like we're not this close. And by the way, the battery electric version of it is probably $350,000. So neither of them are very close. They're both a ways. And I don't mean a ways even in years. I just mean a ways in scale. We need to make a lot more of them. But they work. They work. I mean, I can drive it. We're running trains in Europe now. We'll have 40 by the end of next year. And they're carrying passengers. And passengers are getting to their place on time. And everything that's all working, the issue is, they're subsidized significantly. And I think that'll remain true, by the way, all the way through, probably through 2035, even. There's going to be, I guess what I'm trying to say is there's going to be a price to pay to go from technologies that are more than 100 years old using fuels that we dig out of the earth, not for free, but for all intents and purposes, not that expensive per barrel to get them out to a situation where we're all green, we're having to build much more sophisticated and all new infrastructure and citing new transmission lines. How can it be free? So I would just say, ignore all the charlatans that tell you you can have it for free, because it's just not right. It's going to be expensive. So the question is, how do we get it? What do we structure ourselves to do to pay for it? But these people are all working on that. Industry is all working on that. And the projects are ramping. So this is just from the Hydrogen Council. This is all the projects that are going on around the world in all those different areas that Professor Prince put up. Everything is, we're working on all those areas. And companies are spending real money, like their own money, investing in all these projects. If you look at the density of the bubbles, if the density of the bubble relative to the size of the economy looks small in the US, that would be a correct reading of this chart. The US is not investing at the same level as, say, the Europe is or Asia is. It was particularly, especially given the size of our economy. But that said, Sunita will tell you, US is also ramping up and starting to find projects that may. But again, if I had to say, five years behind, probably. And then this is another chart showing acceleration. I like this chart because it shows you the difference between they have two categories, mature and announced. And you can see, announced is a lot more than mature. This industry also, like every other, has a little bit of hype, lots of announcements. And then the funding of them sometimes drags. Why is that? Because the things are out of the money. When you're going to make money immediately, people go really fast. When you're waiting for government funding, things go slower. Because government doesn't always fund the way they say they're going to fund, and all those other issues get in the way. But that's why there's such a big number of announced but not quite mature yet. But no matter how you read the chart, it's three times faster every year. More and more and more and more and more coming. So if you're wondering if people are spending real money on hydrogen, the answer is yes. So for example, Cummins is in the electrolysis business. We make PAM electrolyzers and alkaline. And in fact, we bought eight companies in the last five years that make hydrogen related products or BEV, better electric vehicle powertrain company. So we are not only doing our own research. We are investing, buying technology all over the place to try to go faster. But we make electrolysis machines and that's the biggest focus. Our numbers on here are all electrolysis projects. And mostly PAM. PAM is the more, most of our investments going. We just announced a 25 megawatt project with Nextera, Florida Power and Light to make hydrogen out of solar energy, from solar energy to make green hydrogen. So the projects keep going. Alkaline are much larger projects, generally speaking. But PAM is coming. PAM is moving its way up. And I think if I was here three years from now, you'll have a gigawatt project announced with a PAM electrolyzer system. That's my guess, three years. Okay, last comment, I'm almost out of time. So where I sit, the biggest point to make about all this is we're moving way too slowly. Just way, way too slowly. So industries all in trying to find ways to do it. I went to COP26 and there were industry people crawling all over that. It's not an industry event, by the way. You know, these COP events are like industry wanderers around aimlessly, it doesn't know what to do. We do, we just wander around hotels. But they're all over the place. They all wanna figure out how to plug in because, and the financial people only wanna give money to the people that know how to plug into this. So there's lots of interest. The problem is what to do. And the reason we don't know what to do is because it's this gigantic externality called carbon. And so every time I make something lower carbon and it costs me money to do so, I have no place to put the cost. There's no price on carbon in the United States. And even the price in Europe isn't very high. And so the issue is like why would, why does someone wanna buy it? It's free. It's free to emit carbon in the United States. And I think we've almost given up challenging that proposition. I hear things like environmental justice concerns and all those other, and I concern about those things too. Like I don't think poor people should have to pay for all the carbon. And I get what regressive taxes look like. I get it. The problem is we're not moving close to fast enough. So I'm looking for anything that's gonna move it faster. And my view is a price moves things faster. So I do not understand why we think industry is gonna solve this problem with no price on carbon. It's just not realistic. So I spend a lot of time, by the way lobbying as soon as you do those, I wander around the halls of DC, despite the dysfunction that I find, and try to convince them that you have to price carbon, you have to put regulatory requirements in, you have to do, most of these things probably have short term negative impacts on our company. But I just don't understand how you stand in front of your grandkids and say I was the CEO of this company and I didn't do everything I could to solve the problem because the consequences of the problem are just gonna grow more and more tangible every year. So that's my last pitch with nothing to do with hydrogen is if we put a price on carbon though, hydrogen projects will get done a lot more. That's simple. All right, that's what I had. Thank you. Arthur, do you want me to take questions? Do you want me to take questions or you're kind of? Yeah, maybe we can take one or two, it sounds like. Sorry, I went right, I was supposed to finish earlier. I should guest. Any questions for me? You can ask about the hydrogen council or about Cummins, both are fine. Yeah, so he asked what's the reasonable price on carbon? And I have been hanging with some of my policy friends from resources from the future and things to try to learn what the price should be. And I realized that I'm incredibly unsophisticated about it. They have very sophisticated models, none of which I possess. I have gone on their carbon pricing thing and looked at it. And I think I'm convinced by them, again, I don't mean to say that I'm an expert, but I'm convinced by them that we need to start with a price that's not too high so that we don't kind of jerk the system around. Maybe that price is $50 or $100. Even I think I just do what Europe did some years ago and just start. But I think things start switching pretty heavily at $100. Not trucks, by the way, but some of the other things start moving and I think they really start, once you're at 150 or 200, a lot of stuff moves. But that's what I looked at their models. They kind of compelled me on that so I don't want to say that I understand it as well as they do, but they've done a lot. There's a lot of work been done on this and I feel like the economic work is pretty compelling to say start at 50 or 100, start somewhere in there and then start moving north. Thanks for the question, sir. Yeah, one question on your R&D. Yeah. How do you think about it? Given the price disparity between a diesel, a battery electric and a fuel cell electric and given this carbon uncertainty, how do you think about R&D and the priorities about advancing cleaner engines? Hydrogen, fuel cell burning, not burning? How do you guys think about the R&D given the uncertainty? Yeah, so what we've been doing is we've been telling our investors that we are going to invest a lot of money in battery electric and fuel cell electric power trains and electrolysis machines and we're going to lose money. We're gonna lose money for a while and they ask us how long and we say a while and then we give them some estimates but we make it incredibly transparent. Right now it's about $200 million a year. We sell some things, by the way, for a profit so $200 million is the net but $200 million we're gonna lose this year and we just keep telling them that much and then we tell them how much this other company makes that the internal combustion engine company makes isn't that good and we keep trying to get that one to make more and more money and then we spend money there too. We're launching a whole new platform of engines across every that's fuel agnostic so every engine we make you'll be able to put hydrogen fuel in it, gasoline, natural gas, renewable fuel, renewable natural gas, you can put it in that same engine. We'll have a different head and some different fuel systems but basic engine platform architecture will be the same. So we're spending money on engines, internal combustion engines too because the people that raise their hand in the back we think we'll be selling those for a long time not as many and they'll have different fuels but we will sell some and then for a while we'll sell almost all those and then we're arguing that this investment's worth it because it eventually pays off but honestly without a carbon tax it's kind of like, I think of it as a Larry Fink bet you're basically agreeing that it's gonna change sometime. That's all you can say really. Last one I think, yeah. Yeah, Tom, great talk first off. Thank you very much, appreciate it. What can the university do? What are some of the things that we should be doing while we're here, while we're waiting on the carbon tax but to help industry along? Yeah, it's an excellent question. Sunita and I were joking that all of us think that we're the center of the universe because we all have our own thing on it so it's always hard to think about what the other sector should do. I know what government should do is build infrastructure, build grid fast. What I think universities might be able to do is to be conscious of where the significant costs are. One of the things I love about this idea of looking at energy systems totally is as I told you, actually making better and better fuel cells to beat batteries or making better batteries to beat fuel cells probably doesn't win us or lose us the race. What wins us and loses the race is how do we get dispatchability and cost in the infrastructure fast? We need renewable grid and we need dispatchable energy. And actually it doesn't even need to be a dollar. If it was 250, truck industry would still go. Even at 250, it won't at 10. I mean it's real price today. If you want to make, with electrolysis, you want to make hydrogen in the California, it's probably $10 a kilogram. I mean it's not close. SMR is $1.50 or 80 cents and I'm at 10. So we, trying to figure out how to get the grid and the infrastructure at affordable cost is really honestly the difference between deploying technologies and not. As opposed, I mean we will get, the fuel cells will be there. I can assure you it will be the other problem. But thank you very much. I appreciate your attention. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. That is to be honest about both sides of the equation. Not just the wonders and desirability of green energy, but also the implications of getting there. The costs, the investment, the implications on creating shortages and outages in other critical desirable materials such as the things that go into making the bad. Yeah, cobalt and nickel and things like that. Yeah. The universities need to be honest about teaching about the whole spectrum of moving to a greater clock. Yeah, it's such a good point. I mean I think probably that's where you were hearing my destination zero idea of starting today was trying to take into the practicality points that we won't actually have hydrogen dispatchable for fuel cells in 2025. It's not going to happen. So why not use the stuff we have today and start moving because practically speaking we can do that. It's a really good point. Princes comments on the need for universities to work with industry. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. And thanks for your support of this initiative. Thank you. All right. All right. Please join me in thanking you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.