    [Senate Hearing 118-85]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 118-85

                           BEYOND THE BREAKING POINT:
                           THE FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF
                         CLIMATE CHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 July 26, 2023

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    53-232                      WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                   SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    TIM KAINE, Virginia                  MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RICK SCOTT, Florida
    ALEX PADILLA, California             MIKE LEE, Utah

                       Dan Dudis, Majority Staff Director
            Kolan Davis, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                       Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
                      Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2023
                    OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page
    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman.............................     1
        Prepared Statement...........................................    36
    Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member......................     3
        Prepared Statement...........................................    38

                        STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    Senator Tim Kaine................................................    19
    Senator Ron Johnson..............................................    21
    Senator Alex Padilla.............................................    23
    Senator Mike Braun...............................................    25
    Senator Ben Ray Lujan............................................    28
    Senator Jeff Merkley.............................................    30
    Senator John Kennedy.............................................    31

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable John Bel Edwards, Governor, Louisiana..............     6
        Prepared Statement...........................................    41
    The Honorable Susan F. Tierney, Ph.D., Senior Advisor, Analysis
      Group..........................................................     8
        Prepared Statement...........................................    47
    Dr. Jesse M. Keenan, Favrot II Associate Professor of Sustainable
      Real Estate and Urban Planning, Tulane University..............     9
        Prepared Statement...........................................    58
    Mrs. Lina Apsey, President and CEO, ITC Holdings Corp............    11
        Prepared Statement...........................................    67
    Mr. Alexander Herrgott, President and CEO, The Permitting
      Institute......................................................    13
        Prepared Statement...........................................    73

                                    APPENDIX

    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
        Hon. Edwards.................................................    84
        Hon. Tierney.................................................    85
        Dr. Keenan...................................................    88
        Mrs. Apsey...................................................    90
        Mr. Herrgott.................................................    97

                           BEYOND THE BREAKING POINT:
                           THE FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF
                         CLIMATE CHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2023

                                               Committee on the Budget,
                                                           U.S. Senate,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:44 a.m.,
    in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, Kaine, Lujan,
    Padilla, Grassley, Johnson, Marshall, Braun, Kennedy, and R.
    Scott.
        Also present: Democratic staff: Dan Dudis, Majority Staff
    Director; Kara Allen, Senior Energy and Climate Advisor, Energy
    Lead; Matt Bolden, Climate Policy Advisor.
         Republican staff: Chris Conlin, Deputy Staff Director;
    Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jordan Pakula, Professional
    Staff Member.
        Witnesses:
        The Honorable John Bel Edwards, Governor, Louisiana
        The Honorable Susan F. Tierney, Ph.D., Senior Advisor,
    Analysis Group
        Dr. Jesse M. Keenan, Favrot II Associate Professor of
    Sustainable Real Estate and Urban Planning, Tulane University
        Mrs. Linda Apsey, President And CEO, ITC Holdings Corp.
        Mr. Alexander Herrgott, President And CEO, The Permitting
    Institute

              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WHITEHOUSE \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ Prepared statement of Chairman Whitehouse appears in the
    appendix on page 36.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Whitehouse. Good morning everybody. I'm happy to
    call this hearing to order. I recognize my Ranking Member,
    Chuck Grassley, and members of the Committee. Thank our
    witnesses for being here, particularly Governor John Bel
    Edwards of Louisiana. It's a great honor having you with us.
        And welcome everyone to the tenth in our series on the
    enormous economic dangers of climate change for the federal
    budget. In the last month we've seen the hottest temperatures
    ever recorded. Louisiana, I think, probably knows something
    about that. But Phoenix set a record for the most consecutive
    days above 110 degrees.
        Smoke from unprecedented Canadian wildfires has blanketed
    huge swaths of the United States. Storms in Vermont, New York
    and Pennsylvania have triggered deadly flooding, and the worst
    drought in the Midwest in over a decade is threatening corn and
    soybean production and pushing up consumer prices.
        Climate change brings climate danger, climate risk, and
    climate inflation. And this is only the beginning.
        Today we examine the climate costs to infrastructure.
    Infrastructure is the foundation of our economy. Drinking water
    and sewage systems, roads, bridges, railways, irrigation, flood
    levees, waterways, power plants, dams, transmission lines, all
    enable our society to run.
        In addition to development and financing costs, each of
    these systems has maintenance and operating costs. Increased
    temperatures, higher sea levels, and greater variability in
    precipitation translate into shorter asset lifespans and higher
    ongoing expenses.
        In Texas, Oregon and Utah, intense heat is buckling
    roadways. In Chicago, Seattle, and other major cities, bridges
    are being doused with water to keep heat from warping the
    metal. Coastal areas suffer erosion, salt water intrusion and
    flooding. 7,500 miles of East Coast roadway is in high tide
    flood zones.
        And more than 60,000 miles of roads and bridges are
    vulnerable to extreme storm damage. Just the direct damage to
    roads is estimated to cost nearly $20 billion each year, not
    counting the associated depression of economic activity.
         Our power grids are seeing record breaking demand, and
    reduced power efficiency, as well as added sea level rise risks
    where infrastructure, especially thermal power plants, is
    located along the coast.
        Extreme weather is responsible for 78 percent of the major
    disruptions to our power system. Since 2015, the frequency of
    major blackouts has doubled. In an average year power outages
    caused by extreme weather events have cost the U.S. up to $44
    billion, in years with record breaking storms like 2008's
    Hurricane Ike, power outage costs soared to $99 billion.
        And last year extreme drought in the Midwest dropped water
    levels in the Mississippi River so low that the barges got
    stuck. Nearly all U.S. agricultural exports, and more than 75
    percent of the world's exports of feed grains and soybeans come
    from the Mississippi River basin, and the lack of water caused
    shipping delays, higher costs to find alternative transport,
    and reduced local economic activity. More climate inflation.
        Both the accumulating shifts in normal weather, and the
    sudden catastrophes are putting economic stress on states,
    counties, municipalities and the federal government, as well as
    rate payers and taxpayers.
        Economics find that major hurricanes, for instance, reduce
    local government's revenues by 7.2 percent in the decade
    following a hurricane and are associated with a 13 percent drop
    in public works expenditures. We have heard repeated testimony
    that climate economic and physical hazards intersect. Today we
    will hear that infrastructure systems are also interdependent.
        The failure in one system will cascade across other
    sectors. For instance, Louisiana's power outages after
    Hurricane Ian, cascaded into wastewater failures at pumping
    stations, spilling millions of gallons of waste into local
    bodies of water. Already, we don't invest enough in our
    infrastructure.
        The power sector is a prime example. Congestion in our
    electric transmission system cost an estimated 20.8 billion
    last year alone. The price of congestion.
         Before passage of the bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the
    American Society of Civil Engineers estimated our
    infrastructure funding gap at $10.3 trillion, and would cost 3
    million jobs by 2039, even without the additional burdens of
    climate change.
        Climate change presents two public policy imperatives.
    First, we must zero out emissions by 2050 to avoid even worse
    dangers for our planet, and human way of life. And second, we
    must withstand the warming and weather we are already
    experiencing that is locked in.
        A low carbon economy will require thousands of miles of
    transmission lines, new zero carbon sources of power
    generation, much more high speed rail, new hydrogen and CO2
    pipelines, facilities for critical minerals and more. I
    appreciate very much that Ranking Member Grassley has invited
    an expert on permitting to testify today, as figuring out how
    to build out this infrastructure quickly and equitably will be
    a key challenge of the next few decades.
        Similarly, if we don't want to have to spend tens of
    billions of dollars rebuilding and re-rebuilding roads,
    buildings, sewage systems, levees and other infrastructure
    damaged by climate related extreme weather, we're going to have
    to figure out how to build smarter and better.
        The good news is that these investments to bolster our
    infrastructure create jobs, promote economic growth and are
    cost-effective. Many states recognize this value. Louisiana's
    legislature passed all four of its coastal master plans
    unanimously.
        Let me close by recognizing Ranking Member Grassley for
    Iowa's leadership on wind power.
        64 percent of Iowa's energy production now comes from wind,
    a new record for the state, and I believe a record among states
    for the country. We will need the kind of leadership of Iowa on
    wind power, or Louisiana on coastal resiliency if we are to
    tackle the climate danger before it's too late.
        Repeatedly, this Committee has heard expert testimony about
    the massive economic and fiscal costs of dawdling. Those
    dangers are clear and present. I hope that the message is
    getting through. This is real. And Senator Grassley now.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \2\ Prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix
    on page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Grassley. Before I begin my opening statement, I
    want to go back to a discussion that we had in this Committee
    at the last hearing that was a climate hearing. On your side of
    the aisle it was touted a September 2021 International Monetary
    Fund (IMF) working paper on fossil fuel subsidies. This paper
    supposedly bolsters the view that climate catastrophe is on the
    horizon.
        You explicitly called it peer reviewed in order to support
    the case. On page 2 of that paper in question reads quote,
    ``IMF working papers describe research in progress by the
    authors, and are published to elicit comments, and to encourage
    debate. The views expressed in the IMF working papers are those
    of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of
    the IMF, its executive board, or IMF management.''
        Dr. Roger Pielke, a non-partisan climate scientist who has
    testified at the invitation of both Democrats and Republicans,
    provided further insight on this study in response to a
    question for the record. I asked him within that question for
    the record if a meeting between the IMF Director and democratic
    Senators has any bearing on whether an IMF working paper is
    peer reviewed.
        He responded, ``The IMF working paper would be properly
    called a pre-print in the scientific community. That is not the
    equivalent of a peer review paper.'' And then further quoting,
    ``Any single peer reviewed paper is typically a small
    contribution to knowledge of particular copy. Most papers offer
    less than that.''
        He then further followed up by saying, ``Peer reviewed
    literature provides an ample resource for those who might wish
    to cherry pick those individual articles that might seem to
    offer the best support for their preferred position. This may
    be useful in political advocacy, or posturing, but it does not
    offer a reliable route to effective analysis that might inform
    policy.''
        If the Committee is to continue focusing on climate change
    it's important that we listen to the non-partisan scientists,
    rather than speculate with international bureaucrats. Now on to
    my opening statement.
        Chairman Whitehouse. May I respond to that just briefly.
        Senator Grassley. Yes, you sure can.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Because we actually had the President
    of the IMF in for a briefing to the Budget Committee. Every
    member was invited. No member on your side chose to attend. The
    President walked through how this worked, and she said that the
    methodology of that IMF report is in fact peer reviewed, but
    because it is done repeatedly, they don't peer review each
    individual report.
        But she confirmed that the methodology is in fact, peer
    reviewed. And second, she made very clear that the IMF does
    endorse and support and stand behind those reports. So if
    sadly, nobody was there to see her say that, but that is what
    she said, and please go ahead with the rest of your statement.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. Our nation is over $32 trillion in
    debt, yet this Committee is holding the 11th hearing on climate
    change. President Biden is on television bragging about his
    economic performance when Americans can't afford groceries and
    gasoline.
        Our spending is out of control, and the democrats haven't
    written a budget in the past two years. As I've said many
    times, climate change is a topic very worthy of discussion. I'm
    the father of the wind energy tax credit, as you said about
    Iowa getting so much of our electricity from wind.
        I fought for renewable energy long before climate change
    became such a political popular topic. Democrats called this
    hearing to discuss the physical impact of climate change on the
    infrastructure. I imagine we'll hear some expensive estimates
    and alarming anecdotes about the impact of severe weather
    events on infrastructure.
        But there isn't a single expert in this room who is
    qualified as a climate scientist who attribute those estimates
    and anecdotes expressly to climate change. However, several
    panelists are more than capable of discussing major policy
    issues like our broken federal permitting system, which
    continues to impede critical infrastructure projects.
        These projects would make our infrastructure more resilient
    to weather, stronger for everyday use, and would reduce
    emissions, but environmental permitting delays, caused by
    environmental groups and their friends in Congress, continue to
    drive up federal infrastructure spending along with the energy
    bills and taxes of our constituents.
        This is why I'm excited to welcome Mrs. Apsey, she's
    President and CEO of ITC Holdings, the largest independent
    electricity transmission company in the United States. ITC
    operates more than 6,600 circuit miles of transmission lines in
    Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri.
        As the head of a company that actually is building
    infrastructure. Mrs. Apsey will highlight the real reasons why
    our electric grid is in peril, and why we are unable to
    complete transmission projects like the Cardinal-Hickory Creek
    One in Dubuque County, Iowa.
        Her testimony is one that my friends on the other side of
    the aisle simply don't want to hear, while accusing the fossil
    fuel industry of corruption, and accusing those they disagree
    with of criminal activity.
        They've supported astronomical, unrealistic electric
    vehicles and renewable energy goals. But they're unwilling to
    support reform to environmental legislation like the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Clean Water Act, which
    impede the construction of the same infrastructure necessary to
    even attempt to meet those goals.
        A few experts understand this better than Mr. Herrgott,
    President and CEO of the Permitting Institute. He worked to
    limit permitting delays for infrastructure projects while at
    the White House, where he served as both Executive Director of
    the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, and
    Director of Infrastructure at the Council of Environmental
    Quality.
        Mr. Herrgott will show us that the democrat's grand visions
    of renewable energy are just that unless they reverse the
    course on their disastrous permitting positions. From Iowa to
    Rhode Island, our nation's roads, bridges, waterways and energy
    infrastructure are essential to America's economy, trade and
    vitality.
        I'm sure all of us here, as well as those Senators on the
    Environment and Public Works (EPW) and Energy and Natural
    Resource Committees can agree that we can work together to
    craft legislation to improve our national infrastructure in
    order to reduce our ballooning national debt. Thank you.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley.
    I am very pleased to have a distinguished panel of five
    reputable and serious witnesses before us today. First is the
    56th Governor of the State of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards. As I
    noted in my opening remarks, Louisiana, under the Governor's
    leadership is acting to address the pervasive and serious
    challenge that climate change presents to infrastructure,
    particularly along its highly vulnerable coastlines.
        Thank you Governor Edwards, for taking time to join us
    today. Your presence underscores the importance of our hearing.
    Our second witness is the Hon. Dr. Susan Tierney. Dr. Tierney
    is a Senior Advisor with the Analysis Group, an economic,
    financial and strategic consulting company. Previously, she
    served as the Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S.
    Department of Energy.
        In Massachusetts, she was the Secretary of Environmental
    Affairs, Commissioner at the Department of Public Utilities,
    and Director of the State's Energy Facility Siting Council. Our
    third witness is Dr. Jesse Keenan, an Associate Professor of
    Sustainable Real Estate and Urban Planning at Tulane
    University. That makes two Louisianans here. We're doing
    strong.
        His research focuses on the intersection of climate change
    adaptation and the built environment, including aspects of
    design engineering, regulation planning and financing. He also
    serves as a Senior Economist with the U.S. Army Corp of
    Engineers Research and Development Centers Environmental Lab.
        Following Dr. Keenan is Mrs. Linda Apsey, the President and
    CEO of ITC Holding Corp, the largest independent electricity
    transmission company in the U.S. Its regulated subsidies
    include ITC Transmission, Michigan Electric Transmission
    Company, ITC Midwest, and ITC Great Plains, through which it
    owns and operates high-voltage transmission infrastructure in
    Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and
    Oklahoma, with development underway in Wisconsin.
        Our final witness is Alex Herrgott, President and CEO of
    the Permitting Institute, which focuses on accelerating
    investment in infrastructure of all types. During the prior
    administration Mr. Herrgott served as Executive Director of the
    Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, and as
    Associate Director for Infrastructure at the Council on
    Environmental Quality. Thank you all for joining us today.
        Governor, the floor is yours to deliver your opening
    remarks. Everyone's complete statement will be made a matter of
    record, so please honor the five minute rule.

        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BEL EDWARDS, GOVERNOR,
                             LOUISIANA \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \3\ Prepared statement of Hon. Edwards appears in the appendix on
    page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Governor Edwards. Good morning and thank you, Chairman
    Whitehouse and Ranking Member Grassley, and all the members. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I know there
    are a lot of coastal champions on this Committee, and I
    appreciate each and every one of you, and that includes Senator
    Kennedy.
        As Governor of Louisiana, I have devoted considerable time
    to one of the most pressing issues of our day, and that is
    climate change. As you will see from my full written statement,
    there are many lessons for Louisiana to share with this
    Committee. And we don't pretend that we've mastered this
    subject matter, and that we get it all right, but we have
    learned an awful lot of lessons, and I think we're doing some
    good work.
        We've experienced significant devastation in our recent
    history from hurricanes, floods, sea level rise, subsidence,
    coastal land lost, habitat degradation and extreme heat.
    Because we've been tested more than anywhere else in the
    country, Louisiana has gone to great lengths to increase the
    resilience of our communities, our economy and our eco system.
        Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the state crafted,
    and the legislature unanimously approved the first
    comprehensive master plan for a sustainable coast in 2007.
    Since then we've updated the plan three more times, most
    recently this May. The Coastal Master Plan is a $50 billion, 50
    year roadmap that prioritizes our investments in coastal
    infrastructure. The plan reflects the best available science,
    accounting for changes on the ground and forecasting what is at
    risk in our future.
        It recommends major investments in levee protection, home
    elevations, and ecosystem restoration. Importantly, if our
    coastal master plan is fully implemented, we could have less at
    risk in 50 years than we do today. The plan also shows how
    unacceptable a future without action could be, as we would lose
    thousands of square miles of land and increase Louisiana's
    annual risk by close to $25 billion.
        To put that in perspective, our state general fund is less
    than $12 billion on an annual basis. Of course, Louisiana is
    already building infrastructure to mitigate climate risk and
    increase resilience. Our experience proves that such
    investments do in fact pay off.
        The $14.5 billion federal and state investment in the
    Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction
    System was put to that test by Hurricanes Issac, Barry, Zeta
    and most recently, and the most powerful of all those
    Hurricane, Ida.
        The system works, and it's saved federal treasury billions
    of dollars in recovery expenses. Louisiana Highway 1 is another
    example. We're elevating a 19 mile stretch of two lane Highway
    22--I'm sorry, of Highway 22 feet above the marsh to avoid
    increasingly frequent flooding.
        This road is the vital evacuation route. It's also an
    essential transportation link to the nation's energy sector to
    Port Fourchon, which more than 90 percent of all of the Gulf of
    Mexico oil and gas production and exploration is actually
    serviced out of that port, and each day the highway is closed
    it costs the U.S. about $46 billion in lost energy production,
    and $528 million in forgone domestic product.
        Now this is an $850 million project, and that's expensive,
    but it pales in comparison to the cost of inaction. We're also
    addressing the direct impact our residents experienced from
    climate risk through a widespread effort of home elevations and
    voluntary buyouts in repetitive flood areas.
        We recently completed the relocation of the Isle de Jean
    Charles Native American community to a more resilient housing,
    in a more sustainable part of Terrebonne Parish. We're working
    with the Army Corps of Engineers on a $300 million elevation
    program in southwest Louisiana, and we're conducting seven
    other buyout programs across the state through our watershed
    initiative.
        By proactively moving residents out of harm's way we can
    sustain communities, increase equity for disadvantaged
    residents, lower insurance premiums, and restore the natural
    function of the flood plains. These projects all require
    partnership with the federal government.
        And funding from both state and federal sources because we
    need greater partnerships, and increased funding to construct
    more resilient infrastructure. And I commend the Chairman and
    other members who have cosponsored the Reinvesting in Shoreline
    Economics and Ecosystems (RISEE) Act. By sharing energy revenue
    with impacted coastal states, RISEE will enable those states to
    make proactive investments to combat challenges from the
    changing climate, which would save the American people and the
    federal government money in the long run.
        We are an energy state. No doubt about that. In 2020 I
    created the Climate Initiative Task Force to develop a Climate
    Action Plan, achieving buying into substantial Community and
    stakeholder engagement, 15 months, 49 public hearings, and the
    input of 150 stakeholders, where we unanimously adopted a plan
    to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
        This is the only such plan in the Gulf South, but we're
    already seeing results. Since adoption in 2022, the Climate
    Action Plan has attracted more than $26 billion in low carbon
    economic development to the State of Louisiana, and it also
    guided our pursuit of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding.
        And Mr. Chairman, again, I'm happy to be here and I look
    forward to answering the questions from the Committee.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much Governor, I turn
    now to Dr. Tierney.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN F. TIERNEY, PH.D., SENIOR
                      ADVISOR, ANALYSIS GROUP \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \4\ Prepared statement of Hon. Tierney appears in the appendix on
    page 47.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Tierney. Good morning Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking
    Member Grassley, and members of the Committee. Thank you so
    much for inviting me to testify this morning, and I have two
    main points. First, as we have just heard, the nation's energy
    infrastructure is already being adversely impacted by the
    changing climate.
        Second, given the nation's dependence on well-functioning
    energy infrastructure, this is leading to great suffering, both
    directly by increasing costs, disrupting heating and cooling,
    and indirectly by disrupting electricity services and causing
    energy prices to spike.
        Given the Budget Committee's jurisdiction, I focus today on
    describing these circumstances rather than the solutions.
    Everyday the news highlights the many ways in which our country
    is being hit by extreme weather. These circumstances are not
    surprising, but they are challenging.
        For example, in December 2022, Winter Storm Elliott across
    the country took out power to hundreds of thousands of
    Americans. A fourth of PJM's generating capacity was out of
    operations across a 13 state region in the area between Chicago
    and the Mid-Atlantic states. Most of that was gas-fired power
    plants, accounting for 70 percent of the outages due to
    equipment and fuel problems.
        Texas, in February 2021, Winter Storm Uri brought extreme,
    severe cold and ice, electricity prices spiked to 100 times
    their normal levels, leaving many consumers with unbearable
    electricity bills. Over 246 people died, financial losses
    ranged from 80 to 130 billion.
        In 2019 in Northern California, the utilities proactive
    electricity shutoffs during high wildfire risk conditions
    impacted over 1 million customers and cost $2 billion.
        Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, one-third of domestic
    U.S. production, one-sixth of domestic U.S. natural gas
    production, and nearly 10 percent of the nation's refining
    capacity was offline.
        An estimated 4.5 million customers in Louisiana and
    Mississippi lost electrical power. U.S. oil and gas prices were
    double their normal levels for months, and it raised the
    national cost of natural gas on the order of $50 billion in the
    10 months after the storm.
        Even a decade ago, the Department of Energy estimated that
    power outages due to severe weather cost the nation between $24
    and $44 billion a year, that's adjusted for inflation. Such
    effects of the changing climate were detailed in the energy
    chapters of the most recent national climate assessment.
        For example, and I'm quoting here, ``The reliability,
    security and resilience of the energy system underpins
    virtually every sector of the U.S. economy. The nation's energy
    system is already affected by extreme weather events. Due to
    the changing climate the energy system is projected to be
    increasingly threatened by more frequent, longer lasting power
    outages, affecting critical energy infrastructure, and creating
    fuel shortages.
        Widespread energy disruptions can take weeks to fully
    resolve at sizeable economic cost. The petroleum, natural gas
    and electrical infrastructure along the east and Gulf Coasts
    are at extreme increased risk of damage.'' This is from the
    2018 assessment still.
        ``This vulnerable infrastructure serves other parts of the
    country, so regional disruptions are projected to have national
    long-lived implications.'' Now the upcoming fifth national
    climate assessment will surely point to the worsening
    conditions on energy infrastructure, and on disadvantaged
    communities across the country.
        In closing, I encourage Congress to act swiftly to address
    the emissions that are the root cause of climate change, and
    its adverse impacts on American infrastructure and citizens.
    Thank you very much.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Dr. Keenan,
    please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF DR. JESSE M. KEENAN, FAVROT II ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
         OF SUSTAINABLE REAL ESTATE AND URBAN PLANNING, TULANE
                             UNIVERSITY \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \5\ Prepared statement of Dr. Keenan appears in the appendix on
    page 58.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Keenan. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley,
    Members of the Committee. In my remarks today I'd like to
    outline how climate attributed physical impacts impose
    increasingly burdensome financial capital and operational costs
    for taxpayers, consumers, and infrastructure providers.
        The United States is facing increased electricity
    production costs in order of $50 billion a year by 2050. This
    figure does include increase costs for cooling buildings,
    charging cars, increased demand for water recycling. Pumping
    drinking water farther distances, water desalination, and
    increased agricultural irrigation.
        Additional costs for extreme weather like hurricanes and
    wildfires are among a wide variety of direct costs that will
    continue to be passed on to utility ratepayers. As a resident
    of New Orleans, my own electric utility only a few years ago
    just removed a bill surcharge for post-Hurricane Katrina, 13
    years after the fact.
        And the transportation sector, physical impacts have been
    widely observed from everything from extreme heatwaves to flood
    events, compromising roads, tarmacs and rail lines, as well as
    pipelines. Annual direct damages for roads and rail impacts are
    estimated to be under just 20 billion dollars a year by 2050.
    Increased operation and maintenance expenses for paving and
    resurfacing the roads is estimated to be approximately 19
    billion at the end of this decade, a year.
        None of these cost estimates and projections account for
    the indirect cost for increased logistic cost, fuel cost, delay
    costs, and lost economic output. For instance, when the water
    is too high, or too low in the Mississippi River, boat traffic
    delays have ripple effects on domestic and international food
    and grain markets.
        Within the water and wastewater sectors, annualized urban
    drainage infrastructure damages are estimated to be
    approximately 4 billion by 2050, with an additional 2 billion
    in costs associated with impairments to existing public water
    systems.
        This latter figure does not count for the untold costs of
    adaptations to address water scarcity challenges facing the
    western United States, where with reduced irrigation,
    additional groundwater mining, and increased reservoir storage
    capacity posing significant additional costs.
        Most importantly, infrastructure is getting more expensive
    because the municipal bond market is beginning to price climate
    risk. When the infrastructure providers issue general
    obligation bonds, investors are concern that a degraded tax
    base may impact the fiscal stability of the issuer over the
    term of the bond.
        This default risk is amplified for revenue bonds. For
    instance, if a toll road is washed out in the event of a
    climate event, then the payment of that bond may be compromised
    for as long as those tolls are not being paid. Recent research
    has highlighted that after disasters local governments are more
    likely to issue these revenue bonds, and that post-disaster
    issuances are paying higher comparative yields.
        Increases in capital costs may also be attributed to
    increased construction costs for incorporating engineering
    resilience within assets. For instance, a flood mitigation
    system may have to build a higher levee with greater pumping
    capacity to accommodate future projected precipitation, storm
    surge and sea level rise design standards.
        Operations and maintenance costs, O&M form climate impacts
    are perhaps one of the most immediate cost burdens for
    infrastructure providers. Additional costs for things like
    greater energy expenses for pumping storm water, more storm
    water that is, are all drags on the financial balance sheet of
    providers, and increasingly cost burden to ratepayers.
        Unfortunately, the United States is grossly behind in the
    codification of climate sensitive design and engineering
    standards, and on the lifecycle cost accounting for evaluating
    the total cost of climate impairments over the useful life of
    these assets. As this country embarks on a new era of
    infrastructure investment, we have to ask ourselves some
    difficult questions.
        Are we designing today's infrastructure to hail to
    tomorrow's load and environmental demand? In high risk zones,
    that is high-risk impact zones, where will we invest, and where
    will we disinvest in infrastructure? And finally, are we
    accounting and budgeting for the anticipated increased costs
    and operational expenses?
        Proper fiscal stewardship in the face of climate impacts
    will require stakeholders to work together to provide
    transparency and accountability. A failure to recognize and
    account for these costs will not only undermine the reliability
    of our infrastructure it will undermine our global economic
    competitiveness. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and
    I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Ms. Apsey.

    STATEMENT OF LINDA APSEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ITC HOLDINGS CORP
                                  \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \6\ Prepared statement of Mrs. Apsey appears in the appendix on
    page 67.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mrs. Apsey. Great. Thank you, and good morning Chair
    Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished members
    of the Committee. I am Linda Apsey, president and CEO of ITC
    Holdings Corp, the nation's largest independent transmission
    company. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        Next month marks the 20th anniversary of the northeast
    blackout that left 50 million people in the dark. It was the
    largest blackout in North American history, and a sobering
    reminder of how vulnerable our nation's energy security can be
    when we fail to adequately invest in transmission
    infrastructure.
        The investment we make in transmission, as well as the
    regulatory and policy environment our leaders create, will
    determine the success of our energy future. I assure you there
    are measures we can take to get there however we must act with
    the same urgency and vigor that our industry and government
    leaders did 20 years ago.
        Now more than ever the health of our nation's economy
    depends on reliable and affordable access to electricity. For
    the rolling farmlands of eastern Iowa to the busy streets of
    Detroit, millions of people depend on ITC to operate the grid
    safely and reliably. However, building transmission can take up
    to a decade if not more, a pace nowhere near fast enough to
    meet the administration's clean energy goals.
        It's imperative that we examine changes to ensure that
    investment in transmission is predictable, timely and cost-
    effective in order to realize the benefits of a modern
    transmission grid. While ITC has made significant investments
    in our transmission grid over the past 20 years, we are only as
    strong as our weakest link.
        The transmission grid is a highly interconnected network of
    high voltage lines that moves power within our states across
    state lines, across vast regions, and over international
    borders. The demands on our grid, and impacts on weather events
    are ever increasing, putting increased strain on an already
    fragile grid. The American Society for Civil Engineers gives
    our energy grid a C minus, hardly an acceptable grade for
    today's needs, far less our future.
        Our Midwest geography is no stranger to the severe weather
    that is impacting infrastructure all over the country. Our
    regions frequently experience ice storms, wind storms,
    flooding, and other natural disasters of increasing severity.
    In 2020, Iowa experienced a devastating derecho storm causing
    widespread power outages. It was the equivalent of a 40 mile
    wide tornado steamrolling across 200 miles of the state.
        Since that time, Iowa has experienced two additional
    derechos that have caused damage to electrical infrastructure.
    These storms, along with the recent extended heatwaves across
    much of the U.S. demonstrate the importance of a resilient and
    reliable grid. To promote needed investment, more needs to be
    done to address how we plan, how we pay for, and how we permit
    transmission.
        To begin, policymakers should adopt transmission planning
    policies that capture and account for the full range of
    transmission benefits, not just the narrow definition of
    benefits that transmission is evaluated on today. Doing so will
    help to realize highly valuable regional transmission projects.
        Policymakers should also establish more robust
    interregional transmission planning standards, which can drive
    reliability and resilience across regions, particularly during
    severe weather conditions. And in addition, policymakers should
    continue to focus on streamlining permitting approval processes
    at both the state and federal level.
        Recently Congress made progress by passing federal
    permitting reforms, but more needs to be done to decrease the
    amount of time it takes to obtain permits for major
    transmission lines, and minimize the potential for multiple
    lawsuits and litigation.
        For example, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator's
    (MISO) Cardinal-Hickory Creek Project, 102 mile transmission
    line from Dubuque, Iowa to Dane County, Wisconsin, is the last
    remaining project to be constructed in MISO's Multi-Value
    Project (MVP) portfolio from 2011. These projects were designed
    to deliver renewable energy to meet state renewable energy
    standards, provide access to lower cost generation, and enhance
    grid reliability.
        Over 100 renewable generation projects are awaiting
    completion of the Cardinal-Hickory Project in order to
    interconnect to the grid, resulting in hundreds of millions of
    dollars in lost energy savings to customers. However, the
    project has been plagued by costly delays and permitting
    challenges due to the 1.3 miles that crosses federal land.
        The federal government and project owners recently won a
    major decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that
    clears the way for the federal agencies to make their final
    decisions on the project. We stand ready to complete and
    energize the line, however this is contingent on expeditious
    federal action review.
        The ability to effectively and efficiently make needed
    investments in our transmission grid will determine whether we
    can achieve our critical economic security and energy goals.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
    Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Our final witness
    is Mr. Herrgott.

        STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER HERRGOTT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE
                        PERMITTING INSTITUTE \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \7\ Prepared statement of Mr. Herrgott appears in the appendix on
    page 73.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Herrgott. Chairman Whitehouse and Ranking Member
    Grassley, my name is Alex Herrgott, and I'm President of the
    Permitting Institute (TPI), and the former and first appointed
    Executive Director of the Federal Permitting Improvement
    Steering Council.
        TPI is a federal and state focused, non-partisan, non-
    profit serving as an authoritative voice on permitting, and a
    trusted expert resource in education partner for federal and
    state policymakers and regulators.
        Our diverse membership collectively support a common goal
    of accelerating infrastructure across all sectors. TPI members
    and staff speak from experience that comes from writing the
    laws in Congress, then developing projects, financing them,
    permitting them, siting them and interacting with the
    government officials for implementing a myriad of laws,
    regulations and guidelines that determine where, how and when a
    project gets built.
        The reality is that every project that turns dirt,
    regardless of the sector that you care about, encounters
    habitat, alters landscape, creates unavoidable interactions
    with nature triggering hundreds of reviews and regulations that
    govern infrastructure permits at the federal, state and local
    level.
        As the Chairman knows all too well, or as you can see from
    the chart is that infrastructure permitting is carried out by
    13 agencies operating under the authority of dozens of
    statutes, some of which are more than 100 years old. The result
    is a permitting process mired with excessive delays and
    litigation risk that stifles investment.
        Now the Energy Act of 2020, the bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law, Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors
    (CHIPS) Act, IRA, they provide an unprecedented funding for our
    nation's critical infrastructure. However, the omission of
    significant permitting reforms in this legislation is
    undermining one of the largest single federal investments in
    infrastructure since the depression.
        While Congress has agreed on modest process reforms to
    achieve greater coordination efficiency, these service level
    process changes have only served as band-aids and are not the
    necessary surgical cure.
        To be clear, interagency coordination and transparency,
    dashboards, executive orders, White House permitting action
    plans, and a strengthened federal permitting improvement
    steering council are very much needed, however they're not the
    sufficient step to reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars
    in costs associated with infrastructure permitting across all
    sectors.
        Even with the subset of reforms in the Fiscal
    Responsibility Act, just recently in the debt limit deal, would
    represent the most significant legislative changes to NEPA in
    40 years. In practice, developers will still experience most of
    the same obstacles and avoidable process delays that have
    plagued this system for decades.
        Truly impactful legislation will have to move beyond macro
    level NEPA changes, and untangle the web of confusion of
    uncertainties in this chart. The challenges and costs inflicted
    by our broken permitting system do not discriminate by sector.
    Whether it was three years on the Mid-Barataria Coastal
    Restoration Project, or as the Chairman knows all too well,
    with offshore wind.
        In the last two years the Federal Permitting Improvements
    Hearing Council executive directors received and approved more
    than 17 requests from lead permitting agencies to extend the
    completion date for at least 10 offshore wind projects on the
    dashboard, creating an additional 10 years that was not
    anticipated at the beginning of the permitting timetable.
        This is not unique to offshore wind. It's for traditional
    fossil fuel, broadband, water, you name it. The problem is
    getting worse not better at a time when we can least afford it.
    No one wins under the current system, not the companies on the
    frontlines of transitioning the U.S. harnessing technology for
    greener energy generation and storage, not the environment, and
    not the majority of Americans that will bear the brunt of these
    increased energy environment costs.
        On average, private developers reported that 20 to 30
    percent of total project costs is wasted on delays. All these
    costs are ultimately passed on to citizens, either through
    taxes, tolls, or increased rates and usage fees. It's not all
    bad news. We're seeing glimpses of what sound reform can do,
    and there's an opportunity for lawmakers to build and expand on
    the reforms enacted over the last decade.
        But in order to do that the process must be transparent. At
    present, outside of the Federal Permitting Council, some small
    issues at the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Department of
    Transportation (DOT) projects trapped under one federal
    decision under the IIJA there is no central repository in real
    time tracking on the inventory and status of projects
    navigating their way through the federal agencies.
        The lack of process transparency allows for gamesmanship of
    two year timelines, and the lack of publicly available data
    prevents stakeholder engagement, and our ability to accurately
    diagnose the problem. We don't need to hide the problems. This
    is not a republican or a democrat issue, it is a process issue
    we can fix.
        The beauty of transparency is that the facts now drive this
    debate, not hyperbole and posturing. The reality is that the
    last significant study of NEPA timelines was completed by the
    Council of Environmental Quality more than five years ago.
    Where's that study?
        While it can be convenient to blame the faceless
    bureaucrats for delays and process problems as someone who
    worked alongside the hardworking pioneers of the Federal
    Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) dashboard, and
    the thousands of dedicated project managers across the
    interagency process, I encourage Congress to refrain from such
    rhetoric. Instead I challenge you to help me and others make
    public service the desired pathway by recognizing the talents
    required, and the contributions of these agency professionals
    that make towards advancing America's infrastructure goals.
        TPI believes the majority of republics and democrats in
    Congress, make for a faster, more transparent, predictable and
    accountable permitting process. But we first must collectively
    acknowledge that the modernization of what have often been
    called bedrock environmental laws will absolutely be required.
        Despite bipartisan agreement that the country's permitting
    process is broken, skepticism over the motivations behind the
    new legislative reform proposals, and the outside stakeholders,
    each prioritizing their narrow interest, and the fear of what a
    negotiated compromise may look like at the end of a conference
    or of a bill, it is uninhibited additional reforms.
        However, I remain cautiously optimistic that reform is
    achievable. From our vantage point at TPI, we see staff on both
    side of the aisle, and from all centers coming to us with the
    same challenge with the old version of a proposed solution.
        By providing technical assistance, and connecting members
    and stakeholders with that shared interest, we at TPI are
    working to help build a bridge required for comprehensive
    reform that eliminates obstacles for all American
    infrastructure development, not just the one that you care
    about.
        Thank you for your time, and I look forward for answering
    your questions.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Well thank you Mr. Herrgott, and
    congratulations on a truly heroic effort to pack the maximum
    number of words into your five minute window. That was
    impressively done, and also thank you for your reference to
    offshore wind, which will take me to Governor Edwards.
        First of all thank you for your positive mention, and for
    your support for the RISEE Act. This will provide revenues to
    coastal states like yours. It will expand offshore wind,
    particularly in the Gulf. It will add the construction and
    manufacturing jobs associated with offshore wind, and provide
    an economic hedge for the Gulf states against carbon bubble
    risk to state and local revenues.
        So I'm really grateful for your support. Tell me a little
    bit about what is happening along the Louisiana coast right
    now. What are you looking at?
        Governor Edwards. With respect to wind or more broadly?
        Chairman Whitehouse. With respect to coastal risk, coastal
    harms.
        Governor Edwards. Yes, sir. Well, you know, we are
    particularly challenged in Louisiana, and have been for a long
    time. We've lost 2,000 square miles of land since 1930.
    Inaction going forward with sea level rise alone we would lose
    another 3,000 square miles over the next 50 years, of course
    inaction is not----
        Chairman Whitehouse. A grand total of 5,000 square miles?
        Governor Edwards. Yes, sir. But inaction is not an option,
    and in fact that's not what we're doing. We have the country's
    most robust plan for coastal restoration and protection. We are
    investing mildly for a state our size. In 2007 when we came up
    with a plan that says $50 billion over 50 years, there was
    nothing magical about it, we just couldn't imagine we would
    ever have more than a billion dollars a year.
        And we said okay, what would we do? We are actually on
    track. Last year we spent $1.3 billion in our coast. This year
    will be 1.6 billion, and critically important is the RISEE Act
    because we constitutionally dedicate all of our federal
    offshore revenue for all gas production to our coast.
        And we, unlike interior states, we're lending at 37.5
    percent, not 50 percent. Capped at $375 million, and then it's
    shared among 4 states. So the RISEE Act would address that, but
    more importantly for us, or at least significantly it would be,
    create a revenue sharing around wind, which would be critically
    important for Louisiana because we are going to develop wind.
        There's a lease sale going to happen next month off the
    coast of Louisiana by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
    (BOEM), but also we have five companies that are interested in
    state water wind development as well. So that's critically
    important. And Mr. Chairman, one of the things we have to start
    planning for is in 2031 the Deepwater Horizon oil spill damages
    that are funding the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion for
    example at almost $3 billion.
        Those funds go away. We really want to replace that to the
    extent that we can, at least, with wind energy revenue. So
    we've got a lot going on on our coast, and like other states,
    you know, we've got 40 percent of our people live in South
    Louisiana now, and it's such a huge part of our economy. It's a
    special place for the country, not just for Louisiana.
        But we have a real sense of urgency about what we're doing,
    and I know you've been down there to see it. And I invite all
    the Committee members to come and see what we're doing in
    Louisiana. I'm proud of our efforts, and I've traveled to the
    Netherlands and other places.
        What we're doing in Louisiana it is on scale with anything
    happening anywhere in the world right now.
        Chairman Whitehouse. The infrastructure costs that you're
    bearing to adapt to and protect against climate change and sea
    level rise, I assume that the federal government is a partner
    in that, and some of those costs revert back to the federal
    government. What is the scale of the state and federal
    investment that you look forward to?
        Governor Edwards. Well first of all the federal government
    has been a tremendous partner. If you just go back to Hurricane
    Katrina, with the failure of the federal levees around New
    Orleans, which really caused the enormous death and damage.
    There's been $14.5 billion of investment now. We have our share
    of that, and we're certainly needing that.
        But that was borne by and large through the generosity of
    people all over the country, hugely important. The Corps of
    Engineers is engaged in 10 projects all over the State of
    Louisiana, primarily in the south along the coast, along the
    river there that will have tremendous impact.
        So yes, there's tremendous investment, but it is literally
    in the billions of dollars. These are not small investments.
    But one of the things that I would like to point out, and they
    are paying off. Hurricane Ida hit southeast Louisiana in 2021,
    it was stronger than Hurricane Katrina, and a very similar
    trajectory when it hit the state.
        Very little damage compared to Hurricane Katrina, and so
    those were costs saved, and I'm sitting here not just because
    of what's happened since I've been Governor, but I firmly
    believe that the storm events are going to be more frequent,
    and they're going to be more severe, and therefore the cost
    savings will be more frequent, and they will be greater over
    time.
        Another example of this is that Corps authorized a
    protection project from Morganza to the Gulf. Hurricane Rita in
    2005, a nine foot storm surge in this area inundated 11,000
    structures. The work that we did, Hurricane Barry, same area, 9
    foot of storm surge, 11 structures. 11,000 versus 11. It costs
    a lot, but the savings accrue for a very long time.
        Now we're having a challenge getting FEMA to recognize all
    that work, and have it reflected in the Risk Rating 2.0
    premiums for the National Flood Insurance Program, that's
    another thing. But we know that these investments pay off over
    time, and they produce savings. And it's just it's so good for
    the economy, and otherwise.
        Chairman Whitehouse. So big investments could be wise
    investments. My time has expired. Let me yield to Senator
    Grassley. I will have some questions for the record for the
    other witnesses, and there is time to turn around those
    answers, so please be ready for those questions for the record
    when they come in, and please respond timely. Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of
    you for your testimony. I'm going to start out with Mrs. Apsey.
    President Biden's goal of making 50 percent of all new vehicles
    electric by 2030, and shifting to 100 percent carbon pollution
    free electricity by 2035, most people believe that these goals
    are impossible to meet.
        Americans don't want and can't seem to afford the dramatic
    shift to expensive electric vehicles, and a 79 percent fossil
    fuel energy mix can't change overnight. So to you, let's take a
    moment to talk about the grid. Does the United States currently
    have the infrastructure in place to even come close to
    achieving Biden's renewable goals?
        Mrs. Apsey. Great. Thank you for the question. From a
    transmission infrastructure perspective, transmission serves
    multiple needs, access to the grid, reliability, resiliency,
    security, and ultimately obviously allowing electric vehicles,
    or the electrification of our economy.
        However, our grid is not in a state even today to meet the
    current stresses on our grid, as we've talked about. And given
    the timeline to build the time it takes to plan a transmission
    project, to the time we actually put a transmission line into
    service, on average if all goes well, it takes seven years.
        I gave you an example of a project that has taken at least
    12 years. So the challenge, I think from a transmission
    infrastructure perspective, is that while the utility sector
    has made significant strides in decarbonizing, there's I think
    we've gotten to probably about almost 50 percent, you know,
    reduction in carbon. So the remaining distance is the hardest
    to go.
        Senator Grassley. I think you've answered that question
    well. You mentioned the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission
    project from its delays because of environmental reviews. Why
    hasn't 10 years been enough time to complete that project?
    Who's to blame in that regard?
        Mrs. Apsey. Well the project faces litigation from both
    local groups and national environmental groups that sought to
    litigate the portion of the project across federal wildlife
    refuge. That was the 1.3 miles, and so it's been tied up in
    multiple court venues, and at the same time, you know, we've
    been urging the federal agencies to continue to do the work so
    that when we received the outcome of the court ruling we could
    be in a position to expeditiously move forward with the
    remaining construction on the project.
        At this time, we are still you know, we are still awaiting
    the federal action--federal agencies to take action on the
    remaining permits. While we're hopeful that we can now move to
    quick action, you know, we're somewhat at the hands of the
    federal agencies.
        Senator Grassley. Mr. Herrgott, Biden has prioritized
    preferred green energy projects by government subsidies, and
    concerted regulatory effort to end fossil fuels, however just
    like fossil fuel projects, renewable projects face years of
    permitting delays.
        Why shouldn't permitting reform be at the top list of
    Anyone who's concerned about climate change? And during your
    time at the administration, did you notice any renewable energy
    project delays stemming from democrat inaction?
        Mr. Herrgott. Thank you for that question, Senator. You
    know, I'm often perplexed at the situation we find ourselves in
    on the permitting debate. This isn't like gun control or social
    issues, or social security, or the science of climate change.
        This is an apolitical science based issue, and we are using
    the process as a rhetorical tool to stop the projects that you
    don't like. It's not an effective way in which to adjudicate
    which projects go where. And what we are seeing with comments
    that are coming from my friends in the administration that I
    work with when they say we don't have a problem with NEPA, 95
    percent of all NEPA reviews end up in a categorical exclusion.
    That is misleading, right?
        The reality is that most of those projects that are being
    talked about are smaller, lower level projects at the
    Department of Transportation, and do not take into account
    these large scale energy projects.
        Which is why when the administration--we had to put our
    finger on the scale on wind and several other projects to get
    the Department of Interior to accelerate the time of doing
    these regional Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). And I
    think that what often we find in this situation is that we
    stopped treating capital being put at risk to build all
    infrastructure as partners, and we started to look at them as
    adversaries.
        And I think that there's going to be a tremendous move to
    make this issue a truly bipartisan issue because of the $10
    trillion of investment in infrastructure right now. $4 trillion
    is renewable energy, and on average it is suffering about a 7
    to 10 year delay. This is no longer a republican issue, and I'm
    almost surprised in many ways that republicans pitch permitting
    reform, as it should be coming from the other side.
        Senator Grassley. Governor, I'll have a question for you in
    writing if you please respond to it. I yield.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Next, just for the information to my
    colleagues, first Senator Kaine, Senator Johnson, Senator
    Padilla, and Senator Braun. And for the record I have not given
    up hope on bipartisan permitting reform.
        My Streamlining Interstate Transmission and Electricity
    (SITE) bill on electric transmission is in the Environmental
    Public Works Committee, and has been in Chairman Carper's
    package, and we are finalizing the Offshore Wind bill, which we
    hope will be very bipartisan, and hope very much that we can
    get our Committees to pass significant bipartisan permitting
    legislation that I hope will make all the witnesses happy.
    Senator Kaine.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE

        Senator Kaine. Thanks to our witnesses. It's great to be
    together with you. Virginia is a state that has very
    significant climate challenges. We have 5,000 miles of
    shoreline on the Atlantic and the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads
    1.7 million people, it's often listed next to second to New
    Orleans as the community in the United States, at least in the
    eastern part of the United States most jeopardized by sea level
    rise.
        And in Appalachia where the topography of these narrow
    hollows with streams at the bottom of them often lead to really
    significant storm events that wipe out infrastructure, wipe out
    people's homes. Interestingly, the rainfall in Appalachia on an
    annual basis isn't changing, it's just that it's coming much
    more episodically and violently, which poses real risks to
    infrastructure.
        So on this hearing on infrastructure, I'm kind of focused
    on three kinds of infrastructure in Virginia. First, climate
    affects the existing infrastructure road, the main road into
    the Norfolk Naval Base, our bridges. And when there's damage to
    that infrastructure we've got to rebuild.
        Second in order to deal with some of our climate risks,
    Governor Bel Edwards, I'm a big admirer of what you've done,
    and we're making a lot of resiliency investments in the same
    way that Louisiana has, so that sea level rise doesn't affect
    communities as much. But those resilience investments are
    infrastructure projects that have their own permitting
    requirements.
        And finally, Virginia is really finally embracing kind of
    clean energy with offshore wind, significant solar deployment,
    which requires its own infrastructure, particularly in the
    transmission space. I am very excited about the commitments
    that we have made.
        The American Rescue Plan, by putting money into state and
    local governments. A lot of that one time money was used for
    infrastructure projects. That's great. The Infrastructure Bill,
    the CHIPS Bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act, but I've got
    two worries about our commitment to infrastructure.
        One, is who is going to build it? I think we have some
    significant workforce challenges that we have to grapple with.
    On manufacturing, who's going to make it with an unemployment
    rate that's so low we need to do a lot on the workforce side,
    but the second is the permitting side. And I wanted to ask your
    opinions about this, if witnesses have opinions, and maybe Mr.
    Herrgott I would suspend you might have looked at this more
    closely than others.
        When we were talking about the Inflation Reduction Act last
    summer there was a proposed 90 page permitting reform bill, and
    85 pages of it was permitting reform, and then five pages of it
    was saying but Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) doesn't have to
    apply, doesn't have to go through any of this reform.
        I opposed the five pages at the end because I thought if
    we're going to fix our permitting process, then let everybody
    meet the standards. The will of my colleagues was to the
    contrary, so that MVP had a green light. That's water under the
    bridge. But I'm curious, did you analysis, just kind of from a
    starting standpoint, that 85 page permitting reform proposal?
        Some elements of it were included in the debt ceiling deal,
    but I think sort of modest elements were included. Just from a
    starting standpoint, I've been a little surprised, not on the
    Committees, that that effort hasn't come back before us because
    like you, I think many democrats want to do permitting reform.
        There is an ENR hearing going on right now on permitting
    reform issues, but did you look at that 85 page permitting
    reform proposal, and how would you grade it? What was good?
    What was bad? What wasn't in there that should be there?
        Mr. Herrgott. Well, it's important to keep in mind that in
    the IIJA ability, EPW many of those reforms are codified on the
    DOT side. The fact that that just wasn't a rubber stamp coming
    out of Congress is remarkable to me, but the importance is that
    we're tinkering around the edges.
        Creating deadlines allows for gamesmanship on the front
    end, on deemed approves. It might get you sooner to a no rather
    than a yes. Creating page limits, a 400 page, or a 500 page EIS
    is not the reason why projects are getting delayed two to four
    to five to six years.
        Those are helpful process changes. We need those, but that
    is because we are unwilling to acknowledge that we're going to
    have to open up the Clean Water Act, written 50 years ago, 30
    years before the internet. We're going to have to open up the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act.
        We're going to have to open up these legacy bedrock
    environmental statutes. And in the political climate right now
    in the House and the Senate, I don't blame either side for
    seeing ghosts and what the intentions are on both sides, but
    the fact remains that the shared pain on both sides means that
    when I look at that bill, I go this is great.
        This is going to solve a good amount of interagency
    coordination issues. I hope it doesn't absolve the urgency and
    the imperative of us going deeper, and actually fixing the
    problem, so I wanted it, but I also want it next year, and the
    year after that, and the year after that because the reality
    here is even the fights about making a project take two years.
        And that being objected to is interesting to me considering
    that we now have AI, and natural language processing, and
    technology that can help us arrive at the objective standard
    for qualified project managers to make some objective decisions
    on projects, which is why even in the coastal Virginia offshore
    wind projects the six month delay that just occurred two months
    ago is frustrating to me.
        Just because National Fishery Service, Fish and Wildlife
    and the Corps can't get on the same page. That has nothing to
    do with the environmental laws interagency coordination. They
    have natural conflicts between their laws that forced them to
    delay the project. It has nothing to do with environmental
    protection or justice, or any of that. It's pure conflict.
        Senator Kaine. So I take your assessment of the 85 bill as
    helpful, but not sufficient. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Herrgott. I get paid by the word. I apologize.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Johnson?

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems to me
    that the overall question we ought to be asking is with limited
    resources, and we have limited resources, what's the best way
    to spend them? To make sure that we have a reliable grid? To
    make sure that we can mitigate against weather or climate
    change events, and mitigate the problem of hurricanes and
    tornados and floods, that type of thing?
        One thing we can do is stop building in flood zones,
    account for the external costs, the externalities when it comes
    to, you know, building expensive properties on the coastal
    regions. Don't expect the federal government to come in and you
    know, bail you out. So there's some common sense things we can
    do there.
        I'll ask Dr. Tierney and Dr. Keenan. Do you guys know how
    much we've spent in total trying to mitigate climate change
    globally?
        Dr. Tierney. I don't have that number at my fingertips, but
    I would be happy to follow-up with you.
        Senator Johnson. I'd like to hear that. We did have one
    witness from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who said
    there's a pretty good estimate, about 5 trillion dollars. In
    the Inflation Reduction Act, the green energy component of that
    was Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost was about 400
    billion, but Goldman Sachs said it's closer to about 1.2
    trillion with a T.
        Throughout these hearings we keep talking about different
    costs, you know, a couple of tens of billions here, 20 billion
    there, 50 billion there. We're talking $1,200 billion. I have
    no idea where that money is going to be spent. If it's going to
    be spent to mitigate climate change, I would argue it's
    probably going to be misspent because I don't think there's
    anything we can really do to hold back the tides.
        If we've already spent $5 trillion and people are still,
    you know, hair on fire concerned that we're going to--the world
    is going to end in 12 years, it's not. You know, Governor Bel
    Edwards, you were talking about the success you're having in
    Louisiana is mitigation efforts, correct?
        I mean wouldn't you like a more certain portion of that
    $1.2 trillion to use to mitigate against hurricanes as opposed
    to $1.2 trillion spent on wind, solar, I don't know how cost
    effective those things are going to be, what that's going to
    do. And I'll ask later Ms. Apsey how does that affect the grid,
    but Governor Bel Edwards?
        Governor Edwards. Well I guess I have a difference of
    opinion with you, Senator. Louisiana is the most adversely
    affected state when it comes to climate change, and we produce
    more CO2 per capita than just about any other state in the
    nation. And I think we need to be acting on both fronts.
        Senator Johnson. Do you think China or India are going to
    give up fossil fuels?
        Governor Edwards. You know, I'm not sure what they will do,
    Senator. I was taught to lead by example and from the front.
        Senator Johnson. Sure. But 80 percent of our power is
    generated by fossil fuels, and we actually had a majority
    witness say that that's not going to change either, so again
    we're just----
        Governor Edwards. I'm not an enemy of fossil fuels. We've
    been a fossil fuel state for over 100 years. But it's clear to
    me if we're going to be an energy state in the next 50 years,
    we're going to embrace the transition. We will reduce our
    reliance on fossil fuels, increase our reliance on clean energy
    such as wind.
        Senator Johnson. I just think that's just not recognizing
    reality, or economic reality. Let me just ask you.
        Dr. Tierney. 40 percent of our power is from non-carbon
    emitting.
        Senator Johnson. Ms. Apsey, I want to ask you. To what
    extent does the wind power, solar power, what does that do in
    terms of grid reliability?
        Ms. Apsey. Wind and power does provide certain benefits to
    the transmission grid. It's available at times other units are
    not available. Look, the transmission grid, the concept is
    right, is if you have it available across a broad regional
    interregional infrastructure, when you don't have capacity or
    availability in one location, it's available somewhere else.
        You need the transmission infrastructure in order to
    transport the electrons to where it needs to go. We see
    benefits from wind and solar. There are times when wind and
    solar is not available. The sun is not shining, the wind is not
    blowing. You know, just no different than you know, we need gas
    plants. We need diversity.
        We need optionality. Ultimately, diversity and optionality
    from a long-term perspective is going to be the best mechanism
    for our long-term energy security.
        Senator Johnson. One of my concerns when I was Chairman of
    Homeland Security was the threat of Electromagnetic Pulse
    (EMP). I realize it's a low probability, but highly
    catastrophic. But even Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD),
    and I've been trying to get studies. I've been trying to get
    information, strategies in terms of what we need to do.
        Now from my standpoint, one of the most common sense things
    to do would be to actually purchase and put in place large
    power transformers. Couldn't even get that in the current
    National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Apparently there's
    some study that was part of the Infrastructure Bill, but
    there's no end date.
        We did talk to one transformer company. Probably about
    30,000 large power transformers would cost about $60 to $90
    billion to produce those and have them in place. Would that
    make sense from your standpoint, Ms. Apsey because we would not
    be able to replace those power transformers in the event of
    either an EMP or a GMD event, correct?
        Ms. Apsey. There is a certain limited inventory of spare
    transformers across the country, certainly we have agreements
    with our neighboring utilities, should indeed there be such an
    event that we need a transformer. Look, this country was built
    with many different voltage levels, so while I may have a
    certain transformer specification, my neighbor may have a
    different one.
        The other real issue from a transformer perspective is
    there's no domestic manufacturing of high voltage transformers
    in this country. We depend on the supply from other nations to
    supply our high voltage electric transformers.
        Senator Johnson. So that is a huge vulnerability, I guess
    what I'm arguing with limited resources, I would much rather
    see us spend $60 to $90 billion to purchase those now, put
    those in place offline in case you have one of those high
    catastrophic events, but we're not doing that.
        I mean it's unfortunate because we're again, trying to hold
    back the tides, spending $1.2 trillion is just not going to
    work. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Padilla, particularly grateful
    that Senator Padilla is here given the infrastructure issues
    California is facing after the climate driven wildfires and its
    effect on transmission. Thank you very much Senator Padilla.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA

        Senator Padilla. Thank you Mr. Chair, don't go stealing my
    intro. In many ways I do refer to California as Exhibit A on
    the climate crisis for the reasons Chairman Whitehouse just
    mentioned, and so many more.
        So I want to begin with that maybe, you know that
    California is the bell weather for the climate crisis, whether
    it's feeling and responding to the immediate impacts of extreme
    heat on our most vulnerable, flooding, and what it means for
    drinking water and agricultural production.
        The impact of fire and smoke on communities, let alone
    other agricultural products. We just have to respond to short-
    term impacts, but prepare for long-term impacts of our changing
    climate. And just last week the New York Times asked to what
    many referred to as the trillion gallon question. Not the
    million dollar question, the trillion gallon question, what
    happens if California's dams fail as a result of extreme
    weather?
        If recent disasters are an indicator we can predict into
    loss of life from property, it's damaged critical
    infrastructure, and vital public facilities, valuable
    agricultural land, is that going to be taken out of production,
    let alone disruptions to California's water supply, and more.
    So the better question, I think the more responsible question
    is what kind of investments are needed to prevent such
    catastrophic events, and reduce the impact on communities.
        Governor Edwards, I appreciate your comments about the
    impacts of both the queue shocks like hurricanes and flooding,
    as well as chronic stressors like sea level rise and extreme
    heat. So you know better than anybody does the buck stop with
    you.
        We have an opportunity to try to get ahead of it through
    front end investments. Can you talk a little bit more about the
    proactive adaptation measures that have been taken, and the
    related research and innovation efforts in this space?
        Governor Edwards. Thank you, Senator for the question. I am
    very happy to talk about it because some of the most generous
    and significant transformative investments anywhere in the
    country have happened in Louisiana because of the generosity
    largely of the federal government and taxpayers all over the
    country, and we are certainly thankful.
        And of course, we have our non-federal share that we
    contribute towards that. But in instance after instance, it's
    making a positive impact, and these upfront investments while
    very costly, they save an awful lot of money on the back end
    because we are not having to go back and rebuild communities,
    and have housing programs and so forth that we had to have
    before.
        This can be demonstrated with the Hurricane Storm Damage
    Risk Reduction System, a $14.5 billion investment in the
    greater New Orleans area. The 2021 storm, Ida, was stronger
    than Katrina. But because we had this new system we had nowhere
    near the damages.
        For example, other systems have greatly reduced. I think
    you may not have been here, but with the protection systems put
    in place along the coast they were authorized by the Corps. We
    actually reduced the number of structures inundated with water
    from 11,000 with a 9 foot surge in that area in 2005 to 11 in
    2019.
        So these investments absolutely work, and they save money
    over the long run, not just in rebuilding costs, but you have
    less interruption. When Hurricane Ida hit for example, 15
    percent of the nation's refining capacity was offline, 50
    percent of the state's refining capacity, but 15 percent.
        If you can reduce the frequency of those events and the
    duration of those events, you save an awful lot of money, and
    you avoid a lot of losses and costs to the economy as well.
        Senator Padilla. It's the old adage, an ounce of prevention
    is with a pound of cure.
        Governor Edwards. Yes, sir.
        Senator Padilla. And so being smart and strategic with
    those funds and investments do pay a huge dividend, not if, but
    when if major disasters happen, and I appreciate you pointing
    to examples of the foresight of not just rebuilding to what
    was, but rebuilding to new, better, safer, standards.
        Governor Edwards. Based on conditions you expect to see in
    20 or 30 years.
        Senator Padilla. Exactly.
        Governor Edwards. With a 1.5 foot to 2.5 feet of sea level
    rise for example.
        Senator Padilla. A couple of other things. I did want to
    note, I know the Chairman asked you about coastal erosion, that
    was an area I was going to bring up, but for the record do want
    to highlight the specific challenges in what is referred to in
    Southern California as below sand corridor.
        The coastal area between San Diego and San Luis Obispo,
    which crosses Orange County, Los Angeles County, Ventura
    County, impacts infrastructure along the way. It's not just
    communities and homes and businesses, but important rail line,
    second busiest rail region, second only to the northeast
    corridor, so an important one I think that the country should
    be concerned about.
        Lastly, as my time is up, I do want to just ask Dr. Keenan
    a quick question about how long-term drought and extreme heat
    contribute to the speed and deterioration, or changes in wear
    and tear of critical infrastructure, specifically water
    infrastructure, knowing that not just in California, but
    throughout the west, water supply, reliability and
    affordability is so keen.
        Dr. Keenan. Thank you Senator for that question, and I had
    the privilege of serving the people of California previously,
    and advising them on matters of climate, and this is certainly
    and indeed a challenge to water infrastructure in California.
    I'll highlight a couple of things, and there's a wonderful
    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) report through
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on this particular
    issue that I would draw a reference to.
        One, when we have high and low water levels, that has
    impacts on the cycling of the equipment, particularly low
    levels, because when it rains it pours, right? And the problem
    is either too much or not enough water. But when we have
    drought conditions we have equipment that's not being properly
    cycled and maintained.
        For instance, so you need to use it to maintain it in many
    ways. Also, we lose bio mass right? Grass, trees, they dry up,
    and we get more sedimentation. That sedimentation clogs
    filters, it clogs pumps, it creates a number of different
    problems, and finally we rely more on surface water for
    drinking water irrigation and the like as opposed to
    groundwater.
        And as we move to surface water we begin to take on more of
    that sedimentation, so there's systematic hydrological impacts
    there. And with that surface water, we also have to pull out
    all the pollution that comes from storm water for instance. So,
    we're getting hit at multiple levels of the system that impairs
    not only the quantity of moving water, but the quality of
    moving water.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. And then Mr. Chair just in
    closing with Governor Edwards, it is Governor Edwards correct?
    I think I've heard Governor Bel Edwards by some of my
    colleagues around the hearing. You deserve the respect of the
    property recognition. Thank you Mr. Chair.
        Governor Edwards. Thank you.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Braun.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRAUN

        Senator Braun. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I come from Indiana,
    and ran a business for 37 years, logistics and distribution.
    It's been a big benefit to get engaged in conversations like
    this. Our company was so small for so long, you had duties to
    where you did everything in that business.
        For instance, CFO, CEO wasn't even a term that we used
    until maybe 20 years ago, and I did it for 37. It was a
    blessing to have that practical kind of experience, especially
    when you get into a discussion here in the Budget Committee,
    and we're talking about climate.
        I view it as an issue that we definitely need to be engaged
    in on our side of the aisle, and starting the climate caucus
    here. When they attempted to do that for many years. It is
    valid. Conservatives need to be involved with it, from young
    conservatives to farmers who are at the leading edge of what
    might be a foot from evangelicals to Catholics.
        But then it gets down to the rubber meeting the road
    because if I wasn't really good at finance 101, I would have
    never succeeded at that business in the long run. Here we are,
    the biggest business in the world, and we do not do budgets
    anymore. We haven't done one that we've adhered to in 20-some
    years.
        We've got these big sweeping issues that the country looks
    to us to be at least civil in the discussion, and then maybe
    come with some stuff that works. I don't think borrowing now a
    trillion and a half, soon to be two trillion a year is a good
    business plan. Governor, you'd get run out of town with that
    approach in your own state.
        We got to do better. Since it's a budget hearing, I
    generally start there. Now I want to pivot to climate, which is
    a complicated discussion. My side of the aisle when I got here
    you mentioned climate you'd clear the room. You mentioned
    things like tax pricing and so forth, then you're going to get
    the mysterious text have you gone to the dark side, stuff like
    that.
        We've come a ways there, but still we're in the context of
    all solutions generally wanting to be crafted here, but we're
    in the worst place we've ever been as a country to really do
    it. And I would suggest that, Governor, many people that run
    budgets live within your means, that we should maybe be doing
    more of that in places where we can get things done.
        And you pay for it, and you don't borrow from future
    generations. And I'll give you an example in my home state. Too
    late that on the bottom end of one had an endangered mussel,
    okay?
        You had to make sure water flow was going to keep them
    alive. Well, as a consequence it through a couple drought
    years, drained the lakes by ten feet, and the big stakeholders
    were not necessarily the mussels.
        Not even the utility that had a small hydroelectric
    presence, and believe me, they wish they didn't have it on that
    lake. FERC and Fish and Wildlife. Can you imagine what that
    discussion was like in trying to actually have people that live
    there, the businesses that lived around those lakes as the main
    stakeholders.
        They had been wrestling for ten years with that confluence
    of issues. Well, we heard about it. I'm a main street
    entrepreneur that knows how to get from here to there, and in a
    little over a year we solved it. And the way we had to solve it
    was not by relying on this place, or even the various interests
    working it out. We had to step in as a Senate office.
        And it was a very--it took a little over a year, a year and
    a half to get it to the finish line, but they've been wrestling
    with it ten years. So I think the point I'm making here is a
    lot of what we need to do related to this discussion permitting
    and so forth, probably is going to have to be enabled more
    through the dynamics of what worked in this country.
        And that's not doing it from this place, directing from the
    top down. Maybe if you'd start doing things where you're
    creating more results. You can't do everything there, and a lot
    of times these things get tangled up with the process in
    general. Ten years working on a simple thing where mussels were
    a concern of a conservationist.
        Well we've got a different flow rate that was more than
    what the Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to do. FERC really
    was kind of an issue that complicated more than enabled. Fish
    and Wildlife Service wanted to maybe get some resolution, and
    we helped the people that had the most skin in the game.
        So I'm going to ask you Mr. Herrgott, what do we do in
    terms of taking the complexity of these issues and maybe trying
    to do them in ways that are a little more entrepreneurial, get
    the job done, navigate through the federal morass and actually
    start producing more results where we don't have over burdening
    regulations, and we quit borrowing money from future
    generations for whatever your interest might be here.
        Mr. Herrgott. Two quick things. First, there are always
    going to be conflicts between the natural environment and the
    human activity, and it's a balance. There's always tradeoffs.
    Our inability to recognize that we have to make risk based
    decisions, and that there will be take on species, and there
    will be impacts on the environment, but we can mitigate those.
        That's why we have the environmental review process we do.
    They're not rhetorical tools to stop projects or increase
    costs. The second is there's a disconnect between what people
    are paying for their utilities and their services and how they
    got there.
        When I asked 2,000 state legislators what the unit of
    measure is for electricity, water, gas, they don't even know
    what the unit of measure is, let alone how much it costs, or
    how much of that is attributable to permitting delays, or
    litigation, or costs of restarts and penalty fees.
        Without that connection, without that recognition of a
    holistic approach of what it takes, we're always going to be at
    loggerheads with each other, but people with their own
    constituencies.
        If I'm Nature Conservancy and I don't like hydro. I'm gonna
    stop this, because I don't like one element of the project. And
    as a result because we haven't figured it out up here, we allow
    all of the siloed unique constituencies that everyone looks out
    for to command the air space.
        Senator Braun. Thank you. Good answer. And if I have the
    latitude for one other quick question.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Keep it quick because we have another
    Senator waiting.
        Senator Braun. Yes. I understand that. This was Monticello,
    Indiana, Lake Freeman by the way, a very rural area. And my
    next question is for the Governor. What have you done in your
    own state that would cut to the chase, solve some of these
    issues where we know that you get it done more quickly, than
    oftentimes from here the top down? Do you have an example or
    two that you'd want to cite?
        Governor Edwards. Well I've got one that Mr. Herrgott was
    involved in. The largest ecosystem restoration project in our
    state's history. One of the largest in the country. And
    certainly the largest sediment diversion project ever
    undertaken is the Mid-Barataria Project in the Lower
    Mississippi River.
        The estimates initially were that that was going to be 12
    to 15 years of permitting, potentially followed by litigation
    and so forth. Well five years ago we got started and next month
    we're going to break ground. It was on the dashboard. It
    received attention and it was transparent.
        He helped usher it through the process. We had a lot of
    coordination among the federal agencies. And so, I'm just going
    to--I believe in permitting reform too, by the way. I co-
    chaired an effort with the National Governor's Association with
    Spencer Cox, the Governor of Utah. It is very bipartisan. Every
    Governor in the country is concerned about this.
        It just simply takes too long now to do anything. But this
    is an example of how things can work, and so let's do more of
    what works, and less of what doesn't work.
        Senator Braun. Touche, kudos. Thank you.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Lujan.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN

        Senator Lujan. Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member, thank you both for holding this hearing. Dr.
    Tierney, thank you for being here, every one of you thank you
    for being here as well. Governor Edwards, honored to see you as
    well, sir.
        Dr. Tierney, among the many important roles that you have
    held I see that you served as Assistant Secretary for Policy at
    the Department of Energy. In that role and other roles that
    you've held in the energy sector I assume you, like me, you
    tend to recognize the important role of our National Labs, not
    just for the country, but for benefits around the world.
        And as you know, New Mexico is important to two important
    national labs, with Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia
    National Laboratory. Dr. Tierney, my question is can you share
    with the Committee some of the ways that our National Labs help
    protect our nation's critical infrastructure?
        Dr. Tierney. Thank you for that great question, and I'm
    really happy to talk about the great national laboratory
    network that we have in the United States. Of course you
    mentioned the two in New Mexico. They are probably very well
    known for their contributions to the nation's national
    security, but they also have done tremendous work on energy
    infrastructure issues.
        I think in particular of Sandia's work on cybersecurity,
    and making sure the nation's energy infrastructure is more
    resilient, as well as capable of withstanding attacks that are
    predictable, going to happen, happen all the time on the
    nation's electric infrastructure for example.
        Sandia is a great example of that. North of New Mexico in
    Colorado is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I had the
    honor of serving as their external advisory committee chair.
    They do tremendous work on analyzing the potential benefits of
    a regional electric system where there are better
    interconnections between the region, allowing for much greater
    diversity of electric demand and electric supply.
        I could on and on, but the nation's labs are truly jewels.
    They're supported by Congress and appropriations through the
    Department of Energy's many offices is critical to the nation's
    infrastructure.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Well I'm going to ask you
    to go on, Dr. Tierney with my next question, which is related
    to our national labs. But do you agree that finding solutions
    to climate change, such as designing climate resilient
    infrastructure is a responsibility that we should invest in at
    our national labs, given the material science, the planning,
    the modeling of oceans.
        And it turns out for the national security missions of
    these labs, they need to know what's happening, and where the
    wind blows for obvious reasons. But can you talk about that a
    little bit.
        Dr. Tierney. Sure. The R and D capabilities of the labs
    that span quite basic science on material's strength and
    capacity to withstand different stresses, all the way to
    deployment of infrastructure and all along that supply chain is
    extremely important. The labs are very well known for their
    basic science work, again on high energy physics.
        But on practical infrastructure issues, the materials work
    in analytics that are done make their way eventually into
    private industry, into the hands of companies that are actually
    putting infrastructure on the ground. So I didn't know this
    question was coming, and I love hitting it because they are
    truly essential to the nation's energy security and national
    security.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Dr. Tierney. Now Dr.
    Keenan, I appreciate that you included in your testimony, and I
    quote, ``The southwest U.S. faces upwards of $1.4 trillion in
    lost gross domestic product (GDP) between 2022 and 2050 due to
    risks and costs of projected water scarcity challenges.''
        Senator Padilla was asking you many questions in this
    particular area, talked about climate smart technology,
    precision agriculture, soil erosion reduction that can result
    in some of these practices, minimizing fertilizer applications.
    If we had more modern infrastructure, precision agriculture.
        What that means as well to contributing to reduction with
    some of the devastation we see with climate as well. There's
    many efforts that many of us have been working on together, but
    Dr. Keenan, yes or no, in order to avoid the $1.4 trillion
    impact in the southwest economy, do you agree that we urgently
    need to provide rural America with the tools and technology to
    adopt to climate change progression?
        Dr. Keenan. Yes.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. There's some other
    questions I have. One, a few Governor Edwards that I'll submit
    for you as well, but Mr. Chairman I want to be mindful of the
    time as well, and so I'm going to yield back, but I'll submit
    the rest into the record. I really appreciate you all being
    here, all the things that you do day in and day out. Thank you
    all.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you. Mr. Herrgott has set the
    record for rapidity. Dr. Keenan has just set the record for
    brevity. Senator Merkley.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY

        Senator Merkley. Well thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    all for your testimony. I was thinking about an event last year
    where I'm at National Reagan Airport, and the pilot announced
    that we can't take off because it's too hot out. And our fuel
    load to get to Oregon means we may end up in a river if we try
    to take off.
        And so we had to wait for an hour and a half to unload gas
    or jet fuel off the plane, and then we had to land in Chicago
    to refuel to get to Oregon. And I had heard about this sort of
    thing happening in Phoenix, where 110 degrees and with the heat
    the air gets thinner, you don't have as much lift.
        But in Washington, D.C. I had never heard of this. Just on
    that particular issue, and I think I'm directing this to you
    Dr. Keenan, are we seeing that heat is driving a problem with
    runways being too short? And is there a whole transportation
    infrastructure expansion that has to happen for jets to get off
    the ground?
        Dr. Keenan. Yes. We're seeing this at different types of
    fleets if you will, both cargo and domestic passenger fleets,
    particularly larger planes, transcontinental and overseas
    flights are limited, their payload and fuel capacity.
        And this is at the surface level, but also at different
    levels of the atmosphere that are creating essentially stronger
    headwinds or steering currents that burn more fuel in flight as
    well.
        This is a challenge not just for our domestic economy in
    infrastructure, it's also a challenge in terms of national
    security in the military because we are going to have to expand
    airfields and the length of airfields really throughout our
    system. So it's a challenge.
        It's a challenge that the aviation industry is addressing
    by some measure in terms of efficiency, fuels, fleet design, et
    cetera, et cetera, but at its core we are going to have to
    extend the length of runways somewhere in the order of 20
    percent the extension of the current lengths across the airport
    system.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I think that's a piece many
    Americans would be surprised about. I want to turn to you,
    Governor Edwards. Thank you for joining us. The issues in my
    state from climate chaos are different than your state. In my
    state the forests are burning, the snowpack in the cascades has
    lost 240 inches over the last 90 years.
        And everything, the drought is affecting ranchers and
    farmers, the pine beetles, it's almost apocalyptic set of
    plagues. But I believe in your state it's more about
    hurricanes, rising sea levels, coastal erosion. Is that a fair
    way to describe it?
        Governor Edwards. Yes, sir. That's fair, but we are
    impacted by things that wouldn't be intuitively obvious. So for
    example, because of the draught in Iowa and elsewhere, we have
    a low river. That's allowing saltwater to come in from the Gulf
    and compromise drinking water for communities in Louisiana who
    have always taken their drinking water out of the river.
        And so we're having to do emergency work with the state and
    the parishes, but also working with the Corps of Engineers, and
    we really appreciate their help. In order to build sills, in
    order to stop the saltwater and so forth. So it is a myriad of
    things, and things that happen in one part of the country
    actually have a cascading effect in other parts of the country.
        Senator Merkley. All right. Just for the drinking water
    challenge, are you looking at billions of dollars of
    infrastructure changes?
        Governor Edwards. No sir. It's not that expensive now.
    Obviously, if this becomes something that repeats itself too
    frequently, obviously a more permanent solution would have to
    be found. It's happened before, but it last happened just a
    couple of years ago, so if we see this happening more
    frequently, then we're going to have to do something that would
    be more expensive, yes sir.
        Senator Merkley. And then I believe I've seen stories about
    your coastal lands eroding. Are there investments in adaptation
    that you're trying to, if you will, hold the ocean back, or we
    just say no, we can't. It's impossible. I thought I saw islands
    being created more--artificial islands, barriers and so forth?
        Governor Edwards. Yes, sir. Yeah. We're having tremendous
    success with our coastal restoration protection program, and it
    is a science based program.
        And we are investing a minimum of a billion dollars a year.
    And it's ecosystem restoration. And by the way when you restore
    ecosystems you provide storm surge buffer, and you actually
    protect populations and infrastructure, so it's actually
    protection.
        But we also have projects that are designed primarily for
    protection. But we're having success, and we believe that if we
    can implement our program as we envision it today, we will have
    less risk in 50 years than we do today, even with the climate
    change happening, the sea level rise between I think 1.8 and
    2.5 feet over the next 50 years, which is kind of the low and
    the medium estimate.
        Senator Merkley. And in that ecosystem restoration you're
    creating artificial or manmade barrier islands, and is that
    expensive?
        Governor Edwards. Oh yes, sir. It is very expensive, and we
    are creating and for the most part we're restoring the islands
    where they were and so forth. It is expensive, but it helps
    because that too dissipates the storm surge, and it provides
    buffer. It also provides the habitat, for example, the brown
    pelicans.
        You may have seen--what you saw was probably the Queen Bess
    Island, but the brown pelican happens to be our state bird, and
    the areas where it would nest were greatly reduced. Within a
    few weeks of us finishing the island the birds were back. And
    so, it serves a lot of purposes, but primarily that was done
    for protection.
        Senator Merkley. Well I have plenty more I could ask, but
    my time is up. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Whitehouse. And the witnesses are willing to take
    questions for the record. Before I recognize Senator Kennedy,
    let me just point out that that makes three Louisianans in the
    room, so who knows how this ends up. Senator Kennedy.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome Governor.
    Professor Keenan, you teach at Tulane?
        Dr. Keenan. Yes sir, I do. I have that privilege.
        Senator Kennedy. And you have your own website,
    Keenanclimate.com.
        Dr. Keenan. Yes sir, I do.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you describe yourself on your
    website as a globally recognized thought leader. Is that
    correct?
        Dr. Keenan. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you give paid speeches do you?
        Dr. Keenan. On occasion I do.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you have your own agent I believe
    according to your website, Lee Bureau?
        Dr. Keenan. This is correct.
        Senator Kennedy. And how much do you charge per speech?
        Dr. Keenan. It varies, depending on the audience, the
    amount of preparation work that goes, and the amount of follow
    through.
        Senator Kennedy. In the last paid speech you gave how much
    did you receive?
        Dr. Keenan. I would have to follow-up.
        Senator Kennedy. You don't remember?
        Dr. Keenan. I do not.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you keep--do you give that money to
    Tulane?
        Dr. Keenan. I do not.
        Senator Kennedy. You keep it?
        Dr. Keenan. Yes. This is outside of my capacity as a
    professor.
        Senator Kennedy. Right. Right.
        Dr. Keenan. As is, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Now you recently sent a letter--you
    recently joined a lot of other academics. You signed a letter
    demanding that elite institutions and universities stop
    accepting money from fossil fuel companies. Is that correct?
        Dr. Keenan. This is correct.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you consider Tulane an elite
    university?
        Dr. Keenan. I would like to think that we have a high
    standard of excellence in our education and our research.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Well the Murphy family of Murphy
    Oil, and the Dimming family of Murphy Oil, have recently given
    Tulane 25 million dollars. Have you called on Tulane to give
    that money back?
        Dr. Keenan. Well, it's not they didn't give that money to
    the department or school that I work in.
        Senator Kennedy. Have you called on Tulane to give that
    money back, or you think that's okay for them to keep it?
        Dr. Keenan. It's their prerogative, not mine.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. But yet you just signed a letter
    saying that all elite universities should refuse fossil fuel
    money. Did you put a footnote in there saying except my own?
        Dr. Keenan. Well what I'd like to say, Senator, is that I
    believe it raises a conflict of interest for those that
    research climate change, that are supported by the fossil fuel
    industry.
        Senator Kennedy. Yeah, but then why don't you ask Tulane to
    give the 25 million dollars back?
        Dr. Keenan. Well I think in the context if that money were
    to be used to support climate research, information,
    disinformation, or whatever it may be, that that may be an
    appropriate conflict of interest, but I think in the context
    for which----
        Senator Kennedy. You don't see the hypocrisy here?
        Dr. Keenan. It is hypocrisy in those that may read and
    interpret it as such.
        Senator Kennedy. Maybe it's like Washington if there
    weren't double standards there wouldn't be standards at all.
    Let me ask you this. You also participated in another article
    here calling, criticizing Houston for building new buildings
    and McMansions. And you said--I'm going to read your quote. I
    don't want to misquote you, Professor.
        ``That means we have to change our consumer preference. You
    could have a super-efficient, energy-efficient, mega mansion in
    Houston or the suburbs, but it's still a McMansion. You're
    still overconsuming space.'' Did you say that?
        Dr. Keenan. Yes, sir. That's based on work as a member of
    the IPCC. Our research suggested that reducing our footprint in
    terms of total spatial footprint would have significant impacts
    in the decarbonization of the built environment.
        Senator Kennedy. And so, you're saying that people should
    live in smaller houses because larger houses contribute to
    CO2 emissions?
        Dr. Keenan. 100 percent, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Well recently Tulane finished the
    Commons. It was 77,000 square feet. $55 million. Recently
    Tulane finished the Goldring Woldenberg Business Complex, $35
    million to complete. 92,000 square feet. Boy that's a
    McMansion.
        Mussafer Hall, 23,000 square feet. Paul Hall, 36,000 square
    feet, Richardson Hall, 50,000 square feet. Housing
    redevelopment phase I, 230,000 square feet at Tulane. Have you
    called upon Tulane to stop these buildings?
        Dr. Keenan. Sir, the habitable space within those units are
    roughly the size of the conference room back there and indeed
    quite small.
        Senator Kennedy. But the contribute to----
        Dr. Keenan. Everything that we do sir.
        Senator Kennedy. Does the Commons contribute more to
    climate change than a mansion in Houston? You are pretty quick
    to criticize the people of Houston for wanting to build, you
    thought McMansions, but you don't criticize your own
    university?
        Dr. Keenan. I don't find that to be equivocal comparison
    between space meant for students who must reside at a
    university.
        Senator Kennedy. You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
        Dr. Keenan. It is your finding and interpretation, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. But you don't see the irony of hypocrisy.
        Dr. Keenan. I'm going to go ahead and say no.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I kind of gathered that would be
    your answer. Governor, good to see you. You live in a big
    house, don't you?
        Governor Edwards. Currently I do. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. How big is the Governor's mansion?
        Governor Edwards. I don't know the square footage, but it's
    large, and it's 60 years old this year. You ought to come by
    and see the good work.
        Senator Kennedy. I need to get by. Well the professor from
    Tulane doesn't like that. Let me ask you, do you think it's
    fair? Look, John Bel, we get 37.5 percent of offshore royalties
    under GOMESA.
        New Mexico gets 50 percent share from the federal
    government for God sakes, Wyoming gets 50 percent. North Dakota
    gets 50 percent. We get 37.5 percent, and we've got to share it
    with four other states.
        Governor Edwards. And it's capped at 375 million that we
    get to share no matter. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. And that just sucks.
        Governor Edwards. I don't think it's fair, and 90 percent
    of all Gulf oil and gas exploration and production activities
    are served out of Port Fourchon. So we bear the brunt of the
    infrastructure necessary to make all of that happen, but we're
    not sharing the way the other states share.
        And it's one of the reasons I think the members of this
    Committee while you were out, for the one's that cosponsored
    the RISEE Act because it is incredibly important for a state
    like Louisiana. And we constitutionally dedicate every dollar
    we get as you know to the coast.
        Senator Kennedy. All we're asking is to be treated like
    everybody else, aren't we?
        Governor Edwards. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. And we have a solution don't we?
        Governor Edwards. We do.
        Senator Kennedy. And it's called RISEE Act. Tell us about
    the RISEE Act.
        Governor Edwards. Well it's a wonderful piece of
    legislation that we are obviously hoping that you pass, not
    only for the benefits that you just mentioned, but currently
    there's no revenue sharing mechanism in place in federal law
    with respect to wind.
        We'll have the first offshore wind lease sale next month.
    And so this is a very real thing for us, especially as we look
    at the loss of the BP Horizon fines that they've been paying,
    in fact Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, $2.9 billion paid for
    with BP dollars, but those go away in 2031.
        We really need to replace that revenue, and wind energy
    gives us an opportunity, but we need that structure in place,
    and I appreciate your work on that.
        Senator Kennedy. Well to be blunt, we've proven we can use
    the money well. And we put our own money up, and it is patently
    unfair that other states get a larger share, a much larger
    share than Louisiana. And I think the RISEE Act, which will
    also help our wind industry as Senator Whitehouse knows, we're
    working together on, is long overdue, and I appreciate you
    coming up here to talk about that bill.
        And I was in Judiciary, that's why I was late. And the
    Chairman has been very generous with me. Thank you Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Whitehouse. Not a problem, Senator Kennedy. We're
    glad to have you here with your Governor present. And I would
    note that your colleague, Senator Cassidy is also an extremely
    energetic and lively proponent of the RISEE Bill.
        And we continue to work together, Governor, with your
    delegation to try to make sure that we can get this bill passed
    through ENR, with the support of your former gubernatorial
    colleague, now Senator Manchin, and we're continuing to make
    progress.
        With that, let me say that the questions for the record
    that need to be filed must be in by noon tomorrow, and if the
    witnesses would be kind enough to respond to any questions for
    the record you may receive within seven days we would
    appreciate it. I want to thank the Ranking Member for a
    particularly good panel, and a particularly helpful hearing.
        And offer my particular gratitude to Governor Edwards whose
    schedule I know is enormously busy, and who has come a long way
    to be here. We're extremely grateful to you, sir. With that the
    hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m. Wednesday, July 26, 2023, the
    hearing was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]