▶ 0:00:54. All.
▶ 0:03:56Right.
▶ 0:05:07All.
▶ 0:07:45Right. All.
▶ 0:14:06All.
▶ 0:15:28>> this is the most bipartisan cooperation we've seen. I'm not I'm not going to sit on his lap, but we will. Thank you to the ranking member. And, uh, you know, we always figure out how to how to make it work. Um, we'll start start again. Not quite from the top, but I recognize myself for an opening statement.
▶ 0:15:52As I mentioned, uh, in my office often here, a lot of people come through and say, we need to do permitting reform. That permitting is holding up progress, that the results of permitting are are, uh, that we're not only hurting economic development and oftentimes we're missing opportunities to actually protect and enhance the environment. And as I said, it's a bipartisan issue.
▶ 0:16:18It's not just, uh, people who vote republican that are coming in my office to tell me that, uh, we had a hearing on this topic in july. And in that hearing, many of my friends across the aisle were calling fouls on the current administration, saying they shouldn't be doing this. But you know what? This time a year ago, uh, on our side of the aisle, we were calling fouls on the biden administration, saying they shouldn't be doing this.
▶ 0:16:47So I think this is an opportunity for congress to exert their article one authority and to create a system that doesn't, uh, change when an administration changes, but a system that's fair, a system that allows access for all projects in the system.
▶ 0:17:03Uh, that's that's blind to the project that is being proposed, as we've heard from, uh, a lot of witnesses, reforming nepa will provide certainty for all projects and for all sectors of the economy. Uh, in fact, the minority witness at our july hearing stated, and I quote, any nepa reform shouldn't pick winners or losers.
▶ 0:17:29End quote fairness requires that the permitting process proceed in a way that is blind to a project. Uh, by ensuring this, we will allow the free market to make decisions. Ask you to engineers who testified in july of the nepa process can be streamlined without sacrificing environmental quality.
▶ 0:17:49They both said unequivocally that we can, and I fully agree, amending the underlying statutes to provide predictability to the regulated community and our federal agencies will strengthen the economy, improve the environment, and save agency resources. We have three partizan bills before us today that would address these issues in different ways. First off, we have h.r.
▶ 0:18:16573, introduced by representative from indiana, which would create common sense reporting requirements for the council of environmental quality, or sic, as part of a thorough review of nepa practices, the first trump administration and a lot of 656 environmental impact statements, or eis, published between 2013 and 2018.
▶ 0:18:38The review found that, on average, an eis was 575 pages long and took 4.5 years to complete, with a quarter of them taking over six years to complete. According to a study from the breakthrough institute, nepa related litigation on eis takes an average of 4.2 years to resolve. An environmental. Non-governmental organizations or ngos were involved in 75% of nepa claims. H.r.
▶ 0:19:03573 would coalesce prior data collection and reporting efforts into a single report published annually by ceq on nepa litigation timelines and page length. Reinstating these reports will help identify nepa bottlenecks. Next, we have h.r. 4503, the e permit act introduced by representative johnson of south dakota and peters of california.
▶ 0:19:26Today's technology landscape for federal permitting consists of diverse and isolated systems spread across different federal agencies. Generally, these systems are not interoperable or sufficiently accessible for project sponsors and the general public.
▶ 0:19:41To address these issues, the trump administration issued a memorandum titled updating permitting technology for the 21st century, and seac then issued a permitting technology action plan, which sets the foundation for seamless information exchange between agencies, simplified interactions for applicants, and greater transparency and predictability on environmental review and permitting schedules for project sponsors and stakeholders.
▶ 0:20:06The e permit act codifies key aspects of eqs action plan and directs federal agencies on how to implement electronic permitting systems. It also instructs, seek to work with other agencies to establish a unified interagency data system for environmental permitting, and to integrate ai into agency's permitting processes. Also on today's agenda is h.r. 4776, the speed act, which I look forward to discussing in greater depth later in this hearing.
▶ 0:20:35For now, I'll simply say this over the years, we have passed different pieces of legislation that usually include funding for different projects and purposes, which are then celebrated and lauded in dc. But what always happens afterwards? The projects themselves can't be permitted because congress has shied away from addressing permitting reform head on.
▶ 0:20:55We have said this several times in this committee, but our broken, broken permitting system isn't just holding back our economy, it's threatening our national security and that of our allies. The cost of inaction are too high, so the time to advance bipartisan permitting reform is now. With that, I look forward to hearing testimony from some of today's leading experts on these bills. And I now recognize ranking member huffman for his opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:21:25Before I begin, I do have two unanimous consent requests. The the first is chapter five of a pretty old document here. This is the first report from the council on environmental quality to congress from august of 1970. And it includes a chapter on climate change. I think that's significant objection. Thank you. The second, uh, is also from the 70s. This is a 1977 report to congress from the comptroller general of the united states.
▶ 0:21:57And it's about us coal development. Uh, on page 6.19, there's a significant quote there. It says with continued growth in the use of fossil fuels, the effect of increased coal combustion on climatic conditions may become an important problem during the next 50 years. Uh, there's a lot to listen to. Uh, here, Mr. chairman. And this is not. >> objection so ordered. >> thank you very much. So, Mr.
▶ 0:22:24Chairman, today we have three bills on the agenda relating to nepa. Uh, two of them, h.r. 573 and h.r. 4503, aim to enhance data collection and use. And I especially want to thank representatives johnson and peters for their work on the permitting bill. There's a lot of bipartisan work that we can do in this space to leverage modern tools and data to improve the permitting process, and those bills are good examples of that.
▶ 0:22:51But when we get into the the third bill on the agenda, Mr. chairman, it's your bill, the so-called speed act. This is where the conversation takes a hard turn in the name of speed. Or is it greed? This legislation takes a sledgehammer to nepa's core functions, the very things that help keep communities safe, that keep projects accountable and protect our environment. Nepa's purpose is very simple.
▶ 0:23:21Uh, before the federal government greenlights a project with major environmental impacts that could transform landscapes or communities for generations, it has to consider the facts. It has to disclose major environmental and public health impacts, and it has to engage the public that will have to live with the results of that action. Now, let me say that speed can be great when you're headed in the right direction.
▶ 0:23:48But if you are recklessly speeding down the road without working brakes or steering or headlights, obviously that's a wreck waiting to happen. And that's exactly what the speed act would invite. The speed act treats public input like it is an annoyance, like a hurdle, rather than a resource that can guide better decisions. It restricts what major environmental impacts can even be considered for review.
▶ 0:24:13It eliminates the spotlight that nepa provides for the public to help government get it right, and by shrinking analysis and compressing timelines without investing in greater agency permitting capacity, you're really just inviting shoddy analysis. And ultimately that's going to lead to more litigation and uncertainty.
▶ 0:24:35Let's not forget that congress recently made the most significant amendments to nepa in a generation, not to mention the major court action, administrative action and regulatory action that we have seen on nepa in recent months. Agencies, communities and developers alike haven't even had a chance to see how those changes are working, so it makes no sense to blindly rush in with another round of sweeping changes before we've even measured the results of all of these other changes.
▶ 0:25:05And that brings me to a larger point about process. Mr. chairman, if you and I were sitting down with stakeholders trying to truly understand the challenges that they're facing, and I'm talking about developers, communities, tribes, labor conservationists, we could probably identify where reasonable consensus exists for reforms. I actually think we could. That's how you get durable, bipartisan solutions.
▶ 0:25:33And it's exactly what so many of today's witnesses have been calling for. But that hasn't happened here. Instead, we're holding a hearing on a bill designed to deliver for one set of interests while shutting everyone else out.
▶ 0:25:46The good news on the permitting front is that we can maintain nepa's core protections and speed the process up, and obviously, one of the most effective and proven ways to do that is to ensure we have properly staffed and trained federal permitting offices to process applications. I mean, that's just obvious. That's why democrats funded $1 billion in the inflation reduction act to do exactly that. It was working.
▶ 0:26:13The biden administration cut the time it takes to complete an eis by eight months, 23% faster than the first trump administration, and in 2024, the median time to complete an eis was down to just over two years.
▶ 0:26:27That means it wasn't holding back most major projects, but republicans just rescinded most of these unspecified unspent funds and the administration's dodge efforts and indiscriminate firings at key permitting agencies. They've just made things worse. And if that wasn't enough, the administration also repealed six unifying nepa regulations. And that throws out the unified playbook that helps guide federal agencies.
▶ 0:26:56Um, and has done so for agencies and developers for decades. All of this leaves me with the question, who is this legislation actually for? Because it's definitely not tribes whose sacred land is at risk of being desecrated. It's not impacted communities that are worried about toxic projects that could irreversibly pollute where they live. It's certainly not hardworking, everyday folks being pummeled by the insane cost of living who are desperate for more affordable electricity.
▶ 0:27:26It's crystal clear that this legislation is for corporate polluters and big oil donors, so they can keep patting their pockets at the expense of all of these other stakeholders and the rest of the country, this country, the people of the united states, deserve better. I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Uh, I will begin our member panel to allow bill sponsors to speak on their legislation. And I now recognize Mr.
▶ 0:27:52Rudy young kim from indiana for his testimony on his bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, for providing me with the opportunity to testify in support of my bill, h.r. 573, the study nepa's impact on projects act, which I introduced with my good friend Mr. jimmy panetta of california. This bill would require the white house council on economic quality or seek to publish and submit to congress an annual report that highlights the legislation.
▶ 0:28:20Excuse me, the litigation and paperwork burdens imposed by the national environmental policy act, or nepa. Nepa has strayed far from its original purpose of environmental protection. Instead, it has become a bit of a four letter word, often weaponized to bog down infrastructure, housing, energy and other critical projects in burdensome regulation and red tape.
▶ 0:28:42My bill would require the cec to report on nepa impact on these projects, from delays due to litigation and bureaucracy, to the length of reports and the cost to taxpayers and project sponsors to ultimately clear this project. This information has been compiled in separate reports in the past, either on an annual or an ad hoc basis. Very simply, h.r. 573 revives and combines these individual reports into a single annual report.
▶ 0:29:10The annual report will provide us with a formal, regular update in order to conduct oversight, ensure accountability, and identify areas in need of reform. The consequences of nepa are felt across the economy, from manufacturing and construction in my district to the lack of forest management in Mr. lamalfa district to stagnating mining operations in Mr. stauber's district.
▶ 0:29:33The massive regulatory costs associated with nepa also hamper our ability to compete with china, which dominates global critical mineral supply chains. Even though we have some of the most mineral rich territory on earth right here in the united states. A recent report found that energy projects across all fuel types spent a median of three years between final agency approval and a final court decision, with some taking decades.
▶ 0:30:00I commend with the trump administration has done to overhaul nepa, specifically reducing project timelines. I look forward to locking in these reforms and passing h.r. 573 to ensure that we have accountability moving forward. The study, nepa project impact on projects act, is an important step in our work to continue reforming the permitting process.
▶ 0:30:24It's time to get the government in frivolous litigation out of the way of hardworking americans who just simply want to make america build. Again. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And, Mr. chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from south dakota, Mr. dusty johnson, for his testimony on his bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:30:49Ranking member, for taking up my bill, the permit act today, uh, most all thoughtful people seem to acknowledge that the way we do siting and permitting in this country, uh, needs some pretty serious improvement. Uh, a lot of independent analyzes indicate that we have the most onerous siting and permit permitting within the developed world. Uh, we do have an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to make improvements. We've done some of that, but I think we have a lot more to do.
▶ 0:31:20And I'm excited that in the, uh, westerman huffman era, we can do, uh, we can get a lot of that done. Uh, I think most of us realize that, uh, our current situation, our current environment, our current landscape for permitting and siting does not deliver on time and on task. So often the delays with this siting are not actually linked to environmental protection. It's not that there's a holdup, as we do serious and important analysis about protecting our key resources or assets.
▶ 0:31:49It's just that we don't have our act together, so we don't really know how to share, transfer and analyze the information that are before us. I think modern technology gives us a real opportunity to solve those problems. So what are we at today? Uh, so often multiple agencies, of course, are involved in, uh, this siting and the way they are exchanging information is antiquated.
▶ 0:32:12It just it is hard to imagine that they are still sharing individual pdfs that can get lost in people's email that they need to package them together, send them to somebody else. Well, do they really have them? I don't know, um, that rudimentary process, it it reduces people's ability to understand what is really going on with permitting and what really needs to happen next.
▶ 0:32:38Uh, the permit act addresses those problems by establishing a framework for agencies to implement a digital permitting system and a unified portal. Again, this is just about us as a federal government handling the information, handling the data in a fundamentally more modern way. Uh, this is not a new concept on a bipartisan basis. We we have said these words before in the fiscal responsibility act of 2023.
▶ 0:33:09Congress acknowledged the potential for digital solutions and required the council on environmental quality to study how to actually move this ball down field. Uh, in april, president trump showed good leadership in, uh, in advancing that cause, uh, telling his agencies that they did need to start, uh, that they did need to begin to put this together.
▶ 0:33:33And indeed, shortly after ceq issued a comprehensive permitting technology action plan to try to get a government wide strategy for making this happen. So the permit act just builds on those efforts, the congressional efforts to 2023, the executive efforts of this year, uh, to provide legislative clarity and direction on how agencies should build out this and operate this digital permitting system. We're just this is basic.
▶ 0:34:02None of this is there's no boogeyman here. This is about establishing federal data standards. So all agencies speak the same language. And this is about having a government wide permitting portal so that we've got a one stop shop for this really important project information. Uh, this is an important piece of legislation, and I want to thank my partners in this effort, uh, scott peters and his team, especially his team. His team is way better than peters.
▶ 0:34:29Uh, but they have been know, of course, leadership comes from the top. And they really they've asked the right questions. Uh, they've wanted to make sure that we had a work product that was going to add value, uh, and wasn't just wasn't just politics, like, let's actually do our job and actually make this country better. I also want to thank sick and our stakeholder partners for their essential input. Of course, Mr. harrell from clearpath, who is providing testimony today. Uh, you know, teamwork makes the dream work, as they say. And so thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr.
▶ 0:35:00Ranking member, for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with the committee, uh, to pass our bill so that we can get america building again. With that, I yield. >> gentleman yields back. I now recognize myself, uh, for testimony on my bill, the speed act. And when this committee met in july to discuss nepa, uh, some were saying that the other, uh, or that, uh, and contended that nepa no longer poses any serious problems.
▶ 0:35:28They claim that the statues nor notorious delays are a thing of the past, citing various reforms from the fra and report issued in the waning days of the biden administration. While witness testimony during the july hearing revealed how the previous administration altered key data to make nepa timelines seem shorter, the trump administration has made significant progress in ensuring that the fra timelines are met.
▶ 0:35:53Still, projects across nearly all sectors, reflecting the priorities of congressional republicans and democrats, remain mired in nepa's red tape. Congress must act quickly to relieve this nepa logjam and get our nation building again. During the july hearing, we submitted for the record the environmental impact statement that was at issue in the recent recent supreme court case, seven county infrastructure coalition versus eagle county.
▶ 0:36:20This environmental impact statement was over 3600 pages long, but some still claimed it wasn't expansive enough. While the fra did impose eis page limits, nepa must be further reformed to put definitive guardrails around what agencies are expected to review. Much like the review documents themselves, the nepa litigation has gotten out of control. Nepa is the most frequently litigated environmental statute.
▶ 0:36:47Nepa related litigation on an eis takes an average of 4.2 years to resolve without changes, bureaucratic reviews and endless litigation will continue unabated. Environmental documents will again explode in length, and our nation's ability to build and maintain its critical infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. But let me make something clear better process for nepa means better environmental results.
▶ 0:37:15For example, from this report, it talks about something that's very dear and near to me, and that's forest management. And this is a forest restoration project was held up for nearly a decade by nepa and other environmental reviews in grizzly flats, california. In 2021, two thirds of the community burned before the project was complete.
▶ 0:37:40Uh, there's a whole list of examples, and I ask unanimous consent to submit this to the record in which we see failure to act on permitting resulted in poor outcomes for the environment. We can do better than that. And h.r.
▶ 0:38:004776, the standardizing, permitting, expediting economic development act, or the speed act, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that introduced with congressman golden to address these issues in a targeted manner, to benefit all kinds of projects and to benefit the environment.
▶ 0:38:20The bill clarifies that agencies may consider environmental effects that are proximately caused by major federal actions, and may not consider effects that are speculative or separate in time or place from the project in question. The language codifies pieces of the seven county decision while providing clarity to agencies and courts as what effects should be considered. This will reduce document length, project timelines, and frivolous litigation.
▶ 0:38:46The bill also clarifies the definition of a major federal action by establishing one and for all, or once and for all, that the agencies may not determine an action to be subject to nepa based solely on the provision of federal funding. The provision will not only provide certainty to the regulated community, it will also provide, uh, fewer environmental reviews, thus freeing up agency resources for projects that are actually under their control. Lastly, the bill tackles frivolous litigation under nepa and several ways.
▶ 0:39:15Importantly, the legislation aligns judicial remedies under nepa with the fact that the statute is purely procedural, a point that has been emphasized in multiple supreme court decisions. The bill achieves this by stating that courts cannot block projects solely because of a procedural mistake. The bill also requires claims to be filed within 150 days of the final action, and each claimant to have meaningfully participated in the public comment process.
▶ 0:39:42Claimants also must prove that they will be directly harmed by the project or action in question. These reforms will prevent litigants from surprising agencies with claims, and will limit judicial abuse by special interest groups, while protecting the process of of permitting. Ultimately, this legislation will restore nepa to its original purpose. It is project neutral and will add certainty to permitting processes across sectors.
▶ 0:40:09Whether you're a community fixing aging infrastructure, an energy company building to power the ai revolution, or a federal land manager working to improve the health of our nation's forest, the speed act will modernize and streamline nepa's processes for you. That is why nearly 100 organizations from across the us representing industry, labor, state, local and tribal governments, among others all support the legislation.
▶ 0:40:35I appreciate the robust bipartisan support for the legislation, and I look forward to further discussion and testimony on the bill. We'll now begin our second panel of witnesses. Let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the on button on the microphone. We do use timing lights. When you begin, the lot will turn green.
▶ 0:41:03At the end of five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will allow the witnesses to testify before we have member questioning. Our first witness of this panel is Mr. thomas hockman. He is the director of infrastructure policy of the foundation for american innovation, and he is stationed in washington, dc. Mr. hockman, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman. Westerman, ranking member huffman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
▶ 0:41:32My name is thomas hockman, and I'm the director of infrastructure policy at the foundation for american innovation. For decades, a growing chorus of voices, democrats and republicans, environmentalists, industrialists, labor unions and business leaders have identified our permitting process as one of the greatest barriers to american prosperity. And yet, more than 50 years after nepa's passage, we have largely failed to fix it. Today, there's more pressure on our outdated processes than ever before. The us needs massive expansions in grid capacity to handle new energy generation.
▶ 0:42:03We need domestic mining and refining to break china's chokehold on critical minerals. And we need the power and the infrastructure for the data centers that will decide who leads in artificial intelligence. To take just one example, a leading ai company estimates that the us ai sector will need a whopping 50gw of new electric capacity by 2028. Yet nepa and related processes have constrained our ability to add and move electricity.
▶ 0:42:27From 2010 to 2020, about a quarter of new transmission line miles required full environmental impact statements. The most burdensome level of nepa review, which takes an average of more than four years for transmission projects. Interregional lines most most likely to trigger nepa, have fallen to nearly zero per year. And, of course, the queue of new energy projects waiting to connect to the grid is overwhelmingly low carbon, meaning delays hurt low carbon projects the most. And this is the crux of the issue.
▶ 0:42:56Nepa does not mandate environmental outcome. It mandates a process substantive environmental protections live in the clean air act, the clean water act, the rcra, and elsewhere. In 1969, before those regimes matured, nepa's procedural overlay may have been the best tool available, but that is no longer the world that we live in. That's why representatives westerman and golden speed act is so important. It right sizes nepa for the challenges of the 21st century while preserving public input and environmental review.
▶ 0:43:26First, it clarifies what counts as a major federal action. Over time, agencies and courts have treated almost everything as major, dragging everything from federal hiring to picnics into the nepa process. Fortunately, the speed act states that federal funding by itself doesn't automatically trigger nepa. That matters a great deal, as today cities and project's sponsors often defer lies to avoid nepa delay and cost. Walking away from sorely needed federal dollars.
▶ 0:43:52Second, the act focuses the scope of nepa review on effects proximately caused by the project under consideration. The supreme court's recent unanimous seven county decision made the same point. Agencies should not be forced to analyze speculative effects thousands of miles away. Third, and most important, the act improves judicial review and instructs courts not to set aside nepa review unless an agency abuse its discretion. Restoring nepa's hard look standard as a check on reasoned decision making, rather than a license for endless judicial nitpicking.
▶ 0:44:23It also sets an 150 day statute of limitations far saner than the current six years, bringing certainty to projects that have already cleared review, and it requires litigants to have participated and raised specific issues in public comment. Aligning nepa with common sense standards used in other environmental laws. Crucially, none of this eliminates the core thrust of nepa. Environmental impact statements still require public comment. Project opponents can still bring lawsuits. Agencies still must take a hard look.
▶ 0:44:50The act simply restores balance so reviews end decisions stick, and harmless procedural missteps don't derail nationally important infrastructure. Years after a record of decision, paring these reforms with better data is the goal of the bipartisan study nepa's impact on projects act. Despite nepa's enormous footprint in our economy, we lack basic information about the effects of the law. Seek reports on timelines have been sporadic and thin. Litigation data are are scattered, and we know even less about environmental assessments. This bill would fix that.
▶ 0:45:20It requires annual standardized reporting on nepa litigation, page counts and costs, so policymakers can see where the system breaks down. And critically, it requires seek to track nepa timelines from application to submission to decision capturing the nepa period that often adds years to the process but is rarely studied. Taken together, the speed act and the studying nepa impact on projects act keep what the public values transparency, comment environmental analysis while restoring what the nation needs.
▶ 0:45:50The ability to build if we want reliable power, secure supply chains, competitive ai, and healthier forests, we cannot afford a process that routinely turns into a decade long paperwork and litigation. Gantlet. I urge congress to pass both bills. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. >> the gentleman yields back. I appreciate your testimony. We'll now move on to our next witness, Mr. nick loris.
▶ 0:46:14He's the executive vice president of policy of c3 solutions, and he is stationed in washington, dc. Mr. loris, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman westerman, ranking member huffman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning. My name is nick loris, and I'm the executive vice president of policy at the conservative coalition for climate solutions.
▶ 0:46:37C3 solutions is a think tank dedicated to accelerating innovation to meet our energy needs and our greatest environmental challenges in the need to innovate, invest and build for a cleaner, more prosperous future. Time is far from a neutral variable. It can be a competitive advantage or a competitive disadvantage, depending on what you're building and where you're building it. Permitting reform will create more opportunities where investing in building in america is a competitive advantage, enabling us to meet our energy needs, our infrastructure needs, as well as our environmental ambitions.
▶ 0:47:09In nearly every sector of the economy, there is a clear and urgent need to increase supply. Across the us, electricity prices are more than twice the inflation rate and supply must rapidly expand to meet rising demand. Demand from data centers alone could double by 2030, requiring roughly six times the power that new york city consumes. Today, we need more critical minerals, which are essential for producing clean, affordable energy defense systems and the modern technologies that we rely on daily.
▶ 0:47:34We also need infrastructure with resilient supply chains to keep grocery stores stocked with food, hospitals supplied with medicine, and to connect american businesses with consumers around the world. We must invest in and actively manage america's natural ecosystems.
▶ 0:47:49Currently, the forest service faces an 80 million acre backlog requiring restoration, and 63 million acres are at high or very high risk of wildfires, prescribed burns, timber harvesting and deploying advanced technologies will significantly reduce the economic and environmental costs that wildfires inflict on communities, whether it is a solar array on federal lands, a new rail project or a prescribed burn, these projects can face burdensome permitting processes and excessive litigation.
▶ 0:48:15While many regulatory reforms are necessary at the federal, state, and local levels, one law in urgent need of modernization is the national environmental policy act. A well intentioned. Look before you leap statute nepa has devolved into paralysis by analysis, inviting protracted legal battles, a more thorough reviews and litigation significantly extend timelines, raise costs, and heightened uncertainty. In fact, just the threat of litigation increases timelines as risk averse agencies seek to protect themselves against lawsuits.
▶ 0:48:46Anecdotal evidence and agency wide data from nepa reviews support these claims. Several studies in recent years have documented that the average time to prepare an environmental impact statement is over four years, and these lengthier processes disproportionately hinder the development of clean energy. A 2023 study by the r street institute reviewed ies conducted by the department of energy and the bureau of land management.
▶ 0:49:07The analysis found doe had twice as many clean energy projects requiring eis as fossil fuels, while blm projects had nearly four times the number of clean energy projects compared to fossil fuels. Litigation also adds average delay of roughly four years, as solar transmission and wind energy projects face some of the highest rates of litigation.
▶ 0:49:26Forest management projects can be delayed by years, threatening the ability to protect communities and critical habitats, and measuring the total costs of an outdated, bureaucratic permitting process is challenging. There are some projects that could have saved forests, lowered energy bills and reduced emissions that just never happened and are still delayed for years, if not decades.
▶ 0:49:47But there are clear benefits from permitting reform to highlight today a more transparent and consistent process that narrows the scope of reviews prevents agencies from having to consider endless what ifs and delivers on judicial reform will help provide american companies with the certainty they need to innovate, invest and build. Leveraging technology will help modernize, simplify, and expedite the process which benefits project developers and agencies alike.
▶ 0:50:11Along with creating shovel ready jobs and injecting capital into the us economy, american families will benefit from more affordable power, a more resilient grid, and dependable infrastructure. Critically permitting, reform gives us more bites at the apple to reap the substantial economic and environmental spillovers from innovation. We don't know what the next fracking revolution in the united states might look like, whether it's super hot geothermal, small modular reactors, long duration battery storage, or likely some combination thereof.
▶ 0:50:41But whatever it might be, strict permitting requirements create higher barriers to entry for transformative, potentially game changing technologies. Red tape shouldn't stand the way, shouldn't stand in the way of cost declines and wide scale deployment. Permitting reform is not about eliminating the need to engage and consult with communities and tribes, but empowering them and addressing their concerns while cutting through the redundancies, the box checking and the bureaucracy. Permitting.
▶ 0:51:07Reform is not about lowering the standards for environmental safeguards, it's about enabling developers to meet those standards more quickly, thereby addressing america's energy infrastructure and conservation needs. In conclusion, with bipartisan, bicameral interest in permitting reform, it is an opportune moment for a policy realignment that focuses on building rather than blocking. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony. Our next witness is Mr. robert glicksman. He is the j.b.
▶ 0:51:37And maurice c shapiro professor of environmental law at the george washington university law school, and he is stationed here in washington, D.C. Mr. glicksman, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman westerman and ranking member huffman for the opportunity to testify today. Uh, I am the jb and shapiro professor of law at the george washington university law school.
▶ 0:51:59Uh, I based both my oral and written testimony, which reflect only my own views on my experience teaching environmental law for nearly 45 years and my scholarship on nepa, which includes being the lead coauthor on a leading legal treatise on the statute. I will speak today to the speed act. Congress enacted nepa on a bipartisan basis in 1970 to prevent avoidable but irreversible environmental mistakes.
▶ 0:52:25It was premised on the sound rationale that it's foolish to proceed in darkness when it's possible to discover foreseeable harms in time to avoid them, instead of later engaging in hand-wringing about disasters that could have been foreseen but were not because of short sightedness, impatience, and lack of concern about environmental risks, the speed act seems to forget that origin story. But even if congress is intent on revising nepa, this is the wrong time to do it.
▶ 0:52:52Congress made major changes in nepa in the fiscal responsibility act of 2023, and supreme court recently shifted judicial review toward greater deference to agencies in their nepa preparations. It would make more sense to step back to evaluate the impact of these developments before rewriting the statute again, especially in the fashion called for by this bill. The speed act does not streamline nepa. Instead, it strips nepa of what makes it work.
▶ 0:53:20It leaves the statute on the books so that it appears to be a functioning environmental assessment regime, when in fact it hollows it out. It reduces incentives to develop information on environmental effects by all stakeholders, and enables agencies to proceed in darkness, even when it's possible to learn about foreseeable harms in time to avoid them. The inevitable consequence of this legislation would be the acceleration of inadequately vetted projects, and an increase in the risk of unforeseen unintended adverse impacts.
▶ 0:53:49My written testimony centers on four categories of problematic provisions the speed act, which I described there in more detail than I'm able to do this morning. First, the bill narrows the scope of nepa's application by allowing government agencies to avoid nepa procedures entirely, notwithstanding their environmentally damaging potential.
▶ 0:54:09An example is the provision redefine the term major federal action to exclude loans, grants, or other forms of federal financial assistance unless the federal agency providing that assistance exercises complete control and responsibility over the effect of the action. The retention by non-governmental actors, um, of artificially created discretion over minor aspects of project implementation shouldn't matter.
▶ 0:54:37Another objectionable provision would require an agency's purpose and need statement to meet a private project. Proponents goals. This turns nepa on its head by displacing considerations of whether a project promotes the public interest, with whether it satisfies the narrow, self-interested objectives of private project proponents.
▶ 0:54:57Second, the speed act allows agencies to make their nepa determinations in ignorance by limiting public input into the nepa process and allowing agencies to ignore relevant information made available to them by informed stakeholders. Telling agencies to ignore new scientific data. Once an application for a permit is filed is senseless.
▶ 0:55:16Doing so not only punishes communities and experts who invest in generating the information, but also rewards decision making ignorance a result directly contrary to nepa's goals. Until he receives an application to approve private development, it has little reason to undertake research. The application describes the parameters of the project, revealing for the first time the kinds of environmental risks posed by agency approval.
▶ 0:55:44That's precisely the time when agencies should be engaged in gathering information about the environmental risks posed by a project. Third, the speed act would block access to the courts by those adversely affected by decision making that occurs in violation of the procedural requirements. For example, it would block challenges to the adoption of categorical exclusions, which authorize avoidance of nepa analysis.
▶ 0:56:07Fourth, the speed act would shackle courts in the kinds of relief they can provide, even when they do find statutory violations. Most disturbingly, by barring courts from enjoining projects pending compliance with the statute, the bill would eliminate agency incentives to take their nepa responsibilities seriously, regardless of how sloppy or incomplete their nepa analyzes are, they will suffer no adverse consequences of court finds that violations have occurred.
▶ 0:56:35In conclusion, now is not the right time to amend nepa, and the speed act is not the right way to do it. Thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. Our final witness of this panel is Mr. jeremy harrell. He is the ceo of clearpath action and he is stationed in washington, dc. Mr. harrell, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member huffman and members of the committee. My name is jeremy harrell and I'm the chief executive officer of clearpath.
▶ 0:57:02Action america stands at an inflection point of unprecedented energy demand, fueled by a revival of american manufacturing, advances in artificial intelligence, and breakthroughs in quantum computing. We're in a race with china in each of these areas. This presents new challenges, but also immense opportunities for our country to build big and win.
▶ 0:57:23The trump administration has set some ambitious goals to build 300gw of new nuclear power, to lead the world in ai development, to pioneer new space based technologies and exploration, and to expand supply chains and strategic sectors like critical minerals and shipbuilding. Permitting bottlenecks threaten all of these goals, and the affordable power that your constituents expect in the face of skyrocketing demand growth, building more energy resources has become more urgent, the data shows we're falling behind.
▶ 0:57:55For example, china added 475gw of new electricity generation in 2024. Meanwhile, the us added just one tenth of that. China built 74gw of new energy storage. The us built ten, china built 54gw of new fossil fuel generation, primarily unmitigated coal. The us built just two gigawatts of lower emission gas. By every metric. China's building more energy than we are, and that energy is fueling growth across the economy. We have to keep up.
▶ 0:58:25The us and china dominate global data centers, accounting for 70% of total installed capacity worldwide. As china further develops their own domestic capacity, they will sell even more of their products globally. Chinese manufacturing output exceeded $4.5 trillion last year, more than a quarter of global production.
▶ 0:58:45The clearest path for congress to give the us a leg up in this competition is bipartisan permitting, reform, modernize, permitting will unlock america's abundant natural resources, scale new clean energy, build the transmission and pipelines needed to move energy nationwide, and bring manufacturing home where environmental standards are stronger than china's.
▶ 0:59:06But our current regulatory system is not only unpredictable, it is standing in the way of our nation's energy, climate and economic development goals at the federal, state and local level. And these challenges are present in every sector of the economy, from energy to housing to transportation.
▶ 0:59:26A winning future requires step change reform, not just tweaks around the edges, while also balancing speed, safety and community engagement. Bipartisan congressional action reforms that dramatically increase efficiency today and are politically durable into the future can flip the script and put america back in a leadership position. Accordingly, this committee should focus on three key areas one. Modernizing nepa.
▶ 0:59:54For half a century, nepa remained largely untouched by congress. This allowed presidents and the courts to stack burdensome and duplicative processes on top of what congress originally intended. Nepa is a procedural law that requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions, not one that imposes substantive new requirements.
▶ 1:00:17Congress made a down payment in the fiscal responsibility act to refocus nepa reviews, but congress must now build on these bipartisan reforms to deliver an efficient and predictable process for all projects. Two reforming judicial review and litigation practices. The judicial review process for energy projects has become an obstacle to timely completion.
▶ 1:00:38Developers navigating through a lengthy permitting process faced additional delays due to litigation, injunctions, and appeals that can drag on for years, costing time and money with little to no environmental benefit. Meanwhile, china keeps on building and three increasing transparency. The private sector uses technology to track projects and to keep stakeholders informed. The federal government should too.
▶ 1:01:04We need to end the in school, the old school siloed approach that creates bottlenecks and use new tools developed by private industry and our national labs. We must do better to keep developers and the public informed. To that end, clearpath action is proud to support the three bipartisan bills before the committee today because they take significant steps to deliver accountability and accelerate the permitting process. In conclusion, the window of opportunity for congress to deliver effective permitting reform is now.
▶ 1:01:34The combination of recent supreme court decisions, executive orders and new national security imperatives showcase the desperate need for new congressional action immediately. The us is in a global competition for energy, for ai, and for manufacturing leadership. We cannot win without being able to build here at home. Congress alone can provide the long term certainty. Developers need to make billion dollar investment decisions in our country.
▶ 1:02:02To let america win. We need to let america build. Thank you. >> Mr. harold. Thank you for your testimony. And again, thank all the witnesses for your testimony. We'll now move on to member questions. I'll recognize members for five minutes for questions. And I'll begin with the gentleman from virginia, Mr. whitman. >> Mr. chairman, thank you. I want to thank our witnesses today. And, Mr. hochman, I want to, uh.
▶ 1:02:32Well, let me let me first start. I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. chairman, to enter into the record the article about Mr. hochman published in green tape, titled nepa stats. >> without objection. >> thank you. Mr. hochman. In that article, you cite some extremely high costs that are associated with categorical exclusions, environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.
▶ 1:02:54And I think we've all heard horror stories of those from the us forest service, over $50,000 for each categorical exclusion, $200,000 for each environmental assessment in places like the department of energy, 6 million or more for environmental impact statements, and the list goes on and on. We all know, too, that timelines have a big impact on construction projects. We see that not only have costs tripled, but time has increased significantly.
▶ 1:03:23Us transit infrastructure projects have increased by three times the amount of time that it takes to get things approved, three times higher than our, uh, than our competitors around the world. So they're improving their infrastructure while we struggle. Uh, you cite one stat there that says 14% or more of 350 major infrastructure projects from 2010 to 2018 were outright canceled.
▶ 1:03:50That's probably why president obama mentioned with the stimulus package that there weren't quite as many shovel ready projects as they had anticipated, because shovel ready requires approval to actually be able to execute those projects. And when you can't, because the timelines in these outrageous costs and all of a sudden the economics of these projects becomes untenable, then they move by the wayside.
▶ 1:04:15So we can't complain on one side that we're falling behind in infrastructure and c on the other side that are that are administrative processes are actually leading us to that. With this in mind, Mr. hochman, um, I want you to speak a little bit about the environmental impacts. Uh, and, uh, the changes in both federal government and industries building out in america infrastructure have on what we're able to do as a country and also the timeline delays and what that does to the things that we need to do as a nation.
▶ 1:04:47>> representative, thank you for the question. Yeah. You know, president obama's regulatory czar said about the permitting process, if it were a super villain, it would be the blob. Uh, and that's, uh, you know, I think what what we're dealing with here, um, you know, our permitting process touches every sector of the economy, right? Whether it's, uh, our, uh, our, our the readiness of our defense industrial base. Right. Uh, the defense industrial base needs an enormous amount of energy. Uh, nepa gets in the way of our ability to deploy energy generation, energy transmission, our ability to move electrons around the country.
▶ 1:05:15Um, it gets in the way of our environmental protection. I mean, I know that this committee has talked quite a bit, uh, about, uh, about forest fire protection. And certainly we've seen case after case of the nepa review process slowing our ability to respond to the threats of, of wildfires. So whether it be environmental protection, uh, our defense readiness or just the growth of the economy, the permitting process touches every sector of the economy. >> thank you. I want to reference to a book that's that's come out.
▶ 1:05:42Uh, the book is entitled abundance by derek thompson and ezra klein. It speaks at length about how this nation has abundance. And by the way, both of those authors are very liberal in their ideology, but have said that the permitting process is broken. It holds this country back, that there needs to be massive changes to that, fundamental changes to that, to that process.
▶ 1:06:03And then a lot of members of congress who are very interested in funding projects back in their district, now called community project funding, uh, community project funding, in many instances, not only requires the money, it requires the permitting. And many times, too, it acquires additional dollars to get through the environmental impact statement assessments both at the federal, state and local level.
▶ 1:06:27Uh, can you give us your, uh, projections about how nepa, uh, affects those sorts of projects and how those projects can be executed? Because it's great to go home and say, hey, listen, I got money for the project, but when you wait a decade to get the project done and your constituents are going, wait a minute, you said you funded this project, what the heck is going on? Give us your perspective on how nepa affects that. >> yeah.
▶ 1:06:51You know, before this committee, uh, just a few months ago, uh, somebody from the american public works administration said that they would try to avoid federal dollars by any means necessary because of the red tape that came along with those dollars. Um, and you see this term of art, which is called the federalization, which cities and towns use where they basically try to get rid of the federal dollars so they don't have to go through the nepa process, even though in many cases those federal dollars are sorely needed.
▶ 1:07:15So yeah, the I would say, you know, the speed acts, uh, um, provision that says that federal financial assistance itself shall not be sufficient to trigger nepa is a really critical response to this problem. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> Mr. tom has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from arizona, miss ansari, for five minutes. >> thank you. Chair westerman. This is undoubtedly a very important topic.
▶ 1:07:36We should absolutely expedite the responsible build out of 21st century infrastructure, including clean energy, which is necessary to combat the climate crisis and stabilize our energy prices. Although I strongly oppose the speed act, I can appreciate the chairman's attempt to be technology neutral on this front. But while the chairman might be, this administration is not.
▶ 1:07:59This administration has clearly demonstrated that it does not support wind and solar, calling them unreliable, saying they don't work and even calling them ugly. But this is not where the american people are on this issue. The american people recognize that the climate crisis is real, and they believe that true energy independence will be achieved through homegrown clean energy developed through american innovation and built by our union workforce. So I just want to clarify a couple of points.
▶ 1:08:30Mr. harrell, do you believe that with good grid management and things like battery storage, that wind and solar can be a reliable source of electricity? Yes or no? >> we absolutely should be investing in all sources of clean energy to develop a reliable energy system to meet our needs. >> thank you, Mr. hoffman. Do you believe that with good, good management and things like battery storage, that wind and solar can be a reliable source of electricity? >> I do. >> thank you, Mr. lawrence.
▶ 1:09:00>> yeah, absolutely. I think with renewables, what we've heard is they're reliably unreliable. And so with the proper storage or whether it's natural gas, we can have a system with low cost clean energy generation, including wind and solar. >> thank you. Great. I, I agree, the administration officials who have come here before us so far seem to forget that batteries do exist. But I'll move on. Mr. harrell, do you agree that fully permitted and reviewed energy projects?
▶ 1:09:27Let's use offshore wind as an example that are mere months away from providing affordable, reliable power to the electricity grid should be allowed to finish construction. Yes or no? >> absolutely. We need a predictable regulatory process. >> thank you, Mr. hoffman. >> yeah, I support making it easier to bring new electrons onto the grid. >> thank you. And, Mr. lawrence.
▶ 1:09:51>> yeah, I do, I think the use of both preemptive vetoes and retroactive, retroactive vetoes has been problematic and creates a lot of uncertainty in our ability to invest and build all types of energy sources. >> thank you. It is great and so refreshing to hear your support for offshore wind. And let me say what the trump administration is doing right now to clean energy is unprecedented. It will result in more expensive energy bills for american families, more pollution, and a climate crisis that is worsening by the day.
▶ 1:10:23This administration has not stopped. At one stop work order, they've been yanking permits requiring secretary level sign off for mundane permitting decisions, canceling loans and grants for clean energy related infrastructure projects in red and blue states alike. There are also requiring agencies to consider so-called energy density and more arbitrary attacks, just to make sure that we are clear on what's going on here.
▶ 1:10:50We have three republican invited witnesses who agree that renewable energy, like wind and solar, is reliable, is affordable, and that this administration, this is my view, is out of line with that. And yet no one on the other side of the aisle seems to be willing to stand up and to refute the outrageous claims of the trump administration and the full scale attack on clean energy and affordability for americans. It's outrageous.
▶ 1:11:16And I will just say, I don't see anything in this bill that will move the needle and help these clean energy projects move forward. If we want to have a serious conversation about permitting, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Thank you. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from american samoa, miss radewagen, for five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman and ranking member huffman for holding this hearing today.
▶ 1:11:44Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. My question is for Mr. harral. In your testimony, you emphasized the need for multiple sources of energy production in order to keep up with china. Can you go over in more detail how important our energy production is from a national security standpoint?
▶ 1:12:05And in your opinion, is the united states as it is now on the right track to compete with china and other less than friendly global players? If not, what do we need to do to catch up? >> thank you, congressman, for the question. Um, I do not think the us is on track. Um, I think we have an opportunity to correct course. Uh, we need to establish more a predictable regulatory process to build out all sources of energy to meet our needs.
▶ 1:12:34Um, as mentioned, you know, 70% of, for example, data center capacity is being deployed in the us. Uh, in china, we are in a direct race there. The us, uh, put more capacity on, uh, over the last year. But we have a risk that we could lose that advantage. And so bipartisan, politically durable reforms that provide predictability for all energy sources is critical. And I think the speed act actually does do that.
▶ 1:12:59I think the speed act takes a technology agnostic approach that would allow us to have predictability in the regulatory system for all new energy sources. >> Mr. hoffman, Mr. lawrence, you also briefly mentioned china and russia in your testimonies. Is there anything you'd like to add? >> your representative? I would, uh, you know, I would agree with, with with Mr. harrell's sentiments here.
▶ 1:13:26Uh, it's, um, you know, particularly for ai and data centers, we know that the, uh, the pace of demand for being able to power these, uh, you know, best of the best ai models, uh, is going up dramatically. It's going up fast. Um, while anthropic is saying that we need 50gw of new ai, uh, electricity by 2028, you know, our two, uh, most recent nuclear plants took 16 years, and that those were just two gigawatts, right, to to bring onto the grid.
▶ 1:13:53And so the, you know, the size of the delta here is enormous. Um, and one of the huge problems here is, is the pace of our permitting process. >> and I'll just quickly add, you know, we are an energy abundant nation. Uh, we have an entrepreneurial spirit. We have world class talent and companies here that develop, uh, you know, conventional energy sources and clean energy sources and a lot of innovation happening here. Uh, but we need this permitting reform to help keep pace.
▶ 1:14:19Uh, it's incredible what the united states has done as an energy superpower, house, in terms of our ability to supply affordable, reliable energy, um, in terms of our ability to help our allies, uh, with things like, uh, liquefied natural gas exports. Um, but china is racing ahead in all sorts of these technologies, including ai. And so we can't have permitting be the bottleneck that holds up our opportunities to innovate, invest and build. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:14:45I yield back the balance of my time. >> the lady yields back. The chair recognizes the ranking member. Mr. huffman, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for their candor in answering the questions that my colleague from arizona just asked about, frankly, the chaos this administration is inflicting on all types of clean energy.
▶ 1:15:07Uh, and it really highlights just the cognitive dissonance of this entire conversation that we're pretending to have in this sham hearing, where republicans claim they want to move projects forward, they want to bring more energy, uh, to the american people while an entire industry is being shut down because of these wrongheaded actions, singling out a battery manufacturing facility for an immigration enforcement raid, shutting down
▶ 1:15:38An offshore wind project that's nearly complete, that's going to bring the cheapest electricity to new england that's available out there, sending the entire regional grid into chaos, pulling back port modernization grants that have already been awarded that are going to bring thousands of jobs and clean, affordable energy to the west coast and other places. This is madness. And what we get from the other side is crickets and gaslighting. With bills like this, this is not normal. This is not okay.
▶ 1:16:07But I do want to talk about what would happen, uh, if this particular piece of legislation, the speed act, were somehow to become law. So, Mr. glickman, I want to ask you a few things. Um, effective permitting reform is obviously impossible. If president trump and the administration continue to try to kill off all clean energy.
▶ 1:16:28But with the speed act in just a few words, can you remind us why congress often includes mechanisms for judicial review when it passes all sorts of laws? Why is this an important policy? >> it's an important policy to ensure accountability to the american people.
▶ 1:16:45Uh, in terms of what government agencies do, the supreme court has often recognized what it calls a presumption of reviewability, that is, that we assume that government actions, actions by administrative agencies are reviewable in court to make sure that the agencies are acting in accordance with the statutes pursuant to which they have power to act in the first place.
▶ 1:17:09We don't want them running astray, and it's the courts that provide an essential function making sure that agencies are held responsible for exceeding the scope of their authority. >> all right. Thanks. So let's go to section three a of the speed act, which makes it very hard for courts to ever intervene in a project. Can you break that section down for us? Tell us how that's going to work in the real world. If it was law. >> I think it's going to work to block most, if not all, efforts to challenge nepa noncompliance.
▶ 1:17:37And the reason is that the statute requires any litigant in nepa challenge to demonstrate that an agency's failure to adequately consider the input, provide that person during the comment period has caused the direct harm. Well, that that can't be proven. Nepa is entirely procedural statute. The supreme court has made it clear that agencies need to explore the environmental implications of proposed actions.
▶ 1:18:05But once they have done so and reported that out to the public, they don't have to listen to what the environmental document they prepared says they're free to ignore it. Right. So. Sure, you can require the agency to consider input, but it doesn't have to do anything with that input. So there's no way to prove that had the agency considered your input, it would have come out differently in a way that avoided harm. >> right. And so Mr.
▶ 1:18:29Hoffman said in his testimony that under this law, agencies would still have to take the hard look that nepa requires. But there's nothing to make sure that they actually do that. And so what I want to ask you about is, let's say you do have a claim that gets through, and let's say an agency has totally blown it failed to take a hard look. Um, what does the speed act do to block courts from intervening? Even in that scenario.
▶ 1:18:58>> the most problematic provision, as I said during my oral testimony, is the one that precludes courts from enjoining projects pending nepa compliance. So suppose that a court finds that an agency has violated nepa, perhaps even egregiously. Um, it can remand the action back to the agency to reconsider its deep analysis. But it can't stop the project from proceeding in the interim.
▶ 1:19:21That runs directly contrary to long standing law dating back at least to 1946, when congress passed the administrative procedure act. The apa says courts have the authority to set aside unlawful agency. Action set aside has been interpreted by chief justice roberts and justice kavanaugh and others to mean issue injunctions.
▶ 1:19:41And it doesn't matter that nepa is entirely procedural statute, because the apa says courts should set aside actions taken by agencies without observance of procedure required by law. >> yeah. So thank you for that last, last question. Um, you know, I find this amazing that the party that thinks government is always wrong is stripping away the most important guardrail to make sure government is not wrong.
▶ 1:20:08But, uh, if this became law, what incentive do federal agencies have to take a serious, hard look and actually get it right? >> very little, if any, because they would know that it doesn't matter whether we make mistakes or projects are going to proceed anyway. Maybe we'll have to go back to the drawing board and redo our analysis, but in the end, the project proceeds apace. No matter what we've done or not done in terms of nepa compliance. >> thank you, Mr. lichtman. Yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, Mr. stauber.
▶ 1:20:38>> thank you, chair westerman. And I want to thank my good friend, democrat jared golden, for bringing this bipartisan piece of legislation forward. And I look forward to it passing the house. Mr. harrell, in your testimony, you speak about the nexus between permitting reform and international and economic competitiveness. Can you expand upon how failing to act on permitting reform will have on america's competitive competitiveness on the global stage? >> yes. Thank you, congressman, and thank you for your leadership on on mining and permitting related issues.
▶ 1:21:07Uh, it's directly correlated. I mean, I think we've heard very directly from the chief hyperscalers in the united states that power is the long pole in the tent in scaling up our data center capacity as we think about onshoring more american manufacturing, a significant priority of republicans and democrats here in this congress. Uh, we need more reliable, affordable electricity to power that growth. And so the only way that we're going to keep pace and continue growth in this country is with, uh, more clean, affordable, reliable power.
▶ 1:21:37>> also, in your testimony, you note the nepa that nepa is not the only, uh, law passed by congress meant to protect and safeguard our environment. In fact, you note that congress passed laws like the endangered species act, clean water act after the endangered species act and the clean water act after nepa was signed into law. Can you clarify something? Will amending nepa jeopardize environmental protections and regulations? Like some of my colleagues on the opposite side of the dais have led us to believe.
▶ 1:22:06>> no, nepa is a procedural law, and it's effectively the first gate in the permitting process. You will still have to comply with all these bedrock environmental laws like the clean water act, the endangered species act, that all require permits. Nepa is largely, uh, like giving you the rules of the road to get through the process. >> thank you. So if we pass the nepa reforms in the speed act, our environmental laws like the endangered species act, the clean water and clean air act will remain on the books. Is that correct? >> correct.
▶ 1:22:37>> Mr. hoffman, in your testimony, you speak about the importance of permitting reforms like those in the speed act for the build out of transmission lines and renewable energy. I'm a bit confused because some of my colleagues have been claiming this is a handout, to quote big oil and quote, it puts polluters over people. Can you help clarify this? Would the reforms in the speed act benefit all kinds of projects, including renewable energy projects and the build out of transmission lines?
▶ 1:23:07>> representative. Thank you for the question. Yeah, absolutely. This is a tech neutral permitting reform. And, you know, I think you can see in the response to, uh, to the speed act, uh, that all sorts of industry are pleased to see these reforms on the table. Everybody from the american council on renewable energy to traditional energy interests to the hyperscalers. So absolutely, everybody stands to benefit. >> thank you. And turning to the speed acts judicial review provisions, the bill would set a 150 day statute of limitations for litigation over nepa reviews. Mr.
▶ 1:23:36Hoffman, would these provisions block interested parties from commenting on an ea or eis during the nepa review process? >> representative no. The 150 day statute of limitations is eminently achievable for those who want to bring a suit. In fact, a study came out one month ago from resources for the future, which showed the litigation cycle.
▶ 1:24:02Uh, for anybody who's litigating against a geothermal project, a wind and solar project, and almost every single one within that 150 day window, so absolutely achievable. >> thank you. Uh, would these provisions impact an interested party's ability to sue over other environmental laws like the endangered species act, the clean air act, or the clean water act? >> it would not. >> so the provisions simply impact the parties ability to sue over paperwork or process or procedure.
▶ 1:24:30They don't impact the parties ability to sue over substantive issues or deficiencies in the permitting process. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. I just want to thank the witnesses here today.
▶ 1:24:44I know that, uh, some of my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, um, may not, uh, disagree, uh, or may not agree with the speed act, but I will tell you that, um, a lot of times I hear my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle talk about process and process and process. There's some of them that will process the hell out of something and never let it go. And, uh, Mr. glixman just, you know, talked about, uh, lawsuits and whatever.
▶ 1:25:12We know that the weaponization of the endangered species act, clean water, clean air, clean air act, etc. Are put forth to stop some of these projects. I've seen it happen in minnesota. We've seen it happen in alaska and other natural resource states. So I think I think this is an opportunity. This is a very, very good start. Uh, as we move into this next century. So, Mr. chair, I yield back. Thank you. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:25:40Chair now recognizes the gentleman from maine, the lead co-sponsor of the act. Mr. golden, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> first of all, I want to thank you for working with me on the speed act. Uh, this has been a good bipartisan effort from the start. Both the chairman and I are going to remain committed to trying to keep it that way as we move through the process here. And, uh, right now, as we speak, we have an equal number of republican co-sponsors sitting at about three and three.
▶ 1:26:08Uh, I really have two questions here, but I want to throw the first one over to you, Mr. chair. Um, you know, specifically, we've we've heard some feedback that this bill, the speed act, would undermine and impede community engagement during the permitting process.
▶ 1:26:22So, um, we've we've had a lot of meetings, uh, you know, at the member level and, and with different stakeholders out there over the last several months, I want to give you the opportunity to walk us all through whether or not that is indeed the case in in our conversations and feedback from stakeholders out there. >> thank you, representative golden, and glad to engage in a colloquy with you on that. And that's been something that we wanted to protect through the process. And we actually don't change anything.
▶ 1:26:51As far as people commenting during the process. Uh, but what we're trying to do is speed the process up and on the back end of the process, where there's a six year window now to file suit on something that was supposedly settled in the record of decision. Uh, we've been able to agree that that time frame should be reduced to 150 days.
▶ 1:27:14So it, uh, absolutely allows all groups who want to comment on a project to make their comments during the permitting process and to hear those comments heard. >> thank you, I appreciate that. I mean, through the years, there's there's been many projects. So we're, you know, without taking one side or the other. I've always been an advocate of making sure that that the public has input in front of, in front of the federal agencies that are part of the process. So I think that's important. And just wanted to clarify that.
▶ 1:27:41Um, you know, I want to point out that one top line message against the speed act is that it's a permitting process written by and for fossil fuel polluters and extractive industries. Uh, I feel like this ignores the reality that wind, solar and other clean energy projects face significant delays because of nepa litigation. You know, the problems with nepa process are energy neutral, meaning they can be detrimental to both fossil fuel and renewable energy projects in maine.
▶ 1:28:06Uh, we've seen environmental ngos that have split on some clean energy projects, and those opposed use nepa to delay, delay, delay. While a public opinion campaign was waged against the project, funded by fossil fuel companies who just didn't want the competition, these problems with nepa can cut both ways, and so too should be the solutions.
▶ 1:28:28This is a pro energy bill that takes, you know, in all of the above energy technology neutral approach. Mr. harold and, uh, Mr. hoffman already got a chance, but do you want to weigh in a little bit more on ways that you've seen the permitting process hinder clean energy expansion and development? >> yeah. Thank you, congressman, for your leadership and your willingness to engage and drive forward on what we think is the single largest barrier to deploying new clean energy in this country.
▶ 1:28:57Our broken permitting system just underscore, um, of solar and wind projects that underwent eis. 30% of the solar projects, uh, were litigated, 50% of the wind projects were litigated. On average, it's extended at least 15 months, um, of the permitting process. Um, nearly 66% of solar projects face litigation in some shape or form, the highest rate among technology types. Um, so there's a major challenge here. And this is data from stanford.
▶ 1:29:27So, um, you're seeing very direct, tangible barriers to, uh, building new clean energy across technology areas because of our current system. And I think this bill finds a way to put limitations, but still, uh, allow folks to weigh in in the process, to litigate when there are egregious errors. I mean, we've got to set a predictable process, set some rules of the road expectations that get us to a green light or red light that's essential for our energy future. It's essential for us and global climate action.
▶ 1:29:57It's essential to our competition with china. >> if I could just add, in addition to all those statistics for the mature clean energy technologies, it's also that barrier for the innovative clean energy technologies of tomorrow, the ones that are working with the department of energy through the loan program office. It could be the servos and the enhanced geothermal. So we're not just talking about the mature clean energy technologies, renewables, wind and solar, but we're also thinking about we have all of these opportunities for clean baseload power.
▶ 1:30:25Um, a lot of them don't really know how to navigate the nepa process because they're they're young, they're smaller companies. They don't have the cash flows to hire a bunch of lawyers and consultants. And so this is not just about fixing, uh, for those incumbent projects, but also for the innovative technologies of the future. >> thank you. Appreciate it. And I yield back my five seconds. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, Mr. tiffany, for five minutes. >> yeah. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:30:53Glicksman, have you ever represented a company that has gone through the nepa process to create a major, um, industrial project? >> I have not. >> you've never represented a company through this process. >> I have not. >> thank you. Um, Mr. hochman, will the environmental reviews continue under this bill? >> yeah, absolutely. >> will applicants still have to provide a full analysis of their projects? >> yes.
▶ 1:31:22And, you know, under the many other environmental statutes as well, which remain in place. >> what's the longest review you've ever seen of a project that has gone through, for example, an eis? What's what are some of the times you. >> well, I suppose the longest reviews I've ever seen are the ones that never ended. Uh, there are a number of, of, uh, of projects that, uh, that were canceled or sort of permanently in limbo, uh, as a result of, of the nepa process.
▶ 1:31:47And that could be everything from, uh, you know, a transmission project, uh, to, uh, to a traditional energy project to, uh, to a, you know, a low carbon project. So, uh, yeah, there are there are many, many projects that go through nepa process. >> and so you're saying you've seen projects that it's been never ending. >> that's correct. >> not uncommon for ten years. >> not uncommon. It's definitely happened many times.
▶ 1:32:13>> how many projects do you think are out there that are an idea that someone has? Um, does that where this serves as a deterrent from someone even bothering to go through the process? >> yeah, we actually have a term for this. We call it the dark matter of nepa, where it's basically all of the projects that never even get off the ground. >> you call it what. >> the dark matter of nepa. >> the dark matter. >> and I'll give you one, one, one classic example of this.
▶ 1:32:42It's that, you know, the vast majority of potential for geothermal and solar, uh, or sorry, for geothermal are on federal land, and a great deal of potential for solar is also on federal land. And yet the vast majority of projects that are actually built are not on federal land because they're built to avoid the federal nexus and thus the nepa process. Right. And as we deploy more and more of this energy, it's going to be harder and harder to site away from the federal land. Uh, where where so much of the potential is, um, so it's a huge issue. >> Mr. harold, does china have a nepa analysis like we have in the united states? >> they do not.
▶ 1:33:13>> do they use nepa analysis with their belt and road projects that they've been doing around the world? >> they do not. But the us has immense environmental standards to make sure that we build properly in a more environmentally efficient way and drive forward.
▶ 1:33:30>> and even in comparison to the european countries which adopted the so-called green fantasy, isn't it true that it is america that, uh, was the one that reduced our, um, uh, co2 footprint? Is isn't that accurate? >> this is true. The us has significantly reduced its co2 emissions, and, uh, us lng exports have significantly contributed to global emissions reductions.
▶ 1:33:55>> and in the meantime, some of those that, um, were hectoring us about that they really haven't reduced their footprint, have they? >> I think we need to see us leadership to drive new technology forward, invest here, build faster here. And then the us should be exporting that technology abroad. That's the recipe to reduce global emissions and meet our global energy needs. >> so you guys would not accept the challenge?
▶ 1:34:18I'm going to accept the challenge from the gentlelady from arizona in regards to so-called renewables, the one that kills endangered species on a regular basis, the one that blights bucolic valleys, hills and valleys in wisconsin. I grew up in a place that's legendary. It's called the driftless. People speak of it in almost ecumenical terms.
▶ 1:34:43I grew up there on a dairy farm, and you're seeing thousands of acres that are being transformed now with wind and solar panels on them, as this enormous amount of money is pumped out from the federal taxpayer to be able to build these $1,000 an acre, they're paying farmers who typically would have to pay $200 an acre for their rent.
▶ 1:35:04And it's distorting not just rural america and serving as a blight, but it's also driving up electricity prices, as my state has adopted more with their public service commission, allowing more and more of these wind and solar, um, industrial sites. They are not farms. They are industrial sites. As more and more of them are built.
▶ 1:35:29Electricity prices are up $2 billion since 2019, in aggregate, in the state of wisconsin, tens of thousands of acres being covered by these wind and solar. I would just conclude with one question, Mr. laura's name, all the minerals that are going to have to be mined if we are going to continue with wind and solar as a preeminent source of electricity. >> I don't have enough time to do that.
▶ 1:35:59>> but it is clear that, uh, you know, clean energy technologies, electric vehicles, batteries are more mineral intense, um, than their conventional counterparts. And so we are going to need tremendous demand, uh, not just for energy, but for defense technologies, for, you know, our laptops, for our cell phones. Uh, and we need to do that here in the united states where there's economic opportunities, but also we can do it much more clean than our international counterparts.
▶ 1:36:24>> when the gentlelady from arizona introduces a bill to allow mining in america, then I will take her admonitions seriously. I yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. Mr. huffman, you have a seat. >> yeah. Thanks. Mr. chairman, I do have a unique request. This, uh, speaks to the sort of hijacking of the abundance narrative, uh, in service of fossil fuel. I'm asking to enter into the record a 2024, uh, paper permitting reforms. False choice.
▶ 1:36:52This is the first national review of federal permits and environmental reviews for energy infrastructure. Uh, completed over the last decade, found that 95% of clean energy projects went through streamlining streamlined permitting procedures. Less than 5% even needed a comprehensive environmental review, and, significantly, only 29 out of nearly 2000 wind and solar projects were challenged in court. Uh, that is, 1.5% of all projects.
▶ 1:37:21Very important context for this conversation. >> without objection. So ordered. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, Mr. magaziner, for five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman. Um, you know, it may surprise some people to hear me say this, but I, I want to get to. Yes on this bill.
▶ 1:37:41I'm not there now, but I want to get there because I understand that, uh, for those of us who are good democrats who idealize franklin roosevelt and the new deal and know that we need to build out our infrastructure, repair our highways and bridges, and achieve the clean energy transition and so much more. Uh, we need to make it easier to build in this country again.
▶ 1:38:06And we have to find that right balance between making it easier to build in this country and protecting our environment, our heritage, tribal sovereignty, and all the rest. I want to get there, but I'm not there today. Uh, for a couple reasons that have been mentioned already. But bear repeating, number one, this conversation we're having about how to find the right balance between nepa reviews and making it easier to build.
▶ 1:38:32This is a normal conversation to be having, but we are having this normal conversation in an abnormal time. A time when the trump administration is unilaterally and most likely illegally canceling and stopping clean energy projects, including a very important project in my district, the revolution wind project that was set to deliver energy to the grid at a below market rate for consumers and meet a third
▶ 1:39:05Of my state's electricity demand. It's a big deal. There are workers right now stuck on boats off the coast of my district, who don't know when they'll be able to go back to work or not. The administration has also unilaterally canceled funding for staffing for nepa reviews, and so I'm just going to put that out there because in concept, this is a conversation that I'm open to having on this bill that I think we should be having, but we cannot ignore the broader context here that if my colleagues across the aisle, at least some of them, and I
▶ 1:39:35Believe the chairman believes this, are advocating for in all of the above energy strategy, you can't say that you're for that and pass it through congress. When you know that the trump administration is going to block the clean energy part of all of the above. And so that is something that we're going to have to deal with, um, on the bill itself. I do have a couple of questions, and I don't know if the chair or any of our witnesses would like to weigh in. There's a section that interests me that let me make sure I get this right.
▶ 1:40:04It says that an agency is not required to prepare an environmental document with respect to a proposed action, if that project has already been reviewed essentially by states or tribes, and that state or tribal review meets the requirements of the act. So essentially saying that if the review has already been done at the state level or the tribal level, that that counts toward the federal review. And in concept, that makes sense to me, right? Why do the same thing twice?
▶ 1:40:33But it occurs to me that different states and tribes most likely have very different standards for the types of reviews that they conduct. And so would this bill.
▶ 1:40:48Or is there an openness to amending the bill to ensure that there's at least some sort of baseline level of, of what the standard should be for a state level environmental review in order to meet the federal standard, to have that, you know, take the federal standards place. >> uh, Mr. magaziner, I'll be glad to respond to that. Uh, it's on the part about is there space to modify the bill? Absolutely.
▶ 1:41:15That's why we have a hearing so we can get input so we can go back and review and see if there's something we can change to make the bill better. As far as those specifics, I'll let the the witnesses tackle that. >> congressman, I'm happy to hop in in a very tangible example where this could make sense as long as you ensure the the rigor and the standards here. And it's with the epa's review of class six permits, for example.
▶ 1:41:37So in many cases, the epa delegates permitting authority to states, if they can show that they can uphold the standard, the minimum standards of of a permitting decision. And we've seen that dramatically accelerate, uh, permits for class six permits. So I think that kind of concept and relying on, uh, well and well structured. >> I don't mean to cut you off, but I want to try to get one more question in. I would just suggest again, I think the importance of having those minimum standards enumerated is going to be important for me, you know, for my support.
▶ 1:42:06But in concept, I hear what you're getting at. And then with the time I have left, public comment in the bill would be limited to individuals or groups that can demonstrate direct harm. Uh, and then standing would only be for those who are allowed to comment. But it occurs to me that, you know, an endangered species being impacted, or maybe a historical site being impacted.
▶ 1:42:26Like, is there a person that could demonstrate direct harm, or do we need to make some exceptions to allow certain types of public comment from on topics where there isn't a person that necessarily can demonstrate direct harm, but there is clearly harm that would be, um, that would be caused by the project. Is there an openness to modifying that? Not to anyone, to the chair or to anyone else? >> I'll take that. And your time has expired. But I'm telling you, there's an openness to make this bill work.
▶ 1:42:58Yeah. And if we can, uh, keep the environmental protections in place and speed the process along, that's what, uh, that's where my interests. >> are, I think. And I'll just say, I if there's openness to improving the bill, I'd like to be part of that conversation. Um, but it's also going to take, uh, some changes, I think, in the administration's behavior, because we are operating in an unusual and very destructive context here coming out of the white house. But I welcome the continued conversation.
▶ 1:43:27>> chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, Mr. webster, for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. chairman. >> um. >> let's see, Mr. hockman. >> are you, um, it's kind of like the any the nepa.
▶ 1:43:43>> uh, act, uh, the clean water act, specifically section 404, uh, contains vague, defined procedural requirements that have produced significant delays in projects in my area and for the citizens of, uh, in florida. Uh, I'm wondering if what lessons we can learn from the speed act. Uh, that would help the clean water act. Uh, when we seek to fix that permitting process.
▶ 1:44:14>> yeah. Thank you for the question, representative. I mean, one of the challenges that we sometimes see with section 404 of the clean water act for those individual permits, is those individual permits often count as a major federal action, and thus they set off nepa review themselves. In fact, that's one of the things that's happening right now with the semiconductor facility in new york, which got money from the chips act. The building chips in america act exempted it from nepa for the loan, but it didn't exempt it from nepa for the section 404 process. And so that, uh, that semiconductor facility still hasn't broken ground.
▶ 1:44:44And so certainly, when we think about the way in which the 404 process could be improved by a law like the speed act, uh, because the 404 process kicks off, that burdensome nepa review, efforts to streamline nepa end up streamlining the 404 process itself. >> thank you very much. Um, I've long been a long been a supporter of efforts to improve america's critical infrastructure and ensure its modernization for the 21st century.
▶ 1:45:11Um, whether it's transportation, aviation, energy, or other aspects of it infrastructure, my florida constituents suffer from the expensive, unnecessary bureaucratic delays. So, Mr. harold, can you explain how the legislation being heard today will ensure that america is able to develop and to build more efficiently, to unleash america's energy? >> yes. Thank you, congressman.
▶ 1:45:43It would resolve some outstanding questions out there to provide more predictability in this process. In the end, time is money. Uh, developers need a predictable process, the rules of the road that they're going to go forward to drive through in a project. And this, uh, makes it very clear and it sets good policy to restore what the intention of nepa was, uh, which is the procedural law. Lay out the rules of the road.
▶ 1:46:07You get through that first stage gate, uh, and then you move forward and getting permits that are required by other statutes like the clean air act, the clean water act, endangered species act. And so it's just critical that we have a, uh, a predictable process and then, very importantly, puts some limitations on the the judicial process to ensure that we get to a final yes or no at some stage.
▶ 1:46:29And it sets reasonable requirements, limitations on where stakeholders can engage, but they absolutely can still engage, uh, that drive towards a green light or a red light. In the end, we have to let this country build. And this bill puts forward a really clear pathway to how you get to either a yes or a no. >> thank you very much. Uh, that's a good submission. Yes or no? That's that's a great goal. Yield back.
▶ 1:47:00>> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland, miss elfreth, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And thank you for your engagement on this. And like my colleagues, I too want to get to. Yes, I would like to be in a place where I can deliver big, bold projects for my community in this nation again, that we can do that. But I think the devil is in the details here, and I would like to work together to figure this out, particularly as it relates to critical renewable energy projects. We've been talking about national security priorities, transportation projects, the like.
▶ 1:47:30I, too, wish we were having this conversation in a bubble that this committee and the the good faith negotiations could occur where we could legislate these reasonable reforms to that permitting process and appropriately balance those environmental and heritage protections and other policy priorities at the moment.
▶ 1:47:47Uh, but just for the record, as my colleagues have pointed out, we're not in a bubble and that this administration has been openly hostile to renewable energy projects, including the revolution wind project in my my colleague, congressman magaziner's home state of rhode island, that was 80% of the way constructed. And it was it was paused. Um, so we have to keep the important context of this moment here in mind during these negotiations.
▶ 1:48:11And I'm going to sit here and I say this quite a bit, mister chair, but I'm not going to pretend like a law that was passed decades before I was born is perfect. Um, at the same time, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater and we have to work together on this. So I want to kind of focus in Mr. glicksman on you highlighted the fiscal responsibility act of 2023, the bipartisan consensus based way that this committee, before I got here, was able to work towards that solution, that we need to be thoughtful. We need to review it.
▶ 1:48:40Can you we talk about some of the the process there a little bit more? I want to hone in on one aspect of the speed act as it's proposed. Mr. chair, the judicial review, I think we can all agree six years is just too long, but 150 days is is not enough, particularly as it relates to meaningful community input, particularly amongst, uh, our tribal communities engaging in an attorney, having that attorney, uh, turn around, uh,
▶ 1:49:11A response. All of those are really, really important. So, Mr. glicksman, can you just speak to the pressures and why 150 days is not the answer here, and what perhaps could be the right, the right number? >> let me first respond to the beginning of your question, which is what did the federal fiscal responsibility act do? It set timelines for preparation of nepa documents, environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.
▶ 1:49:37It set page limits, um, and it authorized the broader use of categorical exclusions, which are likely to be the quickest routes through nepa evaluation. So all those things, uh, ought to result in a streamlining of deep analysis in terms of public input.
▶ 1:49:53Um, the provision that actually bothers me the most, uh, is the one that says that once, um, an agency has published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental document like an environmental impact statement, it need not consider any further scientific or technical data.
▶ 1:50:13Well, the time for public input is after the issuance of a notice of intent, and therefore the statute basically says all public input can be ignored because it's coming too late in the process.
▶ 1:50:29Um, coupled with that, the short deadline for filing nepa evaluation, I think the result is that, uh, this is not a bill despite, uh, the intention of the drafters, I think to the contrary, that will in fact invite, um, public input and take it into account in a serious way. >> I'd also like to hone in on another point made by my colleagues. But I think it's imperative here. We're not in a bubble.
▶ 1:50:56This administration is also firing civil servants and federal employees who are tasked with this very evaluation left and right. Can you speak to are we in a position as a federal government to be able even to deliver on the reforms of the speed act, given the limitations of our federal workforce at this moment. >> I think the cuts in federal workforce are likely to make it more difficult to to comply with the fra deadlines, um, and to move things along expeditiously.
▶ 1:51:22There's going to be a shortage of agency personnel, and there's going to be, in particular, a loss of considerable loss of expertise, uh, from people in the agencies who've been doing this kind of work for years. And those things, I think, are going to contribute mightily to further delays. >> in my 30s remaining Mr. hoffman, Mr. lord's and Mr. harrell, have you ever helped companies through the nepa review process? >> I have not. >> me neither. >> I have not. Okay.
▶ 1:51:53>> Mr. chair, I think I think we have a little trend here. Um, and so I would I would suggest that perhaps we get together with folks. Not that I disrespect your input, but, uh, with folks who've actually gone through it together in a bipartisan basis and try to get through the details of this bill. Thank you. >> I think we've got some of those on the on the dais today. Um, chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, Mr. walberg, for five minutes. >> thank you. >> Mr.
▶ 1:52:18Chairman, and thanks the panel for being here in the years that we've been talking about permitting reform, whether it was when I was on energy and commerce committee or other places, uh, we, uh, we get all excited, hopeful and with great fanfare and in many cases, bipartisanship approach. It ultimately withers on the vine. And I'm hoping this is not the case. Um, I'm grateful to Mr.
▶ 1:52:45Westerman for bringing the speed act before the full committee, uh, so we can analyze the benefits of meaningful bipartisan nepa reform, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to get to. Yes. And I think that's that's a positive we ought to hitchhike on, uh, if we are to power the next several decades of potential, we must start with the basics. And it certainly starts with nepa.
▶ 1:53:13Uh, the speed act presents an opportunity to make lasting change. And I hope we can move this bill forward in the house soon. Uh, during our july hearing, I highlighted the bureaucratic maze of permitting and its threats to our energy security, representing the energy district of michigan, with over 40% of all energy produced in my district between lake michigan and lake erie. Nuclear, coal, wind and solar.
▶ 1:53:45Natural gas. All their. The current system is expensive, it's inefficient and threatens not only our ability to develop critical infrastructure, but jeopardize our national security. The speed act would codify narrowing the scope of nepa, reduce duplicative review, clarify the definition of major federal action, building on fiscal responsibility. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:54:09Harral, um, can you speak to the impact of clarifying the definition of major federal action and codifying principles of the seven county supreme court decision? >> yes. Um, this is one of the most critical policy steps being made here in this, this legislation.
▶ 1:54:29So obviously, the supreme court ruling, eight zero unanimous decision aims at narrowing down the scope and, uh, of the or the separate from time and place of where you're evaluating projects. Um, and what's critical here is congress steps in and codifies these principles into law so that it's long standing.
▶ 1:54:49Even justice sotomayor's decision, you are her concurrence expresses some frustration that, uh, after a 2008 ruling where they made a decision related to this, we haven't really seen it play out. Um, it really underscores the need for bipartisan congressional action here to to codify some of these limitations and really get nepa back to its procedural roots. >> okay. Thank you.
▶ 1:55:11Um, in the in the time between 1969, when I, uh, happily graduated from high school, uh, I was born then and headed off to state university to major in forestry. Um, nepa passed, uh, this body.
▶ 1:55:28And in 2025, we have seen technology rapidly evolve, new industries come about, and powerful computers, uh, can now be held in the palm of our hands that are way beyond the computers that were involved in our lunar landing on the moon. Uh, Mr. harold, can can it be said that our procedural permitting process is stuck in the 60s and holds back some potential for american people? >> uh, yes. Absolutely. We we have to modernize our system.
▶ 1:55:58And I think that provides more transparency for for government, for, uh, our constituents and for investors who are trying to make big investments to provide, uh, and grow our economy. >> it is time, and we've got to do it. We just have to do it. Mr. hochman, uh, how does our archaic permitting process give china an upper hand in the global ai and energy space? And how would legislation before us allow us to counter china's chokehold on the critical mineral supply that we know is real?
▶ 1:56:30>> yes. So we know that one of the most important things for winning the ai arms race is just having energy available. And already in the united states, companies like nvidia are saying just the availability of energy is the number one consideration they have when figuring out where to put a data center. Uh, and so we're, we're running towards an electricity shortfall. Um, and one of the reasons that we're doing that is because of our permitting process, we take far too long to deploy electricity.
▶ 1:56:52And on the critical minerals side, um, you know, it takes us 29 years on average to develop a new mine that puts us second worst in the world, better only than zambia. Uh, and one of the main reasons for that is, is our permitting process as well. Uh, and so it's just it's critical that we, that we modernize this process for the needs of 21st century. >> thank you. Many more questions, uh, to develop this, but, uh, my time is expiring, so I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. Uh, ranker. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:57:23I have a unanimous consent request. Um, addressing this this trope that democrats will not change nepa, that it is a sacred, you know, kind of scripture that we refuse to modify. Uh, there actually is, uh, a law that would meet those descriptions and that is the 1872 mining law. The democrats have been trying to modernize and change for years, and republicans refuse to touch one part of it.
▶ 1:57:50So I'd like to enter the 1872 mining law making mining, uh, great again, uh, from president grant's era, sacred scripture. >> making mining great again. Amen. Without objection. Yeah. Uh, representative brownley from california. You're up. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, let me just start by saying I'm glad to hear that.
▶ 1:58:14Uh, chairman westerman is certainly open, um, to making this bill better because because I do believe that we do need reform. Um, like Mr. magaziner stated earlier, um, in this hearing, one of the greatest concerns I have about these discussions around permitting reform, this congress, is the unprecedented and hostile attacks on clean energy by the administration, seemingly with the full backing
▶ 1:58:47Of my republican colleagues. Over the last eight months, we've seen a near constant attack on clean energy investments. My district has suffered in meeting its clean energy goals, with the administration clawing back or freezing vital resources that were promised for specific projects, uh, costing jobs and economic growth in my district.
▶ 1:59:14It doesn't feel like we're right now, in the moment, working, uh, in in good faith, uh, in this environment, we have real consequences lost jobs, higher energy costs, poorer health, missed opportunities for families across america. So, uh, Mr. hill, I'll ask you, um, and let me just say, uh, clearpath and clearpath action. You you guys do good work. So thank you for that.
▶ 1:59:40Um, and thank you for your support on clean energy and all of its forms. Um, I'm just going to ask you point blank with the administration defunding all of these clean energy, uh, programs, does that concern you in terms of our progress towards a clean energy economy? >> I would say in general, we think the major fluctuations between political ministrations is a major problem.
▶ 2:00:07We need a predictable system for that not only improves the system today, but for the next 20 years. That's what's going to drive american leadership. And so we've got to eliminate these major shifts, um, in regulatory policy that go, uh, election, election administration to administration. >> well, four years is a big step backwards, uh, in terms of moving forward on on the clean energy front anyway. But I hear what you're saying. Um, uh, Mr.
▶ 2:00:36Glicksman, uh, putting aside affordability and environmental benefits, do you believe the type of permitting reform being proposed here would actually help clean energy projects move forward on the same footing as fossil fuels? Understanding in today's, uh, environment? Uh, the, the administration certainly pushing fossil fuels over any other energy sources at the moment. >> in a vacuum that might be.
▶ 2:01:03So it is, as you and your colleagues have pointed out, we're not operating in a vacuum. The president at the most recent cabinet meeting said no wind projects will proceed under his administration. And so it seems pretty clear to me that there's a thumb on the scale in favor of fossil fuel based energy and against clean energy like solar and wind. >> thank you. Thank you for that. Um.
▶ 2:01:23Uh, in my district, uh, I mentioned it earlier, but climate change is is is not just talking about it's, uh, it climate change is huge in my district. It's wildfires burning more frequently, sea level rise threatening thousands of homes and businesses, and coastal ventura county and growers struggling with shifting seasons and dwindling water supplies. So, Mr.
▶ 2:01:51Glicksman, again, how would allowing agencies to disregard climate change and nepa reviews depart from longstanding practices? And what would that mean for communities on the front line of climate change? >> I think it would increase the risk of exposure to environmental harms that result from climate change, including things like wildfires and sea level rise that cause flooding, exposure to, uh, more extreme storms.
▶ 2:02:17All these have been linked by scientists to climate change. I think one of the the good aspects of nepa, as well as some of the other legislation passed early in the 1970s, is that it's worded generally. And one of the reasons it's worded generally is that it doesn't lock, uh, policymakers or agency officials into knowledge that existed at the time the statute was adopted.
▶ 2:02:43And so climate change was understood back in 1969, but not nearly as well as it is now. Nepa allows analysis to conform to current knowledge. So the more we know about climate change, uh, the more reasonable and, uh, it is to expect agencies to factor climate analysis into their nepa evaluations, even if they wouldn't have done so 40 or 50 years ago. >> thank you for that. And my time is up, I yield back.
▶ 2:03:13>> thank you. Before we go to representative crank, uh, I've got some things to enter into the record. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from fervo energy, which states the process of executing the environmental analysis and seeking multiple approvals required by the national environmental policy act of 1969 to develop geothermal on public lands can take up to ten years or more. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. The report from breakthrough energy, titled understanding nepa litigation.
▶ 2:03:42This report shows that between 2013 and 2022, 33% of nepa appeals cases targeted renewable energy production. As these statements, as a statement indicates, nepa presents significant barriers for renewable and conventional energy sources alike. And finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
▶ 2:04:05The niskanen center report detailing that nepa also has a significant impact on transmission, showing more than a quarter of all new transmission lines from 2010 to 2020 went through an environmental impact statement, and these projects see 31% litigation rates and 12% cancellation rates. Without objection, so ordered the representative from colorado. Are you up? Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:04:32>> before I begin, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to submit a letter for the record from the american exploration and production council supporting the speed act. That, quote, puts nepa back on track, unquote, to address the needs of the modern energy economy. >> without objection. >> thank you. Um, I heard Mr. glicksman say. I think I'm quoting it pretty, pretty pretty closely. Uh, it's not the time to reform nepa.
▶ 2:04:55Uh, nepa was passed 55 years ago, so I guess I'd ask, when is a good time? Uh, china is not held back by nepa. In fact, I would guess that.
▶ 2:05:09In fact, I almost guarantee that somewhere in the world, either now or in the next couple of hours, there'll be a couple of chinese agents going through and, um, noting everything that was said in this hearing because they think everything is warfare against the united states, and they know that we, uh, use nepa. There are people here in america who use nepa to hold back projects, and that's the reason some don't like the speed act.
▶ 2:05:38That's the that's the dirty little secret here, is that they use nepa to stop the projects. There. I said it out loud. Um, but look, colorado is home to minerals and energy resources necessary to power america's future economy. And as the fourth largest oil producing state, responsible for nearly 4% of the total us crude output, and with vast deposits of critical minerals and rare earths, colorado is uniquely positioned.
▶ 2:06:10Uh, we're also home to one of the nation's premier mining institution, the colorado school of mines. Our future resource development hinges on the ability to permit and develop projects efficiently. In a prior hearing at this committee, we discussed china's stranglehold on the critical minerals supply chain and the risks it poses to our energy and national security.
▶ 2:06:31The united states simply cannot afford to remain dependent on foreign adversaries for the materials that power our grid, that build our defense weapons systems, and that drive innovation in next generation energy technologies. Uh, I would ask a question to Mr. harrell. First, I'd like to thank you, Mr. harrell, for the great work that that your organization does.
▶ 2:06:56But as we review the three permitting reform bills before us today, how would these measures help strengthen america's geopolitical position in developing our own energy and mineral resources? And what are the consequences if congress fails to act? >> uh, the consequences of congress failing to act is that we lose this global competition. Uh, we are way past the time of needing to enact bipartisan, politically durable, uh, permit reform.
▶ 2:07:25Uh, ah, the uncertainty in our system is the single largest barrier to deploying new clean energy, new infrastructure that is needed to grow our economy to take on major challenges, environmental challenges, including climate. Um, and so we've got to restore predictability to it.
▶ 2:07:40Um, and I would argue that the supreme court, the uncertainty around different political dynamics, um, as well as these urgent challenges, make it even more pressing that congress act in a bipartisan and a politically durable way that sets the permitting process that we know we need to compete today and for the next 20 years. >> so the central focus of this committee is clear.
▶ 2:08:03How do we modernize, permitting, um, how do we make it more efficient and how do we reduce unnecessary delays? We often talk about the lack of agency coordination and duplicative reviews in the nepa process. The fiscal responsibility act took the first steps in 40 years in modernizing, permitting, and it put timelines in for completion of ea's and eis and instructing how agencies are to coordinate with each other.
▶ 2:08:32Um, the e permit act would approach modernizing permitting from a technological standpoint. And Mr. harrell, I'd ask you, how can an online platform ensure agencies can meet the deadlines set in the fra? >> yeah, uh, it is critically important to have some consistency.
▶ 2:08:51I mean, we have talked very directly with trump and biden administration permitting officials who expressed extreme frustration with the lack of consistency on the nomenclature and data that we're using, that there isn't a centralized system, um, there's not uniform federal standards, um, and that we're not publishing this data so that we can hold all stakeholders accountable. And so I think this is a no regrets move to modernize our permitting system.
▶ 2:09:18And I think we'll see significant benefits from it, um, across the permitting structure. >> thank you, Mr. harrell. I appreciate it, Mr. chairman. Thank you. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman. Mr. stauber. >> I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the general president of the laborers international union of north america. >> Mr. stauber, could you use your microphone, please? >> I'm sorry.
▶ 2:09:43I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from general president of the laborers international union of north america in support of h.r. 4776, be entered into the record. >> without objection. So ordered request. Mr. hoffman, you're recognized. >> yeah. Mr. chair, thank you. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this july or june 2025 study quantifying the substantive influence of public comment on us federal environmental decisions under nepa.
▶ 2:10:13This speaks to the way in which nepa actually results in substantive changes and improvements in projects. 64% of projects showing modifications to alternatives, 42% showing modifications to mitigation plans, 11% leading to the selection of an entirely new, uh, preferred alternative. So not stopping projects, but improving them is the way it works. >> without objection. So ordered chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. Mr.
▶ 2:10:43Soto, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, chairman. You know, we've seen the use of nepa in a very collaborative way. In central florida. We have the I-4 expansion, which is still going on for those of my constituents. They know what it's like to sit in traffic. And we've seen the state and federal government and contractors come together for that. In addition, through this committee, we worked in a bipartisan fashion to protect the kissimmee river.
▶ 2:11:06Now, there's a study that, uh, department of interior is doing after $1 billion restoration, the biggest in the world. Um, and then we see alligator alcatraz, which is right now a state project where the state could lose a half $1 billion because they, uh, they don't want to get reimbursed by the feds because they want to avoid nepa. Uh, so that'll be an interesting one going forward. Uh, people are looking for waste, fraud and abuse. I think we we found an example of that in the state.
▶ 2:11:35I was proud to vote for the fiscal responsibility act, bipartisan, um, bill establishing timetables, fee caps. It's been the subject of a lot of discussion today. And I agree it's a critical time for this discussion.
▶ 2:11:48We see, uh, trump blocking the rural broadband program that's hurting our ranchers and our farmers, a 40 something billion dollar program blocking clean energy projects like wind busting up ev battery factories, jacking up tariffs that are absolutely making these projects so much more expensive, and then deporting workers on top of it, which is hurt.
▶ 2:12:11The state of florida, with nearly a million legal immigrants who are about to lose their status or already did through temporary protective status in the parole program program. Follow that up with a terrible jobs report, rising prices, and a worsening economy. We need to have this discussion today. Very important. Uh, and I remain open minded, uh, to, uh, additional nepa reforms, having voted for the fiscal responsibility act. Mr. glickman's, great to see you.
▶ 2:12:39I graduated from gw law. I had a professor sue as my environmental law. Uh, professor, I still have nightmares about nax and total maximum daily loads and all the other things that, uh, we still deal with in this committee today. Um, you talked a little bit about how we need an initial assessment of how the fiscal responsibility act goes through. Um, it'd be great to, you know, what is your first kind of guesstimate right now about how that's going?
▶ 2:13:09>> I think it's premature to determine how it's going, but it seems to me. >> like your gut feelings right now, I know you're not going to have a final. >> gut feeling is that it is already accelerated the process, or is likely to do so in the near future. >> how much do you think? Try to paint a picture for the committee, the kind of acceleration we're looking at. >> well, it used to be that it took four years to prepare an eis, and now the statute says you can only do it in two years. You must do it within two years. And there's judicial review.
▶ 2:13:37If you don't, it's a 50% improvement right there. >> I also want to talk about chevron, uh, administrative law. You're bringing me back to that now too. So with the overturning of chevron, now, agencies can actually pursue more aggressive timetables. And the courts, uh, will actually lacking deference. How do you think this how do you think chevron affects nepa reviews now? Now, the agencies lacked deference.
▶ 2:14:05>> well, there are certainly enough provisions in nepa, as amended by the fiscal responsibility act that haven't been fully interpreted by agencies or courts. And if agencies interpret those provisions in ways that would expedite nepa reviews, uh, the courts are going to take a close look.
▶ 2:14:23Um, on the other hand, if the agency, uh, interprets the statute in a way that is likely to delay projects, the courts now have independent, uh, responsibilities to rein the agencies in and say, look, you're the statute was designed to expedite the process. You're not doing it. You need to go back to the drawing board. >> Mr. harold, how do you think eliminating deference of agencies under chevron affects um agency's ability to conduct nepa in an efficient way? >> uh, I think.
▶ 2:14:53>> it underscores why bipartisan congressional action, very specific congressional action is necessary now that that that ruling is on the books, I think. >> to get down to the details now. >> yeah, absolutely. And so, um, I think it's incumbent on, uh, on this committee and leaders who want to find a solutions here to come together with really specific, uh, durable solutions that provide that, that direction. >> Mr. hodgman, how do you think chevron affects this debate right now over nepa efficiencies?
▶ 2:15:20>> yeah, I agree, it's absolutely critical now, for now more than ever, I would say for for congress to write clear laws about what nepa process should look like. Um, and the other piece of this is just that there's this sort of back and forth where chevron absolutely changed the way that we afford deference to agencies. But then seven counties sort of handed it back in the case of nepa, uh, in a sort of slightly different way. So but absolutely, the need for, for bipartisan action is more important than ever. >> thank you. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. Mr.
▶ 2:15:51Mcdowell, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you. >> Mr. chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for being here to testify before this committee today. I just I want to point out that, uh, the hearing that we're having right now, I believe, is one of the single most important that we can have for our constituencies. Because if you look at the chart up here, that is it's making my blood boil. Just having that in the room because it's absurd.
▶ 2:16:20Uh, and I think for decades the, the permitting system in this country has moved further and further away from its original purpose. And what was meant to be, uh, a process that balanced environmental stewardship with responsible growth has become an anchor that is dragging down american industry.
▶ 2:16:41And today, critical energy infrastructure and manufacturing projects find themselves stuck, uh, without moving for years and sometimes decades. Uh, they're they're stuck in a web of of bureaucracy and litigation, uh, that that is unnecessary. These delays, they're not just paperwork problems.
▶ 2:17:05They mean fewer paying jobs, uh, higher costs for families and missed opportunities for communities like like the ones that that I represent. They mean that american workers and businesses fall behind while our competitors overseas, like china, move full steam ahead. It is more important than ever that we strengthen our supply chains, that we modernize our power grid and invest in our domestic energy.
▶ 2:17:32We cannot allow endless permitting delays to stand in the way of america continuing to dominate true reform that we're we're after here means restoring balance and common sense. It means setting firm deadlines, cutting out duplication, and focusing reviews on real, actual, measurable impacts, not speculative or political concerns.
▶ 2:18:00It means giving states and local communities who know the needs best a stronger role in making decisions. Instead of leaving everything to washington and red tape. Most importantly, it means creating a system that is predictable and efficient so that investors, workers, and families know projects will actually get built. That's why proposals like the speed act matter.
▶ 2:18:27This legislation takes real steps to modernize the process by cutting unnecessary delays, empowering states like north carolina, and creating certainty for energy and infrastructure projects that fuel our economies. With common sense reforms like these, lower costs for families, uh, is the outcome. And we keep america a leader in energy and innovation. Um. My question, I guess, for you, Mr.
▶ 2:18:57Hochman, uh, can you explain how the current, uh, nepa permitting process has, has affected the timeline and the cost, uh, of critical energy infrastructure projects in the united states? >> yeah. So, uh. >> thank you. When nepa was, uh, was originally created, the those initial environmental impact statements were, were ten pages. Right. And they were incredibly quick to process.
▶ 2:19:25Over the years, that nepa process has morphed and metastasized into this multiyear process that we see now, um, for project developers, you know, delay is is death, right. And and when you have to deal with the impact of interest rates over many years, it just becomes so, so hard to even propose a project, let alone actually get through that nepa process.
▶ 2:19:45So you've seen examples not only of all sorts of project categories not actually being proposed in the first place, but also projects that, after going through a seven year eis timeline, for example, basically announced the cancellation at the end of it because market conditions have changed or they can no longer make a profit. Um, so it's a huge problem for energy development in this country. >> uh, what what role, uh, do you believe that states should play in the permitting process?
▶ 2:20:09And how can we empower states, uh, to help streamline this process that, uh, approvals, you know, seem to never come? >> yeah, absolutely. I mean, we already have all sorts of environmental laws where states actually have the authority to, to regulate. And in many cases, um, states may better understand the local conditions, uh, and they may better understand the sort of the needs of their constituents. Uh, so, absolutely, there are many cases where, uh, regulatory regulatory authority should reside with the states.
▶ 2:20:40>> with the remainder of my time. I'll ask a simple question. But when projects take more than a decade just to clear red tape without even starting to begin, uh, who benefits americans or our foreign competitors? >> certainly our foreign competitors. >> Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, Mr. levin, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, Mr. ranking member, it is great to be back in this room.
▶ 2:21:07It's great to see my good friends here and had the honor to serve on this committee for six years. So thank you for for opening the door, welcoming me back to talk about uh, an issue near and dear to my heart. And when I think about this whole portfolio of issues, I always think about three things. First is lower energy costs for families and businesses. Second is how to improve the reliability of our energy supply. And third is ensuring we're responsible stewards of the environment for future generations.
▶ 2:21:33What I have seen for as long as I've been in congress is the steady erosion, uh, by oil and gas interests. Just going to say that to erode environmental protections that keep our air clean, keep our waters safe, all about accelerating resource development, even if it means higher costs, counterintuitively, higher costs for consumers.
▶ 2:21:53And now what I see is something altogether worse, which is really at the behest of these same interests weakening nepa implementation, instituting, uh, permitting procedures for what I consider to be a most questionable energy emergency. So I ask, when will enough be enough?
▶ 2:22:14When our environmental protections are completely eviscerated, when our children and their children are left in an increasingly inhabitable planet with, I might add, higher energy costs to boot. So as we continue to discuss this, I think we need to be crystal clear about who would benefit if we took action under the present administration, which, again, are those same oil and gas interests I have seen for the last nine months, uh, everything possible to try to
▶ 2:22:46Stifle clean, cheap energy. Again, it's the fastest growing and as I said, the cheapest energy source, uh, electricity source, uh, going right now, uh, I have been reading a lot about this supposed energy emergency, and, uh, I believe in good faith many of my colleagues want. I hope everybody wants to lower energy prices.
▶ 2:23:06But what the administration is doing, blocking the only sources of energy that can be built fast enough to meet growing demand and cheap enough to keep our constituents energy bills in check, simply makes no sense. The administration has repealed tax credits that support the deployment of clean energy and bring down all electricity bills, while maintaining billions of dollars of tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry.
▶ 2:23:35They've instituted onerous procedures for clean energy to get federal approvals. They've unilaterally issued a stop work order for an offshore wind project, mid-construction. They've canceled a loan for a midwest transmission line that would have delivered clean, cheap domestic energy to more states. They've withdrawn hundreds of millions of dollars of grants that were meant to create jobs and lower energy costs.
▶ 2:23:59They are undermining existing laws to stifle clean energy and really are driving up the price of electricity in doing so, so that the average american is forced to continue to pay more to these big oil and gas interests. And as we debate government funding this month, I have a simple yes or no question for all the witnesses. Do you agree that our agencies should be adequately resourced to facilitate the processing of permits in a timely manner, yes or no, I do, yes, yes.
▶ 2:24:30>> yes, yes. >> I thought you might all say that clearly we have alignment, at least on that. Yet over in the appropriations committee where I will be heading in a minute. Uh, we have seen the majority zero out funding to permit wind and solar while giving fossil permitting a major boost. So I introduced an amendment to modestly increase funding for the renewable energy office to account for all the new procedures the department must complete for renewables.
▶ 2:24:57But every single member in the in the majority party voted against properly funding even the all of the above energy permitting offices. All of this to say, this is the real point.
▶ 2:25:10I am personally deeply skeptical that we can negotiate in good faith right now to try to accelerate permitting of any kind while there is an ongoing bad faith attack against solar and wind, I want to be able to work in a bipartisan way to build a 21st century infrastructure that we need and lower the cost of living for our constituents. I appreciate efforts like my friend scott peters.
▶ 2:25:33He's not here to hear me say this, and dusty johnson working on the permit act to implement modern tools for a digital permitting system. But if we actually want to talk about lowering energy costs, we've got to talk about federal power act reforms, setting standards for utilities to put consumers first, ending household subsidization of electricity for high demand facilities. And we've got to address climate fueled wildfires across the west, which are causing utility costs to skyrocket. I'm working on a bill that will do all that.
▶ 2:26:03I'm out of time. It's great to see you, gentlemen, and I will yield back. >> good to see you back, Mr. levin. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from alaska, Mr. begich, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. You know. >> it's interesting hearing the. The comments, uh, from some. >> on the.
▶ 2:26:24>> committee today because I think we need to recognize that most of renewable energy, uh, so-called renewable energy, is actually chinese energy, and it's chinese energy, because so much of the supply chain supporting those energy sources is coming from china and is locked up by china.
▶ 2:26:39And the reforms that we are talking about introducing today would allow america to compete in all forms of energy by allowing us to finally mine in this country again and develop our own supply chain in this country again. And so I'm not sure how folks who support renewable renewable energy could be opposed to smart nepa reforms. We need these reforms in order to put our nation back on track.
▶ 2:27:11Wealth accrues to those who produce. Our nation's wealth is not the dollar. It is in our ability to develop our resources and add value to those resources. That's where our nation's wealth comes from. Our national regulatory framework today is a massive cellphone. We are shooting ourselves in the foot just as our adversaries are gaining ground in the race for the future.
▶ 2:27:40Congress has the ability to unleash the potential of our nation's resources, and it has the responsibility to do so. We must allow our nation to grow and develop. Revisions to nepa are smart, and they are necessary for core infrastructure investments to proceed at this speed of our modern competitive reality. My first question, uh, to doctor glicksman, I'm from alaska.
▶ 2:28:11Alaska's vast federal footprint means nearly every significant infrastructure project is subject to nepa, even when there is strong state and local support. Do you support limited exemptions or fast tracks for strategic projects in resource dependent states like mine? >> first of all, I want to just say that I just spent a couple of weeks in the inner passage in your beautiful state, and, uh, I'd like to spend more time there. It's just gorgeous.
▶ 2:28:39Um, I do support streamlining of critical energy projects. If they're done in a way that preserves the environmental integrity of the process. >> thank you. And at a time when america is facing mounting pressure from adversaries like china in mineral supply chains and I infrastructure, do we have a responsibility to streamline those processes for those strategic domestic production sources? >> I think we do.
▶ 2:29:07But at the same time, seems to me that clawing back research grants for smart and effective solar development is a way to put us behind the eight ball, rather than allow us to compete on an equal footing with the chinese. >> appreciate that. Um, we agree on that. Thank you. Uh, my next question, uh, to Mr.
▶ 2:29:30Hockman, you noted the connection between permitting delays and national competitiveness, particularly in ai and data center infrastructure in a state like alaska, where vast distances and seasonal constraints can add complexity. How can reforms like those in the speed act ensure our state isn't left behind in the next wave of innovation and energy infrastructure? >> yeah, absolutely.
▶ 2:29:53I mean, obviously, alaska has an enormous amount of energy potential, and that energy potential is incredibly constrained by nepa, uh, in large part because of the federal land. And so, yeah, certainly for all sorts of industry, um, especially in alaska, it's constrained by the nepa process, streamlining the process. These reforms that we're seeing in the speed act are going to be critical for the competitiveness of the state. >> thank you. Uh, Mr.
▶ 2:30:16Lawrence, uh, alaska sits on vast reserves of critical minerals, as you probably well know, uh, many of which are needed for energy storage, defense technologies and next generation manufacturing. Yet federal permitting delays have left us reliant on foreign supply chains. How would the speed act help address the critical mineral permitting backlog? And what role can alaska play in strengthening domestic supply chains, in your view? >> yeah.
▶ 2:30:42Well, I think it's critically important to have a predictable, efficient process to access all of our abundance of minerals. If those commodities and minerals are increasing, it just makes all of those technologies, the clean energy technologies, the defense technologies that much more expensive.
▶ 2:30:56And so to have that efficient process increases the supply from, uh, you know, a stable source, uh, one that is, uh, is sourcing these minerals much more ethically, uh, than most of our foreign competitors and a much more environmentally sensible manner. So, uh, this makes not just economic sense, but also environmental sense.
▶ 2:31:16And to have a state like alaska take the lead on the environmental review and the permitting process, they've shown how to balance economic growth, energy production, mining and environmental stewardship. >> I couldn't agree more. I appreciate your comments. I'm out of time and and I yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from washington, miss randall, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:31:42And thank you for our witnesses here. Um, to share their testimony and perspective. As folks know, the federal government, through nepa, was historically intended to represent the interests of all americans, including tribal nations and others who are often left behind in decision making. Um, and left to live among and with disproportionately high levels of pollution.
▶ 2:32:10I believe that there's definitely red tape to cut, uh, to make government work better for all of us. But like my colleague from california who spoke recently, I don't believe we see a good faith effort to speed permitting for all types of projects. Mr.
▶ 2:32:28Glicksman, I'm concerned that this speed act changes the goal of nepa review, to have it be in line with the project sponsors goals, rather than to be an independent analysis. Would you agree with this characterization? >> I do, and that, I think, relates to something I mentioned in my oral testimony.
▶ 2:32:51That is, the statute would be amended to say that agencies are required to define the purpose and need in a way that meets the project applicant's goals, and that's never been the law. There's been dispute about whether or the extent to which agencies are even allowed to consider, uh, private project proponent goals, but there's never been any, uh, judicial decision that says that the agency must displace the public interest with the project applicant's goals. >> yeah. Thank you.
▶ 2:33:20That's certainly concerning to me. You know, I, um, certainly seen in in my own community and projects across the country where we do sometimes get in our own way, we get mired in a slow decision making process. But also, you know, I think we have to remember that nepa was passed at a time when we saw rampant, um.
▶ 2:33:50Pollution and mismanagement of our public resources and real human impacts of some of those decisions, impacts that communities still live with. Mr. glicksman, how might a 150 day statute of limitations affect particularly disadvantaged communities?
▶ 2:34:10Like any of the 12 federally recognized tribes in my district or other under-resourced communities, especially when combined with a 14 day permitting procedure where folks might not even know that nepa process has occurred.
▶ 2:34:27>> well, I think that that timeline is going to make it difficult for them to gather the information and the resource they need to effectively pursue litigation and challenging agency, uh, nepa evaluations that they think are deficient. Um, litigation is expensive.
▶ 2:34:43Uh, you have to hire attorneys, you have to pay court costs, and tribal communities may not be able to easily afford those things may take time to gather the money, and 150 days may simply be too short to live and do so. >> yeah. Thank you so much. I you know, I don't want to leave any of my colleagues with the perspective that I don't want us to be more efficient. I do want government to be more efficient.
▶ 2:35:09I want us to be able to expand our energy resources, to be able to build housing, to be able to ensure that, um, we are building an economy that works for real people. But I don't want us to run over the interests of real people in order to speed up projects that have real benefits for the shareholders and funders. Thank you so much for your testimony. I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
▶ 2:35:42>> I appreciate the gentlelady yielding and I will yield back. Thanks, gentleman. >> yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, Mr. bentz, for five minutes. Uh. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And thanks to the panel for for being here. The the conversation is of great interest to me. I'm from oregon.
▶ 2:36:02Uh, the remarks regarding allowing the states to have more to say about process are of concern to me, because in oregon, uh, that means more delay, um, more litigation, more judicial activism, uh, not less.
▶ 2:36:18And so, uh, I'm, I'm curious about the the suggestions that are in your thoughts on the suggestions contained, um, in hr four, seven, seven, six, um, section 113 judicial review. And as an attorney, I understand, I understand delay, I understand litigation, I engaged in a lot of it. And, um, and I'm just curious as to your opinions.
▶ 2:36:46I'm going to I'm going to start, I think, on, on this end, um, Mr. harrell, your thoughts as to section one, one three judicial review and what I'm most interested in is the focus on the word procedural as opposed to perhaps, um, substantive, uh, challenges, because as you can tell, when you read this paragraph, it's all about procedure, not about something else. Your thoughts about that focus on procedure. >> yeah.
▶ 2:37:15And that's the crux of nepa. Nepa is a procedural law. And so absolutely litigation should move move forward and and be available if, if the the process that is required under nepa isn't conducted. Right. And if there are grave uh, we've gotten gravely off track.
▶ 2:37:34Uh, but far too often now, this litigation has spiraled into issues that are not in the scope of nepa and the scope of other environmental laws, um, or into the scope that are not specific to an individual project or within the realm of foreseeable impacts. >> the does you do you find it interesting that the way it reads, uh, it says, um, notwithstanding chapter seven, so forth and so on.
▶ 2:37:55In reviewing a claim of whether a final agency action complies with the procedural requirements of the act, do you do you view that as an attempt to limit the scope of the review to procedure, as opposed to something else? Because I do, and I'm just we're doing this for, uh, purposes. >> it should be limited to. >> the procedural violations under nepa if there is one.
▶ 2:38:19>> if you would go further into line five and six, it says if the court determines the agency abused its substantial discretion, tell me what that means. Substantial discretion as opposed to what type of discretion? >> yeah, I. >> think what they're trying to to get at is if they go far beyond the scope of which the agency has jurisdiction. >> over, um. >> I would I would view it as I would think it's more restrictive than that. But that's my thought.
▶ 2:38:48Um, if you go a little bit further, it says the role of a court reviewing a claim described in subsection a may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency regarding, quote, the environmental effects of a proposed agency action. How is that procedural? I'm curious. >> yeah. >> I mean, that gets to the crux of the seven county ruling here, right?
▶ 2:39:07That that effectively that far too often the judicial entities are stepping in and making judgment calls about responsibilities that are at the agency of jurisdiction. Right? So in the case of in that particular case, um, you know, critiquing whether, uh, how the agency did, did its environmental review and the scope of it, though, there were they're the ones who were supposed to be making those policy judgments.
▶ 2:39:34>> and the idea, of course, with the statute is to somehow narrow, uh, the, an activist judge and restrict, uh, that person from making judgments that took the take the place of the agency and so forth. It says that there's a there's a further part here on restricting what happens when the court remanded the matter back to the agency. Yeah. Your thoughts on that? Because what you see some time frames in here, um, you think it's actually going to stick? I think it's going to work.
▶ 2:40:01You think those those federal judges are going to pay attention to our, our our attempt here to limit what they can do in an order? >> I think that's why congressional action is necessary. I think both from the 2008, uh, public citizen's ruling and seven counties, you're seeing the supreme court express extreme frustration that you continue to see the courts step in, in ways that they feel like they've already acted on.
▶ 2:40:24And so I think the solution to ensure and provide that direct direction is to put it in statute, like the policy put forth in. >> extremely happy to see it. Um, I'm almost out of time, so I just I will mention that going back to states for a moment in oregon, we see an attempt to use mitigation, uh, as extortion. And it's sad that we don't have more in here that would limit the use by states of abuse, if you will, of section 404.
▶ 2:40:50Uh, because, uh, this is another one of those things that unduly delays projects. Uh, thank you, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, Mr. gray, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you for the witnesses and to my colleagues who have brought this important issue before us. Mr. chairman, we have a water crisis in western states.
▶ 2:41:20Water contractors and operators in my district throughout california invest millions of dollars on advanced drought mitigation and projects intended to increase our water storage and capacity.
▶ 2:41:34Despite the obvious benefits of these projects for groundwater recharge, storage, conveyance, the existing permitting process causes rampant delays and soaring costs for these projects.
▶ 2:41:51As you may recall, I offered an amendment to the reconciliation package to fund specific projects that would provide over 2 million acre feet of water and move the needle on our water problems in western states. In fact, I've got that list, Mr. chairman, right here, and I've provided it to your team as well.
▶ 2:42:11This body failed to pass that amendment, failed to act on these projects, and we find ourselves in a unique time with both the federal and administration, as well as the administration in california, uh, showing signs of life, willing to act on this topic.
▶ 2:42:37It would certainly be malpractice if this body didn't take advantage of that opportunity. But even if we funded every water project today, we would find ourselves years away from seeing any kind of a final product. Delays in building these projects are not due just to nepa. We need to take a hard look at the entire federal and state and federal permitting process.
▶ 2:43:06Um, how that all ties in to the ultimate decision to approve or deny these projects and what those timelines look like. Agencies sit on applications for months and sometimes years. We need transparency throughout the decision making process, and we need to set clear and enforceable timelines for agencies to finalize reviews.
▶ 2:43:30I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance some of this crucial permitting reform legislation. However, the proposals before us today fall short of what we need. And I find myself concerned, Mr.
▶ 2:43:53Chairman, that there are colleagues on my side of the aisle who would essentially defeat the good in search of the perfect, and that there are colleagues on your side of the aisle who would rather continue to blame somebody else than solve the problem. And in summary, I think I'd like to ask you, Mr.
▶ 2:44:16Chairman, if I could, you know, ask for your commitment as you navigate this process, uh, to sit down and work diligently on establishing enforceable timelines to ensure, you know, predictable, uh, permitting process, but also that collaborative process between the state and the federal government, which I think is, uh, is crucial to really solving the problem. >> Mr.
▶ 2:44:40Gray, as I've stated before, I'm open to working with anybody on the committee and anybody in the conference to make the bill more constructive and pragmatic. Pragmatic. So look forward to working with you on that. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I appreciate that commitment. We'll certainly follow up with you and your office, uh, as we navigate the process and try to make this a better proposal that could really solve the water crisis in western states. >> and I'll also add that we're supportive of your your water amendment.
▶ 2:45:09But I think it was a rules of reconciliation that didn't allow us to keep that in the in the bill. >> I appreciate that support, Mr. chairman, and I will follow up with you on that as well. Thank you. And I yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from nevada, miss lee, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member, for hosting this hearing today. And thanks to all the witnesses for being here. Uh, Mr.
▶ 2:45:36Hochman, in july, when the interior secretary rolled out the new red tape requiring his personal sign off on virtually every permit related to solar and wind energy development, you tweeted your reaction in real time. Quote, not good. There are lots of ways to encourage certain sources development, deployment, sitting on disfavored sources. Permits is among the worst. End quote.
▶ 2:46:05To your point, it's not as though the secretary's guidance somehow smooths out existing inefficiencies, yet it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy.
▶ 2:46:17And as someone who represents the state of nevada, which the us energy information administration has noted that it leads the nation in solar power potential and where we have more department of interior managed land than anywhere else in america south of alaska. I share your reaction in my state, this new trump administration requirement hasn't been simply just a speed bump on the road to permitting.
▶ 2:46:47It actually has been more of a brick wall. Uh, so let me ask you this, Mr. hochman. Is there bill text in the speed act that would clearly and unambiguously override this doi directive and get effective solar and wind projects moving again. >> representative, thank you for the question.
▶ 2:47:07So first of all, I would say, you know, an important response to the uncertainty in ping pong that we get between administrations and how they treat energy sources is for congress to act and to add statutory authority to the to these permitting processes. The speed act is focused on one lot. It's focused on nepa. But certainly I would encourage congress to think about how we stop the pendulum in treatment of energy sources between administrations. >> okay. So but is there is there text in that that will deal with this issue? In particular.
▶ 2:47:35>> the speed act adds certainty to the nepa process, but it doesn't deal with the entire permitting process. >> all right. That's what I thought. Mr. harrow, earlier this year, I reintroduced the steam act, my bipartisan bill with congresswoman malloy of utah that cuts permitting tape by giving geothermal industry the same flexibility to explore and develop on previously disturbed and studied public lands that the oil and gas industry currently enjoys, uh, and has enjoyed for two decades.
▶ 2:48:07Uh, you know, the steam act well and, uh, your recognition, uh, that my bill helps achieve parity in energy permitting, uh, which is also very significant. Uh, in the broader context of today's hearings.
▶ 2:48:21So my question is, how important would you say it is to the ultimate success of bipartisan permitting reform package, that such a package restore a level playing field for permitting across technologies in lock in, lock in project parity, no matter who is in the oval office. >> yeah.
▶ 2:48:43Thank you, congresswoman, for your leadership on geothermal issues, a great legislation, something I think, uh, should be sent straight to the to the president. Uh, I think technology, uh, broader permit reform should be technology agnostic, like every technology should get a fair shake, project should move forward. And I think we need bipartisan, durable action there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't include some technology specific ideas like your your legislation that gets at specific geothermal issues.
▶ 2:49:08But by and large, as we look at some of these bigger macro level things, we need bipartisan congressional action that fixes this issue today and gives us the permitting system that we need for the next 20 years to compete. >> great. Thanks. Uh, is it fair to say that the business community would also welcome a technology neutral permitting parity requirement and the increased regulatory certainty this would provide? >> absolutely. Predictability is what drives private sector investment into infrastructure projects in this country.
▶ 2:49:37And congress should enact bipartisan legislation to improve that. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'll just end with this. After our last full committee permitting reform hearing in july, you told politico that a final permitting package should put parity focused sideboards on the executive branch so that people who want to develop can have a seat at the table and a process that they don't feel is waited, either for them or against them.
▶ 2:50:05Uh, and you emphasize the following quote let permitting be blind to technology and let investors pick winners and losers on what should be built. So I'm with you. And, uh, and since our july hearing, I've worked with the solar energy industries association to draft legislative language that would do just that. Um, so I you said you'd be willing to work in a bipartisan manner.
▶ 2:50:31And I hope I can get your commitment, uh, to, uh, find a home for some of this language in the speed act in advance of its markup. >> we're already working in a bipartisan manner, and we are thrilled to work with you, representative lee, to make sure we address your concerns. I do I think this is a broad revision to nepa, and I think some of your concerns are already covered in the in the bill.
▶ 2:51:00You know, we've passed, uh, some geothermal legislation, uh, in the house already, but that's an exciting area that we can continue to work on. >> great. Thank you. And obviously, uh, solar and making sure that solar energy development, uh, receives a agnostic review is important as well to my home state of nevada. Thank you. With that, I yield. >> ladies expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from montana, Mr.
▶ 2:51:30Downing, for five minutes. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. Uh, thank you for allowing me to wave. >> on. >> and thank you to the witnesses for being here. Nepa reform is essential for. >> economic growth. >> and not just in my home. >> state of. >> montana, but across the country. And the current system delays projects, drives up costs, and hurts our ability to build infrastructure and energy. Capacity that. America needs. So I'm going to start, um, first of all, with Mr.
▶ 2:51:57Harral, uh, codifying permitting technology action plan through h.r. 54503 aims to modernize federal permitting. Can you explain how this would improve permitting timelines for energy projects and reduce unnecessary delays? >> yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the question, congressman. And I think this is a critical first step that's necessary to improve the permitting process across the realm. It digitizes the federal permitting process.
▶ 2:52:25It develops uniform federal standards for the type of data and the nomenclature we're putting in. Uh, it creates a centralized portal, um, and it ensures that we're publishing that data so that we can hold everyone in the process accountable. Because I think that's been one of the critical dynamics that has really slowed down. The permitting process is that lack of transparency means it's harder to have accountability. So this is a no regrets move, right. >> thank you very much. I'm going to move to Mr. hoffman. Uh, h.r.
▶ 2:52:52573 requires cq to publish annual reports on nepa impact. How would this transparency help congress and local communities identify bottlenecks and improve project planning? >> yes. So historically, we haven't had, uh, reliable annual reporting of this data. Uh, and so having that data on hand is really helpful for everything from figuring out which agencies get litigated more heavily to figuring out where the bottlenecks actually happen in the nepa process.
▶ 2:53:21Um, one piece of this in particular is that it will capture that nepa process before the notice of intent is issued, which historically we haven't had very good data on. So it'll be very, very valuable. >> outstanding. Thank you. Uh, moving to Mr. lori's in h.r. 4776. This limits judicial remedies to remand rather than terminating projects. Can you explain how this reform would reduce litigation risk for developers while still ensuring accountability?
▶ 2:53:49>> yeah, yeah, it's critically important because it allows a project to move forward. It allows agencies to make those minor corrections. Um, because the agency decisions a lot of those times doesn't change. Uh, it just adds time and years to the process. And I think it helps, uh, with the litigation front on on two ends. One is that the agencies don't feel like they have to litigate proof these environmental impact statements as much as they do.
▶ 2:54:13Now, we've heard from agencies say, hey, we care about environmental review, but we're doing a lot of this work for the courts right now, not for the environmental integrity of the project. And then it also reduces the incentive to sue on the front end, because a lot of the environmental activist organizations are combing through these environmental impact statements, you know, like their copy editors looking for any minor violation procedurally so they can sue. And so it reduces the incentive to sue on the front end as well. >> right. Well, thank you for that.
▶ 2:54:43Um, and thank you all for being here. And thank you, Mr. chair, for this important hearing. So I'm just going to go down the line. I'll just go down from Mr. harrell across. From your perspective, what's the single most important change that congress should aim for in reforming nepa to ensure important projects are not kept in litigation? Purgatory? >> I think these the judicial reform provisions in the speed act and and restoring more predictability in the process is the single largest thing we can do.
▶ 2:55:11I think we've seen a vicious death spiral in the federal permitting process where, uh, both the government agencies and project proponents are afraid of litigation, and so they overdo it, bring new issues into the fold that then open up more additional litigation. I think these are reasonable reforms that narrow the scope of of where folks can file suit and ultimately see, uh, changes made if necessary, if we broke the process. Um, and we'll keep things much faster.
▶ 2:55:41>> thank you. In the interest of time, Mr. glixman. >> I would say that the most important thing that could be done would be to facilitate coordination among all the government decision makers who are responsible for reviewing and clearing permits. That would include all federal relevant federal agencies, but state and local decision makers as well. >> thank you, Mr. lawrence. >> yeah, we're saying allowing those projects to move forward as they correct those minor procedural violations, as well as shortening that statute of limitations down from six years to 150 days. >> thank you. Finally, Mr.
▶ 2:56:12Hochman. >> yeah, rightsizing, judicial review, making sure that there's a higher threshold for setting aside, uh, project reviews, um, instead of just a harmless procedural error. >> well, thank you all for your comments. Uh, and on that, uh, Mr. chairman, I yield my time. >> gentleman yields back. We're down to our final question asker on this panel. That would be me. I yield myself five minutes. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for very instructive testimony. And I think also constructive testimony.
▶ 2:56:40You can see there's great interest in this subject for the, uh, we're almost at three hours, and we're not even through the first panel yet. Um. It's an important subject. Uh, Mr. harrell, you talked about, I think all of you at one point talked about technology, and I was thinking about the speed act and thinking about, you know, in frontier days, it took six months to go from new york city to san francisco.
▶ 2:57:07They were starting at one point, ending up at the same point. Today, in about six hours, you can go from new york city to san francisco. You're getting from point a to point b, but because of technology, you're getting there much faster, much more efficiently, much safer. Um, and as we look at speeding up the process, we still want to get from point a to point b, but we want to do it in a more streamlined manner.
▶ 2:57:34So I want to ask from a technology perspective, and I will say that I've made it a point every year to try to go to one of our national research laboratories, and I'm always inspired when I go there because I see american innovation and technology, and it is at the forefront, and I see how we've got ai now, which is creating a demand for permitting reform. But it's also could be used to speed permitting reform. So, um, Mr.
▶ 2:58:06Hochman, we'll start with you. In what ways can we not only use technology and innovation to speed permitting reform, but how can permitting reform help implement technology and innovation? >> yes. To use the ai sector as an example. Uh, the hyperscalers, for them, permanent reform is one of their absolute number one issues right now.
▶ 2:58:30There's huge concern that they won't have access to the energy or access to the grid connection in order to power these data centers that they need to train these ai models. Um, and so reform is critical if we want to keep the future of artificial intelligence, uh, in the united states, to say nothing of the various other, uh, high tech manufacturing industries that we're trying to reshore back to the united states, Mr. >> dolores. >> yeah. And I would just say, on the flip side, I can be a critical tool to help inform the nepa process.
▶ 2:58:59It can help look at retrospective analyzes and environmental impact statements to say, okay, here's a concern that a tribe had in the past, or an environmental organization or a community and better inform the project developers and the agencies so they have a heads up knowing what those potential concerns look like to have and strengthen that community engagement process in the very beginning. >> Mr. glixman, you care to comment on that one?
▶ 2:59:24>> I would I would suggest that technology can deal with antiquated data management systems that provide, um, um, uh, bottlenecks that prevent expeditious decision making and permitting. >> Mr. harrell. >> Mr. chairman, what's exciting is we're already starting to see this. Right.
▶ 2:59:43So pacific northwest national lab is partnering with, uh, the tech community in trying to find ways where we can use ai to put initial permits in place so that the ai can detect if all of the just specific content, like the application, is complete, uh, which is something that currently today, someone has to review, uh, personally and go through. And so kind of go through that check checklist.
▶ 3:00:07Um, idaho national lab is partnering with microsoft at the moment and working with them on a tool for nrc licensing as well, and how the nrc can, uh, do some of the initial work to, to to see the license applications, see the different dynamics, because an advanced reactor is different than a gigawatt scale reactor. And so we're seeing our labs already do this, and I think can make an immense impact in, uh, in streamlining, uh, and rc licensing and permitting.
▶ 3:00:35>> uh, I see all my colleagues have kind of left me here. Here alone. I wish they could hear this. Maybe they're watching on their tv as they're having some lunch. But we've heard a lot of talk about the ping pong effect, and it's frustrating to me. It's frustrating to republicans and democrats. You see one administration come in with an agenda and, uh, they use the full force of that administration to make decisions that, uh, upsets people on the other side of the aisle.
▶ 3:01:03That is a, I think, a separate issue from permitting, although permitting gets wrapped up in that issue. And the last question I ask about technology, you know, I think we're at a point where we need every electron on the grid that we can get on the grid, and we actually need more grid to put electrons on. Um, we've had discussion in here about wind and solar, uh, the way to make wind and solar more efficient, more cost effective is to have grid level storage.
▶ 3:01:32Grid level storage requires massive batteries. That requires a lot of mining. So when I talked to when I asked the question about how do we use technology and innovation in the permitting process to implement technology and if information in the real world, that's kind of what I was getting at. We can't do the mining to make the batteries.
▶ 3:02:00We can't refine the material that goes in the batteries to make wind and solar more efficient. And by the way, grid level battery storage also makes conventional energy generating systems more efficient because you can run them around the clock and store the energy and pull it out, uh, when you need it. So, uh, I think congress needs to address the ping pong effect, whether it comes from a republican administration or a democrat administration.
▶ 3:02:27Um, you know, we were angry last congress because, uh, lease sales were pulled because, uh, the mine in minnesota was taken off of the off the table. And now you heard my colleagues across the aisle are upset, but then we get to the point of being able to permit the project, uh, when it's approved and there's funding available. So this is a process. We're talking about nepa being a procedure. Uh, this hearing is a procedure.
▶ 3:02:58And I want to give each of you a chance to say what we might need to do additional in the bill to improve it. Maybe you think the bill is perfect. Maybe you think there's something we need to take out of the bill. Uh, but we really want the feedback so we can construct a better product. We'll start with you this time, Mr. harold. >> yeah. Congressman, I think these are important first steps to a package, but I think we need to pull together a wide variety of policies across committees of jurisdiction.
▶ 3:03:24Um, to, to to really enact significant permanent reform. I think the getting back to the basics on nepa is, is, uh, is required here, but we need to delve into issues related to the endangered species act related into federal power act. Uh, clean water act 404, I think, came up from Mr. bentz to, um, 401 permits things along those lines that are going to be really critical.
▶ 3:03:49We need to build more of everything, and we need bipartisan congressional action, uh, that restores predictability into the regulatory process. >> it would be helpful, I think, if the provisions of the bill, that sort of shackle, uh, public input into the decision making process were amended.
▶ 3:04:06Uh, I think one thing would be to remove the provision that authorizes agencies basically shut their eyes, uh, at the point that a notice of intent to publish an eis, uh, is distributed so that agencies are required to not only solicit, but consider feedback provided in response to a draft environmental impact statement, in particular.
▶ 3:04:29Um, second, and related to that, I think one should remove the hurdles to standing that require demonstration that had the agency considered the comments, the litigant would have directly been harmed. That's impossible to prove, which is going to prevent effective communities from effectively challenging and protecting the richardson court. >> well, thank you. And I just want to commend your bipartisan leadership on this.
▶ 3:04:55Uh, over the years, I've had the privilege of testifying before this committee, uh, in the last three administrations and now this current administration. And so there's been steadfast efforts to streamline the nepa process. And I think this bill hits two nails on the head in terms of limiting the scope, um, and the limiting the upstream and downstream considerations, as well as the judicial review.
▶ 3:05:19I think there's a lot more that needs to be done on clean water act, clean air act, endangered species act, national historic preservation act, the list goes on, as well as a lot of technology specific regulations that need to be modernized for a, uh, energy, uh, revolution in 2025 and beyond. Some of those are obviously outside this jurisdiction. Um, but we can't just be satisfied with this legislation alone.
▶ 3:05:41We really need to modernize all of our environmental statutes, um, to address the economic and environmental challenges that we face today. >> yeah, I would echo a lot of what the other folks on this panel have said. Uh, here I you know, I would particularly emphasize the state water quality certification from the clean water act and also making it easier to build our grid as as key points to focus on beyond the speed act.
▶ 3:06:08I think the speed act is is an incredibly good and strong first step. Maybe the one provision that I would, uh, consider taking a look at would be just the the clarity around the state. Um, when state reviews can, uh, can act as the replacement for the nepa review just to make sure there's clear standards around when you can and can't do that. >> thank you. Thank you for that. And again, we're trying to construct a good product here. Miss hagerman I see you've you've entered the room.
▶ 3:06:35I was trying to use my time and your time, um, and when nobody else is here, I just have all the time I want. >> I like that. >> I will, uh, I will yield back and recognize the gentlelady from wyoming for five minutes. >> well, thank you. And I apologize if I've been disruptive today. We also have a judiciary committee markup. And so I'm running back and forth between the buildings. There's just a couple of things I want to touch upon. I obviously represent the state of wyoming.
▶ 3:07:02So a lot of these issues are incredibly important to my citizens and my state and our financial well-being, as well as our ability to produce reliable and affordable energy. Just as an initial matter, I believe that some of the folks on the other side believe that the solution to, uh, the, uh, the fact that wind and solar are intermittent, expensive and not reliable is battery storage.
▶ 3:07:24And we all know what happened at moss landing earlier this year with the explosion in the horrific fires that occurred at that battery battery storage facility. Do any of you know how long that fire burned? It was a long time. They had a very difficult time getting it out. Do any of you have any idea of what kind of toxic constituents were released in the air as a result of that catastrophe? They were giving orders to keep people inside because of the problems associated with that.
▶ 3:07:52So just building more and bigger, larger, uh, powerful battery facilities aren't the answer to energy production or energy reliability in this country. I want to focus on the categorical exclusion aspect of this particular bill. The fiscal responsibility act enabled federal agencies to adopt categorical exclusions utilized by other agencies through a streamlined review process.
▶ 3:08:18The speed act would expand this reform to include legislative, uh, categorical exclusions and set safeguards to insulate such see adoptions from frivolous lawsuits. However, we are seeing that once adopted by agencies, the implementation of some categorical exclusions can still take over a year to be processed. Mr. uh, is it hoffman? Mr.
▶ 3:08:42Hoffman, how could congress act to further streamline and provide certainty in the categorical exclusion process? >> representative, thank you for the question. And it's funny, right, because oftentimes we think of categorical exclusions as almost an exemption from the nepa process. But very clearly that's not the way that it's actually turned out in practice where you see these, uh, forest management, categorical exclusions sometimes take more than two years. I've heard from geothermal developers that that the average for them to six months for the categorical exclusion process for these low impact activities.
▶ 3:09:11So it's clear that the process just is not working as intended. You know, I think one way to get at this, uh, is to make sure that you can, uh, deal with the current problem, the categorical exclusion process, which is this extraordinary circumstances review, which is basically this open ended review, a review unto itself to see whether or not the cat may rise to a higher level of review.
▶ 3:09:31I think a better way to do it, for example, might be to have, um, a checklist, sort of an open and shut checklist, where if you meet the standards like that, uh, that are laid out in the codex, um, it's you're free to move forward. Right? It's clearer what the outlines of that codex are. And if you meet the standards, you can move forward. >> so does the speed act include some of the recommendations you've made, or do we need to follow up with you for additional recommendations? >> I'm always happy to follow up for, uh and give additional recommendations.
▶ 3:09:58I will say one thing this act does is it deals with some of the judicial review questions surrounding the categorical exclusion, which is definitely the other key piece of this. >> but I like the idea of a checklist in working in the state of wyoming on a variety of projects. Uh, checklists can be awfully helpful to let an agency know whether the project actually meets the statute, meets the statutory requirements. The breakthrough institute analyzed 387 nepa cases brought to the appellate court system between between 2013 and 2022.
▶ 3:10:26They found that agencies want about 80% of these cases. I always tried to be in that 20% when I was suing the federal government. Um, that's an increase of 11% from the beginning of the century. In other words, environmental reviews are rarely over overturned as a result of litigation.
▶ 3:10:46As justice kavanaugh summarized in the seven counties decision, quote, nepa has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects. End quote. Mr.
▶ 3:11:09Harral, what would the impact of the judicial review reforms in the speed act have on excessive litigation? >> it would put significant limitations of when we scrap everything altogether ultimately and kick it back and start over, which is extremely disruptive and should really be reserved for the most extreme examples of where procedure, um, was not followed, which we don't see that often.
▶ 3:11:35Um, and it would set a more predictable and, uh, pathway in which, uh, we can get to. Yes, when push comes to shove, because in the end, project developers, investors need to get to yes or no so that we can move forward on a project. >> you know, it's interesting when you say those egregious cases where the agency didn't follow the process. Yesterday, we had a subcommittee hearing in this room with the land subcommittee. One of the things that we talked about with the road was the roadless rule. The roadless rule was issued in january 2001.
▶ 3:12:04It was one of the very last things that came out of the clinton administration in a one year period of time. The forest service completed a nepa analysis affecting 58.5 million acres of land in almost every single state in the country. Think about that a one year period to do an epa analysis on 58.5 million acres. I would say that that would be one of those egregious examples of where they did not follow the law. I see that I've run out of time. Appreciate you guys being here and your patience with me. Thank you.
▶ 3:12:32I yield back, ladies. >> time expired. You know, I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony and and for the time that you've spent here. Uh, I will say that this is, uh, one bite at the elephant. There are other reforms that need to take place. I see nepa as being the most critical, since it is the procedure that analyzes a lot of those underlying statutes. But we are working on endangered species amendments act. We're working on updates to the marine mammal protection act.
▶ 3:13:01There are other committees looking at clean air and clean water, and hopefully we can come up with a very robust, uh, permitting bill and and get this passed and signed into law, uh, sooner than later. So we'll dismiss the second panel of witnesses. We have a third panel of witnesses, and we're going to take a 15 minute break to reset the table. And for, uh, for everybody to get ready to go again, maybe another three hours on permitting reform.
▶ 3:13:32We're in recess.
▶ 3:14:55>> now.
▶ 3:15:57All.
▶ 3:34:14>> the committee will come to order. Uh, I will remind the witnesses that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes. But your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of your five minute statement.
▶ 3:34:33And please remember to turn on your microphone, uh, as we did with the first panel, I'll remind the witnesses that, uh, we will go through all the witness testimony before members ask questions. Our first witness on this panel is Mr. josh levi. He is the president of the data center coalition, and he is stationed in leesburg, virginia. Mr. levi, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman westerman.
▶ 3:35:00Uh, committee ranking member huffman and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony this afternoon exploring pragmatic, bipartisan, uh, permitting reforms such as the speed act. This topic is critical for the future of america's economy and national security. My name is josh levi. I'm the president of the data center coalition, or dcc, which is the membership association for the us data center industry.
▶ 3:35:25Our members provide the digital infrastructure that enables cutting edge technologies that drive the 21st century economy, including ai. Data centers also ensure that the essential services are homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, manufacturing facilities and governments rely on are always available today. Everything from the way we work and learn to how we buy groceries, bank and even access medical care occurs online.
▶ 3:35:49In fact, the average american household now has 21 connected devices, including phones, watches, thermostats, appliances and others, and consumers and businesses are expected to generate twice as much data over the next five years as they did over the past ten. This growth is driven by the widespread adoption of cloud services and connected devices, as well as the rapid scaling of advanced technologies like generative ai, which alone could create up to $4.4 trillion in economic value globally by 2030.
▶ 3:36:18These digital cloud based services we all rely on actually take place in physical locations. America's data centers. To meet growing demand for these digital services, our members are making multi-billion dollar investments in us data center infrastructure. These investments support millions of quality jobs across the nation and contribute billions of dollars in local, state and federal tax revenue.
▶ 3:36:41I'm here today to talk about the urgent need for comprehensive permitting reform, to advance our shared national interests and ensure strategic growth sectors such as data centers and advanced manufacturing can continue to thrive here in the us. After nearly two decades of relatively flat electricity consumption, the us is experiencing a significant increase in power demand, driven by several economic growth trends, including demand for data center services, reshoring of advanced manufacturing.
▶ 3:37:10However, the development timeline of these critical industries are threatened by permitting roadblocks. Comprehensive permitting reform is necessary to unlock the infrastructure needed to power our economy, protect our national security, and strengthen our global leadership. Put simply, if america cannot build, america cannot compete. Currently, the permitting process itself is broken, with lengthy and duplicative reviews often undertaken on the front end and protracted litigation occurring on the back end.
▶ 3:37:38On the front end, mckinsey estimates the average proposed project, subject to nepa review, takes 4 to 5 years to move through the permitting process. On the back end, the breakthrough institute has found that nepa related litigation is delayed energy projects 3.9 years on average, despite the fact that agencies ultimately won 71% of those challenges. For larger infrastructure projects, timelines can be considerably longer. These delays and cost increases are no longer just an inconvenience.
▶ 3:38:06They are a direct threat to us economic competitiveness and national security. If we cannot build infrastructure at the pace required, america will fall behind competitors like china, who are rapidly expanding their grids, manufacturing facilities and digital infrastructure. Any package under consideration to modernize the federal permitting process should encapsulate speed act reforms that focus environmental reviews on significant direct impacts instead of speculative or tangential.
▶ 3:38:31Set clear timelines and deadlines for agency decision making while maintaining thorough environmental analysis and public input. Streamlined judicial review to ensure timely resolution of disputes while maintaining appropriate safeguards for impacted stakeholders. Improve efficiency through greater use of programmatic environmental reviews and categorical exclusions, and clarify that receiving grants or other types of funding does not constitute major federal action that triggers nepa.
▶ 3:38:59Additionally, comprehensive permitting reform should modernize transmission, permitting, and planning so we can build the grid of the future quickly, reliably, and affordably. Establish a framework for agencies to implement a permitting system in unified portal and support the use of digital tools and ai to speed up the permitting process.
▶ 3:39:18In conclusion, comprehensive permitting reform anchored by bipartisan solutions like the speed act would help unleash investment, lower project costs, and deliver affordable, reliable energy when and where it is needed for data centers, manufacturers and communities across the country. Faster permitting means lower energy prices, more resilient infrastructure and continued global leadership in innovation, ai and advanced technology. Once again, if america cannot build, america cannot compete.
▶ 3:39:49Thank you, and I very much look forward to your questions. >> Mr. levy, thank you for your testimony. Our next witness is Mr. dominic longobardi, and he is a member of the american public works association and also serves as the deputy town controller and director of purchasing for the town of hempstead in hempstead, new york. Mr. longobardi, you're now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> ranking member hoffman. >> and members. >> of the committee. And again, thank you for the.
▶ 3:40:19>> opportunity to testify. >> uh. >> as stated, I am the deputy. >> town comptroller. >> and director of purchasing. >> for the town. >> of. >> hempstead. >> new york, which is. >> america's largest township. >> I'm also the former mayor of the full service. Village of floral. >> park. >> new york. >> and serve on the board of directors. >> of the water. >> authority of western nassau county. >> as chairman. >> of the greater long island clean cities. >> coalition and president of the town of hempstead. Employees federal. >> credit union. I am also proud. >> to have served. >> as. >> president of the american public works association for. >> the.
▶ 3:40:50>> last year. Apwa serves all aspects of public works. >> which sets us. >> apart from other associations. >> our members serve in. >> the public. >> and private sectors. >> at all. >> levels of government, from transportation infrastructure to water supply, solid waste to emergency management. As soon as you. >> wake up. >> we are with you. On behalf of apwa, I would like to express our gratitude for the reforms already. Adopted since we last testified. >> before. >> this committee. The changes initially proposed through the builder act and finalized. >> as part of the.
▶ 3:41:17>> fiscal responsibility act, are critical to creating a more coordinated permitting process, extending one federal decision to all infrastructure projects is delivering a more predictable, transparent, and timely federal review and authorization process. Reforms like joint review schedules with time and page limits to allow for flexibility depending on project complexity, builds on the prior successful work in the fast act and iija. Apwa sees the speed act as a logical progression of this work.
▶ 3:41:46Nepa is important to public works because it serves as the framework that allows us to undertake vital infrastructure projects, while also protecting the environment we live in and work in. Since its enactment, nepa has become integrated into every part of planning, design and construction of infrastructure. When I was mayor, my community was part of a project that involved a $2.5 billion expansion of an 11 mile stretch of the long island railroad, which is a major commuter line for long islanders.
▶ 3:42:16This railroad runs through the heart of our village, and the project created a major upheaval in daily life for most of my community. Because of its scope, the project was subject to nepa and new york's environmental quality review act. As mayor, I was involved in the stakeholder coordination and project planning and execution and execution. Early on, I saw the cross-government communication and managing project timeline. Expectations were key to minimizing impact on residents. Streamlining is not always about minimizing paperwork.
▶ 3:42:47Early engagement with local governments is an important part of streamlining the nepa process. While the rail project with the rail project communication was paramount, no group can better speak to the impact a project may have on roadways, water lines or emergency systems.
▶ 3:43:03As the public works professionals who do this work every day, local experts knowledge ensures that a project can be implemented quickly with community buy in, minimizing the chance of litigation and enhancing the quality of life we all work hard for and cherish. Another opportunity to improve nepa is by eliminating duplicate work. The rail project was subject to both state and federal environmental review.
▶ 3:43:26The new york review process closely mirrors nepa, coordinating overlapping environmental review takes time, energy, and money. Apwa members have seen project costs increase by 25% once federal funding is added. Administrative requirements should not be a barrier. By allowing a functionally similar state process to substitute for federal one, like the speed act proposes, communities may be more inclined to take on new projects, and this is happening.
▶ 3:43:55The most recent permitting reforms, combined with federal investment from iija, have encouraged more communities to take on their list of deferred maintenance projects they otherwise could not afford to do. However, the longer it takes for construction to start, the higher the labor and materials costs get. It's like redoing your kitchen. The longer you wait, the more expensive it gets.
▶ 3:44:18I was driving over labor day weekend and saw an iija funded reconstruction project just starting, and I actually got to thinking, how long would it did it take this project to get approved? How long did it take to get their permits? And that money was authorized years ago. There is no doubt at current costs of materials such as asphalt, that this project has seen major cost increases because of the later start. I am sure you can all relate to a story from a project within your congressional districts.
▶ 3:44:45A simple permit issue is never simple. Let me close with this. Apwa believes the speed act is a sincere attempt to continue streamlining efforts by one defining reasonably foreseeable as being in the area directly affected by the major federal action, directly under the control of the agency, and having a reasonably close causal relationship between a change and the environment and the project to ensuring project comments are directly related to the proposed action and are within the scope of agency
▶ 3:45:16Jurisdiction. Three limiting the standing for civil action to those who have substantively participated in the public comment period, and four establishing a statute of limitations for nepa case in line with other environmental laws, and creates maximum timeline for judicial review. I want to thank you for holding these hearings and your continued work on permitting, and I look forward to your questions. I'd like. >> to witness for you for your testimony. I want to next witness is Mr. bob dear.
▶ 3:45:44He is retired environmental lawyer and is stationed in takoma park, maryland. Mr. dear, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, Mr. chairman. >> ranking member. Huffman and members of the committee. >> I have had. >> substantial experience with the implementation of the national environmental policy act over the course. >> of my. >> career in private practice, in government service, and in representing citizens. Thank you for inviting me to. Testify here this morning. Nepa is this nation's basic charter for protection of the environment.
▶ 3:46:14It is first and foremost a government accountability statute. It's the primary law that requires public disclosure of the effects of government actions on people and communities. It's a law that empowers people, your constituents. At its core, nepa simply gives effect to the common sense axiom look before you leap. And it has unquestionably improved the quality of federal agency decision making. Public engagement in nepa process has been critically important in this success.
▶ 3:46:40As a new study I provided to the committee demonstrates public comments routinely improve the decisions made by federal agencies. Citizen litigation has also been instrumental in nepa success. It's important to bear in mind that nepa has no other enforcement mechanism. Citizen suits have therefore played an indispensable role in ensuring that federal agencies faithfully adhere to congress's direction.
▶ 3:47:01Developer interests regularly disparage citizen plaintiffs as bringing frivolous claims to delay projects, but it is telling that no court has ever sanctioned a nepa plaintiff for doing so. Multiple studies have concluded that permit delays for federal projects are rarely due to compliance with nepa. Only 1% of federal actions are required to prepare for the iss, and only a small fraction are subject to litigation, and only an even much smaller fraction are delayed by a court injunction.
▶ 3:47:28Delays in project development are often attributable to other factors, such as lack of funding, engineering requirements, delays in obtaining nonfederal approvals and permits, or political opposition. These delays create the appearance of a long nepa process, even though the nepa analysis did not cause the delay. Nepa implementation can be improved, but as experts have noted for decades, by far the most important thing that congress could do to help agencies do a better job is to provide more resources and more training for their staff.
▶ 3:47:57Unfortunately, this administration's massive cuts in the federal workforce and rescission of funding appropriated by congress specifically to improve the nepa process will seriously harm agencies ability to conduct such reviews. The worst thing congress could do, however, is to adopt provisions that seem to speed up the nepa process, but do so by undermining its validity. Unfortunately, many of the provisions of the speed act do just that.
▶ 3:48:22The proposed bill would restrict federal agencies in many ways from carrying out adequate environmental reviews. It authorizes federal agencies to willfully blind themselves to relevant scientific research after the beginning of the nepa process, regardless of whether the information is essential to making a reasoned decision, it prohibits agencies from considering cumulative effects or long range impacts, such as climate change.
▶ 3:48:45Despite the clear message in the supreme court's recent seven county infrastructure coalition decision that agencies should have broad discretion to decide the scope of their reviews, it prohibits agencies from voluntarily amending or withdrawing any environmental document, even if the agency recognizes that the document fails to meet nepa's requirements.
▶ 3:49:04Similarly, it prohibits agencies from seeking an extension of the statutory time frame for completion of an eis unless the applicant agrees, allowing applicants to force issuance of an incomplete or inadequate statement. It would sharply narrow the range of federal actions now now subject to nepa, by eliminating review of actions funded by federal agencies. Unless the agency exercises complete control over the use of the funds.
▶ 3:49:27Finally, of course, it would sharply constrict the availability of judicial review, a critical guarantee of agency compliance by imposing a narrow statute of limitations restricting plaintiffs to those who committed where there was a comment period, depriving the courts of equitable remedies needed to ensure agency compliance with statutory mandates. Allowing agencies to continue to construct a project as it's being litigated. Eliminating judicial review altogether of categorical exclusions, opening up a huge loophole.
▶ 3:49:56And finally, by imposing a standard of review in nepa cases that would literally be impossible to achieve, the bill would require courts to find both that an agency abused its discretion and that it would have reached a different result absent such abuse of discretion. Given that, as the bill itself recites, nepa does not mandate substantive outcomes. No court could ever make that finding that the agency would change its position in light of a better eis.
▶ 3:50:22In all of these respects, the speed act would undermine reasoned and environmentally informed decision making by federal agencies. The american people depend on this law to protect them from environmentally reckless federal action. I urge the committee not to move forward with this bill. Thank you. >> Mr. chair. Thank you for your testimony. Our final witness is Mr. rich nolan. He is president and ceo of the national mining association, and he is based out of washington, D.C. Mr.
▶ 3:50:51Nolan, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, chairman. >> westerman. >> ranking member. >> huffman and members. >> of the committee. >> I am rich nolan, president and ceo of the national mining association. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the mining industry, on the need for durable and lasting permitting reforms, and h.r. 4776, the bipartisan speed act.
▶ 3:51:15Energy and mineral demands are skyrocketing, skyrocketing with virtually every country now competing to secure its supply chains from the ground up. And frankly, the us is trying to win a race that we have only just entered decades behind our competitors. Fortunately, we have a congress and an administration that understands that reestablishing the us as an industrial powerhouse begins with our materials and fuels that are mined and produced in america. Us electricity demand is projected to double by 2050.
▶ 3:51:46We need every megawatt of power currently available on our grid and much more if we are going to be, if we're going to reliably address the rapid growth in electricity. The math just doesn't work without our coal assets. Similarly, demand for minerals is increasing dramatically.
▶ 3:52:02In 2023, the international energy agency calculated that 388 new mines were needed by 2030 to meet the demand for international ev pledges, and to that, soaring demand from semiconductor manufacturing as well. Name the industry or advanced technology. China has an alarming control of the mineral supply chains that enable it. If we want to win the ai race, we need more mineral sourced right here at home.
▶ 3:52:30This isn't only an economic imperative, it's a national security requirement. According to the wall street journal, more than 80,000 parts that are used in defense weapon systems are made with minerals now subject to chinese export controls. Fortunately, the us is home to a vast mineral mineral supply of resources. More than 6 trillion worth of known reserves mined in accordance with the highest environmental, safety and labor standards in the world.
▶ 3:52:56It is not a question of of whether we can do more at home, but whether we have the right policies in place to unlock these resources. At present, we do not. A recent report by s&p global found it takes an average of 29 years to bring a mine online in the united states. That's longer than all other countries in the world, with the exception of zambia. Litigation risk and delays are extraordinarily high here in the united states.
▶ 3:53:24With our standing in our we are standing in our own way. But smart policy can reset the table. The bipartisan speed act will help secure the nation's mineral supply chains and encourages energy resources development by reinforcing and strengthening amendments made in the fiscal responsibility act of 2023, limiting the scope of review to reasonably foreseeable rather than speculative proposed project impacts, and reducing duplication between state level and federal reviews. H.r.
▶ 3:53:534776 also builds on judicial reforms from the last congress, adds a new section under nepa, clarifying the standard of reviewing and limiting claims to those based off public comments that are unique and substantive, and includes provisions to reduce time spent on litigation by requiring courts to resolve nepa related cases within a specific time frame. The bipartisan mining regulatory clarity act, h.r.
▶ 3:54:211366, is also key to unlocking our domestic potential, removing the constant threat of withdrawals and reversals, and allowing mining companies to use adjacent lands for ancillary purposes. Consistent with four centuries of precedent, will allow project proponents the much needed regulatory certainty we seek. For too long, we've watched the global global minerals and energy race from the sidelines.
▶ 3:54:45While china has strategically built market share control and capacity trapped behind self-imposed obstacles that add nothing to environmental reviews, we are in a disadvantaged position of our own making. But with the right policies like h.r. 4776 and 1366, the us can reduce reliance on imported minerals and create high paying american jobs. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.
▶ 3:55:15I'll now recognize members for five minutes of questions. And before I do that, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record. This article titled no, nepa really is a problem for clean energy. For reasons the arguments of nepa defenders missed the mark.
▶ 3:55:32One thing that's highlighted in here is the argument that only a small fraction of nepa permits are challenged in court, but this report highlights how roughly one third of final eis gets challenged every year, and many of the other projects that go through nepa are so benign they should not go through nepa at all, but it kind of stacks the
▶ 3:56:02Deck to make it look like nepa is not a problem. Without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, Mr. ezell, for five minutes. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you for all your hard work and Mr. golden for putting this strong bipartisan package together. H.r. 4776, the speed act is about cutting red tape while still protecting our environment.
▶ 3:56:28The national environmental policy, or nepa process is taking years, sometimes longer, causing delayed infrastructure, energy production and economic development within the united states. This bipartisan bill is common sense reform. It reinforces nepa as a procedural law, not allowing for delays. This means permits can now move forward so our country can build and restore, while doing so in a timely fashion.
▶ 3:56:54The speed act also affects state and tribal environmental reviews, letting prior environmental assets assessments stand instead of enforcing new ones. On top of that, the speed act ensures that once an environmental assessment is complete, it stays intact unless a court rules. Otherwise. It speeds up judicial process by setting deadlines and limiting the grounds for lawsuits.
▶ 3:57:21At the end of the day, this bill is about momentum getting projects from planning to implementation without compromising accountability. I'm especially proud of the work this bill will do to help my district. Mr. chairman, I'd like to enter into the record letters of support from the southern mississippi planning and development district and the mississippi department of transportation. >> that objection so ordered.
▶ 3:57:46>> these letters give specific examples of delays for key highway and bridge projects across my district, and ensure strong economic resilience. That is what south mississippi deserves. Businesses and projects need regulatory certainty, and I fully support this legislation. Mr. nolan, we've heard a lot about how long nepa takes, but what most people don't realize is that the delay starts before nepa even begins. Mr.
▶ 3:58:15Nolan, how can we expedite and create transparency over pre nepa work? >> uh, there's been a lot of talk. And thank you for the question, congressman. There's been a lot of discussion about community engagement. And I think, uh, this this bill, the speed act itself talks about engaging upfront before that process even starts and working with communities to take input and make adjustments to projects, especially in the mining sector. So I think that would be a great place to start.
▶ 3:58:47Is upfront consultation. >> very good. When should the nepa clock start for projects? >> uh, the nepa clock should start for, uh, for projects when that that mine plan exploration plan are are ready. Very good. >> shouldn't congress enact statutory changes to nepa to eliminate the unnecessary process? Reviews.
▶ 3:59:10>> uh, congressman, the the mining industry is very patient, but 29 years the second worst in the world is, uh, is unsustainable. If we're going to be able to compete with our adversaries. >> how important is this legislation for the mining industry? >> it's extremely important, and we really appreciate the consultation with the chairman and his team and the members of the committee. Very good.
▶ 3:59:35>> you stated in your testimony that you state that a typical mining project loses more than one third of its economic value as a result of delays. How might the speed act change that? >> well, as I say, time is money delays. Uh, we talked in the last panel about the ability of projects that may never see the light of day because delays become so dramatic and the ability to to afford that capital investment that's tied up for, for under endless delays is just not sustainable.
▶ 4:00:05So we need this reform. We need it badly. >> thank you. Thank you for all for your testimony today, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, miss reavis, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, for recognizing me. Uh. >> the northeast san fernando valley in los angeles, which I represent, has some of the worst air in asthma rates in california.
▶ 4:00:30Um, nepa empowers communities like mine, along with other communities in california. Um, tribal communities in the southwest and cancer alley in louisiana and georgia. To have a voice in decisions that will directly affect their health, neighborhoods, and environments. We have seen countless instances of hazardous industries polluting the air and water that surround working class families.
▶ 4:00:57The trump administration and house republicans cannot cut out nepa and ignore the health and safety of these communities. We've seen throughout our country that projects are more successful when the community is involved early. I ask for unanimous consent to enter this report. Um, from we act for environmental justice, titled nepa does not delay into the record. Thanks.
▶ 4:01:21Uh, this report details how a massive renewable energy project in north las vegas, um, a vital transportation project in south la, um, can be approved, constructed and finalized, all in consultation and guided by the needs of the community. Um, Mr. uh, dreyer, thank you for your testimony today.
▶ 4:01:49Uh, the speed act limits communities from taking legal action against projects that cause enormous environmental harm. As you know, frontline environmental justice communities do not have the financial resources or time that multi-billion dollar corporations do. Does this bill put multi-billion dollar corporations ahead of the people?
▶ 4:02:17>> I know that's not the committee's intent, but I do think that's the effect of this bill. This bill limits the crucial safety net of of judicial review so extensively that essentially, federal agencies would be free to do whatever they wanted. They could ignore the requirements of nepa, and you could not get relief in court. Um, the time limits on seeking judicial review are very tight, particularly for communities, tribal communities, communities that are already burdened with pollution, um, poor and rural communities.
▶ 4:02:46These are tight time frames. I've represented citizens in litigation. Um, you don't bring a case lightly. You investigate it fully to make sure that they have valid grounds to bring the case. Five months is a very tight time frame for that. Um, the other restrictions, I mean, I have to say, I don't see anything in the bill that encourages community involvement.
▶ 4:03:06What I do see in the bill is a specific provision that would allow federal agencies to entirely disregard public comment because it says they may not consider information produced in after the notice of intent, which is when the public comment period starts. So I think this bill is is, I think unintentionally. But it's very much anti community. >> thank you.
▶ 4:03:29I agree and whether it's the intention or not it is going to result in limiting community input and voices from communities that are harmed may be harmed by these projects. Uh and one more question. Will big polluters benefit from this bill more than the people?
▶ 4:03:51>> I think the thrust of this bill is to give a green light for development and to override the kind of procedural protections that the public have to ensure that development is well thought through and that it's safe. I keep hearing comparisons, um, to china. Um, and if we wanted to live in an authoritarian country like china, where the people have no voice, um, we could get projects built very quickly, but we would have to live in an authoritarian country where the people have no voice.
▶ 4:04:19And many of those projects would be really detrimental. I mean, I used in my written testimony the example before nepa's time when the atomic energy commission proposed using nuclear bombs to excavate a harbor in alaska to create a new panama canal and to dig quarries, they were going to use nuclear weapons to do that. I cannot imagine that surviving the public review process under nepa today.
▶ 4:04:42So I just I think there are real problems with elevating, um, the need for speed and development and construction over all procedural safeguards that protect the american people's rights. >> thank you. Uh, you know, this is the kind of system and country that I think the trump administration wants. Um, like you said, we're not we don't have that type of government, but that china does. But it feels like we're headed there.
▶ 4:05:10Um, with these types of, uh, this type of legislation that will have that effect on our communities. Uh, uh, you know, the it in this act increases the pollution and damage that frontline environmental justice communities will face. It takes communities, um, voices away, all in the name of profit. Thank you. And I yield back my time. >> lady yields back. I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record.
▶ 4:05:37Uh, this report called understanding nepa litigation a systematic review of recent nepa related appellate court cases by the breakthrough institute. Um, you know, it's been mentioned that our nepa reform bill somehow is going to take away, uh, the right of individuals and communities to, uh, to challenge these projects when in reality, this report shows that it was ngos that initiated or instigated 72% of total nepa
▶ 4:06:09Appeals. Of those, just ten organizations initiated 35% and had a success rate of just 26%. Ten organizations are responsible for over 35% of these cases. Um, you know, excessively long and complicated nepa analysis excludes the public from the nepa process in favor of well-funded special interest groups.
▶ 4:06:33Our goal should be to ensure that litigation is based on legitimate environmental concerns raised during the public comment period, not as an afterthought, just to delay projects. Uh, this change will reduce unnecessary delays and litigation costs while preserving the right to challenge true environmental harms. I now recognize the gentleman from minnesota. Mr. stauber, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman westerman. Uh, Mr.
▶ 4:06:59Longobardi, when construction on a road, bridge or water infrastructure project in hempstead, new york, is delayed because of litigation over nepa or other permitting delays, who is on the hook for the increased construction costs? Is it the local taxpayers and hempstead, or do the litigants seeking to block a project cover these cost overruns? Of course it's the taxpayers.
▶ 4:07:28Um, so is there an unlimited amount of taxpayer money or is it do you want to minimize what the taxpayers have to put out to to help defend these projects? You certainly don't want to waste any money, especially taxpayer money.
▶ 4:07:53I mean, I've been doing municipal budgets for 35 years, and the last thing I want to do is waste anybody's money doing anything, um, that we don't need to do. People have the right to sue. Yes they do. To do projects get delayed? Yes, for legitimate reasons. And then we can we can actually. Talk about, uh, the real reason why you want to want to make sure that you are not you're using that money, but to have something delayed because you don't have to and waste that money. That's the last thing you want to do. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 4:08:23Nolan. It's great to see you again and your testimony. You discussed the increased demand for semiconductor manufacturing. In august of 2022, president biden signed into law the chips act, a majority, a major priority. Rather of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in your view, does our broken permitting system undermine the goals of the chips act? >> Mr.
▶ 4:08:50It's nice to see you again and always appreciate your leadership for minnesota and duluth duluth complex. Um, with regards to the chip act, uh, you know, the amount of minerals that go into into chips, uh, is just under just under 80, I believe. Um. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could source those from the united states? Um, certainly.
▶ 4:09:12Anything we can do to get access and find additional materials that go into chips would be, uh, would be one of the greatest things that this committee could help expedite. >> so would the speed act make it easier for the united states to build semiconductor manufacturing facilities and infrastructure? >> absolutely. Source those raw materials from from the united states.
▶ 4:09:36>> in your testimony, you cite a 2023 figure from the iea noting 388 new mines are needed by 2030 to meet demand for critical minerals just because of the increased use of electric vehicles. If anti-mining activists continue to block, construction of domestic mines, will it stop the build out of these 388 mines the iea says are required?
▶ 4:10:01In other words, if anti-mining activists succeed at blocking mines here in the united states, won't they simply be built elsewhere in the world? >> yes, that capital will go overseas. Those mines will not be built. >> and would these foreign mines pay union wages to american workers? >> correct. >> will they comply with nepa or the endangered species act or the clean air act, or the clean water act in foreign countries? >> most of those countries have various environmental statutes.
▶ 4:10:31Um, but nothing compared to the united states. >> so it's safe to say that in order to ensure these mines comply with our environmental laws as well as respect human and labor rights, we need to build them here in the united states. >> the us jurisdiction has the highest environmental, safety and labor standards in the world. >> uh, can you speak to the need to build out mineral processing and refining infrastructure here in the united states?
▶ 4:10:59What's the alternative if we don't start seriously investing in this domestic infrastructure. >> over the past 20 years? I appreciate the question. Uh, a vast majority of the processing has been shipped overseas. I think the committee, in a bipartisan way, has talked about this. At the same time, we're standing up mining in the united states.
▶ 4:11:18We need to stand up processing capabilities to make sure from a national security standpoint, we don't have to import, send raw material overseas and continue to fund our adversaries with those materials. >> I think as we as we, uh, move on permitting reform, the the infrastructure and the processing has to come to the united states rather than shipping it overseas, uh, or to canada for processing. And I think that's going to be a high priority.
▶ 4:11:46And quite frankly, I think that, uh, the state of alaska, uh, can be a, a, a first step in that and then 1 or 2, um, in the lower 48 summer, we have to do it here. And, uh, thank you very much, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york, miss velasquez, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you to all the witnesses here today.
▶ 4:12:10Uh, nepa ensures that everyday people are part of the decision making process on projects that impact their health and neighborhoods. Um, Mr. dreier, you mentioned that the act will allow agencies to disregard new scientific information and even public comments that provide relevant data after a project application is submitted.
▶ 4:12:35What risks do you see this posing to both environmental outcomes and community trust in federal permitting decisions? >> could you restate that the last sentence? >> yeah. What risk do you see this posing to both environmental outcomes and community trust in federal permitting decisions?
▶ 4:13:03>> well, I think one of the one of the great parts of the nepa process, as it is, as it evolved, is that forward thinking agencies have really reached out to engage communities early and have in scoping processes and the agencies that really invest in community outreach have much better results.
▶ 4:13:19Um, they not only do they have less challenge because they've engaged with the community throughout and figured out what its concerns were and figured out how to provide mitigation for those concerns, they get information from the community that helps them craft the best solution. Um, and to go forward with that improved project. Um, and that's crucial in terms of maintaining, um, sustainability of government actions and the, the trust in government.
▶ 4:13:46Um, it's there's widespread distrust of the federal government in this country. Um, it has been for some time. And nepa is one of the statutes that makes the federal government come clean, makes one of the that's one of the statutes, one of the foremost ones that makes them tell people the truth about what they're doing. And I think undermining that trust would be very damaging. >> you also noted that this act will sharply limit courts ability to pause projects, even when nepa violations are found.
▶ 4:14:18Can you briefly explain how this change impacts the corps accountability mechanisms that congress originally intended when it passed nepa? >> well, I mean, as I as I testified, I actually, um, as a practicing lawyer with some experience, I led the environment division at the justice department. Um, I don't think that a court could, in fact, ever find a plaintiff, um, successful in a claim against nepa under this statute.
▶ 4:14:46Um, I also note that the statute excludes all judicial review of categorical exclusions. Um, if I'm a federal agency and I want to escape all these burdens of communicating with the public, I just broadly declare a categorical exclusion for pretty much what the president has done in this administration for energy projects, for fossil fuel projects, um, just huge, like 14 day ea's 28 day eyes, no ten day comment periods. Um, and they get away with it.
▶ 4:15:18>> yeah. Supporters of this act claim this is about accelerating projects and cutting red tape. Uh, yet just last month, the administration rescinded $679 million in offshore wind port funding money vital to many sites, including the south brooklyn marine terminal in new york city.
▶ 4:15:42That decision threatens union jobs and prolongs reliance on dirty peaker plants in neighborhoods like ravenswood in my district, nicknamed asthma alley because of the high asthma rates among residents.
▶ 4:16:02While I support advancing renewable energy projects faster, it is clear that the current administration does not believe in climate change or investing in wind and solar power. Um, Mr. dreier, can you explain why analyzing cumulative effects is particularly important for environmental justice communities that may already burden be burdened by multiple pollution sources?
▶ 4:16:32>> well, I think that the very idea that we have communities in this country that have suffered so much at just such disproportionate environmental burdens is is one of the saddest chapters in our country's development. We've, we've we've basically I poured these kinds of polluting industries into, into underprivileged neighborhoods. Um, and they are already burdened. And if you propose a new project, you can't go in blind and say, oh, it's only going to have this impact on the on the footprint of the project.
▶ 4:17:02You've got to look at what it will do, added to all the other burdens added to the asthma rates in communities that already exist. >> thank you, I yield back. >> thank you very much. The chair now recognizes representative hunt for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I want to thank our guests and witnesses for being here today as well. Mr. chairman, I want to thank you and your staff personally for the many hours of work that you put into h.r.
▶ 4:17:264776, your dedication to addressing this issue and creating a framework for real permitting reform has resulted in truly a great bill that's before us today. The speed of modernizing the nepa by streamlining environmental reviews and reinforcing procedural clarity. It emphasizes that nepa is a procedural statute, not a mandate, and reduces delays without compromising environmental considerations.
▶ 4:17:55This bill also prevents agencies from rescinding or reopening environmental reviews without a legal court order. Doing so will provide developers with crucial certainty in planning and safeguard lawful projects from changing requirements and bureaucratic red tape, something that we all want and need, and we have seen in the trump administration.
▶ 4:18:15These reforms sharpen nepa's focus, promote infrastructure investment and enhance regulatory predictability, benefiting economic development while preserving robust ♪science based environmental oversight. As a texan is something that I love to see. Um, Mr. levy, thank you so much for being here today. In the past few years, we have seen how important data centers are to our nation's infrastructure and network.
▶ 4:18:39In my great home state of texas, we are seeing a lot of interest in data center companies wanting to call texas home. We're seeing the union of a lot of unlikely bedfellows. We're seeing tech companies and natural gas companies. All of a sudden we now love each other. And we're seeing kumbaya, um, with texas being considered such a good market for data centers. And what are the long term benefits for the state and why? My constituents, uh, want to host data centers in texas.
▶ 4:19:09>> thank you for for the question, representative hunt, I very much agree that texas has put itself forward as not only a primary market in dallas for data center development, but we're seeing substantial secondary market growth now. Other parts of texas, san antonio, houston, uh, and it really is, I think, due to several factors, uh, certainly business friendly environment, but certainly a commitment to trying to provide energy abundance.
▶ 4:19:36Uh, we are at a time now, according to goldman sachs, there is an 11.4gw discrepancy between demand and our ability to meet that demand within the data center industry. Uh, it is an incredible concern as we think about, uh, the business model of data centers. Generally, we we take electrons and we turn them into zeros and ones so society, government, manufacturing can run and run efficiently and effectively.
▶ 4:20:03And I think texas has really stood up to try and help meet that challenge. >> and in the future, do you think we're going to need to see more energy and more of an abundance and less onerous restrictions on our ability to create these electrons moving forward for the next ten, 20, 30 years? With the advancement of ai and these data centers? >> um, I absolutely do. And I think it's also very clear that we are very much in a race for, you know, not only achieving but maintaining ai dominance moving forward collectively.
▶ 4:20:33Right now, uh, the united states and china account for 70% of global data center capacity. Uh, the united states, more so than china. I think it's 54% to 26%. But we heard testimony during the initial panel this morning, uh, that china is building at a much quicker clip now than we are closing that gap. And that is a tremendous concern. >> yes, sir. Thank you so much for your question. I yield back the remainder of my time to the chairman. Thank you. And thank you, sir. >> thank you very much.
▶ 4:21:03Um, before I go to, uh, Mr. huffman, I do want to, um, clear the record. Just want to make sure that the correct the record that the speed act only prohibits claims against the establishment, establishment of categorical, categorical exclusions, not their use. Representative huffman. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, Mr.
▶ 4:21:26Nolan, those of us that have been poring through this bill line by line, uh, did a double take a few minutes ago when you said that it includes provisions that encourage early public engagement and public comment. Um, that is not in this bill. Uh, so I would really urge you to take a second look at it. Um, if you can find anything in this bill that encourages early public engagement and comment, by all means, uh, show it to us.
▶ 4:21:54But, uh, as you do that review and discover that it's not there, it's also okay to clarify the record by just saying that you misspoke. Um, Mr. dreier, uh, I'd like to run through some hypothetical scenarios that we're likely to see if this bill were to become law.
▶ 4:22:12Let's say that, um, a uranium mine and a waste storage site is proposed somewhere in new mexico or arizona or utah, and the secretary of interior decides to permit a new mine in 14 days and allow a week for one week for tribal consultation. Timelines that are provided for in the administration's new, arguably illegal, uh, emergency permitting authority and new nepa regulations.
▶ 4:22:39So first, is one week enough time for tribes to engage in meaningful consultation for something like a uranium mine and waste storage site? And what is the risk of not including sufficient opportunity for public input? >> well, I don't think any reasonable person would think that a week was sufficient time to consult with tribes. We have a government to government relationship with tribes. Um, and treating that relationship seriously and honoring it. It should be paramount for the federal government.
▶ 4:23:09No, not just not just a tribe. No community could could possibly be consulted with in one week time in a meaningful way. Um, so yes, I think that would pretty much exclude the possibility of effective engagement with the affected communities. And the risk that that that runs is you end up with, what, two things you end up with what may be a, a unnecessarily damaging project, because it doesn't take into account the information that the public can provide.
▶ 4:23:36It doesn't try to mitigate the effects that they can call to the agency's attention. So, exactly contrary to nepa, you end up with a bad project that is environmentally uninformed because you've ignored public comment. The second thing it does is it destroys trust in the american government. And I don't think we can afford to do anything more that destroys trust in the american government at this point. >> thank you.
▶ 4:23:59So let's now say that this new uranium mine is adjacent to a tribal community that has a history of uranium pollution and disproportionately high cancer rates. And maybe the tribe wants to see some additional information on how the new mine would contribute to health risks. But some further research is needed. The speed act absolutely would not allow that to happen, right?
▶ 4:24:23>> speed act would allow the agency to ignore scientific information that comes forward after the initiation of the nepa process. It would prohibit the agency from actually conducting studies, and it would prohibit the agency from, um, from delaying the issuance of its document. In this case, you said 14 days they couldn't delay issuance of their document to wait for research. So in all of those ways, it would effectively blind the agency to the community's concerns.
▶ 4:24:51>> so now the mine moves forward. Uh, in our hypothetical, despite the tribe's concerns, um, without the benefit of public input and let's say the agency, uh, didn't know that if the public had commented, they would have raised, uh, a seemingly obvious point that the mine could have stored its radioactive waste five miles down the road, away from the tribe's drinking water and with fewer risks.
▶ 4:25:16And suppose that the community notices that the drinking water starts to smell down the road, and some folks are noticing impacts to their health. They plan to file a lawsuit in this hypothetical because of those impacts, um, would that claim be able to be heard in court under this bill? >> well, first, it sounds like the claim would be the injury would become visible to them more than 150. 150 days. So.
▶ 4:25:42So it would be barred by this, by this bill. Uh, and then, of course, as I said, I don't think they could succeed in a claim like that under this bill. I don't I don't think any environmental plaintiff could. >> yeah. So, uh, in this scenario, which is, uh, this is not a wild hypothetical.
▶ 4:25:59Things like this happen all the time, but this tribe, yet again, would be stuck with pollution and increased cancer rates, and all of it would have been potentially avoided with a robust public input and comment process. Um, even as the project continued to move forward, changes could have been made to address those concerns. Last question, Mr. dreier, could you just tell us, um, some examples of how lawsuits make projects in situations like this better?
▶ 4:26:31>> I'm going to run out of time. Um, but, you know, lawsuits hold agencies accountable for serious mistakes in the way they assess and communicate the risks of their of their work. Um, I'll give you an example of how a lawsuit failed and how the nepa process failed. It's old, but it's really telling.
▶ 4:26:51And that is that in, um, in 1970, soon after the enactment of the act, uh, the bureau of reclamation proposed to build a dam, uh, on the teton river in idaho. Um, and, and at the time they put, they published a 14 page eis and it did not take serious investigation of the geological structure that that dam would sit on. Um, an organization I used to work for, the sierra club legal defense fund, challenged that in court.
▶ 4:27:20Um, the court concluded that the concerns about a catastrophic dam collapse were speculative and dismissed the case. Two years later, as the dam was filled, the dam collapsed because the geology was totally unsuitable for construction of a dam. 11 people died, 300mi were devastated, and $1 billion in damage was caused. So, you know, litigation there should have worked, I think, at the court today would have been more sensitive, but it was early. >> it's a good example. Thank you. And thanks, Mr. chairman, for your indulgence. >> thank you.
▶ 4:27:50Um, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letters of support for the speed act from the family farm alliance, independent women's voice, the national hispanic energy council, public lands council, the rio grande county board of county commissioners, the ute indian tribe, and the ouray reservoir on the ouray reservation and the virginia beach city council.
▶ 4:28:15Contrary to claims from my colleagues across the aisle that the speed act would cut groups off from meaningful community engagement, these letters show that common sense nepa reform will bring tangible benefits to local communities across this great nation. And up next is representative tiffany from the great state of wisconsin. >> thank you, Mr. dreier. Did two mills closing down in northern wisconsin as a result of frivolous litigation on the nicolet national forest. Make things better.
▶ 4:28:44I don't know anything about the circumstances of that. I would ask you about the frivolous nature of the claim. What what made it frivolous? Ultimately, the claim was dismissed after years and years of being litigated. But in that time, two sawmills shut down because they could not get enough product off from the forests up there. This has been repeated across the country. Did that make the united states better?
▶ 4:29:12You know, I think the thing is that, um, that in litigation, um, most of the time the government wins. And that's a reflection of two things. That's a reflection of the fact that that agencies are pretty good at doing nepa and that the courts are extremely deferential to agencies. But some, you know, so environmental plaintiffs can bring legitimate claims and still lose. Do you. >> um. >> have you done work for earthjustice and defenders of wildlife? Yes. Um. >> how much.
▶ 4:29:40>> business or revenue did you generate for them during that time? I don't think that I generated any business revenue for either organization. >> um, they. >> did not get compensated for their legal, uh, the legal work that they did. I thought you said business revenue. Um, the the legal defense fund, that. >> is, their business. >> is suing. Well, their business actually is representing millions of their members in trying to conserve natural resources. >> filing lawsuits. >> right. That's one of the things they do. Yes, sir.
▶ 4:30:11>> isn't it correct? Even when you lose, you win because you. >> get your, uh, those groups get their legal fees. No, that's completely incorrect. You don't think we should have? Oh, so you're saying earthjustice and defenders of wildlife have never been compensated even though they lost in a lawsuit? No. There's no legal basis for seeking compensation. If you lose in a lawsuit, the the equal access to justice act would not permit it.
▶ 4:30:35The statutes, uh, like the clean air act and the clean water act that have certain provisions, award fees only to prevailing plaintiffs. Mr. chairman, I look forward to this gentleman coming back before this committee after we do a full fact check on these organizations across the united states of america that have filed lawsuits, and then they get compensated, even though they lose sue. >> fundraising. >> the gentleman yield. Will the gentleman yield for a question? >> I got a question here for Mr. longobardi.
▶ 4:31:03If you're a small municipality, does the current permitting regime incentivize you to take on larger, more complex projects? Uh. >> no, I would tell you it doesn't. Um, one of one. >> of the problems is that. >> one of the problems we have, and as a small municipality, you just don't many times don't have. >> the. >> resources to do a larger project, um, permitting requirements.
▶ 4:31:27Um, other, other factors get in the way of trying to do to do something that you want to do. Um, you can't even file for grants at times because you just don't have the resources to do it. So a smaller, a smaller municipality, um, you can spend money to file for, for these things and then it delays would cause a problem and you can't even complete the project. >> appreciate that, Mr. nolan. Um, tell us about all the minerals that we're going to need. If we hear about.
▶ 4:31:57We have to have this transition to green energy. Tell us about all the minerals that we're going to need. >> uh, thank you for the question, congressman. The number of minerals will need runs in the in the hundreds of of various components that we'll need for the electrification of pretty much everything. So I can certainly provide that to committee, but the list is endless. >> yeah. So whether it's copper, silver, whatever, we're going to need so much more. Right. >> the forecasts are off the charts. >> and, and that forecast is not just a doubling or tripling.
▶ 4:32:28Is that correct? That it's almost exponentially more. >> sometimes it's six x. >> Mr. chair, how are we going to get those with the current permitting process that you want to keep? You believe in electrification. You believe in the green fantasy. Um, how are we going to get there? >> yeah. Let me make it clear I have not. >> how are we going to get there when we can't even mine in Mr. stauber's district? What was it? Was it 19 years rich, or was it 29 years to that they were dragging out the permitting on that one project?
▶ 4:32:59>> 20 years. How are we going to get there? >> let me make it clear. I do not oppose efforts to both make the act more efficient. I make that clear in my testimony, and I also certainly don't oppose efforts to make the permitting process more efficient. What I do call out is that if if nepa is not, as most reputable scholars conclude, is not a major cause of permitting delay. There are other causes that are really serious, and they include issues of coordination between state and other federal agencies that should be addressed.
▶ 4:33:27I think you may have the wrong culprit. >> I got to conclude my remarks here. Simple decision before us, Mr. chairman. Is the 21st century going to be a chinese century, a communist chinese century, or is it going to be an american century? And if we're not going to produce these minerals, it's going to be a chinese century. >> Mr. >> time expired request. >> uh, yeah. Mr. chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the equal access for justice act.
▶ 4:33:55This is the law that allows, uh, a litigant, uh, an environmental litigant to ask for fees and costs. And it's very explicit in the act that you only get those when you prevail. This is basic, basic stuff. And we just heard something very fantastical to the contrary. >> without objection. So ordered. Chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. Mr. craig, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:34:24Uh, any any serious energy strategy has to start with the reality that energy security is national security. And as my colleague Mr. tiffany said, uh, china is our enemy.
▶ 4:34:40And we need to recognize that when we lack a sufficient grid to power homes, to power industry and fast growing demands like data centers, we expose ourselves to vulnerabilities our adversaries are exploiting. China is a prime example. As Mr.
▶ 4:34:57Tiffany said in 2024 alone, they added 429gw of new generation capacity to their grid, a mix of intermittent and baseload power, giving them the ability to rapidly scale for data and for defense needs. And the question is, what is america going to do?
▶ 4:35:16Are we going to continue to be hampered by our own bureaucracy, and have our government set up impediments to our success as a nation in national defense? Mr. levi, your testimony notes that national security consequences of permitting delays if it continues to take 4 to 5 years just to build transmission, uh, transmission lines here, what does that mean for us?
▶ 4:35:46Competitiveness in ai and in other technologies. >> thank you, representative. I very much appreciate the question. And it is indeed a concern. We have an asynchronous timeline now. We are able to develop and build a data center in a two year time frame. Uh, it can take anywhere from 3 to 5 years to try and put some generation online. It can take 7 to 10 years to put transmission infrastructure online.
▶ 4:36:12Uh, as a result, we find ourselves really paced in terms of how quickly we can deploy this digital infrastructure. >> so we we can't. So the hold back is the is the energy infrastructure. It's not the data center itself. >> the pacing challenge right now is the energy infrastructure. Yes, sir. >> yeah. At the same time, you know, colorado, my home state of colorado, has chosen to retire many coal fired power plants, uh, by 2031, well before the end of their useful life.
▶ 4:36:41Uh, that means that the state has come to replace roughly one third of its generation capacity in just five years for Mr. nolan. Um, if it takes, on average, five years to permit a new power plant or transmission line, even with congress and the administration working to speed things up, is it sound policy for colorado to pursue decommissioning reliable base power like coal?
▶ 4:37:10>> congressman, thank you for the question. With a forecast demand for electricity and the and the demand off the charts for data centers, uh, taking any electrons offline right now is dangerous. >> yeah, it's a mismatch in my community. Colorado springs. We're talking about attracting data centers. We're talking about we've got a technology hub. We're we're one of the space capitals of the united states. Over half of us. Space force is in colorado.
▶ 4:37:38Uh, and and almost most of that is in my district in colorado springs. And despite that, we've got folks taking off, uh, coal fired power plants, which is going to take off baseload power even if we reduce permitting timelines, ensuring grid security requires dispatchable resources like coal. Would you agree, Mr. nolan?
▶ 4:38:02Uh, that as we expand data centers and bring manufacturing back onshore, coal still has an important role in providing reliable and affordable energy? >> uh, absolutely. Congressman, coal provides approximately 16% of electricity for baseload power, 24 over seven nationwide. And in certain parts of the country, that number is much higher. >> thank you.
▶ 4:38:27You know, I sit on the house armed services committee as well, and I'm I'm struck by I go into many briefings. Many of them are classified briefings. And I look, uh, you know, day in, day out, week in, week out. And I see what china is doing.
▶ 4:38:45They aren't waiting for approval from the chinese government and some process to beat us in our military capabilities. They're moving at lightning fast speed. We can't allow bureaucracy and government to be a barrier all the time.
▶ 4:39:07As I noted earlier with the other panel, many times people use the nepa process and the permitting process here to simply slow up the process or to stop projects altogether. That hurts our national security. That's important for all of us to remember. Thank you for the time, Mr. chairman. >> Mr. time expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from washington, Mr. randall, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 4:39:36Um, Mr. nolan, during the biden administration, the bureau of land management implemented a new policy to provide notice to tribes, uh, on new mineral exploration. This kind of exploration, which doesn't trigger nepa, the national historic preservation act or other federal review. Um, so it wasn't, um, alerting tribes to any of those triggers.
▶ 4:40:04And so they didn't always know about new mining projects until they saw the exploration ongoing. Um, this policy for folks who hadn't followed it simply required blm to notify tribes about new mineral exploration in their areas of interest. President trump rescinded that policy. Mr.
▶ 4:40:26Nolan, do you think rescinding this policy and others that limit when tribes are made aware of projects, will make it easier to permit a mine? >> I don't, uh, we firmly believe that it's important to have the social license to operate, and we're supportive of the biden administration's position on the early notification and working with communities. So I'm happy to follow up with you on that. >> thank you so much, Mr. nolan.
▶ 4:40:57This administration is clearly operating in bad faith. We know because mining companies will tell you, as I'm sure they have, that permitting goes more smoothly. As you said, when you have social buy in, when communities are involved in decision making from the get go, including being made aware of potential impacts as soon as practicable, rescinding this policy, which was helping to lead to smoother permitting, isn't the way to do it.
▶ 4:41:23The speed act exempts proposed agency actions from nepa review. If an agency's compliance with another statute fulfills a similar. I'm using air quotes here function to nepa requirements.
▶ 4:41:39Well, two things are true one no other statute fulfills the same function as nepa, and this bill doesn't define what counts as a similar function and many other permitting laws. The type that imagine, um, you know, the chair would mean to substitute for nepa.
▶ 4:42:02Those permitting laws are also under attack, for example, in response to this administration's so-called energy emergency, the department of the interior published an emergency process for national historic preservation act, section 106. Compliance. Many tribal nations rely on this specific law to protect tribal sacred spaces.
▶ 4:42:26However, the emergency process which I have right here says that energy project sponsors only have to sign a form saying that they will implement, to the extent prudent and feasible measures to avoid or minimize harm to historic properties. Mr. dehart would signing a form promising to avoid harm to the extent feasible, substitute for a new for a full nepa review?
▶ 4:42:57>> uh, without casting any aspersions on the good faith of the official that signs the form? No, because even that official could not know at that instant what was involved and what kind of properties they were and what the potential effects would be. That's what the point of nepa is, is to inform government officials so they can make reasoned decisions about what to do. So it would be a blank check, and whether it got honored or not would depend, I think, on the cost of the check. >> thank you. Thank you so much. And you know, I.
▶ 4:43:25I want to offer that I think that we should be having a, a meaningful discussion about how we can cut through red tape to allow for, um. Projects, particularly green clean energy projects, to, um, limit our, uh, dependance on foreign oil, how we can permit energy projects that decrease our carbon footprint, how we can ensure
▶ 4:43:56That we're lowering costs for families. I think that we should be thinking about how we cut red tape to build the kind of housing that we need all across the country. Um, and I think we have to be really clear eyed about what is at risk if we, um, start allowing folks to sign away full environmental protection act review. And with that, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
▶ 4:44:26>> in the 10s I have left. Mr. levy, you need energy fast. I heard you loud and clear. What's the fastest kind of energy you can get to power your data centers right now? Given the delays with getting natural gas turbines. >> at the moment, I think solar is one of the faster ways to provide energy. >> I thought so, thank you. Yield back. >> gentlelady's time has expired. I now recognize myself for questions. Um, Mr.
▶ 4:44:54Levy, what happens with data center development if we can't speed up the permitting process to get energy to these data centers? >> Mr. chair, I appreciate that question, because I think the answer is we don't know. We have not been in a posture yet where we have been unable to deploy the digital infrastructure that this nation needs for commerce, for government, for national security.
▶ 4:45:19And our companies are very much mission focused on ensuring that we continue to deploy, um, we need to continue to try and bring that investment here onshore. And I think there's a commitment to try and do that. But certainly we do live in a global economy, and you're seeing investment elsewhere as well. Uh, the question is, how can we ensure moving forward when we continue to build out this capacity?
▶ 4:45:42Uh, again, goldman sachs came out and said that they anticipate approximately $7 trillion of investment by 2030, 40% of which should and would occur here in the united states. We need to have energy available to, to to make that the case. And that's really the goal. Um, we, I think, have all experienced, uh, in our lives buffering. We've experienced that we'll when you're streaming, when you're on conferences and other things.
▶ 4:46:10Um, and I think we've all gotten used to in recent years, certainly since the pandemic, not experiencing that quite as much. And we're continuing to try and. >> whose our major global competitor on developing ai. >> uh, china's our major global competitors. >> what happens if china gets, uh, superintelligence with ai before we get to that point.
▶ 4:46:32>> the concern there, sir, it is an economy wide and government wide as we think about all of the applications that ai is going to provide, whether it be efficiency on the factory floor, whether it be efficiency in government services, whether it be drug discovery, all the innovation, all the efficiencies and productivity that ai has already begun to to surface, um, are at risk if we cannot maintain the ai dominance here, not only to create the models,
▶ 4:47:04But to provide access to those models, to the people that and organizations that want to access them. >> what about our security systems and communication systems? Could they be in jeopardy? >> yes, sir. >> so there's no question we need to win that that race. Uh, Mr. nolan, I could talk to you for a long time about the importance of mining and critical minerals to a wide spectrum of issues that we're facing today.
▶ 4:47:32Um, got a limited time, but something I really wanted to bring out in this hearing and to to focus on is the the impact of permitting delays on public infrastructure. And, Mr. longobardi, you've mentioned that in your testimony. I want to point out this chart up here. That's from a study done by mckinsey just a couple of months ago. And it shows the cost of permitting.
▶ 4:48:03And ♪it's not just the actual cost of 5 billion to $14 billion per year in permitting, but also it shows the delay creates an additional 24 to 30% increase in the permitting cost. And then it shows that those delays result in a 100 to $140 billion increase in construction costs.
▶ 4:48:28And then you look at the missed opportunity cost, and it's showing that delays and this is over a four year period, cost 1.7 to $2.4 trillion, uh, in delays in permitting. So this is a a big issue on public infrastructure.
▶ 4:48:45And it's not I know you represent, uh, water systems, but this affects roads, bridges, ports, airports, navigable waterways, everything that the federal government touches from an infrastructure standpoint, uh, gets bogged down in this process, and it's costing the american taxpayer an incredible amount of money. Uh, on public infrastructure projects, this is money that's not going to put new roads and new bridges in. Uh, Mr.
▶ 4:49:17Longobardi, can you, uh. Expound on that and talk about how, uh, it's not just affecting the very important part of infrastructure that you work on, but the entire spectrum of infrastructure projects? >> you said. It it. It's everything that that we touch. And again, you know, I joked about us being with you from the time you wake up to the time you go to bed.
▶ 4:49:41But in reality, when you look at the amount of dollars that you're talking about here and what that study says, if all of that money went into our infrastructure, think of how many roads we could fix, think of how much clean water we could provide, think of how much we could protect our environment and emergency services. Um, think about all of the different issues that we have each and every day.
▶ 4:50:05How many people does it take to actually get get past all of that permitting and all of the the all of that money used that could actually go into the project to get it done so that people can use the roads, people can actually use the services that government provides.
▶ 4:50:24When you think about it, it's the, you know, government, government is there for the safety of the people, transportation, infrastructure, water infrastructure, all of our emergency management services and all the different things that we do in public works is there to protect people and provide a an increase in the commerce that we have, increase in the services that we provide, increasing and better the quality of life that each and every of the people, each and
▶ 4:50:54Every person that that actually pays the bills for all of us, you know, for all the things that we do when you take and realize that you have trillions of dollars that could go to, could go to the projects and make and even think about how much money, you know, we talk about nepa, protecting the environment, think about how that money could go to protect the environment as well.
▶ 4:51:15When you when you look at all of the different avenues that that you're talking about and all the money that goes to all this that could go into improving the quality of life for people every day, you want to make sure that you have a good use of those dollars. Safety. And I'll digress just a second, but think about the iija money, okay?
▶ 4:51:36Think about how much of that money has gone to permitting processes and all of the different, uh, expenses that that aren't actually going into fixing that road or fixing the water system or fixing, uh, or improving our emergency management services. Um, you know, the reauthorization of that and the delays in that because of permitting processes and the amount it's not just about the money, but about not getting those projects done.
▶ 4:52:02So, you know, it's making sure that we have all of those different things that go together and making sure that we put it all together. And having that that the re having all of and not wasting any of those dollars on things that may be um, or could, could make it a better, again quality of life for people. You know, we, we use these monies every day to, to fix something to improve what we do.
▶ 4:52:30We talk about all of the different things that we we could use mining and data centers and things like that. If you don't have workers getting to work on roads that we build, if you don't have people getting food and sustenance, transportation, you know, being transported over roads that we build and you don't have all of that done.
▶ 4:52:53The economies fall apart, the people's quality of life, people that there's so many facets to it that to to bring it all into one, one, uh, way of saying and one way of fixing it. No, but there's so many things that go into that. So every dollar that could go to something else to make it better is so important. >> uh. Thank you.
▶ 4:53:16I'll also point out in this study show that there's 17 to 28 million, uh, gas powered cars in the us and the co2 emissions, uh, that are emitted because of delays in infrastructure projects are, uh, are equivalent to a million gas powered cars on the road every year because of of delays and infrastructure.
▶ 4:53:42It also points out that there's 38 million to 54 million us households, uh, of energy that could be created if there weren't the delays in the projects. That's 410 to 580 terawatt hours of unrealized electricity generation from potential capacity. Trapped. Waiting for permits is what their their study said.
▶ 4:54:06Um, again, this is a process where we're trying to create a better bill, and I want to give all the witnesses an opportunity to say what you would change in the bill if you had an opportunity. Um, or you've got the opportunity to tell us how we can improve it by either adding or taking away or modifying. And, uh, Mr. levy, we'll start with you. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 4:54:30And I just want to say that I do appreciate your comments and your receptivity to working with members of the committee to make it a better bill. I think that's important and appreciate that. Um, from our perspective, this bill is part of a more comprehensive permitting effort that we we hope this congress will, will undertake and undertake with, with speed. Um, nepa is important. Nepa encapsulates a lot, but so do the underlying statutes that others have mentioned.
▶ 4:54:59Uh, you know, around different verticals that the government regulates and also on the state level. And we feel like, uh, nepa changes can help to inform how the states might think about streamlining and adding more efficiency on some of their statutes. But also the government, the federal government has, I think, a good leadership role in encouraging states to evaluate their permitting as well. >> thank you again, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:55:27Um, I think I've said it. You know, I said it in my testimony. You know, this the speed act is a good start and a good continuation of what's already been done. Um, I think like Mr. levi, we would look to see how it combines and works with, with other permitting processes.
▶ 4:55:44Um, but more importantly, it's, you know, making sure that that the, the effective use of tax dollars, the effective use of, of of improving our infrastructure and improving the, the, the quality of life of people is so paramount to everything that we do and the people that we represent in the public works association, they're the ones that make it happen every day.
▶ 4:56:07And when we look at at how this can this could be improved, we just look to, to make sure that it coincides with all of the things and all of the, uh, the, um, important things that, that people look for every day. So thank you for for the opportunity. And again, we we appreciate all the work that's gone into everything. >> well, I think um, I think there are some unintended consequences in the way the bill is currently drafted.
▶ 4:56:35Um, I think, for example, it is hostile to community engagement and to receipt of community comments. And I don't think that was your intent. I, I don't know, I think you could scrub the bill to look at ways to encourage community involvement, um, to, to not, uh, not allow agencies to blind themselves to community input. Uh, in the comment period, uh, as the bill currently does. And again, I don't think this is necessarily the intent of the of the drafters of the bill.
▶ 4:57:02Um, I think changing one word in the in the scope of review, the standard review might help. And that is changing the word would to might the current court standard for, for deciding whether a case is um de minimis effectively whether or not it's, it's uh, it doesn't raise a serious question is whether the claims made by the plaintiff might change the agency's mind or might lead to a better outcome. And might is the key word there, because that's the test.
▶ 4:57:31If you say would, then I think it's impossible for a court to meet. Um, so I would I would just encourage you to, uh, rethink some of the, the very sharp edged provisions on judicial review. Um, and, and frankly, I think it would be helpful to think bigger picture about what the real causes of delay are and the permitting process, and encourage the use of the of nepa, um, to as a collaborating and convening mechanism to bring parties together so that the places where there's friction and
▶ 4:58:03Where there's where there's different state and local permitting processes could be convened into one permitting decision. I think the streamlining efforts that the congress has made are really, really excellent. Um, and I think you could continue that in this bill. >> Mr. nolan. >> certainly share the comments on one one judicial, one review. I think that the combining of the interagency actions, uh, to one decision has been, uh, very, uh, welcome, uh, evolution of the nepa program.
▶ 4:58:33Uh, but I also want to thank you for starting this process of starting this conversation, building off the fiscal accountability, uh, changes, um, working in a bipartisan manner and taking a hard look at what has been the creeping scope of nepa in the past and trying to, uh, cabin that in. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you. Mr. huffman. Did you have a. >> well, my my suggestion, Mr. chairman, I appreciate your openness to hearing this kind of recap of concern.
▶ 4:59:02I think the point that was just made by a couple of people about streamlining and having one decision is an important one. That just makes a lot of sense. If we want projects to move faster. This bill is it's structured, kind of balkanized, that it tells different agencies that they can't participate, uh, in the in the process. And it seems to me that that's going in the opposite direction of where we want to go if we really want these things to move.
▶ 4:59:29So that would be my thought, and I appreciate your openness to hearing it. And I also would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, um, you know, by way of feedback, a letter of opposition from the national parks conservation association, letter of opposition from 26 organizations, uh, environmental and conservation and outdoor organizations of various kinds, mostly around the west.
▶ 4:59:54A letter of opposition from 90 organizations, including, uh, environmental organizations such as deep south center for environmental justice or justice, earthworks, league of conservation voters, uh rise, saint james, louisiana, and many others, and a statement of opposition from the climate justice alliance. >> that objection so ordered. Um, I'll see your 26, and I'd ask unanimous consent to add over 100 letters of support for the speed act.
▶ 5:00:24Without objection. Um. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony today. Well, thank the the members, uh, all of them that came here for their questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing under. Well, looky here. We've got another member. Miss hagerman, would you.
▶ 5:00:53>> it's entirely up to you if you will indulge me. But I also understand that I'm late. So it is. >> would you be opposed to submitting your questions in writing to the witnesses? >> we can sure do that. >> well, then, under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit questions to the committee clerk by 5 p.m. On monday, september 15th. The hearing record will be held open for ten business days. For these responses, there's no further business.
▶ 5:01:20Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.