[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2295, ``NATIONAL ENERGY
SECURITY CORRIDORS ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-773 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Vacancy
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
John Fleming, LA Matt Cartwright, PA
Glenn Thompson, PA Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Ruben Gallego, AZ
Dan Benishek, MI Lois Capps, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Jared Polis, CO
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Vacancy
Raul R. Labrador, ID Vacancy
Paul Cook, CA Vacancy
Garret Graves, LA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT Vacancy
Jody B. Hice, GA Vacancy
Alexander X. Mooney, WV Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Cresent Hardy, NV
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
MacArthur, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Buppert, Gregory, Senior Attorney, Southern Environmental Law
Center, Charlottesville, Virginia.......................... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
McGarvey, Sean, President, North America's Building Trades
Unions, Washington, DC..................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Moore, Jim, Vice President of Commercial Operations, Williams
Gas Pipelines, Houston, Texas.............................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Questions submitted for the record....................... 21
Parker, Linwood, Mayor, Town of Four Oaks, North Carolina.... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Spisak, Timothy, Senior Advisor for Minerals and Realty
Management, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Washington, DC............................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 15
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 48
Richmond, Hon. Cedric L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Louisiana, May 20, 2015 Letter in support of
H.R. 2295.................................................. 47
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2295, TO AMEND THE MINERAL LEASING ACT TO
REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE
NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY CORRIDORS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NATURAL GAS
PIPELINES ON FEDERAL LAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NATIONAL ENERGY
SECURITY CORRIDORS ACT''
----------
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Thompson, Benishek,
Gosar, Labrador, Cook, Graves, Hice, Mooney, Hardy; Lowenthal,
Costa, and Cartwright.
Also present: Representatives MacArthur and Rouzer.
Mr. Lamborn. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today
to hear testimony on H.R. 2295, introduced by Representative
MacArthur, the National Energy Security Corridors Act.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member
and the Vice Chairman and a designee of the Ranking Member.
This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and help
Members keep to their schedules.
I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. MacArthur, and the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Rouzer, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in
today's hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Lamborn. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Subcommittee clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
[No response.]
Mr. Lamborn. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I now
recognize myself for my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. This morning's hearing is on H.R. 2295, the
National Energy Security Corridors Act, introduced by
Representative Tom MacArthur and Representative Cedric
Richmond, legislation that would facilitate natural gas
pipeline rights-of-way on Federal lands.
If we are going to have an open and honest discussion about
the energy needs of this country, a necessary part of that
dialog must be dedicated to how that energy gets from point A
to point B. If it was only just that simple.
The truth of the matter is that our Nation's energy
infrastructure needs are facing more challenges by the day. We
cannot get our domestic resources to American families and
businesses that rely upon them for daily use. Hydro, solar,
wind, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and crude are all facing an
uphill battle when it comes to getting these important energy
resources to market, especially when you have to cross Federal
lands to get there.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Our Nation's energy
landscape has completely changed over a relatively short period
of time, and our energy infrastructure is still catching up.
For instance, in 2007, the Marcellus Shale was producing just
over 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. This April,
Marcellus averaged 16.7 billion cubic feet per day, and
accounts for 18 percent of our Nation's natural gas supply.
We should be proud of the fact that the United States is
the global energy leader. U.S. oil and gas production has
surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia. Yet we still see over 25
states in January of this year where families are facing
residential natural gas prices that are higher than the
national average.
[Slide]
Mr. Lamborn. As you can see displayed on the screens, most
of these states are on the East Coast. And you will see the red
states on the U.S. map there, on both screens.
Massachusetts is 54 percent above the national average. New
York is 11 percent above. Even right here, in the DC Metro
area, we see Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia
in the double digits.
Pennsylvania is mere hours away from this hearing room, and
is producing over 16 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
Doesn't it make sense that this energy produced by the American
people should be able to reach these East Coast markets?
One of the biggest obstacles preventing the full benefits
of our Nation's shale gas revolution from reaching these areas
is Federal lands. While all other agencies under the purview of
the Secretary of the Interior are able to negotiate rights-of-
way so that natural gas pipelines can cross Federal lands, the
Mineral Leasing Act exempts national park system lands from
having this authority.
To put it simply: every single time a pipeline needs to
cross a parcel of land managed by the National Park Service, a
company needs to get congressional approval. Since the late
1980s, there have been five bills to grant this approval. It
should not take an Act of Congress to get this done.
Representative MacArthur's legislation demonstrates a
willingness to work across the aisle and formulate common-
sense, bipartisan solutions that will help connect areas where
the shale gas revolution is charging ahead to areas where it
can be utilized. This bill provides the Secretary of the
Interior with the authority to permit right-of-way for natural
gas pipelines only on all Federal lands. The bill also takes a
creative approach in providing the Secretary additional
authority to work with her counterparts at the Federal, state,
and local level to plan for the future and find areas that make
the most sense for natural gas pipeline crossings, and to
designate those areas as National Energy Security Corridors.
The issue at hand is very simple. Federal lands are
entrusted to the Federal Government for a reason: to make sure
those Federal lands are being managed in the best interests of
the American people. The longstanding position to just say
``no,'' or ``go ask Congress,'' has never been a workable
solution for all parties involved. We cannot stand idly by as
entire regions of our Nation are held back from our vast
domestic and affordable natural gas supply. There has to be a
way for responsible land management and energy security to
coexist. I think Mr. MacArthur's bill puts us on that path.
The United States does not derive energy security from
production alone. It also comes from harnessing these energy
resources and using them to help American families and American
businesses thrive on our shores. As more and more Americans
rely on domestic natural gas for electricity generation, heat,
and manufacturing, we need to find ways to help that supply get
to where it needs to go. I hope this is one of the areas where
we can work together across the aisle to promote economic
prosperity and grow energy security in our Nation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources
This morning's hearing is on H.R. 2295, the ``National Energy
Security Corridors Act'' introduced by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) and
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)--legislation that would facilitate natural
gas pipeline rights-of-way on Federal lands.
If we are going to have an open and honest discussion about the
energy needs of this country--a necessary part of that dialog must be
dedicated to how that energy gets from point A to point B. If only it
was just that simple. The truth of the matter is that our Nation's
energy infrastructure needs are facing more challenges by the day. We
cannot get our domestic resources to American families and businesses
that rely upon them for daily use. Hydro, solar, wind, coal, natural
gas, nuclear, and crude--all are facing an uphill battle when it comes
to getting these important energy resources to market--especially when
you have to cross Federal lands to get there. But it doesn't need to be
that way.
Our Nation's energy landscape has completely changed over a
relatively short period of time--and our energy infrastructure is still
catching up. For instance, in 2007, the Marcellus Shale was producing
just over 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. This April,
Marcellus averaged 16.7 billion cubic feet per day and accounts for 18
percent of our Nation's natural gas supply. We should be proud of the
fact that the United States is THE global energy leader. U.S. oil and
gas production has surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia. Yet, we still see
over 25 states in January of this year where families are facing
residential natural gas prices that are higher than the national
average. As you can see displayed on the screens, most of these states
are on the East Coast. Massachusetts is 54 percent above the national
average. New York is 11 percent above. Even right here in the DC Metro
area--we see Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia in the
double digits.
Pennsylvania is mere hours away from this hearing room--and
producing over 16 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Doesn't it
make sense that this energy produced by the American people should be
able to reach these East Coast markets?
One of the biggest obstacles preventing the full benefits of our
Nation's shale gas revolution from reaching these areas is Federal
lands. While all other agencies under the purview of the Secretary of
the Interior are able to negotiate rights-of-way so that natural gas
pipelines can cross Federal lands, the Mineral Leasing Act exempts
National Park System lands from having this authority.
To put it simply: every single time a pipeline needs to cross a
parcel of land managed by the National Park Service, a company needs to
get congressional approval. Since the late 1980s, there have been five
bills to grant this approval. It should not take an Act of Congress to
get this done.
Rep. MacArthur's legislation demonstrates a willingness to work
across the aisle and formulate common-sense, bipartisan solutions that
will help connect areas where the shale gas revolution is charging
ahead to areas where it can be utilized.
This bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority
to permit right-of-way for natural gas pipelines only on all Federal
lands.
The bill also takes a creative approach in providing the Secretary
additional authority to work with her counterparts at the Federal,
state and local level to plan for the future and find areas that make
the most sense for natural gas pipeline crossings and designate those
areas as National Energy Security Corridors.
The issue at hand is very simple. Federal lands are entrusted to
the Federal Government for a reason: to make sure those Federal lands
are being managed in the best interests of the American people. The
longstanding position to just say ``No'' or ``Go ask Congress'' has
never been a workable solution for all parties involved. We cannot
stand idly by as entire regions of our Nation are held back from our
vast domestic and affordable natural gas supply. There has to be a way
for responsible land management and energy security to co-exist. I
think Mr. MacArthur's bill puts us on that path.
The United States does not derive energy security from production
alone. It also comes from harnessing these energy resources and using
them to help American families and American businesses thrive on our
shores. As more and more Americans rely on domestic natural gas for
electricity generation, heat, and manufacturing, we need to find ways
to help that supply get where it needs to go. I hope this is one of the
areas where we can work together across the aisle to promote economic
prosperity and grow energy security in our Nation.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to all the witnesses for being here today. I would like to
start out by saying that I think we could have a productive,
bipartisan conversation about building natural gas pipelines
when they are thoughtfully sited.
Pipeline infrastructure is necessary to prevent wasteful
venting and flaring at oil wells, to allow power plants to
receive the steady fuel supply that they need to switch away
from coal to natural gas, and to keep consumers from facing
painful price spikes during cold weather. When planned
properly, I also support the designation of infrastructure
corridors. It simply makes sense to identify areas that are
less environmentally sensitive and have fewer land use
conflicts, and to try to concentrate new pipelines or
transmission lines in those areas.
Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today still needs
more work in order to accomplish these positive goals. We need
a bill that speeds the development of well-planned new
pipelines while paying attention to landowner and community
concerns and protecting sensitive areas.
The bill, as written, overturns the longstanding
requirement for congressional approval of natural gas pipelines
through national parks. Congress specifically required this
extra level of attention because our parks deserve a higher
standard of care. We have repeatedly passed laws to authorize
pipelines through national parks, and I believe that Congress
should retain that responsibility.
This bill goes further than that with regards to national
parks. It would have the Secretary employ the principle of
multiple use for routing pipeline corridors through parks. For
those who are less familiar with the concept, multiple use is
how the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service
operate. It means managing the land to balance a variety of
different uses, from recreation to energy production to timber
harvesting to grazing to conservation.
But that is not the mission of the National Park Service.
Its mission is to conserve and protect particularly special
natural and cultural resources for the enjoyment of future
generations. This bill would effectively amend that mission and
provide for natural gas pipeline corridors. I believe that is a
wholly inappropriate use of our national parks, and it is not
necessary in order to meet our needs to upgrade and expand our
natural gas pipeline system.
The bill, as written, would also establish corridors with
virtually no public input. Utilities and pipeline companies are
given the opportunity to suggest corridors that limit community
impacts to the extent practical. And state, local, and tribal
governments get to weigh in, although not about impacts to
their states or towns, but only on what routes are the most
cost-effective and commercially viable. When combined with the
waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act in this bill,
the public is effectively shut out from having a say in these
corridors. This could result in more local opposition to new
pipelines, and would be counterproductive to building the
infrastructure that we need. And I repeat, we need to build
infrastructure.
Another concern is the mandate in the bill that the
Secretary designate no less than 10 corridors in the eastern
half of the United States. It is an arbitrary minimum, and
ignores the findings of a report from the Department of Energy
issued less than 4 years ago, and written to fulfill Section
368(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That report concluded
that energy corridors on Federal land in the East are
unnecessary and unhelpful. It states, ``Fragmented patterns of
Federal land jurisdiction in the East, coupled with limited
opportunities for utility scale development on many classes of
Federal land, make the designation of Federal energy transport
corridors an inefficient solution to resolving energy
transmission siting challenges.''
The Department of Energy's recently released Quadrennial
Energy Review, which has received praise from both sides of the
aisle, offers some practical suggestions on how to improve how
we site and permit pipelines. One of the recommendations,
prioritizing early and meaningful public engagement, is in
contrast to the approach taken in this bill.
The rest of DoE's recommendations I believe also deserve
careful consideration. But careful consideration,
unfortunately, is not what this particular bill is about. It is
about a rush to designate unnecessary corridors with almost
zero public input. I hope we can work together to craft
legislation that can help to site pipelines on public lands in
a more thoughtful way. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses
for being here today.
I would like to start out by saying that I think we can have
productive bipartisan conversation about building natural gas pipelines
when they are thoughtfully sited. Pipeline infrastructure is necessary
to prevent wasteful venting and flaring at oil wells, to allow power
plants to receive the steady fuel supply they need to switch away from
coal to natural gas, and to keep consumers from facing painful price
spikes during cold weather.
And when planned properly, I also support the designation of
infrastructure corridors. It simply makes sense to identify areas that
are less environmentally sensitive and have fewer land-use conflicts,
and try to concentrate new pipelines or transmission lines in those
areas.
But the bill that we are discussing today needs more work in order
to accomplish these positive goals. We need a bill that speeds the
development of well-planned new pipelines while paying attention to
landowner and community concerns and protecting sensitive areas.
First, this bill as written overturns the longstanding requirement
for congressional approval of natural gas pipelines through national
parks. Congress specifically required this extra level of attention
because our parks deserve a higher standard of care. We have repeatedly
passed laws to authorize pipelines through national parks, and I
believe that Congress should retain that responsibility.
This bill goes further than that with regard to national parks,
however. It would have the Secretary employ the principle of multiple-
use for routing pipeline corridors through parks. For those of you who
are less familiar with the concept, multiple-use is how the Bureau of
Land Management and U.S. Forest Service operate. It means managing the
land to balance a variety of different uses, from recreation to energy
production to timber harvesting to grazing to conservation.
But that is not the mission of the National Park Service. Its
mission is to conserve and protect particularly special natural and
cultural resources for the enjoyment of future generations. This bill
would effectively amend that mission, and provide for natural gas
pipeline corridors. That is a wholly inappropriate use of our national
parks, and not necessary in order to meet our needs to upgrade and
expand our natural gas pipeline system.
This bill as written would also establish corridors with virtually
no public input. Utilities and pipeline companies are given the
opportunity to suggest corridors that limit community impacts to the
extent practicable. And state, local, and tribal governments get to
weigh in, although not about impacts to their states or towns, but only
on what routes are the most cost-effective and commercially viable.
When combined with the waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act
in this bill, the public is effectively shut out from having a say in
these corridors. This could result in more local opposition to new
pipelines, and would be counterproductive to building the
infrastructure that we need.
Another concern is the mandate in the bill that the Secretary
designate no less than 10 corridors in the eastern half of the United
States. It's an arbitrary minimum, and ignores the findings of a report
from the Department of Energy, issued less than 4 years ago, and
written to fulfill Section 368(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
That report concluded that energy corridors on Federal land in the
East are unnecessary and unhelpful. It states, ``Fragmented patterns of
Federal land jurisdiction in the East, coupled with limited
opportunities for utility-scale development on many classes of Federal
land, make the designation of Federal energy transport corridors an
inefficient solution to resolving energy transmission siting
challenges.''
The Department of Energy's recently released Quadrennial Energy
Review, which has received praise from both sides of the aisle, offers
some practical suggestions for how to improve how we site and permit
pipelines. One of the recommendations--prioritizing early and
meaningful public engagement--is in contrast to the approach taken by
this bill. The rest of DOE's recommendations I believe also deserve
careful consideration.
But careful consideration, unfortunately, is not what this
particular bill is about. It's about a rush to designate unnecessary
corridors with almost zero public input, and I hope we can work
together to craft legislation that can help site pipelines on public
lands in a more thoughtful way.
Thank you, and I yield back.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right, thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
MacArthur, for a brief statement on the bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS MacARTHUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. MacArthur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Lowenthal. I appreciate this speedy hearing on the National
Energy Security Corridors Act. If all of Congress moved this
fast, we would be getting somewhere, I think.
And I want to thank Representative Richmond. He couldn't be
here today, but has supported the bill and made it truly a
bipartisan effort. Without objection, I would like to submit my
written statement, Representative Richmond's written statement,
and supporting statements from the America's Natural Gas
Alliance and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Mr. Lamborn. If there is no objection, so ordered.
Mr. MacArthur. Thank you. This bill is about enhancing
natural gas distribution, making it more reliable, resilient,
secure, and promoting economic growth.
Let me frame the issue. America is committed to energy
independence, and we should be. The President supports it,
Congress supports it, and more importantly, the people of the
United States support it. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
required multiple agencies to establish energy corridors across
Federal lands. Ten years later, we have exactly zero of those
corridors in the eastern United States. Why? Because the
National Park Service lacks the authority to negotiate natural
gas pipelines. It requires an Act of Congress for every
individual project.
Let me give one example. The Appalachian Trail is a major
huge national park, 2,200 miles long, comprised of 14 states;
and to get a pipeline across it requires an Act of Congress.
The Department of the Interior can't issue those permits. There
is no sense in using a legislative body to manage and oversee
individual site-specific applications. It is bad for consumers,
it is bad for the producers in the West.
[Slide]
Mr. MacArthur. I would point to the map that is up on the
board. It is similar to the one the Chairman referenced
earlier. In Linden, New Jersey, near me, we are paying $22.35
for 1 million BTU's--$22.35. Go to Wichita, Kansas, it is
$2.64. It is nearly 10 times more in the eastern United States.
That isn't good for anybody.
This bill is a simple effort to try to solve this by
requiring the Department of the Interior to do what they should
have done years ago, and that is designate, at a minimum, 10
energy corridors across Federal lands within 2 years of
enactment of this legislation. This is for natural gas only. It
would also streamline the process for granting rights-of-way
across those corridors.
This is not a new concept. The Mineral Leasing Act
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way
across Federal lands, except for the national parks. The
National Park Service already grants rights-of-way across its
lands for electric transmission lines, for telephone lines, for
water lines.
So why was natural gas left out? Maybe because the Mineral
Leasing Act was passed in 1911, and I don't think we were
thinking about natural gas pipelines over 100 years ago. It is
high time for us to update our legislation to allow for natural
gas pipelines.
And I want to point out that every individual project still
has to go through permitting that is subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.
The bill enjoys broad support for good reason. It will
further energy independence and, I believe, national security
along with it. It will create jobs, both construction and
maintenance jobs. That is why the operating engineers in the
building trades union support it. It is environmentally
sensitive. It is natural gas only. It is planned, intentional,
and it is a cohesive approach. It ends this willy nilly
haphazard approach of approving one pipeline at a time through
an Act of Congress. In my mind this is a common-sense update to
a 100-year-old law. It brings our energy policy into the 21st
century. And I urge, support, and yield back.
I encourage my colleagues who might see issues with it here
and there, don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
This is good legislation, and it will certainly help people in
the eastern United States.
I yield back, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. MacArthur follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Thomas MacArthur, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey
Thank you Chairman Lamborn, and Ranking Member Lowenthal, for
bringing the National Energy Security Corridors Act up for a hearing
today and allowing me the opportunity to discuss this bill with the
subcommittee. I'd also like to thank Rep. Richmond for his support and
for helping us create a great bipartisan bill. My legislation seeks to
enhance our Nation's natural gas distribution network for reliability,
resiliency, national security, and economic growth.
I'd like to include letters of support from America's Natural Gas
Alliance, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and a
statement from my original co-sponsor Rep. Richmond for the record.
Specifically, it's going to update the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
which required multiple agencies to collaborate to establish energy
right-of-way corridors on Federal lands throughout the United States.
Unfortunately, a full 10 years later, no corridors have been
established in the eastern United States. We can do better, and if we
are to become more energy independent, we should do better. That's why
this bill will require the Department of Interior to designate 10 of
these corridors within 2 years of the bill's enactment, and will allow
the Secretary of the Interior the authority to establish National
Energy Security Corridors on Federal lands for natural gas pipelines.
On top of that it will establish a streamlined approach to granting
right-of-way across such corridors.
The President himself described the energy corridors program in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 as, ``An important avenue to improve the
processes is the designation of energy right-of-way corridors on
Federal lands,'' and, ``Designated energy corridors provide an
opportunity to co-locate projects and share environmental and cultural
resource impact data to reduce overall impact.'' We agree with the
President and are looking to empower the Department of Interior to
manage its land the same way it does everywhere else.
Currently, the Mineral Leasing Act permits the Secretary of
Interior to grant right-of-ways across all Federal lands except those
in the National Park System. The National Park System already has
authority to grant right-of-ways over NPS land for electrical
transmission and distribution lines, telephone lines and water lines,
but makes no mention of natural gas pipelines. Perhaps that's because
in 1911, when this legislation was passed, we didn't have a lot of
natural gas pipelines. It's 2015, high time for an update.
NPS says they lack the authority to negotiate for natural gas
pipelines, meaning these approvals require project specific
authorization language from Congress. It does not make sense to put a
legislative body in charge of regulating and permitting site specific
projects, when agencies like the Department of Interior handle this job
for nearly every other similar project.
For example, consider the Appalachian Trail where a project is
stalled currently. The trail stretches approximately 2,200 miles
through 14 states as a national park. The Trail's length and presence
in multiple states ensures that all natural gas pipelines crossing it
have to receive a project specific authorization from the Congress,
rather than the standard permitting procedure of working through the
Department of Interior. That requirement brings these projects to a
standstill. This oversight in designing the process has caused natural
gas users in the Northeast, separated by the Appalachian Trail from
producing states in the West, to pay significantly more for gas than
the rest of the country. During these difficult times of economic
recovery, all of our constituents deserve to benefit from lower energy
prices.
Our bipartisan legislation would be specific to natural gas and no
other form of pipeline or energy. Nothing in this legislation would
preclude the National Environmental Policy Act requirements for the
building and siting of the pipelines that would be considered in these
corridors. This legislation has broad support from a variety of
stakeholders. It's a common-sense update to a 100-year-old law. Let's
bring our energy policy into the 21st century.
Workers should support this legislation because it provides jobs
and income to communities, business owners should support this
legislation because it will help minimize costs and disruptions in
energy prices, and environmentalists should support this legislation
because it forces the Department of Interior to take a comprehensive,
long-term look at the siting of pipelines from coast to coast.
I urge support for the National Energy Security Corridor Act, and
yield back.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I would like to now introduce the
witnesses.
But before I begin, Mr. Rouzer would like to briefly
introduce his constituent, who is testifying before us today.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very
much. I am balancing my time here with a roll call vote over in
the House Agriculture Committee. So, after I introduce Mr.
Linwood Parker, the Mayor of Four Oaks, I am going to have to
run right out. Mr. Mayor, I am sorry I will not get an
opportunity to listen to your testimony.
I have known Mr. Parker since I was a toddler. He went to
school with my mother and her two sisters. And they have
probably a number of different stories that they would love to
tell you, which I will not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rouzer. However, what I will state for the record is
that the Mayor, the fine Mayor from Four Oaks, is a man of good
common sense, and a great deal of humor, as well. And I commend
him highly to the committee. I am sure he will have testimony
worthy of this committee, and worthy of the issue. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Representative Rouzer. Fortunately,
you don't have very far to go. You are on the same floor in
this building.
So, we also have testifying today Mr. Tim Spisak, Senior
Advisor for Minerals and Realty Management of the Bureau of
Land Management; Mr. Jim Moore, Vice President of Commercial
Development for the Williams Companies; Mr. Sean McGarvey,
President of North America's Building Trade Unions; and Mr.
Gregory Buppert, Senior Attorney for the Southern Environmental
Law Center.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the yellow light comes on. Your time
will have expired when the red light comes on, and I would ask
that you finish your statement at that time.
I will also allow the entire panel to testify before
questioning the witnesses.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Spisak to testify.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SPISAK, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR MINERALS AND
REALTY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Spisak. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
2295, the ``National Energy Security Corridors Act.'' My name
is Tim Spisak, Senior Advisor for Conventional Energy with the
Bureau of Land Management, and I am accompanied by Ray
Sauvajot, Associate Director with the National Park Service.
I want to thank the subcommittee for focusing on the
important national issue of energy transition corridors. The
Department shares the subcommittee's goals in providing the
safe, timely, and efficient transmission of energy resources
across Federal lands. We appreciate the subcommittee's efforts
on the legislation, and would like to continue to work with you
to find ways to further our common goals.
The BLM administers public lands for a broad range of uses,
and manages lands with some of the most advanced energy
development in the world. Our contribution to the national
energy portfolio provides an important economic benefit. In
Fiscal Year 2014, onshore Federal oil and gas royalties
exceeded $3 billion, approximately half of which were paid
directly to the states in which the development occurred.
We are coordinating closely with partners across the
country to ensure that the development of energy resources
occurs in the right places, and that those projects are managed
safely and responsibly. The BLM places a special emphasis on
transparency and public processes to incorporate the input and
needs of the American people. The BLM's activities provide
critical infrastructure, as well as energy for our Nation,
reducing our reliance on oil imports, while protecting our
public land and water resources.
As part of this effort, we are working with other agencies
in support of Executive Order 13604, to improve the performance
of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects by
increasing transparency and predictability.
In 2009, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
Department designated approximately 5,000 miles of energy
corridors, amending 92 land use plans in 11 western states.
Since 2009, the BLM has participated in the approval of nine
major pipeline expansion projects totaling nearly 2,000 miles
of new oil and gas pipeline, with over 1,000 of those miles
crossing Federal lands.
In the next 18 months, the BLM is expected to complete
review of three more major pipeline projects, totaling nearly
1,000 additional miles, nearly half of which are on Federal
lands. These are in addition to the thousands of miles of
smaller oil and gas pipeline projects approved every year.
While the Department supports the goals of H.R. 2295, we
believe many of the activities authorized by the bill are
already within the scope of existing authorities. We also feel
that the bill's NEPA waiver would only complicate the
deliberative process necessary for the appropriate
consideration of specific authorization decisions. The BLM
routinely designates energy corridors as part of a land use
plan, or along with the environmental review for a major
infrastructure project. These are typically addressed with an
EIS-level analysis, which includes substantial agency, tribal,
public, and industry input.
The Department is committed to providing full environmental
review and public involvement opportunities required by NEPA
for proposals for the use of the Nation's public lands.
The Department also questions the significant role given to
it in designating corridors in the eastern United States under
H.R. 2295. The Department manages very little multiple-use land
in the East, where it has a significantly different role than
it does in the western United States.
Finally, as expressed in our written statement, the
Department strongly opposes the bill's provisions that would
authorize the Secretary to issue a right-of-way on national
public service lands. The statement notes that the exclusion of
national parks from the Mineral Leasing Act has not prevented
the issuing of rights-of-way for pipelines through national
park units. The Department has supported legislation
authorizing rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines on a park-
by-park basis, when it has been appropriate to do so.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior has a proven
record of facilitating responsible siting of oil and natural
gas pipelines. We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in
this important work, and look forward to working with you on
these important issues. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spisak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Spisak, Senior Advisor, Energy, Minerals
and Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 2295. This bill
requires the Secretary of the Interior to designate National Energy
Security Corridors for the construction of natural gas pipelines on
Federal lands, and provides for expedited review of natural gas
pipeline authorizations. It also authorizes the Secretary to issue
natural gas pipeline rights-of-way on National Park Service (NPS)
lands.
The Department shares and supports the subcommittee's goal to
provide for the safe and efficient transmission of energy resources,
including natural gas, across Federal lands by efficiently and
effectively siting corridors and permitting pipeline projects in a
timely manner. However, most of the authorizations of H.R. 2295 are
already within the scope of existing Department authorities, and
consistent with current priorities and activities. Additionally, the
Department strongly opposes the bill's provisions that would authorize
the Secretary to issue natural gas pipeline rights-of-way on NPS lands.
The Department would like to continue to work with the committee to
find ways to further our common goal to promote the responsible and
efficient development and transmission of our Nation's energy resources
from Federal lands.
background
The Department of the Interior administers a wide range of lands
and resources that includes wilderness areas, lands held in trust for
Native Americans, our National Park System, our National Wildlife
Refuge System, and our National System of Public Lands. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) is responsible for protecting the resources and
managing the uses of our Nation's public lands, located primarily in 12
western states, including Alaska. The BLM administers more land--over
245 million surface acres--than any other Federal agency. The BLM also
manages approximately 700 million acres of onshore Federal mineral
estate throughout the Nation.
The BLM manages this vast portfolio on behalf of the American
people under the dual framework of multiple use and sustained yield.
This means the BLM administers public lands for a broad range of uses
including renewable and conventional energy development, livestock
grazing, timber production, hunting, fishing, recreation, and
conservation. We manage lands with some of the most advanced energy
development in the world and some of North America's most wild and
sacred landscapes. This unique role often puts the BLM in the middle of
some of the most challenging natural resource issues facing our
country. The BLM places a special emphasis on transparency and public
processes to incorporate the input and needs of the American people and
of the communities in which we live and work.
The BLM's activities provide critical infrastructure as well as
energy for our Nation and reduce our reliance on oil imports, while
protecting our public land and water resources. The BLM's contribution
to the national energy portfolio provides an important economic
benefit. The Department collects billions of dollars annually for the
Federal Treasury through mineral lease rents and royalties for mineral
extraction and other activities, and shares these revenues each year
with states, tribes, counties, and other entities. In many states,
energy production and other activities are a critical component of the
local economy. For example, in Fiscal Year 2014, onshore Federal oil
and gas royalties exceeded $3 billion, approximately half of which were
paid directly to the states in which the development occurred. In the
same period, tribal oil and gas royalties exceeded $1 billion with all
of those revenues paid to the tribes and/or individual Indian owners of
the land on which the development occurred.
Secretary Jewell has made it clear that as we expand and diversify
our energy portfolio, the development of conventional energy resources
from BLM-managed lands will continue to play a critical role in meeting
the Nation's energy needs and fueling our economy. The BLM is committed
to promoting responsible domestic oil and gas production in a manner
that will protect consumers, human health, and the environment.
Facilitating the safe and efficient development of these resources is
one of the BLM's many responsibilities and part of the Administration's
broad energy strategy, outlined in the President's Blueprint for a
Secure Energy Future. Environmentally responsible development of these
resources will help protect consumers and reduce our Nation's reliance
on oil, while also protecting our Federal lands and the environment. As
part of this effort, the Department is working with various agencies in
support of Executive Order 13604 to improve the performance of Federal
permitting and review of infrastructure projects by increasing
transparency and predictability of infrastructure permitting and
reviews.
Energy Corridors on Federal Lands
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58, Section 368(a))
directed the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and
the Interior to designate corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen
pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on
Federal lands in the 11 contiguous western states. Congress also
directed the agencies to perform any environmental reviews that may be
required to complete the designation of the corridors and incorporate
the corridors into land use plans. In 2006, the U.S. Department of
Energy, BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and U.S. Department of Defense
initiated a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement--Designation of
Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 western states. This was
completed in 2008. On January 14, 2009, the Department of the Interior
approved a record of decision (ROD) to designate approximately 5,000
miles of corridors which included amendments to 92 land use plans in 11
western states. The USFS issued a ROD on January 14, 2009, which
amended 38 national forest land management plans and designated
approximately 1,000 miles of corridors in 10 states.
EPAct Section 368(b) requires the Secretaries, in consultation with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, affected utility industries,
and other interested persons, to jointly identify energy corridors on
Federal land in states other than the 11 western states identified
under Section 368(a) of EPAct. On October 3, 2008, the Department of
Energy, as lead agency, issued a Federal Register notice to determine
public and stakeholder interest. There were relatively few responses
from public, state and local governments, utilities, or other
interested stakeholders. This absence of immediate public interest in
new corridors on Federal land within these 39 states, combined with the
relatively small amount of Federal land in these states (especially
compared to the 11 western states), and the often single priority land
use management purposes for these Federal lands (e.g., parks, wildlife
refuges, and trails), resulted in the agencies' determination not to
develop a proposed action to identify and designate Section 368(b)
energy transportation corridors on Federal lands in the 39 states at
that time.
In addition to the energy corridor authorizations in Section 368 of
EPAct, Executive Order 13604 and two Presidential Memoranda (May 17 and
June 7, 2013) direct Federal agencies to improve energy corridors and
expedite siting of infrastructure projects, including natural gas
pipelines. The Department has been making considerable strides in
meeting those requirements as captured in the June 2012 interagency
plan on implementing Executive Order 13604 and the May 2014 interagency
plan regarding the Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing
Infrastructure Permitting. Furthermore, the BLM, USFS and the
Department of Energy anticipate completion of a corridor study in 2015
that will assess how efficiently and effectively existing corridors are
being used. The BLM has a process in place to review those corridors
and determine if additional corridors or corridor adjustments are
needed.
Pipeline Authorizations
The BLM is working hard to do its part to expand the Nation's
pipeline infrastructure and increase the capacity to transport energy
resources when and where it is needed. As authorized by the Mineral
Leasing Act (MLA, Section 28), the BLM issues right-of-way (ROW) grants
for oil and natural gas gathering, distribution, and transmission
pipelines and related facilities. The BLM may grant MLA ROWs on any
public land, or on land administered by two or more Federal agencies,
except land in the National Park System or land held in trust for
Indian tribes. A designated corridor is a preferred location for the
placement of ROWs and the BLM actively encourages use of designated ROW
corridors to streamline the authorization process. This minimizes the
proliferation of separate ROWs and promotes sharing of ROWs to the
greatest extent possible, given considerations of engineering and
technological compatibility, national security, and land use planning.
Use of existing corridors and sharing of existing ROWs for pipelines
protects the quality of natural resources and prevents unnecessary
environmental damage to lands and resources. The BLM continues to work
to identify ways to improve the overall siting and permitting process,
and the President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget requests $5 million to
develop an improved and updated assessment process for the development
and siting of energy corridors and rights-of-way.
Since designation of the west-wide energy corridors in 2009, the
BLM has participated in the approval of nine major pipeline expansion
projects totaling nearly 2,000 miles of new oil and gas pipeline with
nearly 1,050 of those miles crossing Federal lands. In the next 18
months, the BLM is expected to complete review and disposition of three
more major pipeline projects totaling nearly 1,000 additional miles
with nearly 450 of those miles across Federal lands. Work on these
major oil and gas pipeline projects is in addition to the thousands of
miles of smaller distribution pipeline projects that are approved every
year to transport oil and gas from the production site to the larger
gathering pipelines and the major transport pipeline facilities.
h.r. 2295 ``national energy security corridors''
H.R. 2295 amends the MLA to require the Secretary of the Interior
to identify and designate National Energy Security Corridors for the
construction of natural gas pipelines on Federal land. The bill
requires the Secretary to designate at least 10 National Energy
Security Corridors within 2 years in the eastern United States, and
specifies that the designation of the corridors would not be considered
``major Federal actions'' under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and thereby waived from NEPA review. Under the bill, the
Secretary would be directed to establish procedures to expedite and
approve applications for ROWs for natural gas pipelines across the
newly designated corridors. It also provides for certain deadlines
associated with the authorizations, including an approval time of not
more than 1 year after the date of receipt of a ROW application, and
for the Secretary to report to Congress when the deadlines are not met.
Finally, the bill amends the MLA to provide for the authorization of
natural gas pipelines across units of the National Park System.
Analysis
While the Department supports the goal of the bill to provide for
efficient transmission of important natural gas resources across
Federal lands, it believes the legislation is unnecessary because many
of the activities authorized by the bill are already within the scope
of existing Department authorities. The Department opposes establishing
a new system of corridors on top of those designated under Section
368(a) of EPAct and opposes the requirement to designate at least 10
new 368(b) corridors within 2 years in the eastern United States, which
is too short a time frame to adequately coordinate with states, tribes,
other Federal partners, and the public. The Department also questions
the significant role given to the Department of the Interior in
designating corridors in the eastern United States under H.R. 2295,
where the Department manages very little multiple-use land and has a
significantly different role than it does in the western United States.
Furthermore, the Department opposes the bill's provisions declaring
that energy corridor designation and incorporation into a land use plan
shall not be treated as major Federal actions under NEPA and that
approvals are required. This NEPA waiver is unnecessary and
counterproductive, as it would only complicate the deliberative process
necessary for the appropriate consideration of specific authorization
decisions. Designating corridors on Federal land does not create a
contiguous corridor; rather intervening parcels of state and private
land complicate corridor designation and are important considerations
in both Federal and state permitting processes. The BLM routinely
designates energy corridors as part of a land use plan or concurrently
with the environmental review for a major infrastructure project. These
are typically addressed with Environmental Impact Statement level
analysis, which includes substantial agency, tribal, public, and
industry input. The Department does not support limiting public input
through the environmental review process under NEPA; it is a critical
tool for engaging the public and for analyzing and mitigating for
impacts to adjacent private lands and state-managed resources. These
open, public processes help the land managing agencies consider impacts
on the surrounding communities and the environment, as well as identify
unknown or unforeseen issues, which is invaluable to sound public land
management and appropriate routing for these corridors. Moreover, it is
unclear that restricting the level of NEPA analysis required would
result in significant time savings since close coordination with
cooperating partners and the public would be necessary whether within
or outside of a formal NEPA process. Additionally, designation of
corridors without an appropriate level of NEPA analysis would not
provide any time savings as BLM would be required to complete an
appropriate NEPA analysis for each individual project proposed within a
given corridor, an analysis that would be expedited were the corridor
designation subject to a NEPA review. The Department is committed to
providing full environmental review and public involvement
opportunities required by NEPA for proposals for the use of the
Nation's public lands.
Certain provisions of the bill also need clarification, including
the bill's definition of Federal lands, and whether the designation of
the new energy corridors is intended to be limited to natural gas
transmission. The BLM authorizes multiple uses in its corridors to the
extent practicable, in order to maximize operational efficiencies and
minimize adverse environmental impacts and proliferation of separate
ROW authorizations. The Department would prefer to have the flexibility
for its corridors to accommodate a number of uses, such as electric
transmission, fiber optics, and oil, gas and water pipelines. Certain
deadlines of the bill are also a concern, such as its requirement to
approve ROWs for pipeline projects within 1 year after receipt of an
application. There are a number of reasons the BLM might not meet the
1-year deadline, such as incomplete applications from a developer, and
the need to conduct public outreach, tribal consultation, state and
local government consultation and coordination, cultural resource
surveys, or other analyses necessary to balance project approval with
mitigation and protection of the natural and cultural resources of the
public lands.
Pipelines in National Park Service Lands
Finally, the Department strongly opposes the bill's provisions that
would authorize the Secretary to issue a ROW on NPS lands--reversing
the longstanding prohibition on allowing such pipelines in our national
parks (except where Congress adopts an explicit authorization for a
particular location). In its 1973 amendments to the MLA, Congress
determined that our national parks would not be subject to the general
ROW provisions. This specific exemption in the MLA protects the
integrity, resources, and values of the National Park System. The
significant infrastructure associated with the clearing, grading,
trenching, stringing, welding, coating and laying of pipeline as well
as the transportation of oil and gas products via pipeline, which
carries the risk of oil spills and gas explosions, is inconsistent with
the conservation mandate set forth in the NPS Organic Act. H.R. 2295
would overturn longstanding and necessary protection of park system
resources and values, visitor experience, and human health and safety,
and would undermine the very purpose for which National Park System
units were created.
We note that the exclusion of national parks from the MLA has not
prevented the issuing of rights-of-way for pipelines through national
park units. In fact, the Department has supported legislation
authorizing rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines on a park by park
basis, when it has been appropriate to do so. Recent cases include
legislation authorizing rights-of-way at Denali National Park, Glacier
National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Gateway National
Recreation Area.
conclusion
The BLM is working diligently to fulfill its role in securing
America's energy future, coordinating closely with partners across the
country to ensure that the development of energy resources occurs in
the right places and that those projects are managed safely and
responsibly.
The agency has a proven record of facilitating responsible siting
of natural gas pipelines and is already moving forward with refining
and implementing existing corridors established for that purpose. Thank
you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 2295.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Chairman Lamborn to Timothy
Spisak, Senior Advisor for Minerals and Realty Management, Bureau of
Land Management
Mr. Spisak did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. As you mentioned in your testimony, ``since designation
of the west-wide energy corridors in 2009, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has participated in the approval of nine major
pipeline expansion projects totaling nearly 2,000 miles of new oil and
gas pipeline with nearly 1,050 of those miles crossing Federal lands.
In the next 18 months, the BLM is expected to complete review and
disposition of three more major pipeline projects totaling nearly 1,000
additional miles with nearly 450 of those miles across Federal lands.''
In order for the subcommittee to better understand current pipeline
infrastructure, could you please provide the following:
The total number of miles of all pipelines crossing
Federal lands. Please provide a breakdown of miles of
pipeline by each agency (BLM, NPS, USFS, etc.).
The total acreage of all pipeline right-of-ways on all
Federal lands under the purview of your agency. Also,
please breakdown that information by state.
A map illustrating all pipelines that cross Federal lands.
Question 2. The U.S. Department of the Interior has the authority
to issue permits and right-of-ways (ROW) for the construction of
natural gas pipelines across Federal land, except for National Park
Service land. Under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), the BLM has the
responsibility of reviewing those ROW applications and must render a
decision on the future of the project.
What is the average time frame to process a ROW
application from submission to approval or rejection?
How many ROW applications were received by the BLM in each
of the past 10 fiscal years? Of those applications how many
were approved? How many of those applications were denied?
What was the reason for their denial? Please breakdown
based on type of ROW (ex. renewable, natural gas,
electricity transmission).
Please provide in detail a breakdown of all rentals and
cost recovery fees and any other revenue collected from
ROWs over the past 10 fiscal years. Please breakdown that
information based on type of ROW.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mayor
Parker to testify.
STATEMENT OF LINWOOD PARKER, MAYOR, TOWN OF FOUR OAKS, NORTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Parker. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
the subcommittee, I've come today to talk a little about the
end benefit of the natural gas pipelines. Last night, as I
spent the night in Washington, it was a little sleepless. All
young people, myself included, have a dream of coming to
Washington and speaking to the leaders, and being able to utter
some words that might unite us in something that will help our
community. That dream was realized when you invited me to
speak. I only hope that the words that I speak today will
enable you to make a wise decision, because the people are in
need.
Our people need to be part of the manufacturing and
building of products. We need to be competitive worldwide. In
our community we have a business park and Becton Dickinson, an
international medical device company which has the largest
distribution site on the East Coast. But in Four Oaks we hope
to be able to not only ship it, we hope to be able to make it
and ship it. To be able to do that, we are going to need
natural gas. Manufacturing requires natural gas.
I am aware, as a lady told me once about an issue at home
that I was involved in, that all pancakes have two sides. One
might be just browner than the other. So I don't come today to
argue the right or wrong of the other side of the pancake. I
come today to simply say I am encouraged from what I have heard
this morning, that this is a bipartisan bill, and the fact that
you are moving swiftly to reach a decision that can affect so
many people across the country.
Let me tell you a little bit about my town. I am the mayor
of the town, elected by my peers, just as you have been. My
town is in eastern North Carolina. We are located on Interstate
95, halfway between New York City and Miami. We take pride in
our southern heritage. We have local merchants and business
owners in historic downtown. We have a strong sense of
community, just like thousands of other small towns across our
wonderful Nation.
I am here today, as the local mayor of these small towns,
just one of those small towns, but I hope you will let me
represent all of them. Four Oaks is located in Johnston County,
in the eastern part of North Carolina. And it is important that
you know a few things about eastern North Carolina, so you can
better understand why I am here today. Eastern North Carolina
has over 1.4 million residents and added, on average, 15,000
residents per year since 2005. In 2013, the median household
income was $40,469, compared to the national average of
$52,250. Twenty percent of eastern North Carolina citizens were
living in poverty, compared to 15 percent of the Nation's
citizens. The number of new businesses started in the region
has dropped 64 percent since 2005.
Now, I don't know the intricacies of the bill. What I do
know is that this bill will help quicken the development of
future energy infrastructure and lead to much-needed increase
in industry in the towns, cities, states across the Nation. My
town is made up of many honorable men and women, and they all
have something in common. They want and they need to be able to
provide better for their family, and they want to see a better
life and better opportunity for their children.
In closing, I want to pass this on to you. I talked with
one of my neighbors, a constituent, before I left. And he
passed this on to me, and I will pass it on to you. He said,
``When you get there, tell them we all we got.'' Now, I know
that is not perfect English. But what he was saying is that we
are all we've got. We are in this together. And we have to be
part of the solution. I believe I am here, and I am hearing
that we are going to be part of that solution that is going to
create those jobs, those manufacturing jobs we need, because we
all know that the most empowering thing in life, outside of our
faith, is a paycheck on Friday. And I hope this will be the end
result of these hearings.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linwood Parker, Mayor, Town of Four Oaks, North
Carolina
Good Morning. My name is Linwood Parker, and I am the mayor of Four
Oaks, North Carolina. All of you are leaders, and what you do is
important. Like you, I'm a leader but in my small town of Four Oaks.
Let me tell you a little bit about Four Oaks, North Carolina. We're
located right on I-95 halfway between New York City and Miami. We take
pride in our southern heritage, local merchants and business owners,
and historic downtown. We have a strong sense of community, just like
thousands of other small towns across our wonderful Nation. I'm here
today as the local mayor of just one of those small towns, but I hope
you'll let me represent all of them.
Four Oaks is located in Johnston County, in the eastern part of
North Carolina. And, it's important that you know a few things about
eastern North Carolina, so you can better understand why I'm here
today. Eastern North Carolina has over 1.4 million residents, and has
added, on average, 15,000 residents per year since 2005. In 2013, the
median household income was $40,469, compared to the Nation's average
of $52,250. Twenty percent of eastern North Carolina citizens were
living in poverty, compared to 15 percent of the Nation's citizens. The
number of new business starts in the region has dropped 64 percent
since 2005.
Now, I don't know the intricacies of this bill. But, what I do
know, is that this bill will help quicken the development of future
energy infrastructure, and will lead to a much needed increase in
industry in towns, cities, and states across the Nation. My town of
Four Oaks is made up of truck drivers, restaurant workers, mill
workers, auto mechanics, and many other honorable men and women, and
they all have something in common. They want and need to be able to
provide better for their families, and they want to see a better life
with better opportunities for their children. It's the possibility of
the American Dream, and they desperately want their children to be able
to dream like we've been able to in decades past.
In order to create these opportunities, we desperately need
infrastructure. Projects like the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and the work
that you're doing to safely expedite these projects, create a lifeline
for communities like mine to grow and prosper. A type of growth and
prosperity that Four Oaks, eastern North Carolina, and towns across the
Nation haven't seen in years.
The people of eastern North Carolina have an immense amount of
pride in their towns, region, and heritage, but that pride has taken a
beating in recent years with jobs harder and harder to come by, and
quality of life continuing to diminish. And we're just one example of
that. There are other Linwood Parkers across this Nation. There are
other small towns in need. There are other regions of states and of the
United States. We all desperately need a catalyst, and I believe that
catalyst is natural gas pipeline infrastructure. And, in addition to
providing much needed natural gas infrastructure, let's not forget that
if we are going to continue to provide electricity to the Nation, we
need natural gas.
For eastern North Carolina, that infrastructure will come from the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The increased availability of natural gas
supplies in North Carolina will mean more jobs, lower prices to heat
and power homes and businesses, and cleaner air due to fewer emissions
from generating power with natural gas. It will save North Carolina
energy consumers over $130 million per year. It will create economic
activity in excess of $82 million in North Carolina. It will bring over
$1.1 million in property tax payments annually to Johnston County,
where my town of Four Oaks is located.
What's more, at a time of economic restoration, the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline will give access to natural gas to help our communities
attract the companies and industries we desperately need to give the
hope of a better future to our friends and families. I believe that
increased access to clean, affordable, reliable, and domestically
abundant natural gas will result in lower costs to families and help
spur economic growth in underserved areas. This project will also bring
much needed property tax revenue to the eight counties that it will run
through, which will be helpful to create additional economic
development and education opportunities for our local communities,
including my town of Four Oaks.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is just one example of a project that
can provide a wealth of opportunities in an area of our country that is
desperate for them. But I'm not here today to focus solely on my small
town or my state or this one project. I'm here as a voice for all small
town mayors who are working tirelessly to bring hope and opportunities
to the people they represent. The great people of the town of Four Oaks
voted me into office, just like the great people of this Nation voted
you into this office. Your work here is so important because you have a
chance to create lifelong opportunities for communities like mine, and
many, many others throughout the United States.
I thank you for your time today, and for your hard work and
dedication to our wonderful country.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Moore to testify.
STATEMENT OF JIM MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMERCIAL
OPERATIONS, WILLIAMS GAS PIPELINES, HOUSTON, TEXAS
Mr. Moore. Good morning. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member
Lowenthal, and the rest of the subcommittee, I am privileged to
appear before the subcommittee today to speak in favor of H.R.
2295, legislation to restore to the National Park Service the
authority it was thought to have for decades: the power to
grant natural gas pipeline rights-of-way to cross property
owned or administered by the National Park Service.
I am Jim Moore, Vice President of Commercial Operations for
eastern interstate pipelines at the Williams Companies, one of
the larger natural gas infrastructure companies in the United
States.
By virtue of our long history of building and operating
interstate pipelines, we have had many occasions to work with
the Interior Department and, specifically, the National Park
Service. Segments of our pipelines touch national park property
in at least three locations today. In two cases, those
pipelines have coexisted with the parks for decades. In the
case of the third, located in the New York City area, we have
just recently completed the project.
In addition, other pipeline companies have similar
crossings on national park property. I certainly believe that
the Interior Department is very capable about making decisions
about pipelines crossing national park property. The National
Park Service has a long history of carefully evaluating natural
gas pipeline proposals before they are brought to Congress for
approval. Clarifying that the Department of the Interior has
the authority to approve natural gas pipeline crossings of
National Park Service property will not only lead to a
continuation of this thorough evaluation of such requests, but
will, at the same time, eliminate the delay projects encounter
while waiting for congressional action to approve those
decisions.
To my knowledge, no pipeline company has sought legislation
to allow park crossing without first conferring with the
National Park Service, and Congress has not considered such
legislation without asking the National Park Service for its
input. The added step of congressional approval delays
projects--in some cases for years--while the pipeline company,
its customers, and the National Park Service await
congressional action.
The case with which I am most familiar involved expanding
natural gas service into New York City, specifically Brooklyn
and Queens, and was largely needed to meet increased demand due
to customers switching away from fuel oil to natural gas. My
company, Williams, worked with our local distribution company
customer to develop an infrastructure solution which would have
minimal impact on residents of the city. The only practical
route involved drilling under part of the Gateway National
Recreation Area, which is managed as a national park, and
locating a meter station in the park. That solution was widely
supported by local officials, the governor of New York, and
even some local park groups.
The cost of the project posed several unique challenges.
Our discussions with the National Park Service were long and
detailed, but they ultimately resulted in an agreement that
both sides found acceptable. We originally started discussions
with Members of Congress about the need for legislation to
approve the crossing in 2009. A bill addressing the issue was
introduced in 2011, and ultimately enacted at the end of 2012.
During that time, agency work on our application for the
project slowed considerably, we believe, due to the uncertainty
around the timing of the necessary congressional action.
It is difficult to say with certainty exactly how much time
the requirement for congressional approval of the agreement
added to the project, but the project ultimately took 6 years
to complete, almost 3 years more than planned. This type of
delay and uncertainty makes it difficult and costly to add the
necessary pipeline infrastructure to meet customer needs for
clean-burning natural gas.
Williams works very hard on all of its projects to minimize
any property and environmental impact, while ensuring adequate
natural gas supply infrastructure is in place to meet the needs
of individuals, business, and industry. We actively engage all
parties to find the best way to do this, and I believe other
pipeline companies do the same. In my opinion, the National
Park Service has fully demonstrated the capability to engage
with pipeline companies on this issue, while protecting the
property in their care, and we look forward to working with
them in the future.
So, Mr. Chairman, we commend the committee for considering
this important legislation to further improve the efficiency
with which natural gas pipeline infrastructure is developed.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to appear
before this subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Moore, Vice President of Commercial
Operations at the Williams Companies
Good morning. Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Lowenthal, I am
privileged to appear before the subcommittee today to speak in favor of
H.R. 2295, legislation to restore to the National Park Service the
authority it was thought to have for decades--the power to grant
natural gas pipelines rights-of-way to cross property owned or
administered by the National Park Service.
I am Jim Moore, Vice President of Commercial Operations for eastern
interstate pipelines at the Williams Companies, one of the larger
natural gas infrastructure companies in the United States. By virtue of
our long history of building and operating interstate natural gas
pipelines, we have had many occasions to work with the Interior
Department and specifically the National Park Service. Segments of our
pipelines touch national park property in at least three locations
today. In two cases those pipelines have coexisted with the parks for
decades. In the case of the third, located in the New York City area,
we have just recently completed the project. In addition other pipeline
companies have similar crossings of national park property.
I certainly believe that the Interior Department is very capable of
making decisions about pipelines crossing national park land. The
National Park Service has a long history of carefully evaluating
natural gas pipeline proposals before they are brought to Congress for
approval. Clarifying that the Department of Interior has the authority
to approve natural gas pipeline crossings of National Park Service
property will not only lead to a continuation of a thorough evaluation
of such requests, but will at the same time eliminate the delay
projects encounter while waiting for congressional action to approve
that decision.
I believe it may help the subcommittee if I put this issue in some
historical context. When the original statutes creating the national
park system were passed in the early part of the last century, the
National Park Service was given the authority to grant rights-of-way
across park land for most forms of utility-type infrastructure,
including power plants, electric lines, telephone lines, and water
pipelines, among others. Natural gas pipelines as we know them today
were not common at the time, but they certainly seem to fit into the
intent of the original legislation. As new parks were created over the
years, many of them already included pipelines, most if not all of
which continue to operate to this day. In addition, the Interior
Department over the years approved a number of pipeline crossings of
parks using the authority in the organic park statute and to our
knowledge, there was no objection to these authorizations.
I make this point because last year the committee held a hearing on
this issue where the Administration testified that giving the Interior
Department the authority to approve oil and gas pipelines was
``inconsistent with the mandate set forth in the NPS Organic Act'' and
would ``undermine the very purpose for which Nation Park System units
were created.''
However, the Act itself accommodated the permitting of
infrastructure, some of it much more intrusive than underground natural
gas pipelines.
The Administration and the National Parks Conservation Association
also noted that when the Mineral Leasing Act was amended in 1973 one of
those amendments was to exclude national park land from the land that
could be leased for pipelines rights-of-way. This provision is cited as
evidence by opponents of this legislation that Congress did not want
the Interior Department making these decisions. Yet at the time the
prohibition was put into the Mineral Leasing Act, the Interior
Department believed it already had such authority under the Organic
Act. Indeed, the 1973 Senate Committee report accompanying its bill,
where this provision originated, noted that congressional action to
approve pipelines would only be required to the extent such a project
couldn't be permitted under the Organic park statute. If Congress truly
disagreed with the Department making decisions about pipelines in
parks, it seems that Congress would have prohibited the practice under
both the Mineral Leasing Act and the Organic park statute. It wasn't
until 1988, 15 years later, that a solicitor at the Department decided
that the Organic Act did not grant this authority.
All of this is to say that the notion of the Department of Interior
evaluating and approving or disapproving natural gas pipelines on
National Park Service property is not a new concept to be feared;
rather it is an old concept that the legislation before the committee
would reinstate.
Mr. Chairman, it is our experience that the National Park Service
is a diligent defender of the land it administers. To my knowledge, no
pipeline company has sought legislation to allow a park crossing
without first conferring with the National Park Service, and Congress
has not considered such legislation without asking the National Park
Service for its input. After all, it would be pointless for Congress to
consider such legislation if the Park Service had already decided to
reject the requested crossing.
The added step of congressional approval delays projects, in some
cases for years, while the pipeline company, its customers and the
National Park Service await congressional action.
The case with which I am most familiar involved expanding natural
gas service into New York City, specifically Brooklyn and Queens, and
was largely needed to meet increased demand due to customers switching
away from fuel oil to natural gas. My company, Williams, worked with
our local distribution company customer to develop an infrastructure
solution which would have minimal impact on residents of the city. The
only practical route involved drilling under part of the Gateway
National Recreation Area, which is managed as a national park, and
locating a meter station in the park. That solution was widely
supported by local officials, the governor of New York and even local
park groups. Because the project posed several unique challenges, our
discussions with the National Park Service were long and detailed but
they ultimately resulted in an agreement that both sides found
acceptable. We originally started discussions with Members of Congress
about the need for legislation to approve the crossing in 2009. A bill
addressing the issue was introduced in 2011 and ultimately enacted at
the end of 2012. During that time agency work on our application for
the project slowed considerably, we believe due to the uncertainty
around the timing of the necessary congressional action. It's difficult
to say with certainty exactly how much time the requirement for
congressional approval of the agreement added to the project, but the
project ultimately took 6 years to complete, at least 2 years more than
planned. This type of delay and uncertainty makes it difficult and
costly to add the necessary pipeline infrastructure to meet customer
needs for clean burning natural gas.
Mr. Chairman, it is long overdue that Congress remove itself from
this process. If the National Park Service had a poor track record in
evaluating and allowing pipeline utilization of national park property
that would be one thing, but it actually has an excellent record in
that regard, including during the decades when it believed it possessed
the authority to site these facilities.
Williams works very hard in all of its projects to minimize any
property and environmental impact while ensuring adequate natural gas
pipeline infrastructure is in place to meet the needs of individuals,
business and industry. We actively engage all interested parties to
find the best way to do this and I believe other pipeline companies do
the same. In my opinion the National Park Service has fully
demonstrated the capability to engage with pipeline companies on this
issue while protecting the property in their care and we look forward
to working with them in the future.
So Mr. Chairman we commend the committee for considering this
important legislation to further improve the efficiency with which
natural gas pipeline infrastructure is developed. Thank you again for
allowing me the opportunity to discuss this issue with the subcommittee
today.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Ranking Member Lowenthal to Jim
Moore, Williams Gas Pipelines
Question 1. Mr. Moore, in your written testimony, you imply that
the 1973 Senate Committee Report for the amendments to Section 28 of
the Mineral Leasing Act indicated that Congress was not trying to stop
pipelines from being sited in national parks. Your testimony states
that in the Report, the Senate committee ``noted that congressional
action to approve pipelines would only be required to the extent such a
project couldn't be permitted under the Organic park statute.'' Your
testimony then states, ``If Congress truly disagreed with the
Department making decisions about pipelines in parks, it seems that
Congress would have prohibited that practice under both the Mineral
Leasing Act and the Organic park statute.'' It is not clear whether you
are referring to the National Park Service Organic Act or the organic
acts that create individual national parks. The Senate report, however,
appears to be perfectly clear when it states, ``It is not intended to
grant rights-of-way through the National Park System under this bill.''
[S. Rept. 93-207 at 29] It further clearly states that the only three
parks that have independent right-of-way authority are the Blue Ridge
Parkway, the C and O Canal, and the Natchez Trace Parkway, and that for
all other parks, ``separate authority would be sought for each such
right-of-way where none now exists.'' [ibid]
Given this, do you agree that the plain text of the Senate Report
indicates that in 1973 Congress was aware of the existing authorities
available for granting rights-of-way through the National Park System
as a whole, and through the three individual parks that have their own
right-of-way authorities, and that Congress did not intend in the 1973
amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act to provide general authority to
permit rights-of-way for through the National Park System? ''
Answer. During consideration of the 1973 amendments to the Mineral
Leasing Act (MLA) the Senate proposed, and the House accepted, that the
pipeline right-of way provisions of the MLA should not apply to oil and
gas pipelines on ``lands in the National Park System'' and certain
other categories of lands. The report states, just prior to the
language quoted in your question, ``. . . that rights-of-way across
these excluded lands [including NPS lands] shall continue to be
governed by existing statutory authority with respect to each category
of lands.'' The Report language continues ``To the extent there is
inadequate authority under existing law . . . separate authority would
be sought for each such right-of-way where none exists now.'' The
report goes on to cite the three park statutes you quote in your
question as being illustrative of where such authority exists, but I do
not believe the report implies that they are the only such authority.
Supporting this view, a hearing was held on this issue in 1992 by
this committee where the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
testified: ``Until relatively recently, the NPS issued special use
permits allowing natural gas pipelines to be installed across National
Park Service lands on a case-by-case basis. A number of existing
pipelines currently cross these lands. The NPS has never indicated this
policy is the cause of any problems.''
At the time of the 1973 amendments to the MLA it was accepted
practice for the NPS to grant rights-of-way for natural gas pipelines
using what it believed was authority granted to it under the National
Park Service Organic Act of the early 1900s. In 1973 Congress would
have been well aware of this practice and while Congress did not
explicitly endorse this practice in the law or in the report language,
neither did it say this practice was improper. It almost seems that
Congress did not feel that the legality of pipeline permitting under
the National Park Service Organic Act needed to be addressed in the MLA
and so far as I know, the issue has never been addressed by the courts.
My answer to the first part of your question is that yes, I agree
that the 1973 amendments to the MLA were not intended to give the Park
Service new authority to permit pipelines but I would also maintain
that neither did it intend to override the status quo, which included
at that time an interpretation that the Park Service had the authority
to issue rights-of-way under the original National Park Service Organic
Act.
Question 2. Your written testimony states that a solicitor at the
Department of the Interior determined in 1988 that the ``Organic Act''
did not grant the authority to the National Park Service to permit
rights-of-way through national parks. Do you have documentary evidence
from 1988 to support this statement? If so, please provide that
evidence to the committee.
Answer. Attached is a letter from the Solicitor's office at the
Department of Interior informing the Colonial Pipeline Company that its
request for a right-of-way across National Park Service land is being
refused on grounds that the NPS does not have authority to grant such a
permit. I believe this letter is the first time the Department's
revised interpretation of its authority pursuant to the National Park
Service Organic Act was implemented. The change in policy was first
reflected in the ``General Management Plan and National Park Service
Policy'' document released a year or two before this letter was
written.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGarvey to testify.
STATEMENT OF SEAN McGARVEY, PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICA'S BUILDING
TRADES UNIONS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
members of the committee. On behalf of the 3 million skilled
craft professionals in the United States and Canada that
comprise the 14 national and international unions of North
America's Building Trade Unions, I thank you for conducting
this hearing, and I welcome the opportunity to testify today in
support of the proposed National Energy Security Corridors Act.
Ensuring that our Federal permitting system has integrity
and certainty is critical to ensuring that the workers that I
represent are able to work. Further, good regulation protects
our workers and communities, while not placing unnecessary
burdens on business and job creators. This legislation will
provide the necessary framework needed to create energy
corridors on Federal lands to bring natural gas from well to
the consumer. It would hold one agency accountable for the
permit, while ensuring that other agencies not fall behind and
create a bottleneck. America is now the global leader in oil
and natural gas production, but our infrastructure to transport
those resources to consumers, businesses, and refineries is
being severely hampered, because of unnecessary regulatory
hurdles.
To be sure, pipeline infrastructure has failed to keep pace
with the increased production, which has caused several regions
of the country to experience shortages and severe price spikes.
New England is a perfect example to demonstrate how the lack of
sufficient pipeline infrastructure has adverse effects on both
businesses and consumers.
In 2000, only 15 percent of New England's electric energy
production was from natural gas-fueled power plants. By 2015,
that number is fast approaching 50 percent. Northeast gas
transmission has not kept pace with this growth. As a result,
there is simply not enough gas coming into the region to
reliably and affordably power businesses and manufacturing
plants. If there were a corridor, a single lead agency, as well
as accountability, the needs of millions of residential gas
customers could be met without excessive delays. Investment in
capital construction spending is not only an economic stimulus,
but it provides insightful data on how shale-driven gas
production is reshaping major sectors of our economy, including
the construction industry.
Last fall, a study conducted by the University of Illinois
concluded that natural gas development in the Marcellus region
was directly responsible for over 72 million man-hours of work
in local construction markets during the years 2008 to 2014.
Those 72 million man-hours of construction work translated into
the creation of roughly 45,000 jobs.
Today, in just about every region of this Nation, we are
experiencing a shortage of pipeline capacity to support
increased gas electric generation. Fortunately, we are not
experiencing a shortage of companies willing to invest the
necessary capital to construct those projects. What we are
experiencing, however, are significant regulatory delays that
are preventing these investments from moving forward.
Currently, the United States ranks 41st in the world in
dealing with construction permits, a key World Bank metric
measuring how easy it is to actually build something. That is
why North America's Building Trade Unions commend Congressman
Tom MacArthur for his work to craft a legislative proposal that
would designate the National Energy Security Corridors for the
construction of natural gas pipelines on Federal land.
When it comes to construction of our Nation's energy
infrastructure, North America's Building Trade Unions are at
the center of this work. The success of our unions is
predicated on the recruitment, development, and training of the
safest, most highly trained and productive skilled craft
workforce found anywhere in the world. It may surprise members
of this panel to learn that our rank-and-file members, in
conjunction with our signatory contractors, collectively and
jointly fund, to the tune of roughly $1 billion a year, a
nationwide network of 1,600 local joint labor-management
apprenticeship training programs, or JATCs, as we call them.
All these investments are private investments from our
rank-and-file members and our contractors. There is no taxpayer
money involved. In order for this training infrastructure to
prosper and succeed, we need both public and private
investments in capital construction projects in order to create
those structured career-training opportunities. With the
passage of this and other permitting reform efforts, we can
allow the billions of dollars in projected pipeline investments
to move forward in an expedited fashion, and our unions and
contractors can utilize our market-driven, world-class training
infrastructure to provide structured career training pathways.
Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, let me be
clear. My members want to get to work on these critical
projects, and our unions and our contractor partners want to
provide job-training opportunities for your constituents. North
America's Building Trade Unions stand ready to work with this
subcommittee, as well as the full Natural Resources Committee
and the entire U.S. Congress to pass the National Energy
Security Corridors Act, as well as additional and innovative
laws, regulations, and mechanisms that will expedite the
approval of critical energy infrastructure projects. Our
training facilities are built, our workers are standing by, and
our unions are ready to assist the American energy
infrastructure revolution.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to express these
views here today, and I look forward to any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGarvey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean McGarvey, President, North America's
Building Trades Unions
On behalf of the 3 million skilled craft professionals in the
United States and Canada that comprise the 14 national and
international unions of North America's Building Trades Unions, I thank
you for conducting this hearing and I welcome the opportunity to
testify today in support of the proposed National Energy Security
Corridors Act.
Ensuring that our Federal permitting system has integrity and
certainty is critical to ensuring that the workers I represent are able
to work. Further, good regulation protects our workers and communities
while not placing unnecessary burdens on business and job creators.
This legislation will provide the necessary framework needed to create
energy corridors on Federal lands to bring natural gas from the well to
the consumer. It would also hold agencies accountable and makes sure
they do not fall behind and create a bottleneck.
America is facing a number of infrastructure challenges, including
the need to construct more natural gas pipelines. In order to meet
increased demand as domestic natural gas production continues to
increase and continues to gain a greater market share of the Nation's
electricity portfolio, greater capacity in our natural gas pipeline
infrastructure is desperately needed.
Seemingly overnight, America is now the global leader in oil and
natural gas production. But the infrastructure needed to transport
those resources for domestic use by consumers and businesses, as well
as for refinement into other manufactured products, is being severely
hampered because of unnecessary regulatory hurdles.
To be sure, pipeline infrastructure has failed to keep pace with
increased production, which has caused several regions of the country
to experience shortages and severe price spikes.
New England is a perfect example to demonstrate how the lack of
sufficient pipeline infrastructure can had adverse effects on both
businesses and consumers.
In 2000, only 15 percent of New England's electric energy
production was from power plants that were fueled by natural gas. By
2015, that number was fast approaching 50 percent. Unfortunately,
pipeline capacity for gas transmission into New England has not kept
pace.
As a result, there is simply not enough gas coming into the region
to reliably or affordably power businesses and manufacturing plants, as
well as meeting the needs of millions of residential gas customers.
As the region's older, dirtier plants continue to retire and new,
cleaner gas-fired plants replace them, the situation is primed to get
worse. In fact, about 63 percent of the region's 11,000 megawatts of
proposed new generation will be gas-fired.
Incredibly, I have read news accounts where some local gas
companies already have been forced to turn away new customers because
they won't have enough gas in a few years to serve them.
Driven by growth in U.S. natural gas, natural gas liquids, and
crude oil, the American Petroleum Institute has estimated that capital
spending in oil and gas midstream and downstream infrastructure has
increased by roughly $100 billion since 2010.
Investments in building, maintaining and updating the oil and
natural gas industry's transportation and storage infrastructure could
contribute up to $120 billion to the economy per year. And investment
in the infrastructure that moves and transforms oil and gas into
everyday products could support as many as 1.15 million jobs on an
average annual basis, including and especially over 800,000 jobs in
pipeline construction alone. And like all manner of infrastructure
investments, there is a significant economic multiplier associated with
energy infrastructure investments.
Capital investments in energy infrastructure lead to more revenue
and output among supplier industries, such as steel, machinery and
engineering services. This capital investment triggers an estimated $45
billion per year throughout the extended supply chain. Investment in
capital construction spending is not only an economic stimulus, but it
provides insightful data on how shale driven gas production is
reshaping major sectors of our economy--including the construction
industry.
Last fall a study conducted by the University of Illinois concluded
that natural gas development in the Marcellus region was directly
responsible for over 72 million man-hours of work in local construction
markets during the years 2008 to 2014. It is worth noting that this was
a period when the U.S. construction industry was mired in a Depression
where, unfortunately, unemployment rates in some markets of the Nation
reached 60 percent, and in some cases exceeded 70 percent.
Those 72 million man-hours of construction work translate into the
creation of roughly 45,000 jobs. The production of natural gas spared
small towns across the region from the economic downturn felt
throughout much of the rest of the country. This would never have
materialized if not for the production of natural gas in the Marcellus
region and the energy infrastructure that needed to be built to deliver
that gas to market.
Today in just about every region of the Nation, we are experiencing
a shortage of pipeline capacity to support increased gas-electric
generation. Fortunately, we are not experiencing a shortage of
companies willing to invest the necessary capital to construct those
projects.
What we are experiencing, however, are significant regulatory
delays that are preventing these investments from moving forward.
Currently, the United States ranks 41st in the world in ``Dealing with
Construction Permits,'' a key World Bank metric measuring how easy it
is to actually build something.
An industry or company which seeks to undertake capital projects
often must run the gauntlet of a dozen separate agency reviews and
approvals, sometimes resulting in years of delays. Excessive delay in
permit processing often results from overlapping agency authority,
where no single agency is in a position to guide a company through the
permitting process and any one agency can act as a bottleneck. These
issues directly impact the construction of pipelines on Federal lands.
That is why North America's Building Trades Unions commends
Congressman Tom McArthur for his work to craft a legislative proposal
that would designate ``National Energy Security Corridors'' for the
construction of natural gas pipelines on Federal land.
Through the regulatory processes that these projects must undergo,
as well as the enhancement of efficiencies made possible through this
effort, we can remove obstacles that lead to the creation of tens of
thousands of good, solid, Middle Class American jobs; not to mention
tens of thousands of career training opportunities in the skilled
trades.
When it comes to the construction of our Nation's energy
infrastructure, North America's Building Trades Unions are at the
center of this work. The success of our unions is predicated on the
recruitment, development, and training of the safest, most highly
trained and productive skilled craft workforce found anywhere in the
world.
It may surprise many members on this panel to learn that our rank
and file members, in conjunction with our signatory contractors,
collectively and jointly fund, to the tune of roughly $1 billion
dollars every year, a nationwide network of 1,600 local joint labor-
management apprenticeship training programs, or JATCs as we call them.
All of these investments are private investments from our rank and file
members and our contractors. There is no taxpayer money involved in
this system!
Further our ``earn while you learn'' training model--where our
apprentices are paid wages and benefits as they proceed through a 4- or
5-year apprenticeship--is also unique in that in many instances our
craft training programs are also accredited to a community college. So,
upon graduation to journeyperson status, many of our apprentices also
graduate with a 2-year Associates Degree.
But in order for this training infrastructure to prosper and
succeed, we need both public and private investments in capital
construction projects in order to create these structured career-
training opportunities.
With the passage of this and other permitting reform efforts we can
allow the billions of dollars in projected pipeline investments to move
forward in an expedited fashion, and our unions and contractors can
utilize our market-driven, world-class, training infrastructure to
provide structured career training pathways.
North America's Building Trades Unions believe that government must
assume the role of an advocate for economic development, and an
advocate for American workers and American jobs. My members want to get
to work on these critical projects. And our unions and our contractor
partners want to provide job training opportunities for your
constituents.
And that means getting tough on the Federal permitting process
charged with approving projects that put Americans to work and, in the
case of the pipeline trades, beginning to move dirt and construct the
pipelines needed to bring our domestic energy resources to market.
North America's Building Trades Unions stand ready to work with
this subcommittee, as well as the full Natural Resources Committee and
the entire U.S. Congress to pass the National Energy Corridors Act, as
well as additional and innovative laws, regulations and mechanisms that
will expedite the approval of critical energy infrastructure projects.
Our training facilities are built, our workers are standing by, and
our unions are ready to assist in an American energy infrastructure
revolution.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to express these views
here today. I look forward to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Buppert to testify.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY BUPPERT, SENIOR ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
Mr. Buppert. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Ranking Member, and members of the committee. My name is Greg
Buppert. I am a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law
Center (SELC) in Charlottesville, Virginia. I appreciate the
chance to address this subcommittee about the process for
locating interstate natural gas pipelines.
Right now this is an issue of critical importance to
communities in Virginia, where I live and work. The
transmission of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale is a new
challenge for Virginia. We are looking for solutions. SELC
supports a regional planning process that draws on input from
affected communities for locating natural gas pipelines.
Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't provide that
opportunity. Instead, it would cut the public out of the
process, it would lead to more conflicts, and pose greater
burdens on private property and local communities.
In the last year, companies proposed three natural gas
pipelines across western Virginia. These pipelines, if they
were built, would impact some of our states' most iconic
landscapes, like the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Shenandoah
Valley. They would cross many acres of public and private
lands, and they have encountered broad opposition.
The principal reason for the public's concern is that these
projects are not innocuous undertakings. Take the Atlantic
Coast pipeline--during construction, this pipeline will impact
almost 13,000 acres in three states. Any project at this scale
would be disruptive. But then this will not be just any
project. Much of the route will be built on private land
acquired under the threat of eminent domain.
Many landowners are concerned about the springs and wells
on their property that provide their drinking water. One
landowner in Lovingston told FERC that the pipeline would pass
through four springs and one well, every single water source on
his property. Larger communities are also concerned about
water. Augusta County, for example, depends on high-yield wells
for its municipal water, and the county's experts concluded
that blasting for the pipeline threatened this water supply.
Other landowners are concerned about the investments they
have made in their property. One has spent three decades
managing his forest for hardwood timber. Another has built an
inn near the Blue Ridge Parkway. The pipelines would affect
both.
The point of these examples is that pipeline construction
does not happen in a vacuum. These projects will have real
impacts that must be understood before a route is approved. The
Atlantic Coast pipeline and the Mountain Valley pipeline
projects were announced last summer. Each company rejected a
route similar to the others as too environmentally harmful for
their project.
For the public, there is little belief that these companies
have anything other than their own self-interest at heart. What
we need in Virginia right now is a regional plan. We need to
know whether the demand for natural gas justifies new pipeline
infrastructure in our state. And, if a new pipeline is needed,
we need to identify a route that is the most protective of
private property, local communities, and the environment of the
entire region. This approach only makes sense.
We can agree, I think, that responsible, deliberate
planning is how we should build large-scale infrastructure that
impacts thousands of acres. We should avoid unnecessary
construction by answering the question: Do we need a new
pipeline? And, if the answer is yes, we need to find the best
and least harmful way to do it.
The designation of pipeline corridors on Federal lands is
one possible outcome of a regional planning effort. But this
cannot and should not be done without public involvement. Nor
should there be an arbitrary, mandatory requirement that 10
such corridors be designated in the East. In Virginia, and
elsewhere in the Southeast, our public lands are intertwined
with our communities. Shenandoah National Park and our national
forests bolster our economy. They provide abundant clean water
to our towns and our businesses, and they draw millions of
visitors. A corridor cannot be sited across a national park or
a national forest without immediate direct impacts to the
adjacent private properties and the local economy.
The proposed Act does not provide the planning tool that we
need. It puts a finger on the scale in favor of pipeline
construction over other uses of the public lands, including our
national parks, all the while cutting the public out of the
siting process. In order to get this right in Virginia, and
everywhere else, and minimize the impacts of natural gas
pipelines, we need public involvement. Short-circuiting that
process will only lead to more conflicts and place greater
burdens on private property and local communities.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buppert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Buppert, Senior Attorney, Southern
Environmental Law Center
I. Introduction
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and
members of the committee. I appreciate the chance to address this
subcommittee about the process for permitting and locating interstate
natural gas pipelines. Right now, this is an issue of critical
importance to communities throughout Virginia where I live and work.
I would like to bring two points to your attention during my
testimony this morning:
First, the development of large-scale interstate pipelines
that cross Federal lands in Virginia will have significant
impacts on private property and local communities.
Second, the only responsible way to locate pipeline
infrastructure is a deliberate planning process that draws
heavily on input from the affected communities.
Unfortunately the proposed National Energy Security Corridors Act
does not provide that opportunity. Instead, the legislation would cut
the voice of the public out of the siting process, leading to more
conflicts and placing greater burdens on private property and local
communities.
II. Proposed pipelines that cross Federal lands in Virginia will have
significant impacts for private property and local communities
In the last year, companies proposed three large-diameter gas lines
across western Virginia. These pipelines, if they are built, would
impact some of our state's most iconic landscapes: the Blue Ridge
Mountains, the Allegheny Mountains, the Shenandoah Valley, and the New
River Valley. They would traverse public lands on the Blue Ridge
Parkway, the Appalachian Trail, and national forests. And they would
cross many acres of private lands.
The community groups that we work with are deeply involved in two
of these projects, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley
Pipeline, which are seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Both of these projects have encountered broad opposition in
the counties that they will cross.
One reason for the public's concern is that these projects will not
be innocuous undertakings. Take the Atlantic Coast Pipeline for
example. During construction, this pipeline will impact almost 13,000
acres in three states. Any project at this scale would be disruptive.
But then this will not be just any project. Much of the route and the
routes of the other pipelines will be built on private lands acquired
under the threat of eminent domain.
For months, the public has submitted comments to FERC on these two
projects. It would be impossible for me to describe all the concerns
that have been raised, but I would like to offer several examples.
Landowners whose property is crossed will be the most impacted. In
their comments to FERC, landowners have said that they expect their
property values will fall or that they may not be able to sell their
properties at all. They expect to be unable to obtain insurance at
reasonable rates and to have trouble refinancing their homes and farms.
Many landowners are concerned about the springs and wells on their
properties that they use for drinking water. One landowner in
Lovingston, Virginia, told FERC that the pipeline would pass through
four springs and one well--every water source--on his property. Larger
communities are also concerned about water. Augusta County, Virginia,
for example, depends on high-yield limestone wells for its municipal
water, and the county's experts concluded that blasting and other
pipeline construction posed a risk for these wells.
The pipelines will cross many historic properties and archeological
sites. These include properties like the Oak Lawn Farm in Monroe
County, West Virginia, which the same family has farmed for over 100
years and Monacan Native American sites along the James River in Nelson
County, Virginia.
Other landowners have made an investment in decades of deliberate
management of their forests for timber which will be cleared for the
pipeline. And businesses along the route, like the Fenton Inn in the
Blue Ridge Mountains, are concerned about their ability to attract
tourists during and after construction.
Pipeline construction does not happen in a vacuum. These projects
will have real impacts that must be understood before a route is
approved. I have included a sample of comment letters on the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley Pipeline as an attachment to
this testimony.
III. Virginia needs a regional planning process that fully involves the
public
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and
several other projects were announced in the summer and late-summer of
2014. But of course, they were in development long before then. As
local communities scrambled to understand the projects, where they
would go, and what the impacts would be, a theme emerged. It became
apparent that there was not a common plan for pipeline infrastructure
through our region. Instead of a responsible, coordinated planning
effort, Virginians are faced with an ad hoc but very large-scale
construction program driven by the needs of the companies.
Reports to FERC from the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline brought this issue into focus. Each company rejected the
other's route as too environmentally harmful for their project.
Mountain Valley said the Atlantic Coast route would cross more public
lands and more streams and rivers. Atlantic Coast said the Mountain
Valley route would be longer and cross more forest lands. Which is it?
For the public, there is little belief that these companies have
anything other than their own self-interest at heart.
What we need in Virginia right now is a regional plan. We need to
know whether the demand for natural gas justifies new pipeline
infrastructure in our state. And if a new pipeline is needed, we need
to identify a route that is the most protective of private property,
local communities, and the environment of the entire region.
This approach only makes sense. We can agree, I think, that
responsible, deliberate planning is how we should build large-scale
infrastructure that impacts thousands of acres of private and public
lands. We should avoid unnecessary construction by answering the
question: Do we need a new pipeline? And if the answer is yes, we need
to find the best and least harmful way to do it.
IV. The draft National Energy Security Corridors Act is not the
responsible planning tool that we need
The designation of pipeline corridors on Federal lands is one
possible outcome of a regional planning effort. But this cannot and
should not be done without public involvement. Nor should there be an
arbitrary, mandatory requirement that 10 such corridors be designated
in the East.
In Virginia and elsewhere in the Southeast, our public lands are
intertwined with our communities. Shenandoah National Park is a
critical engine for the economy of the region, and the proposed
legislation would weaken the protections for this land. A corridor
cannot be sited across a national park or national forest without
immediate direct impacts to the adjacent private properties and local
economies.
And our public lands themselves provide important benefits. For
example, communities like Staunton, Virginia, and others in the
Shenandoah Valley rely on abundant clean water from the George
Washington National Forest. In fact, many of the national forests of
the Southeast were created specifically for watershed protection.
The proposed act does not provide the planning tool that we need.
It puts a finger on the scale in favor of pipeline construction over
other uses of public lands, including our national parks. It cuts the
voices of the communities out of the siting process, working with
Federal, state, and local governments along with industry but
specifically excluding any other public input. In effect, a decision to
locate a pipeline corridor would ensure that the adjacent landowners
and communities would bear the brunt of the project, all without ever
having an opportunity to express their concerns.
It is simply impossible for a pipeline company or a Federal agency
to have detailed information of the kind provided to FERC in comments
on the proposed Virginia pipelines. And without that input, the
companies and the agencies cannot fully understand the consequences of
a decision to locate a pipeline corridor.
V. Conclusion
The deck is already stacked against the public when it comes to
pipeline siting. Companies are heavily invested in their projects
before public input is solicited. And FERC reviews each proposed
project in isolation, never considering a regional plan to ensure the
most responsible, least harmful routes are identified. We need to
improve this process, not streamline it to the detriment of the public.
In order to get this right in Virginia and everywhere else and
minimize the impacts of natural gas pipelines, we need public
involvement. Short-circuiting that process will only lead to more
conflicts and place greater burdens on private property and local
communities.
Attachments
The following documents were submitted with Mr. Buppert's prepared
statement for the record. They are being retained in the Committee's
official files:
Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center to Tom Speaks, USDA
Forest Service regarding Atlantic Coast Pipeline Survey Comments
Letters regarding concerns about the Atlantic Coast Pipeline from:
-- Fenton Inn, Roseland, VA
-- Richard G. Averitt, Nellysford, VA landowner
-- Rockfish Valley Foundation, Nellysford, VA
-- Monacan Indian Nation, Madison Heights, VA
-- Residents of the Shannon Farm Community, Nelson County, VA
Letters regarding concerns about the Mountain Valley Pipeline from:
-- Monroe County Historic Landmarks Commission, Union, WV
-- Marvin Bryant, Chatham, VA landowner
-- Jack W. and Kathy P. Finney, Blacksburg, VA landowners
-- Carolyn Reilly, Rocky Mount, VA landowner
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right, and thank you. We will now begin
our rounds of questions. I have to leave in a little bit
because of a conflict. I will give the gavel at that point to
Representative Cook. But first I want to ask my question.
The concept behind National Energy Security Corridors is
not new. In fact, Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
aimed to bring many Federal agencies together in order to
establish energy corridors throughout our Nation for oil, gas,
and hydrogen pipelines, and electricity transmission. That was
a decade ago, but we have made little progress since then. Even
President Obama recognized that something should be done. A
memo he issued in June 2013 said--and I quote--``An important
avenue to improve these processes is the designation of energy
right-of-way corridors on Federal lands.''
I am going to ask both Mr. Moore and Mr. McGarvey this
question on technology and improvements in our pipeline
infrastructure. How has technology improved in recent years to
reduce or eliminate the possibility of natural gas leaks, and
to reduce the footprint?
Mr. Moore. Well, there have been a number of things. For
one, we have, as have other pipelines, gone through an
extensive process over the last 7 years of testing, checking
all of our pipelines, smart-pigging our pipelines, to make sure
that there are no issues with existing pipelines that we have.
We have spent a significant amount of money. For Transco,
the pipeline that I am familiar with, we smart-pigged over 90
percent of our pipelines. In fact, all of our pipelines that
are in high-consequence areas; and we will be doing that every
7 years.
As far as additional technology for pipelines, there are a
number of things. Horizontal directional drills are in use
widely now on many of our projects, where we can drill under
sensitive properties without having to affect the surface at
all. There are other direct pipe technologies that we have
utilized to minimize the impact on streams and wetlands, and we
do that extensively on our projects, as well.
So, there have been a number of improvements that we
continue to develop. We work closely, through our permitting
process, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Of
course, we are regulated by the Department of Transportation.
We follow all those rules. We have taken significant steps to
improve the safety and reliability of our natural gas
pipelines.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Mr. McGarvey, do you have anything
to add to that, like on materials, use of newer and better
materials?
Mr. McGarvey. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that through
our training infrastructure that I described, we can work with
manufacturers and owners on the latest technology development,
and train the workforce to the requirements of that new
technology. So we are constantly retraining our workforce as
technology advances. That is why, arguably, we have the safest,
most productive craft workforce in the world who are putting
these pipelines across the country.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you.
Mr. Spisak, I am going to make a digression here for a
second. People need to realize the National Park Service is not
just the 50 to 60 iconic national parks, like the Grand Canyon.
There are 400 units of the National Park System. The
Appalachian Trail is one of those. It goes 2,000 miles, and
1,000 miles of that is on Federal lands. And, of course, that
is a barrier that has to be crossed by many of these pipelines.
How would you propose to do that, if you can't go under the
Appalachian Trail?
Mr. Spisak. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, I am
accompanied by Ray Sauvajot, an Associate Director with the
Park Service. He is available to answer your question, or I
will be glad to take your question back to answer for the
record.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, we will have to stick with you, because
our invitation went to you, so we can't----
Mr. Spisak. Understood.
Mr. Lamborn [continuing]. Bring other people to testify,
although they are always free to confer with you, if you would
like that. Would that be of help to you, to just confer with
you privately, and then you answer the question?
Mr. Spisak. We can try that. As I understand, the
Appalachian Trail is not one long Federal park, it is
subdivided, and crosses various jurisdictions, including states
and privately owned. So it is not a long, single barrier that
you might think, if you think of it as a single trail.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you for that answer. It does
illuminate somewhat the situation, although I still have to say
you are still left with 1,000 miles in total. And, admittedly,
it is not all in one, unbroken stretch.
Mr. Spisak. Understood.
Mr. Lamborn. But that can present an obstacle that, until
we pass this bill, it would take an Act of Congress to get
around. That can take years, in addition to the permitting
process, and the NEPA analysis, and everything else that goes
into a pipeline.
Mr. Spisak. Understood.
Mr. Lamborn. So, I just think we need to pass legislation
like this, and I hope we can work in a bipartisan manner to do
that. I hope we can get your agency on board and work with you.
I know Representative MacArthur is going to be working with the
Ranking Member and myself and the agencies out there. Let's
actually get this done--the working families of our country
deserve not to have natural gas that costs 10 times what it
does in other parts of the country.
OK. At this point I will recognize the Ranking Member, and
I will give the gavel to Representative Cook.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do agree with
you. I think that, what I am hearing today, there is a lot of
common ground. We are all on the same page in supporting
natural gas pipelines. The question is what is the best way to
move forward, and I commit myself to working with you and the
author to work on that.
My first questions have to do with Mr. McGarvey and Mayor
Parker. It seems like both of you support action that would
accelerate the permitting of new pipelines. So my question to
you is, would you be open to supporting other proposals that
accomplish the same goals of accelerated permitting, besides
the language in this bill?
Mr. McGarvey. Mr. Ranking Member, we are always open to
conversation, and anything that is going to expedite the
permitting process. I can tell you, and you are very well
aware, but I am directly impacted because of the people that I
represent.
We just went through what lots of folks in this town called
a dramatic recession. For us, in the construction industry, it
was a depression. There were many projects that were held up
through the permitting process during that 5-year stretch that
people would have kept their homes and their health care if
they would have went forward. So we are open to anything.
Mr. Lowenthal. Right, thank you. Also, Mayor Parker, would
you be open to looking at other ways that accomplish the same
goals of expedited permitting?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir, Mr. Ranking Member. I, much like
everyone in my community and the people across the Nation,
would just like the result of making sure that we had the
energy source that will enable us to be competitive, and to
provide the jobs for our people.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Buppert, it is my understanding that you are not
opposed to new pipelines, or even corridors on Federal land.
You have said that there are 51 natural gas pipelines that
already cross the Appalachian Trail, and so it is not as if
there are none that cross it at this moment. But you believe,
also, that this bill is just not the best way to go forward. Is
that correct?
Mr. Buppert. That is right. I think corridors across
Federal land make sense, but they have to be designed in an
inclusive process that draws heavily on input from the public.
What this bill does is it cuts the public out of that process.
The siting of the corridors itself are exempt from NEPA.
And then in the bill itself, there is what appears to be a
mandatory approval once a pipeline application is submitted.
Any NEPA review, if there is any, would be meaningless at that
point.
Mr. Lowenthal. Right.
Mr. Buppert. There is a right way to do this. We want to
find the routes that are the least impactful and least----
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, I am going to offer something now, and
let's get some comment on it. Because I think what we have is a
proposal, and we want to see whether we can improve upon that
proposal. So I want to highlight some of the recommendations
from the Department of Energy's Quadrennial Energy Review, or
its QER, which I mentioned in my opening statement. That report
proposes establishing a permitting improvement center to ensure
better coordination between agencies, and to speed up
permitting. Would any of you be supportive of that? And I ask
all the members of the panel.
First I will start with Mr. Buppert. Would you be
supportive of the Department of Energy's report that talks
about creating this improvement center to speed up permits?
Mr. Buppert. Well, I am not in a position to endorse any
specific language. But the Department of Energy's proposal
seems like a step in the right direction. Specifically, it is
attempting to improve expediency without sacrificing public
input.
Mr. Lowenthal. Mr. Spisak, can you respond to that, also?
Mr. Spisak. Yes. I believe the Department supports the
interagency efforts for improving permitting processes. This
builds off the multi-departmental rapid response team approach
that we have been using over the last several years, which
focuses agency resources on improving coordination and
involving timely permitting challenges.
Mr. Lowenthal. I want to follow up on that. Another
recommendation was to co-locate infrastructure, environmental
review, and permitting staff, which sounds a lot to me like the
Section 365 oil and gas pilot permitting offices.
Does Interior believe that that kind of strategy can be
successful in reducing permitting times?
Mr. Spisak. We did have a positive response associated with
the pilot office Section 365 offices. We found that that was
very helpful in dealing with the challenges of permitting oil
and gas with the environmental reviews, and it would----
Mr. Lowenthal. Then my last question would be to Mr.
Buppert. Would you be supportive of these QER recommendations?
Mr. Buppert. Well, like I said, those recommendations seem
like a step in the right direction, an attempt to improve
expediency without sacrificing public input.
Mr. Lowenthal. So, I would just like to encourage my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there may be
something here that we can work to strengthen this kind of
bill.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter two letters
for the record, one from the National Parks Conservation
Association, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and
Park Rangers for Our Lands, that letter in opposition to the
bill, as presently drafted; and one from the Wilderness
Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and NRDC, also in
opposition, as presently drafted. We are trying to figure out
how do we make this better and stronger. I yield back.
Mr. Cook [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, thank you
to Congressman MacArthur for the underlying bill that we are
talking about. Gentlemen, thank you for coming and lending your
expertise to this topic today. I hail from Pennsylvania, from
the Marcellus area--actually, a little bit of Utica now. And
the benefits of natural gas have just been amazing. We have
seen the cost for all, especially for the people living
paycheck to paycheck, the ones who are really struggling in
life, when they have access to natural gas, there are lower
heating costs, lower costs to be able to cool your homes, to
cook, and an increase in manufacturing.
We have seen the greenhouse gas levels go down. Many of my
counties were in double-digit unemployment. Today they are
under 6 percent. Two-hundred-and-fifty thousand jobs,
estimated, have been created in Pennsylvania as a result of the
Marcellus. In the past 7 years there has been $2 billion of
taxes paid to the Pennsylvania coffers, the treasury, from the
natural gas industry. And, quite frankly, probably more
important than anything else, from a Federal perspective, the
energy and national security that it has helped support.
Mayor, thank you for being here.
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. I know you are from a small town. I represent
24 percent of the land mass of Pennsylvania, which is all small
towns. So, I was curious to see from your perspective, what
opportunities are possible, when natural gas is a part of the
infrastructure package that you can offer to attract or even
create home-grown manufacturing?
Mr. Parker. Congressman, that is a great question. The
truth of it is probably the reverse. What I mean by that is
this: without it, there are no opportunities. That is just the
pure truth of it. Without natural gas, and the infrastructure
that will bring it, we absolutely, in eastern North Carolina
and across this Nation where we don't have it, don't have
opportunity. We can't compete.
I visualize it much as the debate that must have went on in
these halls when the railroad went across the country. Most of
the towns in our Nation--not just in my county--are built
because they were either on the river, or the railroad went
through. Every town in my county, other than Smithfield, that
was on the river, was built because of the train. Those same
debates that we hear now about where it went were held then.
But the truth of it is, it made our economy grow, our Nation to
be connected, and our people to have work.
So I say to you that without what is required--and how we
get there is up to you. I am sure that you all are going to
work it out in the right manner. But the truth of it, when you
have reached my age of 67, the most precious commodity that we
have is time. A year ago, I happened to be at the local gas
station fueling up early one morning. I looked across at
another young man that was going off to work. He bought $2
worth of gas, half a gallon. That is all he could afford to get
him to work so he could come back home.
There are people in this Nation, in my community, my
county, my state, who need the help to create jobs. I own a
barbecue restaurant, and I can tell you this year as the price
of gas came down, my sales went up because people liked my
product. But they can't buy it if they don't have money. And it
made a difference. So your question is right on. There are no
opportunities without it. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Moore, with your company, you have been able to come to
the table with the National Park Service and the Governor, and
work through issues. Could you talk about that briefly--about,
if this legislation is successful, how you would have the
authority to come to the table as different stakeholders and
work through the issues without the bureaucracy and the
challenge of having to get that Act of Congress for each
project?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. Thank you. That is correct. We work
with the National Park Service routinely, and we have worked
very well with them. They seem to be responsive to the same
issues that we are concerned about. We want to build in places
where it is constructable. We want to construct our pipeline in
areas where it is environmentally responsible, the same thing
the National Park Service is interested in. So we work with
them closely on our projects.
The issue we have encountered, the primary issue, has been
the delay when it requires an Act of Congress. In the case of
the Rockaway Project in New York that I mentioned in my
testimony, we spent 3 extra years to go through that process. I
won't attribute all of that to the Act of Congress; probably 2
years of it to that. And we had already been in extensive
discussions with the National Park Service on that issue, and
we thought we had a solution that was workable. We ultimately
got the Act of Congress, but again, it was an extreme delay for
us and for our customer.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Cook. I thought I saw Dr. Ruiz, I didn't see him. Dr.
Benishek. We've got too many doctors in the place here.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here
this morning.
Mr. Mayor, I really appreciate your comments, and the
heartfelt feelings behind them, too.
I would just like to know a little bit more about the
process. What exactly is the process that you have to go
through to approve a national gas pipeline across National Park
Service lands? Mr. Moore, can you answer that question?
Mr. Moore. Our process for a typical project is, once we
have reached agreement with our customer, we have in mind what
the project will look like, we are regulated by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. We go through a pre-filing
process, where we are required to engage all stakeholders,
mainly discussing environmental impacts, discussing the routing
of the pipeline and what alternatives there are to the routing
of the pipeline.
In the case of the Rockaway Project, as we were going
through that process, one of the things we knew we had to have
was going to be access to national park property. And we
obviously engaged the National Park Service during that
process, and came up with a solution we thought would work for
both sides.
But, before we could file for our FERC certificate, we had
to get the Act of Congress, which was about a 2-year process.
Once we got the Act of Congress, we filed our FERC certificate,
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews
everything. They make the determination, ultimately, as to
whether we can or can't build the project. So, in this case,
they gave us a certificate to proceed. We constructed the
project and placed it in service last week.
Dr. Benishek. But the whole process takes just years and
years.
Mr. Moore. The normal process for a project, the time frame
is 3 to 4 years. And, again, in this one specific example I
cited, it was 6.
Dr. Benishek. Yes, so that adds quite a bit of time to the
process.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir, and maybe even more important was the
uncertainty as to whether we would actually get----
Dr. Benishek. Right.
Mr. Moore [continuing]. Approval by Congress to proceed.
Dr. Benishek. Right, right. Does this happen all the time,
all across the country? Is this happening more and more? How
frequently is this becoming an issue now?
Mr. Moore. I am not an expert on how many times it has
happened. In the case of my company, which is Transcontinental
Gas Pipeline, a subsidiary of the Williams Companies, we have
three locations where we cross park property. We have a
crossing of the Appalachian Trail----
Dr. Benishek. Mr. McGarvey, do you have any information on
that, how many times this becomes an issue across the country
that affects your workers?
Mr. McGarvey. I don't have data, but I can tell you that it
is not just a pipeline, it is any construction project. The
amount of time and the outlay of capital, like Mr. Moore said,
with the uncertainty for people that are investing that capital
really stagnates and stymies development of not just natural
gas pipelines, but all kinds of construction projects, because
of the permitting process.
Dr. Benishek. I just want to relate to you the fact, and
Mr. Parker mentioned it, too, when the natural gas pipeline
came through my community, when I was a kid, my family had a
hotel and bar. The construction crew that came through there
and spent the summer in the area, that was a huge boon to our
entire community, from the hotel rooms and all that. The
increased opportunity we have here in this country to help
small towns across America by having these pipelines, not only
by the production of the gas, but having the economic boom of
the construction, that is just huge for America. And I hope we
can solve the differences that we have and streamline this
process, so that the resource that is so valuable to Americans
is quickly developed in less than 6 years at a time.
So I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Cook. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spisak, do you view this legislation as requiring the
Secretary of the Interior to grant right-of-ways on all public
lands?
Mr. Spisak. We looked at that, and it was unclear entirely
whether that was the case or not. I think it talks of not doing
the NEPA analysis on major Federal actions, so it is not
entirely clear, and it could be construed that way, yes.
Mr. Graves. But while it doesn't require a NEPA analysis to
designate the corridors, the actual pipeline project, as I
would assume, would actually require a NEPA analysis. The
actual construction project would require NEPA.
Mr. Spisak. That is how we interpret it, although the NEPA
analysis associated with that would not benefit from the
higher-level NEPA that would go through the corridor
designation, and it might take longer to do some of that.
Mr. Graves. OK. So, perhaps there could be discussion about
where NEPA appropriately fits in this, whether it is in the
front end, or during the construction process. Is that----
Mr. Spisak. Yes.
Mr. Graves. OK. But, putting that aside, I am struggling
with your comment in your testimony where you twice
definitively say that the National Park Service land should be
exempt from any type of right-of-way designation. Can you help
me understand that?
Mr. Spisak. I can speak to the BLM issues. And I think it
would be better served for the Park Service to answer that.
Mr. Graves. You are not suggesting that you didn't write
this testimony, are you?
Mr. Spisak. I am sorry, what?
Mr. Graves. I said you are not suggesting that you didn't
write this testimony, are you?
Mr. Spisak. I----
Mr. Graves. Don't answer that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves. I am just struggling here, and here is why. I
know you don't work for the EPA, but, as I am sure you are
aware, the EPA is using various authorities now to
significantly influence our national energy portfolio,
primarily some of the clean air regulations affecting the use
of coal. And in doing so, coal is now the largest feed stock or
fuel source for electricity generation in the United States.
However, new power plants that are coming online, the largest
source by far is natural gas, as a generation source.
So, if you are going to come in one hand and you are going
to squeeze a certain stock or fuel source, you have to ensure
that you are carrying out efforts to facilitate the use of
these other fuels to prevent us from having electricity
generation issues in the United States. And it seems like the
Administration is totally missing that. They are squeezing
coal, on the one hand, and they are not doing anything to
facilitate the transportation of natural gas on the other,
which if I remember right, 90 percent of all new electricity
generation facilities are based upon natural gas. And it seems
that there is an extraordinary disconnect there.
Mr. Spisak. Well, we do say in the testimony, and I have
said in my oral statement, that we support the goals of what
you are trying to do. And I think we can work through that, as
we talk through----
Mr. Graves. Do you see the bigger picture here, though----
Mr. Spisak. I understand exactly what you're saying, sure--
--
Mr. Graves [continuing]. That we are concerned about? I
think that is a big deal.
Now, two other things. One, I think in every hearing, Mr.
Chairman, I am going to mention south Louisiana. You look at
the title of this bill, and it pertains to national energy
corridors. We have a road in south Louisiana known as LA-1. LA-
1 facilitates, depending on how you do the math, and I usually
estimate upward, it handles anywhere from one-quarter to one-
third of all the oil and gas consumed in this Nation. It
services approximately 75 percent of all the offshore fields in
the Gulf of Mexico.
You state in your testimony that under the Mineral Leasing
Act, one-half of the revenues from production of energy
resources on Federal lands go toward those states. Are you
familiar with the offshore revenue sharing?
Mr. Spisak. I am aware of it, but I am more familiar with
the onshore, where it is roughly one-half.
Mr. Graves. And I believe----
Mr. Spisak. Offshore is a little bit different.
Mr. Graves. So it is 50 percent goes to the states with no
strings attached, whatsoever?
Mr. Spisak. Onshore.
Mr. Graves. For onshore. An additional 40 percent goes in
the reclamation fund, used for water projects in 17 western
states. For offshore, this year, as I recall, I believe we
received .4 percent. Not 50 percent, not effectively 90
percent, but .4 percent.
Here you have a roadway that is by far the most important
energy road in the Nation, and to see the fact that this road
is very vulnerable, and that we are not reinvesting dollars in
it to ensure the resiliency of our national energy
infrastructure, is problematic. And the disparity between
royalty treatments, or energy revenue treatments for onshore
and offshore simply can't be defended. I would urge you to take
that back to your agency, and the next time you write
testimony, perhaps you could make some reference there. Thank
you.
Mr. Spisak. Thank you.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Graves. The Chair would like to
recognize the new member to the committee. And if he is going
to last these long committees, be careful, you will end up as
the Chair.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cook. His name is Mr. Hice, and it is my pleasure to
introduce you. You are recognized.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor to
be here, and I thank you very much. And thank you, each of you,
for being here with us today.
Mr. McGarvey, Mr. Moore, I would like to direct some
questions and some thoughts specifically to you, and somewhat
piggy-back on what Mr. Graves was talking about.
Recently, the governor of Texas signed a law making
fracking bans illegal. I believe this was done because,
overwhelmingly, the evidence points to the fact that hydraulic
fracturing is being done safely. But then you have other
states, such as New York, relying on natural gas where they
have banned the practice of hydraulic fracturing.
Both of you, in your testimonies, pointed out that about 63
percent of New England's 11,000 megawatts of proposed new
generation rely upon natural gas. So we know the production is
not going to come there from New York. So where is New England
going to get natural gas from?
Mr. Moore. Our company has proposed a pipeline from
northern Pennsylvania to Wright, New York, which doesn't get
all the way to New England, but it does interconnect with the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline in Iroquois, so that gas can make it to
New England markets to some degree.
So, the projects we have been developing have been out of
northern Pennsylvania. That has been the supply source for the
projects we are developing to move gas toward the New England
region. I know there are other pipeline proposals by other
companies, as well, to build infrastructure further north into
New England. But it is certainly a constraint, and there are a
number of pipelines trying to address that today.
Dr. Hice. All right. So you have a number of different
companies trying to get the pipelines to various parts of New
England. We are talking lots of pipeline, a lot of miles, a lot
involved in all of this to meet the demand, obviously, of that
population. Are we going to need an Act of Congress every time
one of these pipelines goes across Federal land?
Mr. Moore. I guess today we do. In our Constitution Project
we didn't cross Federal land, so we didn't have to encounter
that. I am not aware of whether the other projects that are
being proposed will encounter that or not. We have a project
under development now that will potentially cross the
Appalachian Trail. We were looking at a number of alternatives,
so it is not clear.
Dr. Hice. Right. The Appalachian Trail goes all the way
from Georgia to Maine. So, again, are we going to need an Act
of Congress every time we go across Federal land?
Mr. Moore. Today we do.
Dr. Hice. All right. We will. Can you explain how delays in
the process of getting permits impacts the labor force of a
project?
Mr. McGarvey. The local labor force looks forward to these
opportunities to work in the region where they are domiciled.
And when there are proposed projects, and when they are held up
by the permitting process, they are forced to leave the local
area and pursue the work opportunities to apply their craft
where they can, whether it is in another state or another
region of the country. Sometimes there just isn't work in those
other places to move to, and the impact on the labor force is
that it depresses enthusiasm for being in the construction
industry, because of the intermittent nature of the work. And
it is a different situation when it is the economy, and the
economy's hand that is dealing that intermittent nature of the
work, as it is to bureaucrats who are deciding on a process of
permitting to actually get a construction project built.
So, it hurts us on the recruitment side sometimes. It hurts
the image of construction as an intermittent industry. And,
most importantly for the people I represent, it hurts their
economic standard for their families, because there is private
capital, ready to go on a piece of infrastructure that makes
sense and is needed, and they can't apply their craft because
it is going through this long, drawn-out permitting process. So
it depresses the industry.
Dr. Hice. So there is a significant problem that is created
by the delayed permitting process from local economies and all
these that you have just described. It is problematic.
Mr. McGarvey. Congressman, it is probably the single
biggest problem in the construction industry that we face, this
menagerie of permitting processes for all sectors in all
industries across the United States.
Dr. Hice. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much. And our last question will
be from the individual who started all this.
A great hearing, Mr. MacArthur. You are recognized.
Mr. MacArthur. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor, I want to thank you. I was a businessman and a
local mayor, as well. I am new here. And I appreciate your
reminding us that the things we do have a real impact on real
people. And what we do can affect job creation and prosperity
of people, families, and communities. I think it is important
that we remember that, among other things.
Mr. Spisak, I had a question for you. The kinds of
corridors that I am proposing, do they currently exist, both
identified and designated in the 11 contiguous western states?
Mr. Spisak. Yes, as part of the Energy Policy Act we
designated those corridors on Federal lands.
Mr. MacArthur. OK, which is precisely what I am proposing
here, that we just do it in the eastern United States, as we
have done in the western United States.
Are you aware of any reason why eastern states would pay up
to 10 times what western states pay for natural gas, other than
the lack of efficient distribution from West to East?
Mr. Spisak. I would know of no other reason.
Mr. MacArthur. That makes two of us. In fact, I think it
probably makes 40 or 50 of us in this room.
So, the western states have the exact sort of corridors
that I am proposing already, and the world hasn't come to an
end. And eastern states are paying 10 times more for natural
gas, and it affects real people in real communities. It affects
real workers, 3 million in these unions.
And I understand change can be difficult for people, but
this is simple, common-sense change. We are not reinventing the
wheel here. We are simply asking, in the eastern United States,
for what already happens in the western United States.
And, last, if I might turn to President McGarvey, you
talked a little about your 14 building trade unions and the 3
million members you represent. Could you elaborate? Because you
talked about the job creation in building the pipelines, but
you started to talk about the jobs that flowed downstream, once
those pipelines are in place. I just wanted to ask you maybe
two things.
One, is there anything more important for your unions than
seeing your members at work?
Mr. McGarvey. No, that is the sole purpose for which we
exist. Once you get past collective bargaining in the
construction industry, in the building trades, is to provide
the work opportunities and the positive economic trajectory for
the members that we represent.
And when it comes to the energy sector, and the untapped
potential in this country for our unions, about 50 percent of
the work that those 3 million folks do is in the energy sector.
I can tell you that within 40 miles of this building, there is
approximately $6 billion worth of construction work going on,
from a Cove Point project that Dominion is doing on gas
transfer terminal to two gas-fired power plants--$6 billion
worth of construction within 40 miles of this building. It is
just phenomenal. Ten years ago, nobody would have believed it,
thought it, or dreamt it.
Well, it takes real people to build those facilities. And,
through our training programs, we are able to help communities
of color, women, and veterans, through a pre-apprenticeship and
apprenticeship program, learn the skill sets while they are
working on private capital-invested projects that then move
those folks and keep those folks in the middle class, not for
one, but for two generations, according to our studies, because
of the skill sets they learn.
So, the potential is enormous, we just need to get at it.
The quicker we can get things into the ground, the more people
that we can help, the lowering of the income inequity in the
country, and making sure that folks have the opportunities that
they need.
Mr. MacArthur. I appreciate that.
And, Mr. Chairman, just last, I recognize anything dealing
with the environment is highly charged, right out of the gate.
I know that. I represent probably the most environmentally
sensitive area in New Jersey. It includes the Pinelands, it
includes the whole of the shore area. So I understand that
emotions can run hot.
I just want to repeat. This bill accomplishes what we are
already doing in the western United States, and I think it does
it to great effect for people that need jobs--women, veterans,
people that are impoverished today. It helps communities, it
helps energy independence. And I appreciate each of your
testimonies. I know you have different perspectives, but I
appreciate you sharing them with us. I yield back.
Mr. Cook. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mooney.
Mr. Mooney. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the Members for
their questions.
Members of the committee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in
writing. Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record will be
held open for 10 business days for these responses.
And, once again, I want to thank the witnesses. I know many
of you have come a long way. It is good to hear some folks from
North Carolina. I felt like I was back in Camp Lejeune again.
And I actually could understand what you were saying.
So once again, thank you for your patience.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 20, 2015
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
1329 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Lowenthal:
I write to express my support for H.R. 2295, the ``National Energy
Security Corridors Act.'' Since 2008, the U.S. has become the world's
number 1 producer of oil and gas. Advances in hydraulic fracturing
techniques have unlocked vast supplies of previously unrecoverable gas
in shale formations across the nation. Unfortunately, our nation's
energy transmission infrastructures have not kept pace with changes in
the volumes and geography of oil and gas production. This is
particularly true of the infrastructure for transporting natural gas.
Over the last decade, there has been a growing awareness of the gap
between the times typically needed to permit new production of sources
of energy and the much longer times needed for infrastructure. This
discrepancy in permitting time frames makes it more challenging to
plan, site, permit, finance, and construct energy infrastructure
projects. H.R. 2295 would streamline the process by allowing the
Department of the Interior to review and approve natural gas pipeline
rights of way on lands administered by the National Park Service
without first seeking project-specific authorization from Congress, as
is now required by law.
My home state of Louisiana is third among all states in natural gas
production. Louisiana residents pay the lowest average cost for
electricity of any state in the country. This is due in part not only
to our abundant natural gas supply, but also our natural gas pipeline
network. My constituents experience the very real benefits of natural
gas abundance every day. By streamlining the natural gas pipeline
siting and permitting process, we can connect our increasingly abundant
supply with constantly increasing demand and ensure that all Americans
can experience these benefits as well.
Sincerely,
Cedric L. Richmond,
Member of Congress.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
In Support of H.R. 2295
-- America's Natural Gas Alliance, May 19, 2015 Letter
-- Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, May 19,
2015 Letter
In Opposition of H.R. 2295
-- Appalachian Trail Conservancy, May 29, 2015 Statement
-- National Parks Conservation Association, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, and Park Rangers for Our Lands,
May 19, 2015 Letter
-- The Wilderness Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and
Natural Resources Defense Council, May 19, 2015 Letter
[all]