>> "washington journal" author series for the next week at 8 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, and c-span radio. >> the senate energy and natural resources committee held a hearing on the permitting process for oil and gas drilling. with her from officials with the interior department, the federal energy regulatory commission and people who work for drilling and mining companies. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. we were hoping to be able to

move out to of our nominees that are currently pending before the committee. we obviously have to have the requisite number of members here. so until such time as we have a quorum, we will move to our scheduled full committee hearing on infrastructure permitting, if we're able to get the quorum of 12 we will take up the businessman at that point in time. i would anticipate that it would be relatively quick. so with that, we have names on the table in front of us, but i would invite you each to come to the table as a provide an opening statement. mr. casing, ms. fleagle, astroturfing, mr. brown, ms. caruso and mr. russell if just want to join us there. we are here today to discuss infrastructure permitting challenges ongoing efforts to streamline federal approvals and

opportunities to improve the responsiveness, the transparency and the predictability of our system of permit review. i think we all recognize the need to make investments that will both upgrade and modernize our infrastructure. we that hearings in this committee, many hearings took specific at the knees and energy and the resource sectors but as looking to discuss energy infrastructure it's important that we take steps to rationalize how projects are reviewed and approved. existing regulatory regime impacts the cost effectiveness of our federal infrastructure spending. jan the on that the link and uncertainty associate with the permitting process limits the willingness of the private sector to finance, build, and operated in her infrastructure. this drives dollars overseas rather than into jobs and growth and prosperity for our nation. so whether we're talking about a pipeline, a mine, powerplay,, public-private partnership for water system or a company building a factory we know that

the plymouth capital is too often delayed sometimes by years, and sometimes deliberately. when investment is impeded, how can we expect capital to be deployed where an environmental impact statement alone averages almost five years, and final approval can take a decade or more? you look to other countries, for example, canada and germany are moving similar projects in just a couple of years. i look forward hearing from federal witnesses are working to make our system work better and hearing about the permitting reforms of fast 41 which we enacted roughly two years ago, and how those are being implemented. i'm also pleased that three nonfederal witnesses who have experience or they might say perhaps too long of an experience, navigating the federal permitting guideline for electric transmission, hydropower and mining projects. new and upgraded transmission lines are crucial to a reliable

and secure electric grid and to bring new sources of energy to our markets. despite that, the number of federal, state and local agencies involved in a single project makes permitting notoriously cumbersome. we talked at length about the challenges of licensing and relicensing hydro facilities. i tell people about the time that is involved in relicense, it's almost breathtaking. they need to fix the process because a number projects up for relicensing increases dramatically over the next decade. finally when it comes to permitting delays for new minds our nation is among the worst in the world. its lead as to be given on four nation for the fundamental building blocks of a wide range of energy, defense, healthcare, and other modern technologies. the energy and natural resources act senator cantwell and i reintroduced this year has provisions that take important steps to streamline project reviews in all three of these industries.

this is an important bill that will help make need of progress but also recognize that the challenges we will hear about today represent a subset of the infrastructure sectors that are also struggling to permit projects. whether it's energy production, pipelines, pump storage, water supply, lng or something else, our system needs to be improved across the board. we absolutely have the ability to establish a permitting process that works, one that protects the environment and promotes state and local input while not my ring projects in red tape and driving away private investment. and to achieve that goal we have to set aside and misguided idea that accelerating or coordinating approvals somehow weakens those protections or that simply spending more money with six all the problems. it doesn't get we know that. it won't work. both common sense and experience tell us that we can maintain our high standards while speeding reviews and approvals.

so i view this hearing as the next and in our effort to improve our nation's infrastructure. i look forward the insights and ideas from our witnesses to do just that. thank you all for being here with us this morning. senator cantwell, i welcome your comments. >> thank you, madam chair. i certainly welcome this infrastructure permitting oversight hearing, but i do think it's interesting the "wall street journal" reported this last week and that president trump will roll out and infrastructure plan in january, proposing to undergoing a spending offset by cutting other federal programs. so before we start victory veri just want to remind my colleagues that the tax proposal before us is trying to be jammed through when we could be having this discussion right now about infrastructure investment. we started the year with a lot of conversation between our colleagues, our leader, senator schumer, and speaker ryan, about doing an infrastructure built they got set aside. i just want to make sure that people understand we've been more than willing to talk about

our crumbling infrastructure for a long time. so this morning we going to hear about permitting reform which is a good discussion, but we need and infrastructure built that is about funding. i'm proud over the last two years that the chair, senator murkowski, and i have tried to address the permitting issues on hydro and critical minerals and we pass legislation out of the senate that has not made it to a final process because of our house collects lack of interest in making sure that we take up these issues of improving hydro and other issues. so part of the issue i believe is making sure we adequately fund permitting agencies. please chad brown is hip and washington department of ecology, accredited -- they have been credited with an innovative solution for hydro resources and dam owners for money to create reviews on time. i believe this is a good monologue and look for to

hearing about this one. i think he could work on a federal level as well. we should provide dedicated licensees directed to resource agencies. i please with a witness who can speak to the experience with the western area power administration on transmission programs. i hope my colleagues will agree that federal programs that support investing in transmission deserve our support. and when it comes to the department of the interior, i definitely want to make sure that we have the questions you. i think secretary zinke has been very upfront in his actions at department of the interior. it seems like it's just the weather you want information to drill, and if so did you get the keys to whatever public lands. in less than hear the interior department has left 750 million and taxpayer royalties on the table and the sectors abandon his obligation to stop natural gas wastes, something that we basically in the senate said very strongly that we wanted to continue to see, the management

of methane flaring. so he has ditched safe grouse plants negotiate by state because ditched master leasing plan. >> is skipped public comment periods illegally suspending regulations and turned things on its head. president trump has allowed his advice to strip protection from 2 million acres and the largest rollback of public lands production in history opening pristine does it pay to drilling and mining. the "washington post" confirmed over the weekend that the department of energy fuels resource petition interior to open up areas to uranium mining and secretary zinke has proposed even more rollback. when it comes to having these issues the sort i hope will take into context the larger things that are happening as well. i know that will hear a lot from our witnesses, and remain to committing dash i remain committed to improving our processes but we're protecting things are in taxpayers interest. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you send it. let's do turn to our panel heree

joint this morning by mr. james casing, associate deputy secretary at the department of intricate we welcome you this morning. ms. janet pfleeger is the acting executive director for the federal permitting and prove it steering council. thank you for joining us. mr. terry turpin is the director for the office of energy projects at ferc. mr. chad brown and senator cantwell note is the water quality management unit supervisor at the washington department of ecology. we thank you for traveling across country. ms. roxane perruso as a vice president and general counsel for transwestern express. thank you for being here, and mr. luke russell is with us from hecla mining company ways a vice president for external affairs. so we welcome each of you to the committee. we would ask that you provide your comments and hopefully in about five minutes or so, your

full status will be included as part of the record and once you have completed your comments will have an opportunity for questions. and again if we need to interrupt because we need to do a quick business meeting, we certainly hope you understand. mr. case and, if like to begin. >> thank you, madam chair. i for one will be very happy with a break for what you're planning to do. chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell, members of the committee, my name is james cason. i serve as the associate deputy secretary of the department of the interior. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the department's efforts to improve the efficiency and accountability of federal permitting for infrastructure projects. i asked my entire written record, or my entire written statement be incorporated in the record. >> it will be included. >> thank you. >> as well everyone else's. >> thank you. the department is aware that the

president has a vision for empowering the private sector as well a state and local governments through infrastructure enhancements and improvements. interior believes that creating greater efficiencies in the overall federal permitting process is crucial to addressing infrastructure needs. executive order 13807 ignited and administration wide assessment about how best to address inefficiencies in the current infrastructure project decisions that delay investments. decrease job creation or costly to the american taxpayer. in turn the department sign a secretary order 3355 which includes setting page and time limitations for most of our mental impact statements, setting target page and time limitations for preparation of environmental assessments. reviewing the departments could procedures and providing recommendations to streamline

the process, and implementing eo 13807 to the fullest extent possible. we believe our efforts to accelerate and streamline compliance efforts will also help us achieve our responsible energy development goals. executive order 1373 directed agencies to immediately review and report on all agency actions that potentially burden the safe efficient development of domestic energy resources. in turn the department released the quote review of department of the interior actions that potentially burden domestic energy report on october 252017. we believe the report as a useful tool to reduce the impediments to processes including permitting to promote safe, efficient development of domestic energy resources.

my written testimony further discusses interiors efforts regarding offshore energy as well as implementation of title 41 of the fixing america's surface transportation act, or fast act. chairman murkowski, appreciative to testify before the committee and i look forward to answering questions. >> thank you, mr. cason. ms. pfleeger, welcome. >> chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. the federal permitting improvement steering council, known as the permitting council, was created by title 41 of the fast act, known as fast 41. past anyone brings accountability and transparency to what has been for too long and uncertain and unpredictable process. fast 40 what upholds existing

environmental laws and statutory responsibilities of the 16 permitting counsel agencies. additionally asked 41 is a voluntary program in which project sponsors apply to become covered projects. as acting executive director of the privy council my office and the counselor bringing about a new way of doing business to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal permitting process for complex infrastructure projects in our nation. the permitting counsel is comprised of top leadership, deputy secretary or equivalent, so they can ensure permit streamlining occurs throughout all levels of the organizations, including at the very important field level. in addition to preventing council is working with the administration to improve the permitting process through executive order 13-807 establishing discipline and accountability and environmental review and permitting process for infrastructure projects. the authors executive director,

oed, overseas act 41 implication serves as a one-stop shop for project sponsors. oed is changing institutional behavior and culture, enhancing agency collaboration, resolving disputes, assuring transparency in the permitting process, and ensuring agencies better coordinate and synchronize environmental reviews and authorizations. my office is focus on three areas that i would like to highlight for you. early and formalized cross agency coordination, increased transparency through the permitting dashboard, and project specific ordination and dispute resolution. to my first point, fast 41 requires the development of interagency coordinated project plans, cpp, an essential tool for cross agency planning and to put many best practices. the initial development and quarterly updates of cpp formalized interagency

collaboration. this allows difficult issues to be addressed early in the process to prevent confusion and delays later in the process. moving forward, my office is working with agencies to ensure cbp's emphasize concurrent rather than sequential permitting actions. earlier this month the permitting counsel released its 2018 recommended best practices for infrastructure permitting. the office will be ensuring agencies if imitation of these best practices to generate efficiencies in the permitting process and executive director is required to report to congress each april on agency progress. the permitting dashboard breaks an unprecedented degree of transparency to the process. the timetables of the dashboard list target completion date for permits each quarter by office and the permitting agency review those dates and my office enforces restrictions for modifications to those dates. with nationwide visibility and a built-in accountability

structure, a dashboard provides the public, project sponsors and other stakeholders with clarity and certainty in the permitting process. to my third point, project sponsors have contacted my office for help with specific issues such as when a sponsor receives contradictory information from headquarters and field offices or when agencies working together on a project disagree on a path forward. a notable success in this very was my office using the past 41 dispute resolution process to address a stalled review. the resulting coordination among agencies allowed subsequent authorizations to move forward and as relayed by the project sponsor save an estimated six months and $300 million in capital cost to the project. going forward office will continue to use the fast 41 tools of oversight, transparency, collaboration and accountability to improve the permitting process. the fiscal year 2018 president's

budget request of $10 million provides the funding support we need to fully use these fast 41 tools. after projects come on board from the start it will benefit from enhanced transparency coordination and agency and accountability of fast 41. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i welcome your questions. >> mr. turpin, welcome to the committee. >> thank you. good morning chairman murkowski and ranking member cantwell and members of the committee. my name is terry turpin and i'm director of the office of energy products at the federal energy regulatory commission. the office responsible for taking a lead role in carrying out the commissions duties and cited for such projects including nonfatal hydropower projects, natural gas pipelines and storage facilities and liquefied terminals. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss their infrastructure permitting and the commissions processes are for conducting a vitamin reviews required under the policy act. as as a member of the commission staff, that views expressed in my testament of my own and not

necessarily those of the commission or any individual commissioner. under the federal power act the commission regular over 1600 nonfatal hydropower projects at over 2500 dams. together these represent 56 gw of hydropower capacity, more than half of all the hydropower in the united states. in the last five years the commission is authorized 71 new projects with a combined capacity over 2400 megawatts and as we license for two projects which continue to provide over 91 megawatts of generating capacity. the commission is responsible under the natural gas act for authorizing the construction and operation of interstate natural gas facilities and facilities for the import and export of natural gas. since 2000 commission is authorized noon in 18,000 milef interstate natural gas pipeline which totaled more than 159,000,000,000 ft.3 per day of transportation capacity. over 1 trillion cubic feet of interstate storage capacity, and 23 facility sites for the import

or export of lng. for both of these types of instruction at the commission acts as lead agency for the purposes of conducting federal court in aiding federal authorizations and for the purposes of complying with the national environment policy act. as described in my written testimony this reviews carried out through a process that allows cooperation from numerous stakeholders including federal, state and local agencies, native americans and the public. the commissions could approach allows for systematic and collaborative process and as result in substantial additions to the nation's infrastructure. to a great extent the processes envisioned such as fast 41 and the recent executive order 13-807 parallel the commissions own approach is improving early consultation and increasing transparency of project review. commission staff is made to working with all federal agencies to assist and successful implication of these goals and to ensure most effective processing of information matters before the commission. this concludes my opening

remarks. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> mr. brown, welcome. >> thank you, good morning. madam chair, ranking member cantwell and members of the committee, thank you for inviting the washington state department of ecology speak today. for the record my name is jan brett and to supervise a team of staff responsible for the development and delimitation of our state water quality standards. washington state is fortunate more hydropower energy than any other state in the nation. with this about the renewable and carbon free resource and it is importance to our state also comes responsibility to manage a variety of regulations associate with the licenses of these projects. among these is responsible to ensure that water quality is sufficient to support swellable and fishable rivers. ask the water quality authority in the state, ecology works to include, ecology is work includes visions of state certification for hydropower projects can license by the ferc. these certifications are issued

to authority provide to states under section 401 of the federal clean water act. these certifications provide assurance to hydropower produces that the projects, development and operations will meet applicable state regulations. in the last decade several large hydropower projects in washington completed the ferc relicensed process. washington successfully issued 16, 401 certifications which accounts for more than two-thirds of all ferc record hydropower interstate this was a significant effort as those for the hydropower producers. yet we met the challenge and we met this challenge collaboratively in large part due to the financial support provided by the hydropower industry to washington's waterpower license fee program. that he began in 2007. in collaboration with the hydropower industry and other stakeholders, ecology work with our state legislature to

institute a new fee based on the net of one for each license project uses to generate electricity. by basing the fee on quantity of electricity, a project can produce, the fees are distributed in a manner consistent with each projects revenue-generating capabilities. for a decade these revenues have helped support the regular workload to official and effectively meet licensee timelines for new and relicensed hydropower project. washington state legislature recognized this program was not without controversy and, therefore, included a provision requiring periodic reporting on the use of the revenue. the reporting provides oversight ensures accountability to periodically determine whether to continue assessing these fees. we utilize this provision in 26 it was gaze with a hydropower industry and stakeholders to review the program, improve the quality of service and increase the transparency of the spending of these revenues. with this the state legislature extended this program to the year 2023.

the washington state department of the code you recognize the importance of finding efficiencies and improving licensing procedures in new and continuing energy projects, the waterpower license revenue model has become one such successful strategy to support this efficiency. we also acknowledge there's room for improvement through federal legislation, house bill 3043 in senate bill 1460 contain language what would improve the licensing process. however, we believe it is important any new legislation be consistent with the current federal and state laws and maintain appropriate authorities in place to ensure the protection of natural resources. my agency is provided, and similar bills in past like to set sessions and we appreciate the improvements that were made in this regard. we have confidence that through development and review final legislation to meet both goals. it's important certifications, permits and other authorizations required to license energy projects be defensible in order to avoid child some project

opponents. that any legislation that would improperly abbreviate and five mental review timelines or otherwise limit the authorizing agencies ability to fully carry out environmental studies may lessen the defensibility of these projects. limiting deeply to complete a a full environmental review may exchange efficiency gains in the licensing process for greater delays in the courts. in closing the washington department of ecology supports the legislative intent of senate bill 1462 and we also believe it is imperative that final legislation also protect the current independent authority of states to ensure that projects meet important departmental regulation. we also thank you for the opportunity to highlight our fee program as a means to improve one step in the licensing process and we believe the success of this program stems from early engagement of hydropower producers and proper funding and dedicated staff which effectively retained expertise and supports continuity and consistency within the process. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. brown. ms. perruso, welcome. >> good morning, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell, members of the committee and staff. i'm roxane perruso, vice president and associate general counsel. we have been active for more than 75 years developing energy and resource infrastructure in the west. we spent the last ten years working with the department of the interior to develop two large energy infrastructure projects. the first project is the chokecherry wind energy project which is located in wyoming, and consists of up to 1000 turbines with 3000 megawatts of nameplate capacity. we apply to the bureau of land management for a development grant for the wind project in 2008, and after preparing an environmental impact statement and to environmental assessments, in 2016 blm

authorized an issue construction of the wind project. we started construction in 2016. the second project is the transwestern express transmission project is a 730-mile high-voltage direct current transmission line that crosses or states, 14 counties, and multiple federal jurisdictions, including ten blm field offices, to national force, as well as bureau of reclamation lands. we apply to the dom for right-of-way grant for the transwestern project in 2008. the blm and western area power administration acted as joint leads on the environment impact statement, and the blm issued a right-of-way grant to the transmission line nine years later in 2017. our hope is that the challenges that we face in permitting these

projects will provide opportunities to improve the process. but before i address the challenges, i want to acknowledge and thank the numerous federal employees that we've worked with over the past ten years, and continue to work with, and they are part, , very big part of why the projects are where they are today. but based on our experience we do believe that federal permitting, that process, especially for large multijurisdictional projects like transwestern can be significantly improved through three things. increase consistency in policy, coordination with appropriate corresponding decision-making authority, and finally accountability. one of the greatest challenges that we encountered was lack of consistency. we were faced with ever-changing

policies. two examples of significant policy changes that impacted us were, one, , interiors policy on medication and, two, the blm competitive leasing rule. over the last nine years interiors mitigating policy was revised seven different times, resulting in project delays and additional costs as the goalposts kept getting boot. next, the blm is competitive leasing rule was issued in december 2016, that is more than eight years after analysis on our wind project began. but this rule significantly affects the economics of the wind project by raising the rates rent over the life of the development grant for the wind project by about 60%.

next, ordination and communication with corresponding decision-making authority is essential. for transwestern, for example, routine coordination calls were held weekly and monthly. yet after having these calls for more than five years, major issues remain unresolved. and while attempts at coordination and communication were in fact, made, ultimately it was a lack of time agency decisions, or lack of light authority to ensure that decisions are made and issues are resolved that resulted in substantially increasing permitting delays and costs. and finally there is a lack of accountability regarding schedule and budget in the federal permitting process.

with both our wind and transmission projects, the original schedule and estimated budget more than doubled. this budget and schedule uncertainty and risk discourages the very development of energy and resource infrastructure on federal land that the government is seeking to encourage. now, , we do believe that the ft act and ceq zimbabwe are, in fact, a very good step forward in addressing these issues. however, there needs to be accountability at every level such that agency personnel understand the work they're doing is very important. it's time sensitive and it has real consequences for project proponents like us and also the development of the nation's infrastructure. in conclusion, while we acknowledge that the permitting

process for large multijurisdictional projects like ours will always be complex, reducing the permitting time, cost, complexity is achievable and it is necessary. and this in turn will encourage private investment in energy infrastructure projects, and federal private partnerships. thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks today. >> thank you, ms. rizzo. mr. russell, before we go to you where going to interrupt for the very important business message. we do have a quorum and recognizing that some members have competing hearings that they need to go off to, i would like to move to this business meetings very, very quickly. we have two nominees. our first nominee is dr. tim patty was nominee to be the assistant secretary of interior from water and science. our second nominee is dr. linda capuano was nominee to be the

administrator of the energy information administration. let's see here. unless there are no objections from members here, the committee will vote by voice on the nomination of both. is any objection to voice votes? seeing none, the question is heard on -- all in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it on the nomination is ordered, reported favorably. is there any senator who wishes to be recorded as a no? seeing none. will now move to the question of nomination of doctor capuano to be the admin the energy information administration. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it and the nomination is ordered favorably. is it any senator who wishes to be recorded as a no? senator heinrich. senator hirono.

okay -- >> madam chair, senator franken could be recorded as a note to dr. capuano. >> that concludes our votes. the business many of the committee on energy and natural resources is adjourned and we will now turn back to our full panel. i think -- i i think members wo come here and i think the panel for your indulgence as we concluded that business meeting. mr. russell, you are less than on the panel. we welcome your comments before us this morning. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and members of the committee. my name is luke russell, i'm the vice president of external affairs for hecla mining company. we are the united states oldest and largest silver producers and third-largest producer of lead and zinc. metals and minerals are the building blocks of our nation's infrastructure. silly put it is impossible to create infrastructure without

them. to quote our president and ceo phil baker, at the end of the day you can't have the infrastructure and everything that goes with it if we don't have the underlying commodities that go into the bridges and roads and everything else. silver, copper and zinc are just three important minerals associate with our operations which are also key minerals for infrastructure and renewable energy. a single wind turbine contains 335 tons of steel and almost five tons of copper. the primary ingredient in most solar panels is silver. and zinc is a component and battery technology critical to the future of electric vehicles and energy storage. the united states is blessed with world-class mental endowment, but sadly has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources of minerals it we are now import dependent for 50 different metals and minerals, and 100% import dependent for 20. the length of time it takes to secure permits in the u.s. which takes an average of seven seven

years or longer is a key reason behind this dependency. in addition it is making the united states less attractive for investment. as an example we were at a mining business developer conference in bear creek colorado earlier this year. we spoke to companies about 70 projects to invest in. only two were in the united states. let me share an example of a very long time line that i've been involved with the permitting. it's one of the largest private employers in southeast alaska, our greens creek mine my winter production in 1989, some 16 years from discovery to first production. and is operated and harmony with sensitive environment condition for more than 28 years. with that history one would expect that a plan for a minor expansion could be permitted expeditiously. unfortunately our experience prove otherwise. permitting a small temple sacred nature took more five years and added just ten ten years to the mines life. so we are already preparing to start the permitting process

again at a cost of millions of dollars in order to avoid shutting down the mine and laying off workers due to a lack of permitted capacitor. permitting of the mysore in 1988 and with permitting delays and litigation, first production did not occur until 2010. some 22 years after initial project permitting. hecla acquired the rock creek project and northwest montana which is a largest undeveloped silver copper project in the u.s. this project has been in permitting and litigation for over 25 years and counting. now to be clear, valid concerns about environmental protection need to be fully addressed and considered. at the same time we should not confuse the length of the process with a rigor of review. in my experience, permitting delays frequently caused by inefficient and duplicative processes that do not approve the rigor of review.

while money is complex, there remain some of the permitting agencies lack training on minerals and mining and the nepa process. chairman murkowski, we saw introduce legislation that would allow mining projects to be eligible for consideration as covered projects under the fast act. clearly, expedited permitting machine for infrastructure projects will have little or no effect if the minds mines the y minerals and materials to those projects do not have the same accelerated process. in addition there is a great opportunity for the identification of regulations and policies across the federal agency that needlessly delay or prevent mineral resource development. further jeopardizing the viability of our needed infrastructure projects. this can be accomplished by identifying the lead agency,

selecting, defining clear roles of cooperating agencies to avoid duplication, establish clear timelines and provide accountability and predictability to the process. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. >> thank you, mr. russell. i think we continue to hear that and certainty, , unpredictabiliy within the regular process at time, as money. when you mentioned the length of time that it takes to permit a mind a mine in this country nowadays, mr. russell, the two projects that you mentioned in alaska, 22 years for one, 16 for another. for many it would just walk away. you look at the reality of the process year, and does cause you to wonder how we are even able to have much of a mining industry in this country. we speak about how the united states is ranked literally at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to permitting for mines in

this country. i've also heard about other countries, specifically canada and australia, have a competitive permitting, well, it's a permitting process, i guess it gives them a competitive advantage. we had some issues with some of the mines that we are seeing come on in canada. but can you speak just very briefly to the permitting process that we see in other countries that again allow for a more clearly defined or certainly more predictable process that allows these projects to move forward while here in the united states it may be a two decade process? >> thank you, chairman. yes, i have experience in permitting in both those countries, canada and australia. the key difference is that there is a time frame established at the beginning. the roles and responsibilities

of the cooperating agencies are well defined, so that they're certainly more predictability that the process will take two years or three years, and then there will be a decision. >> is accountability at the end of that? >> there is also accountability so that if an agency is not moving within its timeframe there is accountability so that is a key aspect that's lacking in our system is that even if schedules are established, there is no accountability to meet those schedules. .. and with that then means to costs, uncertainty, lack of predictability. during the obama administration, president obama acknowledged permitting challenges were an

impediment. they held back growth and opportunity and his 2012 executive order, he pushed us to work through some permitting challenges and when president trump comes into office he updated that in august of 2017. what actually have we seen then if we are still sitting at about four and half years for processing of an eif? we've had administration republican democrat that have said permitting is a challenge and lay down executive orders saying we need to do better. have we accomplished anything? >> accomplished at this point is then, but we are working on the issue. we have several things going on at the same time to address this issue.

i would say broadly in the ministration we recognize processes taking way too long. you have quoted almost five years to get an eis done and there's a couple things involved in that. first, the link keeps getting longer and longer and longer. the last two i saw was 5000 pages and 10000 pages. >> is it necessary that the eis get longer? if we acknowledge this is part of our challenge, why are things getting longer and more complicated? >> my opinion about that is that a lot of the link is generated by two things, first a lot of contractors get paid by the page and so the more pages the right -- they write the more they make and secondly is fear litigation.

we have a fairly long record where eis's are found no matter what to be insufficient so you need to add more and more, so we have been trained basically to make them longer and longer and try to anticipate every possible question anyone in the world might want an answer to and try to equal-- incorporate that to offset the fair litigation. i don't think the way it has to be. we are currently working with ceq and the white house and across the executive branch to take a fresh look at how we do compliance and we are going through a process right now with interior where our deputy secretary has issued secretary order that basically puts a page limit and time limits on the need for compliance documents and it remains to be seen

whether we will be able to deal with litigation using these reduced page limits, but what we will try to do is move in a direction instead of having a 10000 page eis have an eis that 300 pages or less and gets done in a year to make two years, so we are currently going through the process with a group that i chair to look at the entire needs of the process to figure out what can we cut out, what can we streamline, how can we write these better so we can do them in less volume in less time , so that's next a process we are going through in concert with ceq. >> i recognize that the number of pages is not the end-all and be-all. is the content and i hope you don't work to reduce the font because it's already tedious enough to get through. senator?

>> you mentioned in a statement about your support for the senate language. i take it you don't like the house language. is there a problem with a peer could you explain that. >> we believe the house language may act to preempt authorities under section 401 of the clean water act. the language including certification as a federal authorization and then modifying the timelines and having authority over what studies should be appropriate for the issuing of that certification. the language can be improved and allow for showing of state authority without preempting it. >> thank you. one of the things i find puzzling is this issue of transportation-- i'm sorry,

transmission infrastructure program and the pro- elimination of authority. can you comment on that? >> [inaudible] >> yes, thank you. we view the borrowing authority as written by congress as a very important program that creates public-private partnerships. we have been working with them since 2011. whopper acted as a joint lead. they have provided development funding for the project. we have viewed it as our partner and we want to keep them in the project. i will say whopper interpretation of how they can use their borrowing authority has changed over the course of our relationship with whopper. we believe they are not

interpreting it to the way it was set out in the statutes and that is a concern of ours because it is incredibly difficult to build interstate transmission so walk but can pay play an important role in a partnership with them provides an independent transmission developer alike as with credibility and so we really want to see them participate in the project. >> thank you. mr. casing, you stated that your confirmation here you wanted a fair return for the taxpayer and since then the department has reinstated outdated low-price saying you have tried to suspend the methane and we will leaving dollars on the table as far as royalty. you have suspended the royalty valuation by your own giving back 75 million year to oil and gas" companies in the secretary created the royalty policy committee staff without a single public interest, so seems to me

you are leaving a lot of money on the table. >> sorry. i guess that's a point of view. thank you for sharing it. that apartment is taking a look at each one of these roles that we are working on right now to make modifications that we think in the end will provide benefit to the american public and in some of these cases the royalty rule will be looked at by the royalty policy committee which has about 20 members on it representing states and indian tribes and the industry and department of interior and others to take a look at how we fashion rules. a lot of the changes made their were related to how we view deductions or credits that, as

part of the oil and gas development process and the marketing of oil and gas. of the other rules that you mentioned, there were a lot of problems with the venting and flaring wrubel that as i understand it from conversations i've had, the industry and interior neither one were well prepared to implement that rule and that has certain complications. we were attempting to levy royalties on methane that was invented when we did not have the lines to gather the material , so we are going back to basically a conservation resource thought process. we want to capture the methane. we just need to do it in a deliberate way and with .-dot

improvements to the rule would help with that. >> i think congress has spoken on that, so i'm sure you will hear from other colleagues of mine and i will note we have had improvements in hydro licensing. my call he from idaho and i worked on those in a 2005 build and it improved the process and i think it's challenging for people to think of this in the context of fifty-year relicensing process that is basically about managing and stewardship of a resource, but i will say when people try to get the upper hand is usually when it goes wrong. what we have seen is when people come to the table and comply and look at the resource in the management of these issues in a collaborative fashion yet the quick process, but yes there are a lot of eyes and a tease to cross, but we have made progress , so i hope you will go back and look at that and understand there's great responsibility here and it's not just about the size or how me

pages it is, but about whether people are going to come to the table and collaborate. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. the issue of acceptably long permitting timelines is becoming all too common and i'm glad we focused on this issue multiple times this year and i hope we don't let up until we see improvement and as chair of the senate western caucus, when our members develop priorities for any infrastructure package streamlining the permitting process like we talk about today was a top priority and we will continue to encourage actions and hearings like this. deep till it-- debilitating of the structures and timeframe affect all of our sources of energy and our natural resource production with wind, cold, hydro and mineral projects held up for years and sometimes decades in places like montana leading to as investment, less

made in america energy and less jobs. mr. russell, as you well know the projects located in lincoln and sanders county in montana-- by the way if you google poorest counties in each respective state, sanders county is the poorest county in montana, double-digit unemployment rates, property rates in excess of 22% and lincoln county recently come i was having dinner with a couple in lincoln county and they said to me, steve, basically we describe lincoln county as poverty with a view. that's where the mine you are talking about is located they will produce two of only four world-class silver and copper deposits in the us peered these projects have been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly researched, thoroughly reviewed and

beginning back in the 19 '90s you 10-- mention testimony of 25 years. i have four children that are now all adults. my children in some cases were not even born yet when you began the permitting process for the rock creek projects. mr. russell, you mention the rock creek project with your written testimony. what can we do on this committee to make sure the projects like rock creek and others that bring critical minerals, millions in wages and tax revenue and when i met some the county commissioners in that part of our state, one of the county commissioners sat across from the table and said we are at the point in our county because we have lost the revenue stream on our federal land and in some cases 90 plus% of the land in those counties owned by the federal government or class revenue stream with no tax base.

they literally have to plow the roads in the wintertime as county commissioners because they had to lay off the road crews to get the kids to school for the school bus to get through, so what do we do here? what do we need to do so the projects don't languish in a never ending permitting loop? >> senator, thank you. i might notice a comment the rock creek project was forecast to generate $170 million in state and local taxes. that would go a long way to plow snow and sanders county. i think the answer to your question is that we need to get more predictability and certainty in our timeline of accountability on that timeline. that doesn't mean the review is less figure. it said we are predictable timeline and there needs to be better coordination with the agencies. in the kensington example, it

took five years for minor expansion. that ye i have was completed in four. of the corps of engineers took over a year to issue its permit, so rather than working conjunctive leave they worked in sequence and that added 25% of the timeline and thirdly, you heard this morning the fear of litigation creates analysis burnout-- paralysis so there has to be some sort of a way to address the equal acted-- equal access to justice acts that continue to work economic development are sponsored late especially in poor counties like sanders and lincoln county, which i believe is a blatant environmental justice issue where these folks very concerned about their environment, as you said, room with a view but also believe they can have responsible economic development and it's a false choice for them to say it's one or the other. >> in a quarter century on the

rock creek project to me is outrageous. mr. trupin. i mentioned delays don't only if beck projects, but renewable like hydro and wind. of the clark canyon project was improved after reapplication and i thank you for that. we are waiting on the gibson dam, but thank you for getting the clark county project completed. i am out of time. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you madam chair for this hearing. i know the testimony today has primarily been focus on how we need to streamline permitting and environmental reviews to spur economic growth and i went to raise a different issue that relates to economic growth that has been happening and a concern of mine. i'm very concerned about the implications of large volumes of lng exports in the recent announcements regarding

investments by china and us gas businesses. we talked in the past in this committee for some time about the importance of low cost and natural gas for manufacturing for the good news is according to the industry analysts low-cost natural gas in america was the catalyst for $160 billion in manufacturing investments in the last seven years since 2012 and that's a big deal. very very important to us. gets, right now our government is taking actions that will drive up gas prices, which is of great concern to the manufactures i talked to. the energy department has approved it just under 55 billion cubic feet per day of lng exports which is a large amount of gas and the energy information administration says natural gas prices will increase 218% by 2025.

2018 with some of that increase directly tied to lng export facilities coming online and now, we have chinese state-owned companies investing large amounts of capital in us natural gas which raises a lot of concern and i believe requires closer scrutiny by all of us and with happy with that. the natural gas act requires approval of shipment to nonfree tradecraft-- countries must be in the public interest. i don't believe that shipments of these natural gas could possibly be in the public interests. i don't oppose the exports, but i think rushing to export a resource that is critically important for american jobs in manufacturing is something that should be shared concern for all of us.

i know it's responsible for the environmental review and not the alternate approval. could you speak picking you speak to how lows-- low gas prices benefit the us economy? >> as you stated the commission is about them against at specific impacts with the construction of the facilities, economic analysis, price impact analysis that you are referring to are things that are done by the department of energy and so i really can't speak to those. >> anyone else want to speak to the importance for maybe don't think it's important to lower gas prices for domestic manufacturers, but i'm wondering if someone would want to speak to that because it's been an important part of increasing in jobs in the last number of years in manufacturing. you are shaking your head. >> i agree having obviously it's a major energy in a big cost, so i think the lower energy is

important to maintaining our competitive this in our industry. >> thank you madam chair, i think this is something particularly the chinese investments in us gas prices-- us gas project is something of concern to me as we go forward to be able to balance both the interest in exporting and also american jobs in terms of manufacturing. one other thing, all so that want to raise. important talk about and that is pipeline safety if you look at going forward. of you i think it's-- at the same time and i'm very concerned pipeline safety is not improving as we are talking about all of these issues. between 2010, 2017 there were

4269 pipeline instances resulted in three to have million damages and 64 fatal injuries and we know suspect-- specifically michigan because of a line that burst releasing a million barrels of oil into the kalamazoo river, which was the largest us ever inland oil spill costing more than $1.2 billion to clean up and we are currently concerned about opec gas and oil , pipeline going under the great lakes. 64-year old plus pipeline where there's concern about the integrity and safety of the line , so i know this again is about streamline permitting for new pipelines and i know they have jurisdiction over interstate gas lines, not oil pipelines, but again i would ask mr. trupin what is being done to

ensure pipelines are safe by other federal agencies? are you working with others on the safety as all this discussion is going on. for the natural gas pipeline and jurisdiction, authority or the safety and public transportation we attempt to coordinate with them on their process. we involved them as cooperative agencies to the extent they want to cooperate and we have representation on their advisory committees pipeline rules. >> thank you. just a request that i would love to see us do maybe even a joint hearing with commerce on pipeline safety issues at some point as we talk about streamlining and moving forward with safety issues obviously important as well. >> thank you. >> senator.

>> excuse me. i am way out of line. >> yes, you are. >> gardner was going to jump on you here. you are sitting next to the senator there and i got confused it is senator gardiner. >> thank you madam chair and if it will make my seniority greater, and happy to yield to you. thanks to all of you for your time and testimony today and thank you for holding the hearing. we have had many conversations over the past several years beginning in 2011 talk about permitting challenge of this energy project. one of our conversations that was focusing on water, you state the western area power administration signed on as a trans- west project pursues participant, but it's my understanding they are taking a different view on whether they can be an equity partner first

as a. can you talk through what changed, why change what's important. >> thank you. the statute itself that created western authority has not changed. it allows for constructing, financing, facilitating, planning, operating, maintaining and studying construction of new electric power lines and we actually are uncertain about why the view of how they can use their authority has changed and you said it just right, they have changed their view from using it as potential equity for ownership to more of a financing mechanism with revolving financing account, so i'm not sure why there view has changed, but our commitment in terms of wanting them to partner with us in a private public partnership

remains the same as is our commitment to medicate with there would be to the taxing authority. >> help we can get an answer on this important question. lng exports that we have talked about today and it's becoming a bigger issue because more development that is in the midwest that takes place we are losing access. rockies gas can become more strata, perhaps so we need a western outlet for that incredible gas production we have, so the jordan code project would allow us to export to asia in a market critical to the us from an economic standpoint and security standpoint. if you look at some trade partners there in south korea obviously incredibly important trade partner and if you look at taiwan and book-- important trade partner all of whom have expressed interest at a stable affordable supply of energy from the us helping us economically

crating jobs in the western us, but also gives our greatest allies the security they need so they are not reliant on china or other nations for their energy. this is an economic and security imperative that we move forward, but the permitting process of jordan code has been tough, long and it has been made more complex with the rigorous standards and roadblocks put in place. what additional authority would be of help to accelerate the issuance of permits by cooperating agencies on a project once it's been approved? >> i think you have probably on one of the fundamental problems with how the us has approached its permitting and it's to give -- sort of decentralized permitting authority to different agencies. i cannot point to it single

fixers single authority to say give this and things move better because for the most part what i've seen is that for every project it's a different bag of issues that come up that are raised or that might need solutions, so about the only thing that makes sense is more of kind of what's been done is that accountability for agencies and we can engage as much as we like with agencies. can't-- can lead the horse to water kind of think we can get them on board it in the end they still have their decision to issue under federal authority and that's what they will take their time doing. >> they have not issued either a final or draft in 2017 nor any orders, but there are lever-- 11 major lng projects, so is there hold up and if there is what is

it and when can we expect additional authorization? >> the projects that are there are probably the longest time and for those it's been coordination with the department of transportation oversight in regulation. that's been something that's evolved over the last four or five years as plants have moved it from imports to exports. i think that coordination, having that is vital in having dot put the resources needed to get those things solved is vital. >> i have additional questions, but i'm out of time. consistency, coordination accountability and you mentioned consistency and quarter nation in your answer we did not get to accountability, but it's there on our end to make sure we solve this problem and make sure the permitting process works economically and i look forward

to doing that with you. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. i was surprised that the interior department's reports on a impediments to domestic energy development including no opportunities for improvements specific to permitting or siding of renewable resources on public land, zero, so for a number of years now i've worked with the senator on legislation to improve the process for siting wind, solar geo- theme-- geothermal projects on public land and live a pretty substantial group of bipartisan cosponsors now including senator gardiner, senator dean's who's here and all members of this committee. does the department really not see any opportunities for improvement specifically to clean energy projects on public land? >> i think there are possibilities for drawing

different conclusions about how to address those. i personally had both solar and wind groups coming to visit with me about how we can do things better within the department of interior. each of them have use of things that we can do and we are taking a look at those. .. due to other say,

complications like protecting and endangered species or keeping open areas so it is an issue >> we do oil and gas at 40 and 160 acres. how is that different than during the winter? >> the difference is you may take 160 acres facing and you have a well pad that takes up 100feet by 100 feet of that . >> to the possibility of a wind turbine. >> one wind turbine, yes. my point is an oil and gas field you might have tend those tens of thousands of acres and 160 acres facing that doesn't seem to be any different than a substantial when the project. >> okay. >> and a solar project takes up less of afootprint so i'm not sure i understand the logic . >> it depends on the size of

the project. you can have very large projects are very small projects of energy. i'm not quite sure why we don't have some suggested improvements we could make on the renewables but we do have particular suggestions to make, i'd be happy. >> to get those on the ground and get them in the process. >> i love to chair legislation with you. i want to go back for a moment. most folks wouldn't care if and i asked can be done in 10 pages or 1000 pages as long as the individual addresses and analyzes the relevant environmental issues. i think i'd be a little concerned and at least i think there would be a concern that a hard staff whether it's 300 pages or whatever number it is and the cis could be seen as arbitrary.

you understand that concern? >> yes and it's not hard that's the goal. and yes, it's the secretaries order. are allowed to go beyond 300 page limit or 150 pages for easy eis so there is a mechanism in place. >> to exceed that threshold. >> i want to go back to one other thing you said. you said there were significant problems yet colorado has very successfully implemented an almost identical rule, done that both successfully and profitably. and coming from the state where nasa has literally met thelargest methane slew in the united states , a globally significant methane plume, i'm having a hard time understanding why it's taking

so long. can you explain again why this rule is not being implemented and why we are really not prioritizing public safety? >> it's not a matter of not prioritizing public safety. on inventing the rule as part of the beachhead team. i received feedback from within interior that we were not well prepared to implement the rule and receive feedback from external groups that they were not prepared to comply with the rule and certain things needed to be done to allow both parties to do their jobs well. we recognize that there are a number of states that have adopted their own regulations dealing with firing. what we chose to do is to spend the effect of the rule and go back and basically take a look at the public

comment process so we can get feedback from the general public and the industry. regarding how we should do this will better. >> i'm out of time here but i'll share the frustration with my community that comes from looking across the border at dom land in colorado and seeing basic regulation being implemented that had improved the way things are done and not seeing those changes in their own communities. >> thank you. >> thank you senator henry. >> senator murkowski. thank you for being here today to sell tell the story about your company's exciting project. in wyoming, we are blessed with many energy resources with vast reserves of oil, natural gas. we also have a world-class wind in addition to the uranium we have no it is and all of the above approach to

energy dominance for america so we need to use all our energy resources to grow our economy and keep energy prices low and your company's project is a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project that's going to create jobs, deliver power to the western bread so i forward to the continued progress of the project and the benefits is going to bring to wyoming but also to the united states. you explaining her testimony the federal government has added potential new fees to your company's project without prior notice. specifically you stated the dlls so-called competitive leasing rule issued in the final weeks of the obama administration increase fees or wind and solar power generation projects that are developed on federal land. you also stated this rule didn't grandfather in existing projects including projects such as yours that have been in development for years. so could you please describe the total cost impact of this rule that was the final days of the obama administration on this project and explain

whether you think these increase fees imposed by the obama administration will have a chilling effect on the future development of energy resources on public lands. >> thank you senator barrasso. a little context on the timeframe. we started construction on the wind project on september 9 2016. exactly 3 months later on december 9, the blm issued the final rule. the final rule does increase speed associated with wind development on public land. it will increase the fees for our project by an estimated $47 million-$160 million over the term of our development grant. the purpose of the rule was to encourage development of renewable energy on public land and there are incentives in the rule for developers going forward, that includes

permitting and some contractual advantages if you are located in a designated resource area. however, he will be needing any of those benefits, nor will other golfers like us who have already taken the risk to develop renewable energy on public land. we are just getting this increased cost. so we shared our concerns with the administration throughout the rulemaking process with no success and we are asking the city to consider a provision in the energy bill that would exclude projects like ours some application of the rule. we understood that we were assuming risk when we went to develop our project on public lands but we did that based on the rules of the game at the outset. and the rules should not be changed for projects like ours. >> this is something, rule that came out not only late in the obama administration. after the election, after it was obvious the election results were in this was

december, the final six weeks or so of the obama administration, midnight before they came out. you state that this project in the chokecherry and sierra madre wind projects were designated as upper projects. you talked about that under the fixing america's service transportation. you explain the benefits of being designated a covered project are specifically challenges to agency decisions approving cover projects must be made within a short timeframe and courts must consider the economic impact when evaluating the challenge to the project so could you please elaborate on the benefits of being designated a cover projects under the fast act and explain what you think congress should consider broadening the scope of eligible projects under the fast. >> thank you. we were notified that most projects in the wind project were designated as covered

projects in september 2016 so toward the end of our current process . as our projects were so advanced that point in time we were able to fully benefit from the dashboard and traffic decisions that you heard about. but they do provide a level of accountability and we do appreciate the follow-up that we did receive under that program regarding the status of permitting. the other two benefits that we see with the fast act relate to win agency decisions are challenged. generally halogen agency decisions falls under the general statute of limitations actions against the united states of six years. under the fast act these limitations are two years after the date of publication in the federal register. the fast act also provides as part of any preliminary injunction that could conceivably stop progression of a project, the court will consider an additional element that includes consideration of potential effects onpublic health, safety , environment and also

the potential for significant negative effects on jobs. so these two provisions, the two-year statute of limitations and the additional preliminary injunction standard developers more certainty that any challenges due to agencies decisions will be raised in a reasonable amount of time and that the court will consider a wider effect of enjoying the project when determining whether a preliminary injunction is necessary. so each of these factors reduces development risks and could assist in encouraging federal projects so be if the eligibility were brought in, it could help thank youmadame chair and i have other questions i will submit for written response . >> representative cortez master.>> mister cayson, the blm has sent a request to the forest service to

determine whether 54,000 acres in the ruby mountains and nevada are suitable for gas leasing. this request is proposed by stateenvironmentalists , anglers and tribes and also if you don't know, the ruby mountains in northern nevada serve as a habitat for several species including the cutthroat trout which is the nevada state fish. can you tell me why the agency that the request? >> i'm sorry. it's often the case that the blm manages the sub surface of our state out in federal country. we had about 700 million acres subsurface of state that we manage and often we will have forest service as a service owner over our subsurface space so we collaborate with them to find out what their views are on

prospective entries that we would make into the subsurface. >> can i ask why you made the request? >> i'm not familiar with that particular request. >> can you get me that information please? the concern is this. that is a pristine area for that has been decades been used by people in nevada who support continuing the protection and do not support opening it up to oil and gas leasing though i'm curious why the request all of a sudden came. who was behind the request and asked you to send that over to the forest service so if you could provide that information, that would be helpful. i am from the state of nevada where we have a history of mining along with, we are an incredible state right now. we are leading the country in renewable energy with wind and geothermal.

i appreciate the comments because this is something i hear from both industries is streamlining of processes, doing away with the duplication. how we can do the coordination better. among the federal agencies to help the companies and to continue to promote as well. the industries so let me ask this question. i guess is it missed pfleeger? my understanding is the federal permitting improvement council was created to do just that. to engage in that coordination, streamlined that permitting process but it's only been in existence for about a year, is that correct? >> the law was passed in december 2015 and staff were hired in january. and working with all the permitting agencies, we do the very same things that some of the nonpermanent witnesses expressed. >> i appreciate that what you've heard the comment today. my thought is that you're here to do just what these issues that you heard today, nothing else needs to be done then select your agency do

its job and coordinate among the federal agencies. is that your understanding or is that your intent with the committee or the council? >> yes. the need a dayexpress would be coordination . the accountability, that adding through the dashboard. those are all part of fast forwarding funds and as we've been rolling it out and sending out the law, we're hearing a lot more and more, the next step that you are going to see is coming in and benefiting from fast 40 1x and as miss larusso said they were covered at the project late in the process. as these new projects come in, that's a key thing because right from day one, there will be a lead agency assigned. that agency will bring together every cooperating and participating agency and as another one of the

witnesses mentioned, role responsibilities will be defined. that part of this project mandate. >> i apologize, i only have so much time but you need additional tools? should we be giving you tools to address the concerns we are hearing today? >> one of the things in the 2018 budget request of $10 million, that would allow us to use the existing 41 tools to fully implement 41. >> thank you very much. and then mister cason, we held a hearing where they heard from a 27 year veteran of the eq who testified that two of the greatest reasons that cause delays are for reviews. the deal with capacity within the agency. one, lack of staff with responsibility with limitation and to lack of review training. would you agree? >> i think those are contributors. >> and i'm running out of time but i would like your

thoughts and i'll submit this for the record as well. part of the thought with respect to giving responsibility back to staff includes publishing notices of intent for the federal register. my understanding is that mandated now and instead of letting the managers make that decision, i'm curious where you and the secretary feel on publishing those registers and giving that authority back to the managers in the state.so thank you very much. >> i'm out of time. >>. >> i never thought you get here. >> there's mister russell who helps make the silver state the silver state, your statement mister russell? >> in response to senator heinrich , that's quite right. i am a cosponsor of the bill

for helping streamline the processing for renewable energy. and my only regret is all the sponsors of that and cosponsors of the bill would do the same thing with nonrenewable energy but nonetheless we are at least all in agreement on the renewable energy and frankly to you mister russell, i'm so glad you were able to come here and tell the committee the story of rock creek. i tried to tell as many people as i can. i'll try to put it in perspective. since the permitting started i finished almost 30 years here in state and served as lieutenant governor and i've been here almost a decade. we are getting close . >> chairman, senator, i think we are. we are scheduled to have a supplemental decision in the first quarter of 2018. unfortunately that's years after it was remanded back by the judge. munson are unfortunately got

caught up in the litigation as well and was remanded back and the agencies are working to revise that record of decision and i must say we've been very pleased with the attitudes of the forest service to try to get this done. but this is taking a long time on both projects. >> thank you for your persistence, this is a project that badly needed in the area that it's in or the reasons everyone stated with the positive and everything else. in addition to that, i can say that having been intimately associated with this for decades that we've gone the extra mile and that the environment is going to be protected. obviously it's very important lands, both in idaho that have been very sensitive towards caring for as you gone through the process so thank you for that. most of all, the these kind of stories are just

staggering. when people go out as entrepreneurs, as people who are going to create wealth for americans and they get nothing but beat over the head by the government and very little help so thank you for your perseverance through the administration, decades. through recessions and everything else. we forget where they are and keep it up. someday were going to get there and we sure appreciate what you've done. >> thank you senator rich. your description of the timeline kind of boggles the mind but you mentioned in your statement, you've got an extension for this expansion, 10 acres and the reality is that if you have to start the permitting request for the next leg of it, before you even allowed the ink to dry on the permit that was granted because it takes a

full decade and more than a full decade and you mentioned this which is quite incredible. >> chair, as i was listening to today's hearing i'm reminded of a passage in the old testament where god came to moses and said moses, i have good news and bad news. moses said what's the good news. and i said i'm going to empower you to part the waters of the red sea, and allow the israelites to escape and after they escaped, the waters going to come back and then both the army of the pharaoh. moses said that's wonderful, what's the bad news. >> he said you have to bear the entire environmental impact study. i've read the old testament and i'm pretty sure that's not exactly the way the story went. >>. >> i find this hearing fascinating because this is an issue i've been wrestling with for 30 years. i've been an environmental advocate, a governor and an

administrator and what i said when i was a governor is i said we want the most printed environmental standards in the country in the most timely predictable and efficient permitting process. and i think that's exactly what we ought to be reaching for, to me there should not be a conflict between environmental standards and timely and efficient permitting process. thequestion is how do we get there . >> i think you outlined at the end of your testimony a set of standards that are worth discussing as i made my notes. identify a lead agency. that's crucial. in our experience in maine, having one agency that's responsible, but not multiple serial applications before many agencies define the responsibilities of all the agencies involved in making contributions to the process. have parallel analysis among these agencies so it's not string half the time and

establish reasonable time limits and hold people accountable. is that an accurate statement of where we ought to be? >> senator, that's exactly right and the provisions of the past, best management practices are right along those lines. mining however is not currently a covered project. if we could bring mining into a similar regulatory regime, that might be helpful to accomplish those objectives . >> miss pfleeger i'm unclear on where your agency resides in the installation of federal agencies. are you in another department? are you independent, where you stand? >> the permitting counsel is an independent counsel and omb was given the authority to pick an agency that we are housed in general services administration. >> the key is i think you've articulated today is to give

you some funding so you can continue the function and the outline that i gave, is that essentially the direction you are trying to move federal agencies? >> we are doing that and i mentioned, it's when the new projects, and they see these benefits from the start that you all will start to see the improvement in the streamlining of the permitting process . >> my concern is in the situation we see the pendulum swinging back and forth to invest in an untimely regulation that impedes responsible development but we don't want to swing back to the point where we open the floodgates to irresponsible environmental damage that we will have to live with for generations. so i think madam chair, that's the challenge is that in our desire to clean up the environmental, clean up the regulatory process that we not go too far and undermine the goals with which the laboratory process was established to protect.

i want to associate myself with senator stabenow. i'm greatly concerned about the volume of natural gas exports. we had a hearing, an expert witness for the natural gas industry sat where you're sitting and said that we will never export more than nine percent of domestic production. we have now approved 55 billion pc for export and an annual production is 78 billion bcf a day. the one law this congress cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.it concerns me that we are squandering one of the few advantages we have vis-c-vis asia and china in terms of the support for manufacturing. and the relatively low cost of natural gas. if we give that away, to these competitors it will simply be one less advantage we have and senator gardner mentioned the thousands of

jobs, we are talking hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the manufacturing center that have been enabled by the low cost of natural gas and i just feel concerned that's not relative this hearing but i have to associate myself. i'm afraid we're going to look back in four or five years and say what were we thinking. we've given away a enormous national advantage in the energy field that is tremendously important to the manufacturing sector. with that madam chair i complement you on this hearing. i think this presents important issues that i'm certainly willing to work with you to try to address. >> i look forward to that senator king and i would just note that senator in half has asked that the statements be included for the record in support of the bill that he has cosponsored with you, this is based 814, the

interagency review of the natural gas act of 2017 so we are going to include that statement from senator inhofe . it's not exactly speaking to your point but talking about natural gas so thatwill be inclusive . >> and senator duckworth has been included with members and you are next up. >> thank you madam chair. i squeaked in under the wire, thank you. i wanted to say thank you for holding this hearing and while i support the permitting system and understand that it can be challenging to industry, i believe we have to be discerning on what projects to permit and where. for example, i oppose the administration's recent decision to make largest ever reduction in public hands lands protection of a new to national monuments. he likened himself to president teddy roosevelt, the father of our national

parks system and i cannot imagine a less accurate portrayal of conservation. president roosevelt is the father and would never have recommended human land protections so that uranium mining, oil drilling and coal mining can take place. mister mr. cason does this administration have plans to move forward with drilling on these lands?>> -- >> madam chairwoman i like to submit to the record a couple of items. one is a law review article published in virginia earlier this year, that determines the president lacks the authority to reverse national monument designation. >> and the second is article that ran in the washington post detailing uranium mining form, the trump administrations reversing that protection last year. >> i commend the state of washington which appears to

have found a pathway forward on how to manage the workload associated with infrastructure permitting requirements. ms. brown, the trump administration has proposed draconian budget cuts across the demonstration and has sought early retirement from civil servants. with this make federal permitting more or less burdensome for industries? >> the permitting process would be difficult to reduce funding for the oversight of these projects. if the federal projects our partner that you work with don't have the oversight ability to ensure a proper environmental regulation then that would fall to the states and the states authority for example where one certification, we would need to condition those permits and those licenses in order to ensure that our water quality standards and other permit regulations are met. as we lose expertise on the

federal level with our federal partners, the states would need to make up for that. i do think that losing funding in federal government levels would impact the permitting process and the stateside. >> so do you think the state would afford to come up with that additional, basically the costs passing from the federal to the government? the state government, excuse me it's pass-through funding for us to implement our delegated authority. which is often impacted as well so we have less resources and we must prioritize our regulatory oversight as well. so with the waterpower license fees that we have although it doesn't fully fund the program, it does move those projects to the front of the line because they do have somebody in place with the expertise to be there for early engagement

and begin the permitting process. but funding at that level and working with industry to get those findings approved through state legislature is difficult. we feel like we've been successful working with our industry partners to maintain that fee. >> thank you. so the federal government is essential to guarantee the state fulfills their role in the permitting process essentially . >> yes. >> thank you mister brown. on a related note, mister russo,your company is working on two major infrastructure projects, windfarm and a transmission project over the last decade . and you share your overall experience working with our federal employees? wind power has added 5000 jobs in illinois over the past few years so i'm abig fan . >> i don't think it's exaggerating to say over the last 10 years that we have worked very closely with employees and participated in literally thousands of medians and the projects

would not be where they are today if it wasn't for the many rural employees at every level from the field offices to the state offices to dc who worked hard on the environmental analysis. i'm not going to tell you all the relationships always went well or that there were bumps in the road but we are fortunate to have many federal employees who took a real interest in the project and were committed and are committed to seeing the projects through and that's why our recommendation today and my testimony focuses on improving the framework that the federal employees are working under. if they have policies that they can carry out, coordinate and communicate but also with the corresponding decision-making

so it's not just coordination and communication without an ending and then accountability regarding scheduling. i think it's pretty universal that everybody performs better when there's a schedule and budget. i can tell you the perfect example is i wouldn't have gotten my written testimony submitted friday if there had been a deadline. >> thank you. i need deadlines to. >> thank you senator. >> senator kobe. >> thank you madam chair. thanks for holding the hearing. mr. cason, i recently introduced legislation that performs the permitting process for department to drill 80s for oil wells. they own no surface acres but on mineral acres on that area. we like to be able to go ahead and permit if they own without going through their process, they own less than 50 percent as we go through the other pool of process and in essence a minority of the ownership with no surface

acreage would impact the blm surface acres is holding up the majority so that's essentially how the legislation works. we moved a version of it through last year and it didn't get passed across the floor but we are continuing to work and again, it's about trying to have common sense with exporting. i like your reaction to that and how you're willing to supportthose efforts . >> we are always happy to have any flexibility to move our processes along more efficiently than right now. so we'd be happy to work with you on the legislation and offer comments or suggestions on how we can make things better. >> it goes back to common sense. you have no surface acreage impact if you're a minority holder in the minerals, it frees up resources for you to

take care of surface acres where you have issues. seems to me you would get more done with less people and it works all the way around both in terms of atvs but also your ability to manage your service acres. >> right. >> and it also generates revenue because you get revenue from those producing lines. >> right. we'd be happy to work withyou on legislation . >> and anything that moves the process along, we would be happy for. >> there's a little salesmanship here. somebody who is in for fossil fuels understand benefit on both sides of the equation in terms of good blm land management. >> we certainly have to set priorities all the time. there's not enough resources to go around to do everything we would like to so anyway that we can prioritize our resources by making the job easier to do or more

straightforward or more efficient to something that would like to try to do.>> along the same line, our coal miners, and we do midnight coal mining which is strip mining are still having trouble getting permits and what happens is they end up going around federal lands, so you just miss out on the revenues and so forth and it makes it more costlyfor them . so we really need a way to expedite that process. i said it would be useful for you or the right person to come out and visit our miners and see what they do and see their reclamation but you can't tell. i like your reaction to that. >> one of the things that we encountered in the beginning of the administration was, i'll call it the war on coal and everything to do with coal and the effect of the government's policies in the

last administration was to shut down a lot of our coal resources and our permitting capabilities. so this president trump has said the war on coal is over and we have had an executive order to basically get to that effect. we are currently implementing changes to our coal program so that we can be smart cold. we've had a large coal sale so far this year so we are trying to make that resource available across the board. we are, our administration is basically and all of the above kind of energy and we are trying to accurately raise all the forms of energy including coal, including oil and gas and the thought process is we are not going to try to pick some losers

that will have the marketplace do that.so our job is to make the resources available and then the market and sort out whichone is the most effective . >> then i would like to kind of follow up. see what we do is quite eye-opening. i think people don't realize the quality of the work. we are number one in the country in reclamation . my chair, i beg in endorsements for one more question. i'm recognizing on over my time but director pfleeger, in regard to improvement for federal infrastructure can you tell me what concrete steps the administration will be taking to expedite improved infrastructure citing processes? >> so there's two controls available, there's a fast 41 law as well as the executive order 13 807. and a fundamental principle

that we are currently using, there's a 16 memberpermitting counsel . it's early coordination and collaboration, bringing every agency that has a permitting role in the project together at the start of the project. once there they are required to update the plan so they're having those conversations at the beginning and then regularly throughout the process and they can address the difficult issues number one. number two is accountability. they are wired to put a timeline on a public dashboard and have the clarity they need as well as providing the public and any stakeholders with information on specific target for a permit. and then there's also my office, the office of the executive director where a project monster can come and

whetherit's in formal and we will work with agencies on a specific project or there's a formal dispute resolution process, all of those things are being used to streamline the process . >> i really encourage you to work with us. as much and you can do with the state approach to help with that process would be beneficial. >> command chair. >> thank you senator and miss , mr. cason, i would encourage you to take editor open up on his offer. i had an opportunity to go there several years ago and that was all the people wanted to talk about was the situation with blm and how on these areas, you just had such an impediment to any level of development because things just took longer. you mentioned this is all about common sense in terms of how the atvs were issued

but it was really eye-opening for me to see and understand. how you can have a level of good solid economic activity. you mentioned the reclamation efforts and all that goes with that but then when you have the federal lands and that's an entirely different scenario in terms of how the process proceeds. >> sounds like a great trip. >> particularly this time of year. senator. >> the idc today will be 88, high in bismarck will be 50. >> there you go. [laughter] let me ask one more question.and this relates to need. it's been mentioned a little bit and some of you in your

testimony but it seems like we've moved away from a need for process that allows for this interaction between the permits applicants and the agencies. to ask the questions to provide some clarity. and to have that understanding. what it seems we've moved to now is more of an arms length transaction where you can't have hey, we've got a question over here. help me clear that up over there. that's done through time delays, that adds to greater uncertainty. so we hear that. that move or that direction to more of an arms length

transaction rather than the ability to work some of these things out as you are moving through the process. the other thing i've heard and senator duckworth mentioned a little bit in her question to you about the federal employees that you work with. those that are part of the agencies. one of the things i hear is you have a level of turnover within the agencies that if you are in a multitier process that the senator has outlined or as mister russell has indicated that has gone through where you have a project that is taking years and years , and you go back to this agency and now you have a different person and basically you're re-telling your story all over again. so the question, i'll throw it out there. i guess to you mr. cason and miss pfleeger in terms of what you think we can do to give back to a more collaborative approach that can help answer some of the preliminary questions and then to those on the

applicant side, miss russo, mister russell. how bad is the situation with turnover and what that then does to elongate this permit process.so let's start with you and what can we be doing to reinstitute this collaborative approach. >> the long-term link a lot of these projects do lend themselves to encounter staff turnover for sure. one of the things that we are trying to do and the interior to come back that is we're going through a process where now of building a standardized fee for compliant process and training so that all of our practitioners and up with the same grounding of what's required and the ceq rules so

that if you get a new face in the job, at least they are operating from the same set of standards that we are trying to imply. one of the things we found so far in our streamlining process is that each of our agencies and up doing nipa a little bit different so we are trying to get past that and standardize it. the second thing we are trying to do is examine this deq rules and nipa process and make sure we are coming out of the process any of the things that are extraneous and not required by statute or the regulations. so that should really help us out. then we're trying to build a broader cadre of nipa specialists who if they can see we have somebody that's on the backend that can come in and fill in on the

project, it probably won't do a lot for this for the specifics of the individual projects because each of those tend to be different. what can a lot if you insert the right person in has the same background and training. and they can take over the project, learn the specifics about the project much more quickly and create less confusion and disruption of the process. >> anything we can be doing more on the collaborative side? >> one thing i would say about the collaborative side, i mentioned the coordinated project plans and how important they are. they require a plan and this is at the start of the project and then with a quarterly update, a plan for public and tribal outreach. so that's still the infrastructure of 41 to piggyback on what jim was saying. our best practices report released last week addresses the very issue you just described about staffturnover and the need for training . that's one of the best practices that staff 41 requires and making sure that

product knowledge can move from one person to the next when there's turnover because we understand how important that is and that as project takes time we want to conserve and use the knowledge already built up. >>. >> during the 10 years our two projects have been moving forward, all of the blm efforts in our states, all of the district managers, all of the project managers and many of the resource specialists have turned over the one and sometimes more than one and there's no doubt that that turnover led to a lot of momentum and new staff came in and tried to get a bead on where the project was, what

had been done, what needed to be done and sometimes there was disagreement with what happened and there was where consistent policy and guidance would be very helpful as well as communication and coordination as the staff turnover take place. >> miss cameron, certainly the project manager is key. those are the projects that are working well and we're giving budget managers and understanding of what drives the process. it has been a big issue for us. the core of engineers went through to project managers and nothing happened for a year. brought three, 11 months was lost when one biologist left the fish and wildlife service. so those resources are very important. the role of the applicant is very important. i believe nipa allows for applicants to prepare environmental assessments. applicants would prepare

those early in my career and agencies would repair them. we've moved away from that because of fear of litigation but that would be one way to get back to streamlining environmentalassessments . also at greenstreet we experienced because of this arm's-length relationship that the forest service was developing independently, alternatives to our proposal that were not technically or economically feasible so a lot of time and energy was spent developing those alternatives and when it finally came to preparing the documents, it was only then they reached out and say can you do that and the answer was no. it's not technically or economically feasible. so getting the applicants more involved earlier in the process addresses the points you raise, that you get a more streamlined and efficient process without any regulatory analysis. >> you want to add anything to this? >> sure. i think that on both sides of

the table these are things we've experienced in the commission. we have in terms of project managers low turnover. that being said, you lose a key person and it does have an impact for the project and that's why for the larger, more complicated projects we will have project managers to ensure that institutional knowledge is there that we don't have those pickups. i do think we've experienced much more turnover or witnessed much more turnover in the other federal agencies, especially in the smaller regional offices where it may be that these soul institutional knowledge is, when they leave, that office is starting over from scratchand that has been a problem we've seen . >> senator king. >> that was a really good question and we've identified in the armed services committee one of the problems with the federal procurement process is turnover.

on the loss of a project manager following through. that's one of the reasons the procurement process and the defense department takes so long but there's an additional point here and that is it's often easy politically talk about shrinking the government and hiring freezes and fewer people , that directly impacts the speed of your permitting process. and we're talking about changing regulation but if you don't have people to do the analysis and to do the required steps that takes and i think we need to understand that you can't on the one hand talk about a more efficient permitting process and on the other hand talk about firing people and shrinking the size of whether it's the epa or the department of the interior or the fire service, whatever, there's an inconsistency there and i think that's a point that needs to be made . >> you have made it and i'm reminded that i hear complaints from constituents or other folks that say you need to to reduce the size of

thatagency . still, they want their permit approved. then it's like where are all the people in your agency? >> then they complain no one answers their call. >> we know it, you are living it. this is been in your department this morning, this last exchange about the imperative to have the people in place knowledgeable. it's a challenge for us and i think we recognize that we can pass legislation whether it's fast 41 orwhatever it is , we can put in place processes that allow for streamlining and efficiency. we still have to have the folks that actually make it all happen. how we work to find balance is part of our challenge here. but i think i think you eat for what you have contributed to the conversation.

as we look to ways that we can move the economy. it is very clear. it's not a republican idea or a democrats idea. we saw with the obama administration there needs to be something about regulatory permitting process. presidential comes into office, we need to do more about the regulatory permitting process. our challenge is to do more about the permitting process and actually see that translate on the ground. as you point out senator king, none of us are wishing to shortcut environmental considerations that would put at risk our economy. we do expect to have stringent and good standards but we also expect a level of certainty and predictability and one that doesn't a permitting process for literally decades . that people have worked on a

certain project for a generation, that's not the goal here. we have work to do. we appreciate what you all have contributed to the conversation. >>. [inaudible conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation]. >>. [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation] this weekend on book tv on c-span2, saturday 20: 45 eastern, rachel bachman talks about the impact technology has had on trust in her book who can you trust? >> is technology making us smarter about who we trust or is it encouraging us to place our trust in the wrong people

and the wrong places? >> sunday at 4:40 5 pm, amy goldstein author of jamesville talks about the closing of the general motors assembly plant in wisconsin during the great recession. >> corner of my story is about the d's dislocated workers themselves, dislocated as a government term that means we lost your job and it's not likely it's going to come back. and i decided what i wanted to illustrate was as i came to think of it, what choices people make when there are no choices in left. >> at 7:30, scientist jared lanier on the connection between the brain and the world in his book dawn of the new everything. more of this week's schedule, go to booktv.org. this weekend on our companion network c-span, former us ambassador samantha power reflecting on in her time in the obama administration and america'splace in the world . >> now that you're sitting looking from somewhat of a distance, human rights, is it

worse, is it weaker? has lost america as its champion? >> i think that we have all fallen prey over the years to thinking of when we say america, thechampion of human rights . i at least often think of that as the american government and i think if that's what we mean by america, we mean us diplomats around the world, it's really hard to see a us diplomat now standing up for human rights when your president is embracing police brutality or attacking judges. we've seen us leadership on human rights with the attack on the media.everything is

fake news. if you don't like it, it's fake news. now we've seen the bolivian government or some bolivian officials that didn't like the footage of the slave market where human beings were being sold. they didn't like it, that's not convenient to have video like that shown so you call it the news. you've seen the leader of the military in burma describing melrose and thousands of eyewitness survivor testimonies about the systematic ethnic cleansing of the rohinga people and it's fake news. >> ..

steven for the next weekend washington journals between authors and key books published this year. starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern join us for our life conversation with authors about their popular books. on saturday, republic of virtue, how he tried to be in corruption, failed and what we can do about it. sunday, michael eric dyson talks about his book peers we cannot stop. on christmas day, monday, henry olson with the working-class republicans, ronald reagan and return to blue-collar conservatism. tuesday, can start with republican like me how i left the liberal bubble and learned to love the right. wednesday, angela j davis placing the black man. thursday, former representative cliff stearns with his book. also on friday, december 29, author in a scholar with digital

world war, islamist extremists and the fight for cyber supremacy. on saturday, just computer with her book no man land, surviving america in the 21st century. on sunday december 301st chris whipple with the gatekeepers how the white house chief of staff defined every presidency. washington journals other series for the next week at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span .org and c-span radio. the assistant secretary for health and substance abuse testified regarding funding for calm batting the opioid programs. lamar alexander is a chair of the committee.