    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   THE CHANGING ENERGY LANDSCAPE: OVERSIGHT
                                    OF FERC

    =======================================================================

                                 HYBRID HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 27, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-45

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    52-185 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                     Chairman
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
        Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
    DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                       JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                    TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                      NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
                             Subcommittee on Energy

                            BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
    JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
        Chair                            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    KIM SCHRIER, Washington              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG PENCE, Indiana
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware           (ex officio)
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Richard Glick, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions \1\
    Neil Chatterjee, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Questions submitted for the record \2\.......................   107
    James P. Danly, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
        Answers to submitted questions \3\
    Allison Clements, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Additional material submitted for the record \4\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   111
    Mark C. Christie, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    44
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   116

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of July 26, 2021, from Richard Glick, Chairman, Federal
      Energy Regulatory Commission, to Mr. Butterfield, submitted by
      Mr. Butterfield................................................   104
    News release, ``Chairwoman Marquez Peterson Alarmed by Federal
      Ruling Allowing California to Block Energy to Arizona,''
      Arizona Corporation Commission, submitted by Mrs. Lesko........   105

    ----------

    \1\ Mr. Glick's replies to submitted questions for the record have been
    retained in committee files and are available at https://
    docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210727/113963/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-
    GlickR-20210727-SD001.pdf.
    \2\ Mr. Chatterjee did not answer submitted questions for the record by
    the time of publication.
    \3\ Mr. Danly's replies to submitted questions for the record have been
    retained in committee files and are available at https://
    docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210727/113963/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-
    DanlyJ-20210727-SD001.pdf.
    \4\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
    attached to Ms. Clements' prepared statement at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF03/20210727/113963/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-ClementsA-
    20210727.pdf.

                THE CHANGING ENERGY LANDSCAPE: OVERSIGHT OF FERC

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
    Bobby L. Rush (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
    McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor,
    Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, O'Halleran,
    Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member),
    Burgess, Latta, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg,
    Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex
    officio).
        Also present: Dingell, Fletcher, Schakowsky, Long, and
    Joyce.
        Staff present: Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director;
    Anthony Gutierrez, Professional Staff Member; Perry Hamilton,
    Clerk; Anne Marie Hirschberger, FERC Detailee; Zach Kahan,
    Deputy Director, Outreach and Member Service; Rick Kessler,
    Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment;
    Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Jourdan Lewis, Policy
    Coordinator; Tyler O'Connor, Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-
    Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tuley
    Wright, Senior Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Sarah
    Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron,
    Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce,
    Energy, Environment; William Cluttterbuck, Minority Staff
    Assistant/Policy Analyst; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director;
    Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority
    Member Services Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel,
    Energy and Environment; and Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy
    Chief Counsel for Energy.
        Mr. Rush. The hearing is now called to order.
        The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order.
        Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``The
    Changing Energy Landscape: Oversight of FERC.''
        Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, you can
    participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via
    online video conference.
        Members who are not vaccinated and participate in person
    must wear a mask and be socially distanced. Such Members may
    remove their mask when they are under recognition and speaking
    from a microphone.
        And now--and persons who are not vaccinated and present in
    the committee room must wear a mask at all times and be
    socially distanced.
        For Members participating remotely, your microphone will be
    set on mute for the purpose of eliminating and avoiding
    background noise. Members participating remotely will need to
    unmute your microphone each time that you wish to be
    recognized.
        Please note that, once you unmute your microphone, anything
    that is said will be heard over the loudspeaker in the
    committee room and subject to being heard by the live screen
    added onto by the omnipresent C-SPAN.
        Since Members are participating from different locations at
    today's hearing, all recognition of Members, such as for
    questioning, will be in the order of the full committee
    seniority.
        Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez
    at the address that we have provided to each of your staff. All
    documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
    the hearing.
        The Chair will now recognize himself for an appropriate
    opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Again I would say good morning to each and every one of
    you.
        Today the Subcommittee on Energy convenes to continue our
    work in establishing a path forward to achieve net-zero
    greenhouse gas pollutions and combat climate change. In order
    to achieve these important issues, it is critical that the
    Federal Government harnesses to its fullest extent all of its
    best capabilities.
        In addition to this, as the energy landscape continues to
    change and to grow, it is vital that the conference and the
    Biden administration and future administrations work closely
    together.
        And for many reasons that I am so delighted, so pleased to
    have FERC before the Subcommittee on Energy today.
        Before I begin, though, I want to take a moment to publicly
    congratulate Chairman Glick for your being named Chairman of
    FERC this past January. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to
    meet with you at the beginning of your tenure and to look
    forward to our continued and productive partnership.
        Also, Chairman Chatterjee, I believe that this may be your
    last hearing before the--I'm sorry, Commissioner Chatterjee;
    instant promotions are not applicable here--Commissioner
    Chatterjee, I believe that this may be your last hearing before
    the committee during your tenure.
        I want to thank you for your outstanding years of public
    service, and I want to wish you well as your time in FERC is
    being concluded.
        I also want to take a moment if I might to congratulate my
    senior staff on this subcommittee, Jourdan Lewis. This is her
    last hearing. She is going on to higher heights, to better
    environments, and to a more profitable experience. She is going
    to work at the NACE Foundation in a very important capacity,
    and I want to thank Jourdan for not only her being junior and
    senior legislative person on energy in my office and on this
    subcommittee, but her outstanding public service that goes all
    the way back to the Department of Energy.
        Would you please just join with me in giving Jourdan a
    round of applause for her outstanding work?
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Jourdan, for your outstanding work and
    your continued commitment to our Nation's future.
        It is well known that the electricity sector is one of the
    largest sources of greenhouse gas pollution within the United
    States.
        Further, the sector has had a disproportionate impact on
    health, environment, and pockets of historically marginalized
    communities, the infrastructure of these marginalized
    communities.
        Although it is not traditionally viewed as a climate
    regulator, FERC's vast authority over the electricity sector
    makes it a principal player in our race to tackle climate
    change.
        As we know, FERC regulates critical elements of the U.S.
    energy industry and its systems. This includes the transmission
    and the wholesale purchase of electricity, the transport, of
    course, of natural gas, and the permitting of a variety of
    energy infrastructure projects.
        I want to also say that FERC is also key to creation of a
    21st century grid, which we need to reduce electricity cost all
    while delivering reliable, clean energy to consumers.
        Chairman Glick, I congratulate you on taking long-awaited
    steps to make real reforms that will support zero carbon
    electricity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

        Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy convenes to
    continue our work in establishing a path forward to achieve net
    zero greenhouse gas pollution and combat climate change. In
    order to achieve these important missions, it is critical that
    the Federal Government harnesses to the fullest extent all of
    its capabilities. In addition to this, as the energy landscape
    continues to change and grow, it is vital that Congress and the
    administration works closely together. It is for these reasons
    that I am pleased to have the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC) before the Subcommittee on Energy today.
        Before I continue, Chairman Glick, I would like to publicly
    congratulate you on being named Chairman of FERC this past
    January. I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you at the
    beginning of your tenure and look forward to our continued
    partnership. Also, Commissioner Chatterjee, I believe this may
    be your last hearing before the Committee during your tenure. I
    thank you for your years of service and wish you well as your
    time at FERC comes to an end.
        It is well known that the electricity sector is one of the
    largest sources of greenhouse gas pollution within the United
    States. Further, the sector has had a disproportionate impact
    on the health, environments, and pockets of historically
    marginalized communities. Although it is not traditionally
    viewed as a climate regulator, FERC's vast authority over the
    electricity sector makes it a principal player in our race to
    tackle climate change.
        As we know, FERC regulates critical elements of the U.S.
    energy industry and its systems. This includes the transmission
    and wholesale purchase of electricity, transport of natural
    gas, and the permitting of a variety of energy infrastructure
    projects. Along with this, FERC possesses the necessary tools
    to support the transition to a safe, affordable, and equitable
    clean energy future. For example, FERC, through a technology
    neutral approach, has the ability to address barriers within
    competitive wholesale electricity markets to facilitate the
    deployment of new low-cost technologies, like wind and solar.
        FERC is also key to the creation of a 21st century grid,
    which we need to reduce electricity costs all while delivering
    reliable clean energy to consumers. This is why I am pleased
    that FERC, under Chairman Glick's leadership, is taking long-
    awaited steps to make grid reforms that will support zero
    carbon electricity. Equally important, FERC, along with our
    Federal agencies, must take the needs of historically
    marginalized communities into greater consideration. With this
    in mind, I commend FERC and my colleagues, Congresswomen
    Schakowsky and Kuster, for their work to establish a FERC
    office to do just that.
        The climate crisis requires a whole of government approach.
    Therefore, today, I look forward to discussing how FERC plans
    to sustain its critical momentum in this regard. And with that,
    I yield to my friend and colleague, the Gentleman from
    Michigan, Ranking Member Upton, for five minutes.

        Mr. Rush. My time has expired, and now I want to recognize
    my good friend from the great State of Michigan, the ranking
    member of the subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes for
    purposes of an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                         THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, my friend, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you to our witnesses today for appearing.
        And welcome back, Chairman Glick. It is nice to have you
    testify again, but this time as Chairman of FERC.
        A special welcome from the Energy and Commerce Committee to
    Commissioners Clements and Christie. We look forward to working
    with each of you as members of this committee conduct oversight
    of FERC and work to strengthen and modernize our Nation's
    energy infrastructure, and of course our good friend Mr.
    Chatterjee as well.
        You know, FERC is a small agency, but such an important
    mission. FERC is also unique in several ways. It is organized
    as an independent agency comprised of a bipartisan commission.
        FERC is funded primarily through user fees and annual
    charges paid by regulated energy companies, and importantly,
    FERC's responsibilities are limited by the statutes passed by
    us, the Congress.
        FERC's primary responsibilities include regulation of
    transmission and sale of electricity, oil, and natural gas in
    interstate commerce. They also review proposals to build
    interstate natural gas pipelines, LNG facilities, and non-
    Federal hydro projects.
        At the same time, the electricity sector is also undergoing
    a dramatic transformation. A mix of Federal, State, and market
    changes are driving out traditional baseload energy--we know
    that, notably coal and nuclear--while weather-dependent
    renewables take their place. These trends are contributing to
    reliability challenges, balancing load and meeting peak demand,
    as seen in California, as well as in Texas.
        So FERC's authority is limited to the bulk power system for
    electricity in interstate commerce, but they are obligated to
    ensure that regional markets are benefiting consumers.
        As FERC turns its attention to the transmission planning
    process, I will certainly be paying close attention to how the
    costs of transmission projects are allocated to the taxpayers.
        Simply put, ratepayers should not be forced to subsidize
    transmission lines or sacrifice 24/7 grid reliability in order
    to connect renewable projects to big cities. And when
    considering transmission, FERC should not be picking winners
    among renewable developers or sacrificing reliability and cost.
        Given the importance of FERC's established responsibilities
    and with limited time and the agency resources to expend,
    concerns have also been raised about what appears to be a shift
    in FERC policy to align with President Biden's social justice
    environmental programs. Under his leadership, FERC has begun to
    move the goalposts on environmental reviews, revive regs. for
    electric transmission in regional electricity markets to
    support wind and solar projects at the expense of cheaper and
    more reliable options and encourage lawsuits and legal
    challenges to new infrastructure projects.
        So with that, I look forward to today's hearing. There is
    much to consider, given the changing landscape.
        And I would yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our witnesses,
    for appearing before us today. Welcome back, Chairman Glick, it
    is nice to have you testify again, this time as Chairman of
    FERC.
        And a special welcome to the Energy and Commerce Committee
    to Commissioners Clements (pronounced ``Clu-mentz'') and
    Christie. We look forward to working with each of you as
    Members of this Committee conduct oversight of FERC and work to
    strengthen and modernize our nation's energy infrastructure.
        FERC is a relatively small agency with an important
    mission. FERC is also unique in several ways: FERC is organized
    as an independent agency comprised of a bipartisan commission;
    FERC is funded primarily through user-fees and annual charges
    paid by regulated energy companies; and importantly, FERC's
    responsibilities are limited by the statutes passed by
    Congress.
        FERC's primary responsibilities include regulation of
    transmission and sale of electricity, oil, and natural gas in
    interstate commerce. FERC also reviews proposals to build
    interstate natural gas pipelines, LNG facilities, and non-
    Federal hydropower projects.
        In carrying out its responsibilities, FERC is often
    required to balance competing interests from a wide range of
    stakeholders to ensure rates for electric and pipeline services
    are ``just and reasonable'' and to determine whether energy
    infrastructure projects such as hydropower, interstate natural
    gas pipelines and LNG facilities meet the public interest and
    provide energy for consumers at a reasonable cost. Congress has
    also charged FERC with overseeing mandatory reliability
    standards for the bulk-power system to increase the reliability
    of the electric grid and protect from all-hazards, including a
    cyber-attack.
        FERC has a lot on its plate. As we have witnessed, the
    shale revolution has led to unprecedented growth in natural gas
    production. The U.S. is now the world's leading producer and
    emerging as a world-leading exporter.
        American consumers are benefitting from reliable and
    affordable supplies of natural gas, and we are more energy
    secure now than at any point in our history. American
    businesses and manufacturers are also more globally competitive
    as a result, creating jobs up and down the supply chain in all
    50 states.
        The rise of natural gas production has led to an increase
    in infrastructure--including pipelines, storage, and LNG
    facilities--all of which are regulated by FERC.
        At the same time, the electricity sector is also undergoing
    a dramatic transformation. A mix of Federal, State, and market
    changes are driving out traditional baseload energy--notably
    coal and nuclear--while ``weather dependent'' renewables take
    their place. These trends are contributing to reliability
    challenges balancing load and meeting peak demand, as seen in
    California and Texas.
        While FERC's authority is limited to the ``bulk-power
    system'' for electricity in interstate commerce, FERC is
    obligated to ensure that regional markets are benefiting
    consumers. As FERC turns its attention to the transmission
    planning process, I will be paying close attention to how the
    costs of transmission projects are allocated to ratepayers.
        Simply put, rural ratepayers should not be forced to
    subsidize transmission lines or sacrifice 24/7 grid reliability
    in order to connect renewable projects to big cities. When
    considering new transmission, FERC should not pick winners
    among renewables developers while sacrificing reliability and
    cost.
        Given the importance of FERC's established responsibilities
    and with limited time and agency resources to expend, concerns
    have also been raised about what appears to be a shift in FERC
    policy to align with President Biden's social justice and
    environmental agenda.
        Under new leadership, FERC has begun to move the goalposts
    on environmental reviews; revise regulations for electric
    transmission and regional electricity markets to support wind
    and solar projects at the expense of cheaper and more reliable
    options; and encourage lawsuits and legal challenges to new
    infrastructure projects.
        With that, I look forward to today's hearing to learn more
    about FERC's priorities and find issues of common ground. There
    is so much to consider given the changing energy landscape, and
    FERC has its work cut out to site new pipelines and electric
    transmission to ensure reliable and affordable supplies of
    energy for all Americans.
        Thank you, I yield back.

        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks you, Ranking Member, for giving
    back the balance of your time.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the Chair of the full
    committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        FERC plays a critical role in ensuring the safe, reliable,
    and affordable delivery of energy to American homes and
    businesses, and I am pleased to welcome all of the current FERC
    Commissioners to this oversight hearing.
        And I want to congratulate Chairman Glick on his
    appointment by President Biden and look forward to speaking to
    you about the Commission's priorities for the coming year.
        I also wanted to recognize Commissioner Chatterjee, whose
    term on the Commission recently expired, but--I know you are
    still here, but the term expired. Although there are policy
    differences, we found common ground on several important
    issues, and I thank you for your service.
        Recent extreme weather events in Texas, California, and the
    Pacific Northwest dramatically illustrate that the climate
    crisis is here and only will get worse if we do not act, and
    that is why Chairman Rush, Mr. Tonko, and I introduced the
    Clean Future Act, to get us to 100 percent clean economy no
    later than 2050 and to make our electric grid more resilient to
    extreme weather.
        FERC has a large role to play in achieving this clean
    energy future and maintaining the reliable operation of our
    Nation's grid, and as we heard at our transmission legislative
    hearing several weeks ago, reforming the transmissions
    planning, siting, and cost allocation processes are critical to
    ensuring we can move renewable power from our wind and solar
    corridors to major population and industrial centers.
        So I want to commend FERC for its recent announcement of a
    joint task force with the National Association of Regulatory
    Utility Commissioners. This is an effort to resolve the
    tensions between FERC and State regulators that too often
    interfere with the responsible deployment of more transmission.
        I am also anxious to hear more about the Commission's
    recent advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on transmission
    and interconnection issues. In particular, I want to hear how
    FERC claims to pursue transmission policies that promote
    transmission development while also protecting ratepayers.
        And FERC, of course, also regulates the certification and
    siting of natural gas pipelines. Two of the biggest challenges
    we face in this area have to do with protecting landowner
    rights and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.
        And, fortunately, I believe FERC has made some much-needed
    progress in these areas as well.
        On the eminent domain issue, FERC recently issued guidance
    protecting landowner interest during natural gas pipeline
    siting proceedings, and that was a good start. But the Gas Act
    needs to better reflect today's realities and balance
    development with State and landowner rights.
        I hope FERC does more to address the appropriate scope of
    pipeline's eminent domain authority, as well as whether it
    should permit pipeline companies to demonstrate a market need
    for a new pipeline by signing gas supply contracts with their
    own affiliates.
        With respect to the greenhouse gas emissions, during our
    2019 hearing with FERC, I expressed disappointment about FERC's
    failure to account for greenhouse gas emissions in the pipeline
    review process. Earlier this year for the first time, FERC
    assessed the significance of a project's greenhouse gas
    emissions and contributions to climate change, and that, again,
    was a welcome step forward.
        I also wanted to mention two other promising FERC actions.
    First, this year after a long wait, FERC committed to
    establishing an Office of Public Participation. The public and
    particular members of underrepresented communities must have
    the opportunity and ability to participate in Commission
    proceedings.
        So I am pleased that FERC finally acted to establish that
    office, and I am committed to ensuring that FERC makes that
    also an effective resource for environmental justice to
    leaders, Tribes, landowners, consumer advocates and other
    members of the public.
        And second, I want to congratulate Montina Cole, who
    Chairman Glick appointed to be the Commission's first senior
    counsel for environmental justice and equity. For too long
    regulators have overlooked the environmental justice and equity
    concerns associated with siting the natural gas pipelines, as
    well as hydroelectric licenses and other projects.
        This is an important step to ensure that these concerns are
    no longer ignored.
        So thank you again for joining us today. I look forward to
    your testimony as we work together in our path forward.
        Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plays a critical
    role in ensuring the safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of
    energy to American homes and businesses. I'm pleased to welcome
    all the current FERC Commissioners to this oversight hearing.
        I first want to congratulate Chairman Glick on his
    appointment by President Biden, and I look forward to speaking
    with you about the Commission's priorities for the coming year.
        I would also like to recognize Commissioner Chatterjee,
    whose term on the Commission recently expired. Although we have
    had our policy differences, we found common ground on several
    important issues, and I thank you for your service.
        Recent extreme weather events in Texas, California, and the
    Pacific Northwest dramatically illustrate that the climate
    crisis is here and will only get worse if we do not act. That
    is why Chairmen Rush, Tonko and I introduced the CLEAN Future
    Act, to get us to a 100 percent clean economy no later than
    2050 and to make our electric grid more resilient to extreme
    weather.
        FERC has a large role to play in achieving this clean
    energy future and in maintaining the reliable operation of our
    nation's grid. As we heard at our transmission legislative
    hearing several weeks ago, reforming the transmission planning,
    siting, and cost allocation processes are critical to ensuring
    we can move renewable power from our wind and solar corridors
    to major population and industrial centers.
        I commend FERC for its recent announcement of a joint task
    force with the National Association of Regulatory Utility
    Commissioners. This is an effort to resolve the tensions
    between FERC and state regulators that too often interfere with
    the responsible deployment of more transmission.
        I am also interested to hear more about the Commission's
    recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on transmission
    and interconnection issues. In particular, I want to hear how
    FERC plans to pursue transmission policies that promote
    transmission development while also protecting ratepayers.
        FERC, of course, also regulates the certification and
    siting of natural gas pipelines. Two of the biggest challenges
    we face in this area have to do with protecting landowner
    rights and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.
    Fortunately, I believe FERC has made some much-needed progress
    in these areas.
        On eminent domain, FERC recently issued guidance protecting
    landowner interests during natural gas pipeline siting
    proceedings. That's a good start, but the Gas Act needs to
    better reflect today's realities and balance development with
    state and landowner rights. I hope FERC does more to address
    the appropriate scope of pipelines' eminent domain authority,
    as well as consider whether it should permit pipeline companies
    to demonstrate a market need for a new pipeline by signing gas
    supply contracts with their own affiliates.
        With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, during our 2019
    hearing with FERC, I expressed disappointment about FERC's
    failure to account for greenhouse gas emissions in the pipeline
    review process. Earlier this year, for the first time, FERC
    assessed the significance of a project's greenhouse gas
    emissions and contribution to climate change. That's a welcome
    step forward.
        I would also like to mention two other promising FERC
    actions. First, this year, after a long wait, FERC committed to
    establishing an Office of Public Participation. The public, and
    in particular members of underrepresented communities, must
    have the opportunity and ability to participate in Commission
    proceedings. I am pleased that FERC finally acted to establish
    the Office of Public Participation. I am committed to ensuring
    that FERC makes this office an effective resource for
    environmental justice leaders, Tribes, landowners, consumer
    advocates, and other members of the public.
        And second, I want to congratulate Montina Cole, who
    Chairman Glick appointed to be the Commission's first senior
    counsel for environmental justice and equity. For too long,
    regulators have overlooked the environmental justice and equity
    concerns associated with siting new natural gas pipelines,
    hydroelectric licenses and other projects. This is an important
    step to ensure these concerns are no longer ignored.
        Again, thank you for joining us today. I look forward to
    your testimony as we discuss the path forward.

        Mr. Rush. The chairman yields back.
        We turn now to the ranking member of the full committee,
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the purpose of an
    opening statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
        REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me also welcome the Commissioners today.
        Since our last hearing in 2019, we now have three new
    Commissioners, a departing Commissioner Chatterjee, and Mr.
    Glick has now been confirmed Chairman. Congratulations.
        This shifting leadership makes our oversight especially
    useful and timely today.
        How FERC executes its mission can have profound impacts on
    the price of energy and our security, also the ability of
    utilities to provide affordable and reliable energy and power
    to people. We cannot forget this as we examine the Commission's
    activities and the agenda today and as we examine proposed
    energy and environmental policies here in Congress.
        What really matters is that we make sure policies work for
    people to protect our way of life, to protect our standard of
    living.
        We must make sure that our Federal laws and policies
    enable, not undermine, access to affordable and reliable
    energy. This is necessary for a prosperous society, for the
    energy to innovate, keep costs low, and support jobs. It is
    essential for assuring public health and safety.
        Heart-wrenching examples, when the power goes out or the
    fuel stops flowing, have proven the point in California, Texas,
    the East Coast, and even in my district in Spokane.
        We all agree in the importance of clean energy solutions,
    but not as a substitute for the affordable energy that keeps
    the lights on.
        Across the Nation, State and Federal environmental and
    regulatory policies are undermining affordable, reliable
    energy. State renewable-energy mandates and certain existing
    electricity market structures are driving out traditional
    baseload generation and harming people.
        An official assessment indicates we are witnessing an
    electricity reliability crisis unfold across the country. In
    May, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's
    summer reliability assessment confirmed what California grid
    operators were also reporting, that the State remained at risk
    of energy emergencies during normal summer demand and high risk
    if weather events cause above-normal demand across the West.
        Texas and Louisiana, the Upper Midwest, and New England are
    also at risk if a major weather event drives up power demand,
    according to the report.
        What will happen if current unreliability trends continue?
        What happens when more baseload generation and clean
    nuclear is shuttered?
        What happens when regions have no choice but to rely on
    weather-dependent wind and solar transmitted from other
    regions?
        What happens if the rush to green and the Green New Deal
    socialist agenda effectively nationalizes expensive California-
    style mandates on the rest of the country?
        We have discussed in many hearings how certain measures of
    the Clean Future Act would nationalize decarbonization goals,
    regardless of cost or reliance on China. Federal clean energy
    mandates will drive out American energy, raising cost on low-
    and middle-income workers and undermining our economic
    opportunities.
        Mandating questionable electricity market structures will
    take control and accountability away from States, whether
    States or communities like it or not.
        And none of this stops the left from depriving States and
    communities of reliable, affordable energy. It will not relieve
    radical efforts to erase the benefits of firm, dispatchable
    energy.
        Even in Washington State there continues to be extreme
    efforts to dismantle the four lower Snake River Dams so
    important to clean, renewable, reliable, affordable
    electricity.
        FERC may not have any say in what Congress or the States
    do, but there is no question it must properly deal with the
    harsh consequences of policies that will make us dependent upon
    China and take America back to the Dark Ages.
        As regulatory oversight and decision making will help shape
    the kind of energy systems we have in the future, what matters
    today is will FERC focus on its core mission so the reliable,
    affordable delivery of energy and power remain the highest
    priority.
        Will the hard-working men and women of this country be
    central in its policy, or with the environmental agendas that
    threaten to fail our most basic energy needs prevail?
        I look forward to our discussion today.
        With that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

        Thank you, Chairman Rush. Let me also welcome the
    Commissioners today. Since our last hearing in 2019, we now
    have three new Commissioners, a departing Commissioner
    Chatterjee and Mr. Glick has been elevated to Chairman. This
    shifting leadership makes our oversight particularly useful and
    timely today.
        How FERC its mission can have profound impacts on the price
    of energy, and our security. Also, the ability of utilities to
    provide affordable, and reliable energy and power to people.
        We cannot forget this as we examine the Commission's
    activities and agenda today, and as we examine proposed energy
    and environmental policies here in Congress. What really
    matters is that we make sure policies work for people--to
    protect their way of life.
        We must make sure our federal laws and policies enable--not
    undermine--access to affordable, reliable energy. This is
    necessary for a prosperous society, for the energy to power
    innovations, keep costs low, and support jobs. It is essential
    for assuring public health and safety.
        Heart-wrenching examples when the power goes out or the
    fuels stop flowing have proved the point: in California, Texas,
    the East Coast, even in my district in Spokane. There's a role
    for clean energy policies but not as a substitute for
    affordable energy that keeps the lights on.
        Across the nation, state and federal environmental and
    regulatory policies are undermining affordable, reliable
    energy. State renewable energy mandates and certain existing
    electricity market structures are driving out traditional
    baseload generation to the detriment of the public.
        As official assessments indicate, we are witnessing an
    electricity reliability crisis unfold across large regions of
    the country. In May, the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation's summer reliability assessment confirmed what
    California grid operators were also reporting that the state
    remained at risk of energy emergencies during normal summer
    demand, and high risk if weather events cause above-normal
    demand across the West.
        Texas and Louisiana, the upper Midwest, and New England are
    all at risk if a major weather event drives up power demand,
    according to the report. What will happen if current
    unreliability trends continue?
        What happens when more baseload generation and clean
    nuclear is shuttered? What happens when regions have no choice
    but to rely upon weather-dependent wind and solar transmitted
    from other regions? What happens if the "rush to green" and
    Green New Deal socialist agenda effectively nationalizes
    expensive California-style mandates on the rest of the nation?
        We've discussed in many hearings how certain measures of
    the CLEAN Future Act would nationalize decarbonization goals,
    regardless of cost or reliance on China. Federal clean energy
    mandates will drive out fossil generation in regions dependent
    upon it--raising costs on low- and middle income workers and
    undermining their economic opportunities.
        Mandating questionable electricity ``market'' structures
    will take control and accountability away from states, whether
    states and communities like it or not. And none of this stops
    the radical left from depriving states and communities of
    reliable, affordable energy. It won't relieve radical efforts
    to erase the benefits of firm, dispatchable energy. Even in
    Washington State, there continue to be extreme and misguided
    efforts to dismantle the four Lower Snake River dams that are
    important, clean, reliable energy sources.
        FERC may not have any say in what Congress or the states
    do, but there is no question it must properly deal with the
    harsh consequences of policies that will make us dependent on
    China and take America back to the dark ages. Its regulatory
    oversight and decision-making will help shape the kind of
    energy systems we have in the future.
        What matters today is will FERC focus on its core mission
    so the reliable, affordable delivery of energy and power
    remains the highest priority? Will the hardworking men and
    women of this country be central in its policies, or will they
    be subverted to environmental agendas that threaten to fail our
    most basic energy needs. I look forward to the discussion
    today.

        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
    be made part of the record.
        And we have now concluded the Members' opening statements
    and will now move to recognizing of our witnesses for today.
        I would like to welcome each one of our witnesses for
    today's hearing, and they are:
        The Honorable Richard Glick, who is the Chairman of FERC;
        The Honorable Neil Chatterjee, who is a Commissioner of
    FERC;
        The Honorable James Danly, who is also a Commissioner at
    FERC;
        And another Commissioner at FERC is the Honorable Allison
    Clements.
        Our last Commissioner of FERC is Commissioner Mark C.
    Christie.
        We want to thank each and every one of you once again for
    joining with us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
        At this time, the Chair will recognize each of you for 5
    minutes to provide opening statements.
        Before we begin, though, I would like to explain the
    lighting system. In front of our witnesses is a series of
    lights. You already know this, but I have to say it anyway.
        The light will initially be green. The light will turn
    yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. Please begin to wrap
    up your testimony at that point. The light will turn red when
    your time expires, and if you would please, bring your
    statement to a conclusion.
        I want to thank you.
        Chairman Glick, it is my pleasure to recognize you for 5
    minutes for an opening statement.

      STATEMENTS OF RICHARD GLICK, CHAIRMAN, AND NEIL CHATTERJEE,
        JAMES P. DANLY, ALLISON CLEMENTS, AND MARK C. CHRISTIE,
          COMMISSIONERS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

                       STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLICK

        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Chairman Rush, Chairman
    Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member Upton,
    and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting my
    colleagues and me to appear before you today to discuss the
    important work we are doing at the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission.
        I am honored to appear before you for the first time since
    being designated as Chair by President Biden in January.
        The Nation's energy landscape is in the midst of a dramatic
    transformation driven by rapid changes in economics,
    technological innovation, changing consumer preferences, and
    the exigency of climate change.
        Utility-scaled solar and wind generation is now cost
    competitive with traditional sources of electricity. Electric
    storage is similarly experiencing a significant cost decline.
        At the same time, residential, commercial, and industrial
    consumers are increasingly demanding that their energy comes
    from renewable or zero-emissions resources. Dozens of the
    biggest utilities in the country have established their own
    decarbonization goals, and a growing number of States have
    enacted measures that require all or most of their electricity
    to come from zero-emissions resources.
        The Commission's job is not to pick winners and losers, but
    we do have a role in eliminating barriers to technology's
    participation in wholesale markets. For instance, over the last
    several years, FERC issued two landmark orders facilitating
    energy storage and aggregated distributor energy resources'
    participation in our organized wholesale markets.
        Today I will focus my remarks on the five priority areas of
    our work.
        One, building the transmission grid of the future;
        Two, modernizing electricity market designs;
        Three, updating FERC's natural gas certificate policy
    statement;
        Fourth, safeguarding the reliability of the electric grid,
    including protecting against evolving cybersecurity threats;
        And, five, facilitating a more inclusive decision-making
    process.
        Renewable generation is often located far from population
    centers where most electricity is consumed. The rapid shift in
    the resource mix requires significant investments in new and
    existing transmission to access those remotely located
    resources.
        Two weeks ago, the Commission unanimously approved an
    advanced notice of proposed rulemaking inviting the public to
    comment on potential reforms to improve current transmission
    planning and cost allocation and generator interconnection
    processes as the Nation transitions to a cleaner future.
        The ultimate aim of this initiative is to meet the
    transition needs of the future at the lowest cost to consumers.
    Through the ANOPR, FERC is taking a critical step toward our
    first major effort at transmission reform in a decade.
        I hope to move forward as expeditiously as possible with
    this priority work.
        While organized wholesale electricity markets continue to
    provide lower prices, greater efficiencies, and increased
    innovation, these markets are now some 20 years old and in
    certain regards may fail to reflect the changes of the modern
    electricity sector.
        One key focus is to address the increasing tension between
    State public policies and administrative pricing rules. As
    States were adopting clean energy policies that shift the
    resource mix towards renewable and zero-emissions generation,
    the Commission expanded its minimum offer price for the Eastern
    Regional Transmission Organization capacity markets in a manner
    that put State-supported generation resources at a competitive
    disadvantage.
        In my opinion, this approach contradicted the Federal Power
    Act's grant of authority over generation resource decisions for
    the States, not FERC.
        In response to strong concerns from the States, the clean
    energy industry and consumer groups, the regional grid
    operators have initiated stakeholder discussions to reform the
    respective capacity market rule, and I anticipate these
    discussions will soon lead to proposals to modify the MOPRs.
        Under the Natural Gas Act, they must determine whether a
    proposed interstate gas pipeline is both needed and in the
    public interest before issuing a project, a certificate of
    public convenience and necessity.
        In 2018, then-Chairman McIntyre then initiated a notice of
    inquiry seeking input into potential reforms to modernize the
    Commission's 1999 certificate policy statement. While the
    Commission received numerous comments at the time, no action
    was taken.
        Earlier this year, we issued another notice of inquiry
    seeking additional input, including options for determining
    whether a proposed pipeline project is needed, approaches for
    evaluating a proposed project's impact on climate change, and
    what considerations are required when a proposed project would
    be cited in an environmental justice community.
        As we have witnessed in Texas this past winter, the
    prolonged loss of electric service is more than just an
    inconvenience. It can and did produce tragic consequences.
        FERC and the North American Electric Liability Corporation
    are conducting a joint inquiry into the operations of the bulk
    electric system during winter storm Uri. When that inquiry is
    complete, I am determined that its results will not merely
    reflect another report that sits on a shelf.
        We are working with the goal of preventing reoccurrence of
    these events. Whether it is prolonged record cold or heat
    waves, drought, and wildfires we are again witnessing in the
    West, climate change poses a distinct threat to grid
    reliability.
        The Commission recently initiated a docket to examine the
    impact of extreme weather on grid reliability. It will continue
    to focus on actions that utilities and others take to address
    the growing threat of extreme weather.
        We need to be equally vigilant when it comes to potential
    cyber attacks against the grid. At FERC we use a two-pronged
    approach to safeguard grid security, employing mandatory
    standards to set requirements for foundational practices while
    we work collaboratively with industry, States, and other
    Federal agencies to identify and promote best practices.
        Given the high stakes, we devote constant attention to and
    continue to improve--explore improvements in cybersecurity.
        And finally, I wanted to touch on one last thing. FERC's
    regulatory actions have a significant impact on the lives of
    millions of people. As a result, it is important that our
    decision-making process includes robust inputs from diverse
    perspectives.
        That is why I am pleased the new Office of Public
    Participation is up and running. I want to commend my colleague
    Commissioner Clements for her leadership and for her work in
    establishing the office.
        Toward that goal, I want to highlight FERC's efforts to
    better incorporate environmental justice and equity concerns
    into our decision making.
        It is unlikely that FERC is hearing from members of
    historically marginalized communities with the same force and
    frequency as other stakeholders. Nevertheless, it is essential
    that environmental justice and equity get the attention in our
    decision-making processes that they deserve.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today, and
    I look forward to responding to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glick follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognize the Honorable Neil Chatterjee,
    Commissioner at FERC, for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF NEIL CHATTERJEE

        Mr. Chatterjee. Chairman Rush and Pallone, Republican
    Leaders McMorris Rodgers and Upton, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today. I appreciate the subcommittee's attention to the
    important work we do at FERC.
        Before I turn to the substance of my testimony, I want to
    thank my family for their love, support, and many sacrifices
    over my 4-year tenure at the Commission. Without my wonderful
    and talented wife, Becca, I would not be here today.
        I would also like to thank my amazing kids, Bo, Anderson,
    and Lane and, of course, our dog Oscar for cheering us all up
    during the toughest times of the pandemic.
        I also want to thank my parents and my sister for their
    unyielding love and support.
        My testimony today is divided into three sections. First, I
    will highlight some of the Commission's major accomplishments
    during my tenure, many of which were bipartisan and necessary
    to keep pace with the rapid change taking place in the energy
    sector.
        Second, I will discuss ongoing efforts initiated during my
    chairmanship and why it is so important for the Commission to
    complete them.
        Third, I will identify several areas I think the Commission
    should focus on in the immediate future to assure American
    consumers have access to efficient, safe, reliable, and secure
    energy at a reasonable cost.
        Serving as the Chairman of FERC was the honor of my
    lifetime. I have been blessed to serve my country by working
    with the most kind and talented collection of people in the
    Federal Government.
        The first major accomplishment I want to mention today is
    not a policy achievement but a testament to the Commission's
    stellar staff and is the most gratifying of my tenure.
        The last 16 months have been challenging for all of us. Our
    efforts at FERC to be a beacon of stability during such an
    uncertain time very well may be the highlight of my career.
        I was proud to see the results of our Federal employee
    viewpoint survey in which our staff assessed employee
    satisfaction at an all-time high, all while dealing with
    lockdowns, juggling work and family responsibilities, and
    worrying about the wellbeing of loved ones.
        I could not be more proud of our ranking as the number-one
    midsize agency for performance during the pandemic, but we are
    not out of the woods yet.
        As we begin to contemplate reconstitution, it is important
    that all of us--the Chairman, Commissioners, senior staff--get
    vaccinated. We have worked too hard to keep everyone safe, and
    I want to really encourage that.
        My regulatory philosophy is that the Commission should
    never be a barrier to progress. Rather, we should be a
    catalyst, an enabler of competitive and transparent markets
    that support needed investments in technology.
        The best examples of what I mean here are two landmark
    bipartisan reforms that we accomplished during my time at the
    Commission: Order 841, which removed barriers to the
    participation of electric storage resources, and Order 2222,
    which removed barriers to aggregated distributed energy
    resources, or DERs, in those markets.
        I cannot overstate the importance of these foundational
    rules in paving the way for the grid of the future. When new
    technologies like these can compete, they thrive, and as a
    result, consumers win in the form of lower-cost, cleaner energy
    services and a more resilient and reliable grid.
        I am also proud that the Commission was able to complete a
    multiyear effort to modernize its Public Utility Regulatory
    Policies Act of 1978, or PURPA, regulations when we issued
    Order 872 last year.
        Prior to that issuance, the Commission had not meaningfully
    updated its original PURPA regulations that were codified in
    1980.
        Last year's order will ensure the Commission's rules and
    regulations can keep pace with the rapidly changing energy
    landscape.
        I am also pleased with our work to move the ball forward on
    carbon pricing in electricity markets as an important tool to
    advance State environmental policies while ensuring wholesale
    markets remain efficient.
        Transparent and predictable carbon pricing can enhance
    competition, facilitate financing, and reduce investor
    uncertainty. For these reasons I believe carbon pricing is a
    superior approach to reducing carbon emissions than heavy-
    handed, less transparent, and more costly approaches like State
    subsidies.
        Turning to infrastructure issues, I am proud of the work we
    have done to process pipeline and liquefied natural gas
    facility applications in a timely manner. Connecting abundant
    American natural gas supplies to domestic and international
    markets enables low-cost natural gas to displace more carbon-
    intensive energy sources and lower global emissions.
        While on the topic of infrastructure, I must note that we
    have carefully balanced a responsibility to process
    infrastructure applications with the potential impacts it can
    create for landowners and communities.
        That is why under my leadership, the Commission made
    organizational and process changes to expedite reviewing
    requests by affected landowners and issued a rule prohibiting
    companies from beginning construction until orders on rehearing
    are completed.
        We explored a variety of emerging issues during my
    chairmanship that I hope the Commission will act on in the
    coming months. These include proceedings exploring hybrid
    resources, offshore wind resources, adjustable line ratings,
    and transmission incentives.
        I was also pleased with a NOPR that we issued last March
    that proposed to reimagine our transmission incentives policy.
    In my opinion, our existing incentive policy inappropriately
    focuses on risks and challenges in contrast with the statutory
    text that requires the Commission to establish incentive-based
    rate treatments for the purpose of benefiting consumers.
        Finally, I want to applaud Chairman Glick and my colleagues
    for their recent advanced NOPR on transmission planning, cost,
    and allocation and interconnections. Although I do not agree
    with all of the concepts discussed in the advanced NOPR, some
    of the proposed changes combined with the strength in
    transmission incentives policy could go a long way toward
    setting the stage for building the regional and interregional
    transmission projects we all hope to see.
        I am also interested in how our wholesale energy market can
    continue to work as a resource mix, shift zero marginal cost
    resources like wind and solar.
        Finally, although I am extremely optimistic about the
    future of energy storage, I am concerned that our current
    policies require energy source resources to make a false choice
    between participating in wholesale markets and providing
    transmission services, and I hope to see some clarity in this
    area.
        And I want to close real quick. We were each allowed to
    bring one guest to this hearing today, and I chose to bring
    FERC Secretary Kimberly Bose, who is responsible for 4,300
    orders during my time at the Commission. She is the unsung hero
    at the Commission, and it was an honor to have her here as my
    guest.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Chatterjee follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Commissioner James Danly for 5 minutes.
        Commissioner Danly, you are recognized.

                      STATEMENT OF JAMES P. DANLY

        Mr. Danly. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, Chairman
    Pallone, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and members of
    the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity for us
    to come today to speak to all of you about the important work
    we are doing here.
        It comes as no surprise to anyone on the committee, FERC
    had some real challenges in discharging its duties under the
    Natural Gas Act and Federal Power Act. You are attempting to do
    that in the face of an electric system that is in the middle of
    a profound transition during a time where there is continued
    need for very challenging infrastructure permitting and also in
    the context of a bulk power system under constant threat.
        FERC is actively engaged in all of these, and as a body we
    are deliberating on all of these fundamental matters, but I
    want to take no more than a minute, maybe two, to highlight the
    fact that, regardless of how we engage in these challenges, we
    have to keep front and center our legal imperatives, both from
    the statute staffed by Congress and the instructions that we
    have gotten from the courts.
        The first law, the Federal Power Act, requires that rates
    be just and reasonable, and in the context of our RTOs and
    ISOs, that means that we have to ensure that the prices created
    by those market systems are competitive.
        And the courts have explained to us consistently for years
    the competitive crisis requires that we mitigate or have market
    structures that are designed to mitigate the exercise of market
    power because, in the absence of such mitigation, those markets
    do not produce competitive prices, which means they are not
    just and reasonable.
        We have to as a Commission ensure competition in our
    jurisdictional markets.
        Similarly, the FP requires the transmission rates be just
    and reasonable, and just and reasonable rates, as we embark on
    this, which we voted out at the last open meeting--and correct
    me, it was unanimous, I and my colleagues, all three, that the
    subject of transmission planning requires better scrutiny.
        But as we engage in those deliberations, it is absolutely
    critical that we keep in mind that all transmission projects,
    the costs are ultimately borne by the ratepayers, and the
    ratepayers should not and by judicial decree cannot be made to
    pay for any more than a roughly commensurate amount based on
    the benefits they received.
        That is to say, the cost of the repair must be roughly
    commensurate to the benefits that they received.
        As we move forward, we have to ensure that we do not enact
    policies that would encourage gold-plating of unnecessary
    transmissions build-out and that we keep cost principles front
    and center.
        There is also the obligation to have a reliable electric
    system, and typically people think of that as being in the
    context of our oversight and approval of NERC, mandatory
    reliability standards, which is to say if the price signals
    produced by our jurisdictional markets do not properly create
    the correct incentives for the entry and retention of the
    correct quantity of generation with the right attributes, we
    are going to have reliability crises like we saw last summer in
    California.
        I know I myself am well aware of the interplay between the
    resource adequacy and market prices.
        And lastly, on the subject of natural gas superstructure,
    we oversee the implementation of the Natural Gas Act, the
    purpose of which is to ensure the orderly development of
    plentiful supplies of natural gas at reasonable prices.
        The Commission is obligated to issue certificates of public
    convenience and necessity to pipeline applicants whose projects
    are needed in the public interest, and as we have recently and
    sadly witnessed, supply constraints of natural gas have very,
    very consequential effects, not just for gas consumers but for
    electric consumers too. When the gas supply fails, it often
    happens that the electric supply fails.
        At the moment, the natural gas industry is facing
    tremendous regulatory uncertainty, and investment in this
    critical infrastructure is chilled as a result of that, and I
    believe it is imperative to discharge the Natural Gas Act that
    FERC establish clear policies by which we will review and
    adjudicate these pipeline applications so that we can attract
    the investment that is needed for this infrastructure.
        Those are just a few points. I wanted to highlight the
    legal obligations that we have that we have to consider in all
    of our deliberations.
        And I very much look forward to the questions from the
    committee.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Danly follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. The gentleman has concluded his opening
    statement. You are making sense.
        The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Allison Clements,
    who is a Commissioner at FERC.
        Commissioner Clements, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF ALLISON CLEMENTS

        Ms. Clements. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Rush,
    Chairman Pallone, Leader Rogers, Ranking Member Upton, and
    members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to be here to
    testify with my colleagues this morning.
        The Commission's core responsibility under the Federal
    Power Act is to ensure affordable, reliable electric services
    for the American public. For decades the Commission has met
    this objective by adapting its regulations to reflect changing
    circumstances, which have included technological advancement,
    shifting economic and market dynamics, and evolving Federal,
    State, and local energy policies.
        While the Commission's adaptation to change is familiar,
    the current magnitude of the challenges driving the need for
    change is unprecedented.
        I believe two major challenges must guide the planning of
    our Nation's electric grid. First, on a discretionary regular
    basis, extreme weather is challenging our electric system in
    extraordinary ways.
        You are very familiar with the record heat, drought, and
    wildfire conditions we are experiencing and blanketing the
    West, as well as the unprecedented extreme cold weather most
    recently experienced in Texas and the central U.S. in February.
        Second, the transmission system is not equipped to
    facilitate the rapidly changing resource mix. The declining
    costs of wind, solar, and hybrid generation are making these
    technologies increasing competitive and the preferred choice
    for States, communities and corporations.
        Fortunately, recent experience has illuminated solutions
    capable of addressing these challenges consistent with the
    Commission's statutory obligations.
        Initially, modernizing the U.S. energy system requires a
    cost-effective buildout of high-voltage transmission. Initial
    analyses of the February cold-weather event and previous polar
    vortex conditions have consistently demonstrated the
    reliability and resilience potential of high-voltage
    transmission investment.
        In addition, all credible studies considering cost-
    effective decarbonization pathways include significant high-
    voltage transmission as a central component.
        Further, establishment of well-designed regional
    transmission organizations is critical to cost-effectively
    serving customers, given these conditions we face.
        While existing RTOs are by no means perfect, geographically
    large grid areas operated by independent entities can improve
    resilience and contribute to reliability while cost-effectively
    integrating increasing amounts of low-cost wind, solar, and
    hybrid generation.
        The need for more effective regional integration is
    especially stark in the West. Earlier this year, a Utah-led
    study demonstrated that an RTO could bring up to $2 billion in
    annual savings to the region by 2030.
        So what is the Commission's role in facilitating these
    solutions? First, the Commission should improve regional and
    in-regional transmission planning processes. As you have heard
    from my colleagues, the Commission's recently issued advanced
    notice of proposed rulemaking examines how wholistic, forward-
    looking planning may save customers money as well as improve
    system reliability and resilience.
        Second, consistent with the Federal Power Act's framework
    of cooperative federalism, the Commission should continue its
    work to enhance State-Federal coordination. The Joint Federal-
    State Transition Task Force the Commission recently approved is
    a great start toward improving engagement and its cooperation.
        This cooperation is also essential in furthering Western
    market integration. To be successful, any Western RTO must be
    designed by Western States for Western States.
        The Commission must respect these States' perspective and
    stand ready to provide guidance and expertise in the process.
        Third, the Commission should continue its work to ensure
    public access by growing the Office of Public Participation.
    Reform cannot succeed unless the public has access and is heard
    in the Commission's decision-making processes.
        We have recently taken this important step of establishing
    the Office of Public Participation, the mission of which is to
    help ensure meaningful access to Commission proceedings for
    those whose communities, property, and pocketbooks are
    implicated by the outcomes of our decisions.
        It has been a great honor to begin service to the American
    public. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Clements follows:\1\]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ms. Clements submitted additional information that has been
    retained in committee files and is attached to her statement at https:/
    /docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210727/113963/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-
    ClementsA-20210727.pdf.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. The Commissioner yields back.
        And now I want to recognize the last Commissioner,
    Commissioner Mark C. Christie, for 5 minutes for the purposes
    of an opening statement.
        Commissioner, you are recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF MARK C. CHRISTIE

        Mr. Christie. Well, thank you, Committee Chairman Pallone
    and Subcommittee Chairman Rush, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers
    and Ranking Member Upton. It really is an honor for me to be
    here.
        This is my first appearance as a FERC regulator, and so I
    cannot thank you enough for this opportunity.
        I want to talk about my two priorities as a FERC regulator
    and what I hope will be FERC's priorities, and I am going to do
    so from the standpoint of someone who before I got to FERC, I
    sent 17 years as a State utility regulator, and so I have a
    perspective that comes from that experience.
        My two top priorities and I would hope would be FERC's top
    two priorities are very similar to the priorities that State
    regulators have. Number one, reliability: Keep the lights on.
    Number two, protect consumers from excessive costs. And this is
    particularly important as we go through what everyone
    acknowledges is a changing general mix in efforts to reduce
    carbon emissions. So I bring priority to reliability and the
    cost issue.
        On reliability, consumers in America expect their lights to
    be on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Now, even
    the best run utilities do not meet that standard because that
    is perfection. Everybody is going to have a transformer blow or
    a tree fall on a line, but if those outages can be restored in
    a matter of minutes or hours, that is a very good system, and
    that is what we ought to be aiming for.
        When the lights go out and the power goes out for days at a
    time, as we saw in Texas in February and California last
    summer, that is not only a threat to convenience. That is also
    a threat to public health and safety.
        So reliability needs to be our job one at FERC, and we do
    it three ways. We, of course, regulate NERC, which sets
    mandatory standards. We regulate transmission planning, and we
    also regulate RTOs, and that is particularly important with
    regard to their capacity markets, which is where they get their
    resource adequacy.
        Now, the issue of cost. The general division between FERC
    and State regulators is that FERC regulates wholesale rates and
    State regulators regulate retail rates. Of course, retail rates
    are what shows up in people's bills. That is what drives
    consumers' monthly bill.
        The one thing I learned sometimes the hard way is, while
    FERC does wholesale rates, what FERC does often dramatically
    affects retail rates. And, again, that is going to affect the
    monthly bills that consumers pay.
        So we need to be extremely sensitive, I think, at all times
    to what are going to be the effects of our actions at FERC on
    retail rates, because that is going to show up in customers'
    monthly bill.
        And with regard to transmission, last week as I mentioned
    we started a process. We call it an ANOPR. We have a lot of
    acronyms in this business. And actually an ANOPR is essentially
    a process to look at the transmission system holistically and
    see what improvements need to be made to promote both
    reliability as well as we have to protect consumer cost at the
    same time.
        And we need to build the transmission that is needed. I
    have sat on many, many transmission cases, approving many
    cases, many transmission projects. If they are needed, they
    need to be built.
        I hope what we do not do is end up promoting transmission
    that is not necessarily needed or does not have cost
    commensurate to the consumer, to the benefit the consumer is
    going to receive.
        If we are not careful, we could end up enabling literally
    trillions of dollars of transmission that is not necessarily
    going to have benefit commensurate to the consumer.
        So, if it is needed, it needs to be built. There are a lot
    of improvements that need to be made in the transmission
    planning process, and so it is good we are embarking on that
    process, but we need to also be very, very sensitive to the
    cost to consumers throughout.
        And with that, I thank you very much, and I look forward to
    any questions you may have.
        And, again, it is an honor to be here for the first time as
    a FERC Commissioner. So I thank you for that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Christie follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        And we have now concluded the opening statements. We will
    now at the same time move to Member questions.
        Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our
    witnesses, and I will begin by recognizing myself for 5
    minutes.
        Chairman Glick, President Biden is working to harness the
    full force of the Federal Government toward tackling climate
    change. This works diligently to advance Federal policies to
    fight climate change in a similar manner.
        Under your leadership, how will FERC play a more active
    role in clearing the transition as well as climate change
    mitigation?
        And how can Congress support FERC in encompassing this
    vital and important work?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much for the question, Chairman
    Rush.
        So FERC is an independent agency. So we do not necessarily
    take our directions from the White House, but I think we react
    to what is going on in the market. As I mentioned earlier in my
    opening testimony, there are a lot of things going on right now
    definitely because of State policies, because of consumer
    preferences, because of utility decisions.
        There is definitely a movement towards cleaner energy,
    zero-emissions energy. There are several roles, one of which is
    that under the Federal Power Act, we are supposed to prevent
    undue discrimination and preference. And so one of our roles, I
    think, is to eliminate barriers to newer technologies.
        A lot of the rules, market rules that were created around
    the country, were created in large part many years ago when
    some of these newer technologies were not necessarily cost
    effective.
        And so what we did and under Chairman Chatterjee's
    leadership with regard to energy storage, we also distributed
    energy resources, which is a good example of that where we got
    rid of barriers, and we are still looking at other barriers
    right now.
        There might be barriers to hybrid projects, for instance,
    both solar and storage, for instance, in some of these projects
    that are coming online today. So that is one.
        Secondly, we have significant authority over the
    transmission grid, and as I mentioned in my testimony, there is
    a significant amount of demand for newer transmission to access
    remotely located renewable resources, for instance, but also to
    improve the reliability of the grid.
        So our goal is not necessarily just to promote transmission
    because it is going to help reduce emissions, but our goal is
    to build the right type of transmission, what is cost effective
    transmission under our authority of the Federal Power Act.
        We know there is going to be demand for transmission
    anyway, significant demand for it, and so it is our job to make
    sure that it is built cost-effectively, efficiently, addresses
    reliability concerns, addresses consumer cost concerns, and so
    that is our particular role as it relates to the current
    transition to the clean energy future.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner Clements, do you agree, and is there something
    you would like to add to this?
        Ms. Clements. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for the important
    question.
        I think I could sum up Chairman Glick's good answer and a
    vote to say the Commission's job is to protect customers and
    ensure reliability as these changes happen, and that is going
    to be a lot of work.
        If you just look at the interconnection queues around the
    country, there are 750 gigawatts of projects in the
    interconnection queues. Seven hundred of those gigawatts are
    wind, solar, or hybrid generation projects.
        If you do not look even beyond the interconnection queue,
    that is where the market is driving us. That is where customer
    preferences and policies are driving us, and it is our job to
    protect customers by looking forward.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Commissioner Clements.
        The June 24, 2021, FERC report states that the Office of
    Public Participation will ensure that, and I quote, ``Tribal
    members, the environmental justice community, and other
    socially marginalized communities are fully and fairly
    considered in the Commission's proceedings.''
        I want to just ask you and also Chairman Glick to comment
    on the Office of Public Participation's important consideration
    of socially marginalized communities to date, and how would it
    continue to support it on these issues in the future?
        Ms. Clements. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        The Office of Public Participation provides an access
    point. It provides an entree to a technical, complex agency for
    people who are implicated by our decision. It is a starting
    point, and it certainly will place an emphasis on disadvantaged
    communities, including designated environmental justice
    communities.
        Mr. Rush. That concludes the chairman's time, and the Chair
    will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Upton, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I know that all of us are troubled by the recent cyber
    attacks, particularly those that are linked to Russia and
    China, on our critical infrastructure. And the ransomware
    attacks on the Colonial Pipeline in May was not a wake-up call.
    We have been sounding the alarm for years on this issue.
        So the public has been learning about that China has been
    hacking our pipelines for over a decade, gaining access to the
    controls of several U.S. natural gas pipeline companies.
        Chairman Glick and others, what authorities does FERC have
    to ensure that these gas pipelines, especially those connected
    to power plants, are secure?
        And what more can we do to provide the tools in the toolbox
    to stop this?
        Mr. Glick. Well, Mr. Upton, first I want to commend you. I
    know that you have been a leader on this issue for a number of
    years now. It is a very important issue.
        Commissioner Chatterjee and I actually wrote an op-ed in
    the Eastern Chronicle several years ago about this very point.
        We have significant authority over the reliability of the
    bulk power system, along with NERC, to establish minimum
    reliability standards, for instance, but the TSA, not FERC, has
    authority over the entire pipeline system in the United States.
        And there have been some concerns. TSA for a number of
    years has relied on voluntary guidance as opposed to the
    mandatory standard approach that we use at FERC, and I do not
    think that that is sufficient, given the threat that you just
    outlined with regard to foreign adversaries in our pipeline
    system.
        To TSA's credit, they did the other day or at least
    announced that they were going to impose mandatory standards on
    some pipelines. I have not had a chance to actually see the
    standards yet. We are going to have to take a look at that.
        Mr. Upton. Others? Former Chairman?
        Mr. Chatterjee. Yes, sir. I think, you know, for me, this
    is a new reality that all of us have to deal with in the energy
    space. The example I use is that, if a missile had taken out
    the Colonial Pipeline, we would very clearly recognize that as
    an act of terrorism or war and know how to respond accordingly.
        Our mindsets are not quite there yet for something like a
    cyber attack taking out critical energy infrastructure, but the
    reality is the economic and national security impact is the
    same as if it were a missile attack, and so I think it is
    incumbent upon all of us to remain vigilant, identify
    regulatory gaps, and work to stay ahead of this.
        Standards are one way to go about it, but it is not the
    only way to go about it. There are other, simpler things that
    we ought to do. For instance, I had a CEO of a natural gas
    pipeline company tell me he was briefed by ODNI at a high level
    that his system was vulnerable, but no one in his company even
    had a high enough security clearance to gain access to the
    classified briefing necessary to know where to make an
    investment in their system.
        These kinds of things are easily remedied, and we need to
    find ways to ensure that the private sector where these
    executives now find themselves on the front lines of 21st
    Century warfare--I do not think that is a hyperbolic statement.
    That is the reality of protecting critical infrastructure
    today, and we need to work together.
        Mr. Upton. Indeed, just a quick followup before we go to
    Commissioner Danly. So do you think that that is an inherent
    problem with many in the industry, that they do not have enough
    people at the classified level to be able to figure this thing
    out?
        Mr. Chatterjee. There is no question that access to
    clearances has been an issue. It is something that has been
    frustrating to me throughout my tenure at the Commission. We
    have taken some steps in this area.
        FERC has never previously had a seat at the Intelligence
    Committee table. We now have intelligence capabilities. We are
    building a SCIF at the agency to have classified information.
        And we are now able to do one-day read-ins so people,
    necessary stakeholders, can get access to this critical
    information.
        Mr. Upton. OK. Commissioner Danly?
        Mr. Danly. Yes, it has been a problem for a long time, and
    over the last few years our Office of Energy Infrastructure
    Security has done a tremendous job in employing the
    Commission's convening authority to have discussions with as
    many people as possible [audio malfunction] directly related to
    our legal authority. So I think it has been a beneficial
    program that OEIS has been conducting.
        We also have interactions with CISA and the EISEC. These
    are, again, convening authority undertakings in which the
    industry has tossed up challenges that are being faced by
    everybody in common.
        We do not have particularly profound legal powers to do
    things in this realm, and as an economic regulator in multiple
    numbers of bodies, I am not sure that something that is as fast
    paced and moving as cybersecurity really is perfectly well-
    suited to us as an agency.
        But certainly it is something that needs to be dealt with
    by the government generally.
        Mr. Upton. Yes. I know my time has expired. So we can get
    comments maybe in writing from [inaudible]. That would be
    terrific.
        My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee
    for 5 minutes for questioning the witnesses.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        My question is kind of a followup to what Mr. Upton said. I
    know that, Chairman Glick, you and Commissioner Clements issued
    a statement after the Colonial Pipeline attack calling for
    mandatory cybersecurity standards for pipelines.
        Let me ask you, Chairman Glick. Can you elaborate on why
    you think mandatory cybersecurity standards for pipelines are
    necessary and whether you believe the American public would
    also benefit from other types of pipeline reliability standards
    similar to those that govern the electric industry?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Yes, I do agree that I think we need to have mandatory
    reliability standards, cybersecurity- and not cybersecurity-
    related on OMV with regard to the natural gas pipeline system.
        You know, again, mandatory standards are necessarily a
    minimum floor. They are not necessarily the end all and be all.
    We may need to do additional work beyond that. But, in fact, I
    think it has worked out very well in the electric sector in the
    sense that we have utilities, all other extensions above power
    systems or at least meeting minimum standards, and we saw a
    good example with Texas this past winter.
        Because they did not have any mandatory standards, they
    just had guidance as to whether they should winterize or not.
    We saw what happened when utilities and other generators only
    have guidance they do not necessarily have to follow.
        And so I think it is important from a cybersecurity
    perspective, but important from a reliability perspective
    because, again, we have authority over the bulk power system,
    but if a pipeline goes out or two pipelines go out, it can have
    significant adverse impacts on the bulk electric system, and I
    think there is just a mismatch between the mandatory standards
    that the electric industry follows and the voluntary guidance
    that the pipeline industry currently follows.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        I wanted to mention something relative to my State. About a
    month ago, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities approved
    the Nation's largest combined offshore window award to
    construct a total 2,658 megawatts of wind capacity, and I think
    this is going to create a lot of jobs and economic benefits to
    New Jersey.
        But I recognize there are challenges to constructing the
    transmission infrastructure necessary to accommodate a large
    increase in offshore wind, and that FERC explored these issues
    during a technical conference last year.
        So can I ask you again, Chairman Glick, can you help us
    understand what these transmission-related challenges are and
    what Congress can do to help ensure that this necessary
    infrastructure gets built in an efficient and cost-effective
    manner to achieve our clean-energy goals?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, as I understand it, there are about 30,000
    megawatts of planned offshore wind facilities that are
    currently in the process through the government bidding system
    already, and so we did have a technical conference on this
    issue.
        We also actually addressed this issue or we tried to
    address this issue in our advanced notice of proposed
    rulemaking that we proposed a couple of weeks ago asking a
    number of questions in this area.
        But, in particular, I think the issue has to do with
    planning. We currently plan for transmission trying to figure
    out what generation plan is about to be built, but we do not do
    any long-term planning.
        Again, we know there is going to be 30,000 megawatts at
    least of offshore wind off the Eastern United States, but we do
    not plan the grid for that. So that would be number-one area I
    think we need to focus on, is having a better improved planning
    system to make sure we know what is out there.
        We know the offshore wind is going to get built. How do we
    build the transmission grid to access that energy and bring it
    onshore?
        Mr. Pallone. Yes. I mean, that is really important and, you
    know, a challenge because I know the State, you know, has very
    ambitious plans over the next 10 years, and I am very happy to
    hear that they are.
        One more question. This deals with the Natural Gas Act. The
    current regulatory regime fails to adequately account for
    climate change, and you know, we drafted the Clean Future Act
    in the committee, which I mentioned, but FERC has the authority
    to address these climate issues without further legislative
    action as part of the three considerations of the 1999
    certificate policy statement.
        Can you commit to take a hard look at how the Commission
    can better protect landowners and State interests in this
    certification process, and also whether the Commission should
    revive this methodology for determining the need for a proposed
    project and whether it is in the public interest?
        Mr. Glick. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        So first, with regard to greenhouse gas emissions
    associated with the pipeline, not only do we have the
    authority, actually the DC Circuit has told us on several
    occasions that we actually have to examine the impact of a
    proposed project on greenhouse gas emissions and climate
    change.
        We have not done that historically. Actually we did. The
    Commission just recently, a couple of months ago, actually
    moved in that direction and, thanks to Commissioner Clements
    and Commissioner Chatterjee, we ended up building out an order
    that actually does that.
        And I think we will be exploring those issues in our notice
    of inquiry, as you mentioned. But there is a whole variety of
    other issues that have arisen over the 20 years since the
    policy statement was first issued in 1999, and we asked a
    series of question in the notice of inquiry, and we intend to
    act on it hopefully relatively soon.
        But very important issues such as you mentioned, landowner
    protection. Landowners right now do not have enough insight
    into the process that we currently use.
        And, more importantly, you mentioned on the issue of need.
    The DC Circuit just held a couple of weeks ago that you cannot
    just rely on pressing agreements, contracts between affiliates,
    to determine whether a project is needed or not, which is
    required under the Natural Gas Act.
        So one of the areas that we are looking into is how do we
    assess need beyond just pressing agreements between affiliated
    companies, and that is something I am very much committed to.
    The court told us we need to address it, and I am hoping that
    we can address this notice of increased proceeding and get it
    moving toward the new policy statement relatively soon.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burgess for 5 minutes for
    questioning.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        To Mr. Glick, let me stay with you for a minute along the
    lines of what Chairman Pallone was just asking.
        How are you increasing visibility for the landowner,
    whether it be for a transmission line or for a pipeline?
        What do you have underway so that people know what is over
    the horizon?
        Mr. Glick. Well, one area through our new Office of Public
    Participation, what we will be doing, we just established the
    office. It is reaching out to landowners and essentially
    providing them with an opportunity to understand how to
    intervene in our proceedings, how to participate. Obviously,
    they have very important interests that are affected by our
    proceedings, especially when there is eminent domain involved,
    and so one of the things we are doing is reaching out to them
    to encourage them and help them figure out a way to intervene
    in our proceedings.
        Again, we are not going to take their side one way or
    another, but we are going to help them participate.
        But secondly, we recently issued an order in which we said,
    OK, when the issue of certificate of public community accepts
    under the law the pipeline developer automatically gets the
    right of eminent domain after that, but that is even before the
    landowner or anybody else affected by the pipeline gets to
    litigate the issue.
        Now, we said what we are going to do is we are going to
    hold onto the certificate statement and not issue until the
    landowner or anybody else has the right to pursue their
    resharing responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act at FERC,
    and then they can go to court and have their day in court
    because somebody takes it by eminent domain and starts building
    on it.
        Mr. Burgess. So I'm from Texas, and we have a situation
    there where the wind farms out in West Texas produce the energy
    and the people live 250 miles east of there, my district in
    Dallas, and they are the ones that need the energy.
        So my district sits between the wind farms and the people
    who need the energy. So we have seen a lot of building. Most of
    these, my understanding, have been under State jurisdiction,
    under what I think is called the competitive renewable energy
    zone process, but I do know it has been particularly painful
    for a number of constituents when faced with those types of
    decisions, and it is always tough, and people feel like they
    have not had an opportunity to be heard.
        But what I'm hearing you saying today is you're going to
    try to make an effort to improve on the visibility of that
    process?
        Mr. Glick. Both the visibility and also the ability to have
    your day in court, essentially, before your land is taken under
    eminent domain.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, let me ask you this. When you have to
    work with a number of other agencies when you site a facility
    or a project, do you have any success in holding those other
    agencies to a schedule, or are you at the mercy as any other
    litigant would be?
        Mr. Glick. So it depends on the process. So, for instance,
    we site natural gas, so interstate natural gas pipeline. We
    also site hydroelectric license through our licensing process,
    site hydroelectric facilities.
        In interstate natural gas pipelines, we do accept
    schedules. We are the lead agency in that particular process.
    Other agencies have certainly input, but I think our process
    works, moves relatively quickly because we do establish
    deadlines, and for the most part other agencies follow that.
        And the licensing process, the hydro licensing process is a
    different story. Other agencies have mandatory conditioning
    authority. These processes take forever, and sometimes the
    licensing process takes 10 years, even longer.
        And we do not have really the ability to tell the Interior
    Department or Commerce Department, for instance, ``You have to
    get your conditions in by such-and-such date,'' which is
    lengthening that particular process.
        Mr. Burgess. So have you any ideas on how the permitting
    process might be improved?
        Mr. Glick. Well, I know there are proposals out there, for
    instance, to help facilitate other resource agency
    participation or hydro process.
        For instance, currently there is a question about whether
    our proceedings would involve an ex parte requirement or a
    limitation on other agencies participating in our proceeding.
        I know there have been proposals that have been floated in
    the past, including in this particular Congress, that would
    allow other agencies to participate in our proceedings without
    worrying about ex parte restrictions, and I think that would
    help move along the process more efficiently.
        Mr. Burgess. So is there anything you look to the
    legislative branch to produce for you that could improve the
    speed and transparency of permitting some of these energy
    projects?
        Mr. Glick. So I think, on the hydroelectric side, I do
    think if Congress could provide the authority or authorize
    other agencies to participate in our proceedings without
    worrying about ex parte communications, that would be helpful.
    We cannot do that without congressional action.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 9
    seconds. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. I thank the gentleman for yielding back 9
    seconds.
        The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks for all of the Commissioners for your service and
    for being here today. I did want to say I appreciate the
    comment about the superiority of carbon pricing to State
    governments picking subsidies. I think the planet will be way
    better off the sooner we realize that, and I appreciate that.
        So thanks for singing my song.
        I want to talk about something else today, though. So I
    want to talk about interstate transmission, which is integral
    to solving several interrelated challenges I think we have
    heard about today, including resilience of our energy systems,
    maintaining our national security, reducing cost for consumers.
        And, just in the past couple of months, we have seen power
    crises that have revealed the vulnerabilities in our existing
    systems in Texas and in California, and while each event is
    unique, the extreme weather that exacerbated both is only going
    to get more common due to climate change.
        And we know this too well in the American West with heat
    waves and drought already stressing our communities.
        I wanted to point out that a report from the American
    Council on Renewable Energy found that each additional gigawatt
    of transmission capacity connecting the Texas power grid with
    neighboring States could have saved nearly $1 billion and kept
    the heat on for approximately 200,000 Texas homes during the
    winter Storm Uri in February of last year.
        So I think it is very clear we have to act quickly and
    effectively to build out interstate transmission for purposes
    of dealing with climate, building a clean-energy economy,
    increasing our resiliency, and lowering consumer cost.
        I introduced a bill to clarify FERC's backstop citing
    authority for more interstate transmission projects, the POWER
    ON Act, that would accelerate the buildout of clean energy,
    increase our reliability, lower the cost of electricity.
        It has been endorsed by e-groups including Americans for
    Clean Energy Grid, the American Clean Power Association, and
    the American Council on Renewable Energy.
        Chairman Glick, you may or may not want to comment on that
    particular approach, but I did want you to tell me what you
    think are the major obstacles to the buildout of interstate
    high-voltage transmission.
        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Mr. Peters.
        I think there are really three major impediments to the
    development of additional transmission to the grid. One of them
    is deciding the situation, as you mentioned. In some cases,
    some States have been more proactive than others in approving
    siting, and when you're building a transmission line crossing
    two or more States, sometimes that is difficult to coordinate
    among the various States
        Secondly, and as you noted, that role is primarily the role
    of the States and not the Federal Government. The other two
    impediments, though, are, I think, things we have authority
    over today, one of which is planning.
        As I mentioned earlier, I think there is an issue with
    regard to our transmission planning process. We are not looking
    to the future. You know the generation that is going to get
    built. Commissioner Clements mentioned 93 percent while the
    generation in the interconnection queue currently are wind and
    solar.
        And so we know it is going to get built. We know
    essentially where it is, but when we are planning for
    transmission, we are looking at what is the next-generation
    project that is going to be built as opposed to what as a whole
    is going to get built. And that has been a big impediment, and
    we are addressing that in our ANOPR process.
        And third, cost allocation. Everyone wants transmission to
    be built, and no one wants to pay for it. I think everyone is
    clear about that, but our job is to allocate cost in a manner
    that transmission costs are roughly commensurate with benefits.
        And the concern there is that in the past, when we looked
    at some of our cost allocation approaches, we have been looking
    at are you getting power on the line. If you are, you are a
    beneficiary. If you are not getting power on the line, you are
    not.
        But the fact is, these transmission assets provide
    significant benefits elsewhere. So, for instance, it reduces
    congestion. Even if you are not getting power from that line,
    it is bringing in cheaper power elsewhere or increases
    reliability, enhances resilience.
        I just want to quickly mention. You mentioned Texas.
        Mr. Peters. Yes, let me follow up to that because I only
    have a short time left.
        You know, Commissioner Clements mentioned the importance of
    good planning process, which is great, but if we do not build
    stuff, it does not matter. It does not matter to the plan. It
    does not matter to the consumer. It does not matter to
    resiliency.
        You said that first point was outside of your particular
    jurisdiction. What does Congress need to do to get you in a
    place or get us in a place where we see these lines built?
        Mr. Glick. So it is primarily out of our jurisdiction. We
    currently have backstop siting authority today. The
    transmission line is planned, and it is part of a grid corridor
    that the DOE designated.
        The courts have ruled that backstop siting authority only
    applies in the case where a State doesn't act at all. If the
    State says no, that backstop is where it does not provide----
        Mr. Peters. That can be corrected by statute, can it not?
        Mr. Glick. Excuse me?
        Mr. Peters. That could be corrected by statute?
        Mr. Glick. Absolutely. I think your bill does that very
    thing.
        Mr. Peters. I just want to say I appreciate your work, and
    I intend to see that we can make sure that we provide the
    authority to you so that, when States and Tribes and everybody
    cannot get off the dime--there is a national interest in
    getting these projects built, and I think that is on us and you
    have made that clear today, and I look forward to addressing
    that problem with you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. I appreciate that.
        And also thank you very much for today's hearing and for
    all of the Commissioners for either being with us in person or
    virtually today. We really appreciate that.
        Chairman Glick, my first question is to you, and kind of,
    again, in the background of my district, well over 60,000
    manufacturing jobs. We make everything there from glass to
    steel to a central foundry with General Motors. We make tires.
    We make furniture. We have the largest food processing plant in
    the world, which is located in my district.
        One of the issues that I have been concerned about is the
    need to prepare the electric grid to withstand emergencies that
    threaten normal operations, particularly the threat of cyber
    attacks.
        I know that some of the questions a little bit earlier had
    been dealing with pipelines, and we are very concerned with
    pipelines, but on the electric side, you know, the House
    recently passed legislation that I wrote with my good friend
    from California, Mr. McNerney, to address cyber attacks on the
    gid infrastructure, and I believe we need to continue to look
    for ways to improve the grid's resilience.
        Will you provide your thoughts on grid resilience, how we
    can define it and what we can do to protect the electric grid
    against, you know, current and future cyber attacks?
        Mr. Glick. So, with regard to the definition of grid
    resilience, you know, my definition--the Commission had this
    issue pending before us for a couple of years, and we came out
    with an actual definition, but it is essentially, in my
    opinion, essentially being prepared for events that are not
    necessarily going to happen very frequently but could have
    terrific effects, and I think that is what we all need to be
    prepared for from a grid perspective.
        With regard to cybersecurity, there is no doubt that that
    is the biggest threat in the electric grid today, is
    cybersecurity, and you open up the paper every day and there
    are all sorts of stories about whether it be ransomware or
    attacks from nation states or so on, and from our perspective,
    we attack that particular issue twofold.
        One, with our NERC process, we actually establish mandatory
    minimum standard through what we call the six standard
    approach, which I think is very helpful in getting utilities to
    make the investments they need to make on cybersecurity.
        But secondly, we work with other government agencies, we
    work with industries, we work with other think tanks and so on,
    and we essentially help develop a dialogue between industry and
    between government, between NERC, for instance, and try to
    encourage them to make additional investments but also be aware
    of the threats that are occurring.
        Obviously, we know the threats evolve almost every day. We
    try to stay on it through that ongoing dialogue.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Commissioner Christie, do you have any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Christie. Well, I incorporate my reference to what
    Chairman Glick said and former Chairman Chatterjee on
    cybersecurity.
        I know FERC has got a division which has got tremendous
    expertise on the question of cybersecurity, and I know they
    worked with TSA on TSA's regulations that they issued last
    week.
        I said before that, while mandatory standards are fine, the
    attack on the Colonial Pipeline, if it was a state actor it was
    an act of war, and if it was a nonstate actor it was an act of
    terrorism, and so the response needs to be commensurate to that
    threat.
        And mandatory standards are fine. Again, I think I said
    earlier, FERC is an economic regulator, and our authority is
    limited, and our expertise--which is outstanding in the
    cybersecurity area--it is still limited.
        So I think when you look at what happened in Colonial
    Pipeline, the seriousness of that really demands a response
    much higher than an economic regulator such as FERC.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        Commissioner Chatterjee, when you were the Chairman, you
    prioritized grid resilience and reliability, and you opened a
    docket at FERC to review proposals to strengthen the grid.
        In your view, why is it important for FERC to examine that
    grid resilience, and why did you oppose the move to close the
    docket?
        Mr. Chatterjee. Yes, look. It is a real issue, and it is
    one that is or I think going to be a challenge that needs to be
    addressed in a clear-eyed way.
        I bear some culpability for why the resilience docket moved
    the way it did. When I first came to the Commission, I publicly
    admitted I struggled at first to make the transition from
    partisan legislative aide to independent regulator. I had just
    come from spending a decade of my career working for Leader
    McConnell on behalf of coal communities in Kentucky.
        And the manner in which I handled Secretary Perry, DOE,
    NOPR on grid resilience, I did not handle it well, and it added
    this element of politics to what is a real issue.
        And so I am hopeful now, while I was frustrated the
    Commission closed the original resilience docket, I was
    encouraged that a new docket was opened, called something
    different, but essentially looking at the same issue.
        And perhaps after I depart the Commission and this element
    of politics that I unfortunately injected into it is removed,
    the Commission and my colleagues can work together with the
    staff on what is a serious issue.
        Mr. Latta. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
    time has expired, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair is now recognizing the gentleman from New
    York, chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee, Mr. Tonko,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and thank you,
    Chairman Glick and Commissioners, for your testimony.
        I agree this is a critical moment for FERC because our
    energy system is rapidly changing, and we need our Federal
    regulators to be nimble enough to keep up with these
    developments while ensuring we maintain reliable and affordable
    energy services.
        Chairman Glick, I am very glad to see the Commission is
    examining trends in Commission policy head on. I know that will
    not be an easy task, but is essential to the success of a rapid
    and cost-effective energy transition.
        Is it your sense that there are low-cost emission resources
    that could be competing in electricity markets but for a lack
    of adequate transmission infrastructure?
        Mr. Glick. I think there is no doubt that is the case.
    There are many projects that have been canceled, clean-energy
    projects that have been canceled because they are some distance
    from the grid, and not insufficient amounts were available to
    transport that to load centers.
        Mr. Tonko. And the planning process has been a significant
    barrier for interregional transmission.
        How does the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
    consider the need for improved interregional planning?
        Mr. Glick. We definitely need improved interregional
    transmission planning process, and the ANOPR asks a number of
    questions about it, but in particular there's essentially a
    triple hurdle right now.
        If you are building a transmission line between two regions
    that have to be approved by one region, then it has to be
    approved by another region, and it has to be approved by the
    regions jointly, and that is just too bureaucratic. It takes
    too much time. It is too costly.
        And so we are trying to figure out a way to streamline the
    process, because it is very important. You do not go into
    regional transmission--as we mentioned earlier about Texas, if
    they were able to access power from other parts of the country,
    I am not sure that they would have been able to avoid all
    blackouts, but certainly the situation would be less dire.
        Mr. Tonko. And why has cost allocation been such a barrier
    to transmission development?
        Mr. Glick. Well, because sometimes these projects can be
    very expensive, and if you subject a particular small set of
    customers to having to pay for the cost of a bigger
    transmission project, that sometimes fails under its own
    weight.
        I will give you an example. We talked about the
    interconnection queue. Currently, with regard to projects, when
    you have a generation project in the interconnection queue, you
    have to pay for the network upgrade, essentially cooperative
    funding, and you require the generation to pay the full cost of
    building out the transmission grid to be able to access that
    new generation facility.
        The problem is there are a lot of other folks who benefit
    from that particular new transmission investment as well, and
    they do not take that into account, and that actually delays
    the ability and sometimes it's too costly for new generation to
    be built because they have to pay the full amount.
        Mr. Tonko. And in the past have some projects' benefits
    been considered on a very narrow basis, even if those projects
    supported achieving a State's policy requirements or reducing
    air pollution?
        Mr. Glick. Well, we require those type of projects in our
    regional planning process. The cost allocation methodology that
    each particular region comes up with on their own.
        But in the past it has actually stunted the development of
    transmission because sometimes it is difficult for a region to
    agree on a particular transmission cost allocation approach
    when you take such a narrow view of the way we have allocated
    cost in the past.
        Mr. Tonko. And what is the advanced notice of proposed
    rulemaking considering for cost allocation?
        Mr. Glick. Again, we ask a number of questions with regard
    to cost allocation, but we ask in particular--and we are hoping
    to get a number of comments about this--that in particular, are
    there better ways to assess benefits.
        Again, as Commission Danly mentioned, we have to allocate
    costs roughly commensurate with benefits as the courts have
    told us, but we ask for input as to what those benefits might
    be beyond just, again, receiving power on a particular line.
        Mr. Tonko. And while transmission is critical, we would be
    remiss if there are also barriers to emerging technologies,
    such as storage and distributed energy generation resources.
        Much of the Commission's work on these issues has been
    bipartisan, and credit Commissioner Chatterjee for his
    leadership on these orders.
        Commissioner Glick or Commissioner Chatterjee, can you
    provide us an update on the implementation of Orders 841 and
    2222?
        Mr. Glick. So with regard to 841, we are currently in the
    compliance process. So we have had a number published in the
    various RTOs around the country, and we are actually nearing
    the end of the compliance process there.
        It is a little too soon to tell. We expect there is going
    to be substantial additional investments in storage, but I
    think we are waiting for the compliance process to conclude.
        In Order 2222, regarding distributed energy resources, that
    compliance process is actually just beginning. So, again, a
    little too soon, but a lot of folks suggest there is going to
    be significant investments in those technologies.
        Mr. Tonko. And how are RTOs beginning to respond to the
    orders?
        And have they been successful in driving market design
    changes to enable these technologies to compete fully?
        Mr. Glick. A number of RTOs, especially with regard to
    storage, have submitted their compliance programs. Some of
    those programs, some of those processes are still ongoing with
    regard to proceedings before the Commission.
        But I think the RTOs have tried to amend their market rules
    in a way that would facilitate those bigger projects consistent
    with what the Commission requires them to do.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, I thank you very much, and with that, Mr.
    Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mrs. Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is good to see everybody.
        Hydropower is an essential component of an all-of-the-above
    energy portfolio, and it is clean, it is renewable, it is
    reliable in the Pacific Northwest, where we have an abundant
    supply of hydropower.
        We have reliable energy. We have some of the lowest
    electricity costs in the country, and there is a tremendous
    opportunity to expand hydropower in our region and across the
    country.
        Hydro relicensing, though, or licensing itself, can last
    over a decade--over 10 years--and it costs tens of millions of
    dollars. And when you compare that to other forms of electric
    generation, it will be significantly less time for others.
        So, Chairman Glick, as the lead agency, what is FERC doing
    to streamline the licensing process to bring more certainty and
    predictability to this process?
        Mr. Glick. Well, as you mentioned, hydropower provides an
    enormous number of benefits, including zero-emissions
    technology, low cost. It includes reliability. It also
    increases the ability to efficiently integrate weather-
    dependent renewable energy, such as solar and wind.
        Our hydroelectric process, Congress has on several
    occasions made changes to try to improve it and certainly has
    accelerated the process somewhat. It is still a lengthy process
    because it requires the involvement of a bunch of different
    agencies, and we do not necessarily have control over what
    those particular resources agencies are doing in that
    particular part of the process.
        I would say with regard and under your leadership, I know
    Congressman Scott was briefed a couple of years ago on
    nonhydropower or dams that are not currently or are
    nonhydropowered. I think we have had estimates from the
    Department of Energy that you get an additional 50 gigawatts of
    hydropower just if you develop power at nonpowered dams.
        So, pursuant to the legislation, we have issued regulations
    that would essentially help facilitate a much more speedy
    process with the name of 2 years to license those particular
    projects.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Those were the smaller projects.
        Mr. Glick. Yes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. The number of hydropower projects requiring
    Federal relicensing is expected to double in the coming decade.
    So what steps is FERC taking to improve and streamline the
    licensing process to prevent unnecessary delays?
        Mr. Glick. So I think over the years we have actually tried
    to improve the process, tried to bring in other agencies.
        I mentioned earlier I think it would be helpful to have
    additional authority from Congress to enable the resource
    agencies to participate in our particular proceedings so they
    are not considered ex parte communications.
        But we have had a number of improvements over the years,
    minor improvements, but I think the process is still way too
    long.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Well, I think it is important to strengthen
    the licensing process and remove unnecessary licensing and
    market barriers, the next-generation hydropowered technology.
        I would like to ask if you would commit to working with
    Congress to make improvements to the licensing process and
    barriers to advance hydropower deployment.
        Mr. Glick. Absolutely. We would definitely do that.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        Many current congressional and administration proposals to
    appear to involve one-size-fits-all clean electricity mandates
    to decarbonize the grid at a rapid pace. National mandates, I
    believe, are really going to harm regions with different energy
    mixes.
        The American Southeast, for example, also has low
    electricity process in part because of the abundant fossil
    energy, coal, and gas as well as nuclear, and a good record on
    reliability.
        Imposing national mandates may intensify reliability risk
    and raise energy burdens on people in areas across the country,
    including the Southwest.
        So, to Mr. Christie and Mr. Danly, I was struck by your
    testimony about looking after ratepayer interest and the role
    of reliable, affordable energy.
        So would you just state how you approach FERC's mission and
    the interest of ratepayers and State regulators in your
    regulation of markets and transmission and the challenges that
    you see?
        Mr. Christie. I will let Mr. Danly go first. He outranks
    me.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
        Mr. Danly. Thank you.
        So I appreciate the question.
        We have to keep in mind that, regardless of what part FERC
    plays in what has been described today as the transition of the
    electric system, fundamentally what FERC's duties are are to be
    an economic regulator.
        Section 205 of the Federal Power Act specifies that rates
    have to be just and reasonable, and it is with that fundamental
    purpose that all of our actions have to be taken.
        If Federal mandates come down and Congress creates that
    particular program to be available, whether there through
    incentives for spending or particular methods by which FERC has
    to discharge its duties, we will of course act with alacrity to
    all of those congressional mandates.
        But as the law stands today, we have to look out for
    ratepayer interest when we set wholesale rates.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Doyle, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank you and the ranking member for holding
    the hearing today and thank our witnesses.
        And, Commissioner Chatterjee, thank you for your service on
    the Commission, and we all wish you well.
        As we continue to decarbonize the electric grid, I hope
    FERC will continue to be proactive and flexible in its approach
    to building out a grid with more distributed resources and in
    recognizing the benefits of innovative technologies.
        I am also encouraged by FERC's efforts to finally establish
    an Office of Public Participation, as well as efforts to
    prepare for and combat cyber attacks on our energy
    infrastructure. This is of vital importance, and I am glad that
    FERC along with this committee is committed to ensuring the
    safety of our energy system.
        Chairman Glick, FERC has done a great job keeping pace with
    technological advancement in the energy storage industry with
    Order 841 and Order 2222. However, sometimes market operators
    have asked for delays in compliance with both orders, and while
    I certainly do not want to impact system reliability by rushing
    changes, it is not clear to me whether the market operators are
    actually dedicating the needed resources to be compliant.
        What do you plan to do if market operators fail to meet
    these compliance deadlines?
        Do you think these delays are warranted?
        Mr. Glick. In some cases the RTOs have come to us and said
    that they need to make significant changes in their software,
    and then sometimes it takes some time to do that and we have in
    some cases granted extensions.
        But to the extent that we do not believe the extension
    requests are warranted in terms of the time that is requested,
    we have actually denied some.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Long-duration energy storage like zinc air batteries
    manufactured in my district by Eos Energy Storage, are going to
    be part of the electric system in the future.
        Even after Order 841, I am hearing concerns from industry
    members that wholesale power market design still does not value
    the reliability contributions of energy storage.
        Can you tell me what FERC is doing to examine continuing
    regulatory barriers to storage?
        Mr. Glick. I agree with you. I think the market designs
    were established under a different set of resource mix, and in
    particular the effluent services markets do not necessarily
    value the benefits that flexible generation provides.
        We know that we are going to have a significant amount of
    both intermittent solar and intermittent wind generation on the
    grid, but that means we are going to need additional flexible
    resources to deal with intermittency.
        The problem is we do not necessarily value. We do not
    provide value. We do not compensate resources for that type of
    value.
        So I think storage facilities are the perfect example, but
    we have to have a proceeding underway. We have a technical
    conference coming up in a couple of weeks on this very issue to
    examine potential changes to our employee services and energy
    markets to address the need to reward and incentivize
    flexibility.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Let me ask you. FERC recently received reports from PJM and
    other prior markets on how their rules address integrated
    storage and generation resources, also known as hybrid
    resources.
        Do you think that updating the rules for hybrid resources
    is a priority?
        Mr. Glick. We have an ongoing proceeding to do just that,
    and when Commissioner Chatterjee was the Chair of the
    Commission, we had a technical conference on this very issue.
    It is a very important issue.
        As I mentioned before, our role is to get rid of barriers
    to these newer technologies. That is one of our important
    roles, and I think Hybrid technology is one that we are looking
    at and the comments we are receiving in that docket right now
    and trying to figure out what to do next.
        But I agree that we need to address some of the market
    disincentives to hybrid technology.
        Mr. Doyle. Glad to hear that.
        Commissioner Clements, as I mentioned, I am pleased that
    FERC is finally creating an Office of Public Participation.
    What specifically does FERC intend to do to ensure that the
    public and especially affected landholders have the ability to
    share their thoughts and be involved in decision making?
        Will you hold, you know, community-based meetings or
    provide a guide with clear explanation of relevant terms or
    employ field officers that liaison with landowners over
    specific pipeline issues?
        What are some of the things that you are going to be doing
    in that process?
        Ms. Clements. Thank you, Representative Doyle.
        Hopefully, all of the above. I know members of this
    committee have done good work on public access, and certainly
    you have a perspective on landowner concerns.
        By providing an access point at the Commission that
    provides education, mutual information about how to participate
    in proceedings, those landowners, community people who are
    implicated by either infrastructure decisions the Commission
    makes or by rate decisions the Commission makes, have the
    ability to understand how to get into the docket.
        Once they are in the docket, then their voices are on the
    record, they are heard, and the Commission's decisions will
    then be more well informed and, therefore, more durable and
    less vulnerable to litigation.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        And now the chairman recognizes the gentleman from West
    Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to change horses just a little bit on this. There
    was an article that came out today from E&E News talking about
    the decision that you all made back in March with the Northern
    Natural Gas, and in part it says it took an unprecedented step
    earlier this year in assessing the proposed natural gas
    pipeline affecting climate change for the first time ever.
        And I read the 45-page report, and there were a couple of
    remarks that were made in there that I thought were
    interesting. I think, in part, it was Chatterjee, Commissioner,
    you said that ``FERC is not an environmental regulator. We have
    neither the expertise nor the authority to weigh in on how to
    best curb emission.''
        And Commissioner Danly said, ``whether project emissions
    will have a significant effect on climate change is not within
    our expertise of FERC. The regulation of air emissions,
    including greenhouse gas emissions, is assigned to the Clean
    Air Act, not the NGA, and that authority is relegated to the
    EPA, not FERC.''
        So I am curious. By taking these unprecedented actions, I
    am assuming by extensions you could deny a pipeline to be
    constructed.
        And so my question with that would be--and maybe it is back
    to you, Chairman Glick: If that is true, that you could--what
    level of CO2 emissions is going to be acceptable
    from a natural gas power plant?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much for the question, Mr.
    McKinley.
        With regard to the Natural Gas Act, we are required to make
    two findings in order to----
        Mr. McKinley. Please.
        Mr. Glick. OK.
        Mr. McKinley. What is the level?
        Because you can determine that it makes a significant
    increase in emissions. So, therefore, you are going to deny the
    pipeline. So I am trying to figure out, since you do not know.
    From everything I have read so far, you do not have a
    determination. You do not have metrics on that.
        What is it that you think would be the appropriate level of
    CO2 emissions out of a gas-fired power plant that
    would allow you to approve a pipeline?
        Mr. Glick. So the DC Circuit has twice told us that we
    actually have to assess these foreseeable greenhouse gas
    emissions. So we are trying to do that.
        Obviously, we have disagreements among the Commissioners as
    to what level might be significant.
        From my perspective, I do not want to prejudge the matter,
    because it is currently being litigated at FERC. And, again, we
    actually examine all sorts of environmental issues as opposed
    to a proposed pipeline that include other emission issues of
    NOx and SOx, for instance, and so we actually have the ability,
    and not only that, more importantly, we have what the courts
    have told us.
        Mr. McKinley. So you are saying the other two Commissioners
    misspoke by saying that you did not have the expertise?
        Mr. Glick. Yes, I disagree with that. We actually have
    the----
        Mr. McKinley. That is fine, that is fine. You want to split
    your panel.
        So now my question would be, since it went through Virginia
    and other States that are trying to get involved in LNG
    exports, how will you judge that?
        In a pipeline that is LNG to be exported to another nation,
    do you have the framework?
        So what are the metrics you are going to use to measure
    whether or not that gas in an LNG pipeline to England, for
    example? Could you disapprove that if you think they are going
    to burn our natural gas in England inappropriately?
        Mr. Glick. The question is, we do not have authority to
    look at downstream emissions with regard to LNG facilities.
    That is for the Department of Energy to judge.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. So that does not come in.
        So the other part of this is, I guess, in closing quickly,
    I thought our whole mission here was to try to find ways of
    reducing CO2 emissions so that we could teach China,
    India, Indonesia, and others how to clean up their
    environments, since we know that 23--or the 25 worst cities in
    emissions are coming from those Asian nations.
        So by virtue of us stopping gas pipelines in America by
    using a very subjective determination that has not yet been--
    you are already disagreeing with two of your members.
        So if that is it, what are we going to export?
        How are we going to teach India, China?
        Are we going to tell them they have to shut off their gas
    pipelines too?
        I do not know whether this is a transferrable technology.
    This seems like more a bureaucratic issue.
        Mr. Glick. Well, again, that is the Department of Energy to
    decide whether it is in the public interest.
        I would say, though, Mr. McKinley--and I agree that, when
    we actually consider the greenhouse gas with the project, we
    need to consider it on a net basis.
        So, for instance, if that pipeline is actually helping to
    reduce emissions by shutting down an older coal plant, for
    instance, or something like that, we need to net that out and
    take that into account as well in terms of our analysis.
        It is my belief the Commission is still coming up with its
    framework for figuring this all out.
        Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I am sorry I went
    over time.
        Mr. Rush. [Inaudible.]
        Mr. McNerney. So I guess I will recognize myself since I
    was the next one in line?
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair.
        I thank the Commissioners for your testimony and for your
    service in this critical industry.
        Extreme weather events have gotten more common across the
    country, and grid operators have struggled to deliver reliable
    power to its customers. In the 2021 summit reliability
    assessment, NERC found that California is at the highest risk
    in energy emergencies in the country due to increased threats
    of wildfires, extreme heat, and drought.
        Chairman Glick, how should existing NERC reliability
    standards be updated to effectively address the threat of
    climate change and extreme weather events?
        Mr. Glick. So I think that is the exact point. I think we
    need to address our reliability standards and modernize them to
    take into account what we know is going to be increasingly
    difficult weather.
        I will give you one example. Last week--or two weeks ago--
    there was still an ongoing big fire in Oregon, but the results
    of that fire took out the California-Oregon site for a while.
    There were probably 4,000 megawatts of power from the Northwest
    into California which California is very reliant on during the
    summer in most cases.
        And so we need to actually figure out what the weather
    situation is like. Some of our standards were based on weather
    from 20 years ago, 30 years ago predictions, and I think it is
    clear it is going to get a lot worse.
        So I think we need to update the standards, and I know NERC
    is looking at that as well.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Commissioner Clements, what information gaps still exist in
    assessing the vulnerabilities of both power systems to extreme
    weather and in developing appropriate action plans prepared to
    respond to emerging conditions like those?
        Ms. Clements. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
        I think we are learning as we go, and we have learned a
    great deal, unfortunately, from the recent events in Texas and
    the central U.S., as well as in the experiences in the West
    both at the beginning of this summer and last summer.
        And the two take-aways from my perspective, one is that you
    have to help your neighbors. Interregional transmission is a
    critical component of resilience in these emergency conditions.
        It has been said, and it is worth saying again, that in the
    Texas event, you had the mid-Atlantic region, PJM, sharing
    power with the Midwestern region, MISO; MISO sharing power with
    the Central Plains region, STP; and then Texas unable to do the
    next in line because there was a lack of interregional
    connection.
        The second lesson is that demand-side resources are a
    critical component of ensuring resilience. You know, American
    citizens are willing to scale back on their use of electricity,
    and that can be systematized if they are going to get paid for
    providing that service to ensure resilience.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
        As you mentioned, FERC has begun to remove some of the
    barriers to participation in the wholesale markets for newer
    technologies like energy storage and distributed energy
    systems.
        What is FERC doing to encourage utilities to meet
    reliability challenges with forward-looking technology
    solutions?
        And how is FERC ensuring its storage and distributed energy
    are being compensated for properly?
        That is kind of a followup question on Mr. Doyle's
    question. Go ahead.
        Ms. Clements. Sure. Representative, thank you. You implied
    the answer on one part, which is the former Chairman Chatterjee
    and now Chairman Glick have done a great job through these
    rules and opening wholesale markets to participation by these
    resources.
        On the reliability front, certainly there is still work to
    do, but there is a tremendous potential, and these resources
    will contribute to system reliability to bring benefits across
    the system.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
        Chairman Glick, what future steps had FERC had planned to
    take action on grid resilience and reliability?
        Mr. Glick. So we had a two-day technical conference
    recently to address weather-related issues and impact on grid
    resiliency. We were actually about to release a number of
    questions in the docket.
        The next step is to decide. We need to decide as a
    Commission whether to move forward with some sort of rulemaking
    or policy statement, but we will be making our way through the
    comments that are submitted in the docket.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I hope to encourage FERC to build on
    that work.
        I am concerned about the increase in cyber attacks, as I
    think everybody here is. And, Chairman Glick, what steps is
    FERC taking to protect the bulk power system from cyber
    attacks?
        And how is FERC working with other Federal agencies to do
    that?
        Mr. Glick. So, in addition to the mandatory reliability
    standard authority that we share with NERC, we constantly are
    in constant communications with the Department of Energy, CISA,
    Homeland Security, and TSA and a whole variety of other
    agencies in terms of communicating with them and other agencies
    to various threats.
        But, in particular, one area that I think I would like to
    see additional work on and I am hoping to push forward in terms
    of a rulemaking process is on the issue of the supply chain. As
    we saw, whether it be software or other supply chain matters,
    the supply chain is not safe enough currently in terms of
    protected from cybersecurity threats.
        We have a role that says utilities have to have a plan to
    address the supply chain. I think we need to go forward with
    that and implement specific standards on that particular topic.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Another thing we need to address really is the ability of
    utility companies to share information with the Federal
    Government on classified information.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
        The Chair does not see Mr. Kinzinger on the screen. So the
    Chair recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it greatly.
        This is going to be one of my favorite hearings of all time
    because probably close to 20 years ago Commissioner Christie
    and I were still hanging out on the sixth floor of the General
    Assembly building in the Virginia legislature. He was giving us
    wise counsel, and I was trying to act on it from time to time.
        But it is good to see you here, Commissioner Christie, and
    thank you for your work 17 years on the Virginia State
    Commission, and we greatly appreciate that work.
        One thing I do not really remember. I thought my
    recollection is you came from rural Virginia originally. Where
    was your hometown?
        Mr. Christie. West Virginia, which is all rural.
        Mr. Griffith. OK. There you go. McKinley has stepped out
    for a minute.
        Mr. Christie. I know. He cannot correct me.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. So he cannot correct you, but we
    appreciate you being here today.
        One of the things that I have been concerned about as we
    have been looking at all of the new plans and the short
    timeline that the administration has placed on getting us to a
    significant amount of renewable energy and, in fact,
    eliminating carbon from our energy pool to provide electricity
    has been the siting that has been mentioned earlier in the
    transmission, and evidence at previous hearings has been that
    we are going to need a lot of high-powered transmission lines
    to crisscross the country to take this power from the
    renewables to where the energy is actually needed.
        And coming from rural Virginia or rural West Virginia, one
    of the concerns is, are we going to be bringing those power
    lines through our neighborhood, and what are the particulars
    going to be?
        I am glad that we have heard some evidence today that there
    is going to be the ability for landowners to say some things,
    but we have heard that it could take greater than 30 years by
    the time you finish all of the regulations and the siting and
    the planning and so forth to get it done.
        Then another witness came in and said, well, we can
    shortcut that by putting these transmission lines in existing
    rights-of-way.
        So I ask you, is it actually practical to consider railroad
    right-of-ways for purposes of a high-voltage power line,
    highways, and last but not least, adding new additional power
    lines in existing power line easements?
        Those were three ideas that were presented to the
    committee. I did not find that to be plausible, but I want to
    hear from the experts, and you have been doing this for a long
    time. Tell me.
        Mr. Christie. Well, Congressman Griffith, let me address
    transmission construction this way. And I sat on literally
    scores, well over 100 transmission line cases in Virginia, and
    I take issue with the statement made earlier that the obstacle
    to building transmission lines are State regulators, that they
    need to get off the dime.
        They are not on the dime. As a State regulator who sat on
    many cases, I can tell you what you look for in a State case
    is, first of all, you look to see whether the transmission line
    is needed. Consumers should not pay for lines that are not
    needed.
        The State regulators are going to look at whether the line
    is needed. Then they are going to look at whether the line is
    at reasonable cost, because consumers should not pay more than
    the reasonable cost for the line.
        And then you look at the route. And you asked about is it
    practical to put a transmission line through a railroad right-
    of-way or highway right-of-way, and the question is, of course,
    the facts of each case.
        If you are talking about a 765 kV, that is probably not
    going to go down a railroad right-of-way or a highway right-of-
    way because a 765 kV is an extremely big transmission line.
        And also if you are going to run it through greenfield
    development, you are going to use a lot of eminent domain, and
    it is going to be extremely expensive.
        And I think State regulators are well suited to make those
    evaluations in individual cases. Whether you are in an RTO or
    you are not in an RTO, even if the RTO puts a proposed line
    into a what they call their regional transmission plan--at PJM
    it was called the RTAP--the State evaluators are still going to
    evaluate it.
        We did it many times in Virginia. The largest single
    regional line in PJM--I think I am right--the largest single
    regional line in PJM is the trail line, which we approved in
    Virginia. We were not the obstacle to that. We approved it, and
    it got built.
        The State regulators are going to evaluate these lines
    based upon are they needed. That is a critically important
    point, both State and Federal. Transmission lines should be
    built if they are needed. It is not just a question of the
    routing. It is a question of need because consumers should not
    pay for something that does not need----
        Mr. Griffith. My time is just about up. So let me just say
    this. I agree with you. It needs to be needed, and you also
    mentioned earlier in your testimony it depends on cost.
        I mean, is it really social justice to run the price up on
    electricity, on a district like that I represent, which is one
    of the economically most challenged districts in the country,
    422 with latest data out of 435 for take-home pay--is that
    really social justice, to suddenly route a whole lot of new
    lines through there or to make their price go up?
        You have got 7 seconds.
        Mr. Glick. I am not going to comment on what is social
    justice. I think that is a different topic for this hearing,
    but I will say this. I just do not think, as a former State
    regulator and a current Federal regulator, consumers should
    only pay for any infrastructure that is needed to serve them
    with electricity. I think that is built into the utility
    regulation.
        And I think that is what is fair. Consumers should only pay
    for what is needed.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate it.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington
    State, Ms. Schrier, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our witnesses today.
        My question is going to be kind of along the lines of what
    we have been talking about with transmission lines and
    balancing costs and environmental protection.
        So, Commissioner Clements, last month my home State
    experienced the second-hottest June on record. That resulted in
    dangerous conditions and loss of life, and this season
    increasingly dangerous wildfires that are happening every year
    now have worsened because of climate change. And so that is
    why, of course, we are prioritizing and looking to accelerate
    the shift away from greenhouse-gas-generating sources of power
    to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
        And so this shift to renewables, as we have been
    discussing, will require a resilience grid, a redundant grid
    that can distribute energy from where it is produced to
    wherever the demand is high, and thus the need for these high-
    voltage transmission lines.
        So, Commissioner Clements, as environmental concerns
    continue to grow, I am wondering how you are going to balance
    kind of traditional environmental protections, wetlands,
    fields, habitats, with speeding up the decision-making process
    so you can fulfill the role that you have in siting these new
    transmission lines, which will, in fact, protect our natural
    environment.
        Ms. Clements. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
        It requires investment, and you can talk about what types
    of resources are going to connect to the system on the other
    end of the line. A lot of the lines that provide service to our
    customers across the country today were built in the 1960s,
    1970s, 1980s, and are old. And so the question is what kind of
    investment are we going to make, because customers ultimately
    will pay for that investment.
        And to your question, Representative, paying from a
    forward-looking perspective lines that will bring resilience in
    the face of these unfortunate conditions you have just
    described, as well as the double benefit of providing
    interconnection for these low-cost resources on the other end
    of the line are really valuable.
        Of course, States have primary siting authority over
    transmission development, and one thing that Chairman Glick has
    done already is to establish a task force with the States that
    really the Commission has approved to help address some of
    these tough issues.
        States should have their perspective heard. There is also a
    natural interest in assuring that some of these bigger lines
    get built in a cost-effective way so that customers across
    States have the ability to benefit.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        You know, I wanted to shift on the topic of States and
    their role in all of this to Commissioner Christie, because you
    spoke about a couple things. Reliability and affordability are
    your key priorities, and this using really judicious placement
    of transmission lines, you know, only when they are needed, and
    when they are needed to address this.
        I was wondering if you could tell us about FERC's strategy
    to keep energy transmission costs affordable while these
    changes are made and then talking about how to balance, you
    know, cost and get customer support.
        If you could, talk about whether there is a general
    consensus about which transmission lines are needed and where.
        Mr. Glick. Thank you.
        Again, if you look at a transmission line case--and let's
    get it down to an individual case level--the first question in
    the case is going to be, is this line needed? Is it needed to
    fix a reliability problem? Is it needed to relieve a congestion
    problem? What is the need that justifies this transmission
    line?
        The next thing you get to is you get to the cost. Is it at
    reasonable cost?
        So the planners play a huge role in this, and of course, in
    the United States, you are either in an RTO or you are in a
    non-RTO. In an RTO, they have transmission planners and they
    have criteria that they use to determine what lines are going
    to be recommended.
        And I know, speaking from experience in PJM, the two
    criteria are going to be reliability or relieve congestion, and
    those are going to be the two primary criteria.
        I think from FERC's viewpoint, our job is to look at the
    criteria that the RTOs use and make sure that those criteria
    actually serve consumers, because I think at the end of the
    day, that is what this is about. It is about serving consumers
    and providing them with the power that they need and doing it
    at a cost which is not more than necessary.
        In a non-RTO--I'm sorry. I am out of time.
        Ms. Schrier. Sorry. The crux of this, just in the last few
    seconds here, is sort of, there is reliability now with the
    sources that we have now, and then there is reliability in the
    future when we have all reliance on renewables or traveled
    interstate into regions and more demand for electricity and
    looking forward.
        Any last comment on that?
        Mr. Glick. Yes, the generation mix is changing, and so
    transmission planning needs to take that into account. I mean,
    it does not change the criteria. It just changes the facts of
    the generation mix, and the planners have to take that into
    account.
        You still get back to whether an individual transmission
    line is needed, and that is ultimately going to be a discussion
    which is going to come down to a State regulator making a
    decision whether to issue a CPCN or not. And that is where the
    authority is, and I think State regulators play a great role in
    that.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
        I apologize for going over time. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to the Commissioners for being here with us
    today.
        Today we are hearing about the Commission performing its
    work to protect America's public interest, especially the
    siting and permitting of pipeline and liquefied natural gas
    facilities.
        Commissioner Glick, you mentioned in your testimony that
    FERC's statutory duty under the Natural Gas Act is to determine
    whether a project is, in fact, in the American people's best
    interest.
        However, with the Biden administration's greenlighting of
    Nord Stream 2, the disdain for America's domestic pipeline
    infrastructure, and support for radical rush decarbonization,
    the President and his allies are actually serving a very
    different public interest, the public interest of Vladimir
    Putin's Russia.
        This is why FERC doing its job and doing its job right is
    so important, and hopefully the oversight that we are
    conducting today will make that clear.
        Just a real introductory question, Commissioner Glick. Do
    you support expanding U.S. LNG exports?
        Mr. Glick. It is really a matter for the Department of
    Energy to determine. I----
        Mr. Johnson. I did not ask you--I know whose job it is to
    approve it, but under your own testimony, you have to look out
    for America's best interest under the Natural Gas Act.
        So do you support U.S. LNG export expansion?
        Mr. Glick. On a case-by-case basis, I think they----
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Great.
        Mr. Glick [continuing]. Serve the public interest.
        Mr. Johnson. I will take that as a yes. Thank you.
        Well, I certainly support expanding the exports. In fact, I
    urge our committee to take up my legislation, the Unlocking our
    Domestic LNG Potential Act, which would cut Washington red tape
    and ease the process for American producers to export more LNG
    around the world, especially to Europe.
        This not only supports jobs here at home but also projects
    American economic and energy power abroad, something that the
    Biden administration has failed to grasp, ceding ground to
    Putin's quest to expand his influence throughout Europe
    instead.
        Speaking of Putin's influence and Russian natural gas,
    according to a report from DOE's Natural Energy Technology Lab,
    the lifecycle emissions of Russian gas is 41 percent higher
    than American LNG exports that are delivered to Europe.
        So, Commissioner Glick, back to you again. You said that
    the Commission may consider climate change in proposed
    projects, and the Biden administration claims that reducing
    carbon emissions is a top priority.
        Will you weigh the climate benefits when reviewing U.S. LNG
    export projects?
        Mr. Glick. We do not have the authority to do that. That is
    the Department of Energy.
        Mr. Johnson. You do not when you are looking at what is in
    America's best interest?
        Mr. Glick. When we review LNG projects, when we site an LNG
    project, we only can look at direct emissions. You cannot look
    at the mission's impact downstream. The courts have told us
    that is for the Department of Energy, not for----
        Mr. Johnson. But you said that the Commission may consider
    climate change and propose projects. So how can you do it?
        Do you just do it when you feel like doing it, or do you
    not do it all the time?
        Mr. Glick. No, we have authority over natural gas
    interstate pipelines, and an LNG facility----
        Mr. Johnson. Will you consider climate? Will you consider
    climate benefits when reviewing those LNG export projects?
        Mr. Glick. We cannot. The courts do not allow us to
    consider benefits overseas. If you want to say benefits in
    domestic----
        Mr. Johnson. No, but the exporting starts here in America,
    and that has to be produced here in America. So the exporting
    starts here.
        So I think I am hearing you say yes.
        Mr. Glick. I understand your question, Mr. Johnson. We just
    do not have authority to consider that. That is----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, sure, you do. You just do not want to
    answer that.
        Let me ask you this. Will you weigh the energy security and
    domestic economic benefits when reviewing LNG export projects?
        Mr. Glick. Yes, we have the authority to look at domestic--
    --
        Mr. Johnson. Correct. Commissioners Chatterjee, Danly, and
    Christie, can you give us some quick thoughts on the importance
    of U.S. LNG exports?
        Commissioner Chatterjee, let's start with you.
        Mr. Chatterjee. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
        This is something that we took very seriously during my
    time leading the agency. There was a glut of applications. I
    was worried that we might not be able to get through them.
        So, working with staff and my colleagues, we removed some
    duplicative regulations, and actually over the course of the
    past 4 years have approved 14 LNG export facilities that would
    fulfill what you have said: economic benefits to the U.S.,
    positive geopolitical implications as a counterweight to
    Russia, and positive environmental benefits, reducing global
    carbon emissions.
        Mr. Johnson. Right. Commissioner Danly.
        Mr. Danly. I think it is not an overstatement to say that
    America's LNG terminals are geostrategic assets, and that they
    are among the most important pieces of infrastructure that the
    United States is permitted.
        And the benefits that it offers large-scale LNG export to
    the wellbeing of people overseas can hardly be overstated.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. And Christie.
        Mr. Rush. Your time has expired.
        Mr. Johnson. Time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
        The gentlelady from Colorado, you have 5 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
    Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
    good to see you and to see all of our colleagues today.
        Let me say thank you to our witnesses for your testimony.
    Thank you for the incredible work that each of you does on the
    Commission.
        Chairman Glick, earlier this Congress I introduced H.R.
    3979, the Protecting Natural Gas Consumers from Overcharges
    Act, and I introduced this along with my good friend and
    colleague, Billy Long.
        This bill would amend Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to
    give FERC refund authority in cases where natural gas
    transmission pipelines are charging their customers unfair
    rates.
        Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, FERC can
    examine the rates charged by an electric transmission entity
    and order refunds if they were found to be unjust and
    unreasonable.
        Unfortunately, the Natural Gas Act does not offer such
    protection for natural gas consumers, despite the fact that in
    2019 the 10 most profitable pipelines received $1.1 billion in
    overcharges from their customers.
        And so our bill will create parity for electrical
    transmission and natural gas customers by giving you, by giving
    FERC, the authority to order pipelines to refund overcharges.
    Under the bill, consumers will be protected from unfair charges
    regardless of whether they utilize electrical or natural gas
    utility.
        Several days ago, on July 13th, I sent the Chairman, you, a
    letter. I also sent a copy to the other Commissioners regarding
    the bill, and my staff has informed me today that you authored
    and have provided a response, and thank you so very much.
        And so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the response
    letter from the Commissioner for the record, if I might.
        Thank you.
        Having reviewed our legislation, Mr. Chairman, do you agree
    that Congress should amend the NGA so FERC can grant refunds in
    these cases?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield.
        I do agree. We have the responsibility to protect
    consumers, whether it be consumers on the electric side or
    consumers of interstate natural gas pipelines, and not having
    that refund authority inhibits us from being able to fully
    protect consumers.
        So I would support us having the same refund authority we
    do on the electric side.
        Mr. Butterfield. Well, let me take you a step further. Do
    you think it is fair that natural gas consumers are not
    protected while electric users are?
        It seems to be unfair.
        Mr. Glick. No, I think it is not fair currently.
        Mr. Butterfield. All right. Here is my final question: How
    do unfair overcharges impact natural gas consumers like
    [inaudible] Mr. Johnson and others who have talked--and Mr.
    Griffith--people who rely on natural gas for cooking and
    heating, do their charges ultimately lead to higher rates?
        Mr. Glick. They do. They ultimately get passed on. We have
    the authority to review whether pipeline rates are just and
    reasonable, and there are cases where we found the pipelines
    have been charging excessively, excessive amounts beyond just
    and reasonable rates.
        And meanwhile we have not been able to do anything about
    it. So the pipeline company charges essentially the shippers of
    natural gas for those excess amounts, and those shippers end up
    passing those rates on to consumers.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Chairman Glick.
        I am going to yield back in just a moment.
        Were your answers to Mr. Johnson a moment ago complete or
    did you need some time to expand on a previous answer?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield.
        Generally they were complete. I just wanted to make the
    point that we do have the authority and the responsibility to
    look at greenhouse gas emissions from a domestic perspective on
    LNG projects with regard to when the project is built and when
    the project is operating.
        But it is the Department of Energy, as the courts have told
    us many times, not FERC, that can only look at greenhouse gas
    emissions overseas in terms of the downstream impacts of a
    particular LNG facility.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair, for the record, noticed that the gentleman asked
    for unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter, and I
    did not hear any objections. So the letter is entered into the
    record, without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Rush. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Bucshon for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the Commissioners for being here today at
    this crucial time as we see the transitioning type of energy
    that we are developing here in our country.
        Look, I am a strong supporter of an all-of-the-above energy
    approach. We need to ensure that policy decisions allow
    customers to have options when it comes to electricity to keep
    costs down and domestic options abundant.
        There are a couple of things, though, in the context of
    this hearing I want to point out. For example, in California,
    wildfires and the CO2 generated from wildfires--and
    essentially, we are not addressing any of our forest management
    issues and blaming it all on climate change ironically for
    environmental reasons, but here is some data from the San
    Francisco Chronicle.
        In 2018, wildfires in California generates 111.7 million
    metric tons of CO2 compared with 169.2 million
    metric tons for the transportation industry.
        And that amount generated by wildfires is 25 percent more
    than the State's annual emissions from fossil fuel. Yet we are
    not doing anything to address it. We are just blaming it on
    climate change.
        I am not saying there is not a component of that.
        Interestingly, that is only about 15 to 20 percent of the
    CO2 emissions coming from Amazon wildfires in the
    Amazon forest, which of course we have no control over.
        And then let's consider the fact the Earth is moving at
    about 57,000 miles per hour around the sun, rotating at 1,000
    miles per hour, and our solar system whirls around the center
    of our galaxy at 490,000 miles per hour.
        So the point I want to make is let's put all of this in
    context and quit talking about political talking points here
    and look at the facts.
        Again, I support an all-of-the-above approach to energy in
    our country, and the geopolitics as outlined by Mr. Johnson is
    critical unless we want to cut off our nose to spite our face.
    We are allowing Vladimir Putin to control the world's natural
    gas industry, seriously?
        Eastern Europe are literally begging us for energy. I have
    been there. I know. They are begging us for energy because,
    until they get it from us and our allies, they are dependent on
    the Russians.
        Why do you think the Russians are in Ukraine? For their
    health?
        So I just wanted to get that out there. In 2018, this
    committee passed a package of hydropower permitting bills which
    included my bill, H.R. 2872, the Promoting Hydropower
    Development at Existing Nonpowered Dams Act, and it was signed
    into law by the President.
        The focus of the bill was to create a two-year licensing
    process to electrify existing nonpowered dams, of which there
    is a lot more than you would think.
        Chairman Glick, do you support the expansion of hydropower?
        Mr. Glick. I do. The Department of Energy recently
    estimated that there can be an extra 50 gigawatts of additional
    hydropower capacity, and I think that is going to be a very
    important component of our generation mix going forward.
        Mr. Bucshon. I would agree. I think we have to utilize all.
    As I said, I believe in the all-of-the-above approach.
        My district in Indiana has every coal mine in the State. My
    dad was a coal miner, but I support all of these things.
        How is the 2-year expedited licensing process for existing
    nonpowered dams working out?
        Mr. Glick. We have implemented the regulations, and we have
    had a few applications since then. They are still making their
    way through the process.
        But I would say that the goal of 2 years is a laudable goal
    and something I think we strive for every day. We certainly had
    a pilot program even before the legislation passed to keep it
    at 2 years.
        Mr. Bucshon. It is tight. I understand.
        Mr. Glick. I think one of the requirements under the
    rulemaking is basically these companies have to come with us
    with basically a completed application process, and so we are
    working with them right now to try to expedite that.
        Mr. Bucshon. I understand.
        And what additional steps can we take to streamline the
    process for these nonpowered dams, if anything?
        Mr. Glick. Well, I think we have to let the existing
    process kind of work out. It is a little bit too soon to really
    tell if additional changes need to be made. I think we have to
    wait a couple years and see how the project works when we are
    through.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Because, as was outlined by another
    Member, believe it or not, some in the environmental community
    want to remove all the dams and not use hydropower, which seems
    kind of the opposite of what you would expect people to be
    promoting.
        Lastly, if you comment on the ban on imports of solar
    panels from China and Xinjiang forced labor camps and how that
    might affect the U.S. solar industry?
        Mr. Glick. I can get you an answer for the record. I am not
    necessarily an expert at our particular trade policy, although
    I am obviously aware of the situation.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Thanks.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
    Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    convening this hearing.
        And, Commissioners, it is a pleasure to have you with us
    today.
        FERC is a crucial agency to fulfill our country's goals to
    provide clean, affordable, and reliable energy while building
    stronger and more resilient communities in light of the ever-
    growing threat of a climate crisis.
        Now, due to intensified extreme weather events in
    California, we have experienced electricity crises in which
    electricity demand exceeds the price, and the result is growing
    blackouts with customers.
        We remain concerned about resource adequacy and market
    planning, especially in the extreme weather that tests the
    system and frequent calls for energy conservation, which has
    caused conservation fatigue in many consumers.
        Chairman Glick, what are the key take-aways from the March
    2021 technical conference on resource adequacy?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui.
        I agree with you 100 percent that this is obviously an
    urgent issue, and we did have a technical conference because
    this is not just a California issue. It is an issue throughout
    the entire West, and we see it in the Pacific Northwest, we see
    it in the desert Southwest, for instance.
        And the key take-away for me is that the region needs to
    cooperate. The region needs to work together. No State is an
    island.
        We have seen over many years, California in the winter was
    able to bring in its power from the Northwest, and then the
    power came, and the Northwest got their power in the winter
    from the Southwest and from California.
        And I think what we learned from that particular technical
    conference is that every particular State, every particular
    subregion of the West, is looking at it from their own
    perspective, and I think we need greater cooperation,
    potentially the development of some sort of regional market,
    whether it be an RTO or something like that, to facilitate
    planning across the region and hopefully facilitate more
    resilient resourced adequacy.
        Ms. Matsui. I see. Well, thank you for that.
        And earlier this year, President Biden announced his plan
    to achieve a 100 percent [audio malfunction] by 2035 and then
    [audio malfunction].
        One thing is clear: We will not be able to achieve these
    energy goals without seeing our transition system.
        Commissioner Clements, what role should FERC play in
    addressing transmission planning reforms that have often
    hindered the development of large-scale transition projects
    needed to achieve local, State, and Federal clean-energy goals?
        Ms. Clements. Thank you, Representative Matsui. I think the
    Commission has taken a really important first step. There has
    been over time a series of Commission orders that have
    encouraged transmission development to meet the needs of our
    country at that time.
        We are again at that moment, and the advanced notice of
    proposed rulemaking asks a significant number of questions
    about how to ensure both regional planning processes and
    interregional planning processes that serve the resources that
    the markets and policies are driving, as well as customer
    resilience and reliability needs.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, how does the Commission plan to act
    swiftly to achieve these necessary goals while also responding
    to comments from the public?
        Ms. Clements. Appreciating the urgency of the need,
    regulatory processes, as we know, move slowly. I think we are
    well set up by asking this broad set of questions to take
    action across all of the issues that have been described on the
    transmission front, planning, permitting, and paying for
    transmission.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Throughout my time in Congress, I have
    spearheaded initiatives such as the Clean and Efficient Cars
    Act and enacted legislation to reauthorize the Diesel Emissions
    Reduction Act. These efforts will help expedite the transitions
    to light-, medium-, and heavy-duty electric vehicles and lower
    carbon emissions and air pollution from the transportation
    sector.
        Chairman Glick, how will transportation electrification
    affect the transition system, and what actions should Congress
    take to help ensure that FERC can help match the increasing
    electrification demand so our transmission system will meet the
    challenges of this transition?
        And you have 30 seconds.
        Mr. Glick. I will talk real quick.
        Electrification actually has significant benefits, but
    significant impacts on the grid as well. So, for instance, we
    are going to need additional transmission, additional clean
    generation, clearly, but also I want to point out that also we
    can take advantage of electric vehicles, for instance. They can
    participate in the distributed energy resource market and
    discharge their batteries when power is most needed.
    Discharging power gives a lot of additional power on the grid.
        And so I think that it is not just a challenge in terms of
    the grid, in terms of investments we have to make, but to
    provide any improvement in resilience and reliability.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you very much for that.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Walberg, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the panel for being here. It is good to meet
    the new Members coming on. It is good to have the opportunity
    to congratulate you, Chairman Glick, and it is good to have the
    opportunity to thank you, Commissioner Chatterjee. I have got
    to get used to saying it that way. I thank you for your
    dedicated years of service on this issue.
        I would particularly like to highlight your work on PURPA
    modernization. There were not many people I could talk to about
    PURPA that understood it like you at the time. It is something
    that I have long championed and really from the aspect that
    PURPA did what we wanted it to do. It expanded renewables. It
    got the big guys and gals into doing things that they should
    have been, and in the end I think it brought about a great
    opportunity to see reliability and affordability enhanced for
    the consumer.
        Order No. 872 mirrored many provisions in my bill, the
    PURPA Modernization Act, by giving States greater flexibility
    to incorporate current market prices, in calculating avoided
    cost rates, preventing qualified facilities from gaming the
    one-mile rule, and lowering the net threshold for
    nondiscriminatory access to power markets for small power
    producers.
        These are all complex issues, but I have no doubt the work
    you and Commissioner Danly specifically did to make these
    changes will help increase competition and bring down
    electricity costs for ratepayers across the country.
        And so, Commissioner Chatterjee, as you prepare to leave
    FERC, what more do you think the Commission and Congress can do
    to ensure PURPA continues to keep pace with the rapidly
    changing landscape of energy?
        Mr. Chatterjee. I think the most important thing the
    Commission needs to do is keep Order 872 in place. I do agree
    that the actions we took to modernize PURPA, to bring it into
    alignment with the realities of the 21st century marketplace,
    was the right thing to do.
        When PURPA was originally conceived, it was a totally
    different energy landscape to what we see today, and it was a
    much-needed response, Congress instructing us to go back and
    periodically revisit our regulations to see where they can be
    modernized and updated, and I am proud of the action that we
    took.
        But, as you noted, I am departing the Commission. There
    will be a new iteration of the Commission going forward, and it
    is not impossible that a different iteration of the Commission
    could reverse some of the progress we made with Order 872.
        And so I am hopeful that you all are using your oversight
    authority here in the House, as well as your colleagues in the
    Senate who will be questioning my potential successor, will
    make sure that the good work we did in Order 872 is maintained
    going forward and does not get reversed and lead to regulatory
    uncertainty.
        Mr. Walberg. And another reason to pass my legislation,
    too, and make it law if we can.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Glick, in your dissent to the PURPA modernization
    rule--we might as well get it out in the open here--you said
    you were concerned that FERC was overstepping its jurisdiction,
    but with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the
    Commission may be vastly overstepping its jurisdiction by
    viewing all decisions through an environmental lens instead of
    putting reliability and affordability for the consumer first.
        As you know, FERC is not an environmental regulator--come
    out today--and it is not a safety regulator. FERC does not have
    the statutory authority, the budgetary resources or the
    expertise to take on those important missions which are
    appropriately held by the States, the EPA, and PHMSA.
        When it comes to pipelines, FERC has two primary statutory
    obligations: one, I think you would agree, to determine whether
    the project is required by the public convenience and
    necessity; and two, to take a hard look at the direct,
    indirect, and cumulative efforts of the proposed project.
        And so, Chairman Glick, do you believe FERC has the
    statutory authority--not the ability, but the statutory
    authority--to deny a permit for a pipeline project solely
    because of climate change concerns?
        Mr. Glick. I think we have the authority to determine
    whether the project is in the public interest, as you
    mentioned, and the courts have told us that we have to examine
    greenhouse gas emissions, and the DC Circuit has said we could,
    in fact, restrict or decide not to issue a certificate based on
    a particular project's impact on the environment.
        So I think from my perspective, we are just following what
    the courts have told us to do.
        Mr. Walberg. But solely for environmental concerns?
        Mr. Glick. If the environmental concerns--and, yes, the
    courts have said on numerous occasions that, if the
    environmental concerns were significant enough to outweigh the
    adverse benefits and you cannot mitigate those environmental
    concerns, then you could technically reject it specifically.
        We have not done so to date, but we could.
        Mr. Walberg. I would be awful cautious about that, whether
    the court case would go that far and give that type of latitude
    for you to do that.
        I mean, that is our concern, and I guess we will have a
    chance to talk about it further as we look at the time at some
    other place, but I would really caution that. So----
        Mr. Glick. Can I just respond quickly? I know your time is
    up.
        So FERC has the ability to actually, you know, take a look
    at the environmental impacts of those projects. We often, and
    in almost all cases, try to mitigate those particular impacts,
    and that is true for greenhouse gas emissions as well.
        To the extent we find those emissions are significant, we
    could, in fact, require the pipeline developer to mitigate the
    impacts. That is what we do for wetlands and NOx emissions and
    all sorts of other environmental impacts with regard to
    proposed pipeline projects.
        So just because you were to find a particular project with
    some significant level of emissions does not mean you have to
    deny the project.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
    Castor, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush.
        And thank you to the Commissioners. Thank you for your
    public service.
        FERC has jurisdiction over two critical strategies to help
    us avoid the escalating costs and the catastrophic harms of the
    climate crisis. One is upgrading and expanding the electric
    grid. Two is removing the roadblocks to clean energy in
    wholesale power markets.
        Both of these strategies create jobs, reuse carbon
    solution, clean up the air that we breathe, and will improve
    the public health. And so many people now are awake to the fact
    that a clean electricity sector is the linchpin to meeting our
    clean-energy goals across the entire economy.
        Chairman Glick, I am encouraged by your leadership and
    focus on improving transmission siting and the interconnection
    cost allocation. I have been working on legislation in this
    area.
        One, my transmission siting assistance initiative was
    included as Section 218 in the Clean Future Act, and it would
    provide technical assistance to States and local communities to
    help them plan and site the interstate transmission lines.
        And then, two, in June I introduced the Efficient Grid
    Interconnection Act, H.R. 4027, to help families power their
    homes with affordable and abundant clean energy and tackle the
    problem of those traffic jams on our transmission lines in the
    electric grid. And thanks to FERC, you all provided some
    technical assistance there.
        So, Chairman Glick, a recent Department of Energy report
    found that nearly five times the Nation's existing wind and
    solar capacity is stuck in this traffic jam on the electric
    grid, these interconnection queues. The average wait time is
    3\1/2\ years.
        Can you please explain to everyday Americans how busting up
    these traffic jams, clearing out the interconnection queues
    will help promote competition and lower cost, and then improve
    the public health as well?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Ms. Castor.
        You know, as I mentioned before, 93 percent of all the
    electric generation in the queue, in the interconnection queue
    right now, is wind and solar, and we know that based on various
    State policies, based on consumer interest, based on utility
    programs, there is a lot of extra demand for those particular
    resources.
        The problem is those resources are most often located in
    relatively remote areas. We have great resources in the United
    States. They are just located away from where, you know, a lot
    of folks consume energy.
        And so one of the problems is that then you get in the
    interconnection queue. You have to go through a whole variety
    of engineering studies, but it takes forever to get through
    that queue process because there are so many things that go on,
    so many competing interests, and it has developed over time. It
    has just taken forever.
        FERC has on a couple of occasions implemented regulations
    designed to expedite the process, but we have a long way to go.
    We still need to speed up the process greatly, but I think once
    we resolve the cost responsibility for those particular
    transmission upgrades that are made that facilitate these
    particular interconnection facilities, I think that will help.
        I think that will do the most of any particular measure we
    could take to expedite the process.
        Ms. Castor. And, Commissioner Clements, do you agree?
        Ms. Clements. I do. I think my hypothesis, which is
    supported by lots of experts around the country, is that this
    failure of the regional transmission planning process to look
    forward to plan for the needs of this really emerging
    interconnection queue is forcing that process to happen in the
    interconnection queue.
        So we are trying to do regional and interregional planning
    through this line which was never designed to do anything
    except for connect one resource to the grid.
        And I think to Chairman Glick's point, the biggest issue,
    or one of the biggest issues, is the participant funding model,
    which basically now requires, as an analogy, if you buy a new
    house on the street and you are the last person to buy a house,
    you have to pave the road for that whole street. You have to
    pay to pave the road for that whole street.
        That is how the current process works for paying for
    interconnection, and that is something that we need to look at.
        Ms. Castor. I think you are absolutely right.
        And then you also highlighted how important it is for these
    high-voltage transmission lines to help us power the future and
    mitigate all of the escalating cost and just catastrophic
    climbs.
        There is no way to sit here and not understand and watch
    what is happening across this country and across the globe
    right now and understand the need for drastic action, but we
    have to do things according to science and fact basis.
        But clearly, this is America. We have the tools to build
    these high-voltage transmission lines. What else do you think
    the Congress needs to do?
        Ms. Clements. That is absolutely right. I think the
    challenge is big in terms of the need for interregional and
    regional transition development, regardless of the resource mix
    that is on the other end of the line, although it all happens
    to be wind and solar right now.
        We need resilience. We need reliability, and it runs
    counter to the American spirit to give up before we have even
    begun to fight on these issues.
        I think we have this NOPR out that is out for public
    comment and look forward to really processing those inputs so
    that we can get going on these questions.
        Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Chairman, we have so many smart
    innovators out there. I know you are probably hungry for some
    of these solutions according to NOPR.
        Mr. Glick. Absolutely. I would say there is one
    particular----
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
    South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks, everyone, for being here. I know you guys are
    getting tired, and you just have a few more to endure. So
    thanks for that.
        The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's stated mission
    is to assist customers in obtaining reliable, efficient, and
    sustainable energy services at a reasonable cost through
    appropriate regulatory and market means.
        To fulfill this mission, FERC identifies the following
    primary goals. I am going to skip down to number three: to use
    resources effectively, adequately equipping FERC employees for
    success, and executing responsive and transparent processes
    that strengthen public trust.
        So I am going to bring up a situation that a county in my
    district has been dealing with for quite some time. Glenwood
    County has been going back and forth with FERC on the type and
    construction of an emergency fuse plug at Lake Greenwood Dam.
    The location of the fuse plug was approved previously by FERC,
    but the Atlanta Regional FERC Office later determined that if
    the fuse plug were to be activated--which has not occurred in
    the entire existence of the lake, and the lake was built in
    1935 to 1940, including devastating flooding of 2015--there
    would be severe damage to the surrounding area.
        Thus, Lake Greenwood Dam remediation has moved at a glacial
    pace, and it has been going on for--listen for this--over 15
    years. I think it is emblematic that--of a larger bureaucratic
    problem with FERC that you guys need to know about.
        Not only has Greenwood County spent a lot of time dealing
    with this, they have also spent a lot of money. FERC mandated
    that they empanel a board of consultants. This was after they
    had their own engineers involved. That board of consultants
    cost Greenwood County $135,000.
        Further, there is no assurance on FERC's end that they will
    accept what the board of consultants' proposal is. This means
    that Greenwood could be paying hundreds of thousands of
    dollars, taxpayer dollars, and ultimately have their proposal
    rejected.
        There has got to be a better way to do this, guys.
        Chairman Glick, you noted in your testimony the importance
    of environmental justice in the context of decision making.
    Look at this situation. FERC has made a small rural county in
    South Carolina go back and forth for 15 years at the total cost
    to the county of $2 million and countless hours and personnel.
        So I recognize you probably cannot speak of the specifics
    of this situation on the spot, and I will ask you to get back
    to me, but do you think it is reasonable for an emergency fuse
    plug project on a lake that has been around that long, survived
    the 2015 floods, to take more than 15 years to be designed?
        And also, do you believe it is appropriate for Greenwood
    County to have been forced by FERC to spend over $2 million and
    yet not have achieved full design and approval of the project?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
        As you say, I cannot comment on the specific project,
    although certainly I can get back to you with some more
    specifics. I will say this: Fifteen years and the cost that you
    outlined are definitely not appropriate, in my opinion.
        We have a responsibility to protect the public interest. We
    have a lot of different responsibilities under the Federal
    Power and Natural Gas Act, for instance, but one of the things
    we need to do a much better job on, in my opinion, is we need
    to be more efficient. We need to move things along more
    quickly. We need to make sure that various parties that
    participate in our proceedings do not have to incur millions of
    dollars of legal bills, to the extent we have some control over
    it sometimes. These are very complicated issues.
        But you have my word that I will work with you and try to
    expedite the process.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes. It is a fuse plug for a dam. Thanks for
    your commitment to work with my staff and Greenwood County.
        I was hoping not to bring that up because sometimes you
    bring a project like that up with the Federal Government, and
    it actually hurts a project more, but you know, heck, 15 years
    and $2 million, I do not think you can hurt this county much
    more. It is time to get that deal done.
        I am going to shift gears real quick and talk about the
    provision in the Clean Future Act that establishes a Federal
    right to clean energy. This would allow large corporate energy
    purchasers to use their buying power to directly procure one
    source of generation, mainly intermittent renewables, at
    preferential rates.
        This would shift cost of maintaining a 24/7 reliability to
    the remaining customers, average residential customers. So you
    are shifting the cost, giving preferential treatment to
    corporations. I do not see how that is environmental justice or
    energy justice.
        But I am going to ask Mr. Christie: What are your thoughts
    on this, and how does this affect consumer protections built
    into State laws and rules to minimize inequitable cost shifting
    and promote reliability?
        Mr. Christie. Well, Congressman, I am not actually familiar
    with that particular provision of that legislation. Our statute
    is that rates have to be just and reasonable and not
    preferential or discriminatory.
        So on the surface it would sound discriminatory, but again,
    I do not know that provision, and so I would have to look at
    that. If that law passes, we would have to implement it, but
    right now our statute is nonpreferential and nondiscriminatory.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that.
        I am out of time, guys. It will be over soon.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr.
    Welch, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to follow up on something that my colleague, Mr.
    Doyle, asked, and that is about distributed energy. And I think
    he asked the question about what kind of benefits can our
    electricity grids derive.
        But I would like to focus on, and I will start with you,
    Chairman Glick. What would you do and the Commission do to
    ensure that our market operators, such as IFO New England, are
    able to meet their compliance dates for the order?
        Are there things that FERC can be doing to better engage
    with these market operators to address the challenges that they
    are facing?
        You got the order done, but it is not implemented. Chairman
    Glick?
        Mr. Glick. Well, yes, as you've mentioned, so we have
    several points in the process. The first point is the issue of
    the rulemaking, which we did the final rule.
        The next stage is compliance, which, again, various RTOs
    have submitted their compliance proposal to us. Sometimes we
    accept them. Sometimes we reject them. Sometimes we ask them to
    modify their proposals.
        So we will ensure that all the RTOs, including, I assume,
    New England, complies with the requirements, the spirit and the
    requirements, of the particular rule, in this particular case,
    the DER rule, and to the extent they do not, we will continue
    to--we have received, I assume, in New England. We have
    regulatory authority over all the various RTOs around the
    country, and we want to make sure that they do comply.
        Mr. Welch. Commissioner Chatterjee, do you want to add
    anything to that?
        Mr. Chatterjee. Yes. I want to echo what the Chairman said
    and just make the point that, while the FERC Order 2222 was, I
    think, certainly historic in nature, the difference between it
    being a positive step forward and a truly landmark rulemaking
    that will change the energy landscape will be played out in the
    compliance and implementation process.
        And I think it is really incumbent--you have a lot of new
    entrants to the energy space who are not as familiar with
    dealing with FERC and dealing with the RTOs and the ISOs. They
    need to be brought into the fold and participate in the
    stakeholder processes because I think it is so important that
    the compliance filings that come to the Commission be strong so
    that this rulemaking can truly have the historic impact that it
    has the potential to have.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        You know, I know FERC is also considering the best way to
    incorporate innovative technologies such as demand response
    into competitive markets without violating State agencies'
    requirements.
        And, obviously, demand response, such as energy efficiency,
    behind-the-meter technology, smart building innovation, that is
    going to continue to grow in importance, and it is all very
    local. So it has got a significant economic benefit. And
    throughout my time in Congress, I have worked with others for
    the deployment of smart meters, energy efficiency technology,
    and so on.
        Chairman Glick, how will FERC plan so that we can ensure
    that new technologies are absolutely able to participate in
    energy markets, because there has got to be a market for that
    activity to make it widely deployed, while simultaneously
    protecting the ability of States to maintain authority over
    resources that operate on the distribution side?
        Mr. Glick. So I appreciate the question, Mr. Welch, and in
    fact, on demand response I agree with you. Demand response has
    provided a significant number of benefits in terms especially
    on reliability and resilience. All you have to do is look at
    last summer in California. Demand response is really the unsung
    hero in keeping the lights on for most of the time.
        With regard to technologies, there is certainly a growing
    division between State regulation and Federal regulation,
    because a lot of the technologies that we are talking about now
    are primarily subject to State oversight and not participating
    or seeking to participate in the wholesale markets.
        So we have been trying to work with the States on these
    various issues, and in fact, I will give you an example with
    regard to demand, distributed energy resources.
        We have made it very clear that we are not going to deal
    with the interconnection of those particular facilities to the
    grid. That is subject to State regulation.
        And we also made it clear that States have the ability to
    oversee the rules that are set out with regard to a distributed
    energy resource that participates both in the retail market and
    the household market, which is subject to our jurisdiction.
        So we are trying to reach out to the States as much as we
    can, continuing to dialogue with them.
        Obviously, there is some tension on some of the issues, but
    we have tried to eliminate all oversight just to the
    participation of those resources in the wholesale market and
    leave some of the issues, behind-the-meter issues, to the
    States.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
    Palmer, for 5 minutes. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank the witnesses for their participation and their
    patience and sticking here with us.
        I want to ask you, Mr. Glick, about inflation. Are you
    concerned about inflation?
        Mr. Glick. I think everyone is, yes.
        Mr. Palmer. If you are concerned about inflation, then you
    also have to be concerned about this administration's energy
    policy. Energy is perhaps the most inflationary part of our
    economy. It is an inflationary commodity in the consumer price
    index because it impacts everything.
        So are you concerned about that?
        Mr. Glick. I am absolutely concerned about high energy
    prices, yes.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, this mass exit from the use of natural
    gas and fossil fuels that my colleagues advocate toward a
    complete renewable power grid is going to necessarily increase
    energy costs across the board.
        I do not know how many engineers you have at FERC. We
    looked at the top 100 salaries, and 60 of them were economists,
    and I am fine with economists. I used to joke God made
    economists to make actuaries look interesting, but you do need
    some engineers to look at these because it is going to have a
    huge impact on families.
        And I am particularly concerned about the lower-income
    families. I have brought this point up many times in this
    committee and on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
    about Pembroke Township in Illinois: 2,100 people, 80-plus
    percent are African American. They do not have a natural gas
    pipeline. There are activists such as the Reverend Jesse
    Jackson trying to get a pipeline in there.
        Yet I cannot find colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    willing to support that. Does it make sense to continue to
    deprive people of energy justice, if you want to use the word
    ``justice,'' in pursuit of renewables?
        Mr. Glick. Thanks, Mr. Palmer.
        First of all, if I understand, only 4 percent of our
    employees are actually economists. I do not know the statistic
    you looked at, but we can get back to you on that.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, you have a lot more employees than the
    100, but that is just the top 100 salaries.
        Mr. Glick. Yes. All I know is, I am not in one of the top
    100 salaries.
        With regard to our job, our job, again, is to protect the
    public interest. That is our responsibility, to ensure that
    energy rates, whether it be through pipeline rates or wholesale
    electric rates, are just and reasonable.
        And that is the goal. That is the goal which we regulate.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I do not want to get off on that too far,
    because we established the fact that inflation is a problem and
    energy is a big part of the inflationary equation.
        But I also want to point out something else about the fact
    that there was a report that came out a few years ago that we
    were within 5 percent of the Chinese in manufacturing cost, and
    it was really because of the fracking revolution. Natural gas
    prices had dropped precipitously. But we also have higher
    productivity.
        There is an issue here that I think we do not really take
    into consideration, and it is of great concern to me.
        Moving to 100 percent renewables, I think we need to look
    at this in the context of national security, because anyone who
    knows anything about China knows they have zero intent of
    moving away from fossil fuels, whether it is coal, oil, or
    natural gas.
        And it is putting us in this pursuit of net zero, and even
    John Kerry admits that if the United States achieved its net-
    zero goal, and we have had leading scientists that met that if
    we went to absolute zero, it will not stop climate change, and
    it particularly will not impact it because China is not going
    to participate.
        Shouldn't that be part of your consideration when we are
    looking at these changes?
        Mr. Chairman, you are not muted. Suspending my time, Mr.
    Chairman, I think you are not muted.
        Reclaiming my time----
        Mr. Rush [continuing]. Unmuted. Go ahead.
        Mr. Glick. So, Mr. Palmer, I do not think I am expert
    enough to comment on the China comment, but I will say this. If
    you look at over the last 10 years, hopefully electricity
    prices have gone down pretty significantly. In large part, you
    mentioned gas. Natural gas is certainly a big part of that, but
    also the competitiveness of the zero-emissions, zero-marginal-
    cost technologies, such as wind and solar, have brought down
    costs as well.
        Mr. Palmer. But that is only because we have heavily
    subsidized those, and ultimately the taxpayer pays for that. It
    may not show up on your utility bill, but they are paying for
    it.
        Mr. Glick. Well, a lot of technologies have been
    subsidized. So has fracking, as you mentioned as well. But
    after the development of those technologies that are
    subsidized, the subsidies do go away, and then those
    technologies are cost competitive.
        So I do believe that we can move forward in a clean-energy
    future and do so in a way that is consistent with lower-cost
    energy.
        Mr. Palmer. I hear the tapping. That means my time has
    expired. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Veasey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        And thank you, Chairman Glick, and all of the FERC
    Commissioners for joining us today.
        FERC obviously plays a key role in organizing energy
    markets and has a very important job in ensuring competitive
    and reliable energy for Americans.
        Obviously, everybody remembers the recent events in my home
    State of Texas, where we had an unprecedented weather
    occurrence that happened there a few months after a devastating
    storm, which left over 700 Texans dead. I think a lot of people
    forget that. People were obviously wondering why they were
    asked to conserve energy here recently when we had some issues
    with the grid at the very beginning of our blistering summer
    heat.
        There are obviously a lot of benefits to ERCOT being
    independent, and obviously, there is a completely other side to
    that issue as well.
        But I wrote a letter to FERC in February and letting them
    know that I support and join the inquiry about FERC and NERC to
    investigate the operations of the bulk power system during the
    storm, and I think there is a need to have a real conversation
    about the benefits and challenges of greater interconnections
    between ERCOT and the rest of the country.
        There is certainly a certain number of legal and technical
    challenges, some infrastructure hurdles that will need to be
    overcome before we do that, but there was a recent report by
    the American Council on Renewable Energy, and they found that
    each additional gigawatt of transmission capacity connected
    with Texas power grid with neighboring States in the Southeast
    could save nearly $1 billion and kept the heat on for
    approximately 200,000 Texans during that storm that we just
    had.
        The report also found that additional transmission ties
    would have generated significant cost savings for consumers and
    reduced outages during extreme weather events by canceling out
    local fluctuations in the supply and demand of electricity in
    providing alternative sources of power in an emergency.
        And my question today is for Commissioner Clements.
        In your testimony, you mentioned the overload
    interconnection queues and costly project delays caused by a
    lack of transmission and state the need to build out cost-
    effective high-voltage transmission across the country.
        You went on to contrast experiences in ERCOT with those of
    neighboring regional transmission organizations, such as
    Southwest Power Pool and the Midcontinent Independent System
    Operator, both of which were able to import power from their
    neighbors.
        Commissioner Clements, can you expand on how greater
    transmission in Texas might have saved us from all freezing?
        Ms. Clements. Sure. Thank you for the question,
    Representative, and I appreciate the tragic circumstances that
    citizens in your State, including some of my family members,
    experienced.
        The Commission has the liability jurisdiction over the
    whole country. So one road to ensuring safety is by our
    reliability authority.
        When it comes to high-voltage transmission, as I mentioned
    earlier, the mid-Atlantic region in these cold weather events
    in February was able to share with the Midwest region, which
    was able to share with the Great Plains. It is because of the
    lack of interconnection to Texas that there was not a power
    sharing that could have helped the outages that took place.
        I think FERC will succeed in its regulatory goals of
    protecting customers and reliability if it finds a balance with
    respect to regional differences to allow Texans to be Texans,
    to allow the West to be the West, but finds that piece of
    interconnection and integration and facilitates that in a cost-
    effective way that is built in the national interest, but also
    in individual space interest and cannot be accomplished simply
    within the State boundaries.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. No, absolutely. It makes a lot of sense.
        Also, I guess the flip side to that that people don't talk
    about a lot and obviously because we were in the cold, we need
    to address the fact that we did not have power, but most people
    know that in Texas we actually produce more wind than anyone
    else in the country, that we produce more wind than the
    European Union does percentage-wise.
        Do you think that there are benefits, such as the ability
    to export power during times of surplus, when wind power might
    otherwise be curtailed?
        Ms. Clements. Absolutely. That is a proven benefit of
    regional grid interconnection across the country.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms.
    Lesko, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the
    record the Wall Street Journal editorial dated July 11th, 2021,
    titled ``The California Power Jam,'' and the statement of the
    Arizona Corporation Commission Chairwoman Lea Marquez Peterson,
    dated June 30th, 2021, in response to FERC's June 25th order
    allowing CAISO, which is the California Independent System
    Operators, to prioritize electric utilities in California at
    the expense of utilities in Arizona and other States.
        Mr. Rush. I would ask the gentlelady if she would defer
    until the conclusion of the hearing so that the staff could
    have a chance to look at the documents that you requested.
        Ms. Lesko. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I am going to read a portion of the Arizona Utility
    Regulator Chairwoman's statement.
        She says, ``As a result of short-sighted energy policies,
    poor long-term planning, and extensive rolling blackouts in
    2020, CAISO petitioned FERC to make changes to its tariff
    related to transmission priority through California. ...
        ``For years, Arizonans have relied upon clean and reliable
    energy purchased from hydropowered dams in Oregon flowing
    through power lines in California to cool our homes during the
    hot summer months. Despite overwhelming opposition from other
    States in the West, FERC sided with California and granted the
    change which will allow California to stop energy from flowing
    to Arizona, which could mean power shortages for Arizonans.''
        Commissioner Glick, how is the Commission's order
    consistent with its well-established and longstanding
    requirements that transmission providers treat third parties in
    a manner comparable to how they treat themselves?
        And does the Commission believe that California load is
    more important than load outside the State, meaning Arizona?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much for the question, Ms. Lesko.
        Actually, last week I actually met with the chair of the
    Arizona Utility Commission, and although this is an ongoing
    proceeding, we did not talk about this particular proceeding,
    but she expressed some concerns about what is going on in
    California, and we agreed that we were going to continue our
    discussion.
        Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy Act essentially laid out
    that we are supposed to enable or allow utilities to serve
    native load customers first, and pursuant to that, in our Order
    890, we actually gave the authority or authorized the authority
    for utilities to essentially benefit native load customers or
    brothers, and that's the statutory authority pursuant to which
    we acted in approving the California order.
        Now, that order is coming on a rehearing, but that was the
    reasoning that the Commission used in our particular order.
        Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Chairman Glick.
        And, Commissioner Christie, explain to me your rationale
    for discriminating against non-California States that are
    paying in advance for a service and being denied that product
    per contractual obligations.
        Mr. Christie. If you are referring to that case----
        Ms. Lesko. I am.
        Mr. Christie. OK. Well, that is still pending in front of
    us, but I will say it was the law in effect that applied to
    that case, and the facts of that case led to the results.
        I think it illustrates a bigger issue, I would say,
    Congresswoman Lesko. States in the West before they make a
    decision to enter an RTO had better look at it long and hard,
    at the pros and cons of what they are getting into.
        I have been in States that have been in an RTO for the last
    17 years. There are advantages, and there are disadvantages. In
    the Western States before joining an RTO or forming an RTO,
    States should thoroughly evaluate the advantages and
    disadvantages.
        And also, on resource adequacy for Arizona or any other
    States, FERC cannot order a single State to build a generating
    unit and FERC cannot order a single State to shut down a
    generating unit. Those resource adequacy decisions are largely
    at the State level, and I believe they should stay there.
        But it goes to the questions that States have to look at
    when they decide about their own generation and whether to join
    an RTO.
        Ms. Lesko. Thank you, sir.
        I just want to say to all of the Commissioners, I urge FERC
    to grant the request for rehearing and reverse your order.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
    Schrader, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the panel for coming. We are trying to serve
    many masters here, as I am sure you have heard from others from
    in and out of different hearings. So I apologize for not being
    here for the entirety.
        I will walk a little bit on Rep. Lesko's comments. I come
    from Oregon. We are a northern neighbor to California and
    obviously have some of the similar concerns. I guess I am going
    to frame things just slightly different.
        FERC recently announced it would review the rules for its
    transmission planning and cost allocation. I think that is a
    great idea.
        However, as you know, in the Pacific Northwest with the
    public utilities that we have or, excuse me, with the
    government-owned utilities, i.e., EPA, that we consider
    ourselves not necessarily subject to FERC and wanted some
    confirmation that we would not be forced into participating
    into some of the existing organized markets that Mr. Christie
    and others referred to with the process that you are
    undergoing.
        I guess I would ask the Honorable Ms. Clements if that is,
    indeed, your intent.
        Ms. Clements. Sir, I think the reciprocity principles that
    are available to nonjurisdictional entities often is compelling
    in the sense that there are benefits to be gained by using
    interregional coordination and cooperation, but certainly to
    the extent that those entities are not interested in
    participating, we follow our jurisdiction rules relative to
    their participation.
        Mr. Schrader. So we would not be forced by FERC to do that.
        Ms. Clements. Correct.
        Mr. Schrader. Very good, very good.
        Whereas the CAISO decisions that are going on at this point
    in time concerned a little bit about the same thing, about
    discrimination in favor of CAISO, should Oregon in particular
    try and get engaged in the marketplace there, that that sort of
    effort could be discrimination against other governmental-owned
    power sources or utilities and wanted to make sure that they
    would not be or CAISO would not have undue leverage, if you
    will, to undermine the marketplace in my State.
        Ms. Clements. Yes, Representative. The question of how to
    get through this summer, that the issues that were being
    discussed, that case that we are covering, now the issue is
    what do we do. These changes are coming at us quickly. The
    length of forest fire season is getting longer. You know, the
    hydro reserves are going lower each summer.
        And so the question is how do we do regional planning in a
    way that respects the rights of States and stakeholders across
    the West but is coordinated in such a fashion that we are
    equipped as a region, that you all are equipped as a region to
    effectively move forward.
        Mr. Schrader. That is a good answer. You could run for my
    office with that answer. That was very good. No disrespect.
        We are just very sensitive when we did deregulation back in
    the day and Exxon was going to be a wonderful thing for my
    great State. It did not work out so well. So, like Arizona and
    many other States in the region that are not California, with
    all due respect to that great State, very concerned about how
    that would play out.
        The last question alludes to a hearing. Siting transmission
    lines is difficult, and 52 percent of my State is owned by the
    Federal Government. So I am just curious if there is any
    initiative or any particular criteria or process by which you
    are going to smooth a way for siting of transmission lines
    across Federal lands in my great State and the rest of the
    country.
        Ms. Clements again. I am sorry.
        Ms. Clements. Absolutely. The advanced notice of proposed
    rulemaking about transition with them and the interconnection
    with those asks a broad set of questions around how to best
    take out regional pooling processes forward in a way that does
    respect the State's jurisdiction over resource adequacy and
    policy preferences as well as the need for increased
    coordination in the interest of protecting customers and
    reliability.
        Mr. Schrader. So it is still open to quite a bit of input
    at this point in time?
        Ms. Clements. That is right. You look forward to reviewing
    the record and I look forward to working with my colleagues
    toward taking action from that record.
        Mr. Schrader. Very good. With that, I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
    Pence, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
    Upton, for holding this hearing.
        And thank you to the Commissioners for being here today.
        This committee is keenly aware of the ongoing energy
    transition as U.S. companies seek to develop new sources of
    generation to meet energy needs. The goals of your Commission
    and this committee is to ensure that any potential transition
    does not negatively affect the liability or affordability.
        As a proponent of the all-of-the-above and all-of-the-below
    energy strategy, I am encouraged by the developments in battery
    storage, advanced nuclear, and alternative liquid fuels.
        However, I am concerned that some of my colleagues and
    potential FERC actions might move too quickly and outpace the
    current state of technologies. Discussions about putting a tax
    on carbon could artificially price out fossil fuels, which
    could provide affordable home energy prices and reliable
    baseload electricity.
        For Hoosiers, that results in increased prices to heat our
    homes and cook our meals unless we switch to the electrical
    option.
        Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to sit down with
    the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, or MISO, who
    oversees great reliability across the Midwest, including almost
    all of Indiana. They estimate that by 2030 a potential energy
    mix in the region that does not impact reliability could be 30
    percent renewables and 55 percent fossil fuel.
        This is far from the emission reduction goals supported by
    the administration, and my colleagues and I have said many
    times I am concerned we are setting ourselves up to
    accidentally fail.
        Pricing out natural gas with regulations and carbon taxes
    will have even further-reaching consequences across the Indiana
    economy.
        Consider a Southeastern Indiana Natural Gas located in
    Milan, Indiana, a local distribution company that provides
    natural gas to residential agriculture and commercial
    customers. Since Indiana is geographically isolated for natural
    gas production, interstate pipelines connect with Southeastern
    to provide a valuable economic driver to the surrounding
    community.
        Hoosier manufacturing and agriculture industries benefit
    from access to interstate pipelines from neighboring gas-
    producing States like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
        Several States and regional transmission organizations have
    already introduced different variations of carbon-pricing
    regulation in electricity markets.
        In a recent FERC policy statement, the Commission outlined
    considerations for entities that choose to enter into carbon-
    priced regimes. The regulatory burden on fossil fuels could
    raise prices for a company like Southeastern until they have no
    choice but to pass those costs on to their customers, both
    commercial and residential.
        Meanwhile, pipelines remain the safest and most reliable,
    environmentally friendly way to move fuel. I personally shipped
    through pipelines, rail, and trucking companies in my previous
    life. Nothing is safer than pipelines.
        I urge my colleagues to consider the broad implications
    before rapidly foregoing a 125-year-old industry of energy
    delivery and consumption.
        Chairman Glick, has your Commission built pro forma impacts
    on the affordability for consumers as the
    environmentalregulatory environment makes a transition away
    from current baseload generation from fossil fuels?
        Have you looked at what the different impacts may be?
        Mr. Glick. No. We basically consider those issues on a
    case-by-case basis when the matter comes before us as to
    whether a particular wholesale rate is just and reasonable or
    not.
        I just want to point out we are technology neutral. So we
    do not choose one technology or another, nor do we actually
    establish carbon pricing. Those are for the States and for
    others.
        We did a policy statement that was facilitating carbon
    pricing, but certainly I do not believe we have the legal
    authority to impose carbon pricing on our own.
        Mr. Pence. Well, I hope we do not get there, too.
        So I thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire,
    Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kuster, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        The chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
    Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Blunt Rochester for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Upton for calling this important hearing.
        I also want to thank Chairman Glick and all of the
    Commissioners for their testimony today.
        Earlier this year, the Biden administration issued
    Executive Order 14008, which requires agencies to prioritize
    environmental justice and address the adverse safety and health
    effects of actions on low-wealth communities and communities of
    color.
        Chairman Glick, what is FERC's current process for
    identifying and assessing the effects of its actions on low-
    wealth communities and communities of color?
        And what additional actions can the Commission take,
    particularly in the siting of natural gas pipelines and
    compressive stations, to better protect these communities?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Ms. Blunt Rochester.
        When I first came to the Commission and we were dealing
    with these gas pipeline siting cases, I started reading some of
    the environmental impact statements that we prepare in advance
    of our vote, and it became clear to me that we were not
    spending a significant amount of time on environmental justice.
        Each environmental impact statement has a section on it,
    but I think in my opinion we were giving it mostly lip service,
    and it became clear to me that this is an important issue. A
    lot of these facilities, whether it be compression stations or
    pipelines or LNG facilities, are essentially sited in areas
    where there are environmental justice communities.
        So upon becoming Chair in January, I appointed Montina
    Cole, who is our new senior counsel for environmental justice
    and equity, and in particular, her responsibilities will be to
    work from a crosscutting basis across the agency to make sure
    not only are decisions with regard to pipelines taking into
    account impacts on the environmental justice communities, but
    all of our decisions, because it is very important to have an
    impact.
        All of our decisions have an impact on these communities,
    and it is very clear from what we have been discussing today
    that many of these issues, while they are important to folks, a
    lot of people do not have necessarily the resources to follow
    through on a day-by-day basis. We are a very complicated agency
    in some respects.
        So we are going to reach out through the Office of Public
    Participation to these communities but also make sure that in
    our decision-making process we take these concerns into account
    up front.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you.
        And weather-related power outages cost Americans billions
    of dollars every year. We know that interregional transmission
    can increase the reliability of our power grid and help prevent
    outages that are both costly and deadly.
        My colleague Representative Peters mentioned the study from
    the American Council on Renewable Energy that highlighted the
    benefits and cost savings of connecting the Texas power grid to
    Southeastern United States.
        These benefits from transmission exist across the country,
    including in my State of Delaware. Given the reliability
    benefits of interregional transmission, can you discuss whether
    FERC should direct the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation to adopt a reliability standard or standards
    requiring greater interregional transfer capacity?
        Mr. Glick. Well, thank you for that question.
        We are just towards the end of a joint inquiry with NERC
    looking at the causes of what occurred last winter with regard
    to Winter Storm Uri and especially the impact on Texas, and I
    am going to await the recommendations, but I expect the
    recommendations will include there be some sort of look at or
    consideration of interregional transmission.
        Now, there are jurisdictional issues in terms of connecting
    the Texas grid to the rest of the country, but I believe, at
    least with regard to NERC and FERC, we very much at least
    consider those issues as they impact on the reliability of the
    electric grid, most importantly, the bulk power system.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
        And, Commissioner Clements, pipelines have historically
    been built in low-wealth communities and communities of color
    with limited resources. Often individuals, landowners, and
    members of these communities are unaware of how to advocate for
    themselves or intervene in FERC proceedings, and the Chairman
    mentioned this as well.
        As you know, Congress first directed FERC to establish an
    Office of Participation in 1978, and more than 40 years passed
    before the Office of Public Participation was established.
        During this time, FERC proceedings were inaccessible to
    many members of these communities, and in addition to
    individuals with disabilities.
        I want to first applaud the Commission for finally taking
    the step to establish the Office of Public Participation.
    However, we all know it is not enough to just establish an
    office. It is essential that stakeholders have the tools and
    the ability to actually have that funding to meaningfully
    participate.
        Can you--just as a followup, what tools do you think are
    necessary to help the public meaningfully participate, and do
    you agree that intervenor funding is critical for realizing
    that success?
        Ms. Clements. Thank you for the question.
        I see we are low on time, and I would be happy to follow
    up, but I appreciate your recognition of the issue, and I also
    recognize the importance of potential intervenor funding.
        The statute requires the Commission to proceed with a
    rulemaking process to consider whether and how that would take
    place, and I am looking forward to ensuring that that takes
    place.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
    the extra time and we will follow up in writing, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair announces that there is a vote occurring on the
    floor, and the chairman desires now that the committee will be
    in recess pending the calling of the Chair, the time
    undetermined right now.
        So the Chair will call the committee to recess for an
    indefinite amount of time, until the vote on the floor
    concludes and there are Members who are present either on the
    phone or in the committee room.
        The committee now stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will now reconvene.
        And I want to thank Members for returning to this hearing.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New
    Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    you reconvening and giving us the opportunity.
        In Reno, Nevada, airlines and airports are beginning to
    face jet fuel shortages. With air travel down last year during
    the height of the pandemic, demand for jet fuel plummeted,
    reducing the share of this fuel in America's pipelines.
        Now that travel is increasing, airlines are short on fuel,
    impacting passenger flights and critical cargo.
        Chairman Glick, do you anticipate more widespread jet fuel
    shortages?
        Are current shortages impacting the delivery of medicine?
        And do you commit to working with [audio malfunction] to
    address this problem in a timely manner?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Ms. Kuster.
        This is a matter of definite concern to us. So the way it
    works for regulated oil pipelines as well as essential gas
    pipelines. With regard to oil pipelines, if there is more
    demand than there is supply in capacity on a particular
    pipeline, the supply is prorationed out to competing users of
    the pipeline, depending on their historic use.
        And, as you know, because of the pandemic, the jet fuel use
    was way down last year, and so we got into a situation with
    regard to the Reno airport, as you mentioned, where we got a
    call on Friday about this in the sense that the demand for jet
    fuel was far greater than the supply based on the prorationed
    share that the airlines were able to get.
        So there are various options. We are looking at this. There
    was a filing made yesterday. It is an ongoing proceeding, so I
    am not allowed to talk about it, but essentially there is a
    request for the Commission to use its emergency authority to
    reallocate some of the capacity on the line, and we are taking
    a look at that.
        But there are other options that the airlines are looking
    to as well, including working on trucking in fuel from other
    parts, for instance, in the Bay Area there is plenty of supply,
    trying to get the fuel into Reno, Nevada, for instance, there
    is a lot of interest there, but the problem is there is not
    enough trucking capacity there, including truck drivers.
        So we are working with industry. We had a good meeting the
    other day with the airline industry, but it is a matter that is
    of concern in Reno now, but it could spread to other airports.
    So we are monitoring this very closely and trying to work with
    the airline industry and other interested stakeholders to try
    to figure out a solution going forward.
        Ms. Kuster. Great. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate
    it.
        I am going to turn my attention to hydropower. Hydropower
    makes up more than [inaudible] percent of electric generation
    nationwide and is the United States' [inaudible] source of
    renewable energy.
        My bipartisan bill, the 21st Century Dams Act, lays out a
    bold plan to retrofit, rehabilitate and remove dams to not only
    increase clean energy production through retrofitting dams for
    hydropower production but improve dam safety by rehabilitating
    dams, and when dam owners and communities agree it is the best
    path forward, actually removing dams to return river ecosystems
    to their natural state.
        This bill will help us reduce carbon emission, create a
    more resilient energy system, support more than 450,000
    American jobs, and improve the health of our Nation's rivers.
        Chairman Glick, can investments in hydropower aid our
    Nation's national efforts to move toward a distributed clean
    energy grid?
        Mr. Glick. Well, I think hydropower has a very important
    role to play as you move toward the clean energy future.
    Obviously, it is a zero-emission technology. It also plays an
    important role in integrating intermittent resources, helping
    integrate intermittent resources most cost-effectively and
    efficiently.
        And I think I understand your bill has several components
    to it. I would say with regard to powering or repowering,
    repowering nonpower dams, I think there is significant
    potential. The Department of Energy identified substantial
    additional capacity that could be added by adding hydropower to
    a nonpowered dam, and it is something we are taking a look at.
    We actually have a program underway after the legislation was
    passed in 2018.
        I would also say that there are times when the licensee or
    the owner or the operator of a particular hydro facility finds
    it is more expensive to continue operating it, especially with
    regard to certain environmental conditions, and so they have
    come to the Commission seeking the permission to actually
    dismantle or eliminate the dam in order to improve
    environmental conditions in the area.
        And so we actually have a process for that too, and we work
    with each individual licensee on a case-by-case basis.
        Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you.
        And we will look forward to working with you on that.
        So switching gears just a bit, I only have a few seconds
    left. I want to discuss the minimum offer price rule. MOPR
    [audio malfunction] the cost of clean energy resources.
        I just wanted to jump ahead here. You have [audio
    malfunction] and called the grid operators to reform or
    eliminate the rule.
        Could you comment briefly? My time is up, but I would love
    to hear your thoughts.
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Ms. Kuster, and I will speak very
    quickly about it.
        Yes, I have been very opposed to the minimum offer price
    rule as it has been established in the Eastern RTO capacity
    market, in large part because I think it is contrary to what
    the Federal Power Act tells us, which is the States and not
    FERC have the authority over resource decision making, and
    MOPRs can essentially causes State-supported resources to be at
    a competitive disadvantage.
        So I understand that various RTOs, New England, PJM, and
    New York, are actually looking at modifications for their
    program, and hopefully they will be filing them soon and we
    will be considering them as expeditiously as possible.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much for your comments.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Joyce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes--Mr. Joyce?
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Long.
        Mr. Armstrong.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Mrs.
    Fletcher for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in
    today's hearing.
        And thank you to all of our witnesses. I appreciated
    hearing your thoughts and insights tonight, for staying in this
    hearing, and I wanted to follow up with you on a few things.
        I do represent the 7th Congressional District in Houston
    and certainly am very keenly following a lot of the
    developments and thing happening and appreciate the chance to
    ask you a few questions.
        So I will get right to it, and I will start with Chairman
    Glick. It is important for my constituents and for people
    across the country to know that the Commission's ratemaking
    policies properly compensate and incentivize emissions
    reduction investments in our natural gas infrastructure, such
    as replacing older machinery with newer, low- or zero-emissions
    technology and selling carbon capture equipment. That is
    certainly a topic at home. Upgrading pipelines to blend in
    hydrogen and renewable natural gas.
        These are all things that we are doing to address the
    impacts of climate change, and one of our goals is, of course,
    to bring down emissions as quickly as possible.
        So we really should not require natural gas infrastructure
    companies to go through a multiyear FERC proceeding that
    reevaluates all aspects of their rate simply to recover basic
    modernization and emissions investment.
        Does FERC have or is FERC considering an efficient
    mechanism for encouraging natural gas pipeline emissions
    reduction investment?
        And I will start with you, Chairman Glick, and if anybody
    else wants to weigh in, I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Glick. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think, with regard to our particular authority with
    regard to the natural gas pipelines and rate making, we have
    the authority to approve any prudently included investment that
    the company makes. We have to take that on a case-by-case
    basis.
        So clearly, if a pipeline company came in and said they had
    emissions reduction equipment and to the extent it is a prudent
    investment, we would allow recovery of that.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. And do you agree with me that it is
    important to continue investing in our country's natural gas
    infrastructure to achieve America's energy and climate goals?
        Mr. Glick. I think there are certain cases where absolutely
    there would be an additional pipeline investment. I will give
    you an example. New England is a great example where they need
    additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure or capacity.
    They are going to meet certain demands during the week, for
    instance.
        I would say with regards to going back to your previous
    question. When we review or when we examine a certificate in a
    particular proposed pipeline, if there are actions that the
    company takes to reduce emissions, for instance, or make their
    pipeline more efficient, we certainly encourage that because we
    essentially could require mitigation of any adverse
    environmental impacts.
        So there are ways companies can make these investments that
    would promote development, promote their ability to get a
    certificate and move forward with the pipeline project.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Well, thank you for that.
        And I think in answering my last question you also touched
    on the role that you think natural gas infrastructure can play
    in our energy future, and certainly right now it has and will
    continue in the future to help ensure reliability as more
    renewables are employed on the power grid as well.
        With the time I have left, I want you to touch on one very
    specific item, because I think that the investment in
    infrastructure is really important.
        And we all know that building infrastructure projects have
    taken longer and longer in recent years. How much delay do you
    expect for recent Order 871 to add to pipeline development
    timeline, considering that most of these projects already take
    many years to design, permit, and build?
        Mr. Glick. I do not think Order 871 will provide much delay
    at all, especially with what that order requires. When you have
    got a certificate, if there are parties that have expressed and
    filed for a hearing about a particular decision, we require
    that basically up until the party filing for the hearing would
    have the ability to have their request decided by the
    Commission before the company can move forward and utilize them
    in some name.
        But in that particular order we would put a 90-day time
    limit. So whatever happens first, either the Commission issues
    a rehearing order, which typically happens a lot sooner than 90
    days, or if 90 days expires, then the pipeline can be moved
    forward and go to court and seek eminent domain authority.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for clarifying that. I think
    there is a lack of clarity about what folks need to do in
    response to Order 871. So appreciate your insight that it
    should not cause delay, and we will continue that conversation.
        But as I am running out of time, I will thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for allowing me to participate, and I will yield
    back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Joyce. First I want to thank you, Chairman Rush, for
    allowing me to waive onto this subcommittee hearing and thank
    all of the Commissioners for appearing here with us today.
        In the past decade, American energy needs have continued to
    grow. Manufacturing in the United States uses over 30 percent
    of the Nation's power. Electric car sales are climbing, with a
    17 percent growth from 2016 to 2020, and with them, their
    increasing drain on our grid.
        Likewise, every American continues to depend on our grid to
    heat and cool their homes and enjoy the standards of living
    that we are accustomed to in this country.
        It is essential that our energy grid remains as reliable
    and dependable as possible. Regulatory agencies like FERC play
    a key role in this effort.
        As I discussed with Commissioner Wright of the NRC last
    week, maintaining a stable regulatory environment--a consistent
    strike zone, so to speak--is critical so business can invest
    with confidence on how to better serve America's energy needs.
        My first question is for you, Chairman Glick. As the lead
    agency, what is FERC doing to streamline pipeline permitting
    and to bring more certainty and predictability into this
    process?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Mr. Joyce.
        I have spent about 10 to 15 years in the private sector on
    several occasions, all with energy companies. The one thing I
    have learned and the most important thing that the government
    can do is provide regulatory certainty.
        It is hard to make investment decisions, especially when
    you are talking about billion-dollar investment decisions, if
    you do not know where the government is going in terms of
    regulation, whether that be FERC or Congress or the NRC or any
    other agency.
        And so it is vitally important that we provide that level
    of certainty.
        I think with regard to the pipeline situation, I would say
    what we are trying to do is reduce the amount of litigation
    that occurs afterwards. We have seen now on a couple of
    occasions, whether it be the NBP pipeline, the Atlantic Coast
    Pipeline or more recently the Fire Pipeline in Illinois and
    Missouri, where the courts have essentially found that the
    agency decisions that were made several years ago were not
    sufficient, that we did not essentially cross our T's and dot
    our I's and do the analysis that is required.
        All of those cases got sent back. In one case, the pipeline
    was terminated because it was too expensive and too time
    consuming to redo, and there was another one that has been
    pending for several additional years because of the court
    decision, and there is a third one that is now pending before
    the Commission again.
        All it does is add billions of dollars of litigation. It
    adds billions of dollars of additional administrative expense
    and takes several additional years.
        But we are trying to provide certainty up front so that,
    when pipeline companies come to the Commission, we do the right
    thing and they do not have to come back a second time.
        Mr. Joyce. Chairman Glick, will you commit to working with
    Congress to make these aforementioned improvements?
        Mr. Glick. Absolutely.
        Mr. Joyce. Chairman Glick, how do you view natural gas
    power plants?
        Are they essential to back up weather-dependent renewables?
        Mr. Glick. So, as you noted, we are going to be
    experiencing significant increase in generation or intermittent
    generation, whether it be wind or solar in particular, and
    because of that, we are going to need more flexible resources
    to deal with that intermittency, and it looks like the
    resources could be natural gas plants. It could be storage. It
    could be hydro in some cases.
        But I think we are going to need all of those technologies
    in order to be able to deal with the variability that is going
    to increase on the grid.
        Mr. Joyce. Commissioner Chatterjee, coming from
    Pennsylvania where there is an abundant supply of natural gas
    under the feet and under the homes of my constituents, would
    you comment on the role of natural gas as a backup energy
    source to renewables?
        Mr. Chatterjee. Yes. Natural gas is currently at the
    backbone of our energy transition. We are in the midst of this
    transition, and it has been remarkable for consumers, for the
    economy, and for the environment, but we could not have made
    this transition to this accelerated deployment of renewables
    without the flexible backup that is natural gas.
        So natural gas and the natural gas revolution have
    fundamentally changed the energy dynamic in this country, and
    it has been an amazing development, and it is scary to think
    where we would be without natural gas.
        Mr. Joyce. I agree. I think that the natural gas industry
    has supplied so much to our grid and will continue to do so.
        Commissioner Danly, could antipipeline policies have a
    negative impact on grid reliability?
        Mr. Danly. Thank you for your question.
        Of course it can. We saw sadly in recent history what
    happens to the reliability of the electric system when natural
    gas supplies are cut short. During the storm in Texas this
    winter, in part, the failure of the grid to maintain system
    reliability, stability was due to the failure of natural gas to
    get to natural gas generators.
        Mr. Joyce. My time has closed. Thank you, Chairman Rush,
    for allowing me to waive onto this important hearing, and I
    yield back.
        Ms. Barragan. Mr. Chairman, I think you are on mute.
        Mr. Rush. I was on mute.
        And the Chair now recognizes a regular member of the full
    committee and subcommittee, Ms. Barragan from California. Ms.
    Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
    important oversight hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission.
        As the Biden administration and Congress work to hold
    polluters accountable and invest in environmental justice and
    economically disadvantaged communities, it is critical the
    Commission avoid doing harm by permitting more fossil fuel
    infrastructure in these communities.
        Chairman Glick, I appreciate your push to reform the
    Commission's certificate policy, the approval process, to
    ensure you are giving serious consideration of climate and
    environmental justice impacts before approving gas pipeline
    projects.
        How should the Commission factor climate impacts into the
    overall evaluation of a project?
        And what is the threshold in which a project's climate
    impact is too great to move forward?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        Our statutory requirement is that we find a proposed
    pipeline both as needed and that's in the public interest
    before we permit the project to move forward.
        And with regard to the public interest examination,
    essentially what we do is we consider the benefits of the
    project against its adverse impacts.
        And the courts have told us on several occasions now that
    among the potential adverse impacts that we need to consider is
    the potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
    proposed natural gas pipeline and, in particular, the impact of
    those emissions on climate change.
        So in fact, we do measure or we will weigh the impact of
    those greenhouse gas emissions when doing our certificate
    analysis.
        I cannot tell you at this point exactly what level of
    emissions is too much, but as I said in answer to a previous
    question, it is not just the emissions level. It is actually
    whether you can mitigate those emissions.
        There are a whole bunch of other potential adverse impacts,
    whether it be to species, to wetlands, to air emissions, to a
    whole bunch of other impacts associated with the pipeline. The
    Commission, when we consider a certificate proposal, tries to
    mitigate, and we very well could try to mitigate or require the
    pipeline developer to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions
    before we make a final decision on a pipeline.
        We have to judge these issues on a case-by-case basis.
        Ms. Barragan. So are you taking a look at any cumulative
    impacts, like what else is going on, or are you looking only at
    a specific project and that specific project?
        Mr. Glick. So under our NIPA analysis we do consider
    cumulative impacts, which is required or had been required
    under the CEQ regulations, and we will continue to consider
    cumulative impacts. That, you know, includes greenhouse gas
    emissions impacts.
        I would say that the Commission up until recently actually
    had denied a request to consider the impact of greenhouse gas
    emissions on proposed pipelines. This is relatively new for the
    Commission. We are still working out the process, but we
    definitely will consider cumulative emissions or cumulative
    impacts associated with proposed pipeline projects in the same
    area.
        Ms. Barragan. OK. Is there anything else you could tell us
    about what you will do to ensure that the Commission's
    certificate policy on environmental justice reviews will be
    meaningful impacts to decision making so that it is not just
    another box to check?
        Mr. Glick. No, and I very much appreciate that. The reason
    I got interested in the subject, actually I read an
    environmental impact statement associated with an LNG facility
    in Southeast Texas, and there was a section in there on
    environmental justice.
        And basically the environmental impact statement said,
    ``Well, there are only Hispanic people in this neighborhood.
    There are not any other folks, Caucasians or others, in this
    particular neighborhood, so therefore there is no environmental
    impact.'' There is no impact on environmental justice
    communities, which I found just outrageous.
        And so I started reading up on the subject, and I realized
    in our particular process how we consider proposed natural gas
    pipelines and LNG facilities, we really do not have a thorough
    process.
        So what I have done at the Commission is I recently hired
    Montina Cole, who is our new senior counsel for environmental
    justice and equity, and she is actually putting together a team
    throughout the Commission to address these issues and make sure
    that, not only with regard to pipelines but every other
    decision we make, we take into account the potential impact on
    environmental justice communities before we, in fact, make the
    final decision.
        Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you.
        I do know that the communities that are often on the front
    line in these communities are communities of color, low-income,
    disadvantaged communities, Native American communities.
        In my final question, when do you anticipate the Commission
    will establish an updated certificate policy that takes climate
    change, environmental justice, and landowner rights into
    account?
        Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question again.
        We are in the process of wading through the comments that
    we have received on the notice of inquiry, which has been vast.
    I am actually reformulating, revising our policy statement.
        It might help if we do it sooner rather than later, in
    large part because the courts are telling us some of the ways
    and methodologies that would be used to determine need, for
    instance, which is not some of the other issues we consider. Is
    it consistent with a loss?
        And I think there is an urgency that we see to move
    forward. I cannot give you a specific timeline because I need
    to work with my colleagues, but hopefully much sooner rather
    than later.
        Ms. Barragan. All right. Thank you. I am looking forward to
    that.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        I believe you are on mute, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. And that concludes the witness questions.
        And I certainly would like to thank our witnesses for your
    patience, for your endurance, and for your participation in
    today's hearing.
        And I at this time remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record to be answered by the
    witnesses who have appeared.
        I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such question
    that you may receive.
        And before we adjourn, I request unanimous consent to enter
    the following documents into the record: a July 26, 2021,
    letter from Chairman Glick at FERC to Representative
    Butterfield on H.R. 3979, and secondly, a news release from the
    Arizona Corporation Commission entitled ``Chairwoman Marquez
    Peterson Alarmed by Federal Ruling Allowing California to Block
    Energy to Arizona.''
        With no objection, the documents are entered into the
    record.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Rush. And without any more witnesses, without any more
    comments, the subcommittee now stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]