    [Senate Hearing 109-]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        OVERSIGHT HEARING TO REVIEW THE PERMITTING OF ENERGY
                PROJECTS WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2005

        U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
    Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe [chairman of
    the committee] presiding.
        Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Chafee, Isakson, Vitter,
    Jeffords, Carper, Clinton, and Obama.
        Chairman Inhofe. The Committee will come to order.
        Let me start by recognizing Senator Vitter. He has to
    preside in just a few minutes. So if you would like to do an
    opening statement, I will defer to you for that purpose.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                           STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you for holding the hearing today. I think this is very
    important. I also want to thank all of our witnesses for coming
    to testify today about this very important issue.
        As our economy continues to grow and create more
    opportunities for more Americans, clearly our energy
    consumption continues to grow, even as efficiency grows
    significantly. So improving our permitting process and making
    it more efficient is very important. It is important to develop
    new energy sources, and that is critical to fuel the growth of
    jobs and the economy.
        By refining the permitting process, our Nation could focus
    on producing more energy domestically and reducing our reliance
    on foreign energy sources. Unfortunately, the way it is
    structured now, the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA,
    has created obstacles that are very costly and slow progressing
    and even block projects rather than assess their environmental
    impact and move them forward.
        Again, in saying this, I do not quarrel with the stated
    goals of NEPA; I quarrel with how it is achieved in practice,
    which is very cumbersome, very inefficient, very uncoordinated,
    and that tends to not achieve the stated goals of NEPA but
    simply slow down all projects that must go through that
    process. So the permitting process needs to be realistic and
    achievable if we intend to reduce our Nation's dependence on
    foreign energy sources and increase our domestic energy
    productivity.
        Cooperation among all Federal and State agencies could
    simplify the permitting process by focusing on common energy
    objectives that would eliminate conflicting agendas that hold
    up the approval and review process. Participating agencies
    working together can improve factors such as certainty and
    timeliness that impact that permitting process.
        However, a definite time line would provide greater
    certainty for the review process since it is frustrating when
    not all of the participating agencies respond in a timely
    manner when issuing permits. Without processing the permits in
    a timely manner, development of necessary energy infrastructure
    is delayed and even financially crippled in many cases. In
    Louisiana this has significant impact. We need to take
    advantage of advancements in technology to increase domestic
    production of our natural gas reserves, and that has a big
    impact in Louisiana.
        So once again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for bringing a
    lot of focus and resources to bear on this very important
    project. I think the bottom line is really this: it is fair and
    reasonable and necessary to set these environmental and other
    permitting processes, but once we establish those goals, it
    should be all of our goal to get that done in an efficient and
    coordinated manner. Once we establish the policy, folks should
    not then go and make the process as complicated and inefficient
    as possible, quite frankly, to frustrate that policy and to
    essentially reopen the policy debate. We should make the
    process efficient once we set the parameters and the policy. I
    think the White House's efforts at streamlining the process and
    you efforts in terms of your leadership position as Chairman
    are moving us in that direction. I thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Vitter, and thank you
    for your loyal attendance here.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                         THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        This is a very significant Committee hearing. Before you
    leave, I will tell you one story. Back in real life I was a
    developer and I can remember building down in South Texas on
    the coast. At one time, I actually had to go to 26 governmental
    agencies to get a doc permit for a condo development. I got to
    thinking, in this information age, it is just not necessary, it
    should not be necessary. So I come, I am afraid to say, Ms.
    Buccino, with a little bit of a bias toward over-regulation as
    a general principle.
        I believe that this Nation really needs an energy policy.
    It is ironic that we are having this meeting right now when the
    Energy Committee is in the process of working on the energy
    bill in a different room. The lack of a comprehensive energy
    policy has detrimentally impacted the country in several was,
    and ultimately slowed down economic recovery.
        I have long said and I maintain that having a strong energy
    policy is a national security issue. I can remember when many
    years ago, back during the Reagan Administration, Don Hodell,
    who served as both Secretary of Interior and then also as
    Energy Secretary, he and I had a song and dance where we would
    go around and try to explain to consumption States that our
    dependence upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a
    war is not an energy issue, it is a national security issue.
    Nobody believed it at that time. I was alarmed because we were
    dependent upon foreign countries for 33 percent of our oil.
    Today, it is twice that. So we have been moving in the wrong
    direction.
        Environmental policies have had a significant and varying
    effect on many of the energy problems this country faces--the
    high natural gas prices, the lack of refining capacity, which
    we have dealt with here in this Committee at several hearings
    over a number of years, and the insufficient energy
    infrastructure, just to name a few.
        With great foresight, President Bush recognized the need
    for a comprehensive national energy plan some 4 years ago this
    month but implementation of many of his recommendations has
    been frustrated in Congress. Environmental concerns are among
    the principal reasons for Congress' failure to address
    America's energy needs.
        Even the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan
    noted as much, stating, ``We have been struggling to reach an
    agreeable tradeoff between environment and energy concerns for
    decades . . . it is essential that our policies be
    consistent.'' And Chairman Greenspan delivered this warning 2
    years ago before another Senate Committee.
        I would ask my friends to remember that the Senate has been
    trying unsuccessfully to move an energy bill since the 107th
    Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to develop the
    needed consistency and send an energy bill to the President
    this year.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to review the permitting
    of energy projects, and to consider whether permitting has
    incorporated the consistent approach Chairman Greenspan
    referred to; that is, balancing the needs of the environment
    and the energy needs. As an Oklahoman and someone very familiar
    with the oil and gas industry, it might surprise my friends
    that this hearing is energy source neutral. We are not here to
    discuss the environmental merits of one type of energy over
    another.
        Rather than focusing on any one energy source, I am
    concerned about the entire process. I think that the following
    quote from an energy interest summarizes the issues permit
    ``review needs to be completed in a timely manner'' and
    ``slippage undermines the credibility of the process and drains
    the energy and resources of the members of the public;
    indefinite delay harms not only the project proponent and those
    who see the benefits flowing from the project, but also damages
    stakeholders.''
        The fact of the matter is that the country needs all forms
    of energy and requires a diverse fuel mix to maintain economic
    progress and ensure a clean environment.
        Regardless of the type of energy, producers cannot find,
    harness, extract, or transport energy unless they can secure
    the necessary environment-related permits. The collective
    energy industries consistently claim that the requisite Federal
    permits and legal challenges from special interest opposition
    groups have prevented them from producing energy or delivering
    it to consumers and businesses.
        President Bush recognized the complexities involved in the
    permitting process in issuing Executive Order 13212, which
    called for Federal agencies to expedite permitting and
    established a White House Task Force on Energy Project
    Streamlining. And the Federal agencies have improved their
    permitting but a lot more can be done.
        I am not a bird expert. I do not know how much bird
    research should be done before building electricity-generating
    wind turbines. Is 6 months of state-of-the-art radar research
    sufficient, or is 3 years too much? I do not know.
        However, I am confident that the project's proponents would
    like to know with certainty the proper reasonable approach at
    the beginning not at the end of the Federal permitting process.
    A lot of you do not understand that it is predictability that
    is necessary. You cannot make the necessary investments and do
    the necessary things, very similar to our highway bill that we
    are doing right now, you cannot just operate on 6 months
    extensions, you have to have a five or 6 year bill where you
    can plan in advance what to do and you can venture your capital
    and sell your story.
        Environmental regulations have increased demand for natural
    gas. Several special interest environmental groups celebrated
    natural gas over other energy fuels. Indeed, nearly all new
    electricity generation is fueled by gas over coal. Yet today,
    some of these same groups have worked against building the
    necessary infrastructure to transport their clean-burning
    bridge fuel.
        For example, the California and Nevada chapters of the
    Sierra Club voted to oppose both on and offshore LNG facilities
    even though the club favors gas over coal and nuclear energy.
    Similarly, some of the States that have the greatest demand for
    gas have not increased the infrastructure to deliver it.
    California, for example, has opposed the permitting of
    Liquefied Natural Gas and pipeline infrastructure even though,
    according to California's Energy Commission, local air quality
    regulations require natural gas generation.
        California certainly is not alone in contributing to or
    facing a regulatory paradox. According to a report from the New
    England ISO, the nonprofit operator of New England's power
    grid, natural gas in the region was increasing from 16 percent
    in 1999 to a projected 45 percent in 2005; however, the States
    lacked the needed infrastructure to transport and distribute
    the gas. The ISO Chairman Berry stated that ``the long and
    complicated Federal permitting process for building new
    interstate pipelines is a greater obstacle than the technical
    construction work.''
        Some special interest groups would like oil and gas
    companies to go above and beyond what are required by
    environmental regulations. They would also like for operators
    to monitor potential environmental impacts. Council on
    Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton has suggested
    incorporating adaptive management, which includes monitoring,
    to a wide variety of projects. These are fine goals in concept,
    but how do current permitting requirements provide for and
    encourage such a flexible approach?
        Lastly, I would like to recall Chairman Greenspan's
    warning. He framed the issue as a tradeoff between energy and
    the environment. It is unfortunate that anyone describes
    balancing these two critical interests in terms of a tradeoff,
    sometimes that is thought of in disparaging ways.
        So I look forward to hearing from both sides of those
    individuals who are here representing environmental concerns as
    well as for those who are involved in the permitting process
    and those trying to get permits.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Inhofe follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. For the record, I would like to enter
    Senator Lieberman's statement in its entirety as if he were
    here and delivered it.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. With that, let me just go over who we have
    here. Mark Robinson, a Federal non-partial witness, is the
    director of Office of Energy Projects, permitting pipelines and
    liquefied natural gas, the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission. Dennis Duffy is the vice president of CapeWind, and
    Mr. Duffy will discuss how the permitting process of the
    proposed wind farm off Cape Cod has been overly burdened and
    allowing opponents to use stall and delay tactics. Sharon
    Buccino--is that pronounced right--is the attorney for the
    NRDC, and she will testify that existing Federal permitting
    process is adequate, and we will be looking forward to her
    testimony. And then Ron Hogan is the general manager of
    Questar, another one who has been involved in the permitting
    process.
        Why not start, Mr. Robinson, with you. Let me tell you,
    even though we do not have many members now, members will be
    coming in and out, and all members are represented by staff. So
    there will be questions that will be submitted to you for the
    record.
        We will go ahead and start with you, Mr. Robinson.

    STATEMENT OF J. MARK ROBINSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENERGY
             PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name is
    Mark Robinson and I am the director of the Office of Energy
    Projects at FERC. We are responsible in our office for 1,600
    hydro-electric projects, their licensing, inspections, safety
    and security of those projects. We also are responsible for
    certificating about 500 to 2,000 miles of interstate natural
    gas pipelines per year and storage facilities, and also the
    authorization, safety and security of LNG terminals.
        I would like to make sure that I identify my bias, I think
    we all have those. I have been involved with siting energy
    infrastructure for the Commission for 28 years now. Over those
    28 years I have watched this process become more byzantine with
    every passing year. My concern is that we may be getting to a
    point in the complexity of the permitting process where
    ultimately the first dollar of investment will not occur and
    those dollars will migrate elsewhere, including overseas.
        My testimony goes specifically to three issues that I think
    need to be addressed in enhancing the permitting process. One
    is the parochial interests that sometimes override regional
    needs; two is what I call agency creep, where different
    agencies use an aspect of the project and their authority
    concerning that aspect of the project to make the overall
    public interest determination; and three is what I term
    distributed decisionmaking. I would like to focus in these oral
    comments on distributed decisionmaking and how that affects
    permitting of energy infrastructure.
        By distributed decisionmaking, I mean that everybody has a
    bite of the apple at this point. If you look at my testimony
    and the charts that I have attached to it, you will see for LNG
    facilities, as an example, in some States you are looking at
    30, 40, 50 permits that have to be acquired by the proponent of
    that project before they can go forward. That in itself is a
    problem. But when you look underneath just the chart to see how
    that works, you can see how there is sort of an insidious
    aspect of permitting that can stop projects.
        One is the aspect that one agency will wait for another.
    They will say we cannot do this until they do that. So you end
    up with a sequential aspect of the permitting process that
    seems to go on and on and on. Two, everybody seems to want to
    take their particular permit and make that the last action that
    occurs. They want to wait until everybody else sees what is
    going on and then they take action. Well, if you have several
    agencies that are trying to do that, it becomes almost a
    bidding contest to see who gets to be the last person to say
    yes or no. That can also affect the ability for a project to
    move forward.
        The effect of this distributed decisionmaking is that
    ultimately that projects that are in the public interest are
    not constructed. They die a death of a thousand cuts, with
    everybody taking a little bit of the project away as they go
    through the permitting process until the project just dies and
    goes away. And I have seen that over and over again and with
    increasing frequency.
        The cure for this, of course, is pretty plain--you vest all
    authority with one agency for all the laws that are affected
    and hold them responsible. That is never going to happen. The
    genie is way too far out of the bottle for us to ever go back
    to having an agency decide whether or not energy infrastructure
    should or should not be built, there are too many interests
    involved. But that does not mean you cannot discipline that
    distributed decisionmaking, and that is what I would call for
    today.
        If we lack that discipline, if we do not acquire it--and
    Memorandums of Understandings, and MOAs, and administrative
    actions all seek to do this but they do not have the force of
    law, if we do not discipline that process--what we will end up
    with is no decisions at all as this becomes increasingly more
    complex. To discipline that process, we are calling for a
    three-pronged approach to rational siting.
        The first prong of that is identification of an agency
    having exclusive jurisdiction for the overall siting decision.
    That does not mean that anyone else loses their authority--the
    Clean Water Act would still apply, the Endangered Species Act
    would still apply--but those projects and those agencies
    dealing with that would have to recognize that is an aspect of
    the project, not the overall public interest determination.
        The second prong is the development of one Federal record.
    This is just good government. It is a matter of taking all
    those agencies that have a role in this, who play a role,
    forcing them through law to work together to develop one record
    and then everybody acts from that record in a timeframe set by
    the lead agency. If they fail to make that decision in that
    timeframe, their decision will be conclusively presumed. That
    is the discipline applied to them to take an action within a
    timeframe set by the lead agency.
        The third prong of that rational siting process is direct
    appeal to the court of appeals. It does not do any good to have
    all those agencies make their decisions and then all of the
    appeal processes run off into various different arenas to try
    to be resolved over years and years of process. We need
    immediate appeals, a one-stop to go to the court of appeals to
    review those actions by those permitting agencies.
        If we have rational siting that would affect any type of
    energy infrastructure, what we will gain from that is certainty
    of the decisionmaking process. And with certainty, that first
    dollar that people want to invest to develop infrastructure
    will be invested, it will not migrate overseas, and we will get
    decisions on what is and what is not in the public interest to
    develop in this country. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. What is good
    about your opening statement is you actually come out with a
    specific recommendation. We do not hear that very often. I
    appreciate that very much.
        Mr. Robinson. Well, I have been dealing with this a long
    time but I feel very strongly that is about the only thing we
    can do to try to bring some sanity to the process.
        Chairman Inhofe. We will be interested to explore that.
        We have been joined by Senator Warner, who is the senior
    member on this Committee; however, I Chair it because he is the
    Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Warner, do
    you have an opening statement?
        Senator Warner. Thank you, no. I would like the opportunity
    when Mr. Duffy completes his opening comments, if I could just
    spend a few minutes with him.
        Chairman Inhofe. In some questions, you mean?
        Senator Warner. Yes. I will not take long, and I thank you
    for the courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inhofe. All right. We will go ahead and move on to
    Mr. Duffy. And after that, I know Senator Warner cannot stay
    very long, we would recognize Senator Warner to pursue his
    request.
        Mr. Duffy.

        STATEMENT OF DENNIS DUFFY, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY
                   AFFAIRS, CAPEWIND ASSOCIATES, LLC

        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dennis J.
    Duffy. I am the vice president of regulatory affairs for
    CapeWind Associates.
        For the past 5 years, CapeWind has been developing the
    Nation's first offshore wind generation project. The project
    would be located approximately five to ten miles off the
    nearest point of land on the coast of Massachusetts. It would
    generate up to 468 megawatts of clean and renewable energy,
    with no fuel requirements and no air emissions. This amount
    would represent approximately 75 percent of the annual electric
    needs of Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and
    Nantucket.
        The principals of our company have been in the energy
    business for more than twenty-five years. We have developed and
    operated some of the most efficient gas-fired plants now
    operating in the United States. Now, in direct response to
    State mandates for renewable energies, the so-call ``renewable
    portfolio standards,'' we are focusing upon wind energy
    development.
        We are confident that wind technology has now advanced to
    the point where it is both proven and reliable and can play a
    much more meaningful role in our national energy supply. In
    order to realize the full potential of this source, however, we
    need to ensure that our national energy and environmental
    policies are implemented in a consistent manner.
        The CapeWind project would consist of 130 wind turbines
    located in Federal waters connected to the land-based power
    grid via two submerged cables. Although this is the first
    offshore wind energy farm proposed in the United States, in
    Europe offshore projects of this type have been operated
    successfully for more than a decade. The CapeWind project------
        Senator Warner. Excuse me. I missed what you said. What had
    happened not in a decade?
        Mr. Duffy. The European projects have been operating for a
    decade or more now. The project would be located on a shoal out
    of shipping lanes and would impose no restrictions on current
    uses of the area. CapeWind enjoys strong support from
    environmental, consumer advocacy, and labor groups, and a Cape-
    based grassroots support organization with now over 4,000
    members.
        The Federal regulatory process under current law is both
    thorough and comprehensive, but, importantly, it lacks any
    requirement that would limit the duration of project review
    period, which in some cases can open the door for opponents to
    try to use delay as an end in itself. After extensive analysis
    of potential sites, we submitted our application to the Army
    Corps in November of 2001. The project has been undergoing
    regulatory and public scrutiny for more than three and one-half
    years, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact
    Statement under the NEPA.
        The Army Corps has acted as the lead Federal agency in a
    process that has included 17 Federal and State participating
    agencies and which has afforded exceptional opportunities for
    public involvement, including nine public hearings. During this
    process, an exhaustive record has been put together under a
    public interest standard which has included a whole range of
    issues, from environmental impacts, project aesthetics, cost
    implications, and the need of the public.
        At the same time, there has been an extensive parallel
    proceeding. In 2002, we filed with the Massachusetts Energy
    Facilities Siting Board for authorization for the transmission
    facilities which would cross the waters of the Commonwealth. I
    am happy to report that after a two and a half year review,
    with 20 days of expert testimony and over 50,000 pages in an
    evidentiary record, on May 10 the Massachusetts Energy
    Facilities Siting Board approved our petition based largely on
    a finding that our energy would be needed for three purposes:
    to meet the growing need for the region's power; to lower the
    prices to electric ratepayers; and to offset air emissions from
    fossil generation.
        Notwithstanding the review we have gone through over the
    last three and a half years, however, we still face additional
    processes of uncertain duration. In particular, the Army Corps
    issued a draft EIS in November of 2004 and has received more
    than 5,000 comments on the draft. While most of those comments
    were positive, the comments also included continued demands
    from project opponents that multiple years of additional field
    studies now be completed. Some, for example, call for the Corps
    to now evaluate nuclear and fossil plant proposals on an equal
    footing, notwithstanding the fact that we proposed this project
    in specific response to mandates for renewable energy.
        In conclusion, CapeWind and the other wind projects that
    will follow present great potential for meeting the multiple
    objectives of national energy and environmental policy,
    including decreased reliance on imported fuel, reducing and
    offsetting air emissions, and lowering the cost of electricity
    to the ratepaying public, all with minimal environmental
    impact.
        Based on our experience, we have two suggestions for
    improving the process. First, we believe that national policy
    objectives would be better served if environmental review of
    proposed energy facilities were conducted in a more timely
    manner, perhaps pursuant to statutory timeframes that would
    prevent delay tactics from crippling an otherwise worthy
    project. And I point out in that case, for example, many of the
    New England States have adopted energy facilities siting acts
    which specifically limit the review period to a 12-month
    process for major energy projects.
        Second, because the process involves so many agencies with
    often conflicting agendas, it is important that the process
    appropriately recognize the clearly stated Federal and State
    energy objectives, as well as the societal tradeoffs inherent
    to any major energy project. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Duffy follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Senator Warner?
        Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not be too
    long. I will put a number of things with unanimous consent in
    today's record.
        Let me make it clear, Mr. Duffy, you do not know me, I do
    not know you, and this by no means is any personal criticism to
    you. But I became involved in this issue, as you probably know,
    because of several concerns.
        First, I think I have got to digress a moment to speak
    about a personal aspect of this. For many years I was married
    to a wonderful person whom is still a very dear and valued
    friend, I guess it was about 25 years ago now, 26 years ago
    when we unfortunately parted ways, but she does have a home in
    the Cape and I was actually married there to that wonderful
    woman. Every time I try and get into this fray, they conjure up
    this woman, who is very private, and three children of mine who
    occasionally visit the house.
        I just think it is fine for anyone to heap criticism on me,
    but I really resent, and it is not a part of your organization,
    but the local press has seized on this as why I have questioned
    this thing. I have not been to the Cape personally for a number
    of years, although I plan to go this year to a wedding for 3
    days. So when I make a sighting, I am sure they will conjure up
    some more stories. But let us put that to one side.
        Here is my concern with this. Because it really grabbed my
    interest in several ways. One, yes I have seen the Cape for
    many years, and that part of America to me is one of the great
    treasures--the next witness, Ms. Buccino, if you could listen
    to this--one of the great natural treasures in America is that
    confluence of islands up there, Martha's Vineyard and the Cape
    and so forth.
        It is a marvelous sanctuary for birds and wildlife. It is a
    sailor's haven, a fisherman's dream. And I could go on and on
    about that part of America. In my years, I have been to every
    place in this country one way or another just about.
        I have been very disturbed about the environmental
    community not focusing on this. The environmental community has
    sort of taken the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, put
    hands over their face and look the other way because they
    realize that possibly some modest measure of energy can be
    derived from wind power and, therefore, all the evils of the
    other sources of energy is where they direct their attention.
        But I have never quite understood why they did not step in
    to look at this magnificent piece of America and speak on it in
    a more objective and authoritative way. But put that aside.
    That is one concern I have is that it is just a treasure of
    this country.
        Second, let us go back--and I am going to put in today's
    record a letter I wrote, Mr. Chairman, to the Army Corps of
    Engineers.
        Chairman Inhofe. Without objection.
        Senator Warner. As a member of this Committee, I have some
    say about the Corps, and as a member of the Armed Services
    Committee, we have some things to say about the Corps. And we
    had before this Committee, Mr. Chairman, the former Assistant
    Secretary of the Army, not the former, he is currently again
    acting, for Civil Works, Mr. Woodley, and I am going to put in
    today's record the full testimony of the Assistant Secretary.
        Chairman Inhofe. Without objection.
        Senator Warner. He stated that he did not believe the Corps
    has clear statutory authority to grant Federal permits for wind
    power projects in the Federal offshore shelf waters. And this
    is what I wrote to the Corps of Engineers, they are having this
    open hearing on this:
        ``The Corps is reviewing an application for a navigation
    permit under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
    1899''--1899. The only windmills or wind power that the Member
    of Congress had any knowledge about then maybe was Don Quixote,
    as you know, and a few local farmers' windmills and something
    else. They never envisioned this. And to think that you are
    moving forward on this project under that ancient statute,
    which in my judgment and the judgment of the Acting Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, just does not have the
    statutory framework to support this decision.
        I go on: ``The stated purpose of this statute is clearly to
    prevent obstructions to navigation in waters of the United
    States. It does not provide authority to the Corps of Engineers
    to grant property interests in those CS lands, as would be the
    result should this permit application be granted. The
    legislative history of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act shows
    that section 10 was originally enacted to remedy the inability
    of Federal common law to prevent obstruction to navigation. The
    law and implementing regulations have been broadened somewhat
    over the years and now includes a public interest test. But its
    essential purpose has not changed.
        ``The jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers as provided in
    the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act and implied authorities under
    the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act are wholly inadequate to
    evaluate the construction proposed of 130 windmill towers in
    U.S. waters to properly protect our environment, to ensure that
    navigation on our seas is not impeded, to guarantee that public
    assets are not granted to private developers for free, to
    provide for appropriate compensation to the Federal taxpayer
    for the private use of public lands, and to ensure the careful
    management of other Federal interests. The 1899 statute simply
    cannot, and should not, be stretched 100 years later to embrace
    the unique concepts of the proposed project.''
        I am not against the concept of wind power. I simply say,
    if it is going to be done, do it right. And the responsibility
    in large measure falls upon the Congress. When the energy bill,
    Mr. Chairman, is brought up, I intend to address this issue on
    the floor. I tried last year in the context of the Military
    Act, which the Chairman and I worked on, to ask for a 1 year
    moratorium to give Congress the opportunity to step in and
    establish a regulatory framework for these offshore lands, such
    that you could proceed under a current law of Congress
    specifically designed to take care of the wind power.
        Now these wind units are proposed off the shore of
    Virginia, and that is really the underlying reason why I am so
    involved in this. I do not understand how you can put this much
    private capital behind a project that really has no foundation
    in statutory law for the regulatory process. Yes, you have been
    at this for 3 years-plus. I guess I am slightly amused by that.
    I have been for 15 years trying to get a dam in Virginia with
    the Corps of Engineers. I have not given up by any measure, but
    these processes are somewhat slow.
        So I have stated my case, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    have our distinguished witness reply, to the extent that he
    wishes. And to save time, you can have a chance to look over my
    letter, and I would ask that maybe you would like to expand
    your remarks and place them in today's record after you have
    had an opportunity to reflect on this.
        [The referenced materials follow:]
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Senator, I would welcome that
    opportunity. Let me just say, I fully appreciate your concerns,
    but on the legal analysis I think we respectfully disagree on a
    couple of points, which I can explain somewhat.
        The way we have read section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
    Act is that it was always intended to be a general delegation
    of authority to the Army Corps and not limited to any specific
    type of structure or for a specific purpose.
        And for example, we looked back over a long history of
    courses of dealing where the Army Corps has used its section 10
    authority for whole host of different types of projects. Some
    have included things like rerouting rivers; others, highway
    construction projects, bridge construction projects; and others
    offshore have included things such as filling hundreds of acres
    of waterways of the Federal waters for things such as airport
    expansions.
        And more specifically going offshore, the section 10
    authority has been used for a whole range of authorities which
    have been recognized by court decisions which have included
    things such as offshore cable projects, weather towers, radio
    stations. There is a whole range of things that the Corps has
    done historically with an established course of dealing which
    has been upheld in the courts.
        I would also point out that we, more than two and a half
    years ago, got a preliminary permit to place an offshore
    weather station with a 200-foot tower for taking wind data,
    which has been in service now for over 2 years. The opponents
    to our project appealed the grant of that permit under some of
    the very same reasons, arguing that the Army Corps' offshore
    structure was intended to be very narrow and limited, and in
    fact limited only toward extractive operations.
        We have now gone through 2 years of Federal court
    litigation with two decisions at the district court in
    Massachusetts, and two decisions at the first circuit, which we
    think confirm our original reading that the congressional grant
    of authority to the Corps was not meant to be limited but it
    was general in nature and extends beyond extractive structures.
        But I think probably more importantly to the policy
    question, we feel that under current law the structure is in
    place to give a full and fair regulatory review to the
    substantive issues.
        Senator Warner. What structure is in place?
        Mr. Duffy. Well, I would say the structures are the public
    interest review that the Army Corps applies under any section
    10 review process, which includes the whole range of all likely
    detriments and benefits that might result from the project,
    which are going to include issues such as aesthetics, tourism,
    conservation, fish and wildlife impact, as well as current uses
    of the area.
        And that is why the draft EIS which was released after the
    first phase of the project included over a 4,000 page analysis
    of all these issues. And I would point out that, in addition to
    the process being driven by the broad public interest test of
    the Corps' statute, it is also being done pursuant to the
    National Environmental Policy Act, where it is proceeding in
    line with the rules and procedures established for an
    environmental impact statement, which has involved 19
    participating agencies both from the Federal and the State
    level.
        So I recognize fully the type of issues that you raised in
    particular. I know the Cape very well. It is very special to me
    as well. But I feel that when you stop and look very closely at
    the process which has happened so far, including the
    Massachusetts review and approval which we just got a couple of
    weeks ago, as well as the Federal process, I think the analysis
    really shows a careful balancing which recognizes that there
    are going to be detriments to this project, like any energy
    project, but tends to view those in the overall scheme where
    they are at least weighed and measured against the potential
    benefits.
        We just think when people see the final environmental
    impact statement we really believe that the merits of the
    projects are going to be far in excess of the detriments. We do
    not dismiss the detriments, but we think on balance the project
    makes sense.
        Senator Warner. I came within a millimeter of getting my
    statute of a year's moratorium through. I will not tell you
    what happened in the wee hours of the morning, but one
    individual was able to stop it in the other body. That is the
    way we do business up here. I am not complaining. I have done
    it myself.
        But I came up through the legal profession and I just say
    to myself, if I were in your position, as an industry, not just
    your company, as an industry, you should have come to the
    Congress and said, look, we are first cousins to the oil and
    gas industry and there has been a framework of law and
    regulation covering their offshore drilling for years and it
    sets out clearly the criteria, the environmental concerns, a
    whole framework is there.
        You should, in my judgment, be treated fairly under that
    type of framework of law, rather than fumbling around and
    trying to squeeze an 1899 statute to get under. Because some
    Federal court someday might just slam you down and say, you
    know, those Members of Congress never were envisioning this
    type of energy, the source, as fitting into a navigation
    statute.
        And there you are, and all your shareholders and the rest
    of the world, and all the turbulence in the Cape, and
    everything else either comes to a standstill or collapses. Why
    has the industry never come to the Congress and said come on
    Congress, this is a potential source of energy, we would like
    to do it in the proper way, give us a framework of laws?
        Mr. Duffy. I understand your concern there, Senator, and to
    some extent I do share it. But I think on one level we do feel
    sound in our legal position.
        But we, both our project as well as the industry generally,
    have been supportive of some of the legislative proposals which
    have been circulating for the last 2 years, including the
    Administration proposal which was introduced last session
    originally as the Cuban amendment, now included in the House
    version of the energy bill and I believe also in the version
    that is circulating in the Senate.
        Senator Warner. Well, we will see what comes out of that.
    That has sort of made my point. But there is also the interest
    of the Federal taxpayer. I think you will grant me the common
    ground of agreeing that in the oil and gas situation that
    taxpayer is protected when U.S. property is used for purpose by
    the private sector to create a product, whether it is oil and
    gas or, in this instance, wind. But the taxpayer is not
    protected as you are proceeding. Am I not correct there?
        Mr. Duffy. You are correct, Senator. Under current law,
    only extractive uses of the Outer Continental Shelf pay a
    royalty back to the Government, oil and gas extractions under a
    mineral lease. Non-extractive activities such as the Ocean
    Thermal Energy Act, cables, communications systems, are
    permitted but they do not pay a royalty. And we do not oppose
    that. The current provisions within the bill that would address
    offshore would provide for compensation to the Government, and
    we have no problem with that.
        Senator Warner. I thank you for your indulgence and your
    courtesy. We will continue to work away. And I thank the Chair.
    I will put some things into the record. I will provide you with
    a copy of my letter to the Corps of Engineers which sort of
    states the case, maybe you have it, I do not know, but I will
    give you a copy. And thank you very much.
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Warner.
        So the other members who have arrived will know where we
    are, we have completed opening statements, and we have heard
    the opening statements of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Duffy but not
    from the other two witnesses yet.
        At this point, if any, or all of you, want to make an
    opening statement, I only ask that you try to confine it to
    four or 5 minutes. In order they came in, I believe Senator
    Chafee is first.
        Senator Chafee. I will submit mine for the record, Mr.
    Chairman, so we can continue with the hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Chafee. Senator Carper?
        Senator Carper. I have a statement I would like to submit
    for the record, sir. I will say that among things I discuss in
    my statement for the record is the siting of LNG facilities
    around the country and the concern that we have certainly in
    Delaware and the Delaware Valley about the siting of those
    facilities without listening to the input of State and local
    governments.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper. Senator
    Isakson?
        Senator Isakson. I will submit a statement for the record.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Buccino, we are finally around to you. You are
    recognized. Please try to confine your statement to 5 minutes
    if you could.

    STATEMENT OF SHARON BUCCINO, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES
                            DEFENSE COUNCIL

        Ms. Buccino. Good morning. My name is Sharon Buccino. I am
    an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC is
    a nonprofit organization. We have over half a million activists
    and members across the country. We work to protect the
    environment, but for the humans living in it.
        I, like you, want to make energy permitting work better. I
    have had the privilege to work with ranchers, farmers,
    homeowners across the West as energy development has come to
    their communities. Domestic energy production, the work of
    companies like Questar, is important. The permitting process is
    what allows this development to go forward in a way that
    identifies community concerns and addresses them. The
    permitting process is what gives citizens a voice in the
    government decisions that affect their lives.
        I would like to spend the few minutes I have here to
    address the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA.
    NEPA was signed into law in 1970 by President Nixon. Since then
    it has served as a valuable tool to produce both informed and
    accepted Government decisions. It has helped citizens protect
    their communities and enhance the quality of their lives. NEPA
    has also helped Federal officials better meet the needs and
    interests of the public they serve.
        NEPA improves projects. I was involved in a seismic
    exploration project in the Nine Mile Canyon region of Utah.
    This is an area that the State of Utah has described as ``an
    outdoor museum.'' The Bureau of Land Management describes the
    area as ``the greatest concentration of rock art sites in the
    U.S.'' This project involved 60,000 pound trucks and they used
    explosives to collect data about oil and gas resources. It was
    in a very sensitive, arid area in Utah's canyon lands.
        And as a result of the review process under NEPA and also
    under the National Historic Preservation Act, the company
    conducting this exploration took additional steps to protect
    those natural and cultural resources that were in the area. The
    company agreed to additional monitoring and mitigation. In
    fact, just recently in a USA Today article, the BLM manager for
    that project said, ``I can't imagine this project without a
    process like (this).''
        NEPA gives people a voice. You will find that many of your
    constituents, from city council members to homeowners, care
    deeply about NEPA. They care about having a say when the LNG
    facility may be coming into their area, when a gas company
    wants to put a coal-bed methane well in their backyard, when a
    highway is proposed through their neighborhood. I urge this
    Committee and Congress to work to enhance the public's voice
    and not silence it.
        There are several provisions that have actually been
    introduced and passed on the House side in the energy bill,
    H.R. 6, that take us in the wrong direction. I will just
    highlight one, which is section 2055. It removes completely
    from the NEPA process numerous oil and gas activities,
    including the seismic exploration that I just described. It
    provides that those activities shall not be subject to review
    under NEPA. Rather than working to improve the review process,
    this provision simply eliminates it. Instead of using the NEPA
    process to identify and address concerns and potential adverse
    impacts on the public's health, livelihood, and communities,
    this provision excuses the Government and industry from
    listening.
        I urge you to fight to keep energy legislation clean of
    provisions that compromise environmental protections and public
    participation. In the past, this Committee has stood strong in
    defense of NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the
    Safe Drinking Water Act, and I urge you to stand strong now.
        Finally, one last point I would like to make is that we can
    increase domestic energy production without weakening
    environmental protections. Getting permits is not preventing
    oil and gas companies from drilling. In fact, the Bureau of
    Land Management is issuing record numbers of permits. In the
    last fiscal year, they issued over 6,000 permits, which was up
    from about 3,800 the previous fiscal year. And many of these
    permits are actually going unused right now.
        So in conclusion, because of the increasing demands being
    made on our public lands and our shrinking open space, NEPA is
    needed now more than ever. I remain inspired by that vision
    that was in NEPA--it is a future where man and nature can exist
    in productive harmony. It is a future where our valuable public
    lands serve diverse interests. I hope that this is a vision
    that you all share and will fight for as well. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Buccino follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Ms. Buccino.
        We have been joined by some other members. They have agreed
    not to have opening statements. So we will move right along.
        Mr. Hogan.

        STATEMENT OF RONALD E. HOGAN, GENERAL MANAGER, QUESTAR
                   EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY

        Mr. Hogan. Good morning, Chairman, and members of the
    Committee. My name is Ron Hogan, general manager for the
    Pinedale, Wyoming division of Questar Market Resources.
        I would like to describe our efforts to obtain permission
    to reduce our environmental impact to levels substantially
    below existing regulations, while increasing worker safety and
    stabilizing our contribution to the local community. Some of
    the special technology and innovative solutions I will describe
    shortly may or may not be applicable to other oil and gas
    development projects, but perhaps our experience can help this
    Committee understand the challenges we face in today's complex
    regulatory environment.
        Pinedale is a small community in Sublette County, Wyoming.
    According to the current estimates, there are over 20 trillion
    cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the Pinedale
    anticline, which is about 1 year's supply of natural gas for
    the entire country. In July of 2000, the Pinedale field office
    of the Bureau of Land Management published a record of decision
    that outlined the guidelines and restrictions for oil and gas
    exploration and development on the Pinedale anticline. This
    decision was the result of a comprehensive NEPA process that
    included significant public involvement.
        Among the many guidelines imposed by the record of decision
    was a restriction prohibiting drilling operations during the
    winter to minimize possible disruption to deer herds, other
    wildlife, and their habitat. To meet these restrictions,
    Questar was forced into a condensed, summer-only drilling
    schedule. Under these restrictions, we projected it would take
    nearly two decades just to fully develop the gas reserves
    available on our acreage, thereby delaying the delivery of much
    needed gas.
        While operating within these restrictions, we witnessed
    some of the unintended consequences of the summer-only
    schedule. For instance, the shortened season made it unfeasible
    and cost-prohibitive to apply available disturbance-limiting
    technologies like drilling directionally multiple wells from a
    single well pad.
        Also, it was difficult for us and our contractors to hire,
    train, and retain quality employees due to the seasonal part-
    time nature of the work. This, in turn, created an annual boom-
    and-bust economic impact on the local community. And perhaps
    most importantly, winter restrictions made better environmental
    mitigation measures economically unattractive or, in many case,
    physically unattainable.
        We did not feel these unintended consequences were the goal
    of the BLM's record of decision. Therefore, Questar voluntarily
    offered to engage in a multiyear, multimillion effort to
    explore ways that we could leverage the benefits of new
    technology, minimize environmental impacts, enhance the safety
    of operations, stabilize the impact on the local economy, and
    meet or exceed the established goals for the protection of
    local wildlife and habitat.
        The first step in our effort was to submit a request to the
    BLM for a permit to operate one drilling rig during the winter
    of 2002-2003. This would allow us to gain valuable scientific
    data and technical insight into whether a year-round
    development project could help avoid the unintended
    consequences of summer-only restrictions. In addition, we also
    voluntarily agreed to fund a University of Wyoming and Wyoming
    Game and Fish study that would help determine the real impact,
    if any, of natural gas development on wintering deer
    populations.
        Our request for an exception to the winter drilling
    restriction was approved by the BLM for the winter of 2002-
    2003, as was a similar request for a one rig, one winter
    exception for 2003-2004.
        On April 15, 2004, we formally submitted a comprehensive
    proposal for long-term year-round operations, with certain
    restrictions, on Questar's acreage. I want to provide some
    quick highlights of our proposal so you can get an idea of the
    scope of our request.
        First, we proposed investing more than $200 million in
    directional drilling, thereby greatly minimizing surface
    disturbances and associated environmental impact.
        Second, we proposed expanding both the scope and the
    duration of the ongoing deer study to help design energy
    development projects that minimize disruption to wildlife and
    habitat.
        Third, we proposed building a $25 million water and liquid
    condensate pipeline system. This pipeline system eliminates the
    need for truck transport of produced water and condensate off
    the winter habitat area. At peak production from just our
    acreage, this system will eliminate more than 25,000 tanker
    truck visits in a single year. The result will be a significant
    reduction in traffic and air emissions from levels originally
    anticipated by the BLM.
        Fourth, we eliminated the need for flaring, which is used
    to clean up the production stream from new wells to remove the
    water and sand we use during the completion process.
        And last, we invested in busing our contractor's employees
    during the winter months and trucking necessary materials in
    bulk to the rigs in the fall to decrease traffic in the
    wintering wildlife areas.
        In summary, our proposal included investments of more than
    $200 million in onsite mitigation and outlined an approach that
    was scientifically based, field tested, and offered substantial
    benefits over the restrictions imposed by the 2000 Pinedale
    record of decision.
        To facilitate a thorough review and analysis of our
    proposal, we worked closely with local BLM officials,
    biologists, and experts from Wyoming Game and Fish, and elected
    officials. We received formal support of our proposal from
    Wyoming's Governor Dave Freudenthal, the Wyoming Game and Fish
    Department, U.S. Senator Craig Thomas, Wyoming State
    Representatives Monte Olsen and Stan Cooper, Pinedale Mayor
    Rose Skinner, as well as the Sublette County commissioners, the
    North American Grouse Partnership, and Trout Unlimited.
        We also recognized that the Pinedale community needed to be
    involved in the decisionmaking------
        Chairman Inhofe. Try to wrap up, Mr. Hogan, if you would.
        Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir. In November 2004, the Bureau of Land
    Management officially approved our request for the site-
    specific limited year-round operations. I am proud of Questar's
    Pinedale project. Our company is committed to invest over $200
    million to achieve the benefits significantly above and beyond
    those required by existing regulations.
        But even with this commitment, our proposal is constantly
    at risk. We continue to get bogged down in a complex web of
    overlapping jurisdictions and a maze of regulatory requirements
    that many times simply defy logic. When you add to the equation
    those that take advantage of regulatory complexity to delay,
    litigate, and obstruct any energy project------
        Chairman Inhofe. Mr. Hogan, I am going to have to interrupt
    you. You are almost 2 minutes over. We have got to keep some
    time discipline here.
        Mr. Hogan. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hogan follows:]
        Chairman Inhofe. Let me share with my panel members up here
    that the order of early bird and, going back and forth, will be
    myself, then Senators Carper, Chafee, Jeffords, Isakson, and
    Clinton.
        I will go ahead and start off. In my opening statement I
    made a statement that I will read again. I am going to ask each
    one of you whether you agree or disagree with this statement.
    So listen very carefully. What I said in my opening statement
    is, ``Environmental review needs to be completed in a timely
    manner and slippage undermines the credibility of the process
    and drains the energy and resources of the members of the
    public. Indefinite delay harms not only the project proponent
    and those who see the benefits flowing from the project, but
    also damages stakeholders.''
        I will start with you, Mr. Robinson. Do you agree with
    that?
        Mr. Robinson. Agree wholeheartedly.
        Chairman Inhofe. Mr. Duffy?
        Mr. Duffy. Absolutely.
        Chairman Inhofe. Ms. Buccino?
        Ms. Buccino. I agree with that statement.
        Chairman Inhofe. Mr. Hogan?
        Mr. Hogan. I agree, Chairman.
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you very much. I thought that would
    be the case. This actually was a quote from a letter that came
    from 13 environmental groups, advocacy groups. So it seems that
    we do all agree, we have one area where we agree.
        Mr. Robinson, after your opening statement, I complimented
    you because you came out with something that was very specific.
    If you could abbreviate that for the members who were not here
    at the time, and then I am going to ask the other three if they
    agree with your comments on what I consider to be a reasonable
    solution.
        Mr. Robinson. First, I would like to make it clear that
    this proposal for a rational process for siting energy
    infrastructure does not in any way reduce the authorities of
    any other agency. What it does is to try to provide discipline
    to that process, something that we all work on and have worked
    on for years through administrative procedures, MOAs, and
    things of that sort.
        The first leg of that rational siting process is exclusive
    jurisdiction designated to a lead agency. What this would do
    would make it clear to all agencies that one agency is
    responsible for the overall public interest determination.
    Everyone else should focus on their aspect of the project, be
    it dredging for the Corps of Engineers, or water quality for
    the States.
        The second leg of the rational siting process is one
    Federal record development. All agencies involved in the
    decisional process should work together to create one record.
    That record would be used for all decisions at a single point
    in time under a schedule set by the lead agency. Should an
    agency fail to exercise their authority within that schedule--
    keeping in mind that the lead agency has to look at all aspects
    of the project, so any schedule that would satisfy them should
    satisfy an agency that only has one aspect of the project--they
    would lose that authority. Their authority would be
    conclusively presumed.
        The third leg of that rational siting process is direct
    appeal of all of those decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
    Instead of going off to the State administrative agency, then
    the State's courts, or to another Federal agency, and then the
    Federal courts, everybody would go at one time. It would
    shorten the timeframe and give a certainty to the
    decisionmaking process.
        Chairman Inhofe. OK. Mr. Duffy, what do you think of that?
        Mr. Duffy. I had not thought of it before today, but I like
    that approach very much, and let me just tell you why. It
    sounds to me very similar to the approach on energy projects
    that most of the New England States have taken for their State
    environmental review of energy projects. By adopting energy
    facility siting acts which delegate to a specific board the
    primary, the ultimate authority for the decisions for energy
    projects, all the other entities that would otherwise have
    jurisdictional roles are still involved in the process but when
    they review the project, rather than each issuing their own
    opinion or their own decision, they issue an advisory decision
    to the State siting board which then makes a decision based
    upon all the relevant factors.
        I think the important thing to keep in mind is that when it
    operates in that way, the substantive standard should not have
    changed, the degree of examination and review should not have
    changed. But what you get is a single decisionmaker who is in a
    position to make a public interest determination after
    considering all of the other authorities which otherwise could
    give you conflicting results.
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you. Ms. Buccino?
        Ms. Buccino. I guess the way I react to that is, first, I
    would like to emphasize that I am for spending more money on
    protection rather than paper. And as I said, I am for making
    the system, the process work better. I think maybe this takes
    us in the right direction. I would just like to flag a couple
    concerns that I think need to be looked at carefully if you
    consider moving in this direction.
        One is, I think that while the statement has been made you
    are not taking authority away from existing State or local
    governments, there is very real concern that that is the
    result. At least in the version that I have seen, I think it is
    in H.R. 6, at least it has been articulated there, you are
    making a clear change. You are concentrating authority in FERC.
        So my approach would be to give the resources that are
    needed to the agencies to provide their input in a timely
    manner rather than create a system that may put them at a
    disadvantage. And you can look to the transportation act ISTEA
    where it was first used, where you have transportation funds
    going to resource agencies, wildlife agencies to help them get
    their job done. So my approach is help the agencies provide
    their input in a timely manner rather than silencing those
    voices.
        Chairman Inhofe. All right. Mr. Hogan, I am going to let
    you answer for the record because we are running short of time
    here and I had one more question I wanted to ask in my turn
    here.
        Mr. Duffy, I found it to be interesting after Senator
    Warner asked you some questions, in your opening statement, do
    I understand that 75 percent of the electricity in Cape Cod,
    Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket is wind?
        Mr. Duffy. No. If our project were to come online.
        Chairman Inhofe. If it were to come online. How long would
    that take?
        Mr. Duffy. Oh, probably 2 years from the time of a
    favorable decision. We have to work around winter construction
    seasons, but basically 2 years.
        Chairman Inhofe. You always hear that the technology is not
    there, it is not going to work, and I have heard a lot of gloom
    and doom about wind energy. I would like to see it work. Where
    do you think we are in technology?
        Mr. Duffy. Obviously, we have been in the energy
    development business for 25 years and we are putting our
    private capital at stake in this project. We have invested very
    heavily in this and, prior to doing that, we had to come to the
    conclusion that it was both technically viable and economically
    viable. I think in particular looking at the offshore projects,
    it is a proven technology, it has been commercially successful
    in operation in the European market for more than a decade.
    There are numerous projects under development in the European
    markets today. Off the coast of New York, the Long Island Power
    Authority is proposing a project very similar to ours. And we
    are just absolutely convinced that the technology is proven.
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Duffy.
        Senator Carper is not here. Let us just go ahead and come
    back to him. Senator Chafee?
        Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
    to join you here at this hearing on an important issue of the
    siting of energy facilities. Certainly, New England has been
    mentioned not only with CapeWind, but LNG being very important
    to us also. We all know the abundance of natural gas in the
    world. The problem is getting it to market. It certainly burns
    cleaner than coal and oil, so it is advantageous to try and get
    it to market. Thus the dilemma. And we have got several fairly
    controversial proposals in Narragansett Bay; one on the
    Massachusetts side, one on the Providence side.
        But my question is to Mr. Robinson. In response to Ms.
    Buccino's assertion that under H.R. 6, numerous gas and oil
    activities on public lands shall not be subject to review under
    NEPA, has FERC taken a position on that?
        Mr. Robinson. It is amazing how this proposal has generated
    criticism that has no application to the proposal. No one is
    calling for any changes to the NEPA process. The only thing
    that we are asking for is to discipline the process by allowing
    an agency, be it FERC or any other agency, who is designated as
    that lead, to set a schedule and have all other agencies act
    under their authorities whatever actions they want to take to
    grant or deny within that schedule. So there is no diminution
    of authority in any other agency whatsoever.
        And as far as resources go, I think that was one of the
    other criticisms that we heard, that we should just apply more
    resources. I will guarantee you, as a regulator of 28 years,
    working with every agency that you can think of, State, local,
    or Federal, that we will consume those resources and we will
    design even more complicated processes administratively to try
    to do what we should do. It is not a matter of resources. It is
    a matter of discipline. And I think that is what we are calling
    for in our proposal.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you. Mr. Hogan, I know you had
    interesting testimony, but because of time constraints could
    not get through it, of what is happening in Pinedale. I think
    there is a ranch there, the Box R.
        Mr. Hogan. I have heard of it, yes.
        Senator Chafee. The Logier family. I think Mrs. Logier came
    from Rhode Island from years back. So I am familiar with
    Pinedale. A beautiful area of the world.
        But you were going to say that you were trying to get the
    proposal to drill into the winter, at least one well during the
    winter. How has that proceeded so that you could diversify? You
    said it was a boom and bust economy, all the people come in for
    the summer, and you are trying to diversify the impact on the
    community. Has that process concluded? Are you getting that one
    well in the winter?
        Mr. Hogan. Yes. We received two opportunities to drill with
    one rig during the winter season to try and establish a
    baseline that we could, in fact, do what we want to do, which
    is to have three pads with two rigs on each pad drill during
    the winter. When we receive that, we have had that approved,
    but when we are actually able to implement it this coming
    winter, then we are estimating that will establish the
    beginning of our 9 years of drilling on a year-round basis,
    which will provide opportunities for members of the crews to be
    able to identify long-term employment and therefore move their
    families into the area.
        Senator Chafee. And what year are you in in that process?
        Mr. Hogan. Excuse me?
        Senator Chafee. What year are you in the winter drilling
    process?
        Mr. Hogan. We just received approval in November to start.
    We were unable to start the three pad winter proposal until
    this coming winter. So we currently have commenced the pipeline
    portion of the project.
        Senator Chafee. And how was the regulatory process at
    trying to make that proposal?
        Mr. Hogan. It was a fairly long, drawn out procedure. We
    identified early on that there was a certain element of
    timidity, I guess, on behalf of the BLM to try and take a
    leading edge. I want to say that the BLM office in Pinedale is
    an excellent office. I do not take anything away from them.
        But they were a little skittish about going forward with
    our proposal fairly independently. So we took it upon ourselves
    to meet with the public on a very concentrated basis, explain
    our project, answer any questions that they would have to try
    and make sure that really the critical mass that the BLM needed
    in order to make a positive type of determination was there.
        Senator Chafee. And was there concentrated public
    opposition initially?
        Mr. Hogan. Well, I would not say it was concentrated. But
    there was some opposition. We spent a lot of time with the
    conservation groups and I think it was a matter of education.
    Once we got over the hurdle of educating them as to the
    benefits of our proposal, we did not receive any opposition. At
    this point, we have not had any litigation filed against our
    project. So we take that as a form of endorsement.
        Senator Chafee. I am sure in all these siting proposals
    public involvement has its pros and cons. Having been a mayor
    and going through zoning processes, you have to make sure you
    reach out to the neighborhood as the proposal comes forward. I
    know CapeWind has tried to do that, and the liquid natural gas
    people have as they come up Narragansett Bay, but nonetheless,
    as politicians, we sure hear from our constituents on these
    issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Chafee. Only we former
    mayors understand that.
        Senator Chafee. Front lines.
        Chairman Inhofe. Senator Carper left. We will come back to
    him when he comes back. Senator Jeffords, do you have some
    questions? Our distinguished Ranking Minority Senator Jeffords.
        Senator Jeffords. That is better. Thank you. Mr. Robinson,
    in your testimony, you provide a chart that lists the number of
    State and Federal approvals and permits needed for liquified
    natural gas facilities. Can you clarify for the Committee which
    of these are actual permit requirements as opposed to some
    other review status?
        Mr. Robinson. I think we were using the term permit in its
    broad sense. But I believe all of them are, in fact. It is a
    process, a certificate, an authorization, a permit, an OK from
    an agency that our applicants have to go through. Now there is
    a distinguishing aspect of those permits that is not identified
    in that chart.
        Some of those are permits that are pursuant to Federal
    statutes--the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal
    Zone Management Act, and others--and many of those are legal
    predicates for an action to occur at the project, others are
    not. So there is a distinction there. But there is at least a
    half a dozen of those permits which by Federal statute must be
    acquired prior to any construction of a project.
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Duffy, I would be interested in your
    thoughts about how the NEPA process has affected your project
    so far. Do you feel that the process of developing the draft
    Environmental Impact Statement has increased local community
    acceptance of the project?
        Mr. Duffy. I think it has, Senator. NEPA is always a
    double-edge sword. It is a difficult, long process, but I think
    the level of public support, in particular from the
    environmental community, has been much stronger now that the
    draft EIS has been issued. I mean, we have always had the
    strong support of the most respected environmental
    organizations. But until the draft EIS came out, it always was
    subject to the caveat that it is a good idea provided that the
    EIS is favorable. Now that it is out and it is showing a very
    favorable conclusion, it has absolutely solidified our support
    in the public.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Ms. Buccino, in your
    experience, do you think that the current Clean Water Act, Safe
    Drinking Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act
    provide enough protection for landowners that live near the
    energy-productionsites?
        Ms. Buccino. Well, those Acts provide a core of protection
    that is essential. There are issues related particularly to the
    split estate situation, where a company that leased the mineral
    rights underneath the land actually legally right now those
    rights trump private property rights on the surface. So there
    is quite a bit of conflict occurring right now primarily around
    coal-bed methane development where drill pads are being put in
    people's backyards, and the current legal framework does not
    address adequately those concerns.
        Senator Jeffords. To what extent has changing
    administrative guidance on NEPA fueled litigation in an effort
    to clarify the requirements regarding the content of the
    Environmental Impact Statement?
        Ms. Buccino. There has been quite a bit of work, actually,
    administratively to help improve the process. For example, the
    White House, under this Administration, had a NEPA Task Force
    that focused on implementation, improving implementation, and I
    think they are moving forward with some of those
    recommendations. The White House Task Force on Energy Project
    Streamlining was referred to earlier, and they have actually
    done a lot of work within the existing statutory framework.
        In fact, they issued a report, it was December 2002,
    reporting on the proceedings of their first year. In that
    report they reaffirmed that improvements can be made within the
    existing statutory framework, there is no need to change that
    statutory framework, and they have moved forward with Memoranda
    of Understanding to address deep water ports and also
    pipelines.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Inhofe. The next would be Senator Isakson. I have
    asked if he would Chair the remainder of the meeting, which
    will just go for one round of questions because of something
    that has come up. So I appreciate your willingness to do that,
    Senator Isakson, and you are recognized for your questions.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Out of respect
    for Senator Carper, in case he does not come back, I will ask a
    question I think he rhetorically asked in his brief opening
    statement. I guess, Mr. Robinson, it would be for you. What I
    heard him say was a discussion of giving the State a role in
    the siting of LNG facilities. That implied to me that the
    States do not now have a role. I am not knowledgeable either
    way. Would you tell me?
        Mr. Robinson. I would like to give you one example. We have
    a project proposed in California, the Port of Long Beach, it is
    the SES project. There, the State designated agency for their
    CEQA responsibilities, the NEPA equivalent, is the Port of Long
    Beach Authority. They are supposed to gather the information
    for all the other State agencies and act as the agency that
    prepares the Environmental Impact Statement. They are a
    cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission in preparing the NEPA document that we are doing.
        We were prepared in October of last year to go forward with
    our draft EIS on that project. The Port Authority was not.
    There were more studies that they wanted to do. We agreed, and
    continue to agree, to wait while the Port Authority continues
    their State process before we go forward with our NEPA
    document.
        The State has a vital role in the siting of LNG facilities
    integrated into the NEPA process, certainly, as I just
    demonstrated, but also in terms of the permitting that goes on.
    No LNG facility can be sited unless it receives a Coastal Zone
    Management Act permit granted by the State. The State can stop
    any LNG facility they wish just with that one Act, and that is
    one of three that they can stop a project with.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you. I want to be sure to get that
    in the record in case Senator Carper did not get back in. I do
    not know if he had a follow up question, because I am not a
    mind-reader.
        Mr. Hogan, I would like to ask you a question. Does
    Questar--is it Questar, is that right?
        Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir.
        Senator Isakson. Do you do offshore drilling for natural
    gas?
        Mr. Hogan. No, Senator, we do not.
        Senator Isakson. All right. If anyone at the dais is
    knowledgeable about offshore drilling, and this again is
    educational and informative for me, what are the environmental
    concerns, I understand those with regard to petroleum, but what
    are the environmental concerns with regard to drilling for
    natural gas offshore? Ms. Buccino?
        Ms. Buccino. I will just highlight a few. A lot of them are
    similar, and it starts with the exploration stage, not just at
    the production end. There are concerns about the impacts on
    marine mammals from the seismic exploration, and I think there
    are also concerns that relate to impacts on tourism and local
    economies.
        I know there has been a debate about whether the potential
    impacts are really the same with gas versus oil drilling. And I
    think again that illustrates the importance of the
    environmental review and public participation process, to allow
    that information to come out, to allow the public to digest it,
    and if the case is made, the public accepts it and you can move
    forward with a project that is not controversial and not
    opposed.
        Senator Isakson. Well that was my reason for asking the
    question. Georgia has about a 123-mile coastline and natural
    gas is a real premium today and is going to be in shorter
    supply than it now is because of the amount being consumed just
    in generating electricity. And as the pressure grows on that, I
    just was not familiar with what the environmental--I know on
    petroleum, it would obviously be the oil spill and the
    fracturing and everything else that goes on. But it primarily
    would be to the marine wildlife and the esthetics, I take it,
    more than anything else. Is that correct?
        Ms. Buccino. I think that is true. I think it is an area
    that has not been explore fully and the review process can help
    do that.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you very much. Senator Clinton?
        Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    witnesses who are here with us today.
        I wanted to just add something for the record, because I
    know my friend Senator Warner was here earlier to discuss his
    concerns with the current permitting process for offshore wind
    farms, and there are several proposals under consideration as
    part of the energy bill debate to revise that permitting
    process, which is currently being done by the Corps under
    section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
        I just want to state for the record that we have a proposal
    that is in the pipeline in New York. The Long Island Power
    Authority has selected Florida Power and Light to build a 140
    megawatt wind farm off the Long Island coast. This project
    enjoys strong local support, and the permitting process is in
    midstream. So I think it is extremely important that whatever
    we might do in the context of any energy bill, or any other
    bill where this issue is addressed, we take into account some
    of the projects that are strongly supported and already on
    their way to going into production.
        I understand Senator Warner's concerns and I appreciate
    them. And whatever the adequacies or inadequacies of the Corps
    current authorities may be, my concern is that I do not want
    LIPA to have to start all over again if we change the
    permitting rules. So I hope that the Chairman and all of our
    colleagues will work with me on that in the spirit of this
    hearing, which is to reduce unnecessary roadblocks to energy
    projects. I would look forward to working with Senator Warner
    and others on the Committee.
        I have a few questions for Mr. Robinson, and, Mr. Robinson,
    it is in line with what you have already been testifying about.
    As I believe you know, Broadwater Energy has proposed building
    an offshore LNG terminal in the New York waters of Long Island
    Sound. There are many concerns on both sides of the Sound about
    the impact such a facility would have. It is not a huge body of
    water. It is not out in the open ocean. It is an important
    environmental, recreational, and economic asset. Given the
    importance of this issue, I laid out a number of concerns in a
    letter that I sent to FERC Chairman Wood last week.
        Twenty million people live within 50 miles of the Sound.
    Obviously, for anybody who has ever been to Long Island, you
    know we have some of the most beautiful beaches, some of the
    most picturesque towns and villages. The first time, Mr.
    Chairman, I went to Long Island, I told some people where I was
    going and they said how can you be going to the beach in New
    York. And so there is a lot of education that needs to be done.
        But it is an incredible resource and it is something that
    we care deeply about, because it is also not just recreational
    and environmental, but economic. There are a number of people
    who make their livelihoods from the Sound. So we have specific
    concerns about the safety and security risks associated with
    the presence of an anchored LNG terminal that could hold up to
    eight billion cubic feet of natural gas.
        So I would like to ask, Mr. Robinson, what is the size of
    the area around the proposed terminal in which release of gas
    by either accident or attack could result in pool fires or
    flammable vapor clouds?
        Mr. Robinson. Well there are two aspects to safety and
    security that you have to consider when you are thinking LNG.
    One is the tanker safety and security, and the other is the
    terminal itself. We actually commissioned a study by ABS about
    a year, gosh, I guess it was a year and a half ago now. That
    calculation that they came up with, which we use as a model for
    site-specific calculations, was in the range of around 4,500
    feet for a radiant heat zone of 1600 BTU per square foot per
    hour. That is a heat rate that if you left your skin exposed to
    it between 30 and 40 seconds and just waited, you would get a
    second degree burn; your clothing would protect you. So that is
    the perimeter of that 1600 BTU per square foot per hour is
    about 4500 feet for a tanker spill at its worst extent, the
    biggest pool expression.
        Sandia Laboratory did a follow up study on that in December
    of last year, and I think their number came out, again in
    general, it has to be applied specifically with the winds and
    the humidity and all the different types of factors that go
    into the calculation, and I believe it was around 5200 feet for
    that same 1600 BTU expression.
        Senator Clinton. That is the immediate area where there
    might be pool fires. But the impact would go beyond that
    immediate restricted area in terms of impact in the water. So
    how would access around the terminal be restricted? What would
    be the size of a restricted area around this terminal?
        Mr. Robinson. That is something that will be looked at in
    the analysis of the specific project, so I cannot answer that
    now. But typically, we are looking at an area for an on-ground
    land terminal of about 21 acres being about what you need to
    ensure that you have exclusion zones that will protect the
    public in case you have a worst case accident.
        Senator Clinton. And do these calculations take into
    account a deliberate attack on the terminal from missiles or
    aircraft?
        Mr. Robinson. It is hard to imagine how you would get the
    worst case example that we are analyzing in any way other than
    if there was a direct attack.
        Senator Clinton. And Mr. Robinson, how would this area be
    patrolled, and by whom?
        Mr. Robinson. Well, again through the NEPA process that we
    go through, we involve the State and local experts in this, the
    first responders, and the Coast Guard is heavily involved in
    this and they develop a waterways security assessment that we
    incorporate into our analysis, and then ultimately the Coast
    Guard and ourselves puts conditions on the proponent that
    includes the development with the local responders exactly how
    the project would be protected, right down to do you need to
    close a bridge while a tanker passes under, or do you need six
    boats around the tanker as it comes in, with what type of
    protective measures that those boats have to employ. All of
    that is worked out with the site-specific characteristics of
    the project and the people that would be intimately involved in
    that protection.
        Senator Clinton. My time has expired. But I find it hard to
    imagine how, given the potential site for this project, those
    kinds of concerns could be satisfied. But I appreciate your
    answers, and I would look forward to receiving a response to my
    letter to Chairman Wood.
        Mr. Robinson. Certainly.
        Senator Clinton. Thank you.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator Clinton. Senator
    Carper?
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Robinson, I
    welcome you and the other witnesses here today. Thank you all
    for being here and for your comments.
        I seem to recall a number of years ago I think GAO
    recommended that there be a requirement that all new large LNG
    facilities be built in remote areas, and I think some kind of
    prohibition against transportation through densely populated
    areas. I do not know when that recommendation was made but I am
    told there was such a recommendation.
        I think in your testimony you suggest that in order to
    effectively site natural gas infrastructure, and this may be a
    quote, a ``rational siting process should be adopted.'' I think
    those are your words. I would just suggest that the first step
    in that rational siting process should be rational siting. I
    understand the economic motives for companies, and I do not
    blame them, to try to get their facilities as close as they can
    to population centers, and if I were in their shoes I would be
    doing that, too. But I just do not understand why those same
    motives should also drive FERC. That is not clear to me.
        I just wonder why does, and if I am alleging something that
    is not true, correct me, but why does FERC continue to consider
    locations like the Delaware River, across the river from where
    we live, or in places like Fall River, Massachusetts? Would not
    many of the problems with State and local governments that you
    cite be lessened, not by overpowering them but by trying to
    rationalize the sites that you do approve?
        Mr. Robinson. OK. I am trying to think where to start on
    that. The rational siting process is a process that tries to
    bring officials------
        Senator Carper. First of all, go back to the GAO. Any
    recollection------
        Mr. Robinson. I am totally unaware of a GAO recommendation
    like that. What I think you may be speaking of is in 1979 the
    Pipeline Safety Act had a provision which required the
    development of regulations for remote siting of LNG facilities.
    DOT promulgated those regulations in 1980, and the response to
    that, the definition of ``remote siting'' was the development
    of these exclusion zones which we just discussed. So that
    constitutes remote siting if you can put a terminal in place
    and look at the impacts associated with the 1600 BTU per square
    foot per hour radiant heat flux and protect people from that,
    that was considered to be remote. That went through a review
    process and it was appealed and all that, and it has stuck ever
    since.
        So that is the only thing prior to about now, because
    people really have not talked about LNG much in the last 30
    years, that I know where remote siting came up, and that is how
    it was handled.
        Senator Carper. All right. All right.
        Mr. Robinson. Now as far as rational siting, first, I would
    like to make it clear that the Commission does not have the
    profit motive aspect in looking at the siting, but we do have
    some knowledge of the infrastructure needed to deliver gas to
    regions of the country. In New England, in particular, the
    problem is that I doubt if we will ever see another pipeline
    cross the Hudson River, I just do not know that will ever
    happen.
        If you do not, then your capacity for delivery of gas to
    New England is set. The gas that comes down from Canada is
    dwindling, the play off Nova Scotia did not come in the way
    they thought; the Maritime Northeast pipeline is running I
    think about two-thirds full. The only option--and you have no
    underground storage in New England--is LNG. Underground storage
    is not geologically possible.
        Senator Carper. Say that again.
        Mr. Robinson. You have no underground storage in New
    England. It is geologically impossible. That is a big component
    of a good gas delivery system which you just really do not
    have. Your storage is all above ground, about 40 LNG tanks
    spread around New England right now, with 10,000 truckloads of
    LNG moving around New England every year right now. The only
    real addition to natural gas that you have in New England that
    is available is LNG.
        Now the problem becomes, where do you find a deep water
    port in New England that can accommodate these ships? There are
    not many available that are not already in use or protected in
    some fashion. So you are basically looking at existing ports
    with existing industrial uses bringing in existing cargos that,
    in my estimation, in many instances are much more hazardous
    than an LNG tanker.
        Senator Carper. Are you at all familiar with the Delaware
    River?
        Mr. Robinson. I have crossed it.
        Senator Carper. Did you pay the toll?
        Mr. Robinson. Most times.
        Senator Carper. Our friends from BP, and they are a good
    company, as you know, but they are interested, along with some
    folks in New Jersey, in building a pier that would stick a
    couple of thousand feet out into the Delaware River, at least
    initially they were and I think they are having some second
    thoughts about it. And the Delaware River is not all that wide
    in that point and as you go further north. The idea of having a
    pier that sticks a couple thousand feet out into the river is
    just a cause for concern for a lot of reasons, not the least of
    those could involve homeland security and potential for some
    kind of terrorist attack. Is that the sort of thing that you
    all think about?
        Mr. Robinson. Oh, absolutely. In fact, that will be a key
    component of our environmental analysis, to look at river
    congestion, the effects on the economy, if there are any, and
    how it might be mitigated. Those are the types of public
    interest concerns, and they range from wetlands to economic
    impacts to endangered species, that the Commission has to look
    at in total in making the judgment whether it is in the public
    interest to grant an authorization for an LNG terminal.
        Senator Carper. I would kind of like to go back and sort of
    ask this again and ask you to think about it one more time. My
    final question, it is kind of a restating of my earlier
    question, would not many of the problems with State and local
    governments that you cite I think in your testimony be
    lessened, not by overpowering them, but by trying to
    rationalize the sites that you approve?
        Mr. Robinson. Certainly, there is a difference in siting
    regionally across the country. We have LNG proposals that are
    in populated areas where we have absolutely no opposition to
    them whatsoever. We have the same technology being proposed for
    areas where there is enormous opposition, and you are aware of
    those. That has to be accounted for, that has to be taken into
    consideration, but it has to be analyzed in terms of exactly
    what those impacts are and how those people would be
    inconvenienced, and then that judgment made.
        I do not think we can have a national network of energy
    infrastructure that supports our economy that is based upon a
    vote at the local level. I think that lowest common denominator
    aspect of that would eliminate the ability for regionally
    significant energy projects to be developed where local
    concerns of ``we do not want it here'' would override that.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        I have never chaired a Committee before, but I think I am
    supposed to leave the record open for 5 days in case any member
    wants to submit any additional questions for the record.
        [The referenced materials follow:]
        Senator Carper. Why do we not bring up some legislation and
    see if we can get it through.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Isakson. I know I am not supposed to do that. I
    suggest the absence of a quorum on that.
        Senator Carper. Unanimous consent, what do you think?
        Senator Isakson. I want to thank all the witnesses who
    testified today, and thank the members who attended.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follows:]

                           STATEMENT OF: PAGE

        HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
    OKLAHOMA 4 HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
    LOUISIANA 2
        WITNESSES:
        J. MARK ROBINSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENERGY
    PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 10
        DENNIS DUFFY, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
    CAPEWIND ASSOCIATES, LLC 14
        SHARON BUCCINO, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
    COUNCIL 27
        RONALD E. HOGAN, GENERAL MANAGER, QUESTAR EXPLORATION AND
    PRODUCTION COMPANY 30