[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]