▶ 0:17:01>> I apologize for being a few minutes late. I want to start with my opening statement and then I will go to the ranking member and we will have our witnesses. Good morning and thank you all for being here. Very nice for you to come on such a critical issue for our nation's future. The need to modernize our environmental review and permitting process is something we have talked about.
▶ 0:17:29To grow our economy and improve our environmental stewardship. I'm excited. Witnesses will share their valuable perspectives and set the stage for the committee work on this important topic. To ensure we take a holistic view of these issues we will keep the hearing record open until march 21st to give all stakeholders the opportunity to share their experiences with the existing environmental review and permitting processes identify challenges and
▶ 0:18:01Hopefully to suggest potential solutions. For too long critical projects like energy and infrastructure projects along with industrial projects have been trapped in a cycle of redundant reviews shifting goalposts and regulatory uncertainty. In my home state of west virginia I have seen firsthand how these drive up costs not just for the projects before the american families who are paying for food as a result.
▶ 0:18:31Businesses lack the certainty necessary to make long-term investments which can mean lost jobs, missed opportunities for communities, scarcity and higher prices across the nation. It can also mean that the projects needed to deploy renewable energy technologies or to restore the environment are also stilted.
▶ 0:18:54The framework for our environmental review and permitting process is grandma -- grounded in landmark laws. Nipa requires agencies to consider environmental impacts before implementing their project.
▶ 0:19:13Other environmental and resource laws like the clean water act, the clean air act and the endangered species act rely on permits and requirements to ensure the critical projects are able to come to fruition in responsible ways.
▶ 0:19:30However years of changes and guidance and regulations and a complex web of judicial rulings have resulted in ever expanding hodgepodge of often contradictory requirements. While this complex body of administrative and common law has grown, congress has not stepped in to provide the holistic clarifications and modernizations.
▶ 0:19:55In the absence of congressional action certain parties have found creative ways to use the judicial process to delay, remand or strike down projects and raise costs. As a result the environmental review and permitting processes have increased costs and delayed projects including projects that would help achieve the goals in our environmental roles -- laws.
▶ 0:20:24Last week the house infrastructure committee heard testimony about how the need to obtain ache -- obtain a clean water act permit contain significant delays based on the national historic preservation act. These permitting delays nearly afforded what would be among the most environmentally friendly steel production facilities in the world and that will employ over 1000 people in west virginia.
▶ 0:20:54It took an act of congress to permit the mountain valley pipeline to move clean natural gas from west virginia to our southern neighbors. I'm sure they love it today as temperatures are dipping. I heard it is two degrees in austin. It is snowing in west virginia right now. It is cold everywhere. 47 below. Ok. Sorry, austin. You just got tripped.
▶ 0:21:26Aging expressways, priorities that would improve safety and mobility have encountered multiple permitting delays under various environmental statutes. West virginia water line extension, broadband projects and bridge replacements have all faced delays and I am sure my state is not unique. The problems we will explore have been brewing for decades.
▶ 0:21:51However we have an opportunity to deliver meaningful bipartisan legislation that addresses these problems. I am committed to working with ranking member white house, our colleagues on the energy and natural resources committee and those house committee counterparts to produce a bill with meaningful reforms. Durable and implementable reform must be bipartisan to be successful. My guiding principles for this effort are straightforward.
▶ 0:22:20The legislation we develop must help all types of projects, not just politically favored projects or projects that would serve some americans but not others. We must provide clarity and transparency in the processes. Our legislation needs to look at every stage of these processes to find deficiencies while balancing public health, the environment and the needs of the economy.
▶ 0:22:46Modernizing these processes does not mean cutting corners or weakening public health protections. It means making the processes more efficient, predictable and transparent so that they are not stuck in bureaucratic purgatory or endless litigation. Hard-working americans, small businesses and entrepreneurs want a government that works for them, not one that keeps them waiting for benefits that many of the projects promise to bring in their communities and household budgets.
▶ 0:23:16I look forward to the discussion today and learning about our witnesses experience. I am hopeful we will hear some consensus on the issues that this committee must focus on so that we can develop our legislation. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today for the effort to get deliver solutions for the american people. I yield to the ranking member senator whitehouse.
▶ 0:23:39Sen. Whitehouse: Off we go on the bipartisan journey to catch the elusive white male permitting reform. Witnesses will highlight the challenges people face building a variety of projects. But we want more. We will keep the record open for this month to make sure we hear from all interested stakeholders about their experiences and recommendations. Help us find where you encounter barriers and what solutions have worked well.
▶ 0:24:11Sen. Whitehouse: We also know that permitting reform is not exclusive to our committee so the chair and I are already engaged with our colleagues on the energy and natural resources committee and in the house. A word of warning.
▶ 0:24:26Sen. Whitehouse: Democrats cannot agree to any permitting reform unless and until the trump did administration -- the trump administration ends its desire for litigation. Billions remain frozen behind a fog bank and blatant disregard of constitutional separation of power for direct orders and basic principles of law.
▶ 0:24:54Sen. Whitehouse: I am particularly disgusted with the doj where things are so bad that deeply conservative career prosecutors have resigned rather than carry out trump orders. But it is everywhere and it is hurting people and projects. Until the administration shows it will honor its oath to impartially execute the laws, we can have zero confidence that any legislative compromise on permitting reform will be executed lawfully. It falls to my republican friends to bring this madness to an end.
▶ 0:25:25Sen. Whitehouse: I wish them good luck. On energy we have particular reason to doubt the trump administration will faithfully execute any permitting law we passed. The president has declared a fake energy emergency despite record production in america. He has defined energy to exclude renewables, the fastest growing energy sector all after receiving minimum 100 million dollars from fossil fuel donors.
▶ 0:25:51Sen. Whitehouse: We are deep into a political quid pro quo paid for by the world's biggest polluters and china is toward a link at the spectacle. I don't see a bill until the lawlessness stops and I do not see a path for a bill that excludes offshore wind, an industry with great jobs, huge potential and a supply chain that already extends into 40 states. The men and women building these projects do not want them stopped.
▶ 0:26:24Sen. Whitehouse: Coastal spots -- coastal states do not want them stopped. Nor does the energy sector support offshore winds. Generating economic growth across our country. Neither do consumers who overwhelmingly want cheaper and more reliable energy.
▶ 0:26:44Sen. Whitehouse: Why would we want to pull america out of the clean energy race when investment last year topped two trillion dollars, far exceeding investment in fossil fuels? What fools we would be. If you want a future driven by chinese innovation, industry and power, keep it up. But you cannot change the fact that the future of energy's claim and if we are not part of it, we will be left behind.
▶ 0:27:13Sen. Whitehouse: The north america electric reliability corporation projects that peak demand grow by 18% for winter over the next 10 years, raising concerns about energy shortfalls as our chair has pointed out. What would reduce the risk of the shortfalls? Better permitting. We need to build a grid to meet current and future demand. 70% of transmission lines are more than 25 years old and showing their age. We know what we need to do.
▶ 0:27:43Sen. Whitehouse: We need to build and fast. Right now thousands of electricity generation projects are waiting for approval to connect to the grid. As of last april, 2.6 terawatts. Millions of engineering construction and manufacturing jobs stalled in part because of our inability to build transmission lines. This must change. As I said last week we have entered the era of climate consequences.
▶ 0:28:10Sen. Whitehouse: The stuff the scientists warn us is happening. Snicker all you want about green new deals, ignore all you want glaciers. The economic slap back is here now and skyrocketing home insurance prices and feeling home insurance markets.
▶ 0:28:36Sen. Whitehouse: When climate havoc hits property insurance markets, it will then hit mortgage markets which will take property values. So hard, it can take down the whole economy. You may have missed it but last week the fed chairman predicted in the next 10 to 15 years there will be regions of the country where you cannot get a mortgage anymore. When all of that hits the fan, americans will be very interested in who helped and who obstructed.
▶ 0:29:03Sen. Whitehouse: Pretending solar and wind energy are not energy will look really dumb and not permitting and building a clean modern grade will look grossly negligent. Let's stop the lawbreaking and start the grid building together. >> I like that last word. That's good. Our first witness is jeremy harrell, the ceo of clearpath.
▶ 0:29:30Sen. Whitehouse: He has served in a multitude of energy and environmental advisory positions on capitol hill and he is the chair emeritus of the U.S. nuclear industry council's board of directors. I will recognize you for five minutes. Thank you for coming.
▶ 0:29:43Mr. Harrell: Thank you for the kind introduction. Thank you ranking member whitehouse for the opportunity to testify. My name is jeremy harrell, the chief executive officer of clearpath. America is at the dawn of a new era of unprecedented energy demand fueled by robust economic growth, revival of american manufacturing and advances in ai and quantum computing.
▶ 0:30:08Mr. Harrell: These developments present a new check -- present a new challenge and offer immense opportunities for our country. The regulatory process is not only unpredictable but is also one of the largest barriers to meeting energy, climate and economic development goals at the federal, state and local level. In the face of skyrocketing demand growth, building more energy resources has become more urgent. We need to let america build.
▶ 0:30:34Mr. Harrell: Nirc reported that annual demand growth rates are nearly double those of the last decade were roughly three projects were added to per day. To meet that demand, we need to build around six projects per day or 16,000 facilities by 2030 five. We will need a broad suite of technologies to do it. These challenges are present in nearly every sector of the economy from energy to housing to transportation projects.
▶ 0:31:01Mr. Harrell: To be clear, the solution is not a development free-for-all. The regulatory environment must balance safety but the solution requires change reform, not tweaks around the edges. Reforms that demand accountability and promote good outcomes as fast as possible should start with three objectives. One, leverage innovative american technologies. Two, expedite reviews.
▶ 0:31:28Mr. Harrell: And three, streamlined judicial review and administer rate of actions. First congress can require more accountability, provide more transparency and direct the use of modern technology. There is a clear need for more reliable information from federal agencies ranging from the number of permits under review to how long they have been stuck in limbo. In many cases federal agencies are not even using the same systems or terminology. More transparent data will help with accountability and provide the public with information to participate.
▶ 0:31:57Mr. Harrell: Congress should also consider the role of ai, machine learning and other technologies to reduce the burden of project reviews. Our system is still stuck in the 1990's. Technology reforms are the lowest hanging fruit for bipartisan action. Second, we must expedite the review process. Faster approvals for projects that bring net benefits and comply with existing environmental laws are essential to meeting our nation's needs.
▶ 0:32:24Mr. Harrell: Congress could expand categorical exclusions to permit projects, they are a one-time determination that certain activities do not warrant the substantial data collection and review that come with site-specific ea's but still require agency decisions for each site. There is support in congress to accelerate low energy projects like geothermal exploration to eliminate redundant reviews.
▶ 0:32:51Mr. Harrell: A permit by rule approach could offer significant benefits, balancing administer rate of speed with safeguarding public health, safety and the environment. To do this the criteria must be well-defined, reviewed and along with the overall framework. Encouraging development in certain areas could also accelerate projects.
▶ 0:33:14Mr. Harrell: Previously disturbed lands or well-characterized areas present opportunities to leverage electrical and mechanical infrastructure. The impacts of this development are minimal in most cases and are in or near the communities that need the economic growth the most. Lastly the judicial review of agency actions must be reformed. The current system is tilted toward those who seek to delay or block projects.
▶ 0:33:39Mr. Harrell: For example, a recent analysis found litigation delayed fossil energy and clean energy projects by an average of four years. Agencies won 71% of those challenges. Separately an analysis on transmission projects found 24% of projects that completed the environmental review faced litigation and the agency won 88% of those cases.
▶ 0:34:03Mr. Harrell: If major projects are regularly delayed by legal challenges and are ultimately overturned, it is time to reassess whether the current system is protecting consumers or protecting project opponents. Congress could consider limiting legal challenges, narrowing the scope and setting strict review timelines. Without changes, our nation is needlessly undermining our own economic development and climate goals. In conclusion, the U.S.
▶ 0:34:29Mr. Harrell: Is in a global competition for energy leadership. China and russia are deploying billions around the world to advance their geostrategic interests, control the sector and connected supply chains. We must overcome our regulatory challenges to counter these efforts and meet domestic energy, economic and environmental needs. It is time to let america build. Thank you.
▶ 0:34:54Chair Capito: Together. >> I like that.
▶ 0:34:59Chair Capito: You like that? >> you are onto something.
▶ 0:35:03Chair Capito: Our next witness is leah pilconis, general counsel for the associated general contractors of america. Over her 25 year career, she has served in multiple leadership positions including a senior environmental council and associated general counsel for construction and environmental risk management. She also a host of a podcast. I recognize her for her opening statement.
▶ 0:35:31Ms. Pilconis: Thank you very much. Chairman l, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I appreciate your leadership and bipartisan efforts to improve the federal environmental review and permitting processes.
▶ 0:35:50Ms. Pilconis: These efforts are critical to ensuring that we can deliver much needed infrastructure projects in a timely and cost-effective manner while maintaining strong environmental protections. As general counsel at the associated general contractors of america, I have learned how delays in environmental approvals do not just hold up projects, they cause workforce instability, drive up costs and jeopardize investments in critical infrastructure.
▶ 0:36:19Ms. Pilconis: These delays also impacted the communities that rely on these projects for jobs, economic growth and modern safe infrastructure. We need to ensure timely project approvals, minimize litigation risks and maintain economic growth. Here are four ways congress can help. One, establish a uniform judicial review period.
▶ 0:36:46Ms. Pilconis: Lawsuits can stall projects for years, even after they have undergone extensive environmental review. Litigation is increasingly being used as a tool to obstruct critical projects. This undermines planning, increases costs and deters investments.
▶ 0:37:05Ms. Pilconis: While congress has protected some infrastructure projects with a 150 day legal limit on challenges, most projects remain vulnerable for lawsuits for up to six years under the administrative procedures act. Agc urges congress to standardize the 150 day period for all critical infrastructure projects and eliminate unnecessary hurdles that create prolonged uncertainty.
▶ 0:37:34Ms. Pilconis: When a project receives final approval, it should not remain in legal limbo for years. Two, a line environmental reviews with congressional intent. The bipartisan fiscal responsibility act was designed to streamline environmental permitting and prevent unnecessary delays. However the latest nipa regulations contradict these reforms.
▶ 0:38:00Ms. Pilconis: Congress must hold agencies accountable to ensure nipa implementation stays true to the intent and does not add layers of bureaucracy that undermine project delivery. Three, prevent regulatory fragmentation. Recent court rulings and executive actions have highlighted the lack of clarity on nipa implementation.
▶ 0:38:25Ms. Pilconis: Without clear direction, agencies may adopt conflicting rules, making projects even more vulnerable to poor -- court challenges and forcing courts to interpret the law. Congress must act to ensure a consistent reliable framework for environmental reviews across agencies. Four, make permitting reform a durable bipartisan solution. Permitting rules should not shift with each administration.
▶ 0:38:55Ms. Pilconis: Congress must ensure agencies implement reforms consistently and must provide oversight to prevent regulatory overreach. The U.S. supreme court saca decision provided clarity on federal jurisdiction under the clean water act. However the current conforming waters of the U.S. regulations still fail to align with the ruling, creating uncertainty and unnecessary delays.
▶ 0:39:22Ms. Pilconis: Agc urges congress to hold parties accountable. I want to share a few of the ways congress can reduce clean water act permitting delays. Protect general permits, codify key exemptions such as roadside ditches and stormwater features, expedite jurisdictional determinations, ensure mitigation requirements are reasonably -- are reasonable and backed by adequate mitigation
▶ 0:39:57Ms. Pilconis: Credit availability. Agc supports bipartisan permitting reforms and urges congress to ensure agencies follow congressional intent. Cutting red tape and limiting unnecessary litigation will help deliver critical infrastructure projects on time and on budget. Most importantly, congress must provide certainty by ensuring that once environmental approvals are final agency actions, projects should not be threatened years later. Thank you.
▶ 0:40:28Ms. Pilconis: I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:40:30Chair Capito: Thank you very much. Our next witness is carl harris, the chairman of the board for the national association of home builders. He has been building homes for 40 years in wichita, kansas. Carl harris co., the firm he founded in 1985 with his father and sister. Thank you for spending time with us this morning before you head to the international builder show later this week in las vegas. I will not recognize you for your opening statement.
▶ 0:40:59Mr. Harris: Members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. As a small business owner, I understand the immense challenges that our members experience as they navigate the permitting process. Because creating homes for americans starts with successful permitting. The U.S.
▶ 0:41:22Mr. Harris: Has a shortfall of over 1.5 million housing units and the easy places to build homes have already been laid out which means the nation's homebuilders are going to increasingly run into environmental permitting regulations for undeveloped land. We want to improve this regulatory process so that homebuilders can accomplish two fundamental goals. Safeguarding the environment and creating attainable housing for americans.
▶ 0:41:54Mr. Harris: Regrettably, american homebuyers are suffering through a record low housing attainability. According to a study, 77% of buyers are unable to afford just the median price of a new home. Every small price increase has a sharp exclusionary effect.
▶ 0:42:15Mr. Harris: On average every $1000 that gets added to the cost of a home walks out 106,000 -- locks out 106,000 households. Uncertainty in delays and permitting ad costs which increases home prices and pushes the american dream away from others in the market.
▶ 0:42:44Mr. Harris: While the clean water act serves as a crucial foundation for protecting the nation's waterways, the implementation of certain aspects of section 404 and mitigation bank approvals are a major source of frustration for our members. Let's consider a property owner who wants to build homes on undeveloped land. They want to know if water features on their property will fall under federal jurisdiction.
▶ 0:43:10Mr. Harris: To determine this and avoid federal penalties, they need an approved jurisdictional determination. Unfortunately, obtaining agd's take well over one year to obtain. Homebuilders would rather roll the dice and try for a quicker preliminary jurisdiction determination.
▶ 0:43:42Mr. Harris: But it has several hooks. It is not appealable. It allows water features to be considered jurisdictional, even if they are not covered by the clean water act and can preclude the use of the nationwide permit. We should be able to tell homebuilders if there are federal jurisdictional features on their property without forcing them into the problematic pjd.
▶ 0:44:08Mr. Harris: Congress created to streamline nationwide permit under section 404 which is meant to be completed within 60 days for minimal impacts on water features. But members routinely report that it is taking almost a year to obtain these which is rivaling the time it takes to complete the more rigorous individual permit required for larger environmental impacts. This timeline is unacceptable for a permitting tool that is meant to be fast and predictable.
▶ 0:44:38Mr. Harris: Digging deeper under the 404, we have the clean waters of the U.S. role which has been subject to litigation and administration changes. This nonstop whiplash has confounded our members about which water features on their property are federally jurisdictional with key regulatory terms like continuous surface connection and relatively permanent water that have been left undefined and open to interpretation based on which army corps district you are in.
▶ 0:45:08Mr. Harris: This lock of harmony -- lack of harmony promotes confusion and uncertainty. As part of 404 permitting, builders are often required to purchase mitigation credits to offset the impacts to wetlands. For example, a member in ohio totals the credits for his project cost about $140,000 due to the mitigation requirement. When you break it down per home lot, this adds $10,000 to the cost of a new home.
▶ 0:45:38Mr. Harris: A driving force behind these exorbitant credit prices is a shortage of mitigation banks across the nation. It is extremely challenging for bank sponsors to come online which just incentivizes participation leaving homebuilders competing against others over limited credits and drives up the costs.
▶ 0:45:59Mr. Harris: To be able to build the millions of units needed across this nation at an attainable price, the residential construction industry needs a more clear and put a double process. We need to prioritize the ajd process, re-center the nationwide permit and encourage mitigation are all the ways we can do to chip away at this problem. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
▶ 0:46:26Chair Capito: Thank you very much. Our next witness is brent booker , the general president of the laborers' international union of north america. He is a third-generation member of laborers local 795 in indiana and started his career in the mail room. He served as director of the union's construction department and various positions with north american building trades unions.
▶ 0:46:56Chair Capito: I welcome you and I recognize you for your opening statement.
▶ 0:46:58Mr. Booker: Good morning chair capito and members of the committee. My name is brent booker, president of the laborers' international union of north america. It was founded by immigrant workers fleeing their countries to see not only a better life, but the american dream. Today we are strong and proud representing over 500 thousand workers across the U.S. and canada.
▶ 0:47:23Mr. Booker: They go to work every day maintaining our nation's infrastructure from our highways, bridges and tunnels to skyscrapers, water treatment centers, to the vast energy sector, our members jobs touch every american's day-to-day life. Our nation's energy production has provided jobs for memberships. Our union is always promoted to energy production, renewables, oil and natural gas, hydro, nuclear mob because we build it all. We take pride in our work.
▶ 0:47:53Mr. Booker: We are the safest and most well trained workforce in the world. We get jobs done right, on time, the first time, and on budget. We were deeply involved in federal and state permitting. When we know a project will be built by hard-working laborers, we embed ourselves in the process to ensure it is approved in a timely manner. We are the first -- folks in orange shirts you see at community meetings because in our business, or predictability is crucial.
▶ 0:48:21Mr. Booker: Our members move from job to job, stringing together the projects that build their career. While we believe in a responsible approach to permanent infrastructure projects, it is clear that our current process is broken. Whether it is purposely nipa stalling the nipa nipa process, leaving projects in limbo and members wondering when they will be paid next, a project could be fully funded and ready to go but out of nowhere, get hit with lawsuits and get shut down.
▶ 0:48:53Mr. Booker: Unpredictability equals unemployment for our members. These projects are not political to them. We are pathways to a middle-class way of life that include supporting wages, health care benefits and the ability to retire with dignity. If our members don't go to work, they don't get paid. When a project is delayed, why don't you try to deliver that message when someone has a mortgage payment due. Adequate timelines must be included in any reform package.
▶ 0:49:23Mr. Booker: Over the last decade the pipeline industry predominantly within natural gas has provided thousands of laborers tens of millions of work hours. As we expand into more advanced energy sources like hydrogen and carbon capture, it is clear our training and skill sets will be vital to a cleaner energy future. We are seeing the same issues within the renewable sector. Since the passing of the inflation reduction act, offshore wind has been a contributing job for members.
▶ 0:49:55Mr. Booker: Between the construction and installation of turbines themselves, liuna members are bradley offshore wind projects at a rate like never before including the first offshore wind project in rhode island. Unfortunately the halt on offshore sales has halted the wind production market and has led to projects stalling their construction plans.
▶ 0:50:19Mr. Booker: One project, proposed 30 mile route -- mile south of martha's vineyard powering upwards of 600,000 homes. This one hits home for me. I was proud to have helped negotiate and implement back in 2022 on behalf of the building trades. This agreement would bring back thousands of good union jobs to workers across the country.
▶ 0:50:42Mr. Booker: Many of these projects are at risk of being terminated, causing us to lose significantly more jobs than we did on the keystone pipeline, once again leaving our members high and dry. We must put an end to projects being used on a political chessboard. It is american workers who pay the price. With a swipe of a pen or lack thereof these decisions impact the lives of the members we probably represent and their communities. If you take away one thing for my testimony, let it be this.
▶ 0:51:12Mr. Booker: It is liuna members who go to work every day building the america we all use whether it is turning the lights on in the morning or going to work on the highway, this labor had a hand in it. It is about ensuring we continue our energy independence and dominating in a market that when we don't compete, allows us to fall to our adversaries.
▶ 0:51:35Mr. Booker: For liuna, it is about ensuring our members can go to a job that affords them the opportunity to be entrenched in the middle class. These are not just jobs. They are careers that give our members and their families a chance to thrive. They are pay checks that ensure american workers are contributing to their community and are not forced to rely on the government. They allow construction workers to retire with dignity.
▶ 0:52:01Mr. Booker: These projects are delivering on the promise of the american dream which is why I thank you for granting me the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:52:12Chair Capito: Thank you. Our last witness is nicole pavia , the director of clean energy infrastructure deployment at the clean air task force. She is responsible for leading the infrastructure team and previously worked in consulting, concentrating on energy and sustainability projects. She is a fellow duke university alumna. A blue devil.
▶ 0:52:38Ms. Pavia: That's right. Ranking member white house and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is nicole pavia and I am the program director for the clean energy infrastructure deployment at the clean air task force. It is a nonprofit with you nearly 30 years of experience in advancing policy change to achieve a zero emissions high energy economy at affordable cost.
▶ 0:53:07Ms. Pavia: In my role I lead work to identify and address barriers whether regulatory, permitting, financial or social, holding back deployment of clean energy technologies at the pace and scale to decarbonize. One of our priority technologies is electricity transmission.
▶ 0:53:30Ms. Pavia: Long-range and interregional lines are critical pieces of our energy system and we are not building enough of these lines to meet reliability, security, affordability and clean generation needs. Today significant wholesale electricity price differences between and within regions exist due to transmission system congestion. Regions afflicted by severe weather are unable to access enough electricity from neighboring regions leading to economic damage and tragically, loss of life.
▶ 0:54:03Ms. Pavia: 2006 hundred gigawatts of energy capacity, 95% of which is zero emitting or storage capacity, sits in connection cues waiting for an opportunity to plug into the grid. The cumulative effect of our inability to modern eight -- modernize is affected well in the latest long-term reliability assessment.
▶ 0:54:27Ms. Pavia: Most of the north america power system faces increasing resource and energy adequacy challenges just as projections show increasing demand growth. Given these urgent circumstances, why have long-range transmission investment and deployment rates decreased and not increased over the past decade? Some have pointed to federal transmission permitting processes and environmental review processes under the national environmental policy act as key culprits.
▶ 0:54:58Ms. Pavia: But little evidence existed to understand the truth of these claims. Therefore we partnered with the center to build the evidentiary record against the drivers of delay in the process. We consolidated and analyzed publicly available data and interviewed developers, permitting officials and other stakeholders. As explained further in my written testimony, environmental reviews under nipa can be improved.
▶ 0:55:29Ms. Pavia: Fundamentally we found that the provisions are not to blame for the most significant delays and inefficiencies in transmission deployments. The most frequently cited slowdowns were process and resource oriented. Most were from gaps in leadership and federal agency coordination, lack of study appropriations for permitting related tasks, insufficient permitting at agencies, data inaccessibility and local opposition and lack of state support for nationally
▶ 0:56:00Ms. Pavia: Beneficial projects. These are not all permitting specific blockers but they often flare up throughout the course of the process. Another issue is the regulatory differences between jurisdictions through which a long-distance transmission lines may pass. Lines crossing state or travel borders are not subject only to federal permitting requirements, but also to the requirements of all state and tribal governments traversed.
▶ 0:56:24Ms. Pavia: These requirements can be uncorrelated or duplicative and state and travel resource permitting are evident. A modernized and resilient transmission network will require a departure from the status quo. This includes reforms to the federal review process. It also requires addressing key drivers of transmission delay as identified in our report.
▶ 0:56:49Ms. Pavia: In addition to speeding permitting timelines, we should be increasing specialized agency capacity to efficiently execute permitting. We should consolidate permitting authorities for projects in the national interest under the federal energy regulatory commission just as they are for natural gas pipeline projects. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:57:11Chair Capito: Thank you all very much. I will begin with a question for all witnesses. I know the answer to this one. Both republican and democrat administrations have recognized the need to address the environmental review process and those administrations have taken efforts to do so, despite these efforts, environmental review and permitting process challenges persist.
▶ 0:57:38Chair Capito: I would like to ask each of you do you agree that congress must come together to develop a bipartisan bill to tackle these issues?
▶ 0:57:52Ms. Pilconis: Ms. pilconis: yes.
▶ 0:57:57Mr. Harris: Yes.
▶ 0:57:59Chair Capito: Projects can take years and even decades to progress from concept to completing the nipa process. What are the real world impacts of this lengthy timeline on consumers of goods and services that your members produce?
▶ 0:58:16Ms. Pilconis: Thank you for that question. For the construction industry, delays cause uncertainty and they also cause workforce instability. Our contractors cannot commit to hiring workers, they cannot order materials when there are delays. On breaking ground for projects, often because they are tied up for years with lawsuits. Delays also drive up costs.
▶ 0:58:45Ms. Pilconis: The increase project costs as inflation and material shortages make projects more expensive over time. Delays also increase investments. Delays are preventing agc members from building our quality of life and delivering safe projects that are going to benefit communities.
▶ 0:59:07Chair Capito: Cross-country. Mr. harris? Mr. harris, your homebuilding?
▶ 0:59:15Mr. Harris: Thank you, chairman. The cost of permitting as to the cost of housing. And every time, as I said in my testimony, every time you raise the cost of a house on thousand dollars you lockoutthat is subs. You know, we speak about the value of homeownership. The value of homeownership is good for everyone.
▶ 0:59:47Mr. Harris: It stabilizes families, it stabilizes neighborhoods. It stabilizes immunities. Employee vases, volunteer basis, homeownership. -- homeownership is a public good. In trying to increase or make better the processes for permitting and we can decrease the cost. The time and value of money for developers, homebuilders adds to the cost of a house.
▶ 1:00:16Mr. Harris: And right now where we have seen the average cost of a house go up $90,000 in the last 2.5 years of law so people out of the american dream.
▶ 1:00:28Chair Capito: Thank you. I know there is a shortage as well. We can get into that later. Want to ask about judicial review. It came up in almost everybody's territory -- testimony. The legal costs and delays can be enough to stop a project, which happened with our atlantic coast pipeline in west virginia. So, Mr. booker, will you describe some of your members' experience with litigation after eis or ea is finalized?
▶ 1:01:00Chair Capito: You have your permits in hand and then you can't go forward. You kind of outline that, saying you can't pay the worker if you can't move forward. Can you expand on that a little bit?
▶ 1:01:10Mr. Harris: As I said, you don't get paid unless you do work, right? You also cannot just pull labor off the shelf and sell your project starts next friday. We have to prepare for that. We have to train. We have joint management-labor training that depending on the part -- on the project we have to train people to do that in order to do that we have to have project ability.
▶ 1:01:34Mr. Harris: This litigation, as unpredictability, creates chaos in the construction industry and doesn't allow us to get the most productive workers if we don't know when that job is going to start or if we are expecting it to start in a month and then it gets delayed by two, 3, 4 months. That is causing chaos in the industry. Also it is causing our members not to get paid and that is the biggest thing. For us it is about jobs.
▶ 1:02:01Mr. Harris: It is about getting people their paycheck.
▶ 1:02:04Chair Capito: Ms. pilconis, can you elaborate on that, in terms of, is there a stage of the core process that is challenging? Or is it that she mentioned it can be as long as six years. But it can be probably longer than that if you drag it through court.
▶ 1:02:20Ms. Pilconis: Correct. We know nefa is the most litigated statute. The amount of lawsuits filed is increasing. We know from current studies and data a contact with people years, up to 4.5 years to make your way through the litigation process where it is resolved at the appellate level. Lawsuits can stop projects that have already broken ground in their tracks through the form of injunctions.
▶ 1:02:50Ms. Pilconis: Studies that have been gone, whether it is through an eis or using a categorical exclusion, those decisions can be sent back to the agencies, which is delaying breaking ground. Essentially we keep having do overs even after you have received the project approval. There is really good language that congress and this committee has already passed in statute to put some limits on litigation. Map 21 has a 150 day statute of limitation window.
▶ 1:03:19Ms. Pilconis: We are recommending that that be applied to all critical infrastructure projects. There is also great language in fast 41 but that is only applicable to a small number of projects that opt into the program. That language requires challengers to raise concerns early in the process where there is a lot of opportunity for public comment, for working these things out on the front end and not dragging projects into long litigation years after.
▶ 1:03:48Chair Capito: Before I go to senator whitehouse I will say, if you are sending it back to agencies for reconsideration you are running into the problem that Ms. pavia said came out in their survey, which is -- I want to say lack of expertise, not enough capacity to move these through the different agencies quickly. So, senator whitehouse.
▶ 1:04:11Sen. Whitehouse: Thank you, chairman. President booker, welcome. Thank you for mentioning project and labor agreements. You had an agreement with one of the offshore developers. We have seen the huge success in rhode island. It aligns the interest of the workers with the interests of the developers. Things get built on time, on budget, and done right.
▶ 1:04:36Sen. Whitehouse: Indeed, america's submarines are old in rhode island that were constructed under a project labor agreement. Thank you for flogging that. Respect to the seven offshore wind projects at a standstill how many jobs do you estimate those would have supported?
▶ 1:04:54Mr. Booker: Thousands. The actual work in the water, from the port upgrades, harbor upgrades, we are building vessels to support wind. It is in the thousands of building trades jobs. And tens of thousands of related jobs to that.
▶ 1:05:10Sen. Whitehouse: When an ongoing project is put on a standstill do you have a sense of what that needs for the consumer at the end of the day?
▶ 1:05:19Mr. Booker: We are losing power in the country. We need predictability in power, so not only are my members suffering from not being able to do the work everyday, we are also not able to plug that power into the grid.
▶ 1:05:31Sen. Whitehouse: Thanks. Ms. pavia, you mentioned discrepancies between the existing treatment of pipelines under the natural gas act and existing treatment of transition lines under the federal power act. Could you real quickly let me know where those areas are and maybe for the record put a list together of where you think those should be harmonized?
▶ 1:05:56Ms. Pavia: Sure. There are differences between authority over natural gas pipelines and transmission lines. The natural gas act gives full siding and permitting authority over interstate natural gas pipelines. Alternatively the federal power act and section 216 creates national interests, electric transmission corridors that can be created through the department of energy.
▶ 1:06:26Ms. Pavia: It has a limited authority to site projects only within those specific corridors. Right now the department of energy is going to the process of designating those corridors, but there are only three of them so far, and what we see from the differences between the natural gas regulations and the transmission regulations is that --
▶ 1:06:45Sen. Whitehouse: If you don't mind making a list so I don't have to use my time on this one question?
▶ 1:06:50Ms. Pavia: The transmission.
▶ 1:06:53Sen. Whitehouse: Thank you. Mr. harrell, you see a transmission shortage poses a threat to america's energy security. You recommending that she recommend that permitting new lines will be necessary. You also suggest there are ways to move more electrons over existing power lines. How would you balance those things? How much growth can we have for moving more electrons over the same lines versus how much are we going to need to solve actually building new?
▶ 1:07:20Mr. Harrell: Thank you for the question, senator. We need both. The scale of the amount of billing we are going to -- building we are going to have to do is immense. New transmission and increasing the capacity of the existing infrastructure.
▶ 1:07:35Sen. Whitehouse: What is your estimate? Where the big, new progress is likely to be made. Is it building new or in new technologies that allow electrons to run more smoothly over existing?
▶ 1:07:50Mr. Harrell: Given the scale of rising demand we are going to need to build significantly more energy infrastructure.
▶ 1:07:56Sen. Whitehouse: But you don't have a sense of which -- one part coming out, electron efficiency, three parts new transmission?
▶ 1:08:05Mr. Harrell: If I made an educated guess it would be 75%/25% we are to need to build out infrastructure.
▶ 1:08:13Sen. Whitehouse: A couple of things you can all respond to as questions for the record. One is, I have come to despise interagency process. [laughter] I really can't stand it any longer. It is a terrible excuse the executive ranch to dawdle and fiddle around and have things move at the speed of the most recalcitrant agency. It is also a place where things go to die.
▶ 1:08:39Sen. Whitehouse: And in an accountability-free zone because at the end of the day whenever an interagency process fails everybody walks away and there was nobody responsible that. So, if you have thoughts on what we could do in congress to turn interagency process into an efficient mechanism for coordinating agencies, which is what we need, rather than an executive branch excuse hole for not getting things done and not getting anybody held accountable for that failure, I'm happy to hear from all five of you on
▶ 1:09:09Sen. Whitehouse: That one. The last thing is, very often we saw this particularly in offshore wind. We got the first steel in the water because we had engaged with obviously-interested stakeholders right from the get-go.
▶ 1:09:31Sen. Whitehouse: Too often the federal regulatory process and state regulatory process begins with a filing from somebody who wants to develop something that has not lifted a finger to go out and talk to the folks that are going to be affected. The first offshore wind permit that was soft at the federal level was catastrophically bad in that respect. I haven't even talked to fishermen about which direction you should array your equipment. They just sort of jam it through on the strength of pressure of their investors and the desire to get the electrons ashore.
▶ 1:10:03Sen. Whitehouse: So, if you could also talk to me and to the -- to the degree of precision you can about in what regulatory processes there should be a filing requirement stating what you have done to identify the stakeholders and saying what you have done to run the project by them and get their preliminary input. So, you start in a better place.
▶ 1:10:32Sen. Whitehouse: My apologies, if we can get those two things I would appreciate it.
▶ 1:10:36Chair Capito: Senator cramer.
▶ 1:10:38Sen. Cramer: The first thing I'm going to get is that last six minutes and show them to my republican friends so they can understand why I like working with sheldon whitehouse. [laughter] thank you for having this really important hearing so early in the term because there is a lot of work to do. As we have learned, it takes a while. There are two areas I would love to explore, but I'm going to start with you, Ms.
▶ 1:11:07Sen. Cramer: Pilconis, and Mr. harris. Really, all of you, but you spoke on the topic that is not anywhere in my prep. He gets to this issue of the capital intensity of these projects is, I think, lost often times on a lot of folks. I mean, labor cannot just sit on the sidelines and wait for the years to go by.
▶ 1:11:35Sen. Cramer: But I want to ask, the supreme court, either you or Mr. harris reppert -- referenced the fact that the corps of engineers still has not adequately responded to that ruling. And prior to sackett there was russ virginia v. Epa and major questions doctrine.
▶ 1:12:01Sen. Cramer: All of these are such clear messages that the bureaucracy does not have the power that they think they have and they have been exercising. And the fact that sackett was not clear enough and the definition of jurisdictional waters, that the durable rule that the administration came up with in response to it was, don't worry about those 80,404 permits. Maybe they were not necessary, but you should ask us first.
▶ 1:12:33Sen. Cramer: My question is this. What part of this -- work, why do we even have to seek your stiction will determination or permission when we -- when any homebuilder can read the log and go, this is not in jurisdictional water. We don't put a highway patrolman on every car on the interstate just in case one of them speeds. We presume most of them are not going to violate the law. Where am I wrong on this, Ms. pilconis?
▶ 1:13:05Sen. Cramer: Where am I wrong on this and how can we simplify it?
▶ 1:13:09Ms. Pilconis: The problem is that it is not clear. You can ask one person if something is jurisdictional and the next person, and you might get two answers. For the construction community we need clarity. And it is very difficult to move forward when you don't know what is a water of the united states. Not getting a permit when you are in federally-controlled water has very significant entities.
▶ 1:13:36Ms. Pilconis: So what is at risk is huge for the developer, for the contractor. Sackett did provide some guardrails. We provided some clarity, but what came out of that supreme court decision is not being implemented by the agencies. There are very unclear terms that have not been defined in the regulations, and that is what is causing a lot of confusion.
▶ 1:14:02Sen. Cramer: Mr. harris, elaborate.
▶ 1:14:05Mr. Harris: Thank you, senator. Along with clarity, we need consistency. We need consistency between the core districts. If we could get true definitions of the terms we were talking about, then our builders, our developers would know when they could take a reasonable risk before they make a tremendous investment in both property and start moving. So, we do need that consistency and clarity.
▶ 1:14:34Sen. Cramer: The one thing is for sure. They cannot be the same as they were before sackett, right? There are many fewer jurisdictional waters and there were previous to sackett. As long as there is a 1% chance that it is jurisdictional, you're almost obligated to your shareholders, to your customers, to your workers to seek the federal government's permission to obey the law. And I mean, seek their permission to allow you to obey the law, which is mind-boggling.
▶ 1:15:05Sen. Cramer: We only have a minute left. I only have a minute left. On the electricity side, this is the hard work. One of the challenges and things we often forget, and this gets to cross-purposes, I suppose, is that electricity is the generation, transmission, distribution in a largely monopoly world of electric consumption.
▶ 1:15:40Sen. Cramer: Where it gets really if he is that somebody determines those rights. There are regulators that determine those rates, and transmission and generation being built out absent a planning process by the -- by the local utility can put the tablet the wrong people really easily. There is a solution. We have to find a solution. We have to find a federal backstop.
▶ 1:16:04Sen. Cramer: But I think on linear -- to the ranking member's point, linear siting for transmission lines should be the same as it is for water pipeline or any other linear infrastructure. I think we can do that, but we do have to recognize those state regulators, having been one at one point. And the governors. It's just going to be a lot harder and we will talk about it in another round if we get a chance.
▶ 1:16:33Chair Capito: Thank you. Senator kelly.
▶ 1:16:36Sen. Kelly: I'm glad we are holding this hearing today to discuss the long-overdue need to fundamentally re-examine how the federal government handles the permitting processes. I think it is important to start by saying there are very good reasons why our bedrock environmental laws exist. The clean air act improves our air quality and has been shown to prevent childhood asthma and other respiratory problems.
▶ 1:17:03Sen. Kelly: The clean water act and save drinking water act ensures that rivers, lakes, and sources of drinking water are not full of unhealthy pollutants. And requirements to review the long-term impacts of infrastructure development on federal land ensures that we protect our national parks and monuments and forests for future generations. I believe there is bipartisan agreement that having these protections for public health and for our environment are an appropriate thing to do.
▶ 1:17:34Sen. Kelly: The question then is whether our current framework allows us to accomplish the goals of these bedrock statutes without needlessly delaying common sense projects. Years ago I traveled to taiwan to visit was -- to visit with some businesses that were considering expanding their microchip and factoring, and also their clean energy businesses, into arizona.
▶ 1:18:02Sen. Kelly: While I was touring one of their tech parks our guide pointed out that right there in the middle of the park was the government permitting office. Our guide to shared that anytime a company needs a new air or water permit or land use permit or anything else, they could go to that office. And that the staff there would help them get the permit they needed.
▶ 1:18:32Sen. Kelly: By contrast, these businesses shared how confusing the U.S. permitting process was. You know, why did they have to work with the city or the county government on their land use permit and then talk to two or three different federal government agencies about the air, land, and water permits?
▶ 1:18:52Sen. Kelly: These businesses, they were prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the united states and create thousands of great paying jobs. But our permitting process led them to delay or scale back the planned investments. It's not that these businesses wanted to skirt clean air and clean water protections.
▶ 1:19:17Sen. Kelly: They just wanted to be able to understand that -- what the requirements were and have certainty that once they met those requirements they would not need to deal with years of lawsuits. So, Mr. harrell, at a more macrolevel, can you describe how federal permitting processes create uncertainty for businesses looking to make investments in the united states?
▶ 1:19:48Sen. Kelly: In one of the opportunity costs for our current permitting system?
▶ 1:19:51Mr. Harrell: Thank you, senator kelly. Thank you for your leadership on critical infrastructure and trying to drive investments toward our country. Time is money, when push comes to shove. Companies are evaluating how the process to operate in this country impacts their investment and the returns they are going to get on a long-term project. Today the process is particularly unpredictable, so there is a wide range of factors developers have to factor in when they evaluate.
▶ 1:20:22Mr. Harrell: So, the desperate need to provide more certainty in the process, to show sideboards of how long it could take if it is a particularly complicate a project -- because sometimes it is. And how do we maximize the resources being invested? I think a great example is your work on the chips and sciences act and the regulatory reforms needed to catalyze and build out those chips. That regulatory predictability allowed private developers to move resources faster, but ultimately did not sacrifice environmental outcomes.
▶ 1:20:52Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Ms. pavia, as I mentioned, what is going on in arizona, most of the economic development, the projects there that were attracting are for clean energy industries and just, you know, things like microchip and battery manufacturing. Is most of it. We look to encourage more clean energy manufacturing.
▶ 1:21:23Sen. Kelly: How does our current permitting system affect that development?
▶ 1:21:26Ms. Pavia: Thank you. In the context of transmission permitting, uncertainties in the permitting process hinder the interconnection of clean and storage capacity resources. As I mentioned, we found that 2600 gigawatts of clean energy is sitting in cues today. The challenge is to unleash their potential in those.
▶ 1:21:54Sen. Kelly: And it is in thank you because there is no transmission available? Because the permitting is held up?
▶ 1:22:03Ms. Pavia: That's right. The permitting process is not keeping up with the rates of transmission we need to unlock
▶ 1:22:09Payment Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Let's fix that.
▶ 1:22:11Chair Capito: Senator curtis.
▶ 1:22:14Sen. Curtis: Thank you for holding this hearing. As I have been sitting here today, the best analogy I can think of is, it feels like we are on a train and we all know it is going to rack and everybody on the train has all of the answers, right? We could take these five witnesses and the few members that are here if you lock us in a room and we could get to. I am grateful. There is hardly a topic that is discussed more in washington that is acknowledged as bipartisan, yet we cannot get it across the finish line.
▶ 1:22:44Sen. Curtis: Thanks for your work and working with our house colleagues. I pledge my support and anxiousness to help you in this matter. I would like to first of all give you a shout out for the work you do and your organization. It has been very important for my understanding of these issues. I want to talk about utah. We have operation gigawatt that showcases the state's interest in geothermal and nuclear and all of these energies.
▶ 1:23:16Sen. Curtis: Geothermal, it would be hard to find an energy source that is -- finds better agreement among everybody. That this is something that is important and needs to develop. Yet we struggle with permitting. I would like to ask you what additional measures the federal government could take to support state-led efforts in expanding geothermal? Particularly in a state like utah?
▶ 1:23:38Mr. Harris: Thank you for your leadership on these issues. I'm excited to see the next big things here in the senate. It underscores a key point of where federal, state, and local entities need to be synced up in the right way to drive new economic opportunities. Project gigawatt, focusing on how to leverage and grow new geothermal, nuclear, hydrogen in the state.
▶ 1:24:08Mr. Harris: I think there is four key things that could be helpful for the federal process to sync up with that utah strategy. I think a no-brainer is to remove the duplicate of analysis that is required for geothermal explanation. -- exploration. You should streamline the process. There is a bill in congress considering that. If it is feasible it is still going to have to move under a varmint -- an environmental process.
▶ 1:24:35Mr. Harris: Let's take the exploration, environmental analysis out of it and unleash innovators in that space. I think there is a lot we can do to streamline permitting at existing facilities that have been closed. I know your state is looking significantly at deploying reactors that could unlock significant development in the state.
▶ 1:24:57Mr. Harris: We are going to have to resolve some of these frictions with federalism, both on pipelines and transmission out there to tap building out infrastructure for new hydrogen, for example, in the state. There are some key things I think will solve problems we are seeing nationwide but will help unlock the utah strategy.
▶ 1:25:15Sen. Curtis: I'm going to come back to transmission. It has been talked a lot about here. And yet just like the parts, we are not making progress. I'm going to stereotype republicans a little bit and say we struggle with this, right? And the whole aspect of permitting reform. Talk to me and particularly my republican colleagues, about transmission. What is it we are not getting? What is it we need to know and how do we get this done?
▶ 1:25:42Mr. Harrell: I think it is about growing clean energy infrastructure as a whole. That is not just about renewables. There is projects that have been stifled by the judicial process. They are connecting and putting new gas facilities on the grid. The scale of rising demand in the amount of regeneration we are going to have to build, particularly the size of the texas grid over the next decade, essentially doubling the U.S.
▶ 1:26:11Mr. Harrell: Grid, we are going to need to connect a lot of new resources in place and ultimately that means streamlining federal reviews, trying to find ways to make that process move more quickly, and then providing some more clarity to the judicial process. Transmission project -- projects have seen significant delays and there are multiple projects in this country that have nearly turned 21. [laughter]
▶ 1:26:35Sen. Curtis: There are some good proposals and I would like to invite my colleagues, I'm anxious to work on this and see if we can find a solution. Mr. harris and Ms. pilconis, I was the mayor of my city. I think of building regulations I tend to think of the city, county, and state regulations. I think a lot of people don't understand that the federal adds another layer of regulations. Can you both speak weakly to that federal layer that people may not see?
▶ 1:27:06Mr. Harris: As a recovering mayor myself, part of a 12 step program, recognizing a had a problem and knowing there is a higher power, it is not me. I currently settle my planning and zoning commission, I know that of the 24% of the cost of a new home that is directly related to government regulation that local and state governments share in that responsibility to make sure that the permitting process at all levels is efficient.
▶ 1:27:35Sen. Curtis: I'm almost out of time.
▶ 1:27:38Ms. Pilconis: I would add that where you can delegate or assign responsibility to the states it can help streamline the process, such as nepa assignments, or where states can take over permitting store -- states have done that with the stormwater permitting process, and that can reduce duplication.
▶ 1:27:59Sen. Curtis: Thanks, all of you, and I yield my time.
▶ 1:28:03Chair Capito: Senator padilla.
▶ 1:28:05Sen. Padilla: Thank you for this timely hearing. In california we talk a lot about permitting. But I think it is important to note at the outset that permitting is not just a bureaucratic hurdle. There is a purpose for the process. It is a foundation of responsible infrastructure development, energy production, and environmental protection. They are not mutually exclusive.
▶ 1:28:36Sen. Padilla: They have got to go together. There are a number of bipartisan reforms, like last year's permitting energy reform act, that congress should ask. I also believe the committee needs to grapple with the fact that a big challenge that was just exacerbated is actually staffing, right? Policy is policy, paperwork is paperwork, but people are people.
▶ 1:29:02Sen. Padilla: We need to be clear about how instead of ensuring our federal agencies have the staffing levels necessary to process permitting applications as expeditiously and responsibly as possible, what we have seen in the early days of this trump administration through the so-called department of government efficiency, is that you freeze it and firing at unprecedented levels the workforce we rely on for permitting. Ms.
▶ 1:29:31Sen. Padilla: Pavia, you touched on this in your testimony, but can you discuss how staffing levels and capacity writ large are impacting the permitting process?
▶ 1:29:39Ms. Pavia: Absolutely. In our study, which we conducted over the course of 2023 and 2024, published in april 2024, one of the main challenges we heard from developers, agencies, from across the spectrum was the lack of specific permitting and transmission knowledgeable staff available at the agencies and at field offices for those
▶ 1:30:09Ms. Pavia: Agencies. An anecdotal piece here. We talked to a developer that said that if they had to catch one person in particular at a field office that would add months to their permitting timelines. So the importance of staffing is really critical. You know, you can set timelines for things. You can set deadlines, but at the end of the day if there are not people they are available to do the work it is hard to get the work done.
▶ 1:30:34Sen. Padilla: Thank you. It seems that based -- shirking the workforce we are doing the opposite of achieving energy independence or dominance. So, we have some work to do. Now, as some of you may know I am a member of both this committee, as well as energy and natural resources. So, I come at it for both -- from both angles. Commitment and priority of streamlining the federal timing process to meet the energy demand and reliability of the electrical grid.
▶ 1:31:08Sen. Padilla: Transmission is an essential part of the reliable, efficient, and affordable grid, and it is often a factor -- the factor -- physically constraining new grid interconnection requests. According to the nar see the limited edition of interstate infrastructure poses a grid reliability, particularly with a growing population and economy. Ms. pavia, follow-up question.
▶ 1:31:36Sen. Padilla: You point to the misalignment in requirements between different jurisdictions with permitting authority as a key factor in slowing down transmission permitting more specifically. Would requiring interregional planning that is -- insurers regions jointly address needs and aligned on priority projects help minimize any misalignment and what the recommendation might you have?
▶ 1:31:59Ms. Pavia: I do think that would help. The order requires more longer-term regional transmission permitting -- sorry -- transmission planning and cost allocation. I think that looking further out as a region and thinking about all of the affordability, reliability, and other challenges that he faced encourage the planning of longer distance transmission lines.
▶ 1:32:26Ms. Pavia: So, I do think that these coordination efforts will actually help resolve a few of these issues. However, transmission permitting jurisdiction, as you noted, really lies with the states. So, there is still a need to be state to state harmonization and state and tribal harmonization along with the general harmonization of stay transmission permitting policies with federal transmission permitting policies.
▶ 1:32:54Sen. Padilla: Just underscoring the biggest point of all, which is you all have to work together. Federal jurisdictions, federal and state, but ultimately we are physically and legally interconnected. So, thank you for your thoughtfulness. Thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:33:10Chair Capito: Senator ricketts.
▶ 1:33:12Sen. Ricketts: Thank you for holding today's important hearing and thank you to the witnesses for being here today to share your experiences as well on what we need to do to reform our federal permitting process. I believe we can make common permitting reform to unleash the projects for the american energy infrastructure, homebuilding, agriculture, all of those sort of things while protecting our environment.
▶ 1:33:44Sen. Ricketts: Permitting reform is about modernizing our regulatory system to ensure that we are deploying projects efficiently. Not about undercutting environmental standards. Regulatory delay for infrastructure, energy, and environmental projects is a hidden tax on americans. This congress I am excited to serve as chairman of the fisheries, water, and wildlife subcommittees. Fish and wildlife service endangered species act are within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
▶ 1:34:15Sen. Ricketts: In nebraska the army corps of engineers often finds itself in the middle of all of these important policies. In addition to maintaining waterways and providing power it is responsible for flood prevention and to protect natural and built environment. Conflicting statutes like the flood control act of 1944, the endangered species act actually picked protecting human life and property against protecting wildlife.
▶ 1:34:44Sen. Ricketts: Complicated court history and administrative actions related to devastating flood events has made even the most common sense projects difficult to permit. A lack of clear congressional intent and direction has compounded a difficult situation and authorized unintended priorities and created new environmental programming. Situations like this can be found across the country. Western wildfire victims, biofuel proponents, and developers find themselves navigating the same impossible regulatory scheme.
▶ 1:35:16Sen. Ricketts: We do not have to settle for years-long court battles and complex statutes at the expense of natural resources and safety. The fiscal responsibility act reformed the national environmental policy act for the first time in 50 years to mandate timelines and page counts for environmental analysis. The fra also streamlined the use of categorical exclusions, which should expedite the approved activities.
▶ 1:35:42Sen. Ricketts: As governor one of the things I did to help streamline this was implementing a process -- and I know the chairman cannot get through any sort of hearing without me trying to mention sigma. Because this is one of the things we did that should not be controversial. It is about streamlining the process, which we have been talking about here today. For example, we cannot change in bayreuth -- environmental regulations, we could look at the process. It was 110 steps along.
▶ 1:36:12Sen. Ricketts: We cut that down to 22 and cut the time to lay down from issuing a permit from 180 days to just 65 days. Those are the kind reforms possible thanks to the great staff we had in nebraska. One of those folks, the gentleman who ran my department of energy, gmac, is the region seven epa administrator. I'm pleased to see him doing that. Point is, we can do this. Ms.
▶ 1:36:41Sen. Ricketts: Pilconis, you talked about some of the conflict regulations, maybe agencies are doing. You mentioned the fly control act and endangered species act. Can you give me some examples of laws or regulations that are conflicting that we may need to address to be able to provide clear congressional intent so that the courts will have that when they are making these decisions?
▶ 1:37:07Ms. Pilconis: I think clear congressional intent is most important. Having clear statutory language that lays out congress' intent, making sure that is carried out and implemented the agencies and for congress to be able to step in when agencies are showing overreach for causing conflicting or inconsistent determinations.
▶ 1:37:30Ms. Pilconis: As far as where there are conflicts, I mean, we have got nepa bringing all of the resource agencies together to try to analyze and assess what impact of a proposed major action will be.
▶ 1:37:45Ms. Pilconis: The ideas have them coordination and communication and discussion about how these programs align so you can do concurrent reviews instead of sequential reviews and end up having the monitoring , the studies, the work you are doing satisfy all of the programs so you can reach one final document.
▶ 1:38:07Sen. Ricketts: Off the top of your head are there conflicting laws that we need to address through this process or are there specific agency regulations we need to address through this process?
▶ 1:38:20Ms. Pilconis: What comes to mind for me is not so much conflict between the laws, but inconsistent interpretation of the laws at the federal agency level and making sure the application is consistent so you don't have to verging different opinions.
▶ 1:38:37Ms. Pilconis: With nepa and recent court decisions and executive actions, it is not clear what the long-term role it will play in regulations. We need to be sure that when federal agencies are implementing nepa and carrying out nepa to their own regulations that we don't have inconsistency.
▶ 1:39:06Ms. Pilconis: That is an area we are focused on moving forward and ensuring that agencies carry out nepa consistently per the statute.
▶ 1:39:13Sen. Ricketts: I think we would agree that consistency is going to be important. Is there something this committee can do along those lines, thinking about reform, things we ought to be putting into the statutes to be able to accomplish that?
▶ 1:39:26Ms. Pilconis: I think making sure that terms are clear. As Mr. harris talked about with the clean water act, we have got language in the regulation that is being inconsistently applied. With nepa great work was done, in clear that you are analyzing reasonably-foreseeable effects. That you are looking at reasonable alternatives that are technologically feasible. How is that being implemented?
▶ 1:39:57Ms. Pilconis: Congress having oversight and stepping in where agencies are implementing that -- that inconsistently.
▶ 1:40:03Sen. Ricketts: Thank you very much. >> thank, Mr. chairman. In california really the top issue is housing. The lack of housing, the lack of housing, lack of affordable housing. It is fundamentally a supply problem. Just don't have anywhere near enough housing, and you can move people off the streets into shelter, but if we are not building more housing and building it quickly there are new people taking their place on the streets.
▶ 1:40:33Sen. Ricketts: My question, Mr. harris, is, what can we do to accelerate the building of housing that is affordable? How much of the challenge in terms of the time -- timeliness or lack of timeliness in approving new projects is a federal problem and how much of it is a state and local problem? And if it is more a state and local problem, are the things we can do to incentivize local government and agencies to get quicker on housing?
▶ 1:41:03Mr. Harris: Senator, thank you very much for the question. It is something that is near and dear to a lot of our hearts. We believe it is a supply problem. That the inventory is driving up the inflationary cost of shelter. We think that of the 24% of the cost of a new home is related to government regulation. About a quarter of that is probably state and local. I mean, is federal.
▶ 1:41:34Mr. Harris: The remainder, state and local. And they are handling the heaviest part of that. When I had the opportunity to talk to lieutenant governors and governors saying, look, we need more housing in our state, I encouraged them to look at the policies and procedures that local and state governments have in regard to housing. Have the updated their housing? Did they put barriers in place to keep the growth or dis-incentivize growth happening in their communities?
▶ 1:42:04Mr. Harris: It is the same way it could happen at the federal government. The federal government used highway dollars to get the speed limit regulated. They used federal dollars to raise the drinking age.
▶ 1:42:19Mr. Harris: So, I believe that if the federal government was to look at incentivizing these communities either in applications for grants or any of the federal dollars that flow to municipalities, if they have consistent pro-housing, pro-growth opportunities then I think that would incentivize them to do that, senator.
▶ 1:42:45Sen. Schiff: Thank you. I look forward to working with you. And also incentivize the local level getting approvals of new housing more quickly. Mr. booker, I wanted to ask you about offshore wind. We have two big offshore wind projects, both in humboldt and morro bay.
▶ 1:43:13Sen. Schiff: And I'm concerned about the rash of cancellations we are seeing of offshore wind projects in the last couple of years. And the new administration's executive order blocking leasing for offshore wind projects. I really don't understand the point of that. It is going to kill a lot of jobs and reduce a lot of energy. Is this -- the suspension of leasing, is this just designed to be a gift to the oil industry?
▶ 1:43:40Sen. Schiff: Why would we want to stop offshore wind and all of the jobs and energy at that creates?
▶ 1:43:49Mr. Booker: I'm probably not the right guy to answer that question, killing of wind jobs is killing of american jobs. This president, this administration talked about, you know, creating american jobs, the american dream.
▶ 1:44:04Mr. Booker: We start picking winners and losers of renewables versus oil and gas versus nuclear versus hydro, the end result of that, if a political appointee, is deciding who wins and loses, at the end of the day it is the american worker that loses if someone is chosen, if one industry is chosen over another. We support american jobs.
▶ 1:44:27Mr. Booker: Support american workers and I would encourage this administration to not pick winners and losers in the energy sector and let the market dictate where it makes sense on the east coast and west coast. Wind has made a viable energy source that is creating good american jobs.
▶ 1:44:46Sen. Schiff: Thank you. Finally, on the transmission interconnection issue, this seems to me one of the biggest areas where we could really move forward with a lot of new energy projects and clean energy projects.
▶ 1:45:05Sen. Schiff: Last year california's good operator stated that it's interconnection q now contains more than three times the generating capacity needed to achieve all of our state's renewable energy calls. Three times the amount needed. How do we get that transmission working? And particularly I'm curious, a lot of projects that apply to join the grid, they end up essentially dissolving even before they get the opportunity.
▶ 1:45:36Sen. Schiff: Is that because of the delays in access to the grid or is it because you have all of these projects applying to the grid that are not necessarily financially viable or don't have their funding? Why those projects falling out and what are we doing to get the grid so that when you have a new project they can come online in a time-effective way?
▶ 1:46:00Ms. Pavia: I think it is a little bit of both. There are projects that apply to the queue just to get in line. They might not be 100% ready for deployment. But I think this all stems from a process that is very long, because of the lack of transmission that is available on the other side. There is a chicken and egg problem as well where you don't want to build a transmission line if you don't know there is going to be generation on the other side of that line.
▶ 1:46:26Ms. Pavia: You also don't want to put new generation into the queue if you don't think there is going to be a transmission line belt. There is this chicken and egg problem we have to address in interconnection problems specifically.
▶ 1:46:38Sen. Schiff: I know combining these two issues that in the humbled area where they have offshore wind they are trying to figure out the chicken and egg problem. It is one of the windiest places on earth there are some deepwater challenges to that particular venue, but then they do not have the transmission capacity. Even if they built it tomorrow. Thank you, chairman. I yield back. >> thank, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:47:09Sen. Schiff: Interestingly enough, until a couple of weeks ago I was on the other side of this question. As a lieutenant governor working in economic development. In the state of ohio. I can tell you that the frustration that local and state leaders have with federal regulators is epic, from my experience. Because of the lack of certainty. Because of the lack of understanding the process.
▶ 1:47:40Sen. Schiff: Because of one regulator may have a different opinion than another regulator, and the timelines of this are very frustrating. But I would ask the question of why we are having this discussion, because I think that we are saying that the regulatory rime we built to protect the environment and other important factors has become so large and unwieldy that it is in conflict with other priorities, like the idea of made in america.
▶ 1:48:12Sen. Schiff: About creating more jobs in this country. About tilting a resilient supply chain in this country for our economic and national security and everything from energy, to computer chips, to pharmaceuticals. Whatever that might be.
▶ 1:48:29Sen. Schiff: And the topic of time is money has come up the same time as money has come up several times today, which is so true because we know if you lack a predictable timeframe for doing things many people just will not invest. They will not take the risk. Of making those investments, whether that is building chips or data centers or power plants.
▶ 1:48:55Sen. Schiff: The nepa process, I can tell you that seeing this happen somebody times, where we had the chips act, for example, we need to build chips. Very much supported the federal government, leaning in on this, on a bipartisan basis. The nepa process extends out the timeframe which you can build the fabs. We say it is a national security parity, but then these regulations get in the way.
▶ 1:49:25Sen. Schiff: We also hear, I left a community where they are currently discussing whether or not they will have enough energy to meet the demand of made in america. And cannot know whether they can build the power plants or the supply chain. That is the regulations. And then the regulators on time frames and deliverables.
▶ 1:49:47Sen. Schiff: And the idea that literally slowing these things down is actually contrary to our economic, national security, and even environmental interests, unless you have enough energy comes from, whether it is asked fire power plants or sm in the heart, and wind and solar, that taking a longer time to build those means you cannot commission coal power plants because you don't have the energy supply chain.
▶ 1:50:17Sen. Schiff: So, if you accept my context for my concern quickly I would love for everyone of you to just tell me a couple of things quickly. Things we should do to fix that.
▶ 1:50:36Ms. Pilconis: Thank you for your question, senator. Timelines are important. Page limits are important. You did great work the fiscal responsibility act. I think it comes down to accountability and making sure folks are held to that. They are in the fiscal responsibility act is the requirement for agencies to report to congress if they are missing those timelines, having oversight over that and making sure you are getting that information, understanding why deadlines are being missed.
▶ 1:51:07Ms. Pilconis: There are penalties for missing deadlines. That only applies to surface transportation projects. I think having that apply to more critical infrastructure projects could hold agencies more accountable. Best 41 he created the permitting dashboard which creates an incredible amount of transparency so that the public and everyone can see, one of the milestones? When are they happening? There is only a few amount of projects, about 30 right now, on the dashboard. Having that apply to more projects.
▶ 1:51:34Ms. Pilconis: I think, making use of general permits. There are ways to make sure that things are getting done more quickly through the use of categorical exclusions, general permits.
▶ 1:51:49Mr. Harris: Senator husted, I
▶ 1:51:55Would Mr. Harrell: Urge you to think big. This is not an around the edges issue. There is a lot of duplication. Have had significant environmental statues put in place after nepa was enacted. Have to see how these things sync up together to provide more predictability, that modernize the system, and make step change reform. It is clear the status quo is not serving our economic or environmental interests.
▶ 1:52:17Mr. Harris: I would like to say calling a tool or permit efficient unpredictable this not make it efficient unpredictable. We need something efficient and protectable every time.
▶ 1:52:35Mr. Booker: I think we have to require agencies to make a decision, up or down. Then we have to put timelines on litigation. If a project is permitted and people are working, the decisions have been made by the agency, it is good to go, that the litigation cannot stop a project going forward.
▶ 1:53:00Ms. Pavia: I would second the use of the permitting dashboard. It is a great existing tool we can leverage more fully. And I would also just harken back to what I said earlier about staffing. Both at the local and federal capacity for permitting expertise. Especially for linear infrastructure projects. The ira did provide some technical assistance, but I think more can be done in the capacity space.
▶ 1:53:18Sen. Husted: Thank you.
▶ 1:53:21Sen. Whitehouse: Senator lummis.
▶ 1:53:23Sen. Lummis: This is a subject that vexes people in both parties at all level of -- levels of government. I'm going to start with something called permit by rule, which is something that president trump has touted in an executive order. I have a bill that would authorize a permit by rule. My cosponsor is Mr. budd. It is called the full responsibility and expedited enforcement act.
▶ 1:53:54Sen. Lummis: So, my question is, Mr. harrell, how can implementing permit by rule streamline federal permitting while ensuring robust environmental protections? And what steps should congress take to ensure agencies follow up on these reforms?
▶ 1:54:15Mr. Booker: Thank you, senator. How can we shift to a build and comply structure rather than this arduous, multistep process? In many cases projects face case-by-case reviews that are not getting us any better benefits from -- for the environment. Purely it is driving out the length of the review process and driving up costs. That is not good for the consumer. That is not good for the environment. Agencies are going to need to set out the rules of the road.
▶ 1:54:46Mr. Booker: Which your bill lays out in the early stages. Then I think congress is going to need to codify that. In the end this cannot be a structure. This shift is a big change. It cannot go on the abs and changes of an administration. We need a regulatory system that works for the next 40 years, not the next four years.
▶ 1:55:06Mr. Booker: This is the type of thing we can take a significant trump of project -- chunk of projects off and streamlined for projects that have characteristics, are built in the same type of areas, or need to comply in the same way.
▶ 1:55:22Sen. Lummis: I agree. I don't think it is for every situation, but a very standard situation that has consistent, replicable compliance standards it might work well. So, thank you. I look forward to working with you on that. Mr. harris, I'm going to turn to you. In wyoming we have a housing shortage.
▶ 1:55:45Sen. Lummis: There is a community, there is small community, where this nuclear power plant is going to come in and have construction job demands that are going to require housing. So, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue, even your experience in small-volume homebuilding in a state that is very similar to my state of wyoming.
▶ 1:56:13Mr. Harris: Thank you very much for the question. I think the community needs to decide where the housing needs to go and work together with builders and the federal authorities about will -- what is most appropriate for that. Reduce those barriers and yields are having builders want to build homes either for rent, wherever they build on the housing letter.
▶ 1:56:42Mr. Harris: There it is temporary housing, apart, first-time homebuyers to move up housing, all of that takes the cooperation. Real estate development is really community-development, and how we can all work together to get these houses built in the communities that need them.
▶ 1:57:00Sen. Lummis: So how can streamlining permitting help homeowners?
▶ 1:57:05Mr. Harris: It will lower the price, because the cost of regulation continues to drive. So, if I decide to -- if I have to jump through a lot of hoops to develop a piece of land, then that increases the cost per acre or per lot that I'm going to need on that home. And eventually that will be passed on to the home buyer. But each one of those regulations continues to work through that.
▶ 1:57:35Mr. Harris: The permitting process needs to be well-defined, consistent every time.
▶ 1:57:41Sen. Lummis: Thank you. Going to ask one more question, changing subjects to something called class six. I invite any of you -- I suspect Mr. harrell this is for you, anyone of you is welcome to weigh in. States can expedite permitting by directly implementing federal requirements. There is something called class six primacy.
▶ 1:58:10Sen. Lummis: Wyoming successfully applied for and received this class six primacy, but I am told the epa has a 151 -- has 151 pending applications, while only four have been granted. For any of you familiar with this class six, what reforms can ensure that states seeking class six can navigate the process more quickly and with greater certainty?
▶ 1:58:39Sen. Lummis: >> senator, I'm happy to hop in there. Class six is shifting responsibility to the folks who are closer on the ground who can move quickly, and the law requires them to have the same environmental standards. It is a no-brainer that we can bring those decisions back to the lower level. There is no better example, particularly in clean energy, that shows just throwing money at the problem is not fixing it.
▶ 1:59:07Sen. Lummis: Between the infrastructure bill and annual appropriations epa has gotten more to process these and they have continued to process at a glacial speed. We need to set timelines. Need to be more transparent about where they are in the process. It needs to be a more iterative process. If they see something that is not meeting the federal standard to take on this responsibility, that needs to be upfront. I think we can move much faster on this.
▶ 1:59:32Sen. Lummis: It was exciting -- it was exciting to see west virginia get this. And regulators can focus on complicated projects like in california.
▶ 1:59:44Sen. Lummis: It is proving successful for states that have already received class six primacy?
▶ 1:59:52Mr. Harrell: Your state and north dakota are great example. Wyoming and north dakota are moving the projects in under a year when there are 150 plus programs in the pipeline.
▶ 2:00:06Sen. Lummis: Thank you Mr. chairman and the committee for being here today. [indiscernible]
▶ 2:00:34Chair Capito: We are deciding whether this is the end of the hearing are not. The chair was kind enough to give me the gavel for purposes of moving through the members, but it is not clear I have the gavel for purposes of closing out the hearing without her permission. In the spirit of bipartisanship I am waiting for that signal. If you all just stand by for a minute. Ok.
▶ 2:01:04Chair Capito: I have clearance to proceed. First of all, thank you. This was a very helpful hearing. Senator lummis and Mr. harris you mentioned the importance of the community making the decision warehousing should go. That aligns with the comment I meant -- made earlier.
▶ 2:01:26Chair Capito: Filings would be helpful if at the front there was a requirement of who are the stakeholders and how have they been engaged already so it does not get backed up into the regulatory process. It is done front and center. Here we go. I did not have to close out because the chairman is here.
▶ 2:01:44Chair Capito: My apologies for missing the last few minutes. I think we have a lot of commonality here, a lot of good ideas and thought going along the same lines. I think we should think big and come down from big to where we can meet the sweet spot. Like senator curtis said, we have been talking about this for years and not gotten there.
▶ 2:02:16Chair Capito: I'm committed and I know you are to work on this together. With no further questions I would like to think the witnesses and I colleagues for their participation. Senators who wish to submit written records have until wednesday, march 5. Witness responses are due back to the committee no later than 5:00 p.m. On march 19. The hearing record will be open until march 21.
▶ 2:02:46Chair Capito: I would hope you would submit suggestions you might have heard today or others. The public will be allowed to submit comments and materials to the hearing record by sending these documents to permitting at epw.senate.gov. It is also on our website contact page. With that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap.org]