[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6001-H6010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROMOTING INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR REVIEW OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
ACT
General Leave
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2910.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 454 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2910.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1426
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2910) to provide for Federal and State agency coordination in the
approval of certain authorizations under the Natural Gas Act, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 19, 2017, on page H6001, the following appeared: The
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
The online version has been corrected to read: The CHAIR.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
========================= END NOTE =========================
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2910, the Promoting
Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act,
introduced by my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).
I want to congratulate him for his work on this very important piece
of legislation that, in fact, will streamline the permit process for
the building of energy infrastructure, which will strengthen our
economy, create the jobs that we want, and, in fact, increase our
energy security. Very important.
This bill is going to address the critical need to expand and
modernize the Nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure by promoting
a more timely and efficient review.
Mr. Chairman, by establishing FERC as the lead agency, this bill is
going to bring greater certainty, accountability, and transparency to
the siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. Unfortunately,
many important projects have been delayed unnecessarily while waiting
for permits from participating agencies, and when siting a pipeline
project, multiple permits are always required, permits under the Clean
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act.
So FERC often coordinates with a variety of Federal, State, and local
governments and Indian Tribes to balance a wide range of issues,
including the potential impacts on environmental and wildlife
resources, land use, and, of course, property rights.
This bill is going to improve the permitting process by strengthening
the lead agency role of FERC in further defining the process for
participating in Federal and State agencies, and the intent of these
provisions is to involve stakeholders sooner so that they can be
involved in the setting of the schedule and identify issues of concern
earlier in the process.
Further, the legislation requires that agencies conduct their
respective reviews concurrently and in conjunction with the project-
related review conducted by FERC in compliance with NEPA--in compliance
with NEPA.
{time} 1430
To be clear, we are not skipping steps, we are just saying that one
part of the process shouldn't hold up the entire project if progress
can be made on other required permits.
So this bill is going to encourage more timely and efficient reviews,
a more robust and reliable energy pipeline system, more affordable
energy prices for every American.
Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas, who has brought
this bill before us through the committee process.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910. The bill shortcuts the
important review process for interstate natural gas pipeline projects,
a process which already boasts one of the quickest review periods for
any type of major energy project. The bill is unnecessary.
To my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee's point when
he says that too many of these projects are being delayed: to the
contrary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testified in front
of our committee
[[Page H6002]]
that almost 90 percent of interstate natural gas pipeline projects are
approved within 1 year. This is a dangerous bill because of what it
does to short-circuit safety and environmental review processes.
Now, I want to say, at the outset, pipelines can be a safe and
practical way to transport natural gas. Natural gas pipelines are part
of a modern energy infrastructure system--I would say that almost all
Democrats agree with that--but what this bill does is it shortcuts, it
overrides safety, private property rights, environmental concerns.
This is a problem, because when you look at the long list of serious
accidents involving natural gas pipelines, the fatalities, the
accidents, the injuries, it is just inappropriate and very poor public
policy to give those natural gas pipelines a pass.
Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor), a wonderful colleague and a Member who has really shown
extraordinary leadership on this matter and other matters that appear
before this Congress and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 2910 because it is a bill that
offers a solution in search of a problem.
As FERC testified before the Energy Subcommittee just this past May,
a whopping 88 percent of natural gas pipeline applications are
currently processed within a year, and the number one reason for the
delays in the approval process was due to applicants submitting
incomplete paperwork.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 2910 does nothing to actually address the reason
behind the delays, but instead will allow incomplete applications to be
considered, will allow incomplete data from aerial surveys to be
considered, and would minimize the input of States and agencies
responsible for protecting the environment, sensitive lands, and other
natural resources.
However, that said, one of the most egregious aspects of this bill is
that it would actually make it easier for private pipeline companies to
claim eminent domain and seize private property of hardworking American
citizens.
Mr. Chair, as we have seen in the past and continue to witness today,
the issue of constructing these major pipelines through aquifers,
private property, cultural sites, and other sensitive lands is a topic
that causes great public consternation and great public concern.
Congress should be taking into account the sensitive nature of this
extremely divisive issue by listening to our own constituents, the
American people, and giving them more of a voice in these very
difficult decisions, rather than trying to limit their input.
Mr. Chair, to address this critical issue, both Ranking Member
Pallone, as well as my colleague, Congresswoman Watson Coleman of New
Jersey, and I offered amendments to deny private companies the right to
claim eminent domain unless constructing a pipeline was found to be in
the public interest, and not solely as a way for companies to turn a
profit.
Mr. Chair, even though this amendment was brought up and voted down
by my Republican colleagues in the Energy and Commerce Committee, it
was ruled nongermane to today's discussion for some very odd, but also
for some very obvious reason.
In other words, Mr. Chair, the majority party has determined that
although they are pushing a bill that would make it easier for private
companies to seize lands from private citizens for financial gain,
Members of Congress are not allowed to take up an up-or-down vote on
that issue on the floor here today.
This Congress is telling the American people: Hell, no, you won't
have a voice in this. We are here operating solely in the interests of
private companies for their private profit.
Mr. Chair, I can assure you that the American people will not agree
with this decision to place the interests of private natural gas
companies above the rights and interests of private landowners.
Congress should not make it easier for private companies to claim
eminent domain and potentially negatively impact historical sites,
reservoirs, farms, and other private properties while at the same time
limiting the ability for States, Tribes, and local communities to
provide input into the process.
Mr. Chair, why are we allowing these private companies to have
eminent domain over the private property, over the land of American
citizens, without any input from States on this particular matter?
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge
all my colleagues to oppose it as well.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why the parliamentarians ruled that
the amendments on eminent domain are not applicable here: because they
are not germane. Eminent domain is not part of this bill. In fact, the
underlying natural gas act requires that eminent domain proceedings,
``shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in
similar action or proceedings in the courts of the State where the
property is situated.''
This doesn't change that, and that is why those eminent domain
amendments were not made in order.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Flores), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Upton for yielding me time
in his effort to bring this bill to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R.
2910. Thanks to the shale revolution, America is a top global producer
of natural gas, and in the past several years, natural gas has become
the top fuel choice for generating electricity in our Nation.
My constituents in Texas have seen the dramatic benefits of the shale
revolution and pay some of the lowest electricity costs in the Nation.
For example, last April, the residential price for electricity was just
over 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. However, the average price in
Massachusetts was almost 21 cents per kilowatt-hour.
America's domestic energy outlook has completely flipped from
scarcity to abundance, yet why do some parts of the country, primarily
in the northeast, pay twice as much for electricity? There is one clear
reason: some areas lack the needed pipeline infrastructure to bring
natural gas to consumers.
The reason for this is that some State and Federal agencies are
failing to make timely decisions on the necessary pipeline permits to
deliver natural gas to consumers.
We can and we should modernize our pipeline infrastructure to match
our abundant natural gas resources. Making the permitting process more
efficient enables and encourages a more robust and reliable pipeline
infrastructure system; that way, all parts of the country can realize
the benefits of clean, affordable, and abundant natural gas.
My bill, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural
Gas Pipelines Act, builds on important permit reforms under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 by bringing greater accountability, predictability,
and transparency to the process to approve interstate natural gas
pipelines.
This bill requires early notification to all participating agencies,
States, and Indian Tribes, and it reinforces FERC's status as the lead
agency for coordination.
It further establishes a clear process for consultation and
concurrent reviews among Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes,
and sets deadlines for final decisions.
Mr. Chairman, these are commonsense reforms that reduce interagency
bureaucracy, and I think that we can all agree that permitting should
be more transparent and more accountable.
H.R. 2910 enhances certainty for pipeline applicants, but it is
important to note that this bill does not guarantee an outcome, it does
not guarantee an approval on any application, and it does not change
any existing environmental laws. So all the rhetoric we just heard over
the last few minutes about it changing the environment is absolutely
100 percent false.
It does not change any eminent domain laws or adversely affect
private property rights. So all that argument we heard a few minutes
ago is false. So
[[Page H6003]]
we could conclude this debate pretty quickly if the other side will
acknowledge the fact of what this bill really does do and what it
doesn't do.
It does, however, ensure that involved agencies do their job and that
they act on appropriate projects in a timely manner.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. FLORES. Similar provisions have passed the House as stand-alone
legislation and were also included in the comprehensive energy bill
that passed the House last Congress. Additionally, H.R. 2910 passed out
of the Energy and Commerce Committee on a bipartisan vote.
My bill enables more reliable infrastructure to deliver affordable,
environmentally friendly natural gas to consumers.
This American energy resource serves as an important energy source
for hardworking families and powers our economy.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2910.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I think the point on eminent domain
is the fact that this bill will trample on the rights of landowners,
because my colleague is correct, current law gives natural gas pipeline
companies access to Federal eminent domain authority, allowing these
corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. But
what the bill does, it would further narrow the already few
opportunities that landowners and stakeholders have for review of
safety and important environmental protections.
It also would allow surveying while circumventing local permitting
and without property owner consent, and that is a very significant
change, because it would allow Federal and State agencies to accept
aerial survey data and provides that the agencies may grant conditional
approvals based on that data, and that can be unwise and unsafe. So we
wanted to highlight that as a very significant concern for those
Members who are concerned about eminent domain and private property
rights.
Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Watson Coleman).
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity
to thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me some time to speak
on what I consider to be a very important issue.
Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 2910, the Promoting
Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.
{time} 1445
This industry-backed bill provides FERC with unnecessary authorities
that put the interest of companies over that of the people and the
environment.
The current process that FERC uses to approve pipelines is inherently
flawed, genuinely threatens our green spaces, water resources, and
public and private lands.
By allowing this bill to pass, we are permitting FERC to exclude the
input of those who would be directly impacted in exchange for
benefiting the fossil fuel industry. We need to have a more
comprehensive process that considers the effects these pipelines will
have on local communities, which is why I introduced H.R. 2649, the
Safer Pipelines Act of 2017.
My legislation is about inclusiveness, ensuring that the voice of
communities impacted by a proposed pipeline are heard loud and clear.
I have seen this problem up close.
One project before FERC is a proposed PennEast pipeline, which would
run through my congressional district. The PennEast plan has been
fraught by community concerns on issues ranging from potential
contamination of drinking water and destruction of environmentally
sensitive areas.
Despite these issues, FERC's final environmental impact statement
erroneously concluded that the project would have minimal impact.
Just last month, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection rejected the construction permits due to PennEast's
continuous refusal to provide simple environmental surveys and
information requested by the State.
Not only does this bill severely threaten clean water in
environmentally sensitive areas, it also tramples on the rights of
private property owners and communities.
Jacqueline Evans of New Jersey has shared this story with us:
The farm I built with my children would be completely
destroyed by the 36-inch pipe built to the weakest standards
allowable.
The pipeline route is less than 200 feet from my children's
bedrooms, putting them in a designated ``incineration zone.''
Our well, that provides water for our family and our
livestock, is threatened.
PennEast has threatened me by insisting I sign a ``deal''
of less than 4 percent of the value of our home, or lose it
through eminent domain.
PennEast's intimidation tactics include telling us that
FERC will approve the pipeline with or without surveys and
environmental studies that are required.
Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable.
I offered two amendments to this bill that the Rules Committee
refused to allow on the floor. One would have limited the use of
eminent domain for gas pipeline projects, and the other would have
limited the use of area remote surveys.
We cannot prioritize the wishes of private pipeline companies at the
expense of clean drinking water, our environment and natural resources,
and the rights of private owners.
So I stand here today begging my colleagues to vote for the people
and to reject this bill by voting against it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Upton and Mr. Flores
for the work that they have done on this piece of legislation. Mr.
Flores spoke of the need to do this and why it is so important for us
to begin to simplify and clean up the rules and the regulation process
so that we do provide certainty not only for our constituents, but also
for industry.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, what we do is to provide hope to
millions of workers who work in the energy sector.
I want to read from a letter of support. This is from the
International Union of Operating Engineers. They sent a letter in
support of Mr. Flores' bill, and it gets right to the heart of the
issue.
``Domestic energy production provides good-paying jobs for members of
the IUOE and other construction craftworkers and continues to employ
thousands of our members. Uncertainty and delay during environmental
reviews, however, hinder the growth of jobs related to the Nation's
energy infrastructure. Congress should give FERC additional tools to
keep Federal agencies accountable and maximum coordination in the
permitting process.''
Mr. Chairman, this is from individuals who work in this energy
sector, who understand the vital importance of having a secure, safe,
and stable energy supply. They are individuals who want to see growth
in this industry. They also want to make certain that we do this in the
appropriate way--as we have done, as H.R. 2910 does--to respect
individual and private property works.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Giving FERC the authority that they need to go in and
consolidate and simplify this environmental process for these
interstate gas projects is the right thing to do.
Many times, what slows these projects down and causes the situation
that the International Union of Operating Engineers speaks to is the
fact that you have multiple permits that are required, and they are
from multiple agencies and multiple levels of government. Any time you
are going through that, there are more opportunities for mistakes and
it is going to be more costly.
So I congratulate my colleague for a job well done, and I encourage
my colleagues to vote for and support H.R. 2910.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear: I heard
the comments of my colleague from Tennessee, and the Democrats do
support natural gas pipelines, a very important part of our energy
infrastructure.
And, as a reminder, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves
[[Page H6004]]
almost 90 percent of all pipeline applications within 1 year. And if
there is any holdup recently, it is because the Republican-led Senate
has not confirmed an additional FERC appointee. That is holding up the
process of approving more natural gas pipelines.
What we don't approve of, however, is a spill that attempts to short-
circuit very important safety and environmental review processes and
take private property rights away from landowners.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency
Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
We heard from FERC that 88 percent of projects are certified within 1
year following a completed application. It is clear that, under the
existing process, these projects are moving forward without significant
delays.
We have not seen good evidence that we need to further tilt the
process in favor of pipeline companies, which is what the bill before
us today would do.
While I am concerned about a number of provisions in this bill, I
specifically want to highlight the section that would require Federal
and State agencies to accept aerial survey data, such as data collected
by drones, and allow these agencies to grant conditional approvals
based on that data.
Aerial data have limitations and can be insufficient. These data may
not account for historic sites, endangered species, or wetlands. But,
under this bill, agencies would be required to consider the project.
Granting conditional permits based on inadequate data will ultimately
not speed up the process, but what it does instead is circumvent the
rights of landowners.
We also should be more thoughtful about changing this process, given
the implications that will impact private landowners' rights.
Under the law, pipeline companies are able to use eminent domain
authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to
build their pipelines. This bill would further restrict the already
limited opportunities that private landowners and concerned citizens
have to weigh in on proposed projects.
Streamlining is fine, but we are considering expediting a process
that can result in the use of eminent domain. The bar for seizing
private property should be high, and lowering that bar is to the
detriment of private landowners.
Historically, when considering the use of eminent domain, the
question has been: Is it in the public's interest?
But this bill is forcing the question to shift to: Is it in the
company's interest?
That is not acceptable to me, and it certainly isn't acceptable to
the general public.
If we continue to expedite and rubber stamp these projects, consumers
will be on the hook for unviable and, eventually, stranded assets.
We need to look at our energy infrastructure based on holistic,
regional needs that take into account how many projects are under
consideration and how it would impact existing infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2910,
legislation sponsored by my friend and Western Caucus member, Bill
Flores.
One area of wide bipartisan agreement is the need to support critical
infrastructure in the United States. This bill presents an important
opportunity to deliver on our commitment to modernize infrastructure,
grow the economy, and support safe, reliable American-made energy.
By improving agency and industry coordination, we can provide more
certainty regarding the timeframe and procedures of the pipeline review
process. By making these improvements, we will ensure that the energy
we produce right here in America can be transported in the safest
possible manner.
If my colleagues are truly serious about protecting the environment,
we should be promoting American-made energy, where we know it will be
produced in adherence to the highest environmental and safety
standards.
This bill does exactly that by making the improvements necessary to
modernize our pipeline approval process. These improvements are
necessary to match the advancements in shale gas technology and
increased demand for safe, reliable, and domestically-sourced energy.
While roads and bridges often get the most attention when we talk
about the need for updated infrastructure, modern pipelines and other
energy infrastructure are sorely needed to support our economy and
power our homes and businesses.
Promoting efficient and comprehensive cooperation within our
regulatory process is an effort that is not only bipartisan, but plain
common sense.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for sponsoring this
much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of
this commonsense bill.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when we had a hearing earlier in the year in the Energy
and Commerce Committee, I assumed there was a major backlog of
unreviewed applications that spurred my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to draft this bill. But then we heard from experts from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about this, and they testified
that nearly 90 percent of these major infrastructure projects are
approved in less than a year.
Many companies working to have other interstate energy projects
approved can only dream of a Federal review occurring in less than a
year. So this is already a very efficient process.
I would say this bill is unnecessary, it is duplicative, and it is
wasteful. And I know many in the Congress here are looking for ways to
eliminate government waste and duplication.
The Congress has already taken action to streamline the Federal
environmental permitting review process for major infrastructure
projects. Sometimes our memories are short, but it was just last
Congress where Congress adopted the major Transportation and
Infrastructure bill, the FAST Act. It passed in a bipartisan manner and
was signed into law.
The FAST Act authorized the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering
Council, or FPISC, to improve the timeliness, predictability, and
transparency of Federal environmental review processes for these major
infrastructure projects.
Now, FPISC is already getting underway. It has set up this enhanced
coordination and transparency by establishing a lead agency for the
project, recommends performance schedules, and public project
timetables. Many of the provisions in this bill, however, seem to be
largely duplicative of the activities of FPISC and what they are
already doing.
FPISC is already overseeing and coordinating permitting processes for
32 major infrastructure projects, including seven interstate natural
gas pipelines--just to highlight that this is an unnecessary power grab
that really is short-circuiting very important safety and environmental
review processes.
{time} 1500
There is no problem across this country right now with getting your
natural gas pipeline approved unless there is a real problem in the
details of the application.
Now, I used to practice environmental law in a previous lifetime, and
what I learned is, when you provide for these short-circuited processes
that keep the public out, that keep other stakeholders out, what you
are going to do on the back end, you are going to cause more lawsuits,
more delays, rather than just adhering to the proper process, answering
questions as you go along, pressing ahead, altering the route when it
needs to be rerouted.
So this is a very important issue. The details really matter here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I include in the Record three letters in support. The National
Electrical
[[Page H6005]]
Contractors Association has a letter of support. The National Taxpayers
Union has a letter of support, as well as the National Association of
Manufacturers.
National Electrical
Contractors Association,
Bethesda, MD, July 18, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the National Electrical
Contractors Association (NECA), I am writing in strong
support of H.R. 2883, Promoting Cross-Border Energy
Infrastructure Act which would establish a more uniform and
transparent approval process for the construction,
connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas
pipelines or electric transmission facilities for the import
or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity. NECA also
supports H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for
Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, which would help address
the need to modernize the nation's natural gas pipeline
infrastructure by promoting more timely and efficient reviews
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NECA
believes these critical pieces of legislation will facilitate
construction projects along the United States' borders and
encourage energy independence.
NECA is the nationally recognized voice of the $130 billion
electrical construction industry that brings power, light,
and communication technology to buildings and communities
across the U.S. NECA's national office and its 119 local
chapters are dedicated to enhancing the industry through
continuing education, labor relations, safety codes,
standards development, and government relations. NECA is
committed to advocating for a comprehensive energy policy
that addresses all available opportunities for energy
exploration and independence.
By establishing a more concrete process for the approval of
construction projects to import oil, natural gas, and
electricity, this legislation would create more jobs in the
construction industry while working towards America's energy
independence. Construction along the U.S. border to import
oil, natural gas, and electricity will greatly enhance our
nation's energy security and promote energy independence. It
is clear Congress plays a critical role in streamlining the
approval process and enacting policies that support approval
and construction of energy infrastructure projects. The
benefits of these projects are clear: job creation, energy
security, energy independence, and economic growth; such
construction is in the national interest. NECA strongly
endorses H.R. 2883 and H.R. 2910 and believes that these
bills will deliver many benefits to our nation.
Sincerely,
Marco A. Giamberardino, MPA,
Executive Director, Government Affairs.
____
National Taypayers Union,
Washington, DC, July 18, 2017.
National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert
NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``YES'' on the
following bills that would reduce regulatory burdens and
promote economic growth.
H.R. 806, ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017'':
This legislation would extend the timeframe for compliance
with the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards and put in place
process reforms going forward. The bungled 2008/2015
revisions have created an implementation headache for many
states, now tasked with simultaneously working to enact dual
standards. The costs are high for states and localities--
regardless of whether they achieve attainment. Nonattainment
means lost funds for highways and other essential
infrastructure projects. On the other hand, reaching
attainment could require limits on new construction and
manufacturing production, expensive retrofitting, and
oppressive new rules. Either way, jobs and investment will go
elsewhere without the more feasible, predictable reforms in
H.R. 806.
H.R. 2883, ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure
Act'': This legislation would streamline the archaic cross-
border permitting process for energy facilities that stretch
across the borders we share with Mexico and Canada. The
current Presidential Permit regime is far from clear and can
leave projects in regulatory limbo for years on end. Creating
a consolidated and standardized approval process would
increase the Congressional accountability provided for in
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting Congress
the authority to ``regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,''
while eliminating costly regulatory hurdles that stand
between consumers and low-cost energy options.
H.R. 2910, ``Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review
of Natural Gas Pipelines Act'': This legislation would
facilitate the timely review of natural gas pipeline
permitting by clearly designating the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission as the lead agency responsible for
interstate natural gas pipeline site permitting. This, along
with other measures to increase efficiency such as providing
for concurrent reviews and commonsense timetables, would help
avoid duplication and other unnecessary delays. In addition,
H.R. 2910 would increase transparency in the permitting
process through more public disclosure, as well as create new
opportunities for public input.
In general, markets crave certainty in order to anticipate
where resources should be allocated. This is doubly true for
the giant infrastructure and manufacturing projects these
bills address. Planning, personnel, and capital all depend on
a transparent, predictable, consistent regulatory process.
Together, these reforms would result in increased investment
in our energy infrastructure, spurring job-growth in an
essential and lucrative sector of our economy, and enhancing
low-cost energy options for consumers.
Roll call votes on H.R. 806, H.R. 2883, and H.R. 2910 will
be included in our annual Rating of Congress and a ``YES''
vote will be considered the pro-taxpayer position.
If you have any questions, please contact NTU Federal
Affairs Manager.
____
National Association
of Manufacturers,
July 19, 2017.
Dear Representatives: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in
the United States representing manufacturers in every
industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support
H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review
of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, introduced by Rep. Bill Flores
(R-TX).
Domestic natural gas has transformed the U.S. economy, made
our companies more competitive, created jobs and put money
back in the pockets of working Americans. Manufacturers use
natural gas as a fuel for direct process uses, such as
drying, melting, process cooling, machine drive and
refrigeration; as a fuel for direct non-process uses in
manufacturing establishments, such as heating, ventilation,
HVAC and lighting; as a fuel for indirect purposes, such as
boilers used to produce electricity and steam; and as a
feedstock in refining, chemicals and primary metals sectors.
Over the next decade, total demand for natural gas is
projected to increase by 40 percent. Domestic manufacturing
is poised to be a key driver of this growth. Consequently,
major investments in new pipeline infrastructure are required
to ensure manufacturers have a steady, reliable stream of
natural gas.
Unfortunately, permitting these infrastructure projects
remains a lengthy process. Permitting should follow a
comprehensive process that ensures timely and predictable
decision-making, but federal and state permitting agencies
can create roadblocks and delays when coordination is
inadequate. Strengthening the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (FERC's) coordination of interagency processes
is critical to the permitting of natural gas infrastructure
and ensuring manufacturers have access to this affordable
resource.
H.R. 2910 would reinforce FERC's role as the lead agency
for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by directing FERC
to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect of
an application to establish a schedule for concurrent
reviews, and to impose deadlines for final decisions. H.R.
2910 would ensure projects undergo a robust agency review
while completing that review in a timely and predictable
manner.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes on H.R. 2910, including procedural motions, may be
considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the
115th Congress.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Aric Newhouse,
Senior Vice President,
Policy and Government Relations.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire if the gentlewoman has any
further speakers.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker
and some submissions for the Record.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers at this point, so I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I include in the Record some information on pipeline incidents from
the U.S. Government, just to highlight the fact that it is vitally
important that these pipelines undergo safety and environmental
reviews. These are the pipeline incident reports from 1997-2016 for all
States. I will just read a few of these statistics here.
In 2016, you had 16 fatalities from natural gas pipeline incidents,
83 injuries, total cost of property damage, over $300 million. In 2015,
10 fatalities, 49 injuries, over 328 incidents. There is a 3-year
average from 2014-2016 of 312 incidents. The 5-year average across the
country is 299 incidents; 10-year average, 286 incidents.
For fatalities, the 3-year average, 15 fatalities; the 5-year
average, 13; the 10-year average, 13; the 20-year average, 16.
And for injuries, the 3-year average, 75 injuries; the 5-year
average, 64 injuries; the 10-year average, 64 injuries; the 20-year
average, 65 injuries. And the property damage report, just the 3-year
average is about $315 million.
[[Page H6006]]
PHMSA Pipeline Incidents: Multi-Year Averages (19974-2016)
Incident Type: Significant, System Type: All, State: All.
Incident count:
3 Year Average, (2014-2016), 312; 5 Year Average, (2012-
2016), 299; 10 Year Average, (2007-2016), 286; 20 Year
Average, (1997-2016), 284.
Fatalities:
3 Year Average, 15; 5 Year Average, 13; 10 Year Average,
13; 20 Year Average, 16.
Injuries:
3 Year Average, 75; 5 Year Average, 64; 10 Year Average,
64; 20 Year Average, 65.
Total cost:
3 Year Average, $315,138,727; 5 Year Average, $306,888,604;
10 Year Average, $475,607,772; 20 Year Average, $389,601,666.
2017 Year-to-date:
Incidents, 118; Fatalities, 1; Injuries, 16; Total Cost,
$49,385,394.
Calendar year, Number, Fatalities, Injuries, Total cost
current year dollars:
1997, 267, 10, 77, $110,377,793; 1998, 295, 21, 81,
$174,516,797; 1999, 275, 22, 108, $178,313,209; 2000, 290,
38, 81, $257,659,464; 2001, 233, 7, 61, $79,086,596; 2002,
258, 12, 49, $124,067,949; 2003, 297, 12, 71, $163,459,897;
2004, 309, 23, 56, $314,362,210; 2005, 336, 16, 46,
$1,476,994,582; 2006, 257, 19, 34, $157,117,098; 2007, 265,
15, 46, $147,800,810; 2008, 278, 8, 54, $592,290,867; 2009,
275, 13, 62, $180,360,208; 2010, 264, 19, 103,
$1,854,123,037; 2011, 287, 12, 51, $447,059,777; 2012, 254,
10, 54, $233,813,285; 2013, 304, 8, 42, $355,213,552; 2014,
301, 19, 94, $305,253,746; 2015, 328, 10, 49, $338,297,940;
2016, 308, 16, 83, $301,864,494; Grand Total, 5,681, 310,
1,302, $7,792,033,312.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it is
inappropriate to short-circuit the very important safety and
environmental review processes for our interstate natural gas
pipelines. This is a solution in search of a problem.
We know that FERC approves these gas pipeline applications at about
90 percent. The only reason a little delay has fallen off recently is
because the Senate has not approved the new FERC appointee over a
matter of 5 months. If they would do that, I think they could get back
on track as well.
The ones that are not approved are undergoing very significant
review. Even in the case for the major projects now, we have a new
system, a coordinated effort through the FPISC, the new council that is
overseeing interstate natural gas pipeline, so it is duplicative as
well.
It is inappropriate for a process that already grants eminent domain
rights through pipeline companies to go through private property now to
short-circuit the environmental and safety reviews. That is just really
going too far for corporations and their profits, where landowners and
other stakeholders have to have the ability to weigh in. Otherwise, you
are going to cause more lawsuits and more delays at the very end of the
process and, I think, do exactly the opposite of what the author of the
legislation intends to do.
So at this point, based upon all of the evidence that has been
presented, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Don't
elevate corporate profits over the interests of the public.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, this
streamlines the process. There are still no shortcuts that are here. We
require that the agencies work concurrently with each other. At the end
of the day, we know that pipelines are literally the safest way to
transport whatever it is, oil, gas, to the consumers, and at a lower
cost. It is safer and, obviously, helps the most vulnerable with lower
costs.
We have literally millions of miles of pipelines. And I would note
that we passed major, major bipartisan legislation in several
Congresses--it was bipartisan, it was overwhelmingly bipartisan--that
President Obama signed into law increasing the safety standards and
fines for any new pipelines that are built. Those laws, obviously, stay
on the books.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. I look
forward to the debate on a couple of the amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-28. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2910
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting Interagency
Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act''.
SEC. 2. FERC PROCESS COORDINATION FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
PROJECTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
(2) Federal authorization.--The term ``Federal
authorization'' has the meaning given that term in section
15(a) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717n(a)).
(3) NEPA review.--The term ``NEPA review'' means the
process of reviewing a proposed Federal action under section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332).
(4) Project-related nepa review.--The term ``project-
related NEPA review'' means any NEPA review required to be
conducted with respect to the issuance of an authorization
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of
public convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act.
(b) Commission NEPA Review Responsibilities.--In acting as
the lead agency under section 15(b)(1) of the Natural Gas Act
for the purposes of complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to
an authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act, the Commission shall, in accordance with this
section and other applicable Federal law--
(1) be the only lead agency;
(2) coordinate as early as practicable with each agency
designated as a participating agency under subsection (d)(3)
to ensure that the Commission develops information in
conducting its project-related NEPA review that is usable by
the participating agency in considering an aspect of an
application for a Federal authorization for which the agency
is responsible; and
(3) take such actions as are necessary and proper to
facilitate the expeditious resolution of its project-related
NEPA review.
(c) Deference to Commission.--In making a decision with
respect to a Federal authorization required with respect to
an application for authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act, each agency shall give
deference, to the maximum extent authorized by law, to the
scope of the project-related NEPA review that the Commission
determines to be appropriate.
(d) Participating Agencies.--
(1) Identification.--The Commission shall identify, as
early as practicable after it is notified by a person
applying for an authorization under section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity
under section 7 of such Act, any Federal or State agency,
local government, or Indian Tribe that may issue a Federal
authorization or is required by Federal law to consult with
the Commission in conjunction with the issuance of a Federal
authorization required for such authorization or certificate.
(2) Invitation.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall invite any agency
identified under paragraph (1) to participate in the review
process for the applicable Federal authorization.
(B) Deadline.--An invitation issued under subparagraph (A)
shall establish a deadline by which a response to the
invitation shall be submitted to the Commission, which may be
extended by the Commission for good cause.
(3) Designation as participating agencies.--The Commission
shall designate an agency identified under paragraph (1) as a
participating agency with respect to an application for
authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act unless the agency informs the Commission, in
writing, by the deadline established pursuant to paragraph
(2)(B), that the agency--
(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
applicable Federal authorization;
(B) has no special expertise or information relevant to any
project-related NEPA review; or
(C) does not intend to submit comments for the record for
the project-related NEPA review conducted by the Commission.
(4) Effect of non-designation.--
(A) Effect on agency.--Any agency that is not designated as
a participating agency under paragraph (3) with respect to an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act may not request or
conduct a NEPA review that is supplemental to the project-
related NEPA review conducted by the Commission, unless the
agency--
(i) demonstrates that such review is legally necessary for
the agency to carry out responsibilities in considering an
aspect of an application for a Federal authorization; and
(ii) requires information that could not have been obtained
during the project-related NEPA review conducted by the
Commission.
(B) Comments; record.--The Commission shall not, with
respect to an agency that is not designated as a
participating agency under paragraph (3) with respect to an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural
[[Page H6007]]
Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity
under section 7 of such Act--
(i) consider any comments or other information submitted by
such agency for the project-related NEPA review conducted by
the Commission; or
(ii) include any such comments or other information in the
record for such project-related NEPA review.
(e) Schedule.--
(1) Deadline for federal authorizations.--A deadline for a
Federal authorization required with respect to an application
for authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act set by the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of
such Act shall be not later than 90 days after the Commission
completes its project-related NEPA review, unless an
applicable schedule is otherwise established by Federal law.
(2) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal and State agency--
(A) that may consider an application for a Federal
authorization required with respect to an application for
authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act shall formulate and implement a plan for
administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable
the agency to ensure completion of Federal authorizations in
compliance with schedules established by the Commission under
section 15(c)(1) of such Act; and
(B) in considering an aspect of an application for a
Federal authorization required with respect to an application
for authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act, shall--
(i) formulate and implement a plan to enable the agency to
comply with the schedule established by the Commission under
section 15(c)(1) of such Act;
(ii) carry out the obligations of that agency under
applicable law concurrently, and in conjunction with, the
project-related NEPA review conducted by the Commission, and
in compliance with the schedule established by the Commission
under section 15(c)(1) of such Act, unless the agency
notifies the Commission in writing that doing so would impair
the ability of the agency to conduct needed analysis or
otherwise carry out such obligations;
(iii) transmit to the Commission a statement--
(I) acknowledging receipt of the schedule established by
the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of the Natural Gas Act;
and
(II) setting forth the plan formulated under clause (i) of
this subparagraph;
(iv) not later than 30 days after the agency receives such
application for a Federal authorization, transmit to the
applicant a notice--
(I) indicating whether such application is ready for
processing; and
(II) if such application is not ready for processing, that
includes a comprehensive description of the information
needed for the agency to determine that the application is
ready for processing;
(v) determine that such application for a Federal
authorization is ready for processing for purposes of clause
(iv) if such application is sufficiently complete for the
purposes of commencing consideration, regardless of whether
supplemental information is necessary to enable the agency to
complete the consideration required by law with respect to
such application; and
(vi) not less often than once every 90 days, transmit to
the Commission a report describing the progress made in
considering such application for a Federal authorization.
(3) Failure to meet deadline.--If a Federal or State
agency, including the Commission, fails to meet a deadline
for a Federal authorization set forth in the schedule
established by the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of the
Natural Gas Act, not later than 5 days after such deadline,
the head of the relevant Federal agency (including, in the
case of a failure by a State agency, the Federal agency
overseeing the delegated authority) shall notify Congress and
the Commission of such failure and set forth a recommended
implementation plan to ensure completion of the action to
which such deadline applied.
(f) Consideration of Applications for Federal
Authorization.--
(1) Issue identification and resolution.--
(A) Identification.--Federal and State agencies that may
consider an aspect of an application for a Federal
authorization shall identify, as early as possible, any
issues of concern that may delay or prevent an agency from
working with the Commission to resolve such issues and
granting such authorization.
(B) Issue resolution.--The Commission may forward any issue
of concern identified under subparagraph (A) to the heads of
the relevant agencies (including, in the case of an issue of
concern that is a failure by a State agency, the Federal
agency overseeing the delegated authority, if applicable) for
resolution.
(2) Remote surveys.--If a Federal or State agency
considering an aspect of an application for a Federal
authorization requires the person applying for such
authorization to submit data, the agency shall consider any
such data gathered by aerial or other remote means that the
person submits. The agency may grant a conditional approval
for the Federal authorization based on data gathered by
aerial or remote means, conditioned on the verification of
such data by subsequent onsite inspection.
(3) Application processing.--The Commission, and Federal
and State agencies, may allow a person applying for a Federal
authorization to fund a third-party contractor to assist in
reviewing the application for such authorization.
(g) Accountability, Transparency, Efficiency.--For an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act that requires multiple
Federal authorizations, the Commission, with input from any
Federal or State agency considering an aspect of the
application, shall track and make available to the public on
the Commission's website information related to the actions
required to complete the Federal authorizations. Such
information shall include the following:
(1) The schedule established by the Commission under
section 15(c)(1) of the Natural Gas Act.
(2) A list of all the actions required by each applicable
agency to complete permitting, reviews, and other actions
necessary to obtain a final decision on the application.
(3) The expected completion date for each such action.
(4) A point of contact at the agency responsible for each
such action.
(5) In the event that an action is still pending as of the
expected date of completion, a brief explanation of the
reasons for the delay.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House
Report 115-235. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Tsongas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 115-235.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 12, after line 9, add the following:
(h) Limitation on Application.--This section shall not
apply to any application for an authorization under section 3
of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience
and necessity under section 7 of such Act with respect to
which any part of a pipeline facility that is a subject of
the application is to be located on lands required under
Federal, State, or local law to be managed for purposes of
natural resource conservation or recreation.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects a robust public
review process for any proposed pipeline that seeks to cross protected
conservation and recreation lands. The legislation before us today,
with its short-circuited environmental reviews, puts treasured public
lands at risk.
My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country,
faces real energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long-term
planning in order to lower energy prices and maintain reliability and
resiliency. Over the past several years, we have seen proposals for new
natural gas pipelines that would stretch hundreds of miles and cross
many different communities.
We must work to identify ways to lower energy prices for our homes
and businesses, and increasing the supply of lower cost natural gas may
be one way to achieve that objective while we transition to cleaner,
more affordable, and sustainable alternatives. However, we cannot, in
the long run, afford to be careless about our other environmental
interests as we make that transition.
These major infrastructure proposals in New England and elsewhere
around the country deserve close and careful scrutiny given the
potential environmental impacts and the costs borne by ratepayers.
Regrettably, this legislation moves us in the wrong direction. This
bill would force FERC to rush decisionmaking, including environmental
reviews necessary to determine if pipelines will have negative impacts
on State forests, parks, wildlife management areas, and wetlands, lands
expressly put aside as a result of a public decision to protect them.
Our Nation has a longstanding history of preserving natural habitats
and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested
enormous public resources toward these goals. These lands and the
decisions behind them deserve to be honored.
In my district, we recently went through the public review process
for a
[[Page H6008]]
proposed natural gas pipeline. Hundreds of my constituents expressed
their concerns about the project. Construction of the pipeline could
have jeopardized local wildlife and impacted both State and federally
designated conservation land, as well as Massachusetts' scarce
farmland.
Thanks to a robust review process, the public had numerous
opportunities to question the project and express these legitimate
concerns, and their views were able to be fully considered.
While I believe we must protect that review process for all
infrastructure projects, my amendment focuses on pipelines that cross
protected conservation and recreation lands.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and protect investments
by Federal taxpayers, States, and local communities in preserving their
natural and historic resources.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that all current reviews
that we do now for pipeline siting, they all remain in place. None of
it goes away. Those same reviews take place.
The gentlewoman's amendment, in our view, is unnecessary because
nothing in this legislation would limit environmental protections or
affect laws that govern the multiple use of our public lands.
Pipelines, we know, as I said earlier, are the safest, most efficient
way to transport energy supplies. The overwhelming majority of
Americans strongly support modernizing our infrastructure, including
pipelines, to ensure stable, affordable supplies. And I would note, we
have millions of miles of pipelines across the country.
So what is the alternative if you don't have a pipeline?
Well, it is going to be more expensive and, frankly, the accident
record is not perfect either. It includes rail or truck, often at a
higher cost, which then is passed along to those consumers, impacting
the most vulnerable the most.
Infrastructure modernization and job growth go hand in hand with
environmental and natural resource protection. Investing in our
infrastructure is a smart investment for energy security, job growth,
manufacturing, and creating the jobs that we want.
Maintaining and expanding these economywide benefits is dependent on
a transparent and a predictable regulatory approval of infrastructure
projects. That is what the underlying bill does.
This amendment, however, we would view as a step backward. I would
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first, that energy
infrastructure is critical to our economy; yet we cannot simply give
the fossil fuel industry carte blanche to build pipelines without
robust public reviews.
I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to co-lead this amendment with my
colleagues, Ms. Tsongas and Mr. McGovern.
FERC, as it is currently structured, is not adequately protecting our
most valued public lands designed for recreation and conservation, and
this bill will only make this particular mismanagement worse. We are
witnessing this firsthand in my Virginia.
At stake is one of our Nation's treasured landscapes, the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail, the A.T., and the surrounding national parkland
and national forestlands. The A.T. was congressionally dedicated as a
national scenic trail nearly 50 years ago, and it is one of the most
significant land features in the Eastern United States. It is famous
around the world.
Its cultural heritage, its recreational options, its natural
resources all serve crucial roles in the lives and communities of the
Appalachian region, but it is at risk.
The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline route impacts 19 prominent
views over nearly 100 miles of the Appalachian Trail. Tinker Cliffs,
the Dragon's Tooth, even the totally iconic McAfee Knob all will be
corrupted by this pipeline.
I am not anti-pipeline. I am not anti-energy. I am an avid
Appalachian Trail hiker. I have crossed almost all of the 60 pipeline
crossings that exist on the trail. But the Mountain Valley's proposal
route doesn't take the least impactful route. It doesn't cross the
trail. It runs alongside it for almost 100 miles.
{time} 1515
You will be able to see the impact day after day after day. It
doesn't sound like the developers thought about minimizing their impact
on this important cultural icon.
It has also become clear that the proposed route would require an
amendment to the Jefferson National Forest management plan, which was
carefully constructed and well balanced.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect
one of America's most treasured natural places.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I again remind my colleagues to oppose the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lynch
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 115-235.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 12, after line 9, add the following:
SEC. 3. PIPELINE SECURITY.
In considering an application for an authorization under
section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public
convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall consult with the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
regarding the applicant's compliance with security guidance
and best practice recommendations of the Administration
regarding pipeline infrastructure security, pipeline
cybersecurity, pipeline personnel security, and other
pipeline security measures.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to thank Chairman Upton and
Ms. Castor, the ranking member from Florida, for their articulate
debate this afternoon on this important issue.
I would also like to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member
Slaughter, and all of the members of the Rules Committee for making
this amendment in order.
This commonsense amendment will simply ensure that the Transportation
Security Administration, the Federal agency with the primary
jurisdiction over pipeline security on behalf of the American people,
will retain a meaningful seat at the table when it comes to
determinations made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC,
on whether to approve a pipeline construction permit.
In particular, this amendment provides that, in considering a
pipeline permit application, FERC must simply consult with TSA
administrators as to whether a pipeline developer is compliant with
existing TSA guidelines and best practice recommendations governing
pipeline security. That includes an examination of facility security,
cybersecurity, and other critical measures that are designed to
safeguard the American people against the threat of terrorists and
cyber attacks perpetrated on the U.S. pipeline system.
While H.R. 2910 seeks to expedite the FERC review process for
pipeline construction projects in the name of efficiency, we also know
that recent terrorist and cyber attacks launched against pipeline
facilities nationwide
[[Page H6009]]
have more than demonstrated that we cannot place expediency above
national security and public safety.
In 2015, a domestic terrorist received a maximum 20-year sentence
after pleading guilty to Federal charges relating to his use of a
highly volatile explosive device to damage a natural pipeline in Texas.
Four years earlier than that, a similar attack was perpetrated in
Oklahoma by an individual armed with a homemade improvised explosive
device.
In addition, the 2017 series on ``Pipelines in Peril,'' published by
Energy and Environment News, reported that advanced cyber threats
targeting U.S. pipelines have only increased and evolved over the past
5 years, following a so-called pipeline hacking spree undertaken by
members of the Chinese military. The theft of sensitive data from at
least 23 separate U.S. pipeline companies in 2011 and 2012 constitute
the sort of cyber breach that the Congressional Research Service has
described as allowing hackers the ability to ``disrupt pipeline service
and cause spills, explosions, and fires all from remote locations.''
I would also like to express my concern regarding an issue that was
the subject of an amendment of mine which was not ruled in order, and
that is the issuance of pipeline construction permits by FERC in areas
where a project site and its surrounding community is already
experiencing preexisting unsafe levels of air pollutants.
In my own congressional district in Massachusetts, FERC recently
approved a proposal for a natural gas compressor station in the
beautiful town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and as evidenced by the
certificate of independent and quality testing conducted by Dr. Curt
Nordgaard and other community stakeholders, the air quality in Weymouth
is already at toxic levels of so-called criteria air pollutants such as
benzene.
My amendment would have suspended the certificate issued by FERC for
the Weymouth compressor station and other projects that the commission
approves for construction and communities that have unsafe air quality
levels.
In addition to my concerns around air quality, I have to highlight
the public safety issues surrounding the route of a natural gas
pipeline that FERC approved in West Roxbury, a local neighborhood in
the heart of my district. The pipeline runs through a densely populated
neighborhood. It runs right through an active blasting area in a quarry
that is located next to a residential area, and I don't know how that
happens if public safety and national security are considerations.
Whether a pipeline is blown up because of stupidity because FERC has
located it in a blasting zone or it is because of a nefarious attempt
of outside actors, the bottom line is that FERC should sit down and
talk with TSA when they are looking at these siting decisions. The
bottom line is, what this amendment will accomplish, it will require
that to happen, that consultation to happen between TSA and FERC.
Mr. Chair, I ask Members to vote in support of this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by saying that we
are prepared to accept the amendment. I know that all of us here take
pipeline safety very seriously, and certainly since my chairmanship of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, we put safety at the forefront of
our efforts to modernize our pipeline infrastructure. We passed two
major bills that President Obama signed, and I think there may have
been maybe a single Member that opposed that legislation over the
years, but we care a lot about that.
In the last Congress, we passed the PIPES Act and the FAST Act.
Again, major bipartisan initiatives that Mr. Pallone and I worked out
that got to President Obama's desk. Each of these two bills took
important steps to update our laws to protect against emerging physical
attacks as well as cyber attacks, threats to the grid, in our energy
delivery systems, including pipelines.
We know that multiple Federal and State agencies have a role to play
and an opportunity to lead with that expertise. While the Department of
Energy is the lead sector-specific agency for cybersecurity and for the
energy sector, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, PHMSA, is responsible for administrating minimum
pipeline safety standards, and the TSA, the Transportation Security
Administration, does monitor threats to our transportation sector. I
think that is where the gentleman from Massachusetts is coming from
with this amendment.
The amendment, I have got to say, appears to be consistent with
current law, while a rigid consultation requirement could end up
resulting in delays if the TSA is not able to consult in a timely
manner, but, again, the language is ``consult.'' I would hope that that
would happen.
The amendment also appears to address pipeline facilities, but it is
not clear whether it includes LNG as an example. Given the overlapping
nature of Federal and State jurisdiction over pipeline safety, we want
to make sure that we are doing it right and that we have got all the
tools in the toolbox to make sure that that happens and we don't wonder
what would have happened without this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We are ready to
work with him, but certainly, at this point, ready to accept the
amendment.
Mr. LYNCH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the gentleman very much
for accepting the amendment. I agree, there may be some other areas
that are not particularly addressed, such as the LNG situation.
Obviously, we want to increase the level of safety with respect to LNG
as well, but I understand those questions can be answered during our
debate with the Senate as well and in conference.
But the bottom line is I thank him for accepting the amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding, I
believe, that a GAO report has been requested by some of our friends on
both sides of the aisle, and we welcome the completion of that report
and are anxious to see the result.
Mr. Chairman, again, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part A of House Report 115-235.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 12, after line 9, add the following:
(g) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements.--
(1) In general.--In conducting a project-related NEPA
review, the Commission shall prepare a supplement to a draft
environmental impact statement or a final environmental
impact statement if--
(A) the Commission makes a substantial change in the
proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns;
or
(B) there are significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
application for authorization under section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity
under section 7 of such Act with respect to which the
project-related NEPA review is being conducted, or its
impacts.
(2) Mitigation plans.--In conducting a project-related NEPA
review, if a draft environmental impact statement does not
include information about mitigation plans for adverse
impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided, the Commission
shall prepare a supplement to the draft environmental impact
statement that includes such information.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to come after this
bipartisan discussion between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Upton. I hope a
precedent has been set, Mr. Chairman.
I offered this amendment to improve the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's public comment period and transparency process.
[[Page H6010]]
This amendment would require FERC to issue a supplemental
environmental impact statement if there is critical new information
relevant to a pipeline proposal, and to require mitigation plans for
adverse impacts if not already provided.
The case of the Mountain Valley Pipeline demonstrated how the current
FERC process has failed us and why this amendment is necessary.
I recently wrote a letter to FERC on this very issue, asking that
they initiate a supplemental environmental impact statement before
moving forward with the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity.
Quite simply, the process was flawed.
In response to a September 2016 draft environmental impact statement,
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, had to present more information and an
updated route for the pipeline proposal to FERC. Originally, Mr.
Chairman, they offered 1,000 pages of updates for public comment, but
then their updates extended beyond the public comment period, which
ended in December 2016, and included thousands of additional pages of
crucially important information--20,000 pages of crucially important
information. Think about how long it would take to read 20,000 pages.
What is most egregious is that, because this document dump came after
the public comment period had ended, affected stakeholders weren't able
to offer their comments for FERC consideration. They had already closed
the public comment period, but the pipeline company was still
submitting thousands of pages.
Even more ridiculous, the developers have continued to add more
documents, even after FERC issued the final environmental impact
statement. So apparently it wasn't final in the eyes of the developers.
For many, FERC's recent decision to issue this final statement for
the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline is patently alarming.
The appropriate course would be to issue a supplemental environmental
impact statement and allow for public comment on those 20,000 pages.
Let's fix this woefully incompetent process.
Local communities affected most by proposed energy infrastructure
projects naturally have concerns regarding the projects near them.
On my extensive visits to southwest Virginia last summer, there were
two kinds of signs everywhere, Mr. Chairman. There were ``Make America
Great Again, Donald Trump for President,'' and there were ``No Mountain
Valley Pipeline.''
They deserve the opportunity to express their views fully and to
participate in a robust public engagement process, especially for
projects which will use eminent domain to seize their private land from
homeowners and farmers.
If there are major changes offered after the public comment period is
open, let's make sure the public has the ability to weigh in with their
proposals.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, FERC is the lead agency for siting
interstate natural gas pipelines. We all know that. But there are a
number of other Federal and State agencies that also have to issue
associated permits for large-scale projects.
{time} 1530
Through the FERC prefile process, sponsors engage with landowners,
local communities, and government agencies to educate stakeholders and
collect the information about the best location for siting that
pipeline.
The underlying bill, H.R. 2910, brings much-needed certainty and
transparency to the process by encouraging the stakeholders to
participate in good faith early in the process. Unfortunately, this
amendment, the way that we read it, would create more uncertainty and
create more opportunities for delays.
The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support expanding the
infrastructure. Creating the jobs, the pipelines, ensures stable and
affordable supplies. Flexibility, affordable, and reliable energy is
important for American families and businesses to thrive.
I would note, at this point we still don't have a quorum with FERC,
and we want that to change. That will be an issue that goes through the
confirmation process in the Senate, but consumers really only benefit
from domestic energy if we can get it to them.
Investing in infrastructure is a smart investment, so I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I very much agree with the lead sponsor of the bill, Mr. Upton, that
we don't want any more uncertainty, and we certainly don't want more
delays.
In fact, this amendment was originally in a bipartisan bill sponsored
by my Republican friend from Virginia, Morgan Griffith. I literally
lifted it word for word.
What we want to do is make sure that all of the information is on the
table at the beginning. It is just not fair to the people who are
affected by a pipeline that an environmental impact statement is issued
and they wouldn't have a chance to comment on it.
So let's make sure that the developers are putting all of the
information out first. And if they put it out and the public comment
period closes and then they give you the rest of the information, then,
clearly, FERC has made the decision without all that, and the public
has been cheated out of the ability to comment on what is going to
happen to their land and to their homes. It is just not fair.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this good, bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Flores) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2910) to
provide for Federal and State agency coordination in the approval of
certain authorizations under the Natural Gas Act, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________