[Senate Hearing 119-405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-405
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESSES,
PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 28, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-732 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 28, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Bechtel, Brendan, Chair of the Smart Regulation Committee
Business Roundtable............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Wicker........................................... 41
Senator Kelly............................................ 41
Senator Padilla.......................................... 42
Booker, Brent, General President, Laborers' International Union
of North America............................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Meyer, Dustin, Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics and
Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute............... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Capito........................................... 61
Senator Padilla.......................................... 62
Hopper, Abigail Ross, President and CEO, Solar Energy Industries
Association.................................................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Capito........................................... 78
Senator Kelly............................................ 79
Senator Padilla.......................................... 80
Terry, David S., President, National Association of State Energy
Officials...................................................... 82
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Capito........................................... 93
Senator Wicker........................................... 94
Senator Kelly............................................ 95
Senator Padilla.......................................... 96
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Memorandum from Evergreen Action: U.S. Department of the
Interior; Proposed 2029 Memo; DOI Secretarial Review of Oil &
Gas Permits, an Inverse of DOI Secretary Dough Burgum's Solar &
Wind July 2025 Memo............................................ 117
Op Ed from The Hill: Terry O'Sullivan and Senator Dan Sullivan;
Infrastructure Package Must Include Permitting Reform.......... 130
Statement for the Record from American Clean Power............... 133
Op Ed from DC Journal: Rich Nolan; A Mining Policy Breakthrough
Is Within Reach................................................ 136
Letters to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:
Steel Manufacturers Association.............................. 138
3R Street Institute.......................................... 140
The Williams Companies, Inc.................................. 143
Associated Builders and Contractors.......................... 150
American Cement Association.................................. 152
American Conservation Coalition Action and several other
organizations.............................................. 154
Clean Energy Buyers Association.............................. 156
Chamber of Progress.......................................... 158
Digital Power Network........................................ 160
Americans for Prosperity..................................... 165
National Wildlife Federation: Transmission Priorities for
Federal Permitting Reform.................................. 167
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESSES,
PART II
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2026
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,
Curtis, Sullivan, Ricketts, Boozman, Husted, Markey, Kelly,
Padilla, Schiff, Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Good morning, everybody. Thanks to
everybody for being here. I hope everybody is staying warm and
coping with the elements. I am not sure snow removal on the
sidewalks is one of D.C.'s best-known skills, from what my
experience is. But so far, I have not fallen yet, so I am glad
about that.
So, today we will continue our discussion on the need to
modernize our Federal environmental review and permitting
process. I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues who
are here with me, and in particular Ranking Member Whitehouse,
for their drive to elevate problems in our current permitting
regime and to work constructively together. It is what we need
to do.
Over the past year, we have all discussed how the existing
structure pits uncertainty and the misapplication and abuse of
our laws against American prosperity. We have had fruitful
discussions, yet we are now a year older. This is sometimes the
never-ending story on permitting, but we are going to get an
end to that story, I hope. We are still seeking common ground
on practical and durable solutions.
If Congress can deliver these critical solutions, we will
unleash the investment required to build American
infrastructure, unlock the supply of essential commodities and
materials, grow our manufacturing, improve affordability by
lowering prices, and create economic opportunity across our
entire Country.
Without congressional action, we will continue to see the
pattern of the last two decades. Each new administration will
reverse the policies of the last, eroding trust of American
businesses and workers and ensuring we cannot plan or build for
either the present or for our future.
This is not just speculation. We have all had communities
we represent impacted by projects that were delayed or outright
canceled by new administrations. I know West Virginia families
have experienced this deep disappointment on multiple
occasions.
So, I say to all my colleagues today, I know your pain, all
the way around, and I want Congress to address it now. Let's
remove the politics from permitting once and for all.
To do that, we need to think creatively, learn from the
existing system's failures and craft solutions to align our
permitting laws with what the Americans want and need:
affordability, predictability and opportunity. We will do so by
protecting the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and
the land that we love.
We all know that EPW's long tradition of bipartisan
legislation is true on tough issues. This is an important
reason that I joined this committee when I was first elected to
the Senate over a decade ago and how I approach my role as
Chairman.
I called this hearing with the Ranking Member with the
intent to get us back on the path to fruitful compromise
through identifying both the urgent need to act on reform and
the scope of priorities we must address.
Turning to the policies for permitting reform, my
priorities remain largely the same. This legislation must be
bipartisan to be successful and durable. This legislation must
be project neutral. This legislation must create
predictability, consistency and finality in securing a permit.
This legislation must bring accountability to every stage
of the process. This legislation must go beyond NEPA to address
issues with our core permitting laws and processes. This
legislation must include provisions that address judicial
review of fully permitted projects.
Finally, this legislation must be written in collaboration
with our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to address issues within their jurisdiction, and we
have been working steadily with them.
I have spent the last year listening to the Ranking Member
and my Democrat colleagues as well as the priorities of the
current Administration in order to understand what legislative
policies would meet each of their stated goals and concerns. I
think our goals share more in common than most would admit, and
there are many sensible compromises that are in the best
interest of the American people to unlock our development, grow
our economy, increase supply and decrease prices in our States
and communities. This growing consensus demands action now or
we are likely to miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
The House acted last month by passing bipartisan reforms to
NEPA and the Clean Water Act. It is now time for the Senate to
act, so we invited these witnesses here today for two main
reasons.
First, they can share with us the pressing need to act this
year on reforms and what we will leave on the table if we are
unsuccessful. Second, they can share their invaluable
perspectives on the most important reforms to truly unleash
America's potential and relieve the economic pressure Americans
are facing across the Nation.
I look forward to making progress with all of you and
hearing your insights. Thank you all so much for coming.
With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member Whitehouse
for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate
your convening today's hearing, a bipartisan hearing on
permitting reform.
Colleagues have heard me repeatedly State that I want a
strong bipartisan permitting reform, and that there was a trust
problem with the administration's behavior that would need to
be solved. Trump's initial executive order declaring an energy
emergency but not defining solar or wind even as energy, was a
bad, and irrational, start. But we were still willing to work.
Then began the unlawful and irrational blockade of offshore
wind, leading to a stop-work order on the Empire Wind project
off New York, quickly lifted after the Governor expressed
``willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.''
This all stank, but I remained willing to work on a permitting
bill.
In August, ``Stop Work'' Trump struck again, against
Revolution Wind off Rhode Island, a project over 80 percent
complete, with $4 billion invested, based on supposed
``national security'' concerns. That order was instantly thrown
out in court as ``arbitrary and capricious,'' in part because
the Trump administration had been making the opposite arguments
about that same project, in the same courthouse, just weeks
earlier.
Our New England grid operator warned back then:
``Unpredictable risks and threats to resources that have made
significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and
are close to completion will stifle future investments,
increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid's
reliability and the region's economy now and in the future.''
Consumer cost, grid reliability, and economic security were all
put arbitrarily and capriciously at risk. Still, we kept
working in permitting negotiations.
On land, the Interior Secretary wrapped solar and wind
projects up in red tape with dozens of new layers of political
review, including a stop at his own desk, where things have
stopped. Since then, only one solar project has received
approval.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and multiple other Federal
agencies adopted a made-up and nonsensical ``energy density''
metric to prioritize fossil fuel. Still, we kept working on
permitting reform.
The administration's offshore defeat in court was such a
pasting that they did not appeal. That appeals period lapsed in
November. Everyone was back to work. We thought the nonsense
was over. But, no.
Thirty days later, days before Christmas, they dropped a
new stop-work order on five offshore wind projects, including
Empire and Revolution. The new pretext was national security
risks that had supposedly emerged in the previous 30 days. That
has been reviewed now by four Federal judges, and the
administration went zero for four. Not one judge believed them.
All along, the Energy and Interior secretaries were lying
non-stop that these projects would raise costs. That is
demonstrably false. Grid operators put these projects before
fossil fuel in the generation stack because they are less
expensive.
Revolution Wind by contract will put 9-cent per kilowatt-
hour energy into an 18-cent per kilowatt-hour grid. Court
filings and affidavits asserted hundreds of millions in
consumer cost savings that the administration chose not to deny
in court, but they kept lying in public.
When Federal judges do not believe executive branch
pretexts about national security, repeatedly, and cabinet
secretaries demonstrably lie, repeatedly, enough is enough. So
Senator Heinrich and I have paused permitting reform
negotiations.
Let me be clear. We find no fault with Senate Republicans.
Chair Capito has been an excellent partner, and I am grateful
both to her and to her team for the quality and tone of the
work that has been accomplished. I am grateful to Whip Barrasso
and Leader Thune for how they have responded.
This is not Democrat versus Republican. This is legislative
versus executive, an age-old drama, in this case with an
executive that will not honor its constitutional duty to
faithfully execute the law, or, by the way, tell the truth.
Make no mistake: the Trump administration's lawless,
irrational, and unpredictable attacks loom over every industry.
None of it is good for business. The nonsense must stop.
I still want to pass bipartisan Senate permitting reform. I
know we can expedite the permitting process with sound
bipartisan ideas like frontloading stakeholder engagement and
discipline an executive inter-agency process run amok.
We can add jobs and electrons and reduce emissions and
waste. But it makes no sense to pass a bipartisan permitting
reform that will be illegally butchered by a lawless executive
branch, vindictively, irrationally, and dishonestly.
The responsibility for resuscitating permitting reform
rests now upon the executive branch, upon credible confidence
that the nonsense will stop.
Plenty of powerful interests need electrons, lots of
electrons, and want the low-cost electrons and the abundant
electrons that clean energy provides. If that is you, you need
to direct your efforts toward ending the lawless nonsense from
the administration. If you are fossil fuel, and you want this
lawless nonsense stopped because you could be next, you had
better tell them so.
Proceeding with this bipartisan hearing is our
demonstration of hope that the nonsense can be stopped, and of
trust in our Republican colleagues to get to a good bill, a
confidence that I hope is not unjustified.
I will close once again with my appreciation to the Chair
and to her staff for the helpful, responsible and honorable way
in which they have conducted themselves through all of this.
Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
So, we will now turn to our witnesses for their opening
remarks. Our first witness is Brendan Bechtel. He is Chairman
and CEO of Bechtel, testifying this morning on behalf of the
Business Roundtable. Mr. Bechtel is a member of the board of
directors of the Business Roundtable and serves as chair of the
Smart Regulation Committee.
He is also CEO of Bechtel Corporation, which by the way,
gave my dad his first job in the late 1930's, and is the fifth
generation of the Bechtel family to lead the company.
Mr. Bechtel, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN BECHTEL, CHAIR OF THE SMART REGULATION
COMMITTEE, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
Mr. Bechtel. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, members of the committee. Thank you for having me
today.
I am Brendan Bechtel, Chairman and CEO of Bechtel, one of
America's largest engineering and construction firms and one of
the Nation's largest employers of both union and non-union
craft labor. Over the past 2 years here in the U.S., Bechtel
has hired more than 28,000 skilled craft professionals. We
anticipate hiring at least 10,000 more this year.
Today I am here in my capacity as the Chair of the Business
Roundtable Smart Regulation Committee. The Business Roundtable
is an association of more than 200 CEOs from companies spanning
every sector of our economy.
Permitting reform is about making America a destination for
greater investment, keeping us competitive, strengthening
manufacturing and other domestic industry, protecting the
environment, and creating good jobs that support our
communities. The key to achieving this is comprehensive,
bipartisan permitting reform legislation.
Congress and the administration have made real progress
toward this goal. But there is more to do and the Business
Roundtable is here to help.
Every year of delay holds America back. Other countries are
building critical infrastructure at speed and scale. Bechtel
has seen first-hand what an effective permitting process can
do. We have seen what happens when it does not work.
Let me share a couple of examples from around Bechtel's
world. First, the Western Sydney Airport, the first greenfield
airport built in Australia in three decades. From site
designation to final approval, permitting took less than 3
years. Three years. We started construction after permits were
issued and finished 7 months ahead of schedule.
Let's turn to Canada, and the Keeyask hydroelectric
project, creating nearly 700 megawatts of clean power. The
environmental licensing process took about two and a half
years. This included extensive consultation with four Manitoba
First Nations who are development partners and engaged from the
very beginning of the project.
Canada's review process moved efficiently through public
hearings and regulatory approvals.
Now, let's contrast that with the United States. Last
summer, a study by McKinsey found it takes between four and 5
years for the average investment dollar to get through our
Federal permitting process. That means that right now as much
as $1.5 trillion in potential investments are stalled in the
queue, waiting for permits across eight key sectors.
Once permits are issued for major projects, 28 percent of
those are litigated, delaying those projects for an average of
4.2 years, while at the end of that delay, 80 percent of those
permits still ultimately stand as issued by the agency.
Meanwhile, Americans are not seeing the jobs, the spending,
or the growth that these projects would and should be
generating. The opportunity cost for our Nation is staggering.
The unrealized induced GDP impact of these delays, up to $2.4
trillion.
Equally concerning, our global competitors are advancing
critical infrastructure projects faster. China is one of them,
and other countries seeking long-term foreign infrastructure
partners are taking notice. In strategic sectors like nuclear
energy, semiconductor manufacturing and AI infrastructure, our
permitting process could not only jeopardize American economic
leadership, but undermine our hard-won global influence.
In September, 2025, Business Roundtable released our
Report, Building a Prosperous Future, with detailed
recommendations for fixing this broken system. This report is
included in my submitted testimony. These recommendations
provide clarity and transparency. They remove unnecessary
overlap and redundancy. They establish more predictable
timelines, and they make clear that strong environmental
protections and efficient permitting are not in conflict.
I look forward to discussing these policy solutions in more
detail today. I am optimistic because the momentum is real.
There is bipartisan agreement that action is needed. The
President has made permitting reform a top priority and
Congress has shown a real willingness to move forward. We thank
you for the opportunity here today talking about it.
Business Roundtable is ready to work with you on
legislation that creates a permitting system that is efficient,
predictable, and yields durable results. This is our
opportunity this year to reassert American industrial
leadership and harness the ingenuity that built this Country
over the past 250 years, ensuring we continue to lead in the
world for the next 250.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bechtel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Next, we will hear from Brent Booker, the General President
of LIUNA, the Laborers' International Union of North America.
Mr. Booker has the distinct honor of having testified twice
before this committee during the 119th Congress. We want to
welcome him back again today to share perspective on these
issues from the point of view of labor.
Mr. Booker, thanks for joining us again.
STATEMENT OF BRENT BOOKER, GENERAL PRESIDENT, LABORERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
Mr. Booker. Good morning, thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you once again to discuss permitting reform on
behalf of the more than 530,000 skilled and dedicated members
of the Laborers' International Union of North America. LIUNA
members are the backbone of America's infrastructure. We build
and maintain this Nation's highways, roads, bridges, and
tunnels. We construct schools, hospitals, arenas, and
skyscrapers. We build and support America's energy
infrastructure which includes wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and
pipelines.
Simply put, LIUNA builds America. LIUNA members take pride
not only in the work we do, but in the communities we serve.
Yet today, far too much of that work is being stalled, delayed,
or canceled altogether. For decades, outdated permitting laws
have been weaponized to obstruct critical infrastructure.
Projects, regardless of size, now take years longer than
necessary to receive approval.
For many stakeholders, these delays show up as numbers on a
spreadsheet. But for LIUNA members, that means another day
without a paycheck, another day without earning healthcare
eligibility, another day without a pension credit. When those
projects are delayed or halted, livelihoods are put on hold.
Across the Country, particularly in the energy sector, projects
that are fully permitted, fully financed, and ready to begin
construction are routinely derailed by endless litigation. A
project can be approved 1 day and tied up in court the next.
In far too many cases, developers now spend more time in
court than it would to take our members to physically build the
project. That is why LIUNA has supported permitting reform for
more than a decade, including the House's recently passed SPEED
Act. It addresses some of our issues on permitting reform. Most
notably, proper judicial review timelines.
However, while the House was able to advance some elements
of project certainty, it ultimately was watered down in order
to appease a small group of extremists who do not understand
the importance of having project certainty.
Significant barriers within the permitting process remain
unresolved. One of the most persistent is Section 401 water
quality certification. States should be required to issue a
clear yes or no decision within a defined timeframe. If a
project meets the standards, it should be approved. If it does
not, the State should deny the application, explain the
deficiencies, and allow the applicant to correct them and
reapply.
We believe projects can move forward without sacrificing
worker safety, community protections, or environmental
standards. But any permitting reform must also address two
glaring failures in our current system: project certainty at
the highest level and energy transmission.
What good is permitting generation if we cannot connect
power to the grid? Without transmission reform in conjunction
to permitting, energy projects, no matter how clean or
necessary, will remain stranded. That reality threatens
reliability, affordability, and job creation.
When I testified before this committee last year, I spoke
about project deniers and serial litigators who exploit
procedural loopholes to stop construction. But today, the
greatest threat to project certainty is not litigation alone,
it is also the politics being played with our members' jobs.
Unfortunately, this administration has eliminated and
threatened to eliminate thousands of construction jobs, in some
cases, just days before Christmas. We have seen the canceling
of funding from the Infrastrurcture Investment and Jobs Act,
the halting of Inflation Reduction Act projects, and the use of
executive authority to revoke permits from already-approved,
privately financed infrastructure projects.
This is not leadership; this is chaos. These actions raise
a fundamental question for this committee: what good is
permitting reform if any project, no matter how far along, can
be shut down at the stroke of a pen?
Nowhere is this clearer than in offshore wind, where we
have seen the halting of offshore lease sales which have
upended the industry and forced projects to withdraw
construction plans entirely. In 2022, I was proud to have
helped negotiate and implement the National Offshore Wind
Agreement. This was a historic and monumental agreement that
would have delivered thousands of high-quality union jobs
across the Country.
Now, many of the projects built under that agreement are
now being halted and terminated. As I said earlier, for our
members, this is not politics. These are paychecks. These are
healthcare hours. These are retirement credits.
This issue is bigger than politics. It is about global
competitiveness. It is about energy security. It is about
ensuring the United States leads, not lags, in the future of
energy production, all energy production.
Most importantly, it is about ensuring that working people
have access to middle-class careers, family sustaining wages,
and secure retirements.
LIUNA urges this committee to seize this moment not for
symbolic reform, but for real, durable permitting reform that
allows projects to move forward, protects communities, and
keeps Americans working.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Booker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Booker.
Next, we will hear from Dustin Meyer. Mr. Meyer is Senior
Vice President of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs for
the American Petroleum Institute, or API, where he leads the
policy team for oil and gas advocacy. Prior to his promotion to
this role in 2023, Mr. Meyer led API's effort on domestic and
global natural gas markets, as well as natural gas technology
and innovation, including renewable and differentiated natural
gas, hydrogen, and the use of carbon capture in the power
sector.
Mr. Meyer, welcome. You are recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF DUSTIN MEYER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY,
ECONOMICS AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
Mr. Meyer. Chair Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Dustin Meyer. I am Senior Vice
President of Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs at the
American Petroleum Institute.
I want to start with the basic reality that frames our view
on the need for permitting reform. Energy demand is growing,
and it is growing faster than our ability to build the
infrastructure to meet it. Whether you care most about
affordability, reliability, national security, or emissions
reductions, the conclusion is the same: our Country must be
able to build big things, but cannot do so because our
permitting process is so fundamentally broken.
When infrastructure projects are delayed, constrained, or
do not have certainty, costs go up. It is ultimately American
consumers and workers who pay the price.
That is why comprehensive permitting reform is our
industry's top legislative priority. We are eager to work with
both parties across this committee, the rest of the Senate, the
House of Representatives and the administration to get it done.
The Federal permitting process directly affects our
industry in many ways, including interstate natural gas
pipelines, resource development on Federal lands and waters,
LNG imports and cross-border infrastructure, just to name a
few. Unfortunately, the last few decades have seen numerous
examples of permitting processes being weaponized against oil
and gas. We have had canceled pipelines, a pause on LNG
permits, delayed lease sales, and blocked projects at the State
level. Even projects with minimal environmental impacts and
strong local support remain in regulatory limbo for years.
Further, these obstacles do nothing to enhance
environmental outcomes. Instead, they reflect a misguided
opposition to any infrastructure being built at all, or assume
that restricting oil and gas supply will somehow eliminate
demand or reduce emissions. But it does neither. It merely
results in higher prices, more volatility, and crises.
When our industry talks about permitting reform, we are not
starting from scratch. Our priorities are longstanding and
well-defined.
First, judicial reform. Litigation is now a primary driver
of delay. Venue shopping and open-ended injunctions create
uncertainty that no project can withstand. We need clear
statutes of limitation, defined standards of review, standing
limited to directly affected parties, and remand, not vacatur,
as the default remedy.
Second, NEPA reform. NEPA was designed to inform decisions,
not stall them indefinitely. Reviews routinely extend far
beyond the Federal action at issue, producing delay without
better environmental outcomes. Reviews should be focused,
timely, and lead to an actual decision, principles unanimously
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Seven Counties. Congress
should codify these principles.
Third, Clean Water Act reform, especially sections 401 and
404. Section 401 has been weaponized by States to block major
interstate natural gas pipelines, delaying billions in
investment and driving higher energy costs across entire
regions. Review should be limited to direct water quality
impacts. Procedural delays and gamesmanship should be
prohibited, and FERC's authority should be strengthened.
Separately, the Section 404 nationwide Permit Program is a
practical, widely used tool. API supports House legislation to
extend the permit terms to 10 years to codify nationwide Permit
12 to clarify that a single permit is needed for linear
projects and to modernize consultation requirements.
In addition to these longstanding permitting priorities,
API joins a broad coalition in supporting provisions providing
greater certainty and durability to permits. Even after a fully
completed environmental review process, our industry has
experienced arbitrary permit suspensions or revocations driven
by political or policy shifts.
Several of the policy recommendations above foster greater
permit durability on their own. But reforms should clarify that
projects that have completed all required environmental reviews
and remain in compliance should not be subject to these
unpredictable outcomes.
The need for bold and durable permitting reform is not
ideological, and it is not limited to any one industry or
technology. API's recommended reforms restore focus, discipline
and accountability to a system that has become paralyzed. The
reflect respect for environmental protection, the rule of law
and the need for decisions that endure. Done correctly, it will
enable us to build the infrastructure of the future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Meyer.
Our next witness is Abigal Ross Hopper. She has served as
President and CEO of Solar Energy Industries, SEIA, since 2017.
She previously served as the Director of the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management during the Obama administration, and in
senior energy roles for the State of Maryland.
This Friday marks her last day with the organization. So we
want to welcome the organization's interim CEO, who I believe
is Darren Van't Hof, who is also with us here today. If you
want to raise your hand, there, Darren. There he is.
Ms. Hopper, thank you for spending your last week here with
us. We are very happy to have you, and please proceed with your
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAL ROSS HOPPER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SOLAR
ENERGIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Hopper. Thank you I can not imagine anywhere else I
would rather be.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and members of the Committee, for inviting me here
to testify today on why now is the moment to address permitting
in the United States.
As you just heard, my name is Abigail Ross Hopper. I am the
outgoing president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries
Association. We are the national trade association representing
America's solar and storage industry.
America's solar companies are manufacturing and deploying
the power we need to keep the lights on and keep prices
affordable. To ensure a reliable grid and put downward pressure
on prices, permitting reform is essential. SEIA strongly
supports these bipartisan efforts to improve the process for
energy and transmission projects.
Permitting reform must begin with this basic principle:
projects that enter the Federal permitting process must be
allowed to move through that process in good faith and without
unfair treatment based on energy source. Once a project
receives a permit, that permit should be honored.
Unfortunately, the Federal permitting process has lost
credibility regarding solar projects. In a July 15, 2025
memorandum, the Department of the Interior created 68 new
layers of red tape, effectively amounting to a moratorium on
solar by requiring political and secretarial level for even
minor project reviews. Many solar applications remain paralyzed
inside the agency, leaving developers in the dark about whether
their projects will ever be considered.
Political roadblocks are endangering 70 gigawatts of solar
and 42 gigawatts of battery storage projects on both Federal
and private lands according to the EIA numbers released late
Monday. These projects represent 43 percent of all, all planned
new power capacity in the United States.
We all know electricity demand is rising rapidly, and
without this power and the grid infrastructure to deliver it,
electricity prices will continue to rise.
In December, the House passed the SPEED Act, which would
modernize NEPA to accelerate permitting and prevent unnecessary
litigation. While NEPA reform is necessary, I should note that
delays on solar projects from NEPA projects are minimal
compared to some of my colleagues. While the SPEED Act included
a bipartisan provision to protect already-permitted projects,
SEIA could not support the bill, because it did not provide
meaningful assurance that Federal agencies will fairly consider
solar applications moving forward.
SEIA is eager to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis
on permitting reform that unlocks dozens of gigawatts of solar
storage and transmission. To achieve this, reforms must include
these three core principles. No. 1, ending the Federal solar
moratorium with statutory protections for existing permits and
prohibitions on prospective discriminatory treatment. Two,
establishing certainty and reducing timelines through
streamlined, coordinated reviews. Three, accelerating
transmission buildout through stronger planning, permitting
authority and grid modernization.
The U.S. solar industry has transformed rapidly in recent
years. In 2025 alone, the United States added 17.7 gigawatts of
solar module manufacturing capacity. We now produce every major
components of the solar module supply chain here in this
Country.
Demand for solar is incredibly strong, with 250 gigawatts
of new solar capacity forecast to come online through 2030. But
these projects represent billions in private capital that
cannot reach final investment decisions without permitting
certainty.
We all know the United States needs more power. Data
centers, domestic manufacturing, AI, are among the largest
drivers of that energy demand. The power needs to be built now.
Solar and storage can meet that timeline, complementing
natural gas and nuclear projects that typically take longer to
develop and build. We all know that the United States is
experiencing an affordability crisis. The most effective way to
address that is through greater buildout of solar and storage.
Unsubsidized solar is now the cheapest source of
electricity in history and much of the Country. With no fuel
costs, solar provides a hedge against natural gas price
volatility that continues to cause electricity price spikes.
The only way to put downward pressure on prices is bring more
power online, not less.
States with higher levels of deployment of solar and
storage, like Texas, are experiencing lower and more stable
electricity prices. Streamlining permitting is essential to
addressing the energy affordability crisis American households
and businesses are facing.
Permitting dysfunction also directly impacts American
workers, as you have heard a moment ago. We support hundreds of
thousands of jobs across construction, manufacturing, and
skilled trades. Uncertainty delays hiring, disrupts work force
planning, and puts domestic manufacturing at risk.
We are ready to work with Congress on a comprehensive
permitting solution. The resources, work force, and capital are
ready. Permitting certainty is the key. The time to act is now.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hopper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Our final witness, we are joined by David Terry, who is
President of the National Association of State Energy
Officials. Mr. Terry is a true expert on the challenges facing
our State energy officials. This marks 30 years since he
started his first job at NASEO, spending the last 17 as head of
the organization.
I understand you talked with our energy person in West
Virginia just this week in anticipation of the hearing. So
thank you for that.
You are now recognized for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. TERRY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and members of the committee, for the opportunity
to testify today.
I am David Terry, President of the National Association of
State Energy Officials. We represent all 56 State and territory
energy offices across the Country, dealing with a wide variety
of energy issues, and have a great interest in Federal
permitting reform.
NASEO strongly supports Federal permitting reform and
environmental review improvements. The National Governors
Association also provided a letter to this committee last fall,
and we also want to agree with and endorse their comments.
America's economic growth is both exciting and a huge
challenge for the energy industry and for the States. I think
that the opportunity to optimize the grid, other fuel systems,
energy systems writ large, and expand them, is critical for the
Nation's economic future and our national energy security.
Addressing affordability is equally important. We hear that
from all of our members across the Country, as all of you have.
Lengthy and unpredictable Federal permitting outcomes makes
meeting our energy challenges more expensive and leaves the
private sector investments and State actions stranded and
untapped, whereas they could deliver tremendous benefits to the
Country. Governors and State energy offices also recognize the
importance of streamlining permitting that they control in
their own States, and have been working together to address
those issues, and also address affordability.
NASEO recommends durable, technology-neutral or project-
neutral approaches to permitting reform. The SPEED Act, as it
came out of the House Natural Resources Committee, is a step
forward. However, we do have concern that an amendment that was
added on the floor may put into question technology-neutral and
all-of-the-above approaches.
I want to stress a few recommendations that NASEO would
like to put forward. First, expansion of categorical exclusions
under NEPA can speed the environmental review process.
Deference to States where there is equivalent processes to NEPA
can also benefit reform efforts. Enhanced certainty for
approved permits to continue on a technology-neutral basis with
strong rebuttable presumption for previously approved permits
is essential.
Adequate Federal staffing to conduct environmental reviews
that are needed so that they are not deemed defective by the
courts or seen as ineffective by the public. Finally, enhanced
State, Federal and interstate cooperation should include State
energy offices, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department
of Energy, Department of Interior and other Federal agencies.
For example, the State energy offices have an excellent working
relationship with the Department of Energy's Office of
Electricity and the CSER Office, the office undertaking energy
security measures. They have been working hand-in-glove, 24-7,
this past week as we have gone through the recent winter
storms, working with the industry and having good outcomes.
Another great example is the recent State coordination
among Governors in the PJM region, on a bipartisan basis with
the Trump administration. That agreement, I think, shows great
promise. The State energy offices in this region were critical
in moving that activity forward.
NASEO recognizes that a commitment to bipartisan permitting
reform is necessary for your efforts to succeed. We stand ready
to help the committee, help the committee, inform the
committee, and engage with our State members to help move this
process forward.
We applaud the Chair and Ranking Member for your leadership
and working together. We are pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. Thank all
of you for your opening statements, and I will kick off my
questions really for the panel. We see a lot of consistency
across all segments of what the testimony has been.
What we have seen in administrations as they come in,
during that transitional period, depending on what their
political priorities might be, we have seen disruptions in the
permits that have already been issued and that is what we are
seeing with the Rhode Island projects and others.
So I think all of these projects have gone on, whether it
is the MVP Pipeline or others, have gone through the permitting
processes and were already under construction, some of them
almost at completion phase.
So I will start with you, Mr. Bechtel. Could you briefly
address how the lack of certainty in the permitting process and
the treatment of properly awarded permits during Presidential
transition periods can hurt your investment planning and in
turn, consumers and households, economy-wide?
Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for the excellent
question. Yes, uncertainty disrupts work force planning,
investment, communities and families. My colleague and friend,
Mr. Booker, spoke about that, particularly on the work force
side.
Predictability matters for all these constituents and the
process. I think it is fair to say that rather than any one
project, this is about how the whole system works, including
what happens after a permit is issued and what happens with
litigation.
Something that Brent can speak to as well is that for these
kinds of projects, in our case, for example, we are typically
making investments in training and hiring and partnering with
vocational schools in the area, doing housing studies ahead of
time to make sure we mitigate impacts in local housing for big
projects.
That all can happen 18 to 36 months before a shovel ever
goes into the ground. So unpredictability about when we need to
get started on that work is a real issue, which is why, again,
the BRT's primary goals around this are efficient, predictable,
and a durable result that stands after the permit has been
issued.
Senator Capito. Let me ask you a quick followup question on
that. You cited two projects in your opening statement, one in
Australia, one in Canada. You are worldwide company. Are there
any other countries that have to live with the unpredictability
of already-permitted projects getting yanked because of
political priorities? Does this happen everywhere else, or not
really?
Mr. Bechtel. I am trying to think of examples of other
countries. I will point out, I deliberately picked the
Australia and Canada examples because I do not think any of us
would say those are countries that cut corners when it comes to
environmental and social protections. So I think they are
leading examples that you can achieve efficiency, speed, scale,
while really having important community engagement and
environmental protections up front in the process.
Senator Capito. OK. Mr. Booker, if you could frame the
question on the uncertainty, what does this do with the work?
When you were here before, I remember quite well your
impassioned statements on, that means I am not working, I am
not getting paid.
Mr. Booker. Yes, that is the bottom line. It takes time to
get the skills you need, whether to build an offshore windmill,
build a pipeline, a natural gas power plant, a nuclear plant.
Whatever the source is, it is actual people who have to go
build that and have to apply skills to do that.
It is our job to partner with our contractor partners to
create registered training apprenticeship systems to get the
skill sets that are needed to produce a skilled craftsman to
build that project safely. When a project is built or is being
built, when it is financed, whether it is privately or publicly
financed, it is permitted, people move. Our work force is
transient in some cases. A lot of time it is local as well. But
they will move to that job, move their family, because they
know they have a two, three, 4 year job to build that energy
infrastructure. To have the whim of somebody with a pen in
their hand to say, you know what, I do not like that energy
source, completely disrupts their life, their livelihood, their
family's livelihood.
Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Meyer?
Mr. Meyer. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. From
our industry's perspective, we are eager to deploy billions of
dollars in capital to build these major infrastructure
projects. We face a real gauntlet to bring them to completion.
Everybody agrees that there should be a robust environmental
review system. But what really challenges the industry is when
you get approval, but the approval does not equal finality, or
even when you are in compliance, that does not end litigation.
We have a long history of several examples of projects
meeting exactly that fate. It really complicates and prevents
our ability to build the infrastructure in the first place.
Senator Capito. So basically what you are saying is the
uncertainty and unpredictability that possibly could come from
political priorities, if you load that on top of the judicial
review piece, almost becomes an unbearable load in some cases?
Mr. Meyer. That is absolutely right. It is a challenge not
just for projects that are going through the process, but it
chills the decision even to propose new projects.
Senator Capito. Right. As we heard Mr. Bechtel say, $2.4
trillion is ready to be deployed.
Mr. Meyer. Yes.
Senator Capito. Ms. Hopper?
Ms. Hopper. Thank you. I think I will agree with everything
my colleague said and add the impact on consumers. Regardless
of whether it happens prior to approval or especially if it
happens after, those electrons are baked into the grid
planning. If those go away, we all know what happens. Our
prices go up, because there is a scarcity of a really much-
needed commodity.
So the impact on homeowners, on businesses, on all of us,
is pretty impactful if these projects are no longer, either not
approved in the first place or even more egregiously, permits
are pulled.
Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Terry?
Mr. Terry. I think in a couple of ways, and I certainly
agree with all the other witnesses' comments. I think from a
State perspective the energy offices are deeply engaged in grid
planning, energy system planning, delivered fuels, et cetera.
When they look out at the resources, both natural resources,
human resources, and how they can deliver reliable energy in
their State, how they can help their Governors and legislatures
make this happen from an affordability perspective, the
unpredictable nature of Federal permitting is essential a
hidden tax as the delays happen.
That is certainly true for large organizations,
hyperscalers, et cetera, that we read so much about. But for
individual homeowners, for farmers, for small businesses,
consumers, many of whom do not have resources, that hidden tax
we do not really tally. I think that is something we are
missing, in addition to the obvious national competitiveness
and security issues.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman, and thanks
to all of you for being here.
Some of the backdrop to this hearing is that China, since
January 2022, has added more to its grid than the entire U.S.
grid as it exists. So if we are in a race, it is hard to see
how we are winning.
If we are in a race, it is probably in clean energy
technologies. So backing out of that race is even more
dangerous.
This is a vital issue. My friend, Martin Heinrich, points
out that there are 2.6 terawatts of power out there waiting to
come on the grid, if we could sort out the permitting and
connection issues. So thank you for the important and unified
voice that all of you have brought here as a panel.
I want to drill down just a little bit and let you know why
I think it is so important that we solve the problems of
interagency process and of early stakeholder engagement.
Interagency process is obviously necessary, they should
coordinate.
But in my view, after watching the executive branch for a
long time, the weeds have grown in the garden of interagency
process. It is now a place in the executive branch where
incompetence and inertia and indolence go to hide, and where
turf battles between agencies left unresolved create a lasting
squabble that slows down the whole process. We are going to try
to clean that up.
Frontloading stakeholder engagement is to me pretty key. We
helped get the first offshore wind onto the grid with Deepwater
off of Block Island. We did it because we started with all of
the stakeholders in the room before even a filing.
Cape Wind tried it the other way. They went into the boxing
ring, they put on their gloves and said, we will take on
anybody who comes. Of course, people kept coming. They went out
of business.
Vineyard Wind started the same way. It followed the Cape
Wind model. It got so tangled up that they have had to swap
management and now Avangrid is running it much more sensibly
and efficiently.
Another thing about the Rhode Island process, the State
permitting process for that was conducted so well that I was
able to go to the Secretary of the Interior and say, do not
start a new process. Just look at how good a job the State did.
If that is enough, give us a sign-off. She did.
So that is a good example, I think, of what you have been
talking about, about honoring well-done State regulation.
Last, you all have to start showing up more over at the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If you think offshore wind
blockading is lawful, OK. Come talk to me and explain to me why
you think that is so. If you think that its costs are higher
than the existing grid costs, that it is not going to come in
low in the generation stack, and reduce costs for customers and
for businesses, come tell me that. Make the case. Because I do
not think that is true and I do not think it is arguable, even.
If solar projects should stall indefinitely on the
Secretary's desk, sort of one person interagency process delay,
come and tell me that and explain your position. But if you do
not think that those are right, then you have to talk to the
administration. That means your organizations, that means your
CEOs, you have to show up. They can show up privately, but they
have to show up.
Of course, the people with the most urgent need for
electrons are the AI data farms folks. They need to start
showing up. As you all know, they were not here at all when we
tried to protect clean energy in what I call the Billionaire's
Bill. Now they are barely showing up.
But they have a big voice, and it matters to them to have
abundant, inexpensive electrons if they are going to succeed in
international competition for artificial intelligence.
So I am delighted that the Chair has brought this panel
together. It is an extremely wide array of views about many
matters. So the fact that we are hearing such harmony today is
very significant to me. But I think it is really important that
you understand that, I do not think you have a problem in this
room. I think your problem is at the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue.
It is very, very hard to accept the kind of behavior that
is going on now that is patently illegal, repeatedly illegal,
statements are made that are patently false, and behavior at
the Cabinet level of just grabbing permits and stalling them,
just making them sit on the desk. Somehow we have to fix that
and move forward.
So I really look forward to working with all of you and
with my colleagues here on the committee to get that done.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Senator Curtis?
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member. To our witnesses, this truly is impressive. We have
business, we have labor, we have traditional energy sources,
new energy sources, and the States represented. It could not be
clearer that this committee recognizes the immense value of
permitting reform. I think it is fair to say everybody in this
room agrees that the status quo is just not working.
Projects that are clearly in the public interest are taking
years or even decades to move from concept to completion, not
because they fail to meet environmental standards, but because
the process itself has become unpredictable, duplicative, and
vulnerable to endless delays.
That reality has consequences. When energy infrastructure
is delayed, it affects reliability, affordability, and our
ability to meet the growing demand. When housing projects are
delayed, families face higher rents, longer commutes, and these
are challenges Utahns experience every day.
Permitting never was meant to be a barrier on its own. It
was intended to ensure sound decisionmaking, public input, and
environmental stewardship, all within a reasonable and
transparent timeframe. Too often, it delivers none of those
outcomes.
There are still elements of the permitting process that
require a physical rubber stamp. I have enjoyed working with
Senator Kelly on the E-Permit Act to digitalize permitting
approvals.
There are many commonsense updates that could provide
greater certainty for project developers and communities they
serve.
Another critical element of permitting reform is certainty.
I feel strongly that no project should have to worry that it
will be halted at the whim of an administration. We have seen
that in 2021 with Keystone XL Pipeline, and we see it today
with wind projects across the Country.
It raises questions: how can we expect sustained investment
in infrastructure without certainty? I actually believe one of
the more critical areas of impact is rural America, a big part
of my State. We should be honest that permitting reform is not
about choosing between environmental standards and development.
I believe that is a false choice. It is about recognizing that
a process that drags on indefinitely serves neither.
Environmental outcomes are not improved when projects stall
for years without resolution and communities are not helped
when needed infrastructure is never built.
Streamlining does not mean cutting corners. It means
focusing analysis on what actually matters, coordinating
agencies so applications are not bounced from one office to
another, and holding the Federal Government to the same
standard of accountability we expect from sponsors of projects.
So let me start, Mr. Booker, with labor. You have
articulated well and some of the questions have been asked
about how this impacts you. I would like to ask in particular
the swing that you get between administrations, how that
impacts planning, training, and the things that you work with
with retention and recruiting.
If you have any expertise, especially in rural America, how
we are seeing that impact.
Mr. Booker. Right. Thank you for the question. Look, I am
in a unique position that I actually negotiated Keystone XL
Pipeline, and I negotiated Offshore Wind. So I have----
Senator Curtis. So they're both your fault.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. So it is your fault.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Booker. I did not think of it that way. I probably
should have kept my mouth shut on that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Booker. We should not have energy projects become
political. I think that is what the purpose of this committee
is. Our members, when they vote, when they go cast their
ballot, they do not cast their ballot to lose their job. That
happened both in 2020 and that happened in 2024. That is the
stuff that we have to get rid of.
To your question on rural, and on training, we go out into
those communities. That is what I am proud of, is to go out and
meet with those community leaders, those church leaders and
those communities to bring people in. Whether it is the skills
they need to build a pipeline or the skills and certifications
they need for offshore wind, we have to go identify those, we
have go meet with your constituents, bring them in with our
contractor partners, give them those skill sets and then put
them out to work through apprenticeship and through journeyman
training.
So we have to have predictability. We have to have
certainty that these projects, once permitted, are going to be
built. Because it takes a while to build a pipeline or build a
wind farm or a solar farm. So predictability is key here.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
Mr. Bechtel, could you address the same, the way this
impacts business and investment, these swings, these wide
positions that go back and forth? Tell us how that is impacting
you and investment in your business.
Mr. Bechtel. Yes, Senator Curtis, it is a really important
point. I will frame it from a competitiveness perspective, both
abroad and within the United States.
Capital is mobile. It is going to go to wherever
uncertainty is lowest. The current system undermines our
competitiveness abroad and at home.
Of course, in the era of artificial intelligence and the
national security implications of winning that race, we are
basically shooting ourselves in the foot if we can not build
power fast enough to provide the power needed to win that race.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
I am out of time, but let me just make a point. I would
love to ask you two about it, but I am out of time, Mr. Meyer
and Ms. Hooper. Just the obvious fact that this impacts price,
you talked about consumers, but let's be very, very clear,
consumers are paying dramatically for this.
Mr. Terry, also out of time, but if I had more time, I
would love to explore what we could be doing to give States
more authority and more responsibility in this. If we have
additional hearings, we would love to explore those topics with
all of you.
Thank you. I yield my time.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Blunt Rochester?
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and
Ranking Member Whitehouse, for holding this bipartisan hearing
on permitting reform. Thank you to the witnesses for attending
today.
This is about our national competitiveness, our national
security. It is about jobs. It is about consumers, who can not
afford the high cost of energy today.
As we have heard from my colleagues today, any serious
permitting conversation needs to address the Trump
administration's attack on clean energy, from the Offshore Wind
stop orders to the claw-back of billions of dollars for clean
energy and decarbonization projects. This assault on clean
energy has to end and our energy projects need permitting
certainty.
As the second smallest State in the Country, Delaware ranks
last in energy production, often. We produce only a fraction of
the energy that we consume, making my State reliant on outside
sources to meet our growing energy demands.
Ms. Hopper, why is the opportunity to transition to locally
produced clean energy, such as solar and wind, so important to
a State like mine?
Ms. Hopper. Good morning, it is good to see you.
Senator Blunt Rochester. It is good to see you, too.
Ms. Hopper. Thank you for that question. It is really
important that we have all the tools at our disposal and we can
utilize then.
So, distributed energy, things like solar on someone's
home, solar in a community, solar on many of the corporate
rooftops, means that there is less electron highway to get from
the place where the energy is generated to the person that uses
it. Less transmission is needed.
That matters, because it is less cost. We all know, we have
talked about PJM, you talked about PJM a moment ago, those
transmission prices and those peak prices are incredibly
expensive. So local energy makes a huge difference to the
consumer.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Terry, just to followup on
that, why is producing its own energy, no matter what the
source, crucial to a State?
Mr. Terry. I think that is a fundamental principle of our
Energy Office members. They do energy planning around all
resources, not just regulated electricity, but fuels, grid,
solar, wind, hydropower, natural gas, et cetera. I think the
ability for a State to use what is local adds value.
I remember working a decade or two ago with Governor
Brandstad, who had very much that view of value-add to the
resources in his State in Iowa, much as you are looking for
that in Rhode Island.
Senator Blunt Rochester. No, that was Delaware. We are the
second smallest.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Terry. Delaware, sorry. I know that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blunt Rochester. My staff and I have just heard
repeatedly, just like we have heard here today, the importance
of permitting certainty. Not only is it crucial that the
executive branch not revoke permits from energy projects of any
type following approval, but it is important that there are
retroactive protections for permit holders.
This is a yes or no question. I am going to go down the
panel, and I hope it is an easy one of you. Do you agree that
regardless of administration, permitting certainty is necessary
for leaseholders and those seeking leases?
Mr. Bechtel?
Mr. Bechtel. Yes.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. Mr. Booker?
Mr. Booker. Yes.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Meyer?
Mr. Meyer. Yes, ma'am, we do.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Ms. Hopper?
Ms. Hopper. Yes.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Terry?
Mr. Terry. Yes.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Ms. Hopper, why is retroactivity
certainty for fully permitted projects so important, and what
are the economic consequences of selective reopenings of prior
permit approvals?
Ms. Hooper. It is fairly catastrophic. If you look at it
both from the investors and the developers who are building it,
who are represented all along this panel, they have put their
capital at risk, they have investors that are awaiting returns.
So stopping work or pulling the permit puts all of that in
disarray.
Then you think about the consumers, the people like you and
I that just want to turn our lights on at the end of the day
when we get home. Those electrons are likely no longer to be
there. We really need to listen to the grid operators who are
saying this has a significant impact.
So investment decisions get less clear, prices go up,
consumers are really out of luck.
Senator Blunt Rochester. I know all of you are aware that
Delaware is a member of the PJM interconnection. For those who
do not know, an original transmission organization that has
forecasted steep increases in energy demand across the PJM
region.
A recent American Clean Power Report found that without new
clean energy projects, energy rates in Delaware will increase
by as much as 95 percent, 95 percent, by 2032. This report was
alarming to me and I am sure it is equally alarming to other
PJM States like West Virginia that also are poised to see
skyrocketing prices.
What type of energy efficiency, Mr. Terry, what kind of
efforts should be included in a permitting package to help
alleviate the growing demand?
Mr. Terry. Several pieces come to mind. First of all,
certainly a technology-neutral approach to make sure the right
resources, low-cost and reliable resources. From an efficiency
perspective, it is a variety of things; grid optimization and
efficiency technologies for transmission distribution systems,
and use efficiency technologies. All of these pieces can come
together to bring down costs, or at least let the increases not
be as great.
We have a great deal of modernization to do of the grid.
Those investments should be done with that efficiency
technology innovation in mind.
Senator Blunt Rochester. If there are any other members of
the panel that want to add onto that question about what should
be included in a package, anyone else?
I will yield back the no time that I have left.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. Before I go to Senator Cramer, Mr. Terry,
when you answer the questions, if you could just put the
microphone a little bit closer to your mouth, so we could hear
you a little bit better.
Senator Cramer?
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Senator
Whitehouse.
One of Cramer's Convictions is, I refuse the notion that
every transaction in this town requires a loser. I think you
are demonstrating that we can have winners all around. Let's
hope that we as a committee can successfully provide that for
you.
One of the things that the government does really well is
screw up the alignment of incentives. In this case, we have an
opportunity to line up all the incentives for the right thing.
I have to say, Ms. Ross Hopper, first of all, thank you for
emphasizing, I noticed a little extra emphasis when you
referred to non-subsidized energy, solar energy. It is an
important point, because we are here not to talk about other
policy, we are here to talk about the permitting process,
whatever the energy source is, whoever paid for it. We dealt
with the subsidy side of some things previously.
So I feel good about where we are heading, and you are all
really good witnesses to that.
I am going to ask a question, first of all, I want to speak
for a minute to the Clean Water Act and 401 permits. You
brought it up, Mr. Meyer. Help me understand how the new Trump
WOTUS rule to comply with Sackett, how helpful can that be? I
honestly am curious about your response.
Mr. Meyer. Senator, that is a great question. It is
definitely a step in the right direction and something that are
very supportive of. But ultimately, it falls short of what we
really need, which is a legislative fix to the way that Section
401 under the Clean Water Act has historically been weaponized,
especially against interstate natural gas pipelines.
So we are very supportive of it. It is a step in the right
direction. But we need a lot more, and that is why it is such a
high priority for us in comprehensive permitting reform.
Senator Cramer. Perfectly said.
Mr. Bechtel, do you want to add anything to that from your
perspective?
Mr. Bechtel. Just to add that the reason BRT has been so
focused for over a decade on bipartisan permitting reform
legislation is because that is what is required for the results
to be durable.
Senator Cramer. Yes.
Mr. Bechtel. Executive actions are great, they are helpful.
But of course, they can be unwound by the next administration.
Senator Cramer. I would say, however, it does seem that
with each generation, every time the Supreme Court speaks, we
get closer to something that is durable. Important points.
Thank you.
I want to talk now about something that has not been talked
a lot about, it has been referenced, partly because it is not
all in our jurisdiction: the importance of linear permitting is
obvious for infrastructure. Certainly, electric transmission
lines are part of that.
However, there is this other part of transmission lines
that relates to, of course, back in my days when I was with the
State of North Dakota in the Public Service Commission, and
sited, by the way, the original Keystone pipeline through North
Dakota, worked with a lot of your members, Mr. Booker, and the
company. We started that process really early, too.
By the way, it was not even the hearings, they were
fascinating, and they were interesting, and they were very
full. What was more interesting was the earlier part of the
process where we went to communities and they laid out all the
maps and all the smart people worked around the room. I will
never forget the mayor of Park River, North Dakota, going, I am
not sure, but I do think if you moved this pipeline a few miles
to the east or the west you could avoid the aquifer that
provides all the water for our community. Smart move. They
fixed it before they had the hearing.
The best was my farmer friend who showed up and said, I
have never built a pipeline before, but it seems to me going
through this quarry where we get a lot of gravel is not the
best idea. A few miles to this side and you could avoid that.
Two great, brilliant ideas that came from two normal people. I
loved it.
So you are right; starting earlier, I think, what Senator
Whitehouse talked about in terms of interagency role of States,
all important. But on electricity, the large issue cost
allocation is and is going to continue to be a stumbling block
if we do not find some common ground between utilities and
ratepayers. We can site the infrastructure, if permitted, I
suppose, and States have to, of course, play a major role in
that.
Anybody have a brilliant thought? Maybe start with you, Mr.
Terry. You obviously have a broad view of all of this. How can
we get there?
Mr. Terry. I think it is an excellent question. The cost
allocation issue, I think there clearly needs to be some more
flexibility provided to FERC, while respecting State
jurisdiction and State roles. I do not think that there is an
easy answer.
One of the things that we have recommended at NASEO to both
our State members and the Department of Energy on this topic is
to make sure we have economic analyses that show the benefit to
the State's consumers. Not just from a rate perspective, but
the overall economic benefit. We think that there is something
in that process to help inform the decisions both the State
regulators are making and Federal regulators are making that go
beyond rates to additional value that we see.
Senator Cramer. Very good. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Colleagues, as I brag about from time to time, as the only
member of this committee and Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, I see this from all vantage points, and agree that
nothing could be more important for the future of our energy
availability, reliability and affordability than securing a
permitting reform package that has been talked about, not just
this year, but for years, and has eluded us a little bit.
The package that came through ENR last session, on a
bipartisan basis, I think, has become a good starting point for
a lot of these conversations. I want to echo my colleague,
Senator Whitehouse, the Ranking Member of this committee, in
his desire to bring something meaningful forward. We have to
get past this administration's selective and unilateral
cancellation of projects to restore the goodwill and good faith
in those conversations.
To the witnesses before us, in July, the Interior
Department issued a memo escalating 68 different project
reviews to the Secretary level. In effect, what were once upon
a time routine agency actions that required the Secretary's
personal approval.
Just some examples of what those 68 projects included,
things like cable barrel risk assessments, historic property
management plans, supplemental environmental reports. These
reviews are tying up critical generation and storage in what is
now red tape and politics.
The question is for Mr. Meyer. Do you believe we should be
reducing the political involvement in agencies' energy project
permitting review or increasing it?
Mr. Meyer. I think it absolutely makes sense to streamline
agency review. I am not close enough to the specific issue that
you are referencing to really comment on it. But I know that
our industry has routinely advocated to make sure that we have
a streamlined and clarified approach, to make sure that we can
develop the resources.
Senator Padilla. From an industry perspective, do you think
it is helpful for the Secretary of the Interior to have to sign
off on what most people would consider routine reviews on an
energy project?
Mr. Meyer. Again, I understand the concern. I am not close
enough to that specific issue to really make an educated
comment on it. But I do understand the concern.
Senator Padilla. So if a cabinet secretary has to approve
every step along the permitting process for projects, does that
slow down or expedite final approvals?
Mr. Meyer. Again, I would defer to other witnesses on the
panel in terms of understanding the actual impacts on those
industries.
Senator Padilla. All right, let me ask a couple questions
of Ms. Hopper. The Department of Interior's directives and stop
work orders that I referenced earlier are effectively stalling
over 100 gigawatts of energy projects that could be connected
to the grid and help us meeting our growing demand for energy.
In your testimony, you said the applications are disappearing
inside the Department of Interior, that developers can not even
get a clear yes or no.
What is a statutory protection that you think you would
recommend Congress consider to ensure no future administration
can similarly stifle critical energy projects?
Ms. Hopper. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's
attention. It is having a huge and detrimental impact on the
industry and on all of us and on rates. I think two things. One
is that clarifying where the level of authority lies, as you
are putting together a permitting package. As you said, many of
the things in the secretarial order of July 15th are decisions
that could be made at a much lower level. So I think clarifying
that in legislation would be helpful.
I also think in terms of timelines, we have talked a lot
about predictability and consistency. Part of what is happening
and what you are describing is that things, permits go into the
box, you submit them, and you never hear. You never hear what
is happening, when it might happen, how it might happen, who is
making the decision that it will happen.
That again can be clarified with some deadlines and
timelines, with some accountability. There has to be some kind
of teeth on those, or else the timelines do not really matter.
Senator Padilla. At the risk of going off on a tangent, I
know particularly in the transportation sector, there was a lot
of frustration nearly a year ago with the initial hiring
freezes, layoffs, funding claw-backs, the DOGE experiments. You
had one point of contact to answer your questions on the status
of an application 1 day, and they were completely gone, nobody
would hear from them the next day. I imagine that is having a
similar impact here as part of that big box that you described.
Separately, I know my time is short, Ms. Hopper, you
released a statement regarding the House-passed SPEED Act,
characterizing it as insufficient and saying that it falls
short. Can you explain a little bit more to this committee what
you meant by that and what else we could do to improve that
predictability that you rely on?
Ms. Hopper. Yes, absolutely. I think the thing that we
thought was not adequately addressed in the SPEED Act is
exactly what we are talking about, this sort of prospective
discriminatory treatment. We have heard a lot about the
weaponization of the permitting process, and the SPEED Act does
not solve that. It did have some bipartisan--with significant
holes--element for permits that had already been issued, but
nothing that really addressed this overreach of an
administration to punish a certain electricity source.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. At the end of the day, when all
this leads to delays, delays is time, time is money. It is
always upon the ratepayers to bear that burden.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Husted?
Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate
everybody being here today.
I always ask the question, why does it matter to me? Why
this matters the most is that if we are going to have a
domestic supply chain of the things that are essential to our
economic and national security, we have to get to work. Whether
that means pharmaceuticals, rare earth, chips, energy,
transmission, infrastructure, AI, all of it requires a great
deal of new investment in our Nation to be able to do that.
Anybody in business knows that time is money, because the
longer it takes to do something, the more expensive you make
it. The more expensive you make it, the more that cost gets
transferred to the consumer, out of necessity to do that. China
is considered an engineering society, I recently read this, and
we are considered a litigation society. They go much faster
than we do.
I am not suggesting that we want to be like China, because
we do not. We want to be responsible. But we also have to
compete in a global market.
Mr. Bechtel, I know you and certainly your company has done
projects all around the world. You have customers all around
the world. I know that you have some pretty important projects
in my State, in Ohio.
Can you explain to us, because I read the McKinsey study
from 2025 said that they will leave $2.5 trillion in capital on
the table because of permitting requirements. Explain to us how
important you believe this is for helping America compete.
Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, Senator Husted, and thanks for your
support in Ohio.
Yes, so, there is $1.5 trillion in investments currently
waiting in the queue for permits. It takes on average four to 5
years for every dollar of investment that enters that queue to
come out the other side. Does not matter whether that is a
private dollar or a public taxpayer dollar.
If you add all that up, that means that we are losing
somewhere between $100 billion and $140 billion a year in
unrealized returns. The induced GPA impact of that is about
$2.4 trillion a year.
I think it was said earlier really well by Senator Cramer,
this is an everybody wins situation, if we can fix it. America
wins, consumers win, workers win, communities, taxpayers win
with a permitting system that is efficient, that is
predictable, and that yields a durable result that allows us to
attract investment from around the world.
Senator Husted. As you are doing projects around the world,
how, particularly in the places that we are having a difficult
time competing with, what is the time difference to take to do
a big project in one of those places versus the United States?
Mr. Bechtel. It varies widely, sir. At any given point in
time, we have about 100 projects in 30 different countries.
Every country is a little bit different. I cited some examples
earlier of places like Australia and Canada, where they are
consistently, predictably issuing permits, including very
robust environmental protections and community consultations
inside of two to 3 years. If we could just cut the current four
to 5 year time in half, that would unlock a tremendous amount
of value which currently is just tied up in the system.
Just to put a finer point on this, the cost of living and
cost of goods and services impacts of this, it has been said by
others, but permit delays, they lead to real costs for
consumers and taxpayers. If it takes on average four to 5 years
to get through the permit process, think about that over the
last four to 5 years, construction costs have on average gone
up about 40 percent.
So while your project is waiting for its permit, just add
40 percent to the cost of your project. Then figure out how you
are going to pass that on to the ultimate beneficiaries of the
project. It is destroying a ton of investor value; it is
destroying a ton of taxpayer value. It is a huge opportunity
loss.
Senator Husted. So the project does not happen because it
is too expensive, or the cost gets passed on to the consumer.
Mr. Booker, I want to give you an opportunity to reflect on
that. You work with the people who build all these projects.
What would it mean in terms of jobs and qualify of life for
your members?
Mr. Booker. Let me start by saying, I wish our members got
that 40 percent raise that he was talking about.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Booker. Because they are not getting 40 percent raises.
Senator Husted. Exactly.
Mr. Booker. The impact for our members is jobs. It is their
ability to go to work, it is their ability to give their skills
to build a chips plant outside of Columbus. When you see that
that project gets delayed, or projects like that get delayed,
as we train our people to get there, and then they have to sit
on the sidelines, they do not have health care, they are not
getting that pension credit, they are not getting a paycheck.
Because we get paid by the hour, we do not get paid by the job.
So it has a huge negative impact with unpredictability and
chaos when every owner, every contractor, every developer,
wants predictability and every member that I represent wants to
know that the current job is going to stay safe and that they
have a place to go on their next job when they have built that
infrastructure.
Senator Husted. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for the
opportunity. What we have heard here is what others have said
earlier, everybody wins, it is good for America, it is good for
American business, and it is good for the American workers. I
hope we will get this done.
Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Alsobrooks?
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair
Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse, for holding today's
hearing. I certainly want to say thank you as well to all our
witnesses who are here.
In Maryland, energy projects, including solar and wind,
represent good jobs and work that is critical to meet rapidly
growing electricity demand driven by data centers, advanced
manufacturing and electrification across industries.
Yet the permitting process, at local, State and Federal
levels, can be cumbersome with lack of certainty around
timelines. That uncertainty can impact workers, consumers are
facing high utility bills, and States trying to plan for
reliability and affordability are really, really struggling.
I believe it is possible to achieve efficiencies without
sacrificing critical environmental protections. Bipartisan
permitting reform legislation only makes sense if it can
deliver real certainty, both for projects already underway and
for those in progress, if it will be executed faithfully
without political interference.
So our goal is to ensure that the Federal permitting system
works for all types of projects, people, and the environment.
My first question is for Mr. Booker. I know that this was
partially covered. In Maryland and across the Country,
infrastructure projects mean union jobs, apprenticeship slots,
and good wages. When the Federal Government halts fully
permitted projects, as this Administration has done, for clean
energy projects, workers are the first to feel the impact.
So what happens to union workers? What happens to their
families when this administration cancels projects that are
fully permitted and ready to build?
Mr. Booker. I will start with the Revolution Wind project
that has started and stopped twice now, where our members were
on the water, working, building offshore wind for Revolution
Wind off the coast of Rhode Island. On December 22d or 23, they
got a stop-work order. They did not get a paycheck on December
30th. They were sent home. They did not have a job. They had to
wait for a Federal judge to say that, you can go back to work,
that this was improper.
So as we all gathered with our friends and families and
enjoyed the year and reflected on the last year, we had members
who sat at home wondering if they were going to be able to go
back to work. They get paid by the week.
So imagine that uncertainty, imagine that uneasiness that
you would have if you were not sure when your next paycheck was
going to be.
Senator Alsobrooks. Yes, and not only those workers, but
what about those apprenticeship pipelines, the work force
training and also the ability to bring the next generation into
the building trades? Can you speak briefly about how those are
impacted as well?
Mr. Booker. Our system is built on earn while you learn. So
when you are working, you are graduating each year of your
apprenticeship. When you do not have that job, when you do not
have that opportunity, you are not able to graduate to that
next level apprenticeship, earn more wages, get the skill sets
you need to continue building this Country.
So any type of cancellation, termination, job delay,
uncertainty on existing permitted jobs or the next job just
means that that pipeline gets bogged down and people do not
have the ability to continue earning a living for their family.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
I want to ask Mr. Terry, quickly, just to move quickly to
demand and reliability. States like Maryland are facing
electricity demand growth driven by data centers, advanced
manufacturing and electrification. Meeting that demand requires
new generation and new transmission delivered on predictable
timelines.
How serious is the reliability risk when projects to meet
this demand are delayed, stalled, or canceled after years of
planning and permitting?
Mr. Terry. An excellent question. It is incredibly serious.
As I noted earlier, grid planning, energy system planning from
a State perspective is often done by our members. When they
project out how resources will come online, things that are
needed, engagement with utilities, engagement with independent
power producers, and delivered fuels industry, when those plans
go awry because of permitting delays, whether that is State,
Federal or local, it creates a tremendous risk to the system
overall. It is very interdependent, our fuels and grid system.
So I think it is a tremendous concern.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Finally, regarding Federal accountability, Ms. Ross Hopper,
my colleagues and I have raised concerns in this committee
about the administration's failure to implement laws as
Congress intended and directed. This has real consequences on
the ground and our States that are worth discussing.
So, Ms. Ross Hopper, what are the consequences for our
Country's energy systems, consumers and work force if Federal
agencies continue to delay, reopen or cancel projects that have
already been approved?
Ms. Hopper. Thank you to my home Senator for that question.
I will echo what others have said and I will put a finer
point on the cost. You heard about reliability, which is a huge
risk, especially in weather like we are having today or
incredibly hot weather. Even if we have rolling brownouts, it
is incredibly impactful, especially to people with medical
needs who need electricity.
In addition, prices continue to go up. We are all
experiencing that. I feel it when I open my electricity bill; I
know others do as well.
So when electrons were supposed to be delivered and they
are no longer available because we were not able to finish the
project, it puts more pressure on the system and prices will go
up. So it impacts all of us.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Senator Whitehouse, for having this very, very important
hearing. Again, it is always your example of working together,
leading us together, so we can actually accomplish a result,
which is so, so very important.
Mr. Bechtel, Mr. Terry, this past weekend, as we all know,
we have had winter Storm Fern bring ice and snow, sleet, to
Arkansas and much of the Country. We are grateful for the
preparations by our local utilities and linemen. They did a
tremendous job, not only in Arkansas but throughout the
Country.
The Department of Energy provided proactive relief in
allowing the use of backup generators and EPA Administrator
Zeldin has also made operational flexibility a priority.
I think the question is, do you all have any
recommendations for how the EPA can enable more flexibility for
backup generation to operate during grid emergencies? Then
also, how will comprehensive permitting reform allow for
utilities to better prepare for the next emergency?
Mr. Terry?
Mr. Terry. I am happy to respond, and I really commend the
linemen, the utility workers, the States and DOE for having
gotten through this last weekend. I think with regard to
emergency backup generation, cooperation between EPA, the
Governors' offices, Governors' energy offices and the
Department of Energy in these emergency situations to make sure
that those generators come on when they are needed, but also to
make sure that they are prepared to.
So I think that is fundamental cooperation. I am not sure
that is a permitting reform item. We can get back to you with
some more details and suggestions.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Mr. Terry, with Chairman Westerman's passage of the SPEED
Act and Governor Sanders' signing energy regulatory reforms
into State law, Arkansas is emerging as a national leader in
commonsense permitting reform as energies such as technology,
lithium, steel, manufacturing, aerospace, defense and forestry
are seeking to set up shop in Arkansas or expand existing
operations.
How would proposals like the SPEED Act provide regulatory
certainty that these projects are viable investments in
Arkansas, and how can Federal reforms complement State-level
efforts to streamline approvals, which we just talked about the
importance of that, allowing the energy grid to meet the
demands of the future?
Mr. Terry. Excellent question. I think a couple of things.
One, the kinds of actions we see at the State level such as
Arkansas, this does allow investment to come in. The missing
component of Federal permitting certainty is critical to that.
The SPEED Act, I think, does take a good step forward.
However, ensuring that that comes out with certainty around
timing, also certainty around technology or project neutrality
I think is important.
Last, I think the kind of attraction and business that you
see in Arkansas and other States that have taken action, these
are once in a generation opportunities. If those businesses,
manufacturers, et cetera, go overseas, we lose them forever. I
think that is the urgency to this.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Ms. Ross Hopper, Arkansas is currently seeing major
investments in AI and cloud infrastructure, including a multi-
billion dollar data center in Little Rock and West Memphis.
Arkansas was able to land these investments in part because of
the reliable, affordable and all-of-the-above energy supply,
including solar.
What steps should we be taking to ensure permitting reform
remains technology neutral, encouraging diverse investments in
a State like Arkansas?
Ms. Hopper. Thank you for that question. You have
identified one of the things that is happening all across the
Country, including Arkansas, is those big data centers are
looking to find the electrons as quickly as they can. Solar and
storage often are part of the solution. You will never hear me
say they need to be 100 percent of the solution.
But what can you do here? You have heard unanimity here
around technology, neutral technology, gnostic solutions, not
weaponizing the permitting system. I think that means that you
have clear timelines, so that every project, regardless of the
source of the energy, has the same kind of timeline, the same
kind of environmental reviews. They will be different based on
the technology, but they should be sort of standard and
predictable.
I think being clear about the certainty and the finality of
final decisions and final permits is critical.
Then last, making sure that whoever is in the White House
and the administration does not take the ability to weaponize
inter-agency permitting, so that there is some clarity from
this body around where those decisions should lie.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
We are holding this hearing because project developers want
certainty. Well, if you are looking for uncertainty, all you
have to do is to look down the road to 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue. Because since Trump took office, nearly 1 year ago,
Trump's costly, lawless, and unnecessary war on American clean
energy has cost more than 165,000 clean energy jobs, $53
billion in private investment lost, 324 projects across red and
blue States killed.
Offshore Wind has already unleashed billions in investments
and created thousands of union jobs across the Country. It
makes sense for coastal States like Massachusetts as well as
for supply chain States like Texas and Louisiana, Mississippi.
But over the past year, Trump has been escalating this
increasingly outlandish attack on Offshore Wind, including
cutting off the permitting process for all wind projects on
Federal lands or water.
On December 22d, the Trump administration took its most
unhinged action yet and yanked the permits for five Offshore
Wind projects that are fully permitted and under construction,
including Vineyard Wind I off the coast of Massachusetts, 800
megawatts. This action fuels rising electricity costs, puts our
grid reliability at risk and as Mr. Booker put so well, sends
thousands of union workers home without pay.
So we can not talk about new permitting laws in Congress
while the Trump administration refuses to follow the laws which
we already have. If Trump, Secretary Wright, Secretary Burgum
will not do so on their own accord, this administration must be
forced to end its punitive treatment through clear legislative
texts and vocal Republican opposition to any efforts to violate
the law.
So down the line, yes or no, do you agree that the Trump
administration should stop its targeted attacks on wind and
solar? Yes, or no, should they stop?
Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, Senator Markey. Rather than
commenting on any one specific kind of project, the point for
the Business Roundtable is that it needs to be predictable, and
permits need to stand once issued.
Senator Markey. Right. But that is not predictable. They
have already permitted, now they are canceled.
Mr. Booker, yes or no?
Mr. Booker. Yes.
Senator Markey. Mr. Meyer?
Mr. Meyer. Senator Markey, as I mentioned to Senator
Padilla, I am not close enough to that issue to have an opinion
on it. But we are an all of the above organization, and all of
the reforms----
Senator Markey. OK. Ms. Hopper?
Ms. Hopper. Unequivocally, yes.
Senator Markey. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Terry. Yes, for fully permitted projects.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Yes, we can not even get the top
secret briefing on what the national security issue is that is
blocking it. They will not even give us the briefing so we can
know. Although I suspect it is, you have to take down the wind
turbines so they can bring the aircraft carriers up to
Greenland to attack. They do not want those obstacles on the
water.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. So down the line, permitting reform without
project uncertainty is meaningless and right now, the call for
uncertainty is coming from inside the White House. So if
Republicans want to make permits great again, the Trump
administration could end this permitting chaos and uncertainty
for offshore wind and renewable energy right now. But if
projects like offshore wind and clean energy projects can be
stalled or stopped entirely by the executive branch on a whim,
it stands to reason that fossil fuel projects can get the same
treatment in the future by a Democratic administration. The
right has given the left a very good playbook.
Mr. Meyer, are you aware that some policymakers and
environmental organizations are planning for how this
administration's restrictive permitting framework could be
applied to oil, gas, and pipeline projects in future
administrations?
Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Senator. We are aware that that
is pert of the conversation.
Senator Markey. Yes. So, Madam Chair, what I would ask is
unanimous consent to enter a memo from Evergreen Action on this
issue into the record, which shows how the Interior
Department's July 15th memo to block solar and wind projects
could be repurposed to block oil, gas and pipeline projects.
Senator Capito. Without objection. Those have been blocked
in the past, as you know.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Markey. Mr. Meyer, is it fair to say the oil and
gas industry would not want any White House Republican or
Democrat to require the Interior Secretary's personal signature
for every stage of a project review?
Mr. Meyer. Again, Mr. Senator, we are supportive of the
permit certainty provisions. It is also true that we have had
our own difficult experiences across different agencies in
previous administrations. That is why we continue to be an all
of the above organization and all of our reforms would benefit
energy resources equally.
Senator Markey. The problem is, we are in an oil above all
era, not an all of the above era. We can see that from
Venezuela to all of the public decisions that have been made by
the administration.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Lummis?
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Markey, we feel your pain. We could take your statement
and where you said left we could put right. Where you said
right, we could put left. Where you put Trump, we could put
Biden. Where you said Biden, we could put Trump. Where you said
oil and gas, we could put, say, coal and solar and wind.
I mean, under the Biden Administration, one of the first
things he did was nix the Keystone XL pipeline. Just like Mr.
Booker said, there were union jobs working on that pipeline.
There was pipe sitting next to an open trench ready to install.
There were people who lost their jobs on the spot, just the way
you described, because of what President Biden did.
Now, the converse is happening with some renewable energy
types. So we are in the same boat now. We have seen a Democrat
administration under President Biden do the same thing that now
you are complaining about.
So what we do need is some certainty. Here is what I am
wondering. Here is what I want to talk to the panel about. Is
there a difference between a small project----
Senator Markey. I just want to add that Biden permitted
public land oil and gas permits faster during his 4 years, on
public lands, than Trump did----
Senator Sullivan. That is not true. If you come to Alaska,
it is zero----
Senator Markey. That is one----
Senator Capito. Wait a minute. It is Senator Lummis' time.
Senator Lummis. I would also point out that during that
same time, quarterly oil and gas lease sales on public land
were, put a moratorium on them, contrary to Federal law, and
that the no-coal on Federal land, which is basically where all
the coal in Wyoming comes from, was permitted. I mean, this
is--this is an apples to oranges, both sides treating the
source of energy exactly the opposite.
So here is what I am wondering. If it is a small-scale
project, should there be a different permitting process than
for an industrial-scale project? Let me give you an example.
So, in my lifetime, I have seen a massive difference in the
footprint of oil and gas on the surface of the ground because
of horizontal drilling. You used to have a lot more surface
disturbance to produce the same amount of oil and gas. But when
horizontal drilling became a thing, there is very little
surface disturbance.
The exact opposite has happened with wind and solar. The
scale of these industrial wind projects and the industrial
solar projects is massive. They are huge. In a State like
Wyoming, for example, we recently had a proposal for a wind
project that covered 48,000 acres.
Now, even in my big State, this is a massive scale of
surface disturbance, because there are all these little roads
between every wind turbine. We have had massive scale solar
projects. Now, in our very thin topsoil, if you put down these
blankets of solar panels, where the sun can not shine through,
two things happen. The soil does not grow anything. So the wind
erosion in our tremendously windy State is blowing away what
little topsoil we have under a 30-year permitted solar project.
The amount of fire prevention roads that have to be installed
around an industrial scale solar project is massive, because
they tend to catch on fire.
So there are environmental consequences that have, I think,
in a lot of ways during my lifetime, tipped the scale to where
what we need to be looking at in one way is just the scale of
the permit. Is it 10 acres or 20 acres? Or is it 48,000 acres?
If it is a small-scale project in terms of surface disturbance,
we should have an expedited permitting process that does not go
to the level of the Secretary of the Interior.
But if it is an industrial-scale project of any kind,
whether it is oil and gas or coal or wind or solar, maybe it
should rise to the scale of the Secretary.
Any comments?
Mr. Booker. I have a lot of comments, if I can. We are all
looking about predictability, whether it is large-scale or
small-scale. It does not matter. We should allow for developers
to determine, does it make sense to have a solar or wind farm
in your State or any other State, not people sitting around
this table to say, picking winners and losers.
We are all of the above. We believe in wind and solar. We
believe in nuclear. We believe in pipelines. We believe in
natural gas. We believe in coal. We believe that those energy
sources are what we need. We believe in a predictable
permitting process that allows not just for energy
infrastructure, either. Right now, Gateway Tunnels, in the
winds, sitting down the street at Pennsylvania Avenue, whether
or not that project, an infrastructure project, a tunnel
project in New York City, is going to be allowed to continue to
be being built, where I have 400, 500, 600 members right now.
So we have to take politics out of all of this. We have to
let the regulators regulate, we have to keep the politicians
out of this and have predictability. Get rid of this chaos and
create jobs for Americans, create jobs for our members, create
jobs for your constituents.
Senator Lummis. Well said, Mr. Booker. I yield back.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Schiff?
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank
you for the work you are doing with Senator Whitehouse on
reform. I think we are vitally in need of permitting reform,
and appreciate all the bipartisan work that has gone into it.
I have the same concern that Senator Whitehouse does with
the cancellation of billions of dollars of renewable energy
projects in California. One of them alone, the cancellation of
Arches, for example, was expected to support over 220,000 jobs.
That is quite devastating. It will be hard, I think, for us to
get to yes on a permitting reform if we think that permitting
reform is going to be used in a way that is prejudicial either
against States or that favors only one source of energy, that
being fossil fuels, to the expense of all others.
So I think it is going to be necessary to have some
restoration of confidence that the permitting reform will be
used in an even-handed basis, and not the subject of State by
State discrimination.
But let me just turn to what I think is going to really
propel an increase in energy costs if we do not address it, and
that is, we have all these data centers coming online. We are
expecting year after year significant increases in energy
demand, electricity demand, in particular. We have to meet that
demand, and we are taking a lot of projects that would meet
that demand off the grid.
There are certainly critical issues in, for example,
reducing the queue to get on the grid and to make sure that we
are pursuing projects in a timely way. But if we are taking
whole sources of energy offline at a time of vastly increasing
demand, then consumers can not help but see their prices
skyrocket. They have already gone up 13 percent in the course
of the last year.
So I welcome your thoughts, both on the need to make sure
that we can get new projects online more quickly. But also how
we really can not be excluding whole sectors of energy when so
much of the new energy coming online is renewable. To be
cutting that off in the face of dramatically increased demand
is just going to push prices higher.
I welcome your thoughts on any of the above.
Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to take first
crack at that.
So I could not agree more than speed is critical, and that
I think the data centers that are demanding more energy would
agree with me, that speed is critical. All of us here represent
all of the above, most of the above, particular industries,
whatever. But we would all agree that speed and predictability
matter.
Solar and storage are the fastest to build right now. That
is not a political statement. That is merely a factual
statement in terms of our supply chain, how quickly we can get
things permitted. So we should continue to do that. To take
that off the table means higher prices for ratepayers.
Senator Schiff. Some of the counterpoint made by the
administration is, well, that is not reliable, it is not all
the time. Now the storage, I would imagine, addresses some of
that. But how would you respond to that argument?
Ms. Hopper. Thank you for asking, because I get that
question a lot. You are right, that storage is a critical
element of this. Having the ability to store those electrons
when the sun is shining so brightly is important, and then it
can discharge later.
In my testimony, you will see a really lovely graph from
Texas, of all places, about the impact not only of availability
of electrons, but the price of electrons during peak days. It
compares 2022 to 2025. There was more solar in storage on the
grid in Texas, not only was there reliability, but there was
also much, much lower prices during peak time.
Senator Schiff. Thank you. Any others?
Mr. Meyer. Yes, if you do not mind. Demand is growing so
rapidly, so it is absolutely a critical question. We are going
to need all resources. About 43 percent of U.S. electricity
generation comes from natural gas.
So we believe strongly that we are going to need a lot more
of that capacity as well, not only on the generation side, but
on the infrastructure side, to make sure that we can move the
gas from where it is produced to where it is in demand. So that
is a big emphasis of our permitting reform priorities as well.
Senator Schiff. Thank you.
Mr. Bechtel. Senator Schiff, if I could just add, the
McKinsey Report studying the potential benefits of permit
reform that I included in my testimony makes the compelling
point, with a lot of very compelling data, that better
permitting would actually reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
significantly. That as part of that, that we should not
discriminate between energy sources.
Senator Schiff. What accounts for that, if you would?
Mr. Bechtel. It has a lot to do with the fact that permit
delays carry their own environmental costs with deferring
projects that, in general, are going to be reducing pollution,
they are going to be using inputs more efficiently, they will
be bringing electrons onto the grid.
Senator Schiff. Thank you very much.
Mr. Booker. Let me just say, with the data center, that is
an important point that we are going to have to figure out
together. It takes power to build them. We can not build them.
We have to stay globally competitive, and we need to bring
those stakeholders together, you bring the power companies with
the data centers, with labor, with the community, to figure out
how do we do this together so that we have, whether it is small
modular reactors, whether it is renewables, whether it is gas,
whatever the power source is, that we are bringing that power
at the same time, so we are not raising these rates for the
ratepayers and we are able to stay globally competitive in the
data center race.
Senator Schiff. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding] The order is Ricketts,
Kelly, Sullivan.
Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you very much, Ranking
Member Sheldon Whitehouse. Also for Chairman Capito.
I have actually just got a few minutes, because I have got
to get to the floor to go preside. So I will be really brief.
Thank you to our witnesses here.
When I was Governor of Nebraska, I actually put Lean Six
Sigma as part of our overall strategy in government, but it
worked very well with streamlining our processes in permitting.
We took, for example, our air construction permits, where it
was 110 steps long, we cut it down to 22 steps, and were able
to cut the time from 198 days down to 65 days. So I think there
is an opportunity here as well to be able, across all, to be
able to streamlining what we are doing in permitting in a lot
of ways that do not impact any sort of environmental standards.
Nebraskans, from across all industries, especially if you
are thinking about construction, transportation, agriculture,
have all advocated for commonsense reform to our permitting
process. Because it does take too long, as you have all
highlighted.
Process improvements can be continuous. They are not. Every
single industry benefits from efficient and predictable
regulation.
Efficient, predictable regulatory frameworks drive down
costs. Mr. Bechtel, you were just talking about also driving
down greenhouse gases. Puts more money back in people's
pockets. It is how we restore our cost effectiveness.
In Nebraska, this looks like timely approvals for roads,
utility projects, pipelines and all the essentials that go into
economic growth and infrastructure development. We also talked
about certainty in project development. I agree with that 100
percent. It is essential for insuring projects not only begin
but are completed with the permits that they were issued, and
to providing certainty. We also need to make sure we are doing
a lawsuit reform, enforcement of time lines, interagency
collaboration, all of this is critical as Congress takes up
this issue.
These changes ultimately will save time and taxpayer
dollars, all while maintaining environmental standards, and to
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would just add
to, again, the Keystone Pipeline was canceled in Nebraska. I
recall being at the front end of this project even before I was
Governor of Nebraska. Those jobs were good union jobs, Mr.
Booker, that were paying, some of them, over $100 an hour. It
was really, really good jobs that got canceled, because Joe
Biden canceled the permit.
So again, predictability, I agree with as well.
Sadly, I do not have any time to ask questions, because I
have got to get to the floor. But again, thank you all for
being here today to help us with this very important process.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to
thank the witnesses here. I think this is one of the most
important hearings of the year, certainly in this committee it
is. I think we have a great opportunity, it is a bipartisan
group of witnesses.
I want to thank Mr. Bechtel, Mr. Meyer, for all you are
doing for American energy. Really want to thank Mr. Booker for
all you are doing for American energy and Alaska energy. The
laborers up in my great State are just essential, building out
America, building out Alaska.
Matter of fact, one of my first op-eds that I had as a new
U.S. Senator in the Hill Magazine, Hill newspaper, I wrote with
Terry O'Sullivan, the great former, now you are the great
current LIUNA president. This was all about permitting reform,
and how important it is to energy infrastructure, and No. 1,
jobs. Good jobs.
So I am going to show you something real quick to make the
point Senator Markey--because what Senator Markey was saying,
no offense, I am friends with Senator Markey, is baloney. This
is what my State endured. Seventy executive orders and
executive actions, singularly focused on Alaska. We have the
back to show all the--seven zero. Singularly focused on my
State to shut it down, oil, gas, you name it, everything, by
President Biden. Alaska was the No. 1 target.
You think that killed jobs, Mr. Booker? Trust me, a lot of
your members.
So then, President Trump comes in, which was great, because
I asked him, Mr. President, are you going to get rid of Biden's
EOs that are crushing my State's economy? By the way, killing
American energy, right? That is not good. Biden was sanctioning
Alaska more than he sanctioned Iran and Venezuela, the oil and
gas. That is a fact.
So President Trump comes in and he says, no, I am going to
unleash Alaska. Day one I get this great executive order that
is trying to reverse all the Biden stuff. So I appreciate the
President and his team.
By the way, the one State for Senator Markey that did do
great during Biden was New Mexico. Because the senior Senator
from New Mexico I am sure got in Deb Haaland's ear, the
Secretary of Interior from New Mexico, they got more than half
of all Federal drilling permits. Shut down Alaska, drill, baby,
drill in New Mexico, because it was a Democrat State. Pure and
simple politics.
So, little bit of crocodile tears over there on the other
side. Senator Whitehouse is one of my best friends in the
Senate, but no offense, man, this is what goes around comes
around, and you are getting a little taste of the medicine
Alaska has gotten by Democrats.
Senator Whitehouse. None taken.
Senator Sullivan. But here is the point. I am going to ask
questions. We have a great opportunity to stop this like, you
know, pendulum. My State now, we got a President and
administration that is trying to help everything, on
permitting. The previous administration targeted us, No. 1,
more than terrorist states.
So what we need is permitting reform in the law. This is
the moment. I think it is a great opportunity for all of us. I
think Senator Whitehouse would agree.
So let me ask Mr. Booker, Mr. Bechtel, you keep talking
about certainty, timelines. There is a lot of ways to do that.
There is litigation certainty. You talk about 28 percent of all
projects get delayed up to 4 years just by litigation in your
testimony. Mr. Booker, you were constantly talking about, need
secure timelines that we can agree on.
So what are the, when you guys are looking for certainty,
what are the top ones that you want us to focus on? To Mr.
Booker, if we get permitting reform in the law, do you have any
doubt that that will create more jobs, not less jobs?
So why do not you start with that question, and then to
both of you, and maybe Mr. Meyer as well, the key elements of
certainty, what are the top ones? Because there is judicial
reform, there is litigation reform, there is standing, there is
Federal agencies, moving them out on a quicker timeline. What
do you guys think is the key thing?
It is really important. We had a bunch of our building
trades that I called for informal meeting just a couple of
weeks ago to say, what do you guys need. Because this is the
moment. I have been working on this issue since I got here, 11
years ago, and we have the moment. Let's do it.
So, Mr. Booker?
Mr. Booker. The first question is easy, yes, permitting
reform is going to create more jobs. Brendan testified to it
earlier, a couple of trillion dollars hanging in the balance
because of waiting for permits. So if we get rid of some of
those, not get of the regulations, but if we can streamline,
make it easier to get these in a streamlined process, obviously
it is going to create more jobs.
Probably the No. 1 thing for LIUNA and for our members is
that Section 401 water quality certification and to get some
certainty around that. Because right now, the current system
just allows for that certification to go to the States.
Depending on the color of the State, depending on the type of
the energy depends on whether you get a permit or not.
So let's get some certainty around that. Give us a yes or a
no. If the answer is no, tell us why so that we can reapply. If
the answer is yes, then let's go build it. Right now, we do not
get an answer, which means the projects are not being built,
which is why there is $2.5 trillion hanging in the balance of
capital that is ready to be invested in this Country.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Mr. Bechtel, in terms of certainty, what are your
priorities?
Mr. Bechtel. Senator Sullivan, I will do the speed round on
this. The full details are in the BRT report that I submitted
with my testimony.
There are four things. The first is redundancy, get rid of
it. We are studying the same environmental impact three, four,
five times across different agencies. It is not thorough, it is
wasteful. Typically, you have to go through a State process.
The State regulators are creating really good data. Can we just
use that same data and not have to recreate it three, four,
five different times for different agencies?
The second are deadlines. Right now there is no consequence
for agencies that sit on permit applications.
Solution. Ninety days after an EIS or EIA has been issued,
you get a no or it defaults to yes. If there is no answer in 90
days, the default should be yes. That is reasonable. It is
achievable. It drives accountability.
Modernize the process. We are using a 1970's playbook for
21st century infrastructure. We should be using the categorical
exclusions we have more consistently. We should be using
programmatic reviews the way they were intended. Our
competitors, like China, are not waiting right now. We should
not be either.
Then the last thing, I know this is something you are
particularly passionate about, sir, but litigation. I shared
the statistics already. I talked earlier, average litigation
delay is 4.2 years, while average construction costs go up
about 40 percent over those 4 years. There is a tremendous
amount of, yes, private capital but also taxpayer dollars being
destroyed as part of that delay. Eighty percent of those times
in those cases, the agency's permits stand as issued.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Bechtel. So what are we doing here?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Just real quick, Mr. Chairman, something you know, Donlin
Mine, that is one of the biggest gold mines, we have been
trying to get that permitted in Alaska. It is a great
opportunity now, there are a lot of great investors.
Six years after the EPA and Army Corps issued a Clean Water
404 permit, 6 years, a group of far left environmentalists
sued, and now it is in litigation. I mean, can you believe
that? It is just crazy. James Callahan, head of the Operating
Engineers, said NEPA has evolved into a massive edifice capable
of destroying project after project, destroying, not helping
job after job in virtually every sector of the economy.
We need to fix it. This is our great bipartisan opportunity
to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record this
outstanding Op Ed in the Hill newspaper by Terry O'Sullivan and
Dan Sullivan many years ago on the need for permitting reform,
showing the LIUNA-Senate agreement on this important issue.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. That concludes the hearing, so on
behalf of the Chair, who had to go to another commitment, and
by the way, I hope you think it is a minor good sign that the
Chair feels comfortable enough about the Ranking Member to let
me close out the hearing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. This is part of the bipartisanship that
is alive and well in this committee.
Let me, on behalf of the Chair, thank all the witnesses and
all my colleagues for participating in today's hearing.
Note that Senators who wish to submit written questions for
the record have until 5 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, February
11th to do so. Note that the witnesses' responses to those
questions are due back to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 25th, 2 weeks later, and will be submitted
for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]