[Senate Hearing 118-326]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-326
CHANG, ROSNER, AND SEE NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
to
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF JUDY W. CHANG TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DAVID ROSNER TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, AND LINDSAY S. SEE TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2024
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-888 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Justin J. Memmott, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and U.S. Senator from Wyoming 2
WITNESSES
Chang, Judy W., nominated to be a Member of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 4
Rosner, David, nominated to be a Member of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 9
See, Lindsay S., nominated to be a Member of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 13
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
American Clean Power:
Letter for the Record........................................ 157
Asian Americans in Energy, the Environment, and Commerce et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 158
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
ISO New England report entitled ``2024 Regional Electricity
Outlook: Pillar Three--Energy Adequacy''................... 22
Chang, Judy W.:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Written Testimony............................................ 7
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 58
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Poster displaying FERC mission statement..................... 50
Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
Comments for the Record...................................... 161
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
Photo of new carbon-based conductor next to currently used
conductor.................................................. 43
Laborers' International Union of North America:
Letter for the Record........................................ 163
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Rosner, David:
Opening Statement............................................ 9
Written Testimony............................................ 11
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 89
See, Lindsay S.:
Opening Statement............................................ 13
Written Testimony............................................ 15
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 123
CHANG, ROSNER, AND SEE NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
We meet today to consider three pending nominations for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The three nominees are
Judy Chang, David Rosner, and Lindsay See. We welcome all three
nominees and thank each of them for being here this morning and
for their willingness to serve on the Commission. We also
welcome their family members who are able to join us this
morning, and I encourage you to introduce them when your time
comes to give your opening remarks.
The work of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC,
as we know it--is enormously important for our country. The
Commission's job is to ensure the ``orderly development of
plentiful supplies of electricity and natural gas at reasonable
prices.'' It enables us to keep the lights on, protects the
American people from excessive gas and electric rates, and it
protects the public interest. The job calls for people who can
fairly assess the needs and concerns of all interests affected
by our energy policies and apply the law. Today we are here to
assess the experience and qualifications of the three nominees
before us for this important job.
First, we have Ms. Judy Chang. Ms. Chang has more than 20
years of experience working with energy companies, trade
associations, and governments on energy regulatory and
financial issues. She previously served as the Under Secretary
of Energy in Climate Solutions under Massachusetts Governor
Charles Baker, a friend of mine and a Republican. She helped
develop Massachusetts' clean energy and climate plan. She has
been nominated for the term beginning in July 2024.
Next, we have David Rosner. David has been employed by the
Commission as an Energy Industry Analyst for the past seven
years. He has been on detail to the Democratic staff of this
Committee for the past two years, where he has worked with both
sides on electricity issues. Prior to that, he worked at the
Department of Energy and at the Bipartisan Policy Center, with
almost 20 years total in these various capacities. He has been
nominated to fill the remainder of the term that began in July
2022.
Our third and final nominee is Lindsay See. Lindsay is
currently West Virginia's Solicitor General, a post she has
held for the past six years. In that role, she has represented
my state's legal interests in both state and federal courts,
including the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, she practiced
appellate and administrative law at a firm in Washington, DC
after graduating from Harvard Law School. She has been
nominated to fill the remainder of the term that began in July
2023.
The President has done his job in sending us three
nominations to fully staff the Commission. Now it's up to us to
weigh their qualifications for confirmation. I congratulate all
three of you and thank you for your willingness to serve our
country in this important role.
At this point, I am going to recognize Senator Barrasso for
his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for holding today's hearing, and we are going to
consider the three nominees, as you mentioned, to serve on the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Ms. Lindsay See, and did
you say from West Virginia?
The Chairman. West Virginia.
Senator Barrasso. I wanted to make sure. David Rosner, as
well, and Judy Chang, and welcome all----
The Chairman. I don't know how that happened.
Senator Barrasso. I welcome all of you to the Committee.
Ms. See is an outstanding appellate lawyer. She has spent
the last seven years as Solicitor General of the Chairman's
home State of West Virginia, and during that time, she has
overseen civil and criminal appeals in both the state and the
federal courts. Ms. See has fought tirelessly for affordable
and reliable energy for all American families. She has argued
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In one of those cases, she
not only advocated on behalf of West Virginia, she also
advocated on behalf of my home State of Wyoming, and she won!
From a young age, she has distinguished herself as a person of
exemplary discipline, drive, and determination. Ms. See
graduated summa cum laude from Patrick Henry College, then
graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she
served as Executive Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Quite
impressive. After law school, she clerked for Judge Thomas
Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. If confirmed, Ms. See will bring her impressive
experience working with complex statutes to the Commission. Ms.
See is well positioned to ensure that the Commission faithfully
adheres to its statutory mandate.
Mr. Rosner is a familiar face. He knows the FERC's
responsibilities firsthand. Since 2017, he has worked as an
energy industry analyst at the Commission. Over the last two
years, he has served as the Commission's detailee to the
majority staff here. During that time, Mr. Rosner has
represented Chairman Manchin and worked constructively with my
staff as well. If confirmed, he will no longer represent anyone
but himself. For that reason, I look forward to learning more
today about his personal views on the very specific issues.
Ms. Chang is a self-described advocate of what she calls
the ``clean energy transition.'' Between 2020 and 2023, she
developed energy and climate policies for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I remind the Committee, this is the state that
consumes twice as much electricity as it produces. It's a state
that benefits from the resolve of other states and other
countries to produce the energy that Massachusetts needs and
uses. And it's a state where residents pay among the highest
electricity and natural gas prices in the nation. In 2023,
households in Massachusetts paid 84 percent more than the
national average for a kilowatt-hour of electricity. They paid
40 percent more than the national average for a cubic foot of
natural gas. Massachusetts has the third highest prices in the
nation for both electricity and natural gas, and consumers feel
the high prices.
On the basis of her previous statements, I am concerned
that Ms. Chang has paid far too little attention to these
facts. In 2016, she said that the ``current low price of
natural gas sends the wrong signal to achieve the objectives of
Massachusetts' policy.'' The policy she was referring to was
the state's radical climate agenda. In 2018, Ms. Chang was
asked, ``Does it make sense to build more gas pipelines or gas
plants?'' She responded by saying, ``to me, it doesn't make
sense.'' Well, natural gas is critical for the reliability of
electric service in this country. New England faces this
reality each and every winter. The efforts of Massachusetts to
block natural gas pipelines not only means higher prices for
its residents, it means that Massachusetts has had to import
liquefied natural gas from overseas--including, in the past,
LNG from Russia--just to keep homes warm and the lights on.
Under the law, FERC is responsible for ensuring the development
of abundant supplies of natural gas at reasonable prices. Ms.
Chang, in the past, has advocated for the direct opposite, and
for that reason, I think the burden is on the nominee to
explain why we should support her nomination. The last thing
the FERC needs is someone eager to impose the failed policies
of Massachusetts upon the rest of our nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And if the three of you will stand now. The rules of the
Committee require that nominees be sworn in in connection with
their testimony. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God.
[Each witnesses responds in the affirmative.]
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statements, I will ask three
questions addressed to each nominee before this Committee.
Will you be available to appear before the Committee and
other Congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
Mr. Rosner. Yes.
Ms. Chang. Yes.
Ms. See. Yes.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any potential holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict of
interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should you
be confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Ms. See. No.
Mr. Rosner. No.
Ms. Chang. I will take the appropriate actions based on the
recommendations of the Ethics Counselor appropriate to avoid
any conflict of interest, sir.
The Chairman. Are you involved or do you have any assets
held in a blind trust?
Ms. Chang. No.
Mr. Rosner. No.
Ms. See. No.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Before we begin the statements, let me ask each of the
nominees to introduce any members of your family or friends who
are with you this morning.
I will begin with you, Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Sure, thank you. Thank you very much.
With me are my husband, James MacNeil, and Tara MacNeil,
and I am very grateful for them to be here.
The Chairman. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you, sir.
I am joined by my wife, Jasmine, who is sitting behind me.
The Chairman. Great to have you all here.
Ms. See.
Ms. See. Thank you, Chairman.
I am joined by my parents, Robert and Kathleen See. My
siblings are here, and my three-month-old niece, Eliza, who
took her first flight ever to be here, as well as a number of--
--
The Chairman. I think we just heard her.
Ms. See. We did.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, thank you, all of you. You all should
be extremely proud to be nominated and be asked to serve at a
high level.
With that, we are going to statements from each of our
nominees, and Ms. Chang, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF JUDY W. CHANG, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Chang. Thank you. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, I am honored to be here today as a
nominee to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. I would like to thank President Biden
for nominating me, and I thank Chairman Manchin and Ranking
Member Barrasso for holding this hearing. I am grateful to
appear today with my fellow nominees, Mr. Rosner and Ms. See,
whom I have had the great pleasure to get to know a bit over
the last few weeks, and I hope we get an opportunity to work
collaboratively together in the future. I also want to thank my
husband, who has been supporting me for many, many years and my
daughter, Tara, who is here today. My other daughter will be
joining virtually.
My approach to energy policy and energy issues is shaped by
personal background. I spent my formative years in Taiwan and
the Philippines before moving to California to finish high
school and attend university. Having grown up in developing
countries, I have experienced, firsthand, power outages as a
daily event. Candlelit dinners were not just for the romantics,
they were necessary to see what you were eating. From a very
young age, my parents instilled in me the principle that no
resource shall ever be wasted, working hard to save every
penny. To this day, I am always turning the lights off behind
my children as they leave the room and urging them to wear a
sweater through the late fall in New England before finally
turning on the heat.
I earned my undergraduate degree in electrical engineering
from University of California, Davis. From early on, I wanted
to work on improving infrastructure around the world,
particularly understanding, having experienced what a lack of
infrastructure means for peoples' daily lives. After obtaining
my master's degree in public policy, I started working in
finance and economic consulting in the energy sector. Much of
that work has been technical in nature, applying my background
in engineering and economics to analyze issues within the
energy sector, including wholesale electricity market design
and infrastructure planning and development. In that capacity,
I had advised a broad spectrum of energy companies, including
various investor-owned utilities, public power cooperative
utilities, and independent power producers. That experience
allowed me to work on diverse energy issues across the U.S.,
covering many states, and gave me an appreciation of the
significant regional differences in how people produce and
consume energy in this country.
In 2020, I had the distinct privilege to join the then-
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker's administration. In that
role, I learned a tremendous amount working with my colleagues
and stakeholders across the region. I led the six New England
states in developing a consensus vision for long-term power
system planning that included working with the New England
independent system operator to initiate a forward-looking and
long-term transmission planning process to promote the
reliability and resilience of the electricity grid at a cost
customers can afford. With my experience in private sector and
state government, I have a deep appreciation for the
foundational importance of ensuring the reliability and the
affordability of energy systems. These imperatives are front
and center in every utility executive and government leader's
mind and they are prerequisites for a robust economy and the
continuation of the energy transition in which the country
finds itself today.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent
regulatory agency that plays a crucial role in ensuring both
reliability and affordability. Its broad jurisdiction includes
the regulation of rates for wholesale sales and transmission of
electricity and the interstate transmission of natural gas as
well as siting authority for things like interstate natural gas
pipelines, liquefied natural gas export facilities, and
hydroelectric facilities. Should I have the privilege of being
confirmed, I commit to keeping both reliability and
affordability at the forefront of my mind as I rigorously and
independently examine the particular facts and circumstances in
every proceeding that comes before the Commission.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chang follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Chang.
Mr. Rosner, please.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ROSNER, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Rosner. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning as a nominee to serve on the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I am humbled to be
considered for this opportunity to serve my country. I would
like to thank President Biden for nominating me and for his
confidence in my ability to serve as a Commissioner. I want to
thank Chairman Manchin for the opportunity to contribute to the
work of this Committee as a detailee over the last 18 months,
and I especially want to thank my wife Jasmine for her
steadfast support for my career in public service, and to our
children, Olive and Quinn, for motivating me to pursue the
greater good for our country.
For the past 17 years, I have enjoyed working on energy
policy, both from within and outside the Federal Government,
which has given me the opportunity to develop relevant
expertise across economic, technological, and regulatory
domains. Throughout my career, I have worked across ideological
lines to build consensus on difficult energy issues, first as a
member of the staff that launched the Bipartisan Policy Center,
then by supporting Secretary Moniz and his team at the U.S.
Department of Energy, as staff with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, supporting chairs from both political
parties, and most recently during my time as a staff member
detailed from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to this
Committee. Through these experiences, I have learned firsthand
the importance of listening to all stakeholders, and I am
convinced that effective engagement serves to broaden support
that is so critical to reasoned decision-making and to
strengthening the Commission's orders by ensuring that all
views are considered. I have also had the great privilege of
working for the chairs and commissioners of FERC and alongside
its talented world-class staff. This allows me to speak from
experience when I say that it would be an honor to be confirmed
as a FERC Commissioner.
Having served alongside FERC staff, I can vouch for the
fact that FERC is an expert body that lives up to Congress's
vision for an independent, bipartisan regulator of our
increasingly complex energy system. FERC's leaders and civil
servants work tirelessly to guide the Commission's decisions
toward sound, legally durable outcomes that hold true to the
Agency's statutory authority and make our country and our
allies more energy secure. The Commission's core
responsibility--its job number one--is to ensure the reliable
operation of the country's electric grid. None of our country's
economic or policy priorities can be achieved if energy
reliability is not preserved. Consumers demand it, they deserve
it, and it is FERC's most sacred duty to ensure it.
If honored to be confirmed, I will remain grounded in this
mission to ensure reliability. This means respecting the
reality of the resources that power our economy today and
keeping an eye on the horizon to ensure that the next
generation of technologies, which Congress has unlocked through
the important bipartisan legislation that originated from this
Committee, can play their role to bring reliable, safe, secure,
and affordable energy to all Americans. If confirmed, I commit,
above all, to abide by the laws passed by Congress and judicial
precedent to act fairly and to consider the views put forth by
all parties when deciding matters before FERC, whether that be
applications for a natural gas pipeline or hydropower projects,
tariff proceedings for electric markets, or transmission
planning, oil pipeline rates, or other issues before the
Commission. It is through that case-by-case and issue-by-issue
approach that FERC achieves its mission as an independent
regulator and delivers the best outcomes for our country.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
you today. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
And now, Ms. See.
STATEMENT OF LINDSAY S. SEE, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. See. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
Barrasso, and each member of the Committee for your time today
and for your work on the important issues of energy security
facing our country. It is an honor to appear before you as a
nominee to serve on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Thank you also to President Biden for nominating me to this
position and to Leader McConnell for his recommendation that he
should. I am humbled by their trust in my ability to serve the
American people in this way. I would also like to acknowledge
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and my
colleagues in the AG's office. Representing my adopted state
has been a true honor these past six-plus years, and I count it
a privilege to serve the Mountain State alongside such a
professional and committed group of colleagues and friends.
And I am deeply grateful to my family. My siblings--Jason,
Jamison, Whitney, and Ashley are here today. Thank you to them
and to the rest of their families supporting from Michigan.
Thanks also to Rachel and Josh Baer for their close friendship
and always-open guest room and to my goddaughter, Maria. In
full candor to the Committee, at ten years old, she was less
than impressed to learn that I had been nominated to a
Commission that she had never heard of, but she got
considerably more invested in the idea when we told her that
she could skip school to be here today for a real live civics
lesson instead. And of course, thank you to my parents, Robert
and Kathleen See. I treasure your support and keep your
examples of a life well-lived in front of me each day.
FERC's crucial work is at the intersection of what drives
me in my career. As an administrative and appellate lawyer, I
have spent much of the last dozen years deep in complex
statutes and detailed and technical records. The energy space
gives this admittedly nerdy species of the law real
consequences for real people. I remember, for instance, what it
was like being part of the 50 million people in the 2003
blackout across northeastern America and southern Canada. I
recall the anxiety, realizing just how widespread the problem
was and just how little control we had over it. And it was more
than just the inconvenience when homes, stores, and
streetlights suddenly went dark. A family member was nine-
months pregnant at the time, and the days it took for the
lights to come back on sparked growing worry about her safety
and access to medical care. Now, fortunately, all ended well
there--and I have had quite a few ``where does the time go?''
moments over the past few weeks, realizing her son is now 20--
but Congress responded to that blackout by adding Section 215
to the Federal Power Act, giving FERC new responsibility to
ensure grid reliability. I left it with a lasting reminder how
critically--and practically--energy policy affects each one of
us.
My time as West Virginia Solicitor General has brought that
lesson into laser focus again these past several years. Thanks
to West Virginia's economic and power-generation interests,
energy matters have been front and center on my docket since
day one on the job. Through dozens of cases and rulemakings, I
have learned much more than I understood in 2003, that grid
reliability, regulatory certainty, and affordable energy are
essentials. I have also come to value the state's important
role when it comes to generation and local distribution, and
understand the complexities that their different resources,
geographies, and priorities can bring to the equation. My role
as a state lawyer also solidified my respect for the interplay
between state and federal regulators. I take the rule of law
and separation of power seriously. I am committed to the simple
notion that agencies have only the power that you--Congress--
give to them. And if I were honored to be confirmed, I would
guard my duty as a Commissioner to do no more than what
Congress delegated to FERC in the U.S. code: to stay in FERC's
important but narrow lanes, applying that law faithfully and
impartially based on the record before me.
But I am also committed to doing no less than what Congress
has tasked of FERC. Understanding jurisdiction's limits can
mean focusing more closely on what matters most. So to the best
of my ability I would work to continue the Commission's vital
work in ensuring energy reliability, timely infrastructure
review, and just and reasonable rates flowing from a fair
interstate electricity market. And here again, I would draw on
lessons from my current position, working with stakeholders in
West Virginia and around the country on various sides of
sensitive and critically important issues. I would hope to add
my experience to those of my fellow Commissioners. I would look
forward to working with them and the expert and dedicated FERC
staff to do our part to fulfill FERC's mission as a non-
partisan and independent agency.
I truly appreciate the honor to be considered for this role
to serve the people across our nation, whose daily lives depend
on sound and predictable energy policy. Once again, thank you
for the opportunity to appear here today, and I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. See follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Let me thank all of you for your statements,
and now we are going to begin our questioning, and I will
start. We all have about five minutes here. If you can keep
your answers as concise as possible, we will get through a lot
more that way.
I will first ask you, can you describe, each one of you,
your view of FERC's most important responsibilities, as you
understand them?
We will start, Ms. Chang, with you.
Ms. Chang. Yes, thank you very much, Chairman. The first
and foremost is reliability and affordability. And if I were
lucky enough to be confirmed, that would be at the forefront of
my decision-making process and following the law and examining
every case that comes before us.
The Chairman. And understanding the difference between
dispatchable and intermittent power, right? What's dispatchable
and intermittent?
Ms. Chang. Absolutely. The----
The Chairman. Dispatchable is 24/7. Something you can count
on 24/7. Intermittent is basically--it is when it is.
Ms. Chang. Absolutely. To ensure the reliability of our
grid, we need a mix of many resources, and each resource has
its own place in ensuring reliable service for our nation.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you, Senator.
First and foremost, the Commission's job number one is
reliability. The American people need it, they expect it, they
deserve it. And this is part of FERC's mission that touches
every aspect of our economy and of American life. If honored to
be confirmed, that would be my priority number one. Thank you
for the question.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. See.
Ms. See. The advantage, or disadvantage, of going third is,
I think we will be a broken record.
The Chairman. That's okay.
Ms. See. Reliability is certainly job number one for the
Commission. I think that is critically important, particularly
in this time where we are seeing changes in demand and load on
these and we are seeing changes and stressors on the sources we
have.
The Chairman. Let me follow up with that. Would you say you
are an all-of-the-above energy person, looking at everything
that gives us reliability, and as technology moves forward and
one transition follows another, as long as reliability is the
main factor?
Ms. See. I think reliability is absolutely essential, and I
think it requires looking at all of the different options that
we have.
The Chairman. You are open to all? All energy?
Ms. See. Certainly. I take seriously the concerns about our
dispatchable resources and keeping open access to new entrants.
The Chairman. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. I identify strongly with the all-of-the-above
philosophy. I think what we have seen in the past decade is
that there is strength in a diverse resource mix. I also
appreciate all of the change, both on the demand and generation
side of the mix, and would look to ensure that, if honored to
be confirmed, that we have a system that maintains reliability
as that transition happens.
Ms. Chang. I agree with Mr. Rosner and Ms. See on both of
those accounts.
The Chairman. Since molecules and electrons are moved and
something you are going to be responsible for to make sure we
are moving them and have enough of them, we have been told
about two million megawatts of power is being held off of the
grid because the capacity is not there. Mr. Rosner, starting
with you, on both the transmission and the pipeline concerns
that we have and transmission backlogs, what are your concerns
on that and the two million megawatts of power sitting on the
sidelines that we are going to be needing sooner or later as we
continue to transition this economy?
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. The
interconnection queue, as you mentioned, has approximately two
million megawatt-hours of generation waiting to connect. This
is an economic opportunity for the country. Timely buildout of
infrastructure is essential, and if honored to be confirmed,
that would be a priority for me.
The Chairman. Ms. See.
Ms. See. I certainly agree about the importance of needed
transmission and making sure that that can take place in an
orderly and predictable fashion. And I know, Mr. Chairman, you
mentioned the idea of pipeline infrastructure. I think it is
also important for FERC to take that part of its responsibility
under the Natural Gas Act seriously when it comes to a thorough
and efficient review.
Ms. Chang. As Congress has placed the responsibility on
FERC to have plentiful and affordable, both natural gas and
electric supply, I support the building out of infrastructure--
energy infrastructure--to make sure that we have reliable
energy services across the country.
The Chairman. And finally, today, America is producing, as
you have seen, more energy than ever in the history of our
country. We are producing more oil, with 4.7 billion barrels
last year, 37--almost 38 trillion cubic feet of gas, and we
have produced more energy from wind and solar than ever before.
With all this tremendous amount of energy we are producing, and
the demands we have, and also our responsibility for our allies
around the world, what is your opinion of what we are doing--
the mix and things of that sort? And we will start back, Ms.
Chang, with you.
Some people are going to look at this differently. Some
have preferences of what fuel they like over another, and if
you are truly looking at everything we are doing today, we are
moving in that direction to be totally independent, and we
should stay that way, but I don't know if you have an opinion
on that or not, on how we have come to this energy security.
Ms. Chang. Thank you very much for that question. I think
first and foremost, that brings the U.S. to be the
competitive--invest in its competitive edge and being a strong
competitor around the world and being a leader in all
technologies in energy production. I do think that is a
positive story for the U.S., and leading in its efforts, both
in investments that we are making today and have made in the
past to make sure that happens and support our allies through
this energy security issue.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you, Senator. This is an exciting time
for the country. The story you just described is a very
positive and exciting one and one that has served our economy
well by creating jobs and by creating opportunities across the
resource mix.
The Chairman. Ms. See.
Ms. See. I certainly agree. I think we have a wonderful
opportunity when we see the new technologies that are
developing. I think we can be proud of our existing resources
and what we are doing as a country. Certainly, there are
important policy issues there, and when it comes to the
Commission's role, it is to be fuel-neutral, of course, when it
comes to regulation of the organized markets. But I think it's
important to look at the critical value that each of those
sources is providing to our mix.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you all.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Chang, are natural gas prices in Massachusetts too
high?
Ms. Chang. Certainly, in the winter, Senator, and I
completely appreciate your concern because it is my concern as
well to have affordable energy in Massachusetts and in New
England because I and my family pay for those costs. And while
I was in Massachusetts state government, we were deeply
concerned about the costs associated, particularly with low and
moderate income.
Senator Barrasso. Well, that's good to hear, because the
behavior of the State of Massachusetts doesn't really seem to
be focused on lowering the cost for people. You know, in 2018,
the Washington Examiner reported that you ``predicted New
England will move away from natural gas within the next five
years.'' That was 2018. We are now beyond that. And then you
said ``so it's fiscally irresponsible,'' your words, ``to
invest in pipelines.'' That article was published six years
ago. Now today, natural gas is supplying about the same share
of New England's energy as it was in 2018, and you just said
you support building out energy infrastructure. Does that
include pipelines then?
Ms. Chang. Absolutely. If I had----
Senator Barrasso. Because you didn't support them in 2018.
Ms. Chang. Well, in 2018 I was merely interviewed on a
particular article, but as a government----
Senator Barrasso. We have all been subject to being merely
interviewed for articles and we know how it----
Ms. Chang. Yes, we do know how that goes. And as part of
the state government, however, I personally experienced what
it's like to go through winters in New England, and from the
Governor all the way down, we--nail biting experiences to make
sure that we have not only reliable service, but affordable
service, and that is particularly the time when New England was
more like Germany than it was like Pennsylvania in its cost and
availability of natural gas. So I care deeply about that.
Senator Barrasso. On Monday, ISO New England--which keeps
the grid in balance--issued a full report that I have here. And
it says, ``New England's future grid may lack sufficient
natural gas pipeline infrastructure to meet the region's winter
fuel demand for both home heating and power generation.'' You
talked about prices being too high in the winter.
[The report referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. So it's a crisis point, potentially, for
New England because of lack of pipeline availability. So in
light of this fact, do you still think it's fiscally
irresponsible to invest in pipelines?
Ms. Chang. I think the issue is very complex in New England
and I support----
Senator Barrasso. It's a pretty simple yes or no, with
everybody saying they need more pipelines. Is it fiscally
irresponsible?
Ms. Chang. Well, if I had my magic wand, I would love to
have more gas infrastructure and gas supply to New England, but
the issues are complicated in New England and I look forward to
an opportunity to work further on that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Ms. See, if confirmed, how would you assess the scope of
the Commission's authority?
Ms. See. Ranking Member, yes, I understand that you,
Congress, have given FERC important responsibility in the
Federal Power Act and the National Gas Act of ensuring
affordable and reliable energy through the regulated wholesale
rates and mandatory reliability standards in the interstate
electricity market, and also, licensing efficiently needed
infrastructure, including natural gas pipeline infrastructure.
That is exactly what the Natural Gas Act says. These are
important roles. I would be committed to carrying them out.
As I mentioned in my statement, I also think it's important
I understand the role of the Commission to fulfill only those
duties that Congress has delegated because, of course, agencies
don't have any independent authority. So I would consider it my
duty, if I had the honor to be confirmed, to implement the laws
that you, the peoples' representatives, put into place.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks. I have a question for all three
of you. Let me start with Ms. See, and then we will go to Mr.
Rosner and then ask Ms. Chang as well.
So in late January, President Biden publicly stated that
the Department of Energy would stop approving new liquefied
natural gas (LNG) exports for an indefinite period of time.
Now, under the Natural Gas Act, the Commission is obligated to
process permits for the siting, the construction, and the
operation of the LNG export facilities. So I would like to hear
from each of you, if confirmed, will you commit to acting
promptly on pending LNG export projects?
Ms. See. Yes, Senator, as you have said, Congress has
divided authority in this area between the Department of Energy
and FERC. I understand that directive to apply to the
Department of Energy's role when it comes to licensing the
export. I do not understand that to change FERC's statutory
responsibility when it comes to timely and efficiently
processing any licensing applications that come before it.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question. FERC is independent
of the Biden Administration and FERC has its own duty under the
statute to review these projects, and if honored to be
confirmed, I would support FERC's longstanding practice of
proceeding to review applications when they are ready.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes, thank you for the question, and I also
understand that FERC continues to process its applications, and
I look forward to having an opportunity to work with the staff
and other Commissioners on this topic.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And now we have Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to start by just making all three of you aware of an
issue that I think is important that hasn't necessarily
received the attention it deserves. FERC Order No. 2023 created
a certain system of financial deposits with respect to
interconnection queues that are creating particular challenges
in Indian Country. And I want to ask a question, and it's
relatively straightforward, which is just that all three of you
would commit to engaging tribal stakeholders as part of the
FERC rulemaking process.
Ms. Chang. Yes, absolutely. I certainly understand the
concerns and the cost, and if I have the fortune to be
confirmed, I would look very closely at this issue and how it
affects our tribal nations. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. My answer
is yes.
Senator Heinrich. Great.
Ms. See.
Ms. See. I agree. I think that diverse voices are very
important when it comes to these issues as a matter of due
process and accountability of the government's work.
Senator Heinrich. Ms. See, I very much understand and
appreciate your firm belief in the separation of powers between
state and federal regulators. I want to ask, given that the
vast majority of reliability issues result from outages that
are actually caused by state regulated distribution systems,
how do you reconcile FERC's authority with its responsibility
to ensure grid reliability?
Ms. See. Thank you, Senator. Certainly, as we have all
said, grid reliability is a central goal and responsibility. I
think that implicates a couple aspects of the Commission's
authority. I would certainly be looking closely at its
authority under Section 215 of the Federal Power Act when it
deals with mandatory reliability standards. I think that is
critically important. And then, of course, looking for the way
that the Commission's ratemaking authority power in the
organized markets would create market conditions for the right
incentives to make sure we are benefiting ratepayers, which
would include, of course, affordable rates, and also adequate
resources.
Senator Heinrich. Do you think we need clear standards for
what actually constitutes reliability?
Ms. See. I think clarity is very important when it comes to
regulation. This is an area that I would be looking forward to
if I were honored to be confirmed, looking closer with my
fellow Commissioners and would certainly, in this and all other
areas, defer to Congress if it decides that it's important to
provide more clarity in the law.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Rosner, this Committee has heard
testimony from FERC, from NERC, from industry, all stating that
interregional transmission is really critical to ensuring
reliability, especially in the face of increasing extreme
weather events. I am curious if you agree with that, and if so,
would you commit to ensuring a final rule with strong
provisions on interregional transmission capacity?
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I
agree, this is a critically important issue. The Committee, as
you mentioned, has heard from the experts at NERC, the other
Commissioners at FERC, and industry about the promise of
interregional transmission as one of the solutions to some of
the major threats to reliability that our country has faced in
the past decade. If confirmed, I would say that this would be a
priority for me, and I would like to work with my colleagues,
if honored to be confirmed, on potential actions that the
Commission could take on this. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Ms. Chang and Ms. See, I would just ask
your thoughts on the importance of interregional transmission
and whether that should be thoroughly considered by FERC in
order to ensure the kind of grid reliability that you all seem
to support.
Ms. Chang. Sure, thank you very much, Senator, for that
question. As you probably know, I have been analyzing
interregional and regional transmission efforts of this country
and I do think that there are many benefits associated with--
economic benefits associated with building out our transmission
infrastructure, including interregional transmission. So if I
were to have the fortune to be confirmed, that is also one of
my priorities--to better understand the constraints and work
with states and all stakeholders and the regional entities to
make sure that we can advance the transmission buildout of this
country.
Senator Heinrich. Ms. See.
Ms. See. I think there is a lot of agreement that it's
important in order for reliability to get energy from where it
is produced to the people who need it when and where they do. I
think transmission is a very important issue when it comes to
that goal. So certainly, I do support the orderly buildout of
needed transmission facilities. I understand the importance of
this role, and if I have the honor to be confirmed, would look
forward to working with my fellow Commissioners and the FERC
staff on these issues.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you
for your willingness to serve and be here with us today.
Mr. Rosner, let's start with you. You know, electric
transmission is a hot topic. It's a hot topic here in Congress
and a hot topic within FERC. Would you agree that the cost of
transmission lines should be borne by and imposed only on those
who directly and quantifiably benefit from those lines?
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. I agree
that only those who benefit should pay for transmission and
that is consistent with longstanding Commission precedent as
well as judicial precedent on this topic.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Ms. See, states like California have adopted some of their
own standards--their own renewable portfolio standards--and
those require significant transmission infrastructure in order
to wheel in renewable generation from other areas of the
country. Should FERC require Utah's ratepayers to pay for
California's future transmission projects, which will be built
solely for the purpose of satisfying California's public policy
goals?
Ms. See. Senator, I would certainly respect the
responsibility of the states when it comes to their primary
decisions and their own policies in generation, but when I am
looking at FERC's particular role, I agree with Mr. Rosner,
that there is longstanding Commission precedent when it comes
to the idea that costs need to be commensurate to the benefits.
I think that is critically important, and on any of these
issues that were coming in front of me, I would be looking at
who is benefiting in that case when it comes to the particular
issues of cost allocation. I would be looking very closely at
the law and the Commission's role in that area and apply it to
the particular factors in front of me.
Senator Lee. But the Commission's job is not to socialize
the cost from one state to another in order to satisfy that
state's policy desires. It's not the other state's job to pay
for those, and certainly not FERC's job to require state A to
subsidize state B in its own policy preferences.
Ms. See. I think it's certainly important for the
Commission to be looking at what it looks like to have fair
allocation in terms of just and reasonable rates, and yes, I
would be looking very closely at that statutory authority in
any of these questions.
Senator Lee. Ms. Chang, do you agree with that?
Ms. Chang. Yes, absolutely. I also agree with the fact that
beneficiaries pay in the context of transmission cost
allocation. So, yes.
Senator Lee. Great.
Mr. Rosner, do you agree with that also?
Mr. Rosner. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. Okay. Now, clearly the idea that the
beneficiary pays is easy to agree to in principle, but harder
in the context of paying for specific transmission projects. I
would urge each of you to be very careful as you navigate this
issue of who pays. The ``who pays'' question is significant.
The question about, you know, that you are not socializing the
cost for transmission projects to ratepayers, it's an important
thing for you to focus on. Ratepayers that will not benefit
from those projects and did not have a say in the climate
policies that have been adopted in other states, other states
where the ratepayers in question do not live.
Ms. Chang, in your view, is FERC fundamentally an economic
or environmental regulator?
Ms. Chang. Economic regulator.
Senator Lee. Mr. Rosner, do you agree with that?
Mr. Rosner. I do.
Senator Lee. And Ms. See?
Ms. See. Yes.
Senator Lee. Mr. Rosner, federal courts have long
recognized FERC as an agency with no inherent powers beyond
those specifically granted by Congress. The D.C. Circuit held
in Atlantic City Electric v. FERC that FERC is, quote, ``a
creature of statute, one that has no constitutional or common
law existence or authority, but only those authorities
conferred on it by Congress.'' In your view, Mr. Rosner, should
FERC be in the business of regulating environmental and climate
impacts beyond what NEPA requires?
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question. And I agree
strongly that, if honored to be confirmed, my starting point in
considering questions that come before the Commission would be
the statute, and I think in the case that you are mentioning
here, that would be the Natural Gas Act, and I would look to
the Natural Gas Act, and the Supreme Court has said that the
purpose of the Natural Gas Act is to ``ensure the orderly
development of plentiful supplies of natural gas at reasonable
prices.'' And so, that's where I would start and end in my
analysis of that issue.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Chang, is it appropriate under the law for FERC to
regulate downstream emissions for a natural gas pipeline
project?
Ms. Chang. My understanding is that the Natural Gas Act
does not specify greenhouse gas emissions as a criteria for
denying any pipeline projects.
Senator Lee. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one follow-up?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Senator Lee. Now, in a Citizens Climate Forum panel, you
spoke about how the climate transition will reform, ``really
everything we do. The way we do things will need to change
between now and 2050 and beyond, of course.'' What role do you
think FERC should play in the climate change transformation
that you describe in that speech?
Ms. Chang. In that context of the quote that you just
cited, Senator, it's about our individual lives and our
personal contribution to the climate crisis that we face. As
far as FERC's role is concerned, if I have the honor to be
confirmed, I will make sure that I follow the law, and Congress
is in the position to set the law, and FERC is the agency that
follows the law.
Senator Lee. But should climate change factor into FERC's
public interest determinations?
Ms. Chang. I understand your question and I understand the
tension around this topic. I am not a lawyer so I haven't
reviewed all the court cases around this topic, but I would
commit to you and everyone here that I will----
Senator Lee. Based on your understanding of those laws,
should it?
Ms. Chang. Again, I mentioned that the National Gas Act
does not specify climate change in its determination of natural
gas.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to weigh in here with so many references to
California, but first, I want to take a moment and thank Mr.
Rosner, who is before us, for his work as a detailee to the
Committee, and whose expertise has been a tremendous resource
for me, for my staff, and I imagine for many offices of
Committee members during his time. So I very much appreciate
that and it has, I think, prepared you well for this
opportunity here.
Speaking of California, and the West for that matter, much
of the West's grid reliability struggles have intensified in
recent years, not just because of a growing population and the
economy, but because of the extreme summer heat and the strain
that it imposes on the system. Now, western grid
regionalization has been raised as the potential solution to
these concerns as electricity demand in the West continues to
grow and stressors continue to intensify. The ability for
regions to coordinate and the speed and sophistication of that
coordination grows more important every single day. And I am
seeing some heads nod in agreement here.
So in December of last year, FERC approved California ISO's
proposal to establish the extended day-ahead market, which
would allow external balancing authority areas to participate
in California ISO's day-ahead market. This is a major step
toward a more reliable and resilient grid. The question is for
Ms. Chang. Can you discuss how regional coordination can
improve efficiency, can reduce cost, and can reduce emissions
in a region?
Ms. Chang. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I happen
to have worked on some regional market analyses in the West,
including assisting many stakeholders, including California
ISO, to analyze these things. And my position on that is that I
do believe regional markets can bring benefits to ratepayers,
to consumers, because of the things that you have just
mentioned. It could increase the efficient use of transmission
as well as resources, and therefore, if I have the honor to be
confirmed, I would work very closely with other staff and
Commissioners on this topic. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Padilla. Okay, thank you. You anticipated my
follow-up question, which is, should you be fortunate enough to
be confirmed, would you be supportive of allowing for
flexibility amongst regions to collaborate on market
development?
Ms. Chang. Yes, absolutely. I think I have great respect
for all the states across the West, as well as their utilities,
to make the choices of the market design and the market that
they want to participate in.
Senator Padilla. Right, and before I ask my next question,
just to comment. Senator Lee had to excuse himself, I see, but
in the whole ``beneficiary pays'' conversation, the benefits of
such coordination and efficiencies, et cetera, are not
contained to the footprint of the state boundaries of
California. In fact, the benefits are regional, and so, whether
it's through coordination, whether it's through infrastructure
upgrades, I will just state that for the record.
Now, on a different topic, FERC has such an important
mission. I mean, you all agree, that is why you are here today
accepting the nomination. The mission of assisting consumers in
obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and efficient energy services
at a reasonable cost. So the cost impacts are not lost on us.
However, in order to do that, in order to fulfill its mission,
FERC must be fully staffed, especially with the technical
experts necessary to carry out its very important work. And as
you have seen across the Federal Government, recruiting and
retaining technical staff in particular, at times, can be
challenging. With millions of megawatts currently in the
approval queue at FERC, we must ensure that FERC has not just
the commissioners it needs, but the staff capacity and
expertise required to carry out its mission effectively and
timely.
Mr. Rosner, given your experience as a staff member at
FERC, can you share with us how important it is to have the
adequate amount of technical staff?
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I
would agree that having a fully staffed agency with staff that
has the right expertise to process the issues before it is
essential.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
And the final question for all the Commissioners--should
you be fortunate enough to be confirmed, how would you use your
platform as a Commissioner to work with Congress to increase
staffing at FERC and oppose proposed budget cuts?
Ms. See. I am happy to start. Being in public service right
now, I recognize that they are incredibly dedicated and
talented people who work there. I do understand some of those
recruiting challenges. I have experienced that in my current
role. That would be something that would be very important to
me to look into if I had the honor to be confirmed, to see what
current conditions are in the Commission, and I would certainly
be committed to working with Congress on any issues there.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for your question, Senator.
I commit to working with you and members of this Committee
on this question and that it would be a priority to ensure a
fully staffed agency. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Ms. Chang. I, too, appreciate the value of having adequate
staff and I commit to you here at the Committee, as well as the
Chairman of FERC, to work on this topic, if I were to be
confirmed. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thanks to all three of you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all for being here and testifying. That's very much
appreciated.
You know, we know the importance of FERC's role when it
comes to ensuring reliable and reasonable rates for the
electric grid. Its very mission statement notes the
responsibility to ensure, and I quote, ``reliable, safe,
secure, and economically efficient energy services at a
reasonable cost.'' Nowhere does it mention being an
environmental policymaking body. A quick yes or no down the
panel for this question, because my time is limited. Is FERC an
economic regulator and not an environmental policymaking body?
Ms. Chang. Yes.
Mr. Rosner. Yes.
Ms. See. Yes.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you for that.
We have seen in years past and even recently how other
agencies have proposed what I consider major overreaching
policies without consulting FERC that would dramatically impact
the reliability of the grid that we all depend on. If
confirmed, will you be willing to challenge faulty assumptions
of other agencies if they threaten grid reliability?
Ms. Chang. I will start, Senator, by saying that, again,
reliability is foundational, and it is foundational to FERC's
role. So to the extent that anything that might affect the
reliability of our systems--energy systems and the electric
grid--I will work very hard with other agencies in case those
policies affect them to ensure that we have the proper levers
for FERC to ensure reliability.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. The job
number one for the Commission is to ensure energy reliability
for the country. And if there were a case where the reliability
of the grid or the energy system were in question, I would,
without hesitation, communicate those concerns.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Ms. See.
Ms. See. Senator, yes, I certainly agree that I think it is
important to look at all of the intersecting landscape when it
comes to different legal requirements from different agencies.
That is something that in my role as an advocate--not, of
course, as an impartial commissioner--I have been thinking
about a lot over the past couple of years in my role in West
Virginia. So I think that is a very important concern. And
certainly, agencies each have their own responsibility
consistent with the authorities that Congress has given to
them, but because FERC does have responsibility as an economic
regulator, responsible for reliability, I think it is important
to share those important perspectives. I applaud, for instance,
the technical conference that FERC held when it talked about
reliability issues and on proposed rules from other agencies
this fall. I think that expert consulting and advising role is
very important in this space.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you all.
In previous years, legislation has been introduced already
in the U.S. Senate to amend the Natural Gas Act to give FERC
refund authority in cases where natural gas transmission
pipelines charge unfair, unreasonable rates to their customers.
FERC has this existing authority under the Federal Power Act in
terms of unfair rates charged by electric utilities.
Ms. See, we will start with you. So how do you view these
overcharges affecting natural gas consumers like my
constituents who rely on natural gas to cook, to heat their
homes, to heat their poultry houses, everything that
Mississippians do? Could, or do these overcharges lead to
higher rates?
Ms. See. Senator, I think these are also incredibly
important issues. And as you said, when it comes to
affordability, that is not just an abstract concept, it matters
to everyday Americans in their day-to-day lives. I think that
is a very important issue. I would be looking very closely at
FERC's authority in this area. I would be committed to applying
the statute and the Natural Gas Act standards in the particular
circumstances and facts that came before me. I certainly
respect and understand the discussion that this Committee is
having, and is having in Congress, and of course, on this and
other issues, would defer to Congress if Congress decided it
was important to give more clarity and direct authority in that
space.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, and I think
reasonable price and affordability is a key concern. It will be
a priority for me, if honored to be confirmed. On this specific
question, I would be, again, if confirmed, I would like to
provide any technical support, technical assistance to you or
your staff or this Committee as they consider potential changes
to the statute.
Ms. Chang. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
I, too, will commit to working with you and your staff to
better understand the issue, and of course, one of the primary
jobs of FERC is to make sure that the costs are just and
reasonable, and I would, of course, also support any
enforcement actions that the Office of Enforcement would be
working on. So I would commit to working with you and your
staff and other FERC staff to better understand this issue and
work on that topic. Thank you.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, and my time is up.
Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you
all for being here and for your willingness to engage in this
level of public service. We have had NERC come in here and
testify to us that many of our nation's grids face serious
reliability issues. We have touched on that a little bit
already. NERC said unequivocally, one intervention that would
be beneficial to reliability is new interregional transmission.
Now, we introduced BIG WIRES to try and help coordinate that
interregional grid buildout, but FERC actually has existing
authority to establish a minimum transfer standard and hosted a
staff level workshop in 2022 on the topic. So, just each of you
down the row, and I have a couple other questions, so do you
agree with NERC, and then, what value do you see in a federal
minimum transfer standard, and will you commit, if you are
confirmed, to exploring the benefits of establishing minimum
transfer capabilities between regions?
Ms. Chang. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I
mentioned earlier, I am a big believer in making sure that we
have reliable service, including building necessary and
beneficial infrastructure, including interregional transmission
facilities. I do think, in general, and ideally, we would love
to have a standard across the country, however, I respect
regional differences and I understand there might be regional
differences in needs and priorities. So to the extent that
minimum transfer standards would be applied, I would love to
have an opportunity to work more on that and understand the
regional differences and the priorities. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Okay.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and thank
you for your leadership on this topic. I do agree with NERC's
assessment that interregional transmission is one of the key
solutions to the weather-driven grid reliability challenges
that our nation faces, and then getting bigger than the weather
is a potential solution to those, among others. If honored to
be confirmed, I would be delighted to consider ways, along with
my colleagues, on how to find a solution to that reliability
threat. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great.
Ms. See. And Senator, I also, of course, agree with the
concerns to reliability, and I think it's important to look at
all options that could help us address that problem to the
benefit of ratemakers. I think, certainly, there are going to
be specific circumstances in different regions, as Ms. Chang
mentioned, that would be important to look at. I am familiar,
but haven't had the chance to look in detail at the results of
that staff-level conference, so I would certainly be
interested, if I had the honor to be confirmed, to learn more
about where that process stands and what the Commission learned
from that on this issue.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you.
And I mean, whether it is rising load, electrification, or
the proliferation of data centers--the extreme weather, I mean,
we are seeing that these challenges are going to increase and
the, you know, one of the studies that I found instructive
from--this is from Iowa State--looked at the years 2014 to
2021. And the whole of North America developed just seven
gigawatts of large-scale interregional transmission over that
seven-year period. So just seven gigawatts, and less than half
of that was in the U.S., right? Seven gigawatts for all of
North America. Of that half, zero has been completed yet. Over
the same period, South America developed 22 gigawatts, while we
couldn't even do three and a half. Europe did 44 gigawatts and
China did 260 gigawatts. And I think, you know, the key
reliability challenges that are in front of us, we haven't been
facing them. And given how long this infrastructure takes to
build, are you worried that we are falling behind our peers in
terms of our interregional capacity?
We will start down at this end.
Ms. See. Senator, I agree. I think there has been a theme
this morning that, in terms of having needed infrastructure
buildout, that is very important. And I would be looking at
this issue in terms of what FERC's particular responsibilities
and authorities are in that area. So I agree that this is an
important question, to make sure we can encourage the right
sort of investments. I will be looking at that in the context
of FERC's ratemaking authority, what it looks like in terms of
its responsibility for just and reasonable rates and creating
the right market incentives to be able to have the important
reliability and resource adequacy that we need for consumers
across the country in this and in other areas.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and it
occurs to me that more often, when reading the press, you read
about transmission lines that have been in the permitting
process to the extent that they are, if they were a person,
they'd be old enough to vote. And from my perspective, if
honored to be confirmed, it would be a priority for me to
ensure timely build of needed infrastructure.
Ms. Chang. And Senator, as I have dedicated a lot of time
in my career to understand the issues on regional and
interregional transmission, and as you have stated correctly
that load is just growing, data centers are coming in through
different communities, and I am concerned about the
reliability, but also the cost associated with energy for
different regions. To the extent that beneficial transmission
and interregional beneficial transmission will be necessary and
will be supportive, I dedicate my time to working on that. In
addition, I also think long-term planning is a part of that and
I think that having proper long-term planning and outlook to
what the growth might be, and can be and will be, will be part
of the work that is necessary for FERC to look at how much
transmission, and where they ought to be sited. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, certainly, as part of that
long-term planning, I have talked to all three of you
independently, but your collaborative efforts, and you all
agreed and committed to working together collaboratively,
across a five-person commission, so that is much appreciated.
Hopefully, that long-range planning can be done in a shorter
amount of time.
Ms. Chang. Absolutely.
Senator Hickenlooper. I yield back to the Chair.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you all, I appreciate your
willingness to serve. I really do.
So Commissioner Danly's dissent on the Interim Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Policy Statement has fueled discussion about
whether FERC should deny projects based upon greenhouse gas
impacts. And I am going to ask you to answer quickly because I
have lots of questions.
What is your perspective on whether FERC has the authority
to incorporate greenhouse gas emissions into commission
reviews?
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. According to the Natural Gas Act, FERC does not
specify greenhouse gas as a criteria for evaluating natural gas
pipelines.
Senator Cassidy. And so, presumably, does that mean that
you would not vote to deny a project based upon those
emissions?
Ms. Chang. I have not had a chance to review all the court
cases in detail, so my understanding is that currently, the
statute does not specify greenhouse gas as a criteria to deny
any gas----
Senator Cassidy. And so, therefore, let's just stipulate
that it doesn't, would you therefore, since it doesn't include
it, is that, just to stipulate, that is going to hold to be the
case, would you not use this as a criteria by which to deny a
permit?
Ms. Chang. Again, I will follow the law.
Senator Cassidy. If you stipulate the law upholds this.
Ms. Chang. That's right. If the law holds that as a
criteria--as not as a criteria for denying a gas pipeline, I
will follow the law.
Senator Cassidy. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. And my
approach to this question, if honored to be confirmed, would be
to first look at the statute. And the statute here is the
Natural Gas Act, and the Supreme Court has said the purpose of
that statute is to ensure orderly development of plentiful
supplies of natural gas. Now, some courts have said that the
Commission needs to consider certain greenhouse gas emissions,
and what I can commit to you and this Committee is to first and
foremost follow the statute, which I just stated the purpose of
that statute, when making these decisions.
Senator Cassidy. Sounds great.
And Ms. See.
Ms. See. I certainly can't disagree with the Committee to
follow the statute. FERC has responsibility. It does have
environmental duties underneath that, and I think it is
important, of course, to follow existing law. So in terms of
the information that FERC is looking at, it would be important
to look at those effects that meet the legal requirements of
reasonable foreseeability, but at the end of the day, yes, the
rule is to follow the law and to look at the criteria that you,
as Congress, have given to FERC when it comes to----
Senator Cassidy. I think I am learning, never ask an
attorney for a short answer.
[Laughter.]
Ms. See. I apologize, Senator.
Senator Cassidy. Let me start with you, Ms. See. Again, if
you've got this, just a real yes or no would be great. Knowing
that EIA calculates that natural gas generation is about 45
percent in kilowatt-hours produced in the U.S. in 2023, and we
will need more of it by 2050, particularly as we continue to
electrify many things, so, to ask all of you, starting with
you, Ms. See, should we continue investing in the nation's
natural gas infrastructure, and what is your perspective on the
role of natural gas in the U.S. energy system long-term?
Ms. See. Well, Senator, I think that you as Congress have
told us that the answer to that is yes, in the Natural Gas Act,
looking to the purposes of that statute. I also take seriously
the concerns of reliability and the important role that natural
gas plays in that.
Senator Cassidy. Sounds great.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I
agree that, if honored to be confirmed, I would be strongly
committed to the infrastructure that is needed to power our
country.
Senator Cassidy. And you see a role for natural gas long-
term in our electrical grid?
Mr. Rosner. I do.
Senator Cassidy. And Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. I do as well. When analyzing into 2050, even in
New England, we will need as much natural gas generation as we
have today in New England to facilitate the reliable grid.
Senator Cassidy. Now some are suggesting putting
impediments toward pipeline development as a way to inhibit the
use of natural gas and to augment the use of renewables, even
if that imperils reliability. We had a nice hearing last year
of people from the middle of the country talking about how
having to take coal baseload offline is endangering the
reliability of their grid. So this seems to be a strategy of
different federal agencies. Now, that said, Ms. Chang, you have
expressed a commitment to reliability and affordability. Do you
agree with using regulation as a way to inhibit the development
of fossil fuels and its deployment for our grid?
Ms. Chang. My understanding is, under the Federal Power
Act, FERC actually does not have jurisdiction over what
resources to choose. It is technology neutral. It is an
economic agency. And so, it does not make decisions about which
facility or which power plants to actually build.
Senator Cassidy. Sounds great.
Well, I would like to ask the other two of you, but I am
out of time. I yield. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, all three of
you, for your interest, and thank you for the opportunity to
talk with you today.
I am going to jump back to Chair Manchin and some of the
questions that he talked to you about. Here is what we know. We
have made these big, bold investments in new generation and
they are crucial to our future. They are creating jobs, they
are good for the economy, they are good for the climate, and we
all, whether you want to pick what generation you want, but the
all-of-the-above approach is good for this country in moving
forward. But let me ask you this, because I am hearing from
grid operators that the existing power generating capacity is
struggling to keep up with demand and we need a timely and
efficient approval process for connecting this new generation.
I also understand that while FERC's Order No. 2023 has provided
helpful reforms to shorten the time it takes for these new
projects to access the grid, more work needs to be done.
So for the three of you, and I will start with Ms. Chang,
what additional measures can be taken to enhance FERC's
interconnection process and streamline new energy projects and
electricity resources online more quickly? And just a caveat, I
am working on regulation around this, so this is why this is
important for me to have this conversation with the three of
you.
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes, I understand there are quite a number of
reforms in Order No. 2023 from FERC. So if I were fortunate to
be confirmed, I will continue to work with existing FERC
Commissioners and the talented staff to better understand what
other impediments or anything else that can be streamlined in
interconnecting new generation.
Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that, but let me just
say, the reports that I am looking at show a staggering backlog
of about 2,030 gigawatts of new generation and energy storage,
as well as an average wait time of five years to connect to the
grid. That's a problem.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Well, thank you for the question, and I agree
that this is a concern. The country has a huge economic
opportunity here, both in terms of connecting new technologies
to the grid and also, to meeting growing demand for new
industries. So what I would say to this is that ensuring
orderly and timely connection of resources to the grid would be
a priority. I am aware that the Commission promulgated Order
No. 2023. I believe that the first set of compliance with that
is due just next month, and if honored to be confirmed, I would
work to ensure that we keep a careful eye on that process and
also look to solutions to the extent that there are other
opportunities to make that process more efficient.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. See.
Ms. See. I also agree that I think that this issue of
interconnection is incredibly important, and when it comes to
reliable and transparent and efficient processes, I think that
is an important part of the Commission's responsibility in
ensuring just and reasonable rates and not being unduly
discriminatory or preferential. I understand that there are
ongoing proceedings about the Commission's current order. So I
certainly would not want to pre-judge anything there. And also,
in my current position as a nominee, I don't have access to the
information from that comment process that led to that for why
the Commission reached the certain approaches that it did, it
did not go further, or made those choices. I would certainly be
looking closely at this issue. And if I had the honor to be
confirmed, I would want to work closely with my fellow
Commissioners and FERC staff on this issue and then, of course,
with you and the members of this Committee.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Each of you in your written testimony today stressed the
need for a more resilient and reliable grid. And as we all are
aware, extreme weather is one of the primary causes of electric
power outages. These events are only expected to increase in
frequency and severity over the next several decades. In fact,
recent data from the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee
found that weather-related events were responsible for 80
percent--80 percent of all outages from 2000 to 2021. From each
of your perspectives, how can FERC better ensure that
transmission facilities are more resilient against the threats
of extreme weather?
And Ms. See, I will start with you.
Ms. See. Yes, I certainly recognize the important and
serious concerns that extreme weather has when it comes to
resiliency. I would be looking at this question as any other
issue from FERC's authorities. I would be looking at its
responsibility for mandatory reliability standards and its
oversight of NERC. I think that would be the appropriate way to
start. And then also, to take account of this issue when it
comes to its role as a ratemaker and a regulator in the
wholesale markets.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I
agree that in terms of the challenges that our grid faces over
the coming decades, that this hot and cold weather event issue
is at the top of the list, and I believe that in five of the
last eleven years we have had power outages or grid emergencies
as a result of it. So what I would say is that I am encouraged
that there has been some action at the Commission to promulgate
hot and cold weather standards that, I hope, will improve this.
In the event that there is more to do, which it sounds like
there likely is, given what this Committee has heard in the
last year, I am committed to working and prioritizing that
issue. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Thank you, Senator, for that question. It is
actually something that I hold close to my heart and I happen
to have worked on some--at the very minimal--looking at this
issue. It is actually quite complex and extremely critical that
extreme weather events are affecting not just transmission, but
all assets on the grid, but also as we plan for the future, we
have to make sure that the infrastructure can withstand extreme
weather events physically and as a system. So I definitely
commit to work with you and your staff and also other folks at
FERC to make sure that we do better as a country for
resiliency.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
the Committee. Thank you all for your willingness to
participate and to serve. I do think it's remarkable this
morning that we have three nominees for these FERC positions. I
think it's important that this Committee is taking this up in a
manner that is pretty civilized, and not pitting individuals
against one another, or kind of the political trading that goes
back and forth, that we have qualified nominees that are before
us, and I appreciate the process that we actually have.
So I have had an opportunity over the years to speak with
so many different Commissioners there at the FERC, and what I
look for in a FERC nominee is, I want to know that
Commissioners will operate with a level of independence, that
you bring to the table the expertise that is needed, and that
you also act with the urgency that is needed to develop the
policies that we need at this time. It has been noted--it is
unprecedented actually--what is coming on in terms of the
increased demand here in this country and how we are going to
be competitive globally. It comes down to our energy supply,
our power supply in this country, and how we knit it all
together. And FERC is so fundamental to all of that.
So I want to just ask a question to each of you about
prioritization, because we talk about reliable and affordable.
You have been quizzed by everybody here about, you know, are
you an economic regulator or an environmental? I think you have
all answered appropriately. But ultimately, it comes down to
how do you prioritize all of this? How do you address climate
change into this regulatory process at FERC, but how do you
deal then with the pressure that you are going to get from an
Administration that's laying that down on you?
So I come from a state, as you probably know, where
reliability is key, but affordability is absolutely essential.
When it's 40 below, it's not like you have the option to not
have power in your home for heat, but sometimes that comes at
extraordinary cost. So you are actually forced to choose
between energy and other necessities. So share with me very
briefly, because I have a very important question after this,
how you would prioritize between reliability, affordability,
and emissions reductions? And if you only had to pick two,
which ones are you going to prioritize?
We are going to start with you, Ms. See.
Ms. See. Well, I think, again, I would start by following
the law and the particular laws that apply to FERC. If I could
only pick those two, I am going to pick the two that are in the
laws that Congress has put into place and that is going to be
reliability and affordability.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator.
For me, the priority is reliability, and I think that comes
hand-in-hand with affordability, because without reliability,
nothing else really matters. However, balance is also
appropriate and the statute provides the balance. If honored to
be confirmed, I would drive my decisions off of the statute,
court precedent, and I also would do so in a way that, working
with colleagues, to find bipartisan, or in many cases, the
issues you just rose, I think are non-partisan issues. I think
a lot of these issues are fuel-neutral. They are ``good of the
country'' questions that--what I hope is to work on durable,
bipartisan or non-partisan solutions with colleagues at the
Commission. So thank you for the question.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Thank you very much for the question. I
completely share your thought process on the need to balance
and choose, if necessary. I do think reliability is
foundational because in this country, no one will tolerate a
significant outage of anything. And as you say, and I share
this from New England, when it's 30 below, there is really no
choice but to have a sufficient amount of energy to heat our
homes and to power our appliances. So reliability is still
number one, and it's the economic engine of our country.
Senator Murkowski. Very quickly, because this is a very
important question, and we have been talking a lot about
natural gas, but there is more out there beyond natural gas.
And I want to talk hydropower for just a moment here because
these small-scale hydro projects, certainly in my state, are
making a huge difference in reducing the reliance on costly
diesel fuel. This is going to be important for us going
forward, but we are far from our potential on hydro, and not
only in Alaska, but across the country here. But part of this
is due to the challenges that are related to the permitting and
licensing and just the time that is involved and the cost that
is involved. So certainly, timeliness, regulatory certainty,
these are two of the five guiding principles there for FERC,
but do you think that the current regulatory process to license
and re-license hydro projects actually represents these values?
And I will give you a hint, I don't think so. But I would hope
that within the FERC you would agree that improving these
processes would be a priority there at FERC.
Is everybody nodding their heads?
Ms. Chang. Yes, yes, and I just want to add, I also share
your interest and understand the value of hydro--large hydro
and small hydro--and Massachusetts is in the same situation,
where I see a lot of value in developing small hydro. And I do
think improving--any kind of streamlining of the process would
be extremely important.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. I am assuming the two of you agree on
that?
Mr. Rosner. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. See.
Ms. See. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And I am going to invite each
of you, should you be confirmed, to please come to Alaska. I am
not going to ask you to come for a quick weekend. I am going to
ask you to commit to multiple days. You probably need five days
to see and understand what we are talking about here. I know
everyone looks for a good family vacation, and we can work and
we can play at the same time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Chang. I want to say for my whole family, we are
looking forward to that opportunity. Thank you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Heinrich. Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope it's not an omen
that when Senator Murkowski started talking about civility
someone in the audience started to cry.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. And I suspect I may be the only member of the
U.S. Senate who has ever applied to FERC for a permit. So I
understand the questions that Senator Murkowski was asking.
We have all been talking about grid expansion and the
necessity for an enormous expansion of grid capacity over the
next 30 to 40 years as our nation electrifies in a whole series
of different ways. We have got reliability. You all talked
about it. I am worried about cost. Our electric ratepayers are
hurting, and for the first time in my memory, the cost of
transmission and distribution is exceeding the cost of
generation, and that is only going to increase as we go along.
My concern is that when we are talking about grid expansion, we
first talk about ways to provide additional reliability and
capacity without necessarily entirely rebuilding the grid
infrastructure. For example, this is the current conductor on a
high voltage transmission line. This is a new innovation--
carbon based--that will transfer twice the amount of power with
less line losses than the conventional wire.
[Photo of the conductors referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5888.120
Senator King. The point I am making is, we need to insist
that those who are going to be rebuilding the grid do so in the
most cost-effective way.
Now, this is more expensive, I suspect, but to double the
transmission without having to build new towers, new right-of-
way, all of those kinds of things, and as you know, there is
something called GETs, Grid-Enhancing Technologies. How can
FERC improve or ensure that we do GETs first before we fall
back on the more expensive construction option?
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes, thank you, Senator. That's another topic
that I have invested a lot of time thinking through and I, too,
like you, believe in advanced technology and we should use to
the best possible way to use advanced technology to----
Senator King. Dynamic line rating, demand response.
Ms. Chang. Yes, to advance our infrastructure. And as you
said, if we can double, and I have heard that dynamic line
rating can double some facilities' throughput, and
reconductoring with better technology. The innovation of this
country should be a leading edge and----
Senator King. I agree with everything, but I think the
question is, how does FERC incent these kinds of developments
as opposed to the conventional rate-based incentive toward
construction? I think that's the issue.
Mr. Rosner, your thoughts on that question?
Mr. Rosner. Well, thank you for the question, Senator, and
I would just say at a high level, doing more with less is just
common sense, and that is a mindset that I, if honored to be
confirmed, would bring to the Commission. I think you are
alluding to some of the barriers associated with incentives to
deploy.
Senator King. Correct.
Mr. Rosner. And----
Senator King. Show me your incentives and I will show you
the result.
Mr. Rosner. Exactly. And if honored to be confirmed, it
would be a priority for me to consider whether there are ways
that the Commission could overcome those incentives.
Senator King. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you.
Senator King. Ms. See.
Ms. See. I think it is certainly important that we have so
many new developing technologies. I think it's a really
important time in the country we are in and an important issue
for FERC. I think it's important to respond to all of these new
technologies consistent with FERC's statutory authority and I
believe that means----
Senator King. Well, the statutory authority is
affordability, which talks about just and reasonable rates.
Ms. See. Right.
Senator King. I would say rates aren't reasonable if they
are not based upon the most cost-effective technology.
Ms. See. I certainly think that that affordability
principle is very important and also the principle when it
comes to equal access to the market. I think technologies that
are able to provide services--that is baked into the statute--
that they should have that equal opportunity to compete for the
ability to provide. I think that's important when FERC is
fulfilling its role.
Senator King. Thank you very much.
In a very short period of time, I think I will leave this
question for the record, perhaps. In New England, anyway, and
in many parts of the country, the gas pipeline system is
essentially part of the grid. Sixty percent of our electricity
in New England comes from natural gas, and there is no natural
gas in New England. We haven't figured out how to make energy
from granite yet. Should we not be thinking about the
regulation of the natural gas pipeline system as part of the
electric grid? Because if the gas pipeline goes down, you could
have the most reliable grid in the world, but that grid is
going to go down.
Ms. See.
Ms. See. I certainly share the concerns about reliability
for the natural gas sector, and I think that this is an area
where, as I have said before, I would defer to Congress'
leadership if there is more responsibility on who the
appropriate regulator is in that space.
Senator King. Thank you.
Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, and I share your
concern in this area. Again, I echo my colleague here that I
would be delighted to provide you and the members of the
Committee with technical assistance on this question, and if
honored to be confirmed, I would also work within the
Commission's statutory authority.
Senator King. I don't have a pre-determined answer on this
question. I just think it's something we need to be thinking
about.
Mr. Rosner. Understood.
Senator King. Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. I agree with that. Thank you.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see
you sitting in that chair, Mr. Chairman. It looks----
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Hawley. Looks good.
Congratulations to all the nominees. Thank you for being
here.
Let me start with an issue that's very important to the
state that I represent. In the Infrastructure Act that Congress
passed a year or two ago, the bill amended--now law--amended
the Federal Power Act, Section 216, which allows now FERC to
designate certain areas as national transmission corridors in
the states, under certain conditions. There is a three-part
test, but the three-part test is disjunctive, which means that
if FERC were to find that the state regulatory agency was not
acting within a certain amount of time or pursuant to certain
conditions, FERC could step in and say, okay, this is going to
be a national transmission corridor. We will approve it. We
will send it forward. Why does that matter to the State of
Missouri? We have a transmission line called the Grain Belt
Express. It's 800 miles. It connects--runs right across the
middle of Missouri. It is meant to connect Kansas wind farms to
consumers on the East Coast. To say that farmers in my state
have been concerned about this would be a dramatic
understatement--dramatic--not least because, as originally
planned, this express transmission line contained zero power
for the State of Missouri. And then, the corporation that is in
charge of it, which is now Invenergy, it has changed hands a
few times, but now it's Invenergy, and their CEO was before us
not long ago. Invenergy has freely used the power of eminent
domain to seize farmers' lands, when farmers, and you can
appreciate, many of these farmers have been there for
generations. And these are small farms. These are not corporate
farms. It's their livelihood. And they said no, we don't want
the transmission line to run through our farm. It's going to
disrupt our farming. Many of them don't own very many acres.
And Invenergy has said, oh, too bad. We are going to come in.
We are going to take it. And by the way, you are going to get
no power out of it.
Now, they have since amended it. Missouri is going to get a
little bit of power, but it's still going right across the
middle of the state. Here is what I would like to hear from
each of you, and we will start with you, Ms. See, and come down
the line there. Will you be wary of using this power that you
now have under Section 216 to, essentially, bigfoot state
authorities and state regulatory agencies to sidestep them,
which, if FERC were to do that, it would also sidestep all of
the local citizens, you know, if FERC were to come in and say,
we are going to designate this as a national transmission
corridor, farmers in Missouri would have no recourse. I mean,
at least under the current law, they can go to the state
agency, and they have done so. But if FERC is to get involved
and just take over the process, their voices would be
completely cut out of the deal, in this case, much to the
benefit of a very large, very profitable corporation.
So my question to you is, will you exercise extreme care
and will you make sure that if/when you are considering such
national transmission corridors, you are protecting the rights
of local farmers, local ranchers, and local citizens who can't
afford to hire lobbyists, who don't own these corporations, who
are not getting money out of the deal, but whose livelihoods
are tied to the land?
We will start with you, Ms. See.
Ms. See. Yes, Senator, Section 216 is an important part of
the law. It is no less of a responsibility of FERC than any
other part of the Federal Power Act. I would take the same care
toward faithfully adhering and applying that law based on the
particular facts before me. Of course, I am aware that the
Commission is in the midst of rulemaking on this issue, so I
would not want to prejudge any particular issues that may come
out of that, but when it comes to any issues that may come
before me, if I were honored to be confirmed, I would be
looking very closely at the criteria that you and the other
Members of Congress have put into law and taking into account
all of those critically important issues. These are areas that
affect many people, many stakeholders, and I think it's
critical in these matters, as in the others in the Commission's
jurisdiction, to look at all of those incredibly closely and to
apply the law that Congress has put in place.
Senator Hawley. Okay, good. So you are not going to allow
the corporate interests to trump what local farmers and local
ranchers need? Because what will happen is, you and I both
know, what will happen is, in these cases, you will have the
people who stand to make lots of money on it. In this case,
it's a corporation--Invenergy. And they will be telling you how
desperately important this is, and who you will not hear from
are the multi-generation farmers who live on the land.
So what I want from you is a commitment to remember the
people who are actually affected here. I know the corporations
will be well represented. I mean, they are probably in this
room. But who won't be, unless you take it into account, are
local farmers, local producers, local folks.
What about you, Mr. Rosner?
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator. And yes, I
commit.
Senator Hawley. Good. That was easy.
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. I have great respect for states and local
farmers, or local peoples, and I also commend that the current
FERC has an Office of Public Participation, and I fully support
to make sure that we have--we hear the voices that
traditionally have not been brought into these cases. So I will
also commit to make sure that I look at this type of issue
carefully.
Senator Hawley. Great.
Ms. Chang. Thank you.
Senator Hawley. Very good.
My time is expired. I have a few more questions for each of
you, and Ms. Chang, I want to ask you, in particular, I think
in the past you have been an opponent of tariffs on solar
panels made in China. I am hoping your view on that has
changed, especially in light of the slave labor we now know
that China uses for so many of its so-called energy projects. I
am thinking the Uyghurs, in particular, but other people are
here and want to ask questions so I will give you those for the
record and look forward to your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King [presiding]. Thank you.
On behalf of the Chairman, Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
In addressing the fitness to serve of nominees who come
before any of the committees on which I sit, I ask the
following two initial questions, and I will just go down the
line, starting with Ms. Chang.
Since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Ms. Chang. No.
Mr. Rosner. No.
Ms. See. No.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
Ms. Chang. No.
Mr. Rosner. No.
Ms. See. No.
Senator Hirono. For Ms. Chang, Hawaii is transitioning from
heavy reliance on imported petroleum to 100 percent renewable
power and an economy with net-zero carbon pollution by 2045.
Your service as the Massachusetts Under Secretary of Energy and
Climate Solutions gave you the responsibility of helping the
state manage its energy transition goals while ensuring
affordable and reliable energy for the people of your state.
How would you apply the lessons you learned to your work as a
FERC Commissioner?
Ms. Chang. Thank you very much, Senator, for that question.
I have learned a tremendous amount in my time in Massachusetts.
I have learned about various different types of resources as
well as demand-side reduction, if we can, across various
different resources. So I do believe in making sure reliability
is number one because, as I said earlier, without reliability
we can't even transition, and no one in this country will
tolerate any outages. So I think I understand the complexity of
the energy systems through my work in Massachusetts and I will
definitely carry that with me going forward. Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Hirono. For Ms. See.
Ms. See, I recognize the importance of the Chevron
doctrine. I know you are familiar with that doctrine, which
recognizes that Congress delegates authority to technical
experts in federal agencies selected by Congress to implement
federal law in line with our Congressional intent. And under
the Chevron doctrine, courts give deference to agency
interpretation of federal law. You represented the State of
West Virginia in its case against the EPA, arguing to strictly
limit agency authority. In its 2022 decision in that case, the
Supreme Court used the ``major questions'' doctrine to
basically undermine the Chevron doctrine, and I have a feeling
it would not be long before the Supreme Court just totally
eliminates the Chevron doctrine altogether. And of course, you
are, you know, you are certainly entitled to represent the
State of West Virginia in its positions, but I am curious about
your views on agency authority given that you have been
nominated to lead a critical federal commission. How precise do
you think Congress needs to be in delegating authority to
agencies? For example, do you think FERC has the authority to
consider the carbon pollution impacts of energy infrastructure
despite that not being explicitly mentioned in its authorizing
statute?
Ms. See. Thank you, Senator, and you referenced my work in
my current position as an advocate for the State of West
Virginia and others, and as you noted, that is a position that
is work I have done as a lawyer and I take seriously those
ethical duties of zealous representation. I certainly
understand that if confirmed, this would be a different role of
acting impartially. And I think that would be important when it
comes to the role of the agencies. As I have said, my
philosophy would be to follow the law. And I would be looking
in these areas to see what exactly has Congress delegated and
tasked FERC with doing. I would be looking for that best
interpretation consistent with governing precedent.
Senator Hirono. Well, based on your arguments that you made
in that case, and the fact that basically the Supreme Court
held for Massachusetts, and applied this major questions
doctrine, which requires Congress to be very precise in its
language and its delegation of authority to agencies to
implement the laws that we enact. That is a tall order because
Congress--it's pretty much of a challenge for Congress to deal
with whatever contingencies may arise, and that is why there is
this doctrine called the Chevron doctrine and delegation of
authorities. So my question was, are you going to, pretty much,
should you be confirmed, pretty much be limiting your work on
FERC to the precise language that is in the law that applies to
FERC? And if there is no language that says FERC should
consider the carbon pollution impacts of its decision-making,
that you would not consider such impacts?
Ms. See. Senator, my understanding is that FERC, like any
other agency, only has the authority that Congress has
delegated to it. I think that the statute is where that
authority begins and ends. I would be looking at the language,
but also at the other tools of interpretation of the context
and purpose that Congress has put into place in laying out the
scope of agency authority.
Senator Hirono. So in other words, you know, I don't want
to get into a major argument with you, but we know that the
elimination of the Chevron doctrine would be a major change to
agencies in implementing the laws that Congress passes, and
also that it would require Congress to be very precise. If
Congress, for example, prevented people from getting--tried to
prevent people from falling through round holes, but somebody
fell through a square hole, then under the statute that person
would not be protected. You know, I am not making this up,
believe me, one of the justices of the Supreme Court made that
very clear in how he would interpret federal law and agencies'
interpretations.
What you are saying to me really is that you would very
much want to look at the precise language of the law and I
think we need to be very aware of that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. The Senator from Montana, on behalf of the
Chairman.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
I want to congratulate all the nominees and to thank you
for your service. Going through this confirmation process is
not easy. It's not fun. So thank you.
I am going to ask a number of questions to all three of
you. I would like you to keep your answers, if you could, short
and precise.
Behind me is the mission statement of FERC, which is both
on the website and was republished just recently, in February
2024.
[Poster displaying FERC mission statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5888.121
Senator Daines. It states that FERC's mission is to, and I
am quoting, ``assist consumers in obtaining reliable, safe,
secure, and economically efficient energy.'' FERC is not a
climate regulator. FERC is not President Biden's climate
commission. FERC is an independent body that focuses on safety
and economics, period. My question, and yes or no, do you agree
that FERC is an economic and safety regulator and not a climate
regulator?
We will start with Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes.
Senator Daines. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Yes, sir.
Senator Daines. Ms. See.
Ms. See. Yes.
Senator Daines. Former Chairman Glick pushed forward
controversial proposals that refocused pipeline approvals away
from consumers and toward climate regulators and climate
regulations, far outside of FERC's statutory jurisdiction.
Current Chairman Phillips, after hearing from bipartisan
members on this Committee, has rightfully kept those proposals
sidelined. Another yes or no--do you agree that Chairman
Glick's proposals were outside of FERC's jurisdiction, and do
you support the Commission's decision to pull those back?
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. I understand the tension. I have not reviewed
everything in that policy statement--in those policy
statements--and if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed, I
will dedicate my time to better understand the issues at hand.
Senator Daines. Is that a yes or a no?
Ms. Chang. That's a yes that I will commit to understanding
the issues, and I definitely support the current Commission's
decision, but again----
Senator Daines. But you might bring back the prior
Commission's direction?
Ms. Chang. No, I'm sorry, the current Chair's----
Senator Daines. Current Chair's, okay. Yes.
Ms. Chang. Current Chair's approach.
Senator Daines. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I do
agree with Chairman Phillips' approach, and if honored to be
confirmed, my focus at the Commission would be ensuring that we
have predictable, transparent, durable, and fair policies that
are grounded in the statute and court precedent.
Senator Daines. And the reason this question is important
is because it literally was a shift in direction from where
Chairman Phillips was and where Chairman Glick was. I mean, a
clear change in philosophy and direction.
So Ms. See.
Ms. See. Yes, Senator, I recognize that dramatic shift in
direction. I think it is important to follow all of the laws
that apply to the Commission. There are some environmental
duties that Congress has given in NEPA, but I think you are
absolutely correct when it comes to the primary purpose in the
Federal Power Act and the National Gas Act. I think it is very
important that FERC takes its role seriously as an economic
regulator and follows all aspects of the law that apply to it.
Senator Daines. I want to move to LNG. President Biden
recently weaponized the Department of Energy to pause approvals
for LNG exports, which actually overall reduced carbon, putting
our allies and our own economic and energy security at risk.
FERC also plays an important role in LNG export terminal
approvals, but unlike DOE, you are an independent agency. Here
is my question: Will you commit to review all LNG export
terminal approvals solely through FERC's statutorily defined
economic considerations and not through President Biden's
climate agenda?
And to be fair to Ms. Chang, I will start from this
direction and go this way. So you have to be the leadoff
hitter.
Ms. See.
Ms. See. Yes, Senator, I think it's very important that
FERC has an independent role here. I would be looking to FERC's
separate statutory authorities, which are distinct from the
Department of Energy's authorities. And I would commit to the
timely review of any applications that come before FERC, if I
were honored to be confirmed.
Senator Daines. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and yes,
FERC has its own statute and its own responsibilities under
that statute, and I commit, if honored to be confirmed, to
following that statute, following court precedent, and making
decisions in a timely manner. Thank you.
Senator Daines. Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. I agree.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
My last question, and then I see Senator Hoeven has
arrived, so I will try to keep this brief. Senator Cantwell and
I have introduced the largest bipartisan hydropower permitting
reform bill in 20 years. Current relicensing timelines take
nearly a decade and cost millions of dollars for this reliable,
low-cost, zero-carbon source of power. Yes or no, do you agree
that we need to speed up the permitting timelines for
hydropower licensing and relicensing in order to continue to
grow our hydropower portfolio?
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Thank you for your question, Senator. I always
support streamlining and being more efficient in our processing
of licenses and applications. So I will dedicate my time, if I
have the fortune to be confirmed, to look into this question
because I need to actually understand what the constraints
might be before understanding how much streamlining could be
conducted. Thank you.
Senator Daines. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I
commend you for the impressive bipartisan effort that has
emerged under your leadership. Timely review of hydropower
licenses and relicensing is a priority for me. Thank you.
Senator Daines. Ms. See.
Ms. See. And Senator, I certainly agree with the importance
that hydropower has. I think that efficiency and thorough
review is very important. I also understand the different
responsibility that FERC has when it comes to these licenses
that includes a number of factors that may not be present in
other contexts, particularly safety factors, which can be
critically important in this area. So certainly, I commit to
the importance of timely review, understanding the thoroughness
of the task that Congress has given to FERC in this area.
Senator Daines [presiding]. Thank you.
As the Acting Ranking Member, who has been delegated from
the Acting Chairman, I will now delegate both the Chairmanship
and Active Ranking Member responsibility solely to Senator
Hoeven to not only ask your questions, but to run the rest of
the hearing.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--Mr.
Acting Chairman. And now, as the Acting Chairman, I think there
are all kind of things that we need to conduct today as far
as----
[Laughter.]
Senator Daines. I am here for unanimous consent, Hoeven, if
you want to, so all right.
Senator Hoeven. This could go for a while and we may have a
few votes, we will see.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. Thanks to all of you for being here. We
appreciate it very much.
I want to talk about baseload, you know, that power that is
available 365 days a year, and you know, on the coldest day,
and on the hottest day, in spite of whatever kind of weather we
have and so on and so forth, so to have baseload, that means we
are going to need to have things like coal. And in states like
mine, we are doing some amazing things with carbon capture. We
have addressed SOX, NOX, mercury, and now
we are going to crack the code on CO2 capture too.
We already have a coal gasification plant that both captures
CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and it captures
CO2 for geologic storage. The EOR is about 50
percent of the CO2 stream. The geologic storage is
another 35 percent. That takes it up to about 85 percent, and
they are working up from there. Okay?
We have a cooperatively owned traditional coal-fired plant
that's got a program called Project Tundra, where they are
working very closely with the Department of Energy and others,
and they are moving forward with capturing CO2 on a
traditional coal-fired plant. And we also have an investor-
owned plant at Coal Creek that is seeking to do the same thing
using the 45Q tax credit, which we worked to get in place.
Okay?
So I emphasize, we have had to deal with various emissions
issues in the past--SOX, NOX, mercury,
and others. Okay? And now, they are working to capture
CO2 and both use it for other energy as well as
geologic storage, but this is something that needs to be done,
you know, on a broad basis, so that it's commercially viable,
you know, with the kind of programs that get us to that point.
And so, my question to you is, given all that, are you willing
to support making sure that we get energy from all sources,
including coal, with these latest, greatest technologies that
we are not only developing, but deploying?
And I would like a response from each of you, starting with
you, Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes, thank you, Senator. And I am fortunate to
know a little bit about the coal facilities as well as the
projects to capture carbon emissions and store them in North
Dakota. And your state has the geology to actually do that. I
am super-excited for the United States to lead in this
technology and use the tax credit that is made available
through the various different legislation to make this happen.
And so, I do see that as a potential future and a bright future
for our ability to capture emissions while still using our
existing fuel resources in this country. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. You set a very high bar with that answer.
So I don't know, Mr. Rosner or Ms. See, if you want to follow
or not, but that was a pretty good answer.
Mr. Rosner. Well, I will try. Thank you for the question,
Senator, and I admire your leadership on carbon capture
technology. What I will say is this--that the past decade of
grid challenges has shown us that there is strength in
diversity, a fuel mix, and that I recognize that and understand
that, and if honored to be confirmed, that will be something
that I pay close attention to.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Ms. See. And at the risk of ruining a good thing, I
certainly agree. I think one of the things that I have had the
opportunity to think through in my current role as a state
lawyer and working with a number of other states, including
your state, is seeing the different resources and innovation
and opportunities that states have when it comes to
contributing to our power grids. I think that is incredibly
important, and I think, certainly, when you talk about the
concern about baseload power, that is a concern that I take
seriously, and that wouldn't be one that's just coming from me.
I look at the warnings that we are receiving from electric
reliability regulators, from NERC, and from some of the
organized power grids who talk about the importance of this
issue too. Certainly, FERC's role is to be fuel-source neutral
and to support the choices and preferences of the state to make
these important generation decisions, but I think it is
important to look at all of those sources, including the
important ones you are talking about and the innovation we are
seeing.
Senator Hoeven. Which leads right into my second question.
When you talk about being fuel-source neutral, some people call
it using all-of-the-above energy policies, but some people talk
about it, but they don't really advocate for it. They really
want to put up barriers in a lot of different ways. So for
example, for regional grid operators, if they come in and they
decide we only want one kind of energy, and we are going to
skew pricing and regulatory approvals and those kinds of things
in our, you know, in our system, what is FERC's role in making
sure--well, wait a minute, not only do you need 24/7 baseload,
you know, throughout your region, but you affect the other
areas as well. And if you are putting externalities on power
providers that are bringing power into your regional grid
system, that can affect the ability to have all sources of
energy out there making sure we have this baseload, and it can
undermine the stability of the grid.
It seems like this is a really important thing for you all
to be on top of and make sure that we have--that we don't have
those kinds of problems put up, you know, with a patchwork
around the country, right? What do you do about that? How do
you make sure that is addressed?
Starting with Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes, thank you, Senator. If I understand your
question correctly, I do think, one, FERC is a technology-
neutral regulator, economic regulator. And my understanding is
the system operators and the regional transmission
organizations are also technology neutral. So to the extent
that----
Senator Hoeven. But.
Ms. Chang. To the extent that the market design is somehow,
as you say, skewed, I think FERC does have a role to make sure
that market design and the processes of processing projects,
such as transmission projects, and interconnecting through the
transmission infrastructure, is also technology neutral.
Senator Hoeven. How do you do that? If the system operators
are skewing the playing field, how do you do that?
Ms. Chang. I think one is to investigate first, what kind
of biases, as you have suggested, exist. And my close workings
with RTOs and ISOs is that they tend to be technology-neutral
in their way of thinking. So it will be very interesting, and I
definitely would be interested in devoting some time to
understand your concern. I would be happy to work with you and
your staff to better understand that topic.
Senator Hoeven. I would appreciate that.
Same question, Mr. Rosner and Ms. See.
Mr. Rosner. Well, thank you, Senator, and I think the
American public is best served by a regulator that embraces the
durability of a fuel-neutral approach to its decision-making. I
think the grid works best when we allow the grid resources to
provide all of the services that they are technically capable
of providing, regardless of what fuel is powering them.
Senator Hoeven. But if they skew the playing field, does
FERC have a role?
Mr. Rosner. I think, yes, absolutely. I think FERC's
responsibility is to make sure that we are providing reliable,
affordable energy at a reasonable price, and if the role is
skewed, then I would wonder whether we are actually realizing
those goals.
Senator Hoeven. Ms. See.
Ms. See. And Senator, I agree that I think FERC certainly
does have a role. I think one area that we haven't talked about
as much is when it comes to its authority for just and
reasonable rates, and part of that is making sure that we have
the right market incentives to make sure that we have the
innovation that we need, but also that we are respecting it and
properly valuing the generators that we currently have. I think
having an accurately functioning market that is sending those
right price signals is an important piece of FERC's
jurisdiction in this question.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. I know I am going a little bit over
here, but last question: Look, everyone talks about permitting
reform. You hear it all the time. The challenge with permitting
reform, it always gets complicated and turns into some of the
same problems we have now where, you know, the rules,
regulations, law, and everything else, gets interpreted so many
ways and you end up with the same kind of maze that people
can't figure their way through. And so, you don't really have
the streamlining that you are trying to get with regulatory
reform. One of the things that we did last year was try to say,
okay, and put it in legislation, but already it's getting, I
think, changed. And that is, for an EA, it needs to be done in
one year or the project is deemed approved, and for an EIS, it
has got to be completed in two years or the project is deemed
approved, so that we don't go, you know, with these five,
seven-year processes and then end up in litigation to boot.
What is your reaction to this approach of--we are going to
have to simplify it or we are not going to get any streamlining
into----
Ms. Chang. Thank you, Senator. I am always in favor of
streamlining processes. However, I also understand that some
processes are complicated or can be complex. So I have not
studied exactly what the constraints are in these processes for
permitting. So I generally support streamlining permitting.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Rosner.
Mr. Rosner. Thank you, Senator. Timely review of
infrastructure is essential. It's essential to achieving our
economic prosperity in the country and capturing all the
economic opportunity on the horizon. If honored to be
confirmed, timely review of infrastructure would be a priority
for me.
Senator Hoeven. Good.
Ms. See. And I agree. I certainly appreciate Congress's
leadership when it comes to more clarity in this area and
giving particular time frames. I think that is something that
is important to carry out. My understanding is FERC had already
been doing that in a large respect, and I know that it is
committed to doing the same from conversations I have had. I
look forward to looking into that issue, but I think that this
is an area where predictability and certainty matters. And I
appreciate the leadership Congress has shown of putting more of
those standards into the law.
Senator Hoeven. But you would agree that we need to do
more?
Ms. See. I do agree that efficient permitting is very
important. I think it's important to look at all the factors
that you and Congress have told FERC to look at. It is
important to be thorough in that responsibility, but I do think
that all of the stakeholders are entitled to have their
government work quickly as they are moving through those
requirements and procedures.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Okay, thanks to all three of you, I appreciate you being
here and look forward to working with you. We appreciate you
being here, your responsiveness to our questions and concerns,
your willingness to take on, obviously, these very important
tasks.
Members will have until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow to submit
additional questions for the record.
And I would like to conduct a little more business, but
it's probably best if I don't, so, we are adjourned. Thanks so
much.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]