U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–932 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–32 

OVERSIGHT OF 

THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 15, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 15, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESS 

Neumayr, Mary Bridget, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality ........... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 14 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 17 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 26 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 28 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

The Myth of the Carbon Investment ‘Bubble,’ by Nancy Meyer and Lysle 

Brinker. www.wsj.com, January 11, 2015 .......................................................... 48 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Sullivan, 

Ernst, Whitehouse, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. 

Today we are going to conduct oversight on the Council on Environmental Quality. 

I welcome our witness, Mary Neumayr, who is Chairman of the 

Council. 

Welcome. 

In January, the Senate confirmed Ms. Neumayr by voice vote. 

She is the first Senate confirmed Chairman since 2014. 

I look forward to hearing about the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s priorities under your leadership. 

President Trump’s administration has pursued pro-growth and 

pro-job policies that also protect our Nation’s air, water, wildlife, 

and communities. I share President Trump’s belief that we can 

both grow our economy and protect our environment at the same 

time. 

The Obama administration largely believed that we had to pick 

one or the other. As a result, the American people unnecessarily 

suffered from a series of overreaching environmental policies and 

punishing regulations. 

Now the Trump administration is shifting the Federal Government away from policies that increase uncertainty, that increase 

costs, and that increase delays with no corresponding environmental benefits. 

For example, in March 2017, President Trump ordered the Council on Environmental Quality to rescind the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas guidance. That guidance was unworkable. It 

also served to delay projects and increase uncertainty. Withdrawing the guidance was the right decision. 

Over the last 2 years, the Council has improved environmental 

reviews that delay projects and increase costs. Last December, the 

2 

Council published a report based on 1,161 environmental impact 

statements issued between 2010 and 2017. The report found that 

it took an average of 4 and a half years to complete an environmental impact statement; 4 and a half years for Wyoming’s farmers 

and ranchers to get answers on decisions that affect their lands 

and their waters; 4 and a half years before shovels can go in the 

ground on infrastructure projects that the Nation so desperately 

needs. 

Four and a half years is indefensible. 

To address delays, the Council on Environmental Quality has developed and implemented a policy known as One Federal Decision. 

One Federal Decision establishes a coordinated and timely environmental review process. Agencies must develop and follow a permitting timetable, with the goal of completing environmental reviews 

within 2 years. Agencies will then produce a single environmental 

document. 

This is a commonsense approach that emphasizes interagency coordination, accountability, and transparency. The policy will help 

agency leaders and their staffs achieve better consistency, communication, and coordination in the Federal permitting process. 

The Council on Environmental Quality is also considering 

changes to its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Last summer, the Council issued an 

advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comment on potential updates to its implementing regulations. It received over 

12,000 comments. I believe the Council should consider substantial 

revisions to the NEPA regulations. These regulations are over 40 

years old and need to be updated. 

It is difficult to overstate the importance of reforming NEPA regulations. For years we have talked about the Act as a source of 

delay and uncertainty. We feel its effects nearly everywhere. Satisfying NEPA is almost always a prerequisite to Government action. 

For my home State of Wyoming, the law plays an integral role 

in the development of land use and resource management plans 

that affect coal and natural gas production. The Act often delays 

permits to Wyoming’s farmers, ranchers, and businesses, the permits that they need. They need them to keep their lands productive 

and to maintain their livelihood. 

More broadly, NEPA is at the core of every agency decision to 

construct, to fund, or to approve roads, bridges, pipelines, dams, 

and other critical infrastructure. By improving NEPA, the Trump 

administration will reduce delays and end duplicative reviews. It 

also will stop nuisance litigation, improve the usefulness of environmental review, and better incentivize interagency coordination. 

I look forward to hearing more about what the Council on Environmental Quality is currently doing to both protect the environment and support economic growth. We can and we must do both. 

I will now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his opening remarks. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Neumayr, great to see you. Welcome. We are delighted that 

you could appear before us for this conversation on the Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

My colleagues recall well the nominating process that preceded 

your nomination, and we are pleased that you are sitting here and 

not someone else. 

Ms. Neumayr, during your confirmation process, you made commitments, as you recall, to members of our Committee, including 

me, on a number of critical environmental concerns, and we are 

just grateful for this opportunity to check in on those issues and 

maybe to discuss several others. 

Specifically, you committed that under your leadership, CEQ 

would support Federal planning and preparation for extreme 

weather events. I look forward to hearing an update on that, as 

well as on the status of CEQ greenhouse gas guidance for Federal 

agencies. 

However, since your confirmation, I have been a bit disappointed 

to hear statements from this Administration, more than a bit disappointed to hear statements from this Administration undermining climate science, and particularly to learn that CEQ may be 

helping to block common sense climate actions such as the ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which 

would bring with it substantial job creation in this country and economic growth in this country. 

These developments are very disappointing. The Fourth National 

Climate Assessment was crystal clear: If we do not act quickly and 

boldly, climate change will continue to wreak havoc even more on 

our Nation’s infrastructure, on public health, and on economic 

growth. 

At a time when large parts of this country are bone dry and 

prone to wildfires—in my State we raise a lot of chickens, a lot of 

corn, a lot of soybeans. In southern Delaware and on the Delmarva 

Peninsula, a lot of farmers haven’t even been able to get on their 

fields yet to plant anything. I drove through southern Delaware the 

other day, and one large field after another unplowed, just water 

and mud. Something is going on here, and I think it is becoming 

increasingly clear. 

As you know, part of CEQ’s mission is to coordinate Federal actions to address cross-cutting environmental issues like climate 

change and resilience. Our Nation’s transportation system is far 

too energy intensive and vulnerable to our new climate reality. 

CEQ should be laser focused on coordinating Federal actions to 

reduce greenhouse gases and making sure our Nation’s infrastructure is built to withstand climate change impacts, including 

through the NEPA process. Instead of fulfilling these obligations, 

this Administration has largely revoked all climate resiliency and 

mitigation actions taken by the previous Administration and has 

focused on NEPA streamlining. 

I have said it before, and I will say it again: We cannot streamline our way to more funding. Neither can we streamline our way 

to a healthier climate. In fact, the wrong types of environmental 

4 

streamlining could make our already dire situation even worse. As 

our Committee and this Administration focuses on surface transportation reauthorization efforts, it is important to dispel the notion that NEPA is the main impediment to infrastructure development. 

In fact, the non-partisan General Accountability Office and the 

Congressional Research Service have documented that 96 percent 

of projects approved by the Federal Highway Administration are 

categorically excluded from the NEPA process. Let me say that 

again. According to GAO and CRS, 96 percent of projects approved 

by the Federal Highway Administration are categorically excluded 

from the NEPA process. 

The projects that do trigger NEPA do so because these projects 

have potential environmental impacts to communities that may 

last for decades and possibly for centuries. Study after study has 

shown that it is not NEPA, but rather a lack of funding, that is 

the primary cause of project delays, or stop and go funding; inadequate funding in some cases, and frankly, just not knowing if the 

money is going to come. 

Nevertheless, environmental streamlining has been a part of 

every highway bill in the last 20 years, and it should be. It should 

have been. At minimum, there were 10 streamlining and flexibility 

provisions adopted in the 1998 highway bill—10. In 2005, 10 provisions were adopted. In 2012, an additional 23 provisions were 

adopted. And the FAST Act last implemented, I believe, 28 provisions were adopted. 

I am not really good at math, but I think that might be—let’s 

see, 10, 20, 43. I think that is 71. That is 71. So, what I would urge 

that we do as we go through this consideration for additional 

streamlining, let’s collect better data to find out which of all those 

dozens of provisions that we have adopted in the last 20 years, 

which are working, which are not, which need to be addressed and 

revisited. 

We should also focus on fixing something that we know is delaying projects, and that is causing significant reduction in both staffing and NEPA training opportunities. Let’s make clear, let’s make 

sure the agencies that protect our environment have the resources 

to do that. 

Last year, as you may know, CEQ published an advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking regarding NEPA regulations. The questions 

posed in this rulemaking touch on every aspect of the NEPA process and signal an openness to redefining crucial NEPA terms that 

help make the law effective. 

Ms. Neumayr, during your confirmation process, you committed 

to a public engagement process that would allow for significant 

feedback, commensurate with the scope of this rulemaking. I have 

not yet heard how CEQ plans to make this a reality, but we look 

forward to hearing about that soon. 

Let me close this morning with a couple of quotes for former 

President Richard Nixon. I am the only Democrat I know who 

quotes Richard Nixon. 

The first can be found in his remarks when he signed the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) into law in 1970. On 

that date, these were his words: ‘‘Once the damage is done, it is 

5 

much harder to turn around.’’ Once the damage is done, it is much 

harder to turn around. 

He also would say, a few years later, these words: ‘‘The only people who don’t make mistakes are people who don’t do anything.’’ 

That is my favorite. 

Climate change and extreme weather are real, and we need to 

do something about them now; not as Democrats, not as Republicans, not as Independents, but as Americans. 

Time is not on our side. More than ever, we need to move forward, and we need to do so in a bipartisan way in order to ensure 

that our infrastructure is built for the long haul and that we are 

not throwing good money after bad, and that, while we are addressing those concerns, we are creating more jobs and economic 

opportunity in this country. They are not mutually exclusive. 

I am hoping this hearing will better inform our efforts so that 

the steps we take will help ensure that our children, our grandchildren have a truly bright future here on Planet Earth. It is the 

only planet that most of us will ever know. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Ms. Neumayr. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Before we turn to Mary Neumayr for your testimony, I would 

point out and submit for the record that yesterday it was reported 

that Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the following remarks regarding 

potential infrastructure legislation at an event with the Transportation Construction Coalition. This is what the Speaker said. She 

said, ‘‘We don’t want lawsuits; we want dirt to fly.’’ She said, ‘‘Once 

we decide that the resources are there, the choices are made. We 

don’t want to go to court; we want dirt to fly.’’ 

I am going to submit for the record the article to that effect that 

was reported out today in Politico. 

Senator CARPER. Did they report what I said? She was my warm 

up act. 

Senator BARRASSO. Not yet. That is going to be breaking news, 

apparently, at the top of the hour. 

Senator CARPER. Four standing ovations. No, not really. It was 

good to be there with her, and I thought there was a good spirit 

in that room. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

6 


36932.001

From: POLITICO Pro Transportation Whiteboard <politicoemail@politicopro.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 5:32PM 

To: Danylak, Mike (EPW) <Mike Danylak@epw.senate.gov> 

Subject: Pelosi: Housing and schools not in $2T plan 

By Tanya Snyder 

05114/2019 05:30PM EDT 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that funding for housing and schools will not be 

included in the $2 trillion infrastructure plan being discussed with the White House. 

"We have a ti'emendous deficit in our schools," Pelosi told a gathering of the Transportation 

Construction Coalition. But she said that "on another occasion we'll talk about schools and 

housing, because they kind of come into a different funding mechanism." 

According to Pelosi, President Donald Trump started a meeting last week with Democrats by 

talking about roads, but Pelosi said they had to include transit, water systems, broadband and 

more. She said the definition of infrastructure may even need to be broadened to include satellite 

infrastructure. 

"Our farmers are doing precision famlirtg," she said. "So much of our technology depends on our 

satellites. So I said to the president we really may need to rebuild, maintain in a better way, our 

satellites." 

She said Democrats presented the president with "a few criteria," including that it be "green and 

have resiliency for the future." 

She also said she wanted infrastructure to be built in a way that is "cooperative in communities," 

including on Native American reservations, building consensus in part to avoid conflict that 

could hold projects up. 

"We don't want- how can [say this in a nice way? We don't want lawsuits, we 

want dirt to fly," Pelosi said. "Once we decide that the resources are 

there, the choices are made, we don't want to go to court, we want 

dirt to fly." 

To view online: 

htt(ls://subscriber.QoliticoQro.eom/trru1s(lortation/whiteboard/2019/Q.5/pelosi-housing-andschools-not-in-2t-plru1-3255317 

You received this POLITICO Pro content because your customized settings include; 

Transportation: all whiteboards. To change your alert settings, please go to 

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/scttings 
7 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much for being here. 

We have today with us Mary Neumayr, the Chairman of the 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

I want to remind the witness your full written testimony will be 

made part of our official hearing record, so please try to keep your 

statement to about 5 minutes so that we will have time for questions. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARY BRIDGET NEUMAYR, 

CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

be here with you again. Last summer I testified before you as the 

President’s nominee to lead the Council on Environmental Quality, 

and I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today as 

Chairman. 

I am pleased to update the Committee on several Administration 

priorities and directives that CEQ is currently implementing with 

respect to environmental reviews and permitting of new infrastructure, increasing the efficiency of Federal agency operations, and 

promoting the health and prosperity of our Nation’s oceans, Great 

Lakes, and coastal communities. 

The National Environmental Policy Act established CEQ in 1970, 

and one of the Council’s core responsibilities is to oversee implementation of NEPA’s environmental review process by Federal 

agencies. As the Committee is aware, reviews under NEPA may involve numerous Federal agencies and overlapping statutory requirements, and can result in a lengthy, inefficient, and costly 

process. CEQ has compiled data relating to the timelines for Federal agencies to complete environmental impact statements under 

NEPA and has found that, across Federal Government, the average 

time for completion of environmental impact statements issued between 2010 and 2017 was 4 and a half years. 

To promote more timely environmental reviews and the development of modern, resilient infrastructure, President Trump signed 

an Executive Order in August 2017 which established a One Federal Decision policy for Federal environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects. For such projects, the Executive Order directs 

Federal agencies to develop a joint schedule and to prepare a single 

environmental impact statement and single record of decision. The 

Executive Order also sets a 2-year goal for completing environmental reviews. 

CEQ has convened an interagency working group to implement 

the Executive Order and One Federal Decision policy, and pursuant to guidance issued by CEQ and the Office of Management and 

Budget, 11 Federal agencies and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council have signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing to implement the policy. The initial list and 

schedules for projects Federal agencies will be processing under the 

One Federal Decision policy is now publicly available and will be 

updated on an ongoing basis. 

The President’s Executive Order also directs CEQ to undertake 

actions it deems necessary to modernize and enhance the environVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:49 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36932.TXT SONYA
8 

mental review and authorization process, including through 

issuance of guidance and regulations. As many of you know, NEPA 

was enacted nearly 50 years ago, and CEQ’s implementing regulations were issued in 1978 and have been substantively amended 

only once, in a limited respect, in 1986. 

Last summer, CEQ issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comment on potential revisions to update its 

regulations. CEQ received over 12,500 comments and is currently 

considering potential revisions informed by those comments. 

CEQ has also sent draft guidance on consideration of greenhouse 

gas emissions when conducting NEPA analyses to the Office of 

Management and Budget for interagency review. Following completion of that review, CEQ intends to publish its draft guidance for 

public comment. 

CEQ has also compiled a comprehensive list of Federal agencies’ 

categorical exclusions, or CEs. CEs are not exemptions from NEPA, 

but rather, are a form of NEPA review that reduces paperwork and 

allows agencies to focus their resources on actions that may significantly affect the environment. This list is intended to provide Federal agencies, project applicants, and the public with a single database of Federal agencies’ CEs. 

Another priority of the Administration has been ensuring compliance by Federal agencies with statutory requirements relating to 

energy and environmental performance. In May 2018, President 

Trump issued an Executive Order directing Federal agencies to 

meet relevant requirements in a manner that increases efficiency, 

optimizes performance, eliminates unnecessary use of resources, 

and protects the environment. CEQ recently issued implementing 

instructions to agencies and will make data on agency performance 

publicly available. 

Finally, I know that the health and prosperity of our Nation’s 

oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal communities is a priority for 

many members of this Committee. In June of last year, President 

Trump issued an Executive Order which streamlines Federal agency coordination on ocean related matters through the establishment 

of an interagency Ocean Policy Committee cochaired by CEQ and 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Executive Order 

prioritizes Federal agency engagement with State led regional 

ocean partnerships, coordination on research technology and ocean 

resource management, and expanded public access to Federal ocean 

related data. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions and look forward to working with 

this Committee to advance environmental protection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Neumayr follows:] 

9 


36932.002

Mary B. Neumayr 

Chairman 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Mary B. Neumayr is the current Chairman of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ). She was unanimously confirmed by 

the U.S. Senate on January 2, 2019 and sworn in as Chairman on 

January 10, 2019. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Neumayr had been 

serving as CEQ's Chief of Staff since March 2017. 

Before joining CEQ, Ms. Neumayr served in a variety of positions 

with the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the U.S. House of Representatives, 

including as Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment (2017); Senior Energy 

Counsel (2011-2017); and Counsel (2009-2010). Ms. Neumayr also served as Deputy 

General Counsel for Environment and Nuclear Programs at the U.S. Department of 

Energy (2006-2009), and as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the 

Environment and Natural Resources Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (2003-

2006). 

Prior to her government service, Ms. Neumayr was in private legal practice from 1989 

through 2003 in New York and San Francisco. She received her BA from Thomas 

Aquinas College and her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the 

Law. 
10 


36932.003

Written Statement of Mary B. Neumayr, Chairman 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

May 15,2019 

Chairman Barrasso. Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to be here with you again. Last summer. I testified before you as the 

President's nominee to lead the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and I am grateful for 

the opportunity to testify before you today as Chairman. I am pleased to update the Committee 

on several Administration priorities and directives that CEQ is currently implementing with 

respect to environmental review and permitting of new infrastructure; increasing the efficiency 

of Federal agency operations; and promoting the health and prosperity of our nation· s oceans, 

Great Lakes and coastal communities. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) established CEQ in 1970, and one of its 

core responsibilities is to oversee implementation ofNEPA's environmental review process by 

Federal agencies. As the Committee is aware, reviews under NEPA may involve numerous 

Federal agencies, overlapping statutory requirements, and can result in a lengthy, inefficient, 

unpredictable, and costly process. CEQ has compiled data relating to the timelines for Federal 

agencies to complete environmental impact statements (EISs) under NEPA. CEQ found that 

across the Federal government the average time for an EIS completed during the period 20 I 0 

through 2017, measured from issuance of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to issuance of a 

Record of Decision (ROD), was four and a half years. 

To promote more timely environmental reviews and the development of modern, resilient 

infrastructure, President Trump signed Executive Order 13807, titled "Establishing Discipline 

and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure 

Projects,'' in August of 2017. This Executive Order seeks to reduce unnecessary burdens and 

uncertainties of the Federal regulatory process that can delay major infrastructure projects and 

hold back the economic, social, and environmental benefits of improved infrastructure. This 

Executive Order builds on the efforts of prior administrations to streamline permitting without 

compromising important environmental protections. 
11 


36932.004

Executive Order 13807 establishes a One Federal Decision (OFD) policy for Federal 

environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects. The Executive Order defines a major 

infrastructure project as a project for which multiple authorizations by Federal agencies are 

required to proceed to construction, the lead Federal agency has determined that it will prepare 

an EIS under NEPA, and the project sponsor has identified the reasonable availability of funds 

needed to complete the project. For such projects, the Executive Order directs Federal agencies 

to work collaboratively to develop a joint schedule, referred to as a "Permitting Timetable," 

prepare a single EIS and a single ROD, and ensure that they have processes in place to elevate 

and resolve issues that may result in schedule delays in a timely manner. The Executive Order 

sets a goal for completing environmental reviews within two years, and directs Federal agencies. 

with limited exceptions, to issue necessary authorizations within 90 days of issuance of the ROD. 

CEQ has convened an interagency working group to implement the Executive Order, 1 

and in March of 2018, CEQ and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance 

for Federal agencies on implementation of the OFD policy. Pursuant to that guidance, on April 

9, 2018, eleven Federal agencies and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 

(established by the FAST Act) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing to 

implement the OFD policy for major infrastructure projects. In September of2018, OMB. in 

consultation with CEQ, also issued guidance establishing an accountability system to track 

compliance with the OFD policy. CEQ and OMB have also issued OFD guidance where a State, 

tribal, or local agency has been assigned NEPA responsibilities under the Surface Transportation 

Project Delivery Program. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13807, Federal agencies are identifying major infrastructure 

projects to be processed under the OFD policy, and the schedules for the environmental reviews 

for these projects are being made publically available 2 Agencies will continue to identify major 

infrastructure projects to be processed under the OFD policy going forward, and CEQ will work 

1 Information relating to CEQ's implementation of Executive Order 13807, and links to all guidance and reports 

cited in this testimony is available at b..t!.Q~j/www.whitchouse.gov/ccq/initiativ~~· 

2 A list of major infrastructure projects and links to their schedules are available at 

https://www.permits.performancc.gov/projects, and this list will be updated on an ongoing basis. 

2 
12 


36932.005

with OMB to promote increased Federal agency coordination and transparency for the 

environmental reviews and authorization processes for these projects. 

In addition to establishing the OFD policy, Executive Order 13807 also directs CEQ to 

undertake such actions that it deems necessary to modernize and enhance the environmental 

review and authorization process, including through issuance of regulations and guidance. As 

many of you know, NEPA was enacted nearly 50 years ago and CEQ's implementing regulations 

were issued over four decades ago. While CEQ has only substantively amended those 

regulations once in one very limited respect in 1986, CEQ has issued over 30 guidance 

documents relating to implementation ofNEPA. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13807, and given the amount of time since its regulations 

were promulgated, last summer CEQ issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulcmaking 

requesting comment on potential revisions to update its regulations to ensure a more effective. 

timely, and efficient process for decision-making by Federal agencies. CEQ received over 

12,500 comments, including from states, localities, trade associations, environmental 

organizations, NEPA practitioners, academia, and interested members of the public. CEQ is 

currently considering potential revisions to its regulations informed by those comments. 

CEQ has also sent draft guidance to the OMB for interagency review relating to the 

consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when conducting NEPA analyses. On March 

28, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which directed CEQ to rescind prior 

guidance issued in August of 2016 relating to consideration of GHG emissions under NEP /\. 

CEQ withdrew this final guidance for further consideration on April 5, 2017. Following 

completion of the pending interagency review, CEQ intends to publish its draft guidance in the 

Federal Register for public comment. 

To further promote transparency and increase coordination across Federal agencies, CEQ 

has also compiled a comprehensive list of Federal agencies' categorical exclusions (CEs). CEs 

are actions that a Federal agency, in consultation with CEQ, has determined do not normally 

have a significant impact on the environment. CEs are not exemptions from NEPA, but rather 

they are a form ofNEPA review that reduces paperwork and allow agencies to focus their 

resources on actions that may significantly affect the environment. The CE list is intended to 

provide Federal agencies, project applicants. States, Tribes, and the public with a single database 

3 
13 


36932.006

for Federal agencies' CEs, and to promote consistency as Federal agencies update their NEPA 

procedures. 

Another priority of the Administration has been to ensure compliance by Federal 

agencies with statutory requirements relating to energy and environmental performance. In May 

of 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 13834, titled "Efficient Federal Operations," 

which directs Federal agencies to manage their buildings, vehicles, and overall operations to 

optimize energy and environmental performance, reduce waste, cut costs, and to meet relevant 

requirements in a manner that increases efficiency. optimizes performance, eliminates 

unnecessary usc of resources, and protects the environment. CEQ recently issued implementing 

instructions to provide Federal agencies with detailed guidance, including planning and reporting 

requirements, metrics to measure progress and performance, and resources for implementation. 

CEQ plans to make progress data for agency performance, and implementation updates 

publicaiiy available. 

Finally, I know the health and prosperity of our nation's oceans. Great Lakes and coastal 

communities is a priority for many Members of the Committee. In June of last year. President 

Trump signed Executive Order 13840. titled "Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security 

and Environmental Interests of the United States, .. which streamlines Federal agency 

coordination on ocean related matters through the establishment of an interagency Ocean Policy 

Committee (OPC), co-chaired by CEQ and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The 

Executive Order establishes a number of priorities for agencies, including engagement with 

Regional Ocean Partnerships, interagency coordination related to research, technology, and 

ocean resource management, and expanded public access to Federal ocean-related data. CEQ 

looks forward to continued collaboration through the OPC with Regional Ocean Partnerships, 

marine industries, environmental organizations, the ocean science and technology community, 

and other ocean stakeholders. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I would be happy to answer 

any questions and I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee to advance 

environmental protection. 

4 
14 


36932.007

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Council on Environmental Quality" 

May 15,2019 

Questions for the Record for Ms. Ncumayr 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. The One l'ederal Decision policy sets high-level timing, format, and accountability goals 

for federal agencies, but it does not set forth specific mechanisms for agencies to meet the 

Executive Order's requirements. For this reason, most of the relevant federal agencies 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the One Federal Decision policy 

and explicate how the policy will affect agencies operations. 

a. lfCongress were to codify the core elements of the One Federal Decision policy. 

should Congress also look to codify the whole or parts of the implementing 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

Answer: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is available to work with you, your 

staff, and Members of the Committee by providing technical assistance on legislation. The 

One Federal Decision (OFD) policy established by Executive Order (EO) 13807 directs 

Federal agencies with a role in the environmental review and permitting process for a 

major infrastructure pro.iect to coordinate the environmental review and decision-making 

process schedule for that project. The core elements of the policy include i) preparation by 

the lead agency, in consultation with cooperating agencies, of a schedule, referred to as a 

Permitting Timetable, for completing the necessary environmental review and 

authorization decisions; ii) preparation of a single environmental impact statement (EIS) 

and a single record of decision (ROD); and iii) issuance of all necessary authorization 

decisions within 90 days of issuance of the ROD, subject to limited exceptions. EO 13807 

also sets a goal for agencies of reducing the time for completing environmental reviews and 

authorization decisions to an agency average of not more than two years, and directs 

Federal agencies to timely elevate and resolve interagency issues that may result in 

schedule delays. 

b. Is it better to codify the core elements of the One Federal Decision policy and 

allow the federal agencies the flexibility to implement agreements that facilitate 

the One Federal Decision policy? 

Answer: The April9, 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is based on the core 

elements described above and is designed to coordinate agency processes while fully 

preserving each agency's statutory authority, independence, and ability to comply fully 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related statutes. CEQ will 

continue to work with agencies to promote timely environmental reviews, and is available 

to work with you, your staff, and :vlembcrs of the Committee by providing technical 

assistance on legislation. 

Page 1 of 18 
15 


36932.008

Common Good has estimated that a six-year delay in starting construction on public 

projects costs the nation over $3.7 trillion. Section 4(b)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13807 

directs agencies to estimate the cost of delay of projects if pennitting timetable 

milestones are not met. The section states that this will be developed and provided within 

an OMB guidance. yet we have not seen any draft or final OMB guidance on this issue. 

As the costs of delay will significantly help us in Congress determine the impacts of 

permitting delays and where additional resources might be necessary. I am concerned that 

there has not been any movement on this important issue. Can you provide the timeline 

for when this section will be implemented? 

Answer: Pursuant to Section 4(b)(ii)(C) of EO 13807, on September 26,2018, OMB, in 

consultation with CEQ and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, 

established the Performance Accountability System. (OMB Memorandum M-18-25, 

"Modernize Infrastructure Permitting Cross-Agency Priority Goal Performance 

Accountability System" available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontcnt/uploads/2018109/M-18-25.pd0. This guidance specifically provides that the lead 

agencies snbmit the estimated cost of delay to OMB no later than 60 days after a significant 

delay is identified on a Permitting Timetable. Agencies have begun to identify and provide 

information to OMB regarding major infrastructure projects to be processed under the 

OFD policy, and for those projects, the lead agencies will be required under the OMB 

accountability system guidance to report on the estimated cost of delays, if any. 

3. The current CEQ NEPA regulations require two. if not three. different public comment 

periods. depending on the level of review. NEPA itself does not require a single comment 

period, though the public scoping and drafl environmental document publication process 

described in the CEQ regulations adds additional notice. comment, and other processes to 

gather input from stakeholders and the public. However. just because there are more 

chances for comment does not necessarily mean that there is more or better public 

engagement. We have seen repeatedly how bad-faith actors use the comment process to 

obstruct and delay infrastructure projects. In response. agencies seek to protect 

themselves ti·om lawsuits by turning NEPA 's "stop and look" requirement into a "stop 

and look," "stop and look again:· and then "stop and look again" process, which results 

in significant delays without providing substantive additional environmental benefits. 

a. How is CEQ improving the NEPA process and helping federal agencies ensure 

meaningful public engagement while not falling into the traps currently laid by 

the existing public comment process? 

Answer: CEQ is working with Federal agencies to implement the OFD policy established 

by EO 13807. The guidance issued by CEQ and OMB on March 20, 2018, and Sections 

VIII and IX of the MOU signed by agencies on April 9, 2018, provides for early 

engagement by Federal agencies with states, tribes, localities, and the public to ensure a 

timely process for environmental reviews. 

Page 2 of 18 
16 


36932.009

Under NEPA, agencies are required to prepare a detailed statement for proposed major 

Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In carrying 

out their NEPA responsibilities, agencies use their expertise and experience to decide how 

and to what degree to analyze effects of the proposed action. CEQ's regulations provide 

for public notice and an opportunity to comment where an agency has determined it is 

appropriate to prepare an EIS. CEQ's current NEPA regulations require Federal agencies 

to draft an EIS by using a public scoping process to obtain the views of agencies and others 

with information and expertise on the significant environmental impacts and alternatives 

to such a proposed action. An agency's implementing procedures may also provide 

additional opportunities for public comment during the NEPA process. 

b. Would it be better to require one public comment period consistent with the 

procedures laid out in the long-standing Administrative Procedure Act? 

Answer: CEQ's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (83 FR 28591), issued 

last year, sought comments on many topics including with respect to the scope of NEPA 

reviews. It asked, "Should the provisions in CEQ's NEPA regulations relating to public 

involvement be revised to be more inclusive and efficient, and if so, how?" CEQ is 

currently reviewing the comments received in response to the ANPRM, including 

comments relating to public involvement in the NEPA process. 

Page 3 of 18 
17 


36932.010

Ranking Member Carper: 

Please provide a response to each question. including each sub-part. 

4. In a response that you provided to my staff during the course of your confirmation, you 

claritied that the "'majority .. of highway projects fall within categorical exclusions and do 

not constitute a significant burden. That response understates the fact that 96 percent of 

highway projects are categorically excluded from NEPA. Do you agree that for the vast 

majority of projects- as high as 96 percent-- NEPA approvals do not delay the issuance 

of permits'? 

Answer: Yes, I agree that the majority of highway projects fall within categorical 

exclusions and do not constitute a significant burden because they do not require 

preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment 

(EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report issued in June 2012 titled "Highway Projects: Some Federal and State 

Practices to Expedite Completion Show Promise" (2012 GAO Report) stated: "Based on 

data collected in 2009, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that 96 

percent of environmental reviews for highway projects are processed as categorical 

exclusions." The 2012 GAO Report also noted that examples of the types of highway 

projects generally processed as categorical exclusions include resurfacing, constructing 

bicycle lanes, installing noise barriers, and landscaping. 

For major highway infrastructure projects, such as construction of new highways and 

corridor and bypass improvement projects, the FHW A must typically undertake 

development of an EIS or EA, which can be a complex, multi-year process and may involve 

a number of other Federal agencies. In December 2018, CEQ released a report examining 

the timelines for Federal agencies to complete EISs under NEPA. CEQ found that across 

the Federal government the average time for an EIS completed during the period 2010 

through 2017, measured from issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS to 

issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD), was four and a half years. During this period, 

FHWA completed 114 EISs and the average time from issuance of a NOI to issuance of a 

ROD was over seven years. (See Environmental Impact Statement Timelines (2010-2017) 

report at https://www.whitchousc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/ll!CEQ-EIS-TimelincsReport.pdO 

5. Last June. CEQ published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to 

consider potential updates and clarifications to its NEPA implementing regulations. That 

ANPRM initially offered a short public comment period of30 days. and although it was 

later extended to 60 days. no public hearings \vere conducted. The original regulations 

and the singular amendment to those regulations went through considerable deliberations 

both internally and by the public During your confirmation hearing. l asked you if you 

would commit to a minimum 90 day public comment period if a notice of proposed 

rulemaking is released. You did not directly answer my question. Will you commit to a 

minimum 90 day public comment period if a notice of proposed rulemaking is released? 

If you will not commit. why not? 

Page 4 of 18 
18 


36932.011

Answer: At this time, CEQ has not submitted a proposed rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget's (OMB) Office oflnformation and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 

for interagency review, and therefore we have not made any decisions regarding public 

comment periods. Should CEQ issue a proposed rule setting forth potential revisions to its 

NEPA regulations, CEQ will consider all options for public engagement, including public 

hearings, meetings, virtual public involvement (e.g. webinar), and fully utilizing 

regulations.gov, which provides an opportunity for the public to comment directly on a 

proposed agency action. 

6. On August 17, 2018 you committed to me to hold at least one public hearing on the 

NEPA regulation revision in the Mid-Atlantic. And in response to my Questions for the 

Record during your confirmation, you committed to me that '"CEQ will hold public 

meetings to receive comments and will pursue a process that is commensurate with the 

scope of the rulemaking if CEQ proposes revisions.'' When CEQ undertook regulatory 

reviews in 1978, 1981, 1985, and 1997, it held public meetings to solicit additional input 

of private citizens and stakeholders, whether for the release of studies, guidance, or 

regulations. Commensurate with the far-reaching scope of this rulemaking. will you 

commit to public hearings in multiple regions of the country, such as each of the EPA 

regions? If you will not commit. why not? 

Answer: Public participation and engagement in the rulemaking process is a priority. In 

response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), CEQ received over 

12,500 public comments. CEQ has not sent a regulatory proposal to OIRA for interagency 

review, and therefore no locations for public hearings have been determined. Should CEQ 

propose revisions to its implementing regulations, we will hold public hearings, including in 

the Mid-Atlantic region, to receive comments and provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or information, and will pursue a process that is 

commensurate with the scope of a proposed rulemaking. 

7. NEPA is closely aligned with the principles of environmental justice. For example. 

NEPA ensures that the environmental, health, and economic impacts of federal projects 

are disclosed and communities impacted by federal projects are given a meaningful 

voice. In response to my Questions for the Record during your confirmation, you 

committed to me that addressing environmental issues for low income and minority 

communities will be a priority. 

a. How have you begun to prioritize low income and minority communities when 

considering new or improved infrastructure or other federal projects? 

Answer: CEQ continues to serve as an active participant in the work of the Environmental 

Justice Interagency Working Group (EJ IWG). In April, CEQ hosted a meeting of the EJ 

IWG and CEQ regularly participates in its NEPA sub-committee, CEQ presented an 

overview of the One Federal Decision (OFD) policy established by Executive Order (EO) 

13807 to the EJ IWG last October and discussed ways in which agencies can better 

integrate outreach to environmental justice communities early in the process of developing 

PageS of 18 
19 


36932.012

infrastructure projects. CEQ makes environmental justice materials available to NEPA 

practitioners and the public on NEPA.gov (https://ccq.doc.govincpa-practiccijustice.html). 

b. What specific outreach have you made to engage with these communities during 

the NPRM process? 

Answer: In connection with review of its NEPA implementing regulations, CEQ engaged 

in significant public outreach beyond what is required by the rulemaking process. This has 

included issuance of an ANI'RM which, while not required as part of the rulemaking 

process, provided an opportunity for comment by the public on a wide range of topics 

relating to CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations. 

CEQ's ANI'RM was published in the Federal Register on .June 20, 2018, and posted on 

CEQ's website at https://www.whitehousc.gov/ccq/initiatives/ and NEI'A.gov at 

https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-rcgulations/rcgulations.html. In conducting public outreach, CEQ 

distributed the ANI'RM to a wide range of stakeholders, including to CEQ's stakeholder 

distribution list, which includes points of contact at over 250 environmental organizations, 

academic institutions, trade associations, and other non-governmental organizations. 

In response to requests from the public, CEQ also extended the comment period for the 

ANPRM from .July 20,2018, to August 20,2018, and accepted comments submitted to 

rcgulations.gov as well as by regular mail. Input from minority and low-income 

community members were reflected among the over 12,500 comments received. 

c. What interaction does CEQ have with these communities on a day to day basis'' 

Answer: CEQ meets with a wide variety of stakeholders on request and with regard to 

specific issues. CEQ has met with representatives of environmental justice communities, 

tribes, and non-governmental organizations. 

8. I am aware of only two studies that have examined how agency resources impact NEPA 

implementation. The first study is by the Environmental Law Institute in I 98 I, which 

examined the personnel, budget and expertise within nineteen agencies. The second study 

is by the Natural Resources Council of America in 2002 1

• which examined capacity at 

twelve agencies. Would you support an updated study by the Government Accountability 

Office or some other entity to examine how agency resources impact NEPA 

implementation? If not. why noe 

Answer: The GAO consults with CEQ on its studies, initiated at the request of 

Congressional committees or directed in statute, as appropriate. CEQ's NEPA 

implementing regulations direct agencies to ensure that they have the capability to 

implement NEI'A, and I believe Federal agencies have sufficient resources. To more 

effectively allocate their resources and better coordinate environmental reviews, CEQ 

1 ~atural Resources Council of America, ,\'J:PA in the Agencies -2002, 

https:i iweb.archive.orglwebi2003071 I I 0 1234ihttp :lwww.naturalresourcescounc i l.orglewebed itproiitems/089F2656. 

QQl'(October 2002) 

Page 6 of 18 
20 


36932.013

continues to work with agencies to implement the One Federal Decision (OFD) policy. 

CEQ also conducts quarterly NEPA Contacts meetings to consult with staff across Federal 

agencies regarding issues relating to implementation of NEPA and periodic training for 

Federal agency NEPA practitioners. 

9. NEPA and other associated environmental reviews are more efficient and timely when 

agencies have developed high functioning collaborative relationships with the public and 

other agencies long before they start planning a project. The process established in the 

FAST Act requires lead agencies to consult with other participating and cooperating 

agencies early in the project review process. What is CEQ doing to implement these 

requirements and ensure that agencies take this proactive approach to surface issues early 

in the project review process? 

Answer: As a member of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 

(Permitting Council), CEQ works to support implementation of Title 41 of the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), Pub. L. No. 114-94. CEQ provides input 

on the development of best practices, including those that relate to early engagement and 

relationship building between agencies. CEQ and OMB issued guidance documents 

regarding early consultation in the implementation ofFAST-41 and EO 13807. (CEQOMB Memorandum M-17-14, "Guidance to Federal Agencies Regarding the 

Environmental Review and Authorization Process for Infrastructure Pro.jects" available at 

https://www. whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omh/memoranda/2017 /m-17-14.pdf; 

and CEQ-OMB Memorandum M-18-13, "One Federal Decision Framework for the 

Environmental Review and Authorization Process for Major Infrastructure Projects under 

Executive Order 13807" available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/M-18-13.pdf.) 

The OFD policy established by EO 13807 incorporates many of the principles and best 

practices of FAST-41, while fully preserving the agencies' statutory responsibilities to 

comply with NEPA and related statutes. CEQ also convenes an interagency working group 

under EO 13807 to improve agency implementation of the OFD policy. These meetings 

include presentations on the importance of early engagement and collaborative 

relationships among agencies. 

I 0. The FAST Act established a number of new practices and approaches designed to speed 

project approval and achieve more efficient and timely reviews. The success of this 

approach depends on implementation at the field level. To achieve this, agencies must 

properly train field-level staff who are responsible for many project reviews. What has 

CEQ done to ensure agencies are educating their staff about the expedited project 

approval process established in the FAST Act? 

Answer: CEQ works closely with the Permitting Council to support implementation of 

FAST-41. CEQ also leads a quarterly meeting of the Federal NEPA Contacts where issues 

of FAST Act implementation are a regular agenda item. Additionally, CEQ also assists in 

interagency issue resolution on NEPA-related matters for FAST-41 covered projects. 

Page 7 of 18 
21 


36932.014

II. !understand that Charlotte Skidmore is the new Chief Sustainability Officer at CEQ. 

During your confirmation, you committed to working with Federal agencies to meet their 

statutory requirements, including improving environmental and energy performance. 

Have you made this a priority for Ms. Skidmore. and what progress has been made so 

far? 

Answer: EO 13834 emphasized agencies prioritize actions to reduce waste, cut costs, 

enhance resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations and enable more effective 

accomplishment of its mission. In implementing the EO, CEQ's aim is to continue 

providing flexibility, to simplify compliance, and ensure agencies have the guidance and 

technical resources they need for effective implementation. The EO Implementing 

Instructions, issued Apri130, 2019, arc intended to assist agencies in planning, reporting 

and meeting the EO goals. 

CEQ's new Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, Charlotte Skidmore, will prioritize 

implementation of the EO and oversee activities to support agencies in achieving the EO 

goals. Under her leadership, and in coordination with OMB, CEQ will support continued 

progress to achieve the EO directive to manage operations efficiently, protect the 

environment, and enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations in a cost 

effective manner. 

12. Executive Order 13690. signed in 2015. provided a flexible f!·amework to establish a new 

flood risk management standard for federally funded projects. Once implemented. it 

would mean roads. bridges and other infrastructure built with federal dollars would be 

done with climate resiliency in mind. This effort was halted and revoked by President 

Trump's August 15. 2017 Executive Order to streamline the infrastructure permitting 

process. As we see today in the Midwest, when flooding impacts our infrastructure, it can 

have devastating and deadly effects. Allowing future infrastructure to be built without 

doing all we can to prevent or mitigate against extreme weather events puts American 

lives and taxpayer dollars at unnecessary risk. 

a. Will the Federal flood risk management standard be replaced. and if so. when? If 

not, why not? 

Answer: The Administration supports efforts to improve the nation's preparedness and 

resilience against hazards, including flooding hazards. EO 138071eft in place EO 11988, 

titled "Floodplain Management," which was published on May 24, 1977,42 FR 26951. 

This EO provides for floodplain management standards and procedures across the 

Executive Branch. In a March 6, 2018, Federal Register notice, published at 83 FR 9473, 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicated that it "will continue to 

seek more effective ways in its programs to assess and reduce the risk of current and future 

flooding and increase community resilience." In addition, states and localities continue to 

adopt design standards as appropriate for their circumstances to account for flood 

hazards. 

Page 8 of 18 
22 


36932.015

CEQ participates in the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (FIFMTF) that is focused on floodplain management and on identifying best practices and 

promoting better coordination among the agencies. FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) reconvened the FIFM-TF on October 4, 2018, with the support of 

CEQ. This task force includes the following members: FEMA; USACE; Department of 

Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Department of Defense; Department of Energy; 

Department of Housing and {Jrban Development; Department of the Interior; Department 

of Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; 

Tennessee Valley Authority; CEQ (advisor); and Office of Management and Budget 

(advisor). 

b. Besides participating in interagency task forces, what real actions has CEQ taken 

under your leadership to make communities more resilient from climate risks? 

Answer: CEQ's focus has been working through the FIFM-TF to examine best practices 

for incorporating flood mitigation standards into grant and Federal construction programs 

and to improve coordination among agencies, recognizing that agencies make investments 

in different types of infrastructure. Specifically, the FIFM-TF is working to improve state 

and local capabilities to set zoning and building standards to address floodplain 

management in order to reduce flood losses; reviewing the Unified National Program for 

Floodplain Management; and coordinating with relevant Federal agencies that have 

programs to assist urban areas with flood mitigation. 

CEQ also continues to work with Federal agencies to implement the OFD policy, to ensure 

timely and efficient permitting to develop more modern and resilient infrastructure in 

communities. The OFD policy seeks to promote early and effective coordination in order to 

ensure that agencies develop analyses that are easily understandable and inform both the 

decision maker and public while ensuring compliance with NEPA and other relevant 

statutes. It sets a two-year goal for environmental reviews for major infrastructure 

projects. 

CEQ is also working pursuant to Section 429 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act, which directed the President and his agencies to develop a more 

expedited Unified Federal Review (UFR) process for environmental and historic 

preservation reviews for disaster recovery projects. CEQ is a member of the UFR Steering 

Committee, and supports this work to help improve the project review process for 

communities recovering from disasters. 

13. During the hearing, I asked you directly "yes" or "no'' if you question the conclusions in 

the recently issued Fourth National Climate Assessment and GAO reports that state our 

economy is at risk if we do not take climate actions. In the hearing, you did not provide a 

direct answer, so I will ask you again. 

Page 9 of 18 
23 


36932.016

a. Do you question the conclusions in the recently issued Fourth National Climate 

Assessment and GAO High Risk Report that state our economy is at risk if we do 

not take climate actions? If so. why? If not, why not') 

Answer: Assessing potential risks relating to extreme weather events or climate-related 

impacts over many decades involves complex data, modeling, assumptions and projections, 

including with regard to future economic growth and technological advances. To address 

potential risks, it is important to pursue technology and innovation and to improve our 

ability to model and forecast the weather and make projections with respect to the future 

of the climate system. It is also important to improve our preparedness and planning and 

to advance the development of modern and resilient infrastructure while ensuring 

environmental protection. 

b. Have you or anyone in CEQ been in contact with William Happer on any issue 

rdatcd to climate change 0 lfso, please provide the dates ofthose meetings and 

the issues that were discussed. If so. please provide the dates of those meetings. 

the issues that were discussed. the names of all people present at relevant 

meetings or conversations. all those who authored or received relevant documents 

(such as emails or letters). and all those who made or received relevant telephone 

calls. Please also provide me copies of all documents evidencing or regarding 

these communications. 

Answer: In my role as Chairman of the CEQ, I am in contact with a variety of components 

and officials within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the National 

Security Council and Dr. William Happer. The substance of these meetings involve predecisional policy discussions. In the course of carrying out their duties, CEQ staff may also 

be in contact with agencies or components of the EOP, including the NSC, as part of the 

interagency review process. 

c. Have you or anyone in CEQ been in contact any other Administration officials 

about any counter-messaging campaign against the National Climate Assessment? 

If so, please provide the dates of those meetings. the issues that were discussed, 

the names ol all people present at relevant meetings or conversations. all those 

who authored or received relevant documents (such as emails or letters). and all 

those vvho made or received relevant telephone calls. Please also provide me 

copies of all documents evidencing or regarding these communications. 

Answer: As part of the interagency process, the EOP components and agencies coordinate 

on the development and release of various reports and documents. Volume I of the Fourth 

National Climate Assessment (NCA4) was released November 3, 2017, and Volume II was 

released November 23,2018, by the United States Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). In my role, at that time as Chief of Staff of CEQ, I was in contact with a 

variety of officials within the EOP and Federal agencies on interagency deliberative 

matters. In the course of their duties, CEQ staff also engage with components of the EOP 

and Federal agencies on issues. 

Page 10 of 18 
24 


36932.017

14. Do you agree with the American Lung Association, which has concluded that the peer 

reviewed research is clear that ,;even low levels of particles can be deadly," 2 even levels 

lower than set National Ambient Air Quality Standards? If so. please explain why and if 

not, why not? 

Answer: Particulate Matter (PM) is a criteria air pollutant that can cause health problems, 

including lung and heart ailments. In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets 

standards for PM levels, and periodically updates those standards as appropriate. Any 

determination by the EPA with regard to PM standards comes after an extensive review of 

scientific and technical materials, and after receiving and reviewing public comments on 

the issue. CEQ supports the EPA's efforts to monitor and review PM levels to ensure 

protection of human health and the environment. 

15. As a form of transparency and government accountability. the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) provides the public with the right to request access to federal agency 

documents. The federal agency is to disclose the requested information unless it 

expressly falls within a statutory exemption. FOIA's "basic objective" is .;the fuller and 

faster release of information." Oglesby v. Department o(Army, 920 F.2d 57, 64 n.8 (D.C. 

Cir. 1990). However, in the past CEQ has been less than adequate in responding to FOlA 

requests from concerned citizens. Would you please answer the following questions 

related to CEQ· s FO lA response process: 

a. How many staff do you have designated to respond to FOIA requests? Is that their 

full time job/sole responsibility? How many work hours are devoted to 

responding to FOIA requests per week on averagery 

Answer: While CEQ is one of the smallest components in the EOP, the agency currently 

employs two attorneys whose core duties arc FOIA, one contractor who works solely on 

FOIA, as well as two additional attorneys, including the Chief FOIA Officer, who work on 

a variety of matters, including FOIA. CEQ employees and contractors devote 

approximately 130 hours per week responding to FOIA requests. 

At the end of Fiscal Year 2016, CEQ had a FOIA backlog of 67 requests from the previous 

Administration. Since January 2017, CEQ has experienced a substantial increase in the 

number of FOIA requests it receives. During Fiscal Y car 2017, CEQ processed 216 FOIA 

requests, more than the previous three fiscal years combined, and processed 156 requests 

in Fiscal Year 2018. To address the increased number of requests, CEQ hired additional 

FOIA staff. 

b. What levels of review are involved in FOIA responsesry Is there a separate White 

House review? 

'American Lung Association, Particle Pollution, https:llwww.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthvairloutdoorlair-pollutionlparticle-pollution.html, (May 20 19). 

Page 11 of 18 
25 


36932.018

Answer: FOIA requests arc processed by CEQ's FOIA Public Liaison. After a search for 

records is conducted, the records are reviewed for responsiveness. Pursuant to FOIA, 

CEQ considers whether exemptions such as deliberative process or personal privacy should 

be considered before records are transmitted to the requester. 

Following the longstanding practice of the Executive Branch, if CEQ determines that 

another Federal agency has equities in the records being requested, CEQ generally routes 

those records to the relevant agency for a consultation or referral. Similarly, if CEQ 

records contain White House equities, CEQ follows the longstanding practice cited in the 

April IS, 2009 memorandum written by Grego•-y Craig, Counsel to the President, titled 

Memorandum for All Executive Department and Agenq General Counsels. The 

memorandum serves as a reminder that executive agencies should consult with the White 

House Counsel's Office on all requests for documents that may involve \Vhite House 

equities. 

c. What is CEQ's average response time to a FOIA request? 

Answer: As stated in CEQ's 2019 Chief FOIA Officer Report to the Attorney General, 

[https://www. whitchousc.gov/wp-con tent/uploads/20 17 /II/FIN AL-CEQ-2019-Chief-FOIAOfficer-Rcp(H't.pdf]. CEQ assigns each FOIA request as simple or complex, and 

adjudicates requests for expedited processing. CEQ strives to expeditiously respond to all 

FOIA requesters. The average number of days that CEQ reported for adjudicating 

requests for expedited processing for Fiscal Year 2018 was 8.56. During Fiscal Year 2018, 

the average number of days to process simple requests was 30.4 days. In Fiscal Year 2018, 

59.62 percent of requests processed were adjudicated as "simple requests." 

d. Currently, how many f'OIA requests are pending before CEQ? 

Answer: As of .June 17,2019, CEQ has 59 pending FOIA requests. 

e. Currently, how many litigation cases are pending over FOIA requests with CEQ? 

Answer: As a June 17,2019, CEQ is party to 4 FOIA litigation cases. 

f. Based on your responses in the previous questions and your knowledge of CEQ's 

FOIA process. can CEQ improve its FOIA process? If yes. please explain how 

so? 

Answer: As stated in CEQ's 2019 ChiefFOIA Officer Report to the Attorney General, CEQ 

began utilizing new e-discovery software, Ringtail, to search and review documents. CEQ 

FOIA professionals regularly work with the EOP component that provides technological 

infrastructure and services to CEQ to ensure that the software's capabilities are being fully 

utilized. The implementation of Ringtail has made processing requests more efficient by 

streamlining the search process and reducing the amount of time it takes to perform initial 

searches of documents. In addition, CEQ regularly reviews its FOIA process to identify 

ways to further improve its efficiency and effectiveness. 

Page 12 of 18 
26 


36932.019

Senator Cardin: 

16. The ''One federal Decision" policy is currently being implemented through Memoranda 

of Understanding. Please describe what the legal effect of codifying this approach would 

be, and whether it could result in greater litigation risk for reviews produced in two years. 

Answer: The One Federal Decision (OFD) policy seeks to promote early and effective 

coordination in order to ensure that agencies develop analyses that inform both the 

decision maker and the public. It sets a two-year goal for completing environmental 

reviews for major infrastructure projects. The OFI> policy docs not change the 

requirements for agencies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and other relevant statutes. 

The OFI> policy complements prior legislative statutes and administration efforts. In 

recent years, Congress has examined issues related to the implementation of NEPA, and 

has passed legislation seeking to streamline environmental reviews in order to reduce 

project and permitting delays. This legislation includes Title 41 of the Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), Pub. L. No. 114-94; the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. No. 112-141; and the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Pub. L. 

No. 109-59 (SAFETEA-LU). Prior administrations have also identified the need for 

improvements to the review and permitting process, including in a 2013 Presidential 

Memorandum titled "Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting 

Regulations, Policies and Procedures." 

With respect to the time for completing environmental reviews of major infrastructure 

projects, CEQ has previously issued guidance providing that the time required to complete 

the entire environmental impact statement (EIS) process under CEQ's regulations should 

not exceed one year, even for large complex energy projects. In particular, CEQ in its 

Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulations memorandum issued in 1981 and amended in 1986 states: "The Council has 

advised agencies that under the new NEPA regulations even large complex energy projects 

would require only about 12 months for the completion of the entire EIS process." 

17. Have you received any comment or feedback from federal agencies that there is a need 

for increased resources, as well as training and personnel. to facilitate timelier 

implementation ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? Please describe if so. 

Answer: One of CEQ's core responsibilities is to oversee the implementation of NEPA by 

Federal agencies. CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations direct agencies to ensure that 

they have the capability to implement NEPA, and I believe Federal agencies have sufficient 

resources. To more effectively allocate their resources and better coordinate 

environmental reviews, CEQ continues to work with agencies to implement the OFD 

policy. CEQ also conducts quarterly NEPA Contacts meetings to consult with staff across 

Page 13 of 18 
27 


36932.020

Federal agencies regarding issues relating to implementation ofNEPA and periodic 

training for Federal agency NEPA practitioners. 

18. The revoked Executive Order 13693. ··Preparing the United States for the Impacts of 

Climate Change" and Executive Order 13693. "Planning for Federal Sustainability in the 

l"ext Decade" were intended to make federal operations more sustainable. save taxpayer 

money. and improve cost effectiveness while reducing compliance obstacles of 

overlapping statutory requirements. Is the CEQ considering any changes. either through 

guidance or regulatory rulcmaking that will impact how federal agencies consider both 

the climate impacts of federal actions and impacts of climate change on federal actions? 

Answer: CEQ has sent draft guidance to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for interagency review relating to 

agency consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when conducting NEPA analyses. 

On March 28, 2017, President Trnmp issued Executive Order 13783, which directed CEQ 

to rescind prior guidance issued in August of2016 relating to consideration of GHG 

emissions under NEPA. CEQ withdrew this final guidance for further consideration on 

April 5, 2017. Following completion of the pending interagency review, CEQ intends to 

publish the draft guidance in the Federal Register and request public comments, which will 

be available for the public to access on rcgulations.goY. 

19. Please describe the CEQ's participation in interagency discussions on ratification of the 

Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. 

Answer: CEQ routinely participates in deliberative interagency discussions on various 

issues with components within the Executive Office of the President, and Federal agencies. 

There is currently an ongoing deliberative interagency process related to this matter, led by 

the National Security Council (NSC). The potential submission of an amendment to the 

Senate for ratification is a decision that would be made by the President. 

20. Please describe the current status of regulations implementing Title 41 of the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to expedite the permitting process for 

major infrastructure projects while improving environmental and community outcomes. 

Answer: FAST -41 created a new authority to establish a fee structure to reimburse 

reasonable costs incurred in implementing certain requirements and authorities including 

the costs to agencies and the costs of operating the Permitting CounciL On September 4, 

2018, the Permitting Council, in conjunction with the General Services Administration, 

published a draft notice of proposed rnlemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register 

pertaining to "Fees for Governance, Oversight, and Processing of Environmental Reviews 

and Authorizations by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering CounciL" The 

comment period closed on November 5, 2018. This NPRM proposes to establish an 

initiation fee for project sponsors to reimburse the Federal Permitting ImproYement 

Steering Council-Office of the Executive Director (FPISC-OED) for reasonable costs to 

implement certain requirements and authorities required under FAST-41 and costs of 

operating FPISC-OED. 

Page 14 of 18 
28 


36932.021

Senator Markey: 

21. In the hearing, you committed to requesting public comment on the proposed draft 

climate guidance. Will you commit to holding field hearings on the draft guidance. as 

well? 

Answer: As part of the consideration of draft greenhouse gas (GHG) guidance, CEQ 

undertook the interagency review process through the Office of Management and Budget's 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and also participated in the 

requested meetings with stakeholders conducted by OIRA pursuant to EO 12866. These 

meeting logs are available to the public at reginfo.gov. CEQ does not intend to hold public 

hearings on the draft guidance. However, CEQ intends to publish the draft guidance in the 

Federal Register and request public comments, which will be available for the public to 

access on regu lations.gov. 

22. The National Environmental Policy Act is particularly important to low-income, rural, 

and minority communities. who may not have other opportunities to engage with 

infrastructure projects that could affect the health and safety of their communities. In the 

hearing. you said that the Council on Environmental Quality "'followed the OIRA process 

and undertook outreach consistent with OIRA 's policies and directives"' with regard to 

outreach to communities that speak Spanish or other non-English languages. 

a. Please provide detail on how that outreach and process were conducted. 

Answer: Public participation and engagement in the rulemaking process is a priority for 

CEQ. In connection with review of its NEPA implementing regulations, CEQ engaged in 

significant public outreach beyond what is required by the rulemaking process. This 

included issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on June 20, 

2018, which while not required as part of the rulemaking process, provided an opportunity 

for comment by the public on a wide range of topics relating to CEQ's NEPA 

implementing regulations. CEQ staff developed the ANPRM and it was subJect to OIRA 

interagency review pursuant to EO 12866. As part of the interagency review process, CEQ 

staff also met with various stakeholders. These meeting logs arc available to the public on 

rcginfo.gov. 

In conducting public outreach, CEQ also distributed the ANPRM to a wide range of 

stakeholders, including to CEQ's stakeholder distribution list, which includes points of 

contact at over 250 environmental organizations, academic institutions, trade associations, 

and other non-governmental organizations. CEQ also posted the ANPRM on its NEPA 

website at https://ccq.doe.gov/laws-r·egulations/rcgulations.html. 

In response to requests from the public, CEQ also extended the comment period for the 

ANPRM from July 20, 2018, to August 20,2018, and accepted comments submitted to 

regulations.gov as well as comments by regular mail. CEQ received over 12,500 comments, 

including from organizations representing minority and low-income communities. 

Page 15 of 18 
29 


36932.022

b. Please describe any other steps that the Council on Environmental Quality is 

taking to ensure that NEPA guidance is accessible to and inclusive of the 

concerns of frontline communities. If there is none. please explain why not. 

Answer: CEQ makes all of its guidance available on its NEPA website at 

https://ccq.doe.gov/guidancc/guidance.html. In addition to the public outreach efforts 

described above, last year CEQ fully utilized rcgulations.gov in order to ensure that all 

comments submitted would he publicly available. 

23. Do you agree that oil and gas leases should be required to undergo an Environmental 

Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment') If not. why not'' If so. do you agree 

that both processes should include public notice and an opportunity to comment? 

Answer: Under NEPA, agencies arc required to prepare a detailed statement for proposed 

major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In 

carrying out their NEPA responsibilities, agencies use their expertise and experience to 

decide how and to what degree to analyze effects of a proposed action, including with 

regard to whether to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact 

statement (EIS). CEQ's regulations pnn·ide for public notice and an opportunity to 

comment where an agency has determined it is appropriate to prepare an EIS. Also, an 

agency's implementing procedures may provide additional opportunities for public 

comment during the NEPA process. 

24. President Obama·s Executive Order 13547. '"Stewardship of the Ocean. Our Coasts. and 

the Great Lakes .. directed executive agencies to develop coastal and marine spatial plans 

to improve local decision making and mitigate multi-stakeholder conflicts. President 

Trump replaced this Executive Order with Executive Order 13840. titled .. Ocean Policy 

to Advance the Economic. Security. and Environmental interests of the United States·· 

and encouraged the facilitation and coordination of ocean science and ocean stakeholders. 

The Northeast Regional Data Portal has been very useful for fishermen to try to minimize 

conflicts between their fishing grounds and the siting of offshore wind turbines. It is 

important that the data portals that arc helping minimize ocean user conflicts continue to 

be supported. 

a. How is the Ocean Policy Committee currently supporting regional data portals 

and minimizing multi-ocean stakeholder conflicts 0 

Answer: To carry out its work pursuant to Executive Order 13840, the Ocean Policy 

Committee (OPC) established an Ocean Resource Management (ORM) Subcommittee to 

address data and information needs and other ocean-related matters that may require 

interagency or intergovernmental coordination. The OPC tasked the ORM Subcommittee 

with developing and implementing a plan to identify and publish Federal geospatial data 

that address regionally identified data needs. 

Page 16 of 18 
30 


36932.023

To support and expand public access to Federal ocean data pursuant to Executive Order 

13840, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) manage and maintain the Marine Cadastre, a central 

resource for visualizing and sharing authoritative ocean data used for conflict avoidance, 

project siting, permitting, project planning, outreach, and impact assessments. In addition, 

the Marine Cadastre provides an efficient way for regional ocean partnerships to acquire 

and customize Federal data for use by regional stakeholders through regional ocean data 

portals. 

b. How is CEQ currently supporting federal data contributions to the regional ocean 

data portals? 

Answer: As stated in the previous answer, the OPC tasked the ORM Subcommittee with 

developing and implementing a plan to identify and publish Federal geospatial data that 

address regionally identified data needs. To help inform ORM Subcommittee's work, 

BOEM and NOAA completed Phase I of a regional data platform study to understand and 

document what Federally sourced geospatial data are needed to help states and regional 

organizations address pressing ocean and coastal management decisions. It focuses on 

making data more easily accessible and/or provided in a way that meets the needs of the 

ocean and coastal management community. The J<'ederal Data Task Report produced in 

Phase I is publicly available at https://marinecadastrc.gov/scopingstudy/. This report 

identifies the top ten regional data needs and includes a ranked table of the complete list of 

data priorities showing which regions identified them. The report also provides a ranked 

table of the priority coastal and ocean management issues that drive the need for specific 

data, showing which regions identified them. Phase 2 of this study is designed to directly 

assess the infrastructure needs of the regional data portals. 

c. Can you assure that this data will continue to be publicly available? 

Answer: An important function of the OPC, as directed in Section 5(c) of the Executive 

Order, is to "coordinate the timely public release of unclassified data and other 

information related to the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes that agencies collect, and support 

the common information management systems, such as the Marine Cadastre, that organize 

and disseminate this information." In order to carry out this action, the OPC directed the 

ORM Subcommittee to streamline and speed the release of unclassified Federally collected 

marine geospatial data and make it publically available. 

Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's budget for Fiscal 

Year 2020 requests $4 million to support the regional data portals and the data capacity of 

the Regional Ocean Partnerships, reflecting its commitment to the regions and their access 

to data. 

d. Please include examples of actions the Ocean Policy Committee has already taken 

to address these questions. 

Page 17 of 18 
31 


36932.024

Answer: The Data Working Group, a body established by the ORM Subcommittee to 

carry out data-related tasks, is linking available departmental and agency data sets that are 

responsive to regional needs and developing an implementation plan to release additional 

geospatial data sets and derived products. The Data Working Group is gathering 

information about the key types of unclassified marine and coastal geospatial information 

held by various Federal agencies that are not currently available to Marine Cadastre and 

identifying the existing barriers to dissemination and amount of effort required to make 

this data publicly available. Pursuant to the ORM Subcommittee Workplan, the 

implementation plan for the prioritization and release of new datasets is anticipated to be 

completed in July 2019, and implementation will begin in FY 2020. 

Page 18 of 18 
32 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thanks so much for that very thoughtful testimony. We appreciate you being here today. 

Last summer, CEQ issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the potential revisions to its regulations under NEPA. 

These NEPA regulations haven’t been updated in decades, so I 

hope you are considering modernizing the NEPA regulations to 

help accelerate infrastructure projects, to improve environmental 

reviews, and to streamline permitting processes. 

Can you please discuss and share with us some of the themes 

and concerns that have emerged from your advanced notice? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Thank you very much for the question. Yes, we 

did issue an advanced notice and did receive a large number of 

comments. The comments came from a range of different stakeholders, but there were some common themes that were raised. 

There were comments suggesting revisions to improve the coordination between Federal agencies so that we could have a more timely 

process, including ensuring that processes were conducted in a concurrent fashion. 

There were also comments on clarifications to the NEPA process 

and NEPA documentation that may be required, and to the levels 

of review that may be required under NEPA. In addition, there 

were comments on the use of current technologies that were not in 

existence at the time that NEPA was issued and encouragement of 

use of current technologies to increase public participation in the 

process. 

So we have received a wide range of comments, and we are in 

the process of considering those comments. 

Senator BARRASSO. You know, an inefficient permitting process 

can lead to expensive delays, harmful delays for important infrastructure projects. How much of a difference is it going to make if 

we can improve the permitting process through the reforms that 

you are contemplating, and what changes to the law would help 

you achieve these goals? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, as I said, the process can be a very lengthy 

process, and the report that we issued at the end of last year reflected that the timeframes can be many years for many important 

projects that are important to communities around the country. 

Delays in the permitting process can delay the development of very 

important and needed infrastructure, including projects that will 

benefit the environment. 

To the extent that we can reduce delays without compromising 

environmental protection, this will be helpful to the funding of 

projects and will ensure that both Federal dollars and private sector dollars go further. But delays can result in significant costs, so 

it is important to try to address and reduce unnecessary delays. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am so glad to see that you and the Administration have taken meaningful steps to improve the environmental 

review process and especially glad to see that the Administration 

set this 2-year goal for completing environmental reviews with 

these projects as part of the One Federal Decision policy. 

Are Federal agencies on track to meet that 2-year goal? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes. As I mentioned, we have a Memorandum of 

Understanding in place with the agencies, and agencies have been 

working in a very collaborative way to identify projects to be procVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:49 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36932.TXT SONYA
33 

essed under the One Federal Decision policy and to develop schedules that do meet the 2-year goal and are schedules that include 

detailed milestones and are developed through extensive coordination between all of the relevant agencies. To the extent appropriate, we have encouraged agencies to work with their State counterparts, as well, to ensure a schedule that includes all of the relevant milestones and approvals that are involved. 

Senator BARRASSO. You know, Wyoming produces about 40 percent of the Nation’s coal, so earlier this year a Federal District 

Court based in Washington, DC, froze coal leasing and drill permits on over 300,000 acres of Federal land in Wyoming. The court 

found that the Bureau of Land Management didn’t adequately consider greenhouse gas emissions under NEPA. 

In its decision, the court offered very little guidance on what the 

agency needs to do in order to analyze greenhouse gas emissions 

to a court’s satisfaction. Judicial decisions like this create troubling 

uncertainty for many, and certainly for projects in Wyoming and in 

other States. 

Is clarity in this area of the law needed, and can direction from 

CEQ help? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, litigation is an issue and we are aware of 

the court’s decision in that case. It is a matter in litigation. What 

I would say generally is that ensuring coal leasing and other expanded energy production on Federal lands consistent with environmental protections is a priority for the Administration, and we 

do believe that it is important to assist agencies in completing and 

carrying out their NEPA responsibilities. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Again, thanks so much for joining us today. It 

is good to see you. We appreciate your testimony and your responses to our questions. 

Based on a prior response that you provided to my staff during 

the course of your confirmation, I believe you clarified that the majority of highway projects fall within categorical exclusions and did 

not constitute a significant burden. However, that still understates 

the fact that 90 percent—96 percent, actually—of highway projects 

are categorically excluded from NEPA, as I said earlier. 

My question is this: Do you agree that the vast majority of 

projects, as high as 96 percent, NEPA approvals do not delay the 

issuance of permits? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes, Senator, I do agree. That 96 percent figure 

is an estimate that has been developed by GAO, and it does indicate and confirm that many of the projects approved by the Federal 

Highway Administration are categorically excluded. These are 

projects that may include maintenance, landscaping, repaving, bicycle lanes, projects of that nature. 

For significant highway expansions or new corridors or bypasses, 

frequently, typically an environmental assessment or environmental impact will be required, and that is a process that can take 

multiple years. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

During your confirmation, we discussed CEQ’s role in making 

our infrastructure more resilient for our new climate reality and for 

34 

protecting American communities. You promised to work with me 

and others on this issue. However, since confirmed, there has been 

mass flooding in the Midwest. It has caused billions of dollars in 

economic damage. They are still trying to get their lives back together, as you know. They face another hurricane season without 

any action from CEQ. And I mentioned on the Delmarva Peninsula 

the amount of rain that we continue to receive has just pretty 

much delayed the planting season again this year as a year ago. 

At the same time, Federal agencies continue to report dire predictions on threats of climate change. GAO recently reissued its 

high risk list. You know they do it every 2 years, at the beginning 

of a new Congress, and they reported this Administration has 

walked away from the growing threat of climate change, and I 

think we are going to be poorer for it. 

Specifically, GAO found this Administration’s actions, such as revoking the last Administration’s Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standard, ‘‘potentially increases the Federal Government’s fiscal 

exposure to climate change.’’ 

Again, I want to know what you are doing personally to protect 

us from the threats of climate change. What are you doing personally to protect us? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, CEQ has, as we have been discussing, seeking to advance the development of modern and resilient infrastructure, including for major infrastructure projects, through the implementation of the Executive Order on infrastructure and the One 

Federal Decision policy, and we think that that is very important, 

including for significant resiliency projects and the development of 

more modern and resilient infrastructure. 

In addition, CEQ is working pursuant to the Stafford Act, which 

was amended in 2013 to direct the President and his agencies to 

develop a more expedited and unified Federal process for environmental reviews and historic preservation reviews for disaster recovery projects. CEQ is a member of the Steering Committee that is 

working to improve that process, and we have been active in that 

process, and we expect to continue to be very active in that regard. 

In addition, CEQ participates in a task force that is focused on 

floodplain management and on incorporating best practices and 

better coordination among the agencies following disasters so that 

we can make good funding and construction decisions and build 

more resilient infrastructure. 

Senator CARPER. Will the Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standard be replaced, and if so, when? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Our focus has been through the task force on incorporating best practices and improving the coordination between 

agencies, recognizing that different agencies make different investments in different types of infrastructure. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

My time has expired. I hope we will have a second round. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I have two quick questions I want to get on the record, then I 

am going to leave immediately; I have a timing problem here. 

During the WRDA bill in 2016, I authored and successfully included a provision, the coal ash. In fact, my State of Oklahoma was 

35 

the first State to actually use this. It has been very successful. 

There is nothing unusual about the States taking over what the 

Federal Government has done in the past; we have done it under 

the Clean Water Air, we have done it under the Clean Air Act. 

I would just like to have a brief answer as to, in your view, how 

the States’ ability to take these things over has been working. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Thank you for the question. The Administration 

strongly supports Federal and State cooperation in the context of 

the One Federal Decision policy. We have directed Federal agencies 

to work with States to develop more timely environmental review 

processes, and we have also issued guidance to States with respect 

to surface transportation projects where States have assumed 

NEPA responsibilities, and we think that that is an approach that 

has been a good approach and we look forward to supporting States 

as they move forward. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that very much. 

You already answered my second question, which was going to 

be on the One Federal Decision, so I appreciate that very much and 

yield back my time. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Ms. Neumayr, let me begin by thanking you and CEQ for the 

work that you have done to facilitate our bipartisan work in the 

Senate on oceans issues. Chairman Murkowski and I have been 

working on, as you know, the Blue Globe Act, and you and CEQ 

have been very helpful in terms of getting agency connections and 

buy-in and ideas and so forth. 

I think this is an area where we have had a lot of bipartisan 

progress dating from the Port States Measures bill and pirate fishing work to our marine plastics work. 

I see Senator Sullivan here. We have had such good time doing 

the Save Our Seas bill that we jumped right back into doing Save 

our Seas 2.0 to try to do even better. 

We just discovered that the deepest dive to the bottom of the 

Marianas Trench discovered a plastic bag floating, whatever it is, 

30,000 feet down, so it is really time to clean that mess up, and 

we are looking forward to working on that, and again, your support 

has been very helpful. The Blue Globe Act with Senator Murkowski 

is on ocean data and monitoring and awareness, so a big thank you 

there, if I could start with that. 

I have provided to my colleagues in the Senate an increasing 

number of warnings that are coming out about what climate 

change portends for economic collapse if it is not sensibly addressed. The Bank of England says, and I quote: ‘‘Climate change 

will threaten financial resilience and longer term prosperity’’ and 

also projects this as a systemic risk to the work economy. 

Are you aware of those warnings? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. [Nodding.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. Thirty-four Central Bank presidents, 

including England, France, Germany, China, and our Canadian 

and Mexican neighbors, estimate losses ranging from $1 trillion to 

$4 trillion in the energy sector and up to $20 trillion when looking 

at the economy more broadly, and point out that the more sophistiVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:49 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36932.TXT SONYA
36 

cated study suggest average global incomes may be reduced by up 

to a quarter by the end of the century if this isn’t addressed. 

Are you aware of that warning? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. I am not sure if I am aware of that specific warning. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, we will pass it along. 

An economic study from Cambridge University has forecast that the U.S. economy could contract by 5 percent, resulting in $3 trillion in losses and millions of lost jobs. 

Are you aware of that warning? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. [Nodding.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. OK. 

The Fourth National Climate Assessment done by the Trump administration says that annual losses in some economic sectors are 

projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the 

century. I assume you are aware of that. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Standard & Poor’s has warned that the 

higher we allow the temperature to get from global warming, the 

more damaging climate change will be, and in a non-linear way. 

You are aware of that warning? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Generally. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Freddie Mac says rising sea levels and 

spreading floodplains appear likely to destroy billions of dollars in 

property and to displace millions of people. The economic losses are 

likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing 

crisis and Great Recession. 

Are you aware of that Freddie Mac warning? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. I am aware that concerns have been raised. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The Union of Concerned Scientists warns 

that the consequences of rising seas will strain many coastal real 

estate markets abruptly or gradually, but some eventually to the 

point of collapse. 

Are you familiar with that warning as well? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The insurance industry trade publication 

Risk in Insurance has written, ‘‘Continually rising seas will damage coastal residential and commercial property values to the point 

that property owners will flee those markets in droves, precipitating a mortgage value collapse that could equal or exceed the 

mortgage crisis that rocked the global economy in 2008,’’ which 

many of us lived through in the Senate. 

Are you aware of that warning? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. I am aware, generally aware that concerns have 

been raised. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you aware of Moody’s, the municipal 

bond rating agency, decision to start rating coastal municipalities’ 

bonds based on the risk of sea level rise, storm damage, and climate change? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The First Street Foundation has been 

going up from Florida, where it did peer reviewed research out the 

Gulf Coast and up the northeast coast. It has been through Rhode 

Island. They have found that along the east coast we have already 

37 

lost more than $15 billion in value since 2005 because of sea level 

rise. 

Are you aware of First Street’s work? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Not specifically. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. I will get all this to you. 

And then there are a number of economics publications that 

warn of systemic risk to the world economy based on the threat of 

a carbon asset bubble collapse. 

Are you aware of those publications and that concern? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Generally aware of that concern. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What is a carbon asset bubble crash, just 

so I know we are talking about the same terms? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. I had the opportunity to meet with you prior to 

my confirmation, and we talked about that and you raised concerns 

about the potential impacts on real estate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Sorry, I am just trying to get a definition 

of what the carbon asset bubble crash means. What does that term 

mean to you? 

Senator BARRASSO. The Senator’s time has expired, but if you 

want to finish on this question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is the last. I am kind of re-asking it 

to try to get an answer. Thanks. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. My recollection is we discussed in your office that 

that is a concern raised in connection with potential impacts on 

real estate located in coastal communities. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I will follow up on a second round, 

because that is a different thing. 

Go ahead. Thanks. Sorry to take extra time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome again, Ms. Neumayr. Good to see you. 

I want to begin by just commenting on what Senator Whitehouse 

mentioned on the Save Our Seas Act. As you know, when we had 

our bill signing in the Oval Office, Senator Whitehouse and I, the 

President was very enthusiastic about that legislation. I think it is 

a very important area. Bipartisan cooperation not just in the Congress, but with the Trump administration and so many countries 

across the globe. Environmental groups, industry, they all want to 

work on this. 

We are going to be introducing, as Senator Whitehouse mentioned, a Save Our Seas Act 2.0. I think we have sent it over to 

the White House to get a look, but certainly would be excited about 

your support. I know the President actually has been very supportive of this legislation. 

Can you just mention what you have been doing in this area of 

ocean pollution and particularly the problems we have with plastics? It is actually a solvable problem. The estimates are five countries, 10 rivers in Asia, constitute over 80 percent of all the plastic 

waste in the world’s ocean, much of which ends up on the shores 

of my great State. But if you have any comment on that, I would 

welcome it and your support. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes. Well, the issue of marine debris has been a 

priority for the Administration, and as you mentioned, the President signed legislation. In addition, the agencies have been workVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:49 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36932.TXT SONYA
38 

ing to address these issues. NOAA and EPA and the Department 

of State and other agencies work closely on these issues, I think 

have recently submitted a support to Congress on marine debris related issues. 

CEQ, in particular, has been focused on the marine debris issue 

in the context of the Ocean Policy Committee that was established 

last year, and marine debris has been a topic that the Committee 

is considering. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, we want to continue to work with you. 

As you mentioned, the President not only signed legislation; he had 

a wonderful meeting with Senator Whitehouse in the Oval Office 

that I thought went really great, so we will just make sure we are 

trying to do that again. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. You are good to go with that? 

Let me go to another topic where I am hoping that we can get 

bipartisan support, and this is an issue of the time it takes to permit infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, NEPA, which is a very 

important piece of legislation, has turned into kind of a delay tool 

for certain groups that don’t want to build anything. Keystone 

Pipeline, that took 8 years and counting to permit. As you know, 

there are projects, really important projects, whether the Gross 

Reservoir in Colorado, 14 years to permit that. The Kensington 

Gold Mine in Alaska, almost 20 years to permit that. On average, 

it takes 9 to 19 years to permit a Federal highway, permit and plan 

a Federal highway in America. Nine to 19 years. 

Nobody wants this, except for some extreme radical special interest groups that don’t want any infrastructure. This really, really, 

really hurts American workers, the men and women who build 

things in our great Nation. 

I am going to be introducing, this week, the Rebuild America 

Now Act. I am hoping to get some of my Democratic colleagues to 

join me in it. I have a number of Republican cosponsors. Talked to 

the President extensively about this, including just 2 weeks ago. 

Can you give us an update on the work that you are doing to 

help streamline NEPA? I believe that, like other countries—Canada, Australia—you can permit infrastructure projects within 2 

years and still protect the environment. Unfortunately, we now 

have a conventional wisdom that permitting processes need to take 

8, 9, 10 years. It takes 8 years, on average, to permit a bridge in 

America. Who is for that? 

So, can you give us your thoughts on that? We want to work with 

you, and I certainly would appreciate the Administration’s support 

of my Rebuild America Now Act, which looks very similar to the 

Executive Order the Trump administration put out on infrastructure permitting and timelines. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. We do believe that it is very important that it is 

part of the environmental review process. It is a predictable and a 

timely process. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Timely meaning 2 years? Can you do it? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. The Administration has set a goal for major infrastructure projects, of completing those reviews in 2 years. 

39 

Senator SULLIVAN. By the way, other industrialized democracies 

do that regularly, correct? We are the outlier, aren’t we, in terms 

of these 10-year permitting timelines? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Our permitting timeframes can be very lengthy. 

So, we have been working with agencies to help ensure that they 

establish a joint schedule and that that schedule is developed by 

the lead Federal agency in consultation with all of the relevant 

Federal agencies, and as appropriate, with State agencies as well. 

So, we have been working to ensure that agencies put in place 

schedules, that they have processes in place to elevate issues that 

might result in delays in the schedules, and that they work toward 

meeting the 2-year goal. So, we have been working closely with the 

agencies on that. In addition, we have been working with the agencies on looking at their own policies and procedures to help reduce 

delay. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. 

Mr. Chairman, we want to work with you and the Administration, the Ranking Member on this very important issue for the 

sake of America’s workers and our economy and protecting the environment. I think we can do it all within 2 years, and we want 

to work with the Administration, importantly, on changing some 

elements of NEPA that have been abused over the years, and I look 

forward to working with you and this Committee on that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for being our witness. 

I want to follow up on what Senator Sullivan was talking about 

in terms of NEPA review and time, typical experience. Several of 

our bills that we have tried to kind of alleviate this issue, the 

lengthy review process, would be having dashboards at different 

permitting agencies that would indicate how far along a certain 

permit is. What is your opinion on that, and are you seeing that 

used successfully in other places? If you could talk about that a little bit. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. We do strongly support more transparency and 

accountability. In fact, under the One Federal Decision policy, 

project schedules are to be posted publicly, and we are currently 

posting them on the dashboard that is hosted by the Federal Permitting Council and the Department of Transportation so that 

there can be detailed schedules which are made available to the 

public. 

In addition, we have worked with OMB, which was directed 

under the President’s infrastructure Executive Order to develop a 

tracking system to help ensure that agencies do follow the One 

Federal Decision policy, do establish schedules and that they do 

have in place processes to resolve delays and to timely address any 

significant issues that might result in delays, and we do strongly 

believe that posting schedules on the dashboard is an important 

step. 

Senator CAPITO. You can find that at the Federal Permitting— 

what did you call it? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Dashboard for the Federal Permitting Council. 

Senator CAPITO. OK. 

40 

Ms. NEUMAYR. The projects are listed in the category titled One 

Federal Decision. 

Senator CAPITO. When you have a disagreement, the previous 

Administration did a preemptive EPA veto of projects under the 

404(c) of the Clean Water Act, which was very unusual because the 

permit had been in place for several years, and it sort of struck as 

a troubling precedent to me. What role does CEQ do, or how do you 

intervene when you have issues such as this, where EPA is overriding Corps of Engineers, when they are supposed to be generally 

working together? How is CEQ intervening in this, or are you? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, CEQ can participate in a number of ways. 

CEQ participates in the interagency review process, so to the extent that there is a rulemaking activity, a rulemaking, CEQ might 

participate in that process. In addition, CEQ does have a convening 

role, so where there are issues involving multiple agencies, and 

there is a need for resolution of issues, we can play a convening 

role. 

Senator CAPITO. What about when that involves the State? We 

also have had issues, not recently, but during the last Administration, where the State, in their 401 process, had permitted certain 

things, and the EPA and others had come in and overridden decisions that legally lie within the State’s jurisdiction? Have you seen 

these in your experience, and what are you all doing to address 

this issue? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, with respect to those issues, CEQ meets 

with a broad range of stakeholders, including States and localities 

that may come to CEQ to raise specific issues, so we have an opportunity to meet with a very broad range of State and local stakeholders. In addition, as appropriate, to convene meetings of the 

Federal agencies to seek to coordinate a resolve. 

Senator CAPITO. Do you have instances where the States are 

coming to you, and they are asking you to intervene in these instances, or is it mostly technical assistance and those kinds of 

things? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Typically, stakeholders will come to talk to us 

about potential regulatory reforms or specific issues that they are 

confronting, so it can be a very wide range of issues. 

Senator CAPITO. Wide range. All right. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

In a 2017 Executive Order, President Trump took away Obama 

era Council of Environmental Quality guidance on how to include 

climate change in the environmental impact reviews required 

under the National Environmental Policy Act, but a series of court 

decisions have since reaffirmed the need to consider climate change 

and review of environmental permits, which means CEQ has to act, 

and we must have climate guidance. 

Ms. Neumayr, it is my understanding that CEQ submitted its 

new guidance to the Office of Management and Budget for review 

in early February. Is that correct? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator MARKEY. So it has been over 3 months. When might this 

guidance finally be released from OMB? 

41 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, the guidance is subject to interagency review, and OMB leads that process. The process is not yet concluded, but we do anticipate that as soon as it is concluded we will 

move forward with issuance of proposed guidance for public comment. 

Senator MARKEY. And when is that? When will it be concluded? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, that will depend on the OMB process, but 

we anticipate moving forward in the near future. 

Senator MARKEY. In the near future. I obviously highly doubt 

this guidance will be stronger than what was already on the books. 

Climate change is an existential threat to our country, and 13 Federal agencies told us of the disastrous consequences we could face 

if we do not act. Of all the issues, we cannot afford to weaken our 

climate guidance. The American people recognize the threat of climate change and are demanding that they be heard, which leads 

me to my next question. 

Before CEQ issued its final climate guidance in 2016, it issued 

two drafts for public comment. Will you commit to following precedent in issuing the guidance as a draft open to public review and 

comment? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes, we anticipate issuing the proposed draft, and 

we will request public comment. 

Senator MARKEY. Great. That is great. 

Ms. Neumayr, the National Environmental Policy Act is the 

magna carta of environmental policy and public engagement in this 

country. The Trump administration is taking steps to rewrite it so 

that NEPA actually stands for No Environmental Protections Allowed. In July of last year, when you came before this Committee, 

you refused to commit to holding even one public field hearing on 

the proposal to rewrite the implementing regulations for NEPA. 

You said, ‘‘We will consider all of our options with respect to public 

engagement.’’ The option is right there. All you need to do is to respect public engagement, but that has not been what has happened. 

Will you commit to holding a public hearing on this proposal in 

all nine EPA regions? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, CEQ has, as I said in my testimony earlier, 

we have received comments in response to a NOPR. We are considering those comments and potential revisions. We have not sent a 

proposal to OMB for interagency review. To the extent we do send 

a proposal, we would have to complete the interagency review process, and following that, to issue the proposed guidance. We do anticipate that we would hold public hearings, and we will consider 

all of our potential options. 

Senator MARKEY. Commit to public hearings in the regions? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. We anticipate holding public hearings, but no 

final decisions have been made with respect to that process. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, again, how you define public hearings—— 

Ms. NEUMAYR. And no proposal has been submitted. 

Senator MARKEY. We need reassurance that stakeholders in Massachusetts and other States around the country will be able to 

weigh in if the Administration rolls back this backbone of Federal 

environmental policy. NEPA is central to the pursuit of environVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:49 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36932.TXT SONYA
42 

mental justice. Too often we fail to listen and engage with the communities most affected by various projects. 

During your confirmation hearing, you said, ‘‘My commitment 

would be to make addressing environmental concerns in these communities a priority.’’ 

Under your leadership, has the Council on Environmental Quality performed outreach in Spanish and other languages besides 

English to communities during the rewrite of the regulations to implement NEPA? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Public participation and public engagement is a 

priority for us, and we did follow the OIRA interagency review 

process for advanced noticed of proposed rulemaking, and we did 

conduct extensive outreach with respect to that. 

Senator MARKEY. So, have you reached out to the Spanish speaking and other language speaking nationalities in our country? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. We, I believe, followed the OIRA process and undertook outreach consistent with OIRA’s policies and directives. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, again, we just have to make sure that no 

one is left out when it comes to weighing in, so I would just encourage you to make sure that Spanish speaking especially—but not exclusively—communities in the country are included. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Markey. 

We will now begin a second round of questions. 

We are looking at a time when renewable energy is becoming 

more affordable. I was thinking about this the other day because 

Senator Whitehouse and I previously discussed this carbon bubble, 

where are the prices so high, kind of like the tulip bubble of many 

centuries ago, that energy prices may plummet, and that could 

have an impact. There is an article in The Economist this past 

week about the bidding war for Anadarko between Chevron, Occidental Petroleum. I think Warren Buffett has come up with another $10 billion, so there is still a significant value to petroleum 

products, and this concept of the carbon bubble seems to imply that 

we are getting bid up too high and things could undercut it. 

I do have, for the record, an article written in The Wall Street 

Journal that talks about the myth of the bubble, which goes on to 

say, ‘‘Shaping future energy and environmental policies in the energy systems for decades ahead requires informed, fact-based decisions.’’ It says, ‘‘Anticipating bubbles has become an important concern, but it is just as important not to base decisions on bubbles 

that don’t exist.’’ 

In your specific role, I can’t imagine that this is something that 

enters into your thinking as you are focusing on protecting the environment, making sure the law is followed, that you get input 

from people. That would be different from your job as you see it, 

as we take a look at what potentially could happen 15 or 20 years 

from now. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes. Our priority is efficient implementation of 

the laws that Congress has passed. 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me, at this time, turn to Senator Carper 

if he has additional questions, and then I think Senator Whitehouse and if any other Senators come back. 

43 

Senator Whitehouse, we can go to you while Senator Carper is 

in consultation here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Gladly, with Senator Carper’s permission. 

I wanted to follow up on our conversation. First of all, I would 

be very surprised if the Council on Environmental Quality of the 

White House didn’t take into effect, in discharging its responsibilities, the prospect of consequences from those decisions, and the 

consequences from those decisions are now widely reported to include potentially three very significant economic risks; not just losing your farm to a flood, not just a localized risk, but broad economic risks, and they fall into three categories. 

One is an insurance crisis that either comes from climate risk becoming uninsurable because it is so hard to quantify, and because 

it is so potentially damaging, in which case you lose the insurance 

industry, or you end up with a climate disaster that is so massive 

that it sort of breaks the bank of the insurance industry. This is 

not an incredible position to take. After Andrew, 16 insurance companies, according to the Insurance Institute, went belly up in Florida because they had not adequately predicted what was coming. 

So, risk one, broadly stated, is the risk to the insurance industry 

from the rapid changes and increasing risks of climate change. 

The second is the coastal property values risk that you mentioned, and we talked about in my office. That is what Freddie Mac 

is talking about. And the notion there is that coastal property values suffer very sudden collapse when the market begins to react to 

the dangers of rising sea levels, and particularly when that prospect begins to back into the tail end of a 30-year mortgage. So, if 

a bank won’t issue you a 30-year mortgage on a property because 

it is not clear that that property won’t be literally under water, and 

not just figuratively under water, in 30 years, that is going to really blow out the buy side of the coastal property marketplace. And 

if you blow out the buy side, guess what happens to sell prices? 

They go down very rapidly. 

That is the warning that Freddie Mac and others are putting out 

there, and it could be as serious, according to Freddie Mac—not an 

environmental panic group but a very responsible housing organization—as bad as the 2008 mortgage crisis we all lived through. 

The third is this business of a carbon asset bubble. And I wasn’t 

asking you to agree or disagree whether a carbon asset bubble is 

going to pop and whether there is going to be a crash; I just wanted to figure out if you were familiar with the concept, with what 

the notion is of what would go wrong with a carbon asset bubble. 

So again, without asking you to agree or disagree, are you familiar with the carbon asset bubble theory and how it would work if 

the theory were to come to pass? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. I am familiar generally with the concerns that 

have been raised. We believe that it is important for us to improve 

our preparedness and our planning and to advance a modern and 

resilient infrastructure, and to advance a strong economy so that 

we can withstand future risks, including climate related risks. And 

technology and innovation is important, including improving our 

ability to model and forecast and make projections with respect to 

future events. 

44 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And Senator Barrasso and I can agree or 

disagree about how real the prospect is of a carbon asset bubble, 

but it is at least real enough that the Bank of England, operating 

as the regulator of all the UK’s banks and insurance companies, is 

warning very seriously about it. And it is serious enough that $32 

trillion worth of investment after the last cop organized itself to 

say we need to know a lot more about this because this is a real 

enough risk that we face an information deficit about quantifying 

it, and we need a lot better reporting out of the fossil fuel industry 

and related industries about what their climate financial risk is. 

And it is real enough that there are peer reviewed economic journal 

publications that not only quantify the risk but try to run it 

through and see who it hits the worst. 

And the bad news is that in the event of a carbon asset bubble 

collapse, the U.S. fossil fuel and the Russian fossil fuel market perform particularly badly against lower cost producers and take a 

particularly hard hit, and they literally are talking about negative 

GDP growth, significant income reductions, and trillions of dollars 

in damages. So that is nothing to mess around with, and I think 

at least it is an idea that merits our attention, and I hope the attention of CEQ as it is evaluating what its policy should be in this 

area. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I ask unanimous consent that a letter 

that I wrote on this subject? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am going to give this to Ms. Neumayr at 

the end of the hearing, but I want to put it in the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. It is included. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to 

submit for the record an announcement I believe made this morning by 13 Fortune 500 companies and four environmental groups 

calling on the President and Congress to act as soon as possible on 

climate change. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CARPER. If I could, I just want to read the first couple 

of sentences of this announcement. I won’t mention all the companies, but I will mention some of them because I am proud of them. 

DuPont, Dow, Dominion Industry, Dominion Energy, Exelon Ford, 

BASF, Citi, BP, Unilever, DTE, Shell, PG&E; and the list goes on 

with a number of major environmental groups, too, including EDF, 

including The Nature Conservancy and World Resource Institute 

and Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 

Their announcement starts out, ‘‘It is urgent that the President 

and Congress put in place a long-term Federal policy as soon as 

possible to protect against the worst impacts of climate change. 

Acting sooner rather than later allows us to meet the climate chalVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:49 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36932.TXT SONYA
45 

lenges for the least possible cost and put the necessary investments 

in place in time to meet our emissions targets.’’ It goes on to cover 

five or six major points. 

I welcomed the announcement this morning. 

I want to come back, if I can, Ms. Neumayr, to—I don’t ask a 

lot of yes or no questions. This is a yes or no question; it is a pretty 

easy one, I think. Do you question the conclusions in the recently 

issued Fourth National Climate Assessment and GAO reports that 

the state of our economy is at risk if we do not take climate actions? Yes or no? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. We agree that the climate is changing and that 

human activity has a role. 

Senator CARPER. The conclusions of the Fourth National Climate 

Assessment and the GAO reports state that our economy is at risk 

if we do not take climate actions. Do you question those conclusions? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. I agree that climate change is an issue and that 

human activity has a role. I also believe that the climate system 

is very complex and that it is important that we pursue technology 

and innovation to help to adapt to changing climate. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

We have talked a little bit about my next subject that relates to 

what I just asked you. I remember a time when I first learned that 

we had an ozone layer. When I was a kid, I didn’t know that. I 

learned it later in life. Then I found out that we had a hole in it 

and the hole was getting bigger, and we were trying to figure out 

what was causing it, and it turned out one of the contributing factors was something called CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons. It had something to do with cooling our homes, this building, our cars, so forth. 

Pretty good refrigerant, pretty good coolant, but not so good for the 

ozone layer. 

So we figured out we probably ought to stop using that, and 

something came along called HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, to replace 

them. Much better on the ozone layer, but not so good on climate 

and carbon. In some ways significantly worse than carbon dioxide 

with respect to global warming, climate change. 

So now we have these 401 products that have been developed by 

American companies that are OK with the ozone layer, and frankly, a whole lot better with respect to climate change. 

We have been waiting for the Administration for some time to 

ask us to pass an amendment, the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocols, and we are still waiting. This is technology developed in America by American companies worth tens of thousands 

of jobs, billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity for our country, ahead of the rest of the world. For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Administration has not asked us to approve it. 

You and I have talked about this before. It just makes no sense. 

No sense. What is going on? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Well, the potential submission of an amendment 

to the Senate for ratification is a decision that would be made by 

the President. There is currently an interagency process related to 

this that is led by—— 

Senator CARPER. That has been going on for a long time. It is a 

slow process. 

46 

Ms. NEUMAYR. It is a process that is led by the NSC, and it is 

an ongoing process. 

Senator CARPER. I would describe it as an unending process. In 

the meantime, we are ceding the advantages to others, including 

folks in China. We have to be smarter than that. 

I want to go back to the public comment issues involving NEPA 

regs and public comment periods. Last June, CEQ published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to consider potential updates 

and clarifications to its NEPA implementing regs, and that 

ANPRM initially offered a short public comment period, as you will 

recall, 30 days. A number of us said that is way too short; let’s 

have it longer. It has been extended to 60 days. My understanding 

is no public hearings were conducted. 

As you know, the original regs and the singular amendments to 

those regs went through considerable deliberation both internally 

and by the public. I just want to ask if you would commit today 

to a minimum 90-day public comment period if a notice of proposed 

rulemaking is released. 

Ms. NEUMAYR. As I said earlier, no proposal has been submitted 

to the Office of Management and Budget. To the extent we submit 

a proposal, that would be a deliberative process, and I can’t speak 

today to what would be included in a proposal ultimately until that 

process is concluded. 

Senator CARPER. So I guess I couldn’t ask you to commit tomorrow, could I? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. We do believe that it is important to receive public comment, and we look forward to, to the extent we move forward with a proposal, that we engage with the public, and we seek 

public comment. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Well, please give that consideration. We appreciate the extension to 60 and would be very 

grateful for 90. Thank you. 

I will have some questions for the record. Thank you for joining 

us today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Finally, last fall, the Administration appointed a permanent executive director to lead the Permitting Council, which was established in the FAST Act of 2015. I am just going to ask how CEQ 

is working with the Permitting Council, and would you support 

making this Permitting Council permanent? 

Ms. NEUMAYR. Yes, thank you for the question. 

Yes, CEQ does work closely with the Permitting Council. Under 

the legislation, the FAST Act, CEQ issued guidance relating to the 

Permitting Council in 2017. We have one staffer from the Permitting Council who is part-time with CEQ, and we do seek to work 

closely with them as they move forward with carrying out their responsibilities. We do think that Congress has, through the Permitting Council, advanced legislation that is very important because 

it does help to ensure a more coordinated process for very large infrastructure projects. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you for being here. We appreciate your testimony, your time, the work that you are doing. 

As Senator Carper said, you are going to have some written 

questions. I think other members may as well. I know a number 

47 

of members were attending memorial services and a funeral in Indiana for former Senator Lugar, so you may be hearing from some 

of them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, can I? 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One last odd coincidence. After my question, I flipped open my Bloomberg News feed, and if I could just 

take a moment and read five sentences from that feed. 

‘‘Florida’s economy can be expected to ‘go to hell’ as lenders begin 

to realize many properties financed with 30-year mortgages may be 

either literally or figuratively under water within that time, according to Spencer Glendon of the Woods Hole Research Center. A 

quick comparison of Miami Beach and Charlotte bonds suggest 

Florida investors may be ignoring ‘insane’ climate risk. Either way, 

$1 trillion is on the line. Companies may face $1.2 trillion in losses 

globally if they delay addressing climate change during the next 15 

years, according to a U.N. Environment Finance Initiative Analysis. That is also a rough estimate of what the U.S. may need to 

spend a year by 2050 to help avoid untold higher costs from unchecked warming.’’ 

So, I don’t know if Bloomberg News was listening to me and suddenly sent this feed out, but it was—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Michael Bloomberg was listening to you and 

sent that feed. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It certainly was an odd coincidence. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Thank you very much for your testimony and your time today. 

We very much appreciate the job you are doing. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

48 


36932.025

5115!2019 Nancy Meyer and Lysle Bnnk.er The Myth of the Carbon Investment ·subb!e'- WSJ 

Mps:/lwww. wsj.oom!artic!eslnancy-meyer -and-tysle-brinker -the-myth-of -the--carbon-investm<.mt~bubbte- i 421 0 17 46 7 

I COMMENTARY 

The Myth of the Carbon Investment 

'Bubble' 

Bad news for alarmists: Global integrated oil and gas companies since 2008 have traded at a 30% 

discount. 

By Nancy Meyer And Lysle Brinker 

Jan. 11, 2015 6:04p.m. ET 

ls there a new economic bubble-a "carbon bubble"-forming around oil, natural gas and coal 

investments? Proponents of the theory assert that the prices of fossil-fuel company stocks are 

substantially overvalued because their inventory of fossil-fuel resources cannot be brought to 

the surface and consumed if the world is to keep global emissions below certain carbon-dioxide 

thresholds. The argument, advanced by such groups as 350.org, Carbon Tracker Initiative and 

Go Fossil Free, assumes that more-stringent climate policies will render many fossil-fuel 

reserves "unburnable." In coming decades these reserves are at risk of being "stranded," 

leaving shareholders empty-handed. 

GETTY IMAGES 

Buzzwords about "stranded" and 

unburnable assets are making 

some investors anxious. The 

carbon-bubble movement is also 

putting pressure on 

endowments, foundations and 

pension funds to divest fossilfuel equity holdings. Yet is the 

carbon-based investment risk 

real or is it part of a cry for 

action on climate change? Look 

closely and financial-market 

realities deflate the carbonbubble theory. 

For a bubble to exist, companies would need to be overvalued in the market. In fact, since 2008 

global integrated oil and gas companies (lOCs) have traded at an average 30% discount to their 

https:Jfv.iww.wsj.com/articles!nancy~!Myer..and~fysle-brinker-th-e-myth-of-the·csrbon-invastment··buoble·1421017467?ns=prod/accounts-wsj 1'3 
49 


36932.026

5!15/2019 Nancy Meyer and Lysle Brinker: The Myth of the Carbon Investment 'Bubbl-e' - WSJ 

intrinsic value, based on well-accepted financial analysis using cash flows and asset sales. Even 

following the recent sharp fall in oil prices, IOC companies continue to trade at a ctiscount. This 

is not evidence of overconfidence or the "irrational exuberance" associated with well-known 

stock market, tech and real-estate bubbles. 

The carbon-bubble theory also misstates how fossil-fuel reserves are valued and how they 

contribute to the market capitalization of a company. The intrinsic value of an oil and gas 

company is based primarily on its proven reserves-those reserves currently producing plus 

those with a high probability of being developed in the near-to-medium term. The value of 

fossil-fuel reserves is based on the strict definition promulgated by the U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission. 

Our recent report "Deflating the 'Carbon Bubble' "finds that these proven reserves on average 

account for only 24% of the resource base by volume, but account for 81% Of the resource base 

value that drives a company's total valuation. Investors pay attention to and put their money on 

those proven reserves. 

Carbon-bubble theorists use a much broader and hazier definition of reserves. They also 

include "probable" and "possible" resources with uncertain potential for development and 

commercialization much further into the future. By using this broad and chronologically vague 

definition, they sound an alarm around a "carbon risk" associated with not-well-defined 

resources that are not near term and that barely play a role in hydrocarbon-company 

valuations. 

Carbon-bubble analysis also leaves out the tin'ling of returns. Returns from investments in 

proven reserves are gained and delivered to shareholders wi.thinl0-15 years for most IOCs. 

Demand for oil and gas is unlikely to plummet in such a short time. 

Demand is expected to rise, driven by the growing energy needs of emexging-market countries. 

Even under the International Energy Agency's scenario aimed at reducing carbon emissions, 

energy demand is expected to grow by 12% over the next 15 years, with fossil fuels meeting 

more than two thirds of demand in2030. What the value of reserves not yet developed or even 

discovered will be in 2050 is highly uncertain-but so is the worth that today's high-value tech 

stock shares will have in 2050. 

The current period of low prices is due to the rapid buildup of supply and a slowing world 

economy-not to carbon-related demand destruction stimulated by stringent caps on C02 

https:IJ\wJW.ws .com/artidas/nancy-meyer~and~lysle·brinker-tila-myth-of-lhe-carbon-investment-bubb!a-14:!.10i7467?ns=prod/accounls-wsj 2J3 
50 

Æ 


36932.027

5/1512019 Nancy Meyer and Lysle Bnnker. The Myth of the Carbon Investment 'Bubble·- WSJ 

emissions or a rapid penetration of clean energy technologies. So a scenario that envisions a 

swift decarbonization of the economy that leaves most commercial hydrocarbon assets 

"stranded" seems highly unrealistic. 

A transition to a lower carbon economy will require increased investment in renewable energy 

and energy efficiency over a long period. The International Energy Agency forecasts that of the 

nearly $40 trillion in energy investments needed to supply the world to 2035, more than 50% 

will be needed for fossil-fuel investments. Divestment also runs counter to the Obama 

administration's climate-change policy, which aims to promote more natural gas in electricity 

generation. 

Shaping future energy and environmental policies .and the energy system for decades ahead 

requires informed, fact-based discussion.'J'hat is also a requirement for responsible investing 

by endowments, pension funds and other long-term investors. Anticipating bubbles has 

become an important concern, but it is just as important not to b~~;;;:;-or;~t-~ 

Ms. Meyer is associate director of the energy climate strategy dialogue, and Mr. Brinker is 

director of oil company equity research at IHS, a research and consulting firm. 

Copyright© 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc All Rights ReseNed 

Th1s copy is f?r your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presental!On-reaoy copies for d1stnbulion to your colleagues, clieots or customers visit 

h!tps·/lwww.djrepnnts.com 

https:liwww. wsj .com/artic!es!nancy-meyer -and-lysle-brinkef -the-myth-of-the-carbon-investment-bubb!e-14 21 0 17 467?ns=prodlaccounts-wsj 3i3