[Senate Hearing 118-375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-375
OVERSIGHT OF THE PERMITTING COUNCIL:
IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND COORDINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 2024
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-402 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Christopher J. Mulkins, Director of Homeland Security
Lena C. Chang, Director of Governmental Affairs
Chelsea A. Davis, Senior Professional Staff Member
James F. Hiebert, Research Assistant
Dominic S. Thibault, Research Assistant
William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Lankford............................................. 7
Senator Hawley............................................... 10
Senator Rosen................................................ 15
Senator Carper............................................... 17
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 23
WITNESS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2024
Eric Beightel, Executive Director, Federal Permitting Improvement
Steering Council...............................................
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 25
APPENDIX
Mr. Beightel testimony attachments............................... 39
OVERSIGHT OF THE PERMITTING COUNCIL:
IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND COORDINATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Garry Peters,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Carper, Hassan,
Rosen, Blumenthal, Ossoff, Lankford, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past three years, the Biden Administration and
Congress have worked together to make a once-in-a-generation
upgrade to our infrastructure. The investments made through the
bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL), the Creating Helpful
Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act (CHIPS and
Science Act) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), have
already launched thousands of essential projects all across the
country.
Before projects like these get off the ground, they need to
obtain critical approvals. This process helps to ensure that
improving our infrastructure does not come at a cost for our
environment, wildlife, public land, or private property. These
approvals are generally referred to as permitting, and today's
hearing gives us a chance to dive more deeply into how this
process works.
These landmark new investments give us a chance to do
something essential; think critically about how we execute
infrastructure projects, and how we can improve transparency,
coordination, and accountability in permitting.
Today, we can take one important step in that work by
taking a closer look at the work of the Permitting Council. The
Permitting Council was established almost a decade ago to
oversee the process by which government agencies issues permits
on our most expensive projects. It coordinates all
environmental reviews and authorizations for a wide array of
projects, including renewable energy, electricity,
transmission, ports and waterways, and broadband.
The Permitting Council improves this process in a few key
ways. It gives stakeholders more transparency by publishing
approvals and timetables online. It designates a single Federal
agency that coordinates the permitting process for each
project, and reduces the burden on project sponsors, including
State and tribal governments, as well as private companies.
The Permitting Council also serves as a Federal center for
permitting excellence, where it makes recommendations to
agencies on the best practices to improve the permitting
process. In other words, the Council helps ensure that these
investments can deliver on the promises to improve our nation's
infrastructure, create jobs, and transition to a clean energy
future.
Today, we will have a chance to hear directly from Eric
Beightel, the Council's executive director about what Congress
can do to support his work. His testimony comes at a crucial
moment as the Permitting Council goes through some big changes.
In 2022, the Permitting Council received $350 million in the
Inflation Reduction Act to transfer to other agencies and
governments to improve permitting.
These resources will help hire subject matter experts,
invest in engagement from stakeholders, and purchase
technologies that are used in environmental reviews. The
Council also recently established the Tribal Assistance Program
(TAP) to earmark a portion of funds for tribes. These resources
are intended to help overcome the barriers that tribes often
face in engaging in an environmental review process. The
Permitting Council has made two transfers for tribal assistance
so far.
This hearing is an essential opportunity to better
understand how these funds will be used, how the permitting
process can continue to improve, and how Congress should
continue strengthening the Council's purview in the future, and
I look forward to the discussion.
It is the practice of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses.
Mr. Beightel, if you would please stand and raise your right
hand? Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before
this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Beightel. I do.
Chairman Peters. You may be seated. Thank you.
Today's witness, Eric Beightel, is the Executive Director
of the Permitting Council. Director Beightel has more than 20
years of environmental and infrastructure experience in both
the public and the private sector. As a senior environmental
policy advisor in the Department of Transportation (DOT), he
helped streamline the permitting process while delivering
better community outcomes. He's also provided subject matter
expertise as a policy advisor at the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
In the private sector, Director Beightel has held
leadership positions and roles at engineering and environmental
consultancies where he helped guide clients through the Federal
environmental regulatory landscape. Director Beightel holds a
Bachelor's degree from the University of Kansas, and a Master
of Public Policy degree from George Mason University Director.
Mr. Director, it is great to have you here today, and we
look forward to your testimony, and look forward to having a
discussion with you. You may begin with your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ERIC BEIGHTEL,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT STEERING COUNCIL
Mr. Beightel. Thank you, Chair Peters, Ranking Member Paul,
and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about the work of the Federal Permitting
Improvement Steering Council, what we call the Permitting
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Beightel appears in the Appendix
on page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Eric Beightel, and I serve as the Executive
Director and Chair of the Permitting Council. I came to this
role with nearly 25 years of experience in the environmental
review and permitting of large complex infrastructure projects.
I am honored to testify here today about issues I am passionate
about, including making our Federal permitting processes more
effective and transparent, developing critical infrastructure
efficiently and responsibly, and delivering that infrastructure
for the good of the American people.
These same goals of transparency, predictability, and
accountability were envisioned when Congress created the
Permitting Council in 2015 through Title 41 of the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41). FAST-41 tasked
the agency with addressing the concern that the Federal
permitting process was uncoordinated and lacking transparency,
leaving important projects mired in avoidable delays.
To address this concern, the Permitting Council provides
targeted permitting assistance to projects that seek coverage
under the FAST-41 program, promoting transparency,
predictability, and accountability. As Executive Director, I
lead an agency of 21 staff with an $11 million operating budget
focused on implementing the FAST-41 statute. I also Chair the
Permitting Council, an inter-agency body with deputy secretary-
level representation from 13 Federal agencies, the Director of
the Office Management and Budget, and the Chair of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
In both of these roles, I work to advance permitting
excellence by delivering FAST-41-covered projects, and by
identifying, elevating, and coordinating environmental
permitting best practices across government. Currently, our
FAST-41 portfolio includes 27 projects, reflecting a total
investment of nearly $75 billion from sectors like renewable
energy, ports and waterways, broadband, electric transmission,
and others.
The Permitting Council does not issue any permits or
approvals. Our work is focused on the process, improving
efficient coordination between agencies, and also bringing
those agencies together with industry to improve transparency.
Together, we work to identify emerging issues and facilitate
solutions to improve accountability and progress toward permit
deadlines.
Our role is simple; we bring transparency to the process by
developing a permitting timetable, posting that timetable to
the publicly available permitting dashboard, and tracking
progress toward all necessary permits for a proposed project.
That transparency also provides predictability to agencies,
developers, and the American public by detailing the steps and
duration for the project to complete the permitting process. We
also hold agencies and project sponsors accountable, and report
on agency performance under FAST-41.
Beyond our project portfolio, the Permitting Council also
serves as a Federal center for permitting excellence.
Leveraging lessons learned in our ongoing coordination with our
Federal partners, we identify, elevate, and promote best
practices that support permitting excellence for infrastructure
projects governmentwide.
With $350 million from the President's Inflation Reduction
Act, we have been able to expand our efforts by standing up the
Environmental Review Improvement Fund (ERIF) Assistance
Program, enabling us to make targeted investments to improve
the timeliness and efficiency of infrastructure permitting.
With the ERIF Assistance Program, we have invested nearly
$165 million to increase capacity at Federal agencies as they
prepare to process an unprecedented volume of applications
spurred by the projects enabled through generational
investments in our infrastructure from the bipartisan
infrastructure law, IRA, and the CHIPS and Science Act. We have
invested over $30 million in information technology (IT) that
will help agencies modernize permitting systems, accelerate
decisionmaking, and position them for the future.
We are also supporting tribes as they engage in the
environmental review process for FAST-41-covered projects.
Recognizing the resource constraints that many tribes face, we
established the ERIF Tribal Assistance Program to provide
funding directly to tribes to enable them to meaningfully
engage in agency decisionmaking.
I am dedicated to building on our recent success, and
delivering on our mission to advance critical infrastructure
projects and promote permitting excellence. I will accomplish
this through four key priorities. One, continuing to build a
strong foundation for the Permitting Council as an agency. Two,
administering and overseeing investments made through the ERIF
Assistance Program to measure their effectiveness and inform
future strategies. Three, track and report on permitting
performance to measure the success of FAST-41 and better
communicate its benefits. Four, fostering permitting excellence
across government by investing in people, tools, and training
to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
As we approach 10 years since the creation of the
Permitting Council and the end of my first year as the
executive director, we take great pride in the work we have
accomplished so far. I look forward to continuing to work with
the Committee to improve the Federal environmental review and
permitting process for infrastructure projects, and to deliver
the benefits of infrastructure investments for the American
people.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Director Beightel.
Members of this Committee hear a lot of concerns about the
Federal permitting process on a regular basis, and particularly
how we try to manage the, some of the goals like protecting the
environment, but also trying to have a very timely process that
can work for all of the entities involved.
My first question for you is, what do you see as the
biggest challenges that are being faced by agencies right now
in the permitting process? How would you rank those challenges?
Mr. Beightel. I think there are a number of challenges that
agencies face as they look at permitting large infrastructure
projects. One is sheer capacity and the staffing capacity of
the agencies to handle the number of studies and the
applications that are coming in as a result of the investments.
What we are doing at the Permanent Council, as I mentioned in
my opening remarks, is that we are investing in staffing
capacity and resource capacity at the agencies to help them
address that gap.
There's also outdated technological systems at the agencies
that do not avail themselves of a fast and efficient process.
We have invested in technology to help automate some of those
processes. Some of these are paper-based systems that can be
upgraded to online systems, online portals for application to
automate the review.
There are things such as automating and increasing
artificial intelligence (AI) for the review of public comment
on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. There
are thousands upon thousands of comments that often come in on
NEPA documents that take a significant amount of time to look
at, review, and respond to. There are opportunities to use
technology to automate that and increase efficiency there.
There's also just the simple fact that many of our
underlying environmental statutes are at competing interests.
They do not always work in concert together toward a common
goal. They have their own resources that they are protecting.
The agencies have their own mission that they are trying to
adhere to.
What we do at the Permanent Council is bring the agencies
together with those competing interests to help facilitate the
conversation to ensure that while there may be different goals
or outcomes that they are seeking for their individual
statutes, that we are working toward a common goal to be able
to deliver these infrastructure projects, and providing an
overlay of coordination and communication that would not
otherwise be there.
Chairman Peters. Certainly, streamlining that whole process
is essential. But as I mentioned in my question, it's also
important to ensure that we have high quality environmental
review as well.
Now, you talked about a variety of competing legislation or
policies that are there, but how can we ensure that while we
are pushing for greater efficiency, which is critical, that we
also have the highest quality environmental review possible to
protect our environment?
Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. I think it's important to just
recognize that FAST-41 is a procedural statute. It's a
procedural process that is intended to provide the timeliness
and predictability of the underlying reviews, but it does not
influence the reviews. The environmental reviews and permitting
actions that are undertaken on these projects are not
accelerated to shortcut any sort of standard procedure. They
still meet the rigor that is necessary for the project.
I want to be clear that while there is an intent for us to
go faster, and the predictability, and a transparency helps to
ensure that we maintain the timeline, it does not mean that we
are doing that at the expense of ensuring that these
environmental reviews are giving full consideration of the
environmental effects of the projects.
Chairman Peters. According to latest data, the Permitting
Council is only currently coordinating 33 projects. Only 37
more have been completed and coordinated the permitting
process. I would think we probably agree that these figures are
far fewer than what we originally envisioned for the Council.
My question for you is, can you explain why the Permitting
Council is not involved in coordinating more projects? Second
question is, what policy changes are necessary to facilitate a
more significant coordinating role, which is the intent of this
Council?
Mr. Beightel. Yes, I appreciate the question, and it is
definitely my intent as executive director to ensure that we
are expanding coverage of FAST-41 to as many projects as we
can.
I think there are a number of elements that contributed to
a slower start to the agency when it was first created. In
FAST-41, there was a sunset clause. There was uncertainty as to
the future of the agency. The bipartisan infrastructure law
removed that sunset clause. So, only since 2021 have we been a
permanent agency. We are still kind of standing up some of the
fundamental parts of being an agency. That also relates to our
ability to familiarize the public with the agency and the work
that we do.
There is with the uncertainty of the sunset clause, there
were not as many projects perhaps that came to us with interest
for coverage. But just in the last year, we have added 12
projects. We are in conversation with 12 more potential
projects that are looking to submit applications for FAST-41
coverage. I think our efforts right now to raise the profile of
the agency, to share the benefits of the FAST-41 program are
yielding benefits already.
As far as policy changes to increase participation in the
program, there are a couple barriers to entry. One, the cost
threshold is at $200 million. We have had projects smaller than
that that have approached us with interest in FAST-41 coverage.
That is one possibility.
There are other technical pieces of the legislation that
exempt certain types of projects. Department of Transportation-
led projects, as well as projects led by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) that are funded through the Water Resources
Development Act are also exempted from FAST-41 coverage.
We have had ports and waterway projects come to us that
would otherwise be eligible to accept that they have funding
from the Maritime Administration. They are statutorily exempt.
We are unable to provide coverage to port projects that would
otherwise seek coverage from us.
Chairman Peters. We are working closely right now with your
staff, as you are well aware, on legislation that will
strengthen the Permitting Council's ability to coordinate the
permitting clarify projects, some of the things that you just
mentioned. Could you talk about how such legislation would help
your efforts and why it's needed?
Mr. Beightel. Yes, and I appreciate the question, and I
really appreciate the opportunity to review the legislation.
Your team has been remarkably helpful as we have provided our
technical assistance to help, I think, refine some of the
proposals. I have not seen the latest legislation, but I know
that they are very technical fixes.
FAST-41 as a procedural statute is fairly focused in the
statutory language and what the authorities of the Council are.
The tweaks that are being proposed, from what I have seen, are
going to help us do our job better. I appreciate the
Committee's interest in our work.
Chairman Peters. Good. We look forward to continuing to
work with you and have the Committee work on that.
Senator Lankford, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you.
Thank you for being here and for the work that you are
doing. The challenge that we have is there's really two ways to
be able to streamline permitting. One is to create a permitting
streamlining entity, and everything stays the same and we try
to figure out how to be able to get everybody in the same room,
figure out how to be able to work out convoluted, contradictory
statutes and to be able to solve it. The other one is to fix
the contradictory statutes that are causing the problem in the
first place.
Do you see that as part of the mandate that you have at
this point, to be able to identify where are the conflicting
statutes and then to be able to report that back to us, or is
it just a matter of work with what you got?
Mr. Beightel. I think our role at the Permitting Council is
to work with the underlying legislation as it exists and
identify pinch points where the conflict exists. Our projects
are navigating these different environmental statutes toward
issuing decisions that deliver these projects.
Once we have identified those solutions where there are
conflicts, we identify that as a best practice, elevate that,
and then share that with agencies to ensure that we do not
encounter that same issue again, or that we have a strategy in
place to resolve it if it should emerge.
Senator Lankford. How do we get those conflicts, those
pinch points that you're getting so that we can determine how
to be able to fix those in statute or to be able to come back
through regulation to different agencies and say, how do we fix
a regulation that is contradictory?
Mr. Beightel. Sure. Right now, we provide annual reports to
Congress on the performance of the Permitting Council. We also
provide quarterly reports on how the agencies are complying
with FAST-41. The specific information that you are requesting
are not in those reports.
Senator Lankford. Right. That's why I am asking.
Mr. Beightel. Yes. We would be happy to follow up with you
to figure out if there is additional information\1\ that would
be helpful for you as we are looking across the landscape.
Right now, we do not provide that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referred to by Mr. Beightel appears in the
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lankford. OK. That information, I think, it would
be helpful to us. I think at this point Congress has created
over decades of different laws and statutes that are out there
that are being implemented, and where there are contradictions
over decades, people are trying to figure out how to be able to
work around rather than getting it back to us and saying, hey,
this is a problem that Congress made, Congress needs to fix it.
Mr. Beightel. Sure.
Senator Lankford. I think that would be helpful for
everybody. I am not trying to put you out of a job because
there's still plenty of issues that would be dealt with there,
but it might make the job easier to not have to try to figure
out how to navigate three things that have conflict with each
other to be able to solve that.
But we cannot see that. You see it on a daily basis, and
it's not right for the American people for that to be kept from
us, and so that we do not have the opportunity to be able to
fix it. That would be helpful.
The categorical exclusions is one of those things that was
put in years ago. That does not seem to have worked very
effectively. I know that's under the $200 million mark on it,
that's smaller, but it's one of many examples that I see of
attempts to be able to help streamline this process that has
not been effective in the past. It would be helpful for us to
be able to get back both the things to you, what you are
working through already, to be able to review legislation to
say these things would be helpful. But it would also be helpful
to be able to get the different details on it.
Mr. Beightel. Sure.
Senator Lankford. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) recently did a study looking at just the broadband
implementation and the permitting issues on that. I know you
are not dealing with that a lot right now, but they set a goal
to be able to have permitting decisions and such made within
270 days. That's still a really long time. The painful part is
they are not making the 270-day even mark. That's the goal to
be able to be made, but that's not actually making that goal.
When you look at the permitting issues that you are dealing
with right now and trying to be able to navigate through what's
a typical time to be able to get through the permitting process
of a different project and you can pick small to large.
Mr. Beightel. That's a question that we get often, Senator,
and I appreciate the opportunity to kind of provide a little
context around the work that we do. When you compare timelines
outside of FAST-41, it is very much kind of an apples to
oranges because FAST-41 is the only process in government that
actually tracks a project from start to finish throughout all
of the environmental reviews and permitting.
But also inherent with that, is the uniqueness of each
project and the different issues that each project may have,
and the different permits and approvals that may be associated
with each project. We do not have good data yet, but we are
getting there on the average timeline for FAST-41 projects and
to be able to report out on the benefits of that. What I would
say is we are seeing projects move through the process
efficiently and hitting their marks more for permitting
timetables. I think we are on the improving upswing here for
permitting.
Also, to just pivot back to a point that you made about
category exclusions and broadband, we have provided significant
funding to the National Telecommunications and Information
(NTIA) to support their efforts to do efficient environmental
reviews and approvals of broadband projects. That is both in
capacity as well as in IT investments so that they have greater
automated systems to process the flood of applications that are
going to result from bid.
There's also support to U.S. Forest Service for reviewing
applications on forest service lands, which many of these
remote areas may cross. We have also provided support to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to extend a
program comment to allow for a more efficient process for
Section 106 review for broadband.
So, understanding that the target of 270 may not currently
be met, I have not seen the GAO report, but we are making
significant efforts to improve that and make sure that we are
meeting the demands of the program.
Senator Lankford. OK. September 2023, you all put out a
proposed rule dealing with mining and that proposed rule that
has not been finalized yet. Is that set to be finalized soon,
or do you know a timeline when that'll be finalized?
Mr. Beightel. We do not have a timeline yet. We are still
considering the comments received. The way that that process
will works, we will have to have a vote of the Permitting
Council, so all the deputy secretaries will take the vote.
Senator Lankford. I have one of the comments in that. Good
to be able to do that. One of the comments was coming from me
that I put in actually in November 2023 asking why the
narrowing because you seem to narrow it on the mining portion
to critical minerals, which excludes rare earth, excludes
gravel, excludes nickel and lots of copper. Lots of other
minerals that are obviously very important to our national
security and to our economy were excluded from that initially
in the proposed rule.
My question from November 2023, and so my question now is,
why the narrowing there not looking at national significance,
or economically significance, or national security significance
minerals, why that narrowing, and is that a part of the dialog
at this point?
Mr. Beightel. It is definitely the part of the dialog now,
and the reasoning behind the proposed rulemaking when it was
put out was the administration has really put a laser focus on
domestic sourcing of critical minerals because of all the
benefits that you have identified, economic competitiveness,
national security, and as part of an all-of-government approach
to really uplift the domestic sourcing of critical minerals.
The rule was seen as a way to prioritize the effort of the
agencies toward those projects. Obviously, we received comments
back from a number of stakeholders who shared similar concerns.
Many of the concerns were around the narrowing, and we are
still considering those comments. As I mentioned we do not have
a timeline at this point for finalizing.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I can make one
quick comment on this. If we do not have more copper, we are
not going to do electrification. I know that's not on the
critical minerals list, but if we are talking about
electrification, we have to have more copper to be able to do
that. We have to have more rare earth minerals as well to be
able to do almost anything in national security or in
electrification. I do get the critical mineral side, but as far
as for our economy and our national security, there's a broader
swathe of minerals that will be important as well and let you
go through all the review process you have. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Beightel--is that how I say your name, by the way?
Mr. Beightel. It is, yes. Thank you.
Senator Hawley. OK. Thanks for being here today. Are you
familiar with the Grain Belt Express?
Mr. Beightel. I am. Yes, sir.
Senator Hawley. Tell us about it.
Mr. Beightel. Grain Belt Express is a transmission line
crossing Kansas and Missouri. It is currently in the NEPA phase
with the draft environmental impact statement, I think,
targeted for toward the end of this year, the beginning of next
year with the Department of Energy (DOE) as the lead agency. It
sought FAST-41 coverage from my agency in February of this
year,
Senator Hawley. 542 miles of overhead high voltage lines
that will cut right across the State of Missouri. You have
designated it, you have given it FAST-41 approval, is that
correct?
Mr. Beightel. It is a FAST-41 covered project. Yes.
Senator Hawley. What will the effect of that be, the FAST-
41 designation?
Mr. Beightel. FAST-41 is a procedural statute that helps
bring the agencies who have permitting actions together. It
establishes a permitting timetable to provide predictability
and transparency to the public as to what the actions are
necessary for the project to seek approval and actually get to
construction.
We have developed a permitting timetable for that project
and posted it to the permitting dashboard, and we will maintain
active project management of the timetable to ensure that we
are meeting permitting deadlines.
Senator Hawley. Here's what you said upon approving the
Grain Belt Express for FAST-41 status. ``Grain Belt Express
exemplifies the type of transformative transmission projects
capable of delivering the triple play of affordability, grid
reliability, and more domestic renewable energy production.''
Are you aware that the Grain Belt Express is highly
controversial in the State of Missouri and vociferously opposed
by farmers in my State?
Mr. Beightel. I am aware that there is a local opposition
to the project. Yes.
Senator Hawley. Yes, to put it mildly. Why is it a good
idea to go over the heads of the people of Missouri and give
this expressway, which is being developed by a private company
that's making probably billions of dollars on it as they take
farmers' land? Why is that a good idea?
Mr. Beightel. Senator, we do not have actual discretion for
projects that seek FAST-41 coverage. It was not a decision on
my part actually to grant coverage. If a project meets the
criteria as defined in statute and they seek FAST-41 coverage,
we are obligated to extend that coverage to the project
independent of the individual merits of the project.
Senator Hawley. Don't you think that it's kind of
incredible that this private company, Invenergy, that is
responsible now for Greenbelt Express that is making boatloads
of money on it, that is taking farmers' land in my State
without compensating them?
Here's how bad it was Mr. Beightel. In the State of
Missouri, Invenergy was refusing to negotiate with farmers,
refusing to give them fair market value using the power of
imminent domain. I emphasize, this is a private corporation
that is doing this so bad that the Missouri State Legislature
had to step in and pass special legislation to require the
company to compensate farmers fairly for the land that they
were taking.
All of this, and the State of Missouri still gets--
originally, we were going to get no benefit from the Grain Belt
Expressway. Zero. No power was going to flow to Missourians. It
was going to come across our land, take our farmers' land, give
the money to this private corporation, and we were going to get
zilch.
What strikes me is farmers have opposed this for years.
Farmers have been trying to get a hearing for years. Farmers
have been trying to get anybody to listen to their concerns.
This private corporation, Invenergy, which by the way, has sat
right where you are sitting and testified about how wonderful
this program is, although they can never quite remember how
much money they are going to make on it--it's a lot--they get
whatever they want when they come to you. Boom, they get their
designation.
When they go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), they get their designation. It's amazing. Every Federal
agency is bending over backwards to give this private
corporation everything they want. And working farmers in my
State and working people in my State who live on the land,
maybe have lived on the land for generations, eking out a
living, they can't get anything. They cannot even get
compensated for their land. This corporation is making
billions, and you are telling me there's just nothing you can
do about it.
Mr. Beightel. We do not influence the decisionmaking
process for the project.
Senator Hawley. There's not a decision at all on your part?
Mr. Beightel. No.
Senator Hawley. You are just a rubber stamp.
Mr. Beightel. We do not approve any projects.
Mr. Beightel. The FAST-41 you are just saying that that's
just merely a what? That's just an administrative designation.
I mean, you do not have anything to do with it?
Mr. Beightel. It is an administrative designation.
Senator Hawley. What's the Permitting Council do then? You
do not review applications when you make the designation? Does
an algorithm do it?
Mr. Beightel. If a project meets the criteria for a covered
project, meaning it is subject to NEPA----
Senator Hawley. Who reviews whether it meets the covered
criteria?
Mr. Beightel. I do.
Senator Hawley. OK. So, you do make a determination?
Mr. Beightel. I make a determination that it meets the
criteria. The minimum criteria is that it has $200 million
investment subject to NEPA and multiple Federal approvals, that
project meets that criterion.
Senator Hawley. There is a decisionmaking process. You are
part of it. You have approved this. Listen, this is the same
story that we get every time and that, frankly, farmers and
workers in my State get every time. It's always that, sorry,
there's nothing we can do. The corporation can get whatever it
wants. Want to take the land, fine, go for it. Want to
designate this as a high transmission zone, fine, go for it.
FAST-41, absolutely, we would be happy to do it.
But farmers are told, oh, you have concerns, there's just
no place for you to be heard. Now, you are telling me that you
just did not have any discretion in it, you are just a
functionary. The corporation can just get whatever it wants.
Maybe that is the law. I doubt it. If it is, it needs to be
changed.
But I am just here to tell you on behalf of the people of
my State, I think it's outrageous that a private corporation
can take this kind of land. We are talking about a massive
corridor right across the central part of Missouri. We are
talking about taking land from farmers whose families it has
been for generations. These are not corporate farmers, these
are small family farmers. They live on this land. They do not
hire lobbyists. They do not appear before your agency, clearly.
They do not have any voice, obviously, and they are just told
you have just got to suck it up and take it. I just have a
problem with that. I just think it's ridiculous.
Frankly, if you do not have any discretion and your agency
does not have any discretion, I question why you exist. If you
really just are rubber stamping whatever comes before you,
let's just shut down your council and replace you with a
computer algorithm if you do not have any discretion.
I just think this is ridiculous. I think the whole thing is
ridiculous. I think the idea that a private corporation can
leverage the laws of the United States and every piece of the
Federal Government in order to get what it wants, and make
billions off the people of Missouri when they are getting no
benefit is ridiculous. It is why the people of this country
hate their government so much and suspect it, and they have
every reason to do so. I just think the whole thing is
ridiculous.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
Can you talk a little bit about the Permitting Council
strategy and plans for coordinating with State permitting and
environmental agencies?
Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. I appreciate the question. We are
actively engaging with States right now. I see that as untapped
potential, really, for the Permitting Council. Obviously,
Federal approvals are necessary for infrastructure projects,
but there are also going to be State approvals.
FAST-41 allows us to enter into an agreement with States
for them to opt in where they would place their State approvals
onto the Federal permitting dashboard and subject themselves to
the same transparency and accountability that Federal agencies
do.
We are also working with States to identify pipeline of
projects, and we recently executed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the New Mexico Renewable Energy
Transmission Authority (RETA) to essentially establish a
relationship whereby they would look at the projects in their
portfolio that could qualify for FAST-41, and then direct them
to us for conversations to see if FAST-41 coverage would be
appropriate. This is building off of the success that we had
with the SunZia transmission line in New Mexico.
We are looking at ways that we can really engage the States
in more thorough conversations about what projects are within
their borders that would qualify for FAST-41, but also how we
can provide the same strategies that we do to the Federal
Government to State agencies.
Chairman Peters. You mentioned a number of things. Michigan
right now is engaged in making historic infrastructure
investments to reach climate neutrality by 2050. You mentioned
some efforts that you have been taking to help States, but
could you be a little more specific as to how the Permitting
Council might support this investment goal in my home State of
Michigan?
Mr. Beightel. Yes. I applaud Michigan for setting such an
ambitious target. I think, the easiest way for us to be
supportive is to put projects that are in furtherance of that
goal on the dashboard. Extend FAST-41 coverage to those
projects because it's an opt-in program. Those projects would
have to seek coverage from us, but, I think that's the easiest
way.
Second, we have actually had conversations with the
infrastructure coordinator in Michigan in looking at potential
projects that could qualify for FAST-41. There are ways, once a
project comes in and is covered by FAST-41, as I mentioned,
that opt-in program could be a way for us to help elevate the
State approvals and help to provide a framework for them to be
more efficient and transparent.
Chairman Peters. Very good. What is the Permitting Council
doing now to promote engagement with tribes? If you give us a
walk through that a little bit would be appreciated.
Mr. Beightel. Sure. We recognize the importance that tribes
play in the consultative process for the environmental review
and approval of projects. Tribes that are engaged on FAST-41
projects, we have had, particularly on the East Coast with the
growth of offshore wind and offshore wind Renewable Energy
Certificates (REC), reflects the largest proportion of projects
in our portfolio. There are a number of tribes who are being
asked to consult on multiple projects at once.
In response to the demands that we are placing on the
tribes, we have created a Tribal Assistance Program using the
Environmental Review Improvement Fund, to provide support
directly to the tribes to enable them to engage meaningfully in
these project reviews to ensure that their considerations are
accounted for in the agency decisionmaking process.
We also have a dedicated staff person who is our director
of tribal affairs. For a team of only 21 staff, I think it
reflects the importance and the significance that we place on
our engagement with tribes to have a dedicated staff person who
is working, particularly with the tribes, to raise awareness of
FAST-41 program, as well as the Tribal Assistance Program.
We have brought in three tribal broadband projects. With
the bipartisan infrastructure law, there was the creation of a
new criteria, a tribal criterion, which allows FAST-41 to cover
projects that are tribally sponsored and occur on tribal lands.
With that, we have had, as I mentioned, three tribal broadband
projects come forward, and we are in conversation with other
tribes about future projects as well.
Chairman Peters. That's all good. Is there anything more
that you think we should be doing to assist tribes?
Mr. Beightel. Honestly, I think, the more we can provide
financial assistance to the tribes to encourage and enable
their active participation in these projects, the better off
these projects will be incorporating tribal knowledge, and
their cultural awareness of their lands, and the artifacts that
may be present.
An awareness of tribal interests will help us to make these
projects designed more appropriately, accounting for the tribal
interests. Ultimately, I think it will be more efficient down
the road because we will avoid, with early engagement with the
tribes, issues that may bubble up toward the end, which would
have a much more significant effect on timeline.
Chairman Peters. Very good. The Permitting Council is
charged with holding agencies accountable when they disagree
about how long it takes to issue a permit. Could you tell the
Committee about the Permitting Council's work mediating
disputes between Federal agencies over these permitting
timetables?
Mr. Beightel. Yes. I think I mentioned earlier, the
competing interest of various underlying environmental statutes
that breeds not necessarily a dispute, but there are different
objectives for the agencies as they go through their
environmental permitting process.
On a day-to-day basis, our infrastructure project advisors
who are the primary points of contact for these projects, who
work with their agency partners, will work through those sorts
of challenges, disputes at a very staff level. Not elevating,
typically, most of these issues, but every now and then we will
have a challenge that warrants elevation.
The benefit of having the deputy secretary-level
representation on the Permitting Council is that I have a
direct line to agency leadership who are responsible for these
permits and are able to talk through whatever these challenges
are and help to work toward a resolution.
Because at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is
deliver the infrastructure projects, and deliver defendable
decisions that are durable to litigation, as well as
incorporating all of the agency interests that they reflect.
Chairman Peters. Do you believe the Council has appropriate
authorities to coordinate and mediate these permitting
timetables?
Mr. Beightel. I do. I think there is a little bit of
ambiguity in the dispute resolution process itself as it's
written in statute that could be further clarified,
potentially.
But, we do not issue permits, as I mentioned. Ultimately,
what we are here to do is to make sure that we have a path
forward with the agencies to ensure that they are getting the
information that they need, and are able to support their
decision on a timeline that is workable with the overall
project timeline.
I think that we have adequate authority. I think there
could be greater clarity in the roles of the participants.
Chairman Peters. Very good.
Senator Rosen, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Peters. Appreciate it, and
thank you for holding this really important hearing today, and
appreciate you being here as well.
I want to talk a little bit about permitting and public
lands in Nevada, because over 80 percent of Nevada land is
managed by the Federal Government, the highest percentage I
believe, in the Nation. That's over 56 million acres of public
lands.
It means permitting a project in Nevada, well, frankly, no
easy task. There are numerous important stakeholders to engage
with. We have our tribes and conservationists, our sportsmen,
our ranchers, mining other local community members, city
governments, all of that. A project should be really
thoughtfully considered and planned so that resource conflicts
are minimized from the starts. This means early communication
and collaboration between stakeholders and permitting agencies.
It's absolutely key and critical.
We have made progress in beginning to streamline this
process through the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which I was
proud to vote for. But we can do more by allowing agencies to
work concurrently rather than consecutively through the
permitting process. Because if one thing goes after the other,
you just run out of time. You delay the time. The States are
critically important, so what needs to happen consecutively, we
should allow that to go on.
Mr. Beightel, has the Council considered ways to do this
concurrent work so that we can cut through that red tape and
get our project--at least get some determination whether they
are going, not going, what do people have to do. This
consecutive process just isn't working for us. What's the
biggest barrier, if you have not done it, to adopting this
process?
Mr. Beightel. I appreciate the question. The working
concurrently rather than consecutively is a fundamental best
practice for permitting and the 41 agencies to work
concurrently on permitting reviews and environmental approvals
for FAST-41-covered projects.
For the projects that come in for coverage under our
program, when we create the permitting timetable, we are
looking at ways that are going to enable these actions to occur
concurrently so that we are working simultaneously toward a
common goal of reaching a decision on an agreed upon timeline.
I think Senator, we are already prioritizing that.
I would also note that the bipartisan Permitting Reform
Implementation Rule, the NEPA Phase 2 Rule, that CEQ, just
finalized, also prioritizes the concurrent review of NEPA and
permitting actions to enable the more efficient review and
approval of these projects. I think we are taking strong steps
in that direction. It will take a little while for it to spread
fully across government, I suppose, but for the FAST-41
projects that we have in our portfolio, that is the State of
practice, and that is what is expected.
Senator Rosen. This is critically important to all the
funding that's coming down to Nevada for these critically
important projects in wind, water, solar, geothermal, critical
minerals, and even implementing broadband expansion, all of the
things that we have to do to keep our State growing, thriving
and competitive. How can Congress empower the Permitting
Council to really take a more significant role?
Because you are saying you are directing agencies to do
this. Is it coming down to our local levels? Are they
understanding that they have to collaborate and coordinate, and
where they can, even not just concurrently, maybe they can
share some of the data. It does not have to even be done twice,
that it can also reduce the cost of a project?
Mr. Beightel. No, and I think that that's an important
question. What the distinction that I would like to draw is
that we have, under FAST-41, we have our covered projects, and
we have control or influence over the way that the timetables
are developed for our covered projects. But there are a vast
number of projects that are not covered under FAST-41, where we
have obviously much less influence.
What we do, however, is to identify those best practices
that we learn from the covered projects and coordinate with the
agencies to help them adopt those sorts of strategies, so the--
--
Senator Rosen. Trying to filter it down to the local level.
Mr. Beightel. Exactly.
Senator Rosen. That's what we really need to do. Because
last week I hosted Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, to
discuss the barriers of bringing broadband to Northern Nevada.
We actually are the most mountainous State in the Lower 48, and
we have to bring it to Northern Nevada and rural parts of our
State.
A large part of the conversation we had last week centered
around challenges of permitting on Federal land. NTIA has
worked to mitigate delays on the front end by releasing
permitting templates, environmental screening tools for all the
applicants, but more needs to be done.
Can you speak a little bit about how the Permitting Council
is working with the Department of Commerce (DOC) to ensure
projects like those funded under the bipartisan infrastructure
law are able to meet the construction deadlines because the
permitting process, again, is slowing them out?
Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. We have been working very closely
with the NTIA to help them get the resources that they need to
be able to manage the influx of applications that are going to
result from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program
(BEAD). I mentioned earlier, we have provided funding to the
NTIA to increase staff capacity. It's also to improve
information technology tools to ensure that they have automated
systems to process the applications as they come in.
We have worked with the U.S. Forest Service to help develop
tools to enable faster, more efficient permitting across forest
lands. We have also provided funding to Department of Interior
(DOI) to support broadband teams, to enable them to be more
efficient. We are looking at additional ways to do programmatic
reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for broadband
projects to enable that to be more efficient as well.
We recognize that there is a high demand for NTIA staff to
be able to review and approve these broadband projects, and we
are doing as much as we can to help provide results.
Senator Rosen. Could you talk about the permitting
dashboard that you have been working on? I am a former computer
programmer and systems analyst. I know you have talked about we
have the permitting dashboard, how that's going to improve the
efficiency and efficacy of environmental reviews as it makes
sense for us to invest in this digital streamlining for all the
stakeholders, everybody that's working on it.
How has the technology been helpful in the permitting
process, and where do we need to go to utilize the technology,
again, to help us move forward faster, whatever the response is
in this area?
Mr. Beightel. The dashboard really is our, kind of our
front porch to the American public. That is where people will
go to look and identify the projects that are FAST-41-covered.
It serves multiple purposes. It is not only for us at the
Permitting Council to illustrate the FAST-41-covered projects,
but it also is used by the Department of Transportation for
projects that they are undergoing environmental review. It
right now is very much a portal for the public to see what is
happening and less interactive. I think there are upgrades that
we could make to that tool to make----
Senator Rosen. Should you use this as a model for other
agencies? Your permitting dashboard would be a good template as
we are trying to do this across agencies?
Mr. Beightel. It absolutely could, or it could be the
portal for agencies. I think what we are hoping to encourage
agencies is where there are requirements to post timetables for
projects, whether they are FAST-41-covered or not, to use the
dashboard. It already exists.
Senator Rosen. Yes. I like the dashboard idea. I will be
glad to submit some more questions for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Carper,
you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Mr. Beightel, we welcome you. I understand your wife
Hillary's with you. Would you raise your hand, ma'am?
Mr. Beightel. Yes.
Senator Carper. All right. I understand you got some
children here?
Mr. Beightel. Yes.
Senator Carper. A daughter, Ainsley. Is that you, Ainsley?
All right, raise your hand, Ainsley. Ainsley, do you have a
brother?
Miss Beightel. Yes.
Senator Carper. What's his name?
Miss Beightel. Max.
Senator Carper. All right. Max, to the max. Ainsley, do you
have any grandparents here?
Miss Beightel. Yes.
Senator Carper. Are these your parents? That's a question
Hillary--are these your parents?
Mr. Beightel. Yes.
Senator Carper. Good. All right. We thank you all for
coming along. My first question is, and I ask variations of
this question, but if you try to get people to explain complex
concepts, I say how would you explain this to your
grandparents? I am going to say, how would you explain what you
do to your in-laws?
Mr. Beightel. The simplest way to explain what we do is
that we are an agency that provides coordination among the
various Federal agencies that are responsible for permitting
big infrastructure projects. What we do is provide
transparency, and predictability, and accountability to the
permitting process.
Many times, people do not understand the various steps that
go into permitting a big infrastructure project. What we do is
break it down into the individual steps and the milestones to
achieve those permits, and provide a timeline for the
accomplishment of that task. People can look at it and
understand if it starts on day one, we have until day 365 to
achieve this outcome.
Senator Carper. Good. I am looking at your in-laws, and
thumbs up, thumbs down. What are you thinking? All right. They
are rolling their eyes. [Laughter.]
Mr. Beightel. I get that a lot, Senator.
Senator Carper. Not really. I have just come from the
Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, which is having a
hearing on the Key Bridge, the bridge in Baltimore that was
badly damaged. I have to slip back down there and ask some more
questions. I see Rebecca Higgins who was a longtime member of
the Environment Public Works Committee, helped us write big
parts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Hugely helpful, and
during my tenure in the committee. Rebecca, it's nice to see,
see you.
My question. Last year, the Environment and Public Works
Committee held, I think, not one, but a couple of hearings on
permitting, common theme at our hearings, on the importance of
public engagement. As you may know, we learned that when
project sponsors understand community concerns early in the
process, sponsors can often include solutions in the project's
design.
Public engagement can build trust, it can increase public
buy-in, can help resolve issues, can help prevent litigation,
and ultimately it can save time and money. A question, based on
your experience, how does community engagement facilitate
timely completion of reviews and improve permitting outcomes?
Mr. Beightel. I appreciate that question, Senator. Early
and meaningful engagement is a kind of foundational piece of
effective environmental review. The bipartisan Permitting
Reform Implementation Rule, the NEPA Phase 2 Rule, emphasizes
early public engagement as part of the NEPA process. What we do
at the Permitting Council for our FAST-41-covered projects is
ensure that we are providing transparent information to the
public about the project and its status in the permitting
process.
Ultimately, the earlier you engage with affected
stakeholders and have meaningful conversations with them to
identify their concerns, and also potential issues on a
project, the better you are able to incorporate those concerns
into project design, into the analysis, to ensure that you are
identifying alternatives that will not result in avoidable
impacts that would then trigger further complications down the
road. The earlier you engage, the sooner you identify the
issues, the earlier you can resolve them.
What often happens without early engagement and meaningful
public involvement is that issues will emerge later in the
process that you could have identified sooner, that will have a
much more material effect on the permitting timeline. If you
can identify early and resolve them early, you can have much
more predictability. At the end of the day, project sponsors
are willing to account for a slightly longer timeline if they
know that it's going to be longer. The unpredictability of
unexpected delays is what can really cause problems.
Senator Carper. I am reminded of a hearing that we held
before the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think it
was late last year, and the issue of what can we do to ensure
better outcomes in projects. We had a wide range of witnesses,
different views. You would not expect them to agree on
something like this. They all came back in their testimony,
said we are better off when we hear community concerns at the
beginning of the process rather than at the end.
Then let me ask a second question with respect to the
Inflation Reduction Act funds. As you mentioned in your
testimony, the Inflation Reduction Act included some $350
million, with an M, million, the Environmental Review
Improvement Fund, which we created, as you will recall in the
FAST-41 Act, oftentimes when Federal agencies have adequate
resources, permitting is more efficient.
My question is now, how has the $350 million for the
Inflation Reduction Act, for the Environmental Review
Improvement Fund, how has that helped the Permitting Council
support other Federal agencies, States, and tribes in improving
permitting reviews? If you could give us a couple of examples,
please.
Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. We have provided $165 million to
Federal agencies to increase capacity at those agencies,
whether that be hiring full time equivalent (FTEs) at the
agency, contract support, or other tools, templates that they
can develop to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the
environment review permitting process. We have also invested
$30 million in IT solutions at the agencies to help them build,
modernize, I should say, their IT infrastructure, to bring it
into the 21st century, in many cases.
There is an example that I like to cite is that the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) used to use a Microsoft Word document for
their bridge permit application. With the investments that we
have made at the Coast Guard, they are actually making an
online portal for the bridge application, which will make it
much more efficient for review and intake of those permitting
actions.
We have also provided funds to tribes who are engaged in
the environmental review and permitting for FAST-41-covered
projects through our Tribal Assistance Program.
Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Chair, if I can do a follow-
up question? Mr. Chair please? How is the permitting Council
using the environmental review improvement funds to promote
early and meaningful community engagement?
Mr. Beightel. Our tools that we are investing in at the
agencies and the resources that we are investing in will enable
the agencies to do more meaningful outreach. It will make the
process more transparent for project applicants and the public.
We are also obviously using our dashboard to provide vital
information to the public on the status of the projects. Also,
I mentioned the Tribal Assistance Program, that is all about
engagement with tribes who are engaged in FAST-41 program.
Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks. I have a bunch of other
questions I have, and I will submit those for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The questions submitted by Senator Carper appears in the
Appendix on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to get back to my other committee. Thanks, Mr.
Chair. Thanks for letting jump in here. I want to say to your
children, again, I love it when folks witnesses bring spouses,
children, in-laws, and it's a family affair. How old are your
kids?
Mr. Beightel. They are 9 and 11.
Senator Carper. Who's 9, daughter?
Mr. Beightel. Max.
Senator Carper. Yes. Son, 11. Let me talk to the two of you
just for a second. OK. We have as you know, 50 States. He's our
Chair, he's our leader on this Committee. He's from the State
of Michigan. I am from the State of Delaware, although I am a
huge fan of the Detroit Tigers, as he knows.
Chairman Peters. We are happy about that.
Senator Carper. Yes. But just for your kids. We have 50
States. Every State has two U.S. Senators, and our job is to
help make the rules for the country. That's what we do. We help
make the rules for the country, and we do not do this by
ourselves. We have a lot of people helping us who are sitting
behind us and in the audience as well.
But that's what we do. Help make the rules for the country.
We are delighted to have a chance to work with your dad, your
husband, your son-in-law in this effort. This is important
stuff. This is important stuff for our country today, and going
forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Carper. Hopefully, they
will both get extra credit for school today. This is a civics
lesson. That's very good. That's great.
Mr. Beightel. I promised them froyo afterwards. [Laughter.]
Chairman Peters. That's even more important for them,
clearly.
My last question for you, sir, is could you just tell us a
little bit about your vision for balancing the two roles of the
Permitting Council? First, coordinating specific infrastructure
projects, but also, how do we improve permitting process
broadly across the whole Federal Government enterprise? Can you
give us an idea of that vision and how you see we can be
helpful?
Mr. Beightel. Yes. I am passionate about improving the
overall permitting process for infrastructure. This is
something that I have spent pretty much my entire career
working on. When I came into this role, I really embraced the
idea of the agency as a center for permitting excellence.
This is something where we have the opportunity to learn
from the projects that we have that are covered under FAST-41.
They are, by their nature, very large, very complex and present
often unique challenges that we can learn from. We are very
focused on ensuring that we are managing those projects to the
permitting timetables that they are created.
But we are also focused on pulling back. After we have
looked at the inventory of projects that we have and the
progress that we have made, where were the pinch points. We had
a question earlier about the pinch points among the various
Federal pieces of legislation and how there might be competing
interests.
How do we learn from the experience that we have on these
very large, complex projects to develop better strategies,
better tools, better templates that can be used for other
projects? We will never have all of the Federal investments
covered under FAST-41, but what we can do is apply lessons
learned across government.
We are very intentional about extracting these lessons
learned. We have a full unit within the agency that is focused
on permitting excellence on extracting these lessons learned,
working with the agencies to develop new strategies, overseeing
the funds that we are investing through the ERIF Assistance
Program, to ensure that they are going toward their intended
purpose and measuring that effectiveness to inform future
strategy.
I think, the two roles are separate, in idea and concept,
but they are very much integrated in action and very
complimentary so that what we learn to apply for future
projects outside of FAST-41. But also, those coming in, we are
able to provide even better-informed technical assistance to
these projects as they approach us, and we are able to develop
permitting timetables that are still aggressive and achievable,
leveraging these lessons learned.
Chairman Peters. Wonderful. Thank you, Director Beightel.
Thank you for being here today. Thank you for sharing your
testimony as well as your expertise.
Congress has made significant investments in the CHIPS and
Science Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
and the Inflation Reduction Act. Congress has also given the
Permitting Council the tools and the authorities to improve
coordination, transparency, and predictability, and the
permitting process to enable the Federal Government to deliver
on these important investments.
I believe that additional legislative reforms could build
on this progress by clarifying the Council's authorities, as
well as the scope of projects covered, and increasing
transparency in the permitting process. I look forward to
working with the Council. I look forward to working with you
and my colleagues on these potential reforms in the near
future.
Thank you once again for being here. Thank you for bringing
your family here--and you need to be proud of your dad. He's
doing a great job. It's good to have you here, and thank you
for your service to our country.
The record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days
until 5 p.m. on July 25, 2024, for the submission of statements
and questions for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Peters. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]