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


                      THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
  EXECUTIVE OVERREACH AND ITS IMPACT ON AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                         Thursday, May 11, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-26
                               __________

       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
                    
52-321 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024           
      

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

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                        PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                      MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
                MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member

Matt Rosendale, MT                   Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA                     Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
                                 ------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, May 11, 2023...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Arizona.................................................     1
    Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Mexico....................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Furchtgott-Roth, Diana, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, 
      and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and 
      Environmental Policy, The Heritage Foundation, Chevy Chase, 
      Maryland...................................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

    Harrell, Jeremy, Chief Strategy Officer, Clearpath, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Pleune, Jamie, Associate Professor (Research), S.J. Quinney 
      College of Law, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah...    24
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    33
    Stein, Kenny, Director of Policy, Institute for Energy 
      Research, Washington, DC...................................    45
        Prepared statement of....................................    47

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Luna

        E-mail and Letter Invite to CEQ Chair Mallory, with 
          Response...............................................    58
                                     


 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S EXECUTIVE OVERREACH
             AND ITS IMPACT ON AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 11, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m. in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Hunt, Luna, 
Westerman; Stansbury, and Lee.
    Also present: Representative Huffman.

    Dr. Gosar. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare a recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    We are now convening the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, and it will come to order.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
Biden administration's executive overreach and its impact on 
American energy independence.
    I ask unanimous consent that all Members testifying today 
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee, giving their 
testimony, and participate in the hearing from the dais.
    I ask that the gentleman, Mr. Huffman, be allowed to sit 
with the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing.
    No objection, so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the 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 Committee Rule 
3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Dr. Gosar. I want to thank everyone for joining us today 
for this critically important hearing, especially the witnesses 
who have taken time out of their day and their jobs just to be 
here.
    Speaking of showing up for your job today, I would like to 
point out that we are missing a government witness today, CEQ 
Chairman Brenda Mallory, who declined to attend today's 
hearing, citing official business travel, appears to be working 
from Hawaii on a taxpayer-funded junket. While I agree that 
soaking up the sun and making grant announcements in Hawaii 
sounds nicer than answering to Congress, sometimes you just 
need to face the music.
    Today, we are here to discuss the themes of the executive 
branch, specifically with the current Administration, and what 
can happen when that branch of government expands its power 
beyond the scope of its original intent.
    America's founders were gravely aware of the dangers of 
concentrated power, and intentionally designed a system of 
separating government powers into the legislative, executive, 
and judicial. In the 20th century, as our nation grew, the 
size, scope, and the intrusion of the government activity 
increased exponentially. Today, the size and the breadth of the 
Federal Government would be unrecognizable to our nation's 
founders. The growth of the executive branch in both size and 
power has far outpaced the growth of other branches, and has 
resulted in more concentrated power and less accountability to 
the public.
    The Biden administration has continued on a relentless 
march towards expansion, particularly by trying to reimagine 
the energy sector as a puppet of environmental activism. 
Instead of attempting to work with Congress and pass 
legislation, President Biden has ruled by fiat, abusing 
executive orders to radically restrict America's energy 
independence. These actions include canceling the construction 
of an energy pipeline and halting leasing on large swaths of 
Federal lands for oil and gas production on his first day in 
office; issuing an executive order that utilized the executive 
branch as forces for social and cultural movements for the 
left, rather than good governance; and issuing executive orders 
that inject principles of environmental justice into nearly all 
Federal actions.
    Time and time again, we have seen President Biden abuse 
executive authority to promote his radical eco-agenda created 
by academics and social activists, regardless of the reality on 
the ground for the American public. The results of President 
Biden's radical eco-agenda have been catastrophic. We have seen 
the highest inflation in 40 years, crushing energy prices for 
American consumers and increased reliance on our foreign 
adversaries, notably China.
    I am certain that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
will extoll the virtues of these executive orders today, in 
particular as it relates to climate change and environmental 
justice. But I ask you: at what cost? The left's race to 
achieve a clean energy standard is simply unsustainable, at 
least on the timeline that the Biden administration has set 
forth. Experts say a quantum leap in science and technology 
would be necessary to replace carbon-based energy sources on 
the timeline proposed by the Biden administration. I again ask 
you: at what cost?
    In the United States, we utilize the best available 
practices, standards, and science in terms of extraction, 
manufacturing, and labor. The same cannot be said for our 
counterparts in China, Russia, Venezuela, and the African 
nations. We have lower greenhouse emissions, stringent labor 
laws, yet continually seek to move the goal posts, which 
results in nothing more than outsourcing our resources needs to 
countries that routinely violate human rights laws. The last 
time I checked, benevolent dictators don't really care about 
permits or anything closely resembling NEPA.
    And what happens at home, the end result of all this 
nonsense? In my district, I can tell you. Some of the most 
vulnerable, those who identify as environmental justice 
communities, are still not being heard by this Administration. 
They are paying more for the few services they do have, and 
losing out on opportunities for new income streams, like fully 
utilizing oil and gas allotments on their homelands.
    Today, we take the first step at exposing the radical 
executive overreach of President Biden as we work to reverse 
course and inject a dose of restraint and reason into America's 
energy policies. And perhaps most important of all, restore the 
balance of powers between the executive and legislative 
branches.
    With that, I turn and recognize Ranking Member Stansbury, 
my neighbor from the Southwest and neighboring New Mexico, for 
any statement she may have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Stansbury. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
    I do want to just take a moment before I make a few 
statements about the content of today's hearing just to note 
that, while we are aware that the Administration is unable to 
join us today, we also want to be clear that the reason why 
they are unable to join us is there was not sufficient notice 
given in order for them to be here. So, we look forward to 
working with the Majority in order to make sure that they can 
attend a future hearing.
    We are going to hear a lot today about domestic energy 
production. We are going to hear a lot today about permitting, 
about climate change, and about environmental justice. Why are 
these topics so important, and why do we continue to have 
hearings about these?
    First and foremost, as we all know, the science is telling 
us and the latest report from the IPCC has indicated that if we 
do not take climate action now, our planet is facing a major 
nexus in terms of potential planetary disaster. And that is why 
we in the Majority, the Democrats during the last Congress, 
passed the most significant infrastructure and climate action 
bills ever in the history of the United States, including the 
Inflation Reduction Act, which is really aimed at reducing 
climate emissions by 40 percent by 2030.
    But let's talk a little bit about domestic energy 
production. It is important to understand that over the last 20 
years, the United States has actually become the second 
largest, not only consumer of energy in the world, but the 
second largest producer of energy in the world. In fact, we 
have the second highest crude oil production in America ever, 
and the highest natural gas production ever. And in my home 
state of New Mexico, in the Permian Basin, we are seeing the 
highest production ever in the history of our state.
    So, the oil and gas industry is not struggling in the 
United States, and certainly that is not what is driving prices 
at the pump, as our colleagues across the aisle would like to 
have us believe. We are, in fact, coming out of a major global 
pandemic in which our communities, like probably everyone who 
is sitting here in this hearing room, spent at least a year, if 
not more, inside our homes. We were not driving, we were not 
consuming petroleum products on the level we had historically. 
And as a result, oil and gas production actually reduced, due 
to the lack of demand. And also, that affected the price of oil 
and gas. We then saw, of course, last year Russia invaded 
Ukraine. That caused another spike in global oil and gas 
prices. And then there was an effort by OPEC+ and Russia to 
restrain oil production globally. All of these global forces 
have affected the global supply and demand of oil and gas, 
which drives the prices at the pump.
    Our President, this Administration, and the Congress that 
is sitting before you have done everything we can within our 
toolbox to try to address these issues so that we can lower 
prices at the pump for Americans. But at the end of the day, 
much of this is outside of the power of the individuals who are 
sitting on this dais or are sitting at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
    I think it is crucial as part of this conversation to 
acknowledge we are going to hear a lot today, probably, about 
permitting and leasing, that because of the limitations on our 
ability to affect global oil and gas prices, the argument that, 
ultimately, at the end of the day, what is constraining prices 
at the pump is leasing on public lands is just factually 
untrue. Really, at the end of the day, what it is about and 
what is driving that argument is the desire by the oil and gas 
industry to make future oil and gas leases in order to keep 
their business plans afloat, especially as there has been 
consolidation in the industry and over-capitalization. It is 
not a permitting problem. It is not a leasing problem. So, it 
is crucial that we stay focused on the facts.
    Now, the reason why the Administration has advanced 
multiple efforts in this Congress, this past Congress under 
Democratic leadership has advanced environmental justice 
initiatives is because our communities for far too long have 
borne the brunt of development of our oil and gas and other 
natural resources without seeing the benefits of those. So, it 
is crucial that we ensure, as we are investing in a more 
sustainable transition, a more climate-just future that our 
communities have the opportunity to get access to those 
resources, that they are able to plan for their own future, and 
to determine what they would like to see as their own economic 
future for their communities.
    I want to thank our witnesses once again for being here. We 
are fortunate to be joined by one of our nation's foremost 
experts on NEPA, which is one of the environmental policy bills 
that we are going to discuss today.
    And I just want to end by saying that we know that we have 
to take climate action now, and it is our job to ensure that we 
create a more sustainable, a more just, and a more equitable 
future for our communities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady from New Mexico. I have 
to correct the lady from New Mexico. We did give 2 weeks' 
notice as required. They just said that she had travel plans. 
So, they are not entitled to their facts; those are the facts. 
She was given ample time.
    I now want to turn to the Full Committee Chair, Mr. 
Westerman, for his opening statement.

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

    Mr. Westerman. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you to 
Subcommittee Chairman Gosar for holding this important hearing 
today, as well as the witnesses and Members for their time and 
for showing up.
    And speaking of showing up, we have a key witness who 
declined to attend today. And again, that is Brenda Mallory, 
the Chair of the Council of Environmental Quality. And this is 
not the first time we have had issues with attendance from CEQ, 
although her office did note she looks forward to showing up 
soon. But I am not holding my breath. Apparently, she is 
tweeting from Hawaii today instead of being here with us. And 
all I can say is we are working closely with the Appropriations 
Committee and looking at their budget every chance we get. I am 
sure Hawaii is fun, but it is not a valid reason to skip coming 
here and taking care of the people's business.
    Decisions made by CEQ have real impacts on American 
families, and it is time to face those facts. As of this 
morning, the average price of gasoline was $3.53 a gallon. That 
is nearly a full dollar higher than when President Trump left 
office. If last summer is any indication, this number will 
skyrocket right as families begin to head out on road trips. 
And speaking of road trips, the price of a new car is a 
whopping $48,000, and even used car prices average around 
$26,500. And I would like to note for the record that the 
average cost of a new vehicle right now is higher than the 
median household income in my hometown of Hot Springs, 
Arkansas.
    So, why is this relevant to our discussion? The Biden 
administration continues repeating the same talking points 
about the need to invest in infrastructure, underserved 
communities, and social and environmental justice. Time and 
again, these lofty words result in more red tape, bigger 
bureaucracies, and higher prices for American families. It is 
all talk with not any action in the right direction.
    Look no further than the dramatic growth of the Council on 
Environmental Quality, commonly known as CEQ, in both size and 
mission creep. From 2019 to 2023, CEQ's baseline budget 
increased by 63 percent, in addition to receiving a massive 
cash infusion from the Inflation Reduction Act to further 
inject radical environmental justice initiatives in the 
government. Those taxpayer dollars still haven't been spent, 
yet President Biden's latest budget request calls for even more 
money to CEQ.
    Despite this Administration's best efforts, we can never 
spend our way out of the problems that America is facing. We 
need proactive, long-term solutions to get our economy back on 
track, to shore up our national security, and hold Federal 
agencies accountable. House Republicans have already advanced 
many of those solutions this Congress, and we remain committed 
to turning over every stone and ensuring taxpayer dollars 
aren't going to waste here in DC.
    CEQ and our current permitting processes, primarily through 
NEPA, blanket the American energy sector in red tape. And I 
said the American energy sector, not just oil and gas, but the 
entire sector. It is keeping shovel-ready projects and good-
paying jobs on the back burner, while bureaucrats twiddle their 
thumbs. Just last week, the editorial board of The New York 
Times, that is New York Times, not Wall Street Journal, 
described the red tape for energy transmission projects as ``a 
jumble of approval processes'' that ``causes environmental 
damage.'' Given the length of time it takes to get new projects 
reviewed and approved to fix the mess, the Times editors called 
for decisive action to reform ``unnecessarily cumbersome 
regulations,'' including NEPA.
    I couldn't agree more. Our own regulations are killing us. 
I have often used the illustration of Aesop's fable of the 
eagle that was flying high overhead, and he was struck by an 
arrow, and as he fluttered to the ground with his lifeblood 
pouring out, he looked back at the arrow and said, ``Alas, I 
have been mortally wounded by an arrow that is feathered with 
my own plume.'' That is what we are doing to ourselves in this 
country. We are killing our country with our own means, and I 
can't figure out for the life of me for what reason, because it 
is not doing anything to help the environment. It is certainly 
not helping the economy. And I don't understand the purpose or 
the reason behind these actions.
    And that is why we passed H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs 
Act, and that is why we have continued advancing solutions to 
get our country back on track. Our businesses, families, our 
communities, and America deserve better, and that is what we 
are going to continue working to make sure that this country 
stays strong, that this country continues to lead the world in 
environmental stewardship, in human rights, and that we can 
lead the world in energy and manufacturing, and be an example 
instead of being a donor to countries like China and to OPEC 
that our current policies are making us dependent on.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chairman for his opening statement, 
and now I am going to introduce our witnesses.
    First, we have Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Did I say that 
right?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. Bingo. Director, Center of Energy, Climate, and 
Environmental Policy, The Heritage Foundation.
    A personal friend of mine, Mr. Jeremy Harrell, Chief 
Strategy Officer from ClearPath.
    Good to see you, Jeremy.
    Ms. Jamie Pleune, Associate Professor, S.J. Quinney College 
of Law, University of Utah.
    Thank you.
    And Mr. Kenny Stein, Director of Policy, Institute for 
Energy Research.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please push the ``on'' button so 
we can hear you.
    We use timing lights. When the light turns green, you have 
5 minutes. When it turns yellow, you have 1 minute. And when it 
turns red, please summarize and try to complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Members' 
questioning.
    I now recognize Ms. Furchtgott-Roth for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 
  ENERGY, CLIMATE, AND THE HERBERT AND JOYCE MORGAN FELLOW IN 
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, CHEVY 
                        CHASE, MARYLAND

    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Thank you very much. Chairman 
Westerman, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and 
members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to be invited to 
testify before you today.
    Creeping executive overreach not envisaged by Congress in 
the original messages or purposes of cabinet agencies is 
driving up the price of energy and energy-related products. 
This is raising automotive and electricity costs for all 
Americans, and poor and middle-class Americans are 
disproportionately paying the price. This is not environmental 
justice or any kind of justice to have to pay higher prices for 
necessities such as electricity, gasoline, and cars. Led by the 
White House, mission creep can be found at many agencies, 
including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    President Biden's higher prices for electricity and 
transportation bring no climate benefits. Even completely 
eliminating all fossil fuels from the United States would 
result in less than \2/10\ of 1 degree Celsius in temperature 
mitigation by the year 2100, according to research using EPA's 
own climate models. So, these higher prices are all for 
nothing.
    EPA's attempt to regulate regional emissions through a 
novel attempt of the Clean Air Act, known as the Clean Power 
Plan, was deemed executive overreach by the Supreme Court in 
West Virginia v. EPA. Creeping executive branch oversight of 
energy started on the first day in office, when President Biden 
revoked the permit for Keystone XL pipeline. In August 2021, 
the President issued an executive order that, by 2030, half of 
new vehicles sold in the United States must be electric, 
including fuel cell electric plug-in hybrids and full battery 
electric.
    Last month, EPA proposed costly regulations on automobile 
emissions that would require new car sales to be 60 percent 
battery powered electric by 2030 and 67 percent by 2023, 
compared to fewer than 6 percent in 2022. This will make cars 
more expensive, less safe, and cost American auto workers jobs. 
United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain came out on April 26 
saying, ``Shame on Congress for doing this, shame on the 
President for doing this,'' because it is costing his workers 
jobs. Stellantis is laying off 3,500 people. They closed a 
plant in Illinois in December.
    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which 
regulates banks, has appointed a Chief Climate Risk Officer to 
assess and monitor climate-driven risks to banks. This is going 
to discourage investment in fossil fuels, and will allow the 
investigations of companies and banks that OCC believes are 
making the wrong investment.
    The Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance on 
January 9, 2023 requiring Federal agencies to use the NEPA 
process to reduce emissions from greenhouse gases. That means 
that projects that result in higher greenhouse gas emissions 
will find it harder to get NEPA approval. The guidance takes 
effect immediately, without even waiting for CEQ to address 
comments from the public and regulated industries. Some 
agencies are including in their compliance with NEPA factors, 
factors that Congress did not originally intend. This is an 
example of harmful arbitrary and capricious policy.
    The Securities and Exchange Commission also wants to stick 
its fingers into energy production. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler 
has proposed rules to require companies to disclose information 
about government and management of climate risks, making it 
more difficult to get approval for fossil fuel investments. 
Meanwhile, China is increasing its construction of coal-fired 
power plants. America has 225 and China has 1,118. China has 
increased carbon emissions by over 5,000 million metric tons 
over the past 16 years; the United States has reduced it by 
about 1,000 million metric tons.
    Americans, particularly the poor and middle class, are 
bearing the costs in higher electricity prices, higher food 
prices, and a forced switch to electric vehicles without 
benefits for the environment. This is not environmental 
justice, social justice, or any kind of justice.
    Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Furchtgott-Roth follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center on 
   Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan 
                                 Fellow
      in Energy and Environmental Policy, The Heritage Foundation
    My name is Diana Furchtgott-Roth. I am the director of the Center 
for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. The 
views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be 
construed as representing any official position of The Heritage 
Foundation.
    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, Members of the 
Subcommittee, I am honored to be invited to testify before you today on 
the subject of, ``The Biden Administration's Executive Overreach and 
Its Effect on American Energy Independence.''
    In addition to my role at The Heritage Foundation, I am also an 
adjunct professor of economics at George Washington University. My 
professional training is in economics. From 2019 to 2021, I was deputy 
assistant secretary for research and technology at the U.S. Department 
of Transportation. Previous positions include acting assistant 
secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury; 
chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor; chief of staff of the 
Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush; and deputy 
executive secretary of the Domestic Policy Council under President 
George H.W. Bush.
    In the last State of the Union, President Biden said, ``The climate 
crisis doesn't care if your state is red or blue. It [the climate 
crisis] is an existential threat.'' \1\ The President has used the so-
called existential climate crisis to expand dramatically the power of 
different executive branch agencies with the object of reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ President Joe Biden, State of the Union Address, February 7, 
2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/
02/07/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-
prepared-for-delivery/ (accessed May 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This creeping overreach, not envisaged by Congress in the original 
missions or purposes of these agencies, has driven up the price of 
energy and energy-related products. A runaway government is trying to 
control our lives for no apparent benefit, but guaranteeing 
impoverishment of opportunity, safety and security. Government is 
sticking its fingers into every aspect of our lives, making it more 
difficult and more expensive to get ahead. By creeping over the limits 
on its power, government is switching off the power for growth.
    Some government agencies noted for mission creep include, but are 
not limited to: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, and the White House itself.
    Overreach is sometimes used when Congress declines to pass a bill 
into law. Rather than accept the status quo, the president takes 
matters into his own hands with rules or guidance from executive branch 
agencies. The result is policies outside of congressional 
authorization. In this case, poorly-considered policies are forcing all 
Americans to pay more for electricity and transportation, for little or 
no benefit--because the new regulations will have a minimal effect on 
global temperatures. These costs are falling disproportionately on poor 
and middle-class Americans, many of whom voted for President Biden, who 
pay a higher share of their income in food and energy costs.

    Sadly, there are many examples of regulatory overreach.

    The Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to regulate regional 
emissions through a novel interpretation of the Clean Air Act, known as 
the Clean Power Plan,\2\ proposed in 2015 under President Barack Obama, 
was deemed executive overreach by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Ruling 6-3 on June 30, 2022, the 
Supreme Court decided that the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to 
move from regulating individual power plants to regulating regional 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 205 (October 23, 2015), pp. 
64661-65120, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-
22842.pdf (accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to set maximum levels of 
new and existing emissions sources, the Clean Power Plan \3\ went 
further. If emissions exceeded the EPA's requirements, a state, or 
group of states, would be required to shut down power plants or to 
install renewable energy sources. The plan was similar to the American 
Clean Energy and Security Act, introduced by Democratic Congressmen 
Henry Waxman and Edward Markey in 2009, and the American Power Act, 
introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman in 2010. Neither 
bill became law, despite sizable Democratic majorities in both 
chambers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 
written by Chief Justice John Roberts, cited the major questions 
doctrine, according to which Congress must ``speak clearly if it wishes 
to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political 
significance.'' \4\ Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts 
stated that ``EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing 
a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague 
language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap 
filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that 
Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself.'' \5\ Justice Neil 
Gorsuch elaborated on the major questions doctrine in a concurring 
opinion, writing, ``The framers believed that the power to make new 
laws regulating private conduct was a grave one that could, if not 
properly checked, pose a serious threat to individual liberty.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 
597 U.S. (2022).
    \5\ Ibid.
    \6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The case has far-reaching implications for other agencies that 
could currently be exceeding their statutory limits. The Securities and 
Exchange Commission, for example, has proposed requirements for 
companies to disclose their exposure to climate risk and to provide 
details about the climate effects of their operations. The Office of 
the Comptroller of the Currency has appointed a chief climate risk 
officer who has decided to do the same.
    Executive overreach could also be occurring in other areas. Courts 
are in the process of examining whether the Department of Education can 
unilaterally cancel or reduce student loans. Meantime, the National 
Labor Relations Board is considering making franchise businesses such 
as McDonald's accountable for the actions of local franchises. Such 
rules could find themselves on the wrong side of the Court's approach, 
which found the EPA's rulemaking to be an example of ``agencies 
asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could 
reasonably be understood to have granted.'' \7\ If the Court had found 
the other way, EPA could have changed the entire vehicle fleet to 
electric vehicles through a change in a regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When federal agencies exceed their authority, opportunities for 
ordinary people are stifled. Severe, government-imposed cuts in carbon 
emissions raise the cost of electricity and American-made goods. Under 
the Clean Power Plan, some states or groups of states would have had to 
meet EPA targets by ensuring plants cut emissions or by financing 
reductions in other ways, such as suppressing consumer demand or 
investing in more costly renewable energy. In any case, carbon 
emissions are declining naturally without the plan. Emissions of 
energy-related carbon dioxide declined by 18 percent from 2007 to 2021, 
according to the Energy Information Administration.\8\ Between 2014, 
when the Clean Power Plan was proposed, and 2021, four years after the 
Trump administration rescinded it, these emissions fell by 9 
percent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, ``U.S. Energy-Related 
Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2021,'' Figure 2, December 14, 2022, https://
www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Creeping executive branch oversight of energy started early in the 
Administration. On his first day in office, President Biden revoked the 
permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought 850,000 
barrels of oil per day from Canada to be refined in U.S. 
refineries.\10\ This reduced energy independence, and higher gasoline 
prices and inflation soon followed. President Biden the following year 
asked Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to produce more oil. In addition to 
eliminating the Keystone XL pipeline, President Biden has reduced oil 
and gas production \11\ by expanding the boundaries of the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante, Bears Ears, Northeast Canyons, and Seamounts 
Marine National Monuments, preventing oil and natural gas production in 
those areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Joseph R. Biden, Jr., ``Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,'' 
Executive Order 13990, January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-
protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-
tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \11\ Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 
7037-7043, http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-
01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-
science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 5, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order \13\ 
setting a goal that by 2030 half of new vehicles sold in the United 
States must be electric, including fuel cell electric, plug-in hybrids, 
and full battery electric. According to President Biden,\14\ the 
Executive Order will ``improve our economy and public health, boost 
energy security, secure consumer savings, advance environmental 
justice, and address the climate crisis.'' On the contrary, the 
Executive Order will raise costs for Americans, and poor and middle-
class people disproportionately would pay the price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Joseph R. Biden, Jr., ``Strengthening American Leadership in 
Clean Cars and Trucks,'' Executive Order 14037, August 5, 2021, https:/
/www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/08/05/
executive-order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-and-
trucks/ (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The president's 2021 announcement coincided with the August 11 
meeting of the California Air Resources Board,\15\ which discussed 
draft regulations to implement Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order 
\16\ that all new vehicles sold in the Golden State be electric by 2035 
and a ban on the sale of diesel trucks by 2036. Through regulations and 
executive orders, President Biden wants to follow the lead \17\ of 
California and other states seeking to reduce emissions--laws that 
Congress would not pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ California Air Resources Board, ``Public Workshop on Advanced 
Clean Cars II,'' https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/events/public-workshop-
advanced-clean-cars-ii-0 (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \16\ Executive Department State of California, ``Executive Order N-
79-20,'' https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-
N-79-20-Climate.pdf (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \17\ Press Release, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces Steps 
to Drive American Leadership Forward on Clean Cars and Trucks,'' The 
White House, August 5, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2021/08/05/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-
steps-to-drive-american-leadership-forward-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/ 
(accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Environmental Protection Agency followed with new proposed 
regulations \18\ on automobile emissions from the Environmental 
Protection Agency would require new car sales to be 60% battery powered 
electric by 2030 and 67% by 2032, compared to fewer than 6% in 2022. 
EPA is also planning new rules for power plants,\19\ driving up the 
costs of the electricity needed to charge these vehicles. These rules 
again would raise driving costs for Americans, and poor and middle-
class Americans disproportionately would pay the price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking: Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 
and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,'' https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2023-04/lmdv-multi-pollutant-emissions-my-2027-
nprm-2023-04.pdf (accessed April 28, 2023).
    \19\ Valerie Volcovici, ``Biden EPA to Issue Power Plant Rules That 
Lean on Carbon Capture,'' Reuters, April 24, 2023, https://
www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/biden-epa-issue-power-
plant-rules-that-lean-carbon_capture-2023-04-23/ (accessed April 28, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New electric vehicles cost more than gasoline-powered vehicles. The 
electric version of the base version of the Ford 150 pickup truck, the 
best-selling vehicle in America, costs an additional $26,000.\20\ 
Tesla's base prices start at about $40,000 for a Model 3 and go up to 
almost $100,000 for a Model X.\21\ These are staggering costs to impose 
on American families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Ford Motor Company, Models & Specs, 2023 F-150 XL, https://
www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/?gnav=vhpnav-specs (accessed April 28, 
2023); and Ford motor Company, Models & Specs, 2023 F-150 Lightning 
PRO, https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/models/
?gnav=vhpnav-specs (accessed April 28, 2023).
    \21\ Tesla, Model 3, Purchase Price, https://www.tesla.com/model3/
design#overview (accessed April 28, 2023); and Tesla, Model X, Purchase 
Price, https://www.tesla.com/modelx/design#overview (accessed April 28, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Charging will also cost more. At the same time as EPA issuing new 
rules for automobile emissions, it is also planning new rules for 
emissions from power plants, The New York Times has reported.\22\ 
According to the reports, EPA will regulate carbon dioxide and other 
so-called greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing natural 
gas and coal-fired power plants, and require carbon capture systems or 
a switch to hydrogen fuels. These systems for capturing carbon are 
costly and will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher 
electricity rates. Drivers will find it more expensive to use 
electricity for all purposes, including charging their electric 
vehicles, harming poor and middle-class drivers the most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Coral Davenport and Lisa Friedman, ``E.P.A. to Propose First 
Controls on Greenhouse Gases from Power Plants,'' New York Times, 
updated April 27, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/climate/epa-
power-plants-pollution.html (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three-quarters of vehicles sold are previously owned cars.\23\ In 
2019, the last year for which complete data on used car sales are 
available, Americans bought 41 million used cars and 13 million new 
cars.\24\ But people do not want to buy used electric vehicles, because 
it is difficult to evaluate how long the battery will last. Replacing 
an EV battery can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000.\25\ The poor 
and the middle class will suffer most from higher prices for used 
vehicles, because they cannot afford the new electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Mathilde Carlier, Statista, New and Used Light Vehicle Sales 
in the United States, 2010 to 2021, https://www.statista.com/
statistics/183713/value-of-us-passenger-cas-sales-and-leases-since-
1990/ (accessed April 28, 2023).
    \24\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics, New and Used Passenger Car and Light Truck Sales and Leases 
Data Set, 1990 to 2021, https://www.bts.gov/content/new-and-used-
passenger-car-sales-and-leases-thousands-vehicles (accessed April 28, 
2023).
    \25\ Recurrent, ``Updated: Electric Car Battery Replacement 
Costs,'' March 26, 2023, https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/costs-
ev-battery-replacement (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mandating electric vehicles would reduce Americans' standard of 
living. Back in the early 1900s, when Henry Ford started producing 
cars, only rich Americans could afford them. Throughout the 20th 
century cars became less expensive, and many households could afford 
not one but two. Cars are already becoming more expensive, and the 
proposed rule accelerates that trend, taking America back a century, 
when new cars were only for the rich.
    Recharging an electric vehicle from empty can take over an hour, 
compared to 5 minutes to fill up with gas.\26\ If there is a line to 
use the charging station the wait can double. Manufacturers suggest not 
allowing EV batteries to go below 20%, and the charging rate goes down 
when it is charged over 80%.\27\ Throughout America the poor rarely 
have access to indoor garages for overnight charging, and in most large 
cities, such as New York City, the middle-class also have no access to 
indoor charging. Using charging stations on the street, if available, 
risks theft of expensive charging cables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Lazar, ``How Long Does It Take to Refuel a Gasoline Car? 
GasAnswer, https://gasanswer.com/how-long-take-refuel-gasoline-car/ 
(accessed April 28, 2023).
    \27\ Sebastian Blanco, ``How to Maximize EV Range,'' J.D. Power, 
July 20, 2022, https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-to-
maximize-ev-range (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Battery-powered vehicles lack sufficient range to satisfy most 
customers. Although 60 to 70 miles of range is enough for most trips, 
people buy cars for all circumstances, including long trips and cold 
weather. Batteries lose up to 40% of their range in cold climates and 
manufacturers suggest using heating systems.\28\ A study by Autocar 
\29\ shows that electric vehicles lose, on average, a third of their 
range in the winter, which reduces the typical 240-mile range to 160 
miles. If a heat pump is added to the car, the loss is less, but still 
the 240-mile range would shrink to 180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Ellen Edmonds, ``Icy Temperatures Cut Electric Vehicle Range 
Nearly in Half,'' AAA News Room, February 7, 2019, https://
newsroom.aaa.com/2019/02/cold-weather-reduces-electric-vehicle-range/ 
(accessed April 28, 2023).
    \29\ Move Electric, ``Electric Vehicle Range Test Reveals Up to 20% 
Drop in Winter,'' Autocar, March 17, 2022, https://www.autocar.co.uk/
car-news/move-electric/electric-vehicle-range-test-reveals-20-drop-
winter (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Car results varied. The Fiat 500 42kWh Icon lost 40% of its range 
in the winter.\30\ The Ford Mustang Mach-E Extended Range RWD lost 35%, 
and the Porsche Taycan 4S Performance Battery Plus, with heat pump, 
lost 22% (the Taycan costs between $83,000 and $166,000).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Ibid.
    \31\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The loss of range in cold weather is one reason why, at the end of 
2021, the latest full year available, North Dakota had 380 electric 
vehicle (EV) registrations, the fewest in the United States, according 
to the Energy Department.\32\ North Dakota will receive $26 million for 
charging stations, according to the Department of Transportation,\33\ 
or $68,000 per registered EV. Wyoming, with $27 million and 510 EVs, 
gets $53,000 per EV.\34\ South Dakota, with $29 million, had 680 
vehicles, and will collect $43,000 per vehicle.\35\ Alaska had 1,290 
registered electric vehicles (EVs). Alaska will get $52 million \36\ of 
the $7.5 billion that the new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
allocates to states for electric charging stations.\37\ That works out 
to more than $40,000 per electric vehicle. These funds could be saved 
or put to better use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Electric Vehicle Registrations by State Data Set, 
updated June 2022, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962 (accessed April 
28, 2023).
    \33\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration, 5-Year National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Funding 
by State Data Set, FY 2022 to FY 2026, updated September 13, 2022, 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/evs_5year_nevi_ 
funding_by_state.cfm (accessed April 28, 2023).
    \34\ Ibid.
    \35\ Ibid.
    \36\ Ibid.
    \37\ News Release, ``President Biden, U.S. Department of 
Transportation Releases Toolkit to Help Rural Communities Build Out 
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure,'' U.S. Department of 
Transportation, February 2, 2022, https://www.transportation.gov/
briefing-room/president-biden-us-department-transportation-releases-
toolkit-help-rural-communities (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Minerals such as lithium and cobalt are essential for batteries. 
Mining for these minerals is energy-intensive, and the Chinese 
Communist Party (CCP) has substantial access to global mineral sources 
for battery production, resulting in a loss of American independence. 
Lithium is mined in western China's Qinghai Province, aided by 
government funding, and China purchases cobalt for electric batteries 
from Kisanfu, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.\38\ Our federal 
government makes opening new mines in the United States virtually 
impossible, even though the jobs generated would help all Americans, 
particularly the poor and the middle class. Thus, the rule will result 
in a massive increase in mining in countries that have no respect for 
the environment or human welfare. The mining of minerals as a result of 
the rule will be bad for the environment and is frequently performed by 
child workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Dionne Searcey, Michael Forsythe, and Eric Lipton, ``A Power 
Struggle Over Cobalt Rattles the Clean Energy Revolution,'' New York 
Times, December 7, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/20/world/
china-congo-cobalt.html (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Council on Environmental Quality, part of the Executive Office 
of the President, issued new guidance \39\ on January 9, 2023, 
requiring federal agencies to use the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process to reduce emissions from greenhouse gases. That means 
that projects that result in higher greenhouse gas emissions will find 
it harder to get NEPA approval. The guidance takes effect immediately, 
without waiting for CEQ to address the comments. Some agencies are 
including in their compliance with NEPA factors that Congress did not 
originally intend. This is an example of a harmful, arbitrary, and 
capricious policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 5 (January 9, 2023), pp. 1196-
1212, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/09/2023-00158/
national-environmental-policy-act-guidance-on-consideration-of-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate (accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Executive Branch agencies are deviating from traditional 
roles of approving investments and instead are slowing production and 
transportation of oil and natural gas. For instance, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission proposed a new policy \40\ on February 17, 2022, 
that would have made it even harder to put new pipelines in place to 
carry oil and gas from the interior of the country to the coasts, where 
it can be exported. FERC was intending to ``consider a proposed 
project's impacts on existing pipelines'' as well as the environmental 
effects of the new pipeline. The February 2022 policy statement was 
pulled back and deemed a ``draft'' in March 2022 due to public 
pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ``Fact Sheet: Updated 
Pipeline Certificate Policy Statement (PL18-1-000),'' updated February 
17, 2022, http://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/fact-sheet-updated-
pipeline-certificate-policy-statement-pl18-1-000 (accessed May 9, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though the policy statements have been downgraded to ``draft'' 
status, they have not been officially withdrawn, and regulatory 
uncertainty at FERC is slowing the development of pipelines. Last week 
FERC Commissioner James Danly said at a hearing before the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, ``The consequences of 
premature retirements and resource scarcity are even more acute when 
you consider the constraints on natural gas supply resulting from the 
underdevelopment of interstate natural gas infrastructure--again, 
driven by the FERC's maladministration of the Natural Gas Act. Although 
I am genuinely delighted that the Commission has recently increased the 
pace of natural gas pipeline reviews, the policies FERC recently sought 
to promulgate have had the very effects I predicted at last year's 
hearing: according to the Energy Information Administration, 2022 saw 
the lowest quantity of additional capacity added to the natural gas 
pipeline system since 1995, the obvious result of the FERC's slow 
walking natural gas pipeline applications over the last two years and 
the chilling effect of the regulatory uncertainty created by the 
Commission's issuances. Interstate natural gas infrastructure is 
absolutely critical: as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric generators 
retire due to subsidies and public policy choices, the need for natural 
gas to ensure system reliability continues to grow.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ James P. Danly, testimony before Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, May 4, 2023, https://
www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/0A896B12-2895-4F68-A367-
74009F2975C4 (accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Interior Department has issued a Report on the Federal Oil and 
Gas Leasing Program,\42\ calling for fewer leases, higher royalties 
from oil and gas leases, and a more thorough bidding process to screen 
buyers. It proposed that oil and gas drilling not be a priority, and 
its recommendations would make it more difficult to drill. This 
interference with America's energy production makes it more difficult 
for companies to flourish and consumers to get affordable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the finance area, outside of its statutory authority, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission wants to stick its fingers into 
energy production. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has proposed rules \43\ to 
require companies to disclose information about the following: 
governance and management of climate-related risks; how climate related 
risks will affect companies' strategy and outlook; and the effects of 
climate events such as hurricanes and wildfires on financial 
statements. This rule would reduce America's energy independence and 
make it more difficult to get capital for fossil fuel investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Press Release, ``SEC Proposes Rules to Enhance and Standardize 
Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,'' U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, March 21, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-
release/2022-46 (accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates 
banks, has appointed a Chief Climate Risk Officer to assess and to 
monitor climate-driven risks to banks. Dr. Yue Chen does not have a 
background in risk assessment. She is an engineer, with a bachelor's 
degree in chemical engineering from Tsinghua University in China and a 
Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology.\44\ Monitoring climate risks to bank lending and assets 
will have the effect of discouraging investments in fossil fuels and 
will allow the investigation of companies and banks that it believes 
are making the wrong investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ News Release, ``OCC Announces Chief Climate Risk Officer,'' 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, September 12, 2022, https://
www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2022/nr-occ-2022-110.html 
(accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Defense Department, whose mission is to defend the United 
States, wants to use biofuels to make its military vehicles and jets 
more climate friendly. Such vehicles are less resilient and more 
costly, so the Pentagon would be able to afford fewer of them, with 
major effects on national security.
    The Federal Trade Commission is considering investigating oil and 
gas companies for price gouging--even though people know that lower 
supply always leads to higher prices.
    With prices of new and used cars higher, the biggest loser from 
runaway government is the American consumer, who will purchase fewer 
new cars, which have additional safety features and better fuel 
economy. More people will be injured or killed in car crashes. 
Mandating electrics won't solve problems of environmental justice. 
Requiring sales of electric vehicles discriminates against low-income 
Americans who cannot as easily afford expensive electric cars. Upper-
income urban Americans buy Teslas; lower-income rural Americans buy 
pickup trucks and large vehicles. Mandating sales of electrics helps 
the rich and hurts the poor.
    In April Stellantis announced that it would be offering buyouts to 
33,500 hourly and white-collar workers in an attempt to cut 3,500 jobs 
due to its planned transition to electric vehicles.\45\ It closed a 
plant in Illinois in December. General Motors and Ford are also laying 
off workers as part of their move to make more battery-powered 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Ryan Felton and Nora Eckert, ``Jeep Maker Stellantis to Offer 
Buyouts to Hourly, Salaried Workers,'' The Wall Street Journal, April 
26, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeep-maker-stellantis-to-offer-
buyouts-to-hourly-salaried-workers-d3c71fdc (accessed May 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain said in a statement on 
April 26, ``Stellantis' push to cut thousands of jobs while raking in 
billions in profits is disgusting. This is a slap in the face to our 
members, their families, their communities, and the American people who 
saved this company 15 years ago. Even now, politicians and taxpayers 
are bankrolling the electric vehicle transition, and this is the thanks 
the working class gets. Shame on Stellantis.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ United Auto Workers, UAW Statement on Job Cuts at Stellantis, 
https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-job-cuts-stellantis/
#:?:text=%E2%80%9CStellantis'%20push%20to%20cut%20thousands,this 
%20company%2015%20years%20ago (accessed May 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Americans' jobs in the oil and gas fields are being sacrificed to 
Chinese nationals (sometimes with forced labor) making wind turbines 
and solar panels. Americans' jobs in auto plants are being sacrificed 
to Chinese nationals (sometimes with forced labor) making batteries and 
electric vehicle components.
    As well as taking away Americans' choice of cars, the Department of 
Energy wants to regulate a variety of other appliances, depriving 
Americans of the ability to have a gas stove.\47\ Poor and middle-class 
people will be disproportionately paying the price for these rules, 
both proposed and enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 21 (February 1, 2023) pp. 6818-
6904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Renewables raise the costs of electricity, which disproportionately 
affects the poor and middle class. President Biden's plan to transition 
away from fossil fuels is making the United States weaker and China 
stronger. This will have no noticeable effects on global temperatures, 
using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate 
Change developed by researchers at the EPA, which is used for such 
calculations at the Heritage Foundation.
    Government overreach is reducing America's energy independence and 
strengthening China, which makes nearly 80% of the world's electric 
batteries,\48\ over 80% of global solar panels,\49\ and almost 60% of 
wind turbines.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ International Energy Agency, Global Supply Chains of EV 
Batteries, July 2022, p. 2, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/
4eb8c252-76b1-4710-8f5e-867e751c8dda/GlobalSupplyChainsof 
EVBatteries.pdf (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \49\ International Energy Agency, Special Report on Solar PV Global 
Supply Chains, updated August 2022, p. 7, https://
iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d2ee601d-6b1a-4cd2-a0e8-db02dc643 32c/
SpecialReportonSolarPVGlobalSupplyChains.pdf (accessed May 9, 2023).
    \50\ International Energy Agency, ``Geographic Concentration by 
Supply Chain Segment, 2021,'' updated January 25, 2023, https://
www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/geographic-concentration-by-
supply-chain-segment-2021 (accessed May 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is especially troubling because the Chinese Communist Party 
(CCP) is a totalitarian regime which has a poor record both on the 
environment and on human rights. Beijing is engaged in genocide against 
the minority Uyghur people of Xinjiang and has imposed draconian 
restrictions on political freedoms in Hong Kong.\51\ The CCP has 
reduced or eliminated religious liberties for Christians and Buddhist 
worshippers of the Dalai Lama throughout Tibet.\52\ Empowering the 
Chinese government is fundamentally at odds with ``good corporate 
governance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ James J. Carafano et al., ``Winning the New Cold War,'' p. 24.
    \52\ Ibid., p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to hypocritical, bureaucratic, executive branch mission creep, 
rather than using its own oil and natural gas resources, America will 
depend on energy from China. In order to produce supplies of 
renewables, China is increasing its construction of coal-fired power 
plants. America has 225 coal-fired power plants, and China has 1,118 
(half of all the coal-fired plants in the world).\53\ That is one 
reason why China has increased carbon emissions by over 5,000 million 
metric tons over the past 16 years.\54\ In contrast, America's carbon 
emissions have declined by over 1,000 million metric tons over the same 
period due to the use of clean natural gas.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Jessica Aizarani, Statista, ``Global operational coal-fired 
power stations by country 2022,'' January 30, 2023, https://
www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-
country/ (accessed April 28, 2023).
    \54\ The Heritage Foundation, CO2 Emissions Trends in 
Key Countries Data Set, 2005-2021.
    \55\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A new report by the Heritage Foundation, Winning the Cold War: A 
Plan for Countering China,\56\ shows how America's environmental 
policies benefit China and harm America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ James J. Carafano et al., ``Winning the New Cold War: A Plan 
for Countering China,'' Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 270, 
March 28, 2023, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/
SR270_0.pdf (accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heritage issued the report on the same day that the House of 
Representatives introduced H.R. 1, The Lower Energy Costs Act,\57\ 
sponsored by Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Energy and Commerce 
Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Natural Resources 
Committee Chair Bruce Westerman (R-AR), and Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves (R-MO). The bill emphasizes 
domestic energy production, lower energy costs, and reduction in 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Lower Energy Costs Act, H.R. 1, 118th Congress, Session 1, 
(2023) https://www.congress. gov/118/bills/hr1/BILLS-118hr1ih.pdf 
(accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather than kowtowing to China, companies should reject 
environmental policies that raise the costs of doing business and favor 
the CCP. The rush to a green energy future, driven more by politics and 
virtue-signaling than economics and emissions reductions, will only 
enrich China at America's expense and place vital energy supply chains 
at mercy of Beijing.
    China has not committed to reducing emissions until 2027. Research 
by Dr. Kevin Dayaratna, chief statistician and senior research fellow 
at The Heritage Foundation, has shown that even completely eliminating 
all fossil fuels from the United States would result in less than 0.2 
degrees Celsius in temperature mitigation by 2100.\58\ Americans, 
particularly poor and middle class, would be bearing major costs in 
higher electricity prices, higher food prices, and a forced switch to 
costly electric vehicles without benefits for the environment. They 
would pay the price for President Biden's energy agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, Katie Tubb, and David Kreutzer, ``The 
Unsustainable Costs of President Biden's Climate Agenda,'' Heritage 
Foundation Backgrounder No. 3713, June 16, 2022, https://
www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/BG3713_0.pdf, (accessed 
May 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cleaner air and efficient power generation are worthwhile goals. 
But so is the security that comes from the rule of law. The Supreme 
Court weighed in on that balance in 2022 and could weigh in further in 
the years ahead.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady.
    The gentleman, Mr. Harrell, is recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JEREMY HARRELL, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, CLEARPATH, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great to see you, and 
great to see many other familiar faces on both sides of the 
dais. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Strategy 
Officer of ClearPath, and thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    America's energy demands are rapidly increasing. By some 
estimates, the United States will need to double the capacity 
of the grid by 2050 to meet expected energy demand. 
Unfortunately, building energy infrastructure at that pace is 
procedurally impossible in today's regulatory environment. 
Never has the phrase ``time is money'' been more appropriate. 
The combination of permitting delays and ping-pong decisions 
from administrations past and present make projects exceedingly 
expensive.
    Fortunately, fixing this outdated system is at the top of 
the congressional agenda. This Committee has rightly put 
permitting reform front and center, passing with bipartisan 
support the Lower Energy Costs Act as H.R. 1. The bill 
addresses many bottlenecks that make the current system a 
quagmire: unnecessary duplication, a morass of reviews across 
multiple agencies, and superfluous legal action. Solving these 
challenges will create jobs, boost energy security, and reduce 
global emissions, all while providing safety and environmental 
protection for all our communities.
    Project developers are ready to build today. The important 
thing is for policymakers to keep an eye on the prize. The next 
step in the process cannot be to water down H.R. 1 into 
something milquetoast that fails to change our broken system. 
As bipartisan efforts continue in both the House and Senate, I 
would like to highlight three pillars of reform that must be 
expanded upon to unlock our energy future: (1) restore 
predictability to the system; (2) provide more streamlined 
litigation; and (3) improve coordination between Federal, 
state, and local governments.
    To restore predictability, we must flip the permitting 
paradigm from a system that favors stopping a project to one 
that expedites the approval of projects that bring net 
benefits. The status quo is overwhelmingly tilted toward those 
who seek to delay or block projects. That may have made sense 
four decades ago, but today it is actually resulting in 
increased emissions and environmental degradation. We need a 
system that promotes good outcomes, both economic and 
environmental. That means projects that do not have an 
environmental impact should be granted immediate approval. This 
approach, similar to permit-by-rule concepts some states have 
implemented, allow pre-qualified technologies proven to have 
minimal environmental impacts and immense positive outcomes to 
move forward without delay.
    Additionally, designating a list of pre-qualified 
geographic areas such as brownfields is also reasonable. The 
environmental impacts of new development in these locations is 
minimal and, in many cases, they are near the communities that 
need the redevelopment the most. That would be a win-win for 
the environment and the economy. And if you take those no-
brainer projects out of the way, you have more time and 
resources to focus on more complicated projects.
    Critically, Federal action can no longer vacillate 
according to political whims, particularly when the Congress 
has acted. Developers must be able to rely on decisions from 
one administration to the next. We have seen this pointedly, 
particularly in mining, like the Resolution Copper mine in 
Arizona or the Twin Metals Project in Minnesota. This 
Administration's tortured approach increases U.S. reliance on 
minerals sourced from overseas, including from countries that 
lack basic environmental and human rights protections. Our 
system should create jobs here, promote American innovation, 
and foster better global environmental outcomes.
    Second, once a project is approved, any further 
adjudication should move quickly. Litigation under NEPA has 
become the favored tools of those who seek to indefinitely 
delay projects. Such prominent examples include the Cape Wind 
Project off the coast of Massachusetts and the Atlantic Coast 
pipeline connecting the Utica and Marcellus gas fields to 
Appalachia, where excessive legal challenges to Federal and 
State permits forced developers to cut their losses.
    Recent history has shown clean energy projects are not 
immune to these delay tactics. Any changes to judicial review 
must balance a plaintiff's right to be heard with the goal of 
reaching finality on a more predictable timeline. This could be 
accomplished by immediately elevating any legal challenge under 
NEPA to Federal appellate courts. Ultimately, legal disputes 
must be resolved in less than a year.
    And finally, it is important to embrace federalism where 
appropriate, and return more permitting authority to the people 
who know the communities the best. One recent example is Class 
VI wells for carbon capture projects. While many states have 
long held enforcement authority for other well classes, only 
North Dakota and Wyoming have been granted primacy by the EPA 
for permanent CO2 storage. To gain primacy, a state 
must prove their standards are as rigorous as the Federal 
standards. Whereas the EPA has taken 6 years to permit a Class 
VI well, it took North Dakota only 5 months to do so after 
receiving primacy.
    These Federal delays are particularly egregious, given that 
the Department of Energy is investing billions of dollars to 
deploy new carbon capture technologies that we need. These 
types of measures would improve efficiency with no different 
environmental outcome. So, why wouldn't we shift the authority 
to the people closest to the geology?
    In conclusion, the challenges are numerous, but Republican 
and Democratic policy-makers have never been more closely 
aligned on the need for permitting reform. Whether the 
motivation is climate, economic growth, or energy security, it 
is well past time to fix what is broken. ClearPath looks 
forward to working with this Committee to push reform across 
the finish line. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jeremy Harrell, ClearPath, Inc., Chief Strategy 
                                Officer
    Good afternoon Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury and members 
of the Committee. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief 
Strategy Officer of ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that develops 
and advances policies that accelerate innovations to reduce and remove 
global energy emissions.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this 
important hearing. America's energy demands are rapidly increasing. 
Some estimates say the U.S. will need to double the capacity of the 
grid by 2050 to meet expected clean energy demand. To support that grid 
modernization and U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, America will 
simultaneously need to construct tens of thousands of miles of new 
pipelines carrying natural gas, hydrogen, and captured carbon dioxide 
from power plants and industrial facilities.
    Financing and building enough energy infrastructure projects to 
meet our nation's need for reliable, affordable cleaner energy is an 
immense challenge. Recent projections show that 1,300 gigawatts of new 
clean energy would need to be added by 2035. This would more than 
double the grid's current capacity within the next 12 years. But under 
the current regulatory environment, this pace of deployment is 
procedurally impossible.
    Never has the phrase ``time is money'' been more appropriate. 
Regulatory delays that can last nearly a decade are making projects 
more expensive, and impeding the U.S.' ability to deploy billions of 
dollars of capital that would create American jobs, enhance U.S. energy 
security, keep consumer costs affordable, and reduce emissions.
    The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) own data shows that on 
average it takes agencies 4.5 years to issue a Record of Decision for 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).\1\ But the average belies the 
real challenge. In reality, 10 percent of projects took 10 years or 
more to reach a Record of Decision. The projects most likely to be held 
up in permitting purgatory are those that have the potential to offer 
the greatest benefits to the United States, including reduced energy 
costs, enhanced energy independence, increased economic opportunity, 
and lower global emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/
01/20200612CEQ_EIS_Length _Report_Update.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The current system is broken. The structures in place are 
overwhelmingly titled toward those who seek to delay or block projects 
as opposed to those who seek to build. While that dynamic may have made 
sense four decades ago when policymakers enacted these laws as a 
response to environmental disasters, today, those laws are being used 
to block projects that will reduce emissions and improve environmental 
quality. We need a system that promotes good outcomes--both economic 
and environmental. The pace and scale necessary to build clean energy 
infrastructure projects to reliably meet America's energy demand and 
reduce emissions is not something the authors of the 1970s 
environmental laws could have imagined.
    The energy infrastructure we need today is simply not getting built 
fast enough, and throwing federal money at the projects or the agencies 
reviewing them is not going to substantially change that problem. The 
combination of permitting delays and ``ping-ponged'' decisions from 
Administrations past and present have disrupted the U.S. ability to 
build to fulfill needs. As a result, it can now take six years to 
permit carbon dioxide storage locations needed to store billions of 
tons captured from industrial sites, 16 years to permit an offshore 
wind farm in Massachusetts, and up to 15 years for a new transmission 
line from Wyoming to Utah.2,3,4 Another important example is 
the need for timely approval of a new LNG terminal as well as any 
necessary interstate natural gas pipelines to supply these new 
terminals. These are just a few of the hundreds of projects held up by 
the status quo of the current system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/top-us-oil-states-vie-
carbon-capture-oversight-speed-up-permits-2022-01-26/
    \3\ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/us/offshore-cape-wind-
farm.html
    \4\ https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/04/20/after-15-years-of-
permitting-transwest-wind-transmission-project-is-still-5-years-from-
going-live/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fortunately, fixing this outdated, broken system is at the top of 
the agenda this Congress. This Committee has rightly put permitting 
reform front and center this year, passing with bipartisan support its 
signature energy package, the Lower Energy Costs Act, as H.R. 1.
    This bill addresses bottlenecks that make the current system a 
quagmire: unnecessary duplication, a morass of reviews across multiple 
agencies, and superfluous legal action. Solving these challenges will 
reduce emissions, increase production and boost U.S. energy security, 
all while providing safety and environmental protection for local 
communities.
    Project developers are ready to build today. There is real 
opportunity for this Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to 
modernize the permitting process. The important thing is policymakers 
keep an eye on the prize. Senate action cannot simply water down H.R. 1 
into something milquetoast that fails to fundamentally change the 
current regulatory regime.
    This is underscored by recent proposals released this month, as 
leaders in the key Senate committees on both sides of the aisle have 
put forward their own proposals, including many concepts that match 
themes included in H.R. 1.

    As the permitting reform effort continues in both the U.S. House 
and Senate, I will highlight three key solutions that have been 
identified by project developers, former federal officials, academics 
and environmental non-governmental organizations.

  1. Restore predictability to the system;

  2. Provide more streamlined litigation; and

  3. Improve coordination between and among federal, state and local 
            governments.

    American entrepreneurs have the wind at their backs to deploy more 
energy projects now. Congress has come together in a bipartisan manner, 
with bills like the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), to bring new technologies to the market 
and invest in American supply chains. 2022 saw record industry 
investment in energy, with the largest boost in recent years coming 
from the power sector.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022/
overview-and-key-findings
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But again, simply spending more money on new projects will not 
necessarily make them a reality. Without meaningful permitting reform, 
there is a real risk that these major investments in technologies that 
the globe needs, such as carbon capture, advanced nuclear, and 
geothermal will go unrealized. And the U.S. will miss out on an 
opportunity to lead a global energy transformation.
    While these challenges are numerous, Republican and Democratic 
policymakers have never been more closely aligned on the need for 
significant permitting reform. Whether the motivation is climate, 
economic growth, more energy production, or energy supply chain 
security, it is well-past time to fix what is broken, as America's 
energy, environmental, and economic future depends on sweeping reform.
Restore Predictability to the System

    Reform must flip the permitting paradigm from one that favors 
stopping a project to one that expedites the approval process for 
projects that bring net benefits and comply with the legal requirements 
meant to ensure clean water and clean air. This approach would rely on 
a three-pronged approach that automatically advances projects with 
significant net benefits, focuses environmental and permit review on 
uniquely local conditions of a project on an accelerated timeline 
review, and keeps the relevant agencies within the boundaries of the 
laws Congress has enacted. Many of these concepts were included in H.R. 
1, and it is important a final bill doubles down on the concept and 
maximizes their impact.

    First, projects that do not have an environmental impact should be 
granted immediate approval. For example, replacing a retiring power 
plant with a zero-emissions advanced nuclear generator at an existing 
site or building a solar project on a brownfield site should not 
require a yearslong permitting process. Advancing these types of 
projects without delay is a win-win. The economic and environmental 
benefits of these projects should not be delayed by unnecessary 
bureaucracy.
    There should be criteria to prequalify technologies that are proven 
to have minimal environmental impacts and immense positive outcomes--
similar to ``permit-by-rule'' concepts some states have implemented. In 
other words, there should be a presumption of project approval so long 
as the specifics of a project satisfy certain predefined criteria. In 
many cases, this would alleviate the requirement to do unnecessary 
boilerplate re-analysis.
    One starting point could be to automatically advance projects that 
have nationally significant outcomes, like enhancing resilience of the 
grid or a significant reduction of global emissions, where the 
environmental impacts of development are well known. For example, a 
carbon capture retrofit of an existing facility, the modernization of a 
grid substation, or powering of a non-powered dam. H.R. 1 took a 
similar tack for energy storage projects at existing facilities and 
maintenance or upgrades to existing transmission and distribution 
infrastructure.
    Similarly, designating a list of prequalified geographic areas to 
encourage project sponsors to seek out specific locations, would go a 
long way toward accelerating projects with the lowest impact. Such 
areas could include previously disturbed locations or well categorized 
sites, such as brownfield sites that present opportunities to use 
existing electrical or mechanical infrastructure or former military 
bases. The environmental impacts to these locations related to energy 
deployment are minimal, and in many cases these locations are in or 
near communities that need the redevelopment most urgently. Congress 
could also consider regulatory incentives to direct investment toward 
areas where impacts are already well understood.
    Another opportunity could be to pair existing financial incentives, 
such as the ``Opportunity Zones'' or ``Energy Communities'' 
classifications established by Congress, with a streamlined permitting 
process to further boost investment. Both Opportunity Zones and Energy 
Communities were established by Congress to drive investment in 
distressed areas and communities that would benefit the most from new 
energy investments. Matching financial incentives with regulatory 
certainty will create a clear signal to project developers during the 
site selection process. Coordinated incentives like these can help 
drive investment to previously underserved areas and ensure the 
benefits of clean energy reach these communities without unnecessary 
delays.
    Some of the most egregious problems of our broken system would be 
solved by this type of reform. For example, nonsensical approaches to 
geothermal exploration inhibit our ability of scaling baseload clean 
energy at scale. The Department of Energy estimates that geothermal 
generation could double by 2035 if our immense potential was unleashed. 
But concurrently, the Department found that ``because additional steps 
and NEPA analyses are required, confirming the resource is more costly 
and risky,'' translating to permitting timelines of 5-7 years, rather 
than a 1-3 year period that would otherwise be available with a 
categorical exclusion.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/f63/
GeoVision-full-report-opt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Geothermal energy uses similar technology as oil and gas 
exploration and drilling activities. When oil and gas uses this 
technology, these resource confirmation (e.g. exploration) activities 
benefit from statutory authority enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 that expedites five types of development activities. However, when 
the same mechanisms are used to confirm a geothermal energy resource, 
the expedited pathway does not apply. As a result, two very similar 
methods to test for resource feasibility must undergo substantially 
different permitting reviews despite both having negligible 
environmental impact. The Bureau of Land Management has the authority 
to administratively grant this same expedited pathway for geothermal 
energy resources, yet has wrung its hands for years rather than simply 
updating its regulatory guidance. This system is clearly broken.
    Further, departments should proactively consult with other agencies 
to identify existing NEPA categorical exclusions available to 
accelerate development of energy infrastructure projects. DOE's recent 
Request for Information (RFI) to adopt new Categorical Exclusions is a 
model that should be replicated across other federal agencies.

    Second, reform must streamline the approval process for projects 
where there are unique environmental impacts. In these cases, the 
review process could focus specifically on issues of the highest 
impact, resulting in more efficient timelines that still ensure 
compliance with existing environmental laws.
    There are several provisions that have earned broad bipartisan 
support, including applying the ``One Federal Decision'' framework to 
energy projects. Similar support exists to reuse existing environmental 
review documents when a project will have substantially similar impacts 
as one previously studied. These provisions are both included in H.R. 1 
and other proposals that have been recently made public. Those 
principles should be expanded upon.
    One immense opportunity that could be fostered by reforms like this 
is in new nuclear technologies. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) has publicly stated it anticipates at least 13 applications for 
advanced reactors by 2027, technologies that could bring safe, 
flexible, and reliable clean energy to our energy system.\7\ Decades of 
operation have shown that nuclear energy has a minimal environmental 
impact. Future designs hold the same promise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/
main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML22038A001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the dawn of the nuclear age in the 1950s, nuclear reactors 
have been supplying Americans with clean, reliable, and affordable 
energy. On a bipartisan basis in the 115th, 116th, and 117th 
Congresses, legislation has been passed that strengthens the U.S. 
nuclear industry. However, except for the Vogtle Unit 3 reactor that 
recently came online in Georgia, the vast majority of nuclear plants in 
the United States were constructed over 40 years ago.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That is changing today. The advanced reactor market is at an 
inflection point. Investors and potential end-users are closely 
watching first-of-a-kind utility-scale projects eyeing the late 2020s 
and early 2030s for commercial operation. American electric utilities 
are projecting a need for 90 GW of new nuclear power by 2050, nearly 
doubling our nuclear energy capacity in the next 30 years.\9\ 
Simplifying the permitting for projects like TerraPower's flagship 
project in Kemmerer, Wyoming, which is leveraging the infrastructure at 
a retiring coal plant, is a no brainer. A nuclear facility is different 
from a coal-fired power plant, but many of the environmental factors 
that must be considered are similar. Additionally, many advanced 
reactors are looking to develop alongside industrial facilities or 
existing nuclear sites, where previous environmental analysis and 
community engagement has been extensive. A rational permitting system 
would leverage that work to accelerate exciting projects, not force 
needless duplication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.powermag.com/u-s-utility-survey-suggests-industry-
mulling-additions-of-90-gw-of-new-nuclear/

    Third, federal action can no longer vacillate according to 
political whims, particularly when the Congress has acted. Given long 
development timelines needed to bring a project from financing to 
construction, project developers need to be able to rely on regulatory 
certainty from one Administration to the next. This need is perhaps 
most acute for projects that seek to unlock critical minerals.
    While the Administration has announced award selections worth a 
combined total of nearly $5 billion for critical minerals demonstration 
projects funded by the bipartisan infrastructure bill and other new 
programs, there remains one glaring omission in the critical minerals 
supply chain: none of these selected projects addresses our inability 
to extract new materials domestically.\10\ The International Energy 
Agency (IEA) predicts that demand for energy-related minerals like 
lithium, cobalt, graphite, and nickel could grow by 20-40 times by 
2040.\11\ The U.S. will not be able to recycle its way out of this 
demand for critical minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.clearpath.org/clearpath-infrastructure-tracker/
    \11\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-
clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is difficult to overstate the U.S. dependence on foreign supply 
chains, including reliance on China. According to the 2023 U.S. 
Geological Survey's Mineral Commodities Summary, the U.S. was 100 
percent net import reliant for 12 of the 50 individually listed 
critical minerals and was more than 50 percent net import reliant for 
an additional 31 critical mineral commodities.\12\ Meanwhile, China was 
the leading producing nation for 30 of the 50 critical minerals.\13\ 
Regardless of where the minerals are mined, China exerts dominant 
control over the refining process for many of these critical minerals. 
Rising demand for minerals will place major stress on global supply 
chains and undermine the ability of the U.S. to deploy more clean 
energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023
    \13\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the most prominent examples of America's inability to permit 
mines is Resolution Copper, which Congress explicitly authorized when 
the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act was enacted 
into law with the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291). Once 
approved, the proposed mine is expected to become the largest copper 
mine in North America, capable of producing up to 25 percent of U.S. 
copper demand each year.\14\ The proposal received a final EIS in 
January 2021, only to have it unpublished by the Biden administration 
two months later.\15\ The Administration is explicitly subverting 
Congressional intent with this project. These unnecessary delays 
precede a decade of construction before operations can begin, bringing 
the project timeline to at least two full decades from its inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://resolutioncopper.com/project-overview/
    \15\ https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/home/?cid=FSEPRD858166
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This back and forth regulatory review is far too common. The 
Resolution Copper Mine is just one of many examples. And the regulatory 
overreach deters investors, increases capital costs, and delays the 
energy security benefits of developing a robust domestic supply chain 
for clean energy and related infrastructure.
    Absent a clear, predictable, and streamlined process, America will 
continue to rely on critical minerals sourced from overseas, including 
from countries that pose national security risks or those that lack 
basic environmental and human rights protections. The choice should be 
clear: producing American resources here at home creates jobs, promotes 
innovation, increases energy security, and leads to better global 
environmental outcomes.
Provide more streamlined litigation

    Once a project is approved, any further adjudications should be 
addressed as expeditiously as possible to ensure that protracted 
litigation does not undermine project viability. Judicial review is the 
biggest wildcard in the current permitting system, and H.R. 1 
appropriately recognized it as an area that could have the most 
meaningful impact toward efficient project deliverability. Establishing 
requirements where any legal disputes must be resolved in less than one 
year would meaningfully address this uncertainty.
    In the spirit of the current system rewarding those who seek to 
delay rather than those who seek to build, litigation under NEPA has 
become the favored tool of those who seek to indefinitely delay 
projects through procedural lawsuits. Such prominent examples include 
the saga of the proposed Cape Wind project off the coast of 
Massachusetts, where protracted litigation, including more than 20 
administrative and judicial challenges to both federal and state 
reviews, ultimately led utilities to cancel power purchase agreements, 
effectively killing the project.\16\ While no single suit ever 
specifically terminated the project, the purposeful delay tactics 
requiring evermore environmental analysis ultimately led investors to 
pull the plug. This same playbook is now being used to protest the 
approval for the Vineyard Wind project, despite new state laws that 
mandate utilities to procure offshore wind energy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ http://static.djlmgdigital.com.s3.amazonaws.com/cct/
capecodonline/graphics/pdf/GridFMNotice.pdf
    \17\ https://www.eenews.net/articles/4-lawsuits-threaten-vineyard-
wind/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) is another prime example in which 
legal uncertainty contributed to an untenable business environment 
leading project developers to cancel the project and take a loss. ACP 
was intended to bring natural gas access to residential, commercial, 
defense, and industrial customers in Virginia and North Carolina, but 
legal challenges to federal and state permits contributed to more than 
three years of delays and increased project costs from $8 billion from 
an original estimate of $5 billion.
    Additionally ,the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) from northwestern 
West Virginia to southern Virginia has also attracted extensive 
Congressional attention because of similar uncertainty. No doubt, the 
expected build out of gas, hydrogen, and CO2 pipelines needed to meet 
our future system demands requires a more predictable process for the 
private sector to deliver on these projects.
    As more clean energy projects enter the permitting process, clean 
energy projects will increasingly find themselves subject to these 
delay tactics. Such actions too often delay significant economic and 
environmental benefits, like new clean energy generation from that wind 
farm or the net reduction in global emissions from the use of lower 
emissions U.S. gas relative to dirtier Russian supplies in Europe. 
These increases in emissions or environmental harm are the very 
outcomes that NEPA was enacted to avoid and prevent.
    Any changes to judicial review must balance a plaintiff's right to 
have his or her day in court with the goal of reaching finality on a 
more predictable timeline. One such proposal would be to immediately 
elevate any legal challenge under NEPA to the federal appellate court 
where the project is to be constructed or alternatively the DC Circuit. 
This would be similar to the process already used to challenge agency 
decisions, including those made by FERC.
Improve Coordination with State and Local Governments

    Finally, it is important to recognize and address, to the maximum 
extent practicable, challenging permitting projects at the state and 
local level--without trampling on federalism.
    An example of an unpredictable regulatory environment is the 
prolonged delay to review and approve permits for Class VI underground 
injection control wells needed to permanently sequester carbon dioxide. 
Class VI wells are a necessary part of the carbon capture equation of 
preventing more emissions and are the only authorized method permitted 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to sequester carbon 
dioxide in permanent geologic storage.
    While many states have long held primary enforcement authority for 
other well classes, only North Dakota and Wyoming have received primacy 
for this newest well class established in 2010. Congress rightly 
included provisions in the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the 
IIJA directing the EPA to support states applying for Class VI primacy 
and to actively improve the Class VI permitting review process.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://carboncapturecoalition.org/recently-enacted-
infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-to-bolster-economywide-
deployment-of-carbon-management-technologies-upon-full-implementation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The advantages of state primacy for Class VI wells are readily 
apparent in North Dakota. Whereas the EPA has taken an average of three 
years to permit Class VI wells, it took North Dakota only five months. 
The EPA currently has more than 70 pending applications across eight 
states awaiting regulatory approval.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-permitted-epa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This backlog is a prime example of where this Administration is 
working against its own priorities. The Department of Energy is 
investing billions of dollars to deploy new carbon capture technologies 
now, while the EPA muddles through reviews of storage sites at a 
palatial pace and the Department of the Interior stands in the way of 
related infrastructure projects across regions prime for commercial 
scale up.
    The most egregious example may be in Louisiana. After years of 
delay, the Administration finally issued the draft rule necessary to 
approve Louisiana's request for Class VI primacy earlier this month. 
This initiates a 60-day comment period and a subsequent EPA response 
period that historically can take upwards of a year for a state to be 
granted final authority.\20\ Once final, the decision is likely to have 
an immediate impact as 10 of the current outstanding Class VI permits 
are located in the state, which could unlock up to 6 million tons of 
carbon dioxide per year in Louisiana alone. If Republican and 
Democratic policy makers did not lean into the federal agencies in 
recent oversight hearings, this rule would likely still be stuck in the 
bureaucracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-opens-public-comment-
proposal-granting-louisiana-primacy-carbon-sequestration-and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is clear that the time to transfer Class VI authority should be 
improved for the other states looking to obtain primacy such as 
Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, and West Virginia, which are preparing 
applications for Class VI primacy. To date, primacy is the number one 
tool to get these projects permitted quickly, while preserving the 
safety of local communities. Additionally, this would allow federal 
agencies to focus their energies on permits in states not-yet equipped 
to take on permitting primacy or accelerate review of storage 
opportunities on federal lands or the Outer Continental Shelf, which 
have immense potential to contribute to our long-term energy future.
    Similar barriers exist for proposed transmission lines that can 
better connect both new and existing generation assets to load as 
timelines to get new transmission projects developed now routinely 
stretch to over a decade.
    One example is the SunZia line, designed to move power from New 
Mexico to California. The 550 mile line required cooperation from 10 
federal agencies, 5 state agencies, and 9 local authorities while 
incorporating input from a host of additional state, local, and federal 
stakeholders. Projected to come online in 2025, the 3.5 GW project, 
which would provide power for millions of customers, will have taken 
over 17 years from proposal to completion.\21\ These timelines, 
complicated by the intersection of different requirements from federal, 
state, tribal, and local regulators, impede the ability of new projects 
to interconnect to the grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.power-grid.com/td/sunzia-transmission-line-is-a-
win-but-also-a-lesson-in-what-not-to-do/#gref
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, there are 2000 GW 
of electricity and storage waiting in the interconnection queue to be 
connected to the grid.\22\ While not all of these projects will be 
built, this figure is nearly double the current system capacity as it 
exists today. This backlog is especially relevant as hundreds of 
gigawatts of clean energy projects spend years stuck in the 
interconnection process, awaiting evaluation by transmission providers 
to determine their impact on the broader system. An average completion 
rate of 21% and queue wait time of 4 years makes meeting any target for 
a reliable and affordable clean energy system infeasible.\23\ It is 
also important to note that analysis recently conducted by the regional 
transmission organization (RTO) PJM estimates that 40 GW of baseload 
generation, more than 21 percent of current installed capacity, is at 
risk of retirement by 2030 without reliable generation lined up to 
replace it and keep up with demand growth.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/queued_up_2022_04-06-
2023.pdf
    \23\ https://emp.lbl.gov/queues
    \24\ https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/special-
reports/2023/energy-transition-in-pjm-resource-retirements-
replacements-and-risks.ashx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While there is no silver bullet to rapidly and reliably modernize 
the grid, a combination of process improvements, permitting reforms, 
and technological innovation will help avoid clean energy deployment 
from hitting a wall.
Conclusion

    The current permitting system stymies clean energy resources and 
broadly delays the highest impact projects from delivering benefits. It 
is imperative that Congress address both aspects of the permitting 
process to maximize public and private sector investments and put steel 
in the ground. These pillars of pre-qualification to expedite review, 
more streamlined litigation, and improved coordination with state and 
local governments are priorities that merit consideration as the 
process to reach a permitting deal moves forward.
    These reforms are ambitious by design as half measures have failed 
to move the needle for more than two decades. Anything less will only 
prolong the inability of the U.S. to build big things.
    We look forward to working with this Committee to both further 
legislative action on regulatory reform and to reign in executive 
branch overreach. I look forward to today's discussion.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes 
Ms. Pleune for 5 minutes.
    Did I say that right?
    Ms. Pleune. You did.
    Dr. Gosar. OK.

STATEMENT OF JAMIE PLEUNE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (RESEARCH), S.J. 
  QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, 
                              UTAH

    Ms. Pleune. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 
be here today. My name is Jamie Pleune. I am an Associate 
Professor at the University of Utah Law School. We have done 
extensive empirical research on NEPA and its implementation 
times.
    Little is known about the National Environmental Policy Act 
and its process. The data that is available focuses exclusively 
on environmental impact statements. To address this shortage of 
information, my colleagues, John Ruple and Erik Heiny, and I 
undertook the most comprehensive analysis of NEPA decision 
making that has been conducted. We analyzed 16 years of Forest 
Service data, which was 41,000 NEPA decisions.
    The first question that we sought to answer was how long 
does the NEPA process really take? We found that the median 
time to complete an EIS was 2.8 years. For an EA, it was 1.2 
years. And for a CE, it was only 4 months. These evidence-based 
time frames are dramatically shorter than the anecdotal time 
frames that are often cited.
    We also reaffirmed the GAO estimate. The EISs are an 
extremely small percentage of all NEPA decisions. Specifically 
within the Forest Service, who conducts more EISs than any 
other agency, EISs constitute only 2 percent of all decisions. 
The other 98 percent face less rigorous review. To put this in 
perspective very roughly, when we looked at the evidence over 
16 years, only 200 decisions took longer than 4 years, and 
33,000 took less than 1 year. The median time for projects that 
have identified, known, well-understood, and insignificant 
impacts is 4 months.
    We also looked for reasons for delay. We developed a 
regression analysis that was able to look at NEPA-specific 
factors, and we found that those could only predict 25 percent 
of the variation. This meant that the primary causes of delay 
were external to the NEPA regulatory process. We found that the 
primary causes of delay are a lack of agency capacity, 
specifically projects hit bottlenecks when there are 
insufficient staff members to review a permit, or when there 
are not enough staff members with the expertise that is 
necessary to review a permit.
    Additionally, unstable budgets and outdated technology 
caused delays. There were also delays in waiting for 
information from the operator.
    And finally, compliance with other laws and coordinating 
with other agencies or coordinating within a team that is 
approving a permit also caused delay. This finding was 
consistent with an observation made by the Congressional 
Research Service that NEPA often functions as an umbrella 
statute. That is, it serves as a framework for compliance with 
other laws and regulatory requirements. Delays caused by 
compliance with those other legal standards are reflected in 
the NEPA process, but NEPA itself is not the cause of delay.
    This interplay is visible in a study conducted by Amanda 
Miner regarding Forest Service litigation. Her research 
recognized that NEPA litigation usually involves multiple legal 
claims. Focusing on the cases in which the Forest Service lost, 
her research showed that 69 percent of the time the Forest 
Service would have lost, even if NEPA did not exist. This is 
important because reforms that focus solely on speeding up NEPA 
completion times may compromise agency's ability to comply with 
the mandates of other laws, which would ultimately create more 
delay in implementing projects.
    After completing the study of Forest Service decision 
making, we looked at the mine permitting process. We found the 
same three primary causes of delay have consistently been 
identified in research investigation since 1999. So, what does 
this tell us about permit reform?
    First, the biggest source of delay is a lack of staff and 
unstable budgets. The most important thing to improve permit 
processing time is to bolster agency capacity. They must have 
sufficient staff and staff with relevant expertise. With 
expanded capacity, agencies can engage in pre-application 
meetings with project sponsors and encourage early engagement 
with stakeholders.
    This will address the second cause of delay: waiting for 
information from operators.
    Finally, encouraging coordination between permitting 
authorities is a way to streamline the permitting process and 
make it more predictable. The procedures incorporated through 
FAST-41 have been effective in achieving predictability, 
transparency, and improved timelines. Significantly, this is 
important because these are the most complex projects 
available. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pleune follows:]
Prepared Statement of Professor Jamie Pleune, University of Utah, S.J. 
                         Quinney College of Law
    Thank you, Chairman Gosar and Ranking Member Stansbury for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Jamie Pleune. I am an 
Associate Professor of Law (Research) at the S.J. Quinney College of 
Law, University of Utah and a Wallace Stegner Center Fellow.
    The Wallace Stegner Center provides objective and actionable 
research on contemporary environmental issues. The non-partisan Law and 
Policy Program at the Wallace Stegner Center has done extensive 
empirical research into different aspects of the National Environmental 
Policy Act and its implementation. My testimony today reflects the 
results of that research and my personal observations. I do not speak 
on behalf of the University of Utah, and the views I express do not 
necessarily represent the views of the state of Utah, or the University 
of Utah.
I. Research Does Not Substantiate the Claim that NEPA Causes Delays

    The National Environmental Policy Act is often blamed for delays in 
the permitting process. However, research does not support that 
characterization. Multiple studies have found that the NEPA analysis is 
rarely the primary cause of delay, even though delays may be reflected 
in the NEPA process.\1\ Analysis on a project may stop and restart for 
external reasons such as funding, engineering requirements, changes in 
agency priorities, delays in obtaining non-federal approvals, or 
political opposition to the project.\2\ These delays create the 
appearance of a long NEPA process, because the NEPA process marks a 
public beginning and ending, even though the NEPA analysis did not 
cause the delay.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Ryan Sud, Sanjay Patnaik & Robert Glicksman, The Brookings 
Institute, How to Reform Federal Permitting to Accelerate Clean Energy 
Infrastructure: A Nonpartisan Way Forward 14 (Feb. 2023).
    \2\ Government Accountability Office, GAO-14-379, National 
Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses 15 
(Apr. 2014); Linda Luther, Cong. Res. Serv., R4279, The Role of the 
Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: 
Background and Issues for Congress 9 (Apr. 11, 2012) (``The 
environmental review process may start, stop, and restart for reasons 
unrelated to environmental issues. Local and state issues have shown to 
have the most significant influence on whether a project moves forward 
relatively quickly or takes longer than anticipated.'').
    \3\ Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental 
Quality, Environmental Impact Statement Timelines (2010-2018) 2 (June 
2020) (``For some EISs, the timeline does not represent continuous 
activity. Delays may be attributable to the agency, the applicant, 
Congress, the needs of cooperating agencies, States, Tribes, and local 
interests, or public controversy.''); John C. Ruple, Jamie Pleune & 
Erik Heiny, Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National 
Environmental Policy Act Implementation, 46 Colum. J. Envt'l L. 273, 
304 (2022) [hereinafter Ruple et al. Evidence-Based Recommendations for 
Improving Implementation of NEPA] (conducting a detailed analysis of 
NEPA decisionmaking times and observing that complex projects can be 
completed quickly and simple projects subject to a truncated NEPA 
analysis may encounter delays); Executive Office of the President, 
Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Impact Statement 
Timelines (2010-2018) 8 (June 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the NEPA process may provide the structure for 
multiple different and independent permitting decisions. As the 
Congressional Research Service observed, ``Most agencies use 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.'' \4\ This can create confusion because the 
need to comply with another law may be identified during the NEPA 
process, but NEPA is not the source of the obligation.\5\ In fact, 
there is some evidence that the structure provided by the NEPA analysis 
actually reduces decisionmaking times.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Cong. Res. Serv, RL 33152, The National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation 1 (Jan. 10, 2011).
    \5\ Id.; see also Ruple et al. Evidence-Based Recommendations for 
Improving Implementation of NEPA supra note 3 at 317-322 (exploring 
this dynamic with the National Forest Management Act).
    \6\ John C. Ruple et al., Does NEPA Help or Harm ESA Critical 
Habitat Designations? An Assessment of Over 600 Critical Habitat Rules, 
46 Ecology L.Q. 829, 842 (2019) (finding that critical habitat 
designations subject to NEPA review were completed an average of 93 
days faster than those that were not subject to NEPA review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NEPA process can also reduce costs by identifying design 
problems before implementation of a project begins. A study prepared 
for the Transportation Research Board emphasized this potential 
benefit. ``Spending more monies during planning and design will reduce 
the time and cost required for construction by avoiding unforeseen 
conditions, reducing to a minimum design errors and omissions, and 
developing schemes that will support the most efficient approach to 
construction.'' \7\ For these reasons, projects exempted from NEPA may 
not be faster or cheaper. Instead of achieving speed by exempting 
projects from NEPA, permit reform should distinguish between productive 
and unproductive delays in the permitting process,\8\ and focus on 
eliminating the latter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Linda Luther, Cong. Res. Serv. R.42479, The Role of the 
Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: 
Background and Issues for Congress 36 (Apr. 2012) (Citing H.R. Thomas 
and R.D. Ellis, Avoiding Delays During the Construction Phase of 
Highway Projects, Transportation Research Board, National Research 
Council, NCHRP 20-24 (Oct. 2001).
    \8\ Jamie Pleune, Playing the Long Game: Expediting Permitting 
Without Compromising Protections, 52 Env. L. Rep. 10893, 10896-07 
(2022) [hereinafter Pleune, Playing the Long Game].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. NEPA Decisionmaking Times Vary Significantly and Projects That 
        Encounter Extensive Delays Are the Exception, Not the Norm

    Working with my colleague, John Ruple, and another colleague, Erik 
Heiny, at Utah Valley University, we analyzed 41,000 NEPA decisions 
made by the Forest Service at all levels of review.\9\ This is one of 
the most comprehensive investigations into NEPA decisionmaking times 
that has been undertaken.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving NEPA 
Implementation supra note 3 at 294.
    \10\ See also Forrest Fleischman et al., U.S. Forest Service 
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, 
Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining, 118 J. of Forestry 403, 408 
(2020) (conducting a descriptive analysis of a slightly different set 
of data from the Forest Service MYTR database); Exec. Office of the 
President, Council on Env't Quality, Environmental Impact Statement 
Timelines (2010-2018) 1 (June 12, 2020) (providing description of 
government-wide EIS decisionmaking times).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first question we sought to answer was, ``how long does the 
NEPA process actually take?'' We found that the median time to complete 
an EIS was 2.8 years. For an EA, it was 1.2 years. And for a CE, the 
median was only 4 months.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id. at 293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More importantly, only 2 percent of all decisions were made through 
an EIS.\12\ The other 98% of NEPA decisions faced less rigorous review. 
The median time for projects with well-understood and insignificant 
impacts was only 4 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Id. at 289. See also Government Accountability Office, GAO-14-
379, National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on 
NEPA Analyses 8 (Apr. 2014) (estimating that government-wide, less than 
1% of NEPA decisions are EISs, 5% are EAs, and 95% are CEs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This approach makes sense. Projects with insignificant and well-
understood impacts should receive quick approval, and the research 
shows that they usually do. On the other hand, projects that will 
impose significant impacts on communities, create hazards to health, 
threaten clean water, compromise clean air, or destroy natural 
resources deserve more rigorous review. The permitting process ensures 
that each project adheres to basic environmental and safety standards. 
The NEPA process creates a mechanism to explore whether a potentially 
harmful project can be adjusted to avoid, reduce, or mitigate harmful 
consequences. This approach has protected communities and resources 
from poorly contemplated projects for over 50 years.
    While there are ways, which I will discuss, to improve the 
efficiency of permitting and the NEPA process, eliminating 
environmental standards or reducing analytical rigor is a poor choice 
that does not address the true sources of unproductive delay.
III. True Causes of Delay Can Be Addressed Without Compromising 
        Environmental or Safety Standards

    Permit reform should be driven by accurate data that defines the 
scope of the problem. The available data indicates that only a small 
percentage of NEPA decisions encounter excessive delays of the type 
that are commonly relied upon as anecdotal evidence.
    For example, in 2016, the Government Accountability Office studied 
processing times for mine permit applications.\13\ Between 2010 and 
2014, the 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. The remaining 37% were 
spread across a wide timeframe, with only six applications (less than 
10%) taking longer than four years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ GAO, Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Have Taken Some 
Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan Review Process but Could Do More 6-7 
(2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A similar trend is visible in the Forest Service data. Only 
projects in the 75th percentile of EISs took longer than four 
years.\14\ Because there were only 870 EISs total, that means roughly 
217 documents took longer than four years over 16 years. In contrast, 
at least 28,552 decisions were made in less than 1.2 years.\15\ In 
other words, efficiency is possible, and it happens. It is also 
important to keep the big picture in focus. The commonly cited 
statistic that permits take six years represents less than 1% of all 
NEPA decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Ruple et al., Evidence Based Recommendations for Improving 
NEPA supra note 3 at 297.
    \15\ Id. at 289 and 297 (showing that there were 6,881 EAs, 50% of 
which were completed in less than 1.2 years and there were 33,143 CEs, 
at least 75% of which were completed in less than one year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, analytical rigor does not appear to be the primary cause 
of delay.\16\ When we used a regression model to identify causes of 
delay, we learned that NEPA specific factors could not predict whether 
a project would encounter a delay.\17\ Instead, the most common causes 
of delay were functional and external to the NEPA analysis. Those were: 
(1) agency capacity, which includes both staff availability and 
appropriate expertise; (2) delays attributable to the operator 
including waiting for information, changed plans of operation, and 
shifting priorities; and (3) compliance with other laws, which includes 
coordination with other permitting authorities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id. at 302-303.
    \17\ Id. at 300-306.
    \18\ Id. at 306-322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, both the GAO and the National Research Council made the 
same observations regarding delays in the mine permit application 
process.\19\ Three prominent causes of delay were: (1) insufficient 
resources, including staff, expertise, funding, or technology; (2) 
waiting for operator responses following vague applications or changes 
to a mine plan; and (3) compliance with other legal standards and/or 
ineffective agency coordination during the mine plan review 
process.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-16-165, Hardrock Mining: BLM 
and Forest Service Have Taken Some Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan 
Review Process but Could Do More (2016); National Research Council, 
Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands (1999).
    \20\ See Pleune, Playing the Long Game supra note 8 at 10900-10906 
(discussing these studies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even permits that can be processed quickly are affected by these 
factors. A 2014 investigation by the Office of Inspector General into 
BLM permit processing times for oil and gas wells emphasizes this 
point.\21\ The BLM receives approximately 5,000 new APDs each year, 
which are processed at 33 different field offices. According to the 
BLM, the average processing time in 2012 was 228 days, but this number 
only tells part of the story. Even though each field office is governed 
by the same legal standard, the permit processing times varied widely. 
Buffalo, WY and Miles City, MT took more than 300 days to process 
permits. In contrast, five field offices took less than 100 days. 
Anchorage, AK averaged 37 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Office of Inspector General, Department of the Interior, 
Onshore Oil and Gas Permitting, U.S. Dept. of Int., Report No. CR-EV-
MOA-0003-2013 (June 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This dramatic variation in permit processing times cannot be blamed 
on NEPA or environmental standards because each field office was 
applying the same legal standard to the same activity. Sources of delay 
were a lack of staff, poor data management, and weaknesses in oversight 
and accountability.\22\ Even though BLM had repeatedly identified 
staffing shortages as a problem, limited budgets combined with a high 
cost of living made it difficult to attract and retain employees. Field 
offices with staff shortages experienced prolonged review times. Permit 
coordination and management also mattered. Most field offices did not 
assign a manager to oversee the APD process, resulting in an open-ended 
process where applications languished and no one could predict when the 
application would be finished. Field offices that did assign field 
managers processed permits in less than half the average time.\23\ In 
other words, improving permit coordination resulted in faster permit 
processing times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id. at 6.
    \23\ The Field Office in Silt, CO which uses supervisors, averaged 
108 days in FY2012 versus the bureau wide average of 228 days. The 
field office in Carlsbad NM uses a field manager, as well as an in-
house automated tracking system. Its processing times average 110 days. 
Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The consistency of these findings across time, agencies, and 
practice constitute reliable evidence as to the real causes of delay in 
permit processing. These delays can be summarized as: (1) agency 
capacity; (2) delays attributable to the operator; and (3) permitting 
coordination. These findings demonstrate that the choice between speed 
and environmental standards is a false dilemma. Each of the true 
sources of delay can be addressed without compromising environmental 
standards that protect safe, healthy, and clean communities.
IV. Permit Reform That Addresses the True Causes of Delay

    We can improve permit processing times by bolstering agency 
capacity, fostering early communication with permit applicants, and 
improving permit coordination. Notably, improved communication and 
better coordination depend on sufficient agency capacity. So the first 
step for permit reform should be to focus on agency capacity.
1. Building Agency Capacity Requires Long-Term Funding and Strategic 
        Workforce Planning.

    Wisely, Congress has already taken a step in the right direction. 
The Inflation Reduction Act contained roughly $1 billion directed 
toward improving agencies' environmental review processes and NEPA 
implementation. These funds are a critical--and encouraging--first 
step; however, the journey is not over. Agencies must rebuild from 
chronic shortages. Additionally, the funding must be reliable and 
sustained to allow agencies to implement strategic workforce plans, 
retain experienced staff, and engage in proactive planning that can 
facilitate faster decisionmaking. Finally, agencies must have 
flexibility to spend the funds in the area of greatest need.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ See Office of Inspector General, Department of the Interior, 
Onshore Oil and Gas Permitting, U.S. Dept. of Int., Report No. CR-EV-
MOA-0003-2013, 10 (June 2014) (noting that Congress had allocated 
funding to seven field offices as a pilot project for improving oil and 
gas processing times through expanded capacity; however those field 
offices no longer carried the heaviest workload due to shifting 
development patterns and the act did not allow BLM to transfer the 
special funding to offices with the greatest need).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many agencies that were already understaffed suffered extreme 
losses of staff under the last Administration. The Bureau of Land 
Management offers an instructive case study.\25\ Since 2011, it has 
been on the GAO's list of programs at high risk and vulnerable to 
waste, fraud and abuse due in part to a lack of staff. This problem was 
further exacerbated in July 2020, when the last Administration abruptly 
decided relocate BLM's headquarters from Washington D.C. to Grand 
Junction, Colorado. The Headquarters Office, which develops guidance 
and regulations, should be staffed by 311 career positions. However, it 
was already severely understaffed with 132 vacant positions before the 
relocation announcement. In response to the relocation announcement, 81 
more staff left, leaving the leadership at 31 percent capacity. The 
remaining leadership team were dispersed among multiple offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ This discussion draws heavily from the following article. 
Jamie Pleune & Ted Boling, This Permit Reform Works. Why Aren't Mine 
Projects Using It? 53 Envt'l L. Rep. ___ (forthcoming June 2023) 
[hereinafter Pleune & Boling, This Permit Reform Works]. See also Gov't 
Accountability Off., GAO-20-379R, Bureau of Land Management: Agency 
Reorganization Efforts Did Not Substantially Address Key Practices for 
Effective Reforms (Mar. 6, 2020) and Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-22-
104247, BLM, Better Workforce Planning and Data Would Help Mitigate the 
Effects of Recent Staff Vacancies (Nov. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numbers do not tell the whole story. The BLM also suffered a loss 
of experienced staff. Every BLM staff member interviewed reported that 
the loss of experienced staff negatively affected their offices' 
ability to conduct its duties. For example, the loss of institutional 
knowledge about laws and regulations meant that the BLM could not 
provide knowledgeable input on proposed rules and legislation. Other 
staff admitted that the rapid loss of experienced staff hindered 
knowledge transfer. In a follow-up report, a year later, all BLM staff 
interviewed by the GAO reported challenges in completing their duties 
due to headquarters vacancies. As a result of delays in creating or 
clarifying guidance or policies, some staff relied on outdated policy 
guidance to make decisions. Other staff reported delays implementing 
upgrades to information technology systems, which GAO had previously 
recommended be updated. Obviously these institutional challenges would 
affect permitting times. Applicants could not receive good guidance 
from experienced staff, and staff members processing permits had little 
instruction on how to proceed effectively. The BLM is not alone. 
Multiple agencies with permitting or infrastructure responsibilities, 
are short-staffed and underfunded.
    Filling vacancies requires strategic workforce planning, but few 
agencies have engaged in that process. When the GAO investigated the 
BLM's workforce planning in 2020, it found that the BLM had no way of 
tracking vacancies and no recruitment plan for filling vacancies.\26\ 
When asking for data on the total number of positions and vacancies 
agency wide, the GAO was told that BLM does not maintain a list of 
vacancies for state offices. As a result, it was not possible to 
determine the proportion of positions that are vacant at any given time 
or the specific positions that are vacant. This lack of information 
obviously creates a problem for improving capacity in a way that 
results in improved efficiency. Strategic workforce planning is 
critical to ensuring that agencies spend wisely and build a workforce 
capable of fulfilling agency missions. Additionally, agencies must be 
confident that the funding will not disappear. Unstable budgets do not 
build durable workforces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Land Management: 
Agency Reorganization Efforts Did Not Substantially Address Key 
Practices for Effective Reforms GAO-20-379R, 10 (Mar. 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pre-application meetings, early stakeholder engagement, permit 
        sequencing, and transparent schedules are proven methods for 
        improving efficiency without compromising environmental 
        standards or public participation.

    With expanded capacity, agencies can address other sources of delay 
such as communication with permit applicants, and interagency 
coordination. The best practices and procedural requirements of FAST-41 
target both problems and serve as a valuable test case for their 
efficacy.\27\ Wisely, Congress has also appropriated funding to support 
the Permitting Council, which should help propagate and further 
implement these practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ For a thorough discussion of these issues, see Pleune & 
Boling, This Permit Reform Works supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pre-application meetings with project proponents speed permitting 
by avoiding delays later in the process.\28\ Meeting with regulators 
and stakeholders early allows project sponsors to incorporate 
environmental and social sensitivities at the design phase, when impact 
avoidance is still feasible and cost-effective. Additionally, project 
sponsors can benefit from agencies' experience with addressing 
controversial or complex impacts in other similar projects. This 
results in fewer modifications later in the process. It also reduces 
permit review times by minimizing the amount of additional information 
agencies must request during the review process. Especially in complex 
areas with conflicting or overlapping jurisdictions, the analytical and 
public comment procedures imposed by the NEPA process can actually 
speed project approval by providing a framework for analysis and 
bringing multiple permitting authorities to the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id. at Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, the NEXUS Gas Transmission Project, was a 250-mile 
natural gas pipeline traversing Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and 
Michigan.\29\ During the pre-application process, which included 
extensive public participation, the project sponsors incorporated 239 
route alternatives and variations in the pipeline design to address 
landowner requests, avoid sensitive resources, or respond to 
engineering restraints. This feedback resulted in a 91 percent change 
from the original proposed route design--a number of modifications that 
would have been prohibitively expensive at the end of the review 
process. Using this information at the beginning of the process 
improved efficiency and arguably resulted in a better end-result and a 
final application that was processed more expeditiously.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Office of the Executive Director, Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council, Recommended Best Practices for Project 
Review and Permitting for Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal Year 2018, 
at 17 (2017).
    \30\ This is not to say that early engagement eliminated local 
opposition in every community. See Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, Home Rule 
Symposium: Cities and Citizens Seethe: A Case Study of Local Efforts to 
Influence Natural Gas Pipeline Routing Decisions, 122 W. Va. L. Rev. 
881, 907-934 (Spring 2020) [hereinafter Gorovitz, Cities and Towns 
Seethe] (describing FERC's extensive public engagement and local 
opposition in three Ohio towns).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Early stakeholder engagement is also consistent with the results of 
recent research conducted by MIT investigating sources of delay for 
renewable energy projects.\31\ Two critical sources of delay were 
opposition from affected landowners due to real or perceived harms that 
the project would bring, and inconsistency between overlapping 
authorities, such as local, state, tribal, and federal jurisdictions. 
Based on their empirical research, they concluded that ``incorporating 
all stakeholder perspectives from the outset of a siting process will 
probably save time and money.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Lawrence Susskind et al., Sources of Opposition to Renewable 
Energy Projects in the United States, 165 Energy Policy 112922 (2022).
    \32\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not to say that early stakeholder engagement will eliminate 
all opposition. The NEXUS Gas Transmission Project demonstrates a 
conundrum with finding permitting success stories. The ideal result of 
implementing a best practice, like pre-application meetings, is the 
avoidance of a bad result, like project delays from unexpected impacts 
or local opposition. If the best practice works, the bad result will 
not occur. Which means that that a success story must prove a negative. 
It makes sense intuitively that such substantial route alterations 
would address many concerns and reduce opposition, but there is no way 
to prove what would have happened if the pipeline design had proceeded 
as originally designed. Moreover, the absence of opposition is an 
unrealistic standard to demonstrate success. With large projects, like 
the NEXUS Transmission Gas Line, it would be virtually impossible to 
avoid all opposition.\33\ Thus, recognizing success requires enough 
familiarity with the process to understand what could have happened in 
a given scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Gorovitz, Cities and Towns Seethe supra note 30 at 907-934 
(detailing some local opposition to the pipeline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAST-41 procedures also focus heavily on avoiding delays caused by 
poor inter-agency coordination.\34\ In early stakeholder meetings, 
agencies develop a Coordinated Project Plan that encourages the 
development of concurrent, rather than sequential, analyses. Early and 
coordinated stakeholder engagement enhances the efficiency of this 
process. The Permitting Dashboard creates accountability, reducing the 
likelihood that a decision will linger on the back of someone's desk. 
Finally, enhanced oversight from the Executive Director of the 
Permitting Council creates an opportunity for conflicts between 
jurisdictions to be addressed early, and in a coordinated manner. The 
Permitting Council's 2020 Annual Report to Congress offered both 
quantitative and qualitative evidence of the program's success. Between 
2010 and 2018, the average time across all agencies for a project to 
complete an EIS was 4.5 years. In contrast, the average time to 
complete an EIS for projects that went through the FAST-41 process by 
2020 was 2.5 years. Perhaps more persuasively, the report included 
testimonials from project proponents praising the transparency and 
efficiency of the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ For a thorough discussion of these issues, see Pleune & 
Boling, This Permit Reform Works supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A GAO investigation, also found evidence of the program's success 
that extended beyond federal agencies.\35\ Although FAST-41 only 
directly affects federal agencies, the opportunities for coordination 
extend to state, local, and tribal permitting authorities. Early 
engagement creates opportunities for permitting authorities to enter 
into Memorandums of Understanding establishing roles and 
responsibilities As an example, the GAO report discussed the Mid-
Barataria Sediment Diversion project, which was a complex FAST-41 
project focused on restoring ecosystems damaged by coastal erosion and 
the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill, which oiled over 684 miles of wetlands 
across the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in the Barataria Bay.\36\ With 
the Army Corps of Engineers as lead agency, six federal agencies 
entered into a memorandum of understanding with several Louisiana state 
agencies, accelerating the environmental review and permitting process 
by nearly two years.\37\ Due to the complexity of this project, many 
project participants believe that it would not have been possible 
without the coordination procedures afforded through the FAST-41 
process. The GAO attributed this efficiency to enhanced interagency 
coordination.\38\ In summary, efficient permitting is possible without 
compromising environmental standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-20-19, Infrastructure 
Projects: Actions Needed to Fully Develop Performance Schedules for 
Environmental Reviews 20-21 (Oct. 2019) [hereinafter GAO, Actions 
Needed to Fully Develop Performance Schedules].
    \36\ Id. at 22.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id. at 22; see also Mark Schleifstein, Louisiana Granted Final 
Funds for Unprecedented Coastal Restoration Project NOLA.com (Mar. 9, 
2023) (reporting that Louisiana was granted the final necessary funds 
to build the unprecedented Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project 
aimed at helping slow land loss devastating the coast).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Renewable Energy Projects Face Permitting Delays Unrelated to 
        Environmental Standards Due to Serious Problems with the 
        Interconnect Queue and Regional Transmission Organizations

    A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found 
that there are over 2,000 GW of total generation and storage capacity 
waiting for approval to connect to the grid, 95 percent of which are 
solar, wind, or battery storage.\39\ The combined wind and solar 
capacity actively seeking connection to the grid is approximately 1,250 
GW, which is roughly equal to the current installed capacity of the 
entire U.S. power plant fleet and consistent with what is necessary to 
achieve the 2030 target.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Berkeley Lab, Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants 
Seeking Transmission Interconnection, https://emp.lbl.gov/queues (last 
visited May 9, 2023); Energy Technologies Area, Grid Connection 
Requests grow by 40% in 2022 As Clean Energy Surges, Despite Backlogs 
and Uncertainty (Apr. 6, 2023) https://energy.lbl.gov/news/grid-
connection-requests-grow-40-2022 (last visited May 9, 2023).
    \40\ Id.; see also Emma Penrod, Why the Energy Transition Broke the 
U.S. Interconnection System Utility Dive (Aug. 22, 2022) (quoting 
Bhaskar Ray, vice president of interconnection and development 
engineering for energy developer Qcells USA as estimating that if all 
the capacity currently waiting in the interconnection queue today were 
built by 2030, the U.S. would meet the 80% clean energy share 
milestone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hurdles facing these projects involve issues with the 
interconnect queue, regional control of transmission, and a lack of 
high power transmission lines. The wait time for projects in the 
interconnect queue is steadily rising.\41\ Between 2000-2007, the time 
between an initial connection request and a fully built, operational 
plant was typically less than two years. Between 2018-2022, that 
timeframe doubled to an average of almost 4 years, with an increasing 
trend. By 2022, the median time between an interconnection request to 
commercial operations date reached almost 5 years.\42\ The increased 
volume of proposed renewable projects sitting in the queue promises to 
continue amplifying this problem. For example, at least two regional 
transmission organizations, the entities responsible for approving 
requests to connect to the grid, have announced pauses on accepting new 
projects until they can process their backlogs. The nation's largest 
electric grid operator, PJM Interconnection, coordinates electricity 
movement in 13 states and the District of Columbia.\43\ It has 
announced that it will not process any new applications until the end 
of 2025.\44\ Similarly, CAISO,\45\ a California grid operator, declined 
to accept any new projects in 2022 while they processed their backlog. 
Both entities are looking for systemic solutions to improve the grid 
connection process. The interconnect queue, regional control of 
transmission, and a lack of high power transmission lines are serious 
problems delaying implementation of green technology. These problems 
are worthy of permit reform and require Congressional attention. 
Strengthening federal authority to facilitate interstate transmission 
power transmission may be one solution. Regardless of the solution to 
these complex problems, delays caused by the interconnect queue should 
not be conflated with NEPA and environmental standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Berkeley Lab, Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants 
Seeking Transmission Interconnection, https://emp.lbl.gov/queues (last 
visited May 9, 2023).
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New 
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West 
Virginia. https://pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are/territory-served (last 
visited Apr. 24, 2023).
    \44\ Institute for Energy Research, PJM Plans for a Two-Year Pause 
on Reviewing Project Applications (Feb. 22, 2022). https://
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/pjm-plans-for-a-two-year-
pause-on-reviewing-project-applications/
#:?:text=To%20implement%20it%2C%20PJM% 
20is%20proposing%20an%20interim,on%20those%20coming%20at%20the%20end%20o
f%202027.
    \45\ California Independent System Operator https://www.caiso.com/
Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Good Decisions Are More Important Than Rushed Decisions

    The discussion around permit reform often focuses exclusively on 
decisionmaking times. A legitimate sense of urgency to implement clean 
energy projects drives many to seek shortcuts. However, rushed 
decisions have consequences. For example, the GAO recently investigated 
the Department of Energy's management of $1.1 billion in funding for 
carbon capture sequestration projects.\46\ It found that between 2009 
to 2022, the DOE provided $684 million to eight coal projects. Every 
project went over budget and exceeded timelines. Only one project went 
into operation, and even that project eventually shut down because it 
was not economically viable. In summary, none of the projects 
succeeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-22-105111, Carbon Capture and 
Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration 
Projects (Dec. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rushed decisionmaking contributed to the DOE's poor judgment and 
money management, according to the GAO. Eager to spend funding from the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the DOE bypassed its 
usual selection procedures and committed to coal projects at their 
initial selection. Additionally, DOE used expedited timeframes for 
project negotiations--shortening them from one year to three months. 
Bypassing procedures reduced DOE's ability to identify and mitigate 
risks, resulting in a $684 million loss for the American people.
    Like mismanaged money, environmental resources, communities, and 
human health are not replaceable. The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 
offers a cautionary tale against expediting permitting by eliminating 
analytical rigor and environmental analysis.\47\ The Macondo well never 
underwent NEPA's hard look requirement due to a broad categorical 
exclusion.\48\ Additionally, staff within the managing agencies were 
subject to 30-day deadlines and instructed to approve permits as 
quickly as possible, without creating unnecessary delays.\49\ 
Furthermore the industry had grown more quickly than the agency, 
resulting in a offices that were short-staffed and lacked training or 
expertise to understand the implications of the technology being 
used.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and 
Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, Deep Water: The Gulf Oil 
Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling (January 2011) 
[hereinafter Deepwater Horizon Commission Report].
    \48\ Id. at 82.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id. at 73-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to NEPA streamlining procedures, short review deadlines, and 
insufficient agency capacity, risks that might have been exposed 
through the NEPA process went undetected. For example, BP's emergency 
response plan for a subsea blow-out was to drill a relief well.\51\ 
When this became the only option for containing the spill, BP revealed 
that drilling the relief well would take at least three months. 
Meanwhile, the spill kept gushing over 50,000 barrels of oil per day 
into the Gulf.\52\ This risk should have been caught by agency staff at 
the permitting stage, but it wasn't. Because the permit was not subject 
to public comment or circulated to other agencies, no one else saw it 
either. We cannot know if a more rigorous permitting process would have 
avoided the spill. But we can learn from the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Id. at 132.
    \52\ Id. at 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Good decisions are more important than rushed decisions. Many 
reform proponents emphasize statutory exemptions for favored projects, 
expanding the use of categorical exclusions, imposing short deadlines 
and page limits, restricting public comment opportunities, and reducing 
the rigor of environmental analysis.\53\ As the Deepwater Horizon 
example demonstrates, these reform proposals are likely to 
underestimate risks and overlook problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ See e.g., The Building U.S. Infrastructure through Limited 
Delays and Efficient Reviews (BUILDER) Act (H.R. 2515) available at 
https://transportation.house.gov/builder-act/default.aspx (last visited 
Mar. 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Conclusion

    Despite its ubiquity, the phrase ``permit reform'' is misleading. 
There is no single ``permit law'' that can be amended to eradicate 
delays. Complex projects, like transmission lines, mine permits, and 
renewable energy projects implicate a variety of legal standards and 
permitting authorities, each focused on protecting different resources 
such as clean air, clean water, endangered species, and cultural 
resources.
    Used properly, the NEPA process can facilitate coordinated 
information gathering and decisionmaking and streamline the permitting 
process. Improved inter-agency coordination, shared data management, 
and strategic permit sequencing facilitate concurrent review between 
permitting authorities. Enhanced communication with the project 
sponsor, implementation of permitting best practices, and greater 
accountability for permitting authorities avoid inefficient delays. 
Early stakeholder engagement creates an opportunity to identify, avoid, 
and mitigate harms at the most cost-effective phase of a project's life 
cycle. All of these improvements depend on robust agency capacity. 
These reforms are not easily encapsulated in a pithy soundbite, but 
they do address the true causes of delay in permitting without 
compromising environmental or safety standards.

                                 ______
                                 

     Questions Submitted for the Record to Professor Jamie Pleune, 
            University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law
            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Can you explain how Congress can modernize and clarify 
the CEQ regulations to facilitate more efficient, effective, and timely 
NEPA reviews by Federal agencies by simplifying regulatory 
requirements, codifying certain guidance and caselaw relevant to those 
proposed regulations, revising the regulations to reflect current 
technologies and agency practices, eliminating obsolete provisions, and 
improving the format and readability of the regulations?

    Answer. There has been intense focus on revising CEQ's NEPA 
regulations and codifying certain changes to NEPA in order to improve 
decisionmaking timelines. In addition to CEQ's ongoing efforts to 
revise its NEPA implementing regulations,\1\ each agency also has its 
own implementing regulations tailored to the practices and challenges 
of implementing NEPA within the context of work accomplished by each 
agency.\2\ While there may be some regulatory provisions that merit 
revision, research suggests that the regulatory requirements of NEPA 
are only a small factor in the variation between decisionmaking times. 
External factors such as agency capacity, budgets, technology, project 
management, compliance with other laws, changes to the scope of the 
project, and litigation aversion appear to have a heavier influence on 
efficient and timely NEPA reviews.\3\

    \1\ Council on Environmental Quality, Update to the Regulations 
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304 (July 16, 2020) (``2020 Regulations); 
Council on Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act 
Implementing Regulations Revisions, 87 Fed. Reg. 23,453 (Apr. 20, 2022) 
(``Phase 1 Final Rule''); Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions, RIN 0331-AA07 (describing scope of Phase 2 
revisions to NEPA implementing regulations). See also, John Ruple et 
al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National 
Environmental Policy Act Implementation, 46 Columbia J. Envt'l L. 274, 
283-284 (2022) [hereinafter Ruple et al., Evidence-Based 
Recommendations for Improving NEPA Implementation] (explaining 
regulatory structure and procedural history of amendments to NEPA's 
implementing regulations)
    \2\ 40 C.F.R. 1507.3 (2020) (instructing agencies to develop or 
revise procedures to implement NEPA); Council on Environmental Quality, 
Deadline for Agencies to Propose Updates to National Environmental 
Policy Act Procedures, 86 Fed. Reg. 34,154 (June 29, 2021) (extending 
deadline for agencies to revise NEPA regulations); U.S. Forest Service, 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 85 Fed. Reg. 73,620 
(Nov. 19, 2020) (finalizing updates to Forest Service Regulations 
implementing NEPA); Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for 
Improving NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 286-287 (describing 
potential conflict where the Forest Service had already initiated a 
procedure for updating its implementing regulations for NEPA prior to 
the issuance of the 2020 Rule).
    \3\ Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-14-370, National Environmental 
Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses 1, 15 (2014) 
[hereinafter GAO, NEPA: Little Information Exists] (noting that for 
non-federal projects requiring a federal permit, delays in obtaining 
project funding, changes to a proposal that occur during the NEPA 
process, and non-federal approvals all may delay a NEPA analysis); 
Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving NEPA 
Implementation supra note 1 at 299, 327-333).

    Rather than focusing on regulatory changes that reduce analytical 
rigor and environmental protections without offering a substantive 
benefit, a more productive approach to improving NEPA efficiency would 
focus on improving agency capacity, promoting strategically-sized 
analyses for long-term efficiency, using NEPA as a framework for 
structured inter-agency (and inter-governmental) collaboration, and 
utilizing the NEPA process to develop consensus.\4\ The procedures 
adopted through FAST-41 appear to improve predictability, transparency 
and timeliness for complex projects.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 335-340.
    \5\ Jamie Pleune & Edward Boling, This Permit Reform Already Works. 
Why Aren't More Mining Projects Using It? 53 Env. L. Rep. 10463, 10468 
(June 2023) [hereinafter Pleune & Boling, This Permit Reform Already 
Works].

    Additional promising practices have been publicized in the annual 
Best Practices Reports issued by the Federal Permitting Improvement 
Steering Council.\6\ The early iterations of these reports (2017 & 
2018) were particularly creative and identified specific practices that 
had been implemented by different agencies with positive results for 
efficiency. Many of the best practices identified in these reports 
could be replicated to improve efficiency across agencies. For example, 
the Army Corps of Engineers improved its web-based application for a 
general permit, including creating an online permit application, with a 
video tutorial on how to fill it out, and specific contact information 
for assistance. This reduced the frequency of incomplete or inaccurate 
applications, which reduced processing times. It also freed up staff 
members to focus on more complex permits.\7\ These reports identify 
manageable, affordable, and replicable practices that improve 
efficiency. Unfortunately, later iterations of the best practices 
report focus less on success stories. In particular, the format adopted 
in 2022, which requires a Quarterly Agency Performance Report, imposes 
an additional workload on the Permitting Council and agencies without 
providing the same overview of creative measures adopted by different 
agencies that test improved practices and assess their value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https: // www.permits.performance.gov / fpisc-content / 
reports-and-publications#annualreportto congress
    \7\ Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, Recommended 
Best Practices for Environmental Reviews and Authorizations for 
Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal Year 2018 (Dec. 2017).

    Question 2. Yes or No--the study on NEPA implementation you co-
authored, Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National 
Environmental Policy Act Implementation, only analyzed NEPA decisions 
completed by the U.S. Forest Service. If yes, please explain the limits 
of extrapolating data and conclusions from a study on one government 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agency and applying those conclusions to other government agencies.

    Answer. Yes. The article, Evidence-Based Recommendations for 
Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation, used a 
database of NEPA decisions issued by the U.S. Forest Service. To our 
knowledge, the Multi-Year Trend Report database compiled by the Forest 
Service is the most comprehensive, detailed, and reliable set of data 
regarding NEPA decisions gathered by any agency.\8\ It would be 
valuable for other agencies to develop similar databases in order to 
compare practices.\9\ The MYTR database also has limitations. It was 
designed as a tracking system to facilitate compliance with public 
disclosure duties.\10\ The information that it contains is specific to 
NEPA decision documents, which are distinct from the time required to 
implement a project following its approval. Additionally, the database 
does not track when work on a NEPA decision document is paused due to 
changes in the scope of the project, political priorities, or budgetary 
limitations. Finally, the MYTR database offers information regarding 
decisionmaking times, but it does not provide a way to test whether the 
NEPA process produces better projects through the twin aims of 
meaningful public engagement and careful consideration of environmental 
impacts. Valuable information about avoided impacts, improved time to 
implementation, and reduction of community opposition to a project are 
not visible in this database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving NEPA 
Implementation supra note 1 at 288, 333.
    \9\ Id. at 333.
    \10\ Id. at 289.

    Despite these limitations, there are two reasons to believe that 
the information we obtained regarding Forest Service NEPA practice is 
informative for the practices of other agencies. First, the Forest 
Service conducts more EISs than any other agency.\11\ Second, when we 
turned our attention to the mine permitting process, multiple reports 
identified the same underlying causes of delay in the mine permitting 
process that we observed in the Forest Service's NEPA practices.\12\ 
For these reasons, we believe that the information regarding Forest 
Service practice is informative, even if it is not perfect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental 
Quality, Length of Environmental Impact Statements (2013-2018).
    \12\ Jamie Pleune, Playing the Long Game: Expediting Permitting 
Without Compromising Protections, 52 Env. L. Rep. 10893 (Nov. 2022)

    Question 3. The study you co-authored on NEPA implementation in the 
U.S. Forest Service, Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
National Environmental Policy Act Implementation, found that the 
administrative region had a ``significant influence'' on decision-
making times. Can you explain the regional differences that affected 
the variation in completion times and why further research is necessary 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to explain the regional differences in decision-making times?

    Answer. The regression model revealed that the Forest Service 
administrative region responsible for overseeing a NEPA analysis has a 
significant influence on decisionmaking times. This finding surprised 
use because each Forest Service region is implementing the same laws, 
subject to the same regulations, pursuant to the same administrative 
guidance, involving the same activities. If delays in decisionmaking 
times were caused solely by the NEPA process, we would expect similar 
mean completion times across regions. The regional variation suggests 
that factors external to the NEPA process was affecting decisionmaking 
times. We posited some potential influences including ecological 
differences, cultural differences, and different budgetary structures. 
However, these were simply ideas. We have no way to test these 
hypotheses, which is why further research is necessary. Understanding 
why some regions complete the NEPA process more quickly may reveal 
administrative and management efficiencies that could be replicated. 
Conversely, understanding why some regions tend toward slower decisions 
could identify barriers to efficiency that can be eliminated.

    Question 4. Regarding the study you co-authored on NEPA 
implementation in the U.S. Forest Service, Evidence-Based 
Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act 
Implementation, can you explain the correlation between regional 
decision-making time and wildfire suppression costs?

    Answer. Throughout our study period, fire borrowing affected the 
staff and resources available to complete NEPA projects and thereby 
increased NEPA compliance times.\13\ Additionally, the uncertainty 
caused by wildfire suppression activities was identified by Forest 
Service staff and stakeholders as a cause of delay that complicated 
NEPA compliance.\14\ Sources of delay included unstable budgets as well 
as staff reductions and shifting staff from project management to 
wildfire duties.\15\ Additionally, according to a 2006 report by the 
Office of Inspector General, some regions bore an ``inequitable 
wildfire protection burden'' because wildland fire protection 
agreements between the Forest Service and other agencies had not been 
renegotiated to reflect appropriate WUI protection 
responsibilities.\16\ Finally, due to ecological differences, some 
regions have higher wildfire hazards than others. There appeared to be 
some correlation between regions with longer decisionmaking times and 
those with greater wildfire burdens. However, other than observing the 
overlap, we had no way to test the relationship. It is worth noting 
Congress stabilized funding for wildfire suppression costs in 2018. 
However, the effect of this legislation was not visible during the 
period of study for our research.\17\ This could be a productive area 
of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 328-29.
    \14\ Id. at 329-330.
    \15\ Id. at 330.
    \16\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 326.
    \17\ Id. at 327-328.

    Question 5. Would additional resources for wildfire management help 
reduce NEPA decision-making times [for] areas with higher wildfire 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
suppression costs?

    Answer. According to a 2019 report from the Congressional Research 
Service, ``Fire expenditures continue to climb, affecting the 
implementation of other programs . . . through personnel and funds 
transferred to fire control.'' \18\ A series of roundtables conducted 
with stakeholders engaged with the Forest Service NEPA process also 
described how the high priority of wildfire suppression activities 
affect decisionmaking times. ``Budget shortfalls and statutory mandates 
on funding for fire response, combined with a shortage of trained 
employees in areas other than fire and/or a frequent diversion of staff 
to emergency response or shifting priorities, hamper the ability of the 
Agency to make progress on other important forest and grassland 
resource management efforts.'' They also noted that ``staffing levels 
are not adequate to meet the current demand'' and that ``timelines are 
often lengthened due to the need for hiring or onboarding additional 
staff, including `holes' in interdisciplinary team specialist 
representation'' \19\ Based on these reports, it appears likely that 
stabilizing budgets and bolstering agency capacity in non-fire 
suppression roles would improve decisionmaking times and efficiency in 
the NEPA process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Kate Hoover & Anne A. Riddle, Cong. Res. Serv., R43872, 
National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues 
for Congress (2019)
    \19\ Nat'l Forest Found., EADM, Environmental Analysis and 
Decisionmaking, Regional Partner Roundtables: National Findings and 
Leverage Points 18 (2018) https://www.nationalforests.org/assets/pdfs/
National-EADM-Report.pdf

    Question 6. Can you provide more information on how America needs 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
permitting reform for transmission lines?

    Answer. A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
found that there are over 2,000 GW of total generation and storage 
capacity waiting for approval to connect to the grid, 95 percent of 
which are solar, wind, or battery storage.\20\ However, these projects 
face long wait times and uncertainty when attempting to connect to the 
grid. Between 2000-2007, the time between an initial connection request 
and a fully built, operational plant was typically less than 2 years. 
Between 2018-2022, that timeframe doubled to an average of almost 4 
years, with an increasing trend. By 2022, the median between an 
interconnection request to commercial operations date reached almost 5 
years. The increased volume of proposed renewable projects sitting in 
the queue promises to amplify this problem. For example, at least two 
regional transmission organizations, the entities responsible for 
approving requests to connect to the grid, have announced pauses on 
accepting new projects until they can process their backlogs. The 
nation's largest electric grid operator, PJM Interconnection, 
coordinates electricity movement in 13 states and the District of 
Columbia.\21\ It has announced that it will not process any new 
applications until the end of 2025.\22\ Similarly, CAISO,\23\ a 
California grid operator, declined to accept any new projects in 2022 
while they processed their backlog. Both entities are looking for 
systemic solutions to improve the grid connection process. In addition 
to these challenges, transmission lines also face siting challenges, 
especially within communities that do not benefit from the power line. 
The interconnect queue, regional control of transmission, and siting 
high power transmission lines are serious problems that deserve a 
national strategy and are worthy of permit reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Berkeley Lab, Energy Technologies Area, Grid Connection 
Requests grow by 40% in 2022 As Clean Energy Surges, Despite Backlogs 
and Uncertainty (Apr. 6, 2023) https://energy.lbl.gov/news/grid-
connection-requests-grow-40-2022
    \21\ Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New 
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West 
Virginia. https://pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are/territory-served (last 
visited Apr. 24, 2023).
    \22\ Institute for Energy Research, PJM Plans for a Two-Year Pause 
on Reviewing Project Applications (Feb. 22, 2022). https://
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/pjm-plans-for-a-two-year-
pause-on-reviewing-project-applications/
#::text=To%20implement%20it%2C%20PJM% 
20is%20proposing%20an%20interim,on%20those%20coming%20at%20the%20end%20o
f%202027.
    \23\ California Independent System Operator https://www.caiso.com/
Pages/default.aspx

    Question 7. How would having a lead federal agency for permitting 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
benefit getting more energy projects up and running.

    Answer. Experience within the FAST-41 program demonstrates that 
identifying a lead federal agency and tasking it with the 
responsibility to convene stakeholders early in the permitting process 
can improve the transparency, predictability, and timeliness of 
permitting.\24\ Tasking a lead agency with the responsibility for 
coordinating multiple different permitting authorities, sequencing 
permitting decisions, identifying information that must be gathered, 
developing data management protocols, and coordinating stakeholder 
engagement can promote efficiency. For example, the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) utilized the NEPA process to overcome the 
challenge of inter-agency variance in decisionmaking for multiple 
federal, state, and local entities affected by a proposal to improve 
intercity passenger rail service in the Northeast Corridor.\25\ By 
engaging multiple agencies early, and identifying points of contact 
within each agency, the FRA ensured that partner agencies could provide 
timely information that the technical team utilized, avoiding conflict 
down the road. Communication protocols enabled the creation of an 
interactive dataset encompassing multiple local and state 
jurisdictions, transportation authorities and watersheds that could be 
used for subsequent environmental analyses. This created a framework 
for collaboration that would foster continued efficiencies beyond 
project implementation because future projects can utilize the 
established inter-jurisdictional database and communication protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Pleune & Boling, This Permit Reform Already Works supra note 5 
at 1046-1047.
    \25\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 337-338.

    Question 8. Can you further explain permitting delays caused by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
litigation aversion of agency staff?

    Answer. In 2018, the Forest Service launched an agency-wide effort 
to improve processes related to Environmental Analysis and Decision 
Making (EADM).\26\ The acronym EADM includes the NEPA processes, as 
well as underlying environmental decisions such as forest planning, 
issuance of special use permits, implementation of forest management 
activities, and fulfilment of other statutory obligations, including 
compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 
the National Historic Preservation Act. As part of that effort, the 
Forest Service asked the National Forest Foundation to assist in 
hosting ten regional partner roundtables across the country with the 
objective of collecting diverse feedback to inform ways to improve 
decisionmaking processes. During the roundtables, concern over 
litigation aversion featured prominently in every region.\27\ According 
to participants in the roundtables, Forest Service staff avoid making 
controversial decisions for fear of affecting opportunities for 
promotion.\28\ A controversial decision may sit on the back of 
someone's desk until that person is promoted or sent on detail, leaving 
someone else to bear the political or professional backlash of signing 
a decision that gets litigated. Additionally, litigation aversion leads 
to unwieldy, bulky, time-consuming documents. Participants in the 
roundtables explained, ``Risk aversion and a history of legal 
challenges to USFS decisions have led to the `bullet-proofing of 
environmental analysis documents and specialist reports'' resulting in 
documents where ``the complexity and size of analysis is often 
inconsistent with the complexity and size of the project.'' \29\ These 
observations are consistent with external research on Forest Service 
NEPA practice, which found that the threat of litigation had more 
influence on the decision to prepare an EIS or an EA than the degree of 
environmental impacts.\30\ Practitioners also recognize the problem. As 
one observed, ``[i]t has been the author's frequent experience that BLM 
and Forest Service delay decision-making in order to prepare more and 
lengthier documents in an effort to bulletproof their decisions from 
appeal. As a result, the diversion of agency resources and attention to 
the preparation of up-front disclosures under NEPA means less attention 
and resources are devoted to on the ground efforts such as monitoring 
the effects of agency decisions.'' \31\ Helen Leanne Serassio, a lawyer 
with more than 14 years in the Department of Transportation, suggested 
that ``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.'' 
\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ https://www.nationalforests.org/collaboration-resources/
environmental-analysis-and-decision-making-roundtables.
    \27\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 330.
    \28\ Id. at 331.
    \29\ Id. (quoting Michael J. Mortimer et al., Environmental and 
Social Risks : Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the US 
Forest Service, 109 J. Forestry 27, 29-30 (2011).
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id. at 332 (quoting Laura Lindley, NEPA Streamlining: Some 
Observations on Its Use in the Context of BLM and Forest Service Oil 
and Gas Program, in Rocky Mt. Min. L. Found, Natural Resources and 
Environmental Administrative Land and Procedure II (2004).
    \32\ Helen Leanne Serassio, Legislative and Executive Efforts to 
Modernize NEPA and Create Efficiencies in Environmental Review, 45 Tex. 
Envtl. L.J. 317, 333 (2015).

    Litigation aversion, which is a cultural problem that affects an 
untold number of decisions, is different from delays caused by actual 
litigation. Government-wide, only about two-tenths of one percent of 
more than 50,000 NEPA decisions that are documented each year result in 
litigation.\33\ An investigation by the GAO regarding Forest Service 
fuel reduction projects from fiscal years 2006-2008 revealed that only 
29 out of 1,415 decisions were litigated and the litigation impacted 
only 1% of lands slated for fuel reduction projects.\34\ In summary, 
the fear of litigation appears to create far more delay than litigation 
itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Id. at 333-334.
    \34\ Gov. Accountability Off., GAO-10-337, Forest Service: 
Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel 
Reduction Activities, Fiscal Year 2006 through 2008 1 (2010).

    Question 9. How can litigation reform reduce delays caused by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
litigation aversion by agency staff?

    Answer. According to participants in the EADM roundtable 
discussions, Forest Service staff fear that their opportunities for 
promotion will be reduced if they sign a NEPA decision that is 
litigated.\35\ Assuming the accuracy of these reports, the best way to 
reduce delays caused by litigation aversion is to reward agency 
officials who make prompt, well-supported decisions, regardless of 
whether the decision is litigated. This shift in focus would enable 
agencies like the Forest Service to encourage field officers to act 
decisively and exercise discretion to focus the NEPA analysis on 
significant issues identified during the scoping process.\36\ As Helen 
Leanne Serassio observed, ``Agencies must recognize and use their 
discretion to determine the necessary length of their NEPA documents, 
the methodologies to use, and the depth of the analysis necessary to 
make an informed decision. . . . If the agency's decision is not 
`arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 
accordance with law,' it will withstand judicial review.'' \37\ It is 
also worth noting that the NEPA process itself can help an agency avoid 
litigation by addressing stakeholder concerns through impact avoidance, 
reduction or mitigation.\38\ It can also help ensure that a contentious 
agency decision is defensible. Through NEPA's public participation 
procedures, the agency has an early opportunity to identify issues that 
may be litigated and justify its decisions regarding those issues. 
``Courts do not typically overturn NEPA decisions when the 
administrative record demonstrates that the agency has followed NEPA's 
procedural steps, when there are minor deficiencies in the NEPA 
document, or when an agency documents why it has chosen to exclude 
information.'' \39\ Without the public participation process afforded 
through NEPA, an agency may not understand the weaknesses in its 
decision until it is too late. Finally, eliminating a cause of action 
under NEPA will not protect a weak or unjustified agency decision from 
litigation. A study analyzing 20 years of Forest Service land 
management litigation recognized that most lawsuits involve multiple 
claims arising under different statutes.\40\ In cases involving 
multiple statutes, the majority of the time, the Forest Service would 
have lost even if NEPA did not exist.\41\ The importance of this 
observation comes into sharper focus when one considers the 
proliferation of local, regional, and state regulations that can also 
provide a cause of action to challenge a controversial action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 330.
    \36\ Id. at 342.
    \37\ Helen Leanne Serassio, Legislative and Executive Efforts to 
Modernize NEPA and Create Efficiencies in Environmental Review, 45 Tex. 
Envtl. L.J. 317, 334 & 335-341 (2015).
    \38\ Id. at 340-341.
    \39\ Id. at 335; Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for 
Improving NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 342-343.
    \40\ Amanda M.A. Miner et al., Twenty Years of Forest Service Land 
Management Litigation, 112 J. Forestry 32, 36 (2014).
    \41\ Id.; Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for 
Improving NEPA Implementation supra note 1 at 319.

    Question 10. Yes or no--do you agree that the Biden administration 
push to electric vehicles, and other so-called ``clean energy'' 
technologies, will require an increase in mineral production, i.e. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mining?

    Answer. Yes. According to the Biden Administration's Report, 
Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, 
and Fostering Broad-Based Growth, demand for critical minerals and 
materials ``is projected to surge over the next two decades, 
particularly as the world moves to eliminate net carbon emissions by 
2050.'' \42\ The report provided the following examples, ``global 
demand for lithium and graphite, two of the most important materials 
for electric vehicle batteries, is estimated to grow by more than 4000 
percent by 2040 in a scenario where the world achieves its climate 
goals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ The White House, Building Resilient Supply Chains, 
Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth: 
100-Day Reviews Under Executive Order 14017, 9 (June 2021).

    Question 11. Yes or no--Do you agree that the United States is 
currently reliant on foreign countries for critical minerals needed to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
transition to electric vehicles?

    Answer. Yes. According to the Biden Administration's Report, 
Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, 
and Fostering Broad-Based Growth, ``Global production for lithium, 
cobalt, and graphite are primarily dependent on a single nation . . . 
for each of these materials, a single country controls over 60 percent 
of the global production.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Id. at 120.

    Question 12. Yes or No--Are there steps we can take to mine and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
process more critical minerals in America?

    Answer. Yes. On May 10, 2023, the Biden Administration identified 
several steps ``to expand and accelerate responsible domestic 
production of critical minerals in a manner that upholds strong 
environmental, labor, safety, Tribal consultation, and community 
engagement standards.'' \44\ Promising reforms include updating the 
General Mining Law and providing legal clarification for laws affecting 
re-mining and remediation projects. These are two examples of arenas 
where legal ambiguities caused by complexities in the law create 
delay.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ White House, Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Outlines 
Priorities for Building America's Energy Infrastructure Faster, Safer, 
and Cleaner (May 10, 2023) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2023/05/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-
outlines-priorities-for-building-americas-energy-infrastructure-faster-
safer-and-cleaner/.
    \45\ Pleune, Playing the Long Game supra note 12 at 10901-10905.

    Question 13. Yes or no--the main producers of critical minerals--
such as China, Congo, and Indonesia--don't have nearly the same 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
environmental standards on mining as the United States, correct?

    Answer. I am not an expert on international environmental law. 
Based on my limited knowledge, it appears that China, Congo, and 
Indonesia have lower environmental standards. Other main producers, 
including Canada and Australia, appear to have comparable environmental 
regulatory regimes.

    Question 14. Yes or no--the main producers of critical minerals--
such as China, Congo, and Indonesia--do not have as many protections 
for human rights or labor as the United States, correct?

    Answer. I am not an expert in international human rights or labor 
practices. Based on my limited knowledge, it appears that China, Congo, 
and Indonesia have fewer human rights protections. Other main 
producers, including Canada and Australia, appear to have comparable 
human rights and labor regimes.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. Republicans are demanding 22% across-the-board cuts to 
annual appropriations. How would cuts like those affect the speed of 
permit processing, which they claim they are trying to improve?

    Answer. Common causes of delay in the permitting process can be 
summarised into three categories: (1) a lack of agency capacity, which 
includes insufficient allocation of resources (e.g., number of staff, 
staff expertise, funding, infrastructure, training, and or computer 
technology); (2) waiting for information from an applicant, 
particularly following a permit application that was vague or 
incomplete, or following a change to a proposed plan; (3) compliance 
with other legal requirements and/or ineffective agency coordination or 
collaboration during the permitting process.\46\ Notably, these three 
categories are not independent. The first category--agency capacity--
affects the other two. Without sufficient staff or expertise, an agency 
cannot provide support or training to assist operators in submitting 
complete applications with the required information. It is also 
unlikely that they will effectively engage in proactive coordination. 
Thus, a lack of agency capacity exacerbates the other two causes of 
delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Pleune, Playing the Long Game supra note 12 at 10475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 2. What impact does Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing 
Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, have on 
energy independence?

    Answer. Executive Order 14096 reduces the risk that we will repeat 
mistakes of the past by failing to account for the disproportionate 
impacts that often fall to minority, underrepresented, and socially or 
economically deprived communities.

    Question 3. Would extending or even expanding the use of fossil 
fuels make us more competitive or less competitive when compared to 
countries that are racing toward a renewable energy economy?

    Answer. This is outside my area of expertise.

    Question 4. Would extending or even expanding the use of fossil 
fuels increase our national security or weaken it?

    Answer. According to the Secretary of Defense, ``No country can 
find lasting security without tackling the climate crisis.'' \47\ 
Expanding the use of fossil fuels will exacerbate the climate crisis 
and consequently weaken our national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense 
(Acquisition and Sustainment), Department of Defense Climate Adaptation 
Plan 2022 Progress Report. Report Submitted to National Climate Task 
Force and Federal Chief Sustainability Officer (Oct. 2022).

    Question 5. What is the connection between NEPA and energy 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
independence?

    Answer. One way to achieve energy independence is transitioning to 
a renewable energy economy, which means building massive 
infrastructure. It also will require cooperation between agencies with 
different jurisdictional duties, states, local communities, and tribes. 
Without a framework for coordinating analysis, considering stakeholder 
input, identifying potential hazards, and avoiding, reducing, or 
mitigating those impacts, this build out of infrastructure would be 
practically impossible. One barrier to the deployment of renewable 
energy projects is opposition from affected landowners due to real or 
perceived harms that the project would bring, and inconsistency between 
local, state, tribal, and federal laws.\48\ A research team from MIT 
concluded ``incorporating all stakeholder perspectives from the outset 
of a siting process will probably save time and money'' by addressing 
concerns early and avoiding sustained political opposition. The NEPA 
process is a familiar tool that can be used to engage stakeholders 
early and streamline renewable energy deployment. The NEPA process also 
serves as a tool for decisionmakers to defend justified decisions. It 
offers a public process for deliberation. It helps decisionmakers 
identify issues of concern. It provides a forum to justify use of 
agency discretion. It provides a preview potential sources of conflict 
and a mechanism for avoiding, reducing, or mitigating impacts. And it 
helps agencies understand legal vulnerabilities of a decision before 
it's made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Lawrence Susskind et al., Sources of Opposition to Renewable 
Energy Projects in the United States, 165 Energy Policy 112922 (2022).

    Question 6. What would weakening NEPA mean for frontline 
communities, communities that have historically borne a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disproportionate burden of environmental harms?

    Answer. Weakening NEPA would harm these communities. NEPA's ``look 
before you leap'' mandate requires agencies to disclose environmental 
impacts, weigh alternatives, and consider public comment before 
committing public resources to a course of action.\49\ Looking to the 
past is highly relevant to the future. Prior to NEPA's enactment, 
agencies were free to implement decisions without regard to the 
collateral damage on communities or natural resources. For example, the 
Federal Highway Act of 1956 initiated construction of the interstate 
highway system.\50\ Focused on speedy implementation, the Department of 
Transportation routed highways through low cost, low opposition lands, 
which tended to be parks, historic sites, recreation areas, and working 
class or low-income neighborhoods. As a result, low-income communities 
were disproportionately harmed during the build out of the interstate 
highway system. One example is a segment of I-95 that cut through an 
innercity community outside of Miami, Florida. Overtown, known at the 
time as the ``Harlem of the South,'' was a thriving black community. 
The selected route for I-95 cut straight through the community, even 
though a less destructive route along a nearby abandoned railroad 
corridor was available.\51\ In a 2009 report, the Federal Highway 
Administration acknowledged that the selected route ``had a disastrous 
impact on the economic and social structure of the community'' with 
lingering effects that to this day fuel anger, resentment, and distrust 
toward the Department of Transportation.\52\ Many other communities 
suffered similar fates due to one-sided planning focused on finding the 
cheapest route, without regard to the collateral impacts. As one group 
of scholars described, ``Take any major American city, and you're 
likely to find a historically Black neighborhood demolished, gashed in 
two, or cut off from the rest of the city by a highway.'' \53\ The 
disclosure requirements imposed through NEPA were intended to avoid 
similar ill-advised and harmful uses of federal power and funding. As 
the nation considers how to build a new interstate energy 
infrastructure system, the lessons of the past should serve as a 
cautionary tale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 
(1989) (``The statutory requirement that a federal agency contemplating 
a major action prepare such an environmental impact statement serves 
NEPA's action-forcing purpose in two important respects. It ensures 
that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and 
will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant 
environmental impacts; it also guarantees that the relevant information 
will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role 
in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that 
decision.'' (internal citations and quotations omitted)); Baltimore Gas 
& Elec. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983) (``NEPA has 
twin aims. First it places upon an agency the obligation to consider 
every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed 
action. Second it ensures that the agency will inform the public that 
it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking 
process.'' (internal citations and quotations omitted)).
    \50\ Linda Luther, Cong. Res. Serv., The Role of the Environmental 
Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: Background and 
Issues 6-7 (Apr. 2012).
    \51\ Hillary Simmons, The Heart of ``Harlem of the South,'' The 
Beacon (Dec. 28, 2020) available at https://
mastthebeacon.wordpress.com/2020/12/28/the-heart-of-harlem-of-the-
south/ (last visited May 17, 2023).
    \52\ Linda Luther, Cong. Res. Serv., The Role of the Environmental 
Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: Background and 
Issues 6-7 (Apr. 2012).
    \53\ Rachael Dottle, Laura Bliss, and Pablo Robles, What It Looks 
Like to Reconnect Black Communities Torn Apart by Highways, Bloomberg 
(July 28, 2021).

    Question 7. Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land 
Management lost significant numbers of experienced staff when they 
tried to move the agency's headquarters out of D.C. While the Biden 
administration has taken important steps to address the bureau's 
workforce challenges. Based on your research, would you please explain 
the expected impact of the Trump BLM relocation on permitting times, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and why it is important to provide sufficient and stable funding.

    Answer. The Bureau of Land Management is one of several agencies 
that suffered extreme losses of staff under the prior 
administration.\54\ Since 2011, it has been on the GAO's list of 
programs at high risk and vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse due in 
part to a lack of staff. This problem was further exacerbated in July 
2020, when the Trump Administration abruptly decided relocate BLM's 
headquarters from Washington D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado. The 
Headquarters Office, which develops guidance and regulations, should be 
staffed by 311 career positions. However, it was already severely 
understaffed with 132 vacant positions before the relocation 
announcement. In response to the relocation announcement, 81 more staff 
left, leaving the leadership at 31 percent capacity. The remaining 
leadership team were dispersed among multiple offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Pleune & Boling, This Permit Reform Works supra note 5 at 
10476; see also Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-20-379R, Bureau of Land 
Management: Agency Reorganization Efforts Did Not Substantially Address 
Key Practices for Effective Reforms (Mar. 6, 2020) and Gov't 
Accountability Off., GAO-22-104247, BLM, Better Workforce Planning and 
Data Would Help Mitigate the Effects of Recent Staff Vacancies (Nov. 
2021).

    Numbers do not tell the whole story. The BLM also suffered a loss 
of experienced staff. Every BLM staff member interviewed reported that 
the loss of experienced staff negatively affected their offices' 
ability to conduct its duties. For example, the loss of institutional 
knowledge about laws and regulations meant that the BLM could not 
provide knowledgeable input on proposed rules and legislation. Other 
staff admitted that the rapid loss of experienced staff hindered 
knowledge transfer. In a follow-up report, a year later, all BLM staff 
interviewed by the GAO reported challenges in completing their duties 
due to headquarters vacancies. As a result of delays in creating or 
clarifying guidance or policies, some staff relied on outdated policy 
guidance to make decisions. Other staff reported delays implementing 
upgrades to information technology systems, which GAO had previously 
recommended be updated. Obviously these institutional challenges would 
affect permitting times. Applicants could not receive good guidance 
from experienced staff, and staff members processing permits had little 
instruction on how to proceed effectively. The BLM is not alone. 
Multiple agencies with permitting or infrastructure responsibilities, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
are short-staffed and underfunded.

    When the GAO investigated the BLM's workforce planning in 2020, it 
found that the BLM had no way of tracking vacancies and no recruitment 
plan for filling vacancies.\55\ When asking for data on the total 
number of positions and vacancies agency wide, the GAO was told that 
BLM does not maintain a list of vacancies for state offices. As a 
result, it was not possible to determine the proportion of positions 
that are vacant at any given time or the specific positions that are 
vacant. This lack of information obviously creates a problem for 
improving capacity in a way that results in improved efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Land Management: 
Agency Reorganization Efforts Did Not Substantially Address Key 
Practices for Effective Reforms GAO-20-379R, 10 (Mar. 6, 2020).

    In order to resolve workforce challenges, agencies require stable 
funding that will enable strategic workforce development. Additionally, 
agencies must be confident that the funding will not disappear. 
Unstable budgets do not build durable workforces. Shortchanging 
agencies of staff and funding will cause delays in the permitting 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
process.

    Question 8. You've talked about the importance of staff but have 
emphasized that certain staff attributes are important as well. What do 
we need to see in those staff, and how can we make that happen?

    Answer. Strategic workforce planning is critical to ensuring that 
agencies spend wisely and build a workforce capable of fulfilling 
agency missions. The Army Corps of Engineers developed a comprehensive 
strategic workforce plan in 2017 that demonstrates how this type of 
planning can achieve long-term efficiencies at all levels of agency 
operations.\56\ The Corps developed planning strategies to align human 
capital with changing workloads and missions using real-time workforce 
data for decision-making.\57\ For example, they initiated a Workload to 
Workforce Assessment, which is an annual planning activity conducted by 
workforce managers agency-wide to assess the capacity, competency, and 
balance of the workforce to meet the projected workload in the next 1 
to 3 years.\58\ Based on the results, managers prepare action plans to 
address any potential workforce capacity, competency, or balance gaps. 
They also created Civilian Workforce Dashboards, which are an 
interactive online display that provide workforce managers at all 
levels of the organization with direct access to the most current human 
capital information for planning purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Government Accountability Office, Army Corps of Engineers: 
Workforce Planning Follows Most Leading Practices but Could Be Enhanced 
with Additional Actions GAO-22-104053 (Dec. 2021).
    \57\ Id. at 9.
    \58\ Id. at 10.

    The Corps also created a strategy to address all four stages of the 
human capital life cycle. The recruiting stage involves sourcing and 
acquiring top talent to accomplish current and future missions, shaping 
the workforce to meet mission needs, and marketing missions to attract 
the workforce of the future.\59\ The Corps human resources managers 
created a talent acquisition team to support the recruitment program. 
They also utilized tools to attract talent including direct-hire 
authorities. Use of direct hire authorities reduced vacancy fill time 
and allowed managers to quickly hire top talent.\60\ Additional tools 
included policy guidance for managers to offer monetary and non-
monetary incentives as tools to attract and retain personnel. 
Incentives include student loan repayment; recruitment, relocation, 
retention, and enhanced retention incentives; credit for prior non-
federal work experience and certain military experience for determining 
annual leave accrual rate; and superior qualifications appointment and 
special needs pay-setting authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Id. at 11.
    \60\ Id. at 12.
    \61\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second stage of the workforce life cycle is the developing 
stage, which focuses on ensuring a culture of continuous skill 
improvement throughout the organization and fostering technical and 
leader development.\62\ To address career development challenges, the 
Corps provides career specific training, development, and mentoring 
activities to its workforce. This includes job-related training, an 
Emerging Leaders Program, and a Senior Leader Academy.\63\ In addition 
to training new staff, the mentoring and leadership training programs 
have the added benefit of preserving and passing along institutional 
knowledge within the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id. at 14-15.

    The final stage is the sustaining, or retention stage, which 
focuses on preventing critical talent loss and improving organizational 
performance by valuing and engaging employees at all levels. Some 
strategies utilized at this stage include an online exit survey tool 
for departing employees to capture the underlying causes of talent 
loss. Some offices also implemented a ``stay survey'' to measure 
employee engagement during their tenure as a proactive alternative to 
surveying staff that are leaving. The Corps also utilizes the annual 
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey as a tool to make improvements. The 
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is an existing tool with valuable 
information about workforce problems. The Corp directs managers at all 
levels to analyze the annual survey results for their workforce and 
develop action plans to address areas of concerns. Since adopting this 
strategy, survey response rates and scores have steadily risen. For 
example, employees satisfied with the organization rose from 55 percent 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in 2013 to 71 percent in 2019.

    Using these strategies, the Corps has been able to determine 
critical skills and competencies needed, and align its workforce to 
those needs. One strategy is through employee performance reviews. The 
missions of the Army and the Corps are incorporated into each 
employee's performance plan and evaluation. Employee progress reviews 
link back to the mission and goals of the organization. Managers 
provide feedback and recommend training to assist the employee in 
reaching individual goals.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Id. at 31.

    Another strategy is agency-wide Workload to Workforce Assessments, 
which assess the status of the workforce--such as vacancy fill rates--
to forecast the ability to meet the future workload and the type and 
experience level of employees that will be needed.\65\ Use of the 
Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys provide further insight into areas 
for improvement in employee engagement and working groups focus on ways 
to use the information to make the Corps a better place to work. 
Finally, the Corps utilizes ongoing real-time data to evaluate the 
effectiveness of these strategies.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Id. at 31.
    \66\ Id. at 33.

    In summary, each agency will have different staffing needs. 
Strategic workforce planning is an existing tool that agencies can use 
to ensure sufficient staff, expertise, and capacity to achieve the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agency's mission.

    Question 9. What is the biggest barrier to renewable energy 
transmission projects, and what is the evidence for that conclusion?

    Answer. A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
found that there are over 2,000 GW of total generation and storage 
capacity waiting for approval to connect to the grid, 95 percent of 
which are solar, wind, or battery storage.\67\ However, these projects 
face long wait times and uncertainty when attempting to connect to the 
grid. Between 2000-2007, the time between an initial connection request 
and a fully built, operational plant was typically less than 2 years. 
Between 2018-2022, that time frame doubled to an average of almost 4 
years, with an increasing trend. By 2022, the median between an 
interconnection request to commercial operations date reached almost 5 
years. This is a major barrier to energy transmission. Additional 
hurdles include siting challenges, and cost-benefit allocation for 
transmission lines that pass through communities without offering a 
benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Berkeley Lab, Energy Technologies Area, Grid Connection 
Requests grow by 40% in 2022 As Clean Energy Surges, Despite Backlogs 
and Uncertainty (Apr. 6, 2023) https://energy.lbl.gov/news/grid-
connection-requests-grow-40-2022

    Question 10. My friends on the other side of the aisle have claimed 
that litigation slows energy projects. What effect does NEPA have on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
litigation of major energy projects?

    Answer. The NEPA process creates an opportunity to discover and 
mitigate concerns with a proposed project before finalizing an action, 
which can often avoid litigation that could delay implementation of an 
action.\68\ The NEPA process can also reduce costs by identifying 
design problems before implementation of a project begins. A study 
prepared for the Transportation Research Board emphasized this 
potential benefit. ``Spending more monies during planning and design 
will reduce the time and cost required for construction by avoiding 
unforeseen conditions, reducing to a minimum design errors and 
omissions, and developing schemes that will support the most efficient 
approach to construction.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Id. at 340-341; Pleune, Playing the Long Game, 52 Env. L. Rep. 
at 10905-10904 (``without providing an opportunity to raise concerns 
during the [NEPA] scoping process, stakeholders may raise concerns late 
in the process or through litigation . . . [and] some of those concerns 
may require collecting additional baseline data that may have been 
easily collected at the beginning of the permitting process'').
    \69\ Linda Luther, Cong. Res. Serv. R.42479, The Role of the 
Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: 
Background and Issues for Congress 36 (Apr. 2012) (citing H.R. Thomas 
and R.D. Ellis, Avoiding Delays During the Construction Phase of 
Highway Projects, Transportation Research Board, National Research 
Council, NCHRP 20-24 (Oct. 2001).

    For example, the NEXUS Gas Transmission Project, was a 250-mile 
natural gas pipeline traversing Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and 
Michigan.\70\ During the pre-application process, which included 
extensive public participation, the project sponsors incorporated 239 
route alternatives and variations in the pipeline design to address 
landowner requests, avoid sensitive resources, or respond to 
engineering restraints. This feedback resulted in a 91 percent change 
from the original proposed route design--a number of modifications that 
would have been prohibitively expensive at the end of the review 
process. Using this information at the beginning of the process 
improved efficiency and arguably resulted in a better end-result and a 
final application that was processed more expeditiously.\71\ Similar 
efficiencies could be achieved with other major energy projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Office of the Executive Director, Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council, Recommended Best Practices for Project 
Review and Permitting for Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal Year 2018, 
at 17 (2017).
    \71\ This is not to say that early engagement eliminated local 
opposition in every community. See Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, Home Rule 
Symposium: Cities and Citizens Seethe: A Case Study of Local Efforts to 
Influence Natural Gas Pipeline Routing Decisions, 122 W. Va. L. Rev. 
881, 907-934 (Spring 2020) [hereinafter Gorovitz, Cities and Towns 
Seethe] (describing FERC's extensive public engagement and local 
opposition in three Ohio towns).

    The NEPA process can also provide a mechanism to build consensus, 
which can reduce the risk of litigation. For example, in 2012, the 
Forest Service completed the 4FRI EIS. The project goal was to restore 
the ponderosa pine forest stretching across northern Arizona, while 
reducing communities' exposure to wildfire threats, rehabilitating 
ecosystems, and sustaining the forest industry operating in local 
communities.\72\ The EIS analyzed the largest number of acres in Forest 
Service history, stretching across four different national forests, for 
restoration-based mechanical forest treatments. Despite its ambitious 
scale, the EIS was completed more quickly than the average time frame 
for EISs completed that year, and when it came time for implementation, 
the Forest Service was not delayed by litigation. Using the NEPA 
process as an opportunity for collaborative decisionmaking developed 
consensus among diverse stakeholders that had long-term benefits and 
ultimately sped up implementation of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Ruple et al., Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving 
Implementation of NEPA supra note 20 at 338.

    This brings up another important distinction. Although NEPA's 
detractors often blame litigation for delay, the evidence shows that 
litigation is rare. Government-wide, only an estimated 0.22% of NEPA 
decisions are litigated.\73\ An investigation by the Government 
Accountability Office regarding Forest Service fuel reduction projects 
from fiscal years 2006-2008 revealed that only 29 out of 1,415 
decisions were litigated, and litigation impacted only 1% of lands 
slated for fuel reduction projects.\74\ In other words, used properly, 
the NEPA process is more likely to avoid potential litigation than 
cause it. Proposed reforms like short deadlines and page limits 
threaten to undermine NEPA's capacity to serve as a flexible tool for 
structured and transparent deliberation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ John C. Ruple & Kayla M. Race, Measuring the NEPA Litigation 
Burden: A Review of 1,499 Federal Court Cases, 50 Envtl. L. 479, 497-99 
(2020); David Adelman & Robert L. Glicksman, Presidential and Judicial 
Politics in Environmental Litigation, 50 Ariz. St. L.J. 3, 7 (2018) 
(conducting an empirical study of NEPA litigation during the 
presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama and observing, ``[w]e 
find little evidence that litigation under NEPA is out of control or 
that NEPA's processes are overly burdensome''); John C. Ruple & Heather 
Tanana, Debunking the Myths Behind the NEPA Review Process, 35 Nat. 
Res. & Env't 14, 15 (2020); Forrest Fleischman et al., U.S. Forest 
Service Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, 
Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining, 118 J. Forestry 403, 404 
(2020).
    \74\ Gov't Accountability Off., GAO 10-227, Forest Service, 
Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel 
Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 1 (2010).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady.
    I now recognize Mr. Kenny Stein for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF KENNY STEIN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, INSTITUTE FOR 
                ENERGY RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Stein. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify at this hearing.
    For nearly 50 years a constant over-riding concern of 
United States energy policy was the shortage and scarcity of 
oil and natural gas. Dependence on foreign oil was seen as a 
national security crisis. Numerous half-baked policy ideas, 
regulations, and subsidies were spawned to address this 
perceived crisis, many of which survive to this day, continuing 
to distort markets and increase energy costs: fuel efficiency 
mandates, ethanol subsidies and mandates, solar and wind 
subsidies, export controls, subsidies for domestic production. 
All of this and more was done in the name of energy 
independence and security, and all to little effect.
    But today, we have just about achieved that long-sought-
after energy security. Since lows in the mid-2000s, the United 
States has more than doubled domestic oil production, and 
almost doubled natural gas production. In 2019, the United 
States became a net exporter of petroleum. The United States 
became a net exporter of natural gas in 2017, and the United 
States is also a net exporter of coal and refined products. The 
United States is the largest oil and natural gas producer in 
the world.
    This position has completely changed this country's energy 
posture, making the United States the most energy secure that 
it has been since at least the first half of the 20th century. 
This success did not come from government. It took years of 
experimenting with and perfecting hydraulic fracturing and 
directional drilling. It took companies taking the risk of 
investing in new areas and new formations and new depths with 
no guarantees of success. It took government actually getting 
out of the way of exporting LNG and crude oil, providing new 
markets for U.S. production. And it needed a lack of Federal 
Government hostility.
    For all its environmental radicalism, the Obama 
administration recognized the need for domestic energy 
production. They somewhat reduced production on Federal lands 
through policy interference, but mostly left production on 
private and state lands to its own devices. In short, the many 
decades of government interference intervention did not solve 
the energy security problem; the private sector did when it was 
allowed to escape from the help of the Federal Government.
    But just as we have just about achieved this long-sought 
energy security, the Biden administration has launched a full 
spectrum assault on domestic energy production, trying to crush 
production on Federal lands while looking to regulate non-
Federal production into oblivion, all while subsidizing 
promoting energy sources whose inputs and supply chains are 
controlled by China and Chinese state-owned companies. It is an 
agenda to replace independence with dependence, and dependence 
on one of the countries in the world most hostile to the United 
States, no less.
    The Administration has grasped for any lever it can to 
pursue its promotion of Chinese energy and suppression of U.S. 
energy. This includes many of the laws and regulations passed 
over the decades attempting to address the old crisis of 
scarcity, which the Administration is now seeking to repurpose 
in often illegal ways to support the crusade to eliminate the 
new abundance.
    As just a few examples of the Administration's war on 
domestic energy, the Administration is actively seeking to halt 
oil and gas production on Federal lands by any means in direct 
contravention of congressional intent; the Council on 
Environmental Quality is writing new guidelines for the 
National Environmental Policy Act designed to turn an already 
burdensome NEPA process into a cudgel to crush domestic energy 
production; the Administration has participated in numerous 
sue-and-settle deals with environmental groups so that they can 
use the settlements to prevent oil and gas production without 
going through Congress or the normal regulatory process; in a 
brazen and illegal move, the Administration, for the first time 
in our history, has refused to finalize an offshore leasing 
plan entirely; the Administration is attempting to use old fuel 
efficiency mandates to mandate electric vehicles; and finally, 
the Administration has, without statutory mandate from 
Congress, sought to inject vague notions of environmental 
justice into every decision-making process. This concept is not 
scientific or measurable. It is entirely in the eye of the 
beholder. It is simply a tool for arbitrarily halting 
development that the Administration does not like.
    These actions, and the hundreds of other additional and 
related actions are cumulative. Every action making it harder 
to produce energy domestically reduces the desire of companies 
to invest domestically. Oil and gas production requires ongoing 
investment just to keep production stable, much less increase 
it. Reduced investment means reduced production down the line, 
and that reduced production erodes our hard-won energy 
security. It ends with the spectacle of the President of the 
United States, leader of the world's largest oil-producing 
country, going hat-in-hand to beg Saudi Arabia for more 
production, or cowardly seeking to relax sanctions against one 
of the most brutal regimes in the Americas to get more oil 
supply from Venezuela.
    U.S. oil production still has not reached the level seen at 
the end of 2019, just before the start of the pandemic. That is 
not because the oil isn't there or there isn't demand. It is 
because the companies are concerned about making the 
investments needed when there is a hostile Administration 
willing to use any means to destroy their industry. These 
investments then get made in other countries, with the United 
States left having to import to meet our future needs.
    The Biden administration's regulatory assault on domestic 
energy is an assault on this nation's security and prosperity. 
It is a dependence agenda that makes energy more expensive and 
less available, while at the same time making our energy system 
dependent on foreign supplies from China. That this is being 
done by regulatory fiat using questionable authorities, or even 
in direct conflict with laws passed by Congress is, frankly, a 
crisis of our democratic system.
    Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Kenneth Stein, Policy Director, Institute for 
                            Energy Research
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this 
hearing.
    My name is Kenny Stein, I am the Policy Director for the Institute 
for Energy Research, a free-market organization that conducts research 
and analysis on the function, operation, and regulation of energy 
markets.
    For nearly 50 years, a constant overriding concern of United States 
energy policy was shortage and scarcity of oil and natural gas. 
Dependence on foreign oil was seen as a national security crisis. 
Numerous half-baked policy ideas, regulations and subsidies were 
spawned to address this perceived crisis, many of which survive to this 
day continuing to distort markets and increase energy costs. Fuel 
efficiency mandates, ethanol subsidies and mandates, solar and wind 
subsidies, export controls, subsidies for domestic production; all of 
this and more was done in the name of energy independence and security. 
And all to little effect.
    But today, we have just about achieved that long sought after 
energy security. Since lows in the mid 2000s, the US has more than 
doubled domestic oil production \1\ and almost doubled natural gas 
production.\2\ In 2019, the US became a net exporter of petroleum.\3\ 
The US became a net exporter of natural gas in 2017. The US is also a 
net exporter of coal and refined products. The US is the largest oil 
and natural gas producer in the world. This position has completely 
changed this country's energy posture, making the US the most energy 
secure it has been since at least the first half of the 20th century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M
    \2\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-
natural-gas-comes-from.php#
    \3\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/
imports-and-exports.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This success did not come from government. It took years 
experimenting with and perfecting hydraulic fracturing and directional 
drilling. It took companies taking the risk of investing in new areas, 
new formations, and new depths with no guarantee of success. It took 
government getting out of the way of exporting LNG and crude oil, 
providing new markets for US production. And it needed a lack of 
federal government hostility. For all its environmental radicalism, the 
Obama administration recognized the need for domestic energy 
production, somewhat reducing production on federal lands through 
policy interference, but mostly leaving production on private and state 
land to its own devices. In short, the many decades of government 
interference and intervention did not solve the energy security 
problem, the private sector did when it was able to escape from the 
``help'' of the federal government.
    But just as we have just about achieved this long-sought energy 
security, the Biden administration has launched a full spectrum assault 
on domestic energy production, trying to crush production on federal 
lands while looking to regulate non-federal production into oblivion, 
all while subsidizing and promoting energy sources whose inputs and 
supply chains are controlled by China and Chinese state-owned 
companies.\4\ It is an agenda to replace independence with dependence, 
and dependence on one of the countries in the world most hostile to the 
United States no less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Institute for Energy Research, The Economic and Strategic 
Importance of Domestic Mineral Production, April 2023 https://
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/The-
Economic-and-Strategic-Importance-of-Domestic-Mineral-Production.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The administration has grasped for any lever it can in pursuit of 
its promotion of Chinese energy and suppression of US energy. This 
includes many of the laws and regulations passed over the decades 
attempting to address the old crisis of scarcity, which the 
administration is now seeking to repurpose, often in illegal ways, to 
support their crusade to eliminate abundance.

    To list just a few examples of the Biden administration's war on 
domestic energy:

     The administration is actively seeking to halt oil and gas 
            production on federal lands by any means, in direction 
            contravention of Congressional intent.

     The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) is writing new 
            guidelines for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
            designed to turn the already burdensome NEPA process into a 
            cudgel to crush domestic energy production.

     The administration has participated in numerous sue-and-
            settle deals with environmental groups so they can use the 
            settlements to prevent oil and gas production without going 
            through Congress or the normal regulatory process.

     In a brazen and illegal move, the administration for the 
            first time in our country's history has refused to finalize 
            an offshore leasing plan.

     The administration is attempting to use old fuel 
            efficiency mandates to mandate electric vehicles.

     And the administration has, without statutory mandate from 
            Congress, sought to inject vague notions of ``environmental 
            justice'' into every decision-making process. This concept 
            is not scientific or measurable, it is entirely in eye of 
            the beholder. It is simply a tool for arbitrarily halting 
            development that the administration does not like.

    These actions and the hundreds of other additional and related 
actions are cumulative. Every action making it harder to produce energy 
domestically reduces the desire of companies to invest domestically. 
Oil and gas production requires ongoing investment just to keep 
production stable, much less increase it. Reduced investment means 
reduced production down the line. And that reduced production erodes 
our hard-won energy security. It ends with the spectacle of President 
of the US, leader of the world's largest oil producing country, going 
hat in hand to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil production, or cowardly 
seeking to relax sanctions against one of the most brutal regimes in 
the Americas to get more oil supply from Venezuela.
    US oil production still has not reached the level seen at the end 
of 2019 just before the start of the pandemic.\5\ That is not because 
the oil isn't there or that there isn't demand, it's because companies 
are concerned about making the investments needed when there is a 
hostile administration willing to use any means to destroy their 
industry. These investments then get made in other countries, with the 
US left having to import to meet our future needs. The Biden 
administration's regulatory assault on domestic energy is an assault on 
this nation's security and prosperity. It is a dependence agenda that 
makes energy more expensive and less available, while at the same time 
making our energy system dependent on foreign supplies from China. That 
this is being done by regulatory fiat, using questionable authorities 
or even in direct conflict with laws passed by Congress, is frankly a 
crisis of our democratic system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Stein. I thank all the witnesses 
for your testimony. I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes 
for their questions. I am going to start with the Chairman for 
the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman.

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you again, Chairman Gosar, and thank 
you to the witnesses for being here today.
    Ms. Pleune, you made a pretty solid argument about the 
efficiency of NEPA. And if I understand from your testimony, 
your position would be that NEPA is OK like it is, and it 
doesn't need any reforms. Is that correct?
    Ms. Pleune. NEPA is capable of efficiency, and it is done 
efficiently under the existing regulations. However, 
inefficiency also happens. What we found, however, is that the 
sources of inefficiency are not the regulatory problems. If 
they were, then we wouldn't see quick decisions.
    In fact, what we are finding is that the primary sources of 
inefficiency are a lack of staff capacity, a lack of regulatory 
people with relevant expertise in order to make a decision. I 
will just give you a quick example.
    Mr. Westerman. I have some more questions.
    Ms. Pleune. OK.
    Mr. Westerman. Did you see any changes in the data when 
administrations would change, where maybe permits were issued 
quicker under one administration than another administration?
    Ms. Pleune. We looked for that trend, and we did not see 
that trend. But one, I think, really poignant example was a 
study that the GAO did of application for permit-to-drill 
processing times. And what they found is that, even though the 
different field offices had significantly different times in 
processing them, ranging from 300 days in Miles City to 37 days 
in Anchorage--exact same standard, exact same law--and the 
difference was a lack of capacity and how well the permitting 
process was managed.
    Mr. Westerman. Has that process increased since the--I 
think it was in the IRA, or maybe the Infrastructure and Jobs 
Act--there was a huge amount of money put out for agencies for 
permitting. Have you seen any change in the numbers since there 
has been a flood of money into the agencies?
    Ms. Pleune. We have. And in fact, one of the things that is 
showing quite significant improvements in permit processing 
times are the reforms, and also the attention and support that 
has been given to projects that are going through the FAST-41 
process. And those improved processing times are quite 
remarkable, first because the projects that go through FAST-41 
are chosen because they are complex, they involve multiple 
agencies, lots of different laws, and the permit processing 
times within there are much shorter.
    For example, in 2020, the average time for projects that 
went through FAST-41 was about 2.5 years for EISs. Other 
projects are going even more quickly, notably----
    Mr. Westerman. Having done engineering work before I came 
to Congress, when I hear 2.8 years or 2.5 years, that causes 
people real problems that are actually trying to do projects, 
to have it delayed that long where you are waiting for 
permitting. Plus, it is not just NEPA. If you are building 
something, you end up with clean air permits, water discharge 
permits. So, these permits get stacked on top of each other.
    But my real question here is, do you think that permitting 
reform is necessary for America to meet the Administration's 
clean energy goals?
    Ms. Pleune. There are things that need to be reformed, and 
some examples are the interconnect queue, the process for 
approving transmission lines. The interconnect queue--right now 
projects are waiting an average of 5 years because it is so 
long to get through the regional transmission organizations.
    Mr. Westerman. Is there anything in H.R. 1, the Lower 
Energy Costs Act that we proposed on permitting reform, such as 
putting one Federal agency in charge, limiting the length of 
the permit applications, would any of that be beneficial, or do 
you think that is just some kind of political gamesmanship?
    Ms. Pleune. Identifying a lead Federal agency is a 
productive practice that was implemented through the FAST-41 
Act, and it does work.
    You have multiple different permits that you have to 
obtain, and the NEPA structure can provide a way for agencies 
to coordinate that decision-making process, and that is what 
they use the FAST-41 for.
    Imposing time limits on NEPA process creates a possibility 
that you won't be able to use the process in order to address 
all of those different permits, especially where there are also 
state, local, or tribal interests or permit requirements 
imposed.
    Mr. Westerman. You think there is any problem with 
litigation on NEPA, litigation that may not be justified, that 
it is used for more political purposes than to actually achieve 
the objectives of NEPA?
    Ms. Pleune. I think there are two elements of litigation 
that are important to recognize. The first is that the amount 
of litigation is extremely small. It is an estimated 0.22 
percent of all NEPA decisions, and secondly, I don't think NEPA 
litigation itself slows down very many projects.
    However, there is a distinction between delays that are 
caused by litigation and delays that are caused by litigation 
aversion. In our research, we found that agency staff members 
are concerned that their opportunities for promotion will be 
limited if they sign a document that gets litigated. As a 
result, the document sits on the back of the desk. It doesn't 
get signed until that person gets promoted or they go on 
detail. And that is a real significant delay that doesn't 
benefit anyone.
    So, creating a system where we reward agency members for 
quick decisions, even if they are litigated, would be one way 
to avoid delays that are caused by the fear of litigation.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am out of time, even 
though this is a fun discussion. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. It was a fun discussion. Thank you, Chairman.
    I now recognize Mrs. Lee from Nevada.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all of the 
witnesses today.
    This hearing today can feel like it is tailor-made to 
highlight the disagreements that those of us on this dais have 
had and continue to have regarding energy policy. But I always 
try to highlight areas where we can be in agreement. And I will 
begin by asking you all a simple yes-or-no question.
    Would you agree that, as a general rule, Americans get the 
biggest bang for our buck when we prioritize energy development 
and exploration in non-sensitive areas where there is also a 
high likelihood of finding and harnessing significant energy 
resources?
    And I will start with you. Just a yes-or-no answer. Do you 
agree with that statement?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Energy companies have their own ways 
of deciding which are the best investments, and sensitive or 
less sensitive is not an objective manner of describing a 
particular area.
    Mr. Harrell. Yes, we need to produce more American energy.
    Ms. Pleune. Yes, I think producing energy in a way that 
reduces harms, avoids harms is a good idea.
    Mr. Stein. Again, repeating the previous statement, the 
sensitive versus not sensitive is a very subjective term, so it 
is a little hard to agree or disagree with that----
    Mrs. Lee. What about in areas with a higher likelihood of 
producing energy?
    Mr. Stein. Well, yes, but I think that is where investments 
go.
    Mrs. Lee. All right. Well, I represent a state that has an 
incredibly wide range of energy sources. I come from Nevada. We 
have critical minerals like lithium and, obviously, our 
sunshine, a source of renewable. But what we don't have are 
great quantities of oil and natural gas. Nonetheless, the GAO 
reports that a shocking two-thirds of total acreage nominated 
for onshore oil and gas leasing nationwide from 2009 to 2019 
was in my home state of Nevada. That is 60.7 million out of 
86.8 million acres.
    BLM officials in Nevada have said that it took their staff 
over 5 years just to review and process 28 million acres 
nominated in my state in 2014, most of which did not result in 
any energy production. In fact, of the 61 million acres 
nominated in Nevada across this 10-year period--get this--out 
of 61 million, only 3.5 million acres were ever actually 
leased, including more than 2 million acres leased non-
competitively due to a lack of industry interest.
    Professor Pleune, I would like to ask you, is it fair to 
say that American taxpayers and our public lands both stand to 
benefit from bipartisan policy-making that would shift focus 
away from speculative and ultimately unproductive oil and gas 
leasing in places like Nevada toward projects with a more 
promising return on investment?
    Ms. Pleune. That certainly sounds reasonable to me. The 
last time I looked at the statistics, a significant number of 
parcels do not get bid on.
    And moreover, a large number of parcels do not go into 
production. A GAO investigation looked at the number of APD 
permits that were processed, whether or not they actually went 
into production. And roughly half of all APD permits that are 
processed never actually go into production, which is actually 
quite a bit of waste of time, given that we have limited staff 
capacity.
    Furthermore, there is no system for regularly tracking 
lease suspensions. So, the amount of leases that are currently 
being held, even though they haven't gone into production, they 
are in a suspended state and there is no systemic way of 
identifying where they are, how long they have been suspended, 
the reasons for suspension, and whether those reasons are still 
justified.
    Mrs. Lee. Yes. So, not only is this an incredible time suck 
on behalf of staff, it also costs us taxpayers a lot of money.
    I have just a few seconds remaining. I just wanted to ask 
you, with NEPA, can you explain how prioritizing early 
stakeholder consultation during the permitting process would 
help the process along, and help industry build and avoid 
costly changes and delays?
    Ms. Pleune. Absolutely. One of the most productive methods 
that we have seen toward improving the timelines of permit 
processing is early engagement with stakeholders. That includes 
all of the agencies that need to issue a permit on a project, 
state and local governments, as well as people who are likely 
to be affected by the project.
    Agencies like FERC have even engaged in pre-application 
meetings. This allows the permit applicant to identify at the 
design phase sensitivities and regulatory standards that they 
need to when it is least expensive in a project's life cycle. A 
good example of this is the Nexus pipeline. They engaged in 
early stakeholder engagement and, through a large process of 
stakeholder engagement with the public, they ended up with 
almost a 91 percent change in the course of the pipeline, which 
would not have been something you could have done if it was 
later in the cycle of the project. But because it was so early, 
they were able to do it and avoid both sensitivities, as well 
as opposition.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I am over my time.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada. Great 
conversation. I recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. 
Rosendale, for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Wow, this is fascinating. Ninety percent of the land in 
Nevada didn't have oil and gas on it. I can tell you, spending 
a little bit of time in the oil and gas industry myself, that 
there is nothing more disappointing for someone who goes out 
there and drills than to find a dry hole.
    There is so much investment and research and development 
that takes place to try to develop an oil field. And I assure 
you that the people that are funding that are not expending 
funds to enrich the state of Nevada; they are doing so because 
they think that possibly that there is a resource underneath 
the surface that they can develop. Unfortunately, most of the 
oil and gas resources that they are tapping into are about 2 
miles below the surface, so it is sort of hard to use a 
divining rod and try to identify where they are.
    Moving on to other permitting problems, which is not 
anecdotal, I can tell you, coming from Montana, I testified at 
the first public hearings to simply permit a pipeline, the 
safest, most monitored pipeline that had been proposed in our 
nation's history, and it was called the Keystone XL. And it 
took 10 years from the time that those first hearings began 
until it was finally permitted through an executive order, in 
order to make sure that we could get those additional 
resources, roughly 850,000 barrels a day of crude oil into our 
country--150,000 barrels a day, which would have come from 
Montana and North Dakota, so that we could increase our 
domestic production.
    And yet with the stroke of a pen, on his first day in 
office, President Biden killed that pipeline, a pipeline. We 
are not talking about drilling. We are talking about a pipeline 
to transport these products. Again, the safest, most monitored 
pipeline that had been proposed in the nation's history. That 
cost the state of Montana $60 million a year in tax revenue 
losses. And it was going through some of the poorest counties 
in the state, places where that would have taken care of the 
expense of the roads, and the schools, and the medical 
facilities for those counties with populations of 1,500 to 
2,000 people.
    We haven't had a new mine permitted for 20 years. A lot of 
this is our fault, right here, because Congress has continued 
to write legislation that is so subjective, and then turn the 
rulemaking authority over to the agencies to do. So, that is 
our fault.
    But I will also tell you that there is an awful lot of 
litigation that takes place. We have activist judges that tie 
these projects up, and there are attorneys and law firms that 
get enriched because of it. And then agencies that overstep 
their bounds, as evidenced by the most recent case that was 
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia v. EPA, where 
they did get outside of their lane, and they were told that, 
no, you can't make those decisions, that the U.S. Congress 
does.
    All that being said, I would like to ask a couple of 
questions to Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, who would you say, as far as a 
specific demographic, is affected most by the Biden 
administration's aggressive, climate justice-focused agenda, 
and how, when it comes to energy?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. The lowest income are the most 
affected, because they pay the highest proportion of their 
income in electricity, motor fuel, and automotive costs. So, 
the bottom 20 percent pay, on average, around 10 percent of 
their income. The top 20 percent pay about 1 percent. So, when 
you increase electricity and automotive costs, it is the poor 
who are hurt most. This is not justice, not social justice, not 
environmental justice.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. And in your testimony you speak a 
lot on the Administration's push for electric vehicles. Can you 
please delve deeper into the potential consequences this push 
has had for the middle- and lower-income Americans if they are 
forced to transition to electric vehicles, especially in the 
more rural states and colder states like Montana?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Right. Well, only 6 percent of new 
vehicle sales last year were electric. It is because Americans 
are smart, they know that electric vehicles are more expensive, 
they have smaller range, they lose 25 to 40 percent of their 
battery power in cold climates. It is hard to heat them in cold 
climates.
    That is why, for example, Wyoming has about 500 electric 
vehicle registrations, even fewer in Montana, North Dakota, 
South Dakota. They are just not practical. When people have 
them, it is generally as a second, third, or fourth car. They 
have an SUV, or a minivan, or a pickup truck if they want to go 
on long trips. So, it is more expensive. It is a toy for the 
upper-income groups. And having 60 percent of vehicles be 
electric would impose a huge burden on low-income Americans.
    Plus, we don't have the charging infrastructure for it yet, 
especially since the Environmental Protection Agency has come 
out with a new power plan this week that would make electricity 
more expensive, due to the need for carbon sequestration.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I see I have expired my time. I would yield 
back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Huffman, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it feels like 
Groundhog Day here. We are once again discussing the apparently 
dire need to attack and gut NEPA so that we can speed up fossil 
fuel development and mining. This is a broken record that we 
hear played all the time by our friends across the aisle.
    And it is like a bad ventriloquist act when their lips are 
moving, or when the fossil fuel industry's lips are moving, 
Members of Congress are talking, and you can see it pretty 
clearly. They don't like NEPA. They don't want to have to do 
alternative analysis. They don't want to have to limit 
environmental impacts. They don't want to have to actually 
provide notice and get public input from disadvantaged 
communities that are going to be hurt by their projects. So, we 
have to take this industry speak with a grain of salt.
    But when it comes to this latest narrative that has been 
suggested a couple of times today, that clean energy and 
electric transmission improvements require gutting NEPA, this 
is especially false and reckless, and we need to start calling 
it out. I am leading a task force for the Progressive Caucus 
that is zeroing in on the real causes for delay.
    So, Professor Pleune, I was especially interested in your 
testimony because you have been doing the same thing. What we 
are finding is that many of the biggest problems that have 
delayed the kind of infrastructure and investments that we want 
to see moving quickly, including transmission, have been 
resolved by legislation already in the last couple of years, 
and by new funding, and by executive orders on agency 
coordination. And there are other major improvements that 
actually are in the works under existing authorities, including 
at FERC. And that is why, as you said, Professor, projects 
actually are beginning to move faster. NEPA is becoming a less 
compelling boogeyman all the time.
    And I would like to just follow up, Professor Pleune, 
because you talked about this very small percentage of 
permitting projects that are actually subject to a full NEPA 
analysis. And let me get this right. It is less than 1 percent, 
is that right, a full EIS?
    Ms. Pleune. The GAO estimated, government-wide, it is less 
than 1 percent. When we looked at the Forest Service, they do 
about 2 percent.
    Mr. Huffman. You also alluded to the possibility that the 
NEPA process, if it is done right, can actually move complex 
projects faster by early engagement of communities that may be 
impacted by that. Could you expand on that a little bit?
    Ms. Pleune. I can. I actually have two examples of evidence 
that shows that the NEPA process does speed up decision making.
    The first is a natural example that was set up by a circuit 
split, where in some areas identifying designated critical 
habitat required a NEPA analysis and in the other circuits it 
did not. And for those critical habitat designations that went 
through the NEPA process, they were finished, on average, 3 
months faster than the critical habitat designations that did 
not go through the NEPA process.
    There is another very interesting study done by the Office 
of Investigation on APD permits. They found that the average 
time to process the APDs was about 228 days. Pinedale was doing 
it in 49 days. And the reason is that Pinedale had undergone a 
very thorough programmatic EIS. It thoroughly understood the 
well fields that it was developing, and so the implementation 
piece was much faster.
    Mr. Huffman. Would you agree that the biggest barrier to 
renewable energy and electric transmission capacity is not 
NEPA, but the interconnection, the dysfunctional and broken 
interconnection queue at FERC?
    Ms. Pleune. Yes, and it is often conflated with the NEPA 
process because it is a part of the permitting process, but it 
has nothing to do with environmental standards or NEPA.
    Mr. Huffman. And FERC has proposed some major reforms to 
fix this problem with the interconnection queue using existing 
authority. My understanding is that, if the Senate would simply 
confirm a fifth FERC commissioner, these reforms could move 
forward. Is that your understanding?
    Ms. Pleune. That is beyond my expertise.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. I also understand----
    Ms. Pleune. It sounds right.
    Mr. Huffman. I also understand a certain Senator that is 
targeting NEPA is the one holding up the confirmation of that 
fifth FERC commissioner. So, these things get very interesting.
    But perhaps the biggest delay I have heard with some of 
these projects is market risk and financing, things that we 
addressed last year in the Inflation Reduction Act. Would you 
agree that these are game-changers, these new laws that we have 
put on the books in this space?
    Ms. Pleune. Absolutely. The new laws are game-changers.
    And I will also note that, with the projects that have gone 
through FAST-41, the things that they have found is, with the 
structures that are in place, there is more predictability, and 
that addresses that concern of not knowing when they will get a 
permit approved.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from California. The 
gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 
witnesses, as well. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you 
for being here. We really appreciate it.
    In 2019, then-candidate for President Joe Biden said, and I 
quote, ``We are going to ban fossil fuels. I guarantee it.'' 
Well, when tyrants speak, believe them. And one could argue 
this will be the only campaign promise that Biden plans on 
following in the future. With the radical climate lobby that 
helped to put Joe Biden in the White House in the first place, 
no matter how much American families suffer from the increased 
energy prices directly resulting from Biden's policies, the 
White House will continue to pursue this flawed and failed 
agenda.
    Energy bills for the people that I serve in Tomball, Texas, 
which is actually the northern part of my district in a Houston 
suburb, have doubled under Joe Biden. The Houston Chronicle, a 
local publication, says that the natural gas bills in Houston 
are soaring, and yet Biden and the climate cartel have spent 
the last 2 years propagandizing an energy transition. And we 
are transitioning all right, right into poverty.
    The truth is, if you plan on continuing to live in a free 
and prosperous society, then fossil fuels aren't going anywhere 
for the foreseeable future. And here is where fantasy meets 
reality. You see, on one hand, this Administration killed the 
Keystone XL pipeline and placed a moratorium on all oil and gas 
leases on Federal land. But then on the other hand, the Biden 
administration wrote a letter to several oil companies 
demanding they increase oil production and refining capacity.
    Now, why would an energy company do that, if they know that 
their industry is going to be killed in the not-so-distant 
future? That is not capitalism and that is not America. That is 
ridiculous.
    On one hand, Biden wants to mandate that Americans drive 
EVs. But then, on the other hand, he prohibits the domestic 
mining of necessary materials to build these vehicles and their 
batteries.
    On the one hand, Biden says he wants to reduce carbon 
emissions, and then turns around and he taxed the energy source 
that is responsible for lowering U.S. emissions. And that, 
ladies and gentleman, is natural gas.
    On the one hand, Biden says that he wants to transition our 
entire energy future, and he even said that he wants to make 
sure that all government vehicles are powered by a renewable 
source by 2035. And I am an Apache helicopter pilot. Good luck 
with that. But then on the other hand, he has set up a 
permitting and regulatory system that, as you mentioned in your 
statement, Mr. Harrell, is procedurally impossible, and thank 
you for being honest on that.
    I am from Houston, Texas. Houston, Texas is the energy 
capital of the world. I deem myself to be the energy 
Congressman of the world. And I want to tell my friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle something that is very important. 
Every single oil and gas executive that I have spoken to in my 
district in the energy corridor has never said anything 
disparaging about renewable energy. Never. Not one. In fact, we 
need more electrons. And we in Congress have to stop talking 
about an energy transition, because that is a lie. This is 
about energy addition.
    In this country, we are sitting on the Marcellus Shale, 
which I was told is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Now, for 2 
years, when I was in the military, I was stationed in Saudi 
Arabia. You want to talk about vast resources? The insinuation 
that our country is sitting on a resource remotely close to the 
oil in Saudi Arabia is unbelievable, and it is God-given. But 
at the same time, New York has outlawed fracking, and the 
Marcellus Shale is sitting right at their feet. Yet, the 
Northeast would rather import heating oil from foreign 
countries than tap the resource that is sitting right beneath 
them.
    This lack of coherent leadership is dangerous for our 
country and for our children's future. We can only ride the 
coattails of the good policies of the Trump administration for 
so long. Joe Biden came for your gas stoves. He came for your 
cars. Apparently now it is your dishwasher.
    And as I said in the very beginning, Joe Biden said, and I 
quote, ``We are going to ban fossil fuels.'' Promises made, 
promises kept.
    Thank you all so much for being here. And with that I yield 
back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Texas. The 
gentlewoman from New Mexico, the Ranking Member, is recognized.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to have this discussion. It is important that we 
talk about energy and the energy transition, but it is also 
important that we remain clear about what we are talking about.
    I think that this has been a very muddled conversation this 
afternoon. I have heard electricity conflated with heating 
fuel, conflated with oil and gas, conflated with the vehicle 
sector. So, there is a lot of confusion, I think, in this 
conversation about what we are talking about in terms of energy 
security here in the United States. So, I want to just re-
clarify.
    Again, this is the second highest year of energy production 
in American history. There has not been a ban on energy 
production in the United States. In fact, the Administration 
has approved recently several new lease plans in New Mexico, 
which is my home state. Not only do we see the highest 
production of oil and gas ever in our state's history, we are 
seeing the highest profitability and first quarter profits of 
oil and gas companies ever in the history of our state. Those 
are the facts.
    And as we have heard today, and I really want to thank Ms. 
Pleune for being here today, when we look at the science, not 
just anecdote, and I was really struck by your comments that 
you analyzed over 41,000 NEPA decisions, 41,000 decisions, the 
science shows that it is not the regulatory structure of NEPA 
that causes delays.
    So, I want to reiterate the three factors that were shared 
here today, and then ask a couple of questions: the first is 
staffing and capacity; the second is operator delays, meaning 
the individuals who are seeking to have a decision approved may 
not provide the appropriate paperwork that is required or, in 
other cases, they may choose to not move forward with a project 
because they don't have financing, the market conditions are 
not right, and in fact, when we talk about many of these energy 
mixes, the reason why they are not moving forward with these 
projects is they are no longer profitable because technologies 
have changed or there are other energy mixes coming online; and 
the other is other laws.
    So, I want to just take one moment, because the reason why 
NEPA passed in 1969 and was signed into law by President Nixon, 
a Republican administration, why the Council on Environmental 
Quality was established in NEPA was because there were rivers 
on fire, because we were strip mining our forests and precious 
natural resources, and we were destroying sources of water 
across the United States and significantly impacting what we 
now call frontline communities, and especially those 
communities that did not have a voice in these decision-making 
processes.
    And particularly significant for my state, in New Mexico, 
are tribal voices and tribal consultation. And I do want to 
take umbrage with something that was said just a few moments 
ago, because there was a comment made about Resolution Copper 
being delayed because of NEPA. That is factually untrue. Myself 
and the Chairman of this Committee, excuse me, Ranking Member 
of this Committee, Grijalva, had been working along with 
Congresswoman Leger Fernandez to ensure that there is 
appropriate tribal consultation to make sure that an 
international mining company does not strip mine a tribal 
sacred site that is protected by treaty and over 150 years of 
Federal law. And that is why that project has been delayed, not 
because of NEPA.
    But let's talk about what can be done. Ms. Pleune, you said 
in your testimony that good decisions are more important than 
rush decisions. And I want to ask you, first, we are hearing a 
lot of comments here, and we continue to hear these arguments 
that we should just weaken NEPA or take it away, and somehow 
that will solve the problem. What are the risks to our 
communities and the environment if we were to do that?
    Ms. Pleune. The risk of weakening NEPA is that NEPA is a 
look-before-you-leap statute. It simply says look at what you 
are going to do, and disclose the impacts. It provides an 
opportunity to think before you do it, is there a way that I 
can avoid, reduce, or mitigate risks or harms to communities?
    It also provides an opportunity for communities to speak 
and effect change on things that affect them. Weakening NEPA 
weakens all of these opportunities.
    Furthermore, a lot of delays that projects encounter are 
due to different laws, there are overlapping laws. There are 
different jurisdictions, and communities can use those 
differences to stop a project if it is going to be harming 
them. That is the whole point of laws; they protect people.
    And using NEPA as a structure to bring people to the table 
to understand the effects of a project, to synthesize the way 
it is going to be analyzed and come to an agreement about 
whether or not it goes forward is a productive, transparent 
process that is appropriate to the democracy we live in.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Ms. Pleune. I don't think I could 
state it any more clear, so we appreciate you being here and 
bringing good science and facts to this conversation.
    Ms. Pleune. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from 
Florida, Mrs. Luna, is recognized. Sorry. You should have 
been----
    Mrs. Luna. It is OK. Thank you, Chairman. Actually, since 
we are clarifying facts, I just wanted to add some e-mails to 
the record showing that CEQ did receive sufficient notice to 
testify at today's hearing, if that is OK with you.
    Dr. Gosar. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much. I wanted to read you guys 
some facts. And I had actually heard what Ms. Diana Roth had 
stated earlier.
    When I sit up here and I hear legislators, on both sides 
sometimes, talking about how we need to fully go green without 
taking into account the impacts that it has, especially on 
those that are not as fortunate in this country, I look at that 
as rather tone deaf.
    Some of these stats that I was able to look up during this 
hearing, in 2021 the average salary of Black Americans is 
$46,400 a year. In 2020, for Hispanics it was about $55,000. 
And the poverty rate for Indigenous Americans is about a 
quarter. So, when I see that the average cost for an electric 
vehicle is $66,000, and then I hear that we need to be pushing 
for more green initiatives, I think that that is done by people 
who have maybe never even experienced the struggle.
    I just got back recently from Indonesia on a congressional 
delegation where we met with the President, where we met with 
their parliament, and where we heard that American companies 
were going there to mine things like cobalt and lithium, things 
that we use here in the States to produce our own electric 
vehicles because we know that this Administration, through the 
Inflation Reduction Act and their war on fossil fuels, has been 
pushing this. But when we asked the Indonesians what they were 
doing for their own people, they said, ``Well, we use fossil 
fuels.''
    When we were in South Korea, even though they are moving 
toward nuclear energy, they are still also using fossil fuels. 
Yes, they have embraced going green. However, they are not 
stupid enough to completely cut off their arm in the process 
and hurt their own people in order to do so.
    And, of course, then you have China, who doesn't really 
care about the environment and is busy destroying it. So, when 
I hear about these climate disasters, I take those things into 
account.
    My question is for you, Ms. Roth. How has the Biden 
administration enabled our adversaries through these green 
initiatives like China and Russia?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. China makes most of the components of 
electric vehicles. They make the batteries, they make the 
components, they make about 70 or 80 percent of wind turbines 
and solar panels. So, the big question we have before us is 
this: Is displacing American energy-intensive manufacturing and 
sending it to China, does that help the environment at all? 
Does that help the global climate? Does it help climate change?
    And I would argue that the answer is no, because what we 
are doing is giving up American jobs in energy-intensive 
manufacturing sectors, giving up auto jobs. And these 
individuals are hurt, and the Chinese are gaining. The Chinese 
subsidize labor. They have forced labor from Xinjiang. They 
subsidize energy. They have these coal-fired power plants that 
we are not allowed to have here. They subsidize capital with 
interest, very low interest loans to favored companies. And 
they are gaining, and we are losing, and it is not helping the 
environment.
    That is the fundamental question before us: Is this harm we 
are doing to America helping reduce emissions? I would answer 
that the answer is no.
    Mrs. Luna. Do you believe that politicians that lecture the 
American people on climate justice should adhere to their own 
ideologies? For example, should they ride bicycles to 
Washington, DC? Do you think they should stop eating steak? 
Because we have heard that cows contribute to and their 
flatulence contributes to climate change and global warming. I 
mean, don't you think that those people should embrace their 
own ideologies?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Food security is very important and 
fossil fuels are needed for fertilizers. And we need to keep 
the price of food low.
    Again, it is low-income individuals that are hurt the most 
because food is a high proportion of their income. And it is a 
little strange to see people lecturing about the evils of 
carbon emissions on planes, and then flying their own jets to 
Davos to take part in conferences.
    Mrs. Luna. Oh, that is my favorite. You watch them going in 
on their G6 and you can see that they clearly have no clue on 
how their legislation and their crazy ideologies are impacting 
the rest of the world.
    But thank you for your time.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. I will recognize myself.
    So, Mr. Harrell, a comment was made that a tribal site was 
being condemned at Resolution Copper. Is that true, 
particularly to the historian from the San Carlos Tribe?
    Mr. Harrell. It is not true. And just to clarify my 
statement in my testimony, I didn't use NEPA as the barrier for 
Resolution Copper. I used it as the example of where we need to 
have faith in decisions by the administration.
    Over the last 9 years, since Congress enacted the land 
exchange to move that project forward, a significant NEPA 
process was done to move it forward. There was a record of 
decision that was made almost 9 years later, and then 2 months 
into this Administration they reversed that. There were 
significant requirements for tribal consultation that were 
followed by Interior over the course of that EIS, and we are 
simply just disadvantaging ourselves in producing a robust 
copper supply in this country.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I just wanted to make sure that the 
consultation, based on historical sites, was not part of the 
deal. So, just to set that straight.
    My good friend from California made the comment about 
financing. Can you tell me a little bit about ESG and some of 
the threats in regards to getting financing for actually 
applications for energy?
    Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely, happy to talk about financing 
for clean energy as a whole.
    We need regulatory predictability. In the end, the biggest 
thing that drives up private sector capital moving into 
projects, whether it is wind, solar, transmission, nuclear 
power, carbon capture, is regulatory uncertainty. In the end, 
there needs to be confidence there is going to be a return on 
investment, and folks simply need predictability.
    So, I would argue that we have an environmental imperative 
to more efficiently move energy and clean energy projects 
forward.
    Dr. Gosar. So, streamlining the process, I mean, there is 
always improvement. I mean, as a businessman I have always 
looked at that. As a dentist I have always looked at that. Is 
there a way that we might have, like, a point person that 
actually calibrates this? Instead of doing it linear, you are 
doing it all at once. Could that be a benefit?
    Mr. Harrell. Absolutely. And NEPA is just one piece of the 
puzzle, right? There are a wide variety of the permits that 
need to be done across agencies that have jurisdiction. We need 
a lead person driving these type of things forward, and kind of 
being that ombudsman, effectively, and ensuring the agencies 
are working in tandem to approve things in an expeditious 
manner.
    Dr. Gosar. So, Ms. Roth, going back to this ESG phenomenon, 
we had this in Oversight just yesterday. So, if you don't 
pertain or hold to the particular nomenclature or let's say the 
Administration's belief, you can't get funding. Does that cause 
a problem?
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. It causes a major problem for 
companies who are downgraded by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission because their projects might have climate risks and 
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for banks, 
because those projects might have climate risks. And it is very 
difficult to measure these things. That is called Scope 1, 
which is the immediate greenhouse gas consequences. Then there 
is Scope 2, which is do your suppliers have any greenhouse gas 
consequences for their suppliers? Then there are the suppliers 
to the suppliers.
    It is difficult to measure, and it gives our foreign 
competitors an advantage because they do not have the 
equivalent of the OCC or the SEC breathing down their necks, so 
it makes their imports to us, their exports to us less 
expensive, and it gives them an advantage. It drives down 
American manufacturing, drives up American prices, hurts the 
poor. And that is not any kind of justice.
    Dr. Gosar. And I found it fascinating that investors were 
actually talking that they could actually make up money based 
upon ESG rulings, because they don't deliver the same kind of 
punch for the dollar in investment purposes. I find that very 
disingenuous because maybe we ought to go back to the way the 
Fisher people look at things, and that is we do better when our 
clients do better. We ought to be forthcoming about that. So, 
this is an intricate web that is here.
    I am known for my last question: Each one of you, what was 
the question you most wanted to have asked and what is the 
answer?
    I am going to start with you, Ms. Roth.
    Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. I think you could have asked about the 
feasibility of net zero. And I just want to say that fossil 
fuels are going to be with us as far as the eye can see.
    First of all, if we imagine that the United States is 
covered with solar panels and wind turbines, we need backup 
natural gas plants to operate the source of electricity when 
the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
    Second, we need fossil fuels to actually make the wind 
turbines and make the solar panels. So, the idea that we can 
get rid of fossil fuels together is just a myth. It is just a 
fantasy.
    Third, I want to make it clear that the air and water in 
the United States is getting cleaner. You look at the EPA 
website, six criteria pollutants. They are all going down. So, 
shifting manufacturing and energy production offshore where 
there are more lenient rules for production is not helping. 
Telling our companies they cannot drill for oil, going to Saudi 
Arabia and Venezuela, asking them to produce oil rather than 
our Canadian friends in the north, that does not help or reduce 
global emissions. It increases global emissions.
    We are doing a great job here of being energy independent. 
We need to stay that way. We don't want to cede our 
independence to China.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Mr. Harrell?
    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
on that, a question about the feasibility of meeting our long-
term energy needs, both from an affordability and a climate 
perspective.
    When push comes to shove, we need to be focused on reducing 
emissions, not on different fuel types as a whole. Natural gas 
can play a huge role, both globally in reducing emissions and 
meeting our energy needs here. We need more transmission, we 
need more wind and solar, we need more nuclear power. We need 
all of those technologies. We need to potentially double the 
capacity of our grid to meet some of these energy and climate 
objectives.
    And one common thing is true: we are simply not building 
technologies fast enough to meet those goals. So, we need to 
find ways to cut down some of these timelines from 2\1/2\, 4\1/
2\ years to 18 months, things like that. And that does involve 
proactive engagement with communities. It is trying to make 
sure that we are doing a lot of the work up front.
    But the one clear fact here is, if we are going to meet 
those objectives, we simply cannot operate under the status 
quo. We cannot deploy technologies at the pace and scale needed 
under the status quo.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Ms. Pleune?
    Ms. Pleune. Thank you for this opportunity. I think I would 
have liked to have been asked a little bit more about what are 
the procedures in FAST-41 that do promote more efficiency, and 
why is that?
    And the main thing I would like to talk about is the way 
that it has been able to promote coordination between 
permitting authorities as a way to streamline the permitting 
process. The procedures have been effective in achieving 
predictability, transparency, and improved timelines, all 
without compromising environmental standards or transparency.
    Additional promising practices include encouraging the 
development of MOUs between permitting authorities, especially 
state, local, and tribal authorities. To do that, the agencies 
need the funds, the time, the people, and the people with the 
expertise to get that done.
    Second, encouraging details between agencies to facilitate 
interagency coordination. That way they will understand how 
each other work, and be able to coordinate better.
    Third, developing protocols for data sharing, mapping, and 
permit sequencing. This way we don't have to re-analyze 
decisions every time they come up.
    Fourth, propagating best practices through training and 
interagency collaboration, one thing the Permitting Council has 
already started. And just through that it is already showing 
improvements, not only in the complex permitting processes but 
in the more simple ones.
    I think these are very promising practices. I think they 
offer the opportunity to speed the pace of implementation and 
permitting without compromising environmental standards. Thank 
you.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you. You do know I am from Wyoming, from 
Pinedale, Wyoming, do you not?
    Yes, just a reason I understand the Pinedale model.
    Mr. Stein?
    Mr. Stein. Yes, I would have liked there to have been a 
little more discussion of the role of litigation in all these 
delays that we have discussed. A lot of the focus of the NEPA 
discussion was on the procedural within the administrative 
state. And while that is slower than it should be, that is not 
the true delay. It is the process through the courts, it is the 
uncertainty in the courts, too. Unfortunately, Congress has 
left far too much of NEPA implementation to court 
interpretation.
    So, a lot of the uncertainty that slows down some of the 
administrative decisions and slows down financing decisions is 
that uncertainty of litigation, sometimes litigation that is 
funded by the Federal Government itself, and lack of clarity 
about what is required to actually perform a NEPA analysis 
correctly.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you. I think we have had a wonderful 
discussion across the board, and I think there is more that 
needs to happen in regards to clarity, transparency, and 
accountability. And I think some of it belongs to us. I think 
Congress has to recoup its power of the purse and balance this 
baby off.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the Members for their questions.
    The members of this Committee may have some additional 
questions for you. We will ask them to respond with those in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on May 16. 
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for 
those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]