[Senate Hearing 117-375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-375
OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: A YEAR IN REVIEW
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 11, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-682 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 11, 2022
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 4
WITNESS
Mallory, Hon. Brenda, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality.... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 12
Senator Padilla.......................................... 16
Senator Capito........................................... 19
Senator Inhofe........................................... 34
Senator Cramer........................................... 36
Senator Boozman.......................................... 36
Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker....... 37
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
The Natural of Oil and Gasoline Markets, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, April 1, 2022................................... 50
What drives crude oil prices? An analysis of 7 factors that
influence oil markets, with chart data updated monthly and
quarterly, U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 8,
2022........................................................... 55
Why gasoline prices remain high even as crude oil prices fall,
the Washington Post, April 11, 2022............................ 78
How to Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly, the Wall Street
Journal Editorial Board, April 20, 2022........................ 89
The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded
Highway Projects: Background and Issues for Congress, the
Congressional Research Service, April 11, 2012................. 99
Oilfield services bounce back as US drilling boom gathers pace,
the Financial Times, May 3, 2022............................... 145
Rotary Rig Count, Baker Hughes, May 6, 2022...................... 153
Application for Permit to Drill Status Report.................... 154
DEC's Comprehensive Study of PFAS and Metals Finds No Clear Link
to Norlite's Operations, No Indication of Human Health Risk,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, March
9, 2021........................................................ 159
National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusion Survey
Review, U.S. Department of Transportation, November 27, 2012... 162
OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: A YEAR IN REVIEW
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Cramer, Lummis, Wicker,
Sullivan, and Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to
call this hearing to order.
I want to begin by welcoming our witness, Brenda Mallory,
Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, back before our
Committee today. We appreciate your being here to discuss the
CEQ's work since your confirmation last year.
Some of you have heard me, and she has heard me say this
before, but I know one Delawarean who has been the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality. He is a former Governor, a
Republican, and he had been a leader at the DuPont Company and
became Governor of Delaware. When Richard Nixon was President,
and later, Gerald Ford, they nominated Russ Peterson, who
served under two Presidents as Chairman of CEQ.
I used to ask, when I was in the State Treasury, I used to
ask, Governor Peterson, just what did you do when you were
chair of CEQ? He used a music analogy. He said, it is like,
when you are CEQ chairman, you are the orchestra leader, and
you have an orchestra with many people playing instruments.
They make different sounds. But the idea of the chair of CEQ is
to make sure that the different pieces that have, and the
government have, just like musical instruments, to make sure
that they play in harmony. That is the way he described it to
me. I think it is a pretty apt description, so the orchestra
leader here today is Brenda Mallory.
We welcome you.
We also thank you for celebrating Earth Day with us in
Delaware last month. Your visits to Delaware State University
and Delaware Technical Community College made a real impact on
everybody we met, especially the kids, large and small. They
ran the gamut, everything from kindergarten to doctoral
programs at Delaware State University. And you are welcome to
visit us in Delaware at any time. Thanks for coming.
Since the moment that he took office, President Biden has
made leading our country out of the greatest economic downturn
since the Great Depression, as well as addressing climate
change and advancing environmental justice, top priorities of
his Administration. The role that CEQ plays in achieving these
goals cannot be overstated, but it is not well understood by a
whole lot of people.
CEQ ensures, and I mentioned earlier, that Federal agencies
work in harmony to protect our environment and to improve
public health, which is critical to creating a nurturing
environment for job creation and job preservation. We are
always interested in how to create, we don't create jobs in
what we do, but we help create that nurturing environment, and
CEQ plays a vital role.
With more than 8 million Americans back to work since
President Biden took office, that is a lot of people working
who weren't working a year ago, it is clear that CEQ's urgent
work is not stymying economic growth.
Earlier this year, the Fourth National Climate Assessment
made clear that nations throughout the world must dramatically
and urgently reduce emissions if we are to avoid the most
devastating impacts of climate change. Driving to the train
station this morning, I was hearing the kinds of problems that
they are having in New Mexico with fires, wildfires. Really
devastating stuff. That is just another example of what we
face.
These impacts are already being felt in communities in the
United States and across our planet, showing us just how
vulnerable we are to climate change and extreme weather. Just
last week, I don't know about where you all live, but on the
East Coast, we had 4 days of rain. We saw some of that in
Washington, and it produced flooding in places where, frankly,
it doesn't flood a whole lot, including Delaware.
Prior to that, in the last year alone, we witnessed record
heat waves in Oregon, where only a third of households have air
conditioning. Think about that. Wildfires burned millions of
acres in California, Montana, Arizona, and other western
States.
The same hurricane that knocked out access to power and
water for a million people in Louisiana and Mississippi then
went on up the East Coast to produce flash floods in New Jersey
and New York. People there actually drowned in those places,
especially in New York, actually drowned in their basements,
unable to escape the torrent of floodwater.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, damages from last year's disasters totaled
roughly $145 billion, $145 billion. That is just in 1 year. So
it is becoming increasingly clear that the Administration's
focus on climate change is both timely, and I believe,
critical.
Addressing the longstanding environmental inequities in our
Nation is equally important and also linked to climate change.
We know that while climate change threatens to disrupt all
communities and affects all aspects of our economy, it poses
unique threats to communities that are already vulnerable.
In other words, Americans living in lower income and
marginalized communities have less ability to prepare for and
recover from extreme weather. The least among us have the most
to lose from inaction on climate.
That is why our Federal agencies need to address these twin
goals of climate action and environmental justice together.
Fortunately, we have an important tool to improve Federal
analysis and decisionmaking, and that is the National
Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA.
NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality in
1969. This was done in part to provide agencies with high
quality information on the environmental effects of their
proposed actions. Over the years, we have made a number of
adjustments to NEPA. It is not exactly the same as it was in
1969. We have made some tweaks, I hope improvements, ensuring
that the law functions as intended while also not being overly
burdensome to industry.
Earlier this year, CEQ finalized revisions to the rule that
implements NEPA. This restored critical protection under NEPA
and also provided agencies and other stakeholders with greater
certainty as they begin to implement the programs created under
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which has its roots, its
origins, literally in this room, in this Committee. These
revisions will ensure that agencies consider the cumulative
impacts of a project, such as the implications for climate
change and the question of whether the impact is on a community
that is already vulnerable.
CEQ also has been coordinating efforts across the Federal
Government to improve the Federal permitting process for clean
energy technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration,
something that several of us are very much interested in.
Today, we look forward to hearing more about those efforts from
our witness.
I would also be remiss if I didn't set the record straight
with respect to the Biden administration's policy actions and
gas prices in our country, something about which there is a
fair amount of controversy, as we know. The last time I
checked, the United States is still the top oil and gas
producer in the world, producing more than we consume. With
more than 9,000 unused, approved permits to drill offshore, the
oil and gas industry, not the Federal permitting process, bears
more than a little responsibility for the current level of
domestic production. But we can get into more of that later.
In addition to its permitting efforts, CEQ has also been
hard at work delivering on the Administration's promise to
prioritize environmental justice and equitably distribute the
benefits of climate actions. As part of that effort, CEQ has
released a draft version of its Climate and Environmental
Justice Screening Tool, helping agencies to better identify
underserved or overburdened communities. And they have also
recently hired, I believe, a new Director of Environmental
Justice to oversee this important work.
CEQ has also established sustainability goals for Federal
buildings and other Federal procurements and launched a $1
billion effort, known as the America the Beautiful Challenge,
the America the Beautiful Challenge, to support conservation
and restoration projects on Federal lands. All of this
demonstrates, I believe, the Administration's commitment to
leading by example when it comes to doing what is good and what
is right for our planet.
So, we are looking forward to hearing from you, Madam. Do
people call you Chair Mallory? What is your official title?
Ms. Mallory. Yes, they do say Chair, if I am not able to
stop them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. All right, Ms. Mallory, we are delighted at
the critical efforts that you are leading and whether CEQ has
the resources it needs to effectively carry out your work.
Before we do that, I turn it over to our Ranking Member for
opening remarks and get us started.
We have a Delawarean, Greg Williams, who has been nominated
to serve on a Federal District Court in Delaware. I am
introducing him in about 5 minutes on the Judiciary Committee,
so I will rejoin you shortly. In the meantime, I leave you in
good hands. Thanks so much.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for leaving me in charge, and thank you for holding today's
hearing to conduct oversight on the Council on Environmental
Quality, CEQ, and thank you for coming to be with us today,
Chair.
I know that both you and I are very proud of this
Committee's monumental achievement of developing and reporting
surface transportation and drinking and wastewater legislation
unanimously last year. And we are also very proud that when
those bills became law at the end of the last year as part of
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, IIJA, and soon,
hopefully, our WRDA legislation, which we passed last week out
of Committee unanimously, will also join that IIJA into law.
A top priority for all of us in the Committee is to make
sure the programs and authorizations we carefully negotiated
move from being words on a page to projects on the ground. If
IIJA is implemented as Congress intended, we will develop
modern roads and bridges to connect rural communities, critical
water infrastructure projects to create access to clean water,
improvements to our transmission system to ensure access to
reliable and affordable power, and the development of natural
gas pipelines and other energy projects to ensure fuel for both
here and exports abroad, a need that has been made all the more
real by the Russia war in Ukraine.
The funding and authorizations provided by IIJA will propel
development. But those projects must also complete
environmental reviews and secure Federal permits before shovels
can actually go in the ground.
In that legislation, we also recognized that the status quo
for NEPA reviews and permitting has been unacceptable, so a
2020 CEQ report found that the average environmental impact
statement took 4 and half years to be completed. We know that
some projects can take up to 10 years to get through the NEPA
permitting process.
Congress explicitly directed streamlining of environmental
reviews for transportation projects, particularly by codifying
the One Federal Decision policy for certain transportation
projects. That policy recognizes that delays caused by a never
ending environmental review process can kill or stifle projects
and investment.
IIJA puts in place a common sense guidepost that NEPA
reviews for major transportation projects will take no longer
than 2 years, and all environmental permits and other project
authorizations should follow within 90 days after that. A clear
project timeline will help to plan, finance, and construct
transportation projects within the 5 year authorization window
for the Federal Highway programs.
Congress's clear intent, both in the highway bill and in
other portions of the IIJA, such as the permanent
reauthorization of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering
Council, was to ensure projects are completed faster so that
the American people can benefit from the investments.
As the agency charged with overseeing implementation of the
NEPA Act, as well as the agency that serves as an environmental
coordinating hub Administration-wide, CEQ can play a unique and
instrumental role in implementing Congress's goals.
CEQ could institute environmental review and permitting
efficiencies that can make the IIJA implementation a success. I
will say that nothing that I have seen coming out of CEQ
assures me that this is what is going to happen. Certainly,
improving NEPA efficiency does not appear to be a priority.
Instead, CEQ seems very busy implementing executive orders
that direct CEQ to manage and develop countless new
Administration led policies not authorized in statute, from
coming up with an environmental justice screening tool to be
employed Administration-wide to managing new Federal efforts to
transition all Government cars to electric vehicles in an
unrealistic timeframe.
CEQ is bogged down with activities imposed by the President
unilaterally, and even then, CEQ can't even keep up with the
President's own timelines. For example, the draft environmental
justice tool was not released until this February, which is
actually 5 months after the President's self-imposed deadline.
In the meantime, CEQ has not provided, I don't think, adequate
attention to actually implementing NEPA.
The one major action related to NEPA CEQ has taken I do not
believe will speed up projects. Last month, the CEQ rolled back
three key reforms made to NEPA under the Trump administration.
CEQ proposes to put the Federal Government in charge of
deciding a project's purpose and need. CEQ would encourage
individual Federal agencies to layer on additional review
requirements, and CEQ is directing agencies to bring in
cumulative and indirect impacts that will have the effect of
putting the thumb on the scale against certain projects. In
doing so, CEQ has only amplified ambiguity and uncertainty that
we are trying to get around within the NEPA review process,
which will slow down our project delivery.
The opposition from project developers across industries,
from roadbuilders to energy producers, has been swift and
emphatic. Their message is clear: Why is CEQ making the NEPA
process more difficult, not faster and clearer? CEQ has shown
no willingness to expedite the review and permitting review
process for CCUS, as directed by Congress in the USE IT Act.
CEQ has provided guidance that largely serves to present
alleged pros and cons of CCUS and fails to provide concrete
direction to Federal agencies to actually expedite CCUS
projects. That is disappointing to me, as somebody who is a big
supporter of that, and telling, that even with respect to
projects that are clearly necessary to the Administration's
well publicized climate goals, CEQ is apparently unwilling to
propose reforms that could cut that red tape.
Chair Mallory, thank you for coming today to discuss some
of the issues that I have brought up. I am sure you will. This
could not be a more important time for this discussion. Just
this morning, the Administration has released an action plan
for expediting permitting decisions, and I look forward to
learning more about that plan, as well as how the
Administration will implement the project delivery improvements
enacted by Congress.
The actions the Administration takes now concerning
environmental review and permitting will determine the
implementation of the IIJA, the USE IT Act, and other recent
legislation, how it delivers to the American people the
infrastructure improvements that Congress intended and that
they deserve.
I look forward to today's hearing, and I will turn it over
to you, Chair, for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDA MALLORY,
CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator Capito, and also thank you
to Chairman Carper. It is a pleasure to be here.
Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today. Last month marked 1 year since I was confirmed by this
body. Since then, my staff and I have been working on behalf of
President Biden and the American people to find common sense
solutions to the environmental challenges that families face in
their daily lives.
I have been fortunate to meet with a number of you to
understand your priorities so that we can work together to
deliver cleaner air, water, and lands to the American people.
Serving in this role is an honor, and I am grateful to the
President and to you for placing your faith in me.
In my travels over the past year, I heard from residents of
one of Michigan's most polluted areas, from communities in
Delaware, to families in New Orleans, and neighbors in Tampa,
all of whom live in the shadow of polluting industries. These
communities have been coping for decades with toxic pollution
in the air they breathe and water they drink.
President Nixon once said, clean air, clean water, open
spaces: These should once again be the birthright of every
American. Indeed, the mission of safeguarding clean air and
clean water has long been a shared American value. This value
grounds our work at CEQ.
Every person in this country should be able to expect clean
water from their tap or well. That is not the reality for far
too many communities. Every person in this country should be
able to expect that air they breathe won't make them sick. That
is also not the reality for far too many communities.
For too long, we have failed to deliver on these basic
protections. That is why our environmental justice work in the
Biden-Harris administration is so important. While our work is
far from over, I am proud of the work we have done so far to
set the foundation to tackle a legacy of injustice. Together
with Congress, we have begun the hard work of alleviating the
environmental burdens that so many communities experience
through unprecedented investments in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, many of which were unanimously supported by
this Committee.
We are replacing lead pipes, accelerating Superfund
cleanups, cleaning up abandoned mines and oil wells, and
protecting the most vulnerable communities from fires, floods,
and storms. The impacts of these investments are not abstract.
They are helping Americans right now.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is also helping us to
plan for the future. Thanks to this historic funding, we are
going to be doing a lot more building in the next few years,
from electric vehicle charging infrastructure to wind turbines
and solar farms, to the transmission that will move this new,
clean power.
The question we are grappling with is, how will we build
faster and better? How will we build so that we protecting
communities while growing our clean energy economy at the pace
required by the climate crisis?
This morning, we released a permitting action plan that
tackles this challenge in four ways. First, we will set clear
timelines for the projects to get reviewed and permitted.
Second, we will use public dashboards so that everyone can
track where projects stand in the process, including nearby
communities. Third, we will hire more staff in the offices that
are doing the hard work of permitting and reviews. And fourth,
we will use the old saying, measure twice, cut once. Smart and
early design, analysis, and public input save time by avoiding
conflict, litigation, and waste.
I want to close by saying that the investments that
President Biden and Congress made will deliver a cleaner
environment for generations to come, but we also need
Congress's continued help to transition to clean energy at the
pace and scale required to meet the challenge of climate
change.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law puts us on the right
path, but there is still more work to be done. The clean energy
provisions the Senate is considering would help cleanup and
reduce carbon emissions in the power and transportation sectors
while cutting energy costs for American families.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mallory follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
I will start the questions.
I want to ask you just a quick question on one of your four
points of the release of the information this morning. You
mentioned, hire more staff. Is that at Fish and Wildlife, hire
more staff?
Ms. Mallory. I think, basically, what the plan calls for is
agencies doing the assessment that is necessary to determine
where they need resources, and then acting on that.
Senator Capito. I would recommend Fish and Wildlife has
been, is holding up a lot of the permitting, and it is very
frustrating to a lot of people who are trying to move, whatever
the project, clean energy, whatever the project. On that one, I
think we both agree there are more resources needed.
Let me ask you about the international situation, since I
mentioned that in my opening statement. We see that the
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has really, I think, put a
light, and the President has talked about this, on the need for
energy security both here and abroad. And the President has
mentioned the ability of the United States to help with
liquefied natural gas and things of that nature to help Europe
become less dependent on Putin.
Would you agree that we must immediately act to replace
Russian imports into Europe with American made energy? Do you
agree with that?
Ms. Mallory. Senator, what I would say is that the
President has been clear that the Ukraine situation and
Russia's unprovoked action causes us to look at the current
crises that we are already dealing with, the climate crisis
being critical to that to assess how we take action that helps
the Ukraine situation but doesn't undermine our overall goals
for climate action.
Senator Capito. I was going to ask next, have you taken any
specific actions to strengthen our energy security, increase
our domestic energy production to meet this, and export more? I
think that answer to that is no.
Ms. Mallory. Senator Capito, the answer is that what we are
trying to do, as I said, is find that balance so that the
President can continue to provide the support that Ukraine
needs, but that we don't lose track of our overall goals to
address the climate crisis.
Senator Capito. I guess I am talking less about Ukraine at
this point, although they are certainly in our hearts and
minds, and we are probably going to be passing a very large
package to help them. I am talking about the rest of Europe,
which is now held hostage to Putin and his natural gas
supplies.
Let me ask you this question. On the permitting issue that
I talked about with the IIJA, does this run into conflict with
some of the goals that you have set forward in terms of a 2
year timeline and a 90 day repeat, shortening the time of the
projects? How do you see those working in conjunction with one
another? Because we feel, I feel, as though you could create a
conflict there.
Ms. Mallory. First of all, thank you, Senator, I appreciate
that question. One of the things that I have been trying to do,
consistent with the President's goals from the beginning of my
time at CEQ, is find a way to meet the multiple goals that the
President has set before us. He has been very clear that he
wants us to ensure that we get the projects done that are
necessary in order to meet the investments that we have
identified as being important through the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and other laws, but to do it in the right
way, so that we are making smart decisions that allow us to
meet our multiple goals.
I would say that the whole effort that is reflected in the
permitting action plan this morning is us trying to bring
together the best tools that are available, to take advantage
of what we know has worked in the Federal Government to get
decisions done in a way that is both appropriate but also
recognizes what our ultimate values are. And that is what we
believe we can achieve through the permitting action plan, so
that you get the projects, but you also get them done well.
Senator Capito. I was interested in one of the quotes from
your statement is, more building in the next few years, and it
appears sort of laced through the action plans that you took on
the NEPA regulatory changes, where you have taken down three of
the major provisions that the Trump administration put forward,
I mentioned it in my opening statement, only sets up more
regulations from different Federal regulators. Again, it looks
like a burdensome, how do I want to say this, a burdensome
package, again, to slow any kind of new construction, or even a
CCUS project.
Ms. Mallory. Senator, thank you for that question. One of
the things that the work that we did in the NEPA provisions was
focused on is making sure that we are able to do the analysis
that effectively determines what are the impacts that a project
is going to cause. If you narrow your focus to such an extent
that you are not actually considering the real impacts of a
project, that is just setting us up for failure. So our focus
has been on making sure that the agencies have the tools to do
the necessary analysis, but then to support them in ways that
they can do it in a time efficient manner.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I am going to go to Senator Cardin. Is he on Webex?
Senator Cardin. I am with you, thank you, Madam Chair. Let
me thank our witness for your work.
The Infrastructure Bill is a once in a lifetime opportunity
for this country, so your role is critically important to make
sure we do it right. You were very clear that environmental
justice is one of our goals in regard to how we rebuild our
infrastructure in America. I was proud that included in this
bill was the removal of lead from our water pipe systems that
we have, reconnecting communities that have been divided by
highways that were destructive to the residential communities,
and the list goes on and on. We have resiliency in this, et
cetera.
My home State of Maryland has the Maryland Environmental
Justice Screening Tool. You have the White House Climate and
Environmental Screening Tool that is available. Let me ask you
how you intend to implement the use of these tools with the
opportunities that we have with the infrastructure bill to make
sure that we are sensitive to the communities' needs, that we
recognize that the communities that have been hit the hardest
as a result of climate change have been low income communities,
communities that have been hit the hardest in regards to our
efforts to build interstate roads have been our low income
communities.
How do you intend to use this opportunity to make sure
that, in fact, we carry out our commitment for environmental
justice?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate that
question, because the work that CEQ is doing has environmental
justice squarely at the center of our priorities.
What the President has directed in the early Executive
Orders, including the specific direction that we do a screening
tool, is that we use the tool to help decide how we prioritize
the allocation of resources and benefits to communities to make
sure that the folks who have been underserved in the past,
whose communities have been under-invested in, are among those
that receive the benefits of the Federal investment.
That is the goal of the tool. The tool is a mapping tool.
It allows us to prioritize areas where the programs that show
that communities have high air pollution, that show that the
communities have high impacts to climate impacts, that show
that there is a high health burden, these are the things that
are built into deciding how we focus on the communities who
need the most help. So our idea is that once the tool is
finalized, that this will be a resource that the agencies look
to as they are trying to make decisions that relate to their
funding.
Senator Cardin. I am very supportive of that. I just hope
you will keep us engaged at every stage. This is a relatively
new opportunity that we have, and we want to make sure that we
actually take advantage of it. So I would appreciate your
keeping our Committee informed as to how this tool is in fact
working in practice in dealing with these issues.
I want to ask you one additional question on the American
the Beautiful Initiative by the Administration and what role
you will play in regard to working with the private sector to
expand the lands that are protected through conservation under
the American the Beautiful Initiative. Will your office play a
role in this?
Ms. Mallory. Absolutely. This is one of our central
activities. I in fact chair a committee working with Secretary
Haaland, Secretary Vilsack, and Secretary Raimondo on managing
the America the Beautiful Initiative across the Government.
The key about the America the Beautiful Initiative is that
it is the first time a President has set a conservation goal,
our goal here being to conserve 30 percent of the lands and
waters by 2030. And our focus is on making sure that we elevate
and lift up the great work that is going on across the country,
where people in each community have identified what are the
important measures of conservation in their communities, and
create programs that really help to provide support for those
efforts.
Last week, in fact, I was in Florida and had the
opportunity to see how activities are going on the ground where
the public and private sector are working together on some
conservation efforts that really reflected exactly what we want
America the Beautiful to look like when it is put in place.
So the grant program that I announced last week, which is
$82 million that is going to be run through a request for
proposal that brings together funding from several different
agencies is an available resource that communities in the
public and private sector could use.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. I look forward to the
results of your work.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Senator Cardin, thanks very
much for those questions.
Senator Inhofe is next. I think he will be followed by me,
and then we will move along. I think after that, Senator
Cramer, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Padilla.
Thanks, everyone.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see
you again, as I have already mentioned to you.
Chair Mallory, I have two requests, and they are not
related to each other. They are separate. Let me start with the
first one. Just so there is not any misunderstanding in what I
am asking for, I am actually going to read it, so I have a
record of what I am saying. All right?
DOD is legally responsible for the cleanup of PFAS
contamination that they cause. In order to clean up the
contamination, they need to dispose of it. The best way to do
so is incineration. DOD is ready to incinerate PFAS waste, but
has been told by someone in the Administration not to do it.
The two questions I would have is, first of all, who is
telling them that they can't release their incineration
guidance? The second thing is, if they can't incinerate, how do
you propose they dispose of PFAS contaminated materials? You
are from the right area to respond to those questions, I
believe. What would be your response?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you Senator for that question. PFAS is
obviously a really important issue that the Administration is
spending a fair amount of time on. Specifically, in my office,
I am chairing an interagency policy council that is focused on
trying to coordinate the PFAS activities that are occurring all
across the government. From the campaign until right when the
President issued early Executive Orders, PFAS and the need to
address it has been a high priority for them.
One of the things that I am trying to do within the
interagency policy forum is to make sure that the agencies are
working together as they are identifying what are the actions
and tools that are necessary in order to make sure that we are
meeting the challenge of PFAS. We are in a place with PFAS
where the science is still evolving, the standards still need
to be put in place. There are a variety of technical things
that need to happen.
Meanwhile, there are families and people who are being
harmed every day. So trying to make sure that we are able to
move in a way that allows for the agencies to address the
issues and address them in a way that is responsive to the
health concerns of the community, I think, is important.
Incineration is an issue. I know EPA, in guidance that they
issued, I believe it was last year, talked about incineration
being kind of--it is among the things where it is an approach,
but it is one that we have to be very careful about because of
the air quality impacts that are associated with that. We are
talking to DOD about the studies that they have underway and
getting additional information about the work in incineration
and PFAS. And that is part of an ongoing discussion.
Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding that New York has
already crossed that bridge. They have made a statement as to
any dangers having to do with this. So that study has been
going on, I assume, for quite some time.
So I just want to find out when this is going to be
resolved. Right now, if you leave it the way that you are
stating it there, that it is something you don't like in the
first place, and therefore it is going to take you a while, how
long is this going to take so that you will be able to clean
this up?
Ms. Mallory. First of all, Senator, I think we are spending
real effort in trying to get the agencies to work together
around this issue.
Senator Inhofe. But your agency is an agency that has the
responsibility to resolve this problem.
Ms. Mallory. What I am saying is that we are gathering the
information that will make that possible. The New York study
that you made reference to, I think that there are other
studies that we are not able to make available at this point,
the DOD has done, and we want to see what those studies look
like, which I think will be this summer.
Senator Inhofe. If this is the only study that has been, is
this the only study, then, that has been publicized?
Ms. Mallory. I don't know the answer to that question, but
I am happy to get back to you on it.
Senator Inhofe. Well, there is not a lot of time to get
back, because we have to do something with this right now.
Nothing is being done. I came to this meeting because it is
apparently the White House that is stopping this or delaying
this. Is it being stopped or delayed? Can you inform me as to
the status of this?
Ms. Mallory. What I can say about it, Senator, is that we
are having conversations with DOD about this guidance. I did
not perceive us as stopping or even delaying it. But we are
having conversations with them about what is their plan and
what is necessary to address this issue.
Senator Inhofe. But aren't you precluding them from doing
cleanup?
Ms. Mallory. What I asked DOD to do was to pull together
the information so that we can have a briefing for everyone
about what their plan is. I did not preclude them from doing
anything.
Senator Inhofe. All right, then give me a timeframe of
this. This is an inconvenience issue, I understand, for DOD.
DOD would have things that they need to be doing, and we need
to be using this technology that has been accepted, and we just
want to get to the bottom of where we are today, how much time
it is going to take to accomplish the different things you are
trying to determine, and where we are going to be with this.
Ms. Mallory. Again, thank you, Senator, for the question. I
will definitely get back to you with what the status is. I will
say that DOD actually was arranging for, and I think we were
assisting and arranging for a meeting. I am not sure if it is
scheduled yet.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I know my time is--I have one
other issue I want to talk about, so let me just wind up this
one really quickly, here. You have nothing today that you are
going to be able to share with me in terms of when we will be
able to clean up this mess?
Ms. Mallory. Not unknown, no, Senator, I will definitely
get back to you on that. It might be today, but it won't be
while I am sitting here.
Senator Inhofe. Well, all right. You have made that clear.
How long do you think it would be? Give me a timeframe.
Ms. Mallory. Yes, I mean, I commit to you that, today is
Wednesday, I commit to you that we will get back to you,
certainly by the end of the week, on where we are on the issue.
Senator Inhofe. OK, that is good. The other issue I will
bring up on the second round.
Senator Carper. That is great. I would just ask you keep
both majority and minority staffs in the loop on your responses
to Senator Inhofe and his staff on this issue, OK? Thank you
very much.
I think I am next.
Let me just say, I applaud the President's commitment, and
your commitment as well, to address decades of under-investment
in environmental justice communities. President Biden's
Justice40 Initiative sets a lofty goal of delivering 40 percent
of the Federal benefits from a variety of programs to low
income, disadvantaged, and minority communities. At the same
time, the Biden administration, under your leadership, has
proposed a climate and economic justice screening tool to help
agencies identify disadvantaged communities and address
historic injustices. With that said, meaningful historic
changes are hard to make overnight, as you know.
Here is my question. Briefly, please share with us some of
the achievements that CEQ has made in advancing environmental
justice under your leadership and expand on the challenges you
are facing to ensure the goals of Justice40 are met across the
Federal Government. And if you would like to suggest a couple
of ways we could be of help, please let us know that. Go right
ahead.
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I
said earlier, the environmental justice part of the President'
agenda is central to the work that we are doing at CEQ. It is
personally a very high priority for me in terms of meeting this
long challenge.
Under the President' direction, there are a number of
things that we were directed to do in order to really put in
place the infrastructure that would allow us on a regular basis
to think about, to make sure that we are considering what the
impacts of Federal actions are on all communities. Ultimately,
what we want to achieve in our environmental justice work is an
assurance that every American, no matter where they live, can
count on having clean air, clean water, and healthy
communities, and that we are doing our part as Federal servants
to try to deliver on that.
So, the President instructed us to create a White House
Advisory Council in which we have a regular interaction with 25
experts and academics in the field who have been working in
environmental justice for many years, to get their input, their
reaction about things that need to be addressed as part of our
policymaking. We created a White House Environmental
Interagency Council so that the senior leadership all across
the agencies comes together and has an opportunity to discuss,
what is each agency doing to try to meet the President's goals,
and how we collectively can work together to make sure that we
are accomplishing the mission.
Then the creation of the Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool was obviously one of the central pieces to help
us deliver on the President's commitment to do a Justice40
Initiative, which is the 40 percent commitment. And the way
that we are carrying that out is to finalize the tool, but then
working with all of the agencies as part of Justice40 to make
sure that they have the approaches for identifying how within
specific programs they would need to make adjustments in order
to carry that out, what the methodologies are, what the best
benefits are. So all of that work has been going on since July
2021. And Justice40 is up and running in the way that we are
approaching our implementation of programs, even as we are
trying to finalize the tool.
More importantly, and I think what is going to be more
impactful, is that within each of the agencies, the leadership
and the rank and file career folks who are working there are
now getting into the habit of thinking about more directly, how
will this affect all communities? How will this affect the
specific communities that are often not on people's minds in
terms of what impacts are? I think that is actually one of the
successes of the work so far.
Senator Carper. All right. Sometimes, folks ask me, what do
you mean by environmental justice? Why are they making such a
big deal about it? Senator Inhofe and I have been, for years,
on Thursdays around noon, participating in the same Bible
study. Our chaplain is Barry Black, as our colleagues know, who
is a retired Navy Admiral, former Chief Chaplain of the Navy
and Marine Corps.
He is always reminding us of the importance of the Golden
Rule, treating other people the way we want to be treated. I
think he once said it is the only rule that is in every major
religion in the world. Everyone ought to treat other people the
way we want to be treated. I think that certainly applies with
respect to clean air, clean water, and protection from this all
this climate crisis that we are witnessing.
Thank you. With that, my time has expired. I am going to
yield, happily, to Senator Cramer for his questions.
Thank you.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chair Mallory, for being here.
Again, thank you for the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
for teeing up that question, because I want to elaborate on it
a little bit and ask you to, as well. I am looking at the White
House Environmental Justice Advisory Council's Justice40, some
of the conclusions that they drew, and this is going to get me
to my first question.
Some of the conclusions, for example, examples of types of
projects that will not benefit a community, here is a list from
your--fossil fuel procurement, development, infrastructure
repair that would in any way extend lifespan or production
capacity; transmission system investments to facilitate fossil
fire generation or any related subsidy; highway expansion, that
certainly wouldn't help any community; road improvements or
automobile infrastructure other than electric vehicle charging
stations--really?--industrial scale bioenergy, God forbid that
that would happen in a community. That certainly wouldn't be
good.
Critical to me in these discussions, around social justice
and what is not good for a community, I have been
participating, a number of us have, in a bipartisan discussion
right now, as we speak, in these weeks, on trying to find a
bipartisan energy and environment climate plan that we could
agree on that would forward reliable power, whether it is for
vehicles or for electricity, while at the same time, meeting
certain goals.
I think you have been talking in circles, frankly, but I
think I understand you are just trying to find the balance. You
are talking about balance, right? We have demands. We have an
economic demand, we have national security demands, we have
Europe pleading with us for our natural resources because they
voluntarily cut themselves off of Russia's natural resources.
But critical to all of this, in my mind, is prioritization
of commercialization of emerging technologies. Emerging
technologies, particularly in the power sector, that would also
reduce emissions, technologies like carbon capture utilization
and storage, listed as one of the things that don't help
communities, for example. Direct air capture is also listed in
the White House document as something that doesn't help
communities. Emission free nuclear power generation, I don't
know how you could want to advance cleaner energy and not be
for nuclear. I want to remind you that President Biden's
emission goals say that carbon capture utilization and storage
and nuclear are critical components to reaching the targets.
Then you have this Environmental Justice Advisory report
stating they believe CCUS will not benefit communities. CEQ
says environmental justice considerations must be incorporated
into all permitting decisions.
Some who see these, really, are left with some pretty
obvious questions. Does the Administration actually support
CCUS and nuclear? Do they actually support all communities, or
only certain communities? If so, why are they simultaneously
making it harder for these types of projects to get permitted?
Help me find the balance here.
Ms. Mallory. Yes, first of all, thank you for the question,
Senator. I appreciate what you are struggling with. One of the
things that the President is trying to do through the
environmental justice work and I think was critical in his
interaction with the communities during the campaign, and that
was reflected in early Executive Orders is, he wants the
authentic voices of communities to be heard, to be elevated, to
be part of the conversation. What you read, the recommendations
that we heard from the Environmental Justice Advisory Council,
that is their reflection of their authentic voices.
That doesn't mean that every single item there the
President shares exactly that view with. He has also been very
clear, I think, through the campaign, throughout early
activities, that we think that technology is an important part
of the solution for decarbonizing the environment, that we have
to not only work hard to reduce the emissions of carbon, but we
also are probably not going to be able to do it sufficiently
without removing, having some technology that can help remove
environment.
I think the President has been clear about what his views
are on that.
Senator Cramer. I don't think it is clear at all. I think
it is very confusing, quite honestly. I don't think there is
anything clear about it.
What I would like, I wonder, if anybody, when they do these
surveys or they are talking to these communities, if they ever
ask the question, how would it be if your natural gas gets
turned off in the middle of winter? How about the air
conditioning gets turned off because there is no electricity
because God forbid, we have nuclear power or carbon capture
utilization on a coal fired power plant, and we are only going
to rely on the wind on the days that it blows?
What is the process for coming up with crazy, frankly, this
is cartoonish, this Justice40 document. I don't think the
President is clear at all. I think the President sends
confusing messages. I think investors see them as confusing, if
not hostile, quite honestly. I prefer him to remain committed
to carbon capture utilization storage and nuclear, frankly, as
parts of the solution.
I will get to some more questions in another round. Thank
you.
Senator Carper. Before I turn to Senator Whitehouse, since
Senator Whitehouse has not returned yet, I think maybe we are
going to go to Senator Padilla next. Is that correct?
Before I do that, let me just say that as my colleague
knows, let me say to Senator Cramer, I think you know how
strongly I feel about nuclear. Old Navy guy, 70 years we have
been doing nuclear in the Navy, and I think you have an idea,
as a native of West Virginia, what I think about CCUS. I think
we are poised to do good things there.
Senator Cramer. I don't worry about you.
Senator Carper. Thank you. I wish more people felt that
way.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. I don't even worry about Senator
Whitehouse. I rather like him.
Senator Carper. Senator Whitehouse has rejoined us. After
him, I think, maybe Senator Lummis after Sheldon.
Senator Whitehouse, welcome.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
First, responding to some of the comments we have heard
here, yes, to helping Europe disconnect from Russian fossil
fuels. The Ukraine War is a fossil fuel powered war that sends
important messages about the danger of this international
industry. And for national security reasons, totally yes to
helping Europe get off fossil fuels.
Let's do remember that there is no American energy security
in oil and gas. It can't happen. It can't happen for the very
simple reason that the price of oil and gas is not set here in
America. It is set by an international cartel of Iran and
Venezuela and Russia and Saudi Arabia and others, and a horde
of speculators who surround them.
Every day, the American oil and gas industry has the choice
whether to set their prices based on their cost of production
here in America or whether to ride the cartel prices way up
into the stratosphere and pocket billions and billions and
billions of dollars in excess profits. And every day they
choose that.
We could knock a dollar of the price of gasoline tomorrow,
if President Biden had the authority to, and they would still
make money. That is how grotesque the excess profits are. And
it is a choice that the oil and gas industry makes, not to
follow market price based on cost of production, but to follow
international cartel price. I hope we take a good hard look at
that in the future.
With respect to carbon capture, a place where we have done
a lot of good work in this Committee; first of all, thank you
for your interim guidance. I think that is a very good start.
We need carbon capture for the very simple reason that we are
going to miss the 1.5 degree safety threshold. We are going to
overshoot, and going to zero carbon doesn't get you back once
you have overshot.
We need these technologies; we need to develop them, and we
also need to make sure that communities that have been burdened
by pollution understand that this is not another end run around
their concerns.
So, thank you for you focus on environmental justice. Thank
you for the screening tool, which I have used for Rhode Island.
It is very accessible and easy to use. I am grateful to you for
it. Thank you for the focus that we have to engage communities
in order to succeed, and in particular, with carbon capture, we
have to engage communities.
I think the question of NEPA reform and moving forward
efficiently is a very important one. To me, the lesson is the
sooner you can engage the conflicting uses, the better. We did
this with offshore wind in Rhode Island, as you may know. We
had a very good process that got all the users together with
really good data from the University of Rhode Island. And
because our process was good, we got the first steel in the
water, the first electrons on the grid.
We showed that you could site offshore wind in America, and
now there is this explosion that President Biden is counting on
for 30 gigawatts of clean and renewable energy. But it is going
to happen a lot quicker if you get the lesson right, which is
that all the conflicting users have to be brought together as
soon as possible.
I don't know if you have been following what BOEM did, but
they got off to a terrible start with Vineyard Wind. It stubbed
the toe of the whole offshore wind movement because they had
not done that. They had not gotten everybody in the room who
was a conflicting user. They had instead tried to roll
communities.
Now, with the progress going forward, BOEM has been better.
They have moved the conflict identification forward. The New
York Bay process has been much, much, much improved, so we are
really, I think, gaining ground. To me, the lesson is that the
process can't be one that is designed to steamroll communities
and people who will be victims of pollution, but one that hears
them early so that their concerns can be taken into
consideration as quickly as possible. I hope that is the theory
that will guide you.
We are trying to improve carbon capture and carbon removal
by creating a market for it. As you know, it is free to
pollute. The fossil fuel industry fights incredibly hard every
day to make sure that it is free for them to pollute and dump
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and tons and tons and tons
and tons and tons, so let everybody else pick up the tab for
those bad effects.
We will be launching very soon a bill to give the
Department of Energy a role buying carbon removal to jumpstart
the market and move these technologies forward, in addition to
the 45Q support that we have given. And I hope you will take a
look at that bill. I hope you can round up Administration
support for it. It is called the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal
Leadership Act.
With that, congratulations to you on the CCUS work.
Congratulations on the environmental justice work.
Congratulations on the screening tool, and good luck making
sure that our regulatory siting issues are dealt with in a way
that does not steamroll local communities, but rather
efficiently resolves the conflicts that they inevitably
produce. Thank you.
Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much, Senator. I would just like
to emphasize that the permitting action plan that we issued
this morning is designed to do exactly what you are saying, to
take the best lessons that we have learned, to use the senior
leadership across the government to work together to make sure
that we are organizing our work on individual actions to bring
people together and resolve issues. I think that is hugely
important.
On the CCUS front, I think we absolutely are, as an
Administration, supporting CCUS as a technology. The President
has been clear on that. I think that we have to work harder to
make sure that CCUS does not end up harming communities. That
is what they care about. That is what they are worried about.
They are worried because they are often the afterthought, and
as a result, they have concerns that that is what people are
thinking about now. We are trying really hard to avoid that.
Senator Whitehouse. That is the right thing to do. Thank
you.
Senator Carper. Let me say, as we used to say in the House
of Representatives, colleagues, I want to associate myself with
the words of the Senator from Rhode Island.
Senators, I want to submit for the record a unanimous
consent request. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record materials describing the cause of the volatility in
global energy markets, including a memorandum from MIT
Economist discussing three conclusions, which I will not
elaborate on right here.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. I think Senator Inhofe has a unanimous
consent request as well.
Senator Inhofe. One request, and that would be that I can
submit for the record my second question.
Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
[Senator Inhofe's question is included in the questions for
the record printed earlier in this hearing document.]
Senator Carper. With that, we are ready to here from
Senator Lummis.
Take it away.
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Chair Mallory, for being here.
I am hearing a total disconnect between what the Senator
from Rhode Island just said and what the Administration is
doing. So I am going to ask you the question now, but then I
want a few minutes to vent before you answer it.
So here is the question. In May of last year, the White
House Environmental Justice Advisory Council released a report
that said carbon capture is among the types of projects that
will not benefit a community, not benefit a community. And yet
the Senator from Rhode Island, a member of your own party and a
tremendous advocate for environmental justice, believes just
the opposite. There is a disconnect in your own party among
people who are real advocates for environmental justice. So,
here is what I am going to say in the way of venting, but that
is my question.
You know, everything that you do at CEQ relates to the
West, everything you do. It makes a difference for us on
whether we have enough electricity in our homes via
transmission lines. It impacts our abilities to fight
wildfires, to commute to work on roads and bridges in massively
large States. So it is a huge consequence.
It is because of NEPA that I wanted to serve on this
Committee. It is that important to our State. It affects us
that much, so I am really disheartened by this Administration's
actions in rolling back what were common sense reforms made by
the last Administration.
Let me paint a picture as I see it. Americans are facing
the highest inflation in 40 years. The cost to the average
household of this inflation is $5,200 annually. There is this
sense of frustration and doom, and some say magical thinking,
about inflation as it relates to the way this Administration
looks at it. That was reported in Bloomberg yesterday.
Gas prices hit a brand new record high. The average
American is paying $2,000 more per year just for gasoline, and
it is higher in my big State of Wyoming. Americans are looking
at the stock market and their 401(k)s with horror. On top of
that, our Nation is facing a supply chain crisis. There is a
nationwide shortage of baby formula; brownouts are being
discussed as possibilities in our energy sector.
And CEQ, through its permitting regulations, are a key
player in addressing these challenges. And CEQ's answer has
been more government, more red tape, more bureaucracy. So that
is the kind of magical thinking in response to all of these
problems our Nation is having right now that I just think has
got to stop.
Now, listen to this: Terry O'Sullivan, the President of the
Laborers International Union of North America, said it best,
concerning CEQ's latest actions. This is a huge labor union
talking about CEQ's latest actions. The rollback of updates to
the National Environmental Policy Act reinstates burdensome
requirements that will cause excessive permit delays and allow
project adversaries to use frivolous lawsuits to disrupt or
upend long overdue construction.
Once again, communities in need of vital infrastructure and
the hardworking men and women who build America will be waiting
as project details are subjected to onerous reviews. Americans
will continue to bear the expense of NEPA related delays, which
costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Lengthy review
processes and unpredictable legal challenges are also having a
chilling impact on private investment in infrastructure.
So, this Congress puts out a big infrastructure bill.
People on this Committee worked hard on it, including the Chair
and the Ranking Member, to get infrastructure moving in this
country.
And what does CEQ do? It slows it down. It throws up
roadblocks. It puts up delays. It makes this country move
slower and more expensively. It takes projects longer. They are
more expensive. And our ability to respond to the demand for
infrastructure is being roadblocked by CEQ, by the White House.
This is, you give with one hand, and you take away with the
other. And the American people know it.
So, the frustration level is high with me. It is high with
the labor unions. And I want to tell you, then when you move to
this report on carbon capture, again, this report says carbon
capture is among the types of projects that will not benefit a
community.
So, what I am just saying is the frustration is, what we
are trying to do as a Congress is just being thwarted at every
turn by what you all are doing in the White House. This is the
expression of frustration that you are hearing at this table
today.
I haven't given you enough time, because I needed to unload
on you. While I turn over the questioning to the next member of
the Committee, I may submit some questions for the record,
because I am 100 percent confused about what this
Administration's goals are.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Ms. Mallory. Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
Senator Carper. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Mallory. Yes. I am sorry; I will be very quick because
I know the time is over.
I did want to say a couple of really quick things. First of
all, on the idea about what NEPA is, what we are doing for the
NEPA program, those changes that we made are fundamental to
ensuring that, in fact, we actually assess the impacts. If we
are not able to look at the impacts, then we are moving forward
on very expensive projects, spending a lot of money, as you all
authorized, and we are doing it without the right information.
So that is No. 1. That is critical to what we are doing. Those
were not common sense changes that occurred.
Second, I think it is important to separate out the White
House Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommendations
from the President. The President is setting forth what he
believes to be important, key elements for our strategy, which
includes the investments in technology, on carbon capture,
which includes thinking about removal as a technique.
The communities don't like it because they have decades of
experience, even some would say centuries of experience, of
people not doing projects in a way that is beneficial to them
or that even takes into consideration their potential harms. I
think that is the thing that we have to address.
Senator Carper. All right.
Senator Markey, I believe you are next. Thank you.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
First, I would like to associate my remarks with those of
Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Chair Mallory, I want to applaud the work that you have
done so far in releasing an initial version of the Climate and
Economic Justice Screening Tool. As the Senate author of the
Environmental Justice Mapping and Collection Act, along with
Congresswoman Cori Bush in the House, this has been a
longstanding priority of mine. Low income and disadvantaged
communities, especially those overburdened by pollution,
deserve justice and targeted relief from polluted air and
water.
Some stakeholders in the movement for environmental justice
have expressed concern that the tool does not explicitly screen
for race, and could overlook thousands of disadvantaged census
tracts as a result. Others have asked for a system that looks
at how burdens interact in order to paint a picture of the
cumulative impacts on a community.
Chair Mallory, how is the Council on Environmental Quality
continuing to work to take these and other stakeholder concerns
into account as it continues the development of the screening
tool?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
appreciate it. As I have said already, the work that we are
doing on environmental justice is really central to the work
that CEQ is doing, and that the screening tool is a very
important factor in that.
The way that we have structured the screening tool is
directly related to the types of programs that are going to be
affected by the distribution of resources. The Justice40
initiative is about looking at clean energy projects, about
climate change related projects, about some affordable housing
issues. So what we did is to establish criteria that really
focus on those issues within the community. We are identifying
communities that have high health burdens; we are identifying
communities where the climate change impacts seem to be high;
we are identifying communities with low education. All of these
factors will actually allow us to focus on the disinvestment
that we think is critical for making sure that the underserved
communities are addressed.
Senator Markey. So, the initial version of the Climate and
Economic Justice Screening Tool has many regions for which
there is little or no data, including in tribal communities and
U.S. territories. We can't help protect all communities if we
don't understand all communities. Are you now going to be
filling in the gaps to make sure all that information is in
fact gathered so that those communities can be served?
Ms. Mallory. One of the things that we did when we
announced that we were doing the screening tool or putting out
the beta version of it is that we are going to have an NAS
study that is helping us with data sets. We know that there are
data gaps. We used the data that was available at a national
level to really set up the beginning of the tool. But we know
that we need more data. That is part of the effort that will go
on even after we release what will be the final, or at least
the operating tool.
Senator Markey. So after the information is developed, the
communities are going to need more than just money or
proclamations. They need a seat at the table in order to make
sure the government gets this right.
How will CEQ support ongoing community interaction with
this tool?
Ms. Mallory. I think we have been actually making ourselves
available with a number of members of the community, and also
creating folks who can serve as ambassadors for helping to work
with the community on how to use the tool, on what is necessary
in order to operate it. We know that technical assistance is
very important as it relates to communities. That is something
that we are working with our agency partners on to make sure
occurs.
Senator Markey. So you are saying that there will be a way
for community members themselves to report their needs for
investments in certain areas and comment on the current status
of Justice40 related programs in their area?
Ms. Mallory. Yes, absolutely. Even the tool created,
actually the tool itself allows for people to be able to submit
information if they think we have missed something.
Senator Markey. That is great. Thank you. It is just so
important, thank you for your great work on this issue.
Chair Mallory, I applaud the CEQ's new final phase one rule
to restore the potential of the NEPA process to protect human
health and the environment. The National Environment Policy Act
is our bedrock statute for bringing the public good into the
Federal decisionmaking process. The public good is not slowing
down good decisionmaking; it enables it. For example, delays in
permits for mines are more likely due to plan changes from the
applicant than from the NEPA process itself.
For example, on LNG exports, FERC has already permitted
facilities that could move 28 billion cubic feet per day of
liquid natural gas, facilities that so far have not yet been
built. But that is not a NEPA problem getting them constructed.
The work has already been done to get them permitted.
Sometimes I hear concerns, but LNG is a big issue. It is
already permitted. And for the small subset of Federal projects
that require full environmental impact statements, those
projects are longer lasting and better for the fact that the
public can weigh in and understand what is happening in their
community. Just like on a grade school test, NEPA means big
corporations have to show their work in order to get an A. That
is all NEPA really requires, that the work be produced, that it
can be examined, and it can be done in a timely fashion.
I want to say, I think you are doing a great job on this.
Without a working NEPA process, small business owners, local
community leaders, concerned parents or other stakeholders
would not be able to weigh in on these massive Federal
projects. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Mallory. Absolutely. I think that is what we are trying
to focus on, particularly with the release of the affirming
action plan today, is to highlight how we can make the process
work with the values of ensuring that we are doing impact
analyses.
Senator Markey. And you are making disadvantaged
communities can have their voices heard?
Ms. Mallory. Absolutely.
Senator Markey. Beautiful. Thank you so much.
Senator Carper. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Sullivan is next. He is en route to join us; when
he arrives we will be sure to work him into the lineup.
I think Senator Padilla may be with us by Webex.
Alex, are you out there?
Senator Padilla. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Carper. We recognize Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. I will jump right in. Five minutes goes by
fast.
Last week, the Department of Justice made several important
announcements in support of the Administration's new
Environmental Justice Enforcement Strategy. And it certainly
was welcome news. Part of that effort is one that I have been
pushing for the Department to do, which is to create a
dedicated environmental justice office within the Department of
Justice to better hold polluters accountable and to support
historically marginalized communities, as Senator Markey has
just been discussing.
I was also pleased to see that the Department of Justice
finally issued an interim final rule to restore the use of
supplemental environmental projects, also known as SEPs, in
certain settlements. This is an important tool, because SEPs
serve as an essential environmental justice function. They
provide tangible, real world projects in below income
communities, communities of color in many cases, who would
otherwise be forced to deal with the pollution that is left
behind by bad actors on their own.
The restoration of SEPs is just one tool that we have in
the toolbox. It is great to have it back. We need more to
correct the injustices in overburdened communities.
With that being said, my question, Chair Mallory, is can
you talk about other tools in the toolbox to invest in
historically marginalized communities, and what the Council is
doing to help right these historical wrongs?
Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator; thank you for that question.
Yes, environmental justice is obviously central to the work
that we are doing. I can talk about several of the steps that
we have already taken.
The underlying message as to all the work we are doing is
just trying to make sure that all communities get the benefit
of the environmental protection network ecosystem that exists
in this country, that everybody has the benefit of clean air,
clean water, and a livable community. So the President's
direction to us has been focused on getting the voices in the
White House so that we know what people are thinking, and we
are doing that through the White House Environmental Justice
Advisory Council.
We are also doing that in, every time that I go out and
visit a community, I make a point to ensure that I am meeting
local representatives from different environmental justice
organizations who can talk to me specifically about what they
are experiencing and how they see the work that CEQ and the
White House is doing and can be more helpful. So that is a very
important tool.
I think other agencies are doing similar things. If you are
tracking any of the work that the Department of Energy or EPA
or the Department of Transportation are doing, they are
regularly interacting with the communities who are affected by
their programs to find out how those communities are both
feeling what the Administration is doing and planning, but also
how we as an Administration can be helpful in ensuring that the
work that we are doing actually has a positive benefit for
everyone. That is a very important mechanism that we are using.
Then within the Federal Government itself, the
Environmental Justice, the White House Interagency Council is a
really important mechanism for making sure that we all know
what agencies are doing and can both use the good examples of
individual agencies to encourage and inspire work around the
Federal family, but also to make sure that everybody is aware
of how we are taking advantage of the opportunities that are
presented by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as an example,
how we are taking advantage of that opportunity to make sure
that good benefits reach all American people.
Those are the mechanisms that we are using.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, in the minute I have left, I do have a follow
up question on this topic, but I will submit in writing
questions as it pertains to the American the Beautiful
framework. I have questions about inclusiveness, what we are
doing to ensure input from a variety of stakeholders. The
question is if it pertains to PFAS cleanup, that has been
brought up earlier at the hearing, and Federal procurement
opportunities to advance an environmental justice agenda as
well.
But the one specific one, in my time remaining, talking
about additional tools in the toolbox. If somebody is lost or
going somewhere they have never been before, they need one of
two things, good directions or a map. I put it simply there,
because in the State of California, the State has led, when it
comes to mapping tools for environmental justice, with its tool
known as CalEnviroScreen. It is identifying how California
communities, by census tract, are disproportionately burdened
by and vulnerable to multiple sources of pollution. So I think
it is a great model for something that we can understand and
develop as a Federal tool at the national level.
Chair Mallory, can you just briefly describe how the
Council can help implement a climate and economic justice
screening tool?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you for the question. What I would say
to that quickly is just that when we were developing our own
tool, we very much recognized that California and New York and
several other States had their own tools that are in use. We
collaborated with folks who were involved in those processes to
both learn what the positive benefits we could take and sort of
scale to a national level, but also some of the challenges that
they faced and how that might affect Federal programs.
So that is, the work that has been done in California and
other States is very much front of mind on folks as they were
developing the tool.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, I am going to ask you to
wait for Senator Sullivan. It is his turn.
Welcome, Senator Sullivan. You are recognized.
Then I believe next is Senator Kelly.
I am going to run and vote and leave the Committee in good
hands to the gentlewoman to my right.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair,
thank you for being here.
I am going to follow up on the questioning that a lot of us
have that Senator Lummis started, and that is on this new NEPA
reg. I think A, there is very much disappointment in CEQ, what
they are doing with this; B, if you talk to the average
Governor or mayor in America, it doesn't matter if they are
Democrat, Republican, I guarantee you they are against this.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this Wall Street
Journal editorial, if it hasn't already been submitted, How to
Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly, the White House
Revises NEPA Rules that Will Scuttle New Roads, Bridges, and
Oil and Gas Pipelines.
Senator Carper. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. So here is the issue. And it is a broader
issue, and it is way before you came. But I am firmly of the
view when the national Democrats get in power and they have a
choice between the working men and women who build things in
America, like the Laborers, I am going to quote from them like
Senator Lummis did, and the radical elite environmental groups,
coastal elites, they always side with the radical far left
environmental groups. And the working men and women always get
the shaft.
The Democratic Party used to say they are the party of the
working men and women. They are definitely not anymore. The
head of the Laborers said, they opposed this, ``Rollback of the
updates to NEPA reinstate burdensome requirements that will
cause excessive permit delays and allow project adversaries to
use frivolous lawsuits to disrupt and upend long overdue
construction. Once again,'' I am still quoting from him,
``communities in need of vital infrastructure and the hard
working men and women who build America will be waiting as
project details are subjected to onerous reviews.'' He goes on
to oppose this.
Why did you not listen to the Laborers on this? Because you
clearly didn't.
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I
have been saying today, our focus and the President's focus as
we are moving forward in the work that we are doing on the
National Environmental Policy Act is to make sure that we are
taking advantage of good science----
Senator Sullivan. No, no, no. Let me interrupt. I am sorry.
But you guys always fall back on science, and it drives me
nuts.
Let me give you another example. The National Petroleum
Reserve of Alaska set aside by Congress for oil and gas
development, 2 weeks ago through an Executive Order you took
half of that off the table. Almost 8 million acres of some of
the most prospective oil and gas land in the country. It is not
even controversial. You guys took it off the table. You cited
science. It is ridiculous, OK?
So don't fall back on science, with all due respect. Why
did you not listen to the Laborers who clearly oppose this?
What about the statement from the Laborers did you disagree
with?
Ms. Mallory. Senator Sullivan, what I would say is I will
fall back on science, because it is about science. I will fall
back on good government, because it is about good government. I
will fall back on making sure you look before you leap
because----
Senator Sullivan. Delaying infrastructure is not good
government. I voted for the Infrastructure Bill; Senator Capito
voted for the Infrastructure Bill. This completely undermines
the ability build infrastructure. The people who build it, like
the Laborers, agree with my position.
Let me ask another thing. When you talk about good
governance, your rule says agencies have to analyze, compile
reports on indirect and cumulative effects, ``aesthetic,
historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts for
every Federal, every single major Federal action.'' Where is
the limiting principle where you have to focus on ``aesthetic,
historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts?''
Could any EIS survive a challenge when you are literally
saying you have to focus on everything? What is the limiting
principle here? This is an invitation for radical, far left
environmental groups to sue. And that is exactly what this is.
Help me in good governance with ``aesthetic, historical,
cultural, economic, social, and health impacts.'' Who the heck
can do that for every project in America? That is your
language.
Ms. Mallory. Yes, and it sounds like it is coming directly
out of the statute itself. But the limiting principle is
reasonably foreseeable impacts. That is what are focusing on.
Senator Sullivan. How can you reasonably foresee aesthetic,
historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts for
every project?
Ms. Mallory. It is not as hard as it may sound if you look
at it in the abstract.
Senator Sullivan. Really?
Ms. Mallory. No, it is not.
Senator Sullivan. How can you do an EIS that fits that
principle?
Ms. Mallory. It is done every day, Senator. There are
professionals who know the environmental area and how you do an
analysis, and it is----
Senator Sullivan. Let me just ask one--I am sorry, I am out
of time. Just, I would like to go back to the question, is, why
did you ignore the Laborers' very significant, substantial
comments, these are the men and women who are going to build
American infrastructure, they know what they are talking about,
why did you ignore their concerns?
Ms. Mallory. We did not ignore them.
Senator Sullivan. You did. You did.
Ms. Mallory. The reason that we issued a permitting action
plan today is because we are trying to balance those two
things: How do we get projects done expeditiously but also done
in a way that we are actually doing the analysis necessary? We
are not ignoring them. We are trying to do it in a way that
makes sense.
Senator Sullivan. You have ignored it, right? They were
against your rule.
Ms. Mallory. That may be, but it was not because they were
ignored. We definitely heard their comments. We talked to them;
we have talked to them in different ways to try to make sure
that the projects go forward in an expeditious way.
Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Ms. Mallory, thank you for being here today.
I want to discuss, as a I have a number of times before this
Committee, the effect of a 20 year long drought in the western
United States. While a drought of this magnitude is
unprecedented, I know that if we act quickly enough we can
advance some solutions which can guarantee water security in
Arizona and the rest of the West.
That is why I worked really hard to ensure that the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $8 billion for western
water infrastructure. I am glad to see that the Bureau of
Reclamation is already disbursing some of this funding with
projects in the Yuma area receiving funding just this week to
upgrade canals and some pipelines.
We are also seeing innovative solutions throughout the West
like water re-use and plans for some desalinization facilities
which can help boost our scarce water supplies. But time is
critical here. And a years long NEPA approval process for a
pipeline carrying desalinated water or delayed updates to a
dam's flood control manual can have some real consequences to
our water security.
Ms. Mallory, can you share how the regulatory actions
undertaken by the Council on Environmental Quality in recent
months will help ensure that projects which conserve or bolster
scarce water reserves in the western United States are able to
move through the environmental review and permitting process
quickly and efficiently?
Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator, thank you very much for that
question.
As I have been saying, with NEPA, the goal of the very
targeted changes that we made to NEPA last month is to make
sure that we are looking at the important suite of impacts that
really are going to affect a project. For example, on any
project that has to do with water in an area where drought is
so profound, we are going to want to make sure that that
analysis is actually fully considering not only the direct
impacts of what is being built, but also what are going to be
the repercussions of that. So what we are doing in the rule
itself was to just make sure that we get that on the table.
The work that we have done in the permitting action plan
and other mechanisms that the government has used are designed
to help move things in the expeditious way that you are talking
about, that are designed to bring the senior leadership to the
table to help resolve some of the sticking points that may come
up on your projects. I don't know your specific projects that
you were referencing.
But the idea is, we know there are times at which we have
to have everybody engaged and involved in coming to the
solutions that are necessary to resolve those projects. Those
are the things that we think will help resolve your concerns.
Senator Kelly. So a hypothetical desal plant somewhere in
the western United States requires a hypothetical pipeline to
ship the water some distance. Could you give me an estimate for
how long that NEPA process, that you would hope that would
take?
Ms. Mallory. I can't give you a specific estimate on that.
I think the goal is that we are striving to make the projects
go as quickly as possible, given those circumstances. Your
project is obviously going to be very different than a narrower
project that doesn't transgress over large areas of land and
that have impacts on the numbers of species along the way.
Those are going to be slightly different projects than a more
narrow one.
But I think the goal is to, at the beginning of the
project, identify what we think is necessary in order to
complete the project, to give an estimate on what we think the
timeline is going to be. That is what we are committing to in
the permitting action plan, then we would lay out a schedule,
and then to work with the parties who are involved in it to try
and make sure we can meet that expeditiously. That is our plan.
Senator Kelly. The One Federal Decision rule, I believe it
targets less than 2 years to get something through permitting.
Would you expect this process to take less than 2 years on new
infrastructure in Arizona that would help solve our water
issues?
Ms. Mallory. Yes, what I would say is, it depends. It
really depends on the circumstances, whether there is other
information that is available that doesn't require you to re-do
analyses, like existing analyses that can be used. The
circumstances will really affect it.
Our goal is to try to identify a schedule that will allow
you to move as quickly as possible. That might be 2 years; that
might be under 2 years. That is the goal. Then to try to use
the accountability and oversight mechanisms to keep people on
track.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Well, I think that concludes our first
round. In waiting for the Chairman to come back, I will go
ahead and take his spot and start the second round.
In a filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
last year, the EPA ``recommended that attention should be paid
to the costly irreversibility of constructing natural gas
pipelines.'' EPA stated, ``An important question to consider is
whether pipeline construction will lock in natural gas
production and use at the expense of substitute energy sources
with lower social costs.'' And I would remind you that
according to the WHEJAC, some of those projects that would be
eliminated would be the CCUS projects, the Direct Air Carbon
Capture Projects, nuclear projects.
I am very concerned to see a similar line of thinking
incorporated into the NEPA regulatory changes that you signed
last month. Under those regulations, the government defines the
purpose or need of a project under NEPA and can override a
project developer's purpose.
As I understand it, under the new regulations an energy
company could request permits for a natural gas plant and the
Federal Government could instead say, through the NEPA review,
that solar generation should be developed instead, regardless
of what the business case is. Would you say that is a fair
characterization?
Ms. Mallory. Again, thank you, Senator. I think obviously
you know how important this issue is for CEQ and for the
President. So I appreciate the attention that we are getting.
What I would say about that particular provision, what we
were trying to address is the reality that various factors go
into identifying what is the reasonable alternative or range of
alternatives that should be considered. And what the previous
Administration did is they made a change that made that scope
very dependent on what the applicant said it was. All we are
saying is that this is a public statement, this is what the
agency sees as the available, reasonable options that should be
analyzed, even if it would mean that this particular applicant
isn't the applicant who would do the permit.
The answer to your question is, the circumstances really
would depend, but that sounds to me like something like that
would be different than what I would expect the agency to ask.
Senator Capito. It is funny, from what your explanation
was, it sounded to me like the answer to that was yes, that the
determination could be made that the applicants or the
applicants' idea or purpose could be to provide more power to a
certain area and that the method by which that is delivered
through that developer's and private entity could shift.
But I will shift to another question here. One of the key
project delivery provisions of IIJA, I talked about this, was
the codification of One Federal Decision for major
transportation projects. In today's fact sheet on permitting
action plan, you state that the IIJA's provisions ``enhance
efficiency, accountability, predictability, and will provide
the tools needed to ensure timely and sound delivery of these
historic investments.'' You seem to recognize the critical role
One Federal Decision plays in the environmental rule review and
permitting process.
So as you move forward to phase two of your update for
NEPA, do you commit to keeping the elements of One Federal
Decision as part of these regulations?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you for that question. What I can commit
to you on a rulemaking process, Senator, is that we will
certainly have discussions about what is included in that rule
and reflect the fact that you have made this request.
Senator Capito. I think you really have to follow the law
here.
Ms. Mallory. Absolutely.
Senator Capito. It is in the law.
Ms. Mallory. It is in the law, and we are following it.
What I am saying is, whether it is part of the broader rule
that will go beyond what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
covered is the issue.
Senator Capito. Yes, you stated we are going to be building
a lot. We are not going to be building a lot if we don't stick
with these, a lot, efficiency, and as we see, with inflation
and everything else, this is a real issue. Time is money here.
And I think it is very concerning.
I would like to go to--I come from a State that has
economic challenges, as you know. We talked about this. We have
communities of real downturn and hopelessness. The statistics
that just came out on drug deaths today, I read 108,000, I
think it was, Americans lost their lives. Unfortunately, our
State is subject to some of that.
I think that a broader view of what is going to bring
people out of poverty needs to be taken here by the
Administration. I understand the clean air and the clean water,
and that is what we all want. But at the same time, to exclude
a highway expansion, a community might not have a way out. I
know certainly in Senator Sullivan's case, in many of the
communities in Alaska, they have no infrastructure to move, to
progress, in some cases, both on the water and on the
transportation.
So I think a broader view of how this can open up
communities and pull people out of poverty which is ill health
and drug addiction and everything else that goes along with
that sometimes, is what I think a lot of us are trying to make
the point that you can't exclude communities who have been
treated poorly, and that we want to have them treated like the
Golden Rule. You have to have all the options on the table
here.
And I know you said we have got to listen to these
communities, and I know you are listening to the communities.
But there are conversations that go on with the communities who
want to have cheaper energy, who want to have the availability
of power costs that are going to be reliable and that are going
to be there for them and for their children when they grow up
in and around.
You know, I am from a small area. A lot of our folks don't
want to move from where they are. So the solutions I think, I
think that is the frustration that I feel listening to the
testimony, is the narrowing of the view of, it almost gives us,
me, an impression of, I know better what is good for you than
what you know is good for yourself.
So I would just ask you to take that thought with you as
part of my impressions today. Thank you.
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your making
those comments. First of all, I just want to be clear. Again, I
feel like people are equating all of our views with the views
that were expressed to us by the environmental justice
advocates. We believe that those are views that we have to
consider along with other views as well. We are not just
limiting what we think and how we behave simply to
recommendations. We are trying to make sure that those
recommendations are part of the process of thinking how we move
forward.
I am making an effort, and I think other members of the
Administration as well, to get out and reach out and talk to
all communities. It is not that we are simply limited to our
experts that are interacting with us through the Advisory
Council. In our interactions with other people, we are
listening to other people, and we are hearing different views.
This is a big country, and in different regions people have
different ideas about what is the best approach. We are trying
to take all of that into account.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you for presiding over
this hearing while I had to run and vote. I think we have some
more votes coming up.
This is my second round. I would like to lead it off by
giving you the opportunity, if you want to, to respond to some
of the questions that Senator Sullivan raised that you may not
have had a chance to respond to earlier. If you want to take
that opportunity, it is yours.
Ms. Mallory. I am not sure that there is not much new to
add. As I was trying to say to the Senator, I think basically
on the issues of carbon capture and sequestration, which is
obviously something that we talked a little bit about, and how
that is an important part of the President's agenda, and how we
are approaching that issue, I don't know that there are new
things to say on that.
What we are trying to do is to make sure that we invest in
the technology and conduct it in a way that we are not harming
people who are living near or close to related facilities, and
that that is as important a consideration as everything else in
the planning. So that is really the main point that I was
trying to reflect.
Senator Carper. All right. I am not going to dwell on
carbon capture sequestration, which is something that I am
strongly interested in, as are other Democrats and Republicans.
I would note that the issue of regenerative agriculture, in
my State, we raise a lot of chickens, a lot of soybeans, a lot
of corn, a lot of lima beans. We are always concerned about
overdevelopment in our State. We have these beautiful beaches
in southern Delaware, and there is a lot of interest from
people to live in southern Delaware, and developers want to
over-develop southern Delaware.
So we are always looking ways to keep farmers on the land.
One of the ways to do that is make sure they have greater
income, have more fertile soil, and regenerative agriculture is
something we are hugely interested in, as are the farmers. So I
would just share that with you. We will come back later and
talk about it.
My next question would be, last month the Columbia Journal
of Environmental Law published a study on NEPA's implementation
at the U.S. Forest Service. The study reviewed over 40,000 NEPA
decisions completed by the U.S. Forest Service between 2004 and
2020, over 40,000 decisions by the U.S. Forest Service between
those years. It uncovered that one of the biggest hurdles to
quick or timely environmental reviews is lack of agency
resources, lack of agency resources. And contrary to popular
belief, less rigorous analysis does not actually lead to faster
decision times.
However, not having the right staff or sufficient resources
to conduct NEPA reviews leads to slower decision times. This
means that the past Administration's efforts to starve Federal
agencies of staff and resources did not make the reviews move
faster. It actually made the delays worse, not better.
My question: Do these findings surprise you? And what are
you and others in the Administration doing to ensure that the
Federal Government has the resources and staff to conduct
environmental reviews in a timely manner?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
It doesn't surprise me, having been a career staff person
in the Federal Government for 14 years before I took on my
first political position. What we know is that agencies are
going to work to whatever you establish for them as the goal.
And what gets cut is the quality of what gets done. That is why
I think we are trying, in the action plan, one of the key
pillars of that is to try to make sure that the agencies are
assessing what their needs are and deploying the staff in
places that are necessary, or at least working as a Federal
team to try to help each other do well, to work in a way that
we help each other, so that the resources that are necessary in
order to conduct the whatever is necessary for the permitting
is available. That is part of having the leadership in regular
interaction around our permitting progress.
Senator Carper. Second question. Given that, this involves
State and local governments given that State and local agencies
implement so many Federal programs, what guidance, technical
assistance, and support do you anticipate providing to our
partners at the State or local level with permitting action
plans?
In your answers, if you could clarify something for me, I
would be grateful. In the action plan and recent rulemaking,
did CEQ roll back any of the timelines for decisionmaking? Did
you roll back any of the timelines for decisionmaking? And
also, are the changes intended to delay the investments we are
making in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? I don't think that
is the case, but I would like to hear it from you directly on
this issue, please.
Ms. Mallory. First of all, on the action that we just took
recently, it was three very targeted actions that did not
affect the timelines or the One Federal Decision process, or
any of the efforts that were specifically efficiency focused.
That was not covered in our most recent rule.
On the question about the resources and what we need to do
there, the action plan itself is designed to help us or make
the connections with the State and local entities who are very
active in actually implementing the rules. It does not say
specifically what we are going to do, but we identify that as
an area in which we have to get together with preferably like
national level bodies that are coming from cities like the
League of City Voters, that is not the right name, that work at
a level that is representative of both States, ECOS is an
example of a body that we would envision kind of creating a
relationship to help figure out how we can best work together
with States.
We can improve our part, but our part is only one part. We
can get the funding necessary to do our part. But ultimately,
for a lot of the projects, it is really important that State
and local entities be able to also do their part.
Senator Carper. All right.
We have just been joined by Senator Wicker. I am prepared
to yield to him if he and Senator Sullivan are OK with that.
But let me ask another unanimous consent request of my
colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
Congressional Research Report entitled The Role of the
Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway
Projects, Background and Issues for Congress, which concludes
the environmental reviews mandated by NEPA do not result in
infrastructure project delays when early stakeholder engagement
is part of the project planning process.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. I should yield to Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to Senator
Sullivan. He has not yet voted, and I have.
Senator Carper. OK.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, I am getting screamed at. This is
too important for me.
Senator Carper. Second bite out of the apple. Go ahead.
Senator Sullivan. Hopefully they will keep the vote open
for me.
Madam Chair, I am obviously, I am expressing frustration,
it is no--I am not trying to be rude to you. But this
Administration, the Biden administration has issued 22
Executive Orders or Executive Actions solely targeting Alaska,
22. I guarantee you they are not doing it to Delaware. And my
constituents are up in arms, because it is targeting their
livelihood, it is targeting their access to Federal lands.
Deb Haaland, Secretary Haaland was in Alaska 3 weeks ago.
She meets with the Inupiat People of the North Slope, who every
single one of them said no more regulations to lock up our
lands. She smiled, nodded, she got back, and 72 hours after her
return, she issued a giant Executive Order taking, as I
mentioned, half of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska off
of the table and had the audacity to put in their rule that
they were doing it because the Inupiat People wanted their
subsistence right protected. She had just met with them. And
that is not at all what they said. It was an insult.
So I am very frustrated. And I am frustrated on behalf of
my constituents.
Senator Kelly's question, I am sure you know, the average
EIS takes almost 4 years. That is average. One-quarter of all
EISes take 6 and a half years. Do you think those timelines are
good for our country?
Ms. Mallory. Senator, as I was saying, one of the reasons
that we have released the permitting action plan is that we are
trying to get the processing efficiencies in place in a way
that will allow us to----
Senator Sullivan. There is a lot of smart people who think
your NEPA rule will do the exact opposite and will give radical
environmental groups the opportunity to sue away and delay
more. I had a gold mine in my State. It is called the
Kensington Gold Mine. Took 20 years to permit, 20 years. Do you
think that is good for the country?
Ms. Mallory. I know that there are extreme examples out
there that we are trying to make sure that we address.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask, just with regard to the rule,
as you know, under Federal law, you do not only have to publish
that in the Federal Register, the rule must then be submitted
to the House and Senate before taking action. When does CEQ
intend to do that? That is a Federal law requirement.
Ms. Mallory. I will have to get back to you on that.
Senator Sullivan. OK. That is important.
Let me ask just one final question. The President made this
big deal about the lack of critical minerals, which really
hurts our defense industrial base, our renewable sector,
renewable technology, and that the Administration is going to
do all this great stuff to make sure critical minerals are from
America, not China.
I had a recent amendment in terms of instructions for our
conferees on the USECA conference that passed unanimously.
Every U.S. Senator said, hey, we should get our critical
minerals and technology from America, our allies, and not China
and not Russia. So, pretty broad bipartisan support for that.
And yet, and yet, this Administration reversed the Ambler
Mining District road decision in Alaska. Huge stock of critical
minerals for our country in the Ambler Mining District. You
guys reversed it about 8 months ago.
And then the big nickel, I believe it is nickel, prospect
in Minnesota was also recently reversed. These again were super
big goals of the radical left environmental groups. And the
President is saying, we are going to do this, and yet the
actions you take, the clear actions are harming America's
ability to actually mine and process critical minerals. That is
two examples, Minnesota and Alaska.
So what is CEQ's role to oversee the Administration's
implementation of addressing the shortage of critical minerals
that we need desperately in our country across the board,
including for EV technology and batteries and military issues
as well?
Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Again,
this is an area where the President has put some attention on
the importance of our putting ourselves as a country in a
better position on critical minerals. And he has also
recommended that we pursue mining reform based on principles
that will essentially bring our modern ethos around
environmental protection into the way that we proceed on
mining.
So CEQ is actively engaged with other members of the White
House on those efforts and initiatives.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You bet.
Senator Wicker, thanks for joining us today. Before you go
forward with your questions, let me just make another unanimous
consent request.
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record materials
that show that U.S. oil production continues to recover despite
claims that the Biden administration's actions have slowed
drilling.
Without objection, that is so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. With that, Senator Wicker, you are good to
join us; the stage and the floor are yours.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
seeing that document that you just entered by unanimous
consent.
Madam Chair, thank you so much for visiting our State of
Mississippi, and thank you for meeting with me earlier today
about a grave problem, manmade flooding problem that we have in
the south Delta concerning the Yazoo Pump Project. I very much
appreciate that.
You visited our State in February. In a nutshell, can you
share with the Committee what you learned?
Ms. Mallory. Yes. It was a several day trip in Mississippi
with Secretary Haaland, who basically was looking at some
historic sites in the area as part of a direction from
Congress. So it was my opportunity to visit the Medgar Evers
site, to visit the area that was involved in the killing of
Emmett Till, and then we saw another site that was related to
those two projects. Then I left her, and I joined the Corps of
Engineers, and we went and we visited the Yazoo Pump area.
Senator Wicker. Let me just interject. All of those sites
are very important to me also, so I am glad you did. But
specifically, you were about to get to Yazoo.
Ms. Mallory. Yes, to Yazoo. The purpose of that meeting was
because, obviously, there is action that was taken by the
Environmental Protection Agency that reinstated basically the
404(c) veto that had been used over that area. So we are at a
place where the question is, now what? What do we do about what
has to happen in this area in order to address the regular
flooding that is occurring for communities, and to make sure
that we are doing it in a way that balances with the eco-
concerns that have been raised previously?
So that was the point of my seeing the area and having a
chance to hear from the Corps' experts on what they thought
that the issues and opportunities were.
Senator Wicker. I realize I asked you a very general
question. But you saw the area where the recurrent flooding
takes place, is that correct?
Ms. Mallory. Correct.
Senator Wicker. It is indeed a manmade problem, caused by a
project built by the Federal Government, is that not correct?
Ms. Mallory. That is correct.
Senator Wicker. Thank you so much about that, and also
thank you for meeting with me earlier, as I already said. I
think we agreed that a schedule has been pretty much finalized
concerning getting all of the relevant agencies together and
moving by the middle of July. I do appreciate that, and I
appreciate your assurance that you will get a copy of that
schedule to me. You are planning to do that, are you not?
Ms. Mallory. That is correct.
Senator Wicker. Yes, ma'am. Then I think there is a two
pager where you and other agencies that are involved in this
have sort of boiled down the relevant issues with regard to
this proposal, and you are going to get that to me also?
Ms. Mallory. I am going to talk to the agencies about that.
We are going to have some discussion about that.
Senator Wicker. OK. Well, I hope you will do that. So I
might ask you also to get back to us on the record about that.
But I hope you will.
The six counties most affected by the flooding near the
proposed Yazoo pumps are Sharkey County, where 30.3 percent of
the residents are in poverty; Issaquena County, 43.3 percent of
the residents there are in poverty; Humphreys County, 33.3
percent of the residents in that county are in poverty; Yazoo
County, 31 percent of the residents are in poverty; Warren
County, 19.2 percent of the residents are in poverty, the best
one of the group but still way, way too much. And Washington
County, 27.7 percent of the residents are in poverty.
The President has made environmental justice central to his
environmental and climate agenda. And I understand you have
been asked about that earlier. But would you agree that the
statistics that I have read to you argue strongly for looking
at this proposed projects in terms of environmental justice?
Ms. Mallory. I will say, Senator, that is actually one of
the things that is high on my list of follow up on this
project. Because I have not yet had a chance to talk to the
communities or even community leaders about either the project
or just their own situation. So that is something that is
definitely on my list of things to do on this project.
Senator Wicker. OK. I think we agreed in our meeting
earlier, which again I appreciate so much, that maybe some
weekend soon, a long weekend, a break, or during the August
break, at least by then, you might facilitate a team coming
down and looking, talking to stakeholders, the low income
populations are very much in support of this project, the
minority populations who are in support of this project.
So I appreciate your working with us. I think we are on the
road to a schedule that gets us to a point in mid-July of
actually decisionmaking. And I certainly look forward to
learning as much as I can about the list of the issues that
they boil down to.
So thank you very much for working with us on behalf of the
residents of the south Delta.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us, and for your
persistent focus on this issue.
As our colleague knows, one of the things that we talked
about is the level of poverty in some of those counties, which
is almost unbelievable. One of the things I have found in my
own work as Governor and as chairman of the National Governors
Association, a huge focus, I have always hugely focused on job
creation and job preservation. If you want to help somebody,
best way you can help is make sure they have a job and that
they can lift themselves out of poverty.
The 8 years I was Governor in Delaware, more jobs were
created in those 8 years in Delaware than any 8 years in the
history of the State. I didn't create one of them. We helped
create a nurturing environment for job creation and job
preservation, and one of those factors, work force is
important, tax is important, reasonable regulation is
important. Also important is the quality of the environment, is
the water drinkable, is the air something you can breathe. How
about landfills and pollution and that sort of thing? All that
is important as well. It all works together. I don't know of
any business that wants to live or operate in a place where the
water is undrinkable and the air is something you cannot
breathe. That is not a good thing.
Having said that, I am going to give you a couple minutes,
if you wish. I am going to ask one unanimous consent request,
and then I am going to give you a minute or 2 or 3 to come back
and wrap up anything you feel like you would like re-emphasize,
maybe something you didn't have a chance to respond to.
While you think about that for a moment, I am going to ask
unanimous consent to submit for the record a report from the
Federal Highway Administration which found that between 90 to
99 percent of all road and bridge projects are completed as
categorical exclusions, and therefore are not subject to
lengthy review under NEPA.
That is worth repeating. I ask unanimous consent to submit
for the record a report from the Federal Highway Administration
that found that between 90 to 99 percent of all road and bridge
projects are completed as categorical exclusions, and therefore
are not subject to lengthy review under NEPA. That surprises
me, and probably surprises you and others on this Committee.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Carper. All right. That being said, I have
something I am going to say, I call it boilerplate, right at
the end. But I want to give you the opportunity to say
something you didn't have a chance to say, question that wasn't
asked that you wish had been. The time is yours.
Ms. Mallory. First of all, thank you, Senator Carper. I
really appreciate it. And I really appreciated the opportunity
to be here today to share some of the work that CEQ is doing. I
hope that my pride in the work that we are doing and of my
staff and all that we are doing for the American people has
come through in the discussion. I think we have accomplished a
lot in this first year. We have much more to do, obviously,
because the President has a very ambitious agenda. And we are
working hard to achieve that sort of balance that really comes
through in every single issue.
I have probably used the word balance many times today, but
what is important is trying to meet the multiple goals that the
President has set out. We want to have well thought out,
analyzed decisions that will endure, that will not be problems
that are affected by flood plains that we fail to analyze. We
want to make sure that the choices that we make reflect the
public's expectation and investment in the Federal Government
that we are using our funds in an effective and a thoughtful
way.
So I think NEPA continues to be, it is a hard issue for
people, because people want their projects fast. But they also
want them to last. So what we are trying to achieve through the
NEPA rules is that.
The focus on environmental justice could not be more
important. It is central that we reset the way in which we look
at our approach to communities, our willingness to bring them
into the process early, our willingness to make sure that they
are part of our decisionmaking. That doesn't mean we are going
to agree on everything. But I think we ought to be working in a
way that we are trying to minimize the impacts that people are
feeling, even if we don't agree on an actual technology or
approach. But we should be trying to set things up so that
people are not suffering because of choices that we are making.
So I think that continues to be really important in the work
that we are doing.
We didn't get into a number of areas that CEQ is working
on, we didn't talk much about sustainability today or a lot of
the work that is going on in the conservation area. But I can
just assure you that we are pursuing all of our issues with
that same focus: What is going to benefit the American people
under the agenda that this President has set? How do we do it
so that all Americans get the benefit of it? And how do we do
it so that we are being good servants and ensuring that the
work is done in an effective way?
I will end there. Thank you so much for the time.
Senator Carper. You bet. Thank you for those comments.
Those were worth waiting for.
This is a wonderful Committee, and I feel privileged to
help lead it with the great leadership of Senator Shelley
Capito. Members of this Committee don't agree on everything,
but we work hard to try to find consensus and principal
compromises where possible.
It is important, I use the phrase often, we can walk and
chew gum at the same time. That thought comes to mind as we
discuss some of these difficult issues.
Thank you for coming today and joining us and sharing an
update of what you all are up to at CEQ and the important work
that you and your team are doing, not without its challenges.
But I think that you demonstrated today, and in the last
months, that you are up to the challenge.
Thank you again for joining us on Earth Day in Delaware,
for your attention to the concerns raised by Senator Wicker. I
think I heard in his comments an invitation to head down to
Mississippi sometime later this year. If you can do that, I
know he would appreciate that. I would, too.
Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. Senators
will be allowed to submit written questions for the record
through the close of business on Wednesday, May 25th. We will
compile those questions, and we will send them to you and your
staff. We ask that you reply to us by June 8th of this year.
Unless there is something else that I am missing, with
that, I take this gavel and declare this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]