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


                  H.R. ____, ``BUILDING UNITED STATES.
                        INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH
          LIMITED DELAYS AND EFFICIENT REVIEWS ACT OF 2023''

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, February 28, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-4

                               __________

       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                    
51-381 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 Tuesday, February 28, 2023.......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     2
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3
    Graves, Hon. Garret, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Louisiana.........................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Carr, John, Vice President, Dairyland Power Cooperative, La 
      Crosse, Wisconsin..........................................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Veerkamp, Brian, President, Board of Directors, El Dorado 
      Irrigation District, Placerville, California...............    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    16

    Beard, John, Jr., Founder, President and Executive Director, 
      Port Arthur Community Action Network, Port Arthur, Texas...    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    20

    Pugh, Keith, PE, PWLF, President, American Public Works 
      Association, Asheville, North Carolina.....................    25
        Prepared statement of....................................    27

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory, Invitation to testify before 
          the HNR at today's hearing, dated February 14, 2023....     8
        National Association of Manufacturers, Letter of support 
          dated February 22, 2023................................    90

    Submission for the Record by Representative McClintock

        Report by UCLA and Univ. of Chicago scientists titled 
          ``Up in smoke: California's greenhouse gas reductions 
          could be wiped out by 2020 wildfires'' (2022)..........    92

    Submission for the Record by Representative Stauber

        USDA Rural Utilities Service, Administrator Berke, Letter 
          dated February 10, 2023................................    64

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Boebert

        Photos for the record taken in the Congo.................    97
        Photos for the record taken in East Palestine, Ohio......    99

    Submission for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Outdoor Alliance, Letter of opposition dated March 6, 
          2023...................................................   100

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        New York Times article titled ``Wind and Solar Energy 
          Projects Risk Overwhelming America's Antiquated 
          Electrical Grids'' from February 23, 2023..............    33
        Environmental Law Reporter article titled ``Playing the 
          Long Game: Expediting Permitting without Compromising 
          Protections'' dated Nov. 2022..........................    38
        Biden--Executive Order on the Implementation of the 
          Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation 
          Reduction Act of 2022..................................    50
                                     
 
 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. ____, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
  POLICY ACT OF 1969 TO CLARIFY AMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS, REFLECT MODERN 
TECHNOLOGIES, OPTIMIZE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION, AND FACILITATE A MORE 
    EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND TIMELY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, 
  ``BUILDING UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH LIMITED DELAYS AND 
        EFFICIENT REVIEWS ACT OF 2023''; ``BUILDER ACT OF 2023''

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 28, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., Room 
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce Westerman 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Westerman, Lamborn, McClintock, 
Gosar, Graves, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, 
Curtis, Tiffany, Boebert, Bentz, Moylan, Collins, Luna, Duarte, 
Hageman; Grijalva, Huffman, Levin, Porter, Leger Fernandez, 
Peltola, Hoyle, Kamlager-Dove, Magaziner, and Lee.
    Also present: Representative Van Orden.

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Committee at any time.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
BUILDER Act of 2023, offered by Representative Garret Graves of 
Louisiana.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Van Orden, be allowed to sit with the Committee and 
participate in today's hearing from the dais.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    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 be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with the Committee Rule 
3(b).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    The Chairman. Thank you all for joining us here today to 
talk about the need for permitting reform. This is a very 
pressing issue that affects every aspect of our society.
    And I am guessing that, if you polled a random sample of 
our constituents, many of them wouldn't be able to define 
permitting reform, or wouldn't even know what the National 
Environmental Policy Act, often referred to as NEPA, is. But I 
do know that every single person in the United States, 
regardless of their zip code, has relied on infrastructure, 
energy, or other projects that underwent NEPA reviews. And all 
too often I know that Americans have faced bureaucratic 
nightmares and decades-long delays in attempts to build roads 
and bridges in their communities or access critical mineral 
resources.
    The Mineral Leasing Act requires BLM issue onshore drilling 
permits within 30 days, but the agency has a backlog of more 
than 5,000 permits pending, due to prolonged analysis under 
NEPA. The Cardinal Hickory Creek Electric Transmission Line 
Project is one of 22 shovel-ready transmission projects 
identified as projects that could create 1.2 million jobs and 
increase solar and wind generation by 50 percent. The project 
has been going through review since 2014, and remains halted 
due to a wildlife refuge lawsuit, despite the fact that the 
project would actually reduce the number of transmission lines 
and structures in the refuge by half.
    Energy isn't the only affected sector. The Sites Reservoir 
is a proposed offstream water storage facility northwest of 
Sacramento, and has been under continuous review since 2000, 23 
years of continuous review.
    NEPA requirements have been a leading factor in the 
constant delays, all while Western drought grows increasingly 
worse. That is why we need to change, and we need it now. NEPA 
has been a valuable tool, but it is not working for our 21st 
century needs. It is time to update and modernize it, making it 
a powerful force for good, rather than a weapon by which 
environmental groups block projects.
    So, first we have to define our terms. What do we mean when 
we say permitting reform? The current permitting process is 
filled with repetitive, duplicative assessments and lengthy 
processing times, making it difficult to plan and build 
projects efficiently. We want to amend NEPA, not gut it--or 
worse yet, eradicate it--and make a law that provides robust 
environmental protections without bogging down projects in 
rounds of red tape and litigation.
    The simple fact is we cannot re-establish energy 
independence or even meet President Biden's clean energy and 
emission goals without reform. Every kind of energy source, 
from oil and gas, to minerals, to wind and solar, to nuclear, 
falls prey to NEPA.
    Take the Inflation Reduction Act as the most recent 
example. This bill funneled a staggering $369 billion in 
funding over 10 years from everything from heat pumps, to 
battery storage, to hydrogen and offshore wind. Most of it will 
not be possible without the ability to permit and build 
efficiently.
    It is baffling that many of my Democratic colleagues seem 
content to let the status quo choke out American innovation and 
ingenuity, including the very renewable projects they claim to 
support. That is why the BUILDER Act is a necessary component 
of any permitting reform discussion. It clarifies and updates 
complicated terms, eliminates repetitive processes, and imposes 
reasonable timelines to prevent reviews from dragging on.
    I ask any Member on the Democratic dais, if not NEPA 
reform, then what?
    How will we achieve a single one of your clean energy 
goals--I will say our clean energy goals--if companies can't 
get the permits to build the necessary infrastructure?
    How will we get Americans back to work if they are stuck in 
limbo waiting through endless reviews and litigation?
    We invited the Council of Environmental Quality to testify 
before us today and answer these very questions. The empty 
chair you see at the witness table tells you everything you 
need to know about how willing this Administration is to back 
their talking points with facts and science.
    People act like we have no choice but to shoulder these 
burdens, slowing down our development while China leaps us in 
energy production. I don't believe that for a second. I am 
proud to support these common-sense, science-based proposals. 
America has a bright future ahead, if we will just get out of 
our own way.
    And I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for all 
the hard work that he has put into this bill. I think he would 
be the first to tell you it is not finished yet. We need to 
have these hearings. We need to have input. And this needs to 
be a bipartisan effort for the good of the country.
    I challenge us to work together to come to some kind of 
reform, so that we can actually get things done.

    With that I want to recognize the Ranking Minority Member, 
Mr. Grijalva, for any statement he may wish to make.

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

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It feels a little 
like deja vu. A few weeks ago, we sat in this room while my 
colleagues across the aisle spent hours scapegoating our 
environmental review processes, namely those under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, for every single issue or 
delay the fossil fuel industry has ever had. Then, this 
morning, our Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee held a 
hearing on two bills that would act on that scapegoating by 
gutting NEPA and the environmental review, under other key 
laws. And now, we are here again, with yet another bill taking 
aim at NEPA and what is best for the public's interest is 
secondary, if that.
    And as I have in our other hearings, I feel obligated to 
point out how irresponsible it is to cut environmental review 
while we are in the midst of the greatest environmental crisis 
of our time.
    I will also point out again that it is especially, 
especially stark to cut environmental reviews for the fossil 
fuel industry, the biggest culprit responsible for the climate 
crisis that we are in.
    And, finally, I will point out again that poor communities, 
communities of color, Indigenous people who have been bulldozed 
and poisoned for decades by fossil fuel companies, companies 
that have used their communities as dumping grounds, are the 
same ones who are being hit hardest by climate change. And as 
many times as I make these points, it doesn't change one key 
fact.
    Republicans and their industry allies don't like NEPA, and 
they will push every bill they can to try to hobble its 
effectiveness. The extreme GOP platform has shifted to one that 
vilifies the Federal Government and its laws so they can put 
private industry, no matter how dirty, reckless, or greedy, up 
on a pedestal above the needs of the general public. That means 
NEPA will always be the nemesis, no matter how non-sensical it 
is.
    If you need more convincing, let's look at some facts. As 
we will hear today, Republicans will cite a handful of delayed 
projects out of the tens of thousands of projects and actions 
reviewed under NEPA each year to say we should eliminate 
environmental protections they want to eliminate anyway. What 
you won't hear is how much of it, about the actual causes of 
the delays during the environmental reviews. Well, fortunately, 
experts have already researched the main causes of project 
delays, when they do occur.
    The first one is lack of capacity at Federal agencies, lack 
of staff, expertise, or budgets for environmental reviews, at 
under-funded Federal agencies. This is, of course, largely due 
to the Republican campaigns to gut these very agencies and 
those programs.
    The second main cause of delay is poor market conditions or 
other issues with the project's operator. For example, 9 out of 
the 10 years over the last decade, the Bureau of Land 
Management has spent more time waiting for oil and gas 
operators to submit information than it spent reviewing 
drilling permit applications. Market conditions may have led 
operators not to prioritize certain applications.
    And the third main cause of delay is related to other laws, 
including state and local laws.
    You probably noticed that not one of these causes is NEPA.
    I would also like to point out that the Democrats on the 
Committee authored provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act to 
provide more than $1 billion to staff up and train Federal 
agencies' offices to carry out efficient and effective 
environmental reviews. This will address one of the main causes 
of project delay I just listed. Not one Republican voted for 
that Inflation Reduction Act or any other legislation.
    So, you could imagine my skepticism when I hear about the 
need to accelerate environmental reviews through the so-called 
permitting reform, and see bills that allow the fossil fuel 
industry to pollute when and where it wants, without having to 
tell the public too much about it. Instead, these bills will be 
a detriment to the environment, our communities, and the 
future. The results of deregulation, they are not more poignant 
than what happened in East Palestine and the derailment. That 
happened, cause and effect, after the former administration, 
the Trump administration, effectively de-regulated some of the 
safety regulations that existed for railroads.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Grijalva. I am sure 
we will have some interesting discussions today. Maybe we can 
find out why billions of dollars were poured into ineffective 
agencies and the results haven't changed.
    I will now introduce our first panel, which consists of 
Representative Graves of Louisiana, to provide testimony on his 
legislation before us today.
    Representative Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARRET GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
you and thank the Ranking Member for opening statements. I 
think that each of your opening statements indicated the need 
for fundamental reform to our permitting process, our 
regulatory process.
    Mr. Chairman, if you look at the current regulatory 
process, the NEPA law, for highway projects the average 
environmental review takes approximately 7 years. We have seen 
instances where we have had an average of 115 lawsuits per year 
filed against these NEPA reviews, the majority of which are 
actually settled with no action, meaning found that the 
government's actions were actually appropriate.
    What we have seen, Mr. Chairman, over the last few decades, 
as this NEPA law has been put in place, is that we have seen 
this has become sort of a Christmas tree, all sorts of 
ornaments hung on this law, looking at all sorts of things that 
have absolutely nothing to do with the environment.
    I think that one of the posters that Ranking Member 
Grijalva put up actually makes our case probably better than 
anything else, not just because it was actually mounted on a 
petroleum-based product, but also because it shows that you 
need to spend $1 billion, $1 billion, to actually comply with 
the law, you are giving agencies $1 billion to look at 
environmental impacts.
    Mr. Chairman, here is the reality. The majority of projects 
carried out across the United States today are done without a 
NEPA review. They are done without a NEPA review. Why is that? 
Because you have certain threshold criteria that triggers NEPA. 
You have things like, are Federal funds involved, are Federal 
resources implicated, are Federal lands involved. Those are 
some of the threshold criteria that actually trigger NEPA. So, 
the reality is, if you are not triggering Federal permits, 
Federal resources, and you are not using Federal dollars, then 
you don't carry out a NEPA analysis.
    So, if that is the case, if the majority of projects being 
carried out across the United States today are being done 
without a NEPA analysis, and we don't see this wholesale 
trashing of our environment, then why is this legislation to 
streamline this law, to pull it back to the original intent and 
truly focus on environmental outcomes, why is this bad?
    But, Mr. Chairman, don't take my word for it. Don't. 
Because I had a meeting a few months ago with Brian Deese, who 
was the White House economic adviser, and with John Kerry, the 
White House climate czar. We are in the meeting. John Kerry and 
Brian Deese said, ``You know what? We need permitting reform,'' 
meaning they did, the White House did.
    They went on to explain that, through ARA, the American 
Rescue Act, the infrastructure bill, and through the Inflation 
Reduction Act, that I will just make a little parenthetical on, 
the Inflation Reduction--I know, Mr. Huffman, your favorite 
quote is that John Kerry actually said that has nothing to do 
with inflation--but the Inflation Reduction Act, those three 
bills, they said that, cumulatively, they set aside $610 
billion for this energy transition, and that they were going to 
be incapable of actually delivering it without permitting and 
regulatory reform.
    I have to be honest, I didn't think I would be sitting here 
saying, ``Listen to Brian Deese and John Kerry,'' but, Mr. 
Chairman, I think they are right. I think that we need 
litigation reform. I think that we need permitting reform.
    And it doesn't matter if we are trying to restore coastal 
wetlands and restore ecological productivity in coastal 
Louisiana. It doesn't matter if we are going to try to triple 
the transmission grid for this newly-designed electrical 
transmission system that is going to be allowing us to send not 
just electricity from conventional fuels, but also from 
renewable sources like wave, and wind, and solar, and 
geothermal, and other sources, nuclear. But we are going to 
have to triple, triple all of the energy grid that is out there 
today. We are going to have to triple it in order to 
facilitate, in order to realize the ``benefits'' of this energy 
transition.
    The reality is that we will approximately never finish that 
project. You can't implement it under these conditions. So, 
projects to actually benefit the environment, like restoring 
coastal Louisiana, projects that are designed to reduce 
emissions, like deploying new energy sources, those are 
actually thwarted by the very law that is supposed to be 
protecting our environment. Think about that for just a minute.
    This bill takes a common-sense approach. It doesn't block 
public participation. It respects and, I think, increases the 
focus on environmental outcomes. It stops frivolous lawsuits. 
And at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, most importantly, it 
helps us move forward on projects that actually achieve 
outcomes that are positive. Because, at the end of the day, 
projects don't achieve benefits until they are actually 
implemented.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from 
the witnesses, and yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Graves. And thank you again 
for all the work you have put into the bill, and I am sure 
additional work that will continue to go into it on this very 
important subject.
    We will now move on to our second panel of witnesses, and 
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.
    When you begin your testimony, please press the on button 
on the microphone. We do use timing lights. When you begin, the 
light will turn green. 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 to testify before Member 
questioning. I will now introduce our witnesses.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, our first witness 
today was supposed to be Ms. Brenda Mallory, the Chair of the 
White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ. And CEQ 
plays a very important role in the discussion that we are 
having today. However, as you can see, nobody from CEQ has 
decided to join us today. They couldn't even find an assistant 
or somebody else. Maybe they all haven't come back to work yet. 
Maybe they don't want to come to a public hearing. But it is 
really offensive that they wouldn't even show up for a hearing 
on the Committee that has jurisdiction over many of their 
actions. And maybe they think they got all the money in the 
last Congress, and they can just blow us off. But if anybody 
from CEQ is watching, this won't be the last that you hear from 
us.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, could I make an inquiry about 
that? A parliamentary inquiry about when you invited the CEQ 
chair. Because the custom is 2 weeks' notice. I am just 
wondering if you complied with that customary notice.
    The Chairman. They were given ample time to be here.
    Mr. Huffman. Did you comply with the customary 2 weeks' 
notice? Because----
    The Chairman. Yes, we gave them the 2 weeks. But you'd 
think this would be important----
    Mr. Huffman. We didn't even have a discussion draft until a 
little over a week ago. So, I find it hard to imagine that you 
provided them a draft of the bill.
    The Chairman. Use your imagination, Mr. Huffman, as we move 
on here.
    This Committee would have greatly benefited from the 
testimony of CEQ in this process. Instead, again, they have 
chosen to ignore the invitation of our Committee, and refuse to 
engage in an opportunity to educate and explain the Biden 
administration's position on permitting challenges that are 
impacting our nation. Maybe they don't see a challenge. Maybe 
they think it is working just like it should.
    They have also been ignoring legitimate congressional 
oversight.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter 
we previously sent in October asking CEQ to provide a list of 
their rulemakings and the specific congressional authorities 
for each rule, in light of the Supreme Court decision West 
Virginia v. EPA. CEQ has not responded to this request for over 
3 months.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                             Washington, DC

                                              February 14, 2023    

The Honorable Brenda Mallory, Chair
Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 2050

    Dear Chair Mallory:

    The Committee on Natural Resources will hold a legislative hearing 
on the ``Building United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays 
and Efficient Reviews Act'' on Tuesday, February 28, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. 
in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building. I cordially invite you to 
testify at this hearing.

    Enclosed with this letter are the parameters regarding written and 
oral testimony. Should you have any questions or need additional 
information, please contact Sophia Varnasidis, Director of Legislative 
Operations, Committee on Natural Resources at (202) 225-2761.

            Sincerely,

                                           Bruce Westerman,
                                                           Chairman

Enclosure

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. However, I am looking forward to hearing 
testimony from the witnesses who did decide to join us today. 
And with that, I will recognize Representative Van Orden for 30 
seconds to introduce our first witness.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. It is an 
honor for me this afternoon to introduce one of my 
constituents, Mr. John Carr. He is the Vice President of 
Strategic Growth for Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse, 
Wisconsin. As Vice President, John leads Dairyland's Resources 
Planning Division, and oversees strategic load growth, mergers, 
and power supply acquisitions.
    Dairyland is a critical component of Wisconsin's energy 
market, providing power for a multitude of co-ops across my 
district and the region at large. They are also a member of the 
Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator, a transmission 
service that operates critical transmission systems and 
essentially dispatched market across the Midwest.
    Electric co-ops are the backbone of reliable power in rural 
America, especially in Wisconsin, and ensuring that these 
systems are able to be upgraded in a timely and cost-efficient 
manner is critical for millions of Americans.
    I look forward to hearing John's testimony, and working 
with you hand in hand, sir, and the rest of the Committee to 
ensure that innovative energy solutions are not being upheld by 
bureaucracy and unnecessary red tape, so that our co-ops can 
continue to provide reliable energy that is both affordable and 
as clean as possible.
    I yield back.

    The Chairman. I now recognize Mr. Carr for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN CARR, VICE PRESIDENT, DAIRYLAND POWER 
               COOPERATIVE, LA CROSSE, WISCONSIN

    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Representative Van Orden, Chairman 
Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this 
hearing. My remarks and testimony today are on behalf of both 
Dairyland and the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association.
    Electric co-ops provide reliable and affordable service to 
42 million Americans, including many of your constituents. We 
are currently working to meet our consumer demand by bringing 
additional renewable energy and renewable supporting energy 
online.
    Unfortunately, the current Federal permitting process 
creates delay and increases costs through inefficient reviews 
and costly litigation. This is not in the best interests of 
energy consumers, the economy, or the environment.
    Co-ops operate at cost. That means every dollar we spend 
impacts the costs our retail consumers pay for electricity. Co-
ops serve 92 percent of the country's persistent poverty 
counties. So, affordability is important.
    Dairyland is committed to advancing clean energy in a way 
that does not sacrifice safety, reliability, or affordability. 
Our energy mix was once 95 percent coal. Today, it is around 50 
percent. In 2021, we retired a coal plant that powered our 
region for more than 50 years. We provided skill development 
programs, special retirement options, and internal placement 
opportunities to lessen the impact that that closure had on our 
teammates.
    While we have been able to maintain the integrity of the 
grid, any future coal plant closures will require us to have 
other alternatives in place. For Dairyland, this includes more 
renewable energy, battery storage, lower-emitting natural gas 
facilities, and transmission to get renewable energy to 
consumers.
    To lower carbon dioxide emissions as quickly as possible 
without jeopardizing grid stability, we need a permitting 
process that supports a sense of urgency. Dairyland is pursuing 
two projects that are key to our clean energy transition. Both 
are delayed in a process that must be improved if we are to 
reduce CO2 emissions in a prompt, reliable, and 
affordable way.
    The first project is an efficient natural gas power plant 
to be built in Superior, Wisconsin called Nemadji Trail Energy 
Center, or NTEC. By enabling further renewable development and 
displacing higher CO2-emitting sources of power, 
NTEC will reduce CO2 emissions by almost 1 million 
tons per year, and it will bring stability to the grid. The 
NTEC environmental review began in 2017. It featured a robust 
public engagement period.
    The review was completed in 2021, and the Rural Utility 
Service issued a FONSI, or a Finding of No Significant Impact. 
However, external groups petitioned RUS to re-evaluate the 
project's climate change impacts, and that FONSI was rescinded. 
A second study confirmed the plant would reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, but we are still awaiting a final determination on 
an NTEC more than 5 years after the process began. Meanwhile, 
reliability concerns in the Midwest have led to postponement of 
previously-announced coal plant retirements by other utilities 
in the region.
    The second project is the Cardinal Hickory Creek 
Transmission Line. This line will bring wind energy from Iowa 
into Wisconsin. There are currently over 100 renewable energy 
projects, depending on the construction of this line. In this 
case, while the NEPA review was completed in a timely manner, 
delays due to litigation have increased the cost of the 
project.
    We support Congress' effort to provide a pathway for more 
coordinated, consistent, and timely decision-making. NEPA 
modernization is necessary to advance clean energy projects 
that strengthen the economy and benefit the environment. We 
support placing reasonable parameters around the review 
process, and limiting unnecessary litigation.
    The BUILDER Act would help to ensure outdated policies are 
not preventing our country from achieving its goal of reducing 
carbon emissions, while also ensuring that the grid remains 
safe, reliable, and affordable.
    This concludes my prepared remarks, and thank you for the 
opportunity to participate today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
  Prepared Statement of John Carr, Vice President, Strategic Growth, 
                      Dairyland Power Cooperative
    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is 
John Carr, and I am the Vice President for Strategic Growth of 
Dairyland Power Cooperative. Electric cooperatives like Dairyland play 
a leading role in the ongoing transformation of the electric sector, 
and often need to obtain permits or other authorizations from federal 
agencies to construct and maintain electric generation, transmission, 
and distribution infrastructure. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify on the ``BUILDER Act'' and offer a perspective on behalf of 
both Dairyland and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 
(NRECA).
About Dairyland Power Cooperative

    Dairyland is a not-for-profit generation and transmission 
cooperative headquartered in La Crosse, Wisconsin, providing 
electricity to 24 distribution cooperatives and 27 municipal utilities, 
who in turn provide power to more than half of a million people in 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa. Dairyland is a critical 
service provider, and we are responsible to our members, local 
communities, and future generations. Our mission is to grow, innovate, 
and deliver value as a premier member-driven energy cooperative through 
safe, reliable, and sustainable solutions.

    We are governed by a Board of Directors comprised of one 
representative from each of our 24 cooperative members. Our member 
cooperatives are in turn governed by locally elected boards. The 
cooperative model means that every dollar we receive from our members 
is directed to the operation of our projects. If excess revenue is 
collected, it does not go to investors; rather, it is sent back to our 
members. This model helps electric cooperatives keep rates affordable--
an important consideration, because co-ops serve 92 percent of the 
country's persistent poverty counties.
Permitting Modernization is Essential to Meet Community Needs

    Dairyland and other electric co-ops support the appropriate 
consideration of potential environmental impacts of energy projects 
during the permitting process, but the existing process impedes our 
ability to deploy clean energy to meet the current and future needs of 
our consumers and communities. We simply must reform the process to 
enable the transition that is already underway, and to ensure it can be 
done reliably and affordably for our customers.

    Electric cooperatives across the country are committed to meeting 
our members' changing energy demands. Since 2010, co-ops have more than 
tripled their renewable capacity to more than 13 gigawatts, with 
another 7 gigawatts of additional renewable capacity planned through 
2026. Since 2005, co-ops have reduced their sulfur dioxide emissions by 
82 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 68 percent, and carbon dioxide 
emissions by almost 20 percent. Dairyland supports a transition to 
lower carbon energy generation in a way that doesn't compromise the 
safety and reliability of the grid. In 2021, we completed the 
retirement of our coal-fired Genoa Station #3, which had reliably 
powered the region for more than five decades. We worked closely with 
the 80 impacted employees to provide skill development programs, 
special retirement options, and internal placement opportunities to 
assist in the transition, and we worked hand-in-hand with the community 
to fulfill our commitment to maintain a presence in the area.

    Our commitment to supporting local communities and the environment 
is an important part of our work as a cooperative. Dairyland 
collaborates with non-profit organizations and provides funding support 
on initiatives and policies that benefit area residents, schools and 
businesses in the communities we serve. In La Crosse, where we are 
headquartered, we partner with an elementary school identified as 
serving one of Wisconsin's most impoverished populations with 
supportive nutrition and programming needs.

    Our numerous environmental stewardship projects include the 
establishment of 50 acres of pollinator habitat, fish habitat 
improvements in the 2,000-acre Dairyland Reservoir near our Flambeau 
Hydro Station, as well as Peregrine falcon and osprey nesting 
structures. Dairyland and our member cooperatives are also national 
leaders in the establishment of electric vehicle (EV) charging 
infrastructure. Since 2018, Dairyland has supported the installation of 
over 150 EV chargers throughout our service territory.
Dairyland's Energy Future

    We were able to close the Genoa power plant while maintaining the 
integrity of the grid. However, any potential future coal plant 
closures would require us to have alternative generation in place. This 
includes more renewable resources, battery storage, lower-emissions 
natural gas facilities to firm up intermittent resources, and 
transmission to get this generation from project site to load centers. 
A recent long-term reliability assessment by the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) highlights the critical need to 
maintain baseload generation, particularly given increasing levels of 
intermittent renewable generation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation. 2022. 2022 
Long-Term Reliability Assessment. https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/
Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_ 2022.pdf

    Two of Dairyland's essential projects, a combined-cycle power plant 
and a regional transmission line needed to deliver renewable energy, 
are prime examples of why modernization of the current permitting 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
process is needed.

     Nemadji Trail Energy Center

      Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC) is a collaborative project 
            involving Dairyland, Basin Electric Cooperative, and 
            ALLETE. NTEC will be a combined-cycle natural gas plant 
            capable of delivering up to 625 MW of baseload power to the 
            electric grid, supporting the growth of wind and other 
            intermittent resources. Numerous studies have shown NTEC 
            will help reduce emissions across the grid, reducing CO2 
            emissions by an average of 964,000 tons per year. This is 
            the equivalent of removing 190,000 internal combustion 
            engine cars from the road each year.

      A thorough National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was 
            conducted, beginning in September 2017 and included robust 
            public involvement. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
            (USDA) issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) in October 
            2020 and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in June 
            2021. Thereafter, the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 
            accepted a petition to rescind the FONSI and to prepare a 
            Supplemental EA.

      RUS is committed to a procedurally sound review, but we are still 
            awaiting a final decision, which we hope is a re-issued 
            FONSI. However, even if the RUS works quickly and 
            diligently to permit this project, we may see the same 
            petitioners challenge the permit in court, which would add 
            further delays.

      Reliability concerns in the regional grid have led two investor-
            owned utilities in Wisconsin to postpone coal plant 
            retirements that had previously been announced. It is not 
            hard to see how the combination of lengthy reviews and 
            litigation could lead to a project like NTEC being 
            shelved--in our case, we need new, dispatchable clean and 
            lower-emission resources to enable reliable operation of 
            the grid.

    Dairyland's participation in regional transmission line projects 
serve the dual role of ensuring the continued safe delivery of 
electricity while facilitating the region's transition toward low-
carbon energy resources.

     Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line Project

      The Cardinal-Hickory Creek (CHC) Transmission Line Project, co-
            owned by Dairyland, American Transmission Co. and ITC 
            Midwest, is an essential 345-kV interconnection to our 
            region's renewable energy developments. The new 
            transmission line will reduce energy costs, improve the 
            reliability and flexibility of the region's transmission 
            system, and deliver wind energy from the upper Great Plains 
            to southern Wisconsin.

      Federal involvement in the project is small, but requires 
            approvals and permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
            Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and USDA RUS, from 
            which Dairyland intends to seek financing for its 9 percent 
            ownership interest in the project. The 102-mile route from 
            Dubuque County, Iowa, to Dane County, Wisconsin, crosses 
            mostly private and non-federal land, except for 
            approximately 1.3 miles in the Upper Mississippi National 
            Wildlife and Fish Refuge, which has led to costly delays 
            and permitting challenges.

      Federal scoping for this project began in October 2016. Following 
            several years of environmental review and extensive 
            opportunities for public involvement, USDA issued the Final 
            Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in October 2019 and 
            signed the Record of Decision (ROD) in January 2020. The 
            federal government approved the refuge portion, in part, 
            because the CHC line would replace two other existing 
            transmission lines in the refuge, thereby reducing the 
            number of structures in the refuge.

      Subsequent legal claims were raised alleging that the EIS and ROD 
            violated NEPA. In March 2022, a Federal District Court 
            vacated and remanded the EIS and ROD, based on those 
            claims. It found that the new transmission line through the 
            refuge was incompatible with the purpose of the refuge. 
            USDA has appealed the decision, and Dairyland and the other 
            project owners are intervenors in the case.

      Today, this line is needed more than ever. Its primary benefits 
            continue to include economic savings for energy consumers, 
            support for renewable energy projects and improvement of 
            electric system reliability. As coal-fired plants are 
            retired and the demand for renewable generation increases, 
            energy needs a pathway to travel long distances.

      There are currently over 100 renewable generation projects 
            depending upon the construction of the Cardinal-Hickory 
            Creek transmission line. These projects will generate 
            enough electricity to power millions of homes with clean 
            energy. But only if the line can be completed.

    Further afield, Dairyland continues to explore cutting edge carbon 
free energy generation resources. Nuclear will be the backbone of a 
low-carbon future. If you are for carbon reduction, nuclear needs to be 
part of the conversation. Nuclear is zero emissions, high reliability, 
well-regulated, and has an outstanding industry safety record.

     Small Modular Rectors (SMRs)

      We recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with 
            NuScale Power to evaluate the potential deployment of 
            carbon free power from small modular reactors. Under this 
            agreement, Dairyland can explore this technology and 
            evaluate whether it might be a viable long-term alternative 
            to provide our members with safe, reliable and cost-
            effective electricity in a lower carbon future.

      Part of our evaluation of this exciting project will be focused 
            on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review and approval 
            process for advanced reactors, like SMRs, and whether we 
            can count on the federal government to fulfill its 
            permitting responsibilities on a project like this in a 
            timely way at reasonable cost. Building and bringing such a 
            plant into operation in the Midwest will take at least 10 
            to 15 years.

The BUILDER Act and Other Reforms are a Step in the Right Direction

    The complicated federal permitting process under NEPA becomes even 
more challenging when multiple federal agencies are involved, and even 
well-researched and thorough federal reviews face the constant threat 
of litigation. As Dairyland has experienced firsthand, lengthy NEPA 
reviews and litigation delay the completion of critical infrastructure 
projects, require significantly more time and resources, and have a 
direct negative impact on communities served by these projects.

    Dairyland and electric co-ops across the country support solutions 
that provide a pathway for more coordinated, consistent, and timely 
agency decision-making. NEPA modernization is especially necessary to 
advance electric infrastructure project development in a manner that 
strengthens our economy and enhances environmental stewardship. We 
appreciate the work the House Natural Resources Committee is pursuing 
this Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Westerman and Ranking 
Member Grijalva, to identify commonsense and durable improvements that 
can be made to NEPA and other permitting processes.

    Based on experiences like Dairyland's, our national trade group 
NRECA has identified several NEPA modernization recommendations that we 
encourage the Committee to consider. Among those areas that would 
benefit from changes to modernize the permitting process, while 
maintaining the integrity of a thorough and proper review:

     Establish firm parameters for environmental reviews. 
            Originally, EISs were expected to take 12 months or less. 
            Now, the average time to complete an EIS and issue a 
            decision for a project is 4.5 years; and one-quarter of 
            EISs take more than six years.\2\ In addition, EISs on 
            average are 661 pages in length, not including 
            appendices.\3\ Congress should mandate timelines of two 
            years for EISs and one year for EAs, while providing 
            agencies with authority to extend those deadlines in 
            writing with the input of the project proponent, and 
            mandate page limits so that environmental documents are 
            concise, readable, and focused on relevant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Council on Environmental Quality, June 12, 2020, Environmental 
Impact Statements Timelines (2010-2018), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/nepa-
practice/CEQ_EIS_Timeline_Report_2020-6-12.pdf
    \3\ Council on Environmental Quality, June 12, 2020, Length of 
Environmental Impact Statements (2013-2018), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/
nepa-practice/CEQ_EIS_Length_Report_2020-6-12.pdf

     Promote greater applicant involvement in the NEPA process. 
            Greater applicant involvement in developing environmental 
            documents will provide agencies with the information they 
            need to facilitate more efficient and effective reviews and 
            make timely decisions. Congress should allow project 
            sponsors to work in a coordinated way with agencies in the 
            development of environmental impact analyses, while 
            maintaining agency authority over final NEPA documents and 
            decisions. It should also limit agency recommendations on 
            project modifications to those that are technically and 
            economically feasible, are within the agency's 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            jurisdiction, and meet the needs of the applicant.

     Ensure more efficient reviews for projects with minimal 
            environmental impacts. NEPA regulations and procedures 
            allow projects and activities that do not have significant 
            environmental effects to be reviewed efficiently under a 
            categorical exclusion (CE) instead of requiring an EA or 
            EIS. Having an efficient and expedited process for 
            reviewing these types of projects is beneficial for 
            communities and allows agencies to better focus their time 
            and resources. Individual agencies establish CEs through a 
            notice and comment process which results in inconsistent 
            CEs across agencies and inefficient reviews. Congress 
            should provide government-wide authority for an agency to 
            use another agency's CE if the proposed action fits within 
            the CE to ensure its appropriate use.

     Limit unnecessary litigation of NEPA reviews. According to 
            the U.S. Department of Justice, NEPA is one of the most 
            frequently litigated environmental statutes. The constant 
            threat of litigation creates excessive cost and agency 
            documentation and needless delay in the permitting process. 
            Congress should establish reasonable time limits for filing 
            lawsuits after a final agency action. It should also 
            require that any entity filing a lawsuit over a NEPA review 
            has already sufficiently raised their concerns during any 
            public comment period to put the agency on notice of the 
            issues and allow the agency to cure any potential 
            deficiencies in their documents prior to any litigation.
    The BUILDER Act, introduced by Representative Garret Graves, 
includes many provisions that would address these priority 
recommendations and would greatly improve the NEPA process. As Congress 
works toward bipartisan solutions and legislation to modernize the 
federal permitting process, the BUILDER Act should be a central part of 
those discussions.

    We all benefit from the investments prior generations made in our 
nation's electric system. It is now our turn to build on those efforts 
for future generations. Meeting current and future energy needs is a 
major challenge. Rising to meet this challenge will require 
collaboration, creativity, and flexibility. Dairyland and our electric 
co-op brethren are ready to work with all of you and your colleagues in 
Congress and your federal agency partners to meet these needs.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your 
attention to the critical issues facing our nation. I look forward to 
working with all of you.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. I thank the witness, and I now recognize Mr. 
McClintock to introduce the next witness.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to 
introduce Brian Veerkamp, a 5th-generation resident of El 
Dorado County. He retired in 2011, after 30-plus years in 
public emergency services that began with the position as a 
volunteer firefighter and culminated in his last position as 
fire chief of the El Dorado Hills Fire Department.
    In 2012, Brian was elected to the El Dorado County Board of 
Supervisors, and served two 4-year terms. He is currently 
serving as a member of the LAFCo, the Local Agency Formation 
Commission, and recently completed 2 years as Executive 
Director for El Dorado County Emergency Services JPA. He was 
elected to El Dorado Irrigation District's Board in November 
2020, and has been selected as the Board President for 2023.
    No one has more on-the-ground experience with the fires 
plaguing the Sierra and the communities that are threatened by 
them than Mr. Veerkamp, and we are very pleased to welcome him 
back to the Committee today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. I now recognize 
Mr. Veerkamp for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN VEERKAMP, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, EL 
      DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Veerkamp. Thank you, Congressman McClintock, Chairman 
Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Committee members. Good 
afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to testify to my 
knowledge and experience relating to NEPA, catastrophic 
wildfire, the Endangered Species Act, and the need for reform. 
Being an elected official at multiple governance levels, I have 
a special respect for all of you and your public service to our 
country.
    I spend at least a month a year traversing our California 
forests along with lands in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, 
usually by foot, whether it be hunting, recreational hiking, or 
just enjoying our public lands, but also taking note of the 
landscape. My career was in, obviously, as pointed out, 
emergency services, culminating as a Fire Chief and Director of 
Emergency Services, working in many different roles throughout 
that career, as well as being on an incident management team 
that traveled the states of California, Montana, Idaho, and 
Louisiana.
    In 2019, I was honored to testify before this Committee on 
the topic of wildfire-resilient communities. During my previous 
testimony, I highlighted the facts of what the landscape was 
looking like in our forests, rural areas, and in wildland urban 
interface. It was not pretty, and it still isn't. Since that 
testimony, we have experienced some of the most catastrophic 
wildfires in history:
    The Dixie Fire: Butte, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama Counties, 90-
plus days, 963,000 acres.
    Caldor Fire: El Dorado, Amador, and Alpine Counties, 70 
days, 220,000 acres, a Trestle project, fuel modification 
project in progress for 4 years completed by the devastating 
Caldor Fire. This fire completely wiped out the town of Grizzly 
Flats: our wildlife habitat, including the spotted owl, a 
grammar school, a major ski resort, and so much more, including 
our major water supply to El Dorado County, our flume system.
    The Moose Fire: Lemhi County, Idaho, 100 days, 130,000 
acres, all in the Salmon River Watershed.
    Mosquito Fire: Placer and El Dorado County, 60 days, 76,000 
acres, all, again, in our watershed areas.
    These fires have been responsible for civilian deaths, 
major economic loss to the tax base of these areas, destruction 
and devastation of our public education systems, devastation of 
our forests, wildlife, and habitat, not to mention drinking 
water supplies, the watersheds. And to me, the most two 
important items--and I think they would be to you, as well--the 
suppression costs of billions of dollars and the catastrophic 
damage to our environment.
    The fires of 2020, in a UCLA study, wiped out 17 years of 
greenhouse gas reduction work. Think of what the fires since 
that have done. Just think. The facts are coming forward.
    The consequences to public health, education, drinking 
water, and economics far outweigh any benefit realized by our 
current NEPA protection guidelines. And I am not saying they 
need to be gutted. There just needs to be some reform. The 
protections of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act handcuff our 
ability to get things done in a timely manner. If we don't 
speed up processes and streamline them, there won't be any 
habitat for us or environment left to protect.
    My grandfather, George Wagner, 1899 to 2001, discussed with 
me on many occasions the issue of land management. And during 
his era, they learned from our Native Americans and others to 
use fire as a tool, do certain things like girdle trees when 
young, graze animals, harvest timber as a crop, create fuel 
breaks. And this was how they managed the landscape.
    So, what do we need to do? We need to support language such 
as in this Act. A current example, case in point, was in the 
Tahoe Basin. Thanks to a NEPA categorical exclusion, it created 
10,000 acres to expedite the NEPA process so that work could 
get done in a timely manner. This streamlined authority was 
brokered by Senator Feinstein and Congressman McClintock, and 
signed into law by President Obama, and it was a major factor 
in stopping the Caldor Fire before it completely annihilated 
the Tahoe Basin, one of our biggest jewels in this country.
    Through the years, I have had many conversations with local 
forest supervisors, one this morning at the United States 
Forest Service building that now is working here in DC. And the 
challenge of NEPA and the lack of funding prohibit any progress 
from being made in a timely manner, and the catastrophic 
results are, obviously, as mentioned.
    We tend to spend forever trying something newfangled, or 
reinventing science, or waiting for new science. The facts are 
in the history behind us, and we should take advantage of that 
history. I was blessed and had an ability to recently review 
the Wallace, Idaho area and the Pulaski Trail, if anybody has 
ever been there.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Veerkamp. The great fires in the Inland Northwest in 
1910 consumed over 3 million acres, and there was devastation, 
just as we see up here on the TV monitors. And along there, the 
trail, the kiosks speak of the massive vegetation buildup prior 
to those fires. It was sort of ironic, because those kiosks 
today relate to the massive vegetation that is still there; you 
can barely hike the trail.
    In conclusion, reform is needed, and we must work together 
to do it. The landscape is very critical to us, our watersheds 
are critical to us, and the like. I would like to leave you, as 
well, with just a few of my truisms, one of them from my 
grandfather.
    An ounce of prevention is worth thousands of pounds of 
environmental cure.
    Per my grandfather, manage the land and it will manage you. 
And we are seeing that result today.
    And the question: NEPA, at what cost?
    Thank you for this opportunity, and I will be available for 
questions, as well. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Veerkamp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian K. Veerkamp, El Dorado Irrigation District 
  Board Chair, Former County Supervisor, and Wildland Fire Consultant
``Consequences of Good Intentions''

    Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to testify to my 
knowledge, factual data, personal observations and experience relating 
to NEPA, Catastrophic Wildfire, the Endangered Species Act, and the 
need for reform/change. Being an elected official at multiple 
governance levels, I have a ``Special'' respect for all of you and your 
public service to our Country.
    As introduced, my name is Brian K. Veerkamp. I am a 5th generation 
Northern California native, descending from two Gold Rush era families. 
For over 150 years our family has been involved in managing our private 
and public lands, both in the semi-urban and mountainous forest 
settings. Living and utilizing the land for ours and the environments 
mutual benefit. I also spend at least a month a year traversing our 
California Forests along with lands in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 
Usually on foot. Whether it be hunting, recreational hiking or enjoying 
our public lands, but also taking note of the conditions on the 
landscape. My career was in Emergency Services, culminating as a Fire 
Chief and Director of our Emergency Services Authority. During my 
tenure in the Fire Service, I helped plan Fire Resilient Communities, 
served on a State Incident Management Team, responding to and 
mitigating disasters of many kinds throughout California, Idaho, 
Montana, and Louisiana. In 2019, I was honored to testify before this 
Committee on the Topic of ``Wildfire Resilient Communities''.
    During my previous testimony I highlighted the facts of what the 
landscape was looking like in our Forests, Rural areas and in the 
Wildland Urban interface. It was not pretty and still isn't. Since that 
testimony we have experienced some of the most catastrophic wildfires 
in history.'' Dixie Fire'' (Butte, Lassen, Shasta, and Tehama counties, 
90+ days and 963,300 acres).'' Caldor Fire'' (El Dorado, Amador, and 
Alpine counties, 70 days, 220,000 acres, Tressel Fuel Modification 
project in progress for 4 years, completed only by the devastating 
fire; complete loss of the community of Grizzly Flat, wildlife habitat 
including the spotted owl, a grammar school and major ski resort). 
``Moose Fire'' (Lemhi county, Idaho, 100 days, 130,000 acres). 
``Mosquito Fire'' (Placer and El Dorado county, 60 days, 76,000 acres). 
These fires have been responsible for civilian deaths, major economic 
loss to the tax base of the area, disruption and devastation of Public 
Education, devastation of our forests, wildlife and habitat, drinking 
water supplies, watersheds and the two Most Important items: 
Suppression costs in the Billions and the damage to our Environment. 
The Fires of 2020 wiped out 17 years of Greenhouse gas reduction work. 
Think of what the fires of 2021-22 have done. The air quality alone for 
the duration of these fires brings many things to a halt and the 
effects will be felt for years to come. The consequences to Public 
Health, Education, Drinking Water, Economics, etc. far outweigh any 
benefit realized by the current NEPA Protection regulations. These 
protections have created far more serious consequences and must be 
amended for NEPA to meet its intent. Tree mortality is at an all-time 
high, primarily due to choked up stands and the trees cannot survive, 
they are weakened allowing insects and dry conditions to kill them. 
Being nearly 50 years old, this regulatory framework must be updated 
and modified. There are many other regulatory opportunities to protect 
the environment and so many in fact they compete with each other to the 
detriment of their intent. The protections from NEPA and the Endangered 
Species ACT handcuff anyone from accomplishing the needed tasks to 
mitigate catastrophic consequences from occurring. Whether it be 
Environmental Lawsuits or time delays, reality takes over and the 
fallout goes against any common sense solutions most would utilize. 
Locally we have been attempting to mitigate hazards along roadway 
infrastructure and the Environmental Assessments have taken a year and 
a half and there still not complete. These are existing roadways in the 
Public Forests needed for ingress and egress. One has to ask why does 
it takes so long, especially when it's for existing infrastructure?, If 
we don't speed up processes and streamline them, there won't be any 
habitat, forests, or environment left to protect. My Grandfather 
(George Wagner 1899-2001) and I used to discuss this issue of land 
management. During his era, they learned from our Native Americans and 
others to use fire as a tool, girdle evasive trees when young, graze 
animals, harvest timber as a crop, create breaks in the fuel, etc., to 
manage the landscape. There used to be a multitude of resources 
(loggers, ranchers, livestock grazing, etc.) available on our Public 
Land, but now there are restrictions at times for public access due to 
potential danger, making people fearful for stepping onto our taxpayer 
funded Public Lands.
    So, what do we need to do? Support language such as introduced in 
this Act. There are many examples of these processes already working, 
but the rules have been modified to accomplish results. Case in point, 
the fuels work that had been done in the Tahoe Basin thanks to a NEPA 
categorical exclusion. That streamlined authority was brokered by 
Senator Feinstein and Congressman McClintock and signed into law by 
President Obama. It created a 10,000 acre categorical exclusion to 
expedite the NEPA process so the work could be done in a timely manner. 
This work had a beneficial consequence, it made a great fuel break to 
help stop the Caldor Fire from devastating the Lake Tahoe Basin. The 
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in which I am a Life Member also works 
with the USFS, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, and 
others to accomplish habitat restoration and fuel modification work for 
the preservation of Wildlife, the Environment, improve habitat, and 
develop long term action plans to keep the land that way. There are 
many studies and a lot of data that they have developed to more than 
justify their action plans. Through the years I've had many 
conversations with Forest Supervisor's wanting to do work in their 
Regions and the challenge of NEPA and lack of funding prohibits any 
progress from being made. Well, funding is beginning to flow and now 
its time to take off the other handcuff. We need to utilize the tools 
that are in the toolbox. Stewardship contracts, Good Neighbor programs, 
utilize our Resource Conservation Districts, just as is occurring 
currently at the devastated Ski Resort, Sierra at Tahoe. (Caldor Fire) 
Unfortunately for them its on rehabilitation work. But still, it is an 
example of how with some reform we can tackle this problem of overgrown 
and out of control vegetation proactively. They may as well be called 
jungles, not Recreational Forests. There are many other ``Best 
Practices'' that can be instituted across the landscape that the 
professionals know and the amazing thing is, they are items from the 
past and other Countries deploy them and they work. We tend to spend 
forever trying to do it in some newfangled way or it gets delayed, when 
the simple, common sense solutions are right in front of us. We are 
making major mistakes in managing our Natural Resources, specifically 
Vegetation, and it's smacking us right in the face. When is enough, 
enough? I recently visited Wallace Idaho to review the Polaski Trail 
and the current level of vegetation in the area. I was aware of the 
History of the Great Fires in the Inland Northwest in 1910, consuming 
over 3,000,000 acres and destroying so much, including 87 deaths. As 
you hike the Polaski Trail the Kiosks along the way speak volumes to 
you about the extreme vegetation levels throughout the region and the 
need for proper management of the landscape during that period and that 
contributed to the devastating fire. I found this very hypocritical, as 
the vegetation as of that visit was so thick and overgrown it was 
crazy. Have we not learned a thing, or do we just talk about it. Oh, 
did I mention it had been hot and dry for some time leading up the 
fires. Records of drought and extreme moisture exist through our El 
Dorado Irrigation weather archives and regional records. They verify 
that things such as weather, change over time and there is enough 
patterned history to reasonably predict and prepare for too much or not 
enough precipitation. I learned long ago ``If its Predictable, its 
Preventable''! Again, we fail at looking to the past to predict the 
future.
    In Conclusion, one can see reform and modification is needed. Could 
be exemptions for Vegetation Management work (such as we instituted in 
our Vegetation Management Ordinance for El Dorado County), 
modifications such as proposed in this Act, Best Practices, or 
combinations of all three that have and will work in the future. If we 
don't manage our Public Lands for the benefit of all interests that can 
be prioritized, we may as well give the land to other entities who can. 
All we are doing is creating a huge ``Liability'' for our Federal 
Government to have to come in post incident or occurrence and mitigate. 
These mitigations are costing Billions, just look at the recovery costs 
paid out by FEMA of late. Our Governments lack of proactive actions as 
evidenced by the devastating consequences warrant paying any FEMA 
claim. We can and should do better. We have the tools. We have the 
intelligence, we have the history to learn from. Its more than time to 
be proactive and not reactive. We can be strategic, surgical and 
protect our environment while doing so. Billions should be prioritized 
and spent on proactive management and the eventual overall costs will 
go down. Working together behind the scenes and on the Landscape is the 
answer Let's get to it. I leave you with a couple simple Veerkamp 
truisms and a question.

    An ounce of prevention is worth thousands of pounds (our 
environment) of cure!

    Per my Grandfather, ``Manage the Land or it will Manage YOU!

    The question: NEPA--At what cost?

    Thank you for this opportunity. I wish you all well, God Bless and 
Godspeed! Please feel free to ask questions.

    Also, I have included some photos of Pre and Post project work on 
our Water District recreational property, the drinking water supply 
canal for El Dorado County damaged by the Caldor fire, Caldor Fire 
photos of damaged forest and Ski resort.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Veerkamp. I now will introduce 
Mr. John Beard, Jr., who is the Founder, President, and 
Executive Director of the Port Arthur Community Action Network 
in Port Arthur, Texas.
    Mr. Beard, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BEARD, JR., FOUNDER, PRESIDENT, AND EXECUTIVE 
 DIRECTOR, PORT ARTHUR COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, PORT ARTHUR, 
                             TEXAS

    Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the Chairman, 
Ranking Member Grijalva, fellow members of the Committee, 
staff, fellow Americans in this room, and guests, I thank you 
for allowing me this opportunity to come here today to speak to 
you with regard to the BUILDER Act. And I have heard a lot of 
what has been said already, but before I get started into this 
I will give you a little bit of a brief on myself.
    I am a second generation refinery worker in the 
petrochemical industry. I worked for ExxonMobil Corporation for 
38 years. My father worked for Gulf Oil, which is now Valero. 
We were both union men, and proudly so. I was also a city 
councilman for 9 years and mayor pro tem in the city of Port 
Arthur, which is one of the petrochemical hubs that holds this 
country together in the petrochemical industry. And I have also 
served in numerous other capacities in my city since I have 
come away from there. But I also started the Port Arthur 
Community Action Network for the sole purpose of addressing the 
disparities that I saw from within the industry, and as a city 
councilman, and also now, as a regular citizen in this current 
capacity.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Beard. So, if you will, I would like for you to take a 
brief look as I speak and talk through this of what 
environmental injustice looks like, the flarings that you see 
going on there, and the various other pictures. This is what we 
deal with on a daily basis. We are bombarded by chemicals and 
pollution.
    As a matter of fact, in 2010, the city of Port Arthur was 
declared an environmental showcase city by the EPA. What we are 
showcasing, I don't know. But if it is this, then that tells a 
lot of the story.
    But as you all have said today in talking about permit 
reform, let me say this to it--and no offense to Mr. Graves, 
because we are sister, I guess you could say, states--but what 
we don't need is permitting reform that guts and takes away the 
protections that NEPA gives to communities like mine.
    As I said, we are an environmental justice showcase 
community, because we also have twice the state and national 
average for not just cancer, but heart, lung, and kidney 
disease. And then we also have a high poverty rate, almost 30 
percent in the city of Port Arthur, yet we have over $80 
billion of industrial development going on in Jefferson County 
and in the city of Port Arthur proper.
    We are home to the largest refinery in the country. We are 
also home to one of the largest export facilities for LNG in 
the country, Cheniere. And all of this and more are being 
brought here. And do you know why? They are brought to 
communities like Port Arthur, not to River Oaks, not to Beverly 
Hills, and other places, but because, in the words of one of 
the captains of industry, that is the path of least resistance. 
They are least able and affordable to be able to fight back.
    So, when you talk to me about restricting access to the 
legal system, which is a foundation of our country, then you 
are telling me exactly that you are not going to give their 
voice to be heard. The Chair mentioned earlier going so far to 
say that we respect that, and that is good, that is fine and 
perfect. But respect without access means you are not going to 
be heard. We have to be heard to stop some of this from going 
on.
    But let me say this as we get to the end with regard to 
permitting. I have sat in some of the meetings of FERC and 
heard them talk about this. And one of the FERC commissioners 
said that this project was held up 30 months, and that one 15, 
and the other. But as I came to know, in some of the filings 
that I have seen in Texas and in my city, the permits were not 
held up because of government inefficiency, but because the 
permits were incomplete that were sent to the agencies that had 
to oversee them. Therefore, they got sent back, and they sat on 
them. That is not the fault of the government.
    But what is the fault of the government is to not fully 
fund those agencies so that they have the manpower and the 
training and the staff to do the work that they are designed to 
do. So, if you are talking about reforming that way, I am in 
total agreement with you. But if you are talking about reform 
that guts those agencies, that minimizes and reduces their 
effectiveness to do their job, that doesn't protect communities 
like mine that are overburdened.
    Let me tell you something as I close. We are called a 
sacrifice community. You know why? Because America, to have oil 
and gas, and drive planes and cars, and fly and go places, that 
is what we have to put up with. We have to put up with smelly 
odors in our homes that have been released, yet no one knows 
where it came from. And there are any number of other things 
that I will be glad to talk with you about if you ask me the 
questions.
    But I am here to say today that this bill, in the current 
form it is written, is not permitting reform. It is a death 
knell. It is a death sentence to communities like mine all 
along the Gulf Coast, from Florida all the way to the tip of 
Texas and Brownsville. Those communities deserve and need 
protection, not weakening the protection. Strengthen it so we 
can do this thing and have an energy transition that is clean, 
green, and helpful, but not to where we allow industry to have 
a blank check and continue what you are seeing there. Thank 
you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Beard follows:]
  Prepared Statement of John Beard, Founder, President, and Executive 
             Director, Port Arthur Community Action Network
    In 1987 the United Church of Christ, under the leadership of the 
venerable Dr. Benjamin Chavis released the landmark report, Toxic 
Wastes and Race in the United States.\1\ In characterizing 
environmental racism, a term Dr. Chavis coined and how it operates and 
manifests, the report notes, ``Racism is the intentional or 
unintentional use of power to isolate, separate, and exploit others.'' 
It continues, ``Both consciously and unconsciously, racism is enforced 
and maintained by the legal, cultural, religious, educational, 
economic, political, environmental, and military institutions of 
societies. Racism is more than just a personal attitude, it is the 
institutionalized form of that attitude.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Toxic Wastes and Race In The United States: A National Report 
on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with 
Hazardous Waste Sites'', Benjamin Chavis, Commission for Racial 
Justice; 1987. Article found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1310/
ML13109A339.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My name is John Beard, I serve as the founder and executive 
director of the Port Arthur Community Action Network. I live in Port 
Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas, an environmental justice community 
afflicted by institutionalized environmental racism. West Port Arthur 
is a predominantly Black community along the Gulf Coast of Texas, that 
has been an economic and energy ``sacrifice zone'' for the fossil fuel 
industry. West Port Arthur, like many Black, Brown, and Indigenous 
communities throughout the United States, was intentionally segregated 
through the practice of redlining--a discriminatory and racist practice 
that consisted of the systematic denial of mortgages based on race, and 
the forced centralization of Black people in ways not seen since the 
height of chattel slavery in the United States. In addition to 
pillaging the ability of Black folk to establish and maintain 
generational wealth, redlining also is responsible for the placement of 
toxic facilities and operations proximate to Black and Indigenous 
communities, which, in too many instances, has denied their 
generational health.
    Port Arthur, home to one of the largest concentrations of oil 
refineries in the nation, with three major refineries and 8 additional 
oil and gas operating facilities, is the epitome of the afflictions 
directly associated with redlining. For instance, the asthma rate for 
children in West Port Arthur is twice the national average. In 
comparison to the average Texan, Black residents in Jefferson County, 
where Port Arthur is located, are 15% more likely to develop cancer and 
40% more likely to die from cancer.\2\ Sulfur dioxide, a hazardous 
chemical that is released by fossil fuel facilities like those in West 
Port Arthur, has been correlated with an increase in strokes, pulmonary 
diseases, and death.\3\ While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
has set the Sulfur Dioxide threshold at 75 parts per billion, nearby 
facilities in West Port Arthur routinely surpass 100 parts per 
billion,\4\ proving the sage words of environmental justice scholars 
and practitioners Dr. Beverly Wright and Dr. Robert Bullard who 
describe communities like mine as, ``the wrong complexion for 
protection''.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Fumes Across the Fence-Line: The Health Impacts of Air 
Pollution from Oil & Gas Facilities on African American Communities'', 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); 
November 2017. Article found at: https://naacp.org/resources/fumes-
across-fence-line-health-impacts-air-pollution-oil-gas-facilities-
african-american
    \3\ ``Port Arthur, Texas: American Sacrifice Zone'', Natural 
Resources Defense Council; Article found at: https://www.nrdc.org/
onearth/port-arthur-texas-american-sacrifice-zone
    \4\ ``Any Way the Wind Blows: A Koch-owned chemical plant in Texas 
spent years running from the Clean Air Act. New evidence suggests it 
bent the law until it broke.'', Naveena Sadasivam, Clayton Aldern; 
Grist, February 2023; Article found at: https://grist.org/project/
accountability/koch-oxbow-port-arthur-texas-clean-air-act-pollution/
    \5\ ``The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government 
Response to Disaster Endangers African American Communities'', Robert 
D. Bullard, Beverly Wright, 2012, Article found at: https://
muse.jhu.edu/book/17926
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And while the fossil fuel industry argues that oil and gas 
development placement in West Port Arthur supports the local economy, 
the unemployment rate of my community has continued to grow in spite of 
fossil fuel industry expansion.3 Additionally, the proximity 
of West Port Arthur to fossil fuel facilities and operations continues 
to exhibit an adverse impact on property values--in effect, reducing 
them to levels that are lower than when some of them were originally 
purchased. The impacts of redlining are still felt in communities like 
West Port Arthur and other cities and states nationwide--in ``blue 
states'' just as much as in ``red states'' and throughout Indian 
Country.
    The struggles of my community are not felt in isolation. Numerous 
``cancer alley'' communities are along the gulf coast, just like 
``asthma alleys'' throughout the northeast and western cities. While we 
all consume oil and gas products, a study found that in the United 
States, PM2.5 air pollution is disproportionately induced by White 
Americans and disproportionately inhaled by communities of color.\6\ 
And while fossil fuel industry pollution creates health and economic 
consequences for everyone, these consequences are unquestionably borne 
unequally and disproportionately impact communities of color, low-
income communities and Indigenous communities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ``Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial-
ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure'', Tessum et al, March 
2019, Article found at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/
pnas.1818859116
    \7\ ``The 2020 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate 
Change: Responding to Converging Crises,'' The Lancet, vol. 397, no. 
10269, pp. 129-170, 9 January 2021. https://www.thelancet.com/article/
S0140-6736(20)32290-X/fulltext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The gulf coast has been lucrative for fossil fuel executives, who 
benefit financially from fossil fuel extraction at the cost of the 
health and well-being of fenceline communities, predominantly low-
income communities of color, who breathe in the toxins released by 
these facilities. From West Port Arthur, Texas, to Houston, Texas, to 
St. Johns Parish, Louisiana--our communities are interconnected by a 
shared struggle that is intensifying in severity. We are the fenceline 
of polluting industries and the frontline of climate catastrophes as 
increasingly powerful hurricanes continue to batter our coasts and are 
anticipated to become more powerful and calamitous if we continue to 
pollute our atmosphere with toxic emissions that result from the 
extraction, refining, and emitting of fossil fuels. With each storm, we 
witness the destruction of our communities, coupled with the massive 
displacement of our communities and deeper entrenchment into poverty.
    Communities in the Gulf Coast stand at the intersection of social 
justice movements rooted in environmental justice, climate justice, 
civil rights, feminist economies, and much more. Our fight for justice 
goes beyond the Gulf Coast, as communities of color throughout the 
United States disproportionately bear the brunt of toxic facilities. 
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 is one of the few 
federal laws that provides some protections and requires environmental 
review and consideration for proposed actions in communities like mine.
    Attempts to deregulate and weaken NEPA represent a clear and 
present danger for residents of West Port Arthur and surrounding 
communities and must be seen as nothing more than a thinly veiled 
diminishing of the scanty defenses available to us in the first place. 
Previous bipartisan efforts have attempted to weaken protections 
offered to public health and the natural environment. Yet, as I explain 
below, the Building United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays 
and Efficient Reviews Act or ``BUILDER Act'' is yet another bill that 
will benefit fossil fuel corporations who have donated extensively to 
members advancing their interests.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ``Fossil Fuel Subsidies Overview,'' Oil Change International. 
Article found at: https://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I will specifically discuss the proposed rollbacks to NEPA 
contained in the BUILDER act and how they would have deleterious 
effects in the areas of Community Input/Public Participation, Due 
Process, and Federal Transparency as stipulated in myriad United States 
codes and regulations, including but not limited to, 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 551-559, the Administrative Procedure Act.
I. Community Input and Public Participation

    Pursuant to the plain language of Title 40 Section 6.203(a)(5) of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, ``[Lead Agencies and Responsible 
Officials] must use appropriate communication procedures to ensure 
meaningful public participation throughout the NEPA process.'' The 
section goes on to say that agencies must ``make reasonable efforts to 
involve the potentially affected communities where the proposed action 
is expected to have environmental impacts or where the proposed action 
may have human health or environmental effects in any communities, 
including minority communities, low-income communities, or federally 
recognized Indian tribal communities.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 40 CFR Sec. 6.203--Public participation. Article found at: 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/6.203
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As pointed out by EPA, Department of Energy, and other federal 
agencies, ``In addition to promoting transparency, public involvement 
is crucial for facilitating better decision-making.'' \10\ Further, key 
benefits of a robust and transparent public participation process, ``is 
the development of capacity for managing difficult social problems. 
This capacity includes improved relationships and trust between 
decision-makers and the public, and among different stakeholders 
themselves. Also, when done well, public participation helps to teach 
stakeholders meaningful and collaborative ways to approach each other, 
manage difficult decisions, and resolve disputes''.\11\ All to say, 
enhancing and improving community involvement and public participation 
would not result in impediments to proposed actions. Rather, it would 
improve trust between stakeholders, and establishing trust, in turn, 
can reduce legal challenges and other actions that could delay the 
environmental review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ ``Public Involvement in NEPA'', Department of Energy. Article 
found at: https://www.energy.gov/em/public-involvement-nepa
    \11\ ``Public Participation Guide: Introduction to Public 
Participation'' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Article found 
at: https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-
guide-introduction-public-participation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Motiva Port Arthur Refinery is the largest oil refinery in 
North America.\12\ The Motiva Refinery was located 300 yards from the 
Carver Terrace public housing project.\13\ Residents at the Carver 
Terrace public housing project experienced such poor health and 
associated diminished economic mobility that advocates pushed for the 
relocation of the public housing project. Advocates were successful in 
their pursuit. However, it is unsettling to comprehend that residents 
intentionally sought relocation to escape the hazardous conditions of 
the Motiva Refinery. Community input allowed residents to escape the 
toxicity of the Motiva refinery. However, the Motiva Refinery never 
underwent public input since it was erected in 1902, decades before 
NEPA was enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Motiva--Homepage; Found at: https://motiva.com/about/what-we-
do/refining
    \13\ ``PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS: The End of the Line for an Economic 
Myth'', Environmental Integrity Project; August 2017. Article Found at: 
https://environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Port-
Arthur-Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The largest air pollution emitters in Texas are by and large in 
Jefferson County--The Motiva refinery, Oxbow Calcining's Port Arthur 
plant, the Beaumont Refinery, and Valero's Port Authority Refinery were 
all created before the enactment of NEPA.\14\ Over the decades, many of 
these refiners have undergone significant expansions and have been able 
to subjugate parts of the NEPA process since the primary facility 
itself was ``grandfathered'' in. For example, ExxonMobil announced last 
week that they intend to start up its expanded Beaumont Refinery, 
becoming the second largest in refining capacity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``Nitrogen Oxides Pollution Reductions Needed in Texas to Meet 
new EPA Health Based, Air Quality Standard for Ozone''; Sierra Club 
Lone Star Chapter; Article Found at: http://www.energyjustice.net/map/
server-test/uploads/tx_facilities_nox.pdf
    \15\ ``Exxon prepares to start up $2 bln Texas oil refinery 
expansion''; Erin Sewba, Reuters; January 2023, Article Found at: 
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-prepares-start-up-12-bln-
texas-oil-refinery-expansion-sources-2023-01-13/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The environmental degradation of these fossil fuel projects, 
alongside many other projects throughout the United States, catalyzed 
numerous environmental protection bills, including NEPA. In the 1970s, 
when NEPA was signed into law, it seemed widely agreed upon that the 
federal government must step in to protect the earth's resources, 
especially air, and water, that are fundamental to the health and well-
being of communities. While NEPA could not mitigate past harms caused 
by facilities, it ought to be used to prevent further ecosystem 
deterioration.
    Since the inception of NEPA, the opportunity for public comment has 
been an integral part of the NEPA process. Public comment has served as 
a way for communities to have their voices heard. Public comment is 
vital in communities intentionally placed alongside facilities due to 
practices such as redlining and who had no say in the initial 
development of the fossil fuel infrastructure.
II. Due Process and Government Accountability

    The United States legal system is based on the concept of due 
process--that is, when and where harm to people and communities can be 
demonstrated, these entities are then afforded due process of the law 
pursuant to Amendment 14 of the Constitution. In fact, various 
iterations of the US Supreme Court have held in its decisions that this 
entitlement and associated protections apply to ALL people regardless 
of race, color, and citizenship.
    For NEPA, due process is actualized by the environmental review 
requirement, including an analysis of potential environmental justice 
and other socioeconomic impacts, for all federally funded and sponsored 
projects/proposed actions. NEPA enables communities to ensure due 
process in the face of major projects and developments. Should any 
environmental review process be deemed by an impacted community to be 
incomplete, inadequate, or intentionally or unintentionally 
duplicitous, due process provides these communities with the use of the 
judicial system to intervene and determine if NEPA was complied with 
and, if not, direct mitigation for those impacts significant threats to 
public health, safety, and welfare and the natural ecosystem at large.
    A recent example of a judicial intervention that supported 
communities was blocking the Keystone XL pipeline. In November 2018, in 
Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State, 
Indigenous Environmental Network won its case against the U.S. 
Department of State when a federal judge ruled that the Keystone XL 
pipeline had an inadequate assessment conducted, violating NEPA.\16\ 
Due to this ruling, construction of the tar sand pipeline was halted. 
The Keystone XL pipeline went on to have numerous other legal battles 
before the project was ultimately discontinued by President Obama, and 
again by President Biden--since the pipeline's terminus was slated for 
Port Arthur, the end of the Keystone XL pipeline was a victory for my 
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ ``Final Ruling--Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM'' November, 18. Article 
found at: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/
blog/KXL%20ruling.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A more recent example of how NEPA intervention prevented 
environmental harm and environmental racism is the defeat of the 
controversial Byhalia Pipeline that was slated to be constructed, in 
part, through Memphis, Tennessee. The pipeline would have 
disproportionately impacted the majority Black communities, including 
Boxtown, a community founded by freed slaves during the Civil War. 
Additionally, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center 
(SELC), Boxtown, based on a 2013 study, has a cumulative cancer risk 
that's four times higher than the national average, likely due to the 
high concentration of industrial facilities in the area and associated 
exposure to high levels toxic solid waste and air emissions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ ``How the Byhalia Pipeline would have impacted Memphis'' March 
10. Southern Environmental Law Center. Article found at: https://
www.southernenvironment.org/news/byhalia-pipeline-basics/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NEPA process, combined with powerful and indomitable grassroots 
organizing, prevented the Byhalia Pipeline from becoming another 
example of environmental racism and, instead, an example of how NEPA 
assists with increasing environmental justice. Had laws like the 
BUILDER Act been in effect, Byhalia would have been fast-tracked and 
rammed through a community already experiencing disproportionate 
environmental and health impacts, which is why we need to understand 
and state plain that the BUILDER Act, if passed, would extend our 
nation's toxic legacy of treating Black, Indigenous, other People of 
Color, and the poor communities as disposable, ineffable, and 
sacrificial.
    The BUILDER Act includes multiple provisions that would impede 
communities' ability to exercise due process. The BUILDER Act seeks to 
prohibit injunctive action, allowing long-term damage to begin despite 
community concern. If judicial injunctions were no longer a legal tool, 
then the KeystoneXL pipeline would have been able to begin construction 
while the case was in court. The BUILDER Act would also block 
communities from filing claims if they could not participate in the 
public comment period. Public comment periods are often inaccessible to 
communities, especially due to their short time frames. Failure to 
participate in the public comment period should not lead to the 
exclusion of communities from participation in the judicial system. The 
BUILDER Act would also limit the time to file a claim from the typical 
statute of limitations of 6 years to 120 days. This would essentially 
bar communities, particularly low-income communities, from being able 
to file a claim due to the financial obstacles that communities face in 
seeking legal aid. Communities have often been protected from harmful 
developments due to the judicial system. Any actions that limit 
communities' ability for judicial intervention directly infringes on 
our right to due process. The BUILDER Act's attempt to minimize 
meaningful participation must be called out, confronted, and elucidated 
as an infringement on communities' self-determination nationwide so 
that fossil fuel corporations can continue their business model that 
prioritizes profits over people.
    So let's be clear, this is less about NEPA and constitutional due 
process slowing down proposed actions like KXL and Byhalia and more 
about the inability of projects like these to demonstrate no 
significant impacts on public health and the natural environment in a 
way that is legally defensible. And further, it's also about the 
proclivity of these kinds of projects to exacerbate environmental 
racism and the climate crisis alike and their inability to prove 
otherwise.
III. Federal Transparency

    The BUILDER Act would allow project sponsors the opportunity to 
create their environmental documents. We have seen numerous times, 
especially among the fossil fuel industry, that fossil fuel companies 
will intentionally omit and manipulate information to the public that 
would hurt their bottom line.
    One example that has gained much national attention is that Exxon 
did complex scientific analysis in the 1970s that accurately predicted 
the impacts of climate change.\18\ Yet, despite Exxon's awareness of 
the catastrophic effects on the globe of their fossil fuel operations, 
Exxon spent millions of dollars over the past few years on public 
campaigns and lobbying to deny the impacts of climate change. While 
Exxon's deception has gained attention due to its national reach, they 
aren't the only Texas-based fossil fuel company that has decreased 
public trust by withholding information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ ``Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago''; 
Shannon Hall, Scientific American; Article Found at: https://
www.scientificamerican.com/author/shannon-hall/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oxbow Calcining's Port Arthur plant was recently found to have 
intentionally changed its operating procedures to avoid getting noticed 
for air quality violations.4 Oxbow would reduce or modify 
their operating systems when the wind blew toward air quality monitors. 
When the wind was not blowing toward monitors, they would resume normal 
operations, although the operations themselves exceeded air quality 
regulations.
    If major fossil fuel companies with the most financial resources to 
hire researchers have used their scientific expertise to deceive the 
public, can we trust them to disclose and conduct environmental impact 
statements accurately? The scientific process is meant to be an 
unbiased analysis. However, the scientists themselves often hold their 
own biases. Allowing scientists with a vested interest in corporations 
to prepare documents would mean the scientific integrity of the reports 
is diminished, the efficacy of the statement reduced, and the 
legitimacy of NEPA at large eroded.
    Allowing sponsors to prepare their documents is a giveaway to the 
fossil fuel industry that would inevitably lead to fast-tracking fossil 
fuel industries at the continued demise of communities like mine. To 
further weaken the analysis performed under an environmental statement, 
the BUILDER Act would make it so that agencies are no longer liable to 
do new scientific research when conducting environmental impact 
assessments. This is deeply troubling as we continue to see more and 
more new scientific research showcasing the negative health impacts of 
chemical pollutants and the effects of the fossil fuel industry on the 
climate. In not conducting necessary additional scientific studies, the 
federal government would choose a path of negligence on the potential 
long-term ramifications of a proposed project.
Conclusion

    Each of you took an oath in which you swore to uphold and defend 
the United States Constitution--yet there are those of you who are 
advocating for a piece of legislation that would ostracize the people 
who employ you from exercising an epochal and cherished Constitutional 
right to Due Process. If we are truly to be a nation of laws, they 
cannot be established or articulated by legislative bodies that operate 
through a lens of profound contradictions.
    As we discuss the future of NEPA, we must shift away from 
determining ways that NEPA should be ``reformed'' and instead imagine 
ways in which NEPA can be strengthened to better serve and protect 
communities based on the best scientific understanding and analysis 
available today. The science is clear--communities of color 
disproportionately bear the brunt of polluting industries and the 
accompanying health impacts. The science also shows us that climate 
change already has, and will continue to be, a threat multiplier, 
wherein communities struggling today will be the first and worst 
impacted by impending climate catastrophes. Inequality in the United 
States continues to grow--from America's disparities in life expectancy 
to the racial wealth gap. We cannot bring equality, let alone equity, 
in our nation without intentionally putting protections for communities 
of color into law.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beard, for your testimony. And 
again, our hearing today is on NEPA, not on the Clean Air Act 
or FERC.
    And I want to finally introduce Mr. Keith Pugh. He is the 
President of the American Public Works Association from 
Asheville, North Carolina. I very much look forward to hearing 
his testimony, a fellow engineer.
    Mr. Pugh, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF KEITH PUGH, PE, PWLF, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC 
          WORKS ASSOCIATION, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Pugh. Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
provide testimony on reforming NEPA. I am Keith Pugh and am 
proud to serve as President of the American Public Works 
Association, which represents over 30,000 public works 
professionals.
    In 1988, I started my career as a municipal engineer, and 
worked my way up to Director of Engineering Services for the 
city of High Point, North Carolina, a position I held for 15 
years. Today, I continue my work with WithersRavenel, a 100 
percent employee-owned, multi-disciplinary civil and 
environmental engineering firm that delivers services across 
North Carolina.
    APWA members serve in the public and private sectors, 
providing expertise on local, state, and federal levels. They 
plan, design, build, operate, and maintain transportation, 
water systems, sanitation, public buildings and grounds, 
emergency planning, and response, and other structures and 
facilities essential to our economy and our quality of life.
    Since NEPA was enacted, environmental protection has become 
a prime consideration in infrastructure. Like any policy that 
has been in place for five decades, NEPA should be updated to 
address current societal needs, and to maintain adequate 
environmental protections.
    And as reported by CEQ, for Federal Highway projects the 
average length of a final EIS was 645 pages, and NEPA reviews 
took 7.3 years. The increased time and page length is due to 
administrative burdens placed on communities investing in their 
infrastructure. These burdens are often overwhelming for public 
works professionals, who have limited resources to carry out 
their responsibilities.
    Our infrastructure needs continued updating and maintenance 
and, in some cases, full replacement. Roads, bridges, water 
systems, emergency management, sanitation, and so much more 
need investment right now. While the Federal Government does 
appropriate funds for projects like these, some communities 
decide against applying, due to the onerous nature of 
permitting requirements.
    In my experience, any time Federal funds were introduced 
into a project, we immediately added at least 25 percent to our 
budget. Most agencies can't handle the additional 
documentation, so they seek outside assistance, which 
automatically increases the overall cost further. Some 
communities that cannot access other financing sources rely on 
Federal funding, and end up spending a large portion of the 
project dollars on the permitting requirements. In the worst 
cases, communities defer maintenance until infrastructure 
fails. In the end, many are not upgrading and maintaining their 
infrastructure as needed, which leads to a lower quality of 
life for our residents, lower environmental protection, and 
higher public health risks.
    For infrastructure programs to be most effective, the 
application process should not be so complex that it dissuades 
small and disadvantaged communities from attempting to access 
funding. Public works professionals are doing what is best for 
their communities, despite an array of challenges, and APWA 
places a high priority on respecting and enhancing local 
autonomy.
    Relief is desperately needed from supply chain shortages 
and inflation. The cost of construction and materials has 
rapidly increased beyond original project estimates. Even 
proactive communities are not immune to these cost and timing 
issues, which are exacerbated by permitting delays. Higher 
costs are ultimately passed on through more expensive rates or 
the diversion of resources from other community priorities.
    APWA supports continuing efforts to streamline the 
regulatory process, and we have been vocal during 
administrations of both parties, including in the FAST Act and 
One Federal Decision, as codified in the Infrastructure Law. 
These actions have provided a more predictable, transparent, 
and timely review and authorization process for delivering 
major infrastructure projects.
    However, work remains, and APWA supports establishing a 
lead Federal agency to develop a joint review schedule; 
establishing time and page limits for completion of 
environmental documents; extending the completion period with 
the approval of the applicant, when necessary, to allow for 
further consultation with local agencies; bringing the statute 
of limitations for NEPA cases in line with other environmental 
statutes; reducing duplicative reporting by allowing adherence 
to state or even local standards; and finally, examining a 
reasonable number of feasible alternatives for projects, 
including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts, 
for taking no action. All of these recommendations we are 
pleased to see included in the BUILDER Act.
    Thank you for holding this hearing and your work on permit 
reform. APWA stands ready to assist you to work to make these 
reforms law.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pugh follows:]
 Prepared Statement of B. Keith Pugh, President of the American Public 
                           Works Association
    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on 
proposed reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). My 
name is Keith Pugh, and I am proud to serve as President of the 
American Public Works Association (APWA) representing more than 30,000 
members and public works professionals. I started my career in public 
works as a municipal engineer with the City of Greensboro, N.C. in 1988 
and worked my way up until I assumed the role of Director of 
Engineering Services for the City of High Point, NC, a position I held 
for 15 years. Today, I continue my work with WithersRavenel, a 100% 
employee-owned multidisciplinary civil and environmental engineering 
firm that delivers engineering, planning, and surveying services across 
North Carolina.
    APWA members serve in the public and private sectors providing 
expertise on the local, state, and federal levels. They are dedicated 
to providing sustainable public works infrastructure and services to 
all people in rural and urban communities, both small and large. 
Working in the public interest, our members plan, design, build, 
operate and maintain transportation, water supply and wastewater 
treatment systems, stormwater management, drainage and flood control 
infrastructure, waste and refuse disposal systems, public buildings and 
grounds, emergency planning and response, and other structures and 
facilities essential to the economy and quality of life nationwide.
    NEPA is important to public works professionals and serves as the 
regulatory framework for protecting America's environment while 
allowing vital infrastructure projects to be undertaken. In the half 
century since NEPA was enacted, environmental protection has become a 
prime consideration in the planning, design, and construction of 
infrastructure. Like any policy that has been in place for five 
decades, NEPA should be updated to address current societal needs.
    As found by the Council on Environmental Quality, for federal 
highway projects the average length of a final Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) was 645 pages and the average time to conduct NEPA 
reviews was 7.3 years, we need to protect our environment and find 
efficiencies to reduce these burdens--it can be done. The increased 
time and page length is attributable to administrative burdens placed 
on communities investing in their infrastructure. These burdens are 
often overwhelming for public works professionals in carrying out their 
responsibilities with limited resources. For instance, I am working on 
a greenway project for which the NEPA process has already added 
approximately 18 months to our project timeline and tens of thousands 
of dollars to the cost.
    Our nation's infrastructure needs continued updating and 
maintenance, and in some cases full replacement. Roads, bridges, 
drinking water, wastewater, emergency management, sanitation, 
cybersecurity and much more need investment right now. While the 
federal government does appropriate funds for projects like these 
across the country, some communities are deciding against applying for 
federal funds due to the onerous nature of permitting requirements, 
including NEPA. In my experience, any time federal funds were 
introduced into a project, we immediately added at least 25% to the 
project budget. However, the final cost could be significantly higher 
than that. This is due to the administrative burdens placed on the 
local government, the design professionals working on the project, the 
contractor, and the inspection close-out process. Furthermore, some 
small agencies do not have the staff capacity to handle the additional 
documentation, so they have to seek outside assistance which 
automatically increases the overall project cost.
    Some communities that cannot access other financing sources rely on 
federal funding and end up spending a large portion of the project 
dollars on permitting requirements rather than on infrastructure 
improvement. In the worst cases, these communities defer maintenance 
until infrastructure fails. We have seen this occur across the country 
and the consequences for people and the environment, including in my 
home state where delays in water infrastructure improvements risk 
increased chances of flooding and contamination from major storm 
events. These delays extend to transportation systems including mass 
transit that reduce congestion and emissions. In the end, many 
communities are not upgrading and maintaining their infrastructure as 
needed, leading to a lower quality of life for residents, as well as 
lower environmental protections and higher public health risks.
    For infrastructure programs to be most effective, the application 
process should not be so overly complex that it dissuades small, rural, 
tribal, and disadvantaged communities from attempting to access 
funding. Public works professionals are doing what is best for their 
communities despite an array of challenges, and APWA places a high 
priority on respecting and enhancing local control for infrastructure 
projects. It is important that local governments have a seat at the 
table and are fully engaged in the permitting process since they know 
their communities best. We strongly encourage the federal government 
and industry to coordinate with state and local governments on 
infrastructure projects.
    Additionally, unfunded mandates should be avoided, and financial 
support should be provided to states and localities to fulfill federal 
mandates. This is especially true now, as relief is so desperately 
needed from supply chain shortages and inflation. The cost of 
construction and materials has rapidly increased and necessitated the 
acquisition of significant additional funding beyond original 
estimates. Communities are considering, in some cases, pre-ordering 
items such as pumps, valves, pipe, iron castings, precast units, and 
other items to expedite the construction process. By pre-ordering 
materials, agencies can theoretically secure materials quicker than the 
contractor who would have to wait until having a fully executed 
contract with the agency before proceeding. The problem with this type 
of ordering is typically storage and delivery of materials, as well as 
warranty issues. This shows that even proactive communities are not 
immune to these cost and timing issues, which are exacerbated by 
permitting delays. These higher costs are ultimately passed on to the 
public through higher rates or the diversion of resources from other 
community priorities.

    APWA supports continuing efforts to streamline the regulatory 
process related to infrastructure projects and has been vocal in that 
support during administrations of both parties. APWA has been 
supportive of streamlining efforts undertaken in the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, and ``One Federal Decision'' when it 
was proposed by the Trump administration and codified in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). These actions have 
provided a more predictable, transparent, and timely federal review and 
authorization process for delivering major infrastructure projects. 
However, work remains to be done, and APWA supports:

     Establishing a lead federal agency to develop a joint 
            review schedule and preparation of a single environmental 
            document and joint record of decision for projects that 
            require multi-agency reviews.

     Establishing time limits of two years for completion of 
            Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and one year for 
            Environmental Assessments (EA).

     Establishing a 300-page limit for EIS of ``extraordinary 
            complexity'' and a 75-page limit for each EA.

     Extending the completion period with the approval of the 
            applicant when necessary to allow for further consultation 
            with local agencies.

     Bringing the statute of limitations for NEPA cases in line 
            with other environmental statutes (120 days).

     Reducing duplicative reporting by allowing adherence to 
            state or even local standards often equally or more 
            stringent than federal rules to be used as evidence of 
            compliance with federal standards.

     Examining a reasonable number of alternatives for projects 
            that are technically and economically feasible, including, 
            if considered, an analysis of any negative environmental 
            impacts of a no action alternative.

     Clarifying that the environmental review process should 
            consider any proposed action within the context of past, 
            present, and ``reasonably foreseeable'' effects.

All recommendations we are pleased to see included as provisions in the 
BUILDER Act.

    Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the 
Committee, thank you and your staff for holding this hearing and your 
work on permitting reform. We are especially grateful for the 
opportunity to submit this statement and speak to the experiences of 
our members with the permitting process. APWA stands ready to assist 
you and Congress as you work to make these reforms law.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Pugh, and thank you again to 
all of our witnesses, not only for your oral testimonies, but 
for your written testimonies. I took time and read every one of 
your testimonies, and really appreciate you.
    The testimony I didn't read, though, was the one that CEQ 
wrote and sent over here because, not only did they not come to 
our Committee, they didn't even submit their written testimony, 
which tells me they are either ashamed of what they are doing, 
they don't know what they are doing, or they don't care what we 
are doing. Any way you look at it, they are not at the table, 
and they should be.
    So, again, thank you to the witnesses who came here today, 
who care about this issue. I want to now go to the dais and 
have Members ask questions. And we might not have time for all 
the questions today. Members may submit questions in writing, 
and we would ask that you would answer those.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee--OK, I am 
getting ahead of myself.
    I now want to recognize Mr. McClintock for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. McClintock. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excess timber is 
going to come out of the forest in only two ways. Either we 
will carry it out or nature will burn it out.
    During the 20th century, U.S. foresters would mark off 
surplus timber every year. They would auction it to logging 
companies who would then pay us to remove it--25 percent of the 
revenues from the Federal timber auctions went to the local 
governments affected, and the other 75 percent went back to the 
Forest Service to manage our lands. The result was healthy and 
resilient Federal forests and thriving local economies.
    But then we passed the National Environmental Policy Act, 
with the promise that it would improve the forest environment. 
Well, now simple forest-thinning projects require an average of 
4\1/2\ years of environmental studies, costing millions of 
dollars, more than the value of the timber. So, instead of 
forest-thinning projects making money for the Federal 
Government, they cost us money. So, not much gets done. Timber 
harvesting on Federal lands in the Sierra has fallen 80 percent 
under NEPA, and the number of timber mills declined from 216 to 
32. Without loggers carrying out excess timber, nature has 
returned to burn it out.
    California has done enormous damage to its economy by 
imposing the most draconian carbon restrictions in the country. 
Yet, a joint study by UCLA and the University of Chicago 
recently documented that the carbon released from just 1 year 
of forest fires in California completely negated the entire 
carbon emissions reduced over 16 years, combined. This is 
lunacy. When a law not only doesn't achieve its purpose, but 
becomes counterproductive to its purpose, it is long time to 
alter or abolish it, and that time is long overdue for NEPA.
    The categorical exclusion from NEPA that was originally 
contained in my H.R. 3382 was included in the WIIN Act in 2016. 
That measure provided for a categorical exclusion from NEPA for 
forest-thinning projects in the Tahoe Basin. It reduced the 
study time required by NEPA from 4 years down to less than 4 
months, and the environmental reports from 800 pages down to a 
few dozen. Over the last 5 years, the Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit has increased removal of excess timber from 1 to 2 million 
board-feet a year to an average of 9 million board-feet under 
this authority, and the treated acreage in the Tahoe Basin has 
now tripled.
    As Mr. Veerkamp said, when the Caldor Fire hit one of these 
treated tracks, it laid down and it was stopped before it could 
wipe out the city of South Lake Tahoe. The town of Grizzly 
Flats wasn't as fortunate, because they weren't covered by this 
legislation.
    For decades, NEPA held up a similar treatment project that 
experts warned was absolutely essential to protect that town. 
The Trestle project was delayed so long that it couldn't be 
implemented by the time the Caldor Fire utterly incinerated the 
entire town of Grizzly Flats.
    We desperately need to extend the categorical exemption 
from NEPA to all Federal lands. My bill to do so in this 
session is awaiting hearing in this Committee, and I hope that 
we will see it on the Floor without delay. Until then, we have 
this bill that would at least set time limits on environmental 
reviews to 2 years, and limit the size of the studies to about 
150 pages.
    After 50 years of experience with NEPA, the results are 
devastating: entire communities wiped out by catastrophic fire, 
countless species habitats destroyed, millions of acres of 
forest laid waste. The environmental left promised us that NEPA 
would protect our forests. Instead, it is destroying them.
    Mr. Veerkamp, what do you think would have happened to 
Grizzly Flats if the Forest Service had been able to complete 
the Trestle project?
    Mr. Veerkamp. It more than likely would have been easily 
defended. We have numerous abilities to fight wildland fire and 
defend structures, but there was just no way, with all of that 
heavy fuel load that was present that was targeted to be 
thinned, mitigated and so forth. It more than likely would have 
been protected.
    Mr. McClintock. How is it that privately-held forests 
throughout the Sierra can be maintained at healthy densities, 
while making money doing it, while Federal lands directly 
adjacent to them have become morbidly overgrown and cost us 
money?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Well, it is primarily due to the 
complications of the protection acts that were put into place 
to protect our environment, and the consequences of them. Best 
intentions, but the consequences have turned totally negative. 
And we are seeing that annually now.
    And, again, we are taking care of lots of other work for 
protection and wiping them out, as well as polluting our 
environment tremendously, as you alluded to in your study, as I 
did too, the UCLA study.
    Mr. McClintock. Should we extend a categorical exclusion 
throughout the Federal lands?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Absolutely. It has to be done because, again, 
there are enough other protections and avenues into the way we 
do things today that the lands will be protected, and the 
environment will be, the consequences will be good. And we just 
have gotten down the other side of that. So, absolutely, yes, 
and we can certainly do better.
    And there are examples of those projects occurring today 
because of categorical exclusions, or other ways to do it that 
they have figured out. In our private lands we have some, as 
well, up in the Sierra Nevadas. We don't have to abide by some 
of these things, and we go in with a masticator or proper 
thinning methods and take care of the land so our cattle can 
graze and so forth, which, at a minimum, our easements, our 
roadways, our critical infrastructure, our watersheds--50 
percent of our watersheds in the country originate on public 
land. They have to be protected, not incinerated.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Veerkamp, I appreciate your enthusiastic answer there.
    And Mr. McClintock, I have visited South Lake Tahoe, and I 
have seen the results on the ground of a healthy forest and a 
safe community because of the work that you have done.
    I now recognize the gentleman from California for 5 
minutes, Mr. Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start with 
just a little bit of fact-checking. We hear so much 
scapegoating of NEPA every time this subject comes up, and we 
hear a lot of fake examples to justify it.
    There is probably no greater poster child for the 
hollowness of some of this NEPA scapegoating than Sites 
Reservoir, which came up in the Chairman's opening remarks. 
Now, you would have to know nothing about Sites Reservoir to 
conclude that it is a NEPA problem and that it is an example of 
why we need to dramatically change NEPA.
    The truth is--and I am familiar with Sites for many, many 
years of California water work--this is a project that has been 
resizing and reinventing itself for years to try to pencil out, 
economically. It is desperately trying to qualify for 
California water bond money that requires public benefits. So, 
they are constantly reimagining what kind of benefits they 
might be able to offer. And even still, even while stretching 
the state and federal dollars that might support it, they can't 
find folks willing to pay for the water. And that has been what 
is holding up Sites Reservoir, not even close to a NEPA 
problem. If anything, it might be a socialism problem, the kind 
of socialism some folks like. But it is not a NEPA problem.
    Mr. Chairman, you also mentioned that $1 billion that we 
put into streamlining--because we do care about moving clean 
energy faster--that it hasn't changed anything. Well, I think 
the Chairman knows that was part of the Inflation Reduction Act 
that was only passed a few months ago. Give it a chance. I 
think it can and will move projects faster. That was the whole 
point.
    And, Mr. Chairman, you have had great fun with the empty 
chair you have set up for CEQ Director Mallory. You would have 
a point if this Majority had followed the rules, the long-
standing tradition of providing executive branch witnesses 14 
days of legislative text review. You have a bill here that 
applies to 80 different Federal agencies. And my understanding 
is you gave her less than a week. You violated our own 
Committee Rules and House Rules by giving the Democratic 
Minority less than a week to read this bill, too.
    So, look, I would join you in criticizing----
    Mr. Graves. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Huffman. No, I have limited time, Mr. Graves. I am 
happy to take it up on your time.
    So, in any event, there is nothing new here. That is the 
good news. Even though we didn't have the required amount of 
time to review the bill, there is absolutely nothing new. It is 
a rehash of long-standing Republican attempts to gut NEPA--
repackaged, I guess, as a climate and energy policy platform 
now. It is a long history of these things. Prior incarnations 
of this zombie legislation have been introduced in previous 
Congresses by Mr. Gosar, by Ms. Cheney, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Flores, 
and Mr. Denham.
    And it is interesting. I know these bills come from 
Republican colleagues whose environmental voting scores are so 
low they have to be measured on the Kelvin scale, but they are 
great recyclers. So, I want to give credit where credit is due, 
because you have recycled this idea time and time again.
    Mr. Carr, I appreciate the work that rural utilities do. I 
appreciate you being here. And I just want to ask you about the 
Cardinal Hickory Transmission Line. My understanding is the 
preferred route that was chosen does go through a Federal 
wildlife refuge. That is a very significant part of the 
Mississippi Flyway. And I am told that, as early as 2012, that 
refuge informed your cooperative that you should find a non-
refuge crossing alternative, and that that was known long ago. 
My understanding is that you also declined to include a non-
refuge crossing alternative in the NEPA document.
    I am just wondering if that is true, and why you wouldn't 
at least include an alternative that didn't cross through the 
refuge, even if it is not viable. Including it and studying it 
would seem to comply with NEPA and let you move forward.
    Mr. Carr. Yes, certainly, Dairyland and our project 
partners were engaged in the study many years back. You are 
correct, it goes back many years.
    My understanding is that the study looked at numerous 
alternatives to crossing the Upper Mississippi National 
Wildlife Refuge. And, in fact, again, we are talking about a 
refuge that stretches roughly 200-and-some miles, north to 
south. It is an enormous refuge. And to cross the Mississippi 
River, the routing is a very complex subject.
    My understanding is the project looked at trying to 
minimize the impact in terms of the crossing, and ultimately 
even is considering--they are trying to reduce the impact on 
the refuge, and condense multiple crossings into a single 
point.
    So, I understand and respect your concerns. I believe they 
conducted significant, robust analysis of alternatives.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Well, I thank the witness.
    And Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time, so I just want 
to enter a few things into the record, hopefully by unanimous 
consent.
    I would like to propose entering this article from the New 
York Times from about a week ago. It is a deep dive on what is 
actually holding up clean energy and utility upgrade projects, 
one of the more in-depth pieces we have ever seen. It is all 
about FERC and the interconnection queue. Not a word about 
NEPA, but I would like to enter that in the record, with 
unanimous consent.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
Wind and Solar Energy Projects Risk Overwhelming America's Antiquated 
Electrical Grids

New York Times, February 23, 2023 by Brad Plumer

The U.S. Has Billions for Wind and Solar Projects.
Good Luck Plugging Them In.

An explosion in proposed clean energy ventures has overwhelmed the 
system for connecting new power sources to homes and businesses.


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsPouring concrete for a wind turbine in Nebraska. More than 
8,100 energy projects were waiting for permission to connect to 
electric grids at the end of 2021. Credit--Walker Pickering for The New 
York Times

Plans to install 3,000 acres of solar panels in Kentucky and Virginia 
are delayed for years. Wind farms in Minnesota and North Dakota have 
been abruptly canceled. And programs to encourage Massachusetts and 
Maine residents to adopt solar power are faltering.

The energy transition poised for takeoff in the United States amid 
record investment in wind, solar and other low-carbon technologies is 
facing a serious obstacle: The volume of projects has overwhelmed the 
nation's antiquated systems to connect new sources of electricity to 
homes and businesses.

So many projects are trying to squeeze through the approval process 
that delays can drag on for years, leaving some developers to throw up 
their hands and walk away.

More than 8,100 energy projects--the vast majority of them wind, solar 
and batteries--were waiting for permission to connect to electric grids 
at the end of 2021, up from 5,600 the year before, jamming the system 
known as interconnection.

That's the process by which electricity generated by wind turbines or 
solar arrays is added to the grid--the network of power lines and 
transformers that moves electricity from the spot where it is created 
to cities and factories. There is no single grid; the United States has 
dozens of electric networks, each overseen by a different authority.

PJM Interconnection, which operates the nation's largest regional grid, 
stretching from Illinois to New Jersey, has been so inundated by 
connection requests that last year it announced a freeze on new 
applications until 2026, so that it can work through a backlog of 
thousands of proposals, mostly for renewable energy.

It now takes roughly four years, on average, for developers to get 
approval, double the time it took a decade ago.

And when companies finally get their projects reviewed, they often face 
another hurdle: the local grid is at capacity, and they are required to 
spend much more than they planned for new transmission lines and other 
upgrades.

Many give up. Fewer than one-fifth of solar and wind proposals actually 
make it through the so-called interconnection queue, according to 
research from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

``From our perspective, the interconnection process has become the No. 
1 project killer,'' said Piper Miller, vice president of market 
development at Pine Gate Renewables, a major solar power and battery 
developer.


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsA building that formerly housed transformers at the Brayton 
Point Power Station, a decommissioned coal plant that is being 
repurposed to link a wind farm to the Massachusetts power grid. 
Credit--Simon Simard for The New York Times

After years of breakneck growth, large-scale solar, wind and battery 
installations in the United States fell 16 percent in 2022, according 
to the American Clean Power Association, a trade group. It blamed 
supply chain problems but also lengthy delays connecting projects to 
the grid.

Electricity production generates roughly one-quarter of the greenhouse 
gases produced by the United States; cleaning it up is key to President 
Biden's plan to fight global warming. The landmark climate bill he 
signed last year provides $370 billion in subsidies to help make low-
carbon energy technologies--like wind, solar, nuclear or batteries--
cheaper than fossil fuels.

But the law does little to address many practical barriers to building 
clean energy projects, such as permitting holdups, local opposition or 
transmission constraints. Unless those obstacles get resolved, experts 
say, there's a risk that billions in federal subsidies won't translate 
into the deep emissions cuts envisioned by lawmakers.

``It doesn't matter how cheap the clean energy is,'' said Spencer 
Nelson, managing director of research at ClearPath Foundation, an 
energy-focused nonprofit. ``If developers can't get through the 
interconnection process quickly enough and get enough steel in the 
ground, we won't hit our climate change goals.''
Waiting in line for years
In the largest grids, such as those in the Midwest or Mid-Atlantic, a 
regional operator manages the byzantine flow of electricity from 
hundreds of different power plants through thousands of miles of 
transmission lines and into millions of homes.

Before a developer can build a power plant, the local grid operator 
must make sure the project won't cause disruptions--if, for instance, 
existing power lines get more electricity than they can handle, they 
could overheat and fail. After conducting a detailed study, the grid 
operator might require upgrades, such as a line connecting the new 
plant to a nearby substation. The developer usually bears this cost. 
Then the operator moves on to study the next project in the queue.

This process was fairly routine when energy companies were building a 
few large coal or gas plants each year. But it has broken down as the 
number of wind, solar and battery projects has risen sharply over the 
past decade, driven by falling costs, state clean-energy mandates and, 
now, hefty federal subsidies.

``The biggest challenge is just the sheer volume of projects,'' said 
Ken Seiler, who leads system planning at PJM Interconnection. ``There 
are only so many power engineers out there who can do the sophisticated 
studies we need to do to ensure the system stays reliable, and everyone 
else is trying to hire them, too.''


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThe climate bill President Biden signed last year provides $370 
billion in subsidies for low-carbon technologies like wind, solar, 
nuclear and batteries. Credit--Kenny Holston for The New York Times

PJM, the grid operator, now has 2,700 energy projects under study--
mostly wind, solar and batteries--a number that has tripled in just 
three years. Wait times can now reach four years or more, which 
prompted PJM last year to pause new reviews and overhaul its processes.

Delays can upend the business models of renewable energy developers. As 
time ticks by, rising materials costs can erode a project's viability. 
Options to buy land expire. Potential customers lose interest.

Two years ago, Silicon Ranch, a solar power developer, applied to PJM 
for permission to connect three 100-megawatt solar projects in Kentucky 
and Virginia, enough to power tens of thousands of homes. The company, 
which often pairs its solar arrays with sheep grazing, had negotiated 
purchase options with local landowners for thousands of acres of 
farmland.

Today, that land is sitting empty. Silicon Ranch hasn't received 
feedback from PJM and now estimates it may not be able to bring those 
solar farms online until 2028 or 2029. That creates headaches: The 
company may have to decide whether to buy the land before it even knows 
whether its solar arrays will be approved.

``It's frustrating,'' said Reagan Farr, the chief executive of Silicon 
Ranch. ``We always talk about how important it is for our industry to 
establish trust and credibility with local communities. But if you come 
in and say you're going to invest, and then nothing happens for years, 
it's not an optimal situation.''

PJM soon plans to speed up its queues--for instance, by studying 
projects in clusters rather than one at a time--but needs to clear its 
backlog first.
`Imagine if we paid for highways this way'
A potentially bigger problem for solar and wind is that, in many places 
around the country, the local grid is clogged, unable to absorb more 
power.

That means if a developer wants to build a new wind farm, it might have 
to pay not just for a simple connecting line, but also for deeper grid 
upgrades elsewhere. One planned wind farm in North Dakota, for example, 
was asked to pay for multimillion-dollar upgrades to transmission lines 
hundreds of miles away in Nebraska and Missouri.

These costs can be unpredictable. In 2018, EDP North America, a 
renewable energy developer, proposed a 100-megawatt wind farm in 
southwestern Minnesota, estimating it would have to spend $10 million 
connecting to the grid. But after the grid operator completed its 
analysis, EDP learned the upgrades would cost $80 million. It canceled 
the project.


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsA solar battery energy storage site in the Bronx, part of a 
test program to support New York's transition to renewable energy 
sources. Credit--Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

That creates a new problem: When a proposed energy project drops out of 
the queue, the grid operator often has to redo studies for other 
pending projects and shift costs to other developers, which can trigger 
more cancellations and delays.

It also creates perverse incentives, experts said. Some developers will 
submit multiple proposals for wind and solar farms at different 
locations without intending to build them all. Instead, they hope that 
one of their proposals will come after another developer who has to pay 
for major network upgrades. The rise of this sort of speculative 
bidding has further jammed up the queue.

``Imagine if we paid for highways this way,'' said Rob Gramlich, 
president of the consulting group Grid Strategies. ``If a highway is 
fully congested, the next car that gets on has to pay for a whole lane 
expansion. When that driver sees the bill, they drop off. Or, if they 
do pay for it themselves, everyone else gets to use that 
infrastructure. It doesn't make any sense.''

A better approach, Mr. Gramlich said, would be for grid operators to 
plan transmission upgrades that are broadly beneficial and spread the 
costs among a wider set of energy providers and users, rather than 
having individual developers fix the grid bit by bit, through a chaotic 
process.

There is precedent for that idea. In the 2000s, Texas officials saw 
that existing power lines wouldn't be able to handle the growing number 
of wind turbines being built in the blustery plains of West Texas and 
planned billions of dollars in upgrades. Texas now leads the nation in 
wind power. Similarly, MISO, a grid spanning 15 states in the Midwest, 
recently approved $10.3 billion in new power lines, partly because 
officials could see that many of its states had set ambitious renewable 
energy goals and would need more transmission.

But this sort of proactive planning is rare, since utilities, state 
officials and businesses often argue fiercely over whether new lines 
are necessary--and who should bear the cost.

``The hardest part isn't the engineering, it's figuring out who's going 
to pay for it,'' said Aubrey Johnson, vice president of system planning 
at MISO.


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsWind turbines in North Dakota, where some developers have 
canceled projects after facing rising costs to connect to the grid. 
Credit--Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times
Climate goals at risk
As grid delays pile up, regulators have taken notice. Last year, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed two major reforms to 
streamline interconnection queues and encourage grid operators to do 
more long-term planning.

The fate of these rules is unclear, however. In December, Richard 
Glick, the former regulatory commission chairman who spearheaded both 
reforms, stepped down after clashing with Senator Joe Manchin III, 
Democrat of West Virginia, over unrelated policies around natural gas 
pipelines. The commission is now split between two Democrats and two 
Republicans; any new reforms need majority approval.

If the United States can't fix its grid problems, it could struggle to 
tackle climate change. Researchers at the Princeton-led REPEAT project 
recently estimated that new federal subsidies for clean energy could 
cut electricity emissions in half by 2030. But that assumes 
transmission capacity expands twice as fast over the next decade. If 
that doesn't happen, the researchers found, emissions could actually 
increase as solar and wind get stymied and existing gas and coal plants 
run more often to power electric cars.

Massachusetts and Maine offer a warning, said David Gahl, executive 
director of the Solar and Storage Industries Institute. In both states, 
lawmakers offered hefty incentives for small-scale solar installations. 
Investors poured money in, but within months, grid managers were 
overwhelmed, delaying hundreds of projects.

``There's a lesson there,'' Mr. Gahl said. ``You can pass big, 
ambitious climate laws, but if you don't pay attention to details like 
interconnection rules, you can quickly run into trouble.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Similarly, there is a study 
recently done here in The Environmental Law Reporter that takes 
a deep dive into major projects that required EISs, and looks 
at what held them up in terms of speeding the process along. It 
recommends that insufficient agency capacity to do NEPA work is 
the No. 1 culprit, recommends we solve that, which we have done 
by putting $1 billion into it.
    So, I would like to enter this study into the record, as 
well.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                         PLAYING THE LONG GAME:

         EXPEDITING PERMITTING WITHOUT COMPROMISING PROTECTIONS

       Environmental Law Reporter, November 2022 by Jamie Pleune

    We are going to take the most aggressive action ever, ever, ever to 
confront the climate crisis and increase our energy security, ever in 
the whole world . . . and that is not hyperbole, that's a fact,'' 
President Joe Biden told a crowd of solar industry players gathered on 
the White House lawn to celebrate the one-month anniversary of the 
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).1 Earlier that week, he issued 
an Executive Order reaffirming the national climate goal to achieve a 
carbon pollution-free energy sector by 2035.2
    These lofty goals have material implications (pun intended). Clean 
energy technologies utilize more minerals than their fossil fuel-based 
counterparts.3 According to a recent report from the 
International Energy Association, ``[a] typical electric car requires 
six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind 
plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power 
plant.''4 Under a two-degree scenario, production of 
graphite, lithium, and cobalt will need to be increased by more than 
450% by 2050 from 2018 levels to meet demand from energy storage 
technologies.5
    Other base materials, like aluminum and copper, have a smaller 
percentage increase, but the absolute production figures are 
significant.6 For example, over the past 5,000 years, an 
estimated 550 million tons of copper have been produced. The world will 
need approximately the same amount in the next 25 years to meet global 
demand.7 This demand has led to the unavoidable conclusion 
that clean energy means more mineral production, which will involve new 
mines, mine expansions, innovative recycling techniques, and 
imaginative reuse technologies.
    The haste to build new domestic mines in response to these demands 
has stoked calls for permit reform.8 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. 
Va.) made ``permitting reform'' a condition of his support of the 
IRA,9 and President Biden recently affirmed his commitment 
to the deal.10 As these efforts progress, some fear that 
permit reform means quick approval of each permit application and a 
loosening of environmental standards in the name of expediting mineral 
production.11
    Society faces an unavoidable conundrum.12 Green energy 
demands more minerals, which ultimately means building new mines and 
expanding existing mines throughout the world. But not every mine 
permit should be approved as submitted. Basic environmental, health, 
and safety standards should still be enforced. The permit process 
necessarily involves multiple authorities, each enforcing their 
applicable standards. Rigorous permit review identifies opportunities 
to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate risk--whether that risk threatens 
workers, communities, or the environment (often all three). The 
increased demand for minerals should not overshadow the productive 
purposes served by permitting.
    Accepting unfettered environmental degradation in exchange for 
clean energy would achieve short-term gains in exchange for long-term 
pain. The unrelenting challenges caused by climate change provide an 
almost daily reminder that downplaying environmental risks does not 
make them go away.
    There are opportunities to improve permitting efficiency without 
compromising important health and safety standards. This Article makes 
three recommendations, each of which can be implemented without new 
regulations or legislation. To begin, Part I provides brief background 
on the federal government's recent focus on critical mineral supply and 
production issues. Part II distinguishes between productive and 
unproductive causes of delay in the permitting process. Part III 
identifies causes of unproductive delay in the existing hard-rock mine 
permitting process, by relying upon investigative studies and empirical 
evidence.
    Part IV lays out my three practical recommendations to reduce or 
eliminate unproductive delay. Although these recommendations do not 
rely on regulatory or statutory changes, they do require funding and 
support from the U.S. Congress, as well as cooperation from state, 
tribal, and local governments. Each of these levels of government 
should work together to strengthen and improve the government's 
execution of the critical mineral permitting process by focusing on the 
real causes of delay. This approach is one way to expedite the 
transition to clean energy without sacrificing the long game.
I. Recent Federal Attention on Critical Minerals and Permitting Reform
    Whether the objective is national security or transitioning to 
green energy, securing a stable supply of critical minerals has 
received focused attention from the White House during the past several 
years.13 President Donald Trump focused on expanding 
domestic mineral production. In December 2017, he issued Executive 
Order No. 13817, A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable 
Supplies of Critical Minerals.14 This Order blamed 
``permitting delays'' and ``the potential for protracted litigation 
regarding permits'' as limitations to developing mineral deposits 
across the United States.15
    The Order committed to ``streamlining leasing and permitting 
processes to expedite exploration, production, processing, 
reprocessing, recycling, and domestic refining of critical 
minerals.''16 A report drafted in response to this Order 
explicitly blamed federal permitting for reduced mineral production in 
the United States: ``Unfortunately, federal permitting and land 
management policies have inhibited access to and the development of 
domestic critical minerals, which has contributed to increased reliance 
on foreign sources of minerals.''17
    A few years later, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 
13953, declaring a national emergency caused by ``undue reliance on 
critical minerals . . . from foreign adversaries.''18 That 
Order also announced that the United States ``must broadly enhance its 
mining and processing capacity, including for minerals not identified 
as critical minerals and not included within the national emergency'' 
declaration.19 It instructed the Secretaries of the 
Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Army and the Administrator of the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ``use all available 
authorities to accelerate the issuance of permits and the completion of 
projects in connection with expanding and protecting the domestic 
supply chain for minerals.''20
    When President Biden took office, he shifted the focus from 
domestic production to ensuring a secure supply chain for a clean 
energy economy. For example, he issued Executive Order No. 14017 on 
strengthening America's supply chains.21 With respect to 
critical minerals, the Order instructed the Secretary of Defense to 
issue a report identifying risks in the supply chain for critical 
minerals, strategic materials,22 and rare earth elements and 
to describe and update work done pursuant to Executive Order No. 
13953.23
    The report, issued on June 6, 2021,24 recognized that 
the transition to green technology would intensify the need for 
strategic and critical minerals.25 It also provided a more 
nuanced view of permit reform. It acknowledged the historic 
environmental, safety, and health risks in the mining industry. ``Given 
the environmental and labor legacy of mining, increased mineral 
production and reclamation activities must be held to modern 
environmental standards, require best practice labor conditions, and 
consultation with affected communities, including Tribal Nations in 
government-to-government consultation.''26
    One does not have to look far to find the legacy of past mining 
practices. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO), federal agency databases contain at least 140,652 identified 
abandoned hard-rock mine features, of which 60% pose a physical or 
environmental threat.27 Additionally, officials within 13 
western states identified 246,000 abandoned hard-rock mine features, of 
which 115,000 pose a physical threat and 11,000 pose an environmental 
threat.28 In 2019, the Associated Press examined public 
records related to mining sites under federal oversight, some of which 
contained multiple individual mines.29
    The records showed that, on average, more than 50 million gallons 
of contaminated wastewater streams daily from these sites, often 
running untreated into nearby groundwater, rivers, or 
ponds.30 In addition to this relentless drip of water 
pollution, some mines also pose threats of catastrophic failure, like 
the accidental release of three million gallons of mustard-colored mine 
sludge from the Gold King Mine in Colorado.31 According to 
GAO, between 2008 and 2017, the federal government spent an average of 
$287 million annually to address physical safety and environmental 
hazards at abandoned hard-rock mines.32 Federal officials 
estimated that it would cost billions more to address these mines in 
the future.33
    On November 15, 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (IIJA).34 The Act included several provisions 
focused on critical minerals and investments to jump-start a domestic 
clean energy supply.35 Section 40206, Critical Minerals 
Supply Chains and Reliability, directs the Secretaries of the Interior 
and Agriculture to submit a report to Congress identifying ``additional 
measures, including regulatory and legislative proposals, if 
appropriate, that would increase the timeliness of permitting 
activities for the exploration and development of domestic critical 
minerals.''36 In preparation for this report, the U.S. 
Department of the Interior issued a request for information seeking, 
among other things, recommendations on ``opportunities to reduce time, 
cost, and risk of permitting without compromising . . . strong 
environmental and consultation benchmarks.''37
    Some analysts have suggested that there is an inherent tension 
between stringent environmental standards and efficient permitting. For 
example, David Blackmon, a Forbes columnist, wryly opined, ``the 
central feature in any bill designed to speed up federal permitting for 
energy projects will come down to a proposition to lessen environmental 
protections in order to . . . save the environment?''38
    This schadenfreude-laced summary conflates two separate issues that 
permit reform proposals must address. The first is obvious. Can we 
improve efficiency, eliminate redundancy, and decrease the cost and 
time spent navigating the permit process? The answer to that question 
is yes. Moreover, achieving this result is feasible. Recent research 
shows that many NEPA analyses are completed efficiently.39 
Part III of this Article focuses on recommendations to make the 
existing permit system more efficient.
    The second issue is more nuanced. Should some mine permit proposals 
be modified or denied because the risks (health, safety, or 
environmental) exceed the rewards? The answer to this question should 
also be yes. Permit reform should not eliminate the ability to say 
``no.'' This suggests that some delays may be productive. The next 
section explores this concept.
II. Distinguishing Between Productive and Unproductive Delays
    Mining is dangerous. Permitting ensures that mines are built safely 
and that risks to mine workers, society, and the environment are 
reduced or mitigated as much as possible. Hard-rock mining involves 
enormous risk. Whether the ore deposit is accessed by surface (open 
pit) or underground mining, most mines require drilling, blasting, 
mucking (loading), and transporting (hauling).40 As mining 
progresses, open pits are excavated on the surface and voids are 
created where the in-place ore was removed. Continued mining results in 
larger mines, along with growing waste dumps, heap leach piles, 
tailings ponds, and so on.41 The ore removed from the earth 
must be crushed or ground into smaller particles, which are then 
subjected to various physical or chemical processes to separate the 
valuable minerals from the unwanted waste ore.42
    Alternatively, metals may be extracted through a leaching process, 
such as a cyanide solution.43 The waste minerals are 
routinely disposed of in a tailings pond. Although tailings dams, 
ponds, and leach pads should be carefully designed to high standards, 
the potential impacts resulting from release or discharge of tailings 
or leached rock can be devastating. For example, defective tailings 
ponds at the Buenavista del Cobre copper mine in Sonora, Mexico, 
released more than 10 million gallons of toxic chemicals into the 
Bacanuchi River, a tributary of the Sonora River. This 2014 event left 
approximately 25,000 people without clean water, ruining crops and 
contaminating the aquatic ecosystem with heavy metals.44
    ``A review of 14 copper porphyry mines in the U.S. (accounting for 
nearly 90% of U.S. production) found the mines were often associated 
with water pollution from acid mine drainage and accidental releases of 
toxic materials.''45 Tailings failures are ``the most common 
source of mining accidents.''46 Additionally, some mining 
companies go out of business without reclaiming their sites. In 2012, 
there were 156 hard-rock mining Superfund sites in the United 
States.47 The permitting process is designed to mitigate the 
safety, health, and environmental risks that are inherent to hard-rock 
mining.
    Many critics of the permitting process cite controversial projects 
or permit denials as proof that the permitting system is 
broken.48 Large projects with irreversible environmental 
consequences, like Pebble Mine, Twin Metals, PolyMet, and Resolution 
Copper, often face fierce opposition from people who will be affected 
by the project's negative consequences.49 The delays faced 
by these projects are caused by a conflict in values. Pebble Mine in 
southwest Alaska presents an irreversible choice between copper and 
commercial fishing.50 It is opposed by more than 80% of the 
Native Alaska population, as well as many commercial fishermen, because 
acid mine drainage threatens Bristol Bay, the world's largest sockeye 
salmon fishery.51
    Twin Metals, outside of Ely, Minnesota, presents an irreversible 
choice between copper and drinking water protected by the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.52 It also threatens culturally 
important and treaty-protected wild rice waters, wetlands, and aquatic 
life.53 These competing values have inspired dueling 
legislative overrides.54 Nearby, the PolyMet mine faces 
opposition in part because the earthen upstream design it proposed for 
its tailings is the same design used for the Brumadinho dam in Brazil 
that failed in 2019, killing 270 people and spilling 11.7 million cubic 
meters of toxic mud downstream.55
    In Arizona, the Resolution Copper project proposes to build the 
largest and deepest mine in the United States using a mining technique 
called block caving.56 This proposal threatens lands 
considered sacred by local tribes.57
    The permitting delays faced by each of these projects are not 
caused by inefficiency. They are caused by legitimate disagreements, 
value judgments, the enforcement of environmental standards, the 
democratic process of public comment, and the right of communities to 
protect themselves against being forced to shoulder undue environmental 
degradation for the benefit of others.
    Although frustrating for mine proponents and investors, some delays 
in permitting may be evidence that the process is working. The 
environmental analysis required during the permitting process may 
identify potential issues that would have otherwise escaped 
consideration, and drive a reassessment of options and impacts before 
an irretrievable commitment of resources occurs. Slower projects may 
reflect iterative changes to improve the proposed action or minimize 
impacts. Delays that mitigate safety and environmental risks or stop 
socially unacceptable projects may be inconvenient for investors, but 
they are ultimately productive for society.
    To understand this concept, it is helpful to think about a 
different regulated activity that is inherently risky--aviation. Before 
departing the planet, every pilot--both commercial and recreational--
must conduct a preflight inspection to ensure the safety of the 
aircraft.58 This involves looking carefully for tiny hints 
that could portend a structural failure. Careful fulfillment of this 
duty may result in delay, while a dilatory attitude could be 
catastrophic. Consider the pilot who failed to notice missing cowling 
fasteners during his preflight inspection.59 Careful 
observation would have resulted in brief delay to fix the problem. 
Instead, the cowling detached from the aircraft during flight, forcing 
an emergency landing that resulted in a brushfire that consumed the 
plane.
    Thus, diligent fulfillment of the duty to notice safety risks or 
structural anomalies may be a productive source of delay. Permitting 
authorities are also tasked with the duty of diligently ensuring that 
the proposed mining operations are well-designed and safe. Noticing 
safety risks or structural anomalies is a productive source of delay 
that could avoid catastrophic accidents.
    Pilots must also mitigate risks through preflight planning, which 
includes consideration of the proposed route, anticipated weather, fuel 
requirements, runway lengths, known traffic delays, and performance 
limitations.60 Changing conditions with any one of these 
factors may delay, cancel, or reroute a proposed flight. Although 
inconvenient, these delays are ultimately productive, because they 
eliminate, reduce, or mitigate risk. Often a decision to delay or 
reroute a flight may be based on incomplete information. It is 
impossible to accurately forecast the future. Moreover, new or changing 
conditions may require reconsideration of an earlier decision.
    These possibilities must be weighed against the all-too-human 
desire to reach the final destination without delay. As the Kobe Bryant 
accident tragically illustrated, failure to appreciate the gravity of 
these risks, or to respond to changing conditions, can be 
fatal.61 One board member of the National Transportation 
Safety Board investigation committee investigating the Bryant flight 
observed that the pilots should not only be measured by whether they 
complete a flight. ``Perhaps a better way to look at it is that 
professional pilots aren't paid to fly--they're paid to say no when 
conditions warrant. If . . . [pilots] look at it this way, perhaps we 
will have fewer crashes.''62
    The same principles apply to permitting decisions. Permitting 
authorities are tasked with the responsibility of mitigating risks. New 
information may intensify to an unacceptable level the potential risk 
associated with a project. In these cases, the permitting authority 
should have confidence to say ``no.'' When operated effectively, this 
process avoids unacceptable environmental degradation and catastrophic 
accidents. Permit reform should not create a system of rubber-stamping. 
It must include the ability to say ``no'' when conditions warrant. 
Saying ``no'' to unacceptably risky proposals creates delay, but in the 
long run, that delay is socially productive.
III. Identifying Unproductive Causes of Delay in the Permitting Process
    Hard-rock mining operations consist of four primary stages: (1) 
exploration (locating and defining the extent and value of mineral 
deposits); (2) development (completing the mine plan approval process, 
including obtaining necessary permits); (3) production (extracting the 
minerals); and (4) reclamation (reshaping disturbed areas and 
controlling for any toxic materials).63 The Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service oversee hardrock mining 
operations on public lands and national forests and grasslands, 
respectively.
    Many federal, state, and local statutes affect mining operations, 
and a proposed mine must obtain several different permits from multiple 
different agencies. For example, when studying 68 proposed mine plans 
submitted between 2010 and 2014, GAO identified six different 
categories of federal permits and authorizations and seven categories 
of state and local permits and authorizations.64 These range 
from air quality, hazardous waste management, and workplace safety 
operations to dam structures and the use of explosives.65
    As part of the permitting process, federal agencies must conduct an 
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
66 of potential impacts to the environment, human health, 
and cultural and historical resources. NEPA is a far-reaching 
procedural statute that applies to all ``major Federal actions 
significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.''67 NEPA's implementing regulations utilize a 
tiered decisionmaking framework. Decisions that will have a significant 
impact on the environment undergo searching review through an 
environmental impact statement (EIS).68 The EIS discloses 
adverse environmental impacts and considers alternatives to the 
proposed project.69
    GAO estimated that EISs constitute about 1% of all NEPA 
decisions.70 More benign projects with uncertain 
environmental impacts undergo a less thorough analysis referred to as 
an environmental assessment (EA).71 GAO estimates that less 
than 5% of decisions government-wide are analyzed in an 
EA.72 Projects with a presumptively insignificant effect on 
the environment undergo a truncated analysis through a categorical 
exclusion (CE).73 According to GAO's estimates, these 
truncated analyses constitute 95% of NEPA analyses.74
    NEPA does not operate in a vacuum. Since its passage 51 years ago, 
it has been incorporated into the fabric of the administrative state 
and often provides the analytical structure justifying decisions made 
by federal agencies, including permit approvals or denials. As the 
Congressional Research Service explains, ``[m]ost agencies used NEPA as 
an umbrella statute--that is, a framework to coordinate or demonstrate 
compliance with any studies, reviews, or consultations required by any 
other environmental laws.''75 For this reason, even though 
the requirements of NEPA are only one part of a much larger, amorphous 
system of permits, the NEPA process and the permitting process are 
often conflated.
    Despite its importance, little is known about how NEPA operates. 
When asked to review various NEPA compliance issues, including (1) the 
number and type of NEPA analyses conducted by agencies, (2) costs and 
benefits of completing the analyses, and (3) the frequency and outcomes 
of litigation, GAO concluded that very little information exists 
regarding these issues.76 Absent information, most 
recommendations for NEPA reform have historically been loosely moored 
to empirical data and focused primarily on the most complex decisions 
that undergo the most rigorous review, even though these decisions 
constitute only a small fraction of NEPA decisions. Because of its 
central role in the permitting process, understanding how NEPA is 
implemented and identifying sources of delay within the NEPA process is 
critical to designing effective permit reform.
    Reviews of the permitting process indicate that only a small 
percentage of projects encounter extensive delays. GAO issued a report 
in 2016 studying hard-rock mine permit processing times.77 
Between 2010 and 2014, BLM and the Forest Service approved 68 mine 
plans of operations. The majority (55%) were processed in less than 18 
months, and 63% were processed in under two years.78 This 
appears to indicate that permit applications can be processed 
efficiently. The remaining 37% were spread out over a wide time frame, 
with six applications taking longer than four years.
    GAO's findings regarding hard-rock mine permit processing times are 
consistent with the results of empirical research conducted by a team 
from the Wallace Stegner Center in Utah, including this author. They 
investigated NEPA decisionmaking times within the Forest Service, 
analyzing more than 41,000 Forest Service projects that required NEPA 
analysis between 2004 and 2020.79 Their research revealed 
that the majority of decisions were made within a reasonable time frame 
for the complexity of the project; however, a small percentage of 
projects consistently took much longer, regardless of the complexity of 
the project.80 They sought to identify what causes some 
projects to drag on, while others are completed efficiently. Because 
NEPA is a part of the permitting process, the details of their 
empirical research provide valuable insight into potential causes of 
delay in hard-rock mine permitting.
    The Stegner team also observed that most NEPA analyses are 
completed within a predictable time frame, consistent with the level of 
analysis required. However, a small percentage of projects get bogged 
down at every level of review. For example, between 2004 and 2020, the 
mean time to complete an EIS was 2.8 years.81 Turning to 
EAs, the mean time for completion was 1.2 years, and the mean time to 
complete a CE was slightly under four months.82 These 
average time frames predictably correlate to the rigor of the analysis 
required by NEPA's analytical structure.
    However, the Stegner team also observed that some projects take 
extraordinarily long, regardless of the level of analysis. Table 1 
below compares the median time for completion at every level of review 
with the average time for projects in the slowest 10%. Notably, at each 
level of review, the slowest 10% of decisions take longer than the 
median time to complete a more rigorous level of analysis. For example, 
the slowest 10% of CEs take 1.3 years, while the median time to 
complete an EA is 1.2 years. This demonstrates that a less rigorous 
level of analysis does not automatically generate a faster decision.

 Table 1. Comparison of Median Completion Times for Select Percentiles 
                          by Level of Analysis


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThe Stegner team also observed that a large percentage of 
decisions are made efficiently at each level of review. Table 2 below 
compares the average time for the fastest 25% of decisions against the 
median time for completion at each level of review. The degree of 
achievable efficiency is even more apparent when considering the 
average times for the fastest 10% of decisions (also depicted below). 
On average, the fastest 25% of decisions are completed twice as quickly 
as the median time for completion at every level of review. The fastest 
10% of decisions show even greater efficiency. This empirical evidence 
demonstrates that analytical rigor can be accomplished efficiently, 
even at the most searching level of analysis.

Table 2. Comparison of Fastest 10% and 25% of Completion Times With the 
       Standard Median Completion Time for Each Level of Analysis

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThese observations are important for designing permit reform 
for two reasons. First, they demonstrate that it is not necessary to 
sacrifice analytical rigor in order to achieve efficiency.83 
The fastest 25% of EISs are completed more quickly than the slowest 25% 
of EAs, and the fastest 25% of EAs are completed more quickly than the 
slowest 25% of CEs.84 Second, decisions subject to a 
truncated analysis are not immune to delay. The slowest 10% of CEs took 
longer to complete than the fastest 10% of EISs.85
    This result begs the question, why are some decisions completed 
quickly, while others get bogged down? Despite developing a 
multivariate regression analysis that analyzed four different factors, 
including the complexity of each project,86 the Stegner team 
could not accurately predict which projects would proceed efficiently 
and which ones would encounter delays using NEPA-specific 
information.87 This led them to conclude that factors 
outside the analytical requirements of NEPA contribute significantly to 
project delays.88 Causes of delay included inadequate agency 
budgets, a lack of qualified staff, staff turnover, delays receiving 
information from permit applicants, and compliance with other 
laws.89
    The GAO report on hardrock mine permitting made similar 
observations, identifying 13 causes of delay and the amount of time 
associated with each factor.90 The second most common source 
of delay was insufficient allocation of resources (e.g., number of 
staff, staff expertise, funding, infrastructure, training, and/or 
computer technology).91 Another prominent source of delay 
was waiting for information from an applicant following a permit 
application that was incomplete or vague or responding to a changed 
mine plan.92 Other sources of delay were compliance with 
other legal requirements and/or ineffective agency coordination or 
collaboration during the mine plan review process.93
IV. Recommendations to Reduce Unproductive Causes of Delay
    The observations described above suggest that policy changes or 
regulatory reforms will not address many of the root causes of delay. 
Instead, permit reform should be designed to address identifiable, 
unproductive causes of delay. The following subsections provide three 
practical recommendations.
A. Recommendation 1: Avoid Delay Caused by Insufficient Agency Capacity
    One persistent and overarching cause of delay is insufficient or 
inconsistent staff availability.94 According to the GAO, 
nsufficient agency staff in certain critical positions caused a 
bottleneck in the NEPA review process and increased the length of time 
to review the mine permit application.95 This problem is not 
new. In 1999, the National Research Council found that ``[s]taff 
shortages are likely to be at least partially responsible for the 
excessive delays experienced in NEPA reviews and issuance of 
permits.''96 The Council went on to note:

        Some land management offices report that they have too few 
        people to conduct inspections, review proposed operating plans, 
        process appeals, and conduct other required activities. This 
        concern extends beyond the numbers of people. . . . Offices 
        responsible for regulating mining projects may not always have 
        access to the trained and experienced personnel 
        required.97

    In other words, there are two distinct elements to agency capacity: 
(1) staff availability and (2) expertise or institutional knowledge. 
Both elements affect permitting times. In order to improve permitting 
efficiency without compromising environmental protection, agencies must 
have both elements--sufficient staff and the necessary expertise.
    The long-standing problem of agency capacity has been exacerbated 
in recent years. Between 2016 and 2020, BLM reported losing almost 300 
senior Washington D.C. office staff who chose to retire or seek other 
employment rather than relocate to Colorado.'' The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service lost 231 staff scientists. EPA lost almost 750 senior 
scientists--one in four environmental specialists--between 2016 and 
2020.99 The departure of senior staff resulted in a loss of 
expertise and institutional knowledge that cannot be addressed with 
entry-level hires. Left unaddressed, the problem of insufficient staff 
capacity will affect regulatory efficiency and environmental protection 
in the context of hard-rock mining for the foreseeable future.
    Accelerating efforts to restore agency capacity, develop expertise, 
and restore institutional knowledge are among the fastest ways to 
improve permitting efficacy and promote supply chain resiliency. Some 
efforts are already underway. For example, to address workforce 
challenges within EPA, Congress boosted the Agency's budget by 11.3% 
and called upon EPA to ``prioritize efforts to streamline hiring, 
support retention, and manage the erosion of expertise stemming from 
retirement of senior staff.'' 100 In order to expedite mine 
permitting, similar efforts must be undertaken to ensure that other 
agencies, like BLM and the Forest Service, have sufficient 
knowledgeable and experienced staff members capable of processing 
technical and complex applications for a mine permit.
    Agency capacity does not only involve people and expertise. It also 
includes confidence to make a decision--even if it results in 
litigation. The Stegner team observed that litigation risk aversion 
causes delay and unwieldy documents.101 Perceived 
professional risk associated with litigation caused Forest Service 
staff to avoid making controversial decisions for fear of affecting 
opportunities for promotion.102
    Litigation aversion also caused delay by encouraging staff to 
``bulletproof'' NEPA documents by addressing every possible issue, 
rather than focusing the analysis on issues that are truly significant 
and tailoring the level of analysis to the magnitude of the 
issue.103 This overanalysis produces unwieldy, bulky, time-
consuming documents that unnecessarily consume time and scarce agency 
resources. GAO made a similar finding regarding delays in the hard-rock 
mine permitting process. ``Both BLM and Forest Service officials said 
that concerns regarding possible litigation or the implications of case 
law have prompted them to conduct additional or more extensive NEPA 
analyses during the mine plan review process.'' 104
    Other agencies have also recognized that encouraging confident 
decisionmaking can produce more efficient decisionmaking. As one NEPA 
practitioner in the U.S. Department of Transportation observed, 
``perhaps the most effective action agencies can take to increase 
efficiencies in the NEPA review process is to get back to the basics 
with NEPA and halt efforts to make NEPA documents litigation-proof.'' 
105 With this in mind, she suggested that agencies avoid 
wasteful encyclopedic documents by using their discretion to focus the 
analysis, methodology, and depth of discussion as necessary to make an 
informed decision.
    This can be achieved through transparent analysis, incorporation of 
documents by reference, tiering to prior environmental reviews where 
appropriate, and exercising discretion in how to best gather and assess 
information.106 Although these tools are available, agency 
officials must also feel confident using them. An informal culture that 
prioritizes litigation avoidance will continue to eschew these 
available strategies in favor of bulky, time-consuming bullet-proof 
documents.
    While decisions should rigorously comply with substantive and 
procedural requirements, the fear of litigation should not delay 
action. Litigation is rare. Only 0.22% of decisions made under NEPA are 
challenged in court.107 An investigation by GAO on the 
impact of litigation on Forest Service fuel reduction projects between 
2006 and 2008 revealed that only 29 out of 1,415 decisions were 
litigated, and litigation only impacted 1% of the lands slated for fuel 
reduction.108
    In conclusion, responsible critical mineral permitting can be 
expedited by increasing agency capacity. This can be done by providing 
agencies with the qualified staff and resources they need to complete 
environmental analyses and permitting documents, to retain those staff 
members throughout the entire permitting process, and to structure 
performance incentives that reward prompt deliberation, even where the 
project is unpopular and may result in litigation.
B. Recommendation 2: Create Tools That Make the Legal Structure, 
        Permitting Requirements, and Available Information More 
        Transparent and Publicly Available
    The legal and regulatory structure for hard-rock mining is complex, 
multifaceted, and lacks uniformity. Navigating the intricate and 
complex array of laws applying to mining operations takes time. Without 
clear guidance, this legal structure causes delay. This delay is 
evident in the number of vague and incomplete permit applications, 
instances of limited or ineffective interagency coordination, and 
delays caused by balancing competing legal priorities.109 
Simply figuring out what law applies, how to apply the regulatory 
standard, and who has authority to issue the relevant permits can be a 
daunting task for both agency officials and permit applicants.

    Regarding the regulatory structure of hard-rock mine permitting, 
the National Research Council observed:

        [T]he complexity of various programs can make the system 
        difficult to understand, approach, and implement efficiently. 
        As a result, mining regulation, permitting, monitoring, 
        reclamation, closure, and post-closure becomes a series of 
        negotiations carried on against a background of regulatory 
        requirements and programs. This means that governmental 
        regulators at all levels need a significant degree of 
        sophistication and training in order to make these programs 
        efficient and effective. The programs do not--and cannot--
        operate in cookbook fashion.110

    In other words, implementing a complex regulatory structure 
requires institutional knowledge and expertise. Regulators require 
``sophistication and training'' to make the programs efficient and 
effective. This includes understanding how the overall permitting 
process works, the standard to apply to a particular decision, and who 
is responsible for making that decision.
    Uncertainty about this regulatory backdrop causes two types of 
delay. First, conducting research to confirm the permitting process 
with each application adds time and creates inefficiencies in the 
preparation and review of each application. Second, hard problems 
without obvious answers tend to sit on the back of the desk, especially 
when there is a fear of repercussion for making the wrong decision. 
Reducing procedural and legal uncertainty within this complex labyrinth 
will improve efficiency and assist both regulators and applicants.
    The current legal and regulatory structure varies by mineral 
category, surface/subsurface estate ownership, and with the agency 
owning or entity charged with managing surface and subsurface 
resources.111 In general, minerals fall within three 
categories: saleable, leasable, and locatable (hard-rock). Each 
category has different statutory frameworks and regulatory 
standards.112 Distinct regulatory standards by mineral 
category can cause permitting challenges because the exact same mineral 
on federal land may be characterized as locatable or leasable, 
depending on whether the land is public or acquired.13 
Similarly, otherwise locatable minerals may be leasable when found on 
some tribal lands.114
    A consequence of this fragmented legal structure is that the same 
mineral could be subject to a leasing system or a claim system 
depending on whether the lands were acquired, tribal, or 
public.115 More complexities arise with private 
landownership or where surface and subsurface ownership involves 
multiple parties, including states, tribal governments, and private 
individuals, and these complexities only increase when split-estate 
issues are involved.116
    The difference between locatable and leasable minerals has 
consequences for land use management. The Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) 117 guides BLM's management of lands 
that are subject to both mineral leases and claims as well as nearby 
public lands that may be necessary to access or develop minerals. 
Management requirements are imposed through its land use planning 
requirements, and subject to the duty to administer public lands on the 
basis of multiple use and sustained yield.118 Similarly, the 
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) informs the Forest Service's 
surface management of lands that are subject to mineral leases and 
claims as well as lands that must be crossed to access and develop 
minerals.119
    In contrast, mining operations for locatable minerals are primarily 
governed by the General Mining Law of 1872. Land management plans 
developed pursuant to FLPMA and the NFMA may directly and severely 
restrict a mining claimant's ability to access newly staked claims, to 
conduct exploration-phase activities on those claims, and to use 
adjacent lands for other mining-related purposes. New management plan 
requirements are, however, likely to have less impact on existing 
claims. With a few exceptions, such as lands that have been withdrawn 
120 and wilderness study areas, BLM's authority to regulate 
surface management of locatable mineral operations derives primarily 
from its authority to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of 
public lands.121
    Once a claim or lease has been obtained, access to the minerals 
secured, and exploration has demonstrated the viability of the 
operation, the miner will still need to obtain mining plan approval as 
well as numerous other environmental and land use approvals. Many 
states exercise delegated statutory authority over aspects of mine 
permitting.122 Some federal statutes, like the Clean Water 
Act (CWA),123 contain provisions allowing the federal agency 
to delegate its permitting authority to the state. In addition to these 
federal statutes, state or local laws may also impose additional 
permitting requirements, including state environmental review 
requirements, like the California Environmental Quality Act. When 
reviewing the hard-rock mining permit application process, GAO 
identified six categories of federal permits and authorizations and 
seven categories of state and local permits and authorizations that 
mine operators may need to obtain from entities other than BLM and the 
Forest Service.124
    This complexity may contribute to the number one source of delay 
identified by GAO in the hard-rock mine permitting process--low quality 
of information provided in a mine plan.125 According to 
officials interviewed for the study, the low quality of information 
provided in a mine plan created a challenge in 21 of the 23 locations 
studied, and added from one month to seven years to the length of time 
to review plans.126 Delays associated with this factor can 
be reduced through simple efforts to make permitting information and 
requirements more accessible.

1. Create a Mine Permitting Hub With Flow Charts and Environmental 
        Checklists to Make the Legal Structure More Transparent, 
        Predictable, and Manageable

    In the absence of statutory reforms to simplify and update mining 
laws, one way to expedite the permitting process would be to create a 
public, geographically organized database of regulations and permitting 
requirements (``mine permitting hub'').
    A similar resource was created by the U.S. Department of Energy for 
renewable energy and bulk transmission project development. The web-
based Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop (RAPID) Toolkit 
collects permitting information, best practices, and reference 
material.127 As the RAPID website recognizes, 
``[u]ncertainty about the duration and outcome of the permitting 
process has been a deterrent to project investment and project 
construction.''128 The website aims to provide easy access, 
in one location, to permitting and regulatory information for project 
development in order to optimize the regulatory process, lower project 
costs, and ease investor risk.129
    The same challenges face prospective mine permittees. Uncertainty 
about the duration and outcome of the permitting process deters project 
investment. This is even more true for entities that are exploring 
innovative ways to re-mine or reprocess previously mined lands or mine 
and mill tailings.130 A publicly available, geographically 
organized database of regulatory standards and required permits would 
help mineral developers as well as federal, state, and tribal officials 
navigate overlapping and interrelated permitting programs.
    As part of the mine permitting hub, an analytical flow chart should 
be included to help regulatory officials and permit applicants 
determine which legal standards apply to a proposed mine, and how 
multiple permitting requirements fit together. The Washington State 
Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance has 
developed multiple, very useful flow charts to assist regulators, 
permit applicants, and the public to understand the steps involved in 
obtaining common permits.131 Simply creating the flow chart 
to identify the various permits that are required, the sequence of 
permits, and opportunities for permit coordination may improve 
permitting efficiency.
    A flow chart may also help identify circumstances where legal 
ambiguity exists and where agency guidance or solicitor opinions would 
be useful in reducing uncertainty. For example, in the mineral 
development context, an individual seeking to mine cobalt from the 
tailings of an abandoned copper mine located on federal public lands 
would need to know whether his or her proposal is subject to the 
General Mining Law of 1872 or the Mineral Leasing Act. (Presumably the 
General Mining Law would apply, though this may not be the case if the 
tailings occur on acquired lands.) If the mining proposal is covered by 
the General Mining Law, is it necessary to submit a plan of operations 
for exploratory activity due to the cumulative effects of prior 
use?132
    Legal guidance would reduce delay caused by research and analysis. 
Uniform guidance and a clear permitting path also would promote 
collaboration and communication across multiple jurisdictions. These 
procedural efficiencies may also decrease litigation aversion and the 
fear of making an incorrect decision in a complex regulatory arena.
    A mine permitting flow chart could also be used to develop 
location-specific environmental checklists. A checklist could be 
created proactively for specific regions. Alternatively, a checklist 
could be developed at the initiation of the mine permitting process on 
a case-by-case basis. Either option would create transparency and 
predictability, likely translating into faster and more durable 
permitting decisions. Mine permitting checklists could identify each 
potentially relevant permit to be obtained during the mine permitting 
process, the environmental standards to meet, the lead agency and 
personnel to be contacted regarding that permit, and appropriate 
contact information. Such a checklist would be particularly useful 
where federal, tribal, and state permitting programs or requirements 
overlap.133
    Creating the mine permitting checklist would help regulatory 
officials across agencies (state and federal) proactively develop 
cooperative agreements aimed at coordinating and harmonizing requisite 
environmental and engineering studies. It would also help identify 
specific requirements associated with land designations.134 
Further, it would help identify circumstances where a more stringent 
state law may require a higher level of protection than required under 
federal regulations.135 Consolidating this information at 
the outset of the permitting process would reduce delays attributable 
to uncertainty, duplication, and conflicting standards that exist in 
the current legal and regulatory regime.

    A flow chart and environmental checklist would also ensure that 
mine permit applications are properly prepared and appropriately 
thorough. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, incomplete 
permit applications are one source of delay in the permitting process. 
Further:

        [M]ining permit applications often lack sufficient quality or 
        key information needed for regulators to make a decision on an 
        application. Insufficient information in the mining application 
        can significantly delay the permitting process as it may 
        require multiple application iterations until the application 
        is of sufficient quality to allow the permitting agencies to 
        make a decision.136

    This observation is not surprising given the ambiguity involved in 
federal regulations,137 as well as the vast variety in 
mining operations governed by these regulations. Notably, the Federal 
Permitting Improvement Steering Council identified flow charts and 
checklists as best practices that promote efficiency and help ensure 
that applicants provide necessary information in a timely 
manner.138
    Checklists can serve additional purposes. As discussed in more 
detail below, a checklist could be refined during the scoping process 
once environmental review of a permit application begins. This early 
scoping analysis would ensure the thoroughness of the checklist and 
avoid surprises later in the permitting process. Checklists and flow 
charts can also be used to facilitate pre-submittal meetings with 
operators and other stakeholders, and to clarify expectations, thereby 
improving the quality of mine permitting applications.139
    Once permitting review begins, the same checklist could be used to 
create agreed-upon deadlines for decisionmaking, and those deadlines 
could be posted on a permitting dashboard. Similar practices, 
particularly the use of the permitting dashboard, have been effectively 
implemented for infrastructure projects covered by the FAST 
Act.140 As one commentator observed, these types of 
streamlining practices are most likely to benefit ``novel or unusually 
complex projects, or familiar projects in novel or unusually complex 
contexts . . . because those projects tend to require agencies to 
confront unfamiliar facts, make new choices, resolve untested legal 
issues, and otherwise take risks.''141 Although the comment 
was made with reference to infrastructure permitting, it seems equally 
applicable to mine permitting.
    In summary, flow charts and environmental checklists are two tools 
that can immediately improve efficiency in the permitting process. 
These tools support agency capacity by developing institutional 
knowledge and reducing legal uncertainty. They can also help avoid 
delays caused by incomplete or vague permit applications. These tools 
do not require regulatory reform, and can be implemented immediately.

2. Create a Geographically Organized, Searchable Database of Previously 
        Drafted NEPA Documents

    The RAPID website 142 has another helpful feature that 
could be included in the mine permitting hub: it provides a link to 
previously drafted NEPA documents.143 This feature 
facilitates tiering,144 and minimizes the risk of 
duplicative environmental analyses. NEPA regulations encourage using 
program, policy, or plan EISs, as well as tiering statements of broad 
scope to those of narrower scope, to eliminate repetitive discussions 
of the same issue.145 NEPA documents can also incorporate 
information by reference.146
    While mining interests and agency staff presumably have ready 
access to prior permitting documents for the sites in question, 
obtaining access to documents or studies at far-flung locations that 
addressed similar issues could expedite environmental analyses. The 
NEPA database provided on the RAPID website may help overcome this 
challenge. The website allows a user to search for a document by 
analysis type, lead agency, and 17 state jurisdictions. The same 
information should be provided on the mine permitting hub.
    This database would be more useful if it also provided a map with 
links to the available documents. An applicant or an agency official 
could then use a geographic search for relevant environmental 
documents. Improving access to prior and related environmental 
documents would help agency officials and permittees identify and avoid 
repetitive analyses and discussions of the same issues.
    Creating a mine permitting hub that includes analytical flow 
charts, environmental checklists, and a NEPA database would help reduce 
delay caused by the complexity of the legal system governing hard-rock 
mining. Additionally, these actions would expand agency capacity by 
developing expertise and creating a system of institutional knowledge 
to offset the loss of senior staff members who may not be available to 
provide guidance or mentoring to new staff members. Finally, the hub 
would help stakeholders better understand the mine permitting process, 
engage more effectively, and appreciate how their input will be 
addressed through the permitting process. Although these actions are 
simple, they cannot be accomplished without adequate funding. Agency 
budgets must be adjusted with enough resources to achieve these 
objectives.
C. Recommendation 3: Use the NEPA Process as a Tool to Avoid Delay 
        Caused by Uncoordinated Interagency Permitting Requirements

    The NEPA process can be used to avoid delay by coordinating 
permitting and planning requirements. As one senior agency official in 
the transportation sector observed, ``The NEPA process itself is 
inherently efficient because it provides the platform for agencies to 
coordinate permitting and planning activities at all levels of the 
government, thereby avoiding duplicate or sequential reviews and 
providing the opportunity for potential issues to be identified and 
resolved early in the process.147 In a system of overlapping 
(and at times conflicting) jurisdictional authority, gaps or 
duplication of effort are likely to occur without strong coordination 
between authorities.148
    Done properly, the NEPA process functions as an umbrella statute, 
facilitating compliance with a host of other laws such as the CWA, the 
NFMA, or the National Historic Preservation Act. Indeed, there is some 
evidence that permitting decisions undergoing a NEPA review are often 
completed faster than those that are exempted from NEPA.149 
This likely reflects improved communication and coordination that 
results through interagency coordination as part of the NEPA process.

    Delays are likely to increase where interagency coordination is 
lacking.150 The National Research Council found:

        Timing of environmental review and permitting is affected by 
        agencies' ability to coordinate with one another, as well as by 
        the availability of sufficient agency staff and technical 
        resources. Where coordination among state and federal 
        regulatory agencies is high, environmental review and 
        permitting appears to be faster . . . where separate agencies 
        engage in serial permitting, rather than coordinating their 
        review efforts, the process--including data gathering--can take 
        longer.151

    Early consultation is essential to ensure 
coordination.152 Early consultation should include all 
stakeholders, including the relevant federal, state, and county 
agencies, tribes, citizen groups, and the applicant.153 
NEPA's analytical process can provide a structure for ensuring that a 
proposed plan of operation ``complies with all pertinent Federal and 
state laws.''154 NEPA's scoping process could be used to 
identify all relevant state, federal, and local permits that would be 
necessary, as well as the individual officer responsible for approving 
or denying a permit.
    Because the statutory and regulatory regime governing hard-rock 
mining is so complex, simply identifying the applicable legal standards 
and the responsible official would bring clarity for all regulatory 
authorities, the public, and the permittee. The scoping process could 
also define the sequence of permitting, and appropriate timelines for 
permitting decisions within that sequence. This approach, which has 
been successfully used for transportation projects, would significantly 
reduce delays caused by ambiguity, confusion, and reluctance to 
act.155
    Proactively requiring all stakeholders to engage in NEPA's scoping 
process can expedite permitting by identifying issues of contention 
early and clarifying information that must be gathered. ``Agreement 
might not be reached among all of the stakeholders. However, the issues 
would be better understood by the public and defined to the benefit of 
the public, the agencies, and the applicant if early consultation 
occurred under the NEPA and permitting processes.''156 
Additionally, without providing opportunity to raise concerns during 
the scoping process, stakeholders may raise concerns late in the 
process or through litigation. Some of those concerns may require 
collecting additional baseline data that may have been easily collected 
at the beginning of the permitting process.157 Thus, a 
thorough and inclusive scoping process avoids disruptions late in the 
permitting process.
    Including critical stakeholders at the beginning of the NEPA 
process also provides an opportunity to initiate consultation 
requirements early.158 This approach would provide three 
benefits. First, engaging stakeholders in consultation early maximizes 
the opportunity to identify problems that can be avoided or mitigated 
at the design phase of the project. Second, identifying problems at the 
design phase of a project minimizes the cost of impact reduction and 
avoids delays later in the analysis or at the implementation 
phase.159 Third, early collaboration ensures shared mapping 
and database development, which facilitates decisionmaking.
    In summary, the NEPA process can promote, rather than hinder, 
efficiency. At the site level, the NEPA process can be used to 
coordinate permitting requirements and improve communication between 
permitting officials at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. 
The NEPA process can also be used to initiate consultation requirements 
early enough in the process to be meaningful and effective, which can 
avoid delays in the long run. These procedures can improve timeliness, 
predictability, and transparency in the permitting process. Achieving 
these outcomes, however, depends upon sufficient agency capacity and 
expertise to utilize these tools effectively.
V. Conclusion
    Transitioning to a renewable energy economy demands an increase in 
mineral production. But not every permit should be approved as it was 
submitted. The permit process necessarily involves multiple authorities 
enforcing different environmental, health, and safety standards. Along 
the way, opportunities to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate risk may be 
identified. These opportunities can only be identified through rigorous 
application of the relevant standards. The increased demand for 
minerals should not overshadow the productive purposes served by 
permitting.
    At the same time, there are opportunities to improve permitting 
efficiency without compromising rigorous health and safety standards. 
This requires identifying and addressing unproductive causes of delay 
within the permit process.
    Analytical rigor does not appear to cause delay in the permitting 
process. Empirical evidence reveals that the majority of permitting 
decisions are made within a reasonable time frame for the complexity of 
the project. Some decisions encounter excessive delays, but this occurs 
even where analytical rigor is not required. The disparity in 
decisionmaking times suggests that factors other than regulatory 
requirements contribute significantly to project delays. Causes of 
delay include inadequate agency budgets, a lack of qualified staff, 
staff turnover, delays receiving information from permit applicants, 
and compliance with other laws.
    Based upon this information, three simple actions can be taken to 
expedite mine permit processing times without sacrificing analytical 
rigor. First, avoid delay caused by insufficient agency capacity. This 
can be achieved by increasing agency staff. stabilizing budgets, 
rebuilding expertise, and encouraging confident decisionmaking even 
where it results in litigation.
    Second, reduce delay by creating tools that make the legal 
structure, permitting requirements, and available information more 
transparent and publicly available. This can be achieved by creating a 
mine permitting hub with flow charts clarifying the permitting process 
and identifying permit authorities. Environmental checklists would help 
permit applicants submit high-quality applications that do not require 
supplementation. Additionally, a geographically organized database of 
previous environmental studies would encourage tiering and avoid 
unnecessarily repetitive studies.
    Third, use the NEPA process as a tool to avoid delay caused by 
uncoordinated interagency permitting requirements.
    These tools can promote efficiency without eliminating analytical 
rigor and without waiting for statutory or regulatory reforms. 
Implementing these recommendations could help the Biden administration 
dispel the myth that permit reform requires loosening environmental 
standards or analytical rigor in order to respond to the challenges of 
climate change.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. And then, finally, I would enter into the 
record a September Executive Order by President Biden, which 
broadens the National Climate Task Force to specifically 
require all major agency heads to coordinate and to accelerate 
clean energy projects, something we have never seen before--
again, a very recent Executive Order that should make a 
tremendous difference in this space.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Executive Order on the Implementation of the Energy and Infrastructure 
Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 -- The White House

whitehouse.gov -- September 12, 2022

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 
laws of the United States of America, and in order to effectively 
implement the historic energy and infrastructure provisions in Public 
Law 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 
2022 (the ``Act''), and to accelerate United States global leadership 
in clean energy innovation, manufacturing, and deployment in a way that 
cuts consumer energy costs, creates well-paying union jobs and 
sustainable and equitable economic opportunity, advances environmental 
justice, and addresses the climate crisis, it is hereby ordered as 
follows:

Section 1. Background. The Act is the single largest and most ambitious 
investment in the ability of the United States to advance clean energy, 
cut consumer energy costs, confront the climate crisis, promote 
environmental justice, and strengthen energy security, among other 
vital provisions that will lower costs for families, reduce the 
deficit, and grow and strengthen the economy. The Act will:

(a) build on the once-in-a-generation investment in the infrastructure 
and competitiveness of the United States set forth in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) by 
accelerating the deployment of clean energy technologies, making home 
energy efficiency and clean energy installations more affordable, and 
incentivizing the purchase of electric vehicles;

(b) boost energy security and lower energy costs for families, 
businesses, and government;

(c) revitalize American manufacturing by investing in domestic clean 
energy supply chains and creating well-paying union jobs, including in 
traditional energy communities;

(d) improve public health and advance environmental justice and 
economic opportunity for frontline communities who disproportionately 
bear the brunt of cumulative exposure to industrial and energy 
pollution;

(e) promote climate justice by reducing harmful greenhouse gas 
emissions in line with the goal of realizing net-zero emissions by no 
later than 2050;

(f) harness nature-based solutions--including climate-smart agriculture 
and forestry--that deliver economic benefits for rural communities, 
Tribes, farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners;

(g) expand research and accelerate innovation in the development of 
clean energy, climate, and related technologies; and

(h) increase the resilience of our communities in the face of a 
changing climate.

Achieving these goals will require effective implementation of the Act 
by my Administration, as well as by State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial governments.

Sec. 2. Implementation Priorities. In implementing the Act, all 
agencies (as described in section 3502(1) of title 44, United States 
Code, except for the agencies described in section 3502(5) of title 44) 
shall, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, 
prioritize:

(a) investing public dollars effectively and efficiently, working to 
avoid waste, and achieving measurable, demonstrable outcomes for the 
American people;

(b) driving progress to achieve the climate goals of the United States 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 
2030, achieve a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035, and 
achieve net-zero emissions by no later than 2050;

(c) advancing environmental and climate justice through an all-of-
government approach, including through the Justice40 Initiative set 
forth in Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021 (Tackling the 
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad), to protect and improve the health 
and well-being of fence-line and frontline communities in the United 
States;

(d) promoting construction of clean energy generation, storage, and 
transmission, and enabling technologies through efficient, effective 
mechanisms that incorporate community engagement;

(e) increasing the competitiveness of the United States economy and 
investment in critical supply chains, including through the Act's 
incentives and measures to strengthen domestic manufacturing and supply 
chains;

(f) increasing high-quality job opportunities for American workers and 
improving equitable access to these jobs, including in traditional 
energy communities, through the timely implementation of the Act's 
requirements for prevailing wages and registered apprenticeships and by 
focusing on high labor standards and the free and fair chance to join a 
union;

(g) reducing energy costs for working families, businesses, and 
governments at all levels while increasing energy security for the 
benefit of United States economic competitiveness and national 
security;

(h) accelerating innovation by directing the scientific and technical 
expertise of America's researchers, businesses, and workers toward 
achieving breakthroughs in clean energy and climate technologies; and

(i) effectively coordinating with State, local, Tribal, and territorial 
governments, as well as with private-sector stakeholders and 
nongovernmental organizations, in implementing the critical investments 
outlined in this section to build sustainable, resilient communities.

Sec. 3. White House Office on Clean Energy Innovation and 
Implementation. There is hereby established the White House Office on 
Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation within the Executive Office 
of the President, which shall coordinate the policymaking process with 
respect to implementing the energy and infrastructure provisions of the 
Act and other essential initiatives.

The White House Office on Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation 
shall have a staff headed by the Senior Advisor for Clean Energy 
Innovation and Implementation; shall have such staff and other 
assistance as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
order, subject to the availability of appropriations; and may work with 
established or ad hoc committees and interagency groups.

Sec. 4. Interagency Coordination. (a) To further the robust 
implementation of the energy and infrastructure provisions of the Act, 
Executive Order 14008 is amended as follows:

(i) The introductory text following the heading for section 203 is 
revised to read as follows: ``There is hereby established a National 
Climate Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force shall be chaired by the 
Senior Advisor for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation. The 
National Climate Advisor shall serve as Vice Chair.''.

(ii) Section 203(a) is revised to read as follows:

``(a) Membership. The Task Force shall consist of the following 
additional members:

(i) the Secretary of the Treasury;

(ii) the Secretary of Defense;

(iii) the Attorney General;

(iv) the Secretary of the Interior;

(v) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(vi) the Secretary of Commerce;

(vii) the Secretary of Labor;

(viii) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(ix) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(x) the Secretary of Transportation;

(xi) the Secretary of Energy;

(xii) the Secretary of Education;

(xiii) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(xiv) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(xv) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xvi) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xvii) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;

(xviii) the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality;

(xix) the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

(xx) the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy;

(xxi) the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and 
Counterterrorism;

(xxii) the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy;

(xxiii) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration;

(xxiv) the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service;

(xxv) the Administrator of General Services;

(xxvi) the White House Infrastructure Coordinator; and

(xxvii) the heads of such other departments, agencies, and offices as 
the Chair or Vice Chair may from time to time invite to participate.''.

(iii) To expand the mission of the National Climate Task Force to 
include coordinating effective implementation of the Act, as outlined 
in section 2 of this order, the second sentence of section 203(b) is 
revised to read as follows: ``This Task Force shall facilitate planning 
and implementation of key Federal actions to reduce climate pollution; 
increase resilience to the impacts of climate change; protect public 
health; conserve our lands, waters, oceans, and biodiversity; deliver 
environmental justice; spur well-paying union jobs and economic growth; 
coordinate effective implementation of Public Law 117-169, commonly 
referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, in coordination 
with the Infrastructure Implementation Task Force established in 
Executive Order 14052 of November 15, 2021 (Implementation of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), as appropriate; and accelerate 
clean energy innovation and deployment.''.

(iv) The introductory text following the heading for section 218 is 
revised to read as follows: ``There is hereby established an 
Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and 
Economic Revitalization (Interagency Working Group). The National 
Climate Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, 
and the Senior Advisor for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation 
shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Interagency Working Group.''.

(b) Section 1-102(b) of Executive Order 12898 of February 1 , 1994 
(Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations), as amended by section 220(a) 
of Executive Order 14008, is further amended by revising subsection 
(xvii) and (xviii) and adding subsection (xix) to read as follows: 
``(xvii) the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; (xviii) 
the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and (xix) the 
Senior Advisor for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation.''.

(c) To further support implementation of the energy and infrastructure 
provisions of the Act, section 3(d) of Executive Order 14052 of 
November 15, 2021 (Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subsection 
(xi), striking subsection (xii), and adding in lieu thereof the 
following: ``(xii) the Senior Advisor for Clean Energy Innovation and 
Implementation; and (xiii) the heads of such other executive 
departments, agencies, and offices as the Co-Chairs may from time to 
time invite to participate.''.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be 
construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 
or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and 
subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or 
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by 
any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or 
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                                                JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
                                                    THE WHITE HOUSE

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    And while we are entering into the record, Mr. Huffman, so 
you won't have to use your imagination any more, I am going to 
enter into the record the invitation on Valentine's Day to the 
Honorable Brenda Mallory, Chair of the CEQ----
    Mr. Huffman. How about the legislative text, as required?
    The Chairman [continuing]. To testify before our 
Committee----
    Mr. Huffman. We don't send Valentines. We send legislative 
text, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And we submitted that on time, as well.
    We will now go to the author of the BUILDER Act for 5 
minutes. I recognize Mr. Graves from Louisiana.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman, I have to tell you, I am somewhat 
disappointed. I know that you normally hang on every word that 
I say and write, and this bill was actually introduced on March 
21, 2021, so I am not sure why you haven't had time to read it 
yet. I thought that it would be on your nightstand. But the 
bill has been around for nearly 2 years.
    And we did introduce it as a discussion draft, which was 
intentional, because we wanted to have practitioners, we wanted 
to have experts, we wanted to have people that were on the 
receiving end of NEPA to come share input, as well, Mr. 
Huffman, as other Members of the Congress, to share input. That 
way, we could shape the bill to reflect that input.
    But it was interesting hearing your quote about 
justification, and what the real holdup is for projects, and 
things along those lines. I want to quote again White House 
National Economic Advisor Brian Deese when he said, ``I think, 
certainly, it is going to require as a country that we do 
things differently, do business differently. It is one of the 
reasons why the President has been so supportive of''--wait for 
it--``permitting reform.''
    Mr. Huffman. You want to know what that means?
    Mr. Graves. I will again go back to my conversations. I do 
appreciate your willingness to interpret it for me, but I am 
going to go back to the meeting where, from the horse's mouth, 
I had a meeting with Mr. Deese and Secretary Kerry, where they 
explicitly discussed litigation reform, they explicitly 
discussed NEPA reform. We talked about Senator Manchin's bill, 
as well as deficiencies in that legislation. So, I think that 
we can sit here and try to reinterpret and try to point or 
deflect, but the reality is that they have discussed this head-
on as being a key issue.
    Mr. Beard brought up issues about environmental racism in 
his community of Port Arthur, Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have 
projects that I have talked about in this Committee that have 
been delayed and dragged through the mud as a result of NEPA 
reviews and other bureaucratic challenges, and that has 
resulted my hometown--my hometown, with a population of 
approximately 53 percent African American, where I go home 
every week, where I live--to experience flooding that could 
have been prevented by carrying out projects to prevent floods. 
Just absolutely remarkable, the projects that have been stymied 
or delayed as a result of NEPA taking way too much time.
    In regard to the environment, what this legislation does, 
rather than--as Mr. Grijalva, the Ranking Member, put up in his 
poster--giving the agencies $1 billion, what this legislation 
does is it actually tries to refine, to focus, to concentrate 
the resources, the people, and the attention on the 
environment, on actually focusing on the environment, not all 
of these other ancillary things, not all of this desk-jockeying 
that has gone on.
    There was a president years ago that issued guidance on 
NEPA. And what the president said in his NEPA guidance is he 
said that NEPA documents needed to be 150 pages, needed to be 
150 pages, which is largely consistent with what we have done 
in this bill. And even in the cases of complex environmental 
impact statements--I remind you, you have categorical 
exclusions, you have environmental assessments, and you have 
EISs, environmental impact statements, the third of which being 
the most complicated. Even those should take 1 year, 1 year. 
You know who that president was? That would have been Jimmy 
Carter.
    So, this legislation does not--and I want to be crystal 
clear, Mr. Beard and others--this legislation does not take 
away the right for judicial action. It doesn't. It absolutely 
does not. And if the true objective of somebody who has 
concerns about a proposed project is actually getting 
resolution, then I would argue that this bill will actually 
help, because what it does is it forces earlier interaction. It 
forces people who have concerns to bring those concerns to the 
table earlier in the robust public participation process that 
this legislation preserves.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say it again. Yes, I want 
this bill, and it is going to advance important projects for 
resiliency in my hometown. It is going to allow for projects 
related to energy development, including renewable energy 
projects, to move forward in a more streamlined manner with 
focus on the environment, not all of these ancillary things. 
But it is consistent with what this White House has requested, 
and it actually provides even more time and pages than 
President Jimmy Carter did.
    So, yes Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but I also think it is 
very important that we stay focused on facts.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Westerman. 
Thank you, Ranking Member Grijalva. And, of course, as always, 
thank you to our witnesses for bringing your perspectives to 
the hearing today.
    I go home and I hear a lot from my constituents who are 
concerned about a range of Federal projects that go through, 
and they want to make sure that there is a good NEPA process, 
that it considers the consequences, because in the end, that is 
what NEPA is supposed to do, right? What are the consequences 
from the actions, the Federal actions that are being proposed, 
so we do not create a mess, right? It is kind of simple. And 
they understand it, and they want to know that that is done so 
that they feel good and feel confident about what has happened 
before.
    We also know that it needs to be efficient, it needs to be 
timely. We agree on those things, which is why we sent more 
resources to agencies to help with that. We are going to be 
having a hearing tomorrow in Indian Affairs about the 
importance of moving through the permitting quickly, having the 
resources that our agencies need.
    But I need to say that, in New Mexico, the NEPA process has 
been very useful in those rare cases that we have discussed 
today. It is not all the cases, it is only about one in, what 
was it, that actually focus on the full NEPA process. One was 
the Fence Lake Coal Mine, and that NEPA process was 
appropriately reviewed. And because of it, a coal mine that 
would have destroyed the Zuni Salt Lake didn't happen. And, 
therefore, the environmental and the cultural damage that would 
have come from that particular mine were averted. So, we like 
that a lot.
    We have another proposed project in the Pecos, up in the 
wilderness, close to the wilderness, and it is on a place where 
there weren't the proper safeguards before. So, there was major 
contamination that the State and the Federal Government ended 
up holding the bag on, and had to clean up, right? So, my 
constituents there want to make sure that, as a new mining 
project is considered by, I will point out, a foreign company--
too often these are--these mining companies are actually 
subsidiaries of foreign companies.
    Last Congress, we heard about the mine in Arizona, the 
Resolution Copper mine that many of my colleagues across the 
aisle were really championing. Well, that has ties to the 
Chinese Communist Party, and yet they were championing that. We 
don't want to let foreign companies end up sort of exploiting 
our resources in a way that causes long-term damage. And that 
is, I think, the concern that my community has raised with me.
    The Pecos River having a 10-year limit is a bit concerning, 
right, because these last a lot longer than 10 years. And it 
took us longer than 10 years to clean up what happened in the 
Pecos before from that mining project.
    Mr. Beard, what do you think is the impact of limiting 
analysis to just 10 years?
    Mr. Beard. Thank you, Congresswoman. My thoughts on that is 
this, that by restricting them to simply 10 years, you don't 
take into consideration the damage that has already been done 
in that area before that project came along. If you can't look 
forward to see what is going to happen, and you don't consider 
the cumulative impacts that were there when you came to that 
site, then you have no idea what is going to happen in the 
future. Some of that is carryover.
    I will say it like this for my particular case, with the 
high rates of cancer and all of that. We have people right now 
that are dying, right as I am sitting here that are dying, some 
who have cancer and don't know it, some who have respiratory 
illnesses and don't know it. But they think it is normal, but 
it has become so normalized that they don't see it.
    So, by extending it out that far, they are going to have 
effects way before you see it. And the best way I can say this 
to you--and for those of you who have not been to that part of 
Texas, that part of the world--come to Port Arthur. Come and 
see what we are doing. Come and breathe the air. I have had 
people come on a tour that I give. I call it the Toxic Tour. 
And in a matter of hours, they feel like they are coming down 
with something because of what they are breathing in the air.
    And contrary to what has been said earlier, this whole 
permitting process is about permitting even more of this to 
come. I spoke of the LNG facilities. There is one that is 
proposing to come there now, in addition to the one that is 
currently in construction, and the one that is already doing 
business.
    And then everything is constantly expanding, and everyone 
talks about, well, it is just going to add a little bit more. 
But when is a little bit too much, when you are an overburdened 
community who has, in our case for 12 decades, had to undergo 
and deal with environmental pollution and contamination from 
the petrochem industry?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Beard.
    My time is up, and I yield back, Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes, Mr. 
Gosar.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes, Mr. Veerkamp, I would first like to quote 
the first line from a Bloomberg article dated January 5, 2021: 
``California's 2020 wildfire season thwarted the state's fight 
against climate change, spewing enough carbon dioxide into the 
air to equal the emissions of millions of passenger vehicles 
driving over the course of a year.'' A hundred and 12 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide were released in California in 
2020, equal to the greenhouse gas emissions of 24.2 million 
passenger cars in a single year.
    Can you speak to the contribution of NEPA to this 
catastrophe? Then I have some follow-up questions.
    Mr. Veerkamp. OK. Just to make sure I understand, speak to 
the time that NEPA has----
    Dr. Gosar. The contribution of NEPA to this problem.
    Mr. Veerkamp. Well, in my estimation as well as experience, 
it is from all of the lack of ability to do things in a timely 
manner that has made the forest accumulate all of this debris. 
And within minutes to hours to, as I stated, up to 100 days of 
continual fire burning up all that fuel provides all of this 
environmental contamination. And that is just to the 
atmosphere, let alone all the other consequences of a 
catastrophic wildfire.
    Dr. Gosar. That is what I would like to concentrate on.
    I mean, in Arizona we have had a few nasty fires. And the 
consequences are so that they burn so hot that there is 
contamination of the soil. You actually see it sterilized, 
right? What are the consequences that are long acting along 
those lines?
    Mr. Veerkamp. In 1995, we were notorious as well in El 
Dorado County for the King Fire, and the Rubicon drainage under 
Hell Hole Reservoir. And there was obviously yellow-legged 
frogs, red-legged frogs, amphibians, and so forth. To this day, 
they have still not found any eggs from any of those that have 
survived the nuclear devastation of those intense burns. And 
that is all a watershed, as well, that supplies drinking water 
to Placer and El Dorado County.
    So, it just obliterates the soil and its ability to regrow 
things, as well as our amphibians, reptiles, and so forth.
    Dr. Gosar. And usually it is decades, these consequences 
are, not half a century, right?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. Mr. Pugh, it takes the Federal Highway 
Administration 7.37 years and 742 pages, on average, to 
complete an environmental impact statement. How can the Federal 
Government prevent disasters like the recent train derailment 
in East Palestine, in Ohio, if it takes this long to approve 
projects that bring positive change?
    Mr. Pugh. Great hypothetical question. Not entirely sure 
where to start with an answer on that. The train derailment, I 
am not overly familiar with the actual instances that caused 
that. If it were due to some project that was supposed to 
improve those tracks, then I imagine anything that would 
shorten the permitting and review process to allow those 
improvements to move forward would certainly help. But I am not 
overly familiar with the actual instances behind that.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, just the near backdrop of how long it 
takes, definitely a problem in trying to get access to proper 
conditions, right?
    Mr. Pugh. Obviously. And with escalating costs that we are 
seeing right now, dollars that we have appropriated for 
infrastructure projects today, certainly 7.3 years from now 
those dollars are not going to go as far, and we are not going 
to be able to do as many projects.
    Dr. Gosar. Got you.
    Mr. Carr, the Department of Energy estimates that 
electricity transmission systems must be increased by 60 
percent by the year 2030. Can this be achieved under the 
current NEPA requirements?
    Mr. Carr. I want to make sure I understood the question. I 
believe your question was the DOE projection is transmission 
growth will have to be significant to accommodate----
    Dr. Gosar. Actually increase by 60 percent.
    Mr. Carr. Sixty percent.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Thank you. So, I have concerns as it relates to 
accommodating that kind of transmission growth.
    When we think about growing electric vehicles, the demand 
that will increase and the timing to get these projects done 
where there is a Federal action, I would be concerned in that 
kind of growth scenario.
    Dr. Gosar. So, just go through the Interior, which is the 
biggest problem. Bureau of Reclamation takes 5.32 years, on 
average; National Park Service, 6.64 years; U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 4.75 years; Bureau of Land Management, 4.36 
years; U.S. Forest Service 3.31 years. So, I think we have 
problems.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Ranking Member.
    In California's 37th Congressional District, which I 
represent, we are witnessing a public health crisis. According 
to the American Lung Association's recent report entitled, 
``State of the Air,'' the Los Angeles-Long Beach region ranked 
highest for ozone pollution, 5th for annual particle pollution, 
and 8th for daily fine particle pollution.
    This means that every single day my constituents are 
breathing in air that is toxic. It has significant rates of 
pollution known to cause adverse health effects, asthma, 
cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and reproductive harm. I 
can't tell you how many toxic tours I have been on, and how 
many town halls I have gone to, where I have seen little girls 
under the age of 10 with metal stents in their chest because 
they have lived next to a Superfund site. Yet, today, I feel 
like we are meeting to consider legislation that would fast-
track the process for polluting and extractive multi-billion 
dollar industries, and treat them as if they are the victims.
    So, currently, when the government wants to greenlight a 
project, it is NEPA that guarantees that the public is 
informed, and that they have a say in what goes into their 
communities. And, currently, the NEPA process directs lead 
agencies to prepare an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement.
    Section B of this legislation adds a section that would 
allow for sponsor preparation, which, in layman's terms, to me 
means self supervision, on top of barring legal challenges to 
categorical exclusions, limiting judicial review, prohibiting 
injunctive relief, just in case you didn't have enough chits. 
So, for me, it is almost like an ironclad death knell for 
anyone who cares about the environment.
    Mr. Beard, from your experience working in the oil and gas 
industry, do you believe that the industry can, has, and will 
effectively self-supervise and act in the best interest of 
public health if this bill becomes law?
    Mr. Beard. Ms. Kamlager-Dove, I would like to put it like 
this. You can't leave the fox in charge of the henhouse and 
expect that you are going to have eggs and chickens.
    They can't self-police. They have proven it too many times. 
They don't even self-report as efficiently as they should. We 
have been able to, through my organization and monitoring and 
having eyes out there, have seen these things and reported 
them, only to be told that, well, nothing was wrong. But we 
can't trust the self-police. It just simply won't work because 
their interest is not in protecting the environment, it is in 
protecting stock and shareholders and protecting profits. And 
if it is done at the forsaking of the community, then so be it. 
We will pay the fine, pay the fee, and go on about our 
business. And I have seen it too many times.
    Let me illustrate a case. I think Mr. Veerkamp, or one of 
the gentlemen here with me, talked about a fire that burned. We 
had one, too, in Port Arthur, a wood pellet silo that was used 
to export wood pellets to Europe, and calling that renewable 
energy. But yet, that silo spontaneously caught fire and burned 
in my community for 102 days, and impacted all of those people. 
Yet, our state regulatory agency, which takes promulgation and 
guidance from the Federal, only fined them $12,000. Yet, our 
legal team did the estimation it should have been well in 
excess of $1 million.
    So, we can't expect them to self-police. We have to have 
rules and guidances in place to protect and have the 
contingencies available so that communities of color or any 
community is not hurt or harmed. The job should be to do no 
harm. But when you put these things in those areas--and they 
only come to areas like you mentioned--then you are going to 
have what you get. And that is simply not acceptable.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Beard. I was thinking the 
exact same thing. It is like having a fox in the hen house. And 
after the slaughter, the little fox comes out and says it 
wasn't a slaughter, it was a negotiation. Makes no sense to me.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
bringing up the Sites Reservoir issue that is going on in my 
district, one I used to share with Mr. Garamendi, until his 
district changed, and that he supported as well. It has been an 
extremely important project for California. It would create 1.5 
million new acre-feet of water storage.
    The interesting thing about that, it had been a larger 
project. It was up to 1.9 million, but the people planning it 
have to dodge bullets coming from government on what it takes 
to get the permits done. For example, they didn't like that 
there might be three sources of water to pump into it from the 
Sacramento River during high flows at 6,000 CFS. It was seen as 
too much. So, one of those had to be downsized. Then there are 
two sources that would total 4,000 CFS because they were 
worried about 6,000 being too much. So, with that they had to 
downsize the reservoir a little bit in order to do that.
    And also, interestingly, the only public benefits of a 
storage project like that is described as water for fish. It 
wouldn't be stored water for people or making hydroelectric 
power. So, that is the fun background on that. So, I hope we 
can continue to move forward on that faster than the glacial 
pace, as California is desperately in need of water storage.
    I want to shift to Mr. Veerkamp. And, indeed, my part of 
Northern California has suffered from massive amounts of 
wildfire over many years, even more recently being more acutely 
big numbers, the Dixie Fire being right at a million acres, the 
Camp Fire wiping out Paradise, the North Complex, also known as 
the Bear Fire, wiping out a couple of small--I have had several 
communities disappear due to this. Greenville is part of the 
Dixie Fire, 75 percent of that town is gone. Nearby is a town 
called Canyon Dam, completely gone. Paradise, as you remember, 
90 percent gone. Small towns out of Orville, Fetter Falls, and 
Berry Creek, almost completely gone.
    So, indeed, the permitting process to do the type of thing 
with good people, like the fire safe councils, sometimes in 
concert with private timber, as well. An example, the Bear 
Fire, also known as North Complex, there was grant funding set 
aside for, I think, approximately 18 months that they could not 
get over the hurdle for the fire safe folks to do good work 
around. Finally, it caught fire and just wiped out a lot of 
people there.
    There was a great story written by a cattleman named David 
Daly you may have seen. It kind of made national news. You 
could read up about that, Dave Daly.
    So, could you touch on a little more for us, please, the 
aspect of a NEPA, as well as CEQA, which is the California 
version of this, more or less, sometimes being required at the 
same time to do any kind of project?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Yes. And, unfortunately, again, as the 
consequences of our best intentions, and especially when it 
comes to wildfire, as you just stated, some of those major 
incidents, Lightning Complex was one of them up there also that 
was for weeks on end, total devastation.
    But the landscape has changed. You mentioned fire safe 
councils. You mentioned, or I will mention, conservation 
districts. There are tools in place now, and we just need to 
remove that handcuff of the restrictions so we can get in and 
do this work.
    Again, there are great intentions and great pieces of NEPA 
and CEQA, but the ability for lawsuits and the environmental 
challenges that strangle it in a timely manner, and then Mother 
Nature takes over. And we all know Mother Nature, and Mother 
Nature in California right now is pounding us. When they said 
it was never going to happen again, well, guess what? The 
tunnels are back in Lake Tahoe, and that is snow tunnels.
    So, we need to just get, in my opinion, back to common 
sense. We can be surgical, we can be strategic, we can 
prioritize, and we can protect.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, shift to, we talk about Mother Nature. 
There is more board feed of timber growing than we are 
harvesting by a tremendous amount. It is growing every day, 
whether we do something or not. Talk to us a little bit about 
recovery after fire, when we are supposed to be doing salvage 
and replanting of these devastated landscapes.
    Mr. Veerkamp. Well, unfortunately, we have lost the 
infrastructure to do a lot of that. And that is something, 
also, which----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Which infrastructure?
    Mr. Veerkamp. For industry, logging, and sawmills, and so 
forth, so we have----
    Mr. LaMalfa. How long does it take a NEPA to do a post-fire 
salvage? How long does that take, and how successful are you 
even getting a NEPA?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Well, again, salvage----
    Mr. LaMalfa. After a fire.
    Mr. Veerkamp. Under the categorical exemption on the Caldor 
Fire for the Sierra Tahoe ski resort, we were able to 
accomplish that within a 4-month period of time, because you 
only have so much time before that timber lumber is non-
salvageable. Besides, we had a public ski resort that public 
safety would be in jeopardy.
    So, there was some ability, again, through categorical 
exemptions to expedite that process, but it is getting the 
backing to get that categorical exemption, and stating what we 
have stated here today, of the need to be able to do that is 
what it takes, rather than, again, infrastructure or a large 
burn should be exempt from getting those things done, because a 
lot of those also have a major infrastructure----
    Mr. LaMalfa. And, typically, they run a year and a half. 
This one was probably a little more politically loaded, due to 
the area it is. It is around communities especially in a high-
dollar Tahoe area.
    Mr. Veerkamp. That is correct.
    Mr. LaMalfa. When you try to talk about it like over on--
well, when I am in Mendocino, for example, they wanted a 7,000-
acre project----
    The Chairman. I hate to cut off a good discussion, but the 
gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I know. I could go all day, Mr. Chairman, 
but--yes, thank you. And, indeed, it can take a year and a 
half, pretty easily, on a lot of these, and still get tossed by 
a judge. I yield back. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Levin, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Well, I thank my friend, the Chairman. And as I 
spoke about at our last hearing, I hope that this Committee is 
going to focus on finding areas of common ground. I really mean 
that. And while I know we are not going to agree on everything, 
I do know there are many things within this Committee's 
jurisdiction that we can agree on.
    And one such item is the importance of promoting an 
efficient permitting process, and advancing the buildout of 
infrastructure. Doing so is absolutely critical if we want to 
proceed on large-scale energy infrastructure projects and 
deliver for our communities. And as we embark on this important 
work, I think we need to consider all dimensions and interests 
in responsible energy development, including expanding high-
capacity transmission, reforming the interconnection process, 
and ensuring Federal agencies have the resources and the 
expertise they need to conduct efficient environmental reviews.
    There was some research recently from Princeton. And they 
said, in order to achieve the full emissions reductions 
potential from the Inflation Reduction Act, the United States 
has to more than double our historic rate of transmission 
expansion, while also investing in new renewable energy 
generation to meet the demand from increased electrification of 
various sectors.
    And I know we can develop permitting reform policies that 
do that, that support clean energy projects, but also fully 
consider the interests and the perspectives of environmental 
justice communities. And I am hopeful we can get there. I look 
forward to working with the Chairman, with my colleagues on 
this Committee to get there.
    And I think that Democrats and Republicans also share the 
goal of timely reviews of projects, and there are actually 
elements of the bill before us today that I think could be 
beneficial in this regard, such as requiring designation of a 
lead Federal agency, establishing a clearer process for 
cooperations between agencies on NEPA reviews. And I think 
there is a foundation there, and hopefully a continued dialogue 
we can have.
    But I also have concerns, and I understand this is an 
opening salvo, if you will, but let me just share a few. For 
example, any proposal to limit the scope of NEPA review, I 
think, requires a pretty serious discussion. Proposals to 
restrict the ability to assess the potential climate impacts of 
projects that is problematic. Impeding opportunities for 
judicial review, I think, is problematic, and hindering the 
ability for community input, which I will talk about in a 
second.
    In addition, I think the current legislation we are looking 
at doesn't address the Government Accountability Office's 
findings, which they say the main reason for NEPA delays are 
lack of Federal agency capacity and funding for NEPA reviews.
    Again, I will say that one more time: the GAO found the 
main reason for NEPA delays to be lack of Federal agency 
capacity and funding for NEPA reviews.
    So, as we think about this discussion, I think it is also 
important we consider what we just did, what Congress just did 
through the Inflation Reduction Act to increase that exact 
thing, that agency capacity for NEPA reviews. We know that a 
trained, equipped workforce is essential to processing NEPA 
reviews in a timely fashion in cases where there are delays.
    As the GAO said, increasing funding and staff for Federal 
agencies' permitting offices and agency workforce training can 
make permitting processes significantly more effective and 
efficient. And we had $1 billion--$1 billion--to help agencies, 
and it was all split up among the various agencies in the IRA 
to help them conduct timely environmental review and 
permitting.
    So, with that as background, I will turn to Mr. Carr.
    How important is a well-trained and knowledgeable Federal 
workforce to an efficient NEPA process, and how can the 
funding, the $1 billion included in the IRA, help those 
agencies conduct more expedient project reviews?
    Mr. Carr. I appreciate the question and the background 
information.
    Certainly, when we are talking about a NEPA review, 
absolutely, knowledgeable, well-trained staff to conduct an 
efficient review is absolutely important. I am not absolutely 
certain on the IRA impact as it relates to that, I am not 
certain.
    Mr. Levin. OK.
    Mr. Carr. But when we talk about our own experience at 
Dairyland, again, in our case, the delays here--again, we 
mentioned earlier the Cardinal Hickory Creek project actually 
went through the NEPA review relatively quick. It was the 
litigation piece where we are hung up and stuck.
    In the terms of the Nemadji Trail Energy Center, it was the 
decision to----
    Mr. Levin. Mr. Carr, I am sorry, I am going to cut you 
there, because I want to make sure I get to this other point.
    I just want to address the myth that community input 
necessarily slows down projects. I used to do this for a 
living, and my own experience--it is not always the case, but 
often the case that the opposite is often true, and early 
engagement with impacted communities actually facilitates more 
efficient completion of projects by providing a way to address 
potential concerns early, heading off issues that may otherwise 
lead to time-consuming lawsuits. I used to try to avoid 
lawsuits whenever humanly possible.
    Can--and I am actually out of time. I was going to ask if 
you all agree. I hope that at least a few of you do. But I 
mean, as sincere as I can be, this is a huge set of issues. 
Let's work together. Let's focus on what we agree on, that part 
of the Venn diagram, and let's actually get something done we 
can be proud of.
    With that, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's offer, and now 
recognize the gentleman from Minnesota for 5 minutes, Mr. 
Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Levin, I appreciate your comments. You agree on almost 
every part of my Permit for Mining Needs Act, and I do 
appreciate your concern and your comments.
    Mr. Graves, I appreciate all the work that you have done on 
this. We have had some conversations with our witnesses and my 
colleagues across the aisle that talk about the project sponsor 
doing their own EA and EIS. Doesn't the Federal agency have to 
sign off on it at the end of the process?
    Mr. Graves. That is correct. And as a matter of fact, if 
you go back, Mr. Stauber, and look at the placards that the 
Ranking Member put up, he talked about the inability of 
agencies to process all of this and having the bandwidth. So, 
this actually provides a relief mechanism for them by using 
additional capacity. It would be required to be reviewed, 
edited, and approved in accordance with Federal standards 
before it could be publicly released. And, lastly, this is 
entirely compatible with other Federal practices, where similar 
types of activities are done, where an applicant prepares the 
data and information only to be modified, approved, or rejected 
by the agency.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for clearing that up, Mr. Graves.
    Mr. Carr, thank you for joining us today. It is great to 
see a Midwest cooperative joining us as a witness. Mr. Tiffany, 
from the other side of the Port of Duluth, and I led a letter 
to the Administration supporting finalization of the 6\1/2\ 
years and counting Nemadji Trail Energy Center, or NTEC.
    I would like to enter that letter into the record, Mr. 
Chair.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                     CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             Washington, DC

                                              February 10, 2023    

Honorable Andrew Berke, Administrator
Rural Utilities Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250

    Dear Administrator Berke:

    We write today urging you to reissue the Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) for the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC) located in 
Superior, Wisconsin. NTEC would provide dispatchable natural gas-
generated baseload power desperately needed throughout the vast service 
territories of Dairyland Power Cooperative, Minnesota Power, and Basin 
Electric Power Cooperative. The proposal is supported by local building 
trade unions, including the International Union of Operating Engineers 
(IUOE) who specialize in building energy generation and 
distribution.\1\ Years of public comment have resulted in a strong, 
defensible Environmental Assessment (EA). It's high time to provide our 
communities with the reliable power they deserve by issuing a FONSI for 
NTEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ International Union of Operating Engineers President Michael 
Callahan to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, 
November 23, 2022.

    Initial scoping of the NTEC project commenced in 2017, resulting in 
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) issuing a FONSI in June 2021. After 
receiving a petition from an anti-energy activist legal organization 
based in the Twin Cities the following July, RUS and project sponsors 
consented to a supplemental EA. Originally scheduled to be operating in 
2025, the commercial operation date has been pushed back to 2027 due to 
the extended analysis. With significant, documented communication 
between your agency, project sponsors, and outside stakeholders, a year 
and a half has passed. Eighteen months to simply update an EA and 
reissue a FONSI for a project is unacceptable, let alone five and a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
half years of total project development.

    We need reliable baseload power across the Upper Midwest. By not 
issuing this FONSI, RUS is denying ratepayers access to power and the 
peace of mind of knowing they can turn the heat up when temperatures 
plummet well below zero. The Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator 
(MISO) makes clear in its comment on the project that additional, 
dispatchable baseload generation like NTEC are needed, even with 
increased solar and wind energy on the grid:

        ``As RUS considers the need for electrical power in its 
        decisions, MISO fully supports not only the resource 
        development of new energy projects, but the orderly transition 
        of existing resources to ensure short- and long-term grid 
        reliability and prevent future resource inadequacies in the 
        MISO region.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ MISO Deputy General Counsel--Regulatory Kristina Tridico to RUS 
Environmental Protection Specialist Peter Steinour, July 25, 2022.

    NTEC enjoys robust community support, including from building 
trades unions. The project will boost local budgets with tax revenues 
for schools, police, fire, public safety, and more. Along with 
providing high-wage, union protected jobs to local building trade 
unions, NTEC will provide a strong influx of economic activity for a 
region that desperately needs it. Meanwhile, the service territories 
NTEC will supply feature a significant, industrial base that 
desperately needs reliable power. Our mining, forestry, and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
manufacturing sectors are desperate for reliable, affordable power.

    MISO argues that we need reliable baseload power to supplement a 
growing wind and solar fleet. The building trades support the high-
quality, family-supporting wages NTEC will provide. Instead of 
listening to radical environmental groups, I urge you to listen to 
MISO, the building trades, and our communities and reissue the FONSI 
for NTEC.

            Sincerely,

        Pete Stauber,                 Tom Tiffany,
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Brad Finstad,                 Michelle Fischbach,
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Ashley Hinson,                Kelly Armstrong,
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Randy Feenstra,               Mariannette Miller-Meeks,
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Zach Nunn,                    Tom Emmer,
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Dusty Johnson,                Derrick Van Orden,
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    NTEC has met or exceeded all requirements, and even agreed 
to do a supplemental EIS. Yet, 6 years in, the project is still 
delayed. Can you discuss briefly the importance of NTEC to 
emissions reductions in our region?
    Mr. Carr. Certainly. When we think about Nemadji Trail 
Energy Center, it is actually a very efficient design unit. It 
is a combined cycle natural gas facility. And when you think 
about how the MISO grid works, in the case of MISO, the 
electric demand won't increase because Nemadji Trail is built. 
They are two separate things. Nemadji Trail Energy Center comes 
into the mix, and it is a very efficient unit that, when it 
operates, it will displace coal generation or less efficient 
natural gas. So, CO2 emissions from that sector 
actually go down because of the efficiency of that plan.
    Mr. Stauber. Then my question would be, would you say that 
the onerous NEPA process is actually slowing emissions 
reductions because we are unable to get online a clean-burning, 
dispatchable gas plant?
    Mr. Carr. I absolutely would. We have seen coal plants in 
the upper Midwest announce intentions that they need to stay on 
because of the capacity shortfalls identified by the North 
American Reliability Corporation and MISO.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Mr. Pugh, we heard a lot from our colleagues across the 
aisle at another hearing about how NEPA is not a problem, and 
nothing needs to be fixed. However, just this morning they 
discussed how they spent over $1 billion in the so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act to make NEPA more efficient. Mr. Pugh, 
if Democrats say NEPA is not really a problem, why are we 
spending so much money on it at CEQ and other agencies?
    Mr. Pugh. OK. What I have already heard this morning, or 
this afternoon, is that a well-trained, educated, knowledgeable 
staff is required to take us through the NEPA process. I agree 
with that. Representing local government agencies, we expect 
our Federal reviewers to know what they are doing and to be 
able to handle our plans efficiently. The fact that $1 billion 
is going to be spent to help improve this, that is wonderful. I 
hope it works.
    From the American Public Works Association perspective, we 
have an accreditation process that our communities can go 
through that shows that they are doing the right things at the 
right time for the right reasons, and they do it efficiently. 
That accreditation process requires that you go back and look 
at your processes on a regular basis. It is a process of 
continuous improvement. We would expect the same from our 
Federal Government. Hopefully, we are continuously looking at 
our processes to make sure that we are doing them and 
delivering our services as effectively and efficiently as 
possible.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, and my time has expired.
    Back to you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Lee, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Chair Westerman, Ranking Member 
Grijalva, it is an honor to be serving with all of you and my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this critical 
Committee during the 118th.
    I am so proud to be the voice of Nevada on this Committee, 
a voice for public lands conservation, responsible energy 
development, and continued timely action to combat the mega-
drought in the Southwest. And as you know, no state south of 
Alaska has more public lands than Nevada. And our public lands 
belong in public hands, and depend on a Congress that will 
preserve and protect them. As the West faces the worst climate 
crisis with the most severe drought in 12 centuries, I hope to 
continue to fight for smart water policy and urgent solutions.
    Now, to turn to our discussion on the energy front, if we 
have learned one thing about permitting reform over the last 
year, it is that there is bicameral, bipartisan interest in 
getting it done. In fact, Secretary Jennifer Granholm 
emphasized she is very excited about the potential for 
streamlined permitting. And with Nevada at the epicenter of 
Americans' transition to clean energy economy, I share that 
excitement and am committed to working with Democrats and 
Republicans to get the job done.
    But unfortunately, the BUILDER Act is not it. And, in fact, 
the former General Counsel for the Council on Environmental 
Quality under three Republican presidents recently wrote to 
this Committee to say that, in 42 years of working with NEPA 
and reviewing numerous bills that would affect the NEPA 
process, this is, by far, the most damaging of those bills, and 
it would obliterate the benefits of the NEPA process for both 
decision makers and the American public at large, as well as 
for states, tribes, and local governments.
    And not only that, a senior House Republican leadership 
aide described the party's approach in this bill in no 
uncertain terms, stating, ``House Republicans have the 
majority, we have 218 votes, and that is what we are interested 
in doing.''
    So, we understand that permitting reform is too important 
across this country. We understand the need for it. And it is 
too urgent for this Congress to spend time on partisan bills 
and one-sided legislative packages that will go nowhere. So, 
for the sake of the taxpayers who have sent us here, let us cut 
the politicking, and let's cut the posturing, and let's get to 
work on finding an approach that will allow us to get the 
permitting reform done to the benefit of the American people 
and a climate in crisis.
    Mr. Beard, thank you and thank all of the witnesses for 
being here and for your work.
    And Mr. Veerkamp, your experience with wildfires in the 
West completely underscores the climate crisis that we are in.
    Mr. Beard, I am just going to ask your opinion. Do you 
think there is any chance of the BUILDER Act being signed into 
law? Yes or no.
    Mr. Beard. In its present form, no.
    Mrs. Lee. So, where do you believe there are genuine 
opportunities for this Congress and this Administration to work 
together in a bipartisan way to make sure we have a more 
reliable, affordable, sustainable, made-in-the-USA energy 
policy that the Inflation Reduction Act had made possible?
    Mr. Beard. Well, I think, first of all, even though I am 
not probably the most qualified person to say this, but we have 
to begin at the beginning. And the beginning of this is that 
when we say reform, that is a bit of a misnomer to me.
    We need changes, but we don't need wholesale change. In 
other words, we don't need to throw the baby out with the 
bathwater. There has to be protections in there for those 
communities that are actually real and that are workable. 
Taking away the tools of litigation from communities, that may 
be all they have next to their own voices, and restricting that 
to any degree is simply not good. They have a First Amendment 
right to be able to speak to those things that affect their 
homes and their lives.
    So, that is something that has to be looked at, and there 
are many others. But I am hoping, as this goes forward, that 
both parties try to address that, and to address those concerns 
and issues so there can be progress. You are quite right. That 
is why all of you were sent here. But we have to find a way to 
work together. You have to, rather, not we. You have to find a 
way to work together and address those issues and those 
concerns, so that there can be progress and these things 
happen.
    You have to have, as Mr. Pugh said, the people in the right 
places with the capacity to do it, and you have to build the 
capacity of those agencies. And we have to also say, and I must 
say, that part of the problem is that a lot of that capacity 
was taken away in previous administrations. So, it has to be 
built back up, and that takes time, unless you just want to 
plug anyone into it. But it takes time to get them the training 
and get them the tools they need; $1 billion, that is a lot of 
money. May not be enough to do what you want to do. It may cost 
more. What will you say then?
    It is not simply just signing a check and letting it go out 
the window, and let these projects happen. Due diligence needs 
to be respected. Environmental justice must be respected, 
because what happens if we don't do it, it is going to affect 
us all. What happens in Nevada is going to affect me in Texas. 
It is going to affect all of us.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I yield.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired, and 
appreciate the gentlelady's attention to this matter, and we 
look forward to seeing your amendments to make the bill better 
when we go to mark up on it. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for 5 minutes, Mr. Tiffany.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I appreciate the comments from the 
gentlelady from Nevada. Obviously, she wasn't on the Committee 
last session. And when she talks about bicameral approach, and 
everybody agrees that there needs to be a bipartisan approach 
to this, we tried. We tried last session to advance this stuff 
on a bipartisan basis. It didn't go anywhere. And I know you 
weren't here to help that along, but that is what happened.
    Representative Graves, what numeric environmental standards 
have changed in your bill?
    Mr. Graves. None. We simply went back and tried to, Mr. 
Tiffany, I think, focus the resources and concentration and 
attention on the environment. So, if anything, I will say it 
again: none. But it also helps to focus the attention on 
environmental impacts and on true solutions, allowing projects 
to move forward faster, including environmental projects.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you haven't changed any numeric 
environmental standards in this bill?
    Mr. Graves. We have not.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Graves. Other than, just want to be clear, page limits 
and time constraints, which is outside the confines of your 
question.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the paper mills in Wisconsin will be 
disappointed about the page limits, just so you know.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Carr, you mentioned some external groups, 
in your opening remarks, interceded in the Nemadji Trail 
project. Who were those external groups that took action to 
delay this project?
    Mr. Carr. And to clarify the question, specific to the 
Nemadji Trail Energy----
    Mr. Tiffany. Specifically to that.
    Mr. Carr. Yes. My understanding, Sierra Club, Minnesota 
Center for Environmental Advocacy, those were the entities that 
petitioned RUS to rescind the FONSI and explore the greenhouse 
gas impacts of the project.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, and it seems to my recollection--this 
proposal is for Superior, Wisconsin, which is in my district. 
Didn't the EPA also play a role in interceding in this process, 
and could you explain that?
    Mr. Carr. I can. So, once RUS agreed and rescinded the 
FONSI, went into the supplemental environmental assessment 
process, it went back out for public comments once we completed 
that greenhouse gas evaluation. So, EPA did submit public 
comments in that 30-day public comment period.
    Mr. Tiffany. And did the EPA intercede as a result of the 
intercession of those groups like the Sierra Club?
    Mr. Carr. That is my understanding, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. That was done at their behest. I am really 
glad you cited in regards to Dairyland's energy future and the 
assessment by the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation highlights the critical need to maintain baseload 
generation. That is what it says in your testimony.
    Isn't it correct in Wisconsin this last year they took an 
unusual step of saying that Wisconsin, you are headed to a 
place where you may be going toward blackouts with unusual 
conditions?
    Mr. Carr. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, 
MISO, that operates the grid in the central part of the country 
did, in fact, also submit public comments in that case. And it 
was unusual that they went out in support for this project, 
again, citing the concern that we can't operate the grid solely 
on wind and solar power. We need some dispatchable or baseload 
energy.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, just to be clear to everyone, Mr. Carr is 
being polite through this whole thing. And as a regulated 
utility, that is oftentimes what happens. But the message was 
sent very clearly for the first time in the state of Wisconsin 
by NERC. They said, ``You are headed for blackouts if you 
continue in the direction that you are with the lack of 
baseload power that is being eliminated in the state of 
Wisconsin.''
    By the way, we have three coal-fired plants that are 
supposed to be closed here in the next year or two. They have 
been delayed temporarily. If those plants are closed, you can 
count on us probably heading for blackouts in Wisconsin, 
becoming like Western Europe and California.
    I am really glad you brought up what you did, Mr. Pugh, in 
regards to the expense to this whole permitting process. I have 
a county in my district that they are trying to get a grant 
from the infrastructure bill that was passed last session, $1.5 
million to fix about 3 miles of road. I talked to a local 
contractor. If they could do this without the Federal 
requirements, they will do it for half, $750,000. We are not 
going to get much bang for the buck out of the infrastructure 
bill.
    I will just close by this. Last week, I was down on the 
border in Yuma, and no Judiciary Dems showed up. No Democrats 
showed up at all. Lots of people showed up in Yuma, though. The 
President does not show up in East Palestine, Ohio, where there 
is a major environmental problem that is going on. And, today, 
his Administration via the CEQ does not show up. When are 
Democrats going to show up for business of the American people?
    I yield back.
    Mr. Graves [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Magaziner, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. Listen, we need to rebuild 
infrastructure across this country. But at the same time, the 
American people are counting on us to keep them safe in the 
process, to make sure that, as we build out our infrastructure, 
particularly in extractive industries, that they are going to 
be safe, their kids are going to be safe, their kids aren't 
going to have birth defects, their kids aren't going to have 
cancer. That is why NEPA exists. This process exists to make 
sure that people living in or near areas where projects are 
being done are kept safe. That is a very basic thing that 
people ought to expect of us.
    And, unfortunately, while there are things that we can 
agree on on this Committee about the need to make permitting 
more efficient, we should not be cutting corners in 
environmental reviews and in community input in the process. If 
we want to speed up the permitting process, the way to do it is 
to give agencies the resources that they need to do their jobs. 
That is what Democrats did in the last session by putting $1 
billion for this purpose into the Inflation Reduction Act, 
which every Republican Member opposed.
    What I am hoping to hear is that, if our colleagues on the 
other side make good on their promise to repeal the Inflation 
Reduction Act, that the $1 billion to speed up permitting will 
be protected, and that shouldn't be too much to ask. But what 
we should not be doing is cutting corners. We should not be 
cutting corners on environmental standards, on community input, 
and review.
    This legislation, unfortunately, impacts the rights of 
Americans to protect themselves by restricting their legal 
avenues to seek justice, and by allowing the industries to 
perform their own environmental reviews, putting, 
unfortunately, oil industry profits and other extractive 
industry profits ahead of the health and safety of Americans.
    Mr. Beard, can you just walk us through what would it look 
like if we reduce the statute of limitations for lawsuits 
challenging these permits from 6 years, which it is currently, 
to 120 days, as this bill would do?
    Mr. Beard. Thank you. What would happen, in my mind, is--
first of all, you have to understand that those communities 
don't have a lot of power and income to be able to mount a 
successful legal defense. It is hard for them to get the legal 
help and assistance they need. They don't have a lot of money. 
And in some cases, because of the economic disadvantages in 
those communities, they don't have the educational resources to 
know precisely all of what they are dealing with. Sometimes 
even we don't know all of what you need to know about that. So, 
by reducing that time, you don't give them sufficient time to 
be able to get on top of these things and know about them, and 
try to get the assistance they need.
    And then there are so few organizations out there, Legal 
Aid and others, that work in this space, that they are not 
going to be able to, they won't have the manpower to do it, 
either. A lot of them are existing on donations and monies that 
they get, you know, grants, and all of that. But that is no way 
to really operate. And if you go to a law firm that has it, the 
cost is astronomically high.
    So, they have to have the resources, and they have to have 
someone look out for them, and that is the job that you guys 
have, is to speak up and defend those who can't defend 
themselves, to act in their behalf. But by shortening that 
time, you are making it just that much harder for them to be 
heard once again. And it begs the question: What is the 
purpose?
    Mr. Magaziner. And as I understand it, this legislation not 
only shortens the time frame significantly, but also says that 
individuals and organizations who did not raise a challenge 
during the permitting process would then be excluded from legal 
redress after the fact, regardless of how legitimate their 
claims may be.
    And could you walk us through again why that is 
problematic?
    Mr. Beard. Once again, it is a thing of timing. They have 
their lives to lead and things to do, and sometimes you may not 
be able to get the information on time.
    There is also the aspect of not having access to that 
information. A lot of these agencies say it is there, but it is 
never in plain view. It is never put where they can find it. 
You would have to almost, you would have to really actually 
know where it is at. It is not put there and made easy and 
accessible to people. It requires some expertise sometimes, and 
some guidance just to know where they put it.
    So, if you don't have access to the information, and you 
don't know that the information therein is for you that can 
tell what could happen, then how are you going to be able to 
address it? And, meanwhile, the clock is ticking.
    A perfect case in point, we had a similar thing happen in 
my city with our--as a matter of fact, the state of Texas now, 
if you file more than three of those complaints, that you could 
receive a fine for it. Why should you be fined for speaking up 
about something that is hurting you and your community and your 
children?
    That is all very draconian in my mind. It is cruel to do 
that to people who have very limited resources because, once 
again, they don't put these things in Beverly Hills, or River 
Oaks, or Madison Avenue. They put them in communities where 
there is the least resistance.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you for your advocacy, Mr. Beard.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. Of course, I want to make note that 
the gentleman wasn't in any way suggesting that anyone on our 
side of the aisle would do anything to promote or allow for our 
constituents that we represent to be subjected to increased 
rates of cancer.
    I also want to make note that under the legislation that, 
while an applicant may be the one who actually prepares 
documents, that actually provides additional capacity to an 
agency that then would be responsible for simply reviewing the 
document.
    And I am going to say this again: This is entirely 
compatible with other practices that both Republicans and 
Democrats have endorsed in the past.
    I recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want it to be very clear 
that I support your bill, and I truly hope that something like 
it passes. It seems to me there is a failure of understanding 
when it comes to my friends across the aisle in wanting to 
recognize that there is a real problem that needs to be 
addressed; and two, to kind of call that out a little more 
clearly.
    And let me just refer to a study that was done by the 
Congressional Research Service and DOE several years ago, when 
what follows are the problems that we are facing for long 
compliance periods under NEPA.
    The first one mentioned is litigation brought against the 
environmental assessment, or the Environmental Impact Statement 
associated with the project. Let me say that again. It is 
litigation brought against the EA or the EIS, and the reasons 
for litigation are the EIS failing to acknowledge all 
reasonable alternatives and the requirement for being waived 
improperly.
    And then it goes on to call out about eight more problems: 
the Endangered Species Act, the growing list of protected 
species; coordination with State Historic Preservation; the 
cooperating agencies not adhering to agreed schedules; 
disagreements on EA structure and content, and so forth; 
elimination of climate change impacts, which requires further 
coordination with agencies.
    I call this out because on Judiciary, I have suggested to 
Chairman Jim Jordan that we look carefully at doing something 
about tightening up, shall we say, the Federal procedures that 
apply to litigation, which, as you all know, once a lawsuit is 
filed, you are thrown into the space of never-ending discovery, 
never-ending motion practice. So, to say that the $1 billion 
thrown at these agencies is going to solve this, no, it is not. 
It is not going to. They didn't say one word about the 
litigation, which is the No. 1 problem called out in this 
study.
    And something that just astounds me, and based on the 
testimony from you that I have heard, is the amazing self-
deception on the other side of the aisle regarding the damage 
being done while we wait, and whether your towns are burning 
down, or whether you are spending so much money you can't 
believe it on using old, antiquated infrastructure. I am 
reminded with my work with the Oregon Department of 
Transportation for years trying to put together bridge projects 
that were delayed for many reasons, but not the least of which 
is exactly the type of problem that we are debating today on 
NEPA.
    So, with that, Mr. Carr, do you agree that litigation 
prompted by the smorgasbord of litigation opportunities under 
NEPA is a problem?
    Mr. Carr. I absolutely do. As we think about litigation 
risk, in particular for our business as a cooperative, those 
costs come right back to the members we serve. They are borne 
by end-use electric consumers.
    The other piece here is, as we go through the process, our 
system here, we actually are governed by the communities, the 
members, and the people we serve. So, they were involved on the 
front end. Certainly, these interveners had the opportunity. 
And yes, I am greatly concerned by the litigation costs and 
those aspects.
    Mr. Bentz. And I am a lawyer, I know exactly how all of 
this process works, and I will just assure you that we will be, 
I hope, working in other committees to try to address that 
exact issue, because it is not right, and it needs to be 
addressed.
    Mr. Vanderkamp, sorry, I think I mispronounced your name.
    Mr. Veerkamp. Veerkamp.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Veerkamp, the situation with forests, 
borderline criminal that we would delay in doing something 
about it. I mean it.
    But there seems to be this underlying thought, on the 
Forest Service side, that the only way to get into the forest 
is to let a massive fire start, the only way to manage the 
forest is through burning down half of California. Now, do I 
have that right, or do you, have you seen something different?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Well, it certainly seems that way. Again, I 
don't think it is their absolute intention.
    Mr. Bentz. Oh, you know what? I know it is not their 
intention, at least certainly not the one they would share. But 
when you can go put a fire out quickly and don't, and let it 
blow up into something huge, there are suspicions.
    Mr. Veerkamp. No, you are absolutely----
    Mr. Bentz. I know you want to be careful here, but----
    Mr. Veerkamp. Yes. Now, you are absolutely correct----
    Mr. Bentz. The optics are not good for the Forest Service.
    Mr. Veerkamp. Yes, and there are many, many great employees 
of the Forest Service that are doing their best, but it is just 
not enough. And we have gotten so far behind that the only tool 
that they know is hundreds of days of burning at forest.
    But then you have the rehabilitation that the money is not 
there for, either. Now the money is starting to flow, and that 
is how Sierra Tahoe got cleaned up under rehabilitation orders. 
But absent that, it just can't get done.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. Well, I appreciate all of your efforts, 
and thank you, panel, for being here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Graves. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Arizona, Ranking Member Grijalva, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NEPA is, from most 
of the testimony and the discussion--the drought in the 
Southwest and other parts of the country, that is the fault of 
too much regulation and NEPA. The cumulation of the warming of 
our planet, NEPA. The rising sea levels, NEPA. The heating of 
our water, NEPA. So, it becomes a mechanism to say we can deal 
with all these other problems if we get rid of some fundamental 
protections that have existed generally for the good of the 
public and for the good of the American people. The right to 
redress judicially is an American right, and this bill and 
others is an effort to limit that right. And I think that that 
is going to raise concern more than just relative to the issue 
of NEPA.
    But let me ask Mr. Beard. One of the points that was made 
earlier is that industry for decades knew that one of the 
leading drivers of climate change was, in fact, the fossil fuel 
industry, yet they kept that hidden away from and spent 
countless sums trying to make sure the public didn't know about 
that.
    This bill allows those same oil companies to prepare their 
own environmental reviews. Your reaction to that, and in terms 
of the overall question about communities that you represent.
    Mr. Beard. Well, the problem I found with that is, when 
they do file them, they file them incompletely. They don't give 
proper credence to environmental justice communities, or even 
acknowledge they exist.
    Case in point with something that has been discussed here, 
permitting for a power plant, an expansion to do a combined 
cycle gas turbine. They were not aware that they were less than 
a mile from one of the largest refineries in Port Arthur, which 
is Total. Total happens to be in the city's corporate limits. 
And if you know anything about cities, they also have an extra 
territorial limit that extends 3 miles further. They were not 
even aware of that when I brought it up to them. And they were 
even less aware of the fact that they pay taxes to the city of 
Port Arthur because they are in those corporate limits.
    So, if they don't know the very basic things of their 
business in that way, how are they going to know and understand 
the community and what affected peoples are there, people of 
color, that, by them putting these projects in place, they are 
going to be affected? It just doesn't stand to reason that it 
is acceptable.
    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Beard, the public health question that--
this bill also says Federal agencies are not allowed to 
consider public health impacts of proposed projects if they are 
expected to occur 10 years out and later.
    Again, the impact and effect on your community and other 
communities like yours?
    Mr. Beard. Because they are putting them in communities 
that have already been overburdened and impacted, they are just 
simply adding more misery to what those people are suffering, 
what they have to breathe. And it won't take 10 years. It will 
take even less time. But if we don't do anything, it goes back 
to what I said previously: people are dying every day, and you 
are going to have more people die, and you are going to see 
more health effects that are chronic and serious illnesses. 
And, unfortunately, nobody is even trying to find out what the 
source of it is.
    But we believe that it is coming from the environmental 
pollution that is very toxic in my community and others across 
the country.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. As we move in a transition, 
it is either going to be a transition that holds harmless 
people and communities as much as possible, or it is going to 
be a very painful transition. And I think NEPA plays a huge 
role in this transition. It assures that communities that have 
been overburdened and unrepresented in this process, indeed can 
have that opportunity.
    The other issue for NEPA is, I think, the question of 
enforcement and compliance with the law. If we are not doing 
our due diligence in terms of agencies--and that is why the $1 
billion is so important--you can't keep talking about how slow 
they are when you are not making a commitment to invest in 
those agencies that you have decimated over the last 4 or 5 
years.
    Mr. Beard. That is right.
    Mr. Grijalva. And I would think that compliance and 
enforcement, two issues that happen to EJ communities 
countless--first to get compliance to the law, and then, when 
it doesn't happen, to get enforcement, I think those are losses 
that are implicit and explicit in this legislation, and I think 
losses that the American people cannot afford.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Next we have the 
gentlelady from Puerto Rico, Miss JGO, Gonzalez-Colon.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    Mr. Graves. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
you, all of you, for being here.
    And one of the issues that--this issue is so important back 
to Puerto Rico is actually because of the reconstruction of the 
island after Hurricanes Irma and Maria, after earthquakes in 
the south part of the island. And we are getting knowledge how 
to work with Federal funding, but we are trapped into the 
permit to do that reconstruction. That is one of the biggest 
issues. So, I am glad that actually we are doing this kind of 
hearing.
    Mr. Pugh, one of the issues that I saw in your written 
testimony was that you mentioned that, in your professional 
experience, any time there is Federal funding we are 
introducing into a project, you immediately added 25 percent 
increase to the project budget cost due to the old burdens 
associated with the permitting framework. And I understand why, 
right?
    And my question will be, how the current NEPA increases the 
cost of any Federal infrastructure project, and how this 
permitting reform may help not just American taxpayers, but 
local communities to achieve the rebuilding of those projects 
if we do the reform permit.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak about 
that.
    Again, I did mention in my comments that, right off the 
bat, any time we had Federal dollars introduced into one of our 
projects, we would add at least 25 percent to that project, 
simply because we know that with local funds we can build 
projects faster and cheaper than we can using state or federal 
funds, simply because at the local level we don't have all the 
strings attached and all the documentation requirements that we 
have when you introduce state or federal funds. We still have 
to go through the environmental review process. We still go 
through Department of Water Quality. We still go through 
historic preservation, if there are things along those lines 
within our projects. But the documentation burden is the 
general issue there.
    Plus, most of your local government agencies don't fully 
understand the NEPA process, and we wind up having to go 
outside and retain an outside engineering firm to help foster 
us through the process of going through the funding 
requirements.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. You are talking about my own 
experience back home. I mean, we do have that specific problem. 
Even the local government is requiring many things that are 
included already in NEPA.
    So, to that end, you also mention in your testimony that 
the average time to conduct a NEPA review for Federal highway 
projects was 7.3 years. And I understand that a review 
conducted by the Trump administration found that, on average, 
an Environmental Impact Statement took 4.5 years to complete, 
and that one-fourth of all Environmental Impact Statements took 
over 6 years to complete.
    So, to that end, the BUILDER Act will establish a time 
limit of 2 years for completion of Environmental Impact 
Statements and 1 year for Environmental Assessments. And based 
on your professional experience, will this be a reasonable 
amount of time to conduct comprehensive environmental reviews?
    Mr. Pugh. I would certainly think so. Again, we are not 
suggesting that we reduce any level of public input. We are not 
suggesting that we reduce or change any of the environmental 
policies that are currently out there, or the reviews that are 
required to make this happen.
    From a local government standpoint, again, we want to make 
sure that the reviews are coordinated, that they are handled 
efficiently, that when we submit a project for review, that we 
get our comments back in a timely manner, so that we can 
address all the comments we receive, and not do it in a 
piecemeal kind of manner. And right now, I don't think there is 
a standard time frame at the Federal level for the review 
process. A lot of times it just gets turned in, it gets put in 
line, and we don't know when we are going to get comments back.
    It is compounded when you get comments back, and then you 
have to address those again, and it gets thrown back into the 
same review process.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I totally agree with you. And how do 
you respond to those who argue that enacting permitting reform 
to expedite a project approval will weaken or undermine any of 
our environmental standards? Are those mutually exclusive?
    Mr. Pugh. I don't think they are. We would like to advocate 
on behalf of an efficient and thorough review, period. But we 
would like to have a time frame put on that so that we know 
what to expect.
    Again, that gets back to the dollar amounts added to our 
project costs. When we expect the project to take us 2 years to 
get through the start, design, through permitting, and ready to 
go to construction, and it actually takes us 5, 6, 7 years--we 
still have that outside engineer, that outside firm on 
retainer, and we are still paying them. So, that cost even 
escalates further.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I agree, and I yield back.
    Mr. Pugh. Thank you.
    Mr. Graves. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Collins, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this 
morning--I will make the same comment. I am a freshman here, 
haven't been here but about 8 weeks, but I am going to tell you 
something. I have spent 30-plus years as small businessman, and 
I have been dealing with the overly burdensome regulations that 
the Federal Government has placed on our industry. And I can 
talk specifically about what I felt and what that has done to 
our company.
    Mr. Carr, earlier today I was in a meeting with some 
electric co-ops that are in my district, and they were telling 
me about an energy project that has almost doubled in cost. 
Now, that cost is going to be passed along to the consumers, 
people that use electricity. Have you had similar experiences 
with projects that are costing more due to Federal regulations?
    Mr. Carr. I appreciate your question. Yes, absolutely. As 
an electric cooperative, the costs we have incurred and the end 
costs--in the case of the Cardinal Hickory Creek, we are 
talking 10 to 15 percent, in that range. We have submitted 
documents. In the Nemadji Trail, we haven't defined the actual 
costs, but we are very concerned about it. It is back to we 
serve the members who govern us. Our end-use consumers own our 
cooperative, and we are very concerned about the cost impacts 
that this regulation is having on our consumer members.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. As a businessman, when I see a 
problem I want to know what the solution is and how to fix it.
    And we know that the Federal Government is over-regulating. 
We know they love to make regulations, and they like to make 
things more complicated than what they need to be.
    Mr. Pugh, what can Congress do to simplify the NEPA process 
and make it easier for individuals to just navigate? If you can 
just shoot bullet points, I would love to just make some notes 
and write it down, please.
    Mr. Pugh. Right. I believe in our written testimony that we 
submitted, we had those bullet points highlighted, and that is 
basically establishing a lead Federal agency to develop a joint 
review schedule. That gets back to the schedule being known up 
front. That also eliminates a lot of the concern with 
conflicting comments we may receive from Federal agencies to 
where we have to play referee on who wins.
    We ask that we establish time and page limits for 
completion of those documents. We ask that we extend the 
completion period with approval of the applicant, when 
necessary, to allow for further consultation with local 
agencies.
    We ask that we bring the statute of limitations for NEPA 
cases in line with other environmental statutes.
    We ask that you reduce duplicative reporting by allowing 
adherence to state or even local standards, because a lot of 
time on these projects we have to meet local, state, and 
federal requirements.
    And, finally, examine a reasonable number of feasible 
alternatives for projects, because the definition of what is 
reasonable changes, depending on what individual and what 
agency you speak with.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Veerkamp, I didn't want to leave out 
something. My grandpa had a saying, too. He always said the 
road to the poorhouse was paved with good intentions.
    Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Wonderful, thank you. I want to begin by 
touching on an important point that Mr. Pugh made in his 
testimony that, ``Like any policy that has been in place for 
five decades, NEPA should be updated to address current 
societal needs.''
    One of the new circumstances that I think you are probably 
referring to that would warrant congressional review of NEPA is 
something that Mr. Carr and Veerkamp touched on, and that is 
the frivolous environmental lawsuits.
    Just last year in Wyoming, a Federal judge required 
additional lengthy environmental reviews for new or pending 
coal, oil, and natural gas leases in the Powder River Basin. 
This basin produces more than 40 percent of the United States' 
coal, and coal is still the second largest source of United 
States' electricity, and will be for a long, long time.
    The fact is that these lawsuits are intended to force 
energy poverty on Wyoming and the Americans that we serve. To 
exemplify the abuse in the current law, in 2022, the Bureau of 
Land Management approved 3,535 applications in Wyoming and New 
Mexico. But it wasn't very long before the lawsuits started 
pouring in.
    Mr. Beard, you have indicated that one of the reasons why 
we need to have a 6-year statute of limitations is because so 
many of the people who would be affected by these projects 
don't have the knowledge or the money or the wherewithal to 
battle them. As a water and natural resource attorney in 
Wyoming, I can assure you that is the furthest thing from the 
truth. The reality is that the environmental groups are some of 
the most wealthy, non-profit organizations that are out there.
    And I can also assure you that, in the state of Wyoming, we 
want these projects to go forward. We are proud of the fact 
that we serve and make the lives better of the American people. 
We are proud of the fact that we are responsible for providing 
affordable energy and affordable food. We are proud of the fact 
that, with our national forests and our private forests, we are 
able to provide affordable housing for the citizens of this 
country. We are proud of what we do as one of the very largest 
energy producers in the United States of America.
    What we don't like, and what is troublesome, is that NEPA, 
which is simply a process statute that was created so that we 
can make sure that, as these projects go forward, the 
environmental impact is assessed, is that these turn into 5- 
and 10- and 15- and 20-year lawsuits that prevent us from being 
able to use our natural resources, the natural resources that 
belong to the citizens of this country.
    The fact is, I am tired of sitting back and watching our 
forests burn to the ground. I am tired of sitting back and 
watching our watersheds be destroyed because of the 
catastrophic forest fires that are impacting the interior West. 
I am tired of watching as an administration like the Clinton 
administration adopts things like the roadless rule to deny 
access management and use to 58.5 million acres of National 
Forest Service lands at the same time that we have a housing 
shortage. I am tired of the fact that there are regulatory 
agencies in this country that will adopt over 3,500 major 
regulations a year, while Congress will only deign to pass 
maybe 35 to 50 pieces of legislation.
    The reality is that NEPA desperately needs to be reworked. 
The Endangered Species Act desperately need to be reworked. And 
they do, because we live in a different time than we did in the 
1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
    We do an excellent job of protecting our environment. You 
gentlemen in the resource industry, I am proud of what you do. 
I am proud of your ability to provide affordable energy and do 
the things that you do for the folks of this country.
    So, all I want to do is make the statement after all of my 
colleagues have been able to ask most of the questions that I 
think are important today: I just want to let you know that I 
stand with you. We stand with you. We recognize that there are 
changes that need to be made because our current environmental 
regulations are not protecting our environment, but they are 
breaking the great people of this country.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Duarte, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Hello, Mr. Veerkamp. Welcome to DC. I am an El 
Dorado County grape grower, among a few other things, and have 
a vineyard up in the Georgetown area I bought from Doug and 
Lori Veerkamp in 1999, a property that was forested at the 
time, and we converted the forest lands to a vineyard property. 
And since then, especially in the last 6 years, I think we have 
been smoked out and had some level of smoke damage or another 
on our wine grapes, as many, many growers, wine growers 
throughout California, have had due to forest fires.
    I just pulled it up here, 20 of the largest forest fires in 
California's history have happened in the last 20 years, or at 
least since 2000. We talk about socially disadvantaged 
communities. El Dorado is no thriving megalopolis.
    And if you look at the good work Congressman McClintock did 
on making sustainable forest practices viable and putting them 
into practice in the Tahoe Basin, that didn't do a lot for the 
citizens of Paradise in 2018, when 85 people were killed 
because an overgrown, unhealthy forest ripped through their 
city.
    The fine homes around Lake Tahoe are preserved and enjoy 
sustainable forestry, but many, many lower-income rural 
communities are not only suffering the effects of an abandoned 
economy, of foresters, loggers. I have been up to Georgetown 
quite often. The hotel has been bought out by a couple of pot 
farmers. They look like they were doing pretty good a couple of 
years ago, but I think they are on their heels now.
    But the entire community has lost a lot of its character, 
lost a lot of its economy, lost a lot of its vibrancy, and 
probably lost a lot of its young people in the same effect.
    As a fifth generation El Dorado resident, I just invite you 
to give us a human side to the rural communities that you live 
in, and what the just absurd resource management practices over 
the last couple of decades have brought, from your viewpoint, 
for rural communities.
    Mr. Veerkamp. Well, obviously, El Dorado County, El Dorado, 
land of gold, and it was framed from the gold rush era, and 
basically land of opportunity. And through processes of all of 
our faults it has become land of non-opportunity. And there are 
consequences of, again, regulation and so forth, put those 
handcuffs on, and then we have devastating consequences, 
whether it be our flumes for our irrigation district or, again, 
whether it be our education system when we have to shut our 
schools down, whether it be the costs--and I didn't mention 
them--to FEMA for the rehabilitation.
    You are talking $1 billion that was put into this other 
bill. Suppression costs alone last year approached $5 million 
across the country, and then the cost to FEMA. I don't know, 
they are totally astronomical. And I know we are all out money 
trying to rebuild infrastructure for those catastrophic events. 
And for some of the reasons, FEMA should just write the check, 
absolutely. But we need to turn this around so we are not being 
reactive. We need to be proactive.
    In our rural environments, it has degraded the ability for 
people to make a living, people to prosper. And we have to get 
back to that so all of us can be successful.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I am on a few committees. We are 
looking at the water drought in California, the man-made 
drought in California. We are looking at the overgrown, and 
unsafe, and unhealthy forests of California.
    And it always seems to come back--a good friend of mine up 
in Georgetown, up in El Dorado County actually defined it for 
me. It is single species management through the Endangered 
Species Act. We go to save the smelt at the cost of all else, 
and we parch our Earth. And we have children in the south of 
San Joaquin Valley with exceedingly high rates of respiratory 
illnesses. We have valley fever, we have severe asthma. We have 
epidemiological evidence that the Endangered Species Act biops, 
biological opinions being employed in the Delta, are killing 
children in the South Valley.
    We have rural communities where we are trying to save the 
spotted owl up in the Sierras and through the coastal ranges, 
causing unhealthy forests and destroying habitat for all 
species, including human. And no one can argue the spotted owl 
are any better off under today's forest management schemes than 
they were when we had healthy, sustainable logging in the 
forest.
    So, I thank you for coming from a rural community, because 
we have social equity issues, if that is what we want to call 
them, all over this country, and we can remedy them with more 
sensible regulatory policy.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to ask a 
question. It starts out with a Colorado-specific anecdote, or 
example, but it is a broader question because I am representing 
a district in Colorado.
    In Colorado, Federal jurisdiction over public lands can 
change drastically, even over a short distance. Within an 
hour's drive of my district it is possible to travel through 
the jurisdiction of several U.S. military bases, National Park 
Service land, national forest land, Bureau of Land Management, 
and state parks. While we are blessed to have such an abundance 
of public areas, it makes infrastructure permitting difficult 
to impossible.
    Each of these jurisdictions is required to do a separate 
NEPA analysis for a single project. I know that has been 
discussed a lot here today. And it becomes especially 
burdensome, where companies end up paying extra to zigzag 
around public lands and go through the hassle of crossing them.
    So, Mr. Carr--and excuse me if this has already been asked 
and answered--but can you explain how the NEPA litigation 
process shuts down access to all kinds of energy, including 
renewable energy?
    Mr. Carr. Yes, certainly. In the case of the Cardinal 
Hickory Creek transmission line, this line is to bring wind 
energy from Iowa into Wisconsin. The load center, the demand 
for the energy is to the east, and the wind resource is to the 
west. So, we have over 100 projects awaiting interconnection 
and dependent on that line. These are renewable energy projects 
that are in Iowa waiting, again, to provide energy that can 
move--it would help lower CO2 emissions and increase 
the amount of renewable energy coming into the mix. And the 
litigation is, in fact, delaying that and adding cost.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    And Mr. Pugh, I have a question for you, also. According to 
the Energy Information Agency, Colorado's renewable electricity 
net generation has more than tripled since 2010 and has 
accounted for 35 percent of our state's total generation in 
2021. Likewise, Colorado ranked seventh among the states in 
total energy production, even though our per capita energy 
consumption is lower than two-thirds of all other states.
    Despite this abundance of energy, much of it cannot be 
brought online. According to Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, over 1,400 gigawatts of total generation and 
storage capacity are now seeking connection to the grid, with 
backlogs extending multiple years. So, Mr. Pugh, can you recap 
for us, again if necessary, what role does environmental 
litigation play in keeping new energy sources from accessing 
the grid?
    Mr. Pugh. I am not entirely sure that is a question 
directly for me. Public works industry, we cover 
transportation, we cover water, wastewater, emergency services, 
fleets, and solid waste. The electric industry is not really a 
huge part of our association.
    However, our communities, some of them are electric cities. 
And the city of High Point, where I worked, is an electric 
city. And I know that they had to run through a lot of the same 
environmental processes that we did with our transportation and 
infrastructure projects.
    Mr. Lamborn. Would anyone else like to take a crack at 
that?
    Mr. Carr. Again, in the case of renewable energy, and wind, 
and solar, we are going to see a massive transformation in the 
U.S. grid. It is underway. As we talk about decarbonizing the 
grid and moving ahead with cleaner energy sources, that will 
still require dispatchable generation. And by dispatchable I 
mean energy that can be there when the intermittent wind or 
solar can't.
    So, again, a transmission-related buildout that is going to 
be required, and permitting timelines and costs are concerning 
in particular to the electric consumer. That will raise the 
cost that electric consumers are paying, and it delays the 
transition to that cleaner energy future.
    Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. And thank you all for 
being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this hearing.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing today.
    With the average hardrock mining project taking 7 to 10 
years, as we have heard today, to go through the NEPA 
permitting process, clearly we must do more to streamline the 
permitting process. Canada and Australia can safely get through 
their permitting processes in 2 years. No reason we can't do 
the same thing right here, while still protecting the 
environment in America.
    We are very, very effective at this. We certainly produce 
the world's cleanest energy. Nobody does it better than our 
guys.
    The International Energy Agency estimates that implementing 
the radical Green New Deal would require the production of 
lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other critical minerals to 
increase by 3,000 percent by 2040. Instead of supporting 
environmentally responsible and safe domestic mining, Democrats 
and not-in-my-backyard extremists would rather outsource our 
critical minerals to unsafe mines in the China and in the 
Congo. And I am going to return to that point later in my 
remarks.
    Nearly 40,000 children are estimated to be mining for 
cobalt in the Congo with their bare hands. Working in such an 
unsafe environment in these conditions, they are no strangers 
to tragedy. I am personally sick of seeing woke corporations 
virtue signaling their lobbying for policies that destroy 
American jobs, and then turn around and purchase minerals that 
are stained with the blood of children working in unsafe 
conditions in third-world countries. That is not virtuous. It 
is not reasonable. It is something that we combat here on a 
regular basis, pushing Green New Deal energy policies, wind and 
solar.
    Look, all-of-the-above energy, that is fantastic. But we 
don't need the Federal Government choosing winners and losers, 
making it near impossible to have good, safe mining here in 
America, drilling here in America by propping up wind and solar 
companies with these heavy subsidies. It is truly disgusting.
    Now, Mr. Beard, the National Environmental Policy Act is 
over 50 years old. Average EISs take 4 to 5 years to complete, 
are over 600 pages long, and add $4.2 million to project costs. 
We have heard testimony today that this is delaying major 
projects in every sector, from transportation, to forestry, to 
transmission. Given the overwhelming evidence and consensus 
that this process is broken, can you name one legislative 
reform to streamline NEPA that you or your organization has 
previously supported?
    Mr. Beard. In terms of legislation that we have supported 
on the Federal level, no. But we have supported, or we do 
support a process that allows for hearing the environmental 
justice concerns and issues of communities.
    Mrs. Boebert. Now, I am sorry, Mr. Beard, look, I am not 
asking what you would do to an already over-complicated 
process. I want to know what you would do to streamline this 
process. I am asking this so we could have a streamlined 
process that costs less and really moves quicker. Can you name 
one streamlining provision that you have previously supported? 
One streamlining provision.
    Mr. Beard. In this Act?
    Mrs. Boebert. No, ever. You or your organization. To make 
this more cost effective, to streamline it, to make it more 
effective.
    Sir, I heard you say that you come from a city that was a 
sacrifice city. Don't you think these children in the Congo--I 
think that is a sacrifice city. These children mining with 
their bare hands for cobalt in the Congo, child and slave 
labor? That, to me, sounds like a sacrifice city, not some 
flares that you took a picture of, and--do you support carbon 
capture?
    Do you support the mechanisms that we have in place to 
capture what comes off of those flares? Because history has 
shown me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and 
in groups like yours, you prevent us from actually implementing 
that, that captures everything that is coming out of those 
flares, but then you want to bring pictures here and show us 
what the flares do.
    Do you support that----
    Mr. Beard. Congresswoman, let me be clear, because we have 
run out of time. So, I do want to answer you while we have 
time.
    Those pictures I brought are showing what the impact is on 
communities. You talk about what is happening in those other 
countries, but where is that same level of concern about the 
children in Port Arthur?
    Mrs. Boebert. Let's capture it.
    Mr. Beard. About the children in Corpus Christi,
    Mrs. Boebert. Let's work together to capture it.
    Mr. Beard. About the children in St. James Parish, 
Louisiana, Cancer Alley, who not only are being exposed there, 
but they are being exposed----
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. I will 
note that votes have been called. We are going to try to go one 
more Member round of questions, and I apologize to the panel, 
but we are going to have to recess and come back to wrap up the 
Committee.
    Mrs. Luna from Florida, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. It seems, and after this testimony, 
it is very obvious that, although NEPA was initially intended 
to strike a balance between environmental impact of all major 
Federal regulations and developing domestic natural resources, 
it has basically now been weaponized against, really, American 
energy producers, when the real enemy of the environment is 
China, as Mrs. Boebert had stated previously.
    But in addition to this, we are finding many frivolous 
lawsuits being launched against some of these producers via 
activist groups that often have little to no meaningful 
participation in the NEPA process, having tied up many projects 
in litigation, including over 2,200 onshore oil and gas leases. 
So, these lawsuits are not from members of the public, like 
many on the left have claimed. Instead, NEPA litigation surveys 
between 2001 and 2013 found that 59 percent of all the lawsuits 
came from public interest groups. So, I think we can all agree 
that, when that happens, it is usually not in the best interest 
of the general population.
    Rather than maintaining these common-sense NEPA updates and 
streamlining the Federal Government's decision-making, reducing 
the cost, debt time, and also complexity of analysis that were 
hindering producers, the Biden administration rolled back these 
updates, reverting us back to NEPA's 1978 regulations.
    So, my question is actually for you, Mr. Carr. How many 
projects depend on the construction of the Cardinal Hickory 
Transit transmission line that is currently tied up in 
litigation?
    And in addition to that, how has the delay of the Cardinal 
Hickory transmission line impacted communities that rely on 
this project's completion?
    Mr. Carr. Yes, thank you for your question. In the case of 
Cardinal Hickory Creek, at last count, as far as we are aware, 
there are over 100 renewable energy projects that are relying 
on that interconnection into the grid. So, very significant, in 
terms of renewable wind energy coming into the grid.
    In terms of the community impact, in Dairyland's case the 
community is the consumers of electricity we serve. So, within 
that service territory those consumers aren't receiving the 
benefit of that lower-emitting wind energy, that lower 
CO2 wind energy. The partners in the transmission 
line with us that serve other utilities in the state, that wind 
energy, that renewable energy that we are trying to deliver is 
being delayed, and the costs of doing so are going up.
    Mrs. Luna. I think it is clear that modernizing NEPA's 
provisions would have significant impacts on the efficiency of 
project reviews, decreasing project costs, and reducing the 
likelihood of frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, it appears 
that this Administration would rather increase red tape than 
streamline the process and bring relief to the American people.
    Thank you for everyone who joined.
    Chairman, I yield my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
declares the Committee in recess, subject to the call of the 
Chair, which is anticipated to be approximately 5:15 p.m.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Porter, for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. I had promised--I, as a parent, had promised 
them that if they scored a passing grade, they could get a new 
video game. Now, the child would be understandably upset. They 
might feel bad. They may feel guilty. But they would probably 
just deal with it, and deal with the bad grade. But what if the 
child's teacher said, ``You can change your grade to whatever 
you want it to be''?
    What grade do you think that child would give themselves 
with a video game on the line? Mr. Carr, start with you.
    Mr. Carr. Boy, I don't know in that case. To speculate on 
what the child might say, I really don't know. I think at some 
level you are trying to suggest that he would grade himself 
very high.
    Ms. Porter. Yes, I think that is usually right. Having been 
a professor, that has usually been my experience.
    Any of the rest of you want to guess what would happen if 
you could give yourself a grade? What grade would you give 
yourself on your performance today?
    I think most people would give themselves an A. That was 
always my experience, as a professor, when I let my students 
grade themselves.
    So, in changing your grade by yourself, not from your 
teacher, you are basically not getting an actual reflection, an 
adequate and accurate reflection, of what really happened. So, 
I want to be clear about why, given this example, project 
applicants should not be allowed to essentially grade 
themselves, to basically get around and manipulate our Federal 
laws that have protected our environmental and human health for 
decades. This bill does that. It allows natural gas, oil, 
mineral extraction, coal, even wind companies, for that matter, 
to have unilateral authority to prepare their own environmental 
review on their own without any legitimate oversight.
    Now, Mr. Carr, in your testimony you listed promoting--and 
this is a quote--promoting greater applicant involvement in the 
NEPA process as a key area for NEPA modernization. On page 13 
of the BUILDER Act, there is a section titled ``Sponsor 
Preparation.'' Are you aware of that section?
    Mr. Carr. I don't have it immediately in front of me, no.
    Ms. Porter. So, you are unable to tell us whether you agree 
with that section, Sponsor Preparation.
    Mr. Carr. In terms of sponsor preparation, my general 
understanding of the intent is that it would be engagement 
between the applicant and the interested parties, stakeholders, 
and it is a broad outreach process. That is my understanding.
    Ms. Porter. So, the provision, as I understand it, says 
that the lead agency will independently evaluate the 
environmental document of the proposed project. And you cite 
this need in your testimony.
    Do you really think a Federal agency will conduct 
sufficient oversight over a project that decides to do its own 
environmental review?
    Mr. Carr. Was that question to me? I am sorry.
    Ms. Porter. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Could you ask the question one more time?
    Ms. Porter. Do you really think a Federal agency will do 
sufficient oversight over a project that decides to undergo its 
own environmental review process?
    Mr. Carr. I believe that is the intent of what we are 
trying to accomplish here.
    Ms. Porter. I believe that is the intent. But do you think 
it will happen?
    Mr. Carr. I do.
    Ms. Porter. You do. Let me give you an example of why I am 
concerned.
    In 2015, the PennEast Pipeline Company filed an application 
with FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for the 
PennEast Pipeline Project, which is a natural gas project. 
During the environmental review process, PennEast failed to 
disclose to FERC multiple times--and they provided missing 
data, including a list of alternative routes to avoid wells 
that supply local drinking water and the destruction of state 
protected farmland, a wetlands and watershed survey, and a 
sufficient arsenic study. Despite these missing materials that 
are required under NEPA, FERC approved PennEast's Environmental 
Impact Statement.
    So, let me ask you again, Mr. Carr, are you really 
confident that Federal lead agencies will conduct sufficient 
oversight of future environmental reviews?
    Mr. Carr. So, certainly in the case of Dairyland Power, 
again, one of the interesting aspects is we are governed, as 
well, by the communities, the members, and the consumers we 
serve. They are the governance body. They are the communities, 
they are the stakeholders. They are on both sides of the aisle. 
They are involved in the process all the way along.
    I am confident that, as we stand today, as we are seeing 
two projects that would actually reduce the environmental 
impact, the greenhouse gas impacts, that the process is 
blocking it. I think the time for reform is now.
    Ms. Porter. So, you are not worried, and I appreciate your 
diligence. I just want to say I am concerned that this process, 
this reform, would basically let the foxes run amok in an 
already porous, shall we say, chicken coop.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and I don't mind 
giving her extra time for making the trek back over to fill in 
for Mr. Grijalva.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I want to thank 
the witnesses sincerely again for your testimony. The 
gentlelady from California had me thinking of, actually, when I 
was in elementary and middle school and even in high school, 
the teacher did let us grade her work sometimes. But it was 
usually multiple choice, so you would grade it, and then the 
teacher would take it up, and you never knew if the teacher was 
going to go back and look at how you graded your paper.
    So, it actually taught you to, I think, a bit of integrity 
and honesty to not cheat on your work, because somebody was 
looking at it. And I think that applies to the permitting 
authorities, that somebody is looking at it. It is not like you 
fill out an application and grant yourself a permit.
    Being a professional engineer and working in the consulting 
business, I actually filled out a lot of paperwork for clients 
on permits, and all we did is provide the information. And my 
understanding is today, even on oil and gas projects where BLM 
is granting the permit, a lot of third parties are hired to 
actually do the grunt work, if you will, on filling out all of 
the paperwork. And then that still gets submitted to the agency 
for approval of a permit.
    So, when we talk about assisting, we are not talking about 
approving the permit. Mr. Carr, can you speak to that?
    Mr. Carr. Yes. I think in the end, again, my understanding 
of the Act is that it would require the Federal agency to 
actually conduct the final determination and evaluation. They 
would have to ensure that the process met the standards, the 
work was thorough, and they have the ultimate say.
    The Chairman. I believe the goal of that is to reduce the 
workload that we keep hearing about. The Federal agencies don't 
have enough funding, they can't find people.
    And I found it interesting that it takes up to 2 years to 
hire somebody for one of these positions because of the Office 
of Personnel policy. So, a lot of this is self inflicted by the 
Federal Government. So, giving people a pathway to use 
competent outside third parties to make the process go smoother 
actually seems like a common-sense scenario to me.
    Mr. Beard, again, I appreciate your testimony. I am just 
trying to understand. You actually worked in a refinery in Port 
Arthur. Is my understanding, correct?
    Mr. Beard. That is partially correct. I worked in 
ExxonMobil in Beaumont's refinery, not Port Arthur.
    The Chairman. OK. So, you talked a lot about, or you showed 
pictures of flaring. You talked about FERC. And I just want to 
try to get some clarity here.
    We are talking about NEPA reform, which is generally more 
upstream from the refinery. Energy and Commerce has 
jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act. They have jurisdiction 
over FERC. And we are talking about how do you actually get 
things permitted that deal with Federal lands, or the Federal 
Government, and those regulations. Now, if we can't get the 
permitting done through NEPA, and you can't get the pipelines 
built to those refineries, then you don't get oil or gas in 
those refineries, and you definitely don't see the flare.
    So, is your position that we shouldn't have refineries, or 
we should just make the permitting process around the 
refineries better?
    And how does that relate to NEPA, which is upstream of the 
refinery?
    Mr. Beard. Well, I am not saying that at all, Mr. Chairman. 
Maybe I was a little bit imprecise. Those pictures were there 
to show you what is the aftermath of permitting, not what 
violations of the Clean Air Act looks like. It is showing you 
that, when these plants are permitted and these emissions 
happen, this is the current status.
    But now, when permitting allows more of those to come in, 
they are adding more pollution and contaminants into the 
atmosphere. My organization is currently dealing with some of 
those very same issues, where they are saying only it is just a 
little bit, it is not that much. But when it is something like 
benzene, which there is no known safe level, I am just saying--
--
    The Chairman. But benzene and clean air and clean water, 
that is out of the jurisdiction of our Committee.
    Mr. Beard. Right, but what I am saying is--but it is 
permitted.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. Beard. It is permitted. And those projects----
    The Chairman. But I just wanted to be clear that we are not 
talking about that kind of permitting.
    Mr. Beard. Yes, I am clear. I am clear. I understand where 
you are going with that.
    The Chairman. So, reclaiming my time here----
    Mr. Beard. Go ahead.
    The Chairman. Also, if we don't have the fossil fuels, if 
we don't have the oil and gas, then we need energy from 
somewhere, and we are talking about permitting that allows 
mining development. And these NEPA reforms would apply to being 
able to mine the minerals and elements, to build the electrical 
grid, to build electric vehicles. Are you opposed to that?
    Mr. Beard. I am not opposed to it. But what I am opposed to 
is a process that does not allow for the full understanding of 
the environmental and community and the environmental justice 
impacts. When you have a process that is so shortcut that it 
can't do that, then I have a problem with it.
    The Chairman. And, again, I think that is the purpose of 
this hearing today, is to get input so that when we mark up the 
bill, we can take more of those things into account.
    Mr. Beard. Well, I think I was pretty clear on telling you 
that, if it is looking at shortening the amount of time for 
litigation, that is a deal-breaker.
    The Chairman. But this language, again, has nothing to do 
with the kind of permitting that you referenced in your 
testimony. And I am going to talk briefly----
    Mr. Beard. And that is understood. But in reference to 
what----
    The Chairman. Reclaiming my time----
    Mr. Beard [continuing]. You are talking about here----
    The Chairman. Reclaiming my time----
    Mr. Beard. Go ahead.
    The Chairman. When we talk about forestry, being a 
forester, I have seen some really nice forests. The very nicest 
forests have never been subject to a NEPA review. The best 
management out there is done by professionals who know what 
they are doing, and they never had a NEPA review on it.
    So, I am way over time, and you have already asked 
questions----
    Mr. Beard. Well, I only have one thing to say on that, are 
those NEPA reviews the only type of reviews we are considering 
here, or are we considering a full gamut of them dealing with 
petrochem and others?
    The Chairman. No, we are just talking about NEPA, NEPA 
reviews. And I am going to give you a second.
    I want to allow every witness except for our vacant chair 
over there, I thought maybe they would watch and come over, and 
CEQ would have a little input, but apparently they don't want 
to. But if there is one thing you didn't get to tell the 
Committee today, I want to give you a chance to maybe bring 
that out. And maybe you are tired and ready to go home. But, 
Mr. Carr, we will start with you.
    Mr. Carr. Again, from my perspective, from Dairyland Power 
Cooperative's perspective, what we have seen is projects that 
are enabling a CO2 reduction going forward, bringing 
more clean energy into the mix, and that those projects are 
being delayed by an outdated process. They are adding costs 
that are borne by electric cooperative consumer members, and we 
think it is time for a change.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate.
    The Chairman. Mr. Veerkamp?
    Mr. Veerkamp. Yes, I would just echo that. And just on the 
basic premise that the consequences of the best intentions of 
the world have to be amended from time to time, and you have to 
see what you have caused, and then be willing to step up and do 
it.
    And I should have answered Ms. Porter's question--it 
depends on how you raise your kid. Integrity, honesty. So, that 
would have been my answer to her question about the kid issue.
    The Chairman. Mr. Beard?
    Mr. Beard. If the process that you are talking about in 
this bill reduces the amount of time that people have to voice 
objections, and puts unnecessary burden on them to do them in a 
very subjective way, if it also impacts them in terms of public 
participation and also legal redress, where it takes from them 
a very basic principle of American life and government and 
American law even, if it puts them in a position where their 
environmental justice and health concerns are not paramount 
because they are already in over-burdened, over-oppressed 
communities, then this is not reform. It is just what I said 
earlier, it is a death knell to those communities. You are 
heaping more suffering on those who are already over-burdened. 
And as such, I would not want to see this bill go forward.
    But if it can be refined to take those into not just 
consideration, but let them be a deciding factor because their 
lives should not have to be sacrificed, whether it is in a mine 
or whether it is in an oil field, or whether it is just 
basically on the street. The pollution and contamination is 
real, and it affects those communities, and they deserve to be 
heard, and they deserve to be considered because their life is 
just as valuable as the lives of any of the others that we are 
mentioning here. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beard.
    Mr. Pugh?
    Mr. Pugh. Thank you very much. I heard a couple of folks 
talk about what their parents taught them and instilled in 
them. My father was very big on community service, and being 
active in his community, and making it a better place to live, 
raise your kids. His motto was always leave things better than 
you found them. And I have tried to do that in every aspect of 
my public life and my career.
    APWA embodies that in everything we do. We try to improve 
the quality of life in our communities, whether it is through 
our transportation, our water, our wastewater, stormwater, our 
emergency management, our fleets, our buildings and grounds, 
parks, everything we do impacts the quality of life of our 
community.
    A lot of our projects are intended to improve the quality 
of life inside our communities. Shortening the time frame on 
NEPA review, consolidating those comments, making sure that we 
know what to expect when we get into the process, that would 
greatly benefit each and every community that we serve.
    And we appreciate the opportunity to make comments on this. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Pugh.
    And, again, thank you all for your valuable testimony. It 
has been informative, and it will help us as we move into a 
markup on this legislation and then, hopefully, consideration 
of the Full House of Representatives.
    The members of this Committee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in 
writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
March 3, 2023. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there are no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 5:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                 National Association of Manufacturers

                                              February 22, 2023    

        Hon. Bruce Westerman          Hon. Raul Grijalva
        Chairman                      Ranking Member
        Committee on Natural 
        Resources                     Committee on Natural Resources
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Sam Graves               Hon. Rick Larsen
        Chairman                      Ranking Member
        Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure            Committee on Transportation and 
                                      Infrastructure
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers   Hon. Frank Pallone
        Chair                         Ranking Member
        Committee on Energy and 
        Commerce                      Committee on Energy and Commerce
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Chairman Graves, Chair McMorris Rodgers, 
Ranking Member Grijalva, Ranking Member Larsen and Ranking Member 
Pallone:

    America's success and leadership depend on a strong, competitive 
manufacturing industry. Some of the biggest obstacles preventing 
manufacturers--and therefore the entire American economy--from reaching 
our full potential are the permitting delays, red tape and complicated 
bureaucracy that have plagued us for decades. Today, though, as we work 
to modernize our infrastructure and shore up our supply chains, the 
need for reform is more urgent than ever. Manufacturers in the United 
States employ 13 million people and add more than $2.8 trillion to the 
U.S. economy, but the industry can do even more if the permitting 
process is run more efficiently. That is why manufacturers are grateful 
that you have prioritized modernizing the broken process to minimize 
delays that stand in the way of manufacturing projects and job-creating 
investments.

    As you proceed with this critical work, we want to help identify 
some of the most pressing areas that need attention.
Energy Infrastructure

    Permitting hurdles are delaying projects across the energy 
landscape, including oil and gas pipelines, electric transmission 
lines, rail facilities for energy transport, coal, nuclear and 
liquefied natural gas exports. Clean and emerging energy technologies 
face similar, steep permitting challenges. For example, the siting of 
and infrastructure for hydrogen power generation and transportation and 
for advanced, small modular and micro-nuclear reactors have progressed 
far too slowly. Manufacturers depend on access to reliable and 
affordable energy to expand, which is why we support reforms that would 
foster transparent, streamlined and timely federal regulatory processes 
for the siting, permitting and licensing of energy delivery 
infrastructure of all types.
Transportation Infrastructure

    Manufacturers also rely on roads, rails, airports and ports for 
everything from employees' access to facilities to getting raw 
materials to shop floors and finished products to customers. Basic 
infrastructure must be developed before ground can ever be broken on a 
major facility. Yet obtaining permit approvals for these projects often 
takes years, especially when reviews are piecemeal and duplicative. We 
appreciate lawmakers' drive to have more products manufactured in 
America, but too many companies are waiting on the sidelines because 
transportation infrastructure construction moves too slowly--or not at 
all.

    Passage of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 
2021 heralded a new era in much-needed improvements to nationwide 
infrastructure systems. These upgrades, updates and new projects 
represent the generational investment needed to keep manufacturers in 
America competitive in a global marketplace. To ensure the broad and 
beneficial impact of these investments--and achieve the congressionally 
intended effects--it is critical to clear permit backlogs and ease 
processing timelines. The NAM was a strong supporter of this historic 
legislation and remains committed to seeing the promise shaped by this 
federal focus through to successful results and economic gains 
nationwide.
Resource Development

    Manufacturers strongly believe that permitting, leasing, 
exploration and development of the nation's resources must be done in 
an environmentally sound and responsible manner. But unnecessarily 
restricting access to America's abundant natural resources hinders our 
ability to strengthen domestic supply chains. It also makes 
manufacturers more reliant on raw material imports. The inconsistent 
administration of critical mineral policies, for example, has limited 
our ability to use a wide range of resources that lie on and beneath 
federal lands--resources that are critical to producing everything from 
cars to medical devices. Streamlining resource permitting and leasing 
policies will help stabilize manufacturing supply chains, control costs 
for consumers, reduce our reliance on foreign countries and create jobs 
in the U.S.
Environmental Standards

    Manufacturers are proud to have helped lead our country to the 
cleanest air in the modern world. It is important to protect these 
achievements by avoiding measures that give a competitive economic 
advantage to countries with less regard for the environment. 
Unfortunately, when federal agencies continually revise standards 
before current standards are met and before states have implemented 
prior mandates, they create unpredictability. That adds to inflationary 
pressures and can lead to the U.S. losing out on new projects and 
facilities to other countries, undermining the very goals of our 
environmental standards.

    Overly burdensome, shifting regulatory policies inherently affect 
permitting, licensing and siting applications because they move the 
goalposts of compliance with federal regulations. If instead we make 
the process more predictable and consolidate the many complex layers of 
review, the U.S. can continue to build on its strong record of 
environmental stewardship by boosting domestic manufacturing, which is 
environmentally cleaner than international competitors.
Congressional Intent

    The success of any legislative permitting reforms depends on proper 
implementation. Ensuring the administration follows congressional 
intent on recent and future statutory streamlining efforts such as One 
Federal Decision is key. Establishing strict permit review timelines 
and eliminating duplicative efforts across various federal agencies 
help in reducing unnecessary delays. Moreover, key permitting 
authorities are rife with ambiguity and inconsistent terminology and 
warrant congressional intervention.

                                  ***

    Permitting affects every aspect of our lives--from our economic 
security to our national security. If we fail to modernize existing 
processes, the U.S. is at risk of falling behind international 
competitors that are taking every possible step to incentivize 
manufacturing development. On the other hand, if we seize this 
opportunity to lead, there is no limit to what manufacturers in the 
United States can accomplish--for the good of our people and for the 
good of the world.

            Sincerely,

                                               Jay Timmons,
                                                  President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. McClintock

Up in smoke: California's greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out 
        by 2020 wildfires,

    Environmental Pollution 310 (2022) 119888, August 5, 2022

    by Michael Jerrett, Amir S. Jina, Miriam E. Marlier

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119888

1. Introduction
    Recent evidence suggests that climate change contributes to 
increased wildfire activity in the western United States (Abatzoglou 
and Williams, 2016). California's summer wildfire burned area increased 
eightfold from 1972 to 2018 (Williams et al., 2019), and statewide 
climate change projections predict an amplification of wildfire risk 
due to higher temperatures and drier conditions (Westerling, 2018). 
Climate change exacerbates fire risks already stoked by increasing 
development near the wildland-urban interface (WUI) that have made 
humans the main ignition source in California (Keeley and Syphard, 
2018), as well as decades of fire suppression and underinvestment in 
preventive measures such as mechanical clearing or prescribed burns 
(Keeley and Syphard, 2021; Kolden, 2019; Radeloff et al., 2018). 
Wildfires, in turn, release GHG emissions that can contribute to 
climate change.
    California experienced its most disastrous wildfire year on record 
in 2020. CalFire, the state agency responsible for leading California's 
wildfire prevention and suppression, reports that 1.7 million hectares 
burned in 2020 (CalFire, 2022). Many of the worst fire years in 
California's history have occurred in the past 20 years, with eighteen 
of the top 20 most destructive fires in terms of loss of life and 
property since 2000 and five in 2020 alone (CalFire, 2021). The 2020 
fires have been followed by another extreme fire season with 1.0 
million hectares burned in 2021.
    In addition to the immediate loss of life and property, hospital 
admissions and premature deaths have likely happened because of the 
smoke exposure (Cascio, 2018; Fann et al., 2018; Reid et al., 2016; 
Wang et al., 2020), which blanketed large parts of the state with tens 
of millions of people with unhealthy air quality that persisted for 
months in some locations. Recent estimates put the economic costs of 
direct health costs at $32 billion for 2018 (Wang et al., 2020). Future 
climate projections suggest that wildfires will become an increasingly 
important source of air pollution in the western U.S. (Ford et al., 
2018; Liu et al., 2016).
    When forests burn and are not balanced by vegetation regrowth, they 
shift from a natural sink to a source of carbon (van der Werf et al., 
2017). This can represent a positive climate feedback loop in which 
increased GHG emissions contribute to climate change and further 
increase wildfire risk. Although wildfires are a natural feature of 
many ecosystems in California, the increase in severe and frequent 
wildfire events has raised the possibility of transformed post-fire 
ecosystems as new plant communities regrow following fire events that 
alter carbon sequestration potential (Bowman et al., 2020). Regrowth 
relies on several factors including species burned, drought, and active 
replanting (Kibler, 2019). Even if long-term regrowth occurs, however, 
the carbon emissions occurring in the next 15-20 years will make it 
difficult to reach emission reduction targets needed to avert the 1.5 
degree C increases in mean global temperature advocated by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 2018). Recent 
studies on the Australian wildfires have suggested that the magnitude 
of the fires in combination with the broadleaf species being burned 
likely places fires somewhere in between carbon neutrality and complete 
emissions (van der Velde et al., 2021).
    In this short communication, we quantify the likely carbon 
emissions that occurred in 2020 from wildfire activity in California. 
We then situate these emissions in the context of other leading GHG 
emissions sectors in California. We conclude with policy 
recommendations for reporting of routine wildfire emissions and for 
increased investment in preventive measures.
1.1. Data and methods
    Given substantial uncertainties among fire emissions inventories 
(Liu et al., 2020), we obtained multiple sources of fire emissions data 
for 2003-2020. First, we accessed satellite-based fire CO2 
emissions from the Global Fire Emissions Database version 4 with small 
fires (GFED4s) (1997-present; considered preliminary since 2017) and 
Global Fire Assimilation System version 1.2 (GFAS) using FIRECAM (Liu 
et al., 2020). These inventories represent ``bottom-up'' and ``top-
down'' approaches to fire emissions estimation, respectively, and have 
shown the best correspondence with aerosol observations in North 
America (Carter et al., 2020). Although GFED and GFAS do not 
distinguish between wildfires and other landscape fires such as 
agricultural or prescribed burns, we expect this contribution to be 
minor in California. We also obtained wildfire-specific emissions 
estimates from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2000-2020), 
which combines individual fire perimeters with a wildland fire 
emissions model (CARB, 2020). The average across inventories is 127 mmt 
CO2e for 2020 (ranging from 101 to 171 mmt CO2e) 
and 18 mmt CO2e for 2003-2019 (ranging from 15 to 22 mmt 
CO2e).
    We next compared wildfire emissions to sectoral GHG emissions for 
2003-2020 to maintain consistency with availability for all three 
wildfire emissions inventories (CARB, 2021). In 2019, the CARB reported 
418 mmt CO2e emissions for all sources with the top 3 being 
transportation (166 mmt CO2e), electrical power generation 
(59 mmt CO2e), and industry (88 mmt CO2e). For 
2020, we assume constant emissions from the year 2019, as this was the 
last year where the CARB estimated sector-specific contributions to 
CO2e, although this may be an underestimate due to potential 
emissions reductions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Liu et al., 2021).
    Finally, to assess the socioeconomics benefits of reducing these 
CO2 emissions, without considering the co-benefits of air 
pollution reductions, we apply the social cost of carbon (SC-
CO2). The SC-CO2 is an estimate of the marginal 
damage caused by the emissions of an extra ton of CO2 today 
in net present value. This value, adopted by the Biden administration 
in February 2021, is $51 per ton with a 3% discount rate in 2020 USD 
(Interagency Working Group, 2016). We also apply a value of the SC-
CO2 where damages are restricted only to the United States. 
While this lower value of $7.1 per ton in 2020 (Governmental 
Accountability Office, 2020) does not capture the global nature of 
emissions, it does allow us to attribute the local component of global 
damages caused by the fires.
2. Results
    We first compared sectoral emissions to wildfire emissions, which 
indicate an approximate release of 127 mmtCO2e in 2020, 
nearly seven times the 2003-2019 mean. From 2003 to 2019, California's 
GHG emissions declined by 65 mmt CO2e   (-13%), largely 
driven by reductions from the electric power generation sector. The 
2020 fire season alone is two times higher than California's total GHG 
emissions reductions and would comprise 49 percent of California's 2030 
total greenhouse emissions target of 260 mmtCO2e (Fig. 1) 
(CARB, 2017).

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsFig. 1. Annual emissions from individual sectors and wildfire 
emissions. CARB, GFAS1.2, and GFED4s wildfire emissions shown as red 
lines (not considering vegetation regrowth). Note: Since data is not 
yet available, 2020 non-fire emissions are assumed to be equal to CARB 
2019 estimates. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this 
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this 
article.)

    Global monetized damages caused only by CO2 from 
California's fire emissions in 2020 is approximately $7.09 billion in 
net present value when applying SC-CO2 from the Biden 
administration with a constant 3% discount rate. This value is reduced 
to approximately $986.9 million in damage for the U.S. when considering 
only domestic damages. If we consider what this implies for California 
only, we calculate the median damages to California as a percent of 
U.S. damages in 2080-2099 implied by Hsiang et al. (2017). This gives 
values of 8.5%, 12.1%, 9.4% for Representative Concentration Pathways 
(RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5 respectively. Scaling the previous U.S.-only 
value to the average of these percentages, this would imply that the 
carbon emissions-only damages for California would be approximately 
$98.7 million in net present value.
3. Conclusions
    In this short communication, we analyzed the likely CO2e 
emissions from wildfires in California during 2020. Averaging three 
fire emissions estimates, we find that approximately 127 mmt 
CO2e were emitted in 2020. We emphasize that our wildfire 
emissions estimates do not consider subsequent vegetation regrowth 
following fires so this is considered an upper bound for net wildfire 
GHG contributions to the atmosphere. This regrowth, however, could take 
decades or longer depending on the type of ecosystem that burned.
    If we compare fire GHG emissions to total GHG emissions of 418 mmt 
CO2e total in 2019, this amounts to a 30% increase in total 
emissions by all sectors. This makes the GHG emissions from wildfires 
the second most important source in the state, after transportation 
(166 mmtCO2e), but above either industry or electrical power 
generation (88 and 59 mmt CO2e, respectively). Viewed from 
the perspective of what this means for wildfire emission reductions 
from all other sectors combined, if we compare to reductions from 2003 
to 2019 from 483 to 418 mmt CO2e, the likely amount of 
increase from the fires is close to double all the emission reductions 
achieved in the state from 2003 to 2019.
    The economic damages are informative for two key reasons. First, 
they represent a currently unquantified aspect of damages due to fires 
that are incurred globally, in the U.S., and in California itself. 
These damages should be counted in addition to fire control costs, 
damages from air pollution, and direct loss of life and property. 
Second, they provide a benchmark against which to compare the costs of 
prevention measures, based purely on climate change mitigation, and not 
including co-benefits of reduced pollution, lower property risk and 
loss, and other damages associated with fire risk. The Federal 
government and California recently signed a memorandum of understanding 
to increase to 1 million acres per year forest treatment to prevent 
wildfires in the State (State of California, 2020); in 2021, California 
invested $1.5 billion in wildfire resilience programs, including 
prescribed burning (California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force, 
2022). If future treatments are moderately effective and reduce 
wildfire risk and subsequent CO2e emissions by 20%, this 
would reduce 20% of the total $7.09 billion in externality costs that 
we have calculated (i.e., $1.42 billion in benefits). Including the 
carbon mitigation benefits further justifies the wildfire prevention 
costs.
    Our analysis suggests several notable bit findings. First, 
wildfires in California have become a major and growing source of GHG 
emissions. Over the long to very long term, regrowth could alleviate 
some of the emissions, but this is unlikely to occur on the time scale 
necessary to meet near and medium-term emission targets needed to avert 
passing the 1.5 degree C threshold. Second, the magnitude of the 
emissions makes wildfires the second most important source of emissions 
in 2020 behind transportation emissions, and one that appears likely to 
grow with future climate change. Average wildfire emissions from the 
past 5 years (46 mmt CO2e from 2016 to 2020) ranks above 
the most recent individual contributions from the Commercial & 
Residential, Agriculture, Recycling & Waste, and High Global Warming 
Potential sectors. The latter includes fluorine-containing gases that 
destroy stratospheric ozone; sources include electricity transmission 
and distribution and semiconductor manufacturing. Third, wildfire 
emissions in 2020 essentially negate 18 years of reductions in GHG 
emissions from other sectors by a factor of two. Fourth, the additional 
global damages due only to the contribution of these emissions to 
climate change can be valued at $7.09 billion.
    The findings imply several research directions and policy actions. 
The externalities caused by fire emissions incurs damages globally and 
in California, and the economic value should be considered alongside 
other direct costs of fires (Feo et al., 2020), including prevention 
and suppression. Wildfire emissions are not routinely reported with 
other key emission sources such as transportation, industry, and power 
generation. While wildfire emissions tend to be more variable than 
other sectors, it is still important to track these emissions to ensure 
near and medium-term emission reduction targets are met. A likely 
consequence is that wildfire emissions have not received nearly the 
same level of societal investment or attention as emissions from other 
sectors. Although wildfires are to some extent natural occurrences, 
human activity contributes to making wildfires ``unnatural disasters'' 
through anthropogenic climate change and development at the WUI in fire 
prone areas. Moreover, forest management policies focused on fire 
suppression rather than on preventive measures such as mechanical 
clearing and prescribed burning activities also likely increases the 
risk of large, destructive wildfires. If fires are no longer in balance 
with ecosystem regrowth, we risk different vegetation communities 
regrowing with less potential for carbon sequestration. A need also 
exists to develop accessible quantitative tools for policymakers and 
the public to understand how wildfire risk can be reduced through 
better management, how much loss of life and property can be avoided, 
and how much it will cost to achieve these goals. This will allow for 
more accurate assessment of investments in improved forest management 
or prevention of development in fire prone areas at the wildland-urban 
interface.
References
    Abatzoglou, J.T., Williams, A.P., 2016. Impact of anthropogenic 
climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. 
Sci. USA 113, 11770-11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113.

    Bowman, D.M.J.S., Kolden, C.A., Abatzoglou, J.T., et al., 2020. 
Vegetation fires in the anthropocene. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1-16. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0085-3.

    CalFire, 2021. Top 20 most destructive California wildfire. 
8.13.21. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/11417/top20_destruction.pdf.

    CalFire, 2022. Stats and events. 6.9.22. https://www.fire.ca.gov/
stats-events/.

    California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2017. California's 2017 
Climate Change Scoping Plan, pp. 1-132.

    California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2020. California Wildfire 
Burn Acreage and Preliminary Emissions Estimates.

    California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2021. California Greenhouse 
Gas Emission Inventory, 2021 Edition. Data available at: https://
ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

    California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force, 2022. 
California's Strategic Plan for Expanding the Use of Beneficial Fire. 
https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/.

    Carter, T.S., Heald, C.L., Jimenez, J.L., et al., 2020. How 
emissions uncertainty influences the distribution and radiative impacts 
of smoke from fires in North America. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 2073-2097. 
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2073-2020.

    Cascio, W.E., 2018. Wildland fire smoke and human health. Sci. 
Total Environ. 624, 586-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2017.12.086.

    Fann, N., Alman, B., Broome, R.A., et al., 2018. The health impacts 
and economic value of wildland fire episodes in the U. S.: 2008-2012. 
Sci. Total Environ. 610-611, 802-809. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2017.08.024.

    Feo, T.J., Evans, S., Mace, A.J., Brady, S.E., Lindsey, B., 2020. 
The Costs of Wildfire in California: an Independent Review of 
Scientific and Technical Information. California Council on Science and 
Technology. California Council on Science and Technology, pp. 1-248.

    Ford, B., Martin, M.V., Zelasky, S.E., et al., 2018. Future fire 
impacts on smoke concentrations, visibility, and health in the 
contiguous United States. GeoHealth 2, 229-247. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018gh000144.

    Government Accountability Office, 2020. Social Cost of Carbon: 
Identifying a Federal Entity to Address the National Academies' 
Recommendations Could Strengthen Regulatory Analysis. https://
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-254.pdf.

    Hsiang, S., Kopp, R., Jina, A., et al., 2017. Estimating economic 
damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356, 1362-
1369.

    Interagency Working Group, 2016. Technical Support Document:-
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostof 
CarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.

    IPCC, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5+C. An IPCC Special Report on the 
impacts of global warming of 1.5+C above pre-industrial levels and 
related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In: The Context of 
Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, 
Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

    Keeley, J.E., Syphard, A.D., 2018. Historical patterns of wildfire 
ignition sources in California ecosystems. Int. J. Wildland Fire 27, 
781. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf18026.

    Keeley, J.E., Syphard, A.D., 2021. Large California wildfires: 2020 
fires in historical context. Fire Ecol 17, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s42408-021-00110-7.

    Kibler, C.L., 2019. Multi-temporal Remote Sensing of Vegetation 
Regrowth after a Large Wildfire. Master of Arts Thesis. Department of 
Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Kolden, C.A., 2019. We're not doing enough prescribed fire in the 
western United States to mitigate wildfire risk. Fire 2, 30. https://
doi.org/10.3390/fire2020030.

    Liu, J.C., Mickley, L.J., Sulprizio, M.P., et al., 2016. 
Particulate air pollution from wildfires in the Western US under 
climate change. Clim. Change 138, 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-016-1762-6.

    Liu, T., Mickley, L.J., Marlier, M.E., et al., 2020. Diagnosing 
spatial biases and uncertainties in global fire emissions inventories: 
Indonesia as regional case study. Remote Sens. Environ. 237, 111557 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111557.

    Liu, J., Lipsitt, J., Jerrett, M., Zhu, Y., 2021. Decreases in 
near-road NO and NO2 concentrations during the COVID-19 pandemic in 
California. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 8, 161-167. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00815.

    Radeloff, V.C., Helmers, D.P., Kramer, H.A., et al., 2018. Rapid 
growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proc. 
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3314-3319. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1718850115.

    Reid, C.E., Brauer, M., Johnston, F.H., et al., 2016. Critical 
review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environ. Health 
Perspect. 124, 1334-1343. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409277.

    State of California, 2020. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest 
Region. Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California's Forest and 
Rangelands, pp. 1-9.

    van der Velde, I.R., van der Werf, G.R., Houweling, S., et al., 
2021. Vast CO2 release from Australian fires in 2019-2020 constrained 
by satellite. Nature 597, 366-369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-
03712-y.

    van der Werf, G.R., Randerson, J.T., Giglio, L., et al., 2017. 
Global fire emissions estimates during 1997-2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 
9, 697-720. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017.

    Wang, D., Guan, D., Zhu, S., et al., 2020. Economic footprint of 
California wildfires in 2018. Nat. Sustain. 1-9 https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-020-00646-7.

    Westerling, A.L., 2018. Wildfire Simulations for California's 
Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Projecting Changes in Extreme 
Wildfire Events with a Warming Climate, California's Fourth Climate 
Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. California's Fourth 
Climate Change Assessment. California Energy Commission.

    Williams, A.P., Abatzoglou, J.T., Gershunov, A., et al., 2019. 
Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in 
California. Earth's Future 7, 892-910. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2019ef001210.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Boebert

Boys mining with their bare hands in the Congo


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Children carrying mineral sacks in a Congo mine

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.010

Bare-footed girls mine in the Congo


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Boy carries materials out of Congo mine


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                                           
Chemical explosion sickens teenage girl in East Palestine, Ohio


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Achemical explosion occurs over East Palestine, Ohio


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


A young girl develops a rash on her hands after the explosion in 
        East Palestine, Ohio

       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        

                                                               

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                            OUTDOOR ALLIANCE

                                                  March 6, 2023    

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

Re: February 28th legislative hearing on H.R. ____, ``Building United 
        States Infrastructure through Limited Delays and Efficient 
        Reviews Act of 2023''

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of 
the Committee:

    On behalf of the human-powered outdoor recreation community, we 
write to express our views on the discussion draft of the Building 
United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays and Efficient 
Reviews Act of 2023 (BUILDER Act), which was considered during February 
28th's full committee legislative hearing. The discussion draft of the 
BUILDER Act proposes a sweeping set of changes to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which include limits on judicial 
review of agency decisions, expedited timelines, and significant limits 
on the types of information that agencies can consider during the NEPA 
process. While our community shares the Committee's interest in making 
NEPA more efficient and responsive to the challenges of our time, we 
find that the BUILDER Act would severely weaken agencies' ability to 
make reasoned, equitable, and science-based decisions through the NEPA 
process, and as a result we strongly oppose the bill.

    Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of ten member-based organizations 
representing the human powered outdoor recreation community. The 
coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American 
Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter 
Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, the 
Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation and 
represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb, 
paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski and snowshoe, and enjoy coastal 
recreation on our nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.

    Our community has extensive experience working in the NEPA process 
in the context of public lands management, from forest planning and BLM 
resource management plan development, to travel management, recreation 
management, and other natural resources decisions. We also at times 
work as proponents of recreation infrastructure projects--like trail 
networks--that require navigating the NEPA process, and we are familiar 
with the frustrations that can accompany NEPA from that perspective. We 
work at all levels of the NEPA process, from participating in 
collaborative groups, to submitting comments and meeting with agency 
decision makers, to participating on rare occasions as NEPA-related 
litigants. These experiences have provided us with an informed 
perspective on NEPA policies and practices.

    Given this experience with the NEPA process, the outdoor recreation 
community is open to considering targeted science-based based reforms 
to NEPA, especially if it is shown that they are necessary to achieve 
recreation access, ecological restoration, and clean energy goals. 
These reforms, however, absolutely cannot come at the expense of 
frontline communities' ability to protect themselves from environmental 
hazards, or at the expense of agencies' ability to consider the best 
available scientific information to achieve the best outcome for a 
project.

    Rather than taking a targeted approach to NEPA reform, the 
discussion draft of the BUILDER Act instead proposes broad changes to 
established policies that have served as critical tools in protecting 
America's environment for more than half a century. Many of these are 
similar or identical to the deeply damaging NEPA regulations adopted by 
the Council on Environmental Quality under the Trump administration in 
2020, which have since been rescinded. The outdoor recreation community 
strongly opposed the 2020 NEPA rules when they were proposed, and 
generated more than 20,000 messages to the administration and lawmakers 
in defense of NEPA and its core values.
    In many cases, the BUILDER Act goes even further than the 2020 
regulations in weakening NEPA's integrity. The discussion draft 
proposes a long list of reforms that are problematic. However, the 
following proposals are particularly concerning for our community:

     Narrowing the application of NEPA--The bill redefines what 
            constitutes a ``major federal action,'' giving agencies 
            discretion to determine whether an action falls under 
            NEPA's scope. The bill also explicitly excludes federal 
            financial assistance, such as federal loans and loan 
            guarantees, from NEPA.

     Limiting the scope of reviews--The bill limits the scope 
            of alternatives that agencies can consider and provides 
            direction that alternatives can be designed to ``meet the 
            goals of the applicant.'' Furthermore, the bill specifies 
            that agencies do not have to undergo new scientific or 
            technical research during the NEPA process.

     Severely limiting judicial review--The bill reduces the 
            statute of limitations from six years to just 120 days 
            following a decision and would also bar legal challenges to 
            categorical exclusions. The bill would also prohibit 
            injunctive relief for projects that are subject to judicial 
            review.

     Prioritizing goals of the project sponsor over the public 
            interest--The bill would allow project sponsors to prepare 
            environmental reviews for their own projects, rather than 
            having agencies complete these reviews themselves. The bill 
            also encourages agencies to prepare alternatives that meet 
            the goals of the applicant.

    Together, these changes, and others proposed in the BUILDER Act, 
would most likely lead to a federal decision-making process that is 
more contentious, less equitable, and less protective of the public's 
interest than the process that currently exists.
    In addition to these substantive concerns with the legislation 
itself, we are also concerned that the BUILDER Act will not address the 
primary challenges that we experience as participants in the NEPA 
process. In our experience, the overwhelming obstacles to efficient 
NEPA implementation come from agency capacity constraints and issues of 
agency culture around NEPA implementation that are most appropriately 
addressed at the agency level and by providing staff and resources to 
management agencies. We were highly encouraged to see both the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act 
include significant funding to support environmental reviews, and we 
are eager to see these funds put into action. We encourage Congress to 
give agencies the opportunity to put these resources to work, and to 
consider where additional assistance, such as improving the federal 
hiring process, may be needed, before considering whether wide-reaching 
policy changes may be appropriate.

                                  ***

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion draft of 
the BUILDER Act. The outdoor recreation community looks forward to 
working with you to support a NEPA process that promotes efficiency, 
government accountability, and public input.

            Best regards,

                                             Louis Geltman,
                                                    Policy Director

                                 [all]