    [Senate Hearing 119-362]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 119-362

                       THE STATE OF THE BULK POWER SYSTEM
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2026

                                   __________

    [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 PUBLISING OFFICE
    63-410                     WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                            MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                      Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
        Chris Prandoni, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
               Jake McCurdy, Majority Policy Director for Energy
                     Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
                     Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel
                  Anais Borja, Minority Energy Policy Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     1
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      New Mexico.....................................................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Snitchler, Todd, President and CEO, Electric Power Supply
      Association....................................................     4
    Fisher, Travis, Director of Energy and Environmental Policy
      Studies, Cato Institute........................................    14
    Reed, Dr. Liza, Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Niskanen
      Center.........................................................    21

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Fisher, Travis:
        Opening Statement............................................    14
        Written Testimony............................................    16
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Hyde-Smith, Hon. Cindy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    76
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    National Wildlife Federation:
        Document entitled ``Transmission Priorities for Federal
          Permitting Reform'' dated January 2026.....................    77
    Reed, Dr. Liza:
        Opening Statement............................................    21
        Written Testimony............................................    23
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    73
    Rice, Toby Z.:
        Letter addressed to Senator Elizabeth Warren, dated March 17,
          2026.......................................................    57
    Snitchler, Todd:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     6
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    66
    Steel Manufacturers Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    83

                       THE STATE OF THE BULK POWER SYSTEM

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman
    of the Committee, presiding.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order.
        Today, the Committee will receive testimony on the current
    state of the bulk power system in the United States. Before
    giving my opening statement, I will set forth how exactly we
    are going to proceed this morning. Ranking Member Heinrich and
    I will each give our opening statements, followed by witness
    testimony, and then we will move to questions. Members of the
    Committee will be recognized in order of seniority for those
    who were here at the gavel, and based on the order of arrival
    for those arriving after the gavel. I also want to thank
    Ranking Member Heinrich and his team for working with us on
    today's hearing.
        This hearing is one of a series on the importance of
    permitting reform to inform our Committee's deliberations on
    the challenges facing the nation's bulk power system and what
    Congress should do to address them. We will hear from three
    experts on this matter. They are Travis Fisher, the Director of
    Energy and Environmental Policy Studies at the Cato Institute,
    Todd Snitchler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
    Electric Power Supply Association, and Dr. Liza Reed, Director
    of Climate and Energy at the Niskanen Center. On behalf of the
    Committee, I want to thank each of you for being here, and we
    look forward to hearing your testimony.
        We are facing a growing imbalance between supply and
    demand. Over the last decade, we in the United States have
    retired dozens of gigawatts of reliable, dispatchable
    generation. For a time, that may have been manageable. Demand
    was relatively flat. The system had some margin. But that is no
    longer the case. We are entering a period of sustained demand
    growth that will require more and more dispatchable energy.
    Data centers, advanced manufacturing, the electrification of
    vehicles and home appliances--these are structural changes in
    our economy that require really large amounts of electricity
    around the clock. Our grid was designed to meet peaks. Most of
    the time it operates with excess capacity. But that cushion is
    shrinking. In some regions, the margin is already gone and we
    are running out of headroom. And without additional supply, we
    face severe consequences--higher costs, greater volatility, and
    increased risks to reliability.
        Some look at this surge in new demand and suggest that the
    solution should be to limit demand, to slow or restrict data
    center development, to constrain growth. I don't believe that's
    consistent with how this country approaches or ought to
    approach opportunity. The United States has never faced
    challenges--certainly has never solved them--by capping
    progress. We solve them by building. The better path is to
    unlock new supply--to ensure that our regulatory framework
    allows infrastructure to be built in a timely and a predictable
    way, to ensure that markets are structured to send the right
    signals to attract investment, and to ensure that reliability
    remains the foundation of the system. The Federal Power Act
    envisioned a robust and interconnected grid, one that spreads
    costs, one that provides redundancy built into its own system,
    one that delivers affordable electricity reliably to consumers.
    That idea still matters, but it requires a system that can
    respond to these changing conditions.
        Right now, we are falling behind that need. Permitting
    delays are slowing projects across all forms of energy
    infrastructure. Market distortions are affecting investment
    decisions, and the pace of innovation in the electricity sector
    is not where it needs to be. So, we have an opportunity in
    front of us. If we allow supply and demand to function, if we
    modernize permitting, and if we ensure that markets are truly
    competitive, we can solve this challenge. But if we don't, the
    imbalance we are seeing today will become more severe and the
    consequences will be felt by American households and
    businesses.
        This hearing is about understanding those risks and
    identifying solutions to meet them: how can we reform
    permitting at the federal level? How can we build a regulatory
    framework that supports reliability and affordability? And how
    can we foster the kind of innovation the electric sector
    requires amid this very rapid demand growth? America needs to
    build and we need to do it in a way that keeps ratepayers at
    the center of our decisions. This is the standard that we
    should be aiming for--the benefit to the consumer.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        And now, the Chair recognizes Senator Heinrich, the Ranking
    Member of the Committee.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Lee, for holding this
    hearing on the state of the bulk power system.
        The power grid is deeply personal for me. My father, Pete
    Heinrich, was an IBEW lineman for many decades. However, our
    grid is undergoing strain from rising electricity demand,
    largely driven by data centers, advanced manufacturing, and
    electrification. The demand for electricity is significantly
    outpacing the rate at which new low-cost generation can connect
    to the grid. This imbalance has led to electricity bills rising
    by as much as 13 percent since President Trump took office.
    These rising costs are made worse by the administration's
    fossil-only agenda, which includes propping up uneconomic coal
    plants, stalling 116 gigawatts of new capacity from coming
    online, canceling clean energy projects, and starting a war
    with Iran that is driving up oil and gas prices.
        Fortunately, there is a way to bring down electricity costs
    while strengthening the grid's reliability and resilience.
    Doing so means taking four ``no regrets'' actions. First, we
    need to get more out of the grid that we have. Grid-enhancing
    technologies (GETs) can unlock 20 to 100 gigawatts of
    additional capacity when demand is highest. These solutions
    cost less than one-quarter of the traditional upgrade costs,
    and can be deployed in three to five years. GETs could reduce
    grid congestion by 40 percent or more, saving customers $4 to
    $8 billion dollars a year.
        The distribution system represents another opportunity to
    get more from the grid. The U.S. already has 30 to 60 gigawatts
    of distributed energy resources operating together like a
    single power plant--referred to as a virtual power plant.
    Technology providers are already offering the software and
    hardware allowing data centers to act as VPPs. Deploying
    another 60 gigawatts could save consumers $20 billion by 2030.
    But these are not silver bullet solutions for long-term growth.
    We must also build high-voltage transmission lines to reduce
    congestion and reliability risks. Transmission congestion cost
    consumers $12.1 billion in 2024 alone. Perhaps even more
    important, interregional transmission helps keep the lights on
    during extreme weather by allowing regions to share
    electricity. Yet, interregional transmission made up only two
    percent of new circuit miles installed between 2011 and 2020.
        Third, we need to bring low-cost generation online faster.
    More than 2,000 gigawatts of new power plants are stuck in
    interconnection queues, nearly double the capacity of the
    existing power plant fleet. Bringing even 10 percent of
    capacity in queues online in the region would have saved
    customers $3.5 billion.
        Fourth, new large loads, especially data centers, must bear
    the costs associated with them coming online. It cannot be on
    the back of other customers or ratepayers. Data centers want
    fast, reliable power and are already willing to fund upgrades.
    Furthermore, one study found that if large loads agree to be
    flexible with their energy use at a one-percent curtailment
    rate, the U.S. could unlock 126 gigawatts of new capacity. This
    creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity to leverage private
    capital.
        The grid is a national asset, like the interstate highway
    system, ports, or broadband. It is the delivery network for the
    economy's most universal commodity--electricity. And now is the
    time to invest in a grid for growth. I very much look forward
    to this discussion, Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thanks so much.
        We will now proceed to our opening statements from our
    witnesses.
        Mr. Snitchler, we will hear from you first.

    STATEMENT OF TODD SNITCHLER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ELECTRIC POWER
                           SUPPLY ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Snitchler. Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich,
    good morning and thank you for the opportunity to come before
    the Committee to discuss the state of the bulk power system,
    including the dual mandates of ensuring both grid reliability
    and electric affordability. My name is Todd Snitchler, and I am
    the President and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association
    (EPSA). EPSA is the national trade association that represents
    America's competitive power suppliers that compete in all
    regions of the country that utilize competitive wholesale power
    markets. Please note that my testimony represents the positions
    of EPSA, but not necessarily the views of any particular
    member.
        EPSA's members own and operate approximately 225 gigawatts
    of generating assets, including dispatchable, intermittent, and
    storage resources across all the RTOs in the country. EPSA's
    members also share a deep commitment to electric grid
    reliability. As you know, for the first time in decades, demand
    for electricity is rising and is expected to rise significantly
    by the end of the decade in many regions of the country.
    However, there is a wide disparity about just how much
    electricity will be needed, when the demand increases will be
    most prevalent, and how quickly the predicted demand will
    actually materialize. This uncertainty creates perhaps the
    greatest risk to both reliability and affordability for
    electric consumers, and that is the danger of over- or under-
    producing capacity during a time of volatile demand
    projections.
        My written testimony includes several policies that can
    help ensure that our nation meets its reliability goals while
    protecting electric consumers from unnecessary costs or
    inefficient investments. Protecting consumers while delivering
    a reliable system will be a consistent theme throughout my
    testimony. First, over the last 25 years, competitive power
    markets have definitively proven to be the most efficient and
    transparent ways to meet our nation's electricity needs while
    protecting electricity consumers from inefficient investment.
    How do markets protect ratepayers? When competitive power
    suppliers, like our members, invest in generation assets, they
    do so without guarantees for cost recovery and an approved rate
    of return. The risk of investing in those generation resources
    remains on the developers and owners of the plants and not the
    ratepayer.
        There are a few ways to help achieve this outcome. First,
    EPSA encourages policymakers and regulators to continue their
    commitment to well-functioning competitive wholesale energy
    markets. Second, an investment environment that encourages and
    incentivizes voluntary, bilateral, or physical co-location
    agreements could be transformative in sparking critical
    investment. Voluntary, bilateral contracting and co-location
    isolates the investment risk to the contracting parties and
    should be encouraged wherever possible. Third, as I previously
    noted, the energy industry is tasked with diagnosing how much
    additional electricity demand is coming, when it will
    materialize, and where it will be located. The consequences of
    inaccuracies could include both reliability shortfalls and
    investors left with stranded generation assets, which in some
    non-market regions are backstopped by captive electricity
    customers. In short, accurate load forecasting is foundational
    and the very core of whether our nation will sufficiently and
    affordably meet future demand for electricity. EPSA remains
    engaged with grid operators, regulators, and policymakers to
    identify ways to ensure that more accurate load forecasts are
    there for growing demand.
        Fourth, permitting reform is perhaps the most impactful
    benefit that Congress can provide the energy industry to
    improve reliability and assist in the affordability effort. For
    brevity's sake, I include several specific policy areas where
    permitting reform would be particularly helpful in my written
    testimony. And finally, EPSA believes that any discussion about
    retail electricity rates should include a close examination of
    the economic drivers impacting those retail bills. A pair of
    unaffiliated independent studies in 2025 concluded that
    increases in retail electricity rates in the last few years are
    not solely the result of generation charges, rather, the
    sustained spending on transmission and distribution
    infrastructure and state policies that have driven higher
    costs. To be clear, this is not a criticism of necessary
    utility investment and distribution and transmission assets.
    Instead, EPSA believes that it is important to identify the
    economic drivers that impact retail energy bills as regulators
    are determining where to place investment risk and how to solve
    these complicated issues.
        EPSA and our members maintain a strong commitment to
    reliability and stand ready to help the nation meet its growing
    reliability and energy needs. I thank you again for the
    opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to answering
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Snitchler follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you so much, Mr. Snitchler.
        Mr. Fisher, you are up next.

          STATEMENT OF TRAVIS FISHER, DIRECTOR OF ENERGY AND
              ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE

        Mr. Fisher. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
    am Travis Fisher. I am the Director of Energy and Environmental
    Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Cato is a nonpartisan
    public policy research organization in Washington, DC,
    dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited
    government, free markets, and peace. The message I want to
    share today is this: America is exceptional because we uniquely
    value free enterprise. Our future will be bright if we can
    reimagine the electricity sector through the lens of American
    liberty.
        The U.S. has one of the most remarkable electric systems
    ever built. It powered a century of growth, innovation, and
    rising living standards. In recent decades, however,
    electricity demand in this country has barely grown. Although
    we saw some competition in electricity generation, overall, the
    grid became slower, more regulated, and sclerotic. In fact,
    over the same period, many states enacted renewable portfolio
    standards and net-zero mandates, while federal regulations held
    back electricity supply. Heavy government intervention was
    manageable in an era of minimal growth, but that ship has
    sailed. Electricity demand is rising again, sharply, and that
    is something we should welcome. The growth in artificial
    intelligence, data centers, and advanced manufacturing is a
    sign of an expanding, dynamic economy.
        But the grid can't keep up. A company can plan and finance
    a major data center in a matter of months, but getting power to
    it can take years, sometimes closer to a decade. New generation
    projects face the same backlogs. The grid has become the rate
    limiter on economic growth. We don't need to overhaul the bulk
    power system overnight. We need a way to meet demand quickly
    without overloading the system or raising costs for existing
    customers. Consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) is one way to
    do that. The idea is straightforward: allow new large-scale
    customers like data centers to develop off-grid power systems
    under voluntary contracts. These systems would be physically
    separate from the existing grid. That means no interconnection
    delays, no reliance on congested transmission networks, and
    importantly, no shifting of costs or risks onto existing
    ratepayers. The bottom line is speed. Projects can move at the
    pace of American businesses, not bureaucrats. That aligns with
    and complements the administration's focus on speed-to-power
    and the bipartisan consensus that we need to expand
    transmission. And it does so while protecting communities
    because it avoids the need to socialize costs or impose new
    burdens on the existing system.
        CRE creates a parallel path for new investment that doesn't
    get stuck in bottlenecks. We have settled for a system that is
    more likely to tell a new customer, ``wait a decade,'' than to
    say, ``yes, we can serve you quickly.'' We have lost our way.
    In the famous 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote,
    ``A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a
    superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a
    formidable outcry in defense of custom.'' That is how I feel
    about the past century of electricity regulation. The old way
    of regulating the grid is hitting the new reality of increased
    demand, rising rates, and growing risks to grid reliability.
        As we greet this new reality, it should be abundantly clear
    which paths not to take. Europe remains obsessed with net zero
    and is de-industrializing itself with bad energy policy. China
    is building massive amounts of electricity generation but has
    doubled down on central planning and government control. We
    know subsidies, mandates, and central planning don't work. What
    has always worked best is something simpler and
    quintessentially American--free enterprise. We didn't beat the
    Soviets by being more Soviet than they were, and we certainly
    shouldn't look to China as the paragon of good governance.
        We will win the AI race because we embrace freedom like no
    one else. I am optimistic that we are on the verge of an AI-
    powered economic transformation. The question is whether our
    public policies will hold it back or enable it. As we approach
    the 250th anniversary of American independence, I urge you to
    apply our founding principle of free enterprise to the
    electricity sector.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thanks so much, Mr. Fisher.
        Dr. Reed.

                STATEMENT OF DR. LIZA REED, DIRECTOR OF
               CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY, NISKANEN CENTER

        Dr. Reed. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and
    distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on the state of the bulk power
    system. I am Dr. Liza Reed, the Director of Climate and Energy
    Policy at Niskanen Center. For over a decade, my work has
    focused on the challenges of building a transmission backbone
    to deliver reliable and affordable energy across the country.
        Transmission moves electricity from where it's generated to
    where it's consumed and allows regions to share power with one
    another. It is this that is essential to reliability,
    resilience, and affordability. The United States is entering a
    period of rapid load growth, driven by data centers, advanced
    manufacturing, and electrification. We are building a more
    diverse set of energy resources at the same time--gas, nuclear,
    wind, solar, geothermal, and storage--but no single resource is
    sufficient on its own. Reliability depends on how these
    resources work together, and transmission is what allows that
    coordination to happen and ensures that every American has
    access to that affordable power. Right now, our system is not
    built to do that well.
        Our electricity system is broken into regional grids with
    limited ability to transfer power between them. The
    consequences of those constraints are already clear. During
    recent winter storms, we have repeatedly seen one region have
    excess power while another faced shortages and extremely high
    prices. A Niskanen Center and Grid Strategies analysis of how
    the grid performed during Winter Storm Fern found that across
    the Southwest, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions, wind power
    produced at more than twice the expected level while coal,
    solar, and natural gas all produced less power than expected.
    These reliability risks translate to real costs for consumers.
    Consumers experienced price differences of hundreds of dollars
    between neighboring regions, including negative power prices,
    indicating there was power not being used at all because the
    transmission was not available to move it to where it was
    needed. Transmission between regions could have captured nearly
    $200 million in savings during that one storm alone.
        The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
    the entity that Congress and the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission look to for reliability assessments, determined last
    year that it would be prudent to add 35 gigawatts of
    interregional transmission to the system to increase
    reliability. That is a 40 percent increase on our current
    capabilities to move power. Interregional transmission lines
    are in the national public interest because of these
    affordability and reliability benefits that they provide. Yet,
    they face much higher siting and permitting barriers than other
    energy infrastructure because the authority to approve
    interstate projects still rests largely with the states, or
    even sometimes counties. Existing market structures also create
    unnecessary barriers to new technologies--for example, high-
    voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission technology. Grid
    operators do not allow this HVDC technology to be compensated
    for the grid services they provide that provide reliability and
    balancing, even though they pay generators and other grid
    participants for those functions.
        Our inability to grow and unwillingness to adapt is
    impacting American competitiveness. China has built tens of
    thousands of miles of high-capacity transmission in the last
    two decades to our hundreds, and has adopted this modern high-
    voltage direct current system to move power long distances. We
    are behind on increasing capacity. We are behind on adopting
    modern technology. And this will put us behind on attracting
    and maintaining top industries.
        A shortage of grid capacity is the primary barrier to cost-
    effective and swift deployment of AI in this country. The data
    center infrastructure can go anywhere it gets power. It does
    not have to be here in the U.S., and it will not be if we
    cannot deliver a dominant grid. We need a narrow and clear
    federal authority to build interregional transmission. We need
    to remove market barriers to advance technologies to get more
    grid-enhancing technologies and high-voltage direct current
    systems online to move power efficiently in our system.
    Congress can deliver a grid that grows the economy, that
    provides affordable energy, and that demonstrates America's
    competitive edge. The next industry can be built anywhere there
    are electrons. Let's make sure it's right here in the United
    States.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Reed follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thanks, Dr. Reed.
        We will now proceed to five-minute rounds of questions. I
    will go first, then I will be followed by Senator Heinrich, and
    we will alternate between Republicans and Democrats in order of
    seniority, subject to the early-bird rule.
        Dr. Snitchler, let us start with you. In your testimony,
    you note the importance of load forecast, which is, of course,
    a critical process both utilities and power producers undertake
    to determine how much investment in their systems might be
    needed and where to place those investments. Demand growth from
    data centers, electrification, and manufacturing is real, of
    course, yet amidst all this buildout, in some instances, we
    have seen utilities drastically reduce initial demand
    forecasts. Tell us a little bit about that--why it is that load
    forecasting can be so challenging and sometimes elusive, and
    why it's so important to get it right, especially when prices
    have been rising in the last few years.
        Mr. Snitchler. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think the challenge of load forecasting is revealed in a
    couple of examples. We have seen at least one utility that had
    a 30-gigawatt projected demand growth that after applying a new
    tariff has resulted in the actual demand being something closer
    to six gigawatts of new demand on the system. What that
    suggests is, they have as much difficulty in determining what
    projects are real, what projects are potentially being double-
    counted. It's no surprise that data center developers and
    hyperscalers are shopping for the best possible alternative
    based on what their needs are. But when it comes to powering
    that system, it is vitally important that we know what we are
    aiming for because in the event that we don't, consumers are
    going to be burdened with higher costs if we overbuild a system
    that's unnecessary.
        And so, the criticality of getting the load forecast as
    accurate as you can, conceding up front that it will likely be
    wrong--but be wrong by a little, let's not be wrong by five or
    six times--is the best way to mitigate what those costs will
    be. And if you are a competitive power generator, we bear the
    risk of the investment in the event that that power plant--if
    it turns out to be unneeded or unnecessary, we are the ones
    that lose the revenue and ultimately file for bankruptcy as
    opposed to being backstopped by the captive customers. And so,
    we think it is vitally important to make sure that the numbers
    are as accurate as they can be because that facilitates the
    investments that will happen while shielding customers from
    unnecessary costs that are likely to occur if we aim for a
    large number that may not be based in reality.
        The Chairman. And, just to be clear, when you say the
    captive customers, meaning when the overbuild happens, that
    gets built into the rate, into the rate equation. The customers
    then pay more per kilowatt-hour regardless of whether that
    demand might be needed. So, if they overshoot, the burden
    ultimately falls on the consumer.
        Mr. Snitchler. Correct. When you do ratemaking cases as a
    regulator at the state level and you are making determinations
    about what resources are needed, that becomes a non-bypassable
    charge that's collected over a period of years with a rate of
    return. It's just a different approach than what IPPs or
    competitive generators utilize, but that cost is ultimately
    passed on to consumers.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Now, Mr. Fisher, there seems to be some bipartisan
    consensus in this Committee that we need to build more
    transmission in addition to generation. They are both
    important. There is some disagreement, however, as to exactly
    how much transmission buildout should occur. Expanding
    transmission can lower costs for consumers, but for some of the
    same reasons mentioned by Mr. Snitchler, overbuild can also
    increase cost for consumers and put pressure on rates. My
    priority for the electric industry is to deliver reliable power
    that meets demand growth at the lowest cost to consumers. Now,
    you spent nearly a decade at FERC. Where do you see the
    opportunities, the best opportunities to improve the existing
    regulatory framework, and tell us how Congress could help
    ensure that grid expansion delivers the best value to
    consumers?
        Mr. Fisher. That's an excellent question, Chairman, thank
    you.
        You know, I look at this from the consumer point of view.
    As you said, we are completely aligned on that, as long as we
    take a consumer-first approach. Through that lens, transmission
    expansion could lower costs. We can all agree that the status
    quo is broken. We are still spending a lot on transmission,
    it's just not the wisest spending that we could do. So, I think
    there is a bipartisan consensus to change the status quo. The
    way we have expanded transmission so far is with very low-
    voltage local lines built on a reliability or an immediate-need
    basis. That, in a cumulative way, has become very expensive.
    So, it's not like we are not spending on transmission. We are,
    we are just not spending wisely.
        So, I think one thing that Congress can do, and already, I
    thank you for the partial repeal of the IRA. I think that has
    somewhat changed my posture on this, where if we don't have a
    bunch of subsidies on the table, expanding transmission could
    actually benefit consumers instead of those producers. But
    something has to be done to incentivize the larger transmission
    builds, and get away from this small-ball.
        The Chairman. And when you refer to, you know, wise
    decisions, wise allocation, you're not just thinking about
    people who are smart, like people with, I don't know, fuller,
    grayer beards, with more experience, you are referring to the
    ability to receive and interpret market signals. Market signals
    can tell us how best to allocate, is that the point?
        Mr. Fisher. Absolutely, as my beard gets grayer, I rely
    more on the wisdom of the market than anything that I would
    want to bring to the table. But yes, absolutely. So, you build
    the transmission system that customers need. We actually have a
    great opportunity now to have very large customers, with very
    high willingness to spend, and very high time preference. I
    think we could leverage that new set of customers to help build
    some of this transmission.
        The Chairman. Only after I asked that last question did I
    realize that both of our male witnesses today have beards, and
    that one has a beard that is more gray than the other, and I
    apologize, I didn't mean to make a value judgment there.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Do any of you think that we are
    building--and obviously, I think the affordability argument is
    well received by everyone on this Committee because all of us
    have constituents who are under pressure--but do any of you
    think that we are building enough interregional transmission to
    service the existing grid and the kind of growth that we would
    hope for, both in the electric sector and the economy?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        Senator Heinrich. Of course.
        I will go down and let you all answer that.
        Dr. Reed. Okay, apologies.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, I mean, Dr. Reed will start.
        Dr. Reed. No beards first.
        Senator Heinrich. And we will go the other way. That's
    fine.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you so much, Senator.
        We are not building the amount of interregional
    transmission that we need right now. And there are particular
    barriers that are preventing that from happening. Utilities are
    not incentivized or even expected to be looking to their
    neighbors. And so, we are losing the economies of scale, and
    that is costing consumer purses.
        Mr. Fisher. My short answer is no. My longer answer is, we
    should look back at the history of, you know, FERC Order No.
    1000, for example. I think the intent was good, but the track
    record is very poor. The transmission line miles of the very
    high-voltage lines----
        Senator Heinrich. Very minimal.
        Mr. Fisher. That stat has plummeted. We should acknowledge
    that fact and try to do something different.
        Mr. Snitchler. Senator, thanks for the question.
        I think it's clear that being able to move electrons from
    where they are being generated to where they are needed,
    particularly in times of stress, is critically important.
    That's how we ensure grid reliability. And as we have seen
    retirements come off the system and the slow addition of new
    resources, the importance of that transfer capability continues
    to be highlighted as an area of importance.
        Senator Heinrich. Dr. Reed, go a little deeper. You talked
    about how to capture value for customers, how to save them
    money as opposed to just bringing additional cost onto the rate
    base. Go a little deeper into how we can capture that value and
    actually benefit customers.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator, I am happy to.
        What is causing us to lose this value for consumers is that
    we are not building the transmission. We have seen a number of
    economic analyses that find that, on average, $100 million is
    lost per gigawatt of transmission line that was not built per
    year in the last ten years. These transmission lines are not
    being built for a handful of reasons. One is that they are very
    complicated. This is an interstate and interregional project,
    and it does not enjoy a federal siting and permitting authority
    as natural gas pipelines do. These electrons are moving or
    intended to move in interstate commerce, and instead they are
    being held up by processes at the individual states requiring
    approval. This is duplicative red tape that discourages
    developers and makes it longer for them to be able to complete
    these projects.
        There also are not expectations at utilities to be looking
    to the regions to build these interregional lines. We have an
    opportunity to enable both utilities and private merchant
    developers, who would not show up on a customer's utility bill,
    to build more, if we can fix these regulations.
        Senator Heinrich. To your point, I was deeply involved in
    facilitating and working on one interregional power line, and
    it took 17 years to get all of the approvals to actually make
    that a reality.
        I think there are a number of places where our incentives
    are not aligned. You mentioned the issue of compensation for
    some of the values that those power lines provide. Walk through
    that a little bit because, obviously, I think there is a
    mismatch between transmission and generation.
        Dr. Reed. Yes, I am happy to, Senator, thank you.
        High-voltage direct current was the topic of my Ph.D.
    thesis. I don't think I can cover that in a minute, but I will
    note that it is semiconductor-based technology that has the
    ability to act differently than our existing grid system. So,
    it provides an excellent backbone because it provides different
    services and different values. It can move power long
    distances, which captures a value for consumers, but the way
    that it controls electrons also provides stability to the grid.
    There are complicated reasons involving voltage and frequency
    that we can discuss offline, but HVDC ensures that we are
    keeping electric equipment online by keeping the voltage and
    frequency where it needs to be.
        Senator Heinrich. One of the tools that has been used very
    effectively in other parts of the world and sporadically here
    in the U.S. is grid-enhancing technologies. But we have this
    model, particularly within state-regulated utilities, where the
    incentive is often--I mean, the responsible parties, my utility
    as an example, in central New Mexico, has really leaned into
    GETs. But there is also an incentive for utilities to build big
    and then get rate based. How do we create a more aligned
    incentive with GETs so that we can get more out of the existing
    grid?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator.
        There are a number of options that Congress and FERC can
    pursue to incentivize more of these grid-enhancing
    technologies. And part of it is expectation--what are we
    requiring of the grid? We should be using the lines that we
    built to a higher capacity. Grid-enhancing technologies,
    through dynamic line rating, power flow control, all of these
    can help us use those lines better and move the power around.
    And the way that we set expectations on how reliability is
    achieved and provide financial incentives to utilities or
    private developers to provide those services are ways that we
    can get more of this advanced technology incorporated.
        Senator Heinrich. Thanks.
        The Chairman. Senator King.
        Wait, I'm sorry, Senator Hickenlooper was next.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I will yield to the senior Senator
    from Maine.
        The Chairman. That is such a wonderful, deferential group
    of governors now, Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator King. Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Snitchler, I was involved in your industry starting in
    1983, involved with what was then PURPA, which really was the
    birthplace of independent power production.
        Let me just make a quick statement about permitting reform,
    which I think all of you have mentioned. I have been an
    advocate ever since I have been here for permitting reform
    because I have lived it. However, at this moment, I have no
    intention of participating in permitting reform discussions as
    long as this administration is arbitrarily putting its thumb on
    the scale and canceling wind and solar projects that in many
    cases have already been permitted, because there is no point.
    If we have permitting reform and one side of the equation, that
    is renewables, is essentially killed by the arbitrary actions
    of the administration, then permitting reform only benefits one
    side of the equation, that's fossil fuel. I'm not going to
    participate in that discussion. When the administration decides
    we are going to play it straight and let all forms of energy
    compete, then we can have a very profitable discussion. And I
    think we are in many ways almost there on permitting reform.
    But I just want to be clear. I feel like I would be dumb to
    agree to permitting reform which only affected one half of the
    equation. So, I just want to make that point.
        Mr. Fisher, I like what the Cato Institute does, and I like
    your emphasis on free markets. One of the problems, it seems to
    me, in transmission and distribution, which we have talked
    about is, it's not a free market, it's a monopoly in most
    cases. How do we import the principles of competition and free
    markets into the development of the grid so that it's not an
    entirely monopoly operation, and we have this perverse
    incentive to build and invest rather than do GETs because
    utilities make their money on a rate of return on how much they
    invest, so there is an incentive to invest as much as possible.
    Talk to me about free markets and the virtues of competition.
        Mr. Fisher. It's an excellent question, Senator, thank you.
        I will note, I brought up the concept of consumer-regulated
    electricity, which is--I would view that as a private grid that
    is a parallel path that could----
        Senator King. But does that mean two sets of wires down the
    road? I don't think that's----
        Mr. Fisher. Not necessarily. I would envision it as a very
    large industrial campus on a single site within a single state.
    Each state could have their own, if they like. But your
    question is about the public grid and optimizing the public
    grid despite the monopoly influence on it. That's where I think
    we are so far afield from free markets that I think a lot of
    things are on the table. On the plus side, the status quo is so
    broken that just about anything you do, any reform you make, is
    probably going to be positive.
        So, on the one hand, mandating--making a monopoly make
    decisions that it wouldn't otherwise make, in other words,
    having a heavy-handed regulator to basically say these are
    investments that we know you wouldn't make given your
    incentives, but we----
        Senator King. But how about if the regulator says, before
    you build, before you build new poles, wires, and rights-of-
    way, you have to try and incorporate low-cost, no-cost options
    like dynamic line rating, reconductoring. This conductor will
    carry twice as much electricity as a similar steel conductor
    because it has a fiber core. I don't see that as, I mean, I
    don't know how else we crack this without somebody saying you
    have got to do the more efficient things first, then tell us
    about how much you are going to build. Do you see what I am
    saying?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, and I completely agree with that. And I
    think the way to implement that is to make sure that there is
    solid oversight of all of these investments. What we are
    lacking right now--there is, I believe, a regulatory gap
    between the voltage level that states coordinate and the
    voltage level that FERC coordinates. There is a lot operating
    in the gray area in between that is not subject to strict
    oversight. So, you could say before building your next
    transmission project, you have to look at a whole bunch of
    different alternatives. That, I am very comfortable with.
        Senator King. Everybody's now talking about AI bringing its
    own power. Has anybody done a calculation? I mean, we have all
    got this sort of doomsday calculation of increasing demand and
    increasing demand on the grid and all the construction that's
    going to--the billions, if not trillions of dollars, that it's
    going to require. Has anybody done a calculation of if AI--take
    AI out of that growth projection because theoretically they are
    going to bring their own power? How much does that reduce this
    doomsday scenario in terms of the demands on the grid?
        Dr. Reed, do you have any thoughts on that?
        We ought to make that calculation, it seems to me.
        Dr. Reed. I am not aware of a particular calculation,
    Senator King, but we have done analysis on the range of
    expectations. And even at the lower end of demand expectations,
    we still find that we need more power and more transmission on
    the grid.
        Senator King. Okay, well, I hope somebody will do that. I
    think that's an important calculation, to know--we know we are
    going to need this much more power, but if 50, 60 percent of
    that is AI and that's going to have its own power, then that
    changes all of these discussions, it seems to me.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Now I am going to yield to the senior
    Senator from California just because I am trying to get in good
    with people this week.
        The Chairman. We are going to give you the Mr. Congeniality
    award.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Exactly, thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my
    colleague from Colorado, not just for the deference this
    morning, but you are going to hear me talk in a minute about an
    exciting new proposal that he has been leading a group of us
    on.
        I want to begin though by recognizing the urgency for
    today's discussion. We know that families, and businesses for
    that matter, are paying the price for an aging and overworked
    grid that is delivering not just higher bills, but more
    frequent outages and missed opportunities, frankly, for
    significant investment and job creation. I would like to think
    both sides of the aisle here agree when I say that America
    cannot lead the next generation on a grid built in the past and
    using older technologies. So, this week, I was proud to work
    with Senator Hickenlooper and other colleagues from this
    Committee to build on the bipartisan Energy Permitting Reform
    Act from last Congress and develop new legislative language to
    tackle these issues and lead us toward the construction of a
    next-generation electrical grid. I believe our effort
    represents not just a common-sense plan, but one that will
    build a cheaper, stronger, more reliable electrical grid that
    protects ratepayers, respects communities, and keeps our
    economy competitive.
        So, I am going to start by not just asking us to look at
    the fault or the shortcomings of the grid of the past, but to
    envision what the grid could and should look like in the next
    20 years. And since the era of Edison and Westinghouse, there
    has been talk about the potential promise of high-voltage DC
    transmission, but now these technologies are not just proven,
    they are ready to provide efficient transfer of power over long
    distances. I think that's important to recognize.
        My first question is for Dr. Reed. If we built out the
    backbone of an interregional high-voltage DC transmission line
    over the next couple of decades, what would be some of the
    benefits in terms of ratepayer bills and reliability,
    particularly during extreme weather events? If you could touch
    on that and any other technical benefits that you want to
    highlight.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and I am
    happy to discuss the benefits of high-voltage direct current
    because this need for a backbone to our alternating current
    system is particularly clear when we see severe weather, such
    as winter storms and even extreme heat, because HVDC can
    dispatch power long distances very quickly and directionally.
    In our alternating current system, electrons flow where there
    is the least resistance. HVDC can move at exactly where it
    needs to go. And so, it works very well with that alternating
    current system to move around congestion and provide economic
    power. Where you have excess power, you can move it to an area
    that needs power while also providing reliability benefits.
    There is tremendous opportunity for building this type of
    transmission, particularly across regional lines for economic
    and reliability reasons that will ultimately save hundreds of
    millions of dollars a year.
        Senator Padilla. Are there any key regulatory or procedural
    barriers that you think are holding us back?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator.
        There are very specific barriers that are holding us back
    from adopting HVDC technology. One of them is the siting
    constraints on interstate and interregional transmission lines.
    These types of lines face the most number of siting and
    permitting barriers because even though they are participating
    in interstate commerce, they are subject to the specific rules
    and regulations of each state individually. That's an
    incredible burden for a utility or a merchant developer to take
    on that risk and that timeline to complete.
        We also are not--we do not have the expectation in markets.
    FERC has not set the expectation that these technologies can
    receive compensation for the benefits that they provide. They
    are providing the same benefits. They are built on the same
    semiconductor technology of the products that we do allow to be
    remunerated in the markets.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Before I ask my last question, I just want to associate
    myself with the comments and the enthusiasm of Senator King in
    talking about reconductoring and other upgrades and their
    benefits on a cost-effective manner.
        But Mr. Snitchler and Dr. Reed, could each of you please
    explain where interconnection procedures may be best improved
    to expedite the connection of generation to the grid?
        Mr. Snitchler. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        I think it's clear that the interconnection process has
    been slow. I think at FERC's direction, all of the regions have
    worked to modify their interconnection queue process in an
    effort to try to accelerate that, and we have seen improvement
    to the interconnection process. I don't think it's complete. I
    don't think anyone would agree that that's the case. But I
    think there has been improvement. And so, we are going to need
    to accelerate that process to make sure that studies are done
    in a different approach than has been used in the past. In
    fact, FERC recently approved the SPP's model, which is taking a
    more innovative approach to try and look at interconnection of
    generation and transmission at the same time in an effort to
    accelerate it more quickly, and was very enthusiastic in their
    order of what it could do for the system.
        I think thoughts and approaches like that are going to be
    incredibly helpful to accelerate the need to meet the moment
    and move speed to power.
        Senator Padilla. Mr. Fisher, anything to add?
        Mr. Fisher. I will keep it short and say I agree with Todd.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I thank all three of you for being here. I think this is
    kind of an all-hands-on-deck moment. You know, I got a master's
    in earth and environmental science back in 1979. Back then, we
    referred to climate change as the greenhouse effect. But much
    of what we predicted--the droughts, the wildfires, these
    gyrations in temperature and precipitation--has come true more
    and more to the point where now in many counties across the
    United States, a significant number of people can no longer get
    insurance for their homes. When that happens in small
    communities, the values of the homes go down. They are not
    worth as much to anyone, and that means the tax base for those
    small communities already at risk gets a little worse.
        One example I wanted to put out there: we just got,
    recently--in Leadville, we have a mine called the Climax mine--
    molybdenum and various sulfides. It's been going for 100 years.
    They measure the snowfall every year. The average over the last
    100 years has been 240 inches. And when it snows, they measure
    it and then throw it out. It doesn't get compacted. This is a
    fairly consistent measure. So, the average is 240 per year. The
    all-time low in 100 years was 182 inches. So, 240 inches
    average, and then the all-time low is 182 inches. This year we
    had 60 inches. And we are seeing that all across the West. And
    I think, as we look at these solutions, the grid is one
    possible--the reconductoring, the, you know, the
    interconnections. There is a powerful solution on how do we get
    clean energy fast and really inexpensively and making our grid
    better.
        Dr. Reed, let me start with you. As you point out in your
    testimony, we are struggling to build the transmission lines
    necessary to keep pace with the surging growth and, you know,
    electric vehicles--you look at all the different places where
    we are needing more and more advanced manufacturing, all these
    places where we need more electricity. The U.S. is only
    building 375 miles a year of new grid, while China is building,
    whatever it is, slightly over 8,000 miles. We are also falling
    behind our European partners when it comes to deploying the
    advanced technologies that you all have been talking about--you
    know, dynamic line ratings, advanced conductors, et cetera.
        So, let's start with you, Dr. Reed. Can you talk about the
    need to have a holistic view of grid modernization that
    includes both new transmission and improvements to our existing
    infrastructure?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I am happy
    to discuss the multiple ways that we can bring new technology
    and new developers into the grid system to provide reliability
    and affordability.
        I will start with grid-enhancing technologies and
    reconductoring. These are opportunities to use the lines that
    we already have, the towers that we already have, the rights-
    of-way that we already have, and get more power through them.
    That's more value to consumers because it's a less-cost effort
    for moving more power. It is a shorter-term solution that also
    buys time for building these larger interregional transmission
    lines, which are essential for providing long-term reliability
    and affordability by sharing power between regions.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great, thank you.
        Either of you, you know, Mr. Fisher--either of you want to
    opine?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, I will be brief. Excellent question. The
    way that I view--especially if we are talking about addressing
    climate change, we, of course, should focus on adaptation in
    the U.S., but I think if we wanted any chance at mitigating
    climate change in the long run, we need to promote the kinds of
    technologies that are going to take hold globally. And I could
    see the U.S. as a proving ground, not just on the transmission
    technology front, but on generation technology. And we have a
    private sector in the U.S. that can lead on this. And then, the
    goal, because we have to take into account that there is, you
    know, the iron law of climate that really if you are ever up
    against economic growth versus climate, everybody chooses
    economic growth. We have to come up with the technologies where
    people choose them voluntarily.
        Senator Hickenlooper. You are exactly right.
        Mr. Snitchler.
        Mr. Snitchler. The only thing I will add, Senator, to your
    good question is that it's incredibly available now. The
    technologies exist to better utilize the wire systems that are
    already there. The permitting and siting challenges to existing
    rights-of-way aren't the same as what you would have in doing
    new greenfield development. And so, deployment of the
    technologies that already exist on existing technology and
    existing rights-of-way are a far quicker and generally lower-
    cost opportunity to enhance the performance of the system in a
    way that helps achieve all of the objectives that you have been
    describing.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right, thank you.
        And I am out of time. I don't know how I got one question
    in, I got a little too verbose, I apologize. But certainly, our
    grid is in need of modernization. You all say that. And I think
    you were all getting to the same point that this data center
    demand could actually help us fix many of the underlying--and
    for a long time, we have been accepting subpar grid. This might
    be our opportunity to really do a lot of things at once.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thanks so much.
        Okay, I believe Senator Cortez Masto is next.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    the panelists. It has been an interesting discussion. I have
    been listening to it, and read your opening statements.
        Yesterday, Senators Murkowski, Shaheen, and I introduced a
    piece of legislation called the SECURE Grid Act. The
    legislation would empower states to really assess the risk to
    their electric grids, including extreme weather, cyberthreats,
    and other vulnerabilities. So, I want to ask the panelists, and
    maybe, Dr. Reed, I will start with you. How should the U.S. and
    the states work to reduce the risk of cyber and physical
    attacks on the grid?
        Dr. Reed. Senator, thank you for the question.
        I don't want to speak outside my expertise on
    cybersecurity, in particular, but I will speak to overall
    security as a reliability metric and providing more
    interregional transmission. Removing these regulations that
    make it difficult to build interregional and build HVDC is a
    security metric because we are able to move power and isolate
    parts of the grid if they are under attack. There is tremendous
    opportunity in these new technologies and new transmission, if
    we can build it.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, any thoughts?
        Mr. Fisher. I am also a touch out of my depth when it comes
    to security questions, but I will note that anyone who has
    looked deeply into these questions, the vulnerability of the
    grid, especially to a coordinated physical attack, especially
    during times of peak demand, could be devastating. Anybody who
    has looked into that has been correctly terrified about it. I
    think the answer is to be resilient. I don't know if we can
    prevent every attack, but being resilient in recovery.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, and it's not just a specific
    attack, it's extreme weather, as we have seen now that we are
    dealing with that could be a vulnerability and a risk.
         Mr. Snitchler.
        Mr. Snitchler. Senator, I would share my fellow panelists'
    desire not to get too far out of my depth, but at the same
    time, I think it is clear that the grid is persistently under
    attack. That is clear. The technology that is being deployed by
    nation-state actors against our entire electric system is a
    daily and routine event, and I think you are seeing the
    industry respond in a favorable way to defend against those
    attacks. I think further enhancements are likely to be required
    as we see technology evolving. The benefit and the concern
    about AI is, of course, what it can do and how quickly we will
    see these things happen, both for and against kind of the white
    hat/black hat technologies. And so, I anticipate that we are
    going to continue to see more and more of this in the future.
        I don't have a great answer to your question, other than to
    say the industry is responding to it and working in ways to try
    and stay ahead of it because we are perpetually in a situation
    where they only have to be right once. We have to be defending
    100 percent of the time.
        Senator Cortez Masto. That's right. Thank you. I appreciate
    that.
        There has been a lot of discussion this morning about new
    technologies and more transparency in the interconnection queue
    process that would really better allow all energy sources to
    hook up to the grid faster. Let me ask, Dr. Reed, maybe start
    with you or any of the panelists, are there certain RTOs or
    regions of the country that you believe are taking an
    innovative approach to queue management that we should be
    thinking of, or using up, or lifting up as a model? I'm
    curious.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you for the question, Senator. I will speak
    to the Southwest Power Pool, and I believe Mr. Fisher can speak
    to this as well. So, the Southwest Power Pool is looking at
    transmission planning, including the interconnection queue and
    broader transmission planning as a holistic solution. That, I
    think, has the opportunity to be looking to build more of these
    high-capacity lines so that we can provide reliability and move
    power cost-effectively at the same time. We have seen in
    interconnection queues, even when different RTOs take on
    solutions where they are moving different types of technology
    or different generators to the front of the line, we still see
    that, regardless of how long the study process takes, which
    does need fixing, there is still the build process afterwards,
    which inevitably says we need billions of dollars of
    transmission that we didn't build, and now we need to so that
    we can get this energy online, of all types.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. Anyone else?
        Mr. Fisher. Excellent question. I will reinforce the
    thumbs-up on SPP. The only other new concept I would bring up
    is this idea that, you know, we have to deal with the queues in
    the order in which you joined the queue--sort of a first-come,
    first-serve basis. That, I think, needs to go. We should move
    beyond that. I have heard some proposals, such as sort of an
    open-season approach, or requiring new customers to put up more
    of sort of a financial backing to it. The queues are clogged,
    and I think there are a bunch of different ways to unclog them,
    but the theme of the day is that the status quo is broken.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Mr. Snitchler. I will add that the recent developments in
    the SPP order from FERC, I think, are instructive. I do think
    going all the way back to last June's FERC hearing, which was
    dealing with issues around interconnectivity, where all of the
    RTOs participated, as well as industry--the directive was made
    explicitly clear that accelerating and unclogging the queues is
    incredibly important. You have seen the RTOs try to do that.
    PJM, in particular, has gone through the process, and when they
    re-evaluated the queue, they were able to shed nearly two-
    thirds of the projects that were in the queue that were holding
    places that otherwise may or may not have actually allowed them
    to interconnect with the system and then move projects that had
    a greater chance of completion to the front of the line.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And I know my time is up. I asked the question because last
    Congress, I had introduced the Expediting Generator
    Interconnection Procedures Act. We are going to reintroduce it,
    talking with the very organizations that you have lifted up as
    a model for innovation. And I do think it is important we move
    in that direction, and I would invite my colleagues to join on
    this legislation.
        Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before she goes, I just want to say that, as usual, my
    colleague, who also does such good work on these issues on the
    Finance Committee, is spot-on making the focus innovation. And
    I want to pick up right where she left off.
        And my question for you, Dr. Reed--thank you for working
    with the staff on the legislation that I am introducing today.
    It is well understood that a significant portion of the grid is
    practically from the dark ages. You have to start with that.
    And it's really a trifecta of punishment for rural communities,
    and we are seeing it in Oregon, you know, basically the
    combination of wildfire, drought, and then escalating energy
    prices comes together and it is why this is such an important
    hearing. And thank you for scheduling it, Mr. Chairman.
        My question to you is, to start with Dr. Reed, how would
    bills like the one that I am introducing today, the Wildfire
    and Grid Reliability Act, help us fight this manufactured
    energy crisis? That's what we are dealing with. This is a
    crisis we did not have to have. Tell me, if you would, because
    you have been helpful to us in terms of working through some of
    the aspects of this, what your thoughts would be on our bill?
        Dr. Reed. Senator, thank you for the question.
        I don't have any specific thoughts on the bill you refer
    to, in particular, but I can speak to wildfire resilience and
    the importance of investing in wildfire resilience and
    investing in a grid that can be resilient to numerous concerns,
    particularly and including wildfires. There are aspects of that
    resilience which are difficult to put on a ratepayer because of
    the small, often rural utility footprint that would then have
    to pay for it. And there are different mechanisms that I think
    could be effective for covering those costs. And I think it's
    really important----
        Senator Wyden. Aren't these small utilities which you
    describe correctly as the footprints that you are seeing,
    aren't they really getting clobbered by the circumstances we're
    seeing right now?
        Dr. Reed. Wildfires are an incredibly important risk to be
    addressing. I also want to highlight the value that
    transmission can provide in wildfire mitigation by being able
    to move power away from where areas are at extreme risk and
    route power in different ways so that consumers can still be
    served while the risk itself can be mitigated.
        Senator Wyden. Well, thank you for your good work.
        I am going to spare the other witnesses, unless they would
    like to contribute, but I think we all ought to start with the
    proposition that my colleague from Nevada started with. This is
    a modernization job. I mean, if we stick around with these
    outdated systems, there's nothing that you can do to waive your
    wand around and make things get better.
        Mr. Fisher, I know you have been interested in this area
    and you raised your hand. Careful what you wish for, and happy
    to have----
        Mr. Fisher. If I could just briefly agree with you,
    Senator, violent agreement on the need for innovation.
        Senator Wyden. No violence.
        Mr. Fisher. There is far too much----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wyden. Kidding.
        Mr. Fisher. Peaceful agreement on--there is way too much of
    the grid, there are far too many grid technologies that were
    patented 100 years ago or more. The fact that Thomas Edison
    could come back today, if we brought him back, he would
    recognize much of the technology. Alexander Graham Bell would
    have no idea what this is [holding up smartphone].
        Senator Wyden. Right.
        Mr. Fisher. That is a problem and we need to address it. I
    agree with you.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
        The Chairman. I mean, there is no way we can make Alexander
    Graham Bell aware now that it exists, but----
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. I will defer to one of my Democratic
    colleagues as I kind of review the testimony. Could I let one
    of them go before me?
        The Chairman. Senator Hirono, you're up next.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you so much.
        Okay, Dr. Reed, you mentioned that wildfire resilience is a
    very important aspect of the grid, and knowing that what
    happened on Maui, which was a massive wildfire and all of that,
    can you give me an example of how a grid can be made wildfire
    resilient?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I am not a resilience expert, in particular, when it comes
    to wildfires. I can speak to how transmission can provide
    resilience, particularly this type of backbone transmission
    that can move power around so that consumers are still served
    with electrons they need while isolating areas of the grid or
    particular lines that could be of high risk of wildfires.
        Senator Hirono. So, do you know if power companies are
    adopting some of those kinds of suggestions so that they can
    provide power while the wildfire is occurring and parts of the
    grid are shut down?
        Dr. Reed. I'm sorry, I can't speak to any particular
    power----
        Senator Hirono. Okay, when you mentioned the wildfire
    resilience, that certainly caught my attention, but I do have a
    question for you.
        Over 100,000 people in Hawaii recently lost power due to a
    severe storm that caused widespread damage and downed power
    lines across the islands. And of course, Hawaii cannot rely on
    power from other states during these instances. What are some
    of the grid technologies that could be most helpful for
    increasing the affordability and reliability of power in
    Hawaii, Alaska, and other remote locations?
        Dr. Reed. Senator, thank you for the question. It allows me
    the opportunity to talk about high-voltage direct current, and
    the ways that this particular technology can be used to restart
    a grid. So, when there are blackouts, these sort of advanced
    technologies and innovations, if we bring them more onto the
    grid, then we find it easier and faster to restart a grid after
    there is a blackout and to manage the grid itself--the voltage
    and the flexibility that can cause blackouts so that we don't
    have blackouts in the first place. So, we need more of this
    advanced and innovative technology incorporated into the grid
    and building a backbone of a grid so that we can recover.
        Senator Hirono. And is incorporating this kind of
    technology into the grid an expensive proposition that is going
    to result in the ratepayers having to pay a lot more? Because
    Hawaii ratepayers pay more for electricity than any state in
    the country.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I can't
    speak specifically to the costs borne by Hawaiians, but I can
    speak to what we have seen in studies by the North American
    Electric Reliability Corporation, national labs, and private
    analysis that interregional transmission and advanced
    technologies save consumers money by investing in the right
    kinds of transmission infrastructure that we need to move power
    affordably.
        Senator Hirono. In the long run. Thank you.
        Now, the cost of utility-scale battery storage has fallen
    dramatically--27 percent in 2025 according to a recent estimate
    from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Dr. Reed, what role can
    battery storage play to reduce transmission bottlenecks and
    reduce the overall cost of power paid by customers, and also,
    do you think that state and federal regulators should require
    data centers, which are massive users of energy, to incorporate
    energy storage to reduce their impact on the grid?
        Dr. Reed. Senator, thank you for the question, and I would
    welcome the opportunity to work with your office on the
    specifics of energy storage. I can speak to the need for more
    generation and more power on the grid, and energy storage is a
    valuable way to provide flexibility in the same way that
    transmission provides flexibility in moving power over time and
    over distance.
        As far as the data center question, I think it's important,
    when we talk about what data centers need and what industry
    needs, to provide options. And the best options are solutions
    that let the market decide what works best. But one of those
    options has to be reliable and affordable energy on the grid.
    If we set expectations of exclusively bringing your own power,
    then we are telling industries you must be able to adopt high-
    cost and high-risk choices to thrive in the American economy.
    If we provide options, that gives markets the ability to
    develop and compete in the U.S. and thrive.
        Senator Hirono. Speaking of batteries, so this is for Mr.
    Snitchler, am I pronouncing your name correctly? As I
    mentioned, Hawaii faces the highest electricity costs in the
    country, and in March 2025 John Ketchum, the CEO of NextEra,
    described renewables and batteries as being the cheapest,
    fastest, and easiest way to meet surging power demand. And if
    you take renewables and storage off the table, we are going to
    force electricity prices to the moon. Now, Hawaii is seeking to
    become energy self-sufficient by 2045, and that means that we
    need to rely on batteries, et cetera. So, do you agree with the
    comment that we really should be spending a lot more on
    bringing batteries online, making those things affordable for
    our users?
        Mr. Snitchler. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        Our members actually own and operate some of the largest
    battery installations in the country and are very supportive of
    the technology because they are part of the solution on how we
    are going to address both the reliability and the affordability
    question in the future because batteries have the ability to
    have impacts on peak shaving and driving down that cost.
        Senator Hirono. I agree with you as far as the efficacy,
    so, the question becomes, you know, how quickly can we get more
    of these things in place for the consumer?
        Mr. Snitchler. To your follow-up question, I think part of
    that is dependent on permitting and siting at the state,
    federal, and local level. I think it's also dependent on supply
    chain related issues because not only is it the supply of
    batteries, but it's also the switchgear that is required at
    substations that ultimately move the power from where it is to
    the ultimate consumer that continue to feel stress under the
    current conditions that we're in. It's true for generators,
    it's true for substation equipment, it's true for transformers.
    And so, addressing some of those longer-term supply chain
    issues will be instrumental in trying to accelerate the
    deployment you are asking about.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me go
    over.
        The Chairman. No problem.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. I will now again defer to my Republican
    colleagues.
        The Chairman. To your?
        Senator Cassidy. Or my Democrat colleagues.
        The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
        Senator King. In a kind of irony, remember the question I
    asked about how much of the projected load is AI? I asked
    Claude.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator King. And Claude said it's 50 percent--50 percent
    of the projected load growth over the next 10 years or so is
    attributable to AI. AI told me that, so, I thought that was
    kind of interesting.
        But I think that's an important point, don't you? I mean,
    if we can take the AI demand off, then the problem is half of
    what we think it is. I think that's something we should be
    discussing.
        The second is, with regard to the queue, my understanding
    is AI, in some cases, has dramatically decreased the time
    that's important for assessing applications for
    interconnection. Is that--you are nodding. The record won't
    show a nod. Could you say yes, Senator, that was----
        Mr. Snitchler. Yes, Senator, that is correct. In fact, PJM
    and Google put the Tapestry project together, if I am
    remembering the name correctly, in an effort to do exactly
    that, to try and enhance and accelerate the process because
    everyone recognizes that we need to move more quickly.
        Senator King. And it worked to reduce it from months to
    days, is that correct?
        Mr. Snitchler. You would have to ask them to get the
    specifics on the time horizon, but it actually did reduce it
    dramatically. I don't have the exact adjustment from weeks to
    days.
        Senator King. Again, that goes with one of the themes of
    this hearing, which is utilizing technology effectively----
        Dr. Snitchler. A hundred percent.
        Senator King [continuing]. To deal with this problem,
    rather than doing it the way Thomas Edison would have done it
    100 years ago.
        Ms. Reed, we talked a lot about direct current, and you
    seem to know a lot about that. DC lines are also less line
    losses, isn't that correct?
        Dr. Reed. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
        DC has a number of efficiencies, including lower line
    losses because of how the current flows on the line.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay, I will go?
        The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
        Senator Cassidy. I thank you all.
        Mr. Fisher, I was really interested in you from Cato as to
    your thoughts as to what we should do, but it sounds like, from
    a libertarian viewpoint, we should just deregulate, and Mr.
    Snitchler, your testimony kind of said the same thing. It is
    not the generation cost, it is the transmission cost which is
    currently driving the increased expense of electricity. Is that
    fair?
        Mr. Fisher. In general, I think that's a fair statement,
    Senator, although, we should be very sensitive to the costs,
    especially of input fuels.
        Senator Cassidy. But let me ask as well, because yes,
    globally, or country-wide, you have a balance of electrons, but
    if those electrons are being generated by wind in the panhandle
    of Texas and Oklahoma, but they need to be used in Atlanta,
    speaking of permitting means, for example--and this is where
    the kind of Cato tension comes in--expropriating people's land
    in order to get the high-voltage wires to take it from there to
    here, correct?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, I believe you are talking about a federal
    backstop siting authority and the use of eminent domain, and
    that does, I will be candid, make me nervous.
        Senator Cassidy. So, how does Cato resolve that, because we
    want a deregulatory environment but the deregulatory
    environment almost does require, basically--you see where I'm
    going with this.
        Mr. Fisher. I do, and I should note, I am only speaking for
    myself. Each Cato scholar has their own independent thoughts.
        Senator Cassidy. Of course.
        Mr. Fisher. I will note, I very much agree with a 2002 book
    by Cato that referred to the mandatory open-access model of
    transmission, which is basically what we are dealing with now,
    which is the restructuring--I wouldn't call it deregulation--
    restructuring from the late 1990's, referred to that as
    ``infrastructure socialism.'' Now, that is, I think, a fair way
    to characterize the public grid. That's why I have been
    advocating today for a new parallel path to allow private
    grids, and I think that could solve a lot of the problems.
        Senator Cassidy. And sir, are you okay with the private
    grid?
        Mr. Snitchler. Our members take no position on that. We
    have talked with Travis and with Glen Lyons, who have helped
    develop the issue. We think optionality is the way forward. So,
    we don't think there is one perfect path. There is no silver
    bullet. There is probably not even silver buckshot. We think
    having a number of approaches that are applicable to parties
    that want to contract at arm's length and make determinations
    about what works best for them, all options should be on the
    table. So, if they want to pursue CRE, then they should do
    that. If they want to take power off the system and be a
    regular customer, they should be able to do that. If they want
    to co-locate and bring their own gen and they think that is the
    model that works best for them, then we think they ought to be
    able to do that.
        And we think some of the decisions that FERC has made
    recently and is currently undertaking are ways to help enable
    those transactions to both take place and take place----
        Senator Cassidy. But much of that is already happening in
    Louisiana, so it seems like much of what you just described is
    currently an option. Do you wish to weigh-in, Dr. Reed?
        Dr. Reed. I agree with both of my fellow witnesses that
    optionality is the key here and that if we can provide a
    reliable, affordable grid, that should be one of the options
    for growing industry competitively and providing affordable
    electricity for consumers. And that grid can be built by
    private developers.
        Senator Cassidy. But let me get back to--because this is
    the rub--does the Federal Government have a backstop in terms
    of regulation in which you get electrons from Texas to Atlanta?
    You follow what I'm saying?
        And so, I think everything else we agree on. And the Meta
    center or Northeast Louisiana, which is, I think, the size of
    Manhattan, that has all these different ways simultaneously by
    which to provide electricity, except that I don't think it's
    bringing electrons from the panhandle of Texas. So, how would
    you all resolve that? Do you follow my question? Should we on
    the federal level be basically endorsing eminent domain to take
    private property in order to allow high-voltage lines go from
    interstate settings?
        Mr. Fisher. It's a valid question, sir, and I think the
    answer I would fall back on, personally, is that we should
    accomplish as much of this as possible through voluntary means.
    And I think the use of eminent domain should be minimized. I'm
    not sure that it will ever get to zero, but I think with the
    class of customer that we have now, the balance sheets that
    they bring, the speed-to-power, the sort of impetus that they
    bring to solving this problem, we should take full advantage of
    that. So, I would look more to the private sector than to the
    public sector.
        Senator Cassidy. Sir.
        Mr. Snitchler. And Senator, I would simply add that I think
    all options need to be on the table. So, if you can locate
    generation more close to the load, instead of having to move it
    across long distances, and that is the option that I prefer----
        Senator Cassidy. I accept that but wind right there is
    really good, right?
        Mr. Snitchler. Well, that's a separate discussion, and we
    are a generation-oriented organization, so it won't surprise
    you that if you want to build a power plant and electrons are
    closer to where your load is, we would certainly be willing to
    do that.
        Senator Cassidy. And ma'am?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        I think a clear and narrow federal authority for siting
    interstate transmission lines would be consistent with how we
    site natural gas pipelines, and that interstate commerce is a
    necessary and narrow role for the Federal Government. Right
    now, states use their eminent domain authority, but they also
    use practices that reduce competition so that we cannot have
    private developers who are able to access the economic power
    and move between states. So, we have multiple state regulations
    and laws in many places that are suppressing competition in
    ways that are costly to the consumer, and a narrow federal
    authority could help clarify this.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Dr. Reed, if each one of these large-load
    data centers was its own generator, would that be the most
    efficient use of capital to power that part of the demand
    sector?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think the most efficient use of capital to power data
    centers is the choice of the data centers, themselves. And I
    think the best option that we can provide for American
    competitiveness and for growing industries here is to ensure
    that they have those options available to them, both a robust
    grid that can provide reliable and affordable power, and
    options for building their own private grids to provide their
    own power.
        Senator Heinrich. And describe to me any risk associated
    with customer impact with the sort of private-grid model.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you for the question.
        I think the way that we think about transmission benefits
    is important to consider here, where if we have a robust
    backbone to our grid that can provide affordable power, that
    benefits consumers. The more consumers of electricity that
    there are on the grid, including high consumers such as data
    centers, there would be more ratepayers who are helping pay for
    that valuable infrastructure.
        The Chairman. Dr. Reed, I want to start with you. You
    recently wrote that durable federal permitting reform and
    enhanced federal siting authority for electric--you wrote about
    the need for it and enhanced federal siting authority for
    electric transmission projects. Section 216 of the Federal
    Power Act, of course, provides siting authority for FERC and
    DOE. Now, this Section 216 authority has yet to be used to site
    a line, but it most certainly will be used in the future. If
    that authority were used in the future, whenever it's used, do
    you think lines sited using 216 authority would still likely
    face hurdles under some of our environmental permitting
    statutes like NHPA, NEPA, and the Clean Water Act?
        Dr. Reed. Thank you for the question, Senator Lee.
        These interstate and interregional lines that you are
    describing that would likely be sited under 216 authority would
    benefit from reforms to NEPA and NHPA. Both the backstop siting
    authority that you are describing and often these regulations
    require numerous iterations. So, we need to resolve these
    iterations that cause delay and clarify and simplify
    procedures, including that 216 authority, which actually has
    multiple federal authorities that need to be satisfied before
    we can even get to approving an interregional or interstate
    line. So, there is a lot of opportunity for clarification and
    limitation of procedures for merchant developers.
        The Chairman. Thank you, but these are things we ought to
    be focused on to make sure that we are ready to go, that can be
    used.
        Mr. Fisher, let's go back to you for a minute. Electric
    utility ratemaking has been noted in this conversation today.
    It's a complicated process. It varies from region to region. It
    varies from state to state. You know, according to a report
    from Monitoring Analytics, which is PJM's independent market
    monitor, transmission in the PJM region now accounts for a
    total of 32 percent of total wholesale electricity costs. Now,
    this is up from 23 percent of total wholesale electricity costs
    just two years ago. In your view, what happened there? Why this
    jump?
        Mr. Fisher. It's an excellent question, sir. I think the
    general thesis that I would put forward is that, especially in
    the wake of FERC Order No. 1000, there was a retreat away from
    regional and interregional lines toward what I have
    characterized as small-ball projects. So, in PJM, it's the
    immediate-need projects that are designed to meet a short-term
    reliability constraint. They are designed to reduce those. In
    my opinion, utilities have taken full advantage of that, and in
    their sort of profit maximization, they have been able to put a
    lot of small-ball transmission in rate base. And that works
    very well for them. It does not work very well for the
    consumer, and it increases the all-in cost of power.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Remind me how you define small-ball.
        Mr. Fisher. I would characterize it as a voltage threshold
    distance, so we are talking about shorter lines and lower
    voltage, and they often operate in this sort of gray area
    between state jurisdiction and federal. And that, I think, if
    we wanted to close the regulatory gap there, I think that is an
    opportunity for Congress to step in and to clarify that the
    voltage threshold could perhaps even go lower in terms of
    federal oversight.
        The Chairman. Okay, but this all factors into the equation
    that we have been talking about previously about the fact that
    overbuild or inefficient allocation of resources might result
    where the cost is spread out, perhaps where the utility company
    is held harmless regardless because the ratepayers are going to
    make up the difference. Is that right?
        Mr. Fisher. That's right.
        The Chairman. Mr. Snitchler, states like New York have
    weaponized Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and they have
    done so, among other things, they have done so to block
    expansion of natural gas pipelines into New England. During
    Winter Storm Fern, that bottleneck resulting from that
    weaponization of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act forced the
    region to rely heavily on fuel oil in order to keep the power
    on. Now, according to an industry trade publication, oil-fired
    generators ran more frequently because natural gas was
    expensive due to the lack of pipeline infrastructure going to
    New England. And again, that lack of infrastructure can be
    traced to the weaponization of Section 401. Lack of gas
    pipelines led to higher gas prices, which in turn led to higher
    electricity prices, which in turn led to emissions spiking by
    nearly a quarter compared to the year before.
        So, it's not just that this results in higher costs. It's
    not just that it's bad for consumers. It's also that it results
    in more emissions. In your assessment, what would the impact of
    sufficient natural gas infrastructure going in to New England
    be on prices and on grid reliability?
        Mr. Snitchler. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think you have identified the two competing issues. The
    first of which is, how are we going to ensure that you have the
    commodity that impacts the price of power to be able to be
    delivered to the generator. That's natural gas in the instance
    that we are discussing. And how do you get greater access. So,
    that input cost is what ultimately drives the greater cost of
    electricity and the inability to move more natural gas into New
    England necessitates that there is going to be reordering of
    the units that are dispatched because oil becomes cheaper when
    gas gets more expensive. So, being able to address the
    questions about your input cost will ultimately affect what the
    price for generation will be, and also, to your point about
    emissions, it will also impact what your emissions profile
    looks like because there are limits that can be both hit and
    exceeded in very early parts of the year given a cold winter in
    New England, and there are still the summer months that have to
    be accounted for when you are looking at what your emissions
    limits will be for the course of the year.
        So, it really resonates on both the price front and on your
    emissions limits front.
        The Chairman. That makes sense.
        I have one or two more questions I want to ask, but I know
    I am over time. Do either of you want a second round?
        Thank you, Angus.
        Mr. Fisher, you have written a fair amount about EPA's
    authority to regulate emissions from the power sector, in
    particular. Thankfully, in 2022, the Supreme Court of the
    United States ruled against the EPA using very vague statutory
    language in order to mandate really broad economically
    impactful changes in the electricity generation sector, largely
    targeted at retiring coal and gas-fired electric power
    generation. I am grateful that the Trump administration
    overturned the EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding, which created
    the legal basis for such regulations in the power sector. Now,
    you released a statement supporting EPA reversing this finding
    and you argue that this authority rests solely with Congress,
    of course, and I couldn't agree more.
        How have this EPA policy and subsequent regulations
    affected grid reliability and affordability?
        Mr. Fisher. That's an excellent question, sir.
        I did support the EPA's reversal of the Endangerment
    Finding. I think it's fairly straightforward. I am not an
    attorney but the administrative law record reads to me like the
    EPA's choice to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, especially
    in the way that they did, was a major policy question and is
    subject to the major questions doctrine. Now, where that has
    the practical impact, or how it impacts the grid is, if the
    EPA's power plant rules change every four years and these
    assets are designed to be operated for 40-plus years, you
    really have a radical degree of regulatory uncertainty.
        And so, if Congress could establish durable rules, or no
    changes in the rules at all, that would, you know, provide the
    foundation for a more robust power sector. For example, the
    second iteration of the Clean Power Plan would have essentially
    shut down a large portion of the existing coal plants, but it
    also threw a lot of uncertainty into whether or not you could
    invest in a combined-cycle gas unit, which, in a lot of parts
    of the country, is the most efficient way to meet new demand.
    Now, if you were going to operate at above a 40 percent
    capacity factor, you would have been required to capture the
    CO2 emissions. That technology is not proven. So,
    the basic question of, you know, can you even consider it a
    best system of emissions reduction if the technology isn't
    proven? We need a lot more clarity on these things, and the
    regulatory uncertainty--that sort of dark cloud that has been
    over the industry since 2009--has been incredible.
        The Chairman. And even just from an emissions standpoint,
    if you have that kind of environment, then when a demand surge
    comes, if we're not prepared for it, we all of a sudden see the
    need to rely on what we saw in New England during Winter Storm
    Fern--increased use of heating oil that is not good from an
    emissions standpoint, even from a standpoint of environmental
    quality that produces some bad outcomes.
        Mr. Fisher. Right. So, that's exactly right, and the
    broader question of how did we get caught so flat-footed in
    this era of new demand growth? I think it's in part because we
    were focused too much on the emissions question and not enough
    on are we building a nimble industry that can respond to new
    demand? We clearly were not. I believe we are in a new posture
    now and I credit the EPA for changing that.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, I
    thank all of you for being here.
        I don't want to relitigate what you have already covered,
    and I think there is actually a pretty general consensus that
    grid modernization is long overdue and essential. I think we
    could nibble around the perimeter of what is the most efficient
    way to do that, and to do that in such a way that the public
    embraces it and supports it. Obviously, people don't like
    having pipelines or, you know, transmission lines coming across
    their property. So, we look at reform within our entire
    permitting process, recognizing that the public comes first.
    They have to have full transparency. They have to have the
    right to speak their mind, but ultimately some of these
    decisions are going to affect a much larger whole and are going
    to require very difficult decisions. And I think this is one of
    the challenges when we look at the grid--how do we get to that?
    I mean, putting lines underground is prohibitively expensive in
    most situations, similar with pipelines, hard to put them deep
    underground.
        What do each of you, or how would you provide an opinion in
    terms of how to approach this because that's going to be the
    question we are all going to deal with. We might not get you up
    here to testify again, but I would love to, while we have got
    you, hear your opinion.
        So, Mr. Snitchler.
        Mr. Snitchler. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        I think I may be the only one here who has ever had to vote
    on a power siting related issue in my prior role as the Chair
    of the Ohio Power Siting Board. And so, we had a statute that
    was fairly robust in the jurisdiction that it gave us to make
    decisions and try to contemplate a statewide or a broader
    perspective than merely the local community or merely the
    county level or region that incorporated input from a number of
    state agencies, as well as the legislative branch, in an effort
    to make sure that we were getting all of the appropriate input
    into the decision-making and then could ultimately make a
    decision that was for the good of the state, as well as
    ultimately where we fit into the region.
        And so, the ability to utilize the subject matter experts,
    but ultimately have that decision-making authority rest with
    one body was very effective in being able to allow us to
    approve projects, whether it's transmission infrastructure
    intrastate, or whether it was pipelines that were intrastate,
    or large generating facilities that were under the jurisdiction
    of the power siting board. And that model worked very
    effectively because you funneled all of that information in,
    narrowed the funnel, and left that authority with the power
    siting board to make those decisions.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Got it.
        Mr. Fisher. At the risk of oversharing my opinion, sir, I
    believe when some folks have characterized the system as a
    vetocracy, that resonates with me because it seems like there
    are too many choke points, that there are too many ways to stop
    work on a project, there are too many ways to sue a project
    into oblivion. The more we can limit those choke points, or get
    complete buy-in up front that a project should move forward,
    and then have the permit certainty as the project does move
    forward, that, in itself, would be a game-changer because I
    have seen firsthand these projects that, you know, they break
    ground and they are halfway done, and then there is a new suit
    or a judge finds something new and, you know, the project has
    to stop. I would say to my friends in the environmental groups,
    they are excellent at stopping work, and I think what we need
    is a regulatory framework that doesn't allow them to do that.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I hear you, although I would argue
    that to even contemplate that, we need a really robust public
    process that's comprehensive and inclusive and where people
    really feel heard.
        Dr. Reed.
        Dr. Reed. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity.
        I agree that we need a single process. I think a clear
    narrow federal authority for the types of transmission that are
    providing interstate and interregional value to consumers is
    incredibly necessary. What we have right now, we have talked
    about many different types of permitting, and transmission
    experiences this level of iteration on the state level and on
    the federal level, and we have an opportunity here--Congress
    has an opportunity to clarify and narrow this iteration that is
    happening by limiting the number of federal actions that need
    to be taken, by identifying clearly if it is a state or federal
    decision that needs to be made in the interstate flow of
    electrons, just as we do in the interstate flow of natural gas,
    and an opportunity to open up transmission development to
    private developers who are ready to capture that value and
    bring it to consumers, but are barred from that by both state
    regulations and complicated federal restrictions.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Exactly. And there is a long history
    there of the interfacing between the utility regulators and
    private sectors versus the big utilities.
        My great grandfather, Andrew Hickenlooper, came back from
    the Civil War to Cincinnati. I say this, Mr. Snitchler, so he
    was the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio for two years, hated it,
    quite rightfully, and had other things he was unhappy with, but
    he ended up becoming the second president of Cincinnati Gas and
    Electric because he was one of the few people having a stellar
    history, personal history in the Civil War, that people
    trusted. So, as they figured out these conflicts between one
    neighborhood--and originally, they were just going from
    neighborhood to neighborhood, the wires were going everywhere--
    Andrew Hickenlooper became the arbitrator and created the sense
    of public trust that you could figure out what is the right
    value to put on this self interest versus that self interest so
    that we can judge what is the best solution and how do we get
    the greatest benefit, greatest good for everyone. And I think
    that is kind of your challenge and our challenge, and we
    appreciate your help and your wisdom and your experience as we
    go forward because we are just beginning.
        The Chairman. Martin, anything else?
        Great.
        All right, as we wrap up, I would like to enter into the
    record a letter from Toby Rice. He is the CEO of EQT
    Corporation, a natural gas production and midstream company. In
    his letter, Mr. Rice notes how high retail electricity rates
    and insufficient natural gas supply infrastructure are
    inextricably intertwined with each other. Specifically, he
    notes that since 2015, states with the sharpest increase in
    retail electricity rates are in states that oppose expanding
    natural gas infrastructure, including Maine, Rhode Island,
    Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California.
        So, I ask unanimous consent that we enter that into the
    record.
        Seeing no objection, it will be entered into the record.
        [The letter referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. That will conclude today's hearing. I want to
    thank our witnesses for their outstanding contributions. Your
    testimony has been insightful and very, very helpful to us.
        The record will remain open both for submitting questions
    for the record and for adding statements to the record from
    members. We will keep that open until 6:00 p.m. next Wednesday,
    April 1st.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for your testimony today.
    The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]