Transcripts For CSPAN3 Energy Resource Infrastructure Proje

good morning. the committee will come to order. we were hoping to be able to move out two of our nominees that are currently pending before the committee. we obviously have to have the requisite number of members here. so, until such time as we have a quorum, we will move to our scheduled full committee hearing on infrastructure permitting. if we are able to get the quorum of 12, we will take up the business meeting at that point in time. i would anticipate that it would be relatively quick. so, with that, we have names on the table in front of us, but i would invite you each to come to the table as i provide an opening statement. mr. cason, miss fleeingal, mr. turpin, mr. brown, caruso and russell. we're here to discuss infrastructure permitting challenges, efforts to streamline federal approvals and opportunities to improve their responsiveness, the transparency and predictability of our system of permit review. i think we all recognize the need to make investments that will both upgrade and modernize our infrastructure. we have had hearings in the committee, many hearings, to look specifically at the needs in the energy and resource sectors. as we discuss energy infrastructure, i think it's important to take steps to rationalize how projects are reviewed and approved. the existing regulatory regime impacts the cost effectiveness of our federal infrastructure spending. beyond that, the length and uncertainty associated with permitting process limits the willingness of the private sector to finance, build and operate energy infrastructure. this drives dollars overseas rather than into jobs and growth and prosperity for our nation. so whether we are talking about a pipeline, a mine, power plant. public-private partnership for a company building a water factory. we know the capital is delayed often by years and sometimes deliberately. when investment is impeded, how can we expect capital to be deployed where an environmental impact statement alone averages five years and final approval can take a decade or more. canada and germany are moving similar projects in just a few years. i look forward to hearing from federal witnesses who are working to make our system work better and hearing about the permitting reforms of fast 41 which was enacted roughly two years ago and how they are being implemented. i am pleased to have three non-federal witnesses who have experience. they might say perhaps too long of an experience, navigating the federal permitting guideline for electric transmission, hydro power and mining projects. new and upgraded transmission lines are crucial to a reliable and secure electric grid and to bring new sources of energy to our markets. despite that, the number of federal, state and local agencies involved in a single project makes permitting notoriously cumbersome. we've spoken at length in this committee about the challenges of licensing and re-licensing hydro facilitates. when i tell people about the time involved in a re-license, it's almost breath-taking. the need to fix the process before the number of projects up for re-licensing increases dramatically over the next decade. finally, when it comes to permitting delays for new mines our nation is among the worst in the world. it's leading us to be dependent upon foreign nations for the fundamental building blocks of a wide range of energy, defense, health care and other modern technologies. the energy and natural resources act that was reintroduced this year has provisions that take important steps to streamline project reviews in all three industries. this is an important bill that will help make needed progress. we also recognize that the challenges we'll hear about today represent a subset of the infrastructure sectors that are also struggling to permit projects. so, whether it's energy production, pipelines, pump storage, water supply, lng or something else, our system needs to be improved across the board. we absolutely have the ability to establish a permitting process that works. one that protects the environment and promotes state and local input while not miring projects in red tape and driving away private investment. to achieve that goal, we have to set aside the misguided idea that accelerating or coordinating approvals somehow weakens those protections or that simply spending more money will fix all the problems. it doesn't. we know that. it won't work. both common sense and experience tell us that we can maintain our high standards while speeding reviews and approvals. so i view this hearing as the next step in our effort to improve our nation's infrastructure. i look forward to the insights and ideas from our witnesses to do just that. thank you all for being here with us this morning. senator cantwell, i welcome your comments. >> thank you madam chair. i certainly welcome this infrastructure permitting oversight hearing. but i do think it's interesting the "wall street journal" reported last weekend that president trump will roll out on infrastructure plan in january proposing $200 billion of spending offset by cutting other federal programs. so before we start the hearing today, i want to remind my colleagues that the tax proposal before us is trying to be jammed through when we could be having this discussion right now about infrastructure investment. we obviously started the year with a lot of conversation between our colleagues, our leader, senator schumer, and speaker ryan, about doing an infrastructure bill that got set aside. i just want to make sure that people understand we have been more than willing to talk about our crumbling infrastructure for a long time. this morning we're going to hear about permitting reform, which is a good discussion, but we need an infrastructure bill that is about funding. i am proud over the last two years that the chair, senator murkowski and i, tried to address the permitting issues on hydro and critical minerals. we passed legislation out of the senate that has not made it through a final process because of the house colleagues lack of interest in making sure that we take up the issues of improving hydro and other issues. part of the issue, i believe, is making sure we adequately fund the permitting agencies. i am pleased that chad brown is here from the department of ecology, accredited -- they have been credited with an innovative solution for hydro resources and dam owners pool money to create reviews on time. i look forward to hearing more about it this morning. we should provide dedicated license fees directed to resource agencies. so i am pleased that we have a witness who can speak to the experience with the western area of power administration on transmission programs. i hope my colleagues will agree that federal programs that support investing in transmission deserve our support. and when it comes to the department of interior, i definitely want to make sure that we have questions here. i think secretary zenke has been abrupt in his actions at the department of interior. it seems like it's just about whether you want a permission to drill. if so, then you get the keys to whatever public lands. in less than a year the interior department left $750 million in taxpayer royalties on the table and abandoned the plan to stop natural gas waste something we said in the senate that we strongly wanted to continue to see. the management of methane flaring. so he has ditched the plans negotiated by states. he ditched master leasing plans, skipped public comments periods, illegally suspending regulations. president trump has allowed his advice to strip protection from 200 acres and the largest rollback of public lands production in history, opening pristine desert area to drilling and mining. so the "washington post" confirmed over the weekend that the department of energy, fuels, resource, petition interior to open up the area for uranium mining and secretary zenke proposed even more rollbacks. i hope we'll take into context this morning the larger context of things happening as well. i know we will hear a lot from our witnesses, and i remain committed to improving our process. i also want to make sure that we are protecting the things that are in the taxpayers' interests. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. let's turn to the panel. we're joined by jim cason. associate department secretary at the department of interior. we welcome you this morning. ms. janet fleeinger, acting executive director for the federal improvement staring council. terry turpin, director for office of energy projects at the federal energy regulatory commission. mr. chad brown, as senator cantwell noted, is the water quality management unit supervisor at the washington department of ecology. thank you for traveling cross-country. ms. roxanne caruso is the vice president and general counsel for transwest express. thank you for being here. mr. luke russell is with us from hecla mining company where he is the vice president for external affairs. we welcome each of you to the committee. we would ask that you provide your comments and hopefully about five minutes or so. your full statements will be included as part of the record. once you have completed your comments, we will have an opportunity for questions. again, if we need to interrupt because we need to do a quick business meeting, we certainly would hope you understand. mr. cason, if you would like to begin. >> thank you, madam chairman. i for one will be very happy with a break. for what you are planning to do. chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell, members of the committee. i am jim cason. i serve as the associate deputy secretary of the department of the interior. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the department's efforts to improve the efficiency and accountability of federal permitting for infrastructure projects. i ask that my entire written record -- or my entire written statement be incorporated into the record. >> it will be included. >> thank you. >> as will everyone else's. >> thank you. the department is acutely aware that the president has the vision for empowering the private sector, as well as state and local governments, through infrastructure enhancements and improvements. interior believes that creating greater efficiencies in the overall federal permitting process is crucial to addressing infrastructure needs. executive order 13-807 ignited an administration-wide assessment about how best to address inefficiencies in the current infrastructure project decisions that delay investments. decreased job creation or are costly to the american taxpayer. in turn, the department signed secretary order 3355 which includes setting page and time limitations for most environmental impact statements, setting target page and time limitations for preparation of environmental assessments, reviewing the department's current need for procedures and providing recommendations to streamline the process, and implementing eo 13-807 to the fullest extent possible. we believe our efforts to accelerate and streamline nepa compliance efforts will also help us to achieve our responsible energy development goals. executive order 13-783 directed agencies to immediately review and report on all agency actions that potentially burden the safe, efficient development of domestic energy resources. in turn, the department released the, quote, review of department of the interior actions that potentially burden domestic energy report on october 25, 2017. we believe the report is a useful tool to reduce the impediments to processes, including permitting to promote safe, efficient development of domestic energy resources. my written testimony further discusses interior's efforts regarding offshore energy, as well as implementation of title 41 of the fixing america's surface transportation, or f.a.s.t. act. chairman murkowski, i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee, and i look forward to answering questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. cason. miss fleger. >> chairman murkowski. ranking member cantwell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. the federal permitting improvement steering council, known as the permitting council, was created by title 41 of the f.a.s.t. act. known as fast 41. it brings accountability and transparency to what has been an uncertain and unpredictable process. it upholds existing environmental laws and statutory responsibilities of the 16 permitting council agencies. additionally fast 41 is a voluntary program in which project sponsors apply to become covered projects. as acting executive director of the permitting council, my office and the council are bringing about a new way of doing business to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal permitting process for complex infrastructure projects in our nation. the permitting council is ccompd of top leadership to streamlining occurs at all levels of the organizations. in addition the council is working with the administration to improve the permitting process through executive order 13-807 establishing discipline and accountability in the environmental review and permitting process for infrastructure projects. the office of the executive director, known as o.e.d., oversees fast 41 implementation and serves as a one stop shop for project sponsors. oed is changing institutional behavior and culture, enhancing agency collaboration, resolving disputes, assuring transparency in the permitting process and ensuring agencies better coordinate and synchronize environmental reviews and authorizations. my office is focused on three areas that i'll highlight for you. early and formalized cross-agency coordination, increased transparency through the permitting dashboard and dispute resolution. fast 41 requires the development of coordinated project plans, an essential tool for cross-agency planning and implementing best practices. the initial development and quarterly updates of cpps formalize the collaboration. this allows difficult issues to be addressed early in the process to prevent confusion and delays later in the process. moving forward, my office is working with agencies to ensure cpps emphasize concurrent rather than sequential permitting actions. earlier this month the permitting council released its 2018 recommended best practices for infrastructure permitting. my office will be ensuring agency implement of the best practices to generate efficiencies in the permitting process. and the executive director is required to report to congress each april on agency progress. the permitting dashboard brings an unprecedented degree of transparency to the process. the time tables list target completion dates for permits. each quarter my office and the permitting agency review the dates, and my office enforces restrictions for modifications to the dates. with nationwide visibility and a built-in accountability structure the dashboard provides the public, project sponsors and other stakeholders with clarity and certainty in the permitting process. to my third point, project sponsors have contacted my office for help with specific issues, such as when a sponsor received contradictory information from headquarters and field offices or when agencies working together on a project disagreed on a path forward. a notable success, in this area was my office using the fast 41 dispute resolution process to address a stalled review. the resulting coordination among agencies allowed subsequent authorizations to move forward and, as relayed by the project sponsor, saved an estimated six months and $300 million in capital costs for the project. going forward, my office will continue to use the fast 41 tools of oversight, transparency, collaboration, and accountability to improve the permitting process. the fiscal year 2018 president's budget request of $10 million provides the funding support we need to fully use these fast 41 tools. as new projects come on board from the start, they will benefit from the enhanced transparency, coordination and agency and accountability of fast 41. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i welcome your questions. >> thank you. mr. turpin, welcome to the committee. >> good morning. thank you. my name is terry turpin, director of the office of energy projects, federal energy regulatory commission. the office is responsible for taking a lead role in carrying out the commission's duties and citing infrastructure projects. nonfederal hydro power projects. natural gas pipelines and storage facilities and lick whi -- liquidfied terminals. thank you for inviting me today. as a member of the commission staff, the views i express in my testimony are my own and not necessarily those of the commission or of any individual commissioner. under the federal power act the commission regulates over 1600 nonfederal hydro power projects at over 2500 dams. together they represent 56 giga watts of hydro power capacity, more than half of all the hydro power in the united states. in the last five years, the commission has authorized 71 new projects with a combined capacity of over 2400 megawatts and has relicensed 42 projects by continue to provide over 91 megawatts of generating capacity. the commission is responsible under the natural gas act of natural gas facilities and facilities for the import and export of natural gas. since 2000 the commission authorized nearly 18,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline which totals more than 159 billion cubic feet per day of capacity. and 23 facility sites for the import or export of lng. the commission acts as the lead agency to conduct -- coordinating federal authorizations and to comply with the national environmental policy act. as described in my written testimony, this environmental review is carried out through a process that allows corporation from numerous stakeholders including federal, state and local agencies, notive americans and the public. the commission's current approach allows for a systematic and collaborative process and has resulted in substantial additions to the nation's infrastructure. to a great extent, the prophecies envisioned by legislation such as fast 41 and the recent executive order 13-807 parallel the commission's own approaches in improving early consultation and improving transparency. staff is committed to working with all federal agencies to assist in the successful implementation of the goals and ensure matters before the commission. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, mr. turpin. mr. brown, welcome. >> thank you. good morning. madam chair, ranking member cantwell and member of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak. i am chad brown. i supervise a team of staff responsible for the development and implementation of state water equality standards. washington state has more hydro power energy than any other state in the nation. the valuable renewable and carbon free resource and with that comes the responsibility. among these, the responsibility to ensure water quality is sufficient to support swimmable and fishable rivers. as the water quality authority in the state, ecology works to include -- ecology's work includes the issuance of state certifications for hydro power projects licensed by the federal energy regulatory commission. the certifications are issued through authority provided to the states under the section 401 of the federal clean water act. they provide assurance to hydro power producers that their projects, development and operations will meet applicable state regulations. in the last decade several large hydro power projects in washington completed the re-licensing process. washington successfully issued 16 401 certifications accounting for more than two-thirds of all the federal regulated hydro power in our state. this was significant for the agency as well as the producers. we met the challenge collaboratively. in large part due to the financial support provided by the hydro power industry through washington's water power license fee program. the fee began in 2007. in collaboration with the hydro power industry and other stakeholders, ecology worked with our state legislature to institute a new fee based on the amount of water that each licensed project uses to generate electricity. by basing the fee on the quantity of electricity a project can produce the fees are distributed in a manner consistent with each project's revenue-generating capabilities. for a decade the fee revenues helped to support the regulatory workload to meet licensing time lines for new and re-licensed hydro power projects. the washington state legislature recognized that the fee program was not without controversy. and therefore it included a provision requiring periodic reporting on the use of fee revenue. the reporting provides oversight and ensures accountability to periodically determine whether to continue assessing these fees. we utilize this provision in 2016 as we engaged with the hydro power industry and stakeholders to review the program, improve the quality of service and increase transparency of the spending of the revenues. with this, the state legislature extended the program to the year 2023. the washington state department of ecology recognizes that the importance of finding efficiencies and improving licensing procedures in new and continuing energy projects. the model has become a successful strategy to support this efficiency. we also acknowledge that there is room for improvement through federal legislation. house bill 3044 and senate bill 1460 both include language to improve the process. it must maintain appropriate authorities to ensure the protection of natural resources. we've provided comment on similar bills in past legislative sessions and we appreciate the improvements made in this regard. we have confidence that through collaborative development and review final legislation can meet both goals. it's important that certifications, permits and other authorizations be defensible in order to avoid challenge from project opponents. that any legislation that would improperly abbreviate environmental review time lines or otherwise limit the authorized agency's ability to fully carry out environmental studies may lessen the defensibility of these projects. limiting the ability to complete a full environmental review may exchange efficiencies gained in the licensing process for greater delays in the courts. in closing, the washington department of ecology supports the legislative intent of senate bill 1460 to improve licensing procedures and also believe that it is imperative that final legislation also protect the current independent authority of states to ensure that projects meet important environmental regulation. we also thank you for the opportunity to highlight our fee program as a means to improve one step in the licensing process. we believe that the success of this program stems from the early engagement of hydro power producers and proper funding and dedicated staff by effectively retains expertise and supports continuity and consistcy within the process. >> miss perruso. >> good morning, members of the committee and staff. i am roxanne perruso. our corporation has been active for more than 75 years developing energy and resource infrastructure in the west. we have spent the last ten years working with the department of interior on -- to develop two large energy infrastructure projects. the first project is the wind energy project located in wyoming and consists of up to 1,000 turbines with 3,000 megawatts of capacity. we applied to the bureau of land management for the development of a wind project in 2008. after preparing an environmental ill pact statement and two environmental assessments, in 2016, the blm authorized initial construction of the wind project. and we started construction in 2016. the second practice is the trans-west express transmission project which is a 730-mile, high-voltage direct current transmission line crossing four states, 14 counties, and multiple federal jurisdictions, including ten blm field offices, two national forests as well as bureau of reclamation lands. we applied to the blm for a right-of-way grant for the transwest project in 2008. the blm and western area power administration acted as joint leads on the environmental impact statement, and the blm issued a right-of-way grant for the transmission line nine years later in 2017. our hope is that the challenges that we faced in permitting these projects will provide opportunities to improve the process. but before i address the challenges, i wanted -- i want to acknowledge and thank the numerous federal employees that we have worked with over the past ten years and continue to work with, and they are part -- a very big part of why the projects are where they are today. but, based on our experience, we do believe that federal permitting, that process, especially for large, multi-jurisdictional projects like transwest, can be significantly improved through three things. increased consistency in policy, coordination with appropriate corresponding decision-making authority, and finally, accountability. one of the greatest challenges that we encountered was lack of consistency. we were faced with ever-changing policies. two examples of significant policy changes that impacted us were, one, interior's policy on mitigation and, two, the blm's competitive leasing rule. over the last nine years, interior's mitigation policy was revised seven different times, resulting in project delays and additional costs as the goal post kept getting moved. next, the blm's competitive leasing rule was issued in december 2016. that's more than eight years after analysis on our wind project began. but this rule significantly affects the economics of the wind project by raising the rents over the life of the development grant for the wind project by about 60%. so our recommendation here is that policy revisions should be carefully considered and should clearly direct agencies on whether and how the new policy should be applied to projects that are already in development. next, coordination and communication with corresponding decision-making authority is essential. for transwest, for example, routine coordination calls were held weekly and monthly, yet, after having these calls for more than five years, major issues remained unresolved. and while attempts at coordination and communication were in fact made, ultimately it was the lack of timely agency decisions or lack of line authority to ensure that decisions are made and issues are resolved that resulted in substantially increasing permitting delays and costs. and finally, there is a lack of accountability regarding schedule and budgets in the federal permitting process. with both our wind and transmission projects, the original schedule and estimated budget more than doubled. this budget and schedule uncertainty and risk discourages the very development of energy and resource infrastructure that -- on federal land that the government is seeking to encourage. now, we do believe that the fast act and ceq's involvement are, in fact, a very good step forward in addressing these issues, however, there needs to be accountability at every level, such that agency personnel understand the work they are doing is very important, it's time sensitive and it has real consequences for project proponents like us and also the development of the nation's infrastructure. in conclusion, while we acknowledge that the permitting process for large, multi-jurisdictional projects like ours will always be complex, reducing the permitting time, cost and complexity is achievable and it is necessary. and this in turn will encourage private investment in energy infrastructure projects and federal private partnerships. thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks today. >> thank you, miss perruso. mr. russell, we're going to interrupt before we get to you. we have a quorum and recognizing that some members have competing hearings that they need to go off to, i would like to move to this business meeting very, very quickly. we have two nominees. our first nominee is dr. tim petty, who is nam natominated a assistant interior secretary for water and science and linda capuano for energy and information administration. let's see here. unless there are no objections from members here, the committee will vote by voice on the nomination of both mr. petty and dr. capuano. is there any objection to voice votes? seeing none. the question is first on the nomination of dr. petty to be an assistant secretary of the interior. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say nay. the ayes have it. the nomination is reported favorably. any senator who wishes to be recorded as a no? seeing none, moving to the question of dr. capuano as the stra administrator of the energy administration. all those in favor. ayes. any senator wishing to be recorded as a no? senator heinrich, senator hirono. >> if senator franken could be recorded as opposed. >> yes. that concludes the votes. the business meeting of the committee on energy and natural resources is adjourned and we'll turn back to our full panel. i thank members for coming here. i thank the polynomianel for yo indulgence as we concluded the business meeting. mr. russell, you are last up on the panel. we welcome your comments before us this morning. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and members of the committee, i am luke russell, the vice president of external affairs for hecla mining company, the united states' oldest and largest silver producer and third largest probusspr producer of lead and zinc. metals and minerals are the building blocks of our nation's infrastructure. it's impossible to create infrastructure without them. to quote our president and ceo phil baker, at the end of the day you can't have the infrastructure and everything that goes with it if you don't have the underlying commodities that go into the bridges, roads and everything else. silver, copper and zinc are just three important minerals associated with our operations which are also key minerals for infrastructure and renewable energy. a single wind turbine contains 335 tons of steel and almost five tons of copper. the primary christiingredient i solar panels is silver. zinc is in battery technology, critical to the future of electric vehicles and energy storage. the united states is blessed with world-class mineral endowment but has sadly become dependent on sources of foreign minerals. we're dependent for 50 different men ral minerals and metals. the length of time it takes to secure permits in the u.s., an average of seven to ten years or longer, is a key reason behind the dependency. it's also making the united states less attractive for investment. we were at a mining business development conference in bear creek, colorado, earlier this year. we spoke to companies about 70 projects to invest in. only two were in the united states. let me share an example of the very long time lines i have been involved with with permitting. as one of the largest private employers in southeast alaska our greens creek mine went into production in 1989, 16 years from discovery to first production. it's operated in harmony with sensitive environments for 28 years. with that history, one would expect a plan for minor expansion could be permitted expeditiously. permitting a small ten-plus acre expansion took more than five years and added just ten years to the mine's life. so we are already preparing to start the permitting process again, at a cost of millions of dollars, in order to avoid shutting down the mine and laying off workers due to a lack of permitting capacity. i also worked with core mining in southeast alaska. permitting of that mine started in 1988. with permitting delays and litigation, first production did not occur until 2010. some 22 years after initial project permitting. hecla acquired the rock creek project, the largest undeveloped silver and copper project in the u.s. this project has been in permitting and litigation for over 25 years and counting. to be clear, valid environmental concerns need to be fully addressed and concluded. in my experience permitting delays are frequently caused by inefficient and duplicative processes that do not improve the rigor of review. while mining is complex, there remains some of the permitting agencies that lack training on minerals and mining and the nepa process, exacerbating delays in the process which is driven by a lack of firm time lines, accountability for permitting and unreasonable exclusions. chairman murkowski introduced legislation for the permits to be covered under the fast act. it will have little or no effect if the mines supplying minerals and materials to the projects do not have the same accelerated process. in addition there is a great opportunity for the identification of regulations and policies across the federal agency that needlessly delay or prevent mineral resource development, further jeopardizing the viability of our needed infrastructure projects. this can be accomplished by identifying the lead agency, selecting clear and -- defining clear roles of cooperating agencies to avoid duplication, establish clear time lines and provide accountability and predictability to the process. thank you for the opportunity to testify here this morning. >> thank you, mr. russell. i think we have heard -- we continue to hear that uncertainty, unpredictability within the regulatory process, it adds time, it adds money, and when you -- when you mentioned the length of time that it takes to permit a mine in this country nowadays, mr. russell, the two projects that you mentioned in alaska. 22 years for one and 16 for another, for many, they would just walk away. you look at the reality of the process here, and it does cause you to wonder how we are even able to have much of a mining industry in this country. we speak about how the united states is ranked literally at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to permitting for mines in this country. i have also heard about how other countries, specifically canada and australia, have a competitive permitting -- well, it's a permitting process, i guess, that gives them a competitive advantage. now, we have had some issues with some of the mines that we're seeing come on in canada, but can you speak just very briefly to the permitting process that we see in other countries that, again, allow for a more clearly defined or certainly more predictable process that allows these projects to move forward while here in the united states it may be a two-decade process. >> thank you, chairman. yes, i have experience in permitting in both those countries, canada and australia. i think the key difference is that there is a time frame established at the beginning. the roles and the responsibilities of the cooperating agencies are well defined so that there is certainly more predictability that the process will take two years or three years, and then there will be a decision. >> accountability at the end of that period? >> there is also accountability so that, if an agency is not moving within its time frame there is accountability. so that's a key aspect that's lacking in our system. that even if schedules are established there is no accountability to meet those schedules. >> mr. cason, you -- in your testimony you had mentioned that an average eis is now about 4.6 years and we -- we think about the reality of that and what that then means to cause uncertainty, lack of predictability. during the obama administration, president obama acknowledged that permitting challenges were an impediment, they held back growth and opportunity and, in his 2012 executive order, he pushed us to work through some of the permitting challenges. and then, when president trump comes into office, he updated that in august of 2017. what actually have we seen, then, if we are still sitting at about four and a half years for processing of an eis? we have had administrations, republican and democrat, that have said permitting is a challenge, they've laid down executive orders saying we need to do better than this. have we accomplished anything? >> accomplished at this point i think is pretty thin, but we are working on the issue. we have several things that are going on at the same time to try to address this issue. we -- i would say broadly in the administration -- recognize that the need for process is taking way too long. you quoted almost five years to get an eis done. there is a couple things involved in that. first is that the length of eiss keeps getting longer and longer. the last two i saw was 5,000 pages and 10,000 pages. and -- >> is it necessary that the eiss get longer? >> no. >> why -- i mean -- >> no. >> if we acknowledge that this is part of our challenge here, why are things getting longer and more complicated? >> my opinion about that is that a lot of the length is generated by two things. first is a lot of contractors get paid by the page, and so the more pages they write, the more they make. secondly is fear of litigation. we have a fairly long record where eiss are found, no matter what their length, to be insufficient, so you need to add more and more to it. so we have been trained, basically, to make them longer and longer and try to anticipate every possible question that anybody in the world might want to have an answer to and try to incorporate that in the eiss to offset the fear of litigation. i don't think that's the way it has to be. we are currently working with ceq and with the white house and across the executive branch to take a fresh look at how we do nepa compliance. we are going through a process right now within interior where our deputy secretary issued a secretary order putting a page and time limit on nepa compliance documents. it remains to be seen whether we will be able to deal with litigation using these reduced page limits. but what we're going to with litigation using these reduced page limits. but what we're going to try to do is move in a direction instead of having a 10,000 page eis have an eis that's 300 or less and gets done in a year or two years. we're currently going through the process with a subgroup which i chair to look at the entire process to look at what can we cut out, how can we streamline, how can we write these better so we can do them in less volume, less time. that's an active process we're going through in concert with ceq. >> thank you. i recognize that the number of pages is not the end all and be all, it's the content in there. >> right. >> i certainly hope you don't work to reduce the font because it's already tedious enough to get through. let me go to senator cantwell. >> you mentioned in the statement about your support for the senate language on hydro relicensing. i take it you don't like the house languages. is there a problem with them? can you explain that? >> we believe the house language may act to preempt authorities under section 401 of the clean water act. the language, including certifications as a federal authorization and modifying the time lines and having authority over what studies should be appropriate for the issuing of that 401 certification. i think the language can be improved and allow for showing of it state authority without preempting it. >> thank you. miss perruso, one of the things i find puzzling is this issue as transportation -- i'm sorry transmission infrastructure program and the pros elimination to have temperature authority. can you comment on that? >> yes. thank you ranking member cantwell. >> we view wapa as an important program that creates public/private. we've been working with them since 2011, they acted as a joint leave. they have provided development funding for the project. we have viewed them as our partner and we want to keep them in the project. their interpretation how they can use borrowing authority has changed over the course of borrowi borrowing. we believe they are not as set out in statute. it's incredible difficult to build interstate transmission so wapa can play an important role. a partnership with them provides independent transmission developer like us with credibility. we really want to see wapa participate in this project. >> thank you. you stated at your confirmation hearing you wanted a fair return for the taxpayer. since then the department reinstated on the outdated it, trying to suspend methane rule, suspended royalty evaluation rule wi your own estimates giving back $75 million a year to oil and gas and coal companies. the secretary has created the royalty policy committee stacked with partisan members without a single public interest voice. so it seems to me you're leaving a lot of money on the table. >> i guess that's a point of view. thank you for sharing it. the department is taking a look at each one of these rules that we're working on right now to make modifications that we think in the end will provide benefit to the american public. in some of these cases, the royalty rules will be looked at by the royalty policy committee which has about 20 members on it representing states and indian tribes and the industry and department of interior and others to take a look at how we fashion rules. a lot of the changes that were made there were related to how we viewed deductions or credits that come as part of the oil and gas development process and the marketing of oil and gas. the other rules you mentioned, there were a lot of problems with venting and flaring rule that is, as i understand it from the conversations i've had interior, the industry and superior neither one were well prepared to implement that rule. it has certainly complications that we were attempting to levy royalties when we didn't actually gather materials. we're going back to basically a conservation resource thought process. we, too, want to capture the methane. we just need to do it in a deliberate way. we thought improvements would help with that. >> thank you. i think congress has spoken on that, so i'm sure you'll hear from other colleagues of mine about their concern. i just will note we have had improvements in hydro relicensing. my colleague from idaho and i worked on those in the 2005 bill and improved the process. i do think it's challenging for people to think of hydro relicensing in the context of 50-year relicensing process that is basically about managing and stewardship of a resource. but i will say that when people try to get the upper hand is usually when it goes wrong. what we have seen is when people come to the table and comply and look at the resource and look at the management of these issues in a collaborative fashion, you have a very quick process. but yes, there's a lot of eyes and a lot of these ts to cross, but we have made progress. i hope you'll go back and look at that and understand there's great responsibility here. it's not just about the size of -- or how many people it is but whether people come to the table and collaborate. >> thank you. >> the chairman asked me to take over for a moment while she stepped out. the issue of excessively long permitting guidelines is becoming all too common. i'm very glad we focused on this issue multiple times this year, and i hope we don't let up until we see some improvement. as chair of western caucus, when our members develop priorities for any infrastructure package, streamlining the permitting process like we're talking about here today was a top priority. we will continue to encourage actions and hearings like this. debilitating permitting infrastructures and time frames affect all of our sources of energy and our natural resource production. we have wind, we have coal, hydro, mineral projects held up for years, sometimes decades in places like montana. this is leading to less investment, less made in america energy, and less jobs. mr. russell, as you well know, the rock creek project located in lincoln and sanders county in montana -- by the way, if you google poorest counties in each prospective state, sanders county is the poorest county in montana. double digit unemployment rates, poverty rates in excess of 22%. and lincoln county, recently i was having din we are a couple up in lincoln county and they said to me, steve, basically we describe lincoln county as poverty with a view. that is where the two mines you're talking about, mr. russell, are located. they will produce two of four world-class silver and copper deposits in the u.s. these projects have been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly researched, thoroughly reviewed. beginning in the 1990s, you mentioned your testimony, it's 25 years. cindy and i have four children. they are all adults. my children in some cases weren't even born yet when you began the permitting process for the rock creek. you mentioned rock creek project in written testimony. what can we do on this committee to make sure these projects which bring critical minerals and metals, millions in wages and tax revenue. by the way, when i met county commissioner in that part of our state one of our county commissioners sat across the table from me and said we're at the point now in our county because we've lost the revenue stream on federal lands, sometimes 90% of the lands in those counties are owned by the federal government. we've lost the revenue stream. they have no tax base. they literally are having to plow the roads in the minute time as county commissioner because they had to lay off the road crews to get the kids to school, the school bus to get through. so what do we need to do so these projects don't languish in a never ending permitting loop? >> senator, thank you. i might notice the comment that the rock creek project over its life was forecast to generate $170 million in state and local taxes. that would go a long way to plow some snow in sanders county. i think the answer to your question is that some of the key things you've heard today is we need to get more predictability and certainty in our time lines, have accountability on that time line. that doesn't mean the review has less vigor, it's just that we set a predictable time line. there needs to be better coordination with the agencies. an example, kensington example that took five years minor expansion. the eif completed in four. the corps of engineers then took over a year to issue its permit. so rather than working conjunctively they worked in sequence and that added 25% to the time line. thirdly you've also heard this morning is the fear of litigation creates analysis paralysis. so there has to be some sort of a way to address the equal access to justice act or repeat litigants that continue to thwart economic development, responsible economic development, especially in poor counties like sanders and lincoln county, which i believe is just a blatant environmental justice issue where these folks very concerned about their environment, as you said, room with a view, but also believe they can have responsible economic development and it's a false choice for them to say it's one or the other. >> a quarter century and still counting here on the rock creek project to me is outrageous. the remaining time i have delays not only affect mining projects but hydroand winds. the dam project approved by ferc. i thank you for that. but thank you for getting the damn project completed. >> thank you, madam chair, for this hearing. i know the testimony today has been folked of on how to streamline and permitting economic reviews for growth. i want to raise a issue that relates to economic growth that has been having and a concern of mine. i am very concerned about the implications of large volumes of lng exports and recent announcements regarding investments by china and u.s. gas businesses. we've talked in the past, and this committee for some time, about the importance of low cost domestic natural gas to manufacturing. the good news is, according to the industry analysts, low cost natural gas in america was the catalyst for $1 0 billion in manufacturing investments in the last seven years since 2012. that's a big deal. that's very, very important to us. and yet right now or government is taking actions that will drive up gas prices, which is a great concern to the manufacturers that i talked to. the energy department has approved just under 55 billion cubic feet per day of lng exports, which is a very large amount of gas. the energy administration says natural gas prices will actually increase 218% by 2025 -- 2,018% by 2025, with some facilities coming online. now we have chinese state owned companies investing large amounts of capital in u.s. natural gas which raise as lot of concerns and i believe really requires closer scrutiny by all of us, what's happening with that. approval of equipment to nonfree trade countries must be in the public interest. i don't believe these shipments of that magnitude of gas could possibly be in the public interest. i don't oppose lng exports but what's critically important to american jobs and manufacturing is something that should be a shared concern for all of us. so i know ferc is responsible for final review and not lng exports but can he speak to how gas prices benefit the u.s. economy? >> the commissioner is responsible looking at the specific impact with construction of those facilities. economic analysis, price analysis you're referring to are things done by the department of energy. so i really can't speak to those. >> anyone else want to speak to the importance -- maybe you don't think it's important to have low gas prices for manufacturers but i wonder if someone would want to speak to that because it's certainly been an important part of increasing jobs in the last number of years in manufacturing. mr. russell you're shaking your head. >> i agree. major industry is a big cost to mining. your thoughts that lower energy is very important to maintain our competitiveness in our industry. >> thank you. this is something, chinese investment in u.s. gas projects is something of concern to me as we go forward to balance interest in exporting and american jobs in manufacturing. there's one thing i wanted to raise that is again not quite on point of the hearing but i think is really important to talk about and that is pipeline safety going forward. i know transporting oil and gas is safer than rail and other transportation modes. but at the same time i'm very concerned that pipeline safety is not improving as we are talking about all these issues. between 2010 and 2017, 459 pipeline incidences resulting in $3.5 billion in damages and 64 fatal injuries. we know specifically in michigan because of a line that burst releasing a million barrels of oil into the kalamazoo river, which was the largest ever inland u.s. oil spill that cost more than $1.2 billion to clean up. we are colonel concerned about gas and oil pipeline going under the great lakes. 64-year-old plus pipeline where there's great concern about the integrity and safety of the line. so i know again this is about streamline for permitting pipelines and jurisdiction over interstate gas lines not oil pipelines. but again, i would ask, what is being done to ensure pipelines are safe by other federal agencies? are you working with others on the safety end of things as all of this discussion is going on? >> for natural gas pipelines under jurisdiction authorities and safety under department of transportation. we attempt to coordinate with them on their process. we involve them as a cooperating agency. >> thank you. madam chair, just a request that i would love to see us do, maybe even a joint hearing with congress on pipeline safety issues at some point just to raise as we're talking about streamlining and moving forward. the safety is important, too. >> senator, you're up next. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. >> excuse me. i'm way out of line. >> yes, you are. >> gardner was going to jump on you. you were sitting next to senator barrasso. it is senator gardner. >> thank you. if it will make my seniority greater, i'm happy to yield to you. thanks to all of you for your time and testimony. thanks for holding the hearing today. miss perruso, we've had many conversations over the past several years beginning in 2011 talking about permitting challenges this great renewable energy project has gone through. one of our conversations that was focusing on wapa, you stated western area power administration signed on as trans west project participants in 2011 but now it's my understanding they are taking a perhaps different view whether they can be equity partner versus financier of the project. can you talk through what's change and why that changed and is important? >> thank you, mr. gardner. the statute itself that created authority has not changed. it allows for constructing, financing, facilitating, planning, operating, maintaining and studying construction of new electric power lines. we actually are uncertain about why wapa's view of how they can use their authority. you said it right. they have changed their view using it as potential equity for ownership to more of a financing mechanism, revolving finance account. so i'm not sure why their attitude -- why their view has changed. but our commitment in terms of wanting to partner with us in a private/public partnership remains the same as is our commitment to mitigate any risk there would be to wapa or taxpayers in using their authority. >> thank you. i hope we can get an answer from wapa on this important question. lng exports, export natural gas from colorado, it's becoming a bigger issue. as more development in the u.s. takes place we're losing access to some of the markets we have. rockies gas can become a little more stranded, perhaps. we need a western outlet for that incredible production we have. this project would allow us to export to asia, a market critical to the u.s. from both an economic standpoint and security standpoint. if you look at some of our potential trade partners in south korea, obviously very incredibly portrayed partner. if you look at taiwan, important partner. japan, very portrayed partner. all have expressed interest in a stable supply of energy from the united states. helps us economically creating tens of thousands of jobs in the western united states in particular. it also gives our greatest allies the security they need so they are not reliant on china or other nations for their energy. this is both economic and security imperative that we move forward. the permitting process at jordan cove has been tough, it's been long. of course ferc made it more complex with rigors and roadblocks put in place. what additional authority would be of help to ferc for issuance of permits by cooperating agencies on a project once it's been approved by ferc? >> i think you've hit on one of the fundamental problems on how the u.s. approached its permitting. it's been to give sort of decent permitting authority to many different agencies, each of which infrastructure. i can't give this moves better. for the most part what i've seen is for every project it's a different bag of issues that come up that are raised and that might need solutions about the only thing that makes sense is what's been done with fast 41 with agencies. we can't engage as much as we like with agency s. lead a horse to water kind of thing. we can get them on board but in the end they have federal authority and that's what they will take their time. >> ferc not issued final or draft environmental impact in 2017 nor any orders but 11 major lnj pending at ferc. there is holdup? when can we expect additional authorizations? >> the lng projects that are there, probably the longest lead time item for those has been coordination with the department of transportation over their it regulations, evolved over the last four or five years as plants moved import to export. a different range of hazards to consider. d. o.t. working out how citing regs can be supplied. having that is vital and having dot to get those are vital. >> going back to miss perruso's comments when she laid out consistency, accountability. you mentioned consistency and coordination in your answer. we didn't get to accountability but the accountability is on our end to make sure permitting works for this country economically. i look forward to doing that with all of you. thank you. >> thank you, senator dpard infantry. senator henrik. >> thank you, madam chair. i was surprised the department's report on impediments to energy development included no opportunities specific to permitting or citing of resources on public land. zero. for a number of years now i've worked with senator heller on legislation to improve the process for citing wind, thermoprojects on land. we have a pretty substantial group of bipartisan senators now, senator gardner, senator danes just here, all members of this committee. does the department not see any improvements on clean energies for public land? >> i think there's possibilities for drawing different conclusions on how to address those. i permly had both solar and wind groups come in to visit with me about how we can do things better in the department of interior. each of them have views of things that we can do and we're taking a look at those. >> what are your ideas? >> one of the chief things that seems to be an issue is in both citing wind and solar, they tend to sprawl over a fairly large area to make an economic to do. one of the issues this seems to be in place is descriptions about not being willing to allow those large areas to be set aside for them due to other i'll say complications like protecting an endangered species or keeping open areas open. so it is an issue -- >> we do oil and gas at 40 and 160 acre spacings. how is that different than doing a wind turbin? >> the difference is you may take 160 acres spacing and you have a well pad that takes much 100 feet by 100 feet out of that. >> just approximately what a wind turbin also -- >> one wind turbin. >> my point is for an oil and gas field you might have tens of thousands of acres, 60 acre spacings, that doesn't seem to be different than a substantial wind project. >> okay. >> and a solar project actually takes up less of a footprint. so i'm not sure i understand the logic. >> it depends on the size of the project. you can have very large projects or very small projects in all of the forms of energy. i'm not quite sure why we don't have some suggested improvements we can make on the renewables but if you have particular suggestion to mas to make i'd b to put them in the process. >> we'd be glad to share that with you. i want to go back to nepa, most folks wouldn't care if an eis can be done in 10 or 1,000 as long as it addresses and analyzes the relevant environmental issues i think i'd be a little concerned that a hard cap, whether 300 pages or whatever the number is on pages in an eis could be seen as arbitrary. do you understand that concern? >> it's not a hard cap, it's a goal. the assistant secretary under the secretary order are allowed to go beyond the 300 page limit or 150 pages for easy eiss. so there is a mechanism in place and the secretary ordered to exceed that threshold if it's needed. >> i want to go back to one other thing you said. you said there were significant problems with interior's methane rule yet colorado has very successfully implemented an almost identical rule. they have done that both successfully and profitably. coming from a state where nasa has literally mapped the largest methane plume in the united states, a globally significant methane plume, i'm having a hard time understanding why this is taking so long. can you go back and explain once again why this rule is not being implemented, why we're seemingly not prioritizing public safety? >> it's not a matter of not prioritizing public safety. on the venting and flaring rule, when i came to interior as part of the team, i received feedback within interior that we were not well prepared to actually implement the rule and receive feedback from external groups they were not put there to comply with the rule and that certain things needed to be done to allow both parties to do their jobs well. we recognize there are a number of states that have adopted their own regulations dealing with venting and flaring. what we chose to do is suspend the effect of the rule and then go back and basically take a look at a public comment process so we can get feedback from the general public and industry regarding how we should do this rule better. >> i'm out of time here. i'll share with you my frustration from my community comes with looking across the border in colorado and seeing a set of regulations implemented that have improved the way things are done and not seeing changes in their own communities. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, senator henrik. >> thank you. miss perruso, thank you for being here today to tell us the story and tell us about your company's exciting project in wyoming. in wyoming we're blessed with many energy resources, vast reserves of oil, coal, natural gas. we also have world-class wind in addition to the uranium we have. it's not an all or above approach to energy dominance. we need to use all our resources to grow our economy and keep prices low. your company is a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project that's going to create jobs, deliver much needed power to the person grid. lie forward to continued process and benefits it will bring to wyoming and also the united states. you explain in the testimony that the federal government has actually added substantial new fees to your company's project without prior notice. specifically i think you stated blms so-called competitive leasing rule issued in the final weeks of the obama administration increased fees for wind and solar power generation projects that are developed on federal land. you also stated this rule didn't grandfather in existing projects, including projects such as yours, that have been in development for years. so could you please describe the total cost impact of this rule that was in final days of the obama administration on this project and explain whether you think these increased fees imposed by the obama administration will have a chilling effect on the future development of energy resources on public lands. >> yes. thank you, senator barrasso. the timeframe, we started construction on december 9th, 2016. exactly three months later on december 9th, the blm issued the final rule. the final rule does increase the fees associated with wind development on public lands. it will increase the fees for our project by an estimated 47 million to $106 million over the term of our development grant. the purpose of the rule was to encourage development of renewable energy on public lands. there are incentives in the rules for developers going forward that includes streamline permitting and some contractual advantages if you're located in a designated leasing area. however, we won't be receiving any of those benefits, nor will other developers like us who have already taken the risk to develop renewable energy on public lands. we are just getting this increased cost. so we shared our concerns with the administration throughout the rule making process with no success. and we are asking the committee to consider a provision in the energy bill that would exclude projects like ours from application of the rule. we understood we were assuming risks when we went to develop our project on public lands, but we did that based on the rules of the game at the out set. the rules should not be changed for projects like ours at this late date. >> so this is a rule that came out not only late in the obama administration, actually after the election. after it was obvious the election results were in. so this was in december in the final six weeks or so of the obama administration, a midnight rule that came out. in your testimony you state that the trans west express transmission project and choke cherry and sierra madre winds were projects under fixing america's surface transportation act, the fast act. the benefits of a cover project are numerous. specifically challenges to agency decisions approving cover project must be made within a short timeframe and courts must consider the economic impact when evaluating a challenge to the project. so could you please elaborate on the benefits of being designated a covered project under the fast act and explain whether you think congress should consider broadening that scope of eligible projects under the fast act? >> yes, thank you. we were notified both the transmission project and the wind project were designated as covered projects in september of 2016. so towards the end of our permitting process. because our projects were so advanced at that point in time, we weren't able to fully benefit from dashboard and tracking provisions that you heard about, but they do provide a level of accountability and we do appreciate the follow-up we did receive under that program regarding the status of permitting. the other two benefits, though, that we see with the fast act relate to when agency decisioners challenged. generally challenging agency decisions falls under general statute of limitations for actions against the united states for six years. under the fast act statute of limitation is two years in the federal register. the fast act provides as part of any preliminary injunction proceeding that acoustic stop progression of a project the court will consider additional element that includes consideration of potential effects on public health, safety, environment, and also the potential for significant negative effects on jobs. so these two provisions, two-year statute of limitations, additional preliminary injunction standard give developers more certainty any challenges to the agency's decision will be raised in a reasonable amount of time and that the court will consider the wider effects of a project when determining whether preliminary injunction is appropriate. each of these factors reduces development risk and could assist in encouraging federal projects. so if the applicability of the statute were broadened, it could be helpful. >> thank you, madam chairman. i have other questions i'll submit for written response. >> thank you. it senator. >> thank you for this hearing. blm sent a request to u.s. forest service to determine whether 54,000 acres in the ruby mountains in nevada are suitable for oil and gas leasing. this request is opposed by state environmentalists, huntlers, anglers and tribes. it serves if you don't know the ruby mountains in northern nevada serve as a critical habitat for several species including the cut throat trout, nevada's state fish. can you tell me why the agency sent the request? >> i'm sorry. it's often the case that the blm manage the subsurface of our state out in the federal coun y country. we have 700 million acres of subsurface that we manage. often we'll have forest service as a surface owner over our subsurface estate. so we collaborate with them to find out what their views are on prospective inquiries into the subsurface. >> can i ask why you made the request? >> i'm not familiar with that particular request. >> can you get me that information, please? the concern is this. that is a pristine area that is for decades been utilized by people in nevada who support continuing the protection and do not support opening it up to oil and gas leasing. so i'm curious why the request all of a sudden came, who was behind the request and asked you to send that over to the forest service. so if you could provide that information, that would be very helpful. >> thank you. >> i'm from the state of nevada where we actually have a mining, a history of mining along with we are incredible state right now. we are leading the country in renewable energy with solar wind geothermal. i appreciate the comments today. this is something i hear from both industries is streamlining our processes, permitting process, doing away with duplication, how we can do the coordination better amongst the federal agencies to help the companies and to continue to promote as well the industries. so let me ask this question. is i miss pfleeger? my understanding the federal permitting and improvements steering council was created to do just that, to engage in that coordination, streamline that permitting process. it's only been in existence for about a year. is that correct? >> the law was passed in december 2015 and the first permanent staff were hired in january. we've been working with all the permitting council agencies to do the very things some of the nongovernment witnesses expressed. >> and i appreciate that. so you've heard the comments today. my thought is that you're there to address the issues we've heard today. nothing else needs to be done other than to let your agency do its job and court -- coordinate among federal agencies. is that your intent with the committee or council? >> the need they expressed for coordination, the accountability, that's happening through the dashboard, those principles are all part of fast 41. as we've been rolling it out and standing up the law people have been hearing about it more and more. new projects coming in and benefiting from fast 41 at the start. as miss perruso said they were covered as a pending project late in the process. as these new projects come in, that's a key thing. right from day one there will be a lead agency assigned. that lead agency will bring together every cooperating and participating agency. and another one of the witnesses mentioned roles and responsibilities need to be defined. yes. that's part of this coordinated project plan. >> i apologize, i only have so much time. do you need additional tools? should we give you additional tools to address the concerns we're hearing today? >> one of the things in the president's fiscal budget request of $10 million that would allow us to use existing fast 41 tools to fully implement fast 41. >> thank you very much. then mr. caisson, the house natural resources committee recently held a hearing on environmental regulation reform where they heard from a 27-year veteran of ceq who testified that two of the greatest reasons that caused defense delays in nepa reviews deal with capacity, one lack of staff for nepa implementation. two, lack of nepa review training. would you agree? >> i think those are contributors. >> so i'm running out of time, but i would like your thoughts and also admit this for the record as well. part of the thought with respect to giving responsibility back to some of the staff includes publishing notices of intent to federal regimester. my understanding that's mandated -- they have to come to d.c. instead of letting managers make the decision. i'm curious where you and secretaries feel publishing registers and giving authority back to the blm managers in the state. thank you very much. i'm out of time. >> now let's go to senator risch. >> thank you so much. i never thought you'd get to me. >> alphabet cat. >> mr. russell who helps make the silver state the silver state. fair statement, mr. russell? you know, in response to the senator, it's quite right. i am a co-sponsor of the bill for helping streamline the processing for renewable energy. my only regret is all the sponsors of that wouldn't be co-sponsors of the bill to do the same thing for nonrenewable energy. nonetheless we're at least all in agreement on the renewable energy. that brings me to you, mr. russell. i'm so glad you were able to come here and tell the committee the story of rock creek. i've tried to tell as many people as i can. i'll also try to put in perspective since the permitting started i finished up almost 30 year career in state senate, served a stint as governor, i've been here almost a decade. are we getting close? >> chairman, senator, i actually think we are. the rock creek project is scheduled to have supplemental eis and decision in the first quarter of 2018. unfortunately that's seven or eight years after it was remanded back by the judge. mon montanore got caught up. agencies looking to revise the decision. i must say, someone made a comment he earlier, we've been pleased with the attitude of the forest service to try to get this done, it just is taking a long, long time on both projects. >> thank you so much for your persistence. this is a project that's padly needed in the area that it's in for the reasons everyone stated with the poverty and everything else. in addition to that, i can say that having been intimately associated with this for decades, has gone the extra mile in seeing the environment is going to be protected. obviously there's some very important lands as you know both in montana and idaho that you've been very sensitive to caring for as you've gone through this process, so thank you for that. most of all, these kinds of stories are just staggering when people do out as entrepreneurs, create wealth and make life better for americans. they get nothing but beat over the head from their government and very little help. thank you for your perseverance through various administrations, decades, through recessions and everything else to get where you are. keep it up. someday we're going to get there. we sure appreciate what you've done. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator risch. your description of the time line boggles the mind. you mentioned in your statement you've got an extension for this expansion, small expansion, 10 acres at greens creek. the reality is that you have to start the permitting request for the next leg of it before you've even allowed the ink to dry on the permit because it takes a full decade and more than a full decade in many, many cases. just quite incredible. senator. >> madam chair as i was listening to today's hearing i'm reminded of a little known passage in the old testament where god came to moses where god came to moses and said i have good news and bad news. moses said what's the good news. he said i'm going to empower you to part the borders of the red sea, allow israelites to escape. after they escaped the waters will come back and engulf the army of the pharaoh. he said, that's wonderful. what's the bad news. he said, you have to prepare the environmental impact statement. >> i've read the old testament, i'm pretty sure that's exactly the way the story went. >> i find this hearing fascinating because this an issue i've been wrestling this for 30 years. i've been an environmental advocate, developer, governor, administrator. when i was governor of maine, i said we want the most stringent environmental standards in the country and the most timely, predictable and efficient permitting process. i think that's exactly what we ought to be reaching for. to me there should not be a conflict between environmental standards and a timely and efficient permitting process. the question is how do we get there? mr. russell, i think you outlined at the end of your testimony a set of standards that are worth discussing as i make my notes. identify a lead agency. i think that's crucial. in our experience in maine, having one agency that's responsible, not multiple serial permitting applications before multiple agencies, define the responsibilities of all the agencies involved in making contributions to the process have parallel analysis among these agencies so it's not string out the time. establish reasonable time limits and hold people accountable. is that an accurate statement where we ought to be headed? >> senator, i think you've nailed that. that's exactly right. i think provisions of fast best manage practices are right along those lines. mining is not a covered project. if we could bring mining into similar regulatory regime i think that would be tremendously helpful to accomplish those objectives. >> mr. pfleeger, i'm unclear where your agency resides in the constellation of federal agencies. are you within another department? are you independent? he where do you stand? >> it's an i said council. independent council. we're housed in general services administration. >> the key is i think you articulated today give you funding so you can continue the function and the outline that i gave, was that essentially the direction you're trying to move federal agencies? >> yes. we are doing that. as i just mentioned when the new projects come on and they see these benefits from the start, you all will start to see improvements in the streamlining of the permitting process. >> my concern is that in this situation we see the pendulum swinging back and forth to excessive and untimely regulation that impedes responsible development, but we don't want to swing back to the point where we open flood gates to irresponsible environmental damage that we will have to live with for generations. so i think madam chair that's the challenge, we not in our desire to clean up the environmental -- choice of terms, clean up the regulatory process, that we not go too far and undermine the goals of which the regulatory process was established to protect. i do want to associate myself with senator st, we had an expe witness for natural gas energy sitting where you're sitting, mr. turbin, that's why i'm looking at you that said we would never export more than 9% of domestic production. we have approved 90 million for export and annual production is 78 billion bcf a day. the one law the congress cannot repeal is law of supply and demand. it concerns me we are squandering one of the few advantages we have, vis-a-vis asia and china in terms of support for manufacturing and the relatively low cost of natural gas. if we give that away to these competitors, it will simply be one less advantage we have. senator gardner mentioned thousands of jobs. we're talking hundreds of thousands if not millions in the manufacturing sector that will be enabled by low cost of natural gas. i'm concerned, it's not relevant to this hearing but i have to associate myself. i'm afraid we're going to look back in four or five years and say what were we thinking. we've given away an enormous national advantage in the energy field that is tremendously important to our manufacturing sector. with that, madam, chair, i compliment you on this hearing. this presents very important issues i'm certainly willing to work with you to try to address. thank you. >> i look forward to that, senator king. i would just note that senator inhofe has asked that a statement are included for the record in support of the bill that he has co-sponsored with you. this is s1844, coordinating interagency review of natural gas infrastructure act of 2018. so we are going to include that statement from senator inhofe, just not exactly speaking to your point there but talking about natural gas. so that will be included as part of the record. senator duckworth, just concluded with members and you are next up. >> thank you, madam chair, i squeaked in under the wire. thank you. i want to start by saying thank you for holding this hearing and just say while i support efficient permitting systems and understand it can be extremely challenging to industry, i do believe we have to be discerning on what projects we permit and where. for example, i vehemently oppose administration's recent decision to make the largest reduction in american history at two national monuments. when the secretary was nominated to be secretary of interior he likened himself to teddy roosevelt, the father of our national parks system. i cannot imagine less accurate portrayal. he's the father of antiquities act and never repudiated land protections so oil and coal mining can take place. does the administration have plans to move forward permitting activities on these lands? >> not at this time. >> okay. >> madam chairwoman, i'd like to submit for the record a couple of items. one is a law review published by university of virginia earlier this year that determines lacks authority for monument designations. >> that will be included. >> thank you. the second is an article that ran in the "washington post" detailing the uranium mining firm urged trump to reverse land protections and bear's ears. >> will include that as well. >> thank you. i commend the state of washington which appears to have found a pathway forward on how to manage the workload associated with infrastructure permitting requirements. mr. brown, the trump administration has proposed draconian budget cuts across and retirement for civil servants. in your opinion will this make permitting onmore or less for industry. >> i think the permitting process would be difficult with reduced funding for oversight of these projects. if the federal projects or partners we work with don't have the oversight ability to ensure proper environmental regulations, then that would fall to the states. the state's authority, for example, 401 certification, we would need to condition those permits and those licenses in order to ensure that our water quality standards and other permit regulations are met. so as we lose expertise on the federal level with our federal partners, the states would need to make up for that. so i do think losing funding at federal government level would impact the permitting process greatly on both the federal and stateside. >> so you think the states would be able to afford to come up with that additional -- basically a cost shift from the federal to state government? >> passthrough funding for us to implement our delegated authority is often impacted as well. so we have less resources. we must prioritize our regulatory oversight as well. so with the water power license fees that we have, although it doesn't fully fund the program, it does sort of move those projects to the front of the line because they do have somebody in place with the expertise to be there for early engagement and to begin the permitting process. but funding at that level and working with industry to get funding approved through state legislature is very difficult. we feel like we've been successful working with our industry partners to maintain that fee. >> thank you. so a fully resourced federal government is essential to guarantee state governments can improve their role is what you're saying? >> yes. >> miss perruso, your company worked on two major energy projects, wind farm and transmission over the last decade. can you please share your experience working with federal employees. and wind power has added 100,000 jobs over the last 10 years so i'm a fan. >> that's exciting. i don't think it's exaggerating to say over the last 10 years to say we have worked very closely with federal employees and we've participated in thousands of conference calls and meetings. the it projects would not be where they are today if it wasn't for many federal employees at every level, from the field offices to state offices to d.c. who have worked really hard on the environmental analysis. now, i'm not going to tell you that all the relationships always went well or there weren't bumps in the road, but we were very fortunate in the end to have many federal employees who took an interest in the projects and who were committed and are committed to seeing the projects through. that's why recommendations and testimony really focus on improving framework that the federal employees are working under. if they have consistent policies that they can carry out, coordinate and communicate. but also with corresponding decision making authority so it's not just coordination and communication without an ending and accountability regarding schedule and budget. i think it's pretty universal everybody performs better when there's a schedule and a budget. i can tell you the perfect example i wouldn't have gotten my written testimony submitted friday if there hadn't been a deadline. >> thank you. thank you. oftentimes i need deadlines, too. madam chair, i'm out of time. you've been very generous. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you, madam chairman. thanks for holding the hearing. i introduced legislation, reforms blm permitting process for permit to drills aps for oil wells where blm owns no surface acres, no surface acres but owns minerals under that area, we'd like to go ahead and permit if without going through their process if they own less than 50% of the mineral because we go through other approval processes. in essence minority with no acres is holding up the majority owner on the minerals. so that's essentially how the legislation works. we actually moved a version of it through here, i think it was last year. and it didn't get across the floor, but we're continuing to work, and again, it's just about trying to have a commonsense way to expedite apds. so i would like your reaction and whether you're willing to support that type of effort. >> we're always happy to have any flexibility to move our processes along more efficiently than they are right now. so we would be happy to work with you on legislation and offer comments or suggestions on how we can make things better. >> again, it goes back to common sense. if you have no surface acre impact, if you're a minority holder in the minerals, if it frees up time and resources for you to take care of surface acres where you have issues, seems to me you get more done with less people, and it works all the way around, both in terms of the apds but also your ability to manage your surface acres where you have them. >> uh-huh. >> and it also generates revenue because you get revenue from those producing wells. >> right. we would be happy to work with you on the legislation. and anything that moves the process along, we would be happy for. >> there's a little salesmanship here. somebody who maybe isn't for fossil fuels understands there's actually benefits on both sides of the equation. in terms of good blm land management. >> we certainly have to set priorities all the time. there's not resources to go around to do everything that we would like to do. so any way that we can prioritize our resources by making the job easier to do or more straightforward or more efficient to something we would like to try to do. >> along that same line, our coal miners, and we do strip mining. they're still having trouble getting permits. it's taking too long. what happens then is they end up going around federal lands, around vlm lands, okay, so you just missed out on the revenues and so forth, and it makes it more costly for them. and so, you know, we really need a way to find, to expedite that process. my sense it would be useful for you or the rightperson to come out to north carolina and visit our miners and see what they do, and see the reclamation. i would like your reaction to that. >> one of the things we encountered in the beginning of the administration was i'll call it the war on coal, and everything related to coal. and the effect of the government's policies in the last administration was to shut down a lot of our coal resources. and our permitting capabilities. so this president trump has said the war on coal is over. and we have had a secretary of order, an executive order to basically get to that effect. we're currently implementing changing to our coal program so that we can lease more coal. we had a very large coal sale so far this year. so we are trying to make that resource available across the board. we, our administration is an all of the above kind of energy, and we're trying to actively embrace all of the forms of energy, including coal, including oil and gas, including solar and wind. and the thought process is we're not going to try to pick winners and losers. we'll have the marketplace do that. so our job is to make the resources available, and then the market can sort of which one is the most effective. >> good. then i would like to work with you to follow up, i think coming out and seeing what we do is quite eye opening. i think people don't realize the quality of the work, we're number one in the country in reclamation, number one. it would be great to have you do that. madam chair, i beg indulgence for one more question. recognizing my -- i'm over my time here, but director, in regard to permitting improvement for federal infrastructure, can you tell me what concrete steps the administration is taking or will be taking to expedite, improve infrastructure citing processes. >> there's two tools available. there's fast 41, the law as well as the executive order, 13807. and the kind of fundamental principles that we're currently using, and this is a 16-member permitting council. it's early coordination and collaboration, so bring every agency that has a permitting role in the project together at the start of the project. once a quarter, they're required to update what's called the coordinated project plan. they're having those conversations at the beginning and then regularly throughout the process. and they can address difficult issues. that's number one. number two is accountability. they're required to put a timeline on a public dashboard, and that gives the project sponsors the certainty and clarity they need, as well as providing the public and any stakeholders with information on specific target dates for a permit. and then there's also my office, the office of the executive director, where a project sponsor can come and whether it's informal and we'll work with agencies on a specific project, or there's a formal dispute resolution process. all of those things are being used to streamline the process. >> okay, and i would really encourage you to work with the states as much as you can do a state-led approach to help you in the process, i think it really would be beneficial. thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator hoeven. and i would certainly encourage you to take senator hoeven up on his offer to visit north dakota. i had an opportunity to go there several years ago. that was all that people wanted to talk about, was the situation with vlm and how on these areas you just had such an impediment to any level of development because things just took longer. you mentioned this is all about common sense in terms of how these apds were issued. but it was really eye opening for me to see and understand how you can have a level of good solid economic activity. you mentioned the reclamation efforts and all that goes with that, but then when you have the federal lands entirely different scenario in terms of how the process proceeds. >> sounds like a great trip. >> particularly this time of que year, right, senator hoeven. >> the high in d.c. today is 48. the high in bismarck today will be 50. >> there you go. make your reservations today. let me ask one more question. and this relates to nepa. it's been mentioned a little bit, and some of you in your testimony here, but it seems we have kind of moved away from a nepa process that allows for this interaction between the permits, permit applicants and the agencies to ask the questions, to provide some clarity. and to have that understanding, what it seems we have moved to now is more of an arms length transaction where you can't have the hey, we have a question over here, well, let me help you clear it up over there. that adds to time delays. that adds to greater uncertainty. we hear that, that move or that direction to more of an arms length transaction rather than the ability to work some of these things out as you're moving through the process. the other thing i have heard, and senator duckworth mentioned a little bit in her question to you, ms. perruso, about the federal employees you work with, those that are part of the agencies. one of the things i hear is you have a level of turnover within the agencies that if you're in a multi-year process, as senator risch has outlined or mr. russell has indicated where you have projects that are taking years and years and years, and you go back to the same agency, and now you have a different person and basically you're retelling your story all over again. so the question, and i'll just throw it out there, i guess to you, mr. cason, in terms of what you think we can do to get back to a more collaborative approach that can help answer some of the questions and then to those on the applicant side, ms. perusru and ms. russell, how bad is the situation with staff turnover and what that then does to elongating this permit process. so let's start with you on what can we be doing to reinstitute this collaborative approach. >> the long-term link of a lot of these projects do lend themselves to encounter staff turnover. that's for sure. one of the things we're trying to do in interior to combat that is we're going through a process right now of building a standardized nepa compliance process and training so that all of our nepa practitioners basically end up with a same grounding of what's requiring in the nepa and the ceq rules so if you get a new face in the job, at least they're operating from the same set of standards that we're trying to imply. >> one of the things we have found so far in our nepa streamlining process is that each of our agencies end up doing nepa just a little bit different. and so we're trying to get past that and standardize it. a second thing that we're trying to do is really examine the ceq rules and the nepa process and make sure we're cutting out of the process any of the things that are extraneous and not required by the statute or the regulation. so that should help as well. and then we're trying to build a broader cadre of nepa specialists who if we have a vacancy, we have somebody that is on the back bench that can come in and fill in on the project. it probably won't do a lot for the specifics of the individual projects, because each of those tend to be different, but it can help a lot if you insert a new person in that has the same background and training that they can take over the project, learn the specifics about the project much more quickly. and create less confusion and disruption in the process. >> on the collaborative side, anything we can be doing more? >> one thing i would say about the collaborative side, i have mentioned the coordinated project plans and how important they are. they require a plan, and again, this is at the start of a project and then with a quarterly update, a plan for public and tribal outreach. so that's built into the structure of fast 41. to piggyback on what jim was saying about interior, our best practices report just released last week addresses the very issue you just described about staff turnover and the need for training. that's one of the best practices fast 41 requires that we focus on, training and making sure that that project knowledge can move from one person to the next when there is turnover, because we understand how important that is, and as projects take time, we want to conserve and use the knowledge already built up. >> how about some of the applicant side. >> we absolutely experienced a high turnover rate in the federal employees we were working with. for example, during the ten years our two projects have been moving forward, all of the vlm state directors in all four states, all of the district managers, all of the vlm project managers and many of the resource specialists have turned over at least once and sometimes more than once. and there's no doubt that that turnover led to a loss of momentum as new staff came in and tried to get up to speed on where the project was, what had been done, what needed to be done. and sometimes there was disagreement with what had been done, and this is where consistent policy and clear guidance would be very helpful, and as well as communication and coordination as these staff turnovers take place. >> ms. chairman, the project manager's key, i have seen projects that have worked very well with project managers that understand nepa, understand what project management is and drive the process. it has been a big issue with us as the greens creek situation, the corps of engineers went through two project managers and nothing happened for a year. at rock creek, 11 months was lost when one biologist left the u.s. fish and wildlife service. nothing happened. so those resources are very, very important. the role of the applicant is also very, very important. i believe nepa still allows for applicants to prepare environmental assessments, and early in my career, applicants would prepare those, the agencies would review and approve them. we moved away from that, primarily because of the fear of litigation. thatted be one way to get back to streamlining the environmental assessments. also, at green creek, because of this arms-length relationship that the forest service was developing independently alternative to our proposal that were not technically or economically feasible. so a lot of time and energy was spent developing those alternatives and when it finally came to preparing the final document, it was only then that they reached out to us and said, can you do this? and the answer was no. it's not technically or economically feasible. so getting the applicants more involved earlier in the process can address the point that you raised on point that you get a more streamlined and efficient process without reducing any rigor in the analysis. it's just much more efficient. >> do you want to add anything to this? >> sure. i think the statement yz have heard on both sides of the table are things we have experienced at the commission. we have relatively in terms of project managers, low turnover. but that being said, you lose that key person and it does have an impact for the project. that's why for the larger more complicated projects, we'll have deputy project managers and others to try to insure that institutional knowledge is there and that we don't have those sort of hiccups. i do think we have experienced much more turnover or witnessed much more turnover in the other federal agencies, especially in the smaller regional offices, where it may be that these sole vessels of institutional knowledge, once they leave, that office is starting over from scratch. and that has been a problem we have seen over and over. >> that is a problem. senator king. >> madam chair, that was a really good question. and we've identified in the armed services committee one of the problems with the federal procurement process is turnover and the loss of a project manager following through. it's one of the reasons the procurement process in the defense department takes so long. it's often easy politically to talk about shrinking the government and hiring freezes and fewer people. that directly impacts the speed of your permitting process. we're talking about changing regulation, but if you don't have the people to do the analysis and to do the required steps that it takes, and i think we need to understand that, that you can't on the one hand talk about a more efficient permitting process and on the other hand talk about firing people and shrinking the size of whether it's the epa or the department of the interior or the forest service, whatever, there's an inconsistency there. i think that point needs to be made. >> well, you have made it. and you know, i'm reminded that oftentimes i will hear complaints from constituents or other folks that say, you need to -- you need to reduce the size of that agency. until they want their permit approved. and then it's like, where are all the people in your agency? >> then they complain nobody answers the phone. >> yeah. we know the problem. and you know, you're living it. this has been very informative, very instructive this morning. this last big change about the imperative to have the people in place, the knowledgeable folks in place, is a challenge for us. and i think we recognize that we can pass legislation, whether it's fast 41 or whatever it is. we can put in place processes that allow for streamlining and efficiencies. we still have to have the folks that actually make it all happen. so how we work to find that balance, again, is part of our challenge here. but i thank you each for what you have contributed to the conversation this morning. as we look to ways that we can move the economy, it is very clear, it's not a republican idea or a democrat idea. we saw with the obama administration, they said we ned to do something about the regulatory permitting process. president trump comes into office, we need to do more about the regulatory permitting process. our challenge is to do more about the regulatory permitting process and actually see that translate on the ground. as you point out, senator king, none of us are wishing to short cut environmental considerations that would put at risk our economy. we do expect to have stringent and good standards, but we also expect a level of certainty and predictability. and one that doesn't stretch out a permitting process for literally decades. where people have worked on a certain project for a generation. that's not the goal here. so we have work to do, but we appreciate what you all have contributed to the conversation. with that, we stand adjourned. join us later today for a look at the implementation of a 2017 law that reauthorized an expanded education assistance program for u.s. military veterans. the house veterans affairs economic opportunity subcommittee hosting live coverage. house democrats will be hosting a briefing to talk about sexual misconduct allegations against president trump today. it is due to start at 1:00 p.m. eastern, about 45 minutes from now. until then, reaction to today's senate election in alabama from this morning's "washington journal." very good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. polls opening in just about an hour in alabama. 8:00 eastern, 7:00 a.m. central, is when they open. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. central. in the meantime, we're taking your calls this morning, and both candidates into the evening last night, were making their final arguments, about 200 miles apart. roy moore was just out in alabama in midland city, alabama. and this is what he had to say last night.

Related Keywords

Australia , Taiwan , Montana , United States , Japan , Alabama , Nevada , Sanders County , North Carolina , Greens Creek , Alaska , Washington , China , Virginia , Lincoln County , Canada , Germany , Midland City , Maine , Green Creek , Idaho , Wyoming , Colorado , Rock Creek , North Dakota , Americans , America , Chinese , American , Terry Turpin , Luke Russell , Roxanne Caruso , Jim Cason , Chad Brown , Roy Moore ,