[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                        UNLEASHING AMERICA'S ENERGY 
                            AND MINERAL POTENTIAL

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE
                               
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                      Wednesday, February 8, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-1

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-127 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
          
                    COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

		 BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
		DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
	      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		Grace F. Napolitano, CA		
Robert J. Wittman, VA		Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA		  CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                                

		Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
		  Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
	     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
	       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                ------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, February 8, 2023......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     1
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

Panel I

    Milito, Erik, President, National Ocean Industries 
      Association, Washington, DC................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
    Sandberg, JC, Chief Advocacy Officer, American Clean Power 
      Association, Washington, DC................................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Johnson, Dana, Senior Director of Strategy and Federal 
      Policy, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Washington, DC...    19
        Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    25
    Sgamma, Kathleen, President, Western Energy Alliance, Denver, 
      Colorado...................................................    25
        Prepared statement of....................................    27

Panel II

    Holloman, Michael II, Commercial Director and Member of the 
      Board, U.S. Strategic Metals, St. Louis, Missouri..........    70
        Prepared statement of....................................    72
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    74
    Franklin, Reno, Chairman, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, and 
      Member, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Santa 
      Rosa, California...........................................    75
        Prepared statement of....................................    76
    Adams, Matthew, Vice President and Senior Tax Counsel, Navajo 
      Transitional Energy Company (NTEC), Broomfield, Colorado...    78
        Prepared statement of....................................    79
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    84
    Somers, Brian, President, Utah Mining Association, Salt Lake 
      City, Utah.................................................    88
        Prepared statement of....................................    90
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    91

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        United States Geologic Survey--Fig. 1 from their 2023 
          assessment.............................................   113
        Posters of child slave labor in the Democratic Republic 
          of the Congo...........................................   129
        National Mining Association, Statement for the Record....   118
        Rep. Mark Amodei, Letter to Chair Westerman along with a 
          rebuttal to Chairman Franklin's comments at the hearing 
          on Thacker Pass, dated February 8, 2023................   128
        Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 
          Statement of support for the Record....................   130

    Submission for the Record by Representative Carl

        D'Andre Wright, Vice President of External Relations at 
          Warrior Met Coal, Statement for the Record.............    93

    Submission for the Record by Representative Lamborn

        Department of the Interior, Letter to Rep. Lamborn dated 
          December 8, 2022.......................................    32

    Submission for the Record by Representative Luna

        Posters shown during the hearing.........................    56

    Submission for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Letter signed by environmental groups, dated February 7, 
          2023...................................................   134
                                     


 
                    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON UNLEASHING
                 AMERICA'S ENERGY AND MINERAL POTENTIAL

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, February 8, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., Room 
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce Westerman 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Westerman, Lamborn, McClintock, 
Graves, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, Curtis, 
Tiffany, Carl, Rosendale, Boebert, Bentz, Kiggans, Collins, 
Luna, Hageman; Grijalva, Gallego, Levin, Porter, Leger 
Fernandez, Stansbury, Peltola, Kamlager-Dove, Magaziner, 
Mullin, Hoyle, and Dingell.

    The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recess of the Committee at any time.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
unleashing America's energy and mineral potential.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements may be made part of the hearing 
record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 
3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    The Chairman. Good morning, and it is great to see everyone 
here for the first formal hearing of our Committee, as we kick 
off the 118th Congress.
    House Republicans made a lot of promises last year, and now 
the American people have given us a majority, and we are ready 
to deliver on those promises. As we put together our 
legislative agenda for this Congress and heard from our 
constituents, it was clear that energy independence, energy 
security, and lowering consumer cost was a top priority for our 
country. And, therefore, it is a top priority of this 
Committee.
    Energy and minerals affect every part of our daily lives. 
Just look around this room. We flipped on a switch to turn the 
lights on. We are enjoying a temperature-controlled 
environment, and we are receiving text messages and e-mails on 
our cell phones. From the visible to the invisible, energy and 
minerals are woven into the fabric of our very existence.
    Given this dependency, you would think that the 
Administration, regardless of party affiliation, would be 
finding every possible avenue to unlock America's potential, 
America's potential to produce these necessities of life that 
we have all come to depend on so much.
    Instead, we have seen an attack on the production of 
American oil and gas on American mining, which translates into 
an attack on the economy of America, and it also doesn't help 
the environment out one tidbit when we are importing these 
products from countries that do not have near the environmental 
standards, near the human rights standards, or can produce 
these materials as efficiently and as effectively as we can 
here at home.
    We are exporting wealth from the United States, many times, 
to our adversaries because of a not-in-my-backyard mentality. 
Well, we hope to change that mentality, and give a message to 
the American people that we are blessed with resources here in 
the United States, that we can develop these resources, that we 
are committed to research and to development to make these 
resources the cleanest, safest, most effective use of resources 
in the world, and promote more human rights and more dignity 
through the use of resources, provide people with the 
necessities of life, the opportunity to improve their lives, 
and to enjoy the benefits that the energy development in this 
country has given not only to America, but to the rest of the 
world.
    There may be a narrative out there--and I know from some of 
the organizational meetings we have had--that Republicans only 
care about the bottom line, that we don't care about the 
environment. I would say that is contrary to the truth. 
Republicans care about the environment and the economy. And we 
know that, if we produce more of these products here at home, 
we benefit both. We benefit both greatly.
    And we hope to be able to talk about facts. We want to look 
at what the real science is. I have said many times that the 
problem with the Democrats, and especially this 
Administration's policy, is two things. It is physics and math. 
They seem to ignore the science, and they ignore the math and 
try to create this idea of a utopia that right now is centered 
around electric vehicles. I have no problem with electric 
vehicles, but they are not going to solve the world's problems. 
They are not going to solve any kind of climate crisis, and 
they are certainly not going to make America more energy 
independent and energy secure.
    [Chart.]

    The Chairman. There is a chart behind me. You have a copy 
of it at your desk. And I hope you will take this chart and 
study it. This is global demand for energy, global use of 
energy, actually, over time by energy source. And if you study 
that chart, you will notice that the world was mainly using 
biomass in 1800, but you had the Industrial Revolution in the 
mid-1800s, and you see coal come onto the scene. And the global 
usage of energy doubled from 1800 to 1900.
    And if you follow that chart, and you see the increased 
industrialization of the world, the global consumption of 
energy doubled again by the 1940s, and then it doubled again in 
the 1960s. It doubled again in the 1980s, and it doubled again 
just a couple of years ago. And the statisticians are 
projecting that it will be 50 percent more by 2035.
    The world has an insatiable appetite for energy, and I hope 
you will look closely at that chart. And I wish President Biden 
had looked at this chart before he made the comment last night 
that we need fossil fuels for 10 more years. Fossil fuels on 
the global energy scene make up over 80 percent--closer to 85 
percent--of the world's energy production, and that is not 
going away.
    And while we are hyper-focused on electric vehicles--if you 
could change every electric vehicle in America or every 
passenger car or light duty truck to an electric vehicle 
overnight, you would reduce carbon emissions globally by less 
than 1 percent. While we are focused on that, China's building 
coal-fired plants every week.
    It is imperative that we look at the resources we are 
blessed with, that we develop those with the best technology 
and innovation possible, and that we do what is best for the 
American people and for the world.
    I am not going to close, I am going to pause for a moment, 
and I want to recognize the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.

    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, one of the extended 
prerogatives of the Chair is that you can finish whenever, and 
please do if you have more on the subject.

    The Chairman. We will have plenty of discussion during the 
hearing. I want to keep it moving along. If the Ranking Member 
would like to make an opening statement----
    Mr. Grijalva. Absolutely.
    The Chairman I will yield you 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you to the witnesses for being here and taking time out of your 
busy schedule to be with us and to travel here.
    And I want to--there was a moment yesterday during the 
President's State of the Union speech before Congress that I 
thought was almost like an epiphany, in that we reached a 
discussion about common ground. And that common ground 
effectively said Social Security and Medicare are off the 
table. We don't have to worry about those being part of any cut 
list, and we are all going to work together to make them 
stronger. I thought that that was a rare and good moment in 
which, on the surface, seemed to have the vast support of all 
the Members of Congress that were there. So, that was a special 
moment.
    And I would hope that, as we look at the issues that are 
before us today and before the jurisdiction of this Committee, 
that we look to try to find some common ground on some issues. 
But, I don't think today is one of them.
    Last week, four big oil giants--Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and 
ConocoPhillips--reported the largest profits in history. 
Together, these fossil fuel Goliaths made over a trillion 
dollars in sales in 2022. Needless to say, Big Oil had a good 
year.
    And on the other hand, the climate did not. The drying of 
the West showed no signs of slowing down, sending the Colorado 
River reservoirs into historic shortages and demanding of the 
Federal Government and Congress that they intervene in that 
crisis that continues to grow, the drought in the West, and the 
hurricane that battered Puerto Rico, ripped through Florida, 
making it the deadliest hurricane to hit the state since 1935.
    All told, the cost of climate disasters in the United 
States totaled $165 billion last year and claimed far too many 
lives. Climate change is a public health, safety, 
environmental, and existential crisis like we have never known 
before.
    And I think, because of that, Democrats on this Committee 
continue to push the issue that climate must be a central focus 
of any legislative consideration, and that the progress that we 
have made into a transition away from total dependency on 
fossil fuels--80, 85 percent, as the Chairman said--to 
renewable alternative energy sources that are clean and healthy 
for the world and for the American people, that continues to be 
central in what Democrats of this Committee will continue to 
advocate for, fight for, and push for, legislatively.
    This Committee helped pass the most significant investment 
in climate action in history with the Inflation Reduction Act, 
the Democrats in this Committee. The IRA includes $369 billion 
in investments for communities hit hardest. That includes $4 
billion to address the drought in the West, almost $3 billion 
to build more resilient coastal communities, and of importance 
to the discussion today, to boost Federal permitting offices 
and environmental review processes so that the self-fulfilling 
prophecy of no resources, no staff, and permitting taking 
longer and longer feeds the same argument over and over again, 
that somehow this is a deliberate attack on energy production 
in this country. A billion dollars to bring that permitting 
process, expedite that process is in there, and we should 
support its implementations.
    We made great headway in taking serious actions on climate, 
but it looks like my colleagues across the aisle won't be 
building the momentum any time soon. Instead, we have decided 
to dedicate this first hearing, their first message to the 
American people, how to make it easier for polluters to prosper 
in this country.
    During today's hearing, you will hear about ``streamline 
permitting,'' and the need to ``unleash our energy potential.'' 
But before we get all hung up on these catchy slogans and they 
lure us into a drill-baby-drill frenzy, let's call them for 
what they are. They are nothing more than the industry's newest 
buzz words designed to trick the American people into giving 
them what they want.
    And what do these industries want?
    They want to hoard more of our public lands, despite the 
fact that fossil fuel industry already has thousands of 
approved permits across 26 million acres that they aren't even 
using.
    They want to ``streamline permitting'' by stripping us of 
public input, the public's right to know, despite the fact that 
they already ignore and trample all over environmental justice 
communities.
    They want to fast-track drilling and mining projects--I'm 
on my time right now, sir--so they can make more money more 
easily, despite the fact that they are already raking in 
trillions by taking '`corporate handouts and ripping off the 
American taxpayers.
    They want Republicans to do their bidding to make it 
happen, which they seem all too willing to do.
    But no matter what happens, no matter what Republicans 
want, the American people have a different vision for the 
future, and that involves dealing with the climate crisis, 
continuing the momentum toward a transition away from fossil 
fuels, and making center in all discussions and legislative 
actions going forward--what does this do, and how does this 
abate, mitigate, and remediate the issues around the climate 
crisis.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I yield 
back.

    The Chairman. The Ranking Member yields back. And as you 
can see, we are going to have a spirited discussion today. I 
look forward to delving into a lot of those charges made by my 
colleague, and I think the record will show that Republicans 
are on the side of the climate, they are on the side of the 
environment, and we actually have solutions that work.
    And to be able to have this discussion, we have a great 
panel of witnesses before us today. I want to introduce our 
witnesses from Panel I.
    We have Mr. Erik Milito, President of the National Ocean 
Industries Association, here in Washington, DC; Mr. JC 
Sandberg, he is a Chief Advocacy Officer from the American 
Clean Power in Washington, DC; Ms. Dana Johnson, Senior 
Director of Strategy and Federal Policy from WE ACT for 
Environmental Justice from Washington, DC; and Ms. Kathleen 
Sgamma, no stranger to our Committee, who is President of the 
Western Energy Alliance in Denver, Colorado.
    Let me remind witnesses that, under Committee Rules, they 
must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the talk button on 
the microphone. We do use timing lights. When you begin, the 
light will turn green. When you have 1 minute left, the light 
will turn yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will 
turn red. And I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses on the panel to testify 
before Member questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Milito for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ERIK MILITO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 
                  ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Milito. Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, 
and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify. My name is Erik Milito, and I am President of the 
National Ocean Industries Association, or NOIA.
    At NOIA, we represent all segments of the offshore energy 
industry, including offshore oil and gas, offshore wind, 
offshore minerals, offshore carbon sequestration, and other 
emerging technologies. Our members include not just energy 
developers, but also the businesses large and small that do the 
work of building, supplying, and operating offshore energy 
projects.
    The same U.S. companies in the supply chain that have built 
out the U.S. offshore oil and gas sector are already 
participating in the build-out of the U.S. offshore wind 
sector, and are leading U.S. efforts to develop carbon capture 
and storage infrastructure.
    The offshore region, and the Gulf of Mexico in particular, 
have served as the backbone of U.S. energy production for 
decades. The United States has been producing oil in the 
Federal Gulf of Mexico waters since the 1940s, and production 
in the Gulf has been steadily increasing over the past 30 
years. In fact, this region has been producing more than 1 
million barrels of oil per day since 1997, and at its highest 
level of production on record, just over 2 million barrels per 
day in August 2019, right before the onset of the pandemic.
    When compared to countries around the world, the U.S. Gulf 
of Mexico would be the 11th largest producer of oil in the 
global marketplace. In terms of energy affordability, 
production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico plays a substantial 
role helping to meet global demand for energy. The U.S. Gulf of 
Mexico oil and gas sector truly is an economic engine. It 
supports about 370,000 jobs, and these jobs are dispersed 
throughout the country.
    U.S. oil and gas production, and Gulf of Mexico production 
in particular, provide Americans with the best product when it 
comes to low-carbon barrels. Oil produced from the Gulf has a 
carbon intensity one-half that of other producing regions. U.S. 
offshore facilities are state-of-the-art, built with efficient 
modern designs that help to serve and prevent emissions and 
deliver high volumes of oil and gas with a smaller physical 
footprint.
    Policies that restrict domestic offshore development 
require imports to make up the shortfall, and that supplemental 
production comes from higher-emitting operations in other 
countries. Foreign providers generally employ less 
environmentally protective production methods, which, when 
combined with the added emissions from importing oil over great 
distances by tanker, increases the amount of carbon released 
into the atmosphere, rather than decreasing it.
    U.S. offshore wind is poised for dramatic growth. Offshore 
wind development in federally managed waters offers enormous 
economic and environmental benefits and will help meet 
renewable energy goals. While the development of U.S. wind 
opportunities will provide substantial benefits to states 
adjacent to lease areas, it will also lead to tremendous 
investment throughout the nation.
    In areas like the Gulf Coast, you will find steel 
fabricators, offshore service vessels, subsea construction 
companies, helicopter service providers, and more who built 
their experience in the oil and gas industry, but will be vital 
to building offshore wind.
    The U.S. Gulf Coast region is also uniquely situated to 
emerge as a global hub for carbon capture and storage, or CCS. 
CCS has been identified by experts throughout the world as key 
to meeting climate objectives. Along with excellent geologic 
prospects for storing carbon dioxide, the Gulf Coast is home to 
the full supply chain of energy companies with the engineering 
expertise, experience, and vision to deploy CCS projects with 
the scale and efficiency necessary for success.
    U.S. energy policy should support the development and 
availability of all forms of abundant, reliable, and affordable 
energy supplies for Americans, while continuously reducing 
impacts and driving down emissions. Whether it is offshore oil 
and gas, offshore wind, or offshore CCS, the Federal Government 
must provide a pathway for investment through certainty in 
leasing, permitting, and regulation. Failure to do so will not 
prevent the investment, it will only prevent the investment 
from occurring here in the United States.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Milito follows:]
Prepared Statement of Erik Milito, President, National Ocean Industries 
                              Association

    For the past 50 years, the National Ocean Industries Association 
(``NOIA'') has represented the interests of all segments of the 
offshore energy industry, including offshore oil and gas, offshore 
wind, offshore minerals, and offshore carbon sequestration. Our 
membership includes energy project leaseholders and developers and the 
entire supply chain of companies that make up an innovative energy 
system contributing to the safe and responsible exploration, 
development, and production of energy for the American people.
    The offshore energy sector is a proven leader in solving energy 
challenges and delivering diverse sources of energy to the global 
economy. The offshore industry brings together the companies that 
produce foundational energy sources such as oil and gas, while leading 
innovation and investment in energy sources and technologies that will 
drive decarbonization efforts well into the future. The offshore energy 
sector has unparalleled expertise and experience deploying and scaling 
technologies at levels necessary to achieve decarbonization objectives. 
Companies throughout the offshore industry continue to lead the way in 
innovating low emission solutions that include offshore wind, carbon 
capture and storage, hydrogen, and geothermal, among others.
    For the foreseeable future, the offshore industry will play an 
integral role in shaping an energy system that promotes the provision 
of affordable and reliable energy while continuing to reduce 
environmental impacts, including emissions. Importantly, for the coming 
decades, oil and gas supplies will remain a vital energy source for 
Americans and our allies around the globe, while we simultaneously 
integrate and add low carbon sources into the mix.
ENERGY REALITIES

    Energy lifts society. A system of reliable, abundant, and 
affordable energy is essential for meeting basic societal needs, 
including healthy living conditions, health care, education, and 
mobility, economic or otherwise.
    Oil and gas fill the fuel tanks of passenger vehicles and 
airplanes. They are transformed into the essential building blocks of 
smartphones, clothing, and medical equipment. They are in so many 
products we use every day that they underpin the conveniences of modern 
life.
    Natural gas is recognized as a key energy source for providing 
electricity, heating, cooling, and clean cooking. More than 750 million 
people around the globe do not have access to electricity, which leaves 
entire communities at a severe and fundamental disadvantage. According 
to the World Health Organization (WHO), ``Access to energy is critical 
when it comes to the functionality of health-care facilities and the 
quality, accessibility and reliability of health services delivered. 
Electricity is necessary for the operation of critically needed medical 
devices such as vaccine refrigeration, surgical emergency, laboratory 
and diagnostic equipment, as well as for the operation of basic 
amenities such as lighting, cooling, ventilation and communications.'' 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.who.int/activities/accelerating-access-to-
electricy-in-health-care-facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Globally, 2.6 billion people do not have the means for clean 
cooking and must use solid fuels such as wood, crop wastes, charcoal, 
and dung in open fires and inefficient stoves. The WHO attributes 3.8 
million premature deaths each year to indoor air pollution caused by 
the fumes and soot generated by inefficient and dirty cooking.
    The tragic impacts of energy insecurity are not only experienced 
abroad; 44 percent of low-income American households experience energy 
insecurity, spending 10 percent to 20 percent of their income on energy 
expenses.\2\ Energy insecurity has adverse consequences on both 
physical and mental health. Millions of Americans are faced with the 
``heat or eat'' dilemma, regularly having to choose between paying 
utility bills and paying for food.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2020/ph240/radzyminski2/
    \3\ S. Jessel, S. Sawyer, and D. Hernandez, ``Energy, Poverty, and 
Health in Climate Change: A Comprehensive Review of an Emerging 
Literature,'' Front. Public Health 7, 357 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Energy production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that it 
is possible to develop offshore resources while adhering to the highest 
safety and environmental standards. A multitude of companies involved 
in offshore energy development are working collaboratively to shrink an 
already small carbon footprint. From electrifying operations to 
deploying innovative solutions that reduce the size, weight, and part 
count of offshore infrastructure--thus increasing safety and decreasing 
emissions--the U.S. Gulf of Mexico hosts a high-tech revolution.
    Currently, global oil consumption is approximately 100 million 
barrels per day. Various scenarios forecast global oil consumption 
volumes through 2050 and beyond, and nearly all of them predict 
substantial oil production will be necessary through at least 2050. The 
facts, data, and our experience make clear that we should focus on the 
U.S. offshore region, and the Gulf of Mexico in particular, for 
securing those vital resources.
    Oil produced from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has a carbon intensity 
one-half that of other producing regions.\4\ The technologies used in 
deepwater production--which represents 92 percent of the oil produced 
in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico--place this region among the lowest carbon 
intensity oil-producing regions in the world.\5\ Policies that restrict 
domestic offshore development require imports to make up the shortfall, 
and that supplemental production comes from higher-emitting operations 
in other countries. Foreign providers generally employ less 
environmentally conscientious production methods, which when combined 
with the added emissions from transporting oil over great distances by 
tanker, increases the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere 
rather than decreasing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Motiwala, and Ismail, ``Statistical Study of Carbon Intensities 
in the GOM and PB,'' ChemRxiv, April 13, 2020.
    \5\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-challenge-of-negative-
emissions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emissions reduction is a global challenge. As analysts at Wood 
Mackenzie explain, ``Removing or handicapping a low emitter hurts the 
collective global average.'' \6\ Removing a proven, stable supplier 
such as the U.S. Gulf of Mexico would be a poor choice with devasting 
consequences. The better choice is to institute government policies 
that promote cleaner and safer domestic production, less reliance on 
higher-emitting foreign suppliers like Russia and China, and the 
preservation of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/could-restricting-oil-
production-in-the-us-gulf-of-mexico-lead-to-carbon-leakage/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Efforts to restrict U.S. energy development could eventually lead 
to Americans of every walk of life having to contend with the issues 
Europe has been experiencing as a result of disrupted supply from 
Russia, including potential industrial curtailment and families having 
to make difficult choices between heat and food. Our energy reality 
makes it clear that U.S. energy policy should support U.S. energy 
production of all types, including offshore oil and gas and wind. 
Government policies play a substantial role in the ability to develop 
energy in the U.S., whether onshore or offshore, and whether the energy 
source is oil and gas, wind, hydrogen, or another resource. Obstructive 
government policies inevitably lead to adverse consequences for our 
energy security, national security, economic security, and 
decarbonization efforts.

OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES ENERGY SECURITY

Oil and Natural Gas Will Be Crucial Energy Sources for Decades to Come

    Oil and natural gas touch every part of our daily lives. 
Fundamentally, ``Everything that is fabricated, grown, operated or 
moved is made possible by hydrocarbons.'' \7\ The U.S. Department of 
Energy states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Mark Mills, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2019

        Oil and natural gas play an essential role in powering 
        America's vibrant economy and fueling a remarkable quality of 
        life in the United States. Together, oil and natural gas 
        provide more than two-thirds of the energy Americans consume 
        daily, and we will continue to rely on them in the future. In 
        addition to meeting our energy needs, oil and natural gas are 
        integral to our standard of living in ways that are often not 
        apparent. Several key advances in technology enabled a dramatic 
        increase in domestic oil and natural gas production over the 
        past 20 years. This increased production provides energy 
        security and economic benefits to the entire country, and 
        ongoing technology advances will help us to enjoy those 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        benefits into the future.

        Oil and natural gas are used in many ways that are familiar to 
        consumers. Petroleum products power transportation, providing 
        fuel for cars, trucks, marine vessels, locomotives, and 
        airplanes. Natural gas generates more than one-third of the 
        electricity needed for dependable heating, air conditioning, 
        lighting, industrial production, refrigeration, and other 
        essential services, and tens of millions of Americans rely on 
        oil and natural gas to heat their homes directly and on clean 
        burning natural gas to cook their food. But petroleum products 
        do so much more than fuel our cars and power our homes and 
        businesses.

        While perhaps less recognized, oil and natural gas also play 
        critical roles in supplying essential products and materials, 
        increasing agricultural productivity, and supporting the 
        expansion of new energy sources.

        Oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids are building blocks 
        for a range of modern materials used to produce life-changing 
        prosthetics, energy-efficient homes, safer cars that go farther 
        on a gallon of gasoline, and hundreds more consumer products 
        that Americans use every day. Plastics and chemicals derived 
        from oil and natural gas make our food safer, our clothing more 
        comfortable, our homes easier to care for, and our daily lives 
        more convenient.

        Natural gas is also a key ingredient for chemical fertilizers, 
        helping increase crop production and yield per acre planted, 
        and powering many important operations on the farm like crop 
        drying.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS: Providing Energy Security and 
Supporting Our Quality of Life, U.S. Department of Energy, September 
2020, p. 4.

    According to the United Nations, access to affordable, reliable, 
and sustainable energy is critical to achieving many international 
development goals, specifically, the eradication of poverty through 
continued improvements in education, health, and access to water.\9\ 
Oil and natural gas play a central role in eliminating poverty and 
raising the standard of living for millions by serving as a key form of 
abundant and affordable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/goal-07/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The nascent offshore wind sector will be part of the energy 
transformation and will serve to boost our nation's energy security. 
Through research, development, demonstration, and deployment 
(``RDDD''), technology advancements will enable wind and other 
renewable energy sources to eventually provide pathways for overcoming 
global energy challenges. While inevitable progress will be made in the 
coming decades, oil and natural gas will continue to account for a 
majority of our energy portfolio.

OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPROVES ENERGY AFFORDABILITY

    The cost of energy is fundamentally driven by supply and demand 
and, recently, global markets have been disrupted by a supply crunch in 
both the oil and natural gas markets. The energy paradigm has shifted 
over the past decade, with the United States rising to a position of 
energy power and emerging as the leading producer of both oil and 
natural gas in the world.

        Vice Chairman of IHS Markit Daniel Yergin explains how things 
        have changed:

        According to the old script, United States oil production was 
        too marginal to affect world oil prices. But the gap today 
        between demand and available supply on the world market is 
        narrow. The additional oil Saudi Arabia is putting into the 
        market will help replace Iranian exports as they are 
        increasingly squeezed out of the market by sanctions . . . . 
        But if America's increase . . . [in oil production] . . . had 
        not occurred, then the world oil market would be even tighter. 
        We would be looking at much higher prices--and voters would be 
        even angrier.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Daniel Yergin, ``America's New Energy Reality,'' The New York 
Times, June 9, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Yergin made this point in 2012 at the outset of the shale 
revolution, but the significance of U.S. production for global energy 
markets is as important as ever today. In fact, Mr. Yergin reiterated 
this very point in February 2022 in the aptly title op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal, ``America Takes Pole Position on Oil and Gas.''
    Analysts recognize that the downturn in the oil and natural gas 
industry from 2014-2020, combined with ill-conceived policies and 
investment approaches, led to significant underinvestment in oil and 
natural gas exploration and infrastructure. According to Simon Flower, 
Chairman, Chief Analyst at Wood Mackenzie and author of a weekly column 
called The Edge, in 2021, ``Underinvestment in oil supply will lead to 
a tight oil market later this decade. It's a narrative that's gained 
increasing traction as capital expenditure on upstream oil and gas has 
shrunk. Spend in 2021 is half the peak of 2014 after slumping to new 
depths in [2021's] crisis.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-edge/is-the-world-
sleepwalking-into-an-oil-supply-crunch/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Flowers poses the question, ``How much new oil supply does the 
world need?'' His answer is, ``A lot--we reckon about 20 million b/d 
from 2022 to 2030.'' According to Flowers, ``This is the `supply gap', 
the difference between our estimate of demand in 2030 and the volumes 
we forecast existing fields already onstream or under development can 
deliver.'' \12\ If his numbers are correct, a huge amount of new oil is 
needed to close the expected gap between the supply and demand and help 
bring stability and affordability to oil and petroleum product prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-edge/is-the-world-
sleepwalking-into-an-oil-supply-crunch/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rystad Energy echoes the concern about the supply gap and the huge 
amount of investment needed to close it. According to Rystad, more 
exploration for oil and gas is needed to supply the volumes needed 
worldwide by 2050.\13\ In fact, it will take massive investment just to 
keep pace with growing demand. Rystad suggests capital expenditures of 
at least $3 trillion will be required to replenish declining production 
from currently producing assets around the world to meet expected 
global demand in 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.offshore-mag.com/drilling-completion/article/
14188804/exploration-overdrive-urgently-required-rystad-energy-report-
claims

    Saudi Aramco CEO Amin H. Nasser identified the crux of the energy 
crisis in his remarks during the Schlumberger Digital Forum, on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 20, 2022:

        Unfortunately, the response so far betrays a deep 
        misunderstanding of how we got here in the first place, and 
        therefore little hope of ending the crisis anytime soon. So 
        this morning I would like to focus on the real causes as they 
        shine a bright light on a much more credible way forward.

        When historians reflect on this crisis, they will see that the 
        warning signs in global energy policies were flashing red for 
        almost a decade. Many of us have been insisting for years that 
        if investments in oil and gas continued to fall, global supply 
        growth would lag behind demand, impacting markets, the global 
        economy, and people's lives.

        In fact, oil and gas investments crashed by more than 50% 
        between 2014 and last year, from $700 billion to a little over 
        $300 billion. The increases this year are too little, too late, 
        too short-term.

        Meanwhile, the energy transition plan has been undermined by 
        unrealistic scenarios and flawed assumptions because they have 
        been mistakenly perceived as facts. For example, one scenario 
        led many to assume that major oil use sectors would switch to 
        alternatives almost overnight, and therefore oil demand would 
        never return to pre-Covid levels.

        In reality, once the global economy started to emerge from 
        lockdowns, oil demand came surging back, and so did gas.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/speeches/2022/remarks-by-
amin-h-nasser-at-schlumberger-digital-forum#

    Mr. Nasser's remarks about the challenges ahead are similarly 
profound, ``Oil inventories are low, and effective global spare 
capacity is now about one and a half percent of global demand. Equally 
concerning is that oil fields around the world are declining on average 
at about 6% each year, and more than 20% in some older fields last 
year. At these levels, simply keeping production steady needs a lot of 
capital in its own right, while increasing capacity requires a lot 
more.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/speeches/2022/remarks-by-
amin-h-nasser-at-schlumberger-digital-forum#
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are fortunate in the United States that our Gulf of Mexico 
region is up to the task of delivering the oil and gas the economy 
needs. Production numbers from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico place it in the 
company of some of the largest oil producing countries. If the Gulf of 
Mexico were its own country, it would be one of the top eleven oil 
producing countries:

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

OFFSHORE LEASING PROVIDES AMONG THE LOWEST CARBON BARRELS IN THE WORLD

    The U.S. offshore operates under one of the strongest regulatory 
and oversight regimes in the world, which means production here in the 
United States is more environmentally friendly than operations in many 
producing regions in the world. The carbon intensity of the Gulf of 
Mexico is 50 percent of that of other producing regions.\16\ Part of 
the reason is that U.S. Gulf of Mexico facilities deliver high volumes 
of oil and gas with a far smaller physical footprint. In 2019, 18 
offshore facilities (with a combined surface area equal to about nine 
city blocks) produced 75 percent of offshore production.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Motiwala, and Ismail, ``Statistical Study of Carbon 
Intensities in the GOM and PB,'' ChemRxiv, April 13, 2020.
    \17\ Director Scott Angelle, BSEE Director, BSEE Presentation to 
the Deepwater Technical Symposium, November 13, 2020.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .epsSource: Wood Mackenzie

    Management practices and related regulations for venting and 
flaring of methane in the offshore have helped to dramatically reduce 
the practice in the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico accounted 
for 15% of U.S. oil production in 2019, yet EIA data shows venting and 
flaring emissions from offshore oil and gas operations accounted for a 
mere 2.6% of nationwide energy production venting and flaring emissions 
in 2019.\18\ EPA data also shows methane emissions from offshore oil 
and gas production accounted for less than 1 percent of total 
nationwide methane emissions in 2019.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_VGV_mmcf_a.htm
    \19\ Draft 2021 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In short, the U.S. and world depend upon reliable supplies of oil 
and natural gas for a high quality of life and to lift people out of 
poverty, and U.S. offshore production should be the basin of choice for 
producing that energy because of demonstrably lower GHG and 
environmental impacts for an energy source we will continue to need for 
years to come.
    In fact, a 2016 report at the end of the Obama Administration--
issued under then-Secretary Sally Jewell--stated, ``U.S. GHG emissions 
would be higher if BOEM were to have no lease sales . . .. Emissions 
from substitutions are higher due to exploration, development, 
production, and transportation of oil from international sources being 
more carbon intensive.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-
program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2017-2022/OCS-Report-BOEM-2016-065---
OCS-Oil-and-Natural-Gas---Potential-Lifecycle-GHG-Emissions-and-Social-
Cost-of-Carbon.pdf. Although court decisions have questioned components 
of the methodology the Obama Administration used in this report, the 
fundamental proposition remains--a ``no leasing'' scenario must 
consider the impacts of fuel-switching, which, as shown by the outside 
experts discussed below, will lead to higher GHG emissions because of 
the unusually low GOM carbon intensity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recent research from multiple sources continues to validate the low 
carbon benefits of U.S. Gulf of Mexico oil leasing and production: \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ A recent study by researchers at the University of Arizona and 
elsewhere suggests that methane emissions from offshore shallow water 
facilities has been underestimated. However, 92 percent of offshore oil 
production is from deepwater, which is consistently recognized for low 
methane and low overall carbon emissions. The recent study analyzed 
just 8 percent of total shallow water facilities, with many of the 
facilities outside of federal jurisdiction in state waters, using a 
relatively new technique. Many NOIA members with facilities in federal 
shallow waters have focused on methane management, deploying 
technologies such as leak detection or electrifying activities to the 
extent feasible. In any event, the offshore industry will continue to 
review relevant data, including this recent research, as part of the 
ongoing process of learning and improvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Breakthrough Institute:

    The Breakthrough Institute, a global research center that 
identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and 
human development challenges, recently examined the need for continued 
investment in greenfield oil and gas projects in the United States even 
in the context of aggressive decarbonization scenarios that aim to meet 
ambitious climate objectives.
    In the report, ``Oil and Gas Assets at Risk, How will clean 
energy's rise impact oil and gas communities in the United States 
amidst shrinking fossil fuel demand?'',\22\ authored by Rystad Energy, 
Dr. Zeke Hausfather, Mark Boling, and Peter Liu, the Institute finds 
``Despite potentially significant declines in global oil and gas demand 
across the climate scenarios by 2050, our findings clearly indicate 
that investment in new oil and gas fields may still be necessary to 
meet future demand for oil and gas in all three of the climate change 
mitigation scenarios.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/oil-and-gas-assets-at-
risk-impacts-of-declining-fossil-production-in-climate-scenarios-in-
the-us

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Mackenzie:

    According to Wood Mackenzie, reducing oil production from the U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico would increase the average emissions rate for global oil 
production:

        Using our recently updated Emissions Benchmarking Tool, which 
        profiles emissions for more than 2,800 oil and gas assets 
        around the world, [researchers] Oberstoetter and Usoro were 
        able to compare the carbon intensity of the principal sources 
        of crude used in the US. Numerous factors drive the differences 
        in intensity: emissions in Venezuela, Colombia and Canada are 
        driven by the more energy-intensive processes needed to produce 
        the heavier crude qualities, while in Iraq flaring is the big 
        problem. The overall picture is clear, however: the deep water 
        of the Gulf of Mexico is one of the lowest-carbon sources of 
        oil used in the US, with only Saudi Arabia coming in lower. In 
        the light of that, Oberstoetter and Usoro argue, restrictions 
        on US production in the Gulf could end up having a 
        counterproductive impact on global emissions. ``Removing or 
        handicapping a low emitter hurts the collective global 
        average.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-challenge-of-negative-
emissions/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKinsey:

    In the report titled ``How the Gulf of Mexico can further the 
energy transition,'' McKinsey describes four key factors that give the 
deepwater Gulf of Mexico a ``low carbon advantage'':

        First, in contrast to other regions where flaring natural gas 
        without a market is more commonplace, most of the natural gas 
        produced in the Gulf of Mexico is sold to local markets, which 
        results in minimal routine flaring and, consequently, less GHG 
        emissions. Second, the facilities have efficient, modern 
        designs that minimize methane leakage. Third, wells and 
        production facilities have a high throughput, minimizing the 
        number of energy-intensive processes required to bring on new 
        supply, such as drilling. And fourth, operators have made 
        active decarbonization efforts to stay in line with 
        environmental sustainability goals and in compliance with 
        regulations.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Brown, Di Fiori, Smith, and Yanosek, ``Deepwater Gulf of 
Mexico's role during the energy transition,'' McKinsey, September 2022, 
at pages 3-4.

    McKinsey estimates production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico could 
decrease by about 800,000 barrels per day by 2040 without additional 
projects beyond those that have already been sanctioned. In that 
situation, McKinsey expects lost production would be made up by 
substitutions from other parts of the world without much oil demand 
destruction. The country would be able to import sufficient oil, but it 
would come from higher-emitting basins, resulting in an increase in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
greenhouse gas emissions globally:

        This supply reduction would have to be offset by alternative 
        sources to meet global demand, which could hinder net-zero 
        goals significantly. Because many other oil producing regions 
        globally have total unit costs similar to those in the Gulf of 
        Mexico, global oil price increases or substitution with other 
        energy sources wouldn't be expected, and global demand for oil 
        would remain unchanged. Instead, the reduced Gulf supply would 
        be offset by production increases from other sources, such as 
        other deepwater basins, shale, and OPEC. Based on the higher 
        emissions per barrel of this new supply, global emissions would 
        increase by 50 million to 100 million metric tons of 
        CO2e through 2040.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Brown, Di Fiori, Smith, and Yanosek, ``Deepwater Gulf of 
Mexico's role during the energy transition,'' McKinsey, September 2022, 
at page 6.

    Offshore energy is a true story of accomplishing more with less--
creating more energy with less environmental impact. Offshore 
production platforms are incredible edifices of continuously evolving 
technology that allow enormous amounts of energy to be produced through 
a relatively small footprint. Incredibly, 18 deepwater facilities, 
which equate to about the size of only nine city blocks, produce about 
the same amount of oil as the entire state of North Dakota.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Director Scott Angelle, BSEE Director, BSEE Presentation to 
the Deepwater Technical Symposium, November 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFSHORE WIND

    U.S. offshore wind is positioned for dramatic growth. As a leading 
advocate for offshore wind, NOIA continues to promote policies to 
enable the build-out of new offshore wind resources in federal waters. 
That support extends to efforts to pursue offshore wind leasing and 
development on the Outer Continental Shelf (``OCS'') in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Offshore wind projects are vital to the economic growth of this 
country and efforts to meet climate goals for the 21st century and 
beyond. According to a recent report by the American Clean Power 
Association, expanded offshore wind development could spark $120 
billion \27\ in investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ See American Clean Power Association, et al., Federal Revenue 
and Economic Impacts from BOEM Offshore Wind Leasing (December 2021), 
https://cleanpower.org/resources/federal-revenue-and-economic-impacts-
from-boem-offshore-wind-leasing/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOIA and several other allied organizations commissioned a study 
that examined the net economic benefits of future offshore wind 
opportunities. That study by Wood Mackenzie found that by leasing areas 
in places like offshore New York, New Jersey, the Carolinas, the 
Northeast, and California, offshore wind development could support 
80,000 jobs per year through 2035, in addition to bringing in billions 
of dollars to the Treasury in the form revenue generated from new lease 
sales.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ https://www.noia.org/noia-reports/#flipbook-df_217504/7/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clearly, offshore wind development in federally managed waters 
offers enormous economic and environmental benefits and will help meet 
renewable energy goals. The Administration has set a goal of 30 GW of 
offshore wind power by the year 2030. The Administration continues to 
take important steps to accomplish that objective, including scheduling 
of lease sales, processing and approving construction and operations 
plans, and modernization the regulatory framework.
    From a regulatory standpoint, federal government policy must also 
serve to eliminate potential roadblocks to investment in energy 
projects, including offshore wind. As the Administration reviews and 
reworks regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), it will be important to ensure changes to the regulatory 
framework are done in a way that enhances environmental protection and 
energy development. Environmental stewardship and energy/economic 
progress are not mutually exclusive; NOIA members have consistently 
been leaders in both arenas. Promulgating rules that balance the need 
for energy development with effective environmental stewardship will 
provide the certainty massive investments require.
    Timely, transparent NEPA processes are of significant importance to 
project developers, investors, employees, and contractors whose jobs 
and livelihoods are tied to projects subject to NEPA reviews. 
Preconstruction delays for projects typically add costs and delay the 
delivery of the benefits that projects can bring. Delays and associated 
cost increases can even result in projects being canceled altogether. 
In today's globalized economy, where there is a high level of 
competition for the world's investment, increasing uncertainty and 
delays in the federal permitting process can serve to drive investments 
elsewhere. The United States needs these investments to remain 
competitive and to support long term economic growth, as well as 
elevate the quality of life for communities that most need these 
investments.
    Lack of clarity in the NEPA process not only impacts the time it 
takes a federal agency to act, but also increases litigation risk. 
Because of its broad applicability across sectors and agencies, NEPA is 
often at the center of project opponents' litigation strategy in 
seeking to delay and block energy and infrastructure projects. In 
response to the threat of litigation, agencies prepare NEPA analyses in 
defense of potential litigation, attempting to anticipate every 
possible objection that could be raised in court, however insignificant 
and however detached from the intent of NEPA. The result is that over 
time NEPA has become less about informing agencies and the public of 
environmental impacts of significance, and more about agencies 
attempting to avoid lengthy and costly litigation. Several NEPA-related 
legal challenges have already been filed over the approvals of the 
construction and operation plans for the early-mover offshore wind 
projects. Congress should continue to consider permitting legislation 
to streamline the NEPA process and reduce investment and litigation 
uncertainty. From a policy standpoint, it will also be critical for the 
U.S. Treasury Department to implement the available tax credits for 
renewable projects with flexibility so that the credits can be fully 
realized.
OFFSHORE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

    Progress toward addressing the climate challenge will depend upon 
the advancement of principles of innovation, conservation, efficiency, 
resiliency, mitigation, and adaptation. Carbon capture and storage 
(CCS) is an innovative approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions 
and it will be critical for achieving the climate change ambitions and 
goals that have been established by diverse stakeholders around the 
world. U.S. leadership in CCS will help ensure the availability of 
abundant, reliable, and affordable domestic energy, while continuously 
driving down emissions.

    According to the International Energy Agency:

        Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies 
        offer an important opportunity to achieve deep carbon dioxide 
        (CO2) emissions reductions in key industrial 
        processes and in the use of fossil fuels in the power sector. 
        CCUS can also enable new clean energy pathways, including low-
        carbon hydrogen production, while providing a foundation for 
        many carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-co2-storage

    As it relates specifically to the offshore, the National Petroleum 
Council concluded that ``One of the largest opportunities for saline 
formation storage in the United States can be found in federal waters, 
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.'' Meeting the Dual Challenge, p. 
27. This is also true as it pertains to state waters along the Gulf 
Coast. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico offshore region provides tremendous 
advantages for an emerging U.S. CCS sector. The Gulf of Mexico is 
characterized by vast geologic prospects for CO2 storage, extensive and 
established energy infrastructure along the Gulf Coast and throughout 
the outer continental shelf, a proximity to industrial centers for 
capturing emissions, and an assessable engineering and energy knowledge 
base and workforce, along with associated RD&D capabilities. The U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico could very well soon be the leader in CCS. Early 
projections show that 50 million tons of CO2 annually could be stored 
beneath the Gulf of Mexico by 2030, more than all the CCS currently 
operating globally. The Gulf's storage capacity could double by 2040.
    The build-out of the U.S. offshore carbon storage industry will 
depend upon certainty and predictability in the U.S. laws and 
regulations. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (P.L. 
117-58) included Sec. 40307, explicitly authorizing the Department of 
the Interior to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the outer 
continental shelf for the purposes of long-term storage of CO'2. It 
also directed the Secretary to issue regulations to that effect within 
one year of enactment, or by November 2022. NOIA understands that 
Interior is in the process of developing the regulatory framework for 
offshore CO2 sequestration as directed by the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act. However, a protracted timeline for finalization of the 
rules and for the initiation of leasing and project development could 
substantially impede U.S. efforts to decarbonize through offshore CCS. 
It will also be important for Congress to ensure adequate funding for 
Interior to fulfill its responsibilities for leasing and regulating the 
activity. Finally, the U.S. Department of Treasury must implement the 
45Q tax credit with sufficient flexibility to ensure a viable and 
durable U.S. offshore CCS program.

CONCLUSION

    Our national energy needs require continued supplies of oil and 
natural gas. Continued U.S. offshore oil and gas development provides 
vast benefits and a sensible pathway for energy security for the next 
few decades. At the same time, the U.S. offshore sector is contributing 
to the development of low and zero carbon energy options, including 
offshore wind, hydrogen, and carbon removal technologies. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the offshore energy industry. 
NOIA and our members stand ready to work with policy makers to advance 
policies to ensure that Americans can rely upon an affordable and 
reliable energy system built upon strong pillars of energy, economic, 
national, and environmental security. We are also providing with our 
testimony, as Attachment A, the comments that we filed on the proposed 
national offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2023-2028. This 
document discusses, in great detail, the vast benefits that flow to 
Americans through offshore energy development, as well as the adverse 
consequences that will result if unreasonable restrictions are imposed.

                                 *****

The attachment to this testimony is part of the hearing record and is 
being retained in the Committee's official files.

The attachment is available for viewing at: https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/II/II00/20230208/115287/HHRG-118-II00-Wstate-MilitoE-20230208-
SD001.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Mr. Milito, thank you for your testimony. I 
now wanted to recognize Mr. Sandberg.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JC SANDBERG, CHIEF ADVOCACY OFFICER, AMERICAN 
            CLEAN POWER ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My 
name is JC Sandberg, and I am the Chief Advocacy Officer of the 
American Clean Power Association.
    ACP is a leading national clean energy trade association 
that unites over 750 utilities developers, manufacturers, 
purchasers, and transmission companies focused on deploying 
utility-scale onshore and offshore wind, solar, storage, and 
hydrogen.
    The clean power industry has become a significant part of 
our nation's energy mix. Today, over 15 percent of our nation's 
power comes from wind and solar. Enough wind, solar, and 
battery storage have been installed to power 59 million homes. 
The clean power industry provides 443,000 American jobs and 
contributes to local economies across the country by delivering 
over $2.8 billion annually in state and local taxes and 
landowner lease payments.
    And we are poised to see significant growth over the next 
10 years, with expanded investments in clean energy. These 
investments will unleash further economic growth, create more 
good-paying American jobs, lower energy costs, improve our 
nation's domestic energy security and independence, strengthen 
the reliability and resiliency of the grid, and lower carbon 
emissions.
    But a key hurdle to the future development and deployment 
of domestic clean energy is our current Federal permitting 
system. Successful deployment of clean energy resources 
requires a predictable, timely, and cost-effective permitting 
framework. However, the current process is anything but. It 
takes an energy generation project like a new solar or wind 
farm an average of 4\1/2\ years to obtain necessary NEPA 
reviews. To put that into perspective, a project that begins 
review at the very beginning of a presidential administration 
will not be completed by the end of the term.
    For transmission projects, it is even worse, taking an 
average of 6\1/2\ years. Some reviews can take as long as a 
decade. These delays create uncertainty and raise costs for 
project developers and consumers, as projects are typically not 
allowed to proceed without a completed NEPA analysis. 
Meanwhile, loans and other financial obligations must be met 
and materials must be purchased and stored.
    There is also the opportunity cost. Money invested in a 
project waiting to break ground could be invested somewhere 
else, impeding further clean energy deployment and job creation 
opportunities.
    Permitting challenges fall especially hard on energy 
production located on Federal lands and waters. Although 
Federal lands have the capacity to host a vastly larger number 
of clean energy projects than they currently do, the cumbersome 
Federal permitting process makes it much more attractive to 
invest on private lands. For offshore wind, projects that are 
built almost exclusively in Federal waters, we are also seeing 
significant delays due to an inefficient and outdated 
permitting approval process established nearly two decades ago.
    Addressing our permitting challenges at the Federal level 
will be critical to the future development and deployment of 
domestic clean energy. It is possible to implement common-sense 
reforms that strike the right balance of timely decisions for 
projects, while preserving thorough environmental reviews and 
maintaining collaboration with state and local stakeholders.
    ACP is encouraged by ongoing efforts and various 
legislative proposals from both sides of the aisle, including 
the Transparency and Production of American Energy Act that 
Chairman Westerman introduced in the last Congress. The TAP 
American Energy Act contains key provisions that would advance 
the clean energy, infrastructure development, and deployment in 
the United States, while not undermining our bedrock 
environmental laws by, among other things, putting clear 
timelines on NEPA reviews and eliminating requirements of 
duplicative environmental reviews and analysis.
    Without common-sense reforms like the ones outlined in the 
TAP American Energy Act, and further detailed in my written 
testimony, America will be unable to reach our full clean 
energy potential.
    ACP looks forward to continuing to work with this Committee 
and Congress on these important issues. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to taking your 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sandberg follows:]
  Prepared Statement of JC Sandberg, Chief Advocacy Officer, American 
                        Clean Power Association
    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 
House Committee on Natural Resources, thank you for the invitation to 
testify at today's hearing. My name is JC Sandberg and I am the Chief 
Advocacy Officer for the American Clean Power Association (ACP), a 
national clean energy association that unites the power of onshore 
wind, offshore wind, solar, storage, hydrogen, and transmission 
companies.
    Clean power has become a significant part of our nation's energy 
mix. Approximately 15% of our nation's power comes from wind and solar 
and today there is enough wind, solar, and battery storage installed 
across the U.S. to power more than 59 million homes. The industry 
provides 443,000 American jobs and delivers over $2.8 billion each year 
in state and local taxes and landowner lease payments. The industry is 
poised to see significant growth over the next 10 years with expanded 
investments in clean energy infrastructure that will unleash further 
economic growth, create more good-paying American jobs, strengthen the 
reliability and resiliency of the grid and lower carbon emissions.
    This new energy infrastructure is key to providing American 
consumers with an affordable energy supply that is free from the whims 
of tyrants and dictators. The infrastructure needed to create American 
energy independence and deliver economic opportunity needs a pathway 
forward to timely unlock these benefits.
    However, the fact of the matter is, energy development in our 
country is bogged down by inefficient bureaucracy that is holding back 
our economy. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews can take 
more than a decade to complete. Unreasonable and unnecessary permitting 
delays increase costs and reduce overall investment, delaying the 
economic and national security benefits of energy infrastructure and 
decreasing energy affordability and reliability.
    Failure to enact critical permitting reforms puts an estimated 100 
gigawatts (GW) of clean energy projects, risking investment in clean 
energy projects by $100 billion over the next decade and blocking the 
creation of 150,000 American jobs across the country.
    America's energy security can't afford to be delayed.
    Let me be clear: permitting reform cannot and should not mean 
undercutting our environmental standards as some suggest. It is 
possible, without sacrificing the intent and purpose of those 
environmental laws, to focus on changes to the permitting process that 
make project approvals more efficient, predictable, and coordinated.
    Commonsense reforms can expedite permitting timelines, increase 
transparency and accountability, and promote best practices while 
reducing duplication of effort and red tape.
Permitting Timelines
    Successful deployment of wind, solar, storage, and transmission 
projects requires a predictable, timely, and cost-effective permitting 
framework. However, the current process is anything but. It takes an 
energy generation project--like a new solar or wind farm an average of 
4.5 years to obtain necessary NEPA reviews.\1\ Transmission project 
reviews take an average of 6.5 years.\2\ These delays are largely due 
to procedural inefficiencies in implementation rather than problems 
with the law itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental 
Quality, Environmental Impact Statement Timelines (2010-2018) (2020), 
1, https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/nepa-practice/CEQ_EIS_ 
Timeline_Report_2020-6-
12.pdf#::text=Based%20on%20its%20review%2C%20CEQ%20found% 
20that%20across,and%20one%20quarter%20took%20more%20than%206.0%20years.
    \2\ Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Report on 
Barriers and Opportunities for High Voltage Transmission (2020), 
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/111020/documents/HHRG-116-
II06-20200922-SD003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This has a chilling effect on the development of vital energy 
infrastructure projects: delays create uncertainty and raise costs for 
project developers, as projects are typically not allowed to move 
forward until the NEPA analyses are finished. Meanwhile, loans and 
other obligations must be paid and materials must be purchased and 
stored. There is also lost opportunity costs--money invested in a 
project waiting to break ground could be invested somewhere else 
creating employment opportunities and affordable power. Additionally, 
these delays can have ripple effects throughout the economy--throwing 
off project timelines, domestic supply chains, and the indirect jobs 
and economic activity that would otherwise occur.
    While NEPA's reach extends to any projects that need federal 
clearance, the burden of its prolonged timelines falls especially hard 
on energy production on federal lands and waters. For offshore wind, 
the best resources are almost exclusively found in federal waters, 
subjecting projects to protracted NEPA reviews. These delays have 
already significantly slowed deployment of the U.S. offshore wind 
industry and jeopardized current projects.
    Onshore clean energy projects can be located on public or private 
lands. Since 2015, less than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic 
and 220 MW of onshore wind projects have been deployed on public 
lands.\3\ In the same period, 42,900 MW of utility-scale photovoltaic 
and 64,900 MW of onshore wind were built across the country.\4\ This is 
the case even though public lands have immense and largely untapped 
capacity to host clean energy projects.\5\ Ultimately, the time, 
complexity, and expense of going through the federal clearance process 
makes development on federal lands less competitive than on private 
lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Bureau of Land Management. Wind Energy Rights-of-Way (ROW) on 
Public Lands. May 2021. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/
2021-05/PROJECT%20LIST%20WIND_May 2021.pdf.
    \4\ American Clean Power Association. Clean Power IQ. Data Accessed 
9/21/21, available at https://cleanpoweriq.cleanpower.org.
    \5\ Yale Center for Business and the Environment et al., Key 
economic benefits of renewable energy on public lands (May 2020), p.15 
https://cbey.yale.edu/research/key-economic-benefits-of-renewable-
energy-on-public-lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We cannot afford to let our unnecessarily burdensome permitting 
process derail the promise of tapping into our abundant natural energy 
resources on public, as well as private, lands.
Commonsense Permitting Reforms to Expedite Timelines

    The clean power industry was encouraged by the Transparency and 
Production (TAP) of American Energy Act that Chairman Westerman 
introduced in the last Congress. This legislation contained commonsense 
reforms that would advance clean energy infrastructure deployment in 
the U.S., such as expediting the NEPA review process and eliminating 
requirements for duplicative review and analysis.

    Specifically, ACP supports the following provisions from that 
legislation:

     Requiring the completion of NEPA Environmental Assessments 
            within one year and Environmental Impact Statements within 
            two years for all energy projects, which will help support 
            the timely completion of these reviews.

     Clarifying that ``major federal actions'' under NEPA are 
            limited to those projects that are on federal land and 
            subject to federal control, which would focus the limited 
            resources of agencies on the actions that are within their 
            control.

     Clarifying that certain projects within existing rights-
            of-way will not trigger NEPA review, which will help 
            expedite projects in areas where the impacts have already 
            been adequately assessed.

     Requiring reliance on prior environmental analysis if an 
            action is substantially similar to a prior action, which 
            will reduce duplicative efforts and help speed up project 
            development.

     Allowing for energy corridor expansion, which would 
            expedite the studying and designation of areas for 
            delivering vital energy.

     And allowing agencies to accept funds from outside parties 
            to pay for dedicated permitting staff, which would provide 
            additional resources to help process permits.

    Along with these reforms, ACP urges Congress to consider other NEPA 
reforms to: (1) expand the use of categorical exclusions to accelerate 
projects that do not pose significant impacts to the environment; (2) 
establish a lead agency to spearhead environmental reviews; (3) create 
conflict resolution procedures to ensure issues are directed to 
appropriate officials; (4) establish requirements that federal agencies 
cooperate with state, tribal, and local governments to reduce the risk 
of duplication of reviews; and (5) clarify that an agency should not 
consider NEPA alternatives that are technically and/or economically 
infeasible. ACP looks forward to continued work with Congress on these 
important permitting reforms.
Conclusion

    Addressing our permitting challenges at the federal level will be 
critical to the future development and deployment of domestic clean 
energy.
    Without reforms to ensure reasonable timelines, crucial investments 
in American infrastructure will be delayed, and in some cases diverted. 
The good news is that we can fix it. Commonsense process reforms to 
NEPA can help unlock energy infrastructure and American investment and 
jobs while protecting the environment. To that end, various provisions 
outlined in the TAP Act and other thoughtful permitting proposals will 
help encourage the timely deployment of clean energy infrastructure 
across the country, creating American jobs, as well as enhancing grid 
reliability, strengthening energy security, and a host of other 
benefits.
    If our objective is true energy independence and economic growth, 
let's play the hand we've been dealt--which is an abundance of natural 
resources and the American ingenuity to capture it.
    ACP looks forward to continuing to work with this Committee and 
Congress on these important issues.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 
responding to your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sandberg, for your testimony. 
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Johnson for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF DANA JOHNSON, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND 
 FEDERAL POLICY, WE ACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, 
                               DC

    Ms. Johnson. Good morning, Chair, Ranking Member Grijalva, 
and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
contribute to this important conversation.
    WE ACT for Environmental Justice is a northern Manhattan-
based member organization whose mission is to build healthy 
communities. We do this by ensuring that people living in a 
community of color or a low-income area lead in creating sound 
and fair environmental health and protection policies and 
practices at the city, state, and federal level.
    Our Federal Policy Office also serves as the administrative 
anchor for the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum, which is 
a network of 50 EJ orgs and advocates that represent 22 states, 
and really work to ensure that their interests are represented 
in policies and practices at every level of government.
    Today, I am here to offer you two considerations as you 
begin the important deliberations on how best to legislatively 
ensure that our energy economy addresses the climate crisis, is 
accessible and affordable, and protects those who have a 
history of being adversely impacted by fossil fuel operations.
    I want to start by urging you to keep environmental justice 
at the forefront of your policymaking. Eighteen million people 
live within 1 mile of an active oil or gas well in the United 
States, including a disproportionately large number of 
communities of color, people living below the poverty line, 
older Americans, and young children.
    More than 1 million African Americans in places like Texas, 
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia live within a 
half-mile of an existing gas facility, and that number is 
expected to grow.
    Members of the Navajo Nation in New Mexico are twice as 
likely to live within a half-mile of an oil and gas facility, 
compared to the rest of the state's population.
    And more than a million Californians live within a half-
mile of an active oil and gas facility. And, of those million, 
50 percent of them are of Hispanic origin.
    We know that race, more than income, is a primary factor in 
our land use decisions. And as a result, we see greater adverse 
health impacts from fossil fuel operations in our communities. 
These include early death, heart attacks, respiratory 
disorders, stroke, asthma, and absenteeism at school and work. 
And the financial cost? An estimated $886 billion are spent 
annually on health impacts from pollution related to fossil 
fuel operations.
    Please know that people living on the front line and fence 
line of fossil fuel operations want you to take action to 
address our energy needs. But they want you to ask yourselves 
three critical questions along the way: Are you creating an 
environment for producing or expanding an energy source that 
will harm communities? Are you perpetuating racially and 
economically disproportionate health and environmental burdens? 
And are you prolonging the climate crises in communities where 
climate change is centered?
    We hope that your answers to these questions will be no.
    Second, I urge you to uphold the democratic process that 
our current permitting legislation provides. We repeatedly hear 
three concerns in our work: How do we ensure energy democracy, 
a just transition, and uplift the need for creating justice in 
permitting? How will we fast track traditional and clean energy 
projects in a way that does not perpetuate land grabs on 
Indigenous lands and undermine Indigenous sovereignty? How do 
we impress upon you, as legislators, to focus on permitting in 
a way that protects our voice and provides recourse?
    The National Environmental Policy Act has been called the 
people's environmental law. Since its inception, NEPA has been 
copied in more than 185 countries. In the United States, 16 
states have written their own little NEPAs for state-level 
projects. NEPA is so influential that many call it the Magna 
Carta of environmental laws.
    By giving people a voice in Federal project planning, NEPA 
is a key tool to advance our democracy and environmental 
justice. Public participation is an opportunity for impacted 
communities to provide critical input for the just and 
sustainable implementation of a project that could 
significantly affect their health and surrounding environment. 
We need time to organize our responses to long, technical 
documents. And an effort to decrease that process, like those 
related to energy decisions, is extreme and it is undemocratic.
    I want to close by requesting that you consider the 
Environmental Justice for All Act, which was introduced in the 
117th as H.R. 2021. It is community-led legislation, and it 
addresses public comment periods, proactively considers 
alternatives, considers cumulative impacts, and focuses on 
meaningfully consulting with tribes. When these things are 
done, projects move at an appropriate pace.
    Again, we strongly support the reintroduction of the EJ for 
All Act in this session of Congress.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Dana Johnson, Senior Director of Strategy and 
           Federal Policy at WE ACT for Environmental Justice

Background on WE ACT for Environmental Justice

    WE ACT for Environmental Justice (WE ACT) is a Northern Manhattan-
based member organization whose mission is to build healthy 
communities. We do this by ensuring communities of color and people of 
low-income lead in creating sound and fair environmental health and 
protection policies and practices.

    We are the first people of color-led environmental justice 
organization in New York State and are the only environmental justice 
group with a permanent office in Washington, DC. Our Federal Policy 
Office also serves as the administrative anchor for the Environmental 
Justice Leadership Forum (EJ Forum)--a network of approximately 50 
environmental justice advocates and groups in 22 states working 
together to advance policies that ensure the protection and promotion 
of communities of color and low-income communities throughout the U.S.

    My name is Dana Johnson and I serve as Senior Director of Strategy 
and Federal Policy at WE ACT. I have more than 20 years of strategy, 
operations and advocacy professional experience in fields ranging from 
health and science advocacy, climate and environmental justice policies 
to cultural competence and diversity and inclusion leadership.

Part 1: Impact of Fossil Fuel Industry in Environmental Justice 
        Communities

    Environmental Justice communities are communities of color and low-
income communities that disproportionately face the brunt of 
environmental pollution. Fossil fuel industry serves as a significant 
source of pollution in environmental justice communities and occurs 
throughout the entire life cycle of the fossil fuels--extraction, 
refinement, distribution, usage and storage. The siting of communities 
of color and low-income communities near the fossil fuel industry is 
intentional. ``Redlining'' was the discriminatory process of grading 
communities that would be eligible for federally supported loans. 
Communities that were given lower grades tended to be Black communities 
and immigrant communities. The process of redlining in the 1930s 
created many of the environmental inequities in communities of color 
that persist to this day, with historically redlined communities having 
a higher average present-day emissions of nitrous oxides, sulfur 
dioxide and particulate matter.\1\,\2\ Historically redlined 
communities have also been associated with a higher exposure to oil and 
gas wells.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Historical red-lining is associated with fossil fuel power 
plant siting and present-day inequalities in air pollutant emissions; 
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01162-y

    \2\ Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air 
Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities; Link: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/
full/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c01012

    \3\ Historic redlining and the siting of oil and gas wells in the 
United States; Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-022-00434-
9#Fig1

    The health impacts of redlining are vast, with historically 
redlined communities being associated with higher rates of emergency 
room visits for asthma, a higher rate of mortality from breast cancer, 
and later stage diagnosis for both colon and lung 
cancer.\4\,\5\,\6\ The impact of fossil fuel 
industries intentionally being sited near communities of color and low-
income communities are costly to both the health and economic viability 
of these communities. It has been estimated that fossil fuel industry 
related air pollution is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide, more 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
than 10 million deaths per year.\7\

    \4\ Associations between historical residential redlining and 
current age-adjusted rates of emergency department visits due to asthma 
across eight cities in California: an ecological study; Link: https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31999951/

    \5\ Cancer Stage at Diagnosis, Historical Redlining, and Current 
Neighborhood Characteristics: Breast, Cervical, Lung, and Colorectal 
Cancers, Massachusetts, 2001-2015; Link: https://academic.oup.com/aje/
article/189/10/1065/5812653#211341070

    \6\ Neighborhood-level redlining and lending bias are associated 
with breast cancer mortality in a large and diverse metropolitan area; 
Link: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/102148

    \7\ Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated 
by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem; Link: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935 121000487

    Health impacts associated with pollution from the fossil fuel 
industry included early death, heart attacks, respiratory disorders, 
stroke, asthma, and absenteeism at school and work.\8\ This is coupled 
with the rising cost of healthcare that can worsen the economic 
hardship and put families in mounting medical debt. The financial 
impacts of the fossil fuel industry cannot be overstated, with an 
estimated higher end estimate of $886.5 billion annually spent on 
health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.\9\ For example, in African 
American families the combination of higher poverty rates and lower 
prevalence of health insurance exacerbates the impacts of fossil fuel 
industry pollution.\10\ These injustices are truly cyclical where the 
pollution present in your community makes you sick to the point where 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can no longer afford to leave your community.

    \8\ Producing and burning fossil fuels creates air pollution that 
harms our health and generates toxic emissions that drive climate 
change. Link; https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/fossil-
fuels-health/
#::text=But%20burning%20them%20creates%20climate,spectrum% 
20disorder%20and%20Alzheimer's%20disease

    \9\ Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts; 
Link: https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23246069/

    \10\ Fumes Across the Fence-Line: The Health Impacts of Air 
Pollution from Oil & Gas Facilities on African American Communities; 
Link: https://naacp.org/resources/fumes-across-fence-line-health-
impacts-air-pollution-oil-gas-facilities-african-american

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3Part 2: Upholding Democratic Processes

    The National Environmental Policy Act has been called ``the 
People's Environmental Law.'' Since NEPA's enactment in 1970, more than 
185 other countries have passed similar laws. In addition, 16 U.S. 
states have written their own ``Little NEPAs'' for state-level 
projects. NEPA has been so influential that many call it the ``Magna 
Carta of environmental law.'' It applies to every major action by every 
federal agency. Whenever a project will significantly affect a 
community, an agency is required to write a detailed report about it. 
This ``environmental impact statement'' must consider potential 
impacts, as well as alternatives to the agency's initial plan. If an 
agency fails to properly consider the impacts and alternatives, it can 
be challenged in court. Creating barriers for public participation and 
judicial intervention weakens citizens' opportunities to democratically 
engage in the permitting process.

Public Participation

    By giving people a voice in federal project-planning, NEPA is a key 
tool to advance environmental justice. Public participation is an 
opportunity for impacted communities to provide critical input for the 
just and sustainable implementation of a project that could 
significantly affect their health and the surrounding environment. 
Recent changes in NEPA have restricted avenues for public participation 
and dismissed considerations of cumulative impacts on EJ communities. 
It is critical that Congress work with communities to expand 
opportunities for community input on proposed projects.

    Communities need time to organize and respond to long technical 
documents; permitting rules for fossil fuel and clean energy projects 
that decrease the public comment period on major federal projects are 
undemocratic. A major cause for delays in the permitting process is 
actually the lack of community participation. For example, MIT examined 
53 large scale clean energy projects that were delayed or canceled and 
examined why. Two key takeaways were that:

     Early engagement with potential local opponents can avoid 
            extended delays or project cancellations; and

     Disputes between the US government and Tribal nations must 
            be addressed separately from efforts at public 
            participation--highlighting the need for adequate 
            consultation practices, among other measures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Sources of opposition to renewable energy projects in the 
United States; Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421522001471

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Effects

    NEPA requires federal agencies to look not just at the incremental 
impact of their actions, but also the ``cumulative effects.'' For 
example, one more refinery in Cancer Alley might not emit much 
pollution by itself, but combined with the emissions of all the other 
factories in the area--the cumulative effects--it might pose an 
unacceptable health risk. Cumulative impacts are life-or-death for 
already overburdened and vulnerable communities. We must avoid any 
permitting changes that will prevent agencies from measuring or 
considering these impacts.

    If it was reasonable to consider cumulative impacts in 1970 when 
NEPA was signed into law, industry growth and expansion make these 
considerations all the more pressing. It is a false narrative to 
suggest that cumulative-impact analysis is too detailed and costly as 
there are more tools and data available today than ever before.

    Cumulative impacts hit environmental justice communities the 
hardest. As a consequence of decades of discriminatory decisions and 
policies, poor communities and communities of color are overburdened 
with environmental hazards. When the government fails to consider 
existing hazards alongside future ones, it turns a blind eye to their 
deadly effects.

    Climate change and greenhouse gas analysis: Cumulative impacts are 
also important for climate justice. Historic discrimination has pushed 
many people to America's geographic margins: floodplains, unstable 
slopes, and barrier islands near toxic industrial and waste facilities. 
For example, think of the flooding in the Lower Ninth Ward after 
Hurricane Katrina. As a consequence, environmental justice communities 
are also the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Part 3: Equitable Build Out of Transmission Lines

    There is an urgent need to quickly build out transmission lines to 
facilitate our clean energy transition. As legislation is considered 
for expediting transmission lines, there is a critical need to ensure 
that environmental justice remains central.

Framing Environmental Justice Issues within Transmission Conversations:

     Energy Democracy and a Just Transition--Energy democracy 
            and a just transition framework uplift the need for 
            creating justice through the energy transition. This 
            includes ensuring communities have the opportunity to fully 
            participate in projects that will impact them.

     Indigenous Sovereignty and Land Rights--A primary concern 
            that we have heard from Indigenous communities is how the 
            fast tracking of projects has led to the grabbing of 
            Indigenous lands that would undermine Indigenous 
            sovereignty.

     Strengthening of environmental protection to account for 
            environmental and climate justice concerns--Ensure that 
            ``fast tracking'' transmission lines doesn't result in the 
            weakening of environmental laws such as NEPA. We do not 
            want to ``fast track'' transmission lines in a way that 
            also allows for the fast tracking of fossil fuel 
            infrastructure. With our rapidly changing climate, and the 
            increase in severe weather it is critical that future 
            developments are created to withstand extreme weather. Some 
            key concerns for energy developments include hazardous and/
            or chemical waste.
Ensuring Justice in the Siting of Transmission Lines:
    The Environmental Justice for All Act (Previously introduced in the 
117th as H.R. 2021) is community-led legislation that will strengthen 
protection and engagement for communities of color and areas of low 
income (as opposed to a harmful, closed-door, polluter-led deal). 
Specifically within the Environmental Justice for All Act there are 
provisions to:

     Lengthen public comment periods

     Proactively consider alternatives

     Consider cumulative impacts

     Meaningful consult with Tribes

    We strongly support the reintroduction and passage of the 
Environmental Justice for All Act.

    President Biden released the Permit Action Plan in the wake of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal that can be used to fast track clean 
energy projects. Within the Permit Action plan was mention of the 
authority of FERC in transmission projects. FERC has undergone 
rulemaking in the past year to make the permitting process for 
transmission projects as fast as possible. It is important that our 
organizations continue to support and help refine FERC's permitting 
process for transmission lines. Recent FERC proposed rules:

     FERC Issues Transmission NOPR Addressing Planning, Cost 
            Allocation: improves regional transmission planning and 
            cost allocation

     Creation of a Joint Federal-State Task Force on Electric 
            Transmission

     FERC Proposes Interconnection Reforms to Address Queue 
            Backlogs: establishes penalties if transmission providers 
            fail to complete interconnection studies on time and allows 
            for interconnection studies to be done on a larger scale

    Permitting occurs on every level of government, with the permitting 
process for local and state level permits often differing greatly. 
There is a need to ensure that state and local permitting processes run 
in tandem with federal permits instead of progressively, this will help 
to shorten the overall permitting timeline.

Part 4: Additional Opportunities for Community Engagement on Clean 
        Energy Deployment and Permitting
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act 
(2022) allocate nearly $2 trillion in public funding throughout the 
country. Community engagement and participation are the cornerstones to 
creating and implementing equitable, sound and transformational 
policies, projects, programs and practices. Every community has unique 
needs that require a tailored framework; therefore, this guidance 
should not be regarded as all-encompassing but rather serves as a 
starting point for the Federal family, companies and project developers 
to establish a strong foundation that ensures mutually beneficial 
policy and project outcomes.

Guiding Principles
    The foundational principles of environmental justice and democratic 
organizing established in the Principles of Environmental Justice 
(1991) and Jemez Principles of Democratic Organizing (1996) must be the 
starting point for approaching community engagement, public 
participation and community benefit agreements. Full and transparent 
community engagement is necessary to ensure just and equitable policies 
and project implementation, especially given the historic and current 
marginalization of environmental justice communities. Engagement is not 
merely community involvement: True engagement fully incorporates the 
community into all facets of the decision-making process.
Environmental Justice Analyses \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory 
Analysis''; Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School 
of Law ``Improving Environmental Justice Analysis'' and United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development 
``Cumulative Impacts Recommendations for ORD Research''

    In the issuance of Executive Order 12898 (``Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations'') federal agencies were directed to ``analyze the 
environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social 
effects, of their proposed actions on minority and low-income 
communities.''
    Environmental justice analyses are vital components of both 
community engagement and formal environmental reviews (which evaluate 
distributional impacts). When considering the unprecedented funding for 
climate mitigation programs in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
Inflation Reduction Act, it is vital that environmental justice 
analyses be conducted to offer a complete picture of possible project 
and policy impacts on already overburdened communities. For example, 
though the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council has 
identified numerous climate mitigation strategies that could harm 
communities yet, projects with these identified harms have already been 
funded.
    Environmental justice analyses are critical to minimize harms and 
protect environmental justice communities. Environmental justice 
analyses must be completed before project/policy implementation and 
even prior to issuing Requests for Information (RFIs), Requests for 
Proposals (RFPs), or other introductory enquiries. Additionally, 
environmental justice analyses should be performed by a vetted 
environmental justice scientific consultant and financed by the project 
developer or agency.

Community Benefit Agreements

    Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) are ``legal agreements between 
community groups and developers, stipulating the benefits a developer 
agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a 
project.'' \13\ Often, for a CBA to be successful, community 
organizations must form a united front among different stakeholders and 
enforce the legal provisions in the document.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ United States Office of Economic Impact and Diversity 
``Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) Toolkit''
    \14\ Patricia E. Salkin ``Understanding Community Benefit 
Agreements: Opportunities and Traps for Developers, Municipalities and 
Community Organizations''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments for the 
record. I look forward to continuing to engage with Members of Congress 
and the House Natural Resources Committee on how we can embed 
environmental justice throughout clean energy permitting and 
deployment.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Dana Johnson, Senior Director of 
     Strategy and Federal Policy, WE ACT for Environmental Justice

Ms. Johnson did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

               Questions Submitted by Representative Luna
    Question 1. Given the global effects of China's filthy energy 
production, why do you believe that we should hinder domestic energy 
production instead of promoting? What is the alternative if we do not 
produce energy domestically? How would we get our energy?

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Sgamma for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SGAMMA, PRESIDENT, WESTERN ENERGY 
                   ALLIANCE, DENVER, COLORADO

    Ms. Sgamma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
Committee. My written testimony is there. I think I am going to 
deviate a little bit, because I feel the need to address some 
of the statements.
    Calling the oil and gas industry polluters is just simply 
misinformation. We work hard every single day to ensure that we 
are reducing environmental impact, and we produce oil and 
natural gas more sustainably and more environmentally 
protective than any other country in the world. So, when you 
talk about energy, let's get realistic.
    I had to laugh when the President said that we will have 
oil and natural gas for the next 10 years. Well, his energy 
agency, the Department of Energy, predicts oil and gas 
consumption will continue to rise through 2050. And it will 
continue to rise beyond that, they just projected 2050, and 
that is because oil and natural gas provide a huge benefit to 
humanity. They provide an environmental justice for all by 
providing affordable, reliable energy.
    Let's look at the impact from so-called clean energy. When 
you call us polluters, what about the huge mining waste in the 
Congo? What about the slave labor in China? What about all the 
minerals used and, I would note, all the petroleum that goes 
into solar panels and wind turbines, and all the minerals they 
need?
    So, there is an environmental impact for any source of 
energy. We work hard in the oil and natural gas industry to 
make sure that our environmental impact is reduced and managed. 
We don't shove it over to Congo, and to China, and other areas 
of the world. We manage it here, in the United States, and we 
do so more cleanly than anywhere else.
    So, when the President has to go to Venezuela, Russia, or 
Saudi Arabia to get oil and natural gas because he is trying to 
stop Federal oil on public lands, then he is bringing in 
something that has a higher environmental impact, that is 
produced non-sustainably, and that increases greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    The oil and natural gas industry is the No. 1 reason the 
United States has reduced more greenhouse gas emissions than 
any other country. It is because of the increased use of 
natural gas as an electricity generation source. We have 
reduced more greenhouse gas emissions than wind and solar 
combined because we are reliable, we are on 24/7, unlike 
intermittent wind and solar. So, we pick up the pace when wind 
and solar cannot provide any energy. We back up wind and solar. 
We enable wind and solar. When those EVs need to run, they are 
running on coal and natural gas. So, we are proud to be 
providing the energy that Americans actually use.
    And when it comes to environmental justice, there is a 
reason there are a lot of oil and gas wells in the Navajo 
Nation, because the Navajo Nation develops its energy for the 
benefit of its people. It provides livelihoods for the Navajo 
Nation. We return about $96 million to about 20,000 individual 
Navajo mineral owners every year. That is environmental 
justice. That sustains their livelihoods.
    And when we are in communities, when we operate near 
communities, we don't choose what communities we find oil and 
natural gas in. That happened millions of years ago, when the 
oil and natural gas was baked under geological layers millions 
and millions of years ago. So, we develop where we find it.
    And in the West we are not hoarding public lands. In fact, 
we are down 71 percent from a high in the 1980s. There used to 
be about 168 million acres of Federal lands under lease. Today, 
it is under 25 million. And from that 25 million, only about 
450,000 acres actually have any surface development on them, 
whether it is a well pad, or a road to get to that well pad. We 
are producing much more from Federal lands with much less 
impact on the lands.
    So, I just felt the need to address some of that 
misinformation. I look forward to discussing NEPA, the 
Inflation Reduction Act, and other ways that Congress can put 
more sanity into our oil and natural gas regulatory 
environment. And I really appreciate the opportunity to be here 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Kathleen Sgamma, President, Western Energy 
                                Alliance
    Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. Western Energy Alliance represents about 
200 companies engaged in all aspects of environmentally responsible 
exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the West. Alliance 
members are independents, the majority of which are small businesses 
with an average of fourteen employees.
    In the West, oil and natural gas resources are inextricably bound 
to federal public lands, and therefore, to the men and women of the 
industry who work there. As much as we would like to avoid public lands 
because of their extensive red tape and time-consuming process, it is 
nearly impossible to develop in the West without touching some federal 
lands and/or minerals. Even when we try to site oil and natural gas 
operations on private, state, or tribal lands, the interlocking land 
and mineral ownership means that just about every project in the West 
will involve a federal lease, right-of-way, and/or permit.
    With that attachment to the land, we take public lands stewardship 
very seriously. We're proud that oil and natural gas on federal and 
tribal lands is produced sustainably and furthers the goals of 
environmental justice. We've met every legitimate environmental 
challenge and continue to innovate to do even better. We've reduced the 
footprint on federal lands by up to 70% through advances in horizontal 
drilling and hydraulic fracturing.\1\ We continue to produce more 
energy from less public lands. The amount of acreage under lease was at 
an all-time historic low when we hit historic high production on 
federal lands in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Oil and Gas Impacts on Wyoming's Sagegrouse: Summarizing the 
Past and Predicting the Foreseeable Future,'' Human-Wildlife 
Interactions, Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 15, Dave H. Applegate, Nick L. 
Owens, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I will be discussing three main themes today: overregulation, NEPA 
delays, and corrections to the Inflation Reduction Act.
Policy Obstacles and Overregulation

    Because of the obligation to protect the land, the federal onshore 
oil and natural gas program is a highly complex one. Of course federal 
lands should carry more regulation and process. They're owned by all 
Americans and the federal government, working with producers, has a 
duty to protect them. But the energy underneath the surface is also 
owned by all Americans. When federal regulation and process becomes 
unbalanced with the goal of producing the energy the Interior 
Department manages on behalf of all Americans, then we have a situation 
where the federal government is purposefully preventing federal 
production, resulting in higher prices for consumers, more foreign 
imports, less energy security, and less exports for our allies in 
Europe and Asia.
    We know we need more energy. The administration admitted that 
nearly a year ago when, after the invasion of Ukraine, the White House 
tried to blame our producers for not developing on, interchangeably, 
9,000 leases and/or permits.\2\ The president says he wants more 
American production, but where he has the most control, on tribal and 
federal public lands, his Interior Department is making it more 
difficult to do so at every turn and with every policy decision. From 
detailed, in-the-weeds policies on how to manage leases and permits to 
major rules on waste prevention and decisions on when and where to 
lease, every opportunity is taken to throw out more red tape obstacles 
and process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Please see our position paper on the 9,000 leases/permits, 
which discusses the complexity behind permit and lease utilization and 
is attached to this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the big picture, Interior is proceeding with over three quarters 
of a million acres of land withdrawals around Chaco Culture National 
Historic Park in New Mexico, the Thompson Divide in Colorado, and the 
Superior National Forest in Minnesota. The Chaco withdrawal would 
prevent Navajo mineral owners from developing their energy and 
providing for their families, while the Superior withdrawal prevents 
the development of critical minerals for wind and solar energy and 
battery storage. Congress should exercise its oversight obligations 
with respect to these large land withdrawals.
    Regarding the proposed waste prevention rule, we appreciate that it 
is better than the 2016 rule that Western Energy Alliance and the 
Independent Petroleum Association along with Wyoming and North Dakota 
overturned. However, it still suffers from some of the same basic 
problems, most notably, as with the 2016 rule, it exceeds BLM's 
jurisdiction and intrudes on the authority of EPA and state air quality 
agencies by attempting to regulate air quality in the name of 
preventing waste. Like the 2016 rule, the costs of the rule exceed its 
waste prevention benefits and can only be viewed as having overall net 
benefits if the air quality and climate co-benefits are included in the 
calculation. But the Wyoming court aleady held that air quality is 
outside BLM's jurisdiction and that such co-benefits cannot be the 
primary justification for the rule. We encourage Congress to keep an 
eye on this rule as it is becomes finalized later this year.
    Regarding more specific policy changes, although with far-reaching 
implications, a series of policies released in November requires 
producers to justify any permit extension request and lease suspension 
with detailed justification, even on a quarterly basis. A permit 
extension to four years, which used to be routine, is now dribbled out 
every quarter, requiring paper pushing by both the company and the 
government. A lease suspension, which usually is related to the fact 
that the government or litigation hold up the operator from moving 
forward with development, must now be justified every year rather than 
until the obstacle is breached. These individually may not seem 
significant, but every bureaucratic cut can bring a project closer to 
death. It is the inherent government inefficiencies themselves that 
cause operators to build large inventories of permits and leases, so 
why does the government want to introduce more inefficiencies in the 
process?
    Another example is the nearly unlimited discretion BLM reserves for 
itself on every lease, permit, and any other oil and natural gas 
decision on federal lands. There is already a long, drawn-out land use 
planning process that takes years to complete. I have never seen a 
Resource Management Plan (RMP) completed by any administration that 
does not lock away more land from oil and natural gas leasing and that 
does not put more restrictions on development. Yet BLM just released 
policy that gives itself discretion to add yet more restrictions on 
every lease and permit over and above what is specified in the RMPs. 
This self-assignment of unlimited discretion is contrary to the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and therefore, arbitrary and 
capricious.
    I appreciate the committee's oversight of the Interior Department 
today and how the committee is drawing attention to the 
administration's additional red tape meant to constrain oil and natural 
gas and deliver on the President's on-again, off-again statements about 
ending federal oil.\3\ I just don't think my members should get blamed 
for not developing on those 9,000 leases and/or permits that the White 
House likes to bring up. We want to move forward with delivering more 
energy and bringing down prices, but more Interior Department obstacles 
are not the way to achieve those goals. I encourage the committee to 
consider legislation that would reassert the obligations already found 
in the Mineral Leasing Act (such as the obligation to hold quarterly 
lease sales in all producing states) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(such as to ensure APDs are processed expeditiously, especially for 
standard permits.) These obligations are routinely ignored or the 
department interprets them so broadly that they no longer serve 
Congress' original intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ For example during his presidential campaign, he promised ``no 
federal oil.'' Just before last November's election, he again promised 
``no more drilling.'' Contrast that with various statements blaming 
producers for not developing on 9,000 leases/permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Judges are often struggling to rule on the plain language of the 
laws passed by Congress and there is often not enough in the record to 
help them determine the intent. Judges can often be swayed by 
plaintiffs' overly broad interpretation of the discretion Interior does 
have because of ambiguities in the record and the text of the law 
itself. In addition to activist judges focused on predetermined 
outcomes divorced from the simple text of the law, we have also been in 
front of very conscientious judges honestly struggling to interpret the 
law, with some ambiguous rulings as a result.
    One example was in the District Court for Wyoming. The judge 
struggled with the lack of clarity of what the Mineral Leasing Act 
means by lands available for leasing. He arrived at a conclusion that 
lands are not available for leasing if BLM has not completed NEPA for 
them. The effect would be to give BLM a get-out-of-jail-free card on 
having to do any leasing if it simply cannot get through the 
bureaucratic NEPA process. Anything this committee can do to clarify 
when and under what conditions leasing shall occur would be much 
appreciated. First and foremost, to prevent another Biden leasing ban, 
would be to clarify that the Mineral Leasing Act's requirement that the 
Interior Secretary must hold quarterly lease sales where lands are 
available, meaning lands designated as available for leasing in a 
current RMP. Congress should clarify that quarterly means quarterly, 
and that BLM has the obligation to get through the NEPA process and 
meet those quarterly deadlines. It would also be worthwhile for 
Congress to clarify FLPMA's requirement for BLM to make land use 
management decisions based on the current RMP. BLM routinely holds up 
leasing in an area because its RMP is being updated, but RMP updates 
and supplements take years to complete.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    All Americans understand the effects of NEPA, even if they can't 
spell it. They understand that our infrastructure is sub-par in many 
places because projects to build or repair roads and bridges take too 
long and are held up in government red tape. Long, drawn-out NEPA 
analyses have long been the bane of oil and natural gas projects on 
federal lands, but Americans are now seeing how wind and solar energy 
and their mineral feedstock projects are facing the same NEPA and 
associated litigation challenges. Congress must do more to ensure that 
NEPA can be done in a reasonable and timely manner. Yet this 
Administration overturned the sensible and limited 2020 NEPA rule that 
simply clarified the scope of NEPA analysis is to focus on actual, not 
hypothetical, impacts of a project and limited the length and 
timeframes for completing NEPA. Congress should consider codifying 
those sensible sideboards to NEPA.
    When it comes to oil and natural gas projects, Congress should 
clarify when NEPA is necessary. Too often BLM requires redundant NEPA, 
such as for additional wells on existing pads or wells drilled from 
adjacent nonfederal lands that touch a minority of federal minerals. 
When reinstating lapsed leases, which usually result from simple 
administrative error, BLM requires new lengthy NEPA. Further Congress 
should clarify the intent of NEPA is to analyze the actual impacts of a 
development project, including with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions, and not far-flung impacts from the distribution to and 
consumption of the energy by the end-use consumer. Likewise, the 
Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) is moving forward with new 
guidance on conducting GHG and climate change analysis under NEPA, 
which Congress should closely scrutinize. CEQ is likely to find 
authority to regulate both, but Congress has granted the executive 
branch such authority.
    Courts are struggling with the extent of GHG analysis necessary for 
oil and natural gas projects. We're in court defending about 6,000 
leases that have been sent back to BLM for yet more GHG NEPA analysis. 
Development and production cannot take place on most of these leases in 
the meantime. Just last week, the Tenth Circuit ruled that BLM failed 
to do a carbon budget analysis in its NEPA for 199 permits in New 
Mexico. Yet in another court, the D.C. District Court, Western Energy 
Alliance convinced the judge that BLM does not have to do a carbon 
budget analysis or use the Social Cost of Carbon in cases involving 
thousands of leases. Congress has passed no law requiring a carbon 
budget or the SCC, yet it is being shoehorned in through NEPA. Congress 
needs to clarify to the courts the boundaries of NEPA.
Inflation Reduction Act Effects

    My final main theme is the application of the Inflation Reduction 
Act. Ironically, Senator Manchin gave us a pretty big gift in one 
sense, leaving aside for now the many ways that bill increased costs on 
American energy and ensured energy inflation continues into the future. 
By tying wind and solar permitting to oil and natural gas leasing, he 
imposed a pretty ingenious application of all-of-the-above energy on an 
administration that clearly would not lease otherwise. BLM is now 
moving forward with leasing, however tentatively, on the basis of IRA 
alone, in contravention of the Mineral Leasing Act.
    The problem is, since IRA was negotiated behind closed doors, it 
was not informed by groups like Western Energy Alliance, our members, 
BLM, and other public lands experts. As such, the language is full of 
holes and the administration is interpreting how to meet the bare 
minimum leased acreage requirement in IRA while circumventing the 
spirit and even the letter of the law. For example, BLM plans to meet 
the requirement to offer 50% of the acreage nominated (as identified by 
EOI--Expressions of Interest) by counting lands that are considered in 
the process, even if much of that acreage is not actually offered for 
sale. For example, If BLM receives EOIs for 200,000 acres and considers 
100,000 acres during the leasing NEPA process but then decides to defer 
50,000 acres under its broad interpretation of discretion (see above), 
BLM will consider the 50% IRA threshold as having been met. Any plain 
language reading of IRA would conclude that 100,000 must be offered at 
sale before wind and solar permits can be issued.
    Another example of the problems with IRA is the new fee of $5 per 
acre on lease nominations, known as EOIs. Leaving aside the fact that 
it is one of many new taxes and fees imposed by IRA to solidify energy 
inflation, there are practical implications. Because it often takes the 
Interior Department several years to offer nominated acreage for sale, 
requiring the EOI fee to be paid at time of nomination results in the 
government holding millions of dollars of capital in a nonproductive 
capacity. Further, the government regularly neglects to offer nominated 
acreage for sale at all. It is inherently inequitable for the 
government to take money for a stated purpose and then never deliver on 
it, with no mechanism in IRA for a refund. Equally problematic is the 
fact that often companies other than the nominating company ultimately 
prevail as the highest bidder at auction. It is likewise an aberration 
for one company to pay the nomination expenses of another.
    To rectify the situation, I urge Congress to clarify the EOI fee by 
specifying that it be paid by the winning bidder at the time the 
acreage is offered at auction. To meet the original intent of the EOI 
fee, which is to guard against too much acreage being nominated without 
sufficient interest and to cover the costs of leasing, the EOI fee 
should be paid by the nominating party in the event the offered parcel 
receives no bids. Either way, the government collects the fee at the 
time of sale.
    I also urge Congress to drop the methane fee in IRA. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states are moving forward 
with methane regulation. IRA imposed an unprecedented tax on a 
``pollutant'' that is otherwise controlled through EPA Clean Air Act 
(CAA) regulation. All other CAA application for all other industries 
involve controlling emissions, not taxing them. Because of the 
difficulties of measuring the small leaks of methane emissions from 
wellsite equipment, the imposition of the methane tax becomes a tax on 
natural gas production. Since EPA is updating its methane regulations, 
Congress should repeal this tax and let normal CAA regulation proceed.
    There are many other ideas we have at Western Energy Alliance to 
return the federal onshore oil and natural gas system into balance. I 
look forward to questioning to explore some of those details.

                                 *****

                  ATTACHMENT TO MS. SGAMMA'S TESTIMONY

Responding to the White House Blame Game

March 11, 2022 (updated with Sept 2022 data)

Western Energy Alliance

On March 3rd, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in response to a 
question about increasing domestic oil production, attempted to shift 
blame to oil companies by citing ``9,000 approved oil leases that the 
oil companies are not tapping into currently,'' since adjusted to 9,000 
permits. While we may not appreciate the cynical attempt to deny the 
effects of the president's own ``no federal oil'' policies, we 
appreciate the White House is suddenly messaging to ``encourage'' us to 
produce. Here's a look at some federal onshore numbers:

First the ``9,000 unused leases'': There are about 35,871 leases in 
effect and actually 12,068 nonproducing leases, a 66% utilization rate, 
which is quite high:

     Many leases are held up in litigation by environmental 
            groups. Western Energy Alliance is in court defending over 
            5,900 leases, most of which cannot be developed while those 
            cases are ongoing.

     Companies must put together a complete leasehold before 
            moving forward, particularly with the long horizontal wells 
            that can cut across multiple leases. Sometimes a new lease 
            is needed to combine with existing leases to make a full 
            unit. Since the Biden leasing ban remains in effect with no 
            onshore lease sales held since 2020, some leases are held 
            up waiting for new leases or for the government to combine 
            them into a formal unit.

     Before allowing development on leases, the government 
            conducts environmental analysis under NEPA (the National 
            Environmental Policy Act), which often takes years to 
            complete. Many leases can be hung up by NEPA or awaiting 
            other government approvals.

     Finally, not all leases will be developed because, after 
            conducting exploratory work, companies may determine there 
            are not sufficient quantities of oil and natural gas on 
            them.

Let's talk permits. There are 4,832 permits to drill awaiting approval. 
The government could approve these permits now, enabling companies to 
forward with development. There are also about 8,663 outstanding 
approved permits, but there are factors that cause companies to wait to 
drill those wells.

     Because of the uncertainty of operating on federal lands, 
            companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits 
            before rigs can be contracted to ensure the permits stay 
            ahead of the rigs. We drill wells in a matter of days and 
            rigs are very expensive, so it's a delicate balancing act.

     The federal permit to drill is not the only government 
            approval required. Rights of Way (ROW) can take years to 
            aquire before companies can access their leases and put in 
            natural gas gathering systems. With the pressure not to 
            flare from regulators and investors, most companies cannot 
            drill before gathering lines are in place. Timely approvals 
            of ROWs would enable companies to develop sooner.

     The administration has worked with anti-oil-and-gas 
            activists to slow pipeline infrastructure. Without 
            pipelines to move the oil and natural gas produced, wells 
            cannot be developed.

     Capital must be acquired. Activist investors, encouraged 
            by an administration intent on expanding its financial 
            regulatory powers, have worked to de-bank and de-capitalize 
            the industry. Many companies, particularly the small 
            independents who drill the majority of federal wells, are 
            having difficulty acquiring the credit and capital 
            necessary to develop. By calling off bureaucratic efforts 
            to deny financing to the industry, the president would send 
            a strong signal to the market that investments in oil and 
            natural gas are safe and new production could move forward.

     The Biden Administration has embarked on an agenda of 
            regulatory overreach with extensive new regulations in the 
            works. The uncertainty of all the new red tape puts a 
            damper on new investment and development today, especially 
            on federal lands where the burden is highest. Consequently, 
            companies prioritize their nonfederal leases because 
            there's less regulatory risk.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Sgamma. We 
are now going to go to Member questions. I will first recognize 
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn, for 5 minutes.

    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having this hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses for 
being here this morning.

    I have here in my hand a letter from Laura Daniel Davis, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Director at the Department of the 
Interior dated December 8, 2022, that has some very interesting 
statistics on the Biden administration's approval rate for 
applications for permits to drill. And it is to me and 43 of my 
colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to introduce this letter 
into the record.

    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                United States Department of the Interior

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                          Washington, DC 20240

                                               December 8, 2022    

Hon. Doug Lamborn
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative Lamborn:

    Thank you for your letter to President Joseph R. Biden dated June 
9, 2022, cosigned by 43 of your colleagues, regarding Federal oil and 
gas production. The Biden-Harris Administration and the Department of 
the Interior (Department) are committed to the responsible development 
of the Nation's energy and mineral resources. The White House referred 
your letter to the Department for review, and I welcome the opportunity 
to discuss your concerns.

    The President and the Secretary of the Interior understand the 
impact high energy prices have on Americans. The crisis caused by 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues to make energy prices volatile, 
and the impacts of the pandemic have created supply chain issues that 
affect every segment of the economy, including the oil and gas 
industry. The Department is taking action that reflects the balanced 
approach to energy development and management of our Nation's public 
lands called for in the Department's November 2021 ``Report on the 
Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program'' (Report). As the Report laid out, 
Federal oil and gas leasing programs have remained virtually unchanged 
for decades, despite considerable changes in market conditions and 
technologies and increased understanding of the programs significant 
environmental and climate impacts. The United States faces an urgent 
need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate its transition 
to a clean energy economy. The Department has a central role and 
responsibility in meeting these challenges.

    Onshore, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has leased millions of 
acres of public land for responsible oil and gas development and 
production. These leases contribute to domestic oil and gas production 
and helped facilitate an increase in Federal onshore oil production 
from 0.88 million barrels of oil per day in 2020 to 1.09 million 
barrels of oil per day in 2021, and production continues to rise: 
through May, the most recent month for which data is available, federal 
oil production is averaging 1.14 million barrels per day in 2022. As of 
August 3, 2022, more than 23.8 million acres of land is leased for 
onshore oil and gas production, nearly half of which has not entered 
production yet.

    In June 2022, the BLM held oil and gas lease sales that reflect the 
Department's strategic approach. These lease sales offered parcels in 
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Nevada, and 
Wyoming and incorporated many of the recommendations in the Report. The 
BLM received bids on 113 parcels covering more than 71,000 acres and 
generated approximately $22.3 million in revenue. Consistent with the 
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), on October 6, 2022, the BLM offices in 
New Mexico and Wyoming began the scoping process for lease sales to 
take place in Spring 2023. Additional scoping processes in other states 
will begin shortly.

    The BLM continues to process Applications for Permit to Drill 
(APDs) on authorized leases. The BLM approved 5,145 APDs in FY 2021, 
surpassing the FY 2020 total of 4,631 approvals. As of the end of 
August 2022, the oil and gas industry had 8,688 APDs approved and 
available to drill new wells on existing leases.

    Offshore, as of July 1, 2022, nearly 2,000 active leases exist, 
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, covering millions of acres with 
roughly 74 percent currently not in production. The Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management (BOEM) continues to process permits on active leases 
for both exploration and production.

    On July 1, 2022, the Department published the Proposed Program and 
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the 2023-
2028 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. This 
is the second step in a 3-step planning process to determine the scope 
of offshore oil and gas lease sales needed to best meet national energy 
needs for the 5-year period following approval of the program. The 
Proposed Program includes up to 10 potential lease sales in the Gulf of 
Mexico and 1 potential lease sale in the Cook Inlet.

    The Department sought feedback from the public on these options 
during a 90-day period that ended on October 6, 2022. Following this 
public comment period, BOEM will prepare a Proposed Final Program and 
Final PEIS, which will include analysis of the size, timing, location, 
and number of potential lease sales in the Proposed Program. There is 
then a minimum 60-day period for Presidential and congressional 
consideration before the Secretary can approve the program and finalize 
the Record of Decision. As directed by the IRA, the Department issued 
leases to high bidders from Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 257, on September 
14, 2022. BOEM is also preparing a Draft Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 259 and Lease Sale 
261 and recently published the Final Notice of Sale (FNOS) for Lease 
Sale 258 in the Alaska Region's Cook Inlet. Lease Sale 258 will be held 
on December 30, 2022.

    Combined, oil production on Federal lands and waters reached an 
all-time high in 2021, at 2.77 million barrels per day, and production 
has outpaced that in 2022, at 2.83 million barrels per day through May.

    Finally, the IRA, passed by Congress and signed into law by 
President Biden, includes important measures to lower energy costs 
while making the single largest investment in climate and clean energy 
in American history. This historic investment also codifies many of the 
reforms recommended by the Department and positions the United States 
to be the world's leader in clean energy. These efforts demonstrate it 
is possible to increase responsible development of oil and gas on 
public lands and ensure that the Federal oil and gas program serves the 
American public.

            Sincerely,

                                         Laura Daniel-Davis
                             Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary  
                                       Land and Minerals Management

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Lamborn. Specifically, in this letter the Biden 
administration is taking credit for what the Trump 
administration accomplished. This letter states, ``The BLM 
approved 5,145 APDs, applications for permits to drill, in 
Fiscal Year 2021, surpassing the Fiscal Year 2020 total of 
4,600, approximately, approvals. This period includes the last 
few months of the Trump presidency, when the Department of the 
Interior was approving APDs at an unprecedented rate. According 
to a 2020 GAO report, APD review times decreased from 196 days 
to 94 days between 2016 and 2019.''
    Curiously, the Department of the Interior is no longer 
publishing its month-by-month breakdown of approved APDs, which 
previous administrations have done.
    So, Ms. Sgamma, can you please talk about how the APD 
approval process has changed under President Biden? What is 
that doing to American energy production?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I think initially, the rate went--I mean, 
it has been fluctuating. The monthly rate of approved APDs has 
been fluctuating.
    Would we wish that the Federal bureaucracy could be more 
consistent in approving permits? Certainly. And sometimes, if 
there was more regularity and more certainty on when we would 
get a permit, we wouldn't have to request permits so far in 
advance. But generally, we have seen the rates kind of 
fluctuate coming and going.
    I think, when it comes to Federal lands, we are a little 
bit more concerned with the games being played on the leasing 
side. Because if leasing dries up, as it has with the initial 
Biden ban on leasing, then we are really concerned about future 
production. But the permits have kind of stabilized. We are 
getting permits not as quickly as would be efficient, but I 
think we are more concerned about the leasing aspect right now.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. And a similar question. Our friends across 
the aisle like to bring up the fact that there are 9,000 
approved permits to drill across the United States which remain 
unused. So, the implication is that energy companies are 
derelict in their pursuit of their own interest to pursue 
energy and make a profit and create jobs off of that.
    But aren't there a lot of reasons why an APD would not be 
used? And could you elaborate on that, Ms. Sgamma?
    And what can be done to make those 9,000 outstanding APDs 
more usable? If that is what we all really want.
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, I appreciate that question, because when 
the Press Secretary brought up 9,000 permits about a year ago, 
it certainly raised the issue.
    There are about 8,600 permits that have been approved that 
have not been used yet, and that is as of September. So, we 
don't know the actual up-to-date number.
    Mr. Lamborn. Why?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, there are a variety of reasons. As I 
mentioned earlier, the inefficiency of getting a permit means 
that companies often request permits years in advance. Because 
if you have started a project--we drill wells really quickly 
now. We are so efficient, and we drill so many on a well pad 
that you can't afford to start your project, drill one or two 
wells, and then have to wait for two more permits because you 
are going to put eight wells on that pad, or whatever it is.
    So, in order to stay ahead of your rig, you need an 
inventory of permits. And since you don't know if it is going 
to take 6 months or 2 years to get your permit, you often get 
those permits in hand before you even start the project, and 
have them in hand for a couple of years in advance. So, that is 
one of the reasons.
    The other is simply you might be waiting for a right-of-way 
from the Federal Government. You might be waiting for--in order 
to get to your well pad you have to get across a piece of 
Federal land, so you need a permit for that. You might be held 
up waiting for an air permit. There are other reasons that we 
don't use those permits right away.
    Mr. Lamborn. Or litigation.
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, well, we just had a case last week in New 
Mexico, where a judge called into question about 370 permits in 
New Mexico. We have litigation from environmental groups on 
about 4,000 permits in New Mexico and Wyoming.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    Ms. Sgamma. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lamborn. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Chair Westerman and Ranking Member 
Grijalva.
    As we have conversation in this Committee around permitting 
reform--and I don't doubt we will have a lot of them--we can't 
lose sight of why talking to people who live near these 
infrastructure projects is important. We know that frontline 
communities are more likely to be harmed by air and water 
pollution from mining and drilling projects. This includes 
tribes and minority communities.
    So, we need a permitting system that allows clean energy 
projects to move forward in a timely way, but we can do that 
while still making sure that impacted communities have a chance 
to participate in the process, and protect the air and water 
they use to survive. We can do both, and we should do both. To 
that end, I have a question for Ms. Johnson.
    In the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats provided almost 
$1 billion for permitting agencies to ensure these reviews are 
efficient and effective, while still capturing public input. 
From your perspective, how will this help improve EPA's 
reviews, going forward?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for the question. We know 
that the two leading reasons why projects don't advance is 
because they were under-funded and because the NEPA process was 
not followed. Making nearly $1 billion of resources available 
provides opportunity for the government to staff up, to 
modernize systems and processes so that projects can move 
forward appropriately.
    As was noted, the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as the 
bipartisan infrastructure package, includes the financial 
resources to be able to move work forward. So, when we have the 
financial resources to move a project forward, and we follow 
the NEPA process, then things move at an appropriate timeline. 
When we don't, when we try to undermine communities, when we 
try to skirt around processes, then we find ourselves having to 
take a step back and look at recourse, legal opportunities, and 
be sure that we have done the appropriate work to be sure that 
a project moves forward.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, Mr. Stauber.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I 
appreciate all the witnesses. I want to thank you all for your 
testimony.
    I would like to start by noting that the non-partisan 
Energy Information Institute projects significant increases in 
global and oil and gas demand for the next 5 years.
    Ms. Sgamma, it is great to see you, and thank you once 
again for joining us today. The importance of your membership 
to American energy security is not lost on me. However, as you 
stated so clearly in your testimony, we need to update our 
broken permitting process so your producers can produce.
    Rolling back the 2020 NEPA rule was a mistake. Could you 
elaborate a little more on how agencies focusing on 
hypothetical project impacts isn't grounded in reality, and how 
harmful that rule has been to your membership and to Americans 
nationwide?
    Ms. Sgamma. Thank you for the question. And I would agree 
with Mr. Sandberg. Groups are using NEPA to slow down wind and 
solar projects, as well.
    We saw with the 2020 rules just a sensible reforms to put 
appropriate page limits and time limits, and focus NEPA on the 
actual impacts at hand. Because I agree with Ms. Johnson, we 
want communities to be involved. The NEPA process has public 
comment already baked into it. It is part of the process.
    But what was happening is NEPA is taking 5, 10, 15 years 
for roads, bridges----
    Mr. Stauber. 20, sometimes, in a mining community of mine.
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, but even for roads. They are adding cost 
for communities all across the country and taking 10 years to 
build a road to do NEPA, because often the agencies are 
requiring the project proponent to do, basically, research 
projects.
    So, instead of actually focusing on the impacts from the 
project, they have to do hypothetical studies on cumulative 
impacts on other projects, together with the project at hand. 
They have to consider all these things that are far related. We 
are getting requirements to do greenhouse gas analysis not from 
the project, but all down the line to try to imagine what the 
end user is going to do with that oil or natural gas. So, 
hypothetical research far beyond the impacts of the project at 
hand, and certainly far beyond the impacts of the communities 
at hand.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Milito, thank you again for joining us. We understand 
and appreciate the work your membership does for our nation.
    As you noted, a barrel of oil from the Gulf accounts for 
half the emissions of oil developed abroad. However, this 
Administration only offered two offshore lease sales, jacked up 
the royalty to disincentivize participation, and then didn't 
defend it in court.
    If global demand is rising for oil and your membership 
provides a smaller emissions profile, what do you think a 5-
year plan should look like that meets global demand challenges 
with the most efficient development in the world?
    Mr. Milito. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the question.
    A lot of arguments are made that our industry, we have 
enough leases, but those arguments really ignore the 
fundamental realities of the energy business. Whether it is oil 
and gas, solar, wind, you need acreage to develop the resource. 
The more acreage, the more energy you can produce. And to get 
acreage, you need leasing. And offshore is a region that is 
still an exploratory business. So, when you get a lease, there 
is absolutely no guarantee that it is going to produce oil or 
natural gas.
    A company spends between $100 and $200 million to determine 
whether or not a particular lease even has oil and gas. And 
most times they come up empty. So, having a predictable, 
regularly-scheduled plan for leasing is vitally important.
    We have an opportunity to go from the 1.8 million barrels 
today we are producing, and the estimates are, if we have 
continued leasing and continued permitting, we can get to 2.4 
million barrels. We also can go from 370,000 jobs to 430,000 
jobs. But to do that, we should have at least two lease sales 
per year in the Gulf of Mexico. That will also help out 
offshore wind, because, under the IRA, you need offshore oil 
and gas leasing to issue the wind leases.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Quickly, Mr. Sandberg, thanks for joining us. Yes or no, 
does American clean power understand the necessity and benefits 
of domestic mining to your industry?
    And does American clean power support domestic mining?
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for the question. We support the 
reshoring of supply chain, and a part of that, we think, is 
continuing exploration for critical minerals domestically.
    Mr. Stauber. So, you support domestic mining. Is that what 
you said?
    Mr. Sandberg. We support the reshoring of the supply chain.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Curtis. That's all you got.
    Mr. Stauber. Do you support domestic mining or not? Do you 
support mining in Minnesota or not?
    Mr. Sandberg. We support the mining of critical minerals in 
the United States to----
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. You and I are going to have a great 
conversation. I appreciate the answer, because I had to 
actually pull it out of you, and that is kind of concerning, 
but thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. I represent the south coast of 
Oregon, 250 miles of the most beautiful coastline in the United 
States. Sorry, everybody else, but I do. And we are on the 
forefront of seeing the effects of climate change, whether it 
is wildfire--because we have federal and state and private 
timberlands--drought, ocean acidification. So, I firmly believe 
that we need to move to green energy, move away from fossil 
fuel, and move to green energy resources as quickly as 
possible.
    I also am one of the few people in Congress who has 
actually run an agency. I was the Labor Commissioner, so I ran 
the Bureau of Labor and Industries. And one of the things that 
I found coming into an agency was that there was a lot of 
bureaucracy and rules that people didn't understand. And the 
things that were written were written at a law school or 
graduate school level, which meant that vulnerable workers, 
small businesses couldn't understand the process.
    So, I also think that many of my Republican colleagues 
across the aisle think that the solution to that is to 
privatize government work, or to just decrease or wipe away 
regulation. And what I think is we need to ensure that we have 
protections for workers, we need to have high environmental 
standards, right, for anything that we do, but there is a way 
to do it.
    And I think, as Democrats, we have to acknowledge that the 
process is difficult. So, that my community, where we are 
weighing in on potential offshore wind, but the tribal 
communities, the low-income communities, the fishing 
communities that want to weigh in on this, the business 
community, they need to be able to access the information, 
which means that that process could be shorter without 
decreasing the standards if we make it more accessible.
    You shouldn't have to--no offense to lawyers--but you 
shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to weigh in on what is 
happening in your community.
    So, I think we can do both, and I am happy to work in 
partnership with anyone to make those things more accessible, 
more reasonable, and for normal people--no offense to lawyers 
in the room--for normal people to understand what the rules 
are. I think we can do both of those things.
    But my question is for Mr. Sandberg.
    So, I did prepare for this hearing, and I saw that American 
Clean Power highlighted an article on the 100,000 new jobs 
already created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats 
passed last Congress.
    The Clean Energy Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act 
also will make sure workers are paid prevailing wage, and the 
projects that use workers from registered, high-quality 
apprenticeship programs, like the ones I oversaw as Labor 
Commissioner, will be utilized. And I think that is important 
as we build our workforce, because I don't care what side of 
the aisle you are on, workforce is critical that we expand and 
invest in.
    Could you share more about the jobs being created thanks to 
the Inflation Reduction Act?
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for the question. It is an exciting 
time for the clean energy industry. And as the industry 
continues to grow, we continue to employ more people.
    As you mentioned, the most recent Inflation Reduction Act 
included some provisions to use certain types of labor, and the 
industry has supported that. And it continues to work with 
government to get a workable framework around that. But we are 
excited, as the industry continues to grow across the value 
chain, at the jobs that are coming, whether it is in 
manufacturing, whether it is installation and development.
    It provides a rich opportunity for us to continue to grow 
both the domestic workforce and the domestic manufacturing 
base.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special thanks 
for this hearing today to our witnesses.
    Before I move to my comments and questions, I want to 
address some comments that were made in opening remarks that 
seemed to imply that Republicans only care about fossil fuels, 
that we want to over-subsidize the industry, that we own and 
are responsible for the great profits that they have had in the 
last few months, that we are all about drill, baby, drill. None 
of these comments are helpful to a productive dialogue.
    I would like to quote from an article at the Wall Street 
Journal Opinion Board. The name of the article is ``Joe Biden's 
Big Oil Profits.'' To quote, ``Behold the irony. President 
Biden has done more to enrich Big Oil and its shareholders than 
Donald Trump or any other White House occupant in decades.''
    It goes on to say, ``But Big Oil companies are merely 
benefiting from supply surges and production constraints the 
Administration has helped to create.''
    I gave my staff a 3-minute drill, and in about 3 minutes 
they found over $100 billion of subsidies to the fossil fuel 
industry in the IRA and other Biden legislation with carbon 
sequestration, biofuels, and direct air capture.
    So, I would just like to point out this narrative is not 
accurate, it is offensive, and it doesn't help move the 
conversation along.
    Now, turning to our guests today, I am pleased, Mr. 
Sandberg, to be here with you again. You and I shared a few 
minutes out in my district, where we talked a little bit about 
your industry and the branding of your industry. And one of the 
comments that I made at that point was I think Republicans feel 
that we have been falsely branded as somehow not liking clean 
energy and renewables. And I think it is misconstrued with our 
thoughts that it is not the only answer to our energy future, 
but we also feel like you are an important part of our mix and 
what we are doing.
    I would be curious what your feeling is about this whole 
permitting issue, how much it is restraining you, and what we 
need to do about it.
    Mr. Sandberg. First, it was a pleasure to be with you in 
your district and to share some time with you.
    I think there is an ability to provide common-sense reforms 
to NEPA processes. We are not suggesting for a second that we 
undermine kind of the bedrock environmental laws of this 
country. But there is an ability, I think, to make some common-
sense reforms to do this, and I think the Congress can do that.
    What does that do for the industry? Like any other 
industry, capital chases not just returns, but it chases 
certainty, and wants to avoid risk. And I think these delays in 
permitting introduce uncertainty into the mix. So, to the 
extent that we can take some of that uncertainty out by having 
a more regular and consistent permitting process, that is going 
to help us deploy more clean energy.
    Mr. Curtis. It is almost going to sound rhetorical, but it 
must be asked: Can we move forward in quicker times, more 
predictable times, and still be good stewards?
    Mr. Sandberg. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, 
sir. I think we can do both.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes.
    Ms. Sgamma, do you want to comment on that, as well?
    Ms. Sgamma. Sure. I think we can do both.
    I think the problem arises when certain people and 
politicians promise that we can just replace oil and natural 
gas in 10 years. I mean, at the start of the Obama 
administration we were supposed to be gone in 10 years. So, 
let's be realistic about how these energy sources work 
together, and let's recognize that wind and solar are facing 
the same NEPA delays that oil and gas are. So, let's work 
together and make NEPA a reasonable process.
    Mr. Curtis. So, a couple of points. I was tempted to joke--
and you have now prompted me, and please understand I am not 
serious--but the comment last night about fossil fuels being 
here in 10 years kind of makes me want to say I am pretty 
confident renewables will be here in 10 years. Right? And they 
will be part of our energy mix.
    We all know, and if you look at the Chairman's graph over 
there, we need all of you, and we need all of you to be on your 
game, and we need all of you to be working toward reliable, 
affordable, clean energy. And if you can't all achieve that, we 
are going to be short, all of you. And I think that is very 
important.
    I also want to point out that I don't know a single person 
on my side of the aisle that wants to undermine the 
environmental standards in NEPA. But to a person, I think we 
say it takes too long to get an answer. And once the answer 
comes, there is no certainty. And that needs to be fixed. It 
doesn't matter if you want to put in wind or solar or 
pipelines; all of that needs to be fixed.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Alaska, Mrs. Peltola, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here.
    I represent Alaska, and Alaska really depends on oil and 
gas development. So much of our state's economy, about a third 
of our households, are part of that sector, and it pays 
household bills. But at the statewide level, it is the vast 
majority of our revenues that make sure that the state is doing 
its constitutionally-required obligations of schools, public 
safety, public transportation.
    So, we are very serious, and earnest, and absolute about 
our need for responsible development. And at the same time, I 
think to a person in Alaska they could give you about 50 
examples of climate change. We had five snowless winters. It 
has impacted almost all of our species. We have a lot of 
species in crisis. So we, as Alaskans, we really are balancing 
these two things.
    But to my great surprise, not everybody knows about NEPA. 
When I came here, I was shocked to find out that people on the 
East Coast don't know the acronyms that are just a part of our 
vernacular in Alaska, an FEIS and a ROD, and all of those 
things.
    But one of the things I am very concerned about is public 
input, because that is integral to the NEPA process, is that 
iterative process of preferred alternatives and getting to the 
perfect compromise. And I just wondered--Mr. Sandberg, this 
question is for you--how can Congress help support the efforts 
of companies you represent, while ensuring local community 
input?
    And is the EIS process for development projects sufficient 
for local input?
    Mr. Sandberg. We appreciate the question. I think, from the 
very beginning, in the earliest stages of clean energy 
development, our developers are engaging with communities--they 
have to--in an open and transparent way.
    And I think that, as we do that, we find that oftentimes 
project opposition comes from many forms, but also oftentimes 
is full of misinformation. So, as we engage early in that 
process, both disadvantaged communities, local communities, as 
we seek permits from state, local, and federal agencies, we 
find that early, frequent, sustained engagement helps us find a 
more smooth process.
    Do I think that there can be reforms to the NEPA process? 
Absolutely, right? I think that there are some common-sense 
things that we can do together, and many of those we detailed 
in written testimony, and we are happy to engage on. But I do 
think there are some process improvements that can be made on 
NEPA.
    Mrs. Peltola. And then I have a question for you, Ms. 
Johnson. And as I mentioned, I want to ensure local communities 
have a clear seat at the table.
    And I firmly believe that residents know best, and they 
know better than anyone how to protect their environment. And 
do you think that industry is doing enough in that regard?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you for the question. I think that it is 
important for industry to look holistically at the impact of a 
project. So, taking the time to hear from people who have a 
real lived experience is critical.
    I think taking the time to do an environmental assessment 
so that we are considering the cumulative impact and exposure 
that people might have to a particular project is important and 
necessary.
    I think it is a false narrative to suggest that to do those 
things is too detailed and it is too costly. We, as I stated 
earlier, incur cost when we go around community, when we don't 
consider them. We incur cost because we did not appropriately 
plan or budget for a project.
    So, I think that, to reference a comment earlier about 
hypothetical studies being unnecessary, we don't think that 
they are hypothetical. We think that they are important. They 
consider the economic, the environmental, the public health 
impacts, and what that might cost us. And it is important for 
us to do it.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my 
time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you think 
about everything that we require just for our survival, not to 
mention the quality of our lives, everything, everything is 
either mined or it is grown. That is the only way to get it. 
Yet, this is precisely what the environmental left has targeted 
to suppress for the last generation.
    And as I pointed out recently, it is ironic that, on the 
one hand, they tell us we have to produce millions of new 
batteries for everything from electric cars to the industrial 
grid, and then, on the other hand, they are doing everything 
they can to shut down the exponential increase in mining that 
these so-called green policies require.
    Our prosperity requires not only the mineral resources that 
mining produces, it also requires cheap energy that fossil 
fuels produce. Last night, President Biden told us that the 
supply chain needs to start in America. Well, by God, the 
supply chain starts with the raw materials required to support 
everything that our economy produces and that every family 
depends upon for its survival, and its comfort, and its 
security. And that is precisely what this Administration is 
bringing to a standstill.
    I mean, look at this war on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels 
produce 80 percent of the electricity in our economy. They 
produce it far more cheaply than wind and solar. Yet, the very 
first act of this Administration was to cancel the Keystone 
Pipeline, which today should be delivering about 800,000 
barrels of crude oil every day into American markets.
    According to a study that was released this week, if the 
Administration had just continued the energy policies of the 
Trump administration, America would be producing between 2 and 
3 million barrels a day more than we are. Instead, we are 
begging Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to produce more. So much for 
Made in America. And that is why fossil fuel prices are 
skyrocketing.
    If you are upset about record profits for oil companies, 
that is what is making those record profits possible. When 
something is scarce, it becomes expensive. When it is 
plentiful, it is cheap. Trump made it plentiful. And on 
Inauguration Day, the average price of a gallon of gas was 
$2.59 a gallon. Today, it is $3.48 and rising.
    Where the hell do they expect the electricity for their 
electric cars, and trains, and stoves to come from?
    If you deliberately were to set out to destroy the 
prosperity of working Americans, is there a more effective way 
to do that than dramatically restrict mining and drilling, and 
then divert these limited resources from their most 
economically productive uses to the ideological hobbyhorse of 
the woke environmentalist left?
    Wind and solar are among the most expensive ways to produce 
electricity. And as Ms. Sgamma pointed out, unreliable wind and 
solar require conventional energy in order to maintain the 
electrical grid. That usually means running gas turbines at 
ready reserve in order to switch over the moment a cloud passes 
over a solar array or the wind falls off.
    Ms. Sgamma, what future do you foresee for our country if 
these policies continue?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I agree with you. When we make energy 
scarce, we make it more expensive. And who does that hurt the 
most? Not the wealthy. It hurts low-income communities. It 
hurts disadvantaged communities.
    Having access to abundant, affordable energy is the basis 
of human welfare.
    Mr. McClintock. So, these policies are impoverishing 
working Americans, low-income Americans. At the same time, our 
friends on the left say they really want to help these folks. 
Does that make any sense at all?
    Ms. Sgamma. It doesn't make sense to me. And that study you 
mentioned, we could have 2 to 3 million more barrels a day 
production here in the United States, where it is produced in 
an environmental manner. That means that we are sending about 
$100 billion from that same study overseas instead of enjoying 
the tax benefits of it here that--you know, the taxes that come 
from oil and gas sustain communities, sustain vital services. 
That is what funds the government, private enterprise.
    Mr. McClintock. It is productivity, exactly right. 
Government doesn't finance the private sector. It is the 
private sector that finances the government. And that is what 
they are shutting down.
    I am reminded of Leo Tolstoy's line. He says, ``I sit on a 
man's back, choking him and making him carry me. And all the 
while, I assure himself and anyone else who will listen that I 
am very sympathetic of his plight, and I am willing to do 
everything I can to help, except by getting off his back.''
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Too many treat economic security, national security, and 
environmental security as mutually exclusive goals, rather than 
the means to secure real climate protections.
    It is clear we need to accelerate our transition to a clean 
energy economy. But to meet our climate goals, Democrats have 
secured historic climate investments in the Inflation Reduction 
Act, and enacted a game-changing bipartisan infrastructure 
bill.
    But there is more real work ahead of us. Deploying zero-
emission technologies at scale across the country will be the 
greatest permitting challenge in generations, and we must build 
in ways that do not do harm to our communities or degrade our 
environment.
    The climate crisis demonstrates repeatedly that our 
economic security, national security, and environmental 
security goals are completely interconnected, and demand 
permitting solutions that match this urgency through both 
efficiency of review and inclusivity of voices of the 
communities most affected.
    I welcome my Republican colleagues' interest in permitting 
reform.
    For me, I look at permitting reform as a tool to combat 
climate change, strengthen our economy, and protect our 
national security. But we must bring everyone to the table to 
do this right. We must continue to ensure that frontline 
communities and those who are fighting to protect their homes 
are heard. We must cement a critical mineral supply chain here 
in America. It is critical. We must confront climate change and 
advance the electrified transportation industry that will lead 
our way forward.
    And, personally, as the spouse of the man that originally 
wrote NEPA, I know we have to protect its original intent and 
fine-tune it for today's realities.
    It is not an either-or problem. It is a necessity for a 
prosperous American future.
    Ms. Johnson, as I mentioned, Democrats have had a 
historically productive last 2 years. Between the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, we directed 
billions to improving our infrastructure and deploying 
renewable energy. As these projects begin benefiting 
communities across the country, why is it important that we 
ensure community input is key in the design process?
    And can you highlight the specific importance of the NEPA 
process in our transition to a clean economy?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for the question.
    I want to start off by just reflecting back on some of the 
conversation that we are having about the economic benefit of 
the oil and gas industry. I think that we are having an 
incomplete conversation in this space.
    We are talking about the jobs that people have. We are 
talking about the tax dollars that might be invested in a 
community. But if we aren't also talking about the $400 billion 
that we are estimated to have to spend to defend our 
coastlines, if we aren't talking about the $886 billion of 
healthcare costs associated with oil and gas operations, we are 
having an incomplete conversation.
    So, thank you very much for your question. I think that 
people living in communities have a vision for economic 
prosperity, for health prosperity. We must ensure that people 
are at the table designing those projects to ensure that it is 
reflective of the lived experience that they have had.
    We have been traveling around the country, asking officials 
in the Federal Government to meet with communities and local 
and state leaders, and people have shovel-worthy projects that 
they are ready to have deployed in their communities. And if we 
have folks at the table contributing to that ideation, that 
decision-making process, we will get the best result from our 
investment in both of those spending bills.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    To my colleagues I want to say we need an honest 
conversation about permitting and the implementation of NEPA in 
the 21st century. And this is going to mean we need a 
meaningful bipartisan collaboration. We can accelerate 
deployment by becoming much more efficient and predictable, 
with clear timelines. We can expedite permit review by building 
staff capacity in the Federal agencies. We can ensure local 
communities have meaningful and timely input, and retain the 
right to judicial relief when the Federal Government gets it 
wrong.
    And we can end--and then I will stop, Mr. Chairman, but I 
really want to work with you on this, because it is key to 
everything--we can end the environmental injustices of 
sacrifice zones by evaluating the cumulative impacts of 
projects in the communities already overburdened with unhealthy 
levels of pollution. We can do all of this without rolling back 
bedrock environmental and health protection.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired, and I 
appreciate the offer to work across the aisle, and the 
recognition that we need to streamline, we need to do something 
different, and do something better going forward.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, 
the Chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take that as a 
guarantee that the Inflation Reduction Act is going to speed up 
NEPA, because we are going to have a lot more bodies in the 
agencies. That is what I am hearing out there, is that we have 
a guarantee that, with more bodies, we are going to see NEPA 
speed up.
    Ms. Johnson, you cite in here some of the costs, 1 in 5 
deaths worldwide, more than 10 million deaths per year as a 
result of various cancers, things like that. When you do your 
analysis of trade-offs in your organization, do you look at 
trade-offs? Do you look at lives that are saved as a result of 
having affordable energy?
    Ms. Johnson. We consider the economic, the health, the 
environmental impacts of policies and practices when we are 
evaluating their efficacy.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, in regards to that, for example, the life 
expectancy in the United States of America since 1900, it was 
about early 50s, 52 years old, something like that. It is now 
in the mid-70s. Is that considered?
    Infant mortality was 1 in 10 in the year 1900. It is now, 
like, 7 in 1,000, something like that. It could have changed a 
little bit over the years. Are those things taken into account? 
Because affordable energy was part of the reason that those 
great advances were taken or were made. Does your analysis take 
into account the good things that happen also when assessing 
trade-offs?
    Ms. Johnson. So, again, we look holistically at situations. 
To go back in time, as you have done, we also look at the 
impact of land use decisions like redlining. Like, decisions 
that we make to center people in undesirable areas, to center 
oil and gas operations in places----
    Mr. Tiffany. I really appreciate that----
    Ms. Johnson [continuing]. Where people live, and build on 
top of it without consideration of the----
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Johnson, I have a really limited amount of 
time, I only get 5 minutes to ask questions. If you would show 
me your analysis, just send it to my office, all the things 
that you put into your analysis, we would love to see that.
    Who is not following the NEPA process? You said that you 
are not being able to put input in, and stuff like that, there 
needs to be greater input. That is required in the NEPA 
process. Who is not following the NEPA process that we should 
really get after here, because they are not allowing the input 
that should be allowed?
    Can you name a project where they are not following the 
NEPA process of proper input?
    Ms. Johnson. I have a list here, which I am happy to share 
with you, of 12 projects where the NEPA process was not 
followed.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you would share that, I would really 
appreciate it. I would love to see that.
    You mentioned the Navajo Tribe and that there were concerns 
there in your opening testimony. Did you read--you perhaps 
don't have this documentation, but in our next panel we are 
going to have a group that is going to talk about mining, and 
there is going to be a group from the Navajo Tribe that is 
talking about the great things that mining has done for their 
tribe. Obviously, there are trade-offs.
    Would you like to see that testimony about the good things 
that are happening as a result of mining with the Navajo Tribe?
    Ms. Johnson. So, I think what you are raising here is a 
principle of environmental justice, and that is self-
determination. But people have to be at the table in order to 
contribute to that kind of decision.
    Mr. Tiffany. They were clearly at the table, and they still 
are.
    Ms. Johnson. So, if it results----
    Mr. Tiffany. Final question.
    Ms. Johnson [continuing]. In what you are referencing, then 
absolutely.
    Mr. Tiffany. Final question, Ms. Johnson. Does your 
organization take any money from the organization called Sea 
Change?
    Ms. Johnson. I have no awareness of that.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Do you know if any money your organization 
gets goes back to--we understand that there are Russian and 
Chinese dollars that are going into some environmental 
organizations. Have you tracked that at all to see if your 
organization has taken any money?
    Ms. Johnson. I have no awareness of that.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Well, it is important to be aware of that.
    I want to turn to Mr. Sandberg. In No. 2 in regards to 
reforms of NEPA, you said establish a lead agency to spearhead 
environmental reviews. There is not a lead agency for 
environmental reviews?
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for the question. I think that we 
need to strengthen the ability of a lead agency to drive all 
the various members of the Federal family toward conclusion, 
and I think that is one of the process reforms that could be 
important as part of this permitting reform process.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we don't have a lead agency? That is 
actually news to me and very unfortunate.
    Mr. Milito, will the USA be fossil fuel free in 10 years?
    Mr. Milito. No.
    Mr. Tiffany. Why not?
    Mr. Milito. Because we are going to rely upon oil and 
natural gas for decades to come.
    We are going to see a huge increase in the use of 
renewables, but the oil and gas portion of our energy portfolio 
is also going to continue to rise substantially.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the American people should be disabused of 
this notion that we are going to end fossil fuel use in 10 
years.
    Mr. Milito. Absolutely. That is not reality.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-
Dove.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you so 
much for always pronouncing my name correctly.
    Many of my colleagues across the aisle have discussed 
increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and all of our 
districts are impacted by the effects of climate change 12 
months out of the year, as well as our dependence on fossil 
fuels. I don't think science cares if you are a Republican, or 
a Democrat, or an Independent.
    My diverse, largely Black and Brown district is home to one 
of the largest oil fields in the country. Instead of working to 
bring environmental justice to communities such as mine, who 
have been negatively impacted by our dependence on fossil 
fuels, we are discussing expanding the practices that have 
caused serious health problems for these communities.
    Ms. Johnson, I have a question for you. We know that 
pollution in all its forms has an unacceptable and 
disproportionate burden on Black and low-income communities 
like those in my district, although one of my colleagues just 
yesterday from across the aisle said that because the Black 
population is so small, it doesn't matter if we are killed by 
pollution; Whites and Cajuns are of greater concern.
    With all due respect, I think Black people are important, 
and Black and low-income communities are forced to continue to 
bear the brunt of a changing climate, from heat islands and 
drought to difficulty obtaining disaster assistance.
    Now our colleagues are pushing for even more fossil fuel 
development that would only add to these risks and potentially 
kill more of us. So, could you answer how this would impact 
vulnerable communities across the country?
    Ms. Johnson. Sure. I first want to note I do believe that 
the White House Council on Environmental Quality is the lead 
agency around NEPA. I think it is important for us to be sure 
that their contributions to the rulemaking process are 
acknowledged.
    To answer your question, I think in every stage of the oil 
and gas life cycle, from extraction to distribution, there are 
negative impacts on communities across the United States. As I 
noted earlier, because of redlining and other land use 
decisions, we most feel that in places where people of color 
and people of low income live.
    I think, specifically, environmental justice communities 
are a part of that process. We experience water contamination 
during the refinement and distribution of oil and gas. Toxic 
pollutants are emitted into our air. And all of the health 
impacts that I noted earlier are a part of that.
    So, I think that we need to ensure that we aren't 
continuing to perpetuate those disproportionate harms. We need 
to look at how we equitably and justly transition our energy 
economy in a way that is affordable, but also is done at a pace 
where, frankly, people feel comfortable that they do have 
family-sustaining wages, that they do have their credentials 
and their education considered in setting labor standards and 
wage opportunities. We need to be sure that we are preserving 
people's pensions and things, so that that transition occurs in 
a meaningful way.
    I think I will stop there. I hope I answered your question.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, you did. Thank you.
    And a question was asked about where the NEPA process was 
not followed. I think you said there were 12 projects where it 
was not, and I have a little bit of time. Would you like to 
share what some of those projects are, and what can be done to 
help them do what they are supposed to do?
    Ms. Johnson. Sure. I think what I wanted to offer up is 
when the NEPA process was not followed, the Federal 
requirements were not followed, we saw places like oil and gas 
leases in New Mexico for the San Juan Basin not consider 
climate impacts in the NEPA process, and that slowed it down.
    When we look at a Federal coal moratorium in California, 
not taking into account NEPA analysis slowed down that 
project's process.
    When we look at leases in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, 
inadequate NEPA processes that did not consider greenhouse gas 
emissions from drilling and downstream use slowed down 
projects.
    We see more of this in different places across the country. 
When we don't follow our process, we delay projects. The 
framework is not the delay.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    And thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you very much for assembling this panel. That is a very 
informative group here today.
    Like the representative from Oregon, prior to arriving here 
I was responsible for regulating an agency myself, the 
Securities and Insurance Agency in Montana. And I discovered a 
lot of subjective language which lent itself to the delays and 
increased costs not only for business, but that translates into 
increased calls for the consumers, as well.
    I do think that the clarification of necessary rules and 
the repeal or elimination of rules that merely generate 
paperwork is extremely helpful. And I did so when I was the 
Insurance Commissioner in the state of Montana.
    Ms. Sgamma, thank you so much for coming here today. I 
appreciate it. In Montana, we have so much untapped potential 
when it comes to undeveloped energy resources, particularly in 
the oil and gas sector. Much of this stems from the reason that 
you have outlined in your testimony, namely over-regulation and 
significant NEPA delays, the BLM's nearly unlimited discretion 
when it comes to--and I quote--every lease permit and any other 
oil and natural gas decision on Federal lands has made it close 
to impossible to actually break ground on any of these 
projects.
    I am currently working with this Committee, in consultation 
with partners in the private sector, to introduce a bill, as 
you say, to clarify leasing minerals, that Interior must hold 
quarterly lease sales where the lands are available.
    My question for you regarding that is what else, in your 
opinion, is the agency likely to come back with to slow down or 
stop this process, as leasing does not necessarily translate 
into permitting and production?
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes. Right now, we are seeing a situation of 
the Interior Department ignoring its obligations under the 
Mineral Leasing Act. So, I appreciate language to clarify that 
quarterly actually means quarterly. But they are now using 
their justification as the Inflation Reduction Act, which is 
great, because at least they have an incentive to lease oil and 
gas because wind and solar permits are tied to it. But they are 
starting to play games with the numbers.
    The IRA is very clear on 50 percent of lands nominated need 
to come up for sale before a wind and solar permit can be 
issued. But they are playing games on how to count that. So, I 
don't want to get into the weeds on that, but I do appreciate 
that you are willing to clarify that language in your bill.
    Mr. Rosendale. Sure. So, this goes directly to it--how else 
can they block our every move here, and continue to keep 
American energy from reaching its full potential, and force us 
to rely on these foreign entities?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, we are proud that we produce it more 
sustainably on public lands than anywhere else, because there 
is so much more regulation and process on public lands. When we 
don't produce it from Federal lands, we are getting it from 
overseas or somewhere else, where it is not done as 
sustainably.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. As a follow-up to that, turning 
now to reforming NEPA delays and the extremely litigious and 
effective nature of these organizations against this industry 
regarding NEPA, you mentioned in your testimony that about 
6,000 leases are currently being defended due to increased 
greenhouse gas NEPA analysis--6,000.
    Furthermore, you highlight that Congress has not passed any 
law requiring a carbon budget or the social cost of carbon, yet 
these leases are still being held up to the NEPA process 
regarding this criteria.
    So, my question here is very similar to the first one: How 
can we anticipate and prevent the NEPA process from continuing 
to be weaponized against those who try to acquire leases for 
energy resource development and any NEPA clarification that we 
pass?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think legislation that would clearly state 
what type of greenhouse gas analysis is necessary, because it 
is very easy right now in court to get a judge to say not 
enough greenhouse gas analysis was done, and BLM is struggling 
with this.
    So, the project or the NEPA that Ms. Johnson mentioned 
regarding leasing, that wasn't because the NEPA wasn't followed 
or public didn't have input. That is a mischaracterization of 
NEPA. It is because it is almost impossible not to get a judge 
to find that there is some deficiency in the NEPA. So, no 
matter how hard and how much BLM studies it, environmental 
groups are going to continue to sue on greenhouse gas analysis 
until the analysis results in an answer that says absolutely no 
oil and gas should be developed because greenhouse gas 
emissions are created.
    I mean, we all know that using oil and natural gas creates 
greenhouse gas emissions. But until there is an alternative 
that does everything that oil and gas does, just using NEPA to 
say no greenhouse gas emissions can be emitted from a project, 
that is not reality, that is shutting down our sources of 
energy using the NEPA process.
    So, judges can find deficiencies in the NEPA. It gets sent 
back to BLM to redo that analysis. And we are working with BLM 
to get that analysis to a place where it can be.
    Sorry for the long----
    Mr. Rosendale. That is OK. Thank you very much, Ms. Sgamma.
    And Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
welcome our panelists.
    And, in particular, I want to welcome Ms. Johnson. I just 
witnessed an exchange, and I wanted to just take a point of 
personal privilege here and say that we are grateful that you 
are here. It takes a lot of courage for members of the public 
to come and testify in front of this body.
    And I want to remind my colleagues that this is the 
people's house, not the lobbyist's house, OK, and that we 
should really treat members of the public who come before this 
body with the due respect that they deserve as they come before 
this body.
    So, this topic is very personal to me. I grew up in a 
working family, and many people do not know this, but my 
parents were both energy workers. In fact, my mom was one of 
the very first women operating engineers in the state of New 
Mexico, and operated heavy equipment, and helped build the San 
Juan Generating Station, which is the coal-fired power plant 
that is under energy transition in northwestern New Mexico, and 
that many of our Navajo community members work at.
    My father was an oil and gas welder who worked in the oil 
fields for some of the companies whose lobbyists I am sure are 
here in this audience today. And when the bottom dropped out of 
the oil and gas industry in the early 1980s, my parents had to 
leave Farmington, New Mexico and move to Albuquerque, which is 
why I grew up in the city, because this industry rises and 
falls on boom and bust cycles, and our working families are 
working people, and our communities pay the price for the 
profits that these industries skim off the top as we ride that 
wave.
    So, as I have taken this role as a Member of Congress, as a 
former legislator, and as an American, as a New Mexican who 
cares deeply about my communities, I see one of my primary 
responsibilities as ensuring that our communities can make a 
just and equitable transition, that they have opportunities and 
investments and a seat at the table, so that they are able to 
participate and not just be subject to the energy industry.
    As I take my role as Ranking Member in Oversight, I am 
hoping to elevate the voices of our communities, to provide 
opportunities for people who are from our communities to come 
and testify and participate in these hearings, for the voices 
of our working people to actually have a seat at the table 
after decades of not being able to participate in the process.
    Now, NEPA and permitting is a very select slice of what it 
means to have energy democracy, as Ms. Johnson has talked about 
in her testimony. So, I really want to take this opportunity to 
lay out a vision for what we can do through this body to lift 
up our communities, to help foster a just transition, to 
implement the largest investment in climate action ever in the 
history of this country that this body passed in August of this 
year, which will make billions of dollars in investments in our 
communities and help create millions of jobs in states like 
mine.
    And if we are smart, and if we are just, and if we are 
equitable, and we actually pull those chairs around the table 
and involve our communities in that work, we will have a just, 
equitable transition that gives people a sustainable life and a 
sustainable economy.
    I also plan, of course, through my role on Oversight, to 
meet our trust and treaty obligations to our tribes, to work on 
public lands and water issues, and to address, of course, the 
drought that is impacting communities across the West, because 
we are in the people's house, because this is what we were 
elected to do. This is why we are here.
    So, I want to take this opportunity to ask Ms. Johnson once 
more--I know you have already shared many of your thoughts. Can 
you please share with us your vision, and how you see this body 
can help to empower communities to make a just and equitable 
transition as we are building a new energy economy?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for the acknowledgment and 
your question.
    I think because of the rich resources that this body holds, 
our public lands, it is really critical and important that, as 
you shape policies and practices related to that, that you, as 
I noted, center environmental justice in those considerations, 
in those deliberations, and go back to those three questions 
that I mentioned: Are you advancing an energy source, or 
expanding an energy source, that creates harm in communities, 
and expands racially disproportionate economic, racial, and 
economic impacts and harms communities?
    I think if you keep those three questions at the forefront 
of what you are doing, we will get to that future that you 
described in your comments.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    And, Mr. Chair, thank you for having this hearing, and I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There is a rise and fall in our communities, as Ms. 
Stansbury pointed out. But it is not just because of the oil 
and gas industry and the ebbs and flows of that. It is because 
of politicians and their bad policies that they are forcing on 
Americans. I know many communities have experienced a very 
large fall from the rise that they had because they are being 
regulated into poverty.
    And we are not subject to oil and gas. We are subject, 
unfortunately, to climate extremists, forcing us all to bow at 
the left's altar of climate change.
    And I am very glad that Ms. Stansbury has admitted to the 
people here in the people's house, the American people, that 
the Inflation Reduction Act wasn't about reducing inflation, it 
was the Green New Deal, a con-game. Title it one way, do 
another thing, spend money another way. It wasn't to reduce 
inflation. It was the Green New Deal.
    Back home in Colorado, I have seen firsthand the harm 
leftist policies have created in my communities. Colorado's 
Western Slope used to have a booming energy production. We used 
to have about 112 rigs operating on the Western Slope, and now 
we have 4. Extreme leftist policies lock up land. They have 
driven away good-paying American jobs and have helped drive up 
gas prices.
    With the stroke of his pen, Joe Biden waged an all-out war 
against American energy production, propping up Vladimir Putin 
on Day 1 of his administration, from shutting down the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, imposing new rules to block pipeline projects, 
canceling oil and gas leases on millions of acres of land in 
Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, and imposing a moratorium on 
new Federal oil and gas leases on Federal lands, failing to 
meet the statutory deadlines for quarterly lease sales, and 
took countless other anti-energy measures that have contributed 
to increased gas prices and inflation reaching record levels.
    Rather than shutting down production here at home and 
begging Iran and Venezuela and OPEC to produce energy for us, 
we should be producing it right here and relying on the 
American roughneck, the hard-working American roughneck--you 
are taking food out of their children's mouths to prop up your 
energy scams. We do it cleaner and better than anyone else.
    Thank you, witnesses for being here today. My first 
question is for you, Ms. Sgamma. Thank you for traveling from 
Colorado to be with us. You discuss the increased bureaucracy 
around lease suspensions and permit extensions. What can we in 
Congress do to ensure that these agencies spend their time 
reducing the current APD backlog, which sits at almost 5,000, 
versus haggling over these paperwork exercises?
    Ms. Sgamma. I appreciate the question. Just specify that an 
APD term is for 4 years, instead of 2. Because right now, when 
we try to get an extension, we are having to justify it 
quarterly. It is a lot of extra paperwork churn, so just make 
the term 4.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. Ms. Sgamma, we have heard 
rumblings that the Bureau of Land Management may suspend 
approving all APDs due to the 10th Circuit's decision last 
Friday. In your opinion, does the BLM need to do this, or is 
there a way to address this decision quickly and allow APD 
approvals?
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, it is really easy to find a NEPA 
deficiency in court. And in this case, the judge found that BLM 
didn't consider a carbon budget. There is no law passed by 
Congress that requires a carbon budget. But BLM could quickly 
explain that no, we didn't consider a carbon budget, because of 
that reason I just specified, and it is an easy corrective NEPA 
fix. It shouldn't be affecting any other permits in New Mexico 
or anywhere else.
    Mrs. Boebert. That does sound like an easy fix, Ms. Sgamma.
    In your testimony, you touch on the 9,000 unused lease 
permits number used by the Biden administration last year when 
blaming producers for high energy prices. Could you please 
explain to us here today why these leases and permits cannot 
simply be used?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, you are never going to operate on 100 
percent of leases. So, right now we are at a 66 percent 
utilization rate. And that is a good, high number. So, if there 
are about 12,000 non-producing leases, there are 23,000 
producing leases. So, that is a good mix, just because 
sometimes economic resources are not found on a particular 
lease.
    When it comes to permits, there are other approvals that 
are necessary for permits, and we have several held up in court 
cases. So, there are various reasons that a permit doesn't get 
used immediately.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you very much, Ms. Sgamma, and thank 
you so much to the other witnesses for being here.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I promise I feel better 
than I sound. My voice has been gone since last night, but I do 
genuinely look forward to working with you, finding areas of 
common ground here in the new Congress. I know that we won't 
agree on everything, but I do know that there will be things 
that we can agree on. Thank you for the Arkansas spring water, 
as well. That did not go unnoticed.
    But I really wanted to take a minute and discuss how we can 
responsibly and sustainably deploy energy on our public lands. 
I agree that we need to do that. And as we have discussed 
today, public lands and waters are managed for multiple uses: 
energy development, mining, recreation, and grazing.
    But I believe strongly that we have this opportunity to 
focus not on more record profits for the oil and gas industry 
for its own sake, but instead to actually prioritize our public 
lands for purposes that spur on the renewable energy 
development we are going to need in the coming decades. And I 
would hope that we could all come together to do that.
    We have to minimize conflicts. We have to support timely 
decision making, and we have to engage in very important land 
use planning as part of a smart siting effort to identify areas 
of high renewable energy potential and the lowest environmental 
friction. And this is all bipartisan policy, and it has been 
since I have been in Congress. We can responsibly improve the 
permitting process for clean energy and climate solutions.
    We can also ensure the meaningful engagement of 
environmental justice communities. And I share the comments of 
my friend from New Mexico, and I am applauding your being here. 
It is why I introduced something called the Public Land 
Renewable Energy Development Act in the last two Congresses--or 
PLREDA, for short. It would codify a smart-from-the-start 
approach to renewable energy development, and it includes 
measures to facilitate investment in high-quality renewable 
sources to ensure fair revenue for impacted communities and to 
minimize impacts to wildlife and to cultural sites.
    Mr. Sandberg--and again, forgive my voice--I am grateful 
for ACP's support on PLREDA. Could you discuss how the 
legislation would help increase clean energy on public lands, 
while still maintaining thorough environmental and community 
protections?
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for the question. And as you have 
outlined, PLREDA is a great first step to help us develop 
renewables on Federal lands. And as you said, focusing on high-
quality resources and low-impact areas. So, mitigating wildlife 
impacts, cultural sites, those types of things. And I think 
that this bipartisan effort can yield good results.
    As you know, and as we have discussed with your office, 
since 2015, there has been very little renewable development on 
Federal lands, while there has been a boom on private lands. 
So, I think there is a great ability and opportunity to 
expedite and use those resources on Federal lands.
    Mr. Levin. And one of the core principles of the 
legislation is smart-from-the-start planning. Do you agree that 
is the best planning approach for balancing renewable energy 
with all the other uses of our public lands? And if so, why?
    Mr. Sandberg. We support many of the provisions in your 
bill. And as part of that, I think that this permitting process 
and the processes laid out in PLREDA are a fantastic first step 
in that process. And we look forward to working with you in 
this Congress to advance those.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate that very much.
    And I would just close, Mr. Chairman, by saying we can 
spend the next 2 years yelling and screaming at each other and 
focusing on all that we disagree about. I don't think it is the 
best use of our time. I don't think it is what our constituents 
expect. And I think it is incumbent on every one of us here to 
find areas of common ground to try to move the ball forward in 
a positive way for our country.
    With that, I will yield back.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Levin. Sorry, I caught you in transition.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses 
for being here.
    I think this question eventually will be for Ms. Sgamma, 
but let me just go through some language out of a report 
regarding the $1 billion that has been thrown at our permitting 
difficulties. And it seems odd that anybody would dispute that 
we have permitting difficulties when we threw $1 billion at it 
to try to fix it.
    But this language out of a report from Bloomberg says the 
problem isn't going to get fixed by throwing money at it. Mario 
Loyola, a now senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise 
Institute, says, ``The problem is structural. It is not that we 
don't have enough people, it is that the permitting process is 
insane. This little potpourri of odds and ends and these little 
baskets of money are way too little, way too late.''
    I guess my first question is, true or false, we have had $1 
billion. It was suggested by the Ranking Member that the 
problem has been addressed. Has it been addressed in a way that 
is going to make a difference? I am asking you that question.
    Ms. Sgamma. I mean, as far as throwing money at it, I agree 
with you, it is about making the parameters of NEPA sane, and 
focusing it on the task at hand.
    Mr. Bentz. And I understand that under the Trump 
administration, there were steps taken to try to help, and 
those were then reversed when the Biden administration took 
over.
    So, what should be done? I know this is the third time you 
have been asked the question, but----
    Ms. Sgamma. Not a problem, I appreciate the question.
    Really focus NEPA on the impacts from the project, not 10 
years of studies on air impacts 200 miles away--it has to be 
the impacts of the project. And it needs to be a tight time 
frame, and making NEPA documents so that the average person can 
read them and understand what is in them.
    Mr. Bentz. All right. So, it has long been my thought in 
watching these processes that they have become politicalized. 
And, thus, it is no big surprise that there would be a 10-year 
delay on an oil or fossil fuel development.
    But is it your thought that we are going to see less delay 
when it comes to a green energy project?
    Ms. Sgamma. You would think so, based on how politically 
favored wind and solar are. But no, they are facing the same 
kinds of issues we are in the oil and gas industry.
    Mr. Bentz. Now, it is not hugely surprising, given the 
opportunity to litigate, and delay, and do all the stuff you 
can do with NEPA, which is a fertile field for we lawyers that 
choose to engage in those kinds of activities.
    Do you think this billion dollars in some fashion can be 
used to try to head off some of that delay?
    I am on the Judiciary Committee. I often think we should be 
looking at means of reducing the delay opportunities inside 
civil procedure, for example.
    Ms. Sgamma. I think it would probably take other 
legislation, because right now judges are just--you can take a 
5,000 page NEPA document, and you can find a judge that is 
going to say, ``Oh, wait, this analysis here wasn't done quite 
the way it should have been done.'' Forget that it is highly 
complex.
    Mr. Bentz. Let me hop to some of the suggestions that I 
have read about--what we might do in the alternative to that, 
which we now have. One is pre-approval of project sites. 
Another is competitive net-zero grants to states. A third is 
Federal energy corridors.
    Now, Federal energy corridors leads me to calling something 
out that people seem to ignore, and that is the incredible cost 
of green energy when it comes to transmission. And I don't want 
to say I am amused. I think I am discouraged by the fact that, 
if we are going to have a clean energy future, it means that 
our nation is going to be crisscrossed with all kinds of 500 
kilowatt power lines. I have had one run through my district 
back in Oregon. Fifteen years, 15 years to permit. No surprise, 
nobody wants a 500 KV line going through their backyard.
    So, I am just curious, though, why don't we hear more from 
the green energy advocates about this cost? Because it is a 
cost. I guarantee it, when you suddenly turn a bucolic, a rural 
neighborhood into an industrial transmission site.
    So, what are your thoughts there? Do you think that this 
Federal energy corridors is a good idea?
    Ms. Sgamma. I am not as familiar with that, because I 
focus, my producers are at just the wellhead. But I think Mr. 
Sandberg maybe could answer that question better than I.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Sandberg, we have 20 seconds. You have 20 
seconds. You have 15.
    Mr. Sandberg. Fourteen, thirteen.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Sandberg. I think that transmission build-out is 
important not just to clean energy, but to all generation 
sources. I think we need more of it.
    I do agree that there are common-sense reforms that can be 
part of this package that can expedite the permitting of those 
projects.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida.
    Mrs. Luna, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Biden administration has launched a war on energy, 
which really means a war on the resources that Americans need 
to live productive, meaningful lives. We need to produce more 
domestic oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. These natural 
resources are the bounty of our nation, and should be 
responsibly extracted for the benefit of the American people. 
Increased production keeps energy costs low, supports good-
paying jobs, and advances American energy independence from 
foreign nations, and strengthens our national security.
    Unfortunately, since Day 1, President Biden has chosen to 
punish Americans, first by revoking the permit for the Keystone 
Pipeline, which could have supplied the United States with over 
830,000 barrels of oil per day.
    According to the Bureau of Land Management, there are 
currently 4,609 permits for drilling on Federal lands that 
await this Administration's approval. Many of these can be 
approved today, allowing companies to move forward with oil 
development.
    In addition, there are 8,295 outstanding approved permits 
that are unable to be developed due to the Administration's 
regulatory framework that has constrained oil and gas 
production, which is very telling, based on his speech last 
night.
    Maximizing energy production in America will limit the need 
to import from other nations, reduce high energy costs, create 
jobs domestically, and, in my opinion, protect the environment.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert these 
graphics into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

Posters Submitted at the Hearing by Rep. Luna

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               .eps*****

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 .eps__
                                 

    Mrs. Luna. Ms. Sgamma, are the Biden administration's 
policies having the effect of increasing energy abundance or 
constraining our nation's energy portfolio?
    Ms. Sgamma. I would say it is constraining.
    Mrs. Luna. Mr. Sandberg, which kind of countries develop 
and innovate more clean power solutions, prosperous ones or 
poor ones?
    Mr. Sandberg. I think the innovation is led mostly by the 
developed world.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. It is clear that the Biden 
administration and radical left want to impoverish Americans 
with pushing energy costs. But let's talk about who they are 
rewarding.
    [Chart.]
    Mrs. Luna. Behind me you guys can see a chart, and it has 
China leading the world in the highest CO2 
emissions. In fact, China's 2021 emissions were about equal to 
the emissions of the United States, EU, and India, combined. In 
2021, China consumed about 44,000 terawatt hours of energy, 
with 0.26 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt per hour, 
while the United States consumed 26,000 terawatt hours of 
energy with 0.19 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
    Ms. Johnson, your testimony calls for considering 
cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Are you aware 
that China emissions would be more than double the United 
States?
    And do Chinese CO2 molecules not count toward a 
cumulative impact on our planet?
    Ms. Johnson. That is not a question I feel capable of 
answering.
    Mrs. Luna. I am asking you that, though, because, with your 
opinion, which I do respect, we are talking about how we can 
best, I think, preserve our community and the environment. And 
when we send our production and our oil overseas, when we are 
enabling countries with foreign policy that are destroying the 
planet, I think that it is very applicable to this Committee. 
So, please answer the question.
    Ms. Johnson. It is not a question that I feel capable of 
answering.
    Mrs. Luna. According to the chart behind me, since you 
don't want to comply, China is destroying our environment. Our 
current foreign policy is enabling China. And it is clear that, 
with this Administration, that those who are advocating for 
climate change are failing to acknowledge that they are 
empowering, through foreign policy and through an 
administration that is limiting our ability here in the United 
States to produce clean energy, they are empowering a country 
that is going to destroy us all.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming.
    Ms. Hageman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and thank you to all of you for 
being here today.
    Ms. Sgamma, thank you for your testimony today and for 
representing our western states. I want to focus on one 
specific part of your written testimony, because I think it 
carries the most weight.
    You state that when the Federal regulation and process 
becomes unbalanced with the goal of producing the energy the 
Interior Department manages on behalf of all Americans, then we 
have a situation where the Federal Government is purposely 
preventing Federal production, resulting in higher prices for 
consumers, more foreign imports, less energy security, et 
cetera.
    What you are describing is energy poverty, energy poverty 
imposed on the American people by a burdensome Federal 
structure which Joe Biden has weaponized. Nearly half of 
Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government, as is over 60 
percent of its mineral estate. When Joe Biden weaponizes his 
control of Federal lands, he is targeting Wyoming and the 
Americans we serve.
    Wyoming produces 13 times more energy than it consumes and 
is the second biggest net energy supplier among the 50 states. 
I think one of the biggest disconnects for Washington, DC, and 
Americans not from the West, is to truly understand how 
substantial the Federal presence in our community is, and the 
impact it has on developing the resources we have, which the 
nation so relies upon.
    Americans are facing the most expensive heating bills in 25 
years. Food prices are up 10 percent from the previous year. 
Gas prices in November 2022 were the highest ever, and nearly 
34 percent of American households reduced or skipped basic 
expenses to pay energy bills. Do you have similar statistics 
for the cost of Biden administration's policies on energy 
producers?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I think there was a study done that 
showed we would be producing 2 to 3 million more barrels a day 
in the United States now if President Trump's policies had been 
followed, and not President Biden's. And that equates to us 
having to send $100 billion overseas so that we can get energy 
to make up for that difference. So, it is much better to 
produce it here.
    And if you look at where oil and gas is produced in Wyoming 
and across the West, it is certainly in remote areas, not near 
disadvantaged communities. So, we also have that added benefit 
in Wyoming.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And would you agree that this has 
forced energy poverty on the American people and producers?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I think if these goals are ultimately 
brought to their conclusion, it would result in more energy 
scarcity.
    People are trying to electrify everything and get rid of 
natural gas. And if you take that policy to its conclusion, 
then when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, we 
don't have electricity. So, that is scarcity. That is not being 
able to run your ICU, that is not being able to turn the lights 
on. So, that has a lot of ramifications beyond, if these 
policies were taken to the ultimate conclusion. I believe that 
Americans are not going to let that happen, though.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, the reality is that energy security is 
national security. Affordable energy is the key to our 
prosperity. Affordable energy is key to affordable housing and 
affordable food production.
    Increasing the cost of energy affects our poorer 
communities the most. It is, in reality, a terribly regressive 
tax imposed by those who can most easily afford it, and who 
don't suffer its consequences.
    The bottom line for me, I believe that there is a special 
place in hell for those people who push policies that are 
intended to increase the cost of housing, food, and energy.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Did the gentlelady yield back?
    Ms. Hageman. Yes, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Committee hop 
here, I will go from Waters of the United States regulations 
over in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to 
figuring out what to do about NEPA. It seems it is just about 
every angle possible to stop people from doing what they need 
to do, even though they know how to do it ecologically soundly, 
pretty much, these days.
    So, let me launch into a thought here on--I know we are 
covering very good ground on energy, and on mineral extraction 
and such, extremely important. I would also like to hit a 
related area, at least to me as well, in Northern California, 
our forest management and what NEPA's effect is on that.
    So, let me maybe pose this to Dana Johnson here, as our 
witness on NEPA being used as a tool, basically, to delay very 
important Forest Service thinning projects, timber harvest, 
things that are important for the local economy, local forest 
health. Simple, simple things in a forested area of replacing a 
pipe, replacing a culvert so that a forest road could be 
maintained and utilized for many purposes.
    When you look at that, on the NEPA being required for a 
culvert and every simple thing, what do you think are the real 
consequences for these delays on the people of my district that 
have just suffered a million-acre fire in 2021, and the Camp 
fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018, the Bear 
fire, nearly adjacent to Paradise, that destroyed two very 
small mountain communities?
    When we are talking about the reforms that were proposed 
back in 2020, is NEPA in the right place now? Were 2020-type of 
reforms reasonable in the context of what we are doing to our 
forests in the mountain communities?
    Ms. Johnson. My area of expertise is not in forestry and 
mountain communities, but I will broadly say that a NEPA that 
does not provide opportunity for public comment periods, that 
doesn't proactively consider alternatives in environments, 
doesn't consider cumulative impacts, doesn't consult with those 
who are impacted is a NEPA that does not work for people and 
does not work for communities.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it seems the people that are wanting 
this consultation aren't living in the communities that are 
burning down upon the people's heads. They are like Greenville, 
and Canyon Dam, and Paradise, and Magalia, Yankee Hill. They 
seem to come from somewhere else. They bring lawyers in from 
the coast and stop decent timber harvest projects or, as more 
pertinent to the topic here as well, that mineral extraction we 
are going to need in this country to keep up with the mandates 
that are coming in for replacing all types of fuel with 
electricity. Electricity stoves being the latest one, getting 
rid of all manner of yard tools, and such.
    So, is NEPA going to be helpful in having the voices of so 
many overwhelming the rural voices that live in these areas 
where the mineral is extracted, where the timber is needing to 
be thinned?
    Ms. Johnson. NEPA is a place-based policy. It takes a look 
at, it assesses a project in the place where it will be 
implemented.
    I can't speak to where people are coming from in defense of 
that. But if applied appropriately, NEPA would take into 
account the people living in the rural communities that you are 
uplifting.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, so frequently it does not. It runs over 
them.
    For Kathleen Sgamma, back to the energy grid, and 
everything involves energy. It is so important. It is the 
cornerstone. It is why the cost of everything has gone up so 
much since we have stopped developing energy, and energy costs 
have skyrocketed so much for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, 
even electricity as they try to take out hydroelectric dams in 
my district--one of them being in Mr. Bentz's district--and 
getting rid of the supply of electricity.
    From your perspective, has the Biden administration found 
any way to be helpful in energy production or the 
manufacturing?
    Ms. Sgamma. We have seen purposeful obstacles put in place 
of oil and natural gas development. I would guess they are 
being helpful to wind and solar.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I guess it is hard to find.
    Well, Mr. Chairman, I have already run myself out of time, 
so I will have to hop to it a different time. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his 1 second. The 
Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes, Mr. 
Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 
the witnesses for participating today.
    Ms. Sgamma, just a quick question. Do you see in the 
portfolio of Unleashing America's Energy and Mineral Potential, 
per the agenda for this meeting, do you see as part of that 
portfolio, unleashing portfolio, do you see royalty relief for 
gas and oil as one of those items that needs to be considered 
by Congress?
    Ms. Sgamma. We believe in paying a fair share of royalties, 
absolutely. We pay royalties. We are very proud to provide that 
royalty back to the American taxpayer.
    Mr. Grijalva. So, relief is not on the agenda from the----
    Ms. Sgamma. No, no.
    Mr. Grijalva. That is good to know, because that will be 
one less item that we have to deal with.
    The other issue I was going to ask is, Ms. Johnson--and 
thank you, and good to see you again. We have talked a lot 
about, and the questions that have been directed at you, and I 
think you have more than informed all of us as to not only 
react, but the issue of environmental justice, and that it must 
be front and center. My question is that all the impacts--
health, lack of participation, systemic land use decision that 
leads to discriminatory practices at other levels for the 
communities that you represent and you speak for.
    My question is the economic issue. It has been brought up 
in every other conversation here. But let's talk about the 
economic issue and your experience relative to the communities 
that we are talking about and that you represent, frontline 
communities. What is that economic reality for those 
neighborhoods and those communities?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, I think that the economic reality is that 
we have higher health costs in those communities. We see 
reduced number of school days and work days associated with 
health impacts. We see environmental degradation that leads to 
lower property values. We see people not making a wage that is 
appropriate and sustainable.
    But on the flip side of that, I think that we see positive 
economic opportunity coming in this conversation that we are 
having about how do we ensure that we have a sustainable, 
affordable, accessible, robust energy economy. To do that does 
not mean that we forsake projects, whether they are traditional 
or clean--I am sorry, environmental processes, whether we are 
considering a traditional or a clean energy project.
    Again, as was mentioned, there are resources in the 
Inflation Reduction Act that we believe will provide staffing, 
that will provide opportunities to modernize and streamline our 
system and processes, and that we can get energy economic 
opportunities deployed in an equitable and just way at a proper 
pace, because we have invested in it in a robust way during the 
previous legislative session.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sandberg, I just need a point of clarification. You 
said that permitting reform should not mean undercutting our 
environmental standards, and I agree with you on that.
    But also in your testimony, speaking in support of TAP, 
America's energy act, you support that piece of legislation. 
But the bill expressly undercuts our most fundamental 
environmental standards that is NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act. It weakens requirements for assessing 
environmental and public health impacts in many ways. And even 
worse, it would exempt numerous energy projects from the NEPA 
review.
    So, while I agree with your statement, as I said earlier, I 
would respectfully want clarification. Do you urge a closer 
look, the contradiction in supporting what is essentially the 
gutting of NEPA in one piece of legislation, and the comments 
that you made.
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for the question. I think there are 
ways to make common-sense reforms to NEPA, and I think that, 
working with the Congress, we have faith that the Congress can 
do that.
    And I think that the TAP Act is one example. There are 
others out there that, working with you and others, we can find 
a way to streamline the process without undercutting, as you 
said, our bedrock environmental statutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. But according to that 2020 study, that was 1 
out of every 450 NEPA reviews are ever challenged in court. Do 
you consider that? Do you consider that a factor in--I know 
that it has been exaggerated to the point that everything ends 
up in court, and that NEPA is a tool to slow everything down, 
which is not true.
    But 1 out of every 450, you consider that too much? 
Excessive?
    Mr. Sandberg. I think to meet our shared goals of 
accelerating clean energy deployment and the economic and 
environmental benefits that will come from that, that there are 
some things that need to happen to streamline the process for 
permitting to reach our shared goals.
    Mr. Grijalva. Does that include denying people their 
redress in court?
    Mr. Sandberg. Pardon?
    Mr. Grijalva. Does that include denying people redress in 
court?
    Mr. Sandberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Grijalva. Which is their right.
    Mr. Sandberg. It does not.
    Mr. Grijalva. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And to the panel, thank you for being here and for your 
testimony and your input. You probably know this, but just in 
case not, please don't mistake our coming and going as a 
rudeness or lack of interest. It is called the dueling 
Committees sometimes pop up on the schedule. So, I just wanted 
to clarify that, and let you know you are appreciated.
    A question for Ms. Sgamma.
    Ms. Sgamma, in your written testimony, you talked about an 
onslaught of regulatory over-reach coming. You may have already 
discussed this, but I am going to ask you to touch on that 
again. What is coming?
    Personally, I think there is too much now. But what should 
we be watching for?
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, I probably should have used a different 
tense.
    Yes, absolutely. We are facing duplicate rulemakings right 
now. We just finished one up from BLM, and now one with EPA.
    The financial regulators are--we can't keep up with all 
that they are throwing at the industry meant to deny financing 
to oil and natural gas projects from departmental labors, SEC, 
Department of Treasury. All kinds of regulations are coming 
out. Nobody can even keep up with it.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, so Committee on Natural Resources, if you 
were king for a day and could tell us to focus in on one 
particular area as a priority, what would it be?
    Ms. Sgamma. NEPA.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Well, that is a good setup for the next 
question, because I have one for Mr. Sandberg in regard to 
NEPA.
    I am from the state of Idaho, and if you know anything 
about our natural resource base there, you know that we are no 
stranger to NEPA. And you have been speaking about some 
potential changes to that. I am going to go down a similar path 
with you.
    First of all, where there are cumbersome components of 
NEPA, do you see the impact of that to be more negative from a 
cost standpoint or a time standpoint, first of all?
    And then same question. King for a day, you can focus in on 
one particular area to improve it. What would it be?
    So, two-point question: cost or time; and what is the 
priority that we should be going after?
    Mr. Sandberg. Well, I thank you for the question. I think 
it is both. I think it has a cost component, it has a time 
component, neither of which are helpful to deployment of clean 
energy.
    So, as I lead into the second part of your question, if I 
was king for a day, I think we would just need to work on 
shortening, I think, if we could shorten timelines, that would 
be a good first step.
    Mr. Fulcher. Litigation? Do you see litigation as an issue? 
And if so, could you comment on that?
    Mr. Sandberg. I don't have a comment on litigation.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, right.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Carl, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
    Mr.--is it Milto?
    Mr. Milito. Milito.
    Mr. Carl. Milito, all right. I am from South Alabama, so 
you have to work with me here a little bit.
    As you know, the Biden administration has canceled the 
three remaining leases in the Gulf, lease sales on the offshore 
5-year plan that expired June 30, 2022. The Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management only resumed planning sales at the direction 
of Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act. BOEM has so far 
failed to publish any new 5-year plan, leaving the United 
States without a long-term plan for oil and gas production in 
the Gulf of Mexico, which supplies over 20 percent of our oil 
reserves. Twenty percent is in limbo right here.
    Why is oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico 
critical to our ability to meet the growing demand?
    And why is it necessary to continue planning for the future 
with regular lease sales in the Gulf?
    Mr. Milito. There are many reasons why production from the 
Gulf of Mexico is so important to Americans.
    First of all, it is a reliable supply of energy. We need to 
use oil and gas in our economy. The global economy requires it. 
If you look back in 2021, we were still importing oil from 
Russia, and we hit actually 500,000 barrels a day of imports 
from Russia in August 2021.
    On the other hand, we have the Gulf of Mexico, which is a 
crown jewel of energy production, and we have an opportunity to 
increase production from 1.8 million barrels up to 2.4 million 
barrels of production if we have the opportunity to move 
forward with leasing and permitting.
    Further, the Gulf of Mexico provides high-paying jobs. 
These jobs are throughout the country, mostly along the Gulf 
Coast, but these are very high-paying jobs, and they are not 
just college degree jobs. These are blue collar jobs that are 
available for communities along the Gulf Coast.
    Another thing I would like to add is that we have been 
supportive of revenue sharing. And if you look back at the Gulf 
of Mexico Energy Security Act, which was passed in 2006, that 
law provided the funding for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund to come from offshore oil and gas development. So, we have 
paid, through offshore oil and gas development in the Gulf, 
over $5 billion for parks, wildlife, recreational projects 
throughout the country, and that is over 40,000 projects.
    Also, as part of that fund there is what is called the--
what is it called? It is a program that is designed to send 
money into under-privileged and urban areas for parks and 
recreation.
    Mr. Carl. Is that part of the GOMESA money?
    Mr. Milito. It is part of the GOMESA money. There have been 
tens of millions of dollars annually now going to fund parks 
and recreation and wildlife programs for under-privileged 
communities and urban areas throughout the country.
    So, we have all these benefits, and this is a region that 
provides among the lowest carbon barrels of oil in the world. 
All U.S. production provides better oil when it comes to low-
carbon intensity, but the Gulf of Mexico really provides the 
best. So, if we are going to get it, let's get it from here, 
where we know we can secure these benefits, rather than seeing 
that production go to other parts of the world, which harms our 
national security.
    Mr. Carl. I am glad you touched on the GOMESA money. I was 
a county commissioner for 8 years, and we depended on that 
GOMESA money. And where we actually used it was restoring 
shorelines, oyster beds, all these environmental projects that 
were created over time, and we were able to restore them. We 
actually purchased property. We have some stuff I am thinking 
down on Dolphin Islands Park and Recreation. That is for the 
public to use. All of this is publicly used.
    So, when you start talking about reducing the output in the 
Gulf, you are talking about reducing that GOMESA money, which 
affects Mobile and Baldwin County--I will speak for Alabama--it 
reduces money in both of those.
    So, it just amazes me how we will buy Russian oil, which is 
much dirtier, and it has to cost more to actually get it here, 
because we have oil right at our back door, as well as natural 
gas. We have a tremendous amount of natural gas off the Alabama 
shores. So, it is frustrating for me, as being a representative 
from the Gulf Coast, to see what has happened over the last 2 
years.
    I mean, we have so many rules and regulations. Everybody 
says, well, there are 7,000 leases. That is hogwash. There are 
7,000 leases and 699,000--whatever the breakdown, the numbers, 
it is all tied up in permit. I mean, it is an environmental 
nightmare, trying to get through all of this.
    But, anyway, I appreciate your comments. I appreciate you 
bringing up GOMESA. You kind of hit the softball for me on that 
one.
    Mr. Milito. Thank you.
    Mr. Carl. Mr. Chair, I return back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. Kiggans.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I represent Virginia, the eastern shore, Virginia Beach, 
and a lot of the Chesapeake Bay region. Virginians know how to 
be good stewards of the environment without sacrificing jobs or 
hurting our economy. Not only is the Chesapeake Bay watershed 
home to roughly 3,600 species of plants and animals, but also 
provides countless economic and recreational opportunities, 
generating $33 billion each year.
    Mr. Milito and Mr. Sandberg, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management recently announced the draft environmental impact 
statement for an offshore wind project off the coast of 
Virginia Beach, creating the potential for new job 
opportunities and economic growth for Virginians.
    The wind industry is growing along the Atlantic coast and 
provides opportunities to diversify our energy production. But 
Virginia's fishing community and tourism economy are also 
crucial to our economic well-being, and critical military 
training exercises take place off our coastline. How is the 
wind industry engaging with and accommodating concerns of these 
stakeholders to ensure balanced access to the Outer Continental 
Shelf?
    Mr. Milito. Considering the balancing needs of all the 
different offshore industries and stakeholders is very 
important to our industry.
    I do like to point to the Gulf of Mexico experience, 
because we have been developing energy resources there for 
decades, in a compatible way with military, tourism, commercial 
and recreational fishing. So, we have the experience, we have 
been able to do that very well, and we have seen that also in 
the development of the wind industry throughout Europe.
    So, the process that we have seen as it has moved forward 
is a collaborative process. It is through NEPA, and it is 
through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, where all the 
different stakeholders are able to weigh in and provide their 
thoughts in a deliberative way to make sure that we are 
allowing all users to be able to move forward with their 
activities with as little interruption as possible.
    And one thing I would like to point to is the industry 
working together to find a way to separate the wind turbines to 
the greatest extent possible, so that there is enough space for 
all users, but we are also able to build up a wind farm that 
will provide the wind capacity to power the grid at shoreside.
    So, there is a lot that goes into it. The companies that 
are moving forward with developing these projects work closely 
with the communities, with the State leaders, with the Federal 
family to make sure that we are doing everything we can to 
address all the competing needs.
    Mrs. Kiggans. How is the regulatory process under NEPA 
impacting timelines for offshore wind leasing and construction?
    And what can this Committee do better to better the 
certainty in the NEPA process?
    Mr. Milito. I think a lot of this is going to come down to 
making sure we do have guiderails on the NEPA analysis to make 
sure that we don't have a process that is never-ending, and 
that can ultimately always lead to a challenge in court and, 
depending on the judge, strike down a project or delay it and 
send it back.
    I will say that there are already multiple lawsuits filed 
against the early mover wind projects in the Atlantic, 
multiple, multiple lawsuits. So, there is a lot of concern 
about that, because those lawsuits could have an impact on the 
ones that are in line behind them, depending upon how they 
shake out.
    So, we need to make sure that the agencies have a framework 
with some guiderails, and we need to also look at the remedies 
available to the court to make sure that we are not stifling 
investment and putting companies in a position to want to 
invest elsewhere in the world, rather than here.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you.
    And Ms. Sgamma, while I recognize the importance of the 
offshore wind industry to my district and other coastal 
communities, it does nothing to financially support Federal 
conservation efforts, unlike the oil and gas industry.
    As you know, the Great American Outdoors Act directs 
roughly $1.9 billion in energy development royalties to 
conservation efforts across the country, including national 
parks and wildlife refuges, as well as permanently funding the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million annually. In 
fact, 94 percent of Federal conservation efforts are funded 
exclusively by royalties from oil and gas industry leases and 
production.
    So, with the Biden administration slowing the permitting 
process, limiting production leases, and over-regulating the 
oil and gas industry, what are the expected impacts on 
conservation efforts over the next decade?
    And how can we ensure that funding remains available for 
the conservation of our coastal communities?
    Ms. Sgamma. I really appreciate that, because I think that 
is something that does get lost, is if we took oil and natural 
gas development to zero on Federal lands, that would take away 
that $2.8 billion--Federal Lands and Waters--that goes into 
conservation with no replacement for it, because right now wind 
provides something, I think it provided something like $5 
million, whereas we provide billions of dollars.
    So, if you took away oil and gas, that conservation funding 
dries up.
    Mrs. Kiggans. So, there would be none, pretty much, for our 
coastal communities for conservation efforts.
    Ms. Sgamma. I mean, if these policies were ultimately taken 
to their conclusion, which I don't really see happening, but 
yes, if you didn't continue to produce more on Federal lands 
and waters, eventually that money would go to zero.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I again want to thank the witnesses for your testimony 
today, and I want to circle back kind of to where I started 
with the chart behind me.
    [Chart.]
    The Chairman. We face a challenge here, in the United 
States. The world faces a challenge, and it goes back to this 
insatiable appetite for energy.
    And the title of today's hearing is, ``Unleashing Energy 
and Mineral Potential,'' and we are talking about that 
potential that we have here in the United States. And probably 
to the surprise of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, it is not all fossil fuels that are represented at the 
witness table today. We have a full representation of the many 
kinds of energy that are available and that need to be 
developed here in the United States.
    And as I have listened here and I think about the purpose 
of this hearing, the purpose of the hearing is to inform the 
Committee as we prepare to route legislation or to have 
oversight to address the issues that need to be addressed. And 
the word that came out probably more than any other word from 
both sides of the aisle was ``NEPA.'' It came out with all the 
witnesses.
    So, we are talking about regulatory reform. And it is hard 
to talk about energy development, whether you are talking about 
traditional energy or energy of the future, without talking 
about the regulatory environment and the potential need to 
reform that regulatory environment.
    We have data that shows that the time to get a permit ebbs 
and flows. It was up close to 200 days, on average, under the 
Obama administration. It got down to as low as 94 days, on 
average, in the Trump administration. Nothing changed in the 
bedrock environmental laws that we talk about. It sounds more 
like it is a will to do the job that these Federal employees 
are hired to do, and that is to permit.
    I come from a background of doing engineering projects. So, 
I was on the other side of permitting issues, and I know how 
frustrating it can be when you are doing everything possible to 
follow the law, to make sure that the public interest is 
protected, that the environment is protected, and yet you are 
totally bogged down in the slowness of the environmental 
permitting process.
    As we look at this, it is not about permitting for 
extractive industries like the fossil fuel industry. It is not 
about just permitting for renewable. It is about creating a 
process that allows America to win.
    And I want to ask the two witnesses who represent both 
fossil fuel, traditional energy, and renewable energy, do you 
see any kind of discrimination in the permitting process based 
on the type of project that is being permitted?
    Mr. Milito. No, I do not, sir. I believe that the 
impediments to energy development through some of these laws 
are being applied to every energy source out there.
    Mr. Sandberg. I would agree with that.
    The Chairman. Ms. Sgamma, do you think that the fossil fuel 
industry is discriminated against in any way in the permitting 
process?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, we are certainly targeted, that is for 
sure. I don't have a perspective, because I don't try to permit 
wind and solar.
    The Chairman. And the point has been made several times in 
the hearing today that the demand for energy is not going down, 
it is going up, and that energy has to come from somewhere. And 
we know that, if we don't produce it here in the United States, 
then the market is going to cause us to import that energy. And 
we are going to have another hearing on minerals, which gets 
all into the renewable energy component of it. If we don't have 
the ability to produce the products to do renewable energy here 
in the United States, we are going to import that, which means 
we are exporting wealth.
    So, as to inform the Committee--and Ms. Johnson, I 
appreciate your testimony on how we don't need to do away with 
NEPA, maybe NEPA needs to change, and there are considerations 
that need to be taken into that, but I don't think anybody in 
the hearing said we need to file a bill to do away with NEPA. 
As a matter of fact, Mrs. Dingell, whose husband wrote NEPA, 
she was one of the first ones to say the law needs to be 
updated.
    So, we will start with Ms. Sgamma and go across the witness 
table. What is the one thing you would say the Committee needs 
to focus on in regulatory reform?
    Ms. Sgamma. Like I said, NEPA. But I think I would suggest 
looking at the litigation angle, and working to give judges 
guidance that endless NEPA and endless analysis is not the 
intent of NEPA.
    The Chairman. Could you be just a little more specific on 
NEPA? Is it a timing process? Are there flaws in the structure 
of NEPA that we need to change, or what is it specifically 
about NEPA that could make it work better?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, when you look at litigation it is really 
easy to find some analysis in a 5,000-page document that could 
have been done better. And it is supposed to be done on the 
best available information, not waiting years and years for 
more information to come in, or requiring the project proponent 
to go off and do a science project and come back 10 years 
later.
    So, I would say constraining it to what the focus is of the 
impacts on the ground of that project, not hypothetical impacts 
10 years in the future.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I would say we need to consider 
cumulative impact. If it was reasonable for us to consider it 
in the 1970s, when NEPA was established or signed into law, 
industry growth and expansion make these considerations all the 
more pressing today.
    Again, it is a false narrative for us to suggest that 
cumulative impact analysis is too costly, that it takes too 
much time, when we have more tools and data available today 
than we have ever had before. And to fail to consider existing 
hazards along with potentially new ones will turn a blind eye 
to those who have a history, a legacy of being harmed by our 
energy policies and practices.
    The Chairman. So, your position is that we need to add more 
to NEPA. Is there anything you----
    Ms. Johnson. Cumulative impact analysis is a part of the 
environmental assessment process, and I think we need to 
preserve it is what I am suggesting.
    The Chairman. So, that is an administrative rule that was 
not in the original NEPA document. Are you saying we should 
codify that?
    Ms. Johnson. To do an environmental assessment to consider 
what the impact of a project in coordination with projects that 
are already on the ground is a core part of NEPA that is 
already there, it is already a part of the law. We just need to 
be sure we are doing it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Sandberg?
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think an important 
and a great first step would just be time-bounding some of the 
reviews. And I think that is a good place to start.
    I think kind of really refocusing on purpose and need, and 
that the review kind of centers on that is another important 
step. But I would say for us, really, that certainty around 
timing is critical.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Milito?
    Mr. Milito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage the 
Committee to look more broadly and outside the box a little 
bit, and see if there are ways we can get to yes faster.
    We have a tendency in the Federal bureaucracy to look at 
things in silos. It is oil and gas, it is wind, it is carbon 
capture and storage. We have companies that are very innovative 
and looking to deploy large amounts of capital to build these 
energy projects. And an energy project might include oil and 
gas offshore, it might include wind, it might include carbon 
capture and storage, and it might include hydrogen. It might 
include all those as part of a major project that can help the 
United States lead in decarbonization efforts, but also provide 
the energy we need today based on the foundational energy 
sources our economy uses.
    The problem is we don't have a system set up to do 
something like that. You either have an oil and gas project, or 
a wind project, or a CCS project, or a hydrogen project. So, we 
should work together to find ways to get to yes faster. 
Because, if you look in Europe, they can look at a project like 
that and do it much quicker in terms of getting that approved. 
You have 70 CCS projects that are under development right now 
in Europe, a lot of those offshore. We are not at that point 
yet, because we have a bureaucracy that kind of holds things 
up.
    The Chairman. That is a good point, to streamline the 
permitting for new technologies. And I am constantly encouraged 
by new technologies. When you talk about carbon capture, there 
is now technology to strip the carbon off of the carbon 
dioxide, release the oxygen, put the carbon in a slurry, inject 
it into the ground, and it solidifies into a rock. That is real 
carbon capture and sequestration. And we should be pushing the 
innovation, and pushing the permitting process to be able to 
get new technology like that on-line sooner than later.
    Again, I thank the witnesses. This concludes our first 
panel. And we are going to take a 10-minute recess. We will 
start back at about a quarter til with the second panel. That 
will give us time to switch out the witness table.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. I will now 
introduce our witnesses from Panel II.
    First, we have Mr. Michael Holloman, Commercial Director 
and Member of the Board of U.S. Strategic Minerals from St 
Louis, Missouri.
    We have Mr. Reno Franklin, Chairman of the Kashia Band of 
Pomo Indians. He is a member of the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation from Santa Rosa, California.
    Mr. Matthew Adams, Vice President and Senior Tax Counsel 
from the Navajo Transitional Energy Company from Broomfield, 
Colorado.
    And I will yield to Representative John Curtis for 30 
seconds to introduce our final witness, Mr. Brian Somers, 
President of the Utah Mining Association.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 
introduce a good friend of mine, the President of the Utah 
Mining Association, Brian Somers, former Managing Director of 
Utah Science, Technology, and Research Initiative; former 
Deputy Director, Utah Department of Heritage and Arts; and also 
worked for Governor Herbert and, I think of interest to many of 
us, former Congresswoman Mia Love.
    Brian, thanks for being here with us today. We look forward 
to your testimony.
    The Chairman. We will now hear testimony from our witnesses 
on Panel II.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Holloman to testify for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOLLOMAN II, COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR AND 
MEMBER OF THE BOARD, U.S. STRATEGIC METALS, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

    Mr. Holloman. Thank you, Chairman Westerman, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Grijalva and the rest of the Committee. Thank 
you for having me here to testify on unleashing America's 
energy and mineral potential.
    My name is Mike Holloman. I am here representing U.S. 
Strategic Metals, in conjunction with National Mining 
Association. Our company, U.S. Strategic Metals, is the only 
primary cobalt, nickel, and nickel producer and processor and, 
importantly, recycler in North America. We are a green battery 
minerals platform that is working hard to close the final link 
in the supply chain loop that will lead us to raw materials 
independence as we work to meet the growing demand for 
renewable energy batteries and other high-tech applications.
    The timing of this discussion could not be better. America 
has, for all intents and purposes, leashed the energy industry. 
I have been all around the world. I have watched it for the 
last 20 years. We have effectively outsourced mining and 
processing. Why is this important? Because, as it stands right 
now, we face a skyrocketing demand for renewable energy, and we 
do not control our own destiny as a nation for the raw 
materials needed to make this happen.
    I won't get into my background, but I can tell you that 
when the power of the lithium ion battery was first realized, I 
watched our largest, most intelligent geopolitical rival start 
becoming interested in mining and processing of raw materials 
needed to make those batteries. I watched as American companies 
and the U.S. government completely disappeared from the 
critical raw materials arena, content to receive last-mile, 
just-in-time deliveries of the finished goods that were mined, 
processed, and upgraded everywhere but America, in countries 
that care a lot less about the environment than we do, in 
countries that care a lot less about the health and safety of 
employees than we do, and in countries that you all know turn a 
blind eye to child labor and worse.
    And yet, here we are, everyone using a laptop, everyone 
using an iPhone, many of us driving electric cars, all of which 
contain hard-to-trace lithium ion battery metals that make 
those machines work. And a lot of the technology for this, for 
these batteries which are changing the world, is invented by 
America. American companies invented this technology, and yet 
we don't mine or process any of the materials here. It is 
really a sad state of affairs.
    Hopefully, I will be able to get into the way our big rival 
has gotten into this. I spent a bunch of time in Africa 
watching them take over the natural resources there. But I 
would like to address the elephant in the room. The elephant in 
the room is China.
    My former boss, a year ago, told the Financial Times, ``If 
tomorrow China wanted to sell us cars instead of batteries, 
they could do it.'' Let that sink in. If tomorrow the Chinese 
wanted to sell us just the batteries and the battery products, 
we would be buying XPeng, NIO, BYD cars, Ford, GM, Tesla--all 
of these great American electric vehicle companies would not be 
able to get the raw material supplies. So, this is a 
conversation about national security, as well as the 
environment.
    I could go on forever, but I hope most of you will read my 
comments. I have a lot to say in here. We can do it in America. 
We are doing it. U.S. Strategic Metals is mining in a green 
way, in a clean way. We are also processing low-carbon, low-
emission American ingenuity, American technology, 
hydrometallurgical processing. We are not using 
pyrometallurgical processing. Our mine is green and clean. We 
pay high wages.
    And I would just like to say that the point is we can do 
this mining and this processing here in America. We can do it 
the right way. But we need help. We need help from the 
government. We need help from you all to make sure that we have 
an ability to do it.
    The time to act, the best time was yesterday. The second 
best time to act is today.
    And I would just like to thank you for your time, and 
hopefully we can dive into some of the issues that we face in 
the question-and-answer.
    I yield back my time. Thank you, sir.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Holloman follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Michael R. Hollomon II, Commercial Director/
       Member of the Board, United States Strategic Metals (USSM)

    To the House Committee on Natural Resources,
    I would like to thank the Committee Members very much for inviting 
me to address them here today at this hearing on ``Unleashing Americas 
Energy and Mineral Potential''.
    My name is Mike Hollomon and I am here representing US Strategic 
Metals in conjunction with our partner organization the National Mining 
Association.
    Our Company US Strategic Metals is the only Primary Cobalt and 
Nickel producer, processor and, importantly, recycler in North America.
    We are a green battery minerals platform that is working hard to 
close the final link in the supply chain loop that will lead us to Raw 
Materials independence as we work too meet the growing demand for 
renewable energy, batteries and other high tech applications.
    It is my considered opinion that the importance and the timing of 
this discussion cannot be overstated.
    America has for all intents and purposes, leashed its Energy and 
Mineral potential for the last 20 years at least.
    We have effectively outsourced mining and processing.
    Why is this important? Because as it stands right now, as we face 
skyrocketing demand for renewable energy, we do not control our own 
destiny as a Nation.
    First, a little bit about my background and why do I have this 
insight, I come form a military family, my father was a US Air Force 
colonel who fought for our country and spent years in the Pentagon. I 
went to High School right down the road at Lake Braddock Secondary 
School in Fairfax County. I travelled the world as a military kid and 
it led me to travel the world in business as I became a commodities 
trader for the worlds largest diversified commodities group. Through my 
26 years in the commodities trade I had a front row seat to watch the 
movements of the Critical Metals and Minerals that make the world go 
around.
    When the power of the Lithium Ion battery was first realized and 
the Electric Vehicle genie was released from the bottle, I watched as 
our largest, most intelligent geopolitical rival started to become 
interested in mining and processing of the raw materials needed to make 
these batteries. All while America was closing mines and closing 
smelters.
    I watched as American Companies and the US Government as well, 
completely disappeared from the critical raw materials arena. Content 
to receive last mile, just in time deliveries of the finished goods 
that were mined, processed and upgraded everywhere BUT America. In 
countries that care a lot less about the environment than we do. In 
countries that care a lot less about the health and safety of employees 
than we do. In countries that you all know, turn a blind eye to child 
labor and worse. And yet here we are, everyone using a laptop and an 
iPhone. Many of us driving electric cars. All with untraceable lithium 
ion battery metals making those machines work. A lot of the technology 
was ours, but we could not do the mining or the processing here and we 
were happy not to.
    Here I would like to add an anecdote about Africa--I went to 
numerous Governmental meetings in Africa starting from the late 2000s 
and what I saw was hard to believe.
    New African Governments looking for global partnerships to help 
them build roads, hospitals, schools, airports and yes, to build mines 
in mineral rich areas. These countries were looking for help. They were 
offering opportunities to share in their vast mineral wealth. Every one 
of these tenders was won by our rivals to the East.
    Speaking of the elephant in the room, my former boss was quoted in 
the Financial Times a year ago as saying ``If tomorrow, China wanted to 
sell us cars instead of batteries, they could do it''.
    Let that sink in and imagine what it would mean for a GM, Ford or 
Tesla, companies that have spent $billions of dollars on Giga factories 
here in America, to have to close up shop as they do not receive the 
battery raw materials to put into their batteries. Imagine as our EV 
market becomes strictly a BYD, Nio or Xpeng market.
    This conversation is about National Economic Security as well as 
the Environment.

    China Inc. has been smarter than us. There are no two ways about 
it. They have been playing the long game while we have been chasing 
quarterly earnings. They have been investing in infrastructure, not 
only at home but around the world. China saw the Electric revolution 
coming and they did something about it Specifically:

     As much as 90% of the World's Cobalt/Nickel/Rare Earths 
            and other important battery minerals are processed in China

     China built massive refineries, with Government funding 
            without the need to worry about regulation or Climate 
            restrictions

     China does not have it's own massive mineral deposits, but 
            they invested around the world in Government auctions in 
            Africa, Indonesia and Latin America, to name a few places, 
            in order to secure the long term supply of raw materials

    This took years, I was there, in Africa, and I watched as tender 
after tender for mining rights was won by China Inc.
    Frankly brilliant, no American companies even showed up to bid. How 
could American private companies wish to compete?
    But the fact is, we can compete. USSM is proof of that. We just 
need to `Unleash Americas Energy and Mineral Potential'.
    This should be a bipartisan issue. Whether the fear is Climate 
Change or the fear is China and National Security, the fears are real 
and the solutions are not opaque.
    It starts with permitting. Now, USSM is a fantastic example of how 
things can be done in the US and done well. We are on private land. Our 
site is already permitted. Missouri specifically is a mining friendly 
state requiring only three basic permits, Air, Water and Metallic 
Metals. But, we were lucky in that our site is a Superfund Site. We are 
originally an environmental clean up company. Conservation and good 
land stewardship are in our DNA. We had an old abandoned mine in a 
Rural and economically depressed area that needed to be cleaned up and 
we worked hand in glove with the EPA and local stake holders to make 
sure the site was clean first and then could be repurposed for 
commercial use. Our site produces the all important battery metals 
Nickel/Cobalt and Copper from above ground tailings from old mine 
waste. This is a slam dunk that should be replicated all across 
America. There are around 57 thousand abandoned mine sites and 
brownfields in America and many of them could have potential to be 
reinvigorated. There are 100 Super Fund sites that should be looked 
into for repurposing. Federal land permitting needs to be looked at 
again to open new mines and needs to be looked at now because the 
average time to from start to production for new mines is 8-10 years. 
We need to get going. And the reason for that is the pure scale of the 
demand coming from renewable and high tech applications will require 
American mining. I am sure you all have seen some numbers around demand 
but according to the IEA the structural needs through 2040 the 
magnitude of growth looks like this for the main metals:

    Lithium      90% increase in demand

    Cobalt        75% increase in demand

    Nickel        62% increase in demand

    Copper       44% increase in demand

    America has the potential to handle this increase in demand through 
it's own rich reserves and recycling but I do have to mention that we 
at USSM can also process metals from other countries and in fact we 
will soon be commissioning our own American IP, low carbon/low emission 
hydrometallurgical benification plant, an answer to the toxic 
pyrometallurgical smelters used in other parts of the world. We are 
also a recycler and will be blending 50% of our indigenous feed with 
Black Mass from recycled batteries. This is a massive differentiator 
and another example of American ingenuity as we are able to recover 
well over 90% of the metals from used Li Ion batteries including 
Lithium. We have also been commissioning a Precursor Cathode Active 
Material (PCAM) pilot plant which is the final link in the supply 
chain. All here in America, and so far all without the help of the US 
Government. But we need help. We could be moving much faster if we had 
help.
    We also are fighting some disturbing narratives that are hindering 
that help from coming.
    I just came back from Southeast Asia where I had meetings with some 
of the best battery makers in the world who also happen to be some of 
the richest companies in the world. They are already investing in the 
US. Large giga factories, $billions of dollars. They are interested n 
investing in us too. BUT, they have heard from prominent US OEM's that 
there is no need to invest in US domestic raw material mining and 
processing. They have heard that, Indonesian metal that is processed in 
49% FTA owned PCAM plant in China will qualify for the IRA money. They 
are worried that investing in an American solution would be a waste of 
their time and money. This is where we can absolutely use your help to 
make sure the Domestic Content requirements for the IRA EV credits are 
clear, Domestic Content means mined or processed in the US or FTA 
countries, not that a sticker is slapped on the battery at a Giga 
factory here when the entire battery was mined in FEC's and processed 
in China. I think it needs to be made clear that US OEMs should do 
everything they can to support US domestic production where we have 
full transparency of the supply chain and they know we care about our 
employees and the environment.

    The other narrative we fight is the `experts' of questionable 
origin that are saying:

    ``Experts say the Chinese presence in the electric-vehicle market 
is already nearly ubiquitous, that corporate partnership between 
Chinese and foreign automakers, including those in the U.S., is 
standard and that reaching America's climate goals without Chinese 
technology would be exceedingly diffcult.''
    These experts and these voices are the same people that have 
managed to allow us to fall behind so far but my message to this august 
body is that We Can Do It in America.
    Lastly I would just like to say that mining in America is arguably 
the Greenest and Cleanest in the World and it's getting cleaner. At our 
work site we plant new vegetation everywhere the earth is not 
disturbed. We intend to make our mine an environmental showcase, 
including renewable energy sources and eventually selling carbon 
credits by creating a carbon sink on site. Benification at USSM is also 
a major focus and our work on Circular Hydrometallurgy and Zero Waste 
mining are cutting edge. It's a new world and a new way to look at 
mining. Telling our story as an industry is something we need to focus 
on as the strides forward to modernize and lower carbon footprints are 
exceptional.
    We also are required to institute high levels of safety and use a 
well paid, diverse and ethical workforce.
    We reach out to local stake holders and engage with our local 
universities like Missouri S&T at Rolla.
    The story is not only important but it is good and we need to de-
stigmatize the role of the mining industry and foster an open mind for 
new projects and new mines.
    This is an existential issue and its an issue I think both sides 
can agree on. The best time to Act was yesterday. The second best time 
to Act is today.
                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Michael Hollomon, Commercial 
        Director and Member of the Board, U.S. Strategic Metals

Mr. Hollomon did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. You may be aware of the administration's recent 
announcement to fund 16 mining projects around the world through the 
Mineral Strategic Partnership, to supposedly improve the security of 
our supply chains. We do not have any clarity on where these projects 
are located and what environmental or human rights standards are in 
place there, which is why I sent a letter to the administration with 
Congressman Pfluger and Chairman Comer on January 31st. It feels like 
we are getting even farther from a secure domestic supply chain, not 
closer.

    What would be the environmental and humanitarian ``cost'' 
            of relying on China and other adversaries to meet our 
            mineral needs, especially as demand explodes in the coming 
            years and decades?
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Holloman. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Franklin for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF RENO FRANKLIN, CHAIRMAN, KASHIA BAND OF POMO 
INDIANS, AND MEMBER, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, 
                     SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Franklin. Thank you. Before I go any further, thanks 
for the water. It is appreciated. So, [speaking in Native 
language].
    I am the Chairman of the Kashia Pomo Tribe. I am also 
proudly Hawaiian, as well. And thank you for this opportunity 
to sit in front of all of you today and talk, and also to my 
son back home for being patient on his 15th birthday, and his 
dad is here spending time with all of you. So, thank you for 
that.
    I just want to talk a little bit about tribes. And you see 
my testimony has been submitted. I am not going to go through 
the whole thing, because you all have it in front of you, and I 
expect to answer some questions based off of my testimony, as 
well.
    But, I really just want to talk about the role that the 
1872 mining law plays in Indian Country. I think it is 
important for you all to understand the impacts that mining has 
on tribes.
    Before getting into the impacts, I want to say that tribes 
are not necessarily opposed to mining, and tribes fully 
understand that we have minerals that are part of the country, 
and the development of the country, and that keep us going. 
They keep the lights on, they keep the cars running. And in 
some cases, when the lights are off, they keep the batteries 
and those lights on, the temporary ones. So, we recognize the 
importance.
    But I also want to say that when this law was created in 
1872, I mean, tribal rights were not even a consideration. And 
they weren't worried about what are we doing on Indian lands 
and how are tribal people being impacted by this mining. Folks 
could just come out, apply for the mine or the permit for 
mining, and then go out and do it. And that has left, and the 
BLM estimate of 500,000 abandoned mines on or near Indian 
Country in the United States.
    So, in my statement of saying that tribes are not opposed 
to mining, what we are opposed to is unregulated mining. And 
that 1872 Act, yes, it is a regulation, but it doesn't regulate 
how mining impacts tribes. And I am here today to talk to you 
all about that.
    I am here to ask you to, in your consideration of possible 
reforms to the mining laws, possible additions, that as we look 
at a few things, as we look at the impacts to tribes, there 
will be a lot of discussion, as I imagine, as it was in the 
last panel, as well, on timing and the permitting process--and 
I want to point out to you all that tribes, we have tribal 
historic preservation officers. I am one of them. We implement 
Section 106 on tribal lands and do the consultations along with 
Federal agencies and tribal governments.
    And one of the things that slows down the permitting 
process on Indian lands, especially for mining, is the lack of 
resources to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. So, as we 
look at how we find solutions to doing mining, and as you all 
consider it--I am looking to this side, it is empty, but I am 
still going to look over there--as you all consider actions 
that you will be asked, and decisions that you will be asked in 
the future to make, just my request to you as--not just as a 
chairman, not just as a father, but as a citizen of the United 
States and as an Indian person who has a vested interest in 
making sure that my children inherit an environment, both 
botanical environment, but also, very important, a historical, 
a sacred site environment that I enjoy and that all of our 
relatives have been able to enjoy, that you consider those 
things as you look at improvements to process, as you look at 
potential impacts to tribes, and as we move forward with 
hopeful reforms to a mining law from 1872, like I said, that 
really did not look at impacts to tribes or Tribal Nations.
    I would like to point out to you also that, when we have a 
couple of trees, you can get the seeds from trees and plant 
them in another place. And I know that, because as a Class A 
Faller, and as a former firefighter, I cut down a lot of trees, 
and was asked a lot of times to assist with gathering the pine 
cones so that we could take that same stock and put it in 
another place and grow a forest somewhere else.
    I want to point out that cultural resources are non-
renewable. You can't do that. When you destroy a sacred site, 
it is gone. It can't be brought back out, it can't be healed 
and fixed in the way that our forests can, or the environment 
around us.
    So, I am happy to answer questions, fully expect to, have 
some pretty, cool, zingy responses that I think we will all 
enjoy. But more important, thank you for the time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the National Association of Tribal Historic 
                         Preservation Officers,
      Reno Franklin, Chairman of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians,
 Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Enterprise Rancheria of 
                             Maidu Indians

    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on America's energy 
and mineral potential. My name is Reno Franklin. I serve as Chairman of 
the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians and as a member of the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation.
    Mineral mining has an important role to America's energy future. 
But mining has come at a cost to native Tribes. In the process of 
creating renewable energy resources, we have lost some of our most 
important non-renewable resources--the cultural artifacts and sacred 
sites that are the foundation of Tribal history and present-day life. 
Once these cultural resources are destroyed, they cannot be 
replenished. But the federal government can create fairness in this 
process by mandating consultation with Tribes and incorporating their 
advice in the planning and implementation of mineral mining projects.
    The statute governing mineral mining, the General Mining Act of 
1872, was created at a time when the rights of Tribes were virtually 
unrecognized. This led to a law that allowed settlers to stake a claim 
and gain title to our lands without our consent. Miners and mining 
corporations flooded our homes, often mining in places that were ill-
suited for it or places that were located next to valuable water--a 
resource that has become even more scarce in the American West today.
    Much of that original Mining Law has remained intact, and the scale 
and effect of modern mining continues making an outsized impact on our 
cultural resources. To this day, the Federal government interprets the 
Mining Law to mean that mineral mining is the ``highest and best use'' 
for Federal public lands. However, that should not preclude the voices 
of Tribes nor the disregard for existing regulations and laws. Sadly, 
the government often approves mineral mining proposals without 
considering Tribes, even on land it holds in trust for Tribes--where 
the government has an obligation to act in our interests. And the law 
does nothing to hold bad actors accountable after they break their 
agreements and demolish our cultural resources.
    This disregard for Tribes is even more troubling when you 
understand that the government has interpreted the Mining Law to 
preference even foreign corporations above native people. A foreign 
mining corporation can get a permit with no Tribal consultation, mine 
with impunity, destroy our religious and cultural heritage, and then 
reap the profits while we are left with nothing but pain and trauma. I 
want to give two examples of this practice.
    The Tohono O'odham People have lived in North America for thousands 
of years. Their ancestral homeland included parts of central and 
southern Arizona, including the Santa Rita mountains, and extended down 
into Mexico; From the West, O'odham territory spanned the Gulf of 
California to the San Pedro River. In the 1980s, the Anamax Mining 
Company obtained a permit to mine a section of the Santa Rita mountains 
that contained ancient village artifacts and all of the burial grounds 
of the O'odham Nation's ancestors. But the corporation went bankrupt 
and abandoned the mining site, leaving the artifacts and remains dug up 
and exposed. Now, a Canadian mining corporation called Hudbay wants to 
dig a mile-wide copper mine at the same site. Without any Tribal 
consultation, the corporation received a permit for the mine in 2019. 
Since then, the O'odham, along with other Tribes, have fought to 
prevent Hudbay from destroying numerous sacred sites and burial 
grounds. So far, they have been successful. But the fight is ongoing, 
and Hudbay recently proposed an even bigger copper mine in the Santa 
Ritas than the one in their original plan.
    Hundreds of miles west, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony faces a 
similar struggle. This group of Tribes lived in the Great Basin, an 
area spanning the Sierra Nevadas in the west to central Utah in the 
east, for thousands of years. They have faced threats to their sacred 
sites since soon after the Mining Law was passed. Today, a foreign 
corporation wants to build an open-pit lithium mine on Peehee Mu'huh, 
an area known as Thacker Pass. Thacker Pass serves as a memorial to 
tragedy in the Reno-Sparks Colony's history. Twice the Paiute People 
were massacred on the Pass, once by another Tribe, and once by the 
Nevada Cavalry. Thacker Pass also contains thousands of documented 
artifacts and cultural sites. Ancestors of the Tribes used the area as 
a travel route, campsite, place of worship, and a ground for hunting, 
fishing, and foraging. The Tribes continue to do so today. If the 
proposed lithium mine were built, the Reno-Sparks Colony could no 
longer use Thacker Pass for so many activities foundational to their 
day-to-day lives and the site of two massacres would be removed from 
the landscape. No more could visitors, both Tribal peoples and other 
Americans, visit the area to learn valuable lessons from history and 
how it impacts a still-present community.
    Many reforms to the Mining Law and to federal mining regulations 
are necessary. Specifically, I want to advocate for Tribal 
consultation. Congress should amend the Mining Law to require Free, 
Prior, and Informed Consent from the affected Tribes before a new 
mining project is allowed to begin. Mandated consultation should 
continue throughout the project. And the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) must update its mining regulations as urged by the petition that 
tribes and NGOs filed in September 2021. At minimum, Tribes must have a 
seat at the table when a mining company asks to start a new project. 
Based on what they learn, federal agencies must be able to mitigate the 
impacts projects would have on Tribes and Tribal land. And agencies and 
industry both must be held accountable when they fail to follow laws 
and regulations.
    We are encouraged by the Interagency Working Group on Mining 
Reform, and hopeful that the group will soon recommend detailed legal 
changes that would provide for robust Tribal consultation and protect 
our communities' lands and cultures.
    Tribes in a general sense are quite reasonable. We understand the 
need for domestic sourcing of materials and the drive toward energy 
diversification. But we must also stand up for our rights, our cultural 
and religious practices, and, for the purposes of the members gathered 
here, our place in the larger discussion of land use.
    We do not deny the importance of mineral mining. We do not ask for 
disproportionate power, or for a halt in mining. We simply ask for our 
voices to be heard, especially when the consequences to Tribes can be 
dire. Our lands are not just our homes. They are our museums, our 
churches, our playgrounds, and our graveyards. Please update our laws 
and regulations so that the foundations of our culture can persist, and 
that real consultation and consequence is integrated into the process.
    Thank you for considering my testimony. I would be pleased to 
answer any questions you have.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Chairman Franklin, thank you for your 
testimony, and happy birthday to your son. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Adams for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF MATTHEW ADAMS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR TAX 
COUNSEL, NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL ENERGY COMPANY (NTEC), BROOMFIELD, 
                            COLORADO

    Mr. Adams. Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, 
thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is 
Matthew Adams, I am Vice President and Senior Tax Counsel for 
Navajo Transitional Energy Company, also known as NTEC.
    Navajo Transitional Energy Company was formed in 2013 as 
part of a groundbreaking initiative by the Navajo Nation to 
assert and assume full sovereignty over its vast mineral and 
energy assets. NTEC was established under Navajo law, and is an 
autonomous limited liability company whose sole shareholder is 
the Navajo Nation. NTEC's initial objective was to take control 
of the Navajo mine, which is located on the Nation just outside 
of Farmington, New Mexico.
    In 2019, NTEC acquired all of the assets, substantially all 
of the assets, of Cloud Peak Energy, and thereby became the 
third-largest coal producer in the United States. Our core 
portfolio includes the Navajo mine, which is the mine mouth 
that feeds the Four Corners Power Plant on the Nation. We also 
have the Antelope and Cordero mines, which are in Wyoming, and 
the Spring Creek complex in Montana.
    In 2022, we produced 52 million tons of coal, 49 of which 
stayed domestic, and just over 3 that went international to the 
Asian Pacific.
    In addition to owning and operating coal mines, NTEC owns 
and operates helium wells on the Navajo Nation. We have an 
ownership percentage in the Four Corners Power Plant. We have 
an ownership interest in the Round Top rare earths deposit in 
Texas. We just announced a partnership with Arizona Lithium for 
the development of the Big Sandy Lithium Project in Arizona. We 
continue to work closely with the owners of Four Corners Power 
Plant to develop a large-scale merchant power solar facilities 
on reclaimed mined land on the Nation.
    We truly represent and strive for an all-of-the-above 
answer and answers for our energy problems and our energy 
needs. If there is new technology that is going to be 
developed, and we believe it can provide energy for the Nation 
to help the United States or beyond, we are going to be 
interested, and we are going to be there.
    In addition to what we do, we are very proud of how we do 
it. Our steadfast focus on safety gets our people home safe. 
Our stewardship for the land, we lead by example. Last year, 
the Navajo mine was the first mine in the United States to earn 
both the National Mining Association's Sentinel of Safety, one 
of the highest safety awards in the United States, and the U.S. 
Department of the Interior's National Reclamation Award in the 
same year.
    We are also an essential contributor to the Navajo Nation. 
Through royalties, taxes, and payments, NTEC provides 30 
percent of the Navajo Nation's general fund, 30 percent on an 
annual basis. Further, the Four Corners Power Plant provides 
another 9 percent. So, 39 percent is coming from our mine mouth 
operation on the mine. That plant is currently scheduled to 
close in 2031.
    I want to hit some key points that I want to make sure that 
we get out and that we can talk about today.
    Coal continues to be an essential resource for United 
States. This is true from an energy reliability perspective, as 
well as from a Federal revenue perspective. In fact, as I 
started speaking today, PJM, right now, 18 percent of their 
electricity is coming from coal. In the middle 30 of the United 
States, MISO 30 percent and SPP 33 percent. So, today, on a 
nice day, a moderate day with good wind, there is some sun, 
coal is still doing a third of the work out there.
    We believe that above-all should be above-all. Coal needs 
to stay in the mix. Coal needs to be that baseload. Last year, 
we provided 21 percent of the baseload in the United States. We 
need innovation, not elimination. We need to shift the focus 
away from what fuels the plant to how we utilize technology and 
innovation to ensure that the emissions are where we want them 
to be.
    The U.S. coal fleet has invested approximately $127 billion 
in emission controls through 2022. In 2021, the U.S. coal fleet 
emitted 909 million tons of CO2, which was 18 
percent, it was only 18 percent of the 4.9 billion from energy-
related CO2. Global greenhouse gas emissions are 
estimated to be in the magnitude of 49.8 billion tons in 2020. 
The U.S. coal fleet was less than 1.5 percent.
    We need to develop a deliberate strategy for a conversion 
from fossil fuels that does not put lives at risk, does not 
hinder the economy, and is thoughtful and practical. A coal 
plant should not be retired before there is comparable 
replacement energy on-line. Technology has not advanced to the 
point where we can do that yet. The reliability of the grid is 
at stake, and recent grid emergencies from storms have shown 
that.
    There are significant issues with the current permitting 
processes. The United States should look for ways to maximize 
our coal exports. The revenue from the royalties, as well as 
replacing coal that is mined in unethical and environmentally 
friendly ways, we can do that.
    Finally, I would like to hit later on the amount of coal 
that is burning in the United States is absolutely immaterial 
to what is being burned in China and the rest of the world. The 
United States will burn a half a billion tons this year, 500 
million. The world will burn over 8 billion, half of that being 
from China.
    With my time ended, I will conclude my comments.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Matthew Adams, Vice President and Senior Tax 
             Counsel for Navajo Transitional Energy Company

    Good morning. My name is Matthew Adams. I am a Vice President and 
Senior Tax Counsel for Navajo Transitional Energy Company--also known 
as NTEC.

    Navajo Transitional Energy Company was formed in 2013 by the Navajo 
Nation to take ownership and control of the Navajo Mine located on the 
Nation outside of Farmington, New Mexico. In 2019, NTEC acquired 
substantially all the assets of Cloud Peak Energy after they filed 
bankruptcy. Through this acquisition, NTEC became the 3rd largest coal 
producer in the United States. Our coal portfolio includes the Navajo 
Mine--which is a mine mouth operation feeding the Four Corners Power 
Plant located on the Navajo Nation; the Antelope and Cordero Mines in 
Wyoming and the Spring Creek Complex in Montana. In 2022, NTEC produced 
52 million tons of coal; of which 49 million tons were sold 
domestically and 3 million tons were exported to the Asian Pacific rim.
    In addition to owning and operating coal mines, NTEC owns and 
operates producing helium wells on the Navajo Nation, we have an 
ownership percentage in the Four Corners Power Plant, we have an 
ownership interest in the Round Rock rare earths deposit in Texas, we 
continue to have conversations with the Navajo Nation regarding 
potential wind and solar projects, and we are analyzing potential gas 
generation facilities, and we just announced a partnership with Arizona 
Lithium for development of the Big Sandy lithium project in Arizona. 
Further, we are interested in potential hydrogen projects. We truly 
represent and strive for All of the Above solutions to the energy needs 
of the Navajo Nation, the United States and beyond. If a new technology 
is developed which we believe can help us provide energy and support 
the Navajo Nation--we will be analyzing it.
    In addition to what we do, we are very proud of how we do it. Our 
steadfast focus on safety gets our people home safe and our stewardship 
for the land leads by example. Last year, the Navajo Mine was the first 
mine in the United States to earn the Sentinel of Safety Award and the 
National Reclamation Award in the same year.

    We are an essential contributor to the Navajo Nation. In addition 
to significant royalties and taxes, NTEC provides in numerous other 
ways. We provided over 12,000 tons of coal in 2022 through our CHRP 
program to ensure houses stay warm in the cooler months. We expect to 
exceed that amount this year. Additionally, we contribute $250,000 per 
year to the Community Benefit Fund as well as providing scholarships 
and education. In all, NTEC has given over $315 million directly to the 
Nation and charities since 2013. Of our almost 1,400 employees, 354 
voluntarily identified as Native American--including 318 Navajo 
employees. The average salary of our employees identifying as Native 
American is $82,600 (average salary for all employees excluding the 
Executive team is $80,700). These high paying jobs are essential to the 
community. The Navajo Nation is one of the most impoverished 
communities in the United States, so to put this in perspective,

    On the Navajo Nation:

     Median household income is $26,862 ($57,652 for the US),

     36% of households have income below the poverty line 
            (12.7% in the US),

     19% of households are in Extreme Poverty,

     40% of homes lack running water,

     32% of homes lack electricity,

     86% of homes lack natural gas,

     Unemployment rate is just above 40%,

     More than 50% of Navajo on the Nation live more than 20 
            miles from the nearest grocery store (there are 13 grocery 
            stores on the 27,000 square mile Nation),

     2020 census numbers provide 32.9% of homes have broadband 
            access.

    Through royalties, taxes and other payments NTEC provides 30% of 
the Navajo Nation General Fund on an annual basis. Further, the Four 
Corners Power Plant provides another 9%. That power plant is currently 
scheduled to retire in 2031.
Navajo Transitional Energy Company's Position on Energy

    We truly believe in an `All of the Above' energy strategy. We don't 
just believe in it, we live it. However, we strongly believe that all 
of the above should include coal. Coal continues to provide reliable, 
inexpensive energy for United States industries and citizens. Whether 
the sun is out or not, whether the wind is blowing or not, whether its 
120 in peak summer or -50 below as a winter storm comes through, coal 
continues to be the most reliable, dependable, affordable source of 
energy to keep temperatures in houses warm or cool and industry moving.

    As personal background, I have been working in the extractives 
space for 20 years as a legal and tax professional. I was on the 
Royalty Policy Committee under the Trump Administration and co-chair of 
the Fair Return and Valuation Subcommittee. I represent NTEC as a 
member of the Board or on committees for, National Mining Association, 
American Coal Council, America's Power, Wyoming Mining Association, 
Rocky Mountain Coal Council, and other industry groups. I can testify 
today that I have never been at a meeting, nor ever had a discussion 
with a member of any of these organizations where the goal was to 
eliminate solar, wind, hydro or other `renewable' forms of energy. That 
is not a focus or priority of any of these groups. However, I have been 
party to many conversations where the focus was around how to ensure 
that baseload power--the power needed to keep houses warm or cold, to 
keep incubators on in the hospitals, and the machinery in industry 
running--can be borne by the most reliable energy sources available in 
our county.

KEY POINTS:

     Coal continues to be an essential resource for the United 
            States. This is true from an energy reliability perspective 
            as well as from a federal revenue perspective.

           o  All of the Above, should be ALL of the Above.

                 --  Coal generated 21% of the electricity in the 
                United States in 2022.

     We need to shift the focus away from what fuels the plant, 
            to how we can utilize technology and innovation to ensure 
            emissions are where we want them to be.

           o  The United States coal fleet has invested approximately 
        $127 billion in emissions controls through 2022.

           o  In 2021, the United States coal fleet emitted 909 million 
        tons of CO2, which was 18.5% of the total emissions of 4.9 
        billion from energy-related CO2.

           o  Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are 
        estimated to be in the range of 49.8 billion tons in 2020.

           o  The United States coal fleet is estimated to be less than 
        1.5% of global GHG emissions.

     We need to develop a deliberate strategy for a conversion 
            from fossil fuels that does not put lives at risk, does not 
            hinder the economy, and is thoughtful and practical.

           o  A coal plant should not be retired before comparable, 
        replacement energy is in place.

           o  Technology has NOT advanced to policy mandates.

           o  The reliability of the grid is at stake.

           o  Recent grid emergencies have highlighted the fragility of 
        the bulk power system.

     There are significant issues with the current permitting 
            process that is having significant impacts on developing 
            additional coal resources as well as development of new 
            gas, wind and solar projects.

           o  Too much redundancy in evaluations and analysis.

           o  The internal strategy of delay, ponder and further delay 
        is pushing our energy infrastructure to the brink of 
        catastrophe.

           o  The level of judicial advocation around permitting and 
        environmental issues needs to be resolved.

     The United States should look for ways to maximize coal 
            exports.

           o  The outcome is additional revenue to the Treasury and 
        ensuring that our high-grade coal, which is mined with 
        significant focus on environmental and labor concerns, 
        continues to fuel the development of the global economy.

           o  When Asian utilities cannot secure their coal 
        requirements from the United States and Australia, they are 
        forced to consider and use Russian coal.

     The amount of coal burned in the United States is 
            immaterial compared to China. China and India continue to 
            build and develop coal-fired generation and will continue 
            to increase burn rates through the remainder of the decade.

           o  We estimate that there will be approximately 8 billion 
        tons of coal burned worldwide in 2023. Approximately 500 
        million of that will be in the United States and 4 billion will 
        be in China.

           o  The United States currently has 200 MW of coal capacity--
        of which 127 MW are scheduled to be retired or eliminated by 
        EPA regulations in the next 7 years.

           o  China has over 1,100 coal plants with a capacity over 
        1,000,000 MW currently active and they are adding significantly 
        to that amount through 2029.

           o  The world's existing coal fleets will emit 276 billion 
        tonnes of CO2 during their collective lifetimes. The U.S. fleet 
        will emit 9 billion tonnes over its lifetime--3% of the global 
        emission.

     Eco-Colonialism is NOT the answer for dealing with 
            Tribes--or international partners.

           o  According to the International Energy Agency, there are 
        775 million people in the world without access to power.

           o  In the United States, the economic impact of not allowing 
        or marginalizing mineral develop on Tribal Lands would be 
        catastrophic.

           o  Not allowing countries to establish energy independence 
        to further advance they own growth and economic independence 
        should not be the policy of the United States.

           o  Tribal consultation should be consultation with Tribes, 
        not dictating to a desired outcome.

EXPORTS

    NTEC is one of a few companies that is exporting thermal coal out 
of the Westshore Terminal in Southwest Canada. We export between 3 and 
5.1 million tons per year--depending on the quality of rail service we 
get. If we could get 40 million tons available for export, the Asian 
market would gladly purchase it. The coal they are purchasing from 
United States mines is high quality, consistent coal and it burns very 
efficiently in their boilers. There are some significant side benefits 
to the exportation of US coal as well. First, the vast majority of the 
coal that is being exported is on state or federal land--therefore it 
is subject to a 12.5% royalty. Second, the coal that we are able to 
place into the market displaces coal that is mined in countries that do 
not have the same environmental and labor laws that are prevalent in 
the United States. However, we have extreme constraints on getting coal 
into the export market. As I mentioned, we are exporting through 
Canada. Canada, and the province of British Columbia, have actively 
discussed legislation that would ban coal trains from the United States 
passing through their territory. Further, all of the projects that were 
initiated to build a new coal terminal in Oregon and Washington were 
shut down by either the Army Corp of Engineers or Washington Governor 
Inslee. As such, there is a very significant challenge in being able to 
place United States coal into the Pacific. Starting over a year ago, 
there have been significant transportation disruptions and we have not 
been able to get coal to our customers in Asia. They have been forced 
to get their requirements from Russia. That did not have to be the 
case--it shouldn't be the case.
Innovation not Elimination

    There is such an overwhelming focus on `eliminating coal'. The 
Powering Past Coal Alliance's current website states ``The End of Coal 
is in Sight'' as an almost celebratory statement. Over the past decade, 
a significant number of companies in the financial and insurance 
sectors have told coal companies they will no longer work with them . . 
. not because they were high risk or bad business, but because they 
were coal producers. Headlines across the globe are available on a 
daily basis demonizing coal, coal workers, and supporters of the most 
reliable, dependable and affordable producer of energy on the planet.
    We believe carbon capture may truly be a solution to elimination of 
emissions and we applaud the steps that have been taken through the IRA 
and other measures. Other solutions also exist, we just need to find 
them, but all of these things will take time. Perhaps harnessing and 
storing the power of lightening is possible. Perhaps the technology to 
separate elements within our atmosphere to breakdown GHGs will prove 
possible. There are area that are focusing on innovation, but nowhere 
near enough if we want to truly find a solution.
    One example is C-Valley in Campbell County, Wyoming. C-Valley has 
established a site where companies and researchers are able to not only 
work on carbon capture projects; but look for new and innovative ways 
to transform coal into other products--such as asphalt, graphite, 
carbon fiber and more. Additionally, the University of Wyoming 
continues to move forward with research on alternative uses for coal. 
They recently filed a patent for a building material that uses coal 
rather than clay. The new product has shown in tests that it is 
lighter, stronger, more energy efficient and cost effective.
    From a policy perspective, I believe the focus on demonizing coal 
rather than finding ways to solve the concerns has led us down a path 
with some extraordinary challenges and devastating consequences.

REVENUES

    Coal has clearly been in a decline over the past 6 years. In 2017, 
Federal coal revenues (includes bonus payments, rents, royalties) 
totaled $558 million. After years of declines, 2021 revenue totaled 
$382 million. There was a rebound in 2022 and the preliminary revenue 
is $526 million. This revenue for the Department of the Interior is 
essential to the federal government and the states in which coal is 
mined.

PERMITTING

    There has been 1 Lease by Application (LBA) in Wyoming in the last 
15 years.

    Over the past 20 years, the process of acquiring additional coal to 
mine has gone from a 3-5-year process to the current 12-year process. 
There are several reasons for this lengthy process including redundancy 
of reviews by different agencies, litigation delays, Department of the 
Interior's timing of handling its workload just to name a few. Under 
the current rules, when a company is awarded an LBA it pays for that 
coal in the immediately following 5 years. The winning bids for coal 
between 2000 and 2012 ranged from a low of $42.8 million to a high of 
$793 million. In other words, if a coal company is interested in 
acquiring additional coal on Federal land (where the vast majority of 
the coal is located west of the Mississippi River), the company would 
need to pay the bid of hundreds of millions of dollars without 
obtaining a penny of revenue from the purchased coal for 12 years. This 
economic reality has created a situation where the currently leased 
coal in the Powder River Basin could be mined in the next 15-20 years. 
Unless the economics around thermal coal significantly change, or the 
permitting process is significantly shortened, the amount of coal 
coming out of Wyoming and Montana will be a pittance of what we see 
today.

REST OF THE WORLD

    We estimate there will be approximately 8 billion tons of coal 
burned in the world in 2023. That includes thermal and met coal. There 
will be approximately 500 million tons burned in the United States--
leaving a balance of 7.5 billion tons burned elsewhere. Of that, 
approximately 4 billion tons will be burned in China.
    Today, the US coal fleet is right about 200 MW. Of that, more than 
50% is supposed to retire by the end of 2030. Further, it is 
anticipated that the regulations about to come out of the Environmental 
Protection Agency will eliminate another 23,000 MW of coal generation 
in the US by 2025. This at a time when moving to an EV economy is 
expected to at least double the demand for electricity in the next 25 
years.
    Currently, China has the world's largest coal fleet with over 
1,000,000 MW. Five times the US fleet. India is currently second with 
233,000 MW. China and India are both increasing their coal generation; 
together, they have 347,000 MW under construction or in development. 
Chinese President Xi Jinping has pledge to `strictly control' coal 
consumption until 2025 and start cutting coal use in 2026 in order to 
reach their maximum CO2 emissions before their `before 2030' deadline.
    As of December 2022, there were 2,439 coal plants in the world. Of 
those, 225 are in the United States. It is currently estimated that the 
world's currently existing coal fleet will emit 276 billion tonnes of 
CO2 during their collective lifetimes. The US fleet will emit 3% of the 
world's total.
    The concern is that while the US policy is to eliminate reliable 
and available coal generated electricity, a country that has a stated 
goal of being the single global superpower is dramatically increasing 
its available power. China currently consumes 50% of the global coal 
consumption, and it is highly likely that allocation will continue to 
grow.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Matthew Adams, Vice President, 
     Senior Tax Counsel, Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC)
            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

Introduction

    I appreciate the questions from the House Committee on Natural 
Resources. On behalf of Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC), I am 
providing the following responses. I believe that each of these 
questions is an essential consideration as part of a thorough review of 
current energy policy for the United States and whether the policy will 
meet the legal requirements and energy needs of citizens moving 
forward. As such, each issue deserves much more attention and 
discussion than I am able to provide here. I am available at any time 
to discuss any energy or mining matter, or attend further sessions of 
the House Committee on Natural Resources to discuss these issues.
    I also want to clearly state Navajo Transitional Energy Company's 
belief with regard to energy in the United States and beyond. NTEC will 
celebrate the day when technology and science have developed a way to 
power our industries, heat and cool our homes, keep incubators running 
in hospitals and ensure that all communities can afford cheap, 
dependable electricity that has zero carbon emissions, allows plants to 
flourish and has zero impact other than providing electricity. However, 
that day is not today. But NTEC remains confident that human ingenuity, 
resourcefulness and a results-oriented focus will allow the United 
States to lead the world in the search for that energy technology.
    NTEC has concerns that the path we are taking as a nation is 
leading to an unprecedented energy crisis that will cost lives, damage 
the economy and risk national security. This past weekend, the Wall 
Street Journal, referencing an ominous report from one of the country's 
largest grid operators, echoed our concern that ``Fossil-fuel power 
plants are retiring much faster than renewable sources are getting 
developed, which could lead to shortages and blackouts (``S.O.S for the 
U.S. Electric Grid'', Feb. 26, 2023). The entire United States coal-
generated electricity fleet accounts for one point 5 percent (1.5%) of 
global emissions. China currently has in excess of 5 times the amount 
of electricity generated by coal in the United States . . . and they 
are expected to more than double that amount in the next 6 plus years. 
The consequence of that action will be that China has cheap, reliable 
and constant energy while the United States can expect brown and 
blackouts by the end of the decade. While NTEC supports (and is part 
of) the United States leading the charge into the `green energy 
future,' the ill-advised rush to decommission our existing fleet of 
power plants will simply lead to much higher energy costs, less 
reliable energy and energy shortages that will put our economy and 
national security at risk.

    Question 1. With the increase in wind and solar generation, why are 
coal companies worried about the reliability of the electrical grid?

    Answer. NTEC supports development of renewable resources and is 
working to develop large-scale solar generation capabilities. But, wind 
and solar cannot replace the tens of thousands of megawatts of baseload 
power supplied by our coal-fired power plants. Coal provides more than 
one-third of the electricity generation in the world and is a critical 
source of baseload generation. Baseload generation is needed to keep 
the electricity grid stabilized and grid frequency controlled. The U.S. 
electricity grid operates at a frequency of 60hz and if this precise 
frequency is not maintained, power outages and/or significant damage 
can result to electricity grid infrastructure, as well as industrial 
equipment and consumer electronics found in most homes in the U.S. Wind 
and solar electricity generation do not have the attributes necessary 
to maintain grid frequency without support from significant baseload 
power.
    In the past, most dialogue in electricity industry trade groups 
focused on the high priority of costs to consumers of electricity and 
what source of fuel could best provide reliable energy at a reasonable 
cost. In recent years, FERC, State PUC's and regional grid operators 
have prioritized Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction above any other 
consideration while failing to acknowledge the growing costs to 
consumers, the increasing risk to grid reliability and the resiliency 
challenges.
    Wind and solar are intermittent resources, meaning they produce 
electricity only when weather conditions are favorable. Wind and solar 
are also considered non-dispatchable as opposed to coal, natural gas, 
and nuclear power plants which are dispatchable because their 
electricity output can be increased or decreased (dispatched) based on 
electricity demand.
    The coal fleet, on the other hand, is essential for a reliable grid 
because (1) its high accredited capacity value contributes to resource 
adequacy and makes coal a highly dependable electricity resource, and 
(2) it provides fuel security and essential reliability services 
(frequency support, voltage control, and ramping/balancing). Accredited 
capacity is a measure of how dependable a resource is when electricity 
demand peaks, such as during extreme weather. MISO uses the following 
for accredited capacity values: nuclear 95 percent, coal and natural 
gas 90 percent, batteries 87.5 percent, solar 35 percent, and wind 16.6 
percent. Because of its capacity value, coal is considerably more 
dependable than wind or solar. To illustrate the impact of accredited 
capacity, more than 5 megawatts of wind (90 percent divided by 16.6 
percent) must be added to the grid to replace 1 megawatt of retiring 
coal capacity.
    As grids deploy more intermittent renewables and retire 
dispatchable generation assets like coal, the grid becomes increasingly 
less reliable and resilient. This is a concern for coal producers, as 
well as utilities and government and quasi-government entities 
responsible for monitoring the nation's electrical transmission system. 
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) provided 
subtle warnings seven years ago: ``The North American Bulk Power System 
(BPS) is undergoing a significant change in the mix of generation 
resources and the subsequent transmission expansion . . . [T]he rate of 
this transformation in certain regions is impacting planning and 
operating of the BPS.'' \1\ By last year, NERC's warnings had become 
more blunt: ``. . . the BPS has already seen a great deal of change and 
more is underway. Managing this pace of change presents the greatest 
challenge to reliability . . . Energy risks emerge when variable energy 
resources (VER) like wind and solar are not supported by flexible 
resources that include sufficient dispatchable, fuel-assured, and 
weatherized generation.'' \2\ To prove NERC's point about the rapid 
transformation, more than 100,000 MW of dispatchable, fuel-secure coal-
fired generation have retired and over 128,000 MW of VER (wind and 
solar) nameplate capacity were added to the BPS between 2015 and 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NERC, ``Essential Reliability Services Task Force Measures 
Framework Report,'' November 2015.
    \2\ NERC, ``Long Term Reliability Assessment,'' December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An alarming amount of coal-fired generating capacity has publicly 
announced plans to retire; as of December 2022, 83,000 MW have 
announced retirement by 2030. In addition, six EPA rules are certain to 
cause even more coal plant closures unless the agency takes steps to 
avoid causing retirements that would further jeopardize grid 
reliability and resilience. The announced retirements and expected 
impact of the EPA rules will reduce the coal electricity fleet in the 
United States by more than 60% in the next 7 years.
    The fast pace of retirements should be deeply disturbing to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the NERC, grid operators, 
utility commissioners and other policymakers. Limiting coal (and other 
thermal) retirements as well as valuing all reliability attributes 
would be straightforward steps to help mitigate reliability problems in 
the near future.
    Finally, attached to my response is a new report released by Energy 
Ventures Analysis and America's Power that analyzed the performance of 
electricity resources during Storm Elliott. The analysis found that 
coal, natural gas, and fuel oil provided 94 percent of the additional 
nationwide demand for electricity caused by Elliott. In other words, 
fossil fuels provided almost all of the additional electricity when it 
was needed most, with coal providing almost 40 percent. The report 
further notes that because coal plants have on-site fuel storage, it 
makes them more dependable than natural gas plants, wind farms or solar 
panels. Unfortunately, the retirement of coal plants is undermining 
grid reliability and, therefore, should be paused.

    Question 2. Why are permitting delays important to coal producers?

    Answer. Permitting delays are not just occurring in coal mining. 
Permit delays are being seen in the efforts to permit mines for 
critical minerals (e.g., cobalt, lithium, rare earth), solar and wind 
farms, and to develop energy storage facilities and transmission 
infrastructure. The byzantine regulatory structure, risk of litigation 
and uncertainty of permitting pathways has made developing critical 
energy projects--renewable resources, traditional resources, and energy 
infrastructure (including transmission) and efficiency projects--
unpredictable and jeopardizes our economy and national security.
    For coal producers, however, the regulatory interference has 
greater implications. The coal industry has spoken for years, perhaps 
decades, about the amount of coal available in the United States. Not 
only is the number in the billions of tons . . . it is high quality 
coal (cleaner burning, higher BTU) which is easily minable with today's 
technology and mining methods. However, the amount of coal that is 
currently available to be mined is a tiny fraction of that billions of 
tons that is available. In the Powder River Basin (Wyoming and 
Montana), it is estimated that there are less than 20 years left of 
permitted coal.
    The vast majority of coal west of the Mississippi River is on 
either federal or state land. In order to obtain more permitted coal on 
federal or state lands, a producer must go through either the lease by 
application process (LBA) or the lease by modification process (LBM). 
Essentially, the amount of new coal to be obtained determines which 
process.
    The overriding concern with coal permitting can be narrowed down to 
time, cost and risk.
TIME

    Thirty years ago, it was possible for a coal company in Wyoming to 
acquire rights to develop a coal deposit, obtain all permitting and 
have revenue from the sale of the coal within 2 to 5 years. Today, due 
to redundancies in the regulatory process, litigation, delays by the 
Department of the Interior (DOI) and significant levels of judicial 
advocacy from judges, once a coal producer obtains the right to mine 
coal, it should expect at least 8-12 years to maneuver through the 
regulatory and legal systems before selling its first ton of coal from 
the property.
    This is not hyperbole. The current process takes at least 8 to 12 
years. I say `at least' because there is not much evidence lately of an 
LBA or LBM being approved--just 2 in the last 10 years. The DOI is 
dealing with three coal cases in the 9th Circuit currently (Montana). 
Each case has been subject to extraordinary delays, inaction and almost 
neglect from the Department of the Interior and the Biden 
Administration. The actions of DOI, presumably with the consent of the 
Administration, have further delayed these projects immeasurably. There 
are thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in state and 
federal revenue through royalties and taxes at stake in just these 
three cases.
COST

    The financial implications associated with the LBA process and the 
LBM process are the same. The public nominates an area for the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) to sell. The BLM then reviews each application 
submitted by the public to make sure it complies with land-use plans. 
Next, a Regional Coal Team consisting of members from federal, state, 
local, and tribal governments reviews the application, consults the 
public and decides whether to continue, change or reject the 
application. At this point, BLM prepares an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) for public comment in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Next, BLM 
prepares to sell the lease. In advance of the sale, BLM estimates the 
fair market value of the coal lease. BLM holds a lease sale where each 
bidder submits a sealed bid, and BLM opens the bids publicly. The 
highest bid wins, so long as it is equal to or greater than the coal 
tract's presale estimated fair market value, and the bidder meets all 
requirements (such as paying fees). Once BLM accepts a bid, the bidder 
must pay one-fifth of the bonus and the first year's rent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://revenuedata.doi.gov/how-revenue-works/coal/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The key to point out for this discussion is the last sentence: the 
need to pay a large sum of money up front, prior to getting permits and 
many years before actually mining. The amount of coal historically 
obtained from the LBA process is in the hundreds of millions of tons. 
The `cost' of purchasing the coal (the bonus bid) has varied over the 
last 23 years, but the average bonus bid per ton in Wyoming has been 
just over $0.86 per ton (the range is $0.30--$1.35). Those bids were 
for an average of just under 271 million tons (the range is 42.8 
million tons to 793 million tons).
    Using these historic numbers, I would like to present an 
illustrative example. Assume NTEC wanted to acquire more tons on 
federal land in Wyoming. After the lengthy process to get the BLM to 
initiate the sale, we may be able to acquire 250 million tons at a 
bonus price of $0.85 per ton. (There would be other costs associated 
with the sale--such as land rents, fees, etc.--but those are being 
ignored for simplicity.) Under this hypothetical, NTEC would then be 
required to pay the federal government $212,500,000 over the next five 
years for the right to mine that coal. $42,500,000 would be instantly 
due and payable, and $42,500,000 on each of the next four anniversary 
dates of the sale. That expense would have to be incurred despite the 
now certainty under the current regulatory scheme that operations would 
never commence for 8-12 years, if at all.
RISK

    The past decade has not been economically kind to the coal 
industry. Pressures from ESG investors and ESG policies at banks and 
insurance companies have significantly reduced the amount of financing 
and insurance that is available to coal companies. Reduced players in 
the market mean that costs of capital, cost of bonding and costs of 
insurance have all skyrocketed over the past 7 years. Additionally, the 
pressures from the Biden Administration and NGOs on all fossil fuels--
but especially coal--have had a drastic impact on the behaviors of 
utilities throughout the country. Due to economic pressures, the vast 
majority of coal companies filed for bankruptcy protection in the last 
8 years. The economic reality for the coal industry is that margins are 
very thin. The future is not settled.
    With these facts as background, I go back to the illustrative 
example above. There are less than 20 years of reserves permitted in 
the Powder River Basin. If NTEC acquires an `average' amount of coal 
through an LBA, we will need to pay $42,500,000 per year starting when 
we win the bid. However, as stated, under current regulations and 
processes, after spending in excess of $212,500,000 for the new coal, 
NTEC will not see a penny of revenue from that purchase for at least 
another 8 to 12 years due to permit delays. In today's environment, it 
is highly unlikely that any coal company has $212 million sitting 
around to float for up to 12+ years. It is highly unlikely that any of 
the publicly-traded companies could justify that expense to their 
shareholders.
    As such, it is highly likely that without significant changes, the 
United States will be out of permitted coal well before we have 
developed other technologies to keep our national electricity grid 
stable. While this anticipated result is certain to be celebrated in 
many quarters, it should be a source of dire concern for the future of 
the U.S. energy sector and the economy as a whole.

    Question 3. With the anticipated closure of the Four Corners Power 
Plant on the Navajo Nation in 2031, how is NTEC working to replace the 
revenue which provides an annual 39% of the Navajo Nation general fund?

    Answer. As I stated in my prior written testimony, NTEC and the 
Navajo Mine, in combination with the Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP), 
provides 39% of the revenue to Navajo Nation's general fund on an 
annual basis. This is in addition to the 400+ high paying jobs on the 
Nation, the free coal which NTEC provides for Navajo and Hopi families 
to keep their dwellings warm during the winter months and the other 
charitable efforts and development sponsored by NTEC and our vendors.
    The owners of FCPP have announced their intention to exit the plant 
in 2031. While NTEC is working to diversify its operations, there is no 
comparable opportunity for Navajo families to earn commensurate wages 
or learn valuable job skills. The Navajo Nation has no other comparable 
source of revenues. Closure will eliminate millions of dollars of 
revenue to the Nation while immediately putting hundreds of Navajo and 
Hopi out of work. Again, this is not a theoretical statement. The 
Navajo Nation is already experiencing the crushing consequences of the 
closure of the NGS generating plant and the associated Kayenta Mine. 
There is simply no doubt as to the inevitable results of a closure of 
the FCPP.
    There is no commercial reason to close the FCPP, but the current 
owners are under extreme pressure from state energy policies, like the 
New Mexico Transition Act, ESG investment funds and outspoken ESG 
activists. These external forces are controlling the future of the FCPP 
without consultation with the Navajo Nation and despite the fact the 
FCPP and the Navajo Mine are located entirely within the boundaries of 
the Navajo Nation.
    Ten years ago the Nation took ownership of Navajo Mine to assert 
self-determination, sovereignty and control over its natural resources, 
but forcing energy policy restrictions on the FCPP will leave the 
Navajo Nation again without dominion or control of its own resources. 
While the anticipated closure of the FCPP would have catastrophic 
economic impact to the Navajo Nation--it does not seem to matter to the 
current policy leaders.
    The FCPP must not be forced to close. Period. The electricity that 
it provides for the southwest is desperately needed today--let alone as 
we transition to an electric vehicle future (with estimates of doubling 
the electricity demand by 2035). Further, the FCPP is simply too 
important to the Navajo Nation to close.
    NTEC believes that carbon capture has an essential role to play to 
ensure that the future energy mix provides stable electricity. There 
are a number of power plants that are ideal for carbon capture, and the 
Four Corners Power Plant is one of them. We believe this plant should 
become a priority project to give the Navajo Nation self-determination, 
control over its resources, and to treat it as the sovereign nation it 
is.
    However, there are many in opposition to the development of carbon 
capture. Many NGOs have stated that even though carbon capture has the 
ability to capture 95%+ of the CO2, the technology should not be 
developed. They do not want carbon capture development because it would 
allow coal to continue to be utilized to provide cheap, reliable 
energy. The unstated premise, that the NGO's ``know what is best'' for 
the Navajo, is just a continuation of decades of patronizing decisions 
made off the Navajo Nation without any acknowledgment of the Navajo 
Nation's ability to govern its own affairs.
    NTEC, as an investor in and promoter of carbon capture and 
sequestration technology (CCS), sees an opportunity for the Navajo (and 
the United States) to be a global leader in decarbonization strategies 
that provide for the continued utilization of our nation's expansive 
coal resources. We would be able to take carbon capture technology to 
all areas of the world--especially those that are energy poor--and 
provide stable, reliable electricity to the 30% of the world that 
cannot rely on it currently. [As an added bonus of the United States 
exporting coal to the world, the federal government gets the revenue 
from the 12.5% royalty on coal from federal lands (most of the coal in 
the western United States).] Further, the coal will be mined in 
accordance with the most extensive reclamation and environmental 
standards on the planet. Finally, coal on the Navajo Nation and in the 
United States is mined by adults and in compliance with the strongest 
labor and safety regulation in existence.
    I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

                                 *****

The attachment to this document is part of the hearing record and is 
being retained in the Committee's official files.

The attachment is available for viewing at: https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/II/II00/20230208/115287/HHRG-118-II00-20230208-SD017.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Somers for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN SOMERS, PRESIDENT, UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION, 
                      SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

    Mr. Somers. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman 
Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva and the rest of the 
Committee for the opportunity to appear today. And thanks also 
to Congressman Curtis for being Utah's voice on this Committee.
    I am Brian Somers, President of the Utah Mining 
Association, which was founded in 1915 and represents Utah's 
hardrock, coal, and industrial mineral mine operators and 
related support industries. UMA also works closely with Utah--
with the National Mining Association and other state and 
regional industry groups. UMA's mission is to advocate on 
behalf of Utah's mining industry, its workers, and the 
communities they support.
    Mining is a critical industry in Utah, contributing $7.7 
billion to the state's GDP, supporting nearly 57,000 direct and 
indirect jobs, and powering Utah's broader economy by producing 
the coal which provides 62 percent of Utah's low-priced 
electricity. Mining jobs in Utah are family and community-
sustaining jobs, with mining salaries averaging over $83,000 
annually, which is 37.5 percent higher than the average Utah 
wage.
    It is important to recognize mining is something most 
people never experience firsthand, and yet they benefit from 
the products made possible by mining every single day. From 
smartphones to medical devices, consumer electronics to new 
energy technologies and national defense systems, our modern 
economy and quality of life are supported by mined minerals. 
Demand for minerals is expected to increase radically in coming 
years, yet domestically produced minerals currently meet less 
than half of the needs of U.S. manufacturers, creating an 
untenable strategic vulnerability for economic and national 
security.
    To put this demand in the context of the energy goals of 
the Biden administration, a 2021 International Energy Agency 
report stated that ``to hit net-zero globally by 2050 would 
require six times more mineral inputs than today.''
    A 2022 report on copper demand from S&P Global also stated, 
``Substitution and recycling will not be enough to meet the 
demands of electric vehicles, power infrastructure, and 
renewable generation unless massive new supply comes on-line in 
a timely way. The goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 will be 
short circuited and remain out of reach.''
    Our nation's lack of a clearly defined minerals policy is 
undermining our ability to supply our own mineral needs and 
support future economic growth.
    The U.S. mine permitting system is duplicative, 
inefficient, and unpredictable, leading to an average Federal 
permitting time frame of 7 to 10 years. Compounded by the 
inevitable litigation from environmental groups, the U.S. 
permitting process is one of the longest in the world. 
Countries like Canada and Australia, which have stringent 
environmental safeguards like the United States, can get mines 
through permitting in 2 to 3 years.
    In Utah, mines on state and private lands can be permitted 
in a time frame similar to those in Canada and Australia. 
However, two-thirds of Utah's land, land which contains many of 
our state's substantial mineral resources, is controlled by the 
Federal Government. The current Federal permitting regime 
obstructs domestic mining and blunts our ability to compete 
globally. Lengthy delays deter investment and encourage 
dependence on countries like China, Russia, and the Congo, 
which have abysmal environmental, labor, human rights, and 
governance records.
    According to the 2023 USGS mineral commodity summaries, the 
United States is more than 50 percent dependent on foreign 
imports for a staggering 51 important mineral commodities, 
including 15 commodities for which we are 100 percent import 
reliant. China was the largest single source of foreign mineral 
imports in 2022. This import reliance is a threat to our 
nation, and it is unnecessary.
    Of those 51 mineral commodities for which the United States 
is more than 50 percent import reliant, Utah has current 
production, historical production, or established resources for 
20 of them. Fully developing our mineral potential in Utah, 
just one state, could significantly diminish our country's need 
for foreign imports. Imagine if we could responsibly develop 
all of our nation's vast mineral estate, guided by our world-
class environmental and safety standards, and employing a 
highly skilled and highly paid workforce.
    To encourage investment in America's mineral resources, 
both in mineral production and in processing, the Federal 
Government must fix its broken permitting processes, set clear 
time frames, establish a lead agency to promote certainty and 
accountability, and enact policies that ensure access to 
mineral deposits.
    I applaud Chairman Westerman for introducing the Securing 
America's Mineral Supply Chains Act, and Congressman Stauber 
for reintroducing his Permitting for Mining Needs Act. These 
bills will enable our nation to responsibly develop our mineral 
resources, reshore supply chains, support domestic 
manufacturing, and secure our economic and national security.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Somers follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Brian Somers, President, Utah Mining Association
    Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Westerman and Ranking 
Member Grijalva for the opportunity to appear today. Thanks, also, to 
Congressman Curtis for being Utah's voice on this committee. I am Brian 
Somers, president of the Utah Mining Association (UMA), which was 
founded in 1915 and represents Utah's hardrock, coal, and industrial 
mineral mine operators and related support industries. UMA also works 
closely with the National Mining Association and other state and 
regional industry groups.
    UMA's mission is to advocate on behalf of Utah's mining industry, 
its workers, and the communities they support. Mining is a critical 
industry in Utah, contributing $7.7 billion to the state's GDP, 
supporting nearly 57,000 direct and indirect jobs,\1\ and powering 
Utah's broader economy by producing the coal which provides 62% of 
Utah's low-priced electricity.\2\ Mining jobs in Utah are family- and 
community-sustaining jobs with mining salaries averaging $83,280 
annually, which is 37.5% higher than the average Utah wage.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ McCarty, T.J., Wang, Z., Kim, M., and Evans, J., 2022, The 
economic contribution of Utah's energy and mining industries: Utah 
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 176, 12 p., 4 appendices, 
https://doi.org/10.34191/MP-176
    \2\ https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-
generation-fuel-shares
    \3\ https://jobs.utah.gov/wi/data/library/wages/
annualprofilewages.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important to recognize that mining is something most people 
never experience firsthand, yet they benefit from the products made 
possible by mining every single day. From smartphones, medical devices, 
and consumer electronics to new energy technologies and national 
defense systems, our modern economy and quality of life are supported 
by mined minerals.
    Demand for minerals is expected to increase radically in coming 
years, yet domestically produced minerals currently meet less than half 
of the needs of U.S. manufacturers, creating an untenable strategic 
vulnerability for our economic and national security.
    To put this demand in the context of the energy goals of the Biden 
Administration, a 2021 International Energy Agency report stated that, 
``. . . to hit net-zero globally by 2050, would require six times more 
mineral inputs . . . than today.'' \4\ A 2022 report on copper demand 
from S&P Global also stated, ``. . . substitution and recycling will 
not be enough to meet the demands of electric vehicles (EVs), power 
infrastructure, and renewable generation. Unless massive new supply 
comes online in a timely way, the goal of Net-Zero Emissions by 2050 
will be short-circuited and remain out of reach.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ IEA: The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions
    \5\ S&P Global--The Future of Copper: Will the looming supply gap 
short-circuit the energy transition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our nation's lack of a clearly defined minerals policy is 
undermining our ability to supply our own mineral needs and support 
future economic growth.
    The U.S. mine permitting system is duplicative, inefficient, and 
unpredictable, leading to an average federal permitting timeframe of 
seven to 10 years. Compounded by the inevitable litigation from 
environmental groups, the U.S. permitting process is one of the longest 
in the world. Countries like Canada and Australia--which have stringent 
environmental safeguards like the U.S.--can get mines through 
permitting in two to three years.
    In Utah, mines on state or private lands can be permitted in a 
timeframe similar to those of Canada and Australia. However, two-thirds 
of Utah's land--land which contains many of our state's substantial 
mineral resources--is controlled by the federal government. The current 
federal permitting regime obstructs domestic mining and blunts our 
ability to compete globally.
    Lengthy delays deter investment and encourage dependence on 
countries like China, Russia, and the Congo which have abysmal 
environmental, labor, human rights, and governance records. According 
to the 2023 USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries,6,7 the U.S. is 
more than 50% dependent on foreign imports for a staggering 51 
important mineral commodities, including 15 commodities for which we 
are 100% import reliant. China was the largest single source of foreign 
mineral imports in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023
    \7\ The U.S. Releases Signed MOU with the DRC and Zambia to 
Strengthen EV Battery Value Chain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This import reliance is a threat to our nation, and it is 
unnecessary. Of those 51 mineral commodities for which the U.S. is more 
that 50% import reliant, Utah has current production, historical 
production, or established resources for 20 of them. To give just one 
example, the U.S. imports 100% of the indium we use. Indium is a 
mineral used in nearly every product with a touchscreen. According to 
the Utah Geological Survey, Utah has an established indium deposit that 
could supply the entire U.S. consumption of indium for 14 years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Mills, S.E. and Rupke, A., 2020, Critical minerals of Utah: 
Utah Geological Survey Circular 129, 49 p., https://doi.org/10.34191/C-
129
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fully developing our mineral potential in Utah--just one state--
could significantly diminish our country's need for foreign imports. 
Image if we could responsibly develop all of our nation's vast mineral 
estate--guided by our world-class environmental and safety standards, 
and employing a highly-skilled and highly-paid workforce.
    To encourage investment in America's mineral resources--both in 
mineral production and in processing--the federal government must fix 
its broken permitting processes, set clear timeframes, establish a lead 
agency to promote certainty and accountability, and enact policies that 
ensure access to mineral deposits.
    I applaud Chairman Westerman for introducing the Securing America's 
Mineral Supply Chains Act and Congressman Stauber for reintroducing his 
Permitting for Mining Needs Act. These bills will enable our nation to 
responsibly develop our mineral resources, re-shore supply chains, 
support domestic manufacturing, and secure our economic and national 
security.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward 
to your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Brian Somers, President, Utah 
                           Mining Association

Mr. Somers did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In your testimony, you discuss the decade-long timeline 
for permitting hardrock mines on federal lands, compared to only a few 
years on state or private lands. I understand that even locating viable 
deposits of hardrock minerals can take many years, a much longer 
exploration process than for oil, gas, or coal.

    Given your experience with differences between state and 
            federal permitting in Utah, what would be the most 
            meaningful changes to the federal permitting structure to 
            increase efficiencies while maintaining our environmental 
            standards? Do longer timelines yield better environmental 
            review or safer mining practices?


                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Somers, and thank you again to 
all the witnesses. We are now going to go to Member questions. 
We are going to start with Mr. Carl from Alabama.

    I recognize you for 5 minutes.

    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Somers, the Alabama Graphite Belt, which is located in 
Coosa County, Alabama, has some of the world's best reserves of 
a critical energy material, but a lack of commitment to these 
resources has led to the suspension of the development over the 
last several decades.

    Simple question: How does the U.S. government plan to 
encourage the private sector to re-develop graphite resources 
in order to maintain Americans' ability to access critical 
materials as and when needed, rather than relying on China or 
other unreliable fuel suppliers?

    Mr. Somers. Thank you, Congressman. I think that we don't 
have any graphite resources in Utah--I wish we did--but we have 
a lot of other critical minerals that have also either not been 
developed, or they have had to stop development.

    And I think that, for the Federal Government to focus again 
on permitting issues that add a lot of delays to the process, 
and also to encourage and incentivize domestic manufacturing 
and processing, in many cases, the reason that we don't have 
these minerals produced in the United States is because, 
frankly, they are produced more cheaply elsewhere.

    And a lot of that is a function of, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, because you have countries that don't have the same 
kind of environmental and labor safeguards and, in some cases, 
there is flat-out market manipulation, where they will sell 
critical minerals into the commodities markets for less than 
what they cost to produce.

    Mr. Carl. Right.

    Mr. Somers. So, I think, until we find ways to incentivize 
production of some of these mineral resources, and in some 
cases even require them, if there is a national defense system 
or something else that calls for some of these resources, it is 
going to be very difficult for us to continue to compete on a 
global scale.

    Mr. Carl. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from 
Warrior Met Coal for the records. If I can get that entered.

    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]
                        Statement for the Record
                             D'Andre Wright
                  Vice President of External Relations
                            Warrior Met Coal
                            February 8, 2023

    Warrior Met Coal is a U.S-based environmentally and socially minded 
supplier to the global steel industry. We are dedicated entirely to 
mining non-thermal metallurgical coal used as a critical component of 
steel production by metal manufacturers.

    We commend the chairman for holding this hearing on ``Unleashing 
America's Energy and Mineral Potential'' and for adopting the robust 
oversight agenda that includes coal and the Mineral Leasing Act.

    All across America mining companies are working hard to extract the 
materials needed for all kinds of essential manufacturing including 
steel needed for green technologies like electric vehicles and 
renewable energy. However, this hard work will go to waste if the Biden 
Administration is not willing to approve routine development of our 
federal natural resources.

    As you know, thermal coal is critical for energy production in the 
United States. Equally critical in manufacturing is metallurgical (met) 
coal used for steel production. We recognize that the Committee is 
concerned about the Biden Administration's current war on coal--both 
thermal and met--and we share that concern.

    Today we want to focus on met coal and on the continued inaction by 
Department of Interior (DOI) on a critical met coal lease by 
application in Alabama. The coal lease is very important to the State 
of Alabama as the royalties from the underground mine would provide 
much needed revenue to the State of Alabama and impacted counties 
throughout the state, as well as the Port of Mobile, one of the 
nation's largest coal terminals.

    Of particular concern is that the Department of Interior completed 
the Fair Market Value (FMV) and the Social Cost of Carbon analysis in 
May 2022. In late June, senior officials at Department of Interior told 
senior Senate staff that all coal leases (thermal and met) were frozen. 
This particular lease by application, which is 95% complete, has been 
sitting in the Solicitor's office with no movement, correspondence, or 
follow-up to provide a speedy resolution. This is an unacceptable delay 
that goes against the Mineral Leasing Act--which requires that the 
federal government to ``maximize economic recovery of coal within a 
proposed leasing area.'' Further, it represents a new front on the war 
on coal including met, which is not subject to any federal moratorium. 
This brazen overreach sets a dangerous precedent for every bit of coal 
used for energy production and every bit of coal or mineral used for 
manufacturing of steel, electric vehicles, and renewable energy.

    Continued delays on the part of DOI will certainly violate the 
Mineral Leasing Act as much of the coal with go un-mined due to the 
delay and will potentially cost the state of Alabama $300 million.

    Not just state of Alabama that stands to lose needed revenue--the 
federal government will also potentially lose over $300 million in 
royalties at current pricing. This revenue from coal royalties provide 
critical funding for DOI programs. This is even more critical as the 
House and Senate Republicans are looking to make cuts to the Department 
of Interior budget.

    It simply does NOT make sense to willfully and intentionally delay 
a project that is 95% completed. The time has come for Department of 
Interior to complete its work on this important lease and show they are 
willing to roll up their sleeves for the American people.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Carl. Mr. Adams, my district, which has the Port of 
Mobile, we are very proud of our coal exporting there. In 
Fiscal Year 2022, the port exported about 10 million metric 
tons of met coal.
    For those of you that don't know what met coal is, it is 
coal that is primarily targeted for the metal industry, melting 
metals.
    We are in a unique situation in Alabama, in that we mine it 
in central Alabama, which supply the jobs and, obviously, 
everything that spins off in Jasper and up in central Alabama. 
We bring it down the river system that we have been so blessed 
with into the port of Mobile, and the port of Mobile creates 
many, many jobs, which we take and we load it on vessels.
    Most of these vessels are going to Brazil. They go to 
Brazil, where they are used in the furnaces there. They are 
heated into metal. The metal comes back to the Port of Mobile. 
It is unloaded in the Port of Mobile. We take it up to our 
steel mills, which are right up the river system. It is stamped 
out, and it winds up in one of your automobiles that you are 
probably driving today, whether it be a Mercedes--we have about 
seven different manufacturers in Alabama, and it is all done 
because of met coal. That is where it all starts. That is what 
I want us to focus on here real quick.
    Can you discuss the economic benefits, if you are able, 
because you have a similar situation, obviously, on the Navajo 
Nation, which I am very sensitive to anything dealing with our 
ancestries there. Can you discuss the economic benefits if we 
were able to export our coal to more locations throughout the 
United States? Would it be a similar story?
    And what barriers are in place to increase you to export 
that?
    Mr. Adams. Congressman, thank you for your question. We 
actually export thermal coal, as well, but we have huge 
roadblocks in being able to do that. The Port of Mobile is a 
world-class port. I wish we had 15 of them around the United 
States.
    The jobs that Mobile has, the economy that is built off of 
that shipping, everyone should be envious of that. And that 
opportunity is there for many other states, for many other 
cities who do not take it.
    We could easily place 40 million-plus tons a year into the 
Asian market. They love American coal. It is consistent, it is 
high quality. We would get most in the West, most of ours on 
Federal land. So, the Federal Government would get 12.5 percent 
of that revenue.
    But we have had every coal port on the West Coast shut 
down. Governor Inslee in Washington or the Army Corps of 
Engineers have shut down every single project to export coal 
out of the West. So, that puts a lot more pressure onto the 
limited coal ports that there are.
    The East is lucky with the met coal. We don't have met in 
the West. We are all thermal, with few exceptions. But we need 
more ports, we need to participate. We need to replace Russian 
coal in the international market, which is absolutely a player. 
We need U.S. coal in that revenue.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses. 
This is a great hearing.
    As I listened to your testimonies, it caused a lot of 
reflection in my mind, gentlemen. I represent, as Brian knows, 
a district in Utah that has a county by the name of Carbon 
County. I would love to ask my colleagues here, what do you 
suppose they do in Carbon County?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Curtis. And what I have seen over the 5 years that I 
have represented them is what I call the demonization. And, 
unfortunately, not just the demonization of coal, but the 
demonization of people. And what is unfortunate about that is 
these are the very people who have sacrificed their health, 
have sacrificed their safety for generations and generations so 
the rest of us can go over to a wall switch, and flip on the 
switch, and have the lights come on and keep the temperature at 
70 degrees. And I wish more often people felt a little more 
connection with where this power source came from, and 
appreciation for these very, very good men and women.
    And Mr. Franklin, much of this is the Navajo Nation. I take 
in about a third of the Navajo Nation. There are about five 
tribes that have a connection, even though they don't all live 
in my district. And I have watched things like the Hopi Nation 
lose 80 percent of their revenue when they shut down the coal-
fired power plant there by Antelope Island. And sometimes we 
talk about environmental justice, and I wonder where is the 
justice to these communities dealing with these issues. And I 
think frequently, because it is unseen, that it is not dealt 
with.
    And Mr. Franklin, I also express a commitment to you to 
better understand some of the things that you have told us in 
your testimony and how it impacts those people. I know there 
are a lot of uranium mines that have not been resolved in--not 
just in the Navajo area, but throughout my district. I think it 
is important that we, as we go forward, we also look back and 
make sure we are being good stewards there, as well.
    Imagine the hypocrisy in Carbon County when they see that 
there is actually not enough coal coming out of their coal 
mines for the coal-fired power plant there because it is going 
overseas to Europe at a much higher price, and being burned by 
our European counterparts who brag and shout from the house 
tops how clean they are. Yet, they are paying sometimes upwards 
of 400 percent more for that coal than the contracts in those 
local coal plants are. And it is viewed as nothing but 
hypocrisy, right, by these good men and women.
    And Mr. Somers, thank you for being here. You mentioned in 
your testimony this problem that we have that two-thirds of our 
state is owned by the Federal Government. That is exasperated 
in much of my district. Now, wrap your arms around this: seven 
of the counties I represent are 90 percent federally owned. So, 
imagine trying to eke out a living, an economy, anything when 
90 percent of the land doesn't pay property tax, where there is 
an attack to keep all mining off of these Federal lands.
    And Brian, somehow the state is able to regulate these and 
meet the high standards, where the Federal Government isn't. 
What lessons would you like the Federal Government to learn 
from Utah's permitting program that we might be able to 
implement federally?
    Mr. Somers. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think that, 
again, in Utah, if a mining operation is primarily on state or 
private lands and doesn't have a significant Federal overlap, 
again, we can get them through the permitting process in 2 to 3 
years versus, you know, 7 to 10 years on the Federal side.
    And I think a lot of that is just the fact that there are 
clear delineations of authority and responsibility to our state 
agencies, so you don't have this massive overlap, where you 
never quite know exactly where your permit is in the process, 
and which agency you need to go and talk to. And I think even 
just that one step of having a centralized agency, a primary 
lead agency for permitting on the Federal side would be a great 
first step to take.
    Mr. Curtis. Are you aware of any shortcuts or environmental 
damages that occur because our process is two or three times 
quicker?
    Mr. Somers. No.
    Mr. Curtis. Could anybody here point to anything that puts 
the land in jeopardy because our processes are two or three 
times quicker?
    Mr. Somers. No, and I think that part of the advantage, 
frankly, of having the state have primacy in some of these 
permitting processes is the fact that, if something does go 
wrong, if there is a local concern, you actually know who to go 
and talk to. You can talk to the head of DEQ, the head of DOGM, 
our Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. You can talk to the member 
of the legislature that represents those communities, and there 
is much more political accountability.
    Mr. Curtis. I wish I had more time. Thank you, witnesses.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Leger Fernandez from the state of New Mexico for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Westerman, 
and thank you, Ranking Member, for bringing this hearing 
together.
    And what a wonderful panel. I have read your written 
testimonies and know a lot about some of the issues around 
here.
    I want to begin by recognizing the really hard work of the 
people, men and women, who work in the mining industry, who 
have powered our nation up to this point. We need to recognize 
how essential that was and is.
    And Mr. Adams, I think that you are showing that, right, on 
the Navajo Nation, as well. And I think that there is an 
interesting difference about what is happening on the Navajo 
Nation when it is itself controlling its destiny and what it 
wants to do with its minerals. That is, in essence, what you 
are working on on behalf of the Navajo Nation, correct?
    Mr. Adams. That is correct, as an autonomous energy company 
helping the Navajo by managing and producing off of those 
assets and helping the Nation.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, I mean, and that is great. And I 
want to contrast that with the 1872 mining law. In the 1872 
mining law, we are basically, because we haven't updated that, 
look, imagine, just to say 1872, and the idea that we haven't 
updated a law from a couple of centuries ago, right? It is like 
we don't have--it is 18, right?
    And the fact that some of the companies that are coming in 
and seeking to exploit the resources and to take those precious 
materials that we do need for so much of what we have, a lot of 
them are actually foreign corporations. And because of the way 
the 1872 mining law is structured, we have subsidiaries of 
Chinese companies, right, in Arizona looking for mining. In 
Pecos, which is where my family is from, there is a desire to 
have additional mining, and it is also a foreign company that 
is doing that. And that is why I think these resources are 
precious, but they are American resources.
    I wanted to also touch on the fact that there is a lot of 
damage still left behind, as you noted, right, from the uranium 
mines, the Gold King mine spill. My constituents have come to 
me, and we have worked on those issues together.
    But I wanted to turn a bit to THPOs and the role that they 
need to play. And thank you so very much, Chairman Franklin, 
for what you have done in pushing these issues. Do you believe 
that the current 1872 mining law provides adequate 
environmental protections for mining projects located near 
tribal lands?
    And what would you suggest as updates?
    Mr. Franklin. Yes, that is a great question. I feel it is 
like being a Major League Baseball hitter and having a softball 
thrown at you. Like, so yes, absolutely. It fails tribes, the 
1872 law does. And a good example of it is our brothers and 
sisters in Tohono O'odham.
    And I want to apologize first that I am going to mention 
human remains in that tribe specifically, and mean this in no 
disrespect whatsoever, but I think it can't be ignored. The 
Anamax Mining Company that had gone into the Santa Rita 
Mountains and mined, and in the process damaged severely a 
large village site, left human remains on the surface, mined 
right through their cemetery, and it destroyed artifacts and 
sacred sites.
    And that is kind of what I was talking about earlier. This 
is the kind of thing that we need to avoid, but that happens 
because there is nothing to protect inside of that law. And, by 
the way, that is not even an American company. And when they 
went bankrupt, they left it all on the surface. And now there 
is another company that is from Canada that is trying to come 
in and assume that mine again.
    So, these are just examples of ways that we need to be 
better, I think, protect not just Tohono O'odham's history or 
American Indians' history, but, really, it is the history of 
the entire country, as well.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And this sort of abandonment of mines 
happens way too often. That is indeed the case, where taxpayers 
then end up holding the bag for remediation. Right? And the 
need for the cleanup.
    And I really look forward to working with the Chairman and 
my colleagues so that we could reauthorize the Historic 
Preservation Fund. I carried a bill on that, because all the 
work that we need to do, it can be done right, right? I think 
that there is an understanding that there is a way of doing 
this important work, but it is how you do it and where you do 
it that is very important. And we need to answer those 
questions before we start digging up some cemeteries.
    And I offer my shared sadness about what happened, as you 
pointed out.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Somers, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate 
and share your passion for mining. Like in Utah, it provides 
family-sustaining wages along with a pride of supplying our 
nation with our resources, just like in my district in northern 
Minnesota.
    And I also want to thank you for mentioning my bill, the 
Permitting for Mining Needs Act. In Section 3, it limits 
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements 
to 1 and 2 years, respectively. Can you discuss how limiting 
these time frames will expedite the permitting process, and 
also clarify that, even with a time limit, we can ensure all 
environmental safeguards?
    Mr. Somers. Thank you, Congressman.
    As has been discussed, even with the previous panel, a lot 
of the problems that we run into with Federal permitting is the 
fact that these processes can be dragged out for years and 
years and years, and there are not strict timelines that are 
established in Federal law that would help to expedite these 
processes.
    And, again, if you look at foreign countries like, as I 
mentioned, Canada, Australia, these are countries that have 
very similar environmental safeguards that we do.
    And the mining industry wants to develop the mineral assets 
of this country in an environmentally sensitive way. That being 
said, you can have a rational time frame that allows for 
adequate environmental review without stretching these things 
out to 7 to 10 years and beyond.
    Mr. Stauber. Well, Mr. Somers, I would say that I have 
heard you and a couple other folks say that 3 to 5, 5 to 7 
years for mining. I will let you know that in the Duluth 
complex in northern Minnesota, the biggest copper nickel find 
in the world, which Joe Biden just banned mining in that 
district. But there is a company in its 20th year of 
permitting, and then there is another one within 9 years of the 
permitting process. And it is just unfortunate, especially if 
we want to hold ourselves to the highest environmental and 
labor standards we mine in America. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Holloman, thank you for joining us today. Your 
testimony, like Mr. Somers, discussed how our foreign rivals 
control the international minerals market. It also briefly 
discusses the Inflation Reduction Act, which we were told was 
meant to reduce inflation. But according to your testimony, it 
allows metals mined in Indonesia, for example, and processed in 
China to qualify for IRA funding.
    Is this true, and can you expand on how these IRA funds 
also boost Chinese manufacturing?
    Mr. Holloman. Thank you, Congressman. That is a very good 
question, and I am glad you asked it.
    It was a shock to me. I just came back from Korea, where I 
was talking to some of the big FTA battery companies, and they 
were discussing the IRA and the domestic content requirements. 
Now, as far as I know, these domestic content requirements are 
not settled. It is still being discussed. There is a 
negotiation.
    But the Korean battery makers were interested in doing 
business in America, in building processing in America, in 
partnering with groups like us. Yet, they were conflicted, 
because they were being told by U.S. OEMs that, you know what, 
you already have processing of Chinese-owned Indonesian metal 
that goes to a 49 percent Korean-owned processing plant in 
China, and that will qualify. All we have to do is send it in 
an intermediate product, and then roll it into a battery in 
America. And that is going to qualify.
    And this is something that I think needs to be known, that 
that is not right. I have spoken to people right and left that 
say, no, that is not the intent of the law.
    Mr. Stauber. What you just described--excuse me, but what 
you just described is American taxpayer money going overseas to 
foreign, in some cases adversarial, nations to mine those 
critical minerals.
    Mr. Holloman. It will be, if we are giving a $7,500 
taxpayer rebate for an electric vehicle that has its metals 
mined and processed by the Chinese. That absolutely will 
happen. It hasn't happened yet, because we don't have that 
implementation, but it is coming soon, and we need to get ahead 
of it.
    It is something I think is important for you all to know, 
that that cannot be the domestic content requirement. We need 
it to be processed and mined in the USA--we can do a lot of it 
here--or the free trade agreement countries, as well. But let's 
try to get as much as we can, especially nickel and cobalt, 
here.
    Mr. Stauber. I agree. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
Ranking Member Grijalva for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Somers, question. Part of the discussion, almost the 
entire discussion, has been about NEPA and how it slows the 
ability for full extraction of gas, oil, mining, et cetera.
    Another piece of legislation that guides the mining 
industry is the 1872 law. And like was stated about NEPA, that 
it is time to fine-tune it, bring it up to date to these times. 
Do you feel the same? Do you feel that this Committee should 
explore that, as well, with the 1872 mining law?
    Mr. Somers. Thank you for the question. I think that any 
Federal statute is not going to be perfect, and there are 
opportunities to refine them. But I do think that it is 
necessary to clarify that the mining law of 1872 is a land 
tenure law. It is the law that guides how you get the legal 
rights to develop mineral opportunities here in the United 
States. It is not an environmental protection or conservation 
law.
    For that we have NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water 
Act, we have NAGPRA. I mean, there are a number of different--
--
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Somers. Yes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Just the 1970s and the 1870s, 
that is the difference I was trying to draw to.
    Mr. Holloman, you mentioned in your testimony having to do 
business with foreign mining entities, multi-national 
corporations that work in other parts of the world that exploit 
people, horrible labor standards, no concern for environmental 
protections or clean air, clean water issues, do you feel those 
kind of entities should be allowed to do business, if they are 
violating at that level in other countries, do business on 
public lands and waters here in the United States?
    Mr. Holloman. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Grijalva. And any look at going forward in the future, 
those kinds of bans and restrictions would be appropriate?
    Let's say Rio Tinto has a horrible history in other parts 
of the world, but has major mining industries here in the 
United States. Should they be banned from doing business on 
public land?
    Mr. Holloman. They should be looked at very closely. The 
foreign entities that are not keeping the standards up to 
American standards elsewhere in the world must be looked at.
    The Congo, for example----
    Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Holloman [continuing]. You have all types of mining.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chairman Franklin, for being here 
with us.
    I think one of the misunderstood issues about something as 
being slowed down in terms of the points that you were making 
fails to recognize that, in many--whether it is Oak Flat, 
whether it is the Santa Rita, whether it is other issues 
affecting tribes, whether in Nevada and other parts--the issue 
of sacred sites, cultural and historic resources, why they need 
to be brought up in the consideration, evaluation, and 
analysis, and the consultation with the tribes.
    Talk about that importance, and why many of the conflicts 
we see out there between Indian Country and a mining entity or 
another development has to do with that core issue.
    Mr. Franklin. Right. So, let me first say the reason why I 
think the Navajo's outfit is working so well is they are 
accountable to their own people. When you bring foreign 
interests in, they are not accountable to the United States 
people, unless we hold them accountable. And that is what I 
would look to all of you to do, and my colleagues up here.
    The importance of sacred sites and how that connects, a 
Canadian mining company doesn't care what they are doing to 
Indigenous people in the United States. Maybe they do, but they 
sure haven't been showing it, right? Once those resources are 
gone, like I was saying earlier, they are gone. When you 
disrespect the tribal burials like that, by just coming and 
mining and leaving the human remains on the surface, not even 
giving them the dignity of reburial, or even inviting the tribe 
to come along and assist--those are just things that, as a 
country, I think we are better than.
    As a Congress, I know that you are better than, right? And 
you all have the opportunity to stop those kinds of foolishness 
from happening. And I know that it is something that is of 
interest with you, as well. Sacred site protection is of the 
utmost importance to American Indian tribes. It is right up 
there with language, right up there with safety, and right up 
there with our families.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Adams, the Navajo Nation consistently, regardless of 
the administration, their elected officials have voted 
consistently, resolution and action after action, banning 
uranium mining in the Nation, banning the transport having to 
do with the legacy. And as a partner of the Navajo Nation in 
the business relationship, how do you feel about that?
    Mr. Adams. I appreciate the question. I can't represent the 
Navajo Nation or the thoughts of the government. I know that 
there are a lot of difficult decisions that were made in the 
past. I know that the policy right now is that they have had 
issues with uranium, and they don't want to deal with it.
    What the future holds, what the new President, Buu Nygren, 
is going to do with that, we don't know at this point. We are 
not pushing on uranium angles.
    Mr. Grijalva. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Somers and all of you 
gentlemen. Thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Somers, thank you for your statements. And you 
highlighted in your testimony the fact that mining is something 
most people don't experience firsthand, yet they benefit from 
its results every day. I agree with that fact and that 
statement, and that is particularly true of the folks who live 
right here in Washington, DC.
    Wyoming, however, is a mining state. And from being the 
home of the world's largest trona deposits to its abundant coal 
reserves, uranium mining, and countless other minerals, mining 
is a way of life in our state, and a major driver of our 
economy. When Joe Biden wages war on American mining alongside 
radical environmental groups, our state suffers and America 
suffers.
    My question to you is, how has the messaging of this 
Administration toward the mining and coal industry impacted our 
state's abilities to generate revenue, as well as our ability 
as a country to lower electricity costs for the consumers?
    Mr. Somers. Thank for that, Congresswoman. I think that the 
messaging is unhelpful, and it is also a little confusing, 
frankly.
    I mean, when you talk about some of the new energy 
technologies and the energy transition goals of the Biden 
administration, but then you are withdrawing huge tracts of 
Federal land from development, as Congressman Stauber talked 
about, as we have seen in Alaska and elsewhere and in Utah, and 
we have had two very large national monuments that have locked 
up substantial mineral resources.
    And in terms of being able to develop and bring the 
investment that is needed to develop our mineral resources, 
which are very expensive and complicated to develop, if you 
have messaging from the Federal Administration that says on the 
surface, yes, we want to do all this stuff, but then as you get 
into Federal permitting, as you get into land withdrawals and 
all the other things that have been talked about, it sends a 
very mixed message. So, I do think that it hinders our ability 
to attract the investment that we need.
    And I think also on the coal side, we are a very coal-heavy 
state, as well. As I mentioned, 62 percent of our electricity 
comes from coal. And to have those coal communities constantly 
hearing that we are shutting down your plants, we are shutting 
down your mines, it makes it difficult to also get these 
younger generations of workers to want to come in and work in 
these very high-paying and highly-skilled jobs.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Over 40 percent of the coal that is produced in this 
country comes from my state, from the state of Wyoming. So, we 
play an essential role in keeping electricity costs low for 
Americans.
    I think it is rather unfortunate that this Administration 
doesn't see the direction the entire world is going with coal 
production. Coal is the second-largest source for U.S. 
electricity. Germany and Asian nations have seen a large 
increase in their reliance on coal power. I know and firmly 
believe that coal is the energy of the future. And as radical 
environmentalists try to force their countries into an 
electrified transition the world is not ready for in terms of 
minerals mined and processed, lack of infrastructure, and more, 
coal, however, is there time and time again to keep the lights 
on.
    Mr. Somers, again, can you explain why the United States 
continues to rely so heavily on coal, and why other nations are 
seeing an increase in their reliance on coal for power?
    Mr. Somers. Absolutely. Again, part of this is you use the 
resources that you have available in your state because there 
are benefits beyond just providing that inexpensive and 
reliable dispatchable power. It also has benefits in terms of 
creating jobs, creating royalties, and moneys for Federal or 
for local economies.
    And I think that part of the reason that the world is 
moving in that direction of using more coal is the simple fact 
that we have an energy crunch, generally. You can see natural 
gas prices that have risen substantially, you have seen 
disruptions in supply, the renewables have not produced in the 
manner that they have been, that we were promised that they 
would produce. So, you need that reliable, dispatchable, 
inexpensive power, and people will get it.
    I mean, we are shipping coal to Europe, we are shipping 
coal to other parts of the world that we haven't shipped to for 
decades, frankly, because there is so much demand out there 
because of the general shortage of energy that we have. And 
coal is an important part of making sure that people don't 
freeze to death, frankly.
    Ms. Hageman. Coal is affordable, it is accessible, it is 
clean, and it is the energy of the future. Wouldn't you agree?
    Mr. Somers. Absolutely.
    Ms. Hageman. As I mentioned, certain countries have had to 
rely more on coal or nuclear energy and power to make up for 
shortages that are a product of their attempt to force an 
electrified transition before the world is ready.
    Mr. Somers, can you address whether the current Federal 
policies toward mining have our nation prepared for the 
electrified future they envision, and whether these Biden 
administration policies run the same risks here in the United 
States?
    Mr. Somers. Yes. I mean, as has been mentioned, there is 
massive mineral demand that is required for new energy 
technologies and for energy transition. And frankly, the 
Federal policies around developing those minerals are not 
adequate to make sure that we meet that demand.
    You know, we do produce a lot of coal, but we also are a 
major copper producer. We are one of only two states that 
produces lithium. We produce magnesium, and we produce a lot of 
things that you need for all of these energy technologies. But 
the Federal policies are not, again, encouraging investment 
and, in some cases, are discouraging the development of these 
resources in an adequate way.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you, and thank you, gentlemen, for 
making our lives better.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And some of those 
that you just rattled off, Mr. Somers, we have right in the 
great state of Wisconsin, and we are not being allowed to mine 
them with some of the toughest environmental regulations you 
will find anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Franklin, good to have you here today. In your 
statement here, the government can create fairness in this 
process by mandating consultation. Are there states that are 
not consulting with tribes?
    Mr. Franklin. Yes. So, as a part of the mining act, you see 
that happen. And I won't say that states aren't consulting, 
because our states do a good job of reaching out to tribes and 
discussing. But for the purposes of this mining act, 
absolutely. But for the purposes of states, they do.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you could share with me a list of the 
states that don't consult with the tribes--because I think 
about the state of Wisconsin. I mean, we specifically have a 
consultation process, and I would be very surprised that there 
is a state that isn't. But if there is, I would sure like to 
see that list, if you don't mind.
    Mr. Franklin. Yes, no problem. And I have some staff behind 
me from the National Association of THPOs that can work and 
probably get you a list of projects where the consultation that 
was done was extremely poor.
    But I will compliment you on your state. You all have done 
a fine job. And Menominee certainly is a tribe that has 
discussed consultation with your state and it being inclusive.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sure. You also state in here, ``We do not ask 
for disproportionate power and recognize the importance of 
mining.'' Once again, who is out there that is not giving the 
information that the tribes want? Because we consistently have 
that.
    Mr. Franklin. So, I have a really good example of that in 
my written statement, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and I just 
discussed it a little bit ago. And in this case, these were two 
foreign mining companies that came in and destroyed their 
village. But that plays out multiple times across Federal lands 
when being granted the right to come in and mine under this 
1872 mining act with foreign interests.
    There is another one that has a permit in the exact same 
space for Tohono O'odham, where the village was destroyed. 
There is another foreign mining company that is proposing and 
asking for a permit, and I think it might have been granted. 
That was submitted in 2019.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would just share, Mr. Chairman, part of the 
reason that we hear that we have all these foreign-owned mining 
companies is because of the uncertainty of the permitting 
process, what goes on with NEPA. Why would you, as an American, 
take your capital and invest in a project here in the United 
States of America?
    Isn't that correct, Mr. Adams, that there is a great 
discouraging of having domestic manufacturing?
    Mr. Adams. Yes. And on the coal side, because our 
permitting--there is an amazing amount of coal in the United 
States, OK? But from what is permitted, we are in danger. We 
are looking at 15 to 20 years, and the financial investment 
that has to take place--if I go win an LBA, and I have to come 
up with a half a billion dollars to buy that coal, I have to 
pay that in the first 5 years after getting it. It is going to 
be at least another 7 years before I get a penny of revenue off 
of that.
    Mr. Tiffany. By the way, if we could go back to the State 
of the Union last night, President Biden saying, ``Look at 
these companies that are having all these stock buybacks and 
things like that,'' why would they invest in America, in 
American energy, when they may have a stranded asset in the 
very near future with trying to shut things down?
    I mean, I have a natural gas-fired plant up in Superior, 
Wisconsin that is almost done with the process of being able to 
build now. And it would augment the intermittent sources of 
power that are being built around the Midwest. The EPA, the 
Biden EPA, just came in in the last 6 months and said, ``You 
have to go through a more detailed permitting process.''
    Delay is death, and so they are really discouraging people 
from being able to invest in. So, why would they invest when 
you see that?
    Mr. Holloman, would you expound a little bit more? You 
heard from Representative Stauber about these foreign sources, 
and how there are going to be foreign countries that are going 
to benefit from what is supposed to be bought in America. Could 
you expound on that a little bit more?
    Mr. Holloman. Sure. You know, China took a bet a long time 
ago, 15 or so years ago, that they don't have a bunch of mines, 
either. And what they did was they built processing. They built 
a lot of processing all across the future technological mining 
industry: copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel. They built the 
processing there to make the products such as sulfates, or 
precursor cathode active material, or cathode active material.
    And that is now where you have to sell your metal if you 
are a big producer. There are partners of ours that are big 
companies--Glencore, for example--that is trying to do the 
mining correctly, and they don't have options to sell their 
cobalt, even if they have one of the few mines in the Congo 
that mines properly, and is watched, and they only use proper 
Western practices. But they have to send it to China, because 
China has the only processing. We don't have any processing 
here.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Montana, who got a chance to 
visit in his district last year the only platinum and palladium 
mine in the United States.
    Mr. Rosendale, you recognize for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. As we have 
spoke, that is not the only place that palladium and platinum 
is located in the United States, it is just the only place that 
it is permitted. That is part of the problem that we are 
running into.
    Mr. Somers, a moment ago you referenced the national 
monuments, and the amount of land that has been pulled out of 
potential production and productivity because they have been 
designated as national monuments. My question is, that these 
extremely large tracts that had been pulled out, it is causing 
a lot of problem to have access to the valuable resources that 
are located beneath them.
    In your opinion, what do you feel was the original intent? 
Because that is what we rely upon here, the original intent of 
the size and the purpose of the designation of a national 
monument was.
    And do you think that a clarification of the language would 
be very beneficial?
    Mr. Somers. Absolutely. The Antiquities Act, I think, has 
been abused in recent decades to lock up mineral resources and 
for other purposes for which it wasn't intended.
    If you look at one of the original national monuments, 
which is the Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah, in 
southern Utah, that has some of the most beautiful natural 
bridges that you will find anywhere in the world. That was a 
monument that was designated by Teddy Roosevelt, and it is 
7,000 acres. The Bears Ears Monument that we have been fighting 
over for the last 10 or so years was originally 1.3 million 
acres.
    So, you are locking up a lot of land. And some of that land 
absolutely should be protected, but a lot of it is not 
necessary to have that level of protection on. The Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument is a 1.9 million-acre 
national monument, one of the largest that we have, and that 
locked up a large amount of our coal reserves in the state. 
Some of the best coal that you will find anywhere was locked up 
because of that national monument.
    So, I think that we need to get back to the original 
intent, which is to find those landscapes and those cultural 
resources that need legitimate protection, and protect those 
with a national monument or whatever other designation is 
appropriate.
    But also part of that is that, when you have those national 
monument designations, there are not resources that come with 
that. So, there is not an appropriation from Congress that 
says, ``We are going to give you the resources that you need to 
appropriately manage this land,'' and so you will have 1.3 
million acres of land that is designated, and you have a couple 
of BLM law enforcement that are supposed to patrol that whole 
area. And in some cases, we are finding actually more 
degradation to the cultural resources than we have before.
    Mr. Rosendale. Sure. And again, do you feel that we could 
have some clarification to the Antiquities Act to try to 
straighten some of that out?
    Mr. Somers. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rosendale. I would love to hear some recommendations 
from you on some of that language that we could try to 
incorporate.
    Mr. Holloman, we appreciate you coming here before this 
Committee to shed some light on just how difficult the 
development of critical and strategic minerals are in the 
United States.
    Despite us being one of the leading consumers and 
developers of electrification, you highlight just how reliant 
we are on our foreign adversaries for these technologies, 
specifically mentioning that 90 percent of the world's cobalt, 
nickel, and rare earth minerals are being processed in China, a 
country that we are constantly in competition with, as clearly 
evidenced by the spy balloon which traveled over our country, 
specifically Montana, looking at our ICBMs and an Air Force 
base all of last week.
    Your company, U.S. Strategic Metals, is an example of how 
feasible this can be if only the Federal Government would let 
us. You had one line of your testimony that I think has rung 
very, very clear to a lot of people sitting in this room today: 
``The best time to act was yesterday. The second best time to 
act is today.'' I seek to act today to defend ourselves against 
foreign reliance on these minerals.
    And my question for you is what, in your opinion, are some 
of the specific actions that Congress can put into motion to 
allow for these domestic capabilities to develop, and how can 
we prevent the Administration from continuing to block mineral 
development in the United States?
    Mr. Holloman. It is a great question. Thank you, 
Congressman.
    I think the important thing is to be involved in this 
domestic content negotiation that is going on with the IRA. It 
has been passed. It is about to go into action. And we need to 
make sure that the content of the batteries for electrification 
are made in America or free trade agreement countries. This is 
going to be a big ask, and we are going to have to get our GMs, 
our Fords, our Teslas involved in this. And I think that the 
Congress can do a lot in making sure that that happens.
    There is another thing we have to do, is debunk everywhere 
you see it the narrative which is coming out that it is too 
late. I just read an article where they have people on the Hill 
saying Chinese presence in the electric vehicle market is 
already nearly ubiquitous; corporate partnerships between 
Chinese and foreign automakers, including those in the United 
States, is standard, and that reaching America's climate goals 
without Chinese technology would be exceedingly difficult. We 
must stamp out this narrative.
    We can handle it here in America. We cannot yield to this 
position that we have to use Chinese technology. It just 
happened in Virginia. You had CATL, a great Chinese company, 
but coming in they wanted to build battery manufacturing with 
Ford in Virginia using Chinese technology, and they wouldn't 
show us the technology. We can't have that.
    We can do all of this stuff ourselves. We just need your 
help.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Holloman.
    Mr. Chair, I would yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. Yes, thank you very much. I would 
like to recognize Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would have sat there and let you preach on all day.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Collins. I want to start out--I just want to echo the 
reflection comment that Mr. Curtis made earlier. As I have been 
sitting here, I have been reflecting, as well. And I campaigned 
on reeling in China and moving away from a dependency on China. 
But, as Mr. Rosendale stated also, China is not our friend. 
That is evident by the balloon that they sent over us last week 
just to surveil us.
    And I really believe that the American people now have 
begun to wake up to China, if nothing else, then about a year 
and a half ago, when they saw their Christmas goods sitting off 
the coast of California that we couldn't get.
    So, Mr. Adams, I appreciate--I knew you had an opinion, and 
you commented on China as well as Mr. Somers.
    I have heard you comment on it, too, but I wanted to ask a 
question of Mr. Holloman.
    Because in your testimony you discussed that we have seen 
China emerge as the unquestioned leader in the minerals market. 
What factors caused the United States to fall behind during the 
same period that China became dominant?
    Mr. Holloman. Thank you, Congressman. We did not have a 
strategic will. Our country was always getting things for the 
cheapest, and the quickest, and just in time. China started 
thinking about this many, many years ago.
    I was in Africa in the early 2000s, going around to 
different countries, business meetings and government tenders. 
And the Chinese were always there. They were out tendering for 
African mining concessions. They were in Latin America getting 
mining concessions. They were in Indonesia getting mining 
concessions. China incorporated the will of a country to go out 
and secure the future of raw materials. We were absent.
    America, just to be blunt is we were very lazy, and that is 
something that has to change. And I think the only way it 
changes is when we realize that we cannot control our own 
destiny.
    Mr. Collins. Well, having said that, what do you see as, I 
don't know, the national security implications of the United 
States lagging behind China like that?
    Mr. Holloman. For the military, I don't know what our DOD 
stockpile for nickel, cobalt, copper, and lithium is, but I 
know it is needed in all of our high-tech equipment, our 
airplanes. Jet engines need alloys from cobalt and nickel. We 
don't have any of it. We import 100 percent of these metals. 
Our vulnerability is complete. We are completely vulnerable 
because of the lack of a stockpile and the lack of an ability 
to produce it here and mine it here.
    And oh, by the way, we have cobalt here. We have nickel 
here. In Idaho, in Missouri, where we are, we have copper. We 
are also making lithium from recycling. So, we can do it all 
here, and we can also import other metals and process it here. 
A company like Glencore is ready to sell to an American 
processing company if we create the processing.
    I always say, why don't we export batteries? Why don't we 
export pCAM and sulfate? We can do it, but there are no options 
for the world's miners, and we are not mining ourselves enough.
    Mr. Collins. Amen. Good job. Thank you.
    Mr. Holloman. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins. I think this is probably a pretty good 
softball, though. What can we do to close that gap?
    Mr. Holloman. Help American companies mine, and help them 
process. And there is a bipartisan kind of feeling around this 
because, whereas climate change is the fear on one side, China 
and national security is the fear on the other side.
    Let's talk across the aisle, if we can, because I think 
there are people in the Administration that want to help. That 
is really my recommendation to the House Committees. And let's 
make sure we have this law, this IRA law, which says ``domestic 
content.'' It has to mean domestic content. No loopholes, no 
big companies coming in and allowing additional metal from 
foreign entities of concern. It is written in the law that you 
cannot use metal from foreign entities of concern. We have to 
stick to that.
    Mr. Collins. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Somers, real quick, copper, gold, and silver are among 
many mineral commodities not listed as critical by the 
Department of the Interior. How important is it to increase 
production of these minerals, in addition to resources like the 
lithium, gallium, and cobalt?
    Mr. Somers. It is critically important. I mean, if you look 
at the mineral demand, a lot of those are for minerals that 
aren't on that critical minerals list, especially copper.
    We have one of the largest copper mines in the world in 
Utah. And without increasing copper production substantially, 
we are not going to meet any of these energy transition goals, 
or to be able to supply the copper we need for economic 
development, generally.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Sorry about that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is no problem, a great discussion going on 
here.
    Next we would like to turn to Representative LaMalfa.
    You have 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Adams, I wanted just to get a little background--sorry, 
I missed a portion of the hearing here--of your company and its 
ownership. Is it primarily owned by the Navajo Nation?
    Mr. Adams. Yes, Congressman, we are wholly owned by the 
Navajo Nation.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. And of the Four Corners Power Plant, as 
well?
    Mr. Adams. That is correct.
    Mr. LaMalfa. It has had some hard times in recent years. 
What is its current status on operation? Like, what percentage 
of its--how are you able to run the plant and such?
    Mr. Adams. So, Four Corners Power Plant is doing very well. 
A lot of that power is being bought from states west of it that 
apparently don't burn coal. It----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Any of it sold into California, do you think?
    Mr. Adams. Absolutely.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, is California buying that?
    Mr. Adams. We own a percentage of the Four Corners Power 
Plant, APS is still the controller of that.
    The San Juan plant just closed, unfortunately. And we were 
with some other groups that were very involved in doing a 
carbon capture project, but PNM, from pressures from certain 
groups, stripped that plant as quickly as possible so it 
couldn't be converted to a carbon capture.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, is that underway?
    Mr. Adams. Yes, that has already taken place.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Wow, OK. What was the source of the coal?
    Mr. Adams. The source of the coal from that was the San 
Juan mine.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Where was that at, again?
    Mr. Adams. It is just off the Nation in New Mexico, just 
outside of Farmington, New Mexico.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. Tell me about the technology in 
order to operate the plant there. What technology, as far as 
the cleanliness and such, was most recently in place?
    Mr. Adams. Sure, absolutely. As I laid out earlier, there 
has been $126 billion invested by coal companies and utilities 
into power plants.
    If you haven't been to a coal plant, if you haven't been to 
a coal-generating electrical plant, you should make that 
happen. I think everyone would be very surprised at what they 
saw, from a cleanliness perspective, from an environmental 
perspective, how the process works. I think that that is a 
very, very important field trip that we would love to work with 
our partners in West Virginia, just from a proximity 
perspective, to make that happen for this Committee to 
understand that process, to understand everything that is 
taking place, from an emissions perspective, in the coal 
plants.
    As Asia has continued to build out coal plants, they are 
using the newest, latest technologies.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Let's talk about the output of the effluent, 
the smoke, whatever, between, let's say, a plant made 1940 and 
the one today. How much cleaner are we talking about with the 
particulate, with the gases, et cetera?
    Mr. Adams. I don't have those exact numbers, I can get 
those to you. But it is----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, just spitball it a bit.
    Mr. Adams. I mean, what we are doing now isn't even 
comparable from a--I mean, we are five iterations of technology 
past where we were.
    When people look at pictures of a smokestack at a coal 
plant, and they are like, ``Look at that, look at the smoke, 
look at''--that is steam.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I know. They play that a lot.
    Mr. Adams. Absolutely.
    Mr. LaMalfa. A lot of steam coming out of things that are--
--
    Mr. Adams. It gets played all the time. But the emissions 
are--I would live on the east side of a coal plant dealing with 
the wind blowing that over my house all day, every day.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Somers, following up on previous conversation, and I 
have heard a lot in the conversation here about how important 
it is we have a domestic supply, that we have ceded so much to 
China, and China has moved in on other countries, and basically 
has the market cornered on so many critical minerals and rare 
earths, et cetera. What is our potential in this country if we 
had environmental laws that were more realistic about what we 
need to do at the same time as we are trying to mandate 
everything to be electrified?
    Mr. Somers. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, for those 
51 commodities that we are more than 50 percent reliant, Utah 
alone has production or historical production of 20 of those. 
On the original 2018 critical minerals list, we host 28 of 
those 35 critical minerals.
    So, again, just in one state we have the ability to really 
lessen our dependence on foreign imports. And if you expand 
that to other mining states, to Arizona, to New Mexico, even 
California, there is a lot of opportunity to end that reliance.
    But, again, you have to have the incentive for investment, 
and you have to have rational environmental laws so that that 
capital will come here.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Now, what does the footprint look like, 
usually, for a typical mine?
    I know we have made massive national monuments and set-
asides, hundreds of thousands, even a million acres. What is 
the footprint of a mine over its, say, 50-year life? How many 
acres does it need to do the job?
    Mr. Somers. It depends, to be honest, because, I mean, our 
big copper mine in the state, Rio Tinto Kennecott, is a massive 
mine. And part of that is because the concentrations of copper 
and gold and silver palladium that you get from that mine is 
very small.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, that is a good place.
    Mr. Somers. But we also have the only working beryllium 
mine in the United States, which provides about 70 percent of 
our beryllium. You can't have an F-35, you can't have an F-22 
without beryllium. That is a fairly small operation.
    Mr. LaMalfa. How many acres is that beryllium mine, do you 
think?
    Mr. Somers. I don't know, exactly.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Just guess the square miles. What do you 
think?
    Mr. Somers. I would say it is under 1,000 acres, the whole 
operation.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
    Mr. Somers. So, a fairly compact mine, because the 
concentrations of beryllium are very----
    Mr. LaMalfa. And how about the copper mine? How big is the 
copper mine, do you think, and the footprint?
    Mr. Somers. I mean, it takes a whole mountain range, 
frankly.
    Mr. LaMalfa. How much scar do you see? How much disturbed 
area would you see?
    Mr. Somers. It is very visible, very visible. But the parts 
that are actively mined are visible. The parts that have been 
reclaimed, you wouldn't even know that they have ever been 
mined in. And that is, I think, a difference between what we do 
in the United States versus what happens in some of these 
foreign countries, where the environmental degradation is 
substantial.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Absolutely.
    I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Does the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico wish to be recognized?
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. And thank you, the 
witnesses, for coming here.
    Mr. Somers, in your written testimony you describe the U.S. 
mine permitting system as duplicative, inefficient, and 
unpredictable. You also explain that the average Federal mining 
permitting process can take between 7 and 10 years.
    My question will be, can you discuss how these delays put 
the United States at a competitive disadvantage and contributes 
to our dependence on foreign adversaries like Communist China 
and Russia for hardrock minerals?
    Mr. Somers. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. And, 
again, that 7- to 10-year time frame is an average time frame. 
There are projects that have been discussed here that are far 
beyond that. Congressman Stauber talked about one in his 
district that is 20-plus years at this point.
    So, I think that when you are talking about putting us at a 
disadvantage, if you can go to a country that essentially has 
no environmental protections, then if you are willing to 
operate there, you can get a mine permitted, basically, by 
writing a check.
    If you want to stay with a country that has similar 
environmental protections--again, like Canada, Australia, some 
European countries--and you can get a mine through permitting 
in 2 or 3 years, if you are looking to get that return on your 
investment--which, in most cases, for a large mine is going to 
be hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of capital 
invested--and you want to get to that return when you actually 
start making money, if the difference is between 2 or 3 years 
and 7 to 10 to 20 years, that obviously puts us at a 
disadvantage.
    In some cases, our resources are so good that companies are 
willing to take those risks and sort of take their chances with 
those permitting timelines. But it definitely puts us at a 
disadvantage and, again, degrades our ability to provide for 
our own mineral resources.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I am extremely concerned about the 
China control of the global mineral supply chain. For instance, 
according to a 2022 Brookings report that nation is refining 68 
percent of nickel globally, 40 percent of copper, 59 percent of 
lithium, and 73 percent of cobalt.
    And according to our own U.S. Geological Survey, 2022 
Mineral Commodities Summaries Report, China has been the 
leading supplier for 16 critical minerals, as well as 25 other 
minerals our nation depends on.
    So, my question will be, what specific policies or actions 
will you recommend this Congress to pursue to end this 
dependence?
    Mr. Somers. You bring up a critical point, which is, part 
of it is the extraction side, but part of it is also the 
processing side. So, even for well-developed commodities like 
copper, we only have two copper smelters left in the entire 
United States. There is one in Salt Lake City, there is one in 
Arizona, two for the entire United States. And, again, this is 
a mineral that we use in all kinds of products. We don't have 
the processing, smelting, refining capabilities for a lot of 
these critical minerals, as you described. And I think that 
that has to be part of these discussions across the board.
    And for processing facilities, in some cases you run into 
the same permitting hurdles that you do with an extractive 
operation because you are still dealing with air quality 
permits, or water quality permits, and other things that have 
to go through a Federal permitting process that, as we have 
discussed, can be very antiquated, that is very unorganized, 
and doesn't have the kind of timelines and certainty that you 
need to make these substantial investments.
    Again, a copper smelter, a cobalt refining operation, these 
are going to be hundreds of millions of dollars that you are 
going to invest in these facilities. So, I think you have to 
have more rational permitting.
    And then, again, if there are opportunities to incentivize 
investment in these type of operations, that is something that 
the United States could do to make sure that we are not digging 
up rare earth minerals, for example, in California, and then we 
are shipping them off to China to be processed. We are not 
relying on China for cobalt or nickel, or whatever the case is.
    Again, there are very few of these things that we can--on 
the uranium side, we are talking about building new small 
modular nuclear reactors in this country, which was a great 
thing to pursue. But in most cases you have to rely on HALEU 
uranium that is coming from Russia, because we don't have those 
enrichment facilities anymore in the United States.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
myself for questions. And I again want to thank this excellent 
panel of witnesses for your testimony today, and for your 
answers to the Committee's questions.
    And as I have listened in, and I think about the situation 
that we are in, there are several words that come to mind: 
challenges, opportunities. I see blessings and curses and 
responsibilities, all of that rolled into one. And I wanted to 
break that down a little bit and look at the challenges that we 
face.
    We could have a hearing like this on every mineral and 
element that is mined in our country, and every one that we 
depend on. But let's use copper. Let's just look at copper, 
which is so critical to electrification. And this statistic 
came out, and it is almost hard to fathom, but the World Bank 
says that, by 2045, we have to mine more copper than we have 
mined in the past 5,000 years to meet global demands. So, think 
about that. The next 20, 25 years we need to mine more copper 
than mankind has mined in the history of the world to meet the 
projections. That is a massive challenge.
    Mr. Somers, you talked about two copper smelters in the 
United States. China has 50 of them.
    The Chinese Communist Party isn't quick to share data with 
us on their economy, but we can get data on the U.S. economy. 
And we know from testimony here, just from other hearings we 
have had, that America is blessed with abundant natural 
resources, a lot of stuff that we can mine.
    I have done a lot of work, and staff has done work with 
USGS. And I actually have a report here that I am going to 
submit to the record. It is the 2023 USGS Mineral Commodity 
Summary, Figure 1.

    [The information follows:]

United States Geologic Survey's Figure 1 from their 2023 assessment.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 .eps__
                                 

    The Chairman. And my question to staff was, how big is the 
mining industry in the United States? What does it look like?
    And we all hear about value-added processes. Well, if we 
look at what we dig up and what we recycle here, some of that 
gets exported, some of it gets used. But what we keep here from 
mining and recycling, it is a net of about $120 billion, the 
value of those raw materials. So, you take those, and you get 
processed minerals out of it.
    Now, that value-added process, from $120 billion, when it 
goes through smelting and the next stage, the value of that 
comes up to $923 billion. So, you get almost eight times the 
value from what you mine and recycle as to what you have 
processed.
    But the real number, and the mind-boggling one, is what 
happens after you get that processed mineral and you start 
manufacturing things out of it. Now, maybe we have painted the 
picture that mining is not strong in the United States, and 
that further processing is not strong. But still, that $923 
billion of processed minerals--and part of that is our minerals 
that we import--adds $3.3 or $3.6 trillion to the U.S. GDP.
    Now, again, we could break this down, and we are trying to 
get the numbers on everything that is mined and processed in 
the United States. But just think back to copper, that has such 
a huge demand on it. We have two smelters. China, we know, has 
at least 50. How much of our GDP are we exporting when we buy 
those manufactured goods from China that we could be producing 
right here at home?
    So, that is a huge opportunity. I don't think we really 
stop and recognize the economic opportunity that we have here 
in the United States.
    So, we have looked at challenges, opportunities, the 
blessings we have. There are curses associated with mining. And 
we know that there are some terrible human rights violations 
around the world.
    [Slides.]
    The Chairman. These are pictures from the so-called 
Democratic Republic of Congo, child slave labor, forced labor, 
digging the stuff out of mines to go to Chinese refineries to 
make stuff to ship here to the United States and around the 
world.
    Now, we have cobalt, we have nickel, we have a lot of these 
deposits here in the United States. And with the insatiable 
appetite for more minerals, the mining is going to happen 
somewhere. Regardless of who owns these companies, this will 
not happen in the United States of America. Under no ownership 
will American citizens allow this kind of human rights abuses 
in the United States. So, do we want to stand by and watch this 
continue to happen in other parts of the world because we have 
a not-in-my-backyard policy here in the United States?
    These are the things I think we have to come to grips with: 
How do we responsibly use the resources that we have here? How 
do we meet these massive demands? And how do we do it with the 
most environmentally sound practices, without human rights 
violations? Actually, we would be increasing the benefits to 
humanity by not only providing these materials, but providing 
phenomenal-paying jobs, by growing our own economy, and that 
value-added process, it could be a huge boom for the United 
States.
    But that gets to our responsibility, the responsibility as 
members of this Committee, as Members of Congress, as to how we 
are going to move forward. And it should be bipartisan. If it 
is regulatory issues that are the problem, we should fix the 
regulatory issues. If it is oversight, we should have the 
oversight, and use the power of the purse of Congress to make 
sure that these things aren't happening around the world, that 
we are creating good jobs in America, and that we are growing 
our economy, and we are pushing back against these supply 
chains that, in this area of energy, it is coming from China. 
There are other countries, as well, but the part that we should 
really be focusing on is doing away with China supplying these 
goods.
    So, the question to the panel is, where should our focus 
be?
    We brought you in as experts to coach the Committee, and we 
are getting ready to develop legislation. What should we put in 
that legislation to accomplish these goals?
    We will start down on the end.
    Mr. Holloman. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. I think 
you have to start by agreeing to agree, because both sides 
should agree on this. We can't export our pain while we buy an 
iPhone, but we are against a cobalt mine in America. That is 
just exporting the pain to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    We need to stop companies that do these practices from 
being able to sell their metals into America, and we need to 
streamline these laws, right? We need to streamline the laws 
that you are already looking at, NEPA and everything else, so 
that we can do it responsibly and well, and do it together.
    And I have to say, not only is that happening, but think of 
carbon footprint. I mean, the right side is not really well 
represented, but this group is very worried about carbon 
footprint. That cobalt goes twice around the world to end up in 
your iPhone battery or your Tesla battery, twice around the 
world, 50,000 miles. That is the average lithium ion battery 
metal travel. If we were doing it in America, you could have 
2,000 miles as the carbon footprint.
    So, there are great arguments on both sides of this. We 
need to do it together. I would start with streamlining 
technology, raising awareness, and not accepting metal from 
these types of places.
    The Chairman. Mr. Franklin?
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that 
question.
    Just start with tribes, end with tribes. That is kind of a 
way we like to reference when there are regulatory actions that 
are taking place that impact us.
    So, in other words, meaningful consultation up front, 
talking to tribes, avoiding these mistakes that are made, the 
one that just happened with Reno-Sparks Indian Colony at 
Thacker Pass. Meaningful consultation that takes into account 
strategies that we can implement to avoid sacred sites, avoid 
cultural resource areas, and avoid poisoning the waters that 
are going into tribal faucets.
    I think that, if we can put that into legislation, and 
strengthen the existing ones, and find places where it is not 
at, that we can adequately mine, and not on the backs of Indian 
tribes, but, like my brother here, with Indian tribes. And that 
is what I would ask you to consider as you move forward.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Adams?
    Mr. Adams. I agree with Chairman Franklin. We need to make 
sure that eco-colonization isn't taking place on our tribes, 
where this year, the Navajo, we are drilling at Chaco Canyon. 
The tribe represented and did the analysis and said we need to 
be at 5 miles from Chaco Canyon. And the Federal Government 
came in and said, ``No, 10 works.'' That is the other side. I 
mean, eco-colonization has to stop.
    To answer your question on the smelters and what we need to 
change, if we are going to go from two smelters to more, if we 
are going to continue to participate and keep up with world 
growth, we need energy. If we don't have enough electricity 
sitting on our grid, it doesn't matter how many smelters we 
have.
    We have an issue where we need to focus on baseload power. 
Coal is not the issue. Emissions are the issue. President Biden 
said last night that we are a resilient country that has always 
moved forward. We are innovative. Then let's find the answers. 
Let's invest in the science. Let's find the answers that are 
going to drop the emissions to a level where we want them to 
be, but continue to use coal at a base level 20 to 25 percent.
    No one is arguing saying coal should be 80 percent. We are 
saying we need to stay at a baseload level to keep incubators 
running in hospitals, and keeping people warm and cold when 
they need to be, and to keep industry running. As we come into 
an EV economy where we need more power, this is the wrong time 
to be getting rid of coal. We need that baseload.
    No coal company in the world is going to come and say, 
``Hey, there are these other great green solutions that solve 
the problem, and we are going to argue against that,'' but that 
is not our reality. We need 50 years for the technology to be 
there. Rely on cheap, reliable coal to get us there.
    The Chairman. And before we go to Mr. Somers, I want to 
address that for just a moment.
    I am the optimistic engineer. I have always said we 
shouldn't demonize the fuel source, we should work to achieve 
the objectives we want to achieve with the fuel. I have had 
numerous groups come to me in the past few months, telling me 
about new carbon sequestering technology, where you strip the 
carbon off, or somehow you take the carbon and you put it in a 
slurry, you inject the slurry into a deep well, and it turns 
back into rock.
    You could potentially have carbon-free energy from burning 
coal or burning natural gas if this technology is developed. 
So, I think we have to continually push the envelope. That is 
what is going to change energy development around the world, is 
when American ingenuity comes up with the most reliable, most 
affordable, and the cleanest, by whatever definition of clean 
you want to use that other countries will adopt.
    Mr. Adams. I completely agree. And we believe in the 
innovation of the American people. We are not quitting on them. 
We are not going to say, no, we can't do it, and just get rid 
of whatever it may be. We don't understand why we are doing it 
with coal.
    The Chairman. Mr. Somers?
    Mr. Somers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to second what you 
said about American ingenuity, and especially in investing in 
new technologies. And I think that the Federal Government has a 
very useful role to play, because the Federal Government has 
the resources to take those R&D risks and the commercialization 
risks that are very difficult to be borne by private industry 
in many cases.
    So, I think that ensuring that our Federal agencies and 
their Federal programs that have adequate resources to invest 
in those kind of new technologies so that we can take advantage 
of American ingenuity and keep our energy economy going the way 
that we need to.
    But also, on the processing side, there are new processing 
technologies where you can go into waste streams, where you can 
go into a tailings pond, and pull out minerals that would be 
lost otherwise, and would have to be developed elsewhere, and 
inject those into the value stream, as well.
    Just to give one example, our copper mine that I have 
talked about just recently they opened up a tellurium circuit. 
Tellurium is a mineral that is used specifically in PV cells 
and solar panels, and most of that was coming from China, 
again. But there was a U.S. company that decided that they 
wanted to source this mineral from the United States.
    They went to Rio Tinto Kennecott and said, ``Can you pull 
this out of your waste stream? We will pay for it, we will pay 
the extra money that it is going to cost, so we don't have to 
buy it from China.'' It is pulled out of that waste stream, it 
is sent to Canada to be processed, and then it comes back here, 
and it is put into solar cells. And, frankly, those cells are 
more expensive than what you get from China.
    So, if there are going to be incentives for solar 
production, then make sure that those incentives are directed 
at North American or U.S. product streams, as opposed to, 
again, being able to be pulled out of other countries.
    And I think too, just in general, especially for these 
minerals that we need, the critical minerals, the minerals that 
we need for national defense systems, the Federal Government 
has to insist on domestic sourcing for those.
    Again, I mentioned you can't have an F-35 without 
beryllium. Part of the reason that we have beryllium is because 
the Federal Government decades ago decided that they wanted to 
invest in developing our beryllium resources here in the United 
States, and now we are the major producer of beryllium. Eight 
percent of the market is controlled by the United States. And 
that is because the Federal Government decided that they needed 
to make sure that beryllium that was needed especially for 
airframes in this country was coming from the United States, 
that we controlled that supply.
    And we need to do that for all kinds of different minerals 
so that, again, we don't have a national defense system that 
relies upon one of our adversaries to give us that mineral in 
some cases that you have never heard of, but that you have to 
have for an alloy and process, that you have to have for 
magnesium, that you need for defending against an airframe 
against missile attacks.
    I mean, those are all things that, again, most people don't 
think about. But our folks at DOD and other places within the 
Federal Government think about that. But in many cases, they 
can't go outside of the country to acquire those minerals, and 
that is just incredibly counterproductive.
    The Chairman. Yes, thank you, Mr. Somers.
    Thank you again to all the witnesses. I could stay here 
probably all afternoon, but Mr. Grijalva is growing impatient 
with me over here, and we want to keep as much collegiality as 
we can on the Committee.
    So, again, thank you to the witnesses, thank you to the 
Members.
    And the members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing.
    I also have a few things to submit to the record: a letter 
from the National Mining Association.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                        Statement for the Record
                      National Mining Association

    America's mining industry supplies the essential materials 
necessary for nearly every sector of our economy--from technology and 
healthcare to energy, transportation, infrastructure and national 
security. The NMA is the only national trade organization that serves 
as the voice of the U.S. mining industry and the hundreds of thousands 
of American workers it employs before Congress, the federal agencies, 
the judiciary and the media, advocating for public policies that will 
help America fully and responsibly utilize its vast natural resources. 
We work to ensure America has secure and reliable supply chains, 
abundant and affordable energy, and the American-sourced materials 
necessary for U.S. manufacturing, national security and economic 
security, all delivered under world-leading environmental, safety and 
labor standards. The NMA has a membership of more than 275 companies 
and organizations involved in every aspect of mining, from producers 
and equipment manufacturers to service providers. Thank you for the 
opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of the mineral and hardrock 
mining companies in the NMA.
Ever-increasing Demand for Minerals

    There is widespread recognition that we are entering the most 
mineral and metal intensive era in human history.\1\ Consequently, the 
right policies to secure new domestic mineral production and our supply 
chains are more important than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Google results for the term ``critical minerals'' return nearly 
24,000 responses (7,000 news specific) for the last month alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The international competition for minerals will be fierce. The 
European Union (EU) recently unveiled its ``REPowerEU Plan.'' scale-up 
and speed up renewable energy in the next decade.\2\ Late last year, 
the United Kingdom (UK) released its ``Resilience for the future: The 
UK's critical minerals strategy.'' \3\ In December, Canada released its 
``Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy,'' a generational ``plan to 
position Canada as the global supplier of choice for critical minerals 
and the clean technologies they enable.'' \4\ Of course, China, with 
its much longer planning horizon, moved earlier and more quickly to 
address the risks to its mineral supply chains. In 1999, the Chinese 
government announced its aggressive ``go global'' campaign to secure 
raw materials. The policy, which was fully implemented around 2002-
2003, articulated three main objectives: (1) to support national 
exports and expand into international markets; (2) to push domestic 
firms to internationalize their activities as a means of acquiring 
advanced technologies; and (3) to invest in the acquisition of 
strategic resources.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: REPowerEU Plan, (SWD(2022) 
230 final), May 18, 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
resource.html?uri=cellar:fc930f14-d7ae-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF.
    \3\ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 
``Resilience for the future: The UK's critical minerals strategy, 22 
July 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-
mineral-strategy/resilience-for-the-future-the-uks-critical-minerals-
strategy
    \4\ Natural Resources Canada News Release, ``Countries Commit to 
the Sustainable Development and Sourcing of Critical Minerals,'' Dec. 
12, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2022/
12/countries-commit-to-the-sustainable-development-and-sourcing-of-
critical-minerals.html
    \5\ CRS, ``China's Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic 
and Critical Minerals: Issues for Congress,'' R43864, March 20, 2015, 
p. 2. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43864/6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many public analyses evaluate the demand for minerals for new 
technologies and especially energy generation. Last year the 
International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a cautionary report about 
risks related to the mineral supply chains required for energy 
generation transitions.\6\ IEA estimates and others show that demand 
for some minerals could grow by more than 40 times by 2040. According 
to IEA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical World 
Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' 
May 2021.

     Lithium demand is anticipated to grow by more than 40 
            times by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt and nickel at 
            around 20-25 times;
     Copper demand for grid infrastructure and electrification 
            more than doubles by 2040;

     Demand for cobalt is expected to be anywhere from 6 to 30 
            times higher than today's levels; and

     Rare earth elements may see three to seven times higher 
            demand in 2040 than today.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id at pp. 8-10

   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    .epsNotes: kg = kilogramme; MW = megawatt. Steel and aluminum not 
included. See Chapter 1 and Annex for details on the assumptions and 
methodologies.
    Other major reports echo the findings of the IEA. Wood Mackenzie, 
the World Bank,\8\ the Wilson Center \9\ and others outline staggering 
demand increases that are likely to outplace the available minerals 
supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ World Bank Group, ``Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral 
Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition,'' 2020. https://
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-
Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
    \9\ D. Wood, A. Helfgott, M. D'Amico, and E. Romanin, Woodrow 
Wilson International Center for Scholars, ``The Mosaic Approach: a 
Multidimensional Strategy for Strengthening America's Critical Minerals 
Supply Chain,'' Oct. 12, 2021, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/
default/files/media/uploads/documents/
critical_minerals_supply_report.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Wood Mackenzie:

     Demand for copper and aluminum is anticipated to increase 
            by a third by 2040.

     Nickel demand grows by two-thirds and cobalt and lithium 
            by 200 percent and 600 percent, respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Gavin Montgomery, Wood Mackenzie, ``COP26: Why battery raw 
materials are a highly-charged topic--Aggressive EV uptake is needed to 
meet a 2+ C target, but metals supply will struggle to meet demand.'' 
13 October 2021, https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/cop26-why-
battery-raw-materials-are-a-highly-charged-topic/

    Matching the speed and scale of this rising demand requires a 
permitting regime that enables the mining sector to respond to market 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
signals. Current U.S. permitting timelines do not.

    As the IEA recently concluded in a July 2022 battery supply chain 
report:

        Electrifying road transport requires a wide range of raw 
        materials. While all stages of the supply chain must scale up, 
        extraction and processing are particularly critical due to long 
        lead times. Governments must leverage private investment in 
        sustainable mining and ensure clear and rapid permitting 
        procedures to avoid potential supply bottlenecks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ IEA, ``Global Supply Chains of EV Batteries,'' July 2022. 
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-supply-chains-of-ev-batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Down the Supply Chain

    End users of minerals have awoken to the challenge of securing 
mineral supply chains, a development perhaps most pronounced by the 
automotive sector as it advertises a transition to electric vehicles 
(EVs). Over the last few years, many of the major U.S. car makers have 
made ambitious announcements about their EV plans. As examples, General 
Motors has announced it will invest $35 billion in electric and 
autonomous vehicle product development until 2025 and that it will 
phase out petrol and diesel cars by 2035; Volkswagen wants half of its 
vehicle sales to be electric by 2030 and nearly 100 percent electric 
sales by 2040; and Audi will launch fully electric models only from 
2026 and aims for all car sales to be electric by 2030.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ van Halm, I. and Mullan, C., Feb. 14, 2022, ``Booming EV sales 
challenge critical mineral supply chains,'' Energy Monitor https://
www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/transport/booming-ev-sales-challenge-
mineral-supply-chains
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time, automakers are warning with ever greater 
frequency that the coming battery material shortfall could stop the EV 
revolution in its tracks. As recently noted by RJ Scaringe, CEO of EV 
start-up Rivian, the auto industry's current semiconductor problems 
``are a small appetizer to what we are about to feel on battery cells 
over the next two decades.'' \13\ No wonder, as the battery supply 
chain is already facing the pinch of rising material prices as the gap 
between demand and supply widens. Battery pack costs--which had been on 
a long downward trend--are now rising. Metals accounted for 40 percent 
of battery costs in 2015. Today, they account for 80 percent. Where the 
price of these metals goes, so does the cost of batteries and EVs. 
According to EV automaker Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares, there will be 
a shortage of EV batteries by 2024-2025, followed by a lack of raw 
materials for the vehicles that will slow availability and adoption of 
EVs by 2027-2028 as the global automotive industry pivots to EVs to 
meet an expected increase in consumer demand and government 
regulations. He recently cautioned that the ``speed at which we are 
trying to move all together for the right reason, which is fixing the 
global warming issue, is so high that the supply chain and the 
production capacities have no time to adjust.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Wall Street Journal,'' Rivian CEO Warns of Looming Electric-
Vehicle Battery Shortage,'' April 2022. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
rivian-ceo-warns-of-looming-electric-vehicle-battery-shortage-
11650276000
    \14\ Media interview, May 24, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/
24/stellantis-ceo-warns-of-ev-battery-shortage-lack-of-raw-
materials.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Automakers have been seeking solutions, including inking deals 
directly with mining companies. For example, last year Tesla addressed 
its concern about obtaining the nickel for its EVs by entering into an 
agreement with BHP to obtain nickel from Australia and more recently 
with Talon Metals to buy quantities of nickel directly from a mine the 
company is building in Minnesota. Ioneer has signed a binding offtake 
agreement with the Ford Motor Company to supply lithium from its 
Rhyolite Ridge lithium-boron project in Nevada.\15\ Only last week, 
General Motors announced it was investing $650 million in Lithium 
Americas to secure access to production from its Nevada operations, 
which General Motors estimates will contribute to one million EVs 
annually.\16\ For this deal, General Motors was one of more than 50 
automakers and companies seeking a secure supply of minerals from 
Lithium Americas.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ PR Newswire,'' Ioneer Signs Binding Lithium Offtake Agreement 
with Ford,'' July 21, 2022
    \16\ Lithium Americas General Motors Transaction Announcement, 
January 31, 2023, https://www.lithiumamericas.com/news/lithium-
americas-provides-general-motors-transaction-details-and-update-on-
construction-plan-for-thacker-pass. Cecilia Jamasmie, January 31, 2023, 
``GM invests $650m in Lithium Americas to develop Thacker Pass mine'' 
www.mining.com, https://www.mining.com/gm-lithium-americas-to-jointly-
develop-thacker-pass-mine-in-nevada/
    \17\ The Electric, ``The New `Elephants'--GM Grabs the Biggest 
Lithium Deposit in the U.S., Feb. 2, 2023. https://
subscriptions.theinformation.com/newsletters/the-electric/archive/the-
electric-the-new-elephants-gm-grabs-the-biggest-lithium-deposit-in-the-
u-s

    At the same time, automakers are urging the ramp up of domestic 
mining. Last year, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation wrote 
President Biden expressing concerns that ``neither the current 
trajectory of consumer adoption of EVs, nor existing levels of federal 
support for supply- and demand-side policies, is sufficient to meet our 
goal of a net-zero carbon transportation future.'' \18\ One of the 
specific policy recommendations offered by the Alliance is to promote 
national security and economic security enhancements through the 
development of U.S.-based supplies of critical minerals (extraction, 
processing and recycling), battery and fuel cell manufacturing, and 
other critical components, including semiconductors.\19\ And as 
succinctly stated recently by Jim Farley, President and CEO of Ford 
Motor Co.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Alliance for Automotive Innovation letter to President Biden, 
March 29, 2021. https://www.autosinnovate.org/posts/communications/
Auto%20Industry%20EV%20Policy%20Letter%20 
to%20President%20Biden%20March%2029%202021.pdf
    \19\ Id. at 4.

        We have to bring battery production here, but the supply chain 
        has to go all the way to the mines . . . So are we going to 
        import lithium and pull cobalt from nation-states that have 
        child labor and all sorts of corruption or all we going to get 
        serious about mining?'' . . . We have to solve these things and 
        we don't have much time.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Jim Farley remarks, Detroit Homecoming VIII, Live-streamed 
interview with Mary Kramer (director of the annual event). Sept. 25, 
2021. https://detroithomecoming.com/livestream-events/

    We have our work cut out for us to build our domestic mineral 
supply chains quickly. As recently reported by The New York Times, how 
automakers will obtain enough materials for an all-electric lineup 
remains unclear. Last last month, Farley told analysts that only 50 
percent of the raw materials needed to meet the auto industry's 
announced EV targets were actually available.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Boudette, Neal E. 2022. ``California E.V. Mandate Finds a 
Receptive Auto Industry.'' The New York Times, August 25, 2022, sec. 
Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/25/business/energy-
environment/electric-vehicles-automakers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Cannot Be Met Without New Mining

    The automakers are just one stakeholder group that acknowledges the 
role of domestic mining in securing our supply chains. Certainly, the 
federal government has repeatedly noted that boosting sustainable 
domestic mining must be part of the solution. For example, in May 2021, 
the White House rebutted reporting from Reuters claiming that President 
Biden will primarily rely on ally countries to supply the bulk of the 
metals needed to build EVs. In its clarification, the White House noted 
that the reporting incorrectly characterizes the Biden-Harris 
administration's approach:

        President Biden is focused on seizing the electric vehicle (EV) 
        market, sourcing and manufacturing the supply chain here in 
        America, and creating good-paying, union jobs. Building 
        American-made EVs and shipping them around the world will 
        include leveraging American-made parts and resources. This 
        includes responsibly pursuing, developing, and mining critical 
        minerals and materials used for EV batteries. As we strengthen 
        our supply chains, we will pursue strong environmental 
        standards and broad, rigorous consultations with local and 
        indigenous communities to support a responsible, fair, and 
        sustainable EV industry.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Statement from Ali Zaidi, Deputy National Climate Advisor, 
Reuters, Epoch Times etc.: https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-
denies-report-that-biden-looks-overseas-for-electric-vehicle-
metals_3832373.html?welcomeuser=1

    Working with our allies, like Canada, to build these supply chains 
is smart. But that must complement the essential work of standing up 
production and these supply chains at home. It cannot come in place of 
it.
    Recent withdrawal decisions this month locking up more than 225,000 
acres in federal Forest Service lands from mining for two decades after 
also withdrawing federal leases nearly sixty years old from projects in 
the same areas known for some of the nation's largest reserves of 
nickel, cobalt, copper, platinum, and palladium could only be described 
at best as short sighted and at worst self-sabotage.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Wall Street Journal, ``Biden's Green-Energy Mineral Lockup. 
The feds block mining that is essential for making EV batteries'' 
January 29, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-
mining-duluth-complex-minnesota-superior-national-forest-deb-haaland-
electric-vehicles-11674860178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Permitting Process Discourages Investment in U.S. Mining

    With over $6 trillion worth of mineral resources here in the United 
States, a highly trained and highly compensated workforce, and world-
class environmental and safety standards, the U.S. mining industry is 
essential to helping the nation meet ever-increasing demand for 
minerals for electrification, infrastructure and manufacturing needs.

    However, there is real room for improvement. To improve supply 
chain security, we must also have a robust domestic mineral supply 
chain. That includes more smelting, processing and refining 
capabilities in the U.S. necessary to claw back these essential 
processes from geopolitical adversaries like China, which controls more 
than 80 percent of global rare earth element production, nearly 90 
percent of global mineral processing capabilities as well as the market 
prices for rare earth elements at each step of the process.

    Permitting delays have been, and continue to be, one of the most 
significant risks to meeting domestic mineral production goals. As the 
permitting process for important projects across the U.S. drags on, 
geopolitical rivals are taking advantage of our bureaucratic inertia. 
Opening or expanding a mine in the U.S. typically involves multiple 
agencies and the navigation of tens or even hundreds of permitting 
processes at the local, state and federal levels, with little 
transparency into status, delays arising from duplication among federal 
and state agencies, an absence of firm timelines for completing 
environmental assessments, and failures in coordination of 
responsibilities between various agencies. Necessary government 
authorizations now take an average of seven to 10 years to secure--one 
of the longest permitting processes in the world for mining projects--a 
time period that is completely out of step with the dramatic increases 
in minerals production that will be needed in the coming decades to 
keep up new technologies, infrastructure, manufacturing and even with 
the administration's goals.

    In the U.S., necessary government authorizations place the U.S. at 
a competitive disadvantage in attracting investment for mineral 
development. By comparison, permitting in Australia and Canada, which 
have similar environmental standards and practices as the U.S., take 
between two and three years. The NMA believes that valid concerns about 
environmental protection should be fully considered and addressed but 
permitting processes should not serve as an excuse to trap mining 
projects in a limbo of duplicative, unpredictable, endless and costly 
review without a decision point. Moreover, there is little evidence 
that such delays yield commensurate environmental benefits. The length 
of the permit process should not be confused with the rigor of review. 
Ironically, it takes about two years to build a new battery 
gigafactory, but it takes at least eight years (sometimes more than 10 
years) to build a new lithium mine.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Comments of Dr. Qichao Hu, founder and CEO of Massachusetts-
based battery maker SES, in an interview with Charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nearly two decades ago, the U.S. attracted almost 20 percent of the 
world's total mining investment. Unfortunately, in the time since, 
there has been a sharp decline in U.S. exploration investment. This is 
not due to lack of resources, but rather a lack of confidence in the 
U.S. as a viable mining jurisdiction in which to invest hundreds of 
millions of dollars in upfront costs due to duplicative, inefficient 
and costly permitting timeframes, making the U.S. more dependent on 
other countries for metals.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


.epsCurrent Permitting Process Encourages Foreign Dependence

    The U.S. is increasingly vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and 
retaliation from geopolitical adversaries due to our ever-increasing 
reliance on imports for these essential resources. Less than half of 
the mineral needs of U.S. manufacturing are met by domestically 
produced minerals, which leaves our economy and national security at a 
strategic disadvantage. The U.S. Geological Survey's annual commodity 
summary released only last week makes some key findings:

     Last year, imports made up more than one-half of the U.S. 
            apparent consumption for 51 nonfuel mineral commodities, 
            and the United States was 100 percent net import reliant 
            for 15 of those.

     Of the 50 mineral commodities identified in the ``2022 
            Final List of Critical Minerals,'' the United States was 
            100 percent net import reliant for 12, and an additional 31 
            critical mineral commodities (including 14 lanthanides, 
            which are listed under rare earths) had a net import 
            reliance greater than 50 percent of apparent consumption.

     Underscoring the vulnerability of U.S. mineral supply 
            chains, China was the leading source of mineral commodities 
            with a greater than 50 percent import reliance providing 
            26, with significant imports of other essential commodities 
            also coming from Russia.

     The estimated value of U.S. metal mine production in 2022 
            was $34.7 billion, six percent lower than the revised value 
            in 2021. In 2022, the capacity utilization for the metals 
            mining industry was 61 percent, less than the 63 percent 
            capacity utilization in 2021.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ U.S. Geological Survey, 2023 Commodity Summary, https://
pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .epsSource: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 1900-2023 editions.

    While alarming, these findings are the latest in a 20-year trend of 
net imports that cost our country roughly $90 billion last year alone. 
Though the warning signs about our import reliance have been 
highlighted by a few key legislators for years, overall political 
concern about minerals supply chains has waxed and waned--with periods 
of frenzy following unexpected shortages, especially for military 
applications such as China's exercise of its dominance over the rare 
earths' minerals supply chain--followed by periods of complacency.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ See e.g., The Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953; 
the Mining and Mineral Policy of 1970; the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act; the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research 
and Development Act of 1980; and the 1984 National Critical Materials 
Act.

    Before the more recent exposure of supply chain vulnerabilities 
from the pandemic and geopolitical developments of the last few years, 
the most recent panic occurred in 2010, when China threatened global 
rare earth supplies. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explained:

        Chinese export quotas on a type of critical minerals referred 
        to as rare earth elements (REEs) and China's curtailment of 
        rare earth shipments to Japan over a maritime dispute in 2010 
        represented a wakeup call for the United States on China's 
        near-monopoly control over global REE supply. The actions of 
        the Chinese led to record high prices for REEs and, as a 
        result, began to shine a light on the potential supply risks 
        and supply chain vulnerability for rare earths and other raw 
        materials and metals needed for national defense, energy 
        technologies, and the electronics industry, among other end 
        uses. U.S. legislators have introduced and deliberated on bills 
        that would address the potential supply risk and vulnerability 
        with respect to rare earth supply and bills that would promote 
        domestic rare earth mine development.\27\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``Critical 
Minerals and U.S. Public Policy.'' R45810, June 28, 2019, p. 5. https:/
/www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190628_R45810_ 
b3112ce909b130b5d525d2265a62ce8236464664.pdf

    Unfortunately, none of these past efforts or policies have reversed 
the U.S. overreliance on foreign sources of minerals despite widespread 
acknowledgement that this overreliance weakens our economy and 
endangers our national security. China's mineral dominance remains a 
major threat. Currently, China is the leading producer and/or supplier 
of 66 percent of mineral commodities listed as essential to U.S. 
economic and national security including lithium, rare earths and other 
battery metals.\28\ According to USGS, production concentration has 
increased markedly over the past few decades for many mineral 
commodities with the most notable global shift has being the increasing 
production of mineral commodities in China.\29\ As illustrated by the 
following USGS data, China's share of global mineral production and 
processing has grown markedly since 1990 for many mineral commodities, 
including aluminum, bismuth, refined cobalt, gallium, lead, magnesite, 
magnesium metal, mercury, REEs, silicon, steel (raw), titanium, 
vanadium and zinc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Notably this reliance comes despite existing U.S. resources. 
In the 2022 Mineral Commodity Summaries, the USGS indicated the U.S. 
had an estimated 48 million metric tons (mt) of copper that can be 
mined and processed economically, 69 million mt of cobalt, 340 million 
mt of nickel and 750 million mt of lithium. Regardless, in 2021, the 
U.S. imported 48 percent of U.S. consumption of nickel, 76 percent of 
cobalt, 45percent of copper, and more than 25 percent of lithium.
    \29\ Nassar, N.T., Alonso, E., and Brainard, J.L., 2020, 
Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on Critical Minerals--U.S. 
Geological Survey Technical Input Document in Response to Executive 
Order No. 13953 Signed September 30, 2020 (Ver. 1.1, December 7, 2020): 
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020--1127, p. 4. https://
pubs.usgs.gov/of/2020/1127/ofr2020 1127.pdf


China's share of global primary mineral commodity production over time 
                                  \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For selected elements of the periodic table, the figure 
displays a time series of China's estimated share of global production 
for various associated mineral commodities for the years 1990-2018. In 
the periodic table, production refers to primary production or mine 
production. In the subfigure below the periodic table, multiple supply 
chain stages or forms are displayed for each mineral commodity. 
Elements not assessed are white. For a few mineral commodities 
(gallium, germanium, indium, selenium, silicon, strontium, and 
tellurium), data are not available for all years in the time series.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsChina's strong supply chain position stems, in large part, from 
state investment in processing and manufacturing, rather than an 
inherent advantage in reserves for most materials. China's ``go 
global'' strategy included $390 billion in outbound direct investments 
in the mining sector.\31\ For example, as discussed in a recent White 
House report on supply chains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``China's 
Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic and Critical Minerals: 
Issues for Congress,'' March 20, 2015. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/
R43864.pdf).

     China is the primary global supplier of cobalt for 
            batteries, despite having very limited reserves, through 
            its aggressive investment in processing capacity coupled 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            with foreign direct investment for ores and concentrates.

     China has a dominant position over the Democratic Republic 
            of Congo cobalt reserves, which constitute half of the 
            known global cobalt reserves.

     China has billions invested in nickel projects in 
            Indonesia, home to one-quarter of overall global reserves.

     Mexican-based Sonora clay lithium deposit, operated by 
            China-based Gangfeng Lithium, is currently under 
            development, and would increase total lithium production by 
            roughly half of today's production.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ White House, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing 
American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-based Growth, 100-Day 
Reviews under Executive Order 14017,'' June 2021, p. 94.

     Chinese firms have also made multiple and large 
            investments in mining operations around the world to ensure 
            their supply of critical materials like cobalt, nickel and 
            lithium.\33\ Just last month, China based CATL, the world's 
            largest EV battery manufacturer, beat out U.S. and Russian 
            companies to develop the world's largest lithium deposit in 
            Bolivia.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See also, USGS 2020 Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on 
Critical Minerals (There are instances where the mineral deposit or 
mining and mineral processing operation of a commodity is partially or 
completely owned and (or) controlled by foreign companies with strong 
ties to their governments. For example, Chinese firms have purchased 
equity stake in lithium deposits and operations in Australia and Chile, 
niobium operations in Brazil, a rare earth deposit in Greenland, and 
cobalt operations in the D.R. Congo, Papua New Guinea, and Zambia (S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, 2020). Investigating China's investment in 
cobalt assets worldwide, Gulley and others (2019) found that when 
taking into account Chinese companies' ownership in foreign assets on 
an equity-share basis, China's share of global cobalt production 
increases from 2 to 14 percent for cobalt mine materials and from 11 to 
33 percent for cobalt intermediate materials (figure 6). Furthermore, 
if the Chinese companies' equity shares of the production from these 
assets are assumed to be as secure as its domestic production, then 
these acquisitions have the effect of reducing China's NIR from 97 
percent to an adjusted 68 percent, thereby reducing China's exposure to 
supply disruptions (Gulley and others, 2019).) p. 8.
    \34\ Reuters, ``Bolivia taps Chinese battery giant CATL to help 
develop lithium riches,'' Jan. 20, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/
technology/bolivia-taps-chinese-battery-giant-catl-help-develop-
lithium-riches-2023-01-20/

    As a result of these tactics, China controls significant portions 
of the global mineral supply chain. The IEA reported in May 2021 that 
China was responsible for 60 percent of global rare earth elements 
production and nearly 90 percent of global processing for rare earth 
elements in 2019.\35\ And this threat is not limited to rare earths. As 
noted in USGS criticality methodology, ``of the 54 mineral commodities 
evaluated, China was the leading producer of at least one stage of the 
supply chain for 35 commodities.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ International Energy Agency. ``The Role of Critical Minerals 
in Clean Energy Transitions,'' 2021. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/
assets/24d5dfbb-a77a-4647-abcc-667867207f74/TheRoleof 
CriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf
    \36\ 2021 Methodology, p. 7.

    It did not used to be this way and it does not have to be our 
future. At every turn, our import dependence is both outsized and 
unnecessary. As explained in a recent opinion piece published in The 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill:

        In the 1980s, the U.S. was the mineral capital of the world. 
        Since then, China has developed a juggernaut battery supply 
        chain industry. The industry is centered around chemical 
        processing of battery materials, backed by substantial 
        government funding and coordination. These subsidies led to a 
        wave of outsourcing by American companies across industries 
        from semiconductors to steel. In addition, China has spent the 
        last two decades investing in the mining industry abroad, 
        including major investments and mineral rights in Australia, 
        Africa, Asia and South America. This has led to an overreliance 
        on China--and in turn vulnerable supply chains and a lost 
        economic opportunity at home.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, Ph D. 2022. ``How the U.S. Can Secure a 
Resilient Electric Vehicle Battery Supply Chain.'' The Hill. June 8, 
2022. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3516265-how-the-
us-can-secure-a-resilient-electric-vehicle-battery-supply-chain/.

    Our mineral import dependence will be our next Achille's heel. The 
U.S. must focus on supplying these metals at home as part of the 
solution ``to diversify supply chains away from adversarial nations and 
sources with unacceptable environmental and labor standards.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ ``FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Supply 
Chain Disruptions Task Force to Address Short-Term Supply Chain 
Discontinuities.'' 2021. The White House. June 8, 2021. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/08/fact-
sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-supply-chain-disruptions-
task-force-to-address-short-term-supply-chain-discontinuities/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to support new domestic production, a robust domestic 
supply chain that includes minerals and metals sourced, refined, 
processed and smelted within our borders, we need to build on the 
important work done by this committee.
    The following data from the mining program at the University of 
Missouri of Science and Technology is an important snapshot which 
allows us to better understand the domestic supply chain issues 
impacting production and refining and processing for simply one widely 
used metal.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThis next graphic further illustrates the enormity of the 
supply chain issues that the U.S. and our allies continue to face if we 
do not take the necessary steps to support regulatory policies that 
encourage private investment rather than attempting to control it.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


.epsWhat are the Solutions?

    Chairman Westerman's and Subcommittee Chairman Stauber's 
legislation with Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers Securing American 
Mineral Supply Chains Act contains key steps to support a robust 
domestic mineral supply chain that prioritizes responsible resource 
development through policies that provide certainty to all mining 
operations and manufacturers; sets lead agencies and improves the 
timeliness of the permitting process with timelines; maintains access 
to mineralized federal lands unless specifically withdrawn by Congress 
and unless the U.S. Geological Survey can assure that a withdrawal does 
not threaten supply chains; supports research, development and 
demonstration funding at the USGS and Department of Energy; new 
workforce development and training opportunities; and unlocks 
innovation by not supporting prescriptive mineral policies.
    These policy recommendations are commonsense changes that would 
provide regulatory certainty to investors that the U.S. seeks to once 
again compete on a global scale in the mineral supply chain. Instead of 
only seeking to secure mineral supplies from foreign sources or 
exporting domestically extracted materials for further refinement, 
processing and smelting, these improvements in the permitting process 
would signal that the U.S. intends to secure the entirety of its supply 
chain, lessening vulnerabilities from outside sources, including 
geopolitical impacts.
Conclusion

    The U.S. is at a mining crossroads. Mineral demand is soaring, but 
our policies are lagging. We must encourage more domestic mining and 
processing to meet future demand and ensure that the materials required 
for everything from infrastructure to electrification are readily 
available. The NMA appreciates the prioritization of these issues by 
the House Natural Resources Committee and is eager to help craft 
important policy solutions for the future.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. A letter from Representative Amodei.

    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                     CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

                        House of Representatives

                             Washington, DC

                                       February 8, 2023            

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman,
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman:

    The following information is offered in direct rebuttal to the 
testimony/written statement from the National Association of Tribal 
Historic Preservation Officers dated February 7, 2023, under the 
signature of Reno Franklin, Chairman of the Kashia Band of Pomo 
Indians.

    Page two of Mr. Franklin's written testimony makes reference to 
alleged facts which are not such according to a U.S. District Court 
Judge in Nevada, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process conducted by the local tribal council of the Ft. 
McDermott tribe.

    Finally, Mr. Reno's testimony completely ignores that both a NEPA 
and Environmental Impact Statement process was conducted in full 
compliance of all cultural preservation requirements, and Lithium 
Americas has willingly complied with all regulations related to state 
and federal law.

    I would submit that Mr. Reno's testimony to the Committee 
concerning the Thacker Pass area is simply false and misleading.

    Please make this letter and attached memorandum part of your record 
for your hearing today.

            Sincerely,

                                            Mark E. Amodei,
                                                 Member of Congress

                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. And under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Monday, February 13. The hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Westerman

    Posters shown during the hearing of child slave labor in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 .eps__
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
          Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
                           February 22, 2023

    The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 
appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the House 
Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources for its Oversight Hearing entitled the ``Unleashing America's 
Energy and Mineral Potential'' held on February 8, 2023.
    The Ute Indian Tribe is a major oil and gas producer and uses 
revenues from that energy development as the primary source of funding 
for our Tribal government and to provide vital services to our members. 
Our Reservation is the second largest reservation in the United States 
and covers more than 4.5 million acres. The majority of our 
approximately 3,000 members reside on the Reservation. We lease about 
400,000 acres for oil and gas development, and we have about 7,000 
wells that produce 45,000 barrels of oil a day. The Tribe takes an 
active role in the development of its resources as a majority owner of 
Ute Energy.
    Using revenues from energy development, our Tribal government 
provides services to our members and manages the Reservation through 60 
Tribal departments and agencies including land, fish and wildlife 
management, housing, education, emergency medical services, public 
safety, and energy and minerals management. The Tribe is also a major 
employer and engine for economic growth in northeastern Utah generally. 
Tribal businesses include a supermarket, gas stations, a feedlot, an 
information technology company, a manufacturing plant, Ute Oil Field 
Water Services, and Ute Energy.
    Our governmental programs and Tribal enterprises employ 
approximately 450 people, 75% of whom are Tribal members. Each year the 
Tribe generates tens of millions of dollars in economic activity in 
northeastern Utah. The Tribe takes an active role in the development of 
its resources as a majority owner of Ute Energy and owns numerous oil 
and gas wells on the Reservation. In sum, energy development allows the 
Tribe to positively impact both the Reservation and greater Utah.

   Tribal Energy Development Benefits the Environment and the Economy

    The Tribe's ability to develop energy on its Reservation has the 
potential to have a positive global impact. Specifically, as many have 
noted, the current regulatory climate pushes energy and mineral 
development abroad to countries that do not have the same safety 
standards as the United States. As a result, increased energy 
development abroad adversely impacts the environment while detracting 
from the United States' economy.
    Tribes are in a unique position to both protect the environment and 
be a leader in domestic energy development. Indeed, Tribes have a 
special relationship with their land--it is a life giver and sustainer. 
Given this, Tribes skillfully thread the needle on developing energy 
while protecting and honoring the land and environment. Indeed, tribal 
energy development is a sustainable alternative to pushing energy 
production to companies in countries like China and Venezuela that lack 
sufficient environmental regulation. Thus, tribal energy development 
must be supported and afforded every opportunity to reach its full 
potential.

                Hinderances to Tribal Energy Development

    Unfortunately, the imposition of bureaucratic red tape on the 
Tribe's, and Indian Country's, energy development severely impacts 
tribal energy development and disregards tribal sovereignty. The 
primary example of this hinderance is the National environmental Policy 
Act (``NEPA''). As it stands, the application of NEPA is causing energy 
companies to limit their activities on the Reservation hampering the 
Tribe's economic development and the economic incentive for producers 
to operate on the Reservation. As a result, the Tribe is not able to 
fully develop its resources and revenues available for Tribal 
operations are limited.
    As noted in a 2015 Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') 
Report, ``NEPA compliance reviews significantly increase the cost of 
conducting operations on Indian lands and, as a result, projects are 
moved to adjoining state or private lands where NEPA compliance is not 
required.'' \1\ For example, the delays and uncertainties experienced 
by oil and gas operators on our Reservation in obtaining drilling 
permits and other authorizations jeopardize future development plans. 
For example, in 2015, it took an average of 405 days for operators to 
receive a drilling permit from the Bureau of Land Management (``BLM'') 
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') on our lands. In contrast, 
it takes the State of Utah only 73 days on average to issue drilling 
permits on private and state-managed lands. Much of this delay is 
caused by NEPA reviews and federal agencies that lack the staff and 
resources to conduct these reviews--particularly on Indian lands. 
Without significant reforms, permitting delays have and will continue 
to result in lost revenue to the Tribe and jeopardize the economic 
viability of our projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Gov't Accountability Office, Indian Energy Development--Poor 
Management by BIA has Hindered Energy Development on Indian Lands 18 
(June 2015) [Hereinafter ``GAO Report''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The last Administration took steps to help address NEPA's negative 
impacts by finalizing a rule entitled ``Update to the Regulations 
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act.'' (2020 Final Rule). The 2020 Final Rule was intended to 
comprehensively update, modernize, and clarify the current regulations 
to facilitate more efficient, effective, and timely NEPA reviews by 
federal agencies. The 2020 Final Rule also served to improve 
interagency coordination in the environmental review process, promote 
earlier public involvement, increase transparency, and enhance the 
participation of states, Tribes, and localities, including increased 
tribal participation in projects with off-reservation impacts. The 
Tribe generally supported the 2020 Final Rule in its efforts to 
streamline the review process. However, the current Administration 
unwound a number of the changes made by the 2020 Final Rule.
    This is a cautionary tale that highlights the need for changes 
beyond the regulatory level. Indeed, NEPA itself must be addressed to 
ensure lasting changes that foster tribal energy development and that 
tribal sovereignty is recognized.

     NEPA Should Not Apply to Secretarial Approvals on Indian Lands

    A threshold issue regarding Indian tribes and NEPA is whether NEPA 
should apply to Indian lands at all. Although it is well established in 
caselaw and regulations that NEPA applies to major federal action on 
Indian lands, typically triggered by approval of leases by the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, this was not always the case. In fact, the 
legislative history of NEPA is silent of any indication of whether 
Congress considered NEPA's application to Indian lands or whether the 
Secretarial approval of Indian leases are major federal action.
    Absent any intent to the contrary, it is logical that Congress did 
not intend to subject the discretionary execution of fiduciary duties 
imposed on the government by the trust responsibility and various 
federal statutes to the procedural and bureaucratic stranglehold that 
NEPA imposes on development. To impose the burden of NEPA on private 
Indian land places the Indians at an economic and competitive 
disadvantage when compared to non-Indian competitors not subject to 
NEPA, and subjects the development of their property and resources to 
judicial challenge by those with no connection to the land or affected 
community.
    Put another way, subjecting development on Indian lands to NEPA 
places Indian landowners in a uniquely disadvantageous position, where 
they not only must secure federal approval for almost any transaction 
involving the development of their lands, but then they must also wait 
months, and in some circumstances years, before the federal government 
administrators comply with NEPA before approval for development can be 
obtained. This scenario directly undermines the role of the government 
as trustee, where the government's duty to approve leases of Indian 
land if they are in the best interest of the landowners is directly 
supplanted by the requirement to burden the lease with competitive 
disadvantages of the administrative costs and delays associated with 
NEPA.
    For example, in 2013, the Commission on Indian Trust Administration 
and Reform reported that the Department of Interior does not have 
adequate resources to meet Indian leasing demands for oil and gas 
development, including the resources to analyze and approve NEPA 
documents.\2\ Additionally, according to a report from the GAO, 
stakeholders, including Interior officials, have also highlighted this 
concern and ``further identified inadequate staff resources as a 
contributing factor in lengthy review times and a hindrance to 
development of Indian energy resources.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Report of the Commission on Indian Trust Administration and 
Reform, Approved December 10, 2013.
    \3\ GAO Report, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to delays caused by the willful understaffing and 
underfunding of the BIA, the involvement of other federal agencies in 
the NEPA process also works against Tribe's in the efforts to develop 
their land and resources. During the NEPA process a number of other 
federal agencies may become involved in review of the document, 
increasing both the number of approvals needed for authorization and 
overall delay of the project. For operations on the Uintah and Ouray 
Reservation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will consult 
on the document under Endangered Species Act Section 7 authority and 
the Environmental Protection Agency will often consult on air and water 
quality issues. These administrative inefficiencies cost the Tribe time 
and money related to potential projects. Specifically, as noted in the 
GAO report, industry stakeholders have:

        [H]ighlighted the additional costs required for NEPA compliance 
        and the uncertainty associated with public opposition and 
        comments received during the NEPA process as factors that can 
        cause a developer to avoid Indian energy resources and choose 
        to develop non-Indian resources that do not require federal 
        agency action.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.

    And, as noted above, NEPA reviews increased costs and result in 
projects being moved ``to adjoining state or private lands where NEPA 
compliance is not required.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From this evidence it is clear that the imposition of NEPA on the 
development of Indian lands has worked to increase the costs and delay 
of projects on Indian lands, driving developers away from Indian lands 
to lands that are not similarly burdened with NEPA's bureaucratic 
hurdles. As such, the application of NEPA to Indian lands is 
antithetical to the duty of the United States owed to Indian tribes 
under the federal trust responsibility. It was on this basis which the 
United States initially resisted the application of NEPA to Indian 
lands in Morton v. Davis,\6\ and it is on this same basis that the 
Tribe continues to object to the applicability of NEPA to development 
on tribal lands. Given this, NEPA should be amended to clarify that 
Indian lands are not ``public lands'' subject to NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 469 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Limit NEPA Review for Tribal Actions On-Reservation

    NEPA boldly proclaims that ``each person has a responsibility to 
contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.'' 
\7\ In doing so, it expressly contemplates input from the general 
public to help realize national environmental policies. The public is 
brought into the NEPA process in many ways. For example, major projects 
are required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement which must be 
published in the Federal Register for public review and notice, and 
comment procedures are mandated in various circumstances throughout the 
NEPA process. Moreover, NEPA's implementing regulations stress public 
involvement by containing a number of commenting requirements to allow 
public input in the implementation of NEPA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(c).
    \8\ See 40 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 1503.1, 1506.6; 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. Sec. 46.235, 46.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These regulations speak broadly about involvement from ``the 
public'' and in doing so exceed the statutory requirements of NEPA 
itself. The regulations provide no limitations on who may comment on a 
particular project, opening up agencies to dutifully receive comments 
from individuals and special interest organizations that are often 
outside of the projects geographically impacted area. This regime does 
not serve the goals of the NEPA process and actively inhibits agencies 
by requiring them to review, and in many cases respond, to comments 
that are generally inapplicable or at the very least not representative 
of localized concern.
    A one-size-fits-all approach to public participation in 
environmental decision making is not acceptable in the context of 
Indian lands. A system that was meant to promote inclusiveness and 
flexibility now runs amok with involvement from disinterested parties 
who have no real stake in the outcome other than their ability to 
impute their own values on actions that exclusively implicate local 
concerns. This broad implementation of public participation as it 
relates to development in Indian Country has rendered it unwieldy, 
incoherent, and ad hoc.
    Moreover, subjecting Indian energy development to NEPA's public 
participation regime by allowing the public to present concerns for 
consideration before BIA approves leases and permits has had a negative 
impact on overall development. In the same GAO Report referred to 
above, it is noted that stakeholders highlighted the ``uncertainty 
associated with public opposition and comments received during the NEPA 
process as factors that can cause a developer to avoid Indian energy 
resources and choose to develop non-Indian resources that do not 
require federal agency action.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ GAO Report, at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To illustrate the problems associated with NEPA's current public 
participation regime, one needs only to look at the example provided by 
past attempts to close the Bonanza Power Plant located within the 
exterior boundaries of the Tribe's Uintah and Ouray Reservation. The 
Plant is a five hundred (500) megawatt power plant that burns 
approximately two million tons of coal annually, contributing untold 
amounts of air pollution on the Reservation and destroying local flora 
and fauna within a vast swath of land surrounding the Plant. Because of 
these environmental consequences and the plant's location on the 
Reservation, the Tribe was steadfast in support of the Plant's closure 
when both the lease supporting the Plant and the Plant's operating 
permit were up for review. However, during meetings and hearing on the 
renewal of the Plant's coal lease and operating permit, the focus and 
attention was diverted from the inhabitants of the land who live with 
the consequences of the Plant on a daily basis, and was instead placed 
on the coal mining company and various national public interest groups. 
In doing so, industry and public interest groups successfully hijacked 
the NEPA public participation process to realign the discussion to 
address their concerns and impose their individual ethics on decisions 
exclusively impacting tribal lands.
    In sum, the reality is that certain individuals or organizations 
participate in NEPA's public participation regime regardless of their 
proximity to a project or its impacts. In these cases, agencies can 
expend untold federal resources considering and responding to comments 
that only detract from the views that matter most, those of local 
concern.
    As such, with respect to NEPA's application to Indian lands, public 
participation should be limited to tribal members and residents of 
immediately surrounding communities. This will greatly reduce the time 
and resources agencies expend and prevent outside influences from 
muddying and complicating the issues and injecting controversy where 
none exists. Moreover, this will further the government's trust 
obligations to tribes by eliminating the uncertainty developer's face 
associated with public opposition and comments received during the NEPA 
process. This policy makes sense from a tribal sovereignty perspective, 
as members of the public who are not tribal members should not have any 
say over tribal development projects. Instead, tribal voices should 
have primacy in any discussion regarding the use and development of 
tribal lands and resources.

                 Streamlining Indian Energy Development

    Beyond NEPA, there are several other areas that must be addressed 
to fully unleash tribal energy development. For example, the energy 
permitting process on Indian lands needs to be made more efficient, 
including Applications for Permits to Drill. Moreover, deference should 
be given to tribal authority on hydraulic fracturing and should 
recognize individual tribal experiences and practices with hydraulic 
fracturing. Beyond this, applicable permitting decisions should give 
deference to tribal decision-making on how to best assess and mitigate 
for climate change on individual tribal lands. In short, tribes must be 
allowed to fully utilize their knowledge in developing energy within 
their lands. As longtime stewards of our lands, we are in the best 
position to develop our energy resources and contribute to the economy 
while protecting the environment.

                               Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide the testimony of the Ute 
Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation on unleashing the 
Tribe's energy potential. As we have outlined, the Tribe's potential to 
fully utilize its energy resources and be a leader in the industry is 
often hampered by overburdensome regulation. As a primary example, the 
inherent problems caused by NEPA's application to development on Indian 
lands and the barriers it places on development of our lands and 
resources works to stifle the Tribe's energy potential. It is our hope 
that these comments are fully considered by the Committee and that 
positive changes can be made to minimize the unnecessary constraints 
placed on tribal energy development.

                                 ______
                                 
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                                               February 7, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Full House Natural Resources Committee Hearing Titled ``Unleashing 
        America's Energy and Mineral Potential''

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of 
the Natural Resources Committee:

    As your committee considers changes to the energy and mine 
permitting processes, on behalf of the undersigned, we write to ask you 
to prioritize efforts that would balance public health, community 
input, and the protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat and cultural 
and historic resources on America's public lands and wildlife. 
Similarly, we respectfully urge your committee to strongly oppose 
efforts that would exacerbate deficiencies in the existing mining law 
and result in an unnecessary increase in mining on federal public lands 
and puts at risk irreplaceable protected lands, special places, 
endangered and sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites, and culturally 
significant sites in the guise of a clean energy transition.
Improvements to the Mine Permitting Process

    We acknowledge that growing demand for certain materials may 
require new hardrock mines, including some on federal public lands. 
However, there are better ways to source minerals than allowing 
entities to stake claims prior to the discovery of a mineral deposit or 
imposing arbitrary environmental review timelines. Necessary changes 
include those considered last Congress in the Clean Energy Minerals 
Reform Act of 2022. Converting to a leasing system for hardrock 
minerals--just like the one that oil and gas companies use today--would 
help provide certainty to the permitting process and result in more 
timely and socially acceptable decisions.
    Congress has already invested significant time and resources into 
permitting reform for mining. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 
included $1 billion to support timely and effective environmental 
reviews across federal agencies, which should lead to better, more 
equitable outcomes, and help avoid litigation. Additionally, the Fiscal 
2023 budget will help fund public lands management agencies to perform 
more thorough mining reviews.
    These resources for mine permitting build upon those in the 
Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA). IIJA made permanent the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Permitting Council 
(Permitting Council), which, in January 2021, added hardrock mining as 
a covered sector. In November 2022, the Administration announced the 
Permitting Council will devote $5 million in support of more meaningful 
consultations with federally recognized tribes in hardrock mine 
permitting.
    IIJA also required the Interior Department to identify process 
improvements to hardrock mine permitting. A coalition of tribes, 
indigenous-led organizations, and conservation groups have also 
petitioned Interior for rules that, if finalized, would result in more 
timely decisions for hardrock mine permits without sacrificing 
necessary public input. In response to both, the administration 
convened the mining reform Interagency Working Group which should 
recommend mining rule improvements, consistent with the petition. These 
updates would also help lead to a fair hardrock mine permitting 
process, delivering more certainty to both claimants and impacted 
communities.
Mine Permitting Must Be Modernized, Centering on Historically Impacted 
        Communities

    Current mining law has allowed for the pollution of America's 
environment and waterways, placing additional unjust burdens on 
communities who have already borne the brunt of our nation's toxic 
mining legacy. Already, America is littered with hundreds of thousands 
of abandoned mines that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
estimates have polluted 40% of the headwaters of western U.S. 
watersheds and will cost taxpayers more than $50 billion to clean up. 
Under current law, taxpayers are potentially liable for billions more 
in cleanup costs at currently operating mines--including treatment of 
water in perpetuity, risking the health of already threatened Western 
watersheds--because there is no legal requirement for mining companies 
to remediate lands and waters.
    Historical examples of mining companies being given unfettered 
access to minerals with little to no environmental safeguards have had 
severely negative consequences--a prime example is found in Navajo 
Nation's experience with uranium mining, milling, and toxic pollution. 
Navajo Nation is situated directly in America's uranium mining belt, 
and in the 1950s and 1960s fervent uranium development left residents 
with myriad health risks due to radiation exposure through polluted 
water and land. Today over 500 of these mines remain unremediated 
across the Navajo Nation, where they continue to impact residents' 
health. Navajo Nation residents are 67 times more likely to live 
without running water than other residents across the country--and many 
water sources on the Navajo Nation are contaminated as a result of 
uranium mining and milling operations. In 2016, researchers with 
Northern Arizona University discovered high levels of uranium 
contamination in the water supply of Sanders, Arizona, a small town 
just outside of the Navajo Nation whose residents are mostly Navajo. It 
was later discovered that the state had known of the contamination 
since 2003, but regulators failed to notify the residents of Sanders 
until after NAU researchers presented their results to the community. 
The Navajo Nation is not alone. Past and ongoing impacts of uranium 
operations on Native communities are extensive.
Any Changes to Mine Permitting Must Explicitly Include Protections for 
        America's Special Places

    Expanding mineral activities on federal public lands without 
modernizing our mining laws could threaten some of our nation's most 
treasured areas. Previous mine permitting proposals have sought to 
scale back protections for millions of acres of tribal sacred sites, 
culturally significant places, and iconic natural places. While mining 
is not permitted within the boundaries of National Parks, mining 
activities pollute the air and water that crosses the boundaries of 
protected lands. Insufficiently regulated mining in the name of clean 
energy development promotes a false choice by risking key lands that we 
need to conserve for our own health and wellbeing. We urge the 
committee to reject any legislation that puts important American lands, 
waters, and wildlife at risk of pollution and degradation.
Conclusion

    We respectfully urge Members of the House Natural Resources 
Committee to oppose efforts that would exacerbate deficiencies in the 
existing mining law and result in an unnecessary increase in mining on 
federal public lands and puts at risk irreplaceable protected lands, 
special places, tribal sacred sites, wildlife, and culturally 
significant sites in the guise of a clean energy transition. There are 
common-sense solutions to improve mine permitting and promote 
responsible mining that Congress should consider, including the 
community-consent driven leasing system in the Clean Energy Minerals 
Reform Act of 2022. Additional resources, updated rules, and thoughtful 
IIJA and IRA implementation will also drive mine permitting efficiency.

    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

        The Wilderness Society        Earthworks

        Earthjustice                  Sierra Club

        National Parks Conservation 
        Association                   Defenders of Wildlife

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     League of Conservation Voters

        Natural Resources Defense 
        Council                       Conservation Lands Foundation

        Friends of the Earth          Alaska Wilderness League

        Grand Canyon Trust            Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

        Oregon Natural Desert 
        Association                   Friends of the Sonoran Desert
        Northeastern Minnesotans 
        for Wilderness                Arizona Faith Network

        New Mexico & El Paso 
        Interfaith Power and Light    Los Padres ForestWatch

        Sisters of Mercy of the 
        Americas Justice Team         Northern Alaska Environmental 
                                      Center

        Arizona Trail Association     Conservation Northwest

        Wilderness Workshop           Citizens to Protect Smith Valley 
                                      (NV)

        Progressive Leadership 
        Alliance of Nevada            Uranium Watch

        Living Rivers                 Western Watersheds Project

        Save the Scenic Santa Ritas   Hispanic Federation

        Idaho Conservation League     Kamloops Moms For Clean Air

        Weber Sustainability 
        Consulting                    Black Hills Clean Water Alliance

        Sheep Mountain Alliance       Wild Arizona

        Idaho Rivers United           Brooks Range Council

        Multicultural Alliance for 
        a Safe Environment            Okanogan Highlands Alliance

        Red Water Pond Road 
        Community Association         MEIC

        Arizona Mining Reform 
        Coalition                     American Friends Service 
                                      Committee

        Office of Peace, Justice 
        and Integrity of Creation, 
        Sisters of Charity of New 
        York                           

        RedWaterPond Road Community   Tucson Audubon Society

        BlueWater Valley Downstream 
        Alliance                      River Alliance of Wisconsin

        Friends of the Kalmiopsis     Kalmiopsis Audubon Society

        Information Network for 
        Responsible Mining            Cook Inletkeeper

        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Rivers Without Borders

        Laguna Acoma Coalition For 
        A Safe Environment

                                 [all]