Hearings to examine improving the Federal environmental review and permitting process, part 2.

1[Senate Hearing 119-405]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-40556                HEARING TO EXAMINE THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL7                  REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESSES,8                  PART II910=======================================================================1112                                HEARING1314                               before the1516                              COMMITTEE ON17                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS1819                          UNITED STATES SENATE2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             SECOND SESSION2425                               __________2627                            JANUARY 28, 202628                               __________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 OFFICE394063-732                    WASHINGTON : 20264142               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS4344                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS4546                             SECOND SESSION4748             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman49            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member5051KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont52CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon53JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts54LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MARK KELLY, Arizona55DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 ALEX PADILLA, California56PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              ADAM B. SCHIFF, California57ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware58JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland59JON HUSTED, Ohio6061               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director62                  Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director6364                            C O N T E N T S6566                              ----------67                                                                   Page6869                            JANUARY 28, 202670                           OPENING STATEMENTS7172Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West73  Virginia.......................................................     174Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode75  Island.........................................................     37677                               WITNESSES7879Bechtel, Brendan, Chair of the Smart Regulation Committee80  Business Roundtable............................................     581    Prepared statement...........................................     782    Responses to additional questions from:83        Senator Wicker...........................................    4184        Senator Kelly............................................    4185        Senator Padilla..........................................    4286Booker, Brent, General President, Laborers' International Union87  of North America...............................................    4388    Prepared statement...........................................    4589Meyer, Dustin, Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics and90  Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute...............    5191    Prepared statement...........................................    5392    Responses to additional questions from:93        Senator Capito...........................................    6194        Senator Padilla..........................................    6295Hopper, Abigail Ross, President and CEO, Solar Energy Industries96  Association....................................................    6597    Prepared statement...........................................    6798    Responses to additional questions from:99        Senator Capito...........................................    78100        Senator Kelly............................................    79101        Senator Padilla..........................................    80102Terry, David S., President, National Association of State Energy103  Officials......................................................    82104    Prepared statement...........................................    84105    Responses to additional questions from:106        Senator Capito...........................................    93107        Senator Wicker...........................................    94108        Senator Kelly............................................    95109        Senator Padilla..........................................    96110111                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL112113Memorandum from Evergreen Action: U.S. Department of the114  Interior; Proposed 2029 Memo; DOI Secretarial Review of Oil &115  Gas Permits, an Inverse of DOI Secretary Dough Burgum's Solar &116  Wind July 2025 Memo............................................   117117Op Ed from The Hill: Terry O'Sullivan and Senator Dan Sullivan;118  Infrastructure Package Must Include Permitting Reform..........   130119Statement for the Record from American Clean Power...............   133120Op Ed from DC Journal: Rich Nolan; A Mining Policy Breakthrough121  Is Within Reach................................................   136122Letters to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:123    Steel Manufacturers Association..............................   138124    3R Street Institute..........................................   140125    The Williams Companies, Inc..................................   143126    Associated Builders and Contractors..........................   150127    American Cement Association..................................   152128    American Conservation Coalition Action and several other129      organizations..............................................   154130    Clean Energy Buyers Association..............................   156131    Chamber of Progress..........................................   158132    Digital Power Network........................................   160133    Americans for Prosperity.....................................   165134    National Wildlife Federation: Transmission Priorities for135      Federal Permitting Reform..................................   167136137                HEARING TO EXAMINE THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL138                  REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESSES,139                  PART II140141                              ----------142143                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2026144145                                       U.S. Senate,146                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,147                                                    Washington, DC.148    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room149562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito150(chairman of the committee) presiding.151    Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,152Curtis, Sullivan, Ricketts, Boozman, Husted, Markey, Kelly,153Padilla, Schiff, Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.154155        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,156          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA157158    Senator Capito. Good morning, everybody. Thanks to159everybody for being here. I hope everybody is staying warm and160coping with the elements. I am not sure snow removal on the161sidewalks is one of D.C.'s best-known skills, from what my162experience is. But so far, I have not fallen yet, so I am glad163about that.164    So, today we will continue our discussion on the need to165modernize our Federal environmental review and permitting166process. I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues who167are here with me, and in particular Ranking Member Whitehouse,168for their drive to elevate problems in our current permitting169regime and to work constructively together. It is what we need170to do.171    Over the past year, we have all discussed how the existing172structure pits uncertainty and the misapplication and abuse of173our laws against American prosperity. We have had fruitful174discussions, yet we are now a year older. This is sometimes the175never-ending story on permitting, but we are going to get an176end to that story, I hope. We are still seeking common ground177on practical and durable solutions.178    If Congress can deliver these critical solutions, we will179unleash the investment required to build American180infrastructure, unlock the supply of essential commodities and181materials, grow our manufacturing, improve affordability by182lowering prices, and create economic opportunity across our183entire Country.184    Without congressional action, we will continue to see the185pattern of the last two decades. Each new administration will186reverse the policies of the last, eroding trust of American187businesses and workers and ensuring we cannot plan or build for188either the present or for our future.189    This is not just speculation. We have all had communities190we represent impacted by projects that were delayed or outright191canceled by new administrations. I know West Virginia families192have experienced this deep disappointment on multiple193occasions.194    So, I say to all my colleagues today, I know your pain, all195the way around, and I want Congress to address it now. Let's196remove the politics from permitting once and for all.197    To do that, we need to think creatively, learn from the198existing system's failures and craft solutions to align our199permitting laws with what the Americans want and need:200affordability, predictability and opportunity. We will do so by201protecting the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and202the land that we love.203    We all know that EPW's long tradition of bipartisan204legislation is true on tough issues. This is an important205reason that I joined this committee when I was first elected to206the Senate over a decade ago and how I approach my role as207Chairman.208    I called this hearing with the Ranking Member with the209intent to get us back on the path to fruitful compromise210through identifying both the urgent need to act on reform and211the scope of priorities we must address.212    Turning to the policies for permitting reform, my213priorities remain largely the same. This legislation must be214bipartisan to be successful and durable. This legislation must215be project neutral. This legislation must create216predictability, consistency and finality in securing a permit.217    This legislation must bring accountability to every stage218of the process. This legislation must go beyond NEPA to address219issues with our core permitting laws and processes. This220legislation must include provisions that address judicial221review of fully permitted projects.222    Finally, this legislation must be written in collaboration223with our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources224Committee to address issues within their jurisdiction, and we225have been working steadily with them.226    I have spent the last year listening to the Ranking Member227and my Democrat colleagues as well as the priorities of the228current Administration in order to understand what legislative229policies would meet each of their stated goals and concerns. I230think our goals share more in common than most would admit, and231there are many sensible compromises that are in the best232interest of the American people to unlock our development, grow233our economy, increase supply and decrease prices in our States234and communities. This growing consensus demands action now or235we are likely to miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.236    The House acted last month by passing bipartisan reforms to237NEPA and the Clean Water Act. It is now time for the Senate to238act, so we invited these witnesses here today for two main239reasons.240    First, they can share with us the pressing need to act this241year on reforms and what we will leave on the table if we are242unsuccessful. Second, they can share their invaluable243perspectives on the most important reforms to truly unleash244America's potential and relieve the economic pressure Americans245are facing across the Nation.246    I look forward to making progress with all of you and247hearing your insights. Thank you all so much for coming.248    With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member Whitehouse249for his opening statement.250251         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,252          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND253254    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate255your convening today's hearing, a bipartisan hearing on256permitting reform.257    Colleagues have heard me repeatedly State that I want a258strong bipartisan permitting reform, and that there was a trust259problem with the administration's behavior that would need to260be solved. Trump's initial executive order declaring an energy261emergency but not defining solar or wind even as energy, was a262bad, and irrational, start. But we were still willing to work.263    Then began the unlawful and irrational blockade of offshore264wind, leading to a stop-work order on the Empire Wind project265off New York, quickly lifted after the Governor expressed266``willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.''267This all stank, but I remained willing to work on a permitting268bill.269    In August, ``Stop Work'' Trump struck again, against270Revolution Wind off Rhode Island, a project over 80 percent271complete, with $4 billion invested, based on supposed272``national security'' concerns. That order was instantly thrown273out in court as ``arbitrary and capricious,'' in part because274the Trump administration had been making the opposite arguments275about that same project, in the same courthouse, just weeks276earlier.277    Our New England grid operator warned back then:278``Unpredictable risks and threats to resources that have made279significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and280are close to completion will stifle future investments,281increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid's282reliability and the region's economy now and in the future.''283Consumer cost, grid reliability, and economic security were all284put arbitrarily and capriciously at risk. Still, we kept285working in permitting negotiations.286    On land, the Interior Secretary wrapped solar and wind287projects up in red tape with dozens of new layers of political288review, including a stop at his own desk, where things have289stopped. Since then, only one solar project has received290approval.291    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and multiple other Federal292agencies adopted a made-up and nonsensical ``energy density''293metric to prioritize fossil fuel. Still, we kept working on294permitting reform.295    The administration's offshore defeat in court was such a296pasting that they did not appeal. That appeals period lapsed in297November. Everyone was back to work. We thought the nonsense298was over. But, no.299    Thirty days later, days before Christmas, they dropped a300new stop-work order on five offshore wind projects, including301Empire and Revolution. The new pretext was national security302risks that had supposedly emerged in the previous 30 days. That303has been reviewed now by four Federal judges, and the304administration went zero for four. Not one judge believed them.305    All along, the Energy and Interior secretaries were lying306non-stop that these projects would raise costs. That is307demonstrably false. Grid operators put these projects before308fossil fuel in the generation stack because they are less309expensive.310    Revolution Wind by contract will put 9-cent per kilowatt-311hour energy into an 18-cent per kilowatt-hour grid. Court312filings and affidavits asserted hundreds of millions in313consumer cost savings that the administration chose not to deny314in court, but they kept lying in public.315    When Federal judges do not believe executive branch316pretexts about national security, repeatedly, and cabinet317secretaries demonstrably lie, repeatedly, enough is enough. So318Senator Heinrich and I have paused permitting reform319negotiations.320    Let me be clear. We find no fault with Senate Republicans.321Chair Capito has been an excellent partner, and I am grateful322both to her and to her team for the quality and tone of the323work that has been accomplished. I am grateful to Whip Barrasso324and Leader Thune for how they have responded.325    This is not Democrat versus Republican. This is legislative326versus executive, an age-old drama, in this case with an327executive that will not honor its constitutional duty to328faithfully execute the law, or, by the way, tell the truth.329    Make no mistake: the Trump administration's lawless,330irrational, and unpredictable attacks loom over every industry.331None of it is good for business. The nonsense must stop.332    I still want to pass bipartisan Senate permitting reform. I333know we can expedite the permitting process with sound334bipartisan ideas like frontloading stakeholder engagement and335discipline an executive inter-agency process run amok.336    We can add jobs and electrons and reduce emissions and337waste. But it makes no sense to pass a bipartisan permitting338reform that will be illegally butchered by a lawless executive339branch, vindictively, irrationally, and dishonestly.340    The responsibility for resuscitating permitting reform341rests now upon the executive branch, upon credible confidence342that the nonsense will stop.343    Plenty of powerful interests need electrons, lots of344electrons, and want the low-cost electrons and the abundant345electrons that clean energy provides. If that is you, you need346to direct your efforts toward ending the lawless nonsense from347the administration. If you are fossil fuel, and you want this348lawless nonsense stopped because you could be next, you had349better tell them so.350    Proceeding with this bipartisan hearing is our351demonstration of hope that the nonsense can be stopped, and of352trust in our Republican colleagues to get to a good bill, a353confidence that I hope is not unjustified.354    I will close once again with my appreciation to the Chair355and to her staff for the helpful, responsible and honorable way356in which they have conducted themselves through all of this.357    Thank you.358    Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.359    So, we will now turn to our witnesses for their opening360remarks. Our first witness is Brendan Bechtel. He is Chairman361and CEO of Bechtel, testifying this morning on behalf of the362Business Roundtable. Mr. Bechtel is a member of the board of363directors of the Business Roundtable and serves as chair of the364Smart Regulation Committee.365    He is also CEO of Bechtel Corporation, which by the way,366gave my dad his first job in the late 1930's, and is the fifth367generation of the Bechtel family to lead the company.368    Mr. Bechtel, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your369opening statement.370371  STATEMENT OF BRENDAN BECHTEL, CHAIR OF THE SMART REGULATION372                 COMMITTEE, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE373374    Mr. Bechtel. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member375Whitehouse, members of the committee. Thank you for having me376today.377    I am Brendan Bechtel, Chairman and CEO of Bechtel, one of378America's largest engineering and construction firms and one of379the Nation's largest employers of both union and non-union380craft labor. Over the past 2 years here in the U.S., Bechtel381has hired more than 28,000 skilled craft professionals. We382anticipate hiring at least 10,000 more this year.383    Today I am here in my capacity as the Chair of the Business384Roundtable Smart Regulation Committee. The Business Roundtable385is an association of more than 200 CEOs from companies spanning386every sector of our economy.387    Permitting reform is about making America a destination for388greater investment, keeping us competitive, strengthening389manufacturing and other domestic industry, protecting the390environment, and creating good jobs that support our391communities. The key to achieving this is comprehensive,392bipartisan permitting reform legislation.393    Congress and the administration have made real progress394toward this goal. But there is more to do and the Business395Roundtable is here to help.396    Every year of delay holds America back. Other countries are397building critical infrastructure at speed and scale. Bechtel398has seen first-hand what an effective permitting process can399do. We have seen what happens when it does not work.400    Let me share a couple of examples from around Bechtel's401world. First, the Western Sydney Airport, the first greenfield402airport built in Australia in three decades. From site403designation to final approval, permitting took less than 3404years. Three years. We started construction after permits were405issued and finished 7 months ahead of schedule.406    Let's turn to Canada, and the Keeyask hydroelectric407project, creating nearly 700 megawatts of clean power. The408environmental licensing process took about two and a half409years. This included extensive consultation with four Manitoba410First Nations who are development partners and engaged from the411very beginning of the project.412    Canada's review process moved efficiently through public413hearings and regulatory approvals.414    Now, let's contrast that with the United States. Last415summer, a study by McKinsey found it takes between four and 5416years for the average investment dollar to get through our417Federal permitting process. That means that right now as much418as $1.5 trillion in potential investments are stalled in the419queue, waiting for permits across eight key sectors.420    Once permits are issued for major projects, 28 percent of421those are litigated, delaying those projects for an average of4224.2 years, while at the end of that delay, 80 percent of those423permits still ultimately stand as issued by the agency.424    Meanwhile, Americans are not seeing the jobs, the spending,425or the growth that these projects would and should be426generating. The opportunity cost for our Nation is staggering.427The unrealized induced GDP impact of these delays, up to $2.4428trillion.429    Equally concerning, our global competitors are advancing430critical infrastructure projects faster. China is one of them,431and other countries seeking long-term foreign infrastructure432partners are taking notice. In strategic sectors like nuclear433energy, semiconductor manufacturing and AI infrastructure, our434permitting process could not only jeopardize American economic435leadership, but undermine our hard-won global influence.436    In September, 2025, Business Roundtable released our437Report, Building a Prosperous Future, with detailed438recommendations for fixing this broken system. This report is439included in my submitted testimony. These recommendations440provide clarity and transparency. They remove unnecessary441overlap and redundancy. They establish more predictable442timelines, and they make clear that strong environmental443protections and efficient permitting are not in conflict.444    I look forward to discussing these policy solutions in more445detail today. I am optimistic because the momentum is real.446There is bipartisan agreement that action is needed. The447President has made permitting reform a top priority and448Congress has shown a real willingness to move forward. We thank449you for the opportunity here today talking about it.450    Business Roundtable is ready to work with you on451legislation that creates a permitting system that is efficient,452predictable, and yields durable results. This is our453opportunity this year to reassert American industrial454leadership and harness the ingenuity that built this Country455over the past 250 years, ensuring we continue to lead in the456world for the next 250.457    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.458    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bechtel follows:]459460[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]461462    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.463    Next, we will hear from Brent Booker, the General President464of LIUNA, the Laborers' International Union of North America.465Mr. Booker has the distinct honor of having testified twice466before this committee during the 119th Congress. We want to467welcome him back again today to share perspective on these468issues from the point of view of labor.469    Mr. Booker, thanks for joining us again.470471    STATEMENT OF BRENT BOOKER, GENERAL PRESIDENT, LABORERS'472              INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA473474    Mr. Booker. Good morning, thank you.475    Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,476and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to477appear before you once again to discuss permitting reform on478behalf of the more than 530,000 skilled and dedicated members479of the Laborers' International Union of North America. LIUNA480members are the backbone of America's infrastructure. We build481and maintain this Nation's highways, roads, bridges, and482tunnels. We construct schools, hospitals, arenas, and483skyscrapers. We build and support America's energy484infrastructure which includes wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and485pipelines.486    Simply put, LIUNA builds America. LIUNA members take pride487not only in the work we do, but in the communities we serve.488Yet today, far too much of that work is being stalled, delayed,489or canceled altogether. For decades, outdated permitting laws490have been weaponized to obstruct critical infrastructure.491Projects, regardless of size, now take years longer than492necessary to receive approval.493    For many stakeholders, these delays show up as numbers on a494spreadsheet. But for LIUNA members, that means another day495without a paycheck, another day without earning healthcare496eligibility, another day without a pension credit. When those497projects are delayed or halted, livelihoods are put on hold.498Across the Country, particularly in the energy sector, projects499that are fully permitted, fully financed, and ready to begin500construction are routinely derailed by endless litigation. A501project can be approved 1 day and tied up in court the next.502    In far too many cases, developers now spend more time in503court than it would to take our members to physically build the504project. That is why LIUNA has supported permitting reform for505more than a decade, including the House's recently passed SPEED506Act. It addresses some of our issues on permitting reform. Most507notably, proper judicial review timelines.508    However, while the House was able to advance some elements509of project certainty, it ultimately was watered down in order510to appease a small group of extremists who do not understand511the importance of having project certainty.512    Significant barriers within the permitting process remain513unresolved. One of the most persistent is Section 401 water514quality certification. States should be required to issue a515clear yes or no decision within a defined timeframe. If a516project meets the standards, it should be approved. If it does517not, the State should deny the application, explain the518deficiencies, and allow the applicant to correct them and519reapply.520    We believe projects can move forward without sacrificing521worker safety, community protections, or environmental522standards. But any permitting reform must also address two523glaring failures in our current system: project certainty at524the highest level and energy transmission.525    What good is permitting generation if we cannot connect526power to the grid? Without transmission reform in conjunction527to permitting, energy projects, no matter how clean or528necessary, will remain stranded. That reality threatens529reliability, affordability, and job creation.530    When I testified before this committee last year, I spoke531about project deniers and serial litigators who exploit532procedural loopholes to stop construction. But today, the533greatest threat to project certainty is not litigation alone,534it is also the politics being played with our members' jobs.535    Unfortunately, this administration has eliminated and536threatened to eliminate thousands of construction jobs, in some537cases, just days before Christmas. We have seen the canceling538of funding from the Infrastrurcture Investment and Jobs Act,539the halting of Inflation Reduction Act projects, and the use of540executive authority to revoke permits from already-approved,541privately financed infrastructure projects.542    This is not leadership; this is chaos. These actions raise543a fundamental question for this committee: what good is544permitting reform if any project, no matter how far along, can545be shut down at the stroke of a pen?546    Nowhere is this clearer than in offshore wind, where we547have seen the halting of offshore lease sales which have548upended the industry and forced projects to withdraw549construction plans entirely. In 2022, I was proud to have550helped negotiate and implement the National Offshore Wind551Agreement. This was a historic and monumental agreement that552would have delivered thousands of high-quality union jobs553across the Country.554    Now, many of the projects built under that agreement are555now being halted and terminated. As I said earlier, for our556members, this is not politics. These are paychecks. These are557healthcare hours. These are retirement credits.558    This issue is bigger than politics. It is about global559competitiveness. It is about energy security. It is about560ensuring the United States leads, not lags, in the future of561energy production, all energy production.562    Most importantly, it is about ensuring that working people563have access to middle-class careers, family sustaining wages,564and secure retirements.565    LIUNA urges this committee to seize this moment not for566symbolic reform, but for real, durable permitting reform that567allows projects to move forward, protects communities, and568keeps Americans working.569    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.570    [The prepared statement of Mr. Booker follows:]571572[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]573574    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Booker.575    Next, we will hear from Dustin Meyer. Mr. Meyer is Senior576Vice President of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs for577the American Petroleum Institute, or API, where he leads the578policy team for oil and gas advocacy. Prior to his promotion to579this role in 2023, Mr. Meyer led API's effort on domestic and580global natural gas markets, as well as natural gas technology581and innovation, including renewable and differentiated natural582gas, hydrogen, and the use of carbon capture in the power583sector.584    Mr. Meyer, welcome. You are recognized for your opening585statement.586587  STATEMENT OF DUSTIN MEYER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY,588 ECONOMICS AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE589590    Mr. Meyer. Chair Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse and591members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to592testify today. My name is Dustin Meyer. I am Senior Vice593President of Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs at the594American Petroleum Institute.595    I want to start with the basic reality that frames our view596on the need for permitting reform. Energy demand is growing,597and it is growing faster than our ability to build the598infrastructure to meet it. Whether you care most about599affordability, reliability, national security, or emissions600reductions, the conclusion is the same: our Country must be601able to build big things, but cannot do so because our602permitting process is so fundamentally broken.603    When infrastructure projects are delayed, constrained, or604do not have certainty, costs go up. It is ultimately American605consumers and workers who pay the price.606    That is why comprehensive permitting reform is our607industry's top legislative priority. We are eager to work with608both parties across this committee, the rest of the Senate, the609House of Representatives and the administration to get it done.610    The Federal permitting process directly affects our611industry in many ways, including interstate natural gas612pipelines, resource development on Federal lands and waters,613LNG imports and cross-border infrastructure, just to name a614few. Unfortunately, the last few decades have seen numerous615examples of permitting processes being weaponized against oil616and gas. We have had canceled pipelines, a pause on LNG617permits, delayed lease sales, and blocked projects at the State618level. Even projects with minimal environmental impacts and619strong local support remain in regulatory limbo for years.620    Further, these obstacles do nothing to enhance621environmental outcomes. Instead, they reflect a misguided622opposition to any infrastructure being built at all, or assume623that restricting oil and gas supply will somehow eliminate624demand or reduce emissions. But it does neither. It merely625results in higher prices, more volatility, and crises.626    When our industry talks about permitting reform, we are not627starting from scratch. Our priorities are longstanding and628well-defined.629    First, judicial reform. Litigation is now a primary driver630of delay. Venue shopping and open-ended injunctions create631uncertainty that no project can withstand. We need clear632statutes of limitation, defined standards of review, standing633limited to directly affected parties, and remand, not vacatur,634as the default remedy.635    Second, NEPA reform. NEPA was designed to inform decisions,636not stall them indefinitely. Reviews routinely extend far637beyond the Federal action at issue, producing delay without638better environmental outcomes. Reviews should be focused,639timely, and lead to an actual decision, principles unanimously640reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Seven Counties. Congress641should codify these principles.642    Third, Clean Water Act reform, especially sections 401 and643404. Section 401 has been weaponized by States to block major644interstate natural gas pipelines, delaying billions in645investment and driving higher energy costs across entire646regions. Review should be limited to direct water quality647impacts. Procedural delays and gamesmanship should be648prohibited, and FERC's authority should be strengthened.649    Separately, the Section 404 nationwide Permit Program is a650practical, widely used tool. API supports House legislation to651extend the permit terms to 10 years to codify nationwide Permit65212 to clarify that a single permit is needed for linear653projects and to modernize consultation requirements.654    In addition to these longstanding permitting priorities,655API joins a broad coalition in supporting provisions providing656greater certainty and durability to permits. Even after a fully657completed environmental review process, our industry has658experienced arbitrary permit suspensions or revocations driven659by political or policy shifts.660    Several of the policy recommendations above foster greater661permit durability on their own. But reforms should clarify that662projects that have completed all required environmental reviews663and remain in compliance should not be subject to these664unpredictable outcomes.665    The need for bold and durable permitting reform is not666ideological, and it is not limited to any one industry or667technology. API's recommended reforms restore focus, discipline668and accountability to a system that has become paralyzed. The669reflect respect for environmental protection, the rule of law670and the need for decisions that endure. Done correctly, it will671enable us to build the infrastructure of the future.672    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.673    [The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]674675[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]676677    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Meyer.678    Our next witness is Abigal Ross Hopper. She has served as679President and CEO of Solar Energy Industries, SEIA, since 2017.680She previously served as the Director of the Bureau of Ocean681Energy Management during the Obama administration, and in682senior energy roles for the State of Maryland.683    This Friday marks her last day with the organization. So we684want to welcome the organization's interim CEO, who I believe685is Darren Van't Hof, who is also with us here today. If you686want to raise your hand, there, Darren. There he is.687    Ms. Hopper, thank you for spending your last week here with688us. We are very happy to have you, and please proceed with your689opening statement. Thank you.690691   STATEMENT OF ABIGAL ROSS HOPPER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SOLAR692                 ENERGIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION693694    Ms. Hopper. Thank you I can not imagine anywhere else I695would rather be.696    [Laughter.]697    Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member698Whitehouse, and members of the Committee, for inviting me here699to testify today on why now is the moment to address permitting700in the United States.701    As you just heard, my name is Abigail Ross Hopper. I am the702outgoing president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries703Association. We are the national trade association representing704America's solar and storage industry.705    America's solar companies are manufacturing and deploying706the power we need to keep the lights on and keep prices707affordable. To ensure a reliable grid and put downward pressure708on prices, permitting reform is essential. SEIA strongly709supports these bipartisan efforts to improve the process for710energy and transmission projects.711    Permitting reform must begin with this basic principle:712projects that enter the Federal permitting process must be713allowed to move through that process in good faith and without714unfair treatment based on energy source. Once a project715receives a permit, that permit should be honored.716    Unfortunately, the Federal permitting process has lost717credibility regarding solar projects. In a July 15, 2025718memorandum, the Department of the Interior created 68 new719layers of red tape, effectively amounting to a moratorium on720solar by requiring political and secretarial level for even721minor project reviews. Many solar applications remain paralyzed722inside the agency, leaving developers in the dark about whether723their projects will ever be considered.724    Political roadblocks are endangering 70 gigawatts of solar725and 42 gigawatts of battery storage projects on both Federal726and private lands according to the EIA numbers released late727Monday. These projects represent 43 percent of all, all planned728new power capacity in the United States.729    We all know electricity demand is rising rapidly, and730without this power and the grid infrastructure to deliver it,731electricity prices will continue to rise.732    In December, the House passed the SPEED Act, which would733modernize NEPA to accelerate permitting and prevent unnecessary734litigation. While NEPA reform is necessary, I should note that735delays on solar projects from NEPA projects are minimal736compared to some of my colleagues. While the SPEED Act included737a bipartisan provision to protect already-permitted projects,738SEIA could not support the bill, because it did not provide739meaningful assurance that Federal agencies will fairly consider740solar applications moving forward.741    SEIA is eager to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis742on permitting reform that unlocks dozens of gigawatts of solar743storage and transmission. To achieve this, reforms must include744these three core principles. No. 1, ending the Federal solar745moratorium with statutory protections for existing permits and746prohibitions on prospective discriminatory treatment. Two,747establishing certainty and reducing timelines through748streamlined, coordinated reviews. Three, accelerating749transmission buildout through stronger planning, permitting750authority and grid modernization.751    The U.S. solar industry has transformed rapidly in recent752years. In 2025 alone, the United States added 17.7 gigawatts of753solar module manufacturing capacity. We now produce every major754components of the solar module supply chain here in this755Country.756    Demand for solar is incredibly strong, with 250 gigawatts757of new solar capacity forecast to come online through 2030. But758these projects represent billions in private capital that759cannot reach final investment decisions without permitting760certainty.761    We all know the United States needs more power. Data762centers, domestic manufacturing, AI, are among the largest763drivers of that energy demand. The power needs to be built now.764    Solar and storage can meet that timeline, complementing765natural gas and nuclear projects that typically take longer to766develop and build. We all know that the United States is767experiencing an affordability crisis. The most effective way to768address that is through greater buildout of solar and storage.769    Unsubsidized solar is now the cheapest source of770electricity in history and much of the Country. With no fuel771costs, solar provides a hedge against natural gas price772volatility that continues to cause electricity price spikes.773The only way to put downward pressure on prices is bring more774power online, not less.775    States with higher levels of deployment of solar and776storage, like Texas, are experiencing lower and more stable777electricity prices. Streamlining permitting is essential to778addressing the energy affordability crisis American households779and businesses are facing.780    Permitting dysfunction also directly impacts American781workers, as you have heard a moment ago. We support hundreds of782thousands of jobs across construction, manufacturing, and783skilled trades. Uncertainty delays hiring, disrupts work force784planning, and puts domestic manufacturing at risk.785    We are ready to work with Congress on a comprehensive786permitting solution. The resources, work force, and capital are787ready. Permitting certainty is the key. The time to act is now.788    Thank you.789    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hopper follows:]790791[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]792793    Senator Capito. Thank you.794    Our final witness, we are joined by David Terry, who is795President of the National Association of State Energy796Officials. Mr. Terry is a true expert on the challenges facing797our State energy officials. This marks 30 years since he798started his first job at NASEO, spending the last 17 as head of799the organization.800    I understand you talked with our energy person in West801Virginia just this week in anticipation of the hearing. So802thank you for that.803    You are now recognized for your opening statement.804805STATEMENT OF DAVID S. TERRY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF806                     STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS807808    Mr. Terry. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member809Whitehouse, and members of the committee, for the opportunity810to testify today.811    I am David Terry, President of the National Association of812State Energy Officials. We represent all 56 State and territory813energy offices across the Country, dealing with a wide variety814of energy issues, and have a great interest in Federal815permitting reform.816    NASEO strongly supports Federal permitting reform and817environmental review improvements. The National Governors818Association also provided a letter to this committee last fall,819and we also want to agree with and endorse their comments.820    America's economic growth is both exciting and a huge821challenge for the energy industry and for the States. I think822that the opportunity to optimize the grid, other fuel systems,823energy systems writ large, and expand them, is critical for the824Nation's economic future and our national energy security.825Addressing affordability is equally important. We hear that826from all of our members across the Country, as all of you have.827    Lengthy and unpredictable Federal permitting outcomes makes828meeting our energy challenges more expensive and leaves the829private sector investments and State actions stranded and830untapped, whereas they could deliver tremendous benefits to the831Country. Governors and State energy offices also recognize the832importance of streamlining permitting that they control in833their own States, and have been working together to address834those issues, and also address affordability.835    NASEO recommends durable, technology-neutral or project-836neutral approaches to permitting reform. The SPEED Act, as it837came out of the House Natural Resources Committee, is a step838forward. However, we do have concern that an amendment that was839added on the floor may put into question technology-neutral and840all-of-the-above approaches.841    I want to stress a few recommendations that NASEO would842like to put forward. First, expansion of categorical exclusions843under NEPA can speed the environmental review process.844Deference to States where there is equivalent processes to NEPA845can also benefit reform efforts. Enhanced certainty for846approved permits to continue on a technology-neutral basis with847strong rebuttable presumption for previously approved permits848is essential.849    Adequate Federal staffing to conduct environmental reviews850that are needed so that they are not deemed defective by the851courts or seen as ineffective by the public. Finally, enhanced852State, Federal and interstate cooperation should include State853energy offices, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department854of Energy, Department of Interior and other Federal agencies.855For example, the State energy offices have an excellent working856relationship with the Department of Energy's Office of857Electricity and the CSER Office, the office undertaking energy858security measures. They have been working hand-in-glove, 24-7,859this past week as we have gone through the recent winter860storms, working with the industry and having good outcomes.861    Another great example is the recent State coordination862among Governors in the PJM region, on a bipartisan basis with863the Trump administration. That agreement, I think, shows great864promise. The State energy offices in this region were critical865in moving that activity forward.866    NASEO recognizes that a commitment to bipartisan permitting867reform is necessary for your efforts to succeed. We stand ready868to help the committee, help the committee, inform the869committee, and engage with our State members to help move this870process forward.871    We applaud the Chair and Ranking Member for your leadership872and working together. We are pleased to answer any questions873you may have.874    [The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:]875876[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]877878    Senator Capito. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. Thank all879of you for your opening statements, and I will kick off my880questions really for the panel. We see a lot of consistency881across all segments of what the testimony has been.882    What we have seen in administrations as they come in,883during that transitional period, depending on what their884political priorities might be, we have seen disruptions in the885permits that have already been issued and that is what we are886seeing with the Rhode Island projects and others.887    So I think all of these projects have gone on, whether it888is the MVP Pipeline or others, have gone through the permitting889processes and were already under construction, some of them890almost at completion phase.891    So I will start with you, Mr. Bechtel. Could you briefly892address how the lack of certainty in the permitting process and893the treatment of properly awarded permits during Presidential894transition periods can hurt your investment planning and in895turn, consumers and households, economy-wide?896    Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for the excellent897question. Yes, uncertainty disrupts work force planning,898investment, communities and families. My colleague and friend,899Mr. Booker, spoke about that, particularly on the work force900side.901    Predictability matters for all these constituents and the902process. I think it is fair to say that rather than any one903project, this is about how the whole system works, including904what happens after a permit is issued and what happens with905litigation.906    Something that Brent can speak to as well is that for these907kinds of projects, in our case, for example, we are typically908making investments in training and hiring and partnering with909vocational schools in the area, doing housing studies ahead of910time to make sure we mitigate impacts in local housing for big911projects.912    That all can happen 18 to 36 months before a shovel ever913goes into the ground. So unpredictability about when we need to914get started on that work is a real issue, which is why, again,915the BRT's primary goals around this are efficient, predictable,916and a durable result that stands after the permit has been917issued.918    Senator Capito. Let me ask you a quick followup question on919that. You cited two projects in your opening statement, one in920Australia, one in Canada. You are worldwide company. Are there921any other countries that have to live with the unpredictability922of already-permitted projects getting yanked because of923political priorities? Does this happen everywhere else, or not924really?925    Mr. Bechtel. I am trying to think of examples of other926countries. I will point out, I deliberately picked the927Australia and Canada examples because I do not think any of us928would say those are countries that cut corners when it comes to929environmental and social protections. So I think they are930leading examples that you can achieve efficiency, speed, scale,931while really having important community engagement and932environmental protections up front in the process.933    Senator Capito. OK. Mr. Booker, if you could frame the934question on the uncertainty, what does this do with the work?935When you were here before, I remember quite well your936impassioned statements on, that means I am not working, I am937not getting paid.938    Mr. Booker. Yes, that is the bottom line. It takes time to939get the skills you need, whether to build an offshore windmill,940build a pipeline, a natural gas power plant, a nuclear plant.941Whatever the source is, it is actual people who have to go942build that and have to apply skills to do that.943    It is our job to partner with our contractor partners to944create registered training apprenticeship systems to get the945skill sets that are needed to produce a skilled craftsman to946build that project safely. When a project is built or is being947built, when it is financed, whether it is privately or publicly948financed, it is permitted, people move. Our work force is949transient in some cases. A lot of time it is local as well. But950they will move to that job, move their family, because they951know they have a two, three, 4 year job to build that energy952infrastructure. To have the whim of somebody with a pen in953their hand to say, you know what, I do not like that energy954source, completely disrupts their life, their livelihood, their955family's livelihood.956    Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.957    Mr. Meyer?958    Mr. Meyer. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. From959our industry's perspective, we are eager to deploy billions of960dollars in capital to build these major infrastructure961projects. We face a real gauntlet to bring them to completion.962Everybody agrees that there should be a robust environmental963review system. But what really challenges the industry is when964you get approval, but the approval does not equal finality, or965even when you are in compliance, that does not end litigation.966    We have a long history of several examples of projects967meeting exactly that fate. It really complicates and prevents968our ability to build the infrastructure in the first place.969    Senator Capito. So basically what you are saying is the970uncertainty and unpredictability that possibly could come from971political priorities, if you load that on top of the judicial972review piece, almost becomes an unbearable load in some cases?973    Mr. Meyer. That is absolutely right. It is a challenge not974just for projects that are going through the process, but it975chills the decision even to propose new projects.976    Senator Capito. Right. As we heard Mr. Bechtel say, $2.4977trillion is ready to be deployed.978    Mr. Meyer. Yes.979    Senator Capito. Ms. Hopper?980    Ms. Hopper. Thank you. I think I will agree with everything981my colleague said and add the impact on consumers. Regardless982of whether it happens prior to approval or especially if it983happens after, those electrons are baked into the grid984planning. If those go away, we all know what happens. Our985prices go up, because there is a scarcity of a really much-986needed commodity.987    So the impact on homeowners, on businesses, on all of us,988is pretty impactful if these projects are no longer, either not989approved in the first place or even more egregiously, permits990are pulled.991    Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.992    Mr. Terry?993    Mr. Terry. I think in a couple of ways, and I certainly994agree with all the other witnesses' comments. I think from a995State perspective the energy offices are deeply engaged in grid996planning, energy system planning, delivered fuels, et cetera.997When they look out at the resources, both natural resources,998human resources, and how they can deliver reliable energy in999their State, how they can help their Governors and legislatures1000make this happen from an affordability perspective, the1001unpredictable nature of Federal permitting is essential a1002hidden tax as the delays happen.1003    That is certainly true for large organizations,1004hyperscalers, et cetera, that we read so much about. But for1005individual homeowners, for farmers, for small businesses,1006consumers, many of whom do not have resources, that hidden tax1007we do not really tally. I think that is something we are1008missing, in addition to the obvious national competitiveness1009and security issues.1010    Senator Capito. Thank you.1011    Senator Whitehouse?1012    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman, and thanks1013to all of you for being here.1014    Some of the backdrop to this hearing is that China, since1015January 2022, has added more to its grid than the entire U.S.1016grid as it exists. So if we are in a race, it is hard to see1017how we are winning.1018    If we are in a race, it is probably in clean energy1019technologies. So backing out of that race is even more1020dangerous.1021    This is a vital issue. My friend, Martin Heinrich, points1022out that there are 2.6 terawatts of power out there waiting to1023come on the grid, if we could sort out the permitting and1024connection issues. So thank you for the important and unified1025voice that all of you have brought here as a panel.1026    I want to drill down just a little bit and let you know why1027I think it is so important that we solve the problems of1028interagency process and of early stakeholder engagement.1029Interagency process is obviously necessary, they should1030coordinate.1031    But in my view, after watching the executive branch for a1032long time, the weeds have grown in the garden of interagency1033process. It is now a place in the executive branch where1034incompetence and inertia and indolence go to hide, and where1035turf battles between agencies left unresolved create a lasting1036squabble that slows down the whole process. We are going to try1037to clean that up.1038    Frontloading stakeholder engagement is to me pretty key. We1039helped get the first offshore wind onto the grid with Deepwater1040off of Block Island. We did it because we started with all of1041the stakeholders in the room before even a filing.1042    Cape Wind tried it the other way. They went into the boxing1043ring, they put on their gloves and said, we will take on1044anybody who comes. Of course, people kept coming. They went out1045of business.1046    Vineyard Wind started the same way. It followed the Cape1047Wind model. It got so tangled up that they have had to swap1048management and now Avangrid is running it much more sensibly1049and efficiently.1050    Another thing about the Rhode Island process, the State1051permitting process for that was conducted so well that I was1052able to go to the Secretary of the Interior and say, do not1053start a new process. Just look at how good a job the State did.1054If that is enough, give us a sign-off. She did.1055    So that is a good example, I think, of what you have been1056talking about, about honoring well-done State regulation.1057    Last, you all have to start showing up more over at the1058other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If you think offshore wind1059blockading is lawful, OK. Come talk to me and explain to me why1060you think that is so. If you think that its costs are higher1061than the existing grid costs, that it is not going to come in1062low in the generation stack, and reduce costs for customers and1063for businesses, come tell me that. Make the case. Because I do1064not think that is true and I do not think it is arguable, even.1065    If solar projects should stall indefinitely on the1066Secretary's desk, sort of one person interagency process delay,1067come and tell me that and explain your position. But if you do1068not think that those are right, then you have to talk to the1069administration. That means your organizations, that means your1070CEOs, you have to show up. They can show up privately, but they1071have to show up.1072    Of course, the people with the most urgent need for1073electrons are the AI data farms folks. They need to start1074showing up. As you all know, they were not here at all when we1075tried to protect clean energy in what I call the Billionaire's1076Bill. Now they are barely showing up.1077    But they have a big voice, and it matters to them to have1078abundant, inexpensive electrons if they are going to succeed in1079international competition for artificial intelligence.1080    So I am delighted that the Chair has brought this panel1081together. It is an extremely wide array of views about many1082matters. So the fact that we are hearing such harmony today is1083very significant to me. But I think it is really important that1084you understand that, I do not think you have a problem in this1085room. I think your problem is at the other end of Pennsylvania1086Avenue.1087    It is very, very hard to accept the kind of behavior that1088is going on now that is patently illegal, repeatedly illegal,1089statements are made that are patently false, and behavior at1090the Cabinet level of just grabbing permits and stalling them,1091just making them sit on the desk. Somehow we have to fix that1092and move forward.1093    So I really look forward to working with all of you and1094with my colleagues here on the committee to get that done.1095Thank you, Madam Chair.1096    Senator Capito. Senator Curtis?1097    Senator Curtis. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking1098Member. To our witnesses, this truly is impressive. We have1099business, we have labor, we have traditional energy sources,1100new energy sources, and the States represented. It could not be1101clearer that this committee recognizes the immense value of1102permitting reform. I think it is fair to say everybody in this1103room agrees that the status quo is just not working.1104    Projects that are clearly in the public interest are taking1105years or even decades to move from concept to completion, not1106because they fail to meet environmental standards, but because1107the process itself has become unpredictable, duplicative, and1108vulnerable to endless delays.1109    That reality has consequences. When energy infrastructure1110is delayed, it affects reliability, affordability, and our1111ability to meet the growing demand. When housing projects are1112delayed, families face higher rents, longer commutes, and these1113are challenges Utahns experience every day.1114    Permitting never was meant to be a barrier on its own. It1115was intended to ensure sound decisionmaking, public input, and1116environmental stewardship, all within a reasonable and1117transparent timeframe. Too often, it delivers none of those1118outcomes.1119    There are still elements of the permitting process that1120require a physical rubber stamp. I have enjoyed working with1121Senator Kelly on the E-Permit Act to digitalize permitting1122approvals.1123    There are many commonsense updates that could provide1124greater certainty for project developers and communities they1125serve.1126    Another critical element of permitting reform is certainty.1127I feel strongly that no project should have to worry that it1128will be halted at the whim of an administration. We have seen1129that in 2021 with Keystone XL Pipeline, and we see it today1130with wind projects across the Country.1131    It raises questions: how can we expect sustained investment1132in infrastructure without certainty? I actually believe one of1133the more critical areas of impact is rural America, a big part1134of my State. We should be honest that permitting reform is not1135about choosing between environmental standards and development.1136I believe that is a false choice. It is about recognizing that1137a process that drags on indefinitely serves neither.1138    Environmental outcomes are not improved when projects stall1139for years without resolution and communities are not helped1140when needed infrastructure is never built.1141    Streamlining does not mean cutting corners. It means1142focusing analysis on what actually matters, coordinating1143agencies so applications are not bounced from one office to1144another, and holding the Federal Government to the same1145standard of accountability we expect from sponsors of projects.1146    So let me start, Mr. Booker, with labor. You have1147articulated well and some of the questions have been asked1148about how this impacts you. I would like to ask in particular1149the swing that you get between administrations, how that1150impacts planning, training, and the things that you work with1151with retention and recruiting.1152    If you have any expertise, especially in rural America, how1153we are seeing that impact.1154    Mr. Booker. Right. Thank you for the question. Look, I am1155in a unique position that I actually negotiated Keystone XL1156Pipeline, and I negotiated Offshore Wind. So I have----1157    Senator Curtis. So they're both your fault.1158    [Laughter.]1159    Senator Capito. So it is your fault.1160    [Laughter.]1161    Mr. Booker. I did not think of it that way. I probably1162should have kept my mouth shut on that.1163    [Laughter.]1164    Mr. Booker. We should not have energy projects become1165political. I think that is what the purpose of this committee1166is. Our members, when they vote, when they go cast their1167ballot, they do not cast their ballot to lose their job. That1168happened both in 2020 and that happened in 2024. That is the1169stuff that we have to get rid of.1170    To your question on rural, and on training, we go out into1171those communities. That is what I am proud of, is to go out and1172meet with those community leaders, those church leaders and1173those communities to bring people in. Whether it is the skills1174they need to build a pipeline or the skills and certifications1175they need for offshore wind, we have to go identify those, we1176have go meet with your constituents, bring them in with our1177contractor partners, give them those skill sets and then put1178them out to work through apprenticeship and through journeyman1179training.1180    So we have to have predictability. We have to have1181certainty that these projects, once permitted, are going to be1182built. Because it takes a while to build a pipeline or build a1183wind farm or a solar farm. So predictability is key here.1184    Senator Curtis. Thank you.1185    Mr. Bechtel, could you address the same, the way this1186impacts business and investment, these swings, these wide1187positions that go back and forth? Tell us how that is impacting1188you and investment in your business.1189    Mr. Bechtel. Yes, Senator Curtis, it is a really important1190point. I will frame it from a competitiveness perspective, both1191abroad and within the United States.1192    Capital is mobile. It is going to go to wherever1193uncertainty is lowest. The current system undermines our1194competitiveness abroad and at home.1195    Of course, in the era of artificial intelligence and the1196national security implications of winning that race, we are1197basically shooting ourselves in the foot if we can not build1198power fast enough to provide the power needed to win that race.1199    Senator Curtis. Thank you.1200    I am out of time, but let me just make a point. I would1201love to ask you two about it, but I am out of time, Mr. Meyer1202and Ms. Hooper. Just the obvious fact that this impacts price,1203you talked about consumers, but let's be very, very clear,1204consumers are paying dramatically for this.1205    Mr. Terry, also out of time, but if I had more time, I1206would love to explore what we could be doing to give States1207more authority and more responsibility in this. If we have1208additional hearings, we would love to explore those topics with1209all of you.1210    Thank you. I yield my time.1211    Senator Capito. Thank you.1212    Senator Blunt Rochester?1213    Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and1214Ranking Member Whitehouse, for holding this bipartisan hearing1215on permitting reform. Thank you to the witnesses for attending1216today.1217    This is about our national competitiveness, our national1218security. It is about jobs. It is about consumers, who can not1219afford the high cost of energy today.1220    As we have heard from my colleagues today, any serious1221permitting conversation needs to address the Trump1222administration's attack on clean energy, from the Offshore Wind1223stop orders to the claw-back of billions of dollars for clean1224energy and decarbonization projects. This assault on clean1225energy has to end and our energy projects need permitting1226certainty.1227    As the second smallest State in the Country, Delaware ranks1228last in energy production, often. We produce only a fraction of1229the energy that we consume, making my State reliant on outside1230sources to meet our growing energy demands.1231    Ms. Hopper, why is the opportunity to transition to locally1232produced clean energy, such as solar and wind, so important to1233a State like mine?1234    Ms. Hopper. Good morning, it is good to see you.1235    Senator Blunt Rochester. It is good to see you, too.1236    Ms. Hopper. Thank you for that question. It is really1237important that we have all the tools at our disposal and we can1238utilize then.1239    So, distributed energy, things like solar on someone's1240home, solar in a community, solar on many of the corporate1241rooftops, means that there is less electron highway to get from1242the place where the energy is generated to the person that uses1243it. Less transmission is needed.1244    That matters, because it is less cost. We all know, we have1245talked about PJM, you talked about PJM a moment ago, those1246transmission prices and those peak prices are incredibly1247expensive. So local energy makes a huge difference to the1248consumer.1249    Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Terry, just to followup on1250that, why is producing its own energy, no matter what the1251source, crucial to a State?1252    Mr. Terry. I think that is a fundamental principle of our1253Energy Office members. They do energy planning around all1254resources, not just regulated electricity, but fuels, grid,1255solar, wind, hydropower, natural gas, et cetera. I think the1256ability for a State to use what is local adds value.1257    I remember working a decade or two ago with Governor1258Brandstad, who had very much that view of value-add to the1259resources in his State in Iowa, much as you are looking for1260that in Rhode Island.1261    Senator Blunt Rochester. No, that was Delaware. We are the1262second smallest.1263    [Laughter.]1264    Mr. Terry. Delaware, sorry. I know that.1265    [Laughter.]1266    Senator Blunt Rochester. My staff and I have just heard1267repeatedly, just like we have heard here today, the importance1268of permitting certainty. Not only is it crucial that the1269executive branch not revoke permits from energy projects of any1270type following approval, but it is important that there are1271retroactive protections for permit holders.1272    This is a yes or no question. I am going to go down the1273panel, and I hope it is an easy one of you. Do you agree that1274regardless of administration, permitting certainty is necessary1275for leaseholders and those seeking leases?1276    Mr. Bechtel?1277    Mr. Bechtel. Yes.1278    Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. Mr. Booker?1279    Mr. Booker. Yes.1280    Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Meyer?1281    Mr. Meyer. Yes, ma'am, we do.1282    Senator Blunt Rochester. Ms. Hopper?1283    Ms. Hopper. Yes.1284    Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Terry?1285    Mr. Terry. Yes.1286    Senator Blunt Rochester. Ms. Hopper, why is retroactivity1287certainty for fully permitted projects so important, and what1288are the economic consequences of selective reopenings of prior1289permit approvals?1290    Ms. Hooper. It is fairly catastrophic. If you look at it1291both from the investors and the developers who are building it,1292who are represented all along this panel, they have put their1293capital at risk, they have investors that are awaiting returns.1294So stopping work or pulling the permit puts all of that in1295disarray.1296    Then you think about the consumers, the people like you and1297I that just want to turn our lights on at the end of the day1298when we get home. Those electrons are likely no longer to be1299there. We really need to listen to the grid operators who are1300saying this has a significant impact.1301    So investment decisions get less clear, prices go up,1302consumers are really out of luck.1303    Senator Blunt Rochester. I know all of you are aware that1304Delaware is a member of the PJM interconnection. For those who1305do not know, an original transmission organization that has1306forecasted steep increases in energy demand across the PJM1307region.1308    A recent American Clean Power Report found that without new1309clean energy projects, energy rates in Delaware will increase1310by as much as 95 percent, 95 percent, by 2032. This report was1311alarming to me and I am sure it is equally alarming to other1312PJM States like West Virginia that also are poised to see1313skyrocketing prices.1314    What type of energy efficiency, Mr. Terry, what kind of1315efforts should be included in a permitting package to help1316alleviate the growing demand?1317    Mr. Terry. Several pieces come to mind. First of all,1318certainly a technology-neutral approach to make sure the right1319resources, low-cost and reliable resources. From an efficiency1320perspective, it is a variety of things; grid optimization and1321efficiency technologies for transmission distribution systems,1322and use efficiency technologies. All of these pieces can come1323together to bring down costs, or at least let the increases not1324be as great.1325    We have a great deal of modernization to do of the grid.1326Those investments should be done with that efficiency1327technology innovation in mind.1328    Senator Blunt Rochester. If there are any other members of1329the panel that want to add onto that question about what should1330be included in a package, anyone else?1331    I will yield back the no time that I have left.1332    [Laughter.]1333    Senator Capito. Before I go to Senator Cramer, Mr. Terry,1334when you answer the questions, if you could just put the1335microphone a little bit closer to your mouth, so we could hear1336you a little bit better.1337    Senator Cramer?1338    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Senator1339Whitehouse.1340    One of Cramer's Convictions is, I refuse the notion that1341every transaction in this town requires a loser. I think you1342are demonstrating that we can have winners all around. Let's1343hope that we as a committee can successfully provide that for1344you.1345    One of the things that the government does really well is1346screw up the alignment of incentives. In this case, we have an1347opportunity to line up all the incentives for the right thing.1348    I have to say, Ms. Ross Hopper, first of all, thank you for1349emphasizing, I noticed a little extra emphasis when you1350referred to non-subsidized energy, solar energy. It is an1351important point, because we are here not to talk about other1352policy, we are here to talk about the permitting process,1353whatever the energy source is, whoever paid for it. We dealt1354with the subsidy side of some things previously.1355    So I feel good about where we are heading, and you are all1356really good witnesses to that.1357    I am going to ask a question, first of all, I want to speak1358for a minute to the Clean Water Act and 401 permits. You1359brought it up, Mr. Meyer. Help me understand how the new Trump1360WOTUS rule to comply with Sackett, how helpful can that be? I1361honestly am curious about your response.1362    Mr. Meyer. Senator, that is a great question. It is1363definitely a step in the right direction and something that are1364very supportive of. But ultimately, it falls short of what we1365really need, which is a legislative fix to the way that Section1366401 under the Clean Water Act has historically been weaponized,1367especially against interstate natural gas pipelines.1368    So we are very supportive of it. It is a step in the right1369direction. But we need a lot more, and that is why it is such a1370high priority for us in comprehensive permitting reform.1371    Senator Cramer. Perfectly said.1372    Mr. Bechtel, do you want to add anything to that from your1373perspective?1374    Mr. Bechtel. Just to add that the reason BRT has been so1375focused for over a decade on bipartisan permitting reform1376legislation is because that is what is required for the results1377to be durable.1378    Senator Cramer. Yes.1379    Mr. Bechtel. Executive actions are great, they are helpful.1380But of course, they can be unwound by the next administration.1381    Senator Cramer. I would say, however, it does seem that1382with each generation, every time the Supreme Court speaks, we1383get closer to something that is durable. Important points.1384Thank you.1385    I want to talk now about something that has not been talked1386a lot about, it has been referenced, partly because it is not1387all in our jurisdiction: the importance of linear permitting is1388obvious for infrastructure. Certainly, electric transmission1389lines are part of that.1390    However, there is this other part of transmission lines1391that relates to, of course, back in my days when I was with the1392State of North Dakota in the Public Service Commission, and1393sited, by the way, the original Keystone pipeline through North1394Dakota, worked with a lot of your members, Mr. Booker, and the1395company. We started that process really early, too.1396    By the way, it was not even the hearings, they were1397fascinating, and they were interesting, and they were very1398full. What was more interesting was the earlier part of the1399process where we went to communities and they laid out all the1400maps and all the smart people worked around the room. I will1401never forget the mayor of Park River, North Dakota, going, I am1402not sure, but I do think if you moved this pipeline a few miles1403to the east or the west you could avoid the aquifer that1404provides all the water for our community. Smart move. They1405fixed it before they had the hearing.1406    The best was my farmer friend who showed up and said, I1407have never built a pipeline before, but it seems to me going1408through this quarry where we get a lot of gravel is not the1409best idea. A few miles to this side and you could avoid that.1410Two great, brilliant ideas that came from two normal people. I1411loved it.1412    So you are right; starting earlier, I think, what Senator1413Whitehouse talked about in terms of interagency role of States,1414all important. But on electricity, the large issue cost1415allocation is and is going to continue to be a stumbling block1416if we do not find some common ground between utilities and1417ratepayers. We can site the infrastructure, if permitted, I1418suppose, and States have to, of course, play a major role in1419that.1420    Anybody have a brilliant thought? Maybe start with you, Mr.1421Terry. You obviously have a broad view of all of this. How can1422we get there?1423    Mr. Terry. I think it is an excellent question. The cost1424allocation issue, I think there clearly needs to be some more1425flexibility provided to FERC, while respecting State1426jurisdiction and State roles. I do not think that there is an1427easy answer.1428    One of the things that we have recommended at NASEO to both1429our State members and the Department of Energy on this topic is1430to make sure we have economic analyses that show the benefit to1431the State's consumers. Not just from a rate perspective, but1432the overall economic benefit. We think that there is something1433in that process to help inform the decisions both the State1434regulators are making and Federal regulators are making that go1435beyond rates to additional value that we see.1436    Senator Cramer. Very good. Thank you.1437    Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?1438    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.1439    Colleagues, as I brag about from time to time, as the only1440member of this committee and Energy and Natural Resources1441Committee, I see this from all vantage points, and agree that1442nothing could be more important for the future of our energy1443availability, reliability and affordability than securing a1444permitting reform package that has been talked about, not just1445this year, but for years, and has eluded us a little bit.1446    The package that came through ENR last session, on a1447bipartisan basis, I think, has become a good starting point for1448a lot of these conversations. I want to echo my colleague,1449Senator Whitehouse, the Ranking Member of this committee, in1450his desire to bring something meaningful forward. We have to1451get past this administration's selective and unilateral1452cancellation of projects to restore the goodwill and good faith1453in those conversations.1454    To the witnesses before us, in July, the Interior1455Department issued a memo escalating 68 different project1456reviews to the Secretary level. In effect, what were once upon1457a time routine agency actions that required the Secretary's1458personal approval.1459    Just some examples of what those 68 projects included,1460things like cable barrel risk assessments, historic property1461management plans, supplemental environmental reports. These1462reviews are tying up critical generation and storage in what is1463now red tape and politics.1464    The question is for Mr. Meyer. Do you believe we should be1465reducing the political involvement in agencies' energy project1466permitting review or increasing it?1467    Mr. Meyer. I think it absolutely makes sense to streamline1468agency review. I am not close enough to the specific issue that1469you are referencing to really comment on it. But I know that1470our industry has routinely advocated to make sure that we have1471a streamlined and clarified approach, to make sure that we can1472develop the resources.1473    Senator Padilla. From an industry perspective, do you think1474it is helpful for the Secretary of the Interior to have to sign1475off on what most people would consider routine reviews on an1476energy project?1477    Mr. Meyer. Again, I understand the concern. I am not close1478enough to that specific issue to really make an educated1479comment on it. But I do understand the concern.1480    Senator Padilla. So if a cabinet secretary has to approve1481every step along the permitting process for projects, does that1482slow down or expedite final approvals?1483    Mr. Meyer. Again, I would defer to other witnesses on the1484panel in terms of understanding the actual impacts on those1485industries.1486    Senator Padilla. All right, let me ask a couple questions1487of Ms. Hopper. The Department of Interior's directives and stop1488work orders that I referenced earlier are effectively stalling1489over 100 gigawatts of energy projects that could be connected1490to the grid and help us meeting our growing demand for energy.1491In your testimony, you said the applications are disappearing1492inside the Department of Interior, that developers can not even1493get a clear yes or no.1494    What is a statutory protection that you think you would1495recommend Congress consider to ensure no future administration1496can similarly stifle critical energy projects?1497    Ms. Hopper. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's1498attention. It is having a huge and detrimental impact on the1499industry and on all of us and on rates. I think two things. One1500is that clarifying where the level of authority lies, as you1501are putting together a permitting package. As you said, many of1502the things in the secretarial order of July 15th are decisions1503that could be made at a much lower level. So I think clarifying1504that in legislation would be helpful.1505    I also think in terms of timelines, we have talked a lot1506about predictability and consistency. Part of what is happening1507and what you are describing is that things, permits go into the1508box, you submit them, and you never hear. You never hear what1509is happening, when it might happen, how it might happen, who is1510making the decision that it will happen.1511    That again can be clarified with some deadlines and1512timelines, with some accountability. There has to be some kind1513of teeth on those, or else the timelines do not really matter.1514    Senator Padilla. At the risk of going off on a tangent, I1515know particularly in the transportation sector, there was a lot1516of frustration nearly a year ago with the initial hiring1517freezes, layoffs, funding claw-backs, the DOGE experiments. You1518had one point of contact to answer your questions on the status1519of an application 1 day, and they were completely gone, nobody1520would hear from them the next day. I imagine that is having a1521similar impact here as part of that big box that you described.1522    Separately, I know my time is short, Ms. Hopper, you1523released a statement regarding the House-passed SPEED Act,1524characterizing it as insufficient and saying that it falls1525short. Can you explain a little bit more to this committee what1526you meant by that and what else we could do to improve that1527predictability that you rely on?1528    Ms. Hopper. Yes, absolutely. I think the thing that we1529thought was not adequately addressed in the SPEED Act is1530exactly what we are talking about, this sort of prospective1531discriminatory treatment. We have heard a lot about the1532weaponization of the permitting process, and the SPEED Act does1533not solve that. It did have some bipartisan--with significant1534holes--element for permits that had already been issued, but1535nothing that really addressed this overreach of an1536administration to punish a certain electricity source.1537    Senator Padilla. Thank you. At the end of the day, when all1538this leads to delays, delays is time, time is money. It is1539always upon the ratepayers to bear that burden.1540    Thank you, Madam Chair.1541    Senator Capito. Thank you.1542    Senator Husted?1543    Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate1544everybody being here today.1545    I always ask the question, why does it matter to me? Why1546this matters the most is that if we are going to have a1547domestic supply chain of the things that are essential to our1548economic and national security, we have to get to work. Whether1549that means pharmaceuticals, rare earth, chips, energy,1550transmission, infrastructure, AI, all of it requires a great1551deal of new investment in our Nation to be able to do that.1552    Anybody in business knows that time is money, because the1553longer it takes to do something, the more expensive you make1554it. The more expensive you make it, the more that cost gets1555transferred to the consumer, out of necessity to do that. China1556is considered an engineering society, I recently read this, and1557we are considered a litigation society. They go much faster1558than we do.1559    I am not suggesting that we want to be like China, because1560we do not. We want to be responsible. But we also have to1561compete in a global market.1562    Mr. Bechtel, I know you and certainly your company has done1563projects all around the world. You have customers all around1564the world. I know that you have some pretty important projects1565in my State, in Ohio.1566    Can you explain to us, because I read the McKinsey study1567from 2025 said that they will leave $2.5 trillion in capital on1568the table because of permitting requirements. Explain to us how1569important you believe this is for helping America compete.1570    Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, Senator Husted, and thanks for your1571support in Ohio.1572    Yes, so, there is $1.5 trillion in investments currently1573waiting in the queue for permits. It takes on average four to 51574years for every dollar of investment that enters that queue to1575come out the other side. Does not matter whether that is a1576private dollar or a public taxpayer dollar.1577    If you add all that up, that means that we are losing1578somewhere between $100 billion and $140 billion a year in1579unrealized returns. The induced GPA impact of that is about1580$2.4 trillion a year.1581    I think it was said earlier really well by Senator Cramer,1582this is an everybody wins situation, if we can fix it. America1583wins, consumers win, workers win, communities, taxpayers win1584with a permitting system that is efficient, that is1585predictable, and that yields a durable result that allows us to1586attract investment from around the world.1587    Senator Husted. As you are doing projects around the world,1588how, particularly in the places that we are having a difficult1589time competing with, what is the time difference to take to do1590a big project in one of those places versus the United States?1591    Mr. Bechtel. It varies widely, sir. At any given point in1592time, we have about 100 projects in 30 different countries.1593Every country is a little bit different. I cited some examples1594earlier of places like Australia and Canada, where they are1595consistently, predictably issuing permits, including very1596robust environmental protections and community consultations1597inside of two to 3 years. If we could just cut the current four1598to 5 year time in half, that would unlock a tremendous amount1599of value which currently is just tied up in the system.1600    Just to put a finer point on this, the cost of living and1601cost of goods and services impacts of this, it has been said by1602others, but permit delays, they lead to real costs for1603consumers and taxpayers. If it takes on average four to 5 years1604to get through the permit process, think about that over the1605last four to 5 years, construction costs have on average gone1606up about 40 percent.1607    So while your project is waiting for its permit, just add160840 percent to the cost of your project. Then figure out how you1609are going to pass that on to the ultimate beneficiaries of the1610project. It is destroying a ton of investor value; it is1611destroying a ton of taxpayer value. It is a huge opportunity1612loss.1613    Senator Husted. So the project does not happen because it1614is too expensive, or the cost gets passed on to the consumer.1615    Mr. Booker, I want to give you an opportunity to reflect on1616that. You work with the people who build all these projects.1617What would it mean in terms of jobs and qualify of life for1618your members?1619    Mr. Booker. Let me start by saying, I wish our members got1620that 40 percent raise that he was talking about.1621    [Laughter.]1622    Mr. Booker. Because they are not getting 40 percent raises.1623    Senator Husted. Exactly.1624    Mr. Booker. The impact for our members is jobs. It is their1625ability to go to work, it is their ability to give their skills1626to build a chips plant outside of Columbus. When you see that1627that project gets delayed, or projects like that get delayed,1628as we train our people to get there, and then they have to sit1629on the sidelines, they do not have health care, they are not1630getting that pension credit, they are not getting a paycheck.1631Because we get paid by the hour, we do not get paid by the job.1632    So it has a huge negative impact with unpredictability and1633chaos when every owner, every contractor, every developer,1634wants predictability and every member that I represent wants to1635know that the current job is going to stay safe and that they1636have a place to go on their next job when they have built that1637infrastructure.1638    Senator Husted. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for the1639opportunity. What we have heard here is what others have said1640earlier, everybody wins, it is good for America, it is good for1641American business, and it is good for the American workers. I1642hope we will get this done.1643    Thank you.1644    Senator Capito. Senator Alsobrooks?1645    Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair1646Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse, for holding today's1647hearing. I certainly want to say thank you as well to all our1648witnesses who are here.1649    In Maryland, energy projects, including solar and wind,1650represent good jobs and work that is critical to meet rapidly1651growing electricity demand driven by data centers, advanced1652manufacturing and electrification across industries.1653    Yet the permitting process, at local, State and Federal1654levels, can be cumbersome with lack of certainty around1655timelines. That uncertainty can impact workers, consumers are1656facing high utility bills, and States trying to plan for1657reliability and affordability are really, really struggling.1658    I believe it is possible to achieve efficiencies without1659sacrificing critical environmental protections. Bipartisan1660permitting reform legislation only makes sense if it can1661deliver real certainty, both for projects already underway and1662for those in progress, if it will be executed faithfully1663without political interference.1664    So our goal is to ensure that the Federal permitting system1665works for all types of projects, people, and the environment.1666    My first question is for Mr. Booker. I know that this was1667partially covered. In Maryland and across the Country,1668infrastructure projects mean union jobs, apprenticeship slots,1669and good wages. When the Federal Government halts fully1670permitted projects, as this Administration has done, for clean1671energy projects, workers are the first to feel the impact.1672    So what happens to union workers? What happens to their1673families when this administration cancels projects that are1674fully permitted and ready to build?1675    Mr. Booker. I will start with the Revolution Wind project1676that has started and stopped twice now, where our members were1677on the water, working, building offshore wind for Revolution1678Wind off the coast of Rhode Island. On December 22d or 23, they1679got a stop-work order. They did not get a paycheck on December168030th. They were sent home. They did not have a job. They had to1681wait for a Federal judge to say that, you can go back to work,1682that this was improper.1683    So as we all gathered with our friends and families and1684enjoyed the year and reflected on the last year, we had members1685who sat at home wondering if they were going to be able to go1686back to work. They get paid by the week.1687    So imagine that uncertainty, imagine that uneasiness that1688you would have if you were not sure when your next paycheck was1689going to be.1690    Senator Alsobrooks. Yes, and not only those workers, but1691what about those apprenticeship pipelines, the work force1692training and also the ability to bring the next generation into1693the building trades? Can you speak briefly about how those are1694impacted as well?1695    Mr. Booker. Our system is built on earn while you learn. So1696when you are working, you are graduating each year of your1697apprenticeship. When you do not have that job, when you do not1698have that opportunity, you are not able to graduate to that1699next level apprenticeship, earn more wages, get the skill sets1700you need to continue building this Country.1701    So any type of cancellation, termination, job delay,1702uncertainty on existing permitted jobs or the next job just1703means that that pipeline gets bogged down and people do not1704have the ability to continue earning a living for their family.1705    Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.1706    I want to ask Mr. Terry, quickly, just to move quickly to1707demand and reliability. States like Maryland are facing1708electricity demand growth driven by data centers, advanced1709manufacturing and electrification. Meeting that demand requires1710new generation and new transmission delivered on predictable1711timelines.1712    How serious is the reliability risk when projects to meet1713this demand are delayed, stalled, or canceled after years of1714planning and permitting?1715    Mr. Terry. An excellent question. It is incredibly serious.1716As I noted earlier, grid planning, energy system planning from1717a State perspective is often done by our members. When they1718project out how resources will come online, things that are1719needed, engagement with utilities, engagement with independent1720power producers, and delivered fuels industry, when those plans1721go awry because of permitting delays, whether that is State,1722Federal or local, it creates a tremendous risk to the system1723overall. It is very interdependent, our fuels and grid system.1724    So I think it is a tremendous concern.1725    Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.1726    Finally, regarding Federal accountability, Ms. Ross Hopper,1727my colleagues and I have raised concerns in this committee1728about the administration's failure to implement laws as1729Congress intended and directed. This has real consequences on1730the ground and our States that are worth discussing.1731    So, Ms. Ross Hopper, what are the consequences for our1732Country's energy systems, consumers and work force if Federal1733agencies continue to delay, reopen or cancel projects that have1734already been approved?1735    Ms. Hopper. Thank you to my home Senator for that question.1736    I will echo what others have said and I will put a finer1737point on the cost. You heard about reliability, which is a huge1738risk, especially in weather like we are having today or1739incredibly hot weather. Even if we have rolling brownouts, it1740is incredibly impactful, especially to people with medical1741needs who need electricity.1742    In addition, prices continue to go up. We are all1743experiencing that. I feel it when I open my electricity bill; I1744know others do as well.1745    So when electrons were supposed to be delivered and they1746are no longer available because we were not able to finish the1747project, it puts more pressure on the system and prices will go1748up. So it impacts all of us.1749    Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much.1750    Senator Capito. Thank you.1751    Senator Boozman?1752    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,1753Senator Whitehouse, for having this very, very important1754hearing. Again, it is always your example of working together,1755leading us together, so we can actually accomplish a result,1756which is so, so very important.1757    Mr. Bechtel, Mr. Terry, this past weekend, as we all know,1758we have had winter Storm Fern bring ice and snow, sleet, to1759Arkansas and much of the Country. We are grateful for the1760preparations by our local utilities and linemen. They did a1761tremendous job, not only in Arkansas but throughout the1762Country.1763    The Department of Energy provided proactive relief in1764allowing the use of backup generators and EPA Administrator1765Zeldin has also made operational flexibility a priority.1766    I think the question is, do you all have any1767recommendations for how the EPA can enable more flexibility for1768backup generation to operate during grid emergencies? Then1769also, how will comprehensive permitting reform allow for1770utilities to better prepare for the next emergency?1771    Mr. Terry?1772    Mr. Terry. I am happy to respond, and I really commend the1773linemen, the utility workers, the States and DOE for having1774gotten through this last weekend. I think with regard to1775emergency backup generation, cooperation between EPA, the1776Governors' offices, Governors' energy offices and the1777Department of Energy in these emergency situations to make sure1778that those generators come on when they are needed, but also to1779make sure that they are prepared to.1780    So I think that is fundamental cooperation. I am not sure1781that is a permitting reform item. We can get back to you with1782some more details and suggestions.1783    Senator Boozman. Very good.1784    Mr. Terry, with Chairman Westerman's passage of the SPEED1785Act and Governor Sanders' signing energy regulatory reforms1786into State law, Arkansas is emerging as a national leader in1787commonsense permitting reform as energies such as technology,1788lithium, steel, manufacturing, aerospace, defense and forestry1789are seeking to set up shop in Arkansas or expand existing1790operations.1791    How would proposals like the SPEED Act provide regulatory1792certainty that these projects are viable investments in1793Arkansas, and how can Federal reforms complement State-level1794efforts to streamline approvals, which we just talked about the1795importance of that, allowing the energy grid to meet the1796demands of the future?1797    Mr. Terry. Excellent question. I think a couple of things.1798One, the kinds of actions we see at the State level such as1799Arkansas, this does allow investment to come in. The missing1800component of Federal permitting certainty is critical to that.1801    The SPEED Act, I think, does take a good step forward.1802However, ensuring that that comes out with certainty around1803timing, also certainty around technology or project neutrality1804I think is important.1805    Last, I think the kind of attraction and business that you1806see in Arkansas and other States that have taken action, these1807are once in a generation opportunities. If those businesses,1808manufacturers, et cetera, go overseas, we lose them forever. I1809think that is the urgency to this.1810    Senator Boozman. Very good.1811    Ms. Ross Hopper, Arkansas is currently seeing major1812investments in AI and cloud infrastructure, including a multi-1813billion dollar data center in Little Rock and West Memphis.1814Arkansas was able to land these investments in part because of1815the reliable, affordable and all-of-the-above energy supply,1816including solar.1817    What steps should we be taking to ensure permitting reform1818remains technology neutral, encouraging diverse investments in1819a State like Arkansas?1820    Ms. Hopper. Thank you for that question. You have1821identified one of the things that is happening all across the1822Country, including Arkansas, is those big data centers are1823looking to find the electrons as quickly as they can. Solar and1824storage often are part of the solution. You will never hear me1825say they need to be 100 percent of the solution.1826    But what can you do here? You have heard unanimity here1827around technology, neutral technology, gnostic solutions, not1828weaponizing the permitting system. I think that means that you1829have clear timelines, so that every project, regardless of the1830source of the energy, has the same kind of timeline, the same1831kind of environmental reviews. They will be different based on1832the technology, but they should be sort of standard and1833predictable.1834    I think being clear about the certainty and the finality of1835final decisions and final permits is critical.1836    Then last, making sure that whoever is in the White House1837and the administration does not take the ability to weaponize1838inter-agency permitting, so that there is some clarity from1839this body around where those decisions should lie.1840    Senator Boozman. Very good.1841    Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Senator.1842    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.1843    Senator Capito. Senator Markey?1844    Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.1845    We are holding this hearing because project developers want1846certainty. Well, if you are looking for uncertainty, all you1847have to do is to look down the road to 1600 Pennsylvania1848Avenue. Because since Trump took office, nearly 1 year ago,1849Trump's costly, lawless, and unnecessary war on American clean1850energy has cost more than 165,000 clean energy jobs, $531851billion in private investment lost, 324 projects across red and1852blue States killed.1853    Offshore Wind has already unleashed billions in investments1854and created thousands of union jobs across the Country. It1855makes sense for coastal States like Massachusetts as well as1856for supply chain States like Texas and Louisiana, Mississippi.1857But over the past year, Trump has been escalating this1858increasingly outlandish attack on Offshore Wind, including1859cutting off the permitting process for all wind projects on1860Federal lands or water.1861    On December 22d, the Trump administration took its most1862unhinged action yet and yanked the permits for five Offshore1863Wind projects that are fully permitted and under construction,1864including Vineyard Wind I off the coast of Massachusetts, 8001865megawatts. This action fuels rising electricity costs, puts our1866grid reliability at risk and as Mr. Booker put so well, sends1867thousands of union workers home without pay.1868    So we can not talk about new permitting laws in Congress1869while the Trump administration refuses to follow the laws which1870we already have. If Trump, Secretary Wright, Secretary Burgum1871will not do so on their own accord, this administration must be1872forced to end its punitive treatment through clear legislative1873texts and vocal Republican opposition to any efforts to violate1874the law.1875    So down the line, yes or no, do you agree that the Trump1876administration should stop its targeted attacks on wind and1877solar? Yes, or no, should they stop?1878    Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, Senator Markey. Rather than1879commenting on any one specific kind of project, the point for1880the Business Roundtable is that it needs to be predictable, and1881permits need to stand once issued.1882    Senator Markey. Right. But that is not predictable. They1883have already permitted, now they are canceled.1884    Mr. Booker, yes or no?1885    Mr. Booker. Yes.1886    Senator Markey. Mr. Meyer?1887    Mr. Meyer. Senator Markey, as I mentioned to Senator1888Padilla, I am not close enough to that issue to have an opinion1889on it. But we are an all of the above organization, and all of1890the reforms----1891    Senator Markey. OK. Ms. Hopper?1892    Ms. Hopper. Unequivocally, yes.1893    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you.1894    Mr. Terry. Yes, for fully permitted projects.1895    Senator Markey. Thank you. Yes, we can not even get the top1896secret briefing on what the national security issue is that is1897blocking it. They will not even give us the briefing so we can1898know. Although I suspect it is, you have to take down the wind1899turbines so they can bring the aircraft carriers up to1900Greenland to attack. They do not want those obstacles on the1901water.1902    [Laughter.]1903    Senator Markey. So down the line, permitting reform without1904project uncertainty is meaningless and right now, the call for1905uncertainty is coming from inside the White House. So if1906Republicans want to make permits great again, the Trump1907administration could end this permitting chaos and uncertainty1908for offshore wind and renewable energy right now. But if1909projects like offshore wind and clean energy projects can be1910stalled or stopped entirely by the executive branch on a whim,1911it stands to reason that fossil fuel projects can get the same1912treatment in the future by a Democratic administration. The1913right has given the left a very good playbook.1914    Mr. Meyer, are you aware that some policymakers and1915environmental organizations are planning for how this1916administration's restrictive permitting framework could be1917applied to oil, gas, and pipeline projects in future1918administrations?1919    Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Senator. We are aware that that1920is pert of the conversation.1921    Senator Markey. Yes. So, Madam Chair, what I would ask is1922unanimous consent to enter a memo from Evergreen Action on this1923issue into the record, which shows how the Interior1924Department's July 15th memo to block solar and wind projects1925could be repurposed to block oil, gas and pipeline projects.1926    Senator Capito. Without objection. Those have been blocked1927in the past, as you know.1928    [The referenced information follows:]19291930[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]19311932    Senator Markey. Mr. Meyer, is it fair to say the oil and1933gas industry would not want any White House Republican or1934Democrat to require the Interior Secretary's personal signature1935for every stage of a project review?1936    Mr. Meyer. Again, Mr. Senator, we are supportive of the1937permit certainty provisions. It is also true that we have had1938our own difficult experiences across different agencies in1939previous administrations. That is why we continue to be an all1940of the above organization and all of our reforms would benefit1941energy resources equally.1942    Senator Markey. The problem is, we are in an oil above all1943era, not an all of the above era. We can see that from1944Venezuela to all of the public decisions that have been made by1945the administration.1946    Thank you, Madam Chair.1947    Senator Capito. Thank you.1948    Senator Lummis?1949    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.1950    Mr. Markey, we feel your pain. We could take your statement1951and where you said left we could put right. Where you said1952right, we could put left. Where you put Trump, we could put1953Biden. Where you said Biden, we could put Trump. Where you said1954oil and gas, we could put, say, coal and solar and wind.1955    I mean, under the Biden Administration, one of the first1956things he did was nix the Keystone XL pipeline. Just like Mr.1957Booker said, there were union jobs working on that pipeline.1958There was pipe sitting next to an open trench ready to install.1959There were people who lost their jobs on the spot, just the way1960you described, because of what President Biden did.1961    Now, the converse is happening with some renewable energy1962types. So we are in the same boat now. We have seen a Democrat1963administration under President Biden do the same thing that now1964you are complaining about.1965    So what we do need is some certainty. Here is what I am1966wondering. Here is what I want to talk to the panel about. Is1967there a difference between a small project----1968    Senator Markey. I just want to add that Biden permitted1969public land oil and gas permits faster during his 4 years, on1970public lands, than Trump did----1971    Senator Sullivan. That is not true. If you come to Alaska,1972it is zero----1973    Senator Markey. That is one----1974    Senator Capito. Wait a minute. It is Senator Lummis' time.1975    Senator Lummis. I would also point out that during that1976same time, quarterly oil and gas lease sales on public land1977were, put a moratorium on them, contrary to Federal law, and1978that the no-coal on Federal land, which is basically where all1979the coal in Wyoming comes from, was permitted. I mean, this1980is--this is an apples to oranges, both sides treating the1981source of energy exactly the opposite.1982    So here is what I am wondering. If it is a small-scale1983project, should there be a different permitting process than1984for an industrial-scale project? Let me give you an example.1985So, in my lifetime, I have seen a massive difference in the1986footprint of oil and gas on the surface of the ground because1987of horizontal drilling. You used to have a lot more surface1988disturbance to produce the same amount of oil and gas. But when1989horizontal drilling became a thing, there is very little1990surface disturbance.1991    The exact opposite has happened with wind and solar. The1992scale of these industrial wind projects and the industrial1993solar projects is massive. They are huge. In a State like1994Wyoming, for example, we recently had a proposal for a wind1995project that covered 48,000 acres.1996    Now, even in my big State, this is a massive scale of1997surface disturbance, because there are all these little roads1998between every wind turbine. We have had massive scale solar1999projects. Now, in our very thin topsoil, if you put down these2000blankets of solar panels, where the sun can not shine through,2001two things happen. The soil does not grow anything. So the wind2002erosion in our tremendously windy State is blowing away what2003little topsoil we have under a 30-year permitted solar project.2004The amount of fire prevention roads that have to be installed2005around an industrial scale solar project is massive, because2006they tend to catch on fire.2007    So there are environmental consequences that have, I think,2008in a lot of ways during my lifetime, tipped the scale to where2009what we need to be looking at in one way is just the scale of2010the permit. Is it 10 acres or 20 acres? Or is it 48,000 acres?2011If it is a small-scale project in terms of surface disturbance,2012we should have an expedited permitting process that does not go2013to the level of the Secretary of the Interior.2014    But if it is an industrial-scale project of any kind,2015whether it is oil and gas or coal or wind or solar, maybe it2016should rise to the scale of the Secretary.2017    Any comments?2018    Mr. Booker. I have a lot of comments, if I can. We are all2019looking about predictability, whether it is large-scale or2020small-scale. It does not matter. We should allow for developers2021to determine, does it make sense to have a solar or wind farm2022in your State or any other State, not people sitting around2023this table to say, picking winners and losers.2024    We are all of the above. We believe in wind and solar. We2025believe in nuclear. We believe in pipelines. We believe in2026natural gas. We believe in coal. We believe that those energy2027sources are what we need. We believe in a predictable2028permitting process that allows not just for energy2029infrastructure, either. Right now, Gateway Tunnels, in the2030winds, sitting down the street at Pennsylvania Avenue, whether2031or not that project, an infrastructure project, a tunnel2032project in New York City, is going to be allowed to continue to2033be being built, where I have 400, 500, 600 members right now.2034    So we have to take politics out of all of this. We have to2035let the regulators regulate, we have to keep the politicians2036out of this and have predictability. Get rid of this chaos and2037create jobs for Americans, create jobs for our members, create2038jobs for your constituents.2039    Senator Lummis. Well said, Mr. Booker. I yield back.2040    Senator Capito. Thank you.2041    Senator Schiff?2042    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank2043you for the work you are doing with Senator Whitehouse on2044reform. I think we are vitally in need of permitting reform,2045and appreciate all the bipartisan work that has gone into it.2046    I have the same concern that Senator Whitehouse does with2047the cancellation of billions of dollars of renewable energy2048projects in California. One of them alone, the cancellation of2049Arches, for example, was expected to support over 220,000 jobs.2050That is quite devastating. It will be hard, I think, for us to2051get to yes on a permitting reform if we think that permitting2052reform is going to be used in a way that is prejudicial either2053against States or that favors only one source of energy, that2054being fossil fuels, to the expense of all others.2055    So I think it is going to be necessary to have some2056restoration of confidence that the permitting reform will be2057used in an even-handed basis, and not the subject of State by2058State discrimination.2059    But let me just turn to what I think is going to really2060propel an increase in energy costs if we do not address it, and2061that is, we have all these data centers coming online. We are2062expecting year after year significant increases in energy2063demand, electricity demand, in particular. We have to meet that2064demand, and we are taking a lot of projects that would meet2065that demand off the grid.2066    There are certainly critical issues in, for example,2067reducing the queue to get on the grid and to make sure that we2068are pursuing projects in a timely way. But if we are taking2069whole sources of energy offline at a time of vastly increasing2070demand, then consumers can not help but see their prices2071skyrocket. They have already gone up 13 percent in the course2072of the last year.2073    So I welcome your thoughts, both on the need to make sure2074that we can get new projects online more quickly. But also how2075we really can not be excluding whole sectors of energy when so2076much of the new energy coming online is renewable. To be2077cutting that off in the face of dramatically increased demand2078is just going to push prices higher.2079    I welcome your thoughts on any of the above.2080    Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to take first2081crack at that.2082    So I could not agree more than speed is critical, and that2083I think the data centers that are demanding more energy would2084agree with me, that speed is critical. All of us here represent2085all of the above, most of the above, particular industries,2086whatever. But we would all agree that speed and predictability2087matter.2088    Solar and storage are the fastest to build right now. That2089is not a political statement. That is merely a factual2090statement in terms of our supply chain, how quickly we can get2091things permitted. So we should continue to do that. To take2092that off the table means higher prices for ratepayers.2093    Senator Schiff. Some of the counterpoint made by the2094administration is, well, that is not reliable, it is not all2095the time. Now the storage, I would imagine, addresses some of2096that. But how would you respond to that argument?2097    Ms. Hopper. Thank you for asking, because I get that2098question a lot. You are right, that storage is a critical2099element of this. Having the ability to store those electrons2100when the sun is shining so brightly is important, and then it2101can discharge later.2102    In my testimony, you will see a really lovely graph from2103Texas, of all places, about the impact not only of availability2104of electrons, but the price of electrons during peak days. It2105compares 2022 to 2025. There was more solar in storage on the2106grid in Texas, not only was there reliability, but there was2107also much, much lower prices during peak time.2108    Senator Schiff. Thank you. Any others?2109    Mr. Meyer. Yes, if you do not mind. Demand is growing so2110rapidly, so it is absolutely a critical question. We are going2111to need all resources. About 43 percent of U.S. electricity2112generation comes from natural gas.2113    So we believe strongly that we are going to need a lot more2114of that capacity as well, not only on the generation side, but2115on the infrastructure side, to make sure that we can move the2116gas from where it is produced to where it is in demand. So that2117is a big emphasis of our permitting reform priorities as well.2118    Senator Schiff. Thank you.2119    Mr. Bechtel. Senator Schiff, if I could just add, the2120McKinsey Report studying the potential benefits of permit2121reform that I included in my testimony makes the compelling2122point, with a lot of very compelling data, that better2123permitting would actually reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions2124significantly. That as part of that, that we should not2125discriminate between energy sources.2126    Senator Schiff. What accounts for that, if you would?2127    Mr. Bechtel. It has a lot to do with the fact that permit2128delays carry their own environmental costs with deferring2129projects that, in general, are going to be reducing pollution,2130they are going to be using inputs more efficiently, they will2131be bringing electrons onto the grid.2132    Senator Schiff. Thank you very much.2133    Mr. Booker. Let me just say, with the data center, that is2134an important point that we are going to have to figure out2135together. It takes power to build them. We can not build them.2136We have to stay globally competitive, and we need to bring2137those stakeholders together, you bring the power companies with2138the data centers, with labor, with the community, to figure out2139how do we do this together so that we have, whether it is small2140modular reactors, whether it is renewables, whether it is gas,2141whatever the power source is, that we are bringing that power2142at the same time, so we are not raising these rates for the2143ratepayers and we are able to stay globally competitive in the2144data center race.2145    Senator Schiff. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.2146    Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding] The order is Ricketts,2147Kelly, Sullivan.2148    Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you very much, Ranking2149Member Sheldon Whitehouse. Also for Chairman Capito.2150    I have actually just got a few minutes, because I have got2151to get to the floor to go preside. So I will be really brief.2152    Thank you to our witnesses here.2153    When I was Governor of Nebraska, I actually put Lean Six2154Sigma as part of our overall strategy in government, but it2155worked very well with streamlining our processes in permitting.2156We took, for example, our air construction permits, where it2157was 110 steps long, we cut it down to 22 steps, and were able2158to cut the time from 198 days down to 65 days. So I think there2159is an opportunity here as well to be able, across all, to be2160able to streamlining what we are doing in permitting in a lot2161of ways that do not impact any sort of environmental standards.2162    Nebraskans, from across all industries, especially if you2163are thinking about construction, transportation, agriculture,2164have all advocated for commonsense reform to our permitting2165process. Because it does take too long, as you have all2166highlighted.2167    Process improvements can be continuous. They are not. Every2168single industry benefits from efficient and predictable2169regulation.2170    Efficient, predictable regulatory frameworks drive down2171costs. Mr. Bechtel, you were just talking about also driving2172down greenhouse gases. Puts more money back in people's2173pockets. It is how we restore our cost effectiveness.2174    In Nebraska, this looks like timely approvals for roads,2175utility projects, pipelines and all the essentials that go into2176economic growth and infrastructure development. We also talked2177about certainty in project development. I agree with that 1002178percent. It is essential for insuring projects not only begin2179but are completed with the permits that they were issued, and2180to providing certainty. We also need to make sure we are doing2181a lawsuit reform, enforcement of time lines, interagency2182collaboration, all of this is critical as Congress takes up2183this issue.2184    These changes ultimately will save time and taxpayer2185dollars, all while maintaining environmental standards, and to2186my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would just add2187to, again, the Keystone Pipeline was canceled in Nebraska. I2188recall being at the front end of this project even before I was2189Governor of Nebraska. Those jobs were good union jobs, Mr.2190Booker, that were paying, some of them, over $100 an hour. It2191was really, really good jobs that got canceled, because Joe2192Biden canceled the permit.2193    So again, predictability, I agree with as well.2194    Sadly, I do not have any time to ask questions, because I2195have got to get to the floor. But again, thank you all for2196being here today to help us with this very important process.2197    Senator Whitehouse. Senator Sullivan?2198    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to2199thank the witnesses here. I think this is one of the most2200important hearings of the year, certainly in this committee it2201is. I think we have a great opportunity, it is a bipartisan2202group of witnesses.2203    I want to thank Mr. Bechtel, Mr. Meyer, for all you are2204doing for American energy. Really want to thank Mr. Booker for2205all you are doing for American energy and Alaska energy. The2206laborers up in my great State are just essential, building out2207America, building out Alaska.2208    Matter of fact, one of my first op-eds that I had as a new2209U.S. Senator in the Hill Magazine, Hill newspaper, I wrote with2210Terry O'Sullivan, the great former, now you are the great2211current LIUNA president. This was all about permitting reform,2212and how important it is to energy infrastructure, and No. 1,2213jobs. Good jobs.2214    So I am going to show you something real quick to make the2215point Senator Markey--because what Senator Markey was saying,2216no offense, I am friends with Senator Markey, is baloney. This2217is what my State endured. Seventy executive orders and2218executive actions, singularly focused on Alaska. We have the2219back to show all the--seven zero. Singularly focused on my2220State to shut it down, oil, gas, you name it, everything, by2221President Biden. Alaska was the No. 1 target.2222    You think that killed jobs, Mr. Booker? Trust me, a lot of2223your members.2224    So then, President Trump comes in, which was great, because2225I asked him, Mr. President, are you going to get rid of Biden's2226EOs that are crushing my State's economy? By the way, killing2227American energy, right? That is not good. Biden was sanctioning2228Alaska more than he sanctioned Iran and Venezuela, the oil and2229gas. That is a fact.2230    So President Trump comes in and he says, no, I am going to2231unleash Alaska. Day one I get this great executive order that2232is trying to reverse all the Biden stuff. So I appreciate the2233President and his team.2234    By the way, the one State for Senator Markey that did do2235great during Biden was New Mexico. Because the senior Senator2236from New Mexico I am sure got in Deb Haaland's ear, the2237Secretary of Interior from New Mexico, they got more than half2238of all Federal drilling permits. Shut down Alaska, drill, baby,2239drill in New Mexico, because it was a Democrat State. Pure and2240simple politics.2241    So, little bit of crocodile tears over there on the other2242side. Senator Whitehouse is one of my best friends in the2243Senate, but no offense, man, this is what goes around comes2244around, and you are getting a little taste of the medicine2245Alaska has gotten by Democrats.2246    Senator Whitehouse. None taken.2247    Senator Sullivan. But here is the point. I am going to ask2248questions. We have a great opportunity to stop this like, you2249know, pendulum. My State now, we got a President and2250administration that is trying to help everything, on2251permitting. The previous administration targeted us, No. 1,2252more than terrorist states.2253    So what we need is permitting reform in the law. This is2254the moment. I think it is a great opportunity for all of us. I2255think Senator Whitehouse would agree.2256    So let me ask Mr. Booker, Mr. Bechtel, you keep talking2257about certainty, timelines. There is a lot of ways to do that.2258There is litigation certainty. You talk about 28 percent of all2259projects get delayed up to 4 years just by litigation in your2260testimony. Mr. Booker, you were constantly talking about, need2261secure timelines that we can agree on.2262    So what are the, when you guys are looking for certainty,2263what are the top ones that you want us to focus on? To Mr.2264Booker, if we get permitting reform in the law, do you have any2265doubt that that will create more jobs, not less jobs?2266    So why do not you start with that question, and then to2267both of you, and maybe Mr. Meyer as well, the key elements of2268certainty, what are the top ones? Because there is judicial2269reform, there is litigation reform, there is standing, there is2270Federal agencies, moving them out on a quicker timeline. What2271do you guys think is the key thing?2272    It is really important. We had a bunch of our building2273trades that I called for informal meeting just a couple of2274weeks ago to say, what do you guys need. Because this is the2275moment. I have been working on this issue since I got here, 112276years ago, and we have the moment. Let's do it.2277    So, Mr. Booker?2278    Mr. Booker. The first question is easy, yes, permitting2279reform is going to create more jobs. Brendan testified to it2280earlier, a couple of trillion dollars hanging in the balance2281because of waiting for permits. So if we get rid of some of2282those, not get of the regulations, but if we can streamline,2283make it easier to get these in a streamlined process, obviously2284it is going to create more jobs.2285    Probably the No. 1 thing for LIUNA and for our members is2286that Section 401 water quality certification and to get some2287certainty around that. Because right now, the current system2288just allows for that certification to go to the States.2289Depending on the color of the State, depending on the type of2290the energy depends on whether you get a permit or not.2291    So let's get some certainty around that. Give us a yes or a2292no. If the answer is no, tell us why so that we can reapply. If2293the answer is yes, then let's go build it. Right now, we do not2294get an answer, which means the projects are not being built,2295which is why there is $2.5 trillion hanging in the balance of2296capital that is ready to be invested in this Country.2297    Senator Sullivan. Great.2298    Mr. Bechtel, in terms of certainty, what are your2299priorities?2300    Mr. Bechtel. Senator Sullivan, I will do the speed round on2301this. The full details are in the BRT report that I submitted2302with my testimony.2303    There are four things. The first is redundancy, get rid of2304it. We are studying the same environmental impact three, four,2305five times across different agencies. It is not thorough, it is2306wasteful. Typically, you have to go through a State process.2307The State regulators are creating really good data. Can we just2308use that same data and not have to recreate it three, four,2309five different times for different agencies?2310    The second are deadlines. Right now there is no consequence2311for agencies that sit on permit applications.2312    Solution. Ninety days after an EIS or EIA has been issued,2313you get a no or it defaults to yes. If there is no answer in 902314days, the default should be yes. That is reasonable. It is2315achievable. It drives accountability.2316    Modernize the process. We are using a 1970's playbook for231721st century infrastructure. We should be using the categorical2318exclusions we have more consistently. We should be using2319programmatic reviews the way they were intended. Our2320competitors, like China, are not waiting right now. We should2321not be either.2322    Then the last thing, I know this is something you are2323particularly passionate about, sir, but litigation. I shared2324the statistics already. I talked earlier, average litigation2325delay is 4.2 years, while average construction costs go up2326about 40 percent over those 4 years. There is a tremendous2327amount of, yes, private capital but also taxpayer dollars being2328destroyed as part of that delay. Eighty percent of those times2329in those cases, the agency's permits stand as issued.2330    Senator Sullivan. Yes.2331    Mr. Bechtel. So what are we doing here?2332    Senator Sullivan. Thank you.2333    Just real quick, Mr. Chairman, something you know, Donlin2334Mine, that is one of the biggest gold mines, we have been2335trying to get that permitted in Alaska. It is a great2336opportunity now, there are a lot of great investors.2337    Six years after the EPA and Army Corps issued a Clean Water2338404 permit, 6 years, a group of far left environmentalists2339sued, and now it is in litigation. I mean, can you believe2340that? It is just crazy. James Callahan, head of the Operating2341Engineers, said NEPA has evolved into a massive edifice capable2342of destroying project after project, destroying, not helping2343job after job in virtually every sector of the economy.2344    We need to fix it. This is our great bipartisan opportunity2345to do so.2346    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record this2347outstanding Op Ed in the Hill newspaper by Terry O'Sullivan and2348Dan Sullivan many years ago on the need for permitting reform,2349showing the LIUNA-Senate agreement on this important issue.2350    Senator Whitehouse. Without objection.2351    [The referenced information follows:]23522353[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]23542355    Senator Sullivan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.2356    Senator Whitehouse. That concludes the hearing, so on2357behalf of the Chair, who had to go to another commitment, and2358by the way, I hope you think it is a minor good sign that the2359Chair feels comfortable enough about the Ranking Member to let2360me close out the hearing.2361    [Laughter.]2362    Senator Whitehouse. This is part of the bipartisanship that2363is alive and well in this committee.2364    Let me, on behalf of the Chair, thank all the witnesses and2365all my colleagues for participating in today's hearing.2366    Note that Senators who wish to submit written questions for2367the record have until 5 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, February236811th to do so. Note that the witnesses' responses to those2369questions are due back to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on2370Wednesday, February 25th, 2 weeks later, and will be submitted2371for the record.2372    With that, this hearing is adjourned.2373    [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]23742375[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]23762377                          [all]