Hearings to examine improving the Federal environmental review and permitting processes.

1[Senate Hearing 119-36]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                      S.Hrg. 119-3656                  IMPROVING THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT REVIEW7                           AND PERMITTING PROCESS89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                              COMMITTEE ON16                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS1718                          UNITED STATES SENATE1920                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2122                             FIRST SESSION2324                               ----------2526                           FEBRUARY 19, 20252728                               ----------2930  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works3132[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3334        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3536                                __________3738                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE3959-857 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254041-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4243               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS4445                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS46                             FIRST SESSION4748             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, WEST Virginia, Chairman4950KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island,51CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming               Ranking Member52JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont53LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon54DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts55PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              MARK KELLY, Arizona56ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            ALEX PADILLA, California57JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ADAM B. SCHIFF, California58JON HUSTED MORGAN, Ohio              LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delware59                                     ANGELA ALSOBROOKS, Maryland6061               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director62                  Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director6364                           C O N T E N T S6566                              ----------67                                                                   Page6869                            FEBRARY 19, 20257071                           OPENING STATEMENTS7273Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West74  Virginia.......................................................     175Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode76  Island.........................................................     37778                               WITNESSES7980Harrell, Jeremy, CEO, Clearpath..................................     581    Prepared statement...........................................     882    Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........    1683    Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse....    1884    Responses to additional questions from Senator Markey........    1985Pilconis, Leah, General Counsel, The Associated General86  Contractors of America.........................................    2187    Prepared statement...........................................    2388    Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........    3889    Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse....    3890    Responses to additional questions from Senator Markey........    3991Harris, Carl, Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home92  Builders.......................................................    4093    Prepared statement...........................................    4294    Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........    5695    Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse....    5796Booker, Brent, General President, Liuna Action Network...........    6097    Prepared statement...........................................    6398    Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse....    6999    Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........    70100Pavia, Nicole, Director, Clean Energy Infrastructure Deployment,101  Clean Air Task Force...........................................    71102    Prepared statement...........................................    73103    Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse....    88104    Responses to additional questions from Senator Markey........    99105106                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL107108Associated Builders and Contractors..............................   243109National Mining Association......................................   246110Waters Advocacy..................................................   250111Western Governors Association....................................   254112Family Farm Alliance.............................................   258113Merced Irrigation District.......................................   266114Portland Cement Association......................................   270115Border Trade Alliance............................................   274116Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Planning and Development117  Pathways to Interregional Transmission.........................   279118Pacific Northwest National Laboratory............................   331119Association of American Railroads................................   336120NESARC, National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition.........   338121PPI Radically Pragmatic, Building the World's Most Advanced122  Energy Economy: A More Ambitious Approach to American Energy123  Permitting Reform..............................................   340124AGC, The Construction Association................................   469125Hunton Andrews Kurth.............................................   475126Paul Noe, The American Forest & Paper Association and American127  Wood Council...................................................   495128American Forest & Paper Association..............................   498129Texas Department of Transportation...............................   525130CASA, California Association of Sanitation Agencies..............   556131National Governors Association...................................   560132The National Hydropower Association, Inc.........................   563133Advocates for Climate Innovation.................................   573134GDOT, Georgia Department of Transportation.......................   579135INGAA, Interstate National Gas Association of America............   590136NRECA, America's Electric Cooperatives...........................   595137AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and Transportation138  Officials......................................................   598139American Chemistry Council.......................................   608140ACI, Airports Council International..............................   610141AGA, American Gas Association....................................   614142API, American Petroleum Institute................................   648143APTA, American Public Transportation Association.................   651144Bipartisan Policy Center.........................................   660145Wall Street Journal, James L. Connaughton; A Simply Way to Cut146  NEPA's Red Tape................................................   748147Energy Environment Program.......................................   750148Statement of James L. Connaughton................................   761149Power Delayed: Economic Effects of Electricity Transmission and150  Generation Development Delays..................................   783151Environmental Policy Innovation Center...........................   792152Resource Development Council.....................................   802153The Nature Conservancy, Improving the Environmental Permitting154  Process for Clean Energy Infrastructure........................   808155ACC, American Coalition Action...................................   894156ACEC, American Council of Engineering Companies..................   896157American Clean Power Association.................................   898158David E. Adelman, Dispelling the Myths of Permitting Reform and159  Identifying Effective Pathways Forward.........................   907160Department of Transportation United States of America,161  Modernizing NEPA Challenge.....................................   925162American Lung Association........................................   961163American Rivers..................................................   964164Carnegie Mellon University.......................................  1013165Center for Biological Diversity..................................  1014166CBrain the Process Company.......................................  1023167Carbon Capture Coalition.........................................  1027168Climate Justice Alliance.........................................  1032169Climateworks.....................................................  1039170Carbon Management Alliance.......................................  1041171Carbon Removal Alliance..........................................  1049172Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions........................  1052173Data Center Coalition............................................  1076174Environmental Defense Fund.......................................  1101175EEI, Edison Electric Institute...................................  1112176FCHEA, Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association...................  1117177Geothermal Rising Policy.........................................  1123178Humane World for Animals & Humane World Action Fund..............  1132179IFAW, International Fund for Animal Welfare......................  1135180Institute for Policy Studies.....................................  1137181NABTU, North America's Building Trades Unions....................  1141182NACO, National Association of Counties...........................  1142183National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies.  1146184NEPAcess, University of Arizona..................................  1152185Newmont..........................................................  1161186NGSA, Natural Gas Supply Association.............................  1164187National Wild Turkey Federation..................................  1176188Mary O'Brien, Permitting Reform Experiences......................  1182189Oceantic Network.................................................  1184190PacifiCorp.......................................................  1187191Pattern..........................................................  1200192Dena Horton, Deputy Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways193  Association....................................................  1205194Southern California Edison.......................................  1208195SEIA, Solar Energy Industries Association........................  1212196SELC, Southern Environmental Law Center..........................  1216197Nature Sustainability, Environmental Impact Assessments not the198  Main Barrier to Timely Forest Management in the United States..  1219199Nature Portfolio.................................................  1224200The Wilderness Society...........................................  1227201U.S. Chamber of Commerce.........................................  1235202USET, Sovereignty Protection Fund................................  1238203Vaulted Deep.....................................................  1242204WEACT For Environmental Justice..................................  1244205Building Transmission to Securea Clean & Equitable Electricity206  Grid...........................................................  1254207Community Engagement Brief.......................................  1260208Testimony of Susan M. Brown, Western Environmental Law Center....  1273209T. Lane Wilson, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,210  Wiliams........................................................  1281211Zeta, Zero Emission Transprotation Association...................  1284212Acore, American Council of Renewable Energy......................  1286213Setting the Record Straight on Florida's 404 Program.............  1299214Letter of Support for Restoring America's Everglades.............  1302215NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute....................................  1305216217   IMPROVING THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESS218219                              ----------220221                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025222223                                       U.S. Senate,224                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,225                                                    Washington, DC.226    U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works227Washington, DC.228    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in229room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore230Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.231    Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,232Curtis, Ricketts, Wicker, Husted, Merkley, Kelly, Padilla,233Schiff, Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.234235        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,236          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA237238    Senator Capito. Good morning. Welcome. Sorry I didn't get239to shake your hands. I will do that as we move through. I240apologize for being a few minutes late.241    I want to start with my opening statement, then I will go242to the Ranking Member, then we will have our witnesses. Good243morning again, and thank you all for being here. It is very244nice for you to come on such a critical issue to our Nation's245future, the need to modernize our Federal environmental review246and permitting processes, something we have talked about247endlessly, both to grow our economy and also to improve our248environmental stewardship. I am really excited about this249hearing.250    Our witnesses will share their valuable perspectives and251set the stage for the EPW committee's work on this important252topic. To ensure we take a holistic view of these issues, we253will keep this morning's hearing record open until March 21st254to give all stakeholders the opportunity to share their255experiences with the existing environmental review and256permitting processes, identify challenges, and then, hopefully,257to suggest potential solutions.258    For too long, critical projects such as energy and259infrastructure projects, along with industrial projects as260well, have been trapped in a cycle of redundant reviews,261shifting goalposts, and regulatory uncertainty. In my home262State of West Virginia, I have seen firsthand how these drive263up costs, these delays, not just for the projects, but for the264American families who are paying for more energy, housing, and265food as a result.266    Meanwhile, businesses lack the certainty necessary to make267long-term investments, which can mean lost jobs, missed268economic opportunities for communities, scarcity, and higher269prices across the Nation. It can also mean that the projects270needed to deploy renewable energy technologies, or to restore271the environment, are also stilted.272    The framework for our environmental review and permitting273processes is grounded in landmark laws under this committee's274jurisdiction. NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider275environmental impacts on federally funded projects or before276implementing their project.277    Other environmental and resource laws like the Clean Water278Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act rely on279permits and operational requirements to ensure that critical280projects are able to come to fruition in environmentally281responsible ways. However, years of changes in guidance and282regulations from administration to administration and a complex283web of judicial rulings have resulted in an ever-expanding284hodge-podge of often duplicative and contradictory285requirements.286    While this confusing and complex body of administrative and287common law has grown over the past half century, Congress has288not stepped in to provide the holistic clarifications and289modernizations. In the absence of congressional action, certain290parties have found creative ways to use the judicial process to291delay, remand, or strike down projects and raise costs to292discourage project sponsors from moving forward.293    As a result, environmental review and permitting processes294have increased costs and delayed or stopped projects, including295projects that would help achieve the goals in our environmental296laws.297    Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure298Committee heard testimony from Nucor about how the need to299obtain a Clean Water Act permit triggered significant delays300based on required reviews under the Endangered Species Act and301the National Historic Preservation Act. These permitting delays302nearly thwarted what will be among the most environmentally303friendly steel production facilities in the world, and that304will employ over 1,000 people in Mason County, West Virginia.305    It literally took an act of Congress to permit the Mountain306Valley Pipeline to move clean natural gas from West Virginia to307our southern neighbors, and I am sure they are loving it today,308as the temperatures are dipping. I heard it is 2 degrees in309Austin and it is snowing to beat the band in West Virginia310right now. So it is cold everywhere.311    What is it in North Dakota?312    Senator Cramer. It is 47 below.313    Senator Capito. Forty-seven below, OK.314    [Laughter.]315    Senator Capito. Sorry, Austin, you just got tripped.316    Corridor H and Coalfields Expressway, two top highway317priorities for the State of West Virginia that would improve318safety and mobility, have both encountered multiple permitting319delays under various environmental statutes. West Virginia320water line extensions, broadband projects, bridge replacements,321have all faced Federal permitting delays, and I am sure my322State is not unique. The problems we will explore today have323been brewing for decades.324    However, this Congress, we have an opportunity, I think, to325deliver meaningful, bipartisan legislation that addresses these326problems. I am committed to working with Ranking Member327Whitehouse, our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources328Committee, and those House committee counterparts to produce a329bill with meaningful reforms.330    Durable and implementable environmental review and331permitting process reform must be bipartisan to be successful.332My guiding principles for this effort are straightforward: the333legislation that we develop must help all types of projects,334not just politically favored projects or projects that will335support the infrastructure needs of some Americans but not336others. We must provide clarity and transparency in the337processes.338    Finally, our legislation needs to look at every stage of339these processes to find efficiencies while balancing public340health, the environment, and the needs of our economy. Let me341be clear: modernizing these processes does not mean cutting342corners or weakening environmental and public health343protections. It means making the processes more efficient, more344predictable, and more transparent so that the processes are not345stuck in bureaucratic purgatory or endless litigation.346    Hardworking Americans, small businesses, and entrepreneurs347want a government that works for them, not one that keeps them348waiting for the benefits that many of the projects promise to349bring in their communities and household budgets.350    So I look forward to the discussion today, and learning351about our witnesses' experience. I am hopeful that we can hear352some consensus on the issues that this committee must focus our353attention, so we can develop our legislation.354    With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses355today and beginning the effort together to deliver real356solutions for the American people.357    And I now yield to the Ranking Member, Senator Whitehouse.358359         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,360          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND361362    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Off we go again,363on this bipartisan journey to catch the elusive white whale,364permitting reform.365    [Laughter.]366    Senator Whitehouse. This hearing's witnesses will highlight367the challenges people face building a variety of projects. But368as Chair Capito said, we want more. We will keep our record369open for that month to hear from all other interested370stakeholders about their experiences and their recommendations.371Help us find where you have encountered barriers and what372solutions have worked well.373    We also know that permitting reform is not exclusive to our374committee, so the Chair and I are already engaged with our375colleagues in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and in376the House.377    A word of warning, however: Democrats cannot agree to any378permitting reform unless and until the Trump administration379ends its lawless disregard for congressional authority and380judicial orders. Billions in obligated funds remain frozen381behind a fog bank of silent executive contumacy in blatant382disregard of constitutional separation of powers, direct court383orders, and basic principles of law.384    I have to note, as a former U.S. Attorney, I am385particularly disgusted with DOJ, where things are so bad that386deeply conservative career prosecutors have resigned rather387than carry out corrupt orders from Trump cronies. But it is388everywhere, and it is hurting people and projects.389    Until the administration shows that it will honor its oath390to faithfully and impartially execute the laws, we can have391zero confidence that any legislative compromise on permitting392reform will be executed lawfully. It falls to my Republican393friends to bring this lawless unconstitutional madness to an394end. And I wish them good luck on that.395    On energy, we have particular reason to doubt the Trump396administration will faithfully execute any permitting law we397pass. The President has declared a fake energy emergency,398despite record production in America; and defined energy to399exclude renewables, the fastest growing energy sector, all400after receiving, minimum, $100 million from fossil fuel donors.401    We are deep into a political quid pro quo, bought by the402world's biggest polluters, and China is chortling at the403spectacle.404    I don't see a path to getting a bill until this lawlessness405stops, and I don't see a path for a bill that excludes offshore406wind, an industry with great jobs, huge growth potential, and a407supply chain that already extends into 40 States. The men and408women building these projects do not want them stopped, as409General President Booker can attest. Coastal States don't want410them stopped. Leasing has occurred in Federal waters off nearly411every coastal State. Nor do the industries that support412offshore wind, the Louisiana shipyards, the Midwest factories,413the ports like Quonset, generating economic growth across our414Country. Neither do consumers, who overwhelmingly want cheaper,415cleaner, and more reliable energy.416    Why would we want to pull America out of the clean energy417race when investment last year topped $2 trillion, far418exceeding investment in fossil fuels? What fools we would be.419If you want a future driven by Chinese innovation, Chinese420industry, and Chinese power, keep it up. But you can't change421the fact that the future of energy is clean, and that if we are422not part of it, we will be left behind.423    The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, NERC,424projects that peak demand will grow by 15 percent for summer425peaks and 18 percent for winter peaks over the next 10 years,426raising concerns about energy shortfalls, as our Chair has427pointed out in prior hearings. What would reduce the risk of428those shortfalls? Better permitting.429    We need to build out a grid to meet current and future430demand. Seventy percent of transmission lines are more than 25431years old, and showing their age. We know what we need to do.432We need to build, and fast.433    Right now, thousands of electricity generation projects are434awaiting approval to connect to the grid. As of last April, 2.6435terawatts, millions of engineering, construction and436manufacturing jobs, stalled in part, because of our inability437to build transmission lines. This must change.438    As I said last week, we have entered the era of climate439consequences. The stuff the scientists warned us would happen440is happening. Snicker all you want about Green New Deals,441ignore all you want collapsing coastlines glaciers and coral442reefs and fisheries.443    Pope Francis said, ``Slap Mother Nature and she will slap444you back.'' The economic slap-back is here now, in skyrocketing445home insurance prices and failing home insurance markets. I446will say it again: when climate havoc hits property insurance447markets, it then hits mortgage markets, which then tanks448property values, so hard it can take down the whole economy.449    You may have missed it, but last week the Fed Chairman in450Senate testimony predicted that in the next 10 to 15 years451there will be regions of the Country where you can't get a452mortgage any more. When that all hits the fan, Americans will453be very interested in who helped and who obstructed.454    Pretending solar and wind energy aren't even energy will455look awfully dumb. And not permitting and building a clean,456modern grid will look grossly negligent. So let's stop the law-457breaking and start the grid-building together.458    Senator Capito. I like that last word, that is good.459    Our first witness is Jeremy Harrell. Mr. Harrell is the CEO460of ClearPath, a non-profit which advocates for polices that461reduce global energy emissions. Mr. Harrell has served in a462multitude of energy and environmental advisory positions on463Capitol Hill, and he is the Chair Emeritus of the U.S. Nuclear464Industry Council's board of directors.465    Mr. Harrell, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank you466for coming.467468     STATEMENT OF JEREMY HARRELL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,469                        CLEARPATH, INC.470471    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for the kind472introduction, and thank you, Ranking Member Whitehouse and473members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify today.474    My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Executive475Officer of ClearPath.476    America is at the dawn of a new era of unprecedented energy477demand, fueled by robust economic growth, a revival of American478manufacturing and advances in AI and quantum computing. These479developments present new challenges yet offer immense480opportunities for our Country to build big.481    The regulatory process is not only unpredictable, but it is482also one of the largest barriers to meeting energy, climate and483economic development goals at the Federal, State and local484level.485    In the face of skyrocketing demand growth, building more486energy resources has become more urgent. We need to let America487build.488    NERC reported that annual demand growth rates are nearly489double those of the last decade, when roughly three projects490were added to the grid per day. But to meet that demand, we may491need to build around six projects a day, or 16,000 facilities492by 2035. And we will need a broad suite of technologies to do493it.494    These challenge are present in nearly every sector of the495economy, from energy to housing to transportation projects. To496be clear, the solution is not a development free-for-all. The497regulatory environment must balance speed and safety. But the498solution requires step-change reform, not tweaks around the499edges.500    Reforms that demand accountability and promote good501outcomes as fast as possible should start with three key502objectives. One, leverage innovative American technologies;503two, expedite reviews; and three, streamline judicial review of504administrative actions.505    First, Congress could require more accountability, provide506more transparency and direct the use of modern technology.507There is a clear need for more reliable information from508Federal agencies, ranging from the number of permits under509review to how long they have been stuck in limbo.510    In many cases, Federal agencies are not even using the same511systems or terminology. More transparent data will help with512accountability and provide the public with information to513participate.514    Congress should also consider the role of AI, machine515learning, and other state-of-the-art technologies to reduce the516burden of project reviews.517    Our system is still stuck in the 1990's. Technology reforms518are the lowest-hanging fruit for bipartisan action.519    Second, we must expedite the review process. Faster520approvals for projects that bring net benefits and comply with521existing environmental laws are essential to meeting our522Nation's needs.523    Congress could expand categorical exclusions to permit524projects. Categorical exclusions are a one-time determination525under NEPA that certain activities to not warrant the526substantial data collection and review that comes with site-527specific EAs, NEISs. However, they still require agency528decisions for each site.529    There is bipartisan support in Congress to accelerate low-530impact energy projects like geothermal exploration to eliminate531redundant reviews. A permit by rule approach could also offer532significant benefits, balancing administrative speed with533safeguarding public health, safety and the environment. To do534this, the criteria must be well-defined, periodically reviewed,535and aligned with the overall regulatory framework.536    Encouraging development in certain pre-qualified geographic537areas could also accelerate projects. Previously disturbed538lands or well characterized areas like brownfields present539opportunities to leverage electrical and mechanical540infrastructure. The impacts of this development are minimal in541most cases and are in or near the communities that need the542economic growth the most.543    Last, the judicial review of agency actions must be544reformed. The current system is tilted toward those who seek to545delay or block projects. For example, a recent analysis found546litigation delayed fossil energy and clean energy projects by547an average of 4 years. Agencies won 71 percent of those548challenges.549    Separately, an analysis on transmission projects found 24550percent of projects that completed environmental review faced551litigation, and the agency won 88 percent of those cases.552    If major infrastructure projects are regularly delayed by553legal challenges that are ultimately overturned, it is time to554reassess whether our current system is protecting consumers or555protecting project opponents. Congress could consider limiting556legal challenges to plain errors related to natural resources557laws, narrowing the scope, and setting strict review timelines.558    Without changes, our Nation is needlessly undermining our559own economic development and climate goals.560    In conclusion, the U.S. is in a global competition for561energy leadership. China and Russia are deploying billions of562dollars around the world to advance their geostrategic563interests, to control the sector and connected supply chains.564    We must overcome our regulatory challenges to counter these565efforts and meet domestic energy, economic and environmental566needs. It is time to let America build.567    Thank you.568    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]569    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]570571    Senator Capito. Together.572    Senator Whitehouse. I like that.573    Senator Capito. You like that? OK.574    Senator Whitehouse. You may be onto something with that.575    Senator Capito. Our next witness is Leah Pilconis, General576Counsel for the Associated General Contractors of America. Over577her 25-year career with AGC, Ms. Pilconis has served in578multiple leadership positions, including as Senior579Environmental Counsel and Associate General Counsel for580Construction and Environmental Risk Management. She is also a581host of AGC's Constructor Cast podcast.582    I will now recognize Ms. Pilconis for her opening583statement.584585  STATEMENT OF LEAH PILCONIS, GENERAL COUNSEL, THE ASSOCIATED586                 GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA587588    Ms. Pilconis. Thank you very much.589    Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of590the Environment and Public Works Committee, thank you for the591opportunity to speak today. I appreciate your leadership and592bipartisan efforts to improve the Federal environmental review593and permitting processes. These efforts are critical to594ensuring that we can deliver much-needed infrastructure595projects in a timely and cost-effective manner, while596maintaining strong environmental protections.597    As General Counsel at the Associated General Contractors of598America I have learned how delays in environmental approvals599don't just hold up projects, they cause work force instability,600drive up costs, and jeopardize investments in critical601infrastructure. These delays also impact the communities that602rely on these projects for jobs, economic growth and modern603safe infrastructure. We need to ensure timely project604approvals, minimize litigation risks, and maintain economic605growth.606    Here are four ways Congress can help. One, establish a607uniform judicial review period. NEPA lawsuits can stall608projects for years, even after they have undergone extensive609environmental review. Litigation is increasingly being used as610a tool to obstruct critical projects. This undermines planning,611increases costs, and deters investments.612    While Congress has protected some infrastructure projects613with a 150-day legal limit on challenges, most construction614projects remain vulnerable to lawsuits for up to 6 years under615the Administrative Procedures Act.616    AGC urges Congress to standardize the 150-day limited617judicial review period for all critical infrastructure618projects, and eliminate unnecessary procedure hurdles that619create prolonged uncertainty. Once a project receives final620environmental approval, it should not remain in legal limbo for621years.622    Two, align environmental reviews with congressional intent.623The Bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act was designed to624streamline environmental permitting and prevent unnecessary625delays. However, CEQ's latest NEPA regulations contradict these626reforms.627    Congress must hold agencies accountable to ensure NEPA628implementation stays true to the FRA's intent and does not add629new layers of bureaucracy that undermine project delivery.630    Three, prevent regulatory fragmentation. Recent court631rulings and executive actions have highlighted the lack of632clarity on NEPA implementation. Without clear statutory633direction, agencies may adopt conflicting rules, making634projects even more vulnerable to court challenges and forcing635courts to interpret the law in a post-Chevron environment.636    Congress must act to ensure a consistent, reliable637framework for environmental reviews across agencies.638    Four, make permitting reform a durable, bipartisan639legislative solution. Permitting rules should not shift with640each administration. Congress must ensure agencies implement641reforms consistently and Congress must provide oversight to642prevent regulatory overreach.643    The U.S. Supreme Court's Sackett decision provided much-644needed clarify on Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water645Act. However, the current Conforming Waters of the U.S.646regulations still fail to align with the ruling, creating647uncertainty and unnecessary delays. AGC urges Congress to hold648agencies accountable for properly implementing Sackett as649intended.650    I want to share a few other ways Congress can help reduce651Clean Water Act 404 permitting delays. Protect general permits,652codify key exemptions, such as for roadside ditches and653stormwater features. Expedite jurisdictional determinations,654ensure mitigation requirements are reasonable and backed by655adequate mitigation credit availability.656    AGC supports bipartisan permitting reforms and urges657Congress to ensure agencies follow congressional intent.658Cutting red tape and limiting unnecessary litigation will help659deliver critical infrastructure projects on time and on budget.660    Most importantly, Congress must provide certainty by661ensuring that once environmental approvals are final agency662actions, projects should not be threatened years later.663    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.664    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pilconis follows:]665   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]666667    Senator Capito. Thank you very much.668    Our next witness is Carl Harris. Mr. Harris is the Chairman669of the Board for the National Association of Home Builders. He670has been building homes for 40 years in Wichita, Kansas, at671Carl Harris Company, the firm he founded in 1985 with his672father and sister.673    We want to thank him for spending time with us this morning674before he heads to the NAHB International Builders Show later675this week in Las Vegas.676    I will now recognize Mr. Harris for his opening statement.677678   STATEMENT OF CARL HARRIS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL679                  ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS680681    Mr. Harris. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and682members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to683appear before you today. As a small business owner, I684understand the immense challenges that our members experience685as they navigate the permitting process, because creating homes686for Americans starts with successful permitting.687    The U.S. has a shortfall of over 1.5 million housing units.688In the easy places to build, homes have already been laid out,689which means the Nation's home builders are going to690increasingly run into environmental permitting regulations for691undeveloped land. We want to improve this regulatory process so692that home builders can accomplish two fundamental goals:693safeguarding the environment and creating attainable housing694for Americans.695    Regrettably, American home buyers are suffering through a696record low housing attainability. According to NAHB's Priced-697Out study, 77 percent of buyers are unable to afford just the698median price of a new home. Every small price increase has a699sharp exclusionary effect. And on average, every $1,000 that700gets added to a home's cost locks out 106,000 households that701will be priced out of the market.702    Uncertainty and delays in permitting needlessly add cost to703the construction process, which increases home prices and704pushes the American dream away from others entering the market.705    While the Clean Water Act serves as a crucial foundation706for protecting the Nation's waterways, the implementation of707certain aspects of Section 404 and mitigation bank approvals708are a major source of frustration for our members.709    Let's consider a property owner who wants to build homes on710undeveloped land. They want to know if the water features on711their property fall under Federal jurisdiction. To determine712this and avoid Federal penalties, they need an approved713jurisdictional determination, an AJD.714    Unfortunately, obtaining AJDs are not prioritized under the715Army Corps and take well over a year to obtain. Rather than716languish waiting for an AJD, home builders will roll the dice717and try for a quicker preliminary jurisdiction determination,718known as a PJD. But a PJD has several hooks. It is not719appealable, it allows water features to be considered720jurisdictional, even if they are not covered by the Clean Water721Act, and can preclude the use of the nationwide permit.722    We should be able to tell home builders if there are723Federal jurisdictional features on their property without724forcing them into the problematic PJD.725    Congress created the streamlined nationwide permit under726Section 404, which is meant to be completed within 60 days for727minimal impacts on water features. But members routinely report728that it is taking almost a year to obtain these, which is729rivaling the time it takes to complete the more rigorous730individual permit required for larger environmental impacts.731This timeline is unacceptable for a permitting tool that is732meant to be fast and predictable.733    Digging deeper under the 404, we have the Clean Waters of734the U.S. Rule, which has been subject to litigation and735administration changes. This non-stop whiplash has confounded736our members about which water features on their property are737federally jurisdictional, with key regulatory terms like738continuous surface connection and relatively permanent water739that have been left undefined and open to interpretation based740on which Army Corps district you are in. This lack of harmony741promotes confusion and uncertainty.742    As part of the 404 permitting, builders are often required743to purchase mitigation credits to offset the impacts to744wetlands. For example, a member in Ohio told us that the745credits for his project cost about $140,000 due to the two-to-746one mitigation requirement. When you break it down per home747lot, this adds $10,000 to the cost of a new home.748    A driving force behind these exorbitant credit prices is749the shortage of mitigation banks across the Nation. It is750extremely challenging for bank sponsors to come online, which751disincentivizes participation. This leaves home builders752competing against others over limited credits and drives up the753cost.754    To be able to build the millions of housing units needed755across this Nation at an attainable price, the residential756construction industry needs a more clear and predictable757environmental permitting process. We need to prioritize the AJD758process, recenter the nationwide permit, and encourage759mitigation bank creation are all the ways we can do to chip760away at this problem.761    I thank you for the opportunity to speak.762    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]763   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]764765    Senator Capito. Thank you very much.766    Our next witness is Brent Booker. Mr. Booker is the General767President of the Laborers' International Union of North768America. He is a third generation member of Laborers' Local 795769in North Albany, Indiana, and started his career in LIUNA's770mail room.771    Mr. Booker also served as director of the Union's772construction department and in various positions with North773American Building Trades unions. I welcome you, and now774recognize you for your opening statement.775    Thank you.776777    STATEMENT OF BRENT BOOKER, GENERAL PRESIDENT, LABORERS'778              INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA779780    Mr. Booker. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member781Whitehouse and members of the committee. My name is Brent782Booker, General President of the Laborers' International Union783of North America.784    LIUNA was founded over 120 years ago by immigrant workers785fleeing their countries to seek not only better life, but the786American dream. Today, we are a strong, proud, diverse union787representing over 530,000 workers across the United States and788Canada.789    LIUNA members go to work every day, building and790maintaining our Nation's infrastructure. From our endless791highways, bridges, and tunnels, city skyscrapers, water792treatment centers, to our Nation's vast energy sector, our793members' jobs touch every American's day-to-day life.794    Our Nation's boom in energy production has provided an795abundance of jobs for our membership. Our Union has always796promoted an all-of-the-above approach to energy production:797renewables, oil and natural gas, hydropower, nuclear, because798we build it all.799    As union laborers, we take pride in our work. We are the800safest, most productive and well-trained work force in the801world. We get jobs done right, on time the first time, safely,802and on budget.803    LIUNA was inherently involved in both Federal and State804permitting. When we know a project will be built by hardworking805laborers, we embed ourselves within the project's regulatory806process to ensure it is approved in a timely manner. We are the807folks in orange shirts you see at public utility hearings and808community hearings. That is because in our business,809predictability of projects is crucial.810    Our members move from job to job, stringing together the811projects that over many years build their career. While we812believe in a responsible approach to permitting infrastructure813projects, it is clear that our current permitting process is814broken.815    Whether it is purposely stalling the NEPA process of filing816what feels like countless, frivolous lawsuits, leaving project817in limbo and our members wondering when they will get paid818next. A project can be fully funded and ready to go, then out819of nowhere get hit with a deluge of lawsuits and get shut down.820    Unpredictability equals unemployment for our members. These821projects are not political to them. They are pathways to a822middle class way of life that includes family supporting wages,823good health care benefits, and the ability to 1 day retire with824dignity. If our members don't go to work, they don't get paid.825So when a project is delayed months or even years, well, you826try to deliver that message to someone who has a mortgage827payment due or has to buy school supplies for their kids.828Adequate judicial review timelines must be included in any829permitting reform package.830    Over the last decade, the pipeline industry predominantly831within natural gas has provided thousands of laborers tens of832millions of work hours. As we continue to expand into more833advanced energy sources such as hydrogen and carbon capture and834utilization, it is clear our training and skill sets will be835vital to a cleaner energy future.836    Now, we are seeing these same issues within the renewable837sector. Since the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act,838offshore wind has been a tremendous contributor of jobs for839LIUNA members. Between the harbor and port buildouts, the840turbine construction, to the installation of turbines841themselves, all along our Nation's coastlines, LIUNA members842are building offshore wind projects at a rate like never843before, including America's first offshore wind project in844Rhode Island's Block Island.845    Unfortunately, the administration's halt on offshore lease846sales has upended the wind production market and has led to847projects completely withdrawing their construction plans,848costing laborers their jobs. One project is the Starboard Wind849Project, 11,084 megawatt project by Orsted about 30 miles south850of Martha's Vineyard, which was expected to power upwards of851600,000 homes. This one hits home for me. I was proud to have852helped negotiate and implement the National Offshore Wind853Agreement back in 2022 on behalf of the building trades. This854agreement was going to bring back thousands of good union jobs855to workers across the Country.856    Now, many of these projects are at risk of being857terminated, causing us to lose significantly more jobs than we858did on the Keystone XL Pipeline, once again leaving our members859high and dry. We must put an end to projects for being used as860pawns on a political chess board. Because it is American861workers that pay the price.862    With a simple swipe of the pen, or lack thereof in this863case, these decisions impact the lives of the members we864proudly represent in their communities.865    If you take away one thing from my testimony today, please866let it be this: it is LIUNA members who go to work every day867building the American we all use. Whether it is turning the868lights on in the morning or commuting to work on a highway, it869is likely a laborer had a hand in it.870    This isn't about politics. It is about ensuring we continue871our energy independence and dominate in a market that when we872don't compete allows us to fall to our adversaries.873    For LIUNA, above all it is about ensuring our members are874able to go to a job that afford them the opportunity to be875firmly entrenched in the middle class. To be clear, these876aren't just jobs. They are careers that give our members and877their families a chance to thrive. They are paychecks that878ensure American workers are contributing to their community and879aren't forced to rely on the government to make ends meet. They880are lifelines that allow construction workers to retire with881dignity after they have built the America we all enjoy.882    For LIUNA members, these projects are delivering on the883promise of the American dream, which is why I thank you for884granting me the opportunity to speak with you today. I look885forward to your questions.886    Thank you.887    [The prepared statement of Mr. Booker follows:]888   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]889890    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Booker. I appreciate it.891    Finally, our last witness is Nicole Pavia, the Director of892Clean Energy Infrastructure Deployment at the Clean Air Task893Force. She is responsible for leading the organization's894infrastructure team and previously worked in consulting,895concentrating on energy and sustainability projects. She is a896fellow Duke University alumni, a Blue Devil.897898       STATEMENT OF NICOLE PAVIA, DIRECTOR, CLEAN ENERGY899        INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE900901    Ms. Pavia. That is right. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member902Whitehouse and members of the committee, thank you very much903for the opportunity to testify today.904    My name is Nicole Pavia, and I am the Program Director for905Clean Energy Infrastructure Deployment at the Clean Air Task906Force, or CATF. CATF is a non-profit, non-ideological advocacy907group with nearly 30 years of experience in advancing policy908and technology change needed to achieve a zero emissions high909energy economy at affordable cost.910    In my role, I lead CATF's work to identify and address911barriers, be they regulatory, permitting, financing, or social,912holding back deployment of clean energy technologies at the913pace and scale we need to decarbonize.914    One of our priority technologies is electricity915transmission. Long range interState and inter-regional916transmission lines are critical pieces of our energy system,917and we are not building enough of these lines to meet918reliability, security, affordability, load growth, and clean919generation needs.920    Today, significant wholesale electricity price differences921between and within regions exist due to transmission system922congestion. Regions afflicted by severe weather are unable to923access enough electricity from neighboring regions, leading to924economic damage and tragically, loss of life.925    Approximately 2,600 gigawatts or 2.6 terawatts of energy926capacity, 95 percent of which is zero-emitting or storage927capacity, sits in interconnection queues today waiting for an928opportunity to plug into the grid. The cumulative effect of our929inability to modernize and update our transmission system is930reflected well in North American Electric Reliability931Corporation's latest long-term reliability assessment. Most of932the North American bulk power system faces increasing resource933and energy adequacy challenges, just as projections show934increasing demand growth.935    Given these urgent circumstances, why have long-range936transmission investment and deployment rates decreased and not937increased over the past decade? Some have pointed to Federal938transmission processes and environmental review processes under939the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as key940culprits. But little evidence and data existed to understand941the truth of these claims.942    Therefore, CATF partnered with the Niskanen Center to start943to build the evidentiary record around the drivers of delay in944the Federal transmission permitting process. We consolidated945and analyzed publicly available data and interviewed946developers, permitting officials, and other expert947stakeholders.948    As explained further in my written testimony, environmental949reviews under NEPA can certainly be improved. But fundamentally950we found that the provisions of NEPA are not to blame for the951most significant delays and inefficiencies in transmission952deployment.953    The most frequently cited slowdowns were largely process954and resource oriented. Most stemmed from gaps in leadership and955Federal agency coordination, lack of steady appropriations for956permitting related tasks, insufficient permitting expertise at957agencies, data inaccessibility, and local opposition to and958lack of State support for nationally beneficial projects.959    These are not all permitting specific blockers, but they960often flare up throughout the course of the permitting process.961    Another issue is the regulatory differences between962jurisdictions through which long distance transmission lines963may pass. Lines crossing State or tribal borders are not964subject only to Federal permitting requirements, but also to965the requirements of all State and tribal governments traversed.966These requirements can be uncoordinated or duplicative, and967State and tribal resource constraints for permitting are968evident.969    Overall, prioritization of a modernized, secure, and970resilient transmission network will require a departure from971the status quo. This includes reforms to the Federal review972process, but it also requires addressing the key drivers of973transmission delay as identified in our report.974    In addition to speeding permitting timelines, we should be975increasing specialized agency capacity to efficiently execute976permitting. And we should consolidate siting and permitting977authorities for interState transmission projects in the978national interest under the Federal Energy Regulatory979Commission, just as they are for interState natural gas980pipeline projects.981    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.982    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pavia follows:]983    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]984985    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you all very much.986    I am going to begin with a question for all witnesses. I987believe I know the answer to this one, but both Republican and988Democrat administrations over the last couple decades have989recognized the need to address the environmental review990process, and those administrations have taken efforts through991changes to regulations and guidance to do so.992    Despite these efforts, Federal environmental review and993permitting challenges persist. So this is a yes or no. I would994like to ask each of you, do you agree that Congress must come995together to develop a bipartisan bill to tackle these996challenging issues? Mr. Harrell, then we will just go down the997line.998    Mr. Harrell. Yes, Senator.999    Ms. Pavia. Yes.1000    Mr. Booker. Yes, Senator.1001    Mr. Harris. Yes.1002    Ms. Pilconis. Yes.1003    Senator Capito. Thank you. Good. I thought I knew the1004answer to that.1005    Ms. Pilconis, under current law and regulation, projects1006can take years or even decades to progress from concept to1007completing the NEPA process. What are the real-world impacts of1008this lengthy timeline for projects on consumers of goods and1009services that your members produce?1010    Ms. Pilconis. Thank you, Senator, for that question.1011    Senator Capito. Mr. Harris, I am going to go to you with1012the same question.1013    Go ahead, excuse me.1014    Ms. Pilconis. For the construction industry, delays cause1015uncertainty. They also cause work force instability. Our1016contractors can't commit to hiring workers, they can't order1017materials when there are delays on breaking ground for1018projects, often because they are tied up for years with1019lawsuits.1020    Delays also drive up costs. They increase project costs, as1021inflation and material shortages make projects more expensive1022over time. Delays also increase investments. Delays are1023preventing AGC members from building our quality of life and1024delivering safe projects that are going to benefit communities.1025    Senator Capito. OK, across the Country.1026    Mr. Harris, your homebuilding.1027    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Madam Chairman.1028    The cost of permitting adds to the cost of housing. Every1029time I, as I said in my testimony, every time you raise the1030cost of the house $1,000, you lock out 106,000 family units.1031That is substantial.1032    We speak about the value of homeownership. Well, the value1033of homeownership is good for everyone. It stabilizes families,1034it stabilizes neighborhoods, it stabilizes communities,1035employee bases, volunteer bases. Homeownership is a public1036good. And in trying to increase or make better the processes1037for permitting, we can decrease the cost.1038    The time value of money for developers, home builders, adds1039to the cost of a house. Right now where we have seen the1040average cost of a house go up $90,000 in the last two and a1041half years, we have locked so many people out of the American1042dream.1043    Senator Capito. Thank you. I know there is a shortage as1044well. So we can get into that maybe later.1045    I want to ask about judicial review. It came up in almost1046everybody's testimony. Many projects are targeted with1047litigation all throughout the process. The resulting legal1048costs and project delays can be enough to stop a project, which1049happened with our Atlantic Coast Pipeline in West Virginia.1050    So, Mr. Booker, will you describe some of your members'1051experiences with litigation after EIS or EA is finalized? You1052have your permits in hand, and then you can't go forward. You1053kind of outlined it in your statement, saying you can't pay the1054worker if you can't move forward.1055    Can you just expand on that a little bit?1056    Mr. Booker. Yes, I mean, as I said, you don't get paid1057unless you go do work. And you have to have a project to do1058that. You also can't just pull a laborer off a shelf and say,1059your project starts next Friday.1060    Senator Capito. Right.1061    Mr. Booker. We have to prepare for that, we have to train,1062we have joint labor-management training that, depending on the1063project, whether it is a pipeline or offshore wind or any other1064energy sector, we have to train people to do that. In order to1065do that, we have to have predictability.1066    So this litigation, as unpredictability, creates chaos in1067the construction industry and it doesn't allow us to get the1068safest, most skilled, most productive workers if we don't know1069when that job is going to start, or if we are expecting it to1070start in a month and then it gets delayed by two, three, 41071months.1072    So that litigation is causing chaos and chaos in the1073industry. Also, it is causing our members not to get paid. That1074is the biggest thing for us, it is about jobs, about us to be1075able to get people their paycheck.1076    Senator Capito. Right. Ms. Pilconis, can you elaborate on1077that in terms of, is there a specific stage of the court1078process that is particularly challenging, or is just through1079the whole, you mentioned it can be as long as 6 years. But it1080can be probably longer than that, if you can drag it through1081court.1082    Ms. Pilconis. Correct. We know that NEPA is the most1083litigated environmental statute. We know that the amount of1084lawsuits that are being filed, it is increasing. We know from1085current studies and data that it can take multiple years, up to1086four and a half years to make your way through the litigation1087process, where it is resolved at the appellate level.1088    Lawsuits can stop projects that have already broken ground1089in their tracks through the form of injunctions, studies that1090have been done, whether it through an EIS, an EA, or using a1091categorical exclusion. Those decisions can be sent back to the1092agencies, which is delaying breaking ground. Essentially we1093keep having do-overs, even after you have received the project1094approval.1095    There is really good language that Congress and this1096committee has already passed in statute to put some limits on1097litigation. MAP-21 has a 150-day statute of limitation window.1098We are recommending that be applied to all critical1099infrastructure projects.1100    There is also great language in FAST-41, but that is only1101applicable to a small number of projects that opt into the1102program. But that language requires challengers to raise1103concerns early in the process, where there is a lot of1104opportunity for public comment, for working these things out on1105the front end and not dragging projects into long litigation1106years after.1107    Senator Capito. Right. Before I go to Senator Whitehouse, I1108will say, you say if you are sending it back to agencies for1109reconsideration you are running into the problem that Ms. Pavia1110said came out in their survey, which is, I don't want to say1111lack of expertise, not enough capacity to really move these1112through the different agencies quickly.1113    Senator Whitehouse?1114    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.1115    Mr. Booker, welcome, thank you for mentioning project labor1116agreements. You had a project labor agreement with one of the1117offshore developers. We have seen the huge success of project1118labor agreements in Rhode Island. It aligns the interests of1119the workers with the interests of the developers. Your orange1120shirts so show up, as you said. And things get built on time,1121on budget, and done right.1122    Indeed, American submarines are built in buildings in1123Quonset, Rhode Island, that were constructed under project1124labor agreements. So thank you for flagging that.1125    With respect to the seven offshore wind projects that are1126now at a standstill, how many jobs do you estimate those would1127have supported?1128    Mr. Booker. Thousands. From what the actual work in the1129water that will be, from the port upgrades, the harbor1130upgrades. We are building vessels in this Country again to1131support offshore wind. So it is in the thousands, if not tens1132of thousands. Thousands of building trades jobs, laborer jobs1133and tens of thousands of related jobs to that.1134    Senator Whitehouse. And when an ongoing project is put on a1135standstill, do you have a sense of what that means for the1136consumer at the end of the day?1137    Mr. Booker. We are losing power in the Country, right? We1138need a baseload of power, we need predictability in power. So1139not only are my members suffering from not being able to go to1140work every day, we are also not being able to plug in that1141power into the grid that we need.1142    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks.1143    Ms. Pavia, you mentioned at the very end of your testimony1144discrepancies between the existing treatment of pipelines under1145the Natural Gas Act and the existing treatment of transmission1146lines under the Federal Power Act. Could you real quickly let1147me know where those areas are, and maybe for the record put a1148list together of where you think those should be harmonized?1149    Ms. Pavia. Yes, sure. There are definitely differences1150between FERC's authority over interState natural gas pipelines1151and transmission lines. The Natural Gas Act, Section 7, gives1152FERC full siting and permitting authority over interState1153natural gas pipelines.1154    Alternatively, the Federal Power Act in Section 216 creates1155national interest electric transmission corridors that can be1156created through the Department of Energy. FERC has a limited1157authority to site projects only within those specific1158corridors.1159    Right now, the Department of Energy is going through the1160process of designating those corridors. But there are only1161three of them so far. What we see from the differences between1162the natural gas regulations and the transmission regulations is1163that----1164    Senator Whitehouse. If you don't mind making a list, so I1165don't have to use all my time on this one question.1166    Ms. Pavia. Oh, yes.1167    Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Harrell, you say a looming1168transmission shortage poses a direct threat to America's energy1169security. You recommend that permitting new lines will be1170absolutely necessary. You also suggest that there are ways to1171move more electrons over existing power lines.1172    How would you balance those things? How much growth can we1173have in grid availability from moving more electrons over the1174same lines, versus how much are we going to need to solve by1175actually building new?1176    Mr. Harrell. Thank you for the question, Senator, and for1177your leadership in these areas.1178    We need both, when push comes to shove. The scale of the1179amount of building work we are going to have to do over the1180coming decades here is immense. New transmission and increasing1181the capacity of the existing infrastructure is going to be1182critical.1183    Senator Whitehouse. What is your best estimate for where1184the big new progress is most likely to be made? Is it going to1185be more in building new, or more in new technologies that allow1186electrons to run more smoothly over existing infrastructure?1187    Mr. Harrell. Given the scale of rising demand, we are going1188to need to build significantly more energy infrastructure,1189transmission and----1190    Senator Whitehouse. But you don't have a sense of which,1191one part electron efficiency, three parts new transmission? You1192don't have a----1193    Mr. Harrell. If I made an educated guess, 75-25, we are1194going to need to build out more infrastructure around it.1195    Senator Whitehouse. That is what I figured.1196    A couple of things in my last minute that you can all1197respond to as questions for the record. One is, I have come to1198despise interagency process.1199    [Laughter.]1200    Senator Whitehouse. I really can't stand it any longer. It1201is a terrible excuse for the executive branch to dawdle and1202fiddle around and have things move at the speed of the most1203recalcitrant agency. It is also a place where things go to die.1204And in an accountability-free zone, because at the end of the1205day, when whatever was in the interagency process fails,1206everybody walks away and there is nobody who was responsible1207for that.1208    So if you have thoughts on what we can do in Congress to1209turn interagency process into an efficient mechanism for1210coordinating these agencies, which is what we need, rather than1211the executive branch excuse hold for not getting things done1212and not having anybody accountable for that failure, I am happy1213to hear from all five of you on that one.1214    The last thing is, very often, we saw this particularly in1215offshore wind, we got the first steel in the water and the1216first electrons on the grid in Rhode Island on offshore wind1217because we had engaged with obviously interested stakeholders1218right from the get-go. Too often, the Federal regulatory1219process and State regulatory process begins with a filing from1220somebody who wants to develop something who hasn't lifted a1221finger to go out and talk to the folks who are going to be1222affected.1223    The first offshore wind permit that was sought at the1224Federal level was catastrophically bad in that respect. They1225hadn't even talked to fishermen about which direction you1226should array your equipment. They just were trying to jam it1227through on the strength of the pressure of their investors and1228their desire to get the electrons ashore.1229    So if you could also talk to me, and to the degree of1230precision that you can, about in what regulatory processes1231there should be a filing requirement stating what you have done1232to identify the stakeholders and saying what you have done to1233run the project by them and get their preliminary input so you1234start in a better place.1235    I went over, my apologies. But if we can get those two1236things, I would appreciate it.1237    Senator Capito. All right. Senator Cramer.1238    Senator Cramer. The first thing I am going to get is that1239last 6 minutes and send to all my Republican friends, so they1240know why I like working with Sheldon Whitehouse so much.1241    [Laughter.]1242    Senator Cramer. Anyway, thank you all for being here, and1243thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse, for1244having this really important hearing so early in this term.1245Because there is a lot of work to do, and as we have learned,1246it takes a while.1247    There are two areas I would really love to explore, but I1248am going to start with you, Ms. Pilconis, and Mr. Harris,1249really all of you. But you spoke most thoroughly on the topic1250that isn't anywhere in my prep, but it gets me right to this1251issue. The capital intensity of these projects is, I think,1252lost oftentimes on a lot of folks. Even to the point of1253workers, I mean, labor can't just sit on the sidelines and wait1254for the years to go by.1255    But what I want to ask about is, the Supreme Court, you1256referenced Sackett, and either you or Mr. Harris referenced the1257fact that the Corps of Engineers still hasn't adequately1258responded to that ruling. Prior to Sackett, there was West1259Virginia v. EPA, or as I like to say, West Virginia and North1260Dakota v. EPA, and there is the Major Questions Doctrine, we1261have repealed the Chevron Doctrine.1262    All of this, all of these are such clear messages that the1263bureaucracy does not have the power that they think they have1264and that they have been exercising. The fact that Sackett1265wasn't clear enough in the definition of jurisdictional waters1266that the durable rule that the administration came up with in1267response to it was, don't worry about those 80,000 404 permits.1268Maybe 79,800 of them really weren't necessary. But you should1269at least ask us first, and you referenced the process.1270    My question is this: what part of this, or why do we even1271have to seek jurisdictional determination or permission when we1272know, when anybody can read it, any homeowner can read it, this1273isn't a jurisdictional water, I don't need a 404 permit. In1274other words, we don't put a highway patrolman on every car on1275the interState, just in case one of them speeds. We presume1276most of them are not going to violate the law.1277    Where am I wrong on this, Ms. Pilconis? Where am I wrong on1278this, and how can we simplify it?1279    Ms. Pilconis. The problem is that it is not clear. And you1280can ask one person if something is jurisdictional and the next1281person if something is jurisdictional, and you might get two1282different answers.1283    So for the construction community, we need clarity. And it1284is very difficult to move forward when you don't know what is a1285Water of the United States. Not getting a permit when you are1286in federally controlled water has very significant penalties,1287civil and criminal penalties. So the consequences and what is1288at risk is huge for the developer, for the contractor.1289    Sackett did provide some guardrails. It provide some1290clarity. But what came out of that Supreme Court decision is1291not being implemented by the agencies. As Mr. Harris said,1292there are very unclear terms that have not been defined in the1293regulations, and that is what is causing a lot of confusion.1294    Senator Cramer. Mr. Harris, elaborate.1295    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Senator. Along with clarity, we need1296consistency. We need consistency between the core districts. If1297we could get true definitions of the terms that we were talking1298about, then our builders, our developers, would know when they1299could take reasonable risks before they make a tremendous1300investment in both the property and start moving the dirt. So1301we do need that consistency and clarity.1302    Senator Cramer. But one thing is for sure, is that they1303can't be the same as they were before Sackett, right? There is1304certainly many fewer jurisdictional waters than there were1305previous to Sackett.1306    So as long as there is a 1 percent chance that it is1307jurisdictional, you are almost obligated to your shareholders,1308to your customers, to your workers, to seek the Federal1309Government's permission to obey the law. And I mean seek their1310permission to allow you to obey the law, which is mind-1311boggling.1312    OK, we only have a minute left. I only have a minute left.1313We will explore some more if we get another round.1314    But on the electricity side, because this is really, this1315is the hard work, and I think one of the challenges and one of1316the things that we oftentimes forget, and this gets to cross1317purposes, I suppose, is that electricity is the generation,1318transmission and distribution in a largely monopoly world of1319electric consumption.1320    Where it gets very iffy is that somebody determines those1321rates. There are regulators that determine those rates. And1322transmission and generation being built out absent a planning1323process by the local utility can put the tab on the wrong1324people really easily.1325    The solution--there is a solution. We have to find a1326solution. We have to find a Federal backstop.1327    But I think on linear, to the Ranking Member's point,1328linear siting for transmission lines should be the same as it1329is for a water pipeline or any other linear infrastructure. I1330think we can do that. But we do have to recognize those State1331regulators, having been one at one point, and the Governors. It1332is just going to be a lot harder, and we will talk about it in1333another round if we get a chance.1334    Thank you, Madam Chair.1335    Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Kelly.1336    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.1337    I am glad we are holding this hearing today to discuss the1338long-overdue need to fundamentally re-examine how the Federal1339Government handles the permitting processes. I think it is1340important to start by saying that there are very good reasons1341why our bedrock environmental laws exist.1342    The Clean Air Act improves our air quality and has been1343shown to prevent childhood asthma and other respiratory1344problems. The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act makes1345sure that rivers, lakes, and sources of drinking water aren't1346full of unhealthy pollutants.1347    And requirements to review the long-term impacts of1348infrastructure development on Federal lands ensures that we1349protect our national parks and monuments and forests for future1350generations. I believe there is bipartisan agreement that1351having these protections for public health and for our1352environment are an appropriate thing to do.1353    The question then is whether our current framework allows1354us to accomplish the goals of these bedrock statutes without1355needlessly delaying commonsense projects. A few years ago, I1356traveled to Taiwan to visit with some businesses who were1357considering expanding their microchip manufacturing and also1358their clean energy businesses into the State of Arizona.1359    While I was touring one of their tech parks, I think it was1360on the northern side of the island, our guide pointed out that1361right there in the middle of the park was the government1362permitting office. Our guide shared that any time a company may1363need a new air or water permit or land use permit, or anything1364else, they could go to that office, and the staff there would1365help them get the permit they needed.1366    By contrast, these businesses shared how confusing the U.S.1367permitting process was. Why did they have to work with the1368city, or the county government on their land use permit, then1369talk to two or three different Federal Government agencies1370about air, land, and water permits?1371    These businesses, they are prepared to invest hundreds of1372millions of dollars in the United States and create thousands1373of great-paying jobs. But our permitting process led them to1374delay or scale back the planned investments. It is not that1375these businesses wanted to skirt clean air and clean water1376protections; they just wanted to be able to understand that1377their requirements, like what the requirements were, and have1378certainty that once they met those requirements, they wouldn't1379need to deal with years of lawsuits.1380    So Mr. Harrell, at a more macro level, can you describe how1381Federal permitting processes create uncertainty for businesses1382looking to make investments in the United States, and what are1383the opportunity costs for our current permitting system?1384    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Thank you for your1385leadership on critical infrastructure and trying to drive1386foreign investments into our Country. Ultimately, companies are1387evaluating how the process to operate in this Country impacts1388their investment and the returns they are ultimately getting on1389a long-term project.1390    Today, the process is particularly unpredictable. So there1391is a wide range of factors that developers have to factor in1392when they evaluate. So the desperate need to provide more1393certainty in the process, to show us kind of the sideboards of1394how long it could take if it is a particularly complicated1395project, because sometimes it is, and how do we maximize the1396resources that are being invested.1397    I think a great example is your work on the CHIPS and1398Science Act, and the regulatory reforms that were needed to1399catalyze and build out those CHIPS, that regulatory1400predictability allowed private developers to move resources1401faster, but ultimately didn't sacrifice significant1402environmental outcomes.1403    Senator Kelly. Thank you. And Ms. Pavia, as I mentioned,1404and what is going on in Arizona, most of the economic1405development, the projects there that we are attracting are for1406clean energy industries and things like microchip and battery1407manufacturing is most of it. As we as a Nation look to1408encourage more clean energy manufacturing, how does our current1409permitting system affect that development?1410    Ms. Pavia. Thank you. In the context of transmission1411permitting, uncertainties in the transmission permitting1412process actually hinder the interconnection of clean and zero-1413emitting and storage capacity resources. As I mentioned, we1414found that 2,600 gigawatts of clean energy is sitting in1415interconnection queues today. So the challenge there is to1416unleash that potential in those queues.1417    Senator Kelly. And it is in a queue because there is no1418transmission available, because the permitting is held up.1419    Ms. Pavia. That is right. The permitting processes are not1420keeping up with the deployment rates of transmission that we1421need to unlock those resources.1422    Senator Kelly. Right. Thank you. Let's fix that.1423    Senator Capito. OK, Senator Curtis.1424    Senator Curtis. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,1425thank you for holding this hearing.1426    As I have been sitting here today, the best analogy I can1427think of is it feels like we are on a train and we all know it1428is going to wreck. And everybody on the train has the answers,1429right? We could take these five witnesses and the few members1430who are here, if you would lock us in a room, I think we could1431get to this.1432    So I am grateful. There is hardly a topic that is discussed1433more in Washington and is acknowledged as bipartisan, yet we1434can't get it across the finish line. So thanks for your work1435and working with our House colleagues. I pledge my support and1436I am anxious to help you in this matter.1437    Mr. Harrell, I would like to first of all give you a shout-1438out for the work you do, and your organization. As you know, it1439has been very, very important in my understanding of these1440issues.1441    I want to talk just a little bit about Utah. Utah strives1442to be a leader on this. We have Operation Gigawatt that1443showcases the State's interest in geothermal and nuclear and1444all these energies.1445    And geothermal, it would be hard to find an energy source1446that finds better agreement among everybody that this is1447something that is important and needs to develop. Yet we1448struggle with permitting.1449    So I want to ask you, what additional measures could the1450Federal Government take to support State-led efforts in1451expanding geothermal, particularly in a State like Utah?1452    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Senator Curtis. And thank you for1453your leadership on these issues over the course of your time in1454Congress. I am excited to see the next big things here in the1455Senate, as well.1456    It underscores a really key point. And Utah is a great1457example nationwide of where Federal, State and local entities1458need to be synched up in the right way to drive new economic1459opportunities. So Project Gigawatt focusing on how to leverage1460and grow new geothermal, new nuclear, new hydrogen development1461in the State.1462    I think there are four key things that I think could be1463particularly helpful for the Federal process to synch up with1464that Utah strategy. On the geothermal side, I think a no-1465brainer is to remove the duplicative environmental analysis1466that is required for geothermal exploration. We should1467streamline that process. There is a bipartisan bill in Congress1468considering that.1469    Then if a site is feasible, it is still going to have to1470move under an environmental process for the generation project.1471So let's take the pure exploration environmental analysis out1472of it and kind of unleash innovators in that space.1473    I think there's a lot that we can do to streamline1474permitting at existing facilities that have been closed, at1475brownfields. I know your State is looking significantly at1476deploying small modular reactors and microreactors that could1477unlock significant development in the State. We are going to1478have to resolve some of these frictions with federalism, both1479on pipelines and transmission that are out there, to tap1480building out infrastructure for new hydrogen, for example, in1481the State.1482    So those are some key things that I think will solve1483problems that we are seeing nationwide, but really will help1484unlock the Utah strategy.1485    Senator Curtis. I am going to come back to transmission.1486You have talked about it, it has been talked about a lot here,1487and yet just like the other parts, we are not making progress.1488I am going to stereotype Republicans here a little bit and say1489that we do struggle with this, and the whole aspect of1490permitting reform.1491    Talk to me, and particularly my Republican colleagues,1492about transmission. What is it that we are not getting? What is1493it we need to know? How do we get this done?1494    Mr. Harrell. I think it is about growing clean energy1495infrastructure as a whole. We need to build out more wires, and1496that is not just about renewables. There are projects that have1497been stifled by the judicial process that are connecting and1498putting new gas facilities on the grid. If we are going to1499deploy new small modular reactors and advanced reactors, the1500scale of rising demand in the amount of new generation we are1501going to have to build potentially as big as the size of the1502Texas grid at a minimum over the next decade, actually doubling1503the U.S. grid over the next decade, we are going to need to1504connect a lot of new resources in place.1505    Ultimately, that means streamlining Federal reviews, trying1506to find ways to make that process move more quickly. And then1507providing some more clarity to the judicial process.1508Transmission projects have seen significant delays. There are1509multiple transmission projects in this Country that have nearly1510turned 21.1511    Senator Curtis. Well, listen, there are some good proposals1512out there. I would just like to invite my Republican and1513Democratic colleagues; I am anxious to work on this and be1514helpful and see if we can find a solution.1515    Mr. Harris and Ms. Pilconis, I was a mayor of my city. When1516I think of building regulations, I tend to think of city,1517county and State regulations. I think a lot of people don't1518really understand that Federal adds yet another layer of1519regulations on this.1520    Can you both just speak quickly to that Federal layer that1521people may not see?1522    Mr. Harris. As a recovering mayor myself, part of the 12-1523step program, recognizing I had a problem and knowing there is1524a higher power, it is not met, no, I am and I currently sit on1525my planning and zoning commission. So I know that of the 241526precent of the cost of a new home that is directly related to1527government regulation, that local and State government shares1528in that responsibility to make sure that the permitting process1529at all levels is efficient.1530    Senator Curtis. I am almost out of time. I am sure they1531will give you just a quick response.1532    Ms. Pilconis. Just that where you can delegate or assign1533responsibility to the State so it can help streamline the1534process, such as through NEPA assignments or where States can1535take over for permitting, many States have done that with the1536402 stormwater permitting process. And that can reduce1537duplication. We have heard from our members it can very much1538streamline things.1539    Senator Curtis. Thanks, all of you. I yield my time.1540    Senator Capito. Senator Padilla.1541    Senator Padilla . Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you and1542Ranking Member Whitehouse for this timely hearing.1543    In California, we talk a lot about permitting. But I think1544it is important to note at the outset that permitting isn't1545just a bureaucratic hurdle, there is a purpose for the process.1546And it is a foundation of responsible infrastructure1547development, energy production and environmental protection.1548They are not mutually exclusive; they have to go together.1549    There are a number of important bipartisan reforms, like1550last year's Energy Permitting Reform Act that Congress should1551pass. I am sure it has been raised earlier in the hearing.1552    But I also believe that the committee needs to grapple with1553the fact that a big challenge that was just exacerbated is1554actually staffing. Policy is policy; paperwork is paperwork.1555    But people are people. We need to be clear about ensuring1556our Federal agencies have the staffing levels necessary to1557process permitting applications as expeditiously and1558responsibly as possible. What we are seeing in the early days1559of this Trump Administration through the so-called Department1560of Government Efficiency is actually freezing and firing at1561unprecedented levels the work force that we rely on for1562permitting.1563    Ms. Pavia, you touched on this in your testimony. Can you1564discuss how staffing levels and capacity writ large are1565impacting the permitting process?1566    Ms. Pavia. Absolutely. In our study, which we conducted1567over the course of 2023, 2024, and it was published in April15682024, one of the main challenges that we heard from developers,1569from agencies from across the spectrum was the lack of specific1570permitting, permitting and transmission, knowledgeable staff1571available at the agencies and at field offices for those1572agencies.1573    An anecdotal piece here, we talked to a developer who said1574that if they couldn't catch one person in particular at a field1575office, that would add months to their permitting timeline. So1576the importance of staffing is really, really critical. You can1577set timelines for things, you can set deadlines. But at the end1578of the day, if there aren't people there available to do the1579work, it is really hard to get the work done.1580    Senator Padilla. Thank you, yes. It certainly seems that by1581shrinking the work force, we are doing the opposite of1582achieving energy independence or energy dominance. So we have1583some work to do.1584    Now, as some of you may know, I am a member of both this1585committee as well as Energy and Natural Resources. So I come at1586it from both angles, the commitment and the priority of1587streamlining and reforming the Federal planning process to meet1588the energy demand and ensure the reliability of the electrical1589grid. Transmission is an essential part of the reliable,1590efficient and affordable grid, and is often a factor, a factor1591physically constraining new grid interconnection requests.1592According to NERC, the limited addition of interState electric1593transmission infrastructure poses a grid reliability problem,1594particularly with the growing population and growing economy.1595    Ms. Pavia, a followup question. In your testimony, you1596pointed to the misalignment in requirements between different1597jurisdictions with permitting authority as a key factor in1598slowing down transmission permitting more specifically. Would1599requiring inter-regional planning that ensures regions jointly1600address needs and align priority projects help minimize any1601misalignment? What other recommendations might you have?1602    Ms. Pavia. I do think that would help. FERC Order 1920, for1603example, requires longer-term regional transmission planning1604processes and cost allocation. I think that looking further out1605as a region and thinking about all of the affordability,1606reliability, and other challenges that might be faced would1607encourage the planning of longer distance transmission lines.1608    So I do think that Federal, that these coordination efforts1609will actually help resolve a few of these issues. However,1610transmission permitting jurisdiction, as you noted, really lies1611with the States. So there still needs to be State-to-State1612harmonization and State and tribal harmonization, along with1613the general harmonization of State transmission permitting1614policies with Federal transmission permitting policies.1615    Senator Padilla. Just underscoring the biggest point of1616all, which is we all have to work together. Federal1617jurisdictions, Federal, State to State, but ultimately we are1618physically and legally interconnected.1619    Thank you for your thoughtfulness. Thank you, Madam Chair.1620    Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Ricketts.1621    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and Ranking1622Member Whitehouse, for holding today's important hearing. And1623thank you to the witnesses for being here today to share your1624experiences as well on what we need to do to reform our Federal1625permitting process.1626    I believe we can make commonsense permitting reform to1627unleash the projects for American energy, infrastructure,1628homebuilding, agriculture, all those sort of things, while1629protecting our environment. Permitting reform is about1630modernizing our regulatory system to ensure that we are1631deploying projects efficiently, not about undercutting1632environmental standards.1633    Regulatory delay for permitting infrastructure, energy, and1634environmental projects is a hidden tax on Americans. This1635Congress, I am excited to serve as chairman of the Fisheries,1636Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife1637Service, Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act are within1638the subcommittee's jurisdiction.1639    In Nebraska, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers often finds1640itself in the middle of all these important policies. In1641addition to maintaining waterways and providing power, the1642Corps is responsible for flood prevention and to protect both1643natural and built environment.1644    Conflicting statutes like the Flood Control Act of 1944 and1645the Endangered Species Act actually pit protecting human life1646and property against protecting wildlife and the environment.1647Complicated court history and administrative actions relating1648to the devastating flood events along the Missouri River has1649made even the most commonsense projects avoidable and1650anticipated flooding difficult to permit. The lack of clear1651congressional intent and direction has compounded a difficult1652situation and authorized unintended priorities and create new1653environment programming.1654    Situations like this can be found all across the Country.1655Western wildfire victims, biofuel proponents and residential1656developers find themselves navigating the same impossible1657regulatory scheme.1658    We do not have to settle for years-long court battles,1659bureaucratic backlogs and complex statutes at the expense of1660natural resources and safety. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of16612023 reformed the National Environmental Policy Act for the1662first time in 50 years to mandate timelines and page counts for1663environmental analyses. The FRA also streamlined the use of1664categorical exclusions, which should expedite the deployment of1665CEQ-approved activities.1666    As Governor, one of the things I did to be able to help1667streamline this was implement a process called Lean Six Sigma,1668and I know the Chairman is like, can't get through any sort of1669hearing without me trying to mention Lean Six Sigma, when we1670are talking about permitting reform. Because this is one of the1671things we did that, again, shouldn't be controversial. It is1672about streamlining the process which we have been all talking1673about here today.1674    So for example, we can't change environmental regulations1675at the State, but we can look at the process. It was 110 steps1676long, for example, to issue an air construction permit. We cut1677that down to 22, and cut the time delay down from issuing that1678permit from 190 days to just 65 days.1679    Those are the kinds of reform that are possible, thanks to1680the great staff we had in Nebraska. Actually one of those1681folks, the gentleman who ran my Department of Environment and1682Energy, Jim Macy, is the Region 7 EPA administrator. So I am1683really pleased to see him doing that. The point is, we can do1684this.1685    Ms. Pilconis, you talked about some of the conflicting1686regulations maybe agencies are doing. I mentioned the Flood1687Control Act and the Endangered Species Act. Can you give me1688some examples of laws or regulations that are conflicting that1689we may need to address to provide clear congressional intent,1690so that the courts will have that when they are making these1691decisions?1692    Ms. Pilconis. I think that clear congressional intent is1693most important. Having clear statutory language that lays out1694Congress' intent, making sure that is carried out and1695implemented by the agencies, and for Congress to be able to1696step in when agencies are showing overreach or they are causing1697conflicting or inconsistent determinations.1698    As far as where there are conflicts, I mean, we have NEPA,1699the overarching statute, bringing all the resource agencies1700together at the table to try to analyze and assess what the1701impact of a proposed major action will be, the ideas having1702coordination and communication and discussion about how these1703programs align, so that you can do concurrent reviews instead1704of sequential reviews and end up having the monitoring, the1705studies, the work that you are doing satisfy all of the1706programs so that you can reach one final document.1707    Senator Ricketts. Just off the top of your head, can you1708think of, are there specific conflicting laws that we need to1709address through this process, or specific agency regulations1710that we need to address through this process?1711    Ms. Pilconis. What comes to mind for me is not so much1712conflict between the laws, but inconsistent interpretation of1713the laws at the Federal agency level, and making sure that the1714application is consistent, so that you don't have diverging,1715different opinions.1716    With NEPA and recent court decisions and executive actions,1717it is not clear what the long-term role CEQ will play in1718issuing implementing regulations. We need to be sure that when1719Federal agencies are implementing NEPA and carrying out NEPA1720through their own agency regulations that we don't have1721inconsistency.1722    So that is an area that we are focused on moving forward1723and ensuring that agencies carry out NEPA consistently per the1724statute.1725    Senator Ricketts. I think we would all agree that1726consistency is going to be important, especially when it comes1727to interpretation. Is there something this committee can do1728along those lines, when we are thinking about reform, things1729that we ought to be putting into the statute to be able to1730accomplish that?1731    Ms. Pilconis. I think making sure that terms are clear. As1732Mr. Harris talked about, with the Clean Water Act, I mean, we1733have language in the regulation that is being inconsistently1734applied. With NEPA, great work was done in the Fiscal1735Responsibility Act, being clear that you are analyzing1736reasonably foreseeable effects, that you are looking at1737reasonable alternatives that are technologically and1738economically feasible, how is that being implemented. And1739Congress having oversight and stepping in where agencies are1740implementing that inconsistently.1741    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much.1742    Senator Whitehouse.1743    [Presiding.] Senator Schiff.1744    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman. In California, really,1745the top issue is housing, the lack of housing, the lack of1746affordable housing. It is fundamentally a supply problem. We1747just don't have anywhere near enough housing. We can move1748people off the streets into shelter, but if we are not building1749more housing and building it quickly, there will simply be new1750people taking their place on the streets.1751    So my question, let me address it to you, Mr. Harris, is1752what can we do to accelerate the building of housing that is1753affordable? How much of the challenge in terms of the time1754limits or lack of time limits in approving new projects is a1755Federal problem, and how much of it is a State and local1756problem? And if it is more a State and local problem, are there1757things we can do to incentivize local governments and agencies1758to get to yes quicker on new housing?1759    Mr. Harris. Senator, thank you very much for the question.1760It is something that is near and dear to our hearts.1761    We believe it is a supply problem, that the inventory is1762driving up the inflationary cost of shelter. We think that of1763the 24 percent of the cost of a new home is related to1764government regulation. About, I don't know, a quarter of that1765is probably Federal, the remainder is State and local. And they1766are handling the heaviest part of that.1767    When I have the opportunity to talk to lieutenant Governors1768and Governors that are saying, look, we need more housing in1769our State, I encourage them to look at the policies and1770procedures that local and State governments have in regard to1771housing. Have they updated their housing plan? Have they put1772barriers in place to keep the growth or disincentivize growth1773happening in their communities?1774    And it is the same way it could happen at the Federal1775Government. If the Federal Government used highway dollars to1776get the speed limit regulated, they have used Federal dollars1777to raise the drinking age. So I believe that if the Federal1778Government was to look at incentivizing these communities,1779either in applications for CDBG grants or any of the Federal1780dollars that flow to municipalities, if they have consistent1781pro-housing, pro-growth opportunities, then I think that would1782incentivize them to do that, Senator.1783    Senator Schiff. Thank you. I look forward to working with1784you to identify how we can facilitate at the Federal level but1785also incentivize the local level, getting approvals of new1786housing more quickly.1787    Mr. Booker, I wanted to ask you about offshore wind. We1788have two big offshore wind projects, but in Humboldt and Morro1789Bay. And I am concerned about the rash of cancellations we are1790seeing of offshore wind projects in the last couple of years,1791and the new administration's executive order blocking leasing1792for offshore wind projects. I really don't understand the point1793of that. It is going to kill a lot of jobs and reduce a lot of1794energy.1795    Is the suspension of leasing, is this just a design to be a1796gift to the oil industry? Why would we want to stop offshore1797wind and all the jobs and energy that it creates?1798    Mr. Booker. I am probably not the right guy to answer that1799question. But what I will say is that killing the offshore wind1800jobs is killing America jobs. This President, this1801administration, talked about creating American jobs, the1802American dream.1803    And when we start picking winners and losers of renewables1804versus oil and gas versus nuclear versus hydro, the end result1805of that, if a political appointee is deciding who wins and who1806loses, at the end of the day it is the American worker who1807loses if someone is chosen, if one industry is chosen over the1808other.1809    That is why we have always been all-of-the-above, we1810support all of that, we support American jobs, we support1811American workers. I would encourage this administration to not1812pick winners and losers in the energy sector and let the market1813dictate where it makes sense. On the east coast and on the west1814coast, offshore wind has made sense as an economical, viable1815energy source that is creating good American jobs.1816    Senator Schiff. Thank you.1817    Finally, on the transmission interconnection issue, it1818seems to me one of the biggest areas where we could really move1819forward with a lot of new energy projects and clean energy1820projects, last year California's grid operator known as CISO1821stated that its interconnection queue now contains more than1822three times the generating capacity needed to achieve all of1823our State's renewable energy goals, three times the amount1824needed.1825    How do we get that transmission working? I am curious, a1826lot of projects that apply to join the grid, they end up1827essentially dissolving even before they get the opportunity. Is1828that because of the delays in access to the grid, or is it1829because you have all these projects applying to the grid that1830are not necessarily financially viable or don't have their1831funding? Why are those projects falling out, and what do we do1832to get the grid working so that when you have a new project, it1833can come online in a time-effective way?1834    Ms. Pavia. I think it is a little bit of both. There are a1835lot of projects that apply to the queue just to get in line.1836They may not be 100 percent ready for deployment.1837    But I think this all stems from a process that is very long1838because of the lack of transmission that is available on the1839other side. And there is a kind of chicken and egg problem as1840well, where you don't want to build a transmission line if you1841don't know that there is going to be generation on the other1842side of that line. You also don't want to put new generation1843into the queue if you don't think there is going to be a1844transmission line built.1845    So there is kind of this chicken and egg problem as well1846that I think we have to address in interconnection1847specifically.1848    Senator Schiff. Yes, I know in combining these two issues1849that in the Humboldt area where they have an offshore wind1850project, they are trying to figure out exactly that chicken and1851egg problem. It is one of the windiest places on earth. There1852are some deep water challenges to that particular venue, but1853then they don't have the transmission capacity, even if they1854built it tomorrow.1855    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.1856    Senator Whitehouse. Senator Husted.1857    Senator Husted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting1858enough, until a couple of weeks ago, I was on the other side of1859this question, as a lieutenant Governor working in economic1860development in the State of Ohio. I can tell you that the1861frustration that local and State leaders have with Federal1862regulators is epic, from my experience, because of the lack of1863certainty, because of the lack of understanding the process,1864because one regulator may have a different opinion than another1865regulator and the timelines of this are very frustrating.1866    But I would ask the question of why we are having this1867discussion, because I think that we are saying that the1868regulatory regime we built to protect the environment and other1869important factors has become so large and unwieldy that it is1870in conflict with other priorities like the idea of made in1871America, about creating more jobs in this Country, about1872building a resilient supply chain in this Country for our1873economic and national security and everything from energy to1874computer chips to pharmaceuticals, whatever that might be.1875    And the topic of time is money has come up, the saying time1876is money has come up several times today, which is so true,1877because we know that if you lack a predictable timeframe for1878doing things, many people just won't invest. They won't take1879the risk of making those investments, whether that is in1880building chips or data centers or power plants.1881    The NEPA process, I can tell you that one, I have seen this1882happen so many times where we had the CHIPS Act, for example,1883we need to build chips, very much supported the Federal1884Government leaning in on this on a bipartisan basis. But the1885NEPA process extends out the timeframe for which you can build1886the FAPS. We say it is a national security priority, but then1887these regulations get in the way.1888    We also hear, I left a community where they are currently1889discussing whether or not they will have enough energy to meet1890the demand of made in America, and can't know whether they can1891build the power plants or the supply chain. That is the1892regulations, and then the regulators on timeframes and1893deliverables.1894    And the idea that literally slowing these things down is1895actually contrary to our economic national security, and even1896environmental interest. When you think that unless you have1897enough energy that comes from, whether it is gas-fired power1898plants or SMNRs, and wind and solar, that taking a longer time1899to build those means you can't decommission coal-powered plants1900because you don't have the energy supply chain.1901    So if you accept my context for my concern, quickly, I1902would love for every one of you to just tell me a couple of1903things, just quickly, things that we should do to fix that.1904    Ms. Pavia. Thank you for your question, Senator. Timelines1905are important, page limits are important. You did great work1906with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, putting those things into1907law. I think then it comes down to accountability and making1908sure that folks are held to that.1909    In the Fiscal Responsibility Act is the requirement for1910agencies to report to Congress if they are missing those1911timelines, having oversight over that and making sure you are1912getting that information, understanding why deadlines are being1913missed. In MAP-21, there are actual penalties for missing1914deadlines. That only applies to surface transportation1915projects. I think having that applied to more critical1916infrastructure projects could hold agencies more accountable.1917    FAST-41 created the permitting dashboard which creates an1918incredible amount of transparency so that the public and1919everyone can see what are the milestones, when are they1920happening. There is only a few amount of projects, about 301921right now, that are on the dashboard. So having that apply to1922more projects.1923    I think making use of general permits, there are ways to1924make sure that things are getting done more quickly through the1925use of categorical exclusions, general permits.1926    Mr. Harrell. Senator Husted, I would urge think big. This1927is not an around the edges issue, as you point out. There is a1928lot of duplication. We have had significant new environmental1929statutes put in place after NEPA was enacted in 1969. We have1930to see how these things synch up together to provide more1931predictability, that modernize the system and make step-change1932reform. Because then it gets clear the status quo is not1933serving our economic or our environmental interests.1934    Mr. Harris. I would like to say that just calling a tool or1935a permit efficient and predictable doesn't make it efficient1936and predictable. We need something that will be efficient and1937predictable every time.1938    Mr. Booker. I think we have to require agencies to make a1939decision, either up or down. If the answer is no, then we can1940reapply for it. And then we have to put timelines on1941litigation, so that if a project is permitting, going, and1942people are working, the decisions have been made by the agency,1943it is good to go, that the litigation can't stop a project1944going forward.1945    Ms. Pavia. I would second the use of the permitting1946dashboard. It is a great existing tool that we can continue to1947leverage more fully. I would also just hearken back to what I1948said earlier about staffing, both at the local and Federal1949capacity for permitting expertise, especially for linear1950infrastructure projects, it is going to be really important.1951    The IRA did provide some technical assistance through1952programs like TSED, but I think more can be done in the1953capacity space.1954    Senator Husted. Thank you.1955    Senator Whitehouse. Senator Lummis.1956    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,1957panel, for being here today.1958    This is a subject that vexes people in both parties at all1959levels of government. So I am thrilled that you are willing to1960address these issues today.1961    I am going to start with something called permit by rule,1962which is something that President Trump has touted in an1963Executive Order. I have a bill that would authorize permit by1964rule. My co-sponsor is Mr. Budd. It is called the Full1965Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act, the FREE Act.1966    So my question is, Mr. Harrell, how can implementing permit1967by rule streamline Federal permitting while ensuring robust1968environmental protections? And what steps should Congress take1969to ensure agencies followup on these reforms?1970    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your1971leadership on this issue. This is the type of thinking big1972item, right, how can we shift to a build and comply structure1973rather than this arduous, multi-step process.1974    In many cases, projects face unnecessary case by case1975reviews that aren't getting us any better benefits for the1976environment, and purely is just driving out the length of the1977review process and driving up costs. That is not good for the1978consumer, it is not good for the environment.1979    So agencies are going to need to set out the rules of the1980road, which your bill lays out in the early stages. Then I1981think Congress is going to need to codify that, because in the1982end, this can't be a structure. This shift is a big change. It1983can't go on the ebbs and changes of an administration. We need1984a regulatory system that works for the next 40 years, not the1985next 4 years.1986    This is the type of thing that I think we can take a1987significant chunk of projects off and streamline for projects1988that have like characteristics, are built in the same type of1989areas, or need to comply in the same way.1990    Senator Lummis. I agree, Mr. Harrell. I don't think it is1991for every situation, but for a very standard situation that has1992consistent replicable compliance standards, it might work well.1993So thank you. I look forward to working with you all on that.1994    Mr. Harris, I am going to turn to you. In Wyoming, we have1995a housing shortage. There is a community, very small community,1996Kemmerer, Wyoming, where this TerraPower nuclear power plant is1997going to come in and have construction job demands that are1998going to require housing.1999    So I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue,2000given your experience in small volume homebuilding in a State2001that is very similar to my State of Wyoming.2002    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Senator, for the question.2003I think the community needs to decide where the housing needs2004to go and then work together with builders and the Federal2005authorities about what is the most appropriate for that.2006    You reduce those barriers and you will start having more2007builders who want to build homes either for rent, wherever the2008build on the housing ladder, whether it is temporary housing,2009apartments, to first-time homebuyers to move-up housing, all of2010that takes the cooperation.2011    Real eState development is really community development and2012how we can all work together to get these houses built in the2013communities that need them.2014    Senator Lummis. So how can streamlining permitting help2015homeowners?2016    Mr. Harris. It will lower the price, because the cost of2017regulation continues to drive. So if I decide to, if I have to2018jump through a lot of hoops to develop a piece of land, then2019that increases the cost per acre or per lot that I am going to2020need on that home. Then eventually that will be passed on to2021the homebuyer.2022    But each one of those regulations continues to work through2023that. The permitting process needs to be well-defined,2024consistent, every time.2025    Senator Lummis. Thank you.2026    Now, I am going to ask one more question, changing subjects2027to something called Class Six. I invite any of you, I suspect,2028maybe, Mr. Harrell, this is for you. But any one of you is2029welcome to weigh in.2030    States can expedite permitting by directly implementing2031Federal requirements. There is something called Class Six2032primacy that allows for that. Wyoming successfully applied for2033and received this Class Six primacy, but I am told that the EPA2034has 151 pending Class Six permit applications, while only four2035have been granted.2036    So for any of you who are familiar with this Class Six,2037what reforms can ensure that States seeking Class Six can2038navigate the process more quickly, and with greater certainty?2039    Mr. Harrell. Senator, I am happy to hop in there. Class Six2040primacy is an area where you are shifting responsibility to the2041folks who are closer on the ground, who can move more quickly,2042and the law requires them to still have the same environmental2043standards.2044    So it is a no-brainer that we can move faster, bring those2045decisions back to the lower level. And there is probably no2046better example over the last 4 years, particularly in clean2047energy, that shows that just throwing money at the problem2048isn't fixing it. Between the Infrastructure Bill and annual2049appropriations, EPA has gotten more resources to process these2050and they continue to move at glacial speed.2051    We have to set clear timelines. They need to be more2052transparent about where they are in the process, particularly2053with States. It needs to be a more iterative process. If they2054see something in the State proposal that isn't meeting the2055Federal standard to take on this responsibility, that needs to2056be up front.2057    I think we can move much faster on this. It was exciting to2058see West Virginia get cleared here recently and there are a2059bunch of States in the pipeline that I think could benefit from2060this.2061    Then the Federal regulators can focus on more complicated2062projects in places like California, for example, that aren't2063going to explore primacy.2064    Senator Lummis. And it is proving successful, for States2065that have already received Class Six primacy?2066    Mr. Harrell. Your State, and North Dakota, are two great2067examples. Wyoming and North Dakota are moving these projects in2068under a year, where the Federal process, as you mentioned, has2069150-plus projects in the pipeline.2070    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to2071our committee. I appreciate your being here today.2072    Senator Whitehouse. We are deciding whether this is the end2073of the hearing or not.2074    [Laughter.]2075    Senator Whitehouse. The Chair was kind enough to give me2076the gavel for purposes of moving through the members, but it is2077not clear that I have the gavel for purposes of closing out the2078hearing without her permission.2079    So in the spirit of bipartisanship, I am waiting for that2080signal. So if you will just stand by for a minute. OK, I have2081clearance to proceed.2082    First of all, thank you. This was a very, very helpful2083hearing. Senator Lummis, in the response from Mr. Harris, he2084mentioned the importance of the community making the decisions2085about where the housing should go.2086    I think that aligns pretty well with the comment that I2087made earlier that in these filing things, it would be helpful2088if there was right at the very front a requirement of who are2089the stakeholders and how have I engaged with them already, so2090that all doesn't get backed up into the regulatory process, it2091is done up front and center and here we go. I didn't have to2092close out the hearing, because the Chairman is here. I don't2093want to get in trouble.2094    [Laughter.]2095    Senator Capito.2096    [Presiding.] My apologies for missing the last few minutes.2097    I think we have a lot of commonality here, a lot of good2098ideas and a lot of thoughts that I think are going along the2099same lines. I think we should think big, and then come down2100from big to where we can meet the sweet spot. Because like2101Senator Curtis said, we have been talking about this for years;2102we haven't quite gotten there.2103    So I am committed, and I know you are.2104    Senator Whitehouse. What is the word?2105    Senator Capito. Together, to work on this together. That is2106our key word today.2107    So anyway, with no further questions, I would like to thank2108the witnesses and all of my colleagues for their participation.2109Senators who wish to submit written questions for the record2110have until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5th to do so. The witness2111responses to those questions are due back to the committee no2112later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19th, and will be2113submitted to the hearing.2114    The hearing record will remain open, as I said earlier,2115until March 21st, and anybody, I would hope that you would2116submit suggestions that you might have heard today or other2117suggestions. The public will be allowed to submit comments and2118materials to the hearing record by sending these documents to2119permitting@epw.senate.gov. This email address is also2120accessible on the committee's website, on our contact page.2121    With that, this hearing is adjourned.2122    [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]2123   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21242125                                 [all]