S. HRG. 114–65 

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION 

MAY 14, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–277 2015

S. HRG. 114–65 

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION 

MAY 14, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

COLIN HAYES, Deputy Staff Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................. 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Bowman, Erica, Vice President, Research and Policy Analysis, America’s Natural Gas Alliance .................................................................................................. 5 

Weisgall, Jonathan M., Vice President, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, 

Berkshire Hathaway Energy ............................................................................... 19 

Ericson, Amy, President, Alstom Inc. .................................................................... 39 

Dotson, Greg, Vice President for Energy Policy, Center for American Progress 46 

Hunter, James L., Utility Department Director, International Brotherhood 

of Electrical Workers ........................................................................................... 54 

Kalk, Dr. Brian P., Commissioner, North Dakota Public Service Commission .. 60 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Alliance for Industrial Efficiency, et al 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 202 

Alliance for Industrial Efficiency, et al, regarding S. 1201 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 204 

American Public Power Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 207 

Americans for a Clean Energy Grid 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 220 

Barrasso, Hon. John 

Economic Report of the President dated February 2015 ............................... 78 

Bowman, Erica 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 124 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 221 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Report entitled ‘‘A Forward-Looking Agenda for the Nation’s Public Utility Commissions’’ by Greg Dotson and Ben Bovarnick dated May 2015 .. 94 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 233 

Distribution Contractors Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 235 

Dotson, Greg 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 46 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 48 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 179 

Ericson, Amy 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 39 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 41 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 175 

Gardner, Hon. Cory 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 236 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Gas Processors Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 237 

Gridwise Alliance regarding the Grid Modernization Act of 2015 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 239 

Gridwise Alliance regarding the Next Generation Electric Systems Act 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 240 

Heat is Power Association regarding S. 1037 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 241 

Heat is Power Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 242 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 243 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K. 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 244 

Hunter, Jim 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 54 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 56 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 192 

International District Energy Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 245 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 247 

Kalk, Dr. Brian P. 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 60 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 62 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 195 

The Latino Coalition 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 249 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 251 

Plastics Pipe Institute 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 252 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 253 

S. 1201 Bill Summary ...................................................................................... 255 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Article: Congress Can Empower Energy Innovation Far and Wide. Here’s 

How by Mike Jacobs dated May 14, 2015 ................................................... 256 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 261 

Union of Concerned Scientists regarding S. 1213 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 264 

Western Energy Alliance 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 266 

The Wilderness Society 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 267 

Wires, LLC 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 270 

Wires (Letter to Senator Heinrich) ........................................................................ 280 

Weisgall, Jonathan M. 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 19 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 21 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 129 

The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be 

found on the committee’s website at: http:// 

www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=e7041c11-7a96-401c-ba41-3c0142353934. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We will call to order the meeting 

of the Energy Committee. 

We are moving forward in the second of our series of four legislative hearings regarding the broad and hopefully, bipartisan, energy 

bill that our Committee is assembling. 

The 22 bills included in the notice for this week’s hearing address challenges related to energy infrastructure. My expectation 

and at the very least, my hope, is that the best ideas expressed in 

these bills we are considering today will ultimately become provisions of the broader bill that we intend to move later this summer. 

When I think about energy infrastructure, the first thing that 

comes to my mind is the energy midstream which are the facilities 

that move energy all over the country from where it is produced 

to where it is used by families and businesses such as natural gas 

pipelines or electric transmission lines. These systems are complex 

yet required to work seamlessly. The expectation is that they are 

always going to work. Also called to mind are other softer elements 

of the energy infrastructure such as the quality, size and expertise 

of America’s energy workforce. Our witnesses this morning are 

qualified to address each of these topics. 

It is clear from reviewing the bills on our agenda this morning 

many Senators believe that our energy infrastructure faces challenges that require our attention. We have diverse ideas about how 

to strengthen the nation’s energy infrastructure, and we are focused on a wide variety of topics. 

Equally clear from my conversations with members on both sides 

of the aisle, however, is that we all recognize that the vast majority 

of the nation’s energy infrastructure is privately owned. It is built, 

maintained, expanded and improved largely with private investment. 

As I see it the key question presented for all of these bills and 

for energy infrastructure generally is what is the proper role of 

Federal policies in private sector investment? While many Senators 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

agree that energy infrastructure must be improved, there are a variety of open questions that need to be addressed. These questions 

include things like what qualifies as an infrastructure improvement? Are legal and regulatory barriers standing in the way of 

technological improvements and advancements? How do we ensure 

that Federal permitting is more timely, consistent and certain 

while continuing to meet all the requirements of the law? 

Finally, it is obvious Senators are prepared to give significant attention to Federal law governing electricity and the uniquely critical grid infrastructure. 

Our hearing in March on the state of technological innovation related to the electric grid established that a cumulative investment 

of between $300 and $500 billion over the next 20 years will be required. How will Federal law and policy influence that investment, 

and how can we ensure that Federal policies lead to positive 

change? Further how can we avoid the unintended consequences of 

reliability losses, unwarranted or undisclosed price increases inhibiting technological innovation or stifling customer preferences? 

Those are the questions that we are seeking answers to, and I 

hope that today’s hearing will prove useful in this regard. 

We have already learned that today’s developments in electricity 

have tremendous potential but also present a number of challenges 

such as smoothing out the intermittency of variable weather dependent generation. With the rise of distributed generation and 

smart grid technologies, Americans are gaining more control over 

how they use and consume electricity but the grid must be even 

more closely integrated as a result. 

As eager as we all are to contribute to the arrival of a smarter, 

more futuristic energy infrastructure, I think we policy makers 

must first do no harm. This maxim holds true for our efforts regarding the construction, security and regulation of pipelines, 

transportation, information technology and other infrastructure as 

well. I hope this Committee can continue with the deliberative approach that we have employed in all of the hearings leading up to 

today. I thank our witnesses in advance for their contribution to 

that end. 

With that, I will turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell, 

for her comments, and then we will move to the panel of witnesses 

assembled this morning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, and I so 

appreciate that we are having a hearing today on energy infrastructure. It is probably one of the most important and also complicated areas that we are going to try to deal with in energy legislation. 

The vast majority of our energy infrastructure in the U.S. is 

owned by private industry. And it is governed by a patchwork of 

Federal, state and local laws, which collectively determine the level 

of investment this infrastructure attracts and the competitive conditions by which it is operated. 

When Secretary Moniz was here last month to talk about the 

Quadrennial Energy Review, he made a very compelling case that 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

we are at an energy crossroad. The dynamic and changing nature 

of our domestic resource mix—and not just expanded supplies of 

natural gas, but also the growth of distributed generation—is creating both new challenges and great opportunities. 

When you add extreme weather events and the changing climate 

as variables, we need to consider resilience in our infrastructure investment, making sure that we also are making it part of a key energy security equation. 

In reviewing the status of our energy infrastructure, I believe the 

Quadrennial Energy Review did us a service in mapping out some 

of the most pressing challenges and opportunities. Specifically it 

recommended five major priorities. 

One, taking steps to bolster the resilience, reliability, safety, and 

security of our infrastructure. Second, modernizing our electric 

grid. Third, modernizing our energy security infrastructure, like 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to keep pace with the changes in 

the energy picture. In addition, improving our shared transportation infrastructure for energy commodities like rail and barge, 

and, lastly, better integrating North American energy markets. 

While looking at our agenda today, it is clear that Senators 

across the board recognize that upgrading our grid infrastructure 

will enable the integration of new technologies that benefit our 

competitiveness and benefit consumers. We have numerous bills 

dealing with grid modernization. This is because smart, targeted 

Federal investments that cultivate public-private partnerships for 

research, development, and demonstration will pave the way toward new solutions. 

This is something, I think, that is unique to the U.S. economy 

and a huge economic opportunity. 

That is what is required to generate the kind of trillion-dollar 

private-sector investment needed to retrofit our energy infrastructure and to keep pace with the needs of a 21st-century economy 

and security. 

As such, I look forward to the testimony of all our witnesses on 

this subject. 

In particular, I am pleased to welcome Ms. Ericson, our witness 

from Alstom. The Alstom Grid Center of Excellence is located in 

Redmond, Washington. They have a great story, and I look forward 

to hearing more about them today. 

There are many opportunities associated with the grid, as a platform for both security and innovation. And I know we are going to 

have a hearing later on workforce issues, but I hope to touch a little bit on that today. It has definitely gotten my attention that the 

energy industry is expected to add 1.5 million workers in the next 

15 years, and about 200,000 more workers with computer science 

and math skills are projected to be needed. 

I want to ensure we have that energy workforce for tomorrow, so 

we can take advantage of that huge investment opportunity. And 

I want to make sure we are delivering the right workers with the 

right skills. I think that we have a lot of opportunity with the Department of Energy on that. 

The grid is obviously a topic of interest to members on both sides 

of the aisle. But, judging by the wide range of proposals before us— 

especially with respect to amending PURPA, the Public Utility 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Regulatory Policy Act of 1978—the Committee also has a significant amount of work to do, to figure out the right approach to creating conditions for innovation in the electric distribution system. 

Obviously the topic goes hand-in-hand with what we want to do 

on the grid in cybersecurity. And Senators Risch and Heinrich have 

a proposal, which mirrors legislation this Committee has reported 

on a few prior occasions. I have also introduced the Enhanced Grid 

Security Act to tackle this important subject. Getting this right and 

getting cybersecurity right will be important to everyone. 

Finally, we have on the agenda today a number of siting and permitting proposals. There is undoubtedly room for improvement in 

our process, especially with respect to integrating coordination and 

how we can move these processes along. We have a number of very 

significant policy suggestions before us, like: creating additional 

Federal authority for oil pipelines at FERC, making it easier to site 

pipelines in National Parks, rewriting an executive order on crossborder infrastructure projects—obviously none of which I support. 

We also have two diametrically opposed approaches to electric 

transmission siting. I think you will remember the markup we had 

when we had a siting discussion before, in 2009. There were approximately a dozen amendments and it took two days. I am sure 

when we get to those issues again, there will be similar discussions 

with a wide range of approaches of what to do. 

But clearly we are here because we want to move our infrastructure investments forward. We want the U.S. to continue to grow a 

strong and resilient infrastructure for our energy needs and to 

seize the economic opportunities available to the United States, as 

we look at smart grid leadership around the globe. 

So, thank you, Madam Chair for holding this hearing, and I look 

forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

This morning we have a diverse group of panelists that have 

come before the Committee. 

We will begin with Ms. Erica Bowman. Ms. Bowman is the Vice 

President of Research and Policy Analysis and Chief Economist at 

America’s Natural Gas Alliance. She is going to start us off with 

a discussion of everything from LNG export facilities to new and 

expanded pipelines. 

She will be followed by Mr. Jonathan Weisgall, who is the Vice 

President of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs at Berkshire 

Hathaway Energy, to provide a view from a company that owns 

significant critical infrastructure and also faces challenges because 

of an outmoded Federal purchase obligation. 

Ms. Amy Ericson will be next in the lineup. She is Alstom’s 

Country President for the United States and she is here to offer the 

views of one, as her company has put it, who is engaged with U.S. 

policy stakeholders while directly supporting pursuit of new business opportunities in the areas of thermal and renewable power 

generation and electricity transmission and distribution. 

We also have with us this morning Mr. Greg Dotson. Mr. Dotson 

is the Vice President for Energy Policy at the Center for American 

Progress. He is here to share the perspective of one of the many 

good think tanks based here in Washington, DC. We appreciate you 

being with us. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Mr. Jim Hunter is the Utility Department Director at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers which represents more 

than 220,000 union members who are part of our nation’s electric 

industry workforce. He will ensure that we keep the perspective of 

the workforce firmly in mind as we debate the changes to electricity laws which we greatly appreciate. 

Finally, we have the Honorable Brian Kalk, who is a Commissioner on the North Dakota Public Service Commission. Dr. Kalk 

will present a state perspective this morning which is invaluable 

because state retail regulation is central to the health of the electric sector and because so many of the bills that are up for discussion today instruct states to examine or reexamine their own policy. So we will look forward to that state’s perspective as well. 

Again, thank you each for joining us here this morning. Let us 

begin with Ms. Bowman. 

Each of you will be afforded five minutes. Your full testimony 

will be included as part of the record, and then we will have an 

opportunity for questions to each of you. 

Ms. Bowman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ERICA BOWMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH 

AND POLICY ANALYSIS, AMERICA’S NATURAL GAS ALLIANCE 

Ms. BOWMAN. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell 

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

testify this morning. 

We are at a pivotal moment in determining our nation’s energy 

future. The topic of today’s legislative hearing is an important and 

timely one strengthening our nation’s energy infrastructure. 

Over the past decade we’ve experienced a paradigm shift in our 

energy landscape. As a result of the technological innovations and 

the ingenuity of the men and women of the oil and natural gas industry, our nation has moved from a posture of scarcity to one of 

abundance. The U.S. is now the world’s leading producer of natural 

gas. This shale revolution has helped—driven economic growth, fostered environmental stewardship and strengthened America’s energy security. 

So the question before this Committee is how do we ensure that 

America takes full advantage of the opportunity presented by the 

abundance of this clean, affordable, reliable and domestic resource? 

ANGA has a few ideas about this that I’d like to share with the 

Committee, but first I think it is important to set the stage and put 

into perspective exactly what I’m describing when I talk about the 

shale revolution and the benefits that flow from it. 

U.S. natural gas consumption in 2014 totaled 27 trillion cubic 

feet. The total volume of natural gas reserves recoverable using existing technology is more than 100 times greater, over two thousand eight hundred trillion cubic feet. And the Energy Information 

Administration recently projected that domestic natural gas production and stable prices will remain for decades to come even with 

increasing natural gas consumption for power generation, manufacturing, heating and export. 

The greater use of natural gas in America will continue to spur 

economic growth, create good paying American jobs, help our 

clean—help clean our environment and strengthen our energy secuVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:43 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 095277 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A277.XXX A277

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

rity. These new infrastructure projects will create employment and 

economic benefits, but the economic benefit from infrastructure development itself is only one small part of a much larger equation. 

It is widely recognized that the oil and natural gas sector provided the primary source of economic growth during the great recession, and this significant contribution is expected to continue. 

In 2012 the sector contributed $238 billion to gross domestic 

product. This is projected to grow to $475 billion by 2025. 

That economic activity fueled additional growth in the NG sectors as well such as the petrochemical manufacturing which contributed $7 billion in 2012 and is expected to grow seven fold to 

$51 billion in 2025. 

In fact just this week Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz credited low 

cost natural gas with contributing to the revitalization of our nation’s manufacturing sector. 

Pipelines also link our natural gas supplies to electric generators. 

Natural gas use in power generation has been credited with reducing both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

found that the increased use of natural gas in power generation 

has led to 40 percent less nitrogen oxide emissions and 44 percent 

less sulfur dioxide emissions since 1997. 

Additionally EIA found that increased use of natural gas has reduced overall greenhouse gas emissions by 212 million metric tons 

in 2013 when compared to 2005 levels. 

In addition to these increased domestic uses our abundant supplies enable our nation to export to our allies abroad. Exporting 

U.S. natural gas is a win/win proposition that will strengthen the 

economy, improve our trade balance and allow us to be a global energy leader. 

The Council of Economic Advisors 2015 Annual Report found 

that LNG exports will increase domestic production and create 

more jobs. Further, the report found that exporting U.S. natural 

gas will lower the prices around the world which will have a positive geopolitical impact on the United States. 

U.S. LNG export capacity will enable bidirectional capability in 

the global marketplace and support the buildout of domestic energy 

infrastructure which strengthens our nation’s energy resiliency. 

A world class pipeline infrastructure system is the link enabling 

the U.S. economy and environment to realize the benefits of the 

shale energy revolution. In order to achieve the necessary expansion and improvement in our pipeline infrastructure system we 

need to reform the process for getting pipelines sited and built. 

This requires improvements in the permitting process at the Federal level as well as political will and action at the state and local 

levels. 

I look forward to answering questions about the benefits natural 

gas can provide and the changes we believe will benefit infrastructure development. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bowman follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 07 here 95277A.001
8 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 08 here 95277A.002
9 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 09 here 95277A.003
10 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 95277A.004
11 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 95277A.005
12 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 95277A.006
13 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 95277A.007
14 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 95277A.008
15 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 95277A.009
16 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 95277A.010
17 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 95277A.011
18 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 95277A.012
19 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bowman. 

Mr. Weisgall, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. WEISGALL, VICE PRESIDENT, 

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, BERKSHIRE 

HATHAWAY ENERGY 

Mr. WEISGALL. Thank you. My name is Jonathan Weisgall with 

Berkshire Hathaway Energy. We own three regulated utilities that 

serve 5.3 million customers in 11 states. 

In addition to our geothermal facilities which is how we started years ago, we have invested over $16 billion in the last decade in 

wind and solar projects in nine states. 

I want to hit on three issues today. 

The first is PURPA modernization. Among other things PURPA 

mandated utilities to buy renewable energy from QFs, qualifying 

facilities. 37 years later renewable energy is flourishing and we are 

among its strongest proponents. Our projects, however, have been 

driven by policies other than PURPA such as state renewable portfolio mandates, Federal tax incentives, technological improvements 

and stricter EPA air regulations. 

PURPA as it exists today is imposing significant and unnecessary costs on utility customers. It requires utilities to buy energy 

from a QF regardless of need. PURPA contracts are not subject to 

the same resource planning and cost scrutiny as other utility decisions and they can cause operating inefficiencies and reliability 

issues because the host utility has no control over where they are 

sited or integrated into its system. 

Let me give you a specific example. The long range plan for our 

PacifiCorp utility, approved by our state regulators, shows no need 

for additional generation until 2028. However over the next 10 

years PacifiCorp must purchase 39 million megawatt hours under 

its PURPA obligations at an average price of $66 per megawatt 

hour. The average market price today is $38, 43 percent lower. This means that our customers must pay $1.1 billion above market for PURPA mandated power they don’t even need. And this is 

not an isolated example. Other Western utilities are facing similar 

dilemmas. 

PURPA and the FERC implementing regulations have not kept 

pace with market changes. New imbalanced market structures and 

FERC’s interconnection rules for smaller facilities now allow QFs 

of all sizes to compete in wholesale markets and utility competitive 

solicitations. 

We have two suggestions for modernizing PURPA explained 

more fully in my written testimony. 

The first is to expand the definition of comparable markets to include voluntary, auction based, energy imbalance markets as one 

that meet threshold competitive requirements so that utilities participating in these markets are relieved of PURPA’s mandatory 

purchase obligation. 

The second is to eliminate the rebuttable presumption in FERC 

Order 688 which established that QFs smaller than 20 megawatts 

lack access to competitive markets. 

I urge you to consider these and other proposals that we and the 

Edison Electric Institute support. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Examples include Senator Risch’s S. 1037 which would terminate 

the mandatory purchase obligation if a state determines that additional generation is not needed or a measure to prevent large QF 

projects from being divided into smaller ones to essentially gain 

what is called the FERC One Mile Rule. 

My second issue covers transmission. Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Edison Electric Institute and many others have long supported measures to better coordinate Federal permitting and siting 

for interstate transmission projects on public lands. 

Congress sought to improve the process in 2005 when it added 

Section 216H to the Federal Power Act giving the Department of 

Energy new Federal lead agency authority. That hasn’t worked. 

We believe the best way to improve Federal transmission siting 

and permitting is to enhance the role of FERC which, after all, already has this job in overseeing permitting of interstate natural 

gas pipelines. 

We’re pleased you’re considering two bills in this area. 

If you don’t adopt S. 1017 which would transfer that DOE function to FERC, we do support your bill, Chairman Murkowski, S. 

1217 which would codify the rapid response team for transmission 

and create a transmission ombudsman within FERC. 

My third issue concerns the need to minimize cost shifting 

among customers. A growing number of whom are generating their 

own energy through distributed generation, DG. But these customers are still connected to the grid—when their DG systems generate more energy than they need the grid takes the excess. When 

their systems aren’t generating, they of course, still need the grid. 

Proper rate structures and tariffs must be designed for these customers. For example, under so called net metering tariffs a customer can end up paying nothing towards a utility’s fixed costs 

leaving non-solar customers to make up the difference. 

We support Chairman Murkowski’s S. 1219 which encourages 

state PUCs to examine cost shifting and determine whether net 

metering rates are just and reasonable and not unduly preferential 

or discriminatory. 

The issue of rooftop solar has led to extreme rhetoric on all sides, 

but the issue is not pro-solar or anti-solar, it’s about equitable cost 

allocation among all customers. 

For customers who want to generate their own power the issue 

is how to accommodate them in the most cost effective manner that 

is fair to them and to other customers who do not and cannot generate their own power. 

So in the end with proper rate design the utilities should be agnostic as to whether a customer generates its own power. 

Thanks for the opportunity to share our views with you, and I 

look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weisgall follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 95277A.013
22 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 here 95277A.014
23 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 here 95277A.015
24 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 here 95277A.016
25 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 here 95277A.017
26 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 here 95277A.018
27 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 here 95277A.019
28 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here 95277A.020
29 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 95277A.021
30 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here 95277A.022
31 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 here 95277A.023
32 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here 95277A.024
33 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 here 95277A.025
34 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here 95277A.026
35 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here 95277A.027
36 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here 95277A.028
37 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here 95277A.029
38 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here 95277A.030
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Weisgall. 

Ms. Ericson, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF AMY ERICSON, PRESIDENT, ALSTOM INC. 

Ms. ERICSON. Good morning, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and distinguished members of this Committee. 

I’m Amy Ericson, President of Alstom, Inc. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. 

Alstom is a technology developer across the power generation, 

transmission and distribution sectors. We’ve served the U.S. power 

industry for over 100 years, and Alstom Grid has been active in the 

U.S. grid software technology sector for more than 35 years. 

Our grid business employs approximately 1,100 people in the 

U.S. with over 500 of those at our global smart grid center of excellence in Redmond, Washington. 

The U.S. electric industry is undergoing a transformation unlike 

anything that we’ve experienced in the past 100 years. This transformation will create opportunities to enhance reliability, efficiency, 

resiliency and flexibility of the electric system as well as strengthen our nation’s global competitive advantage. 

I would like to highlight the role we play as a technology provider and touch on key trends driving change in the industry. 

These include an aging grid infrastructure which must respond to 

the challenges of a changing energy mix with the growing use of 

natural gas, renewable energy and distributed energy resources including energy storage as well as the need for increased resiliency 

to respond to severe weather events. 

The first step in developing technology is to listen carefully to 

our customers which include America’s electric utilities and regional transmission organizations and independent system operators. We must thoroughly understand their needs, their expectations and their challenges. 

When it comes to power supply our customers consistently cite 

three must have requirements, reliability, affordability and sustainability. As we look forward we also see a clear need for more 

flexible and adaptable power system capable of meeting evolving 

requirements. 

To be truly transformational and create an interconnected 21st 

century grid public and private partnerships are essential to the 

continuation of extensive R and D and the expansion of pilot 

projects to test and prove out cutting edge concepts. That’s why 

Senator Cantwell’s Grid Modernization legislation is so important; 

however, I do want to underscore that we can make great strides 

in modernizing the grid even today, and we see this from coast to 

coast. 

We need to begin with the basics, for example, upgrading from 

older analog systems to state of the art digital technology. This will 

build the foundation for application of the advanced smart grid 

technologies currently in demonstration. We should not wait to 

begin the upgrades as this is an incremental process that will take 

time to implement. 

The digital technology we provide enables electric utilities, RTOs 

and ISOs to manage this change which in turn benefits the consumers. Deployment and advancement of smart grid technologies 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

should be our first priority. It represents a set of critical, enabling 

technologies that can reduce the challenges associated with modernizing the grid and optimizing our electric systems. 

Smart grids give utility operators greater visibility, greater operational flexibility and reliability allowing them to make rapid system responses to changing circumstances in their electric system. 

Smart grids also give consumers real time information on their energy usage allowing them to make informed decisions. Additionally 

smart grids are key to the seamless integration of distributed and 

renewable energy resources, perhaps the most significant trend 

we’re seeing today. 

The DOE has noted that weather related grid disruptions have 

doubled between 2000 and 2014 highlighting the need for hardening the grid. Smart grid and microgrid innovation can improve 

grid resilience and speed power restoration. 

We strongly support Senator Cantwell’s proposal because it reinforces the strong partnership between the public and private sectors in delivering a more modern grid. In addition the legislation 

provides tools for states to conduct analysis of their changing energy mix, develop performance metrics and assist in distribution 

planning. 

In conclusion, Congress has an important role to play in advancing the modernization of our nation’s electric grid. The public/private technology collaborations that would result from Senator 

Cantwell’s bill will drive economic growth, strengthen our nation’s 

global competitiveness and create highly skilled jobs. 

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you 

for this opportunity to testify today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ericson follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 95277A.031
42 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 95277A.032
43 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 95277A.033
44 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 95277A.034
45 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 95277A.035
46 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ericson. 

Mr. Dotson, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GREG DOTSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

ENERGY POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS 

Mr. DOTSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski, Senator Cantwell and members of the 

Committee, my name is Greg Dotson and I’m pleased to testify 

today on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit 

think tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through 

progressive ideas and actions. 

Energy infrastructure forms the backbone of the U.S. economy. 

We often talk about keeping the lights on but of course, energy also 

makes possible the most basic of services, drinking water, health 

care, food production, banking. The importance of energy infrastructure cannot be overstated, and given the high capital cost and 

long useful life of energy infrastructure the energy policies Congress establishes today will help determine and shape our children 

and grandchildren’s economic and environmental futures. Therefore 

the Center for American Progress urges the Committee to develop 

a clean energy policy that responds to today’s needs and also anticipates tomorrow’s challenges. 

As we consider policies to serve us in the coming decades we 

should be asking some fundamental questions about what we hope 

to achieve. Will we harness the vast potential of renewable energy 

sources like wind and solar to power our communities and create 

jobs? Will we substantially reduce pollution and enjoy a healthier, 

more sustainable America? Will we build a resilient nation that’s 

ready for the challenges of the future? Will we seize opportunities 

to empower American families and businesses to take control of 

their energy use? Any energy bill Congress produces should be 

judged by how it proposes to answer these questions. 

I was pleased to see the comments of Chairman Murkowski last 

week stating the Committee would strive to produce a bipartisan 

energy bill that addresses climate change with renewable energy, 

efficiency and otherwise cutting emissions. A commitment to cutting carbon pollution is the key to a sensible energy policy. 

I am providing a lengthier statement for the record, but I’d like 

to highlight just a few of the bills that are being examined today. 

Senator Cantwell’s legislation, S. 1243, would take needed steps 

to modernize the grid by advancing energy storage, developing 

model grid architectures and conducting demonstration projects for 

advanced control of the electric distribution system. S. 1243 also 

amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act or PURPA, to ensure that utilities prepare for a changing climate. According to the 

Department of Energy’s recent Quadrennial Energy Review, extreme weather and climate change is a leading environmental risk 

to electricity transmission, storage and distribution systems. If you 

want to know just how important Senator Cantwell’s proposal is, 

just ask the residents of New York and New Jersey who endured 

Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath. That storm caused power outages for more than 8.5 million customers, and 1.3 million households were without electricity for over a week. All that because the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

utility wasn’t prepared to withstand a hurricane that many have 

linked to climate change. 

S. 1210, introduced by Senator King, focuses on a key aspect of 

the future of our electricity grid. Across the country more and more 

Americans are embracing rooftop solar panels as a way to generate 

their own electricity, save money and cut pollution. This is creating 

thousands of new jobs and empowering American households like 

never before, and the potential is huge. 

In 42 of the nation’s 50 largest cities a typically sized, solar PV 

system is now less expensive than power from a utility. The rapid 

growth of distributed solar power threatens the traditional business model, most investor owned, electric utilities. 

In March Joby Warrick of the Washington Post wrote an article 

entitled, ‘‘Utilities wage campaign against rooftop solar.’’ The article details the quote, ‘‘determined campaign to stop the home solar 

insurgency that is rattling the board rooms of the country’s government regulated electric monopolies.’’ 

In February 2015 the Salt River Project, the large utility in Ari- zona, approved a $600 per year fee on any customer adding a new 

rooftop solar system. Before this dramatic step the same utility had 

actually been financially encouraging its ratepayers to install solar 

panels. Congress has a role to play in protecting consumer’s rights 

to install solar PV systems without paying exorbitant fees to electric utilities that want to preserve their current business models. 

I’d like to urge the Committee to be thoughtful about removing 

protections for our National Parks and other public lands. It’s clear 

that some in industry will argue that it should be easy to build industrial projects in the National Parks. This is a deeply unpopular 

idea with the American people, and since these projects are essentially permanent, Congress should not remove protections that the 

public have come to rely on. 

Finally, I was troubled to see the Committee is considering legislation that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be subsequently approved even if the State Department denies it in the 

coming months. That would be a mistake. 

Today the Center for American Progress is releasing a new report recommending several improvements to PURPA. I would commend it to you for your review. 

And the Center for American Progress would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee as it continues to consider comprehensive energy legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dotson follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 95277A.036
49 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 95277A.037
50 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 95277A.038
51 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 95277A.039
52 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 95277A.040
53 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 95277A.041
54 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dotson. 

Mr. Hunter, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. HUNTER, UTILITY DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Good morning, Ms. Chairman, members of the Committee, Ranking Member. My name is Jim Hunter. I’m the Director of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Utility Department. I’ve 

been asked by our President Ed Hill to speak today on behalf of 

the IBEW, and I want to thank you for inviting us. 

The IBEW represents about 720,000 members in the U.S. and 

Canada. 220,000 of those are in the utility business. That’s electric, 

gas and water. 

I personally have worked in the industry now for over 42 years. 

The energy sector is facing a large number of retirements over the 

next few years. According to industry experts at the Center for Energy Workforce Development, the average worker is about 53 years 

old. Over the next ten years 55 percent of those will be needed to 

be replaced. They’ll be retirement age. 

My point in talking about the large number of people leaving the 

industry is to talk about how we replace and train those employees. 

The joint apprenticeship model works. Earn while you learn. 

The IBEW in conjunction with several of our utility partners 

have formed the National Utility Industry Training Fund, NUITF. 

We’re a nonprofit, 501(c)3. Our model provides a standardized curriculum of certifications that are nationally recognized. 

We’re using the construction model from the National Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee for alignment and substation mechanic curriculum, and we have utilized a boot camp technology to 

filter possible new hires coming into the companies. Our programs 

are DOL-certified, and combine classroom training with sophisticated, online simulations and workbooks. New employees learn 

from a seasoned veteran while earning a living wage and benefits. 

You know, many people are not cut out for college and want to 

start working right out of high school or when they get out of the 

military. Jobs in the electric and gas sectors provide a good, secure 

and decent wage and benefits. The push for community colleges is 

great, but there needs to be some emphasis placed on programs 

such as ours as an alternative. 

President Hill has always said many times that kids need to be 

taught how to work. We understand that being taught by an experienced craftsman is by far a better way to convey those skills. 

Joint apprenticeships work and they work well. 

The idea of working while learning a trade from a master craftsman dates back to ancient times. Many inner city kids don’t have 

the funding to go to community college or even our boot camps, so 

financial aid is an important factor here. 

We’ve been working with Senator Cantwell on a training bill that 

we believe her bill, S. 1304, recognizes joint apprenticeships programs and their importance. And we appreciate that. 

Just a moment to talk about comprehensive legislation that you 

all are looking at. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

The IBEW firmly believes that comprehensive legislation is needed. Our markets are broken. Our base load plants, especially coal 

and nuclear, are in jeopardy of closing in many cases. The reliability of the grid will depend on Congress fixing the markets. We 

must incorporate renewables and energy efficiencies into the grid 

in an organized and fair manner. The utility must supply the needed generation 24/7, including variable sources. The reliability customers have come to expect comes at a cost. And we cannot rely 

on a patchwork of rules to provide the level of reliability we’ve 

come to expect. 

I’ve included a slide from a recent EPRI report. The slide is of 

a net zero home in California. The important thing to take away 

from the slide is the line at the top. That’s the level of generation 

that must be ready at all times to ensure a safe, reliable system, 

and the question is who pays for that reliability? 

I’d also like to comment on transmission siting. Backstop siting 

authority is essential to ensure a reliable grid to use renewables 

efficiently. Siting of transmission is the most difficult part of any 

transmission project, and it becomes a local, political quagmire if 

there’s not some type of federal backstop authority. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 95277A.042
57 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 95277A.043
58 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 95277A.044
59 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 95277A.045
60 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. 

Dr. Kalk, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BRIAN P. KALK, COMMISSIONER, NORTH 

DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 

Dr. KALK. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cantwell 

and Committee members. I really appreciate this opportunity. My 

name is Brian Kalk, Commissioner for North Dakota and my wife 

told me to make sure I say hello to Senator Hoeven. So, good to 

see you again, Senator. 

I hold the portfolios for electric generation in transmission, pipeline safety and rate regulation. I also chair the Clean Coal Subcommittee for NARUC. 

Over the past three years the North Dakota PSC has sited over $4 billion of energy resources including jurisdiction electric and liquid transmission lines, wind farms, natural gas processing plants 

and peaking facilities. These energy resources coupled with our 

fleet of coal and hydroelectric power make North Dakota an all of 

the above energy producer. We’ve approved updates to our fleet of 

coal generation ensuring they’re in compliance with existing federal 

laws. 

The North Dakota PSC supports all energy markets but strongly 

believes the final determination of a state’s energy portfolio mix 

and resulting impact on rates should be left to each state’s regulator and not be affected by neighboring states or federal policies. 

All types of energy production are becoming more efficient. Capacity factors for wind are over 50 percent. Natural gas plants are 

ever improving. Solar shows promise, but we must always remember that base load power is always going to be critical. 

I also urge your support for expanding CO2 utilization research 

funding to continue the development of technologies that advance 

the use of coal. The Kemper County Energy Facility shows promise. 

It uses lignite coal, a strategic resource, captures the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, produces ammonia and sulfuric acid and provides 582 megawatts of base load power. 

North Dakota has experienced unprecedented expansion in the 

amount of transmission siting applications. Our existing process 

continues to work smoothly, but even with North Dakota’s diligence 

in processing applications hurdles beyond the state’s control can 

occur to slow the siting process. 

When a Federal nexus exists triggering the implementation of 

NEPA, analysis can take extended periods of time. It would be imprudent to render a final decision without a complete NEPA analysis. Legislation should not be implemented that would penalize 

states for expanded timeframe of approval when it is the federal 

agencies that are the actual delay. 

We would strongly object to any efforts to move the siting of jurisdiction electric transmission lines to the Federal level; however, 

we would support any efforts to decrease the timeframe of Federal 

agency’s review on multijurisdictional projects. 

North Dakota, as we know, is located next to Canada. We have 

also experienced delays in Federal approval on pipeline border 

crossings, and fully support efforts to streamline and expedite energy infrastructure projects between the U.S. and Canada. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

I believe the states, not the Federal Government, ought to have 

jurisdiction over the retail rates and services. The states have been 

and will be the laboratories for innovation for retail electric supply. 

Some innovations work well in one state, but perhaps not in others 

depending on each unique circumstance. 

While PURPA attempts to address this situation there have been 

situations where federal regulators have attempted to use PURPA 

to undermine state jurisdiction. 

The development of the power grid should be done by professionals and remain consistent with least cost planning and need. 

It’s important to ensure that North Dakota and the rest of our 

states have the necessary power to provide and maintain base load 

power and have sufficient ancillary services to ensure continued operation of our electric system. While North Dakota utilizes a full 

range of energy resources, concern exists with integrating renewables ensuring the system wide reliability is maintained. 

The need for power must always be the key consideration. There 

is construction. The construction of QFs by companies does not 

take into account if there is an actual need for the power in the 

state. The continuation of the mandatory purchase obligation as it 

exists today can impose significant, unnecessary costs to consumers. 

In summary, North Dakota appreciates continued Federal effort 

to expedite products that are multijurisdictional. North Dakota 

supports and practices an all of the above energy policy. Lowest 

cost and need are the bedrock principle of public utility ratemaking. There definitely is a place for renewables in the power 

grid but we must not forget about base load power. 

Finally, as a retired Marine and veteran of Desert Storm in Iraq, 

I’d like to thank the Committee for your work on increasing the energy security of our country. I truly believe that energy security for 

the United States not only enhances our foreign policy options but 

will result in less impact to rate payers and a more reliable power 

grid. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. I’d be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kalk follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 95277A.046
63 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 95277A.047
64 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 95277A.048
65 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 95277A.049
66 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Kalk. I appreciate the testimony 

of each of you here this morning. We have lots to talk about. Let 

me start with you, Dr. Kalk. 

You have noted that one area that is a little bit problematic here 

in constructing the transmission infrastructure is this disconnect 

between the Federal NEPA process and the state regulatory process. As I mentioned in my opening, a lot of what you see with the 

measures that we will be considering put requirements on our state 

and our state regulators. That can end up being some of the problem here. 

Can you give some examples of where and how the Federal 

NEPA process has delayed the state process and ultimately then 

the project? More importantly, what can we do to address that? As 

a state regulator what would you suggest that we do to address it? 

Dr. KALK. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question. 

A specific example I would talk about is North Dakota needs 

more electricity right now. And Basin Electric, one of our rural coops, put an application in for a 250 mile, 345 kV line in the central 

part of the state to the Northwest. 

The Public Service Commission went out and we held three different hearings along the route. We worked with our state to make 

sure that it met with the Fish and Wildlife goals, our North Dakota 

game and fish goals, and our state historical society. But because 

it was a co-op there was a Federal nexus created because they get 

our U.S. dollars. 

And so North Dakota, we completed our siting hearings. We had 

North Dakota agencies on board, but the final NEPA review was 

not completed and that NEPA review took an extra six to eight 

months until we finally got the NEPA approval. 

And the state, we put the order out there saying we approve it 

contingent upon final record of no impact, if you will. But I would 

say that these agencies, it seems in conversation with them, they 

have the data. All they have to do is to make a decision. So once 

they’ve collected the data, anything that this body can do to get 

them to analyze and make the decision. In North Dakota we make 

decisions. You get the data in front of you, you make the decisions. 

My frustration with the Federal agencies is they have the data, but 

they refuse to pull the trigger and make the decision and then 

move the process forward. 

When I was in—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So maybe some timelines might be helpful? 

Dr. KALK. Yes, Ma’am. 

When I was the Environmental Compliance Officer at Camp Pendleton everything we did had a Federal nexus. We would still remain close to the timeline. We’d follow the process and make decisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Bowman, I wanted to ask you about siting issues because 

that has been raised by several this morning and siting on our public lands. Under the current statutory framework for siting natural 

gas pipelines across our National Park Service lands can you give 

me, I do not know if there is a typical time frame? Some kind of 

an understanding in terms of the timing that it takes to approve 

a right-of-way for a pipeline project going through National Park 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

Service lands, and then what this does in terms of impacting the 

project itself? Because what we are doing is we are creating delays 

here, but I do not have a sense as to what kind of a time frame 

we are actually talking about. 

Ms. BOWMAN. Alright. So one of the largest issues with respect 

to siting a pipeline through National Park lands is that the project 

developer needs to go to Congress so that they get the statutory authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. And different projects across the country, I believe one in Alaska where it 

was sited in Denali. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have got the corridor sited, yes. 

Ms. BOWMAN. Yeah, that took four years for that authority to be 

given. And only then can you start the real permitting process at 

the end—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Was Alaska’s example what we see in the lower 

48 as well on our Park Service lands? 

Ms. BOWMAN. There’s another example in New York City where 

it’s a three mile pipeline, and it took one and a half years to get 

that authority. So you’re waiting 11⁄2 to 4 years to get—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is just to get the permit. That is nothing more than just the authority. 

Ms. BOWMAN. That’s not even the permit. That’s to give the authority to the Department of Interior Secretary so that then they 

can go through the process to get the permit. 

So then they waited, at least in New York project, another 19 

months before the permit was given, and now it’s finally under construction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Weisgall, I appreciated your comments about the bill that I 

have introduced, S. 1217, on the transmission and siting. I know 

we think it is going to be important to allow FERC to operate in 

this ombudsman type role, if you will, when it comes to agency coordination and to address problems that may be presenting in the 

process. The question that I have for you is related to corridors. 

The national interest electric transmission corridor designations 

and the transmission siting process that was called for in EPACT 

’05, those have been overturned. Are corridor designations still relevant today? How big of a deal is that? 

Mr. WEISGALL. The process really hasn’t worked, so I think they 

are less relevant then to some extent. I mean, what we’re proposing 

here, and in response a little bit to Commissioner Kalk from North 

Dakota, we’re not proposing here a greater Federal role. The idea 

here is an improved Federal role. 

You know, a lot of the transmission issues we’re looking at do not 

involve national parks, but there’s still at least BLM, Fish and 

Wildlife and Forest Service. So you’ve got three different Federal 

agencies there. 

So it’s really, you know, we had this rapid response team that 

was designed to expedite the process. It was certainly the right 

idea. I mean, you need coordination. 

There is as many as nine or ten Federal agencies at any time on 

transmission. This is, of course, largely a western issue where’s 

there’s much more Federal land. So we’ve been frustrated. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

We’ve got one segment of our energy gateway project, Gateway 

West, we’re now ten years and waiting. And part of the problem 

there is we’ll go through a review with, let’s say, BLM, but then 

there will be a new regulation. And nothing is grandfathered as 

such. So you, kind of, start over again. That’s what we’re doing. 

I don’t have draft language there, but think about that 

grandfathering point. That if you’re going through a lengthy transmission approval process with one of the Federal Government 

agencies. You get that approval, and then you’ve got to change 

through a new policy, a new manual, something new, at the agency. 

Something needs to be grandfathered because otherwise you’re 

just playing this over and over again, and it’s Groundhog Day. I 

mean, you’ve just got to start over from the beginning. 

So that’s some of the challenges that we face. And ten years is, 

I mean, it’s really hard to work with those kinds of timeframes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would think it is not doable most of the time. 

I appreciate that perspective. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would actually like to continue with Mr. Weisgall because the 

Quadrennial Energy Review that we had a hearing on a few weeks 

ago with the Secretary was all about infrastructure improvements. 

Rail infrastructure has close to a 4000 percent increase in transporting crude by rail. This is a big issue in the Pacific Northwest. 

I also noted that roughly 40 percent of what is moved by rail is 

coal; in fact, 68 percent of coal used for generating electricity is delivered to the power plants by rail. Is it not the case you have three 

utilities who are substantial coal generators? And Berkshire 

Hathaway also owns BNSF, the largest rail carrier of powder-basin 

coal? 

So isn’t it the case that getting rid of this PURPA requirement 

would greatly benefit your company financially and your profit 

margin by reducing competition for central station generation? 

Mr. WEISGALL. I would say the answer is an unqualified no, Senator. Let me try to explain. 

What we’re trying, our legislative proposal by including an energy imbalanced market as a comparable market is actually designed to enhance the role of renewables. This market structure 

that we have entered into with the California ISOs has been endorsed by Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Wind 

Energy Association, Solar Energy Industries Association. They see 

a greater role for renewables with an enhanced geographic footprint to get rid of some of the balkanization that exists today in 

the West. Our view would be that by including this energy imbalanced market in PURPA you will have more entrants into that energy imbalanced market. That’s going to be good for renewables. So 

if we can get more renewables on the grid, fewer greenhouse gas 

emission reductions and lower cost to customers, that’s a trifecta. 

Yes, our company does have coal resources. We’re at 35 percent 

overall today. We anticipate going down to 26 percent coal. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you—I just want—— 

Mr. WEISGALL. But for renewables we think that this is a big 

plus for renewables, just not for high cost renewables. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

Senator CANTWELL. You think changing the PURPA requirement—that was about diversifying energy sources so that people 

could get renewables—so you think retracting that language is 

good for renewables? 

Mr. WEISGALL. It doesn’t retract the language. It simply includes 

a new, comparable market provision which Congress itself put in. 

In 2005 Congress spelled out two areas where there would be the 

mandatory purchase obligation would be removed and a third area 

called comparable markets. We’re coming in with an example of 

that comparable market. All you need to do is look at the interest 

groups that support this energy imbalanced market that sees how 

a larger footprint is good for renewables. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I can tell you one big group of people 

that does not support such a change and it is the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest is not going to support another cooked 

up scheme from California ISOs about energy markets. Okay? We 

are not getting screwed over again by another ENRON style 

scheme, like: ‘‘look over here, but don’t pay attention to what is 

really going on over here.’’ 

I see you making money on the repeal of this PURPA language. 

To me, it is bothersome to say nothing of oil trains and your slow 

response in removing old oil trains. Now you are coming here and 

trying to undo a very important law. 

I hope we can get some information from you about exactly how 

you think that that is not going to disadvantage the people moving 

forward. I would love to get Berkshire Hathaway on the record, 

supporting a more aggressive removal of the DOT–111 and CPC– 

1232 trains which you own and commiting to better pricing for agricultural products that are getting pushed off the rails because of 

all of these energy resources. All of these are big questions right 

in your wheelhouse, and I hope that you can help us get some resolution to them. I say that because I see you are the Vice President 

for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, and these issues, as they relate to the Quadrennial Energy Review, are exactly what the Secretary of Energy says we need to deal with as far as energy infrastructure. 

Mr. WEISGALL. Two very quick points. 

Number one, I appreciate the reference to Berkshire Hathaway 

Energy, to Berkshire Hathaway. We are with Berkshire Hathaway 

Energy. I really can’t speak for Burlington Northern. 

Second point, I would like to work with you on these issues because we’ve seen already in the first five months of this energy imbalance market tremendous cost savings for customers. So going to 

your point about enhanced profits, we’re customer centric. If we see 

cost savings that’s good, but I appreciate your comments and would 

like to follow up with you. 

Senator CANTWELL. I am sure that is exactly how ENRON sold 

their plan to the Californians, and why they should have created 

that market as well. We all know how that story ended. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. WEISGALL. Well, there are, you know, a number of entrants 

in energy imbalance marketing including Puget Sound Energy and 

other utilities are looking, so it’s an evolving issue. And an evolving 

market. So far it’s worked very well for our customers. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us go to Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the members of the panel for being with us here 

today. It is, obviously, a very important issue. There are lots of 

bills out there. 

I want to start with Ms. Bowman. I would like to thank ANGA 

for supporting S. 1210, which is my bill, the permitting reform bill, 

that I introduced with Senators Cassidy and Heitkamp last week. 

I have heard a repeating theme, maybe not everybody on the 

panel has mentioned this, but the stalling out or the length of time 

of the permitting creating so much uncertainty at a time when we 

have a critical need for new and improved and expanded infrastructure. 

Dr. Kalk, you said in your statement, I think in response to a 

question, ‘‘the agencies have the data, they just need to make the 

decision.’’ 

That is what my bill really is about. It is about creating 

timelines. It is not about running roughshod over any kind of environmental review or anything. It is just trying to move the process 

along to keep it from stalling out. 

Ms. Bowman, I would like to ask specifically how do you think 

that would help and what kind of results could we see by having 

specific timelines to meet the permitting process? 

Ms. BOWMAN. Thank you, Senator, and thank you very much for 

your bill. 

One of the biggest things that we see as an improvement from 

what your bill lays out is obviously, streamlining the permitting 

process, but allowing for or pushing toward a concurrent review. 

Senator CAPITO. Right, that is in the bill. 

Ms. BOWMAN. Among the agencies. That’s something that is very 

important because it really helps move the decision process along. 

But also the other point here is that you kind of create, establish 

an early detector system for issues. And that really enables us, especially in this environment where there’s a lot of activism at the 

state and local level, if we get issued identified early and start 

working on resolutions around those issues with the agencies that 

will greatly improve our timelines. 

So, thank you for the bill, and we look forward to hoping that 

gets into law. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, thank you very much. 

Mr. Hunter, I wanted to ask you a question as well. You were 

mentioning a lot about the workforce of tomorrow, and certainly we 

have seen in West Virginia and Pennsylvania a massive increase 

in natural gas production. One of the issues has been the workforce. 

Obviously it comes in a part of West Virginia that we had had 

massive population decline because the steel industry had declined 

and our workforce had declined. It irks, I think, a lot of West Virginians when they are driving through Marshall County and they 

see all of the Texas and Oklahoma license plates because we want 

to see this development occur. 

You mentioned ways to increase that workforce. How do you see 

that developing in that particular region across the country, and is 

it any different anywhere else? 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. HUNTER. Well I appreciate the question. I can tell you most 

of those plates are also non-union, so we don’t like them being 

there either. [Laughter.] 

But what we’re seeing is we’ve got a massive amount of retirements in the energy industry. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. HUNTER. Especially in gas and utilities. So all we have been 

trying to say is that the idea of a joint apprenticeship program 

where somebody is coming right out of school, getting a job, working. The utilities, you know, we’ve worked closely with AEP and 

others. I mean, we are definitely hiring. The utility industry is hiring. And they’re jobs where you stay home. You’re not traveling 

thousands of miles away. So we think that just this, trying to keep 

the utilities profitable. They are in the hiring mode. We think is 

a good opportunity for a lot of people. 

We just had Detroit as a for instance. We had a large granite 

DTE. They turned around they hired 48 people, a lot of them were 

long term unemployed that we got from the Workforce Investment 

Boards that had been unemployed for over 18 months. Our last 

group, half of them were retired or veterans. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Do you have concerns with the President’s Clean Power Plan? 

Obviously that is going to influence. It is a different topic, but it 

definitely is something in my state with the metrics there who are 

very concerned about our power generation abilities. Have you all 

weighed in on that? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, we have, and you know, we’re already closing 

60,000 megawatts because of MAFs. And now to turn around and 

take the possibility of another 50,000 megawatts of coal being retired, we’re concerned about reliability as well as jobs. We don’t 

think it’s a good idea at all. 

Senator CAPITO. Alright, thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The Department of Energy recently released the first installment 

of the Quadrennial Energy Review. According to that report weather was responsible for half of the reported grid outages between 

2011 and ’14, and those outages resulted in the vast majority of 

customer interruption hours. In the future electric utility customers will likely see even more frequent and longer duration outages as a result of extreme weather events which are becoming 

more severe because of climate change. 

So now more than ever it is essential that we minimize the impact of weather-related grid outages to American households and 

businesses. That is why I joined Ranking Member Cantwell and 

other members of the Committee in support of the Grid Modernization Act which will help make the grid more flexible, efficient and 

resilient. For anyone. What can utilities and regulators do now to 

reduce the likelihood of weather-related outages and to ensure that 

customers get their power back on as quickly as possible during 

such an event? 

Mr. DOTSON. Senator, I’d love to answer that question. I think 

it’s going to depend on the various state and various utility. When 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

you look back at Hurricane Sandy, I think a lot of people ask questions. Did it make sense to have substations that were below the 

50 level, 50 year flood plain in the city and that turned out to be 

a mistake? And I think New York is doing a lot to try and address 

that so they do have a system that’s more resilient. 

In other parts of the country, you know, in the south you have 

a situation where water, it’s getting so hot during some parts of the 

year that it can no longer be used to cool thermal power plants. 

That’s a very serious issue, and steps can be taken there to diversify generation or to install different cooling systems to address it. 

So I think it’s a question that going to be a site specific, but it’s 

one that I support the legislation because I think it’s important to 

be asking those questions today. 

Mr. WEISGALL. Quick answer. 

Senator FRANKEN. Sure. 

Mr. WEISGALL. It’s a very good question. Our three utilities are 

members of what’s called the Spare Transformer Equipment Program which is called STEP. Edison Electric Institute CEIs and 

CEOs are very aware of this issue, and they’ve actually put together a list of action items concerning more engagement with government partners to deal with these potential outages. They can be 

regional events. They could even be longer. But more engagement 

with the Federal Government, better coordination with railroads, 

just in terms of having to move transformers if there’s these kinds 

of even more serious issues, even getting into DOD air lift capability. So there could well be a role there for Congress to have an 

overlay to assist in this area, but certainly it is an important one. 

Ms. ERICSON. I think that there are suites of technologies out 

there that are being demonstrated right now by the utilities, granted on a, or by the ISOs and the utilities, on a regional basis because each region has its own needs and challenges. It’s happening 

at both the transmission and the distribution level, different sets 

of technologies. 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to talk about distributed energy, but 

continue. 

Ms. ERICSON. At the transmission level which is the big grid 

level, the focus has been how can we take all of this wonderful big 

data that is available and the data analytics that are available now 

and use that information to get instantaneous readings and therefore actually be able to prevent blackouts and certainly keep them 

from cascading? 

And then on the reverse side there’s been a lot of automation 

that has gone into the system that helps to automate part of the 

restoration process, and the lines people, the dispatch crews that 

are out there, are all equipped digitally now. They have a lot of remote information, a lot of telecommunications, IT information, that 

is speeding up the restoration process. 

On the distribution level there are a couple of things. We need 

a lot of work here, and obviously a lot more is happening at the 

distribution level. The part of the reason that we’re seeing the 

trend towards microgrids, obviously, is because people want to be 

self-generating. They want to be self-managing. They want to be 

self-storing, and they want to be able to disconnect to protect themselves. And that technology, again, in demonstration in many 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

places needs to be integrated into the bigger transmission level. We 

have bulk resources, distributed energy resources. We have 

microgrids. We have energy storage. And for the sake of efficiency, 

for the sake of optimizing power flow and for the sake of reliability 

and being able for each level to help each other out, they need integration technology. That is still the evolving area. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, the panel has rudely used all my time by directly 

answering my question in a productive way. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. I will submit questions for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great, thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Don’t you hate when they do that? You know, actually provide 

great information? [Laughter.] 

First of all thanks for holding these hearings. This, as you know, 

is a hearing that is part of the comprehensive look at energy, and 

I am excited about being a part of it. I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for bringing us together last week on energy efficiency 

and this week on infrastructure, two really important topics. 

Last week we talked about a whole bunch of bills including S. 

720, which is the Shaheen/Portman now Portman/Shaheen bill. We 

are pleased to have heard from the Chair that we are going to be 

able to have a mark up on that legislation. 

Today there are a whole bunch of great bills including the 

Chair’s bill, S. 1225, I think has a lot of promise. Senator Hoeven’s 

bill, S. 1228 with regard to permitting. 

What I am hearing today from you guys is there is going to be 

a whole lot of opportunity here for some exciting infrastructure 

projects around the country related to energy, and we have to get 

it moving. 

Jim, I appreciate your coming back before this panel again. You 

came in at the request of Senator Manchin and myself to talk 

about reliability, and I listened carefully to your comments today 

on that. It is about jobs, and it is about grid reliability in terms 

of these regulations. 

On the permitting front these investments that you all are talking about, billions of dollars of energy infrastructure are running 

into real problems which are that our permitting system in this 

country is way out of date. If you look at the World Bank study 

they do every year, what the best place to do business, the ease of 

doing business? We now rank 41st in the world in terms of siting 

projects. And I am not just talking about energy. I am talking 

about any kind of permitting. 

I have joined with a bunch of my colleagues, including Senator 

King who I see here across from us, Senator McCaskill and others 

to put forth a bipartisan bill to streamline this process, consolidate 

it and make sure that we are not falling behind. This first came 

to my attention, frankly because of an energy project in Ohio. It 

was a hydro plant along the Ohio River, and I learned that some 

energy projects have as many as 35 different Federal permits you 

have got to go through. We have heard a lot about that today. So 

my goal today is to try to figure out, how do we help with regard 

to energy? But it is broader than that. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

I had a company come see me last week. They are trying to build 

a pipeline. You know, we have got some real energy possibilities in 

Ohio now with Utica and Marcellus. 

They told me that in order to build the project that they would 

like to build in my state which would be a great benefit to our 

economy, they would be required to secure up to 1,900 separate 

permits from multiple Federal agencies including FERC, the Army 

Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, NOAA, Forest Service, BLM, 

National Park Service and so on. Frankly the uncertainty around 

that, the time commitment to it and the legal liability potential, 

you know, the statute of limitations being six years and so on, 

makes it very tough for them to get the kind of investors they need 

to move forward on that. 

So I would encourage you all to look at S. 280. We introduced 

it again this year, Senators Manchin, King, McCaskill and others, 

and we had it marked up last week in the Governmental Affairs 

Committee. The markup after some work over the last several 

months with OMB and others ended up being a 12 to 1 bipartisan 

vote. So I hope it can be part of this broader package we are talking about. 

It goes beyond just energy, but it relates directly to what we 

have heard about today. Dr. Kalk and Ms. Bowman both have 

talked about deadlines for requested reviews for instance today. 

That is one of the big parts of this legislation. 

So my question to you, Amy and to you, Erica, because you have 

got some Buckeye roots, I have to ask you a question being an Ohioan. Would this help? I mean, you testified that the electric industry is undergoing this transformation and all the reasons for it. We 

know some are market-based. Some are government policy-based. 

Do you have concerns that the permitting system might delay or 

even jeopardize the construction of some of this new infrastructure 

that we need? 

Maybe we could start with you, Erica? 

Ms. BOWMAN. I absolutely do think that permitting streamlining 

is required and needed. At least on the pipeline side of things, 

we’re really experiencing, it’s not only about permitting, but it’s 

also about activism on the other end. And this is not about us. But 

we want a very transparent process. We want to maintain a good 

process with respect to review to make certain that all the due diligence is given and that whatever project is before whichever agency that they have the time that they need to do the analysis correctly. 

But what’s really happening, at least from our perspective, is 

that we’re getting a lot of activism that really, it’s not about the 

project. It’s about ideology, and that becomes very difficult. And 

they’re using the regulatory process as a way to hamper development. And that’s something that we really need to move beyond as 

much as possible. 

Senator PORTMAN. Ms. Ericson. 

Ms. ERICSON. Yeah, I think that the grid accommodated policy 

and regulatory changes in the 80s and 90s. It needs to continue to 

evolve to be flexible and be able to accommodate future changes. 

I’ll just remind you as we move in the concept of an integrated 

grid for the purposes of sustainability, reliability and affordability, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

we can’t think about all of those different levels in isolation. We 

have to look at them as an interconnection, and all of those systems will be interconnected. 

So to answer your question I think that the policies that are affecting them need to be interconnected too. Be it in the permitting 

area, in all areas the policies need to be interconnected as well 

across the Federal, state, local levels. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. Thank you, all. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First Ms. Ericson, of all the witnesses I have ever seen, you are 

the first one that hit the five minutes right on the nose. [Laughter.] 

You are obviously a very well organized person. 

I want to associate myself with Senator Portman’s comments as 

someone who has worked in the energy field for over 30 years. I 

know about permitting and how it can, I believe, unnecessarily 

delay projects. We can have the bio way set in Maine. I wanted the 

toughest environmental laws in the country but the most timely 

and predictable permitting process. And I think you can have those 

two things. A timely and predictable, environmental permitting 

process is, in no way, inconsistent with environmental protection. 

Second, I just want to mention, Madam Chair, because this is a 

hearing on the bills that are coming up. One of the bills that I have 

submitted is a bill that would limit natural gas exports, essentially, 

to ten percent of domestic production. The basis of that was testimony that we had at a prior hearing on behalf of the idea of exporting natural gas. I am gravely concerned about unlimited exports adversely affecting prices in our domestic market. The ten 

percent figure came from the testimony of the advocate for exporting who assured me when I asked him, will this affect domestic 

prices? He said, ‘‘all of our studies say it will never exceed nine percent of domestic production and there will be a minimal effect on 

consumer prices in the U.S.’’ So I took him at his word and wrote 

a bill to that effect. That is the origin of that, and I think this is 

a very important issue. I am not opposed to exports, but I think 

we need to be very, very cognizant of possible impacts on domestic 

manufacturing and our domestic consumers. 

Thirdly, and I know it has been addressed in some of the testimony, and Mr. Dotson, you touched upon it. I have submitted a bill 

on distributed energy resources, and essentially the purpose of this 

bill is to provide guidance and a strategy for going forward with 

something that is going to happen anyway. 

There is no question in my mind that rooftop solar, storage, conservation, demand response is going to happen in this country 

sooner than we think. The only question is whether it is going to 

happen in a thoughtful, deliberate, rational, process or we are 

going to have little brush fire wars in all 50 states. 

My bill is not in any way anti-utility. I understand, as having 

worked in this industry, that the utilities and the rate payers need 

to be protected in terms of their investment in the grid and the cost 

of delivering the grid and having the grid, in effect, being the 

backup. On the other hand, what the bill talks about is that those 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

charges shall be just and reasonable and shall take into account 

the benefits of distributed generation as well as the costs. It is not 

one side of the ledger, and that is really the purpose of the bill, 

Madam Chair, because I think this is such an important issue. 

It really is also a sovereignty issue. One of the first people to 

come and visit me when we proposed this bill was a member of the 

Tea Party in the Southeastern part of the United States. They view 

this as an individual sovereignty issue. People have a right to generate their own electricity and not be stifled by arbitrary costs and 

charging fixed charges in a case that would basically be designed 

to discourage these kinds of development. I believe that what we 

are trying to do here is create, as they say, a path toward a fair 

and rational allocation of costs. 

Mr. Weisgall, you talked in the end that you said the cost should 

be just and reasonable. I have no disagreement with that as long 

as those costs are rationally and fairly applied running in both directions. I think, unfortunately, we have to move in this case from 

simplicity to complexity because, I believe, net metering is a good 

technique now but I do not think it is the long term answer. And 

we have to talk about unbundling rates, time of day usage, to provide the right price signals to customers in order to incent the kind 

of activities that will benefit both the customers and the grid making it more secure. 

As a member of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committee 

and I’m running out of time, I am not going to be quite as good 

as you, Ms. Ericson, but we have got a national security issue here. 

To the extent that the grid can be decentralized and self healing, 

we are much better off from a national security point of view than 

the old model of the centralized grid that a cyber attack or Hurricane Sandy can take out and take out millions of people at once. 

So that is my marker, Madam Chair. I think we have, if my mail 

is any indication, hit on something important. I look forward to 

working with you as we work through this bill. I think distributed 

energy is a huge part of our energy future in the country, and we 

have to be sure that we get it right. 

Thank you, and if you can find a question in there you are welcome to it. [Laughter.] 

But I appreciate the witnesses and appreciate your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. I think we all agree 

we need to try to get it right. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

Ms. Bowman, to this question of LNG exports. In your testimony 

you noted that the President’s Council on Economic Advisors issued 

a report in February. Madam Chairman, I would like to introduce 

that report for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Duly noted. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 95277A.050
79 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 95277A.051
80 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 95277A.052
81 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 95277A.053
82 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 95277A.054
83 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 95277A.055
84 

Senator BARRASSO. It discussed the benefits of LNG exports. 

Could you just briefly explain exactly what President Obama’s Economic Advisors had to say about LNG exports? 

Ms. BOWMAN. Sure. So they noted many benefits to the export 

of LNG. One of which was that with LNG exports coming from the 

United States to other areas of the world it’s going to increase domestic production. So all the economic benefits that comes from increased production will flow back to the United States economy. 

Additionally it found that by the U.S. exporting to the global 

marketplace it would reduce LNG prices worldwide which really 

creates some geopolitical advantages to the United States because 

we become a much larger player in the energy landscape of the 

world. 

Additionally, it talked about when LNG from the U.S. is used regionally across the world and it’s displacing coal generation that it 

has the opportunity for emission reductions. 

I think the one thing that the Council didn’t talk about but there 

is a study done by the National Energy Technology Laboratory 

where it’s not just about displacing regional coal across the—or 

across the world, but rather also regional gas from Russian pipelines because their pipelines are very leaky. And by delivering U.S. 

LNG to Europe and to Asia you actually have a net GHD benefit. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Ms. BOWMAN. But additionally to that one thing too that while 

they talked about the increased domestic production they also mentioned that the U.S. manufacturing renaissance would not be hurt 

by the start of U.S. LNG exports. 

I think one thing that can be offered with respect to that too is 

that when you increase your domestic production of natural gas 

you’re also bringing out natural gas liquids as co-products. And because you’re increasing the supply of those natural gas liquids, 

you’re basically creating a more stable price for those feed stocks 

to the U.S. manufacturing companies which really leads to stability 

and encourages the renaissance that we’re seeing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great, thank you so much. 

I also wanted to touch on my bill, S. 411, the Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act, and related legislation. The fact is the 

United States, I think, needs more oil and gas pipelines. We are 

the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, and we need a safe and 

reliable way to transport this energy to market, as a number of you 

have testified. We need more pipelines where oil and gas is produced in states like Wyoming and North Dakota, but we also need 

more pipelines where the oil and gas is consumed including New 

England. 

I think it is fair to say that the permitting process that we have 

heard today for pipelines is broken. After more than 61⁄2 years we 

still do not have a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. This is 

absurd. 

But over the last five years we have seen significant amounts of 

natural gas vented and flared in states like North Dakota while 

New England continues to experience a shortage of natural gas, 

and this results in some of the highest energy prices in the country. Senators Heitkamp, Hoeven, Enzi and I have tried to address 

this problem by making it easier to capture natural gas that would 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

otherwise be vented and flared. The bipartisan bill expedites the 

permitting process, gives some certainty for natural gas gathering 

lines. I think it is critically important. 

My question, Ms. Bowman, is will you discuss some of the obstacles that oil and gas producers are facing today when siting gathering lines on Federal and Indian land. 

Ms. BOWMAN. Sure. And really the main obstacle there is is the 

timeline for the permits. So the right of way permits, traditionally, 

have taken about four to six months. And then you have the sundry permits as well. They’re a little bit less intensive, and they 

have historically taken around two to four months to get through 

the approval process, or the permitting process I should say. But 

recently those times have significantly increased to more than doubling. So you’re waiting six, you’re waiting 12 to 14 months, and 

you’re waiting up to a year for a sundry permit approval. 

Given that in these areas that you have a lot of co-products coming from the well so you may be, actually, directing your well towards oil, you will drill that well. You don’t have the gathering 

lines in place, so you are flaring that associated gas. Well, that 

doesn’t lead to anything good in any real way because you’re denying the consumers the benefits that come with natural gas. So by 

basically increasing your permitting time while maintaining the 

proper review process, you’re able to deliver a very clean fuel to 

customers that delivers cost savings and environmental benefits as 

well as energy security. So it makes a lot of sense to get the permits moved through the processes as quickly as can be given the 

timelines that are currently there. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to 

welcome all of our witnesses. 

In particular I would like to welcome Commissioner Brian Kalk 

from North Dakota. PSC Commissioner Kalk was a distinguished 

Marine with a 20-plus year career in the Marine Corps. He retired, 

I believe, with the rank of Major, and did an outstanding job serving our country both here at home and overseas. He has been elected to our PSC a number of times and does a tremendous job, and 

he also has instructed at North Dakota State University on energy 

and other issues. So Commissioner Kalk really brings tremendous 

expertise in the field of energy. 

I guess where I would like to start, Commissioner, with you is 

we need energy infrastructure to build the right kind of energy 

plan for this country, and that is a real challenge. I sponsored the 

Keystone XL pipeline legislation which we passed in the Senate 

with well more than 60 votes. The President has vetoed that legislation and held the decision up for six years. 

So talk for just a minute about how we can build the kind of energy plan that we need for this country? How are we stimulating 

that investment in North Dakota, and how can we generate that 

in—and again, it’s private investment building, a lot of this infrastructure? How do we get this infrastructure going? What are you 

doing in North Dakota? What can we do nationally? 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

Dr. KALK. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

I guess, to dovetail a little bit, Senator Murkowski questioned me 

about the NEPA process and expediting that. That’s a big piece of 

it. On the pipelines particularly, in North Dakota we’ve held numerous hearings on pipeline infrastructure. We’ve held the hearings of approved projects. There’s border crossings from North Dakota to Canada that are being held up by the current Administration. 

And one thing that we’ve got to have is the pipelines to be able 

to move the product from North Dakota to other parts of the country whether it’s crude, whether it’s natural gas. We’re able to do 

the work right now in the state, but it’s very frustrating when we 

don’t have the approval to move it outside of our borders. It’s not 

only Canada. We’re having some challenges in Minnesota, quite 

honestly, and South Dakota. That’s just the way it works. But anything that we can do to get the pipelines built. Pipelines are, by 

far, the safest way, the most efficient way to move a product. Until 

we get the pipeline infrastructure built, we’re going to have stress 

on our roads from trucks and safety concerns. You’ve seen rail concerns because of capacity. The pipelines are absolutely critical to be 

built, and that’s where it’s very frustrating. 

I think that one of my colleagues, down the way, talked about 

the will. You have to have states that have the will to build the 

infrastructure, and they have to truly believe it’s good for the nation. That’s where I think it comes down to get the data, make the 

decision and move it forward. 

Senator HOEVEN. So, the issue is delay, right? 

I think you have made that point clearly as have others. In many 

cases this is private investment, billions of dollars, vital energy infrastructure we need, to move product more cost effectively and 

more safely and the problem is delay on the part of the Federal 

Government. Right? So legislation that we are putting forward, like 

my North American Energy Infrastructure Act and the Keystone 

legislation, the legislation of Senator Barrasso, our Chairman. All 

of this legislation that has been brought up today, that is designed 

to cut through this delay and that would make a significant difference in your opinion, in terms of both moving energy more safely 

and more cost effectively? 

Dr. KALK. Yes, Senator, I believe that is the case. 

I would even add that in North Dakota we work with the companies. If we’ve got a concern about a certain river crossing or certain 

safety concerns, we’ll ask the company, extra shut off valves and 

increase their emergency response plans, and they always do it. 

So in these agencies causing the delay, if there’s something they 

don’t like, they need to say what the companies need to do to fix 

it. We don’t automatically approve things. We bring out the concerns and they address them. 

Senator HOEVEN. So one issue is delay, and that is a huge issue 

which we need to cut through. 

The other is duplication, and what I want to bring up as an example is the fracking rules. I want to talk about the fracking rules 

in North Dakota and now the Department of Interior has come 

with a whole Federal regime on fracking, so now the energy producer faces duplicate regulation. Wouldn’t it make sense to have 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

just one regulator? Have the state be a primary regulator? And if 

they are covering the issues as far as safety and transparency, 

wouldn’t it make more sense to have one rather than duplicate that 

regulation? 

Dr. KALK. Absolutely, Senator. 

North Dakota was the leader in setting up fracking rules. We 

were also a leader in putting up CO2 storage and pore spaces. 

We’ve done the things we need to do in the state, and we’ve created 

the certainty in the state, but people need to do things. When the 

Federal Government comes out with additional layers that contradict the states, that’s not the way this is designed. I talked in 

my testimony about states’ rights and about we have to do things 

as a state. That’s the way it should be, and I agree with you, Senator. 

Senator HOEVEN. You said a very important term there, ‘‘certainty’’. So we can get billions invested, a growing economy, and job 

creation by giving certainty to industry so they can make that investment. So that’s what you mean when you say certainty, right? 

Dr. KALK. Absolutely, Senator. And it’s not only the company’s 

certainty, it’s the ratepayers and those who use the products. They 

should be able to know that the price of gas is going to stay in a 

certain range. They should be able to know they’re electricity costs 

are not going to spike. And we’ve got these projects that get held 

up. You know, we have a growing need for power in North Dakota. 

The country always needs more energy. So it’s not just a certainty 

for the investors. It’s certainty for the ratepayers. 

Senator HOEVEN. And also protection for ratepayers and customers in terms of, again, talk about the hydraulic fracturing. I 

mean, you require transparency. You require that they use frack 

focus. You require that they have integrity in their wells and the 

cement seals and all those things. The very same things now that 

the Department of Interior is calling for in their regulation. Isn’t 

that the case? 

Dr. KALK. That is absolutely correct, Senator. The state continues to do a good job, and our biggest threat is not anything 

other than the Federal Government in our energy development. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, again, to all of you, thank you for 

being here, particularly our Commissioner, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Commissioner, sticking with you for a minute 

and kind of on the same theme. We have heard other members say 

that or discuss the Federal Government coming in and establishing 

utility rates in certain areas. You, in your testimony, dealt with 

some of that. Do you want to elaborate? Who is in the best position 

to determine what those rates ought to be? 

Dr. KALK. Senator, I always believe the states are in the best position to do that, and it is becoming increasingly challenging, not 

only with potential Federal rules, but different states have different policies. And that’s their right. I respect that. But it becomes 

challenging when a certain state passes a renewable mandate and 

that state builds the infrastructure no matter what the cost and 

need is. And you’ve got an integrated grid which then that power 

then flows to neighboring states. This is a very big challenge. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

And so it goes back to state regulators have to understand what 

the impact is to their ratepayers. They have to develop the renewables as appropriate, but we can’t forget about base load power. 

We talked about reliability and sustainability of the grid. The 

coldest day in North Dakota, the wind is not blowing. When we 

have these biggy weather events, it’s base load power that gets us 

through those. 

Senator FLAKE. Mr. Dotson, you mentioned that some of the cost 

now imposed on solar is dampening demand or enthusiasm for 

solar. 

Mr. DOTSON. That’s right. 

Senator FLAKE. But we recognize and other testimony has said 

that we have got the grid to worry about. Somebody has to maintain it. How would you propose that be done if it is not charged 

to solar customers? 

Mr. DOTSON. Thank you very much for the question. 

I think, I wouldn’t preclude any charge to customers, but I would 

say that I think the public utility commissions are best suited with 

what’s the appropriate rate structure to ensure that we are getting 

rooftop solar deployed, that people do have that option at the same 

time that we’re able to allow electric utilities to function. 

Senator FLAKE. So that, but that speaks to the utility commissions at the state level making that decision—— 

Mr. DOTSON. Yeah and I think there could be a stronger Federal 

role. I mean the Federal Power Act of 1935 established this line between Federal regulators and state regulators and left retail sales 

largely to the state regulators. But there’s a lot of issues that are 

now blurring the lines whether it’s cyber security, smart grid or 

this issued of distributed generation. And so, Congress, there’s no 

constitutional reason that Congress can’t consider this. 

The Supreme Court in Mississippi verses FERC examined this 

and said certainly Congress has the authority to step in on a retail 

issues where appropriate. And if you look at other issues, for example, real estate transactions where that’s also traditionally a state 

issue, but when the Federal Government has found problems 

they’ve been able to step in whether it’s lead based paint or whether it’s disclosure of home mortgage products. And this is an example where, I think, it’s not inappropriate for Congress to think 

about what is the best approach to ensure we’re getting an outcome 

we want. 

Senator FLAKE. Anybody else have thoughts there? Go ahead. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, I think our biggest issue always, and understand IBEW installs solar. We install wind. We’re not in any way 

anti-renewables. But we have to have the grid working, and we 

can’t install. We’ve got a problem right now in Hawaii where 

there’s so much solar installed the grid simply is not working. And 

you still have to sit there as soon as the sun goes down, have the 

available power. 

And what we’re seeing in many, many states now is that, especially when it’s deregulated, your generation is sitting there all day 

long not getting paid, not earning any money, and as soon as the 

sun starts to drop, which is normally the same time that you hit 

your peak load, all this generation is required on the grid. So how 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

we phase those in together and how we make the grid work, I 

think, is what we feel is very important. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well this is probably the question of the hour 

here or the hours, and I think we recognize that we are at this very 

interesting point in time. We have had a system in place for decades, if not more, where you have your utilities that provide for the 

power and your obligation as the consumer or the ratepayer is to 

pay your bill once a month. 

Now with this whole concept of distributed generation and what 

an individual may be producing on their own, Senator King used 

the term, said that this was an issue almost of sovereignty. It is 

my right to be able to generate my own power. I think we do need 

to acknowledge that you may want to generate your own power 

through your rooftop solar, but then when that does not provide 

you everything that you need, you still want the benefits that the 

grid has provided. 

So those who do not have the rooftop solar panels, in effect, are 

ending up subsidizing those that can afford to put the rooftop solar 

on their homes. 

So how we balance all these, I think, is so much of the discussion 

that we are at today, and it is not something that we have had to 

wrestle with in years before. When we were dealing with the last 

energy bill that this Committee had in front of us, we were just not 

at that place where we were all talking distributed generation and 

the impact on reliability and security of the grid. So this is why, 

as much as anything, this discussion that this Committee is engaged in right now and some of the decisions moving forward are 

so critical because things are changing. 

Mr. Weisgall, do you want to jump in here? 

Mr. WEISGALL. Well, the dilemma reminds me of a comment that 

the former chairman of this Committee made which was, you know, 

everybody wants to go to heaven. Nobody wants to die. [Laughter.] 

And it’s a real challenge of how we get there. 

With respect to Senator Flake’s question, I mean, one thing the 

utilities are coping with is, you know, we hear our customers. They 

want solar. They want that sovereignty. 

We’re working on utility scale solar. We’re working on community solar. That’s another whole big topic where, again, we’re looking at how can we accomplish this in the most affordable way to 

customers, as Ms. Ericson has said. That’s our job as a utility, to 

get that energy in the most affordable way and keep it reliable as 

well. 

So you’re absolutely right. Those are the challenges, but I think 

some of the proposals you have here today are the best ways to 

tweak those. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is not easy, but nobody said it was going to 

be easy when we started, so we will just keep working through it. 

Ms. Ericson, I wanted to ask you a question about the interoperability standards. As you know back in the ’07 Energy bill, NIST, 

the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, through the 

stakeholder effort, was asked to produce interoperability standards. 

FERC then was supposed to adopt the NIST standards upon a finding of sufficient consensus, but there were a couple of technical 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

conferences and the Commission basically came out and said we 

don’t have sufficient consensus here for these NIST interoperability 

standards due to opposition from industry, due to cyber issues. 

So the question that I would have for you this morning is whether or not you think it is still important. Is there a need for a smart 

grid interoperability standards today? What might they look like? 

What would the process look like after what we saw with the failure of the earlier attempt? 

In response to somebody’s question previously you said, look, everything needs to be knit together. So I am assuming your answer 

is going to be yes. If so, how would you envision that process going 

forward? 

Ms. ERICSON. You’re right. My answer is yes. Interoperability is 

still a good idea, and we do work with the Office of Electricity in 

DOE. We work with NIST. It is difficult with the different players 

and this whole vast structure to get consensus but I think we just 

have to come back together again and try it with the leadership of 

the Department of Energy, with the leadership of NIST and frankly, with the leadership of some of the state and local authorities. 

But yes, we have to do it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. ERICSON. The interconnection, both the benefits and the 

risks associated with the interconnection, will be better with this 

interoperability capability. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. 

Senator Risch, you have returned. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, I have returned. 

First of all, Mr. Weisgall, I appreciate your comments about moving the goal post by the government as you try to get through one 

of these things. Of course, it is a fallout from two different things. 

Number one, the permitting process takes so long. Secondly, the 

people who do that change and the philosophy changes and that is 

what happens when you are a government of people instead of 

laws. A new person comes into the position, and the goal post gets 

changed, and we are seeing that. We see it over and over and over 

again, and it is incredibly frustrating for people trying to do business. 

I am going to talk just very briefly, Madam Chairman, about the 

bill I have proposed, Senate bill 1037, which is a bill that expands 

the provisions for termination of the mandatory purchase requirements under PURPA. 

PURPA was enacted by Congress in 1978, and it was designed 

to increase our energy independence at a time when we were in a 

real energy crisis. To that end, of course, the PURPA law required 

that utilities purchase power that was generated by non-typical 

traditional utility companies, and it was required to be purchased 

at full voided cost. Of course, the purpose of that was to attempt 

to generate more electricity which it did. 

At the same time the Federal Government, over a period of 

years, enacted massive financial incentives to the tax code which 

spurred incentive in different types of energy projects. 

Now you had two things going on. Number one, the utilities were 

forced to purchase the electricity that was generated. Secondly, it 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

was required to be purchased at full voided cost. Thirdly, you had 

the incentives with the tax code which worked incredibly well. 

We have gotten to a point that no one imagined. It is hard to believe that they passed a Federal law with people not being able to 

see all the things that could happen as a result of it. They passed 

this Federal law thinking that we would always need every kilowatt of electricity that was generated. Now the need is not what 

was not covered in the original law, but is now something that 

should be considered. 

What this bill does is it brings need into the equation, and its 

need to be determined by the state public utility regulators which, 

Dr. Kalk will be happy with, but if you worship at the altar of a 

strong, central government that should control everything, you will 

not like. In any event it now puts needs into it. 

The best example I can give of this law of unintended consequences which has bit us is that our local utility in Southwestern 

Idaho, Idaho Power, has no need for additional generation until 

2021. Yet at the same time they have had as many as 73 proposed, 

mandatory purchase solar projects that it has exceeded a thousand 

megawatts that they had to deal with. So the combined cost to the 

customers of Idaho Power would have been $2.7 billion. What has 

happened is the consumer, as always, winds up paying the whole 

tab. At one end they are paying these tax subsidies to get people 

to go out and generate this electricity, then at the other end they 

are paying as a customer of the utility for the energy that was generated at this full voided cost. So it is the consumer who is really 

picking up the tab here, and this is designed to change that. It is 

designed to shift this over, to a large extent, to the states. 

I know it is going to come as a horrendous shock to people in this 

town, but the states actually can make these kinds of decisions and 

in the best interest of their local utility. This is what happens 

every time the Federal Government muddles in the free market 

system, and it always happens when the government tries to pass 

a one size fits all rule which is exactly what this is. 

So that is what this does, Madam Chairman, and what it does 

is recognizes the reality of today’s marketplace. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate your leadership on that. 

Would anyone care to respond to Senator Risch’s comments? 

Mr. WEISGALL. One quick footnote. I think the bill is an excellent 

one. I agree with all of your comments. One of our utilities is in 

the identical position of Idaho Power. 

I would only suggest you look at one criterion, which is need. Our 

proposal looks at other criteria as well. Is there a competitive market out there for a QF? Are there competitive solicitations? If there 

are, there’s just no need for this mandate. So we would urge you 

to use your bill as a starting point and look at other suggestions 

out there that are complementary to what your bill does and in no 

way would contradict what you’re trying to do. 

Senator RISCH. Madam Chairman, first of all, I think that is a 

really good suggestion. I certainly have no pride of authorship in 

this, and I am willing to look at other things. The playing field has 

changed since 1978, and that is what this is aimed at and it is 

aimed at trying to pick up some of the realities that are out there 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

in the marketplace today. Thank you for that input, and look forward to further input from you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Risch, thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Does anyone else have a comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, does anyone else want to weigh in? 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We have a couple of votes that are coming up here in just a few 

moments. 

Mr. Hunter, I did not ask any questions of you, but I want to 

thank you also, again, you came before this Committee before. I 

think your testimony contributed significantly to what we had in 

front of us about a year ago when we were discussing the issue of 

reliability. I also think not only the comments that you have provided in your written testimony, but your comments here before 

the Committee today are a plain truth on this; when we are talking 

about reliability and affordability, you are not only speaking from 

the perspective of representing those men and women who make 

things happen on the job, on the ground, the jobs that are associated with these energy infrastructure issues. You also represent 

those men and women that when they get these statements every 

month they pay attention to them because how much they are paying on a monthly basis matters to them and their family. When it 

goes up a little bit you can deal with it a little bit, but when it goes 

up considerably this has impact. 

I think far too often as we talk about the amazing changes that 

are going on right now within the energy sector and the great excitement about the possibilities that we have for a newly imagined 

energy future, it is all very exciting. It is all very dynamic, but I 

do not want us to get carried away with the excitement and forget 

that affordability has to be a critical component, an absolutely critical, if not the driving piece of this. 

In my State of Alaska we have some of the highest energy costs 

in the country, and I want to figure out everything that I can to 

bring renewable opportunities to them, to bring innovative energy 

opportunities to them, to figure out how we work this whole micro 

grid concept so that it is real and meaningful and lived out in our 

communities. 

But at the end of the day if I promise them this great new technology, their first question to me is going to be how much is it 

going to cost? Because if it is a heck of a lot more, come back when 

you can get the price down, Lisa. So these are so many of the considerations that we have in front of us. 

Senator Cantwell, we have wrapped up on this side, but I know 

you have been over in the Finance Committee jumping back and 

forth, as have many of our members this morning. So I will give 

you the last round. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you may wrap up as you see it. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you. 

I just wanted to add a couple of things. Mr. Dotson’s organization 

has authored a report on PURPA, and I hope we can submit that 

for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will put it in. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 95277A.056
95 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 95277A.057
96 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 95277A.059
97 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 95277A.058
98 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 95277A.060
99 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 95277A.061
100 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 95277A.062
101 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 95277A.063
102 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 95277A.064
103 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 95277A.065
104 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 95277A.066
105 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 95277A.067
106 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 95277A.068
107 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 95277A.069
108 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 95277A.070
109 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 95277A.071
110 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 95277A.072
111 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 95277A.073
112 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 95277A.074
113 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 95277A.075
114 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 95277A.076
115 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 95277A.077
116 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 95277A.078
117 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 95277A.079
118 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 95277A.080
119 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 95277A.081
120 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 95277A.082
121 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 95277A.083
122 

Senator CANTWELL. I want to make mention of the fact that 

FERC is investigating price spikes in the California ISO Energy 

Wholesale Market. And the notion that the California ISOs are the 

‘‘Holy Grail’’ for the Pacific Northwest is one that I will always 

have more to say about that. And I will always fight for cheap hydropower. 

Again, I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses here. 

Mr. Hunter described the energy sector with a workforce that is 

retiring at a rate higher than 50 percent; so it’s clear we need to 

focus on this. 

Ms. Ericson knows that there are many models here on how to 

generate this workforce that she is looking at and some of the 

things that she has done with Alstom. I hope that we will incorporate all of that into how we move forward on preparing for what 

the Secretary in the Quadrennial Energy Review said will be a 

huge demand and need for skilled workers in these areas. This presents an exciting opportunity for many in the United States of 

America. 

I think we have to figure out how to target these programs and 

get them right, and make sure that we meet the ever-increasing 

economic opportunity with the skill that will be required. 

I look forward to working with you on all of that, and I very 

much appreciate the testimony from our witnesses today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, and thank you 

again to each of our witnesses. We appreciate your comments. If 

members have additional questions they might want to have you 

respond to, we would hope that you would give us that time as 

well. Again, thank you very much and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 95277A.084
124 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 95277A.085
125 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 95277A.086
126 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 95277A.087
127 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here 95277A.088
128 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here 95277A.089
129 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here 95277A.090
130 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here 95277A.091
131 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here 95277A.092
132 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 95277A.093
133 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 95277A.094
134 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 95277A.095
135 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 95277A.096
136 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 95277A.097
137 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 95277A.098
138 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 95277A.099
139 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 95277A.100
140 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 95277A.101
141 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 95277A.102
142 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 95277A.103
143 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 95277A.104
144 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here 95277A.105
145 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 95277A.106
146 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 95277A.107
147 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 95277A.108
148 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 95277A.109
149 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 95277A.110
150 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 95277A.111
151 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 95277A.112
152 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here 95277A.113
153 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here 95277A.114
154 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here 95277A.115
155 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 here 95277A.116
156 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 here 95277A.117
157 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 here 95277A.118
158 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 here 95277A.119
159 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 here 95277A.120
160 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 here 95277A.121
161 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 here 95277A.122
162 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 here 95277A.123
163 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 here 95277A.124
164 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 here 95277A.125
165 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 here 95277A.126
166 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 here 95277A.127
167 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 here 95277A.128
168 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 here 95277A.129
169 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 here 95277A.130
170 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 here 95277A.131
171 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 here 95277A.132
172 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 here 95277A.133
173 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 here 95277A.134
174 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 here 95277A.135
175 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 here 95277A.136
176 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 here 95277A.137
177 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 here 95277A.138
178 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 here 95277A.139
179 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 here 95277A.140
180 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 here 95277A.141
181 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 here 95277A.142
182 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 here 95277A.143
183 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 here 95277A.144
184 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 here 95277A.145
185 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 here 95277A.146
186 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 here 95277A.147
187 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 here 95277A.148
188 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 here 95277A.149
189 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 here 95277A.150
190 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 here 95277A.151
191 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 here 95277A.152
192 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 here 95277A.153
193 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 here 95277A.154
194 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 here 95277A.155
195 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 here 95277A.156
196 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 here 95277A.157
197 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 here 95277A.158
198 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 here 95277A.159
199 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 here 95277A.160
200 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 here 95277A.161
201 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 here 95277A.162
202 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 here 95277A.163
203 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 here 95277A.164
204 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 here 95277A.165
205 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 here 95277A.166
206 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 here 95277A.167
207 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 here 95277A.168
208 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 here 95277A.169
209 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 here 95277A.170
210 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 here 95277A.171
211 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 here 95277A.172
212 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 here 95277A.173
213 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 here 95277A.174
214 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 here 95277A.175
215 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 here 95277A.176
216 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 here 95277A.177
217 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 here 95277A.178
218 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 here 95277A.179
219 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 here 95277A.180
220 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 here 95277A.181
221 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 here 95277A.182
222 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 here 95277A.183
223 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 here 95277A.184
224 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 here 95277A.185
225 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 here 95277A.186
226 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 here 95277A.187
227 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 here 95277A.188
228 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 here 95277A.189
229 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 here 95277A.190
230 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 here 95277A.191
231 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 here 95277A.192
232 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 here 95277A.193
233 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 here 95277A.194
234 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 here 95277A.195
235 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 here 95277A.196
236 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 here 95277A.197
237 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001 here 95277A.198
238 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 002 here 95277A.199
239 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 here 95277A.200
240 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 307 here 95277A.201
241 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 here 95277A.202
242 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 here 95277A.203
243 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 here 95277A.204
244 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 311 here 95277A.205
245 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 here 95277A.208
246 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 here 95277A.209
247 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 here 95277A.210
248 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 here 95277A.211
249 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 here 95277A.206
250 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 here 95277A.207
251 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 003 here 95277A.212
252 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 here 95277A.213
253 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 here 95277A.214
254 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 here 95277A.215
255 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 here 95277A.216
256 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 here 95277A.217
257 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 324 here 95277A.218
258 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 325 here 95277A.219
259 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 326 here 95277A.220
260 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 327 here 95277A.221
261 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 328 here 95277A.222
262 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 329 here 95277A.223
263 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 here 95277A.224
264 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 here 95277A.225
265 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 here 95277A.226
266 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 333 here 95277A.227
267 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 334 here 95277A.228
268 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 here 95277A.229
269 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 here 95277A.230
270 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 338 here 95277A.232
271 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 339 here 95277A.233
272 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 340 here 95277A.234
273 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 341 here 95277A.235
274 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 here 95277A.236
275 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 here 95277A.237
276 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 here 95277A.238
277 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 here 95277A.239
278 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 here 95277A.240
279 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 here 95277A.241
280 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 here 95277A.242
281 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 here 95277A.243