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

25–035 PDF 2017

MODERNIZING ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY DELIVERY SYSTEMS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Serial No. 115–7 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan7 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Michael W. Howard, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric 

Power Research Institute .................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 228 

Ganesh Bell, Chief Digital Officer, GE Power and GE Digital ............................ 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Lonnie R. Stephenson, President, International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers ................................................................................................................. 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Steven G. Hauser, Chief Executive Officer, GridWise Alliance ........................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 230 

Chad Harrison, Councilman At-Large, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe .................... 98 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Kim Kann, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Land Owner ................................. 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 114 

Rex Ferry, President and Owner, VEC, Inc., on Behalf of the National Electric 

Contractors Association ....................................................................................... 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

Terry O’Sullivan, General President, Laborers’ International Union of North 

America ................................................................................................................. 129 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 233 

Joey Mahmoud, Vice President, Energy Transfer Partners, and Project Executive, Dakota Access Pipeline ............................................................................... 135 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 138 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Environmental Assessment, Dakota Access Pipeline Project: Crossings of 

Flowing Easements and Federal Lands, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha 

District, July 2016,1 submitted by Mr. Cramer 

Memorandum Opinion of United States District Judge James E. Boasberg, 

September 9, 2016, for Civil Action No. 16 091534 (JEB), Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe, et al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al.,2 submitted 

by Mr. Cramer 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20170215/105567/HHRG-115-IF03-20170215-SD007.pdf. 2The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20170215/105567/HHRG-115-IF03-20170215-SD008.pdf. 

Page

IV 

Memorandum for Record, January 6, 2017, by Colonel John W. Henderson, 

Omaha District Commander, Army Corps of Engineers, submitted by Mr. 

Cramer .................................................................................................................. 182 

Order No. 16 095259 of the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, September Term, 2016, submitted by Mr. Cramer ........ 192 

Letter of February 7, 2017, from Paul D. Cramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of the Army, to Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, House Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted by Hon. Kevin Cramer .................................................... 194 

Letter of February 13, 2017, from Michael Skelly, Clean Line Energy Partners, to Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Olson ..................................................... 198 

Statement of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America by Paul N. Cicio, 

President, February 15, 2017, submitted by Mr. Olson .................................... 205 

Letter of February 15, 2017, from Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, 

NRECA, to Mr. Upton and Mr. Rush, submitted by Mr. Olson ....................... 208 

Letter of February 15, 2017, from Andrew Black, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Oil Pipe Lines, to Mr. Upton and Mr. Rush, 

submitted by Mr. Olson ....................................................................................... 210 

Letter of February 15, 2017, from Marc H. Morial, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, National Urban League, to Mr. Upton and Mr. Rush, 

submitted by Mr. Olson ....................................................................................... 214 

Draft Environmental Assessment, Dakota Access Pipeline Project: Crossings 

of Flowing Easements and Federal Lands, Dakota Access, LLC, November 

2015,3 submitted by Mr. Rush 

Map, Dakota Access Pipeline Project, Dakota Access, LLC, submitted by 

Mr. Rush ............................................................................................................... 227 

3The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20170215/105567/HHRG-115-IF03-20170215-SD036.pdf. 

(1) 

MODERNIZING ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY 

DELIVERY SYSTEMS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Upton, Olson, Barton, Shimkus, Murphy, Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, 

Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Walberg, Walden (ex 

officio), Rush, McNerney, Peters, Green, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, 

Welch, Tonko, Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, Butterfield, Ruiz, and 

Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, Energy and Power; 

Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; 

Karen Christian, General Counsel; Wyatt Ellertson, Research Associate; Blair Ellis, Press Secretary/Digital Coordinator; Adam 

Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Giulia Giannangeli, 

Legislative Clerk, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection/Environment; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Zach Hunter, Communications Director; Ann Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy/Environment; Peter Kielty, Deputy General Counsel; Brandon Mooney, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; 

Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Hamlin 

Wade, Special Advisor for External Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority 

Staff Director; Jean Fruci, Minority Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim 

Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Member Services, and Outreach; Tuley 

Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. 

Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. All right. Good morning, everybody. Today’s hearing 

entitled ‘‘Modernizing Energy and Electricity Delivery Systems: 

Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Infrastructure Improvement and Expansion’’ marks the beginning of the subcommittee’s 

push this Congress to promote the modernization of our energy infrastructure. 

The hearing will examine the state of America’s evolving infrastructure and barriers to innovation, modernization, job creation, 

and economic growth. America’s energy infrastructure is vast, complex, and highly interconnected. When we say ‘‘energy infrastructure,’’ we are talking about the expansive network of pipelines, 

storage facilities, power plants, electric lines, and distribution systems that crisscross the country millions of miles. These systems 

and the people that operate them move energy from the source to 

the consumer so that when we flip the switch, the lights in fact will 

go on. 

We are blessed to have the world’s most highly developed energy 

infrastructure, but our systems are aging and we are confronting 

new challenges with the changing energy landscape. 

The huge increase in oil and gas production that we have seen 

in the last decade has been a boon to the economy, yes it has, but 

it has also revealed bottlenecks in capacity constraints in that pipeline system. These inefficiencies are harming consumers by discouraging new production and creating unnecessary price spikes in 

some parts of the country. 

So our power generation mix is changing, too, as relatively lowpriced natural gas and environmental regulations have accelerated 

retirements of coal-fired power plants, which represent a significant amount of our baseload power. 

We have also seen the growing penetration of renewables, like 

wind and solar, and distributed energy, such as energy storage. 

And while Federal incentives have contributed to this trend, States 

have been very active in developing subsidies and mandates to 

incentivize renewables. Integrating these resources into the changing grid presents both challenges as well as opportunities. 

So our first panel of witnesses will focus on the need to modernize our electric grid and develop solutions to strengthen security, improve efficiency, and reduce costs. We will hear from industry experts and businesses on the leading edge of developing new 

technologies and data analytics to improve the performance of our 

Nation’s electricity system. American consumers depend on reliable 

and competitively priced electricity for their everyday lives. And although new digital technologies have the potential to transform our 

Nation’s electric power grid, challenges remain to ensure that the 

grid is operated in a way that is reliable, resilient, and secure. 

The second panel will focus on the need to modernize our transportation storage and distribution infrastructure, including pipelines. There is a new urgency to improve the siting and permitting 

process for pipelines. The domestic oil and gas boom and increased 

utilization of natural gas for power generation are driving new demand for pipeline infrastructure. So, we want to ensure that all 

relevant stakeholders, including Tribal Governments have a seat at 

3 

the table and an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way. 

That is the purpose of today’s hearing. 

We welcome our witnesses and their ideas to reform the current 

process to implement lessons learned from past experiences. I yield 

the balance of my time to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Olson. 

[The statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Good morning. Today’s hearing, entitled ‘‘Modernizing Energy and Electricity Delivery Systems: Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Infrastructure Improvement and Expansion’’ marks the beginning of the subcommittee’s push this Congress to promote the modernization of our energy infrastructure. The hearing will 

examine the state of America’s evolving infrastructure and barriers to innovation, 

modernization, job creation, and economic growth. 

America’s energy infrastructure is vast, complex and highly interconnected. When 

we say ‘‘energy infrastructure’’ we’re talking about the expansive network of pipelines, storage facilities, power plants, electric lines and distribution systems that 

crisscross the country. These systems, and the people that operate them, move energy from the source to the consumer, so that when we flip the switch, the lights 

turn on. 

We’re blessed to have the world’s most highly developed energy infrastructure, but 

our systems are aging and we’re confronting new challenges with the changing energy landscape. 

The huge increase in oil and gas production that we’ve seen in the last decade 

has been a boon to the economy, but it has also revealed bottlenecks and capacity 

constraints in our pipeline system. These inefficiencies are harming consumers by 

discouraging new production and creating unnecessary price spikes in some parts 

of the country. 

Our power generation mix is changing too—as relatively low priced natural gas 

and environmental regulations have accelerated retirements of coal fired power 

plants, which represent a significant amount of our baseload power. We’ve also seen 

the growing penetration of renewables like wind and solar and distributed energy, 

such as energy storage. While Federal incentives have contributed to this trend, 

States have been active in developing subsidies and mandates to incentivize renewables. Integrating these resources into the changing grid presents both challenges 

and opportunities. 

Our first panel of witnesses will focus on the need to modernize our electric grid 

and develop solutions to strengthen security, improve efficiency, and reduce costs. 

We’ll hear from industry experts and businesses on the leading edge of developing 

new technologies and data analytics to improve the performance of our Nation’s 

electricity system. American consumers depend on reliable and competitively priced 

electricity for their everyday lives. Although new digital technologies have the potential to transform our Nation’s electric power grid, challenges remain to ensure 

the grid is operated in a way that is reliable, resilient and secure. 

The second panel will focus on the need to modernize our transportation, storage 

and distribution infrastructure, including pipelines. There is a new urgency to improve the siting and permitting process for pipelines. The domestic oil and gas boom 

and increased utilization of natural gas for power generation are driving new demand for pipeline infrastructure. 

Like other major infrastructure projects, siting a pipeline involves multiple jurisdictions. Close communication and collaboration between Federal, State, local, and 

Tribal governments is critical. 

Unlike interstate natural gas pipelines, there is no comprehensive Federal siting 

and permitting process for interstate oil pipelines. State and local laws govern the 

approval of the route, other than the portions crossing Federal lands. 

While Federal agencies follow rigorous procedures to evaluate potential impacts 

to communities and the environment, more can be done to bring greater transparency, accountability, and predictability to the permitting process. 

Dynamic and integrated energy and electricity delivery systems allow reliable and 

competitively priced energy for American consumers. A modernized infrastructure 

is absolutely critical to our Nation’s economic growth. 

This subcommittee will continue to conduct oversight over Federal laws that govern the siting and construction of energy infrastructure. We’re going to be taking 

4 

a close look at the Federal Power Act, the Natural Gas Act, and other laws that 

affect energy supply, delivery and use. 

We want to ensure that all relevant stakeholders, including Tribal governments, 

have a seat at the table and an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way. We 

welcome ideas from our witnesses to reform the current process or implement lessons learned from past experiences. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Energy infrastructure is at the heart of the American economy. 

My own State of Texas has a vast network of pipelines moving 

products across the State to markets both home and abroad. We 

balance safety, community, and the environment. We do it in a 

very big way. 

One mile from house in Sugar Land, Texas at Veterans Park on 

the Brazos River there is a dog park, a hill where kids fly kites, 

an off-road bike trail, a covered family pavilion. I often see kids 

fishing at the lake in our park. There is a natural gas pipeline 35 

yards from where those people are fishing. We have proven that 

nature can be preserved, while balancing growth. 

Texas is also a leader on advancing electronic markets. And since 

most of our State is on its own power market, we have a self-reliant and far-reaching electric grid. We are building that grid out, 

as we integrate wind power from the west to other emerging technologies. This committee has an opportunity to look forward on energy infrastructure. We need to not only make sure that this country can continue to build these networks but that we also make 

sure our energy is always advancing in terms of safety, reliability, 

and efficiency. We have to find proper balance, the sweet spot. We 

must find it. If we can find it in a park in Sugar Land, Texas, we 

can find it anywhere in America. 

I thank the chairman and yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

The Chair will now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rush from the good State of Illinois, for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

very important hearing today on the challenges and the opportunities associated with improving our Nation’s energy infrastructure. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a timely hearing and it is my hope that 

we can follow up on the bipartisan agreement that was initiated 

last session as part of the comprehensive energy bill that ultimately passed the House but never did make it to the Conference 

Committee. 

As part of those discussions, Mr. Chairman, there are two provisions in particular that I hope we can bring to fruition this time 

around, specifically, the Pipeline Safety Replacement Program that 

would provide assistance to lower income communities that I have 

been promoting quite vigorously. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can come together 

and agree to invest in modernizing the Nation’s aging electrical 

grid infrastructure that Ranking Member Pallone has been advocating vociferously and very vigorously. 

5 

Mr. Chairman, it is important that as we embark on this path 

of upgrading our Nation’s energy infrastructure that we do so in 

a way that is responsible, environmentally conscious, and takes 

into account the rights and the interests of the impacting communities that are going to be immediately and deeply affected. 

Even as we speak, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing the impact of 

shoddily built infrastructure in the national tragedy that is playing 

out in the State of California, where almost 200,000 residents have 

been evacuated due to leaks in the emergency spillway in Oroville 

Dam. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, this episode, in its entirety, could 

have been avoided if builders, if regulators had taken heed to the 

warnings of environmental groups who had forewarned almost a 

decade ago of the risk of catastrophic flooding, but these individuals, these groups, these warnings were not heeded but ignored. 

Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that while some may 

consider commonsense, safety, and environmental regulations to be 

overly burdensome or tedious, these protections may one day mean 

the difference in saving one’s property, livelihood, or even life. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to regulations as nothing but 

safety measures. That is what they are, safety measures. 

Another aspect that is important to today’s hearing will hopefully 

provide instructions in attempting to strike the right balance between modernizing and upgrading the Nation’s energy infrastructure like we so desperately need, while also taking into account the 

rights of land owners, Native Americans, and other communities 

that might be adversely impacted by these types of projects. 

Mr. Chairman, nowhere in this struggle is the struggle more pronounced than in the battle over the Dakota Access Pipeline, and I 

am sure that we will hear more about this from our second panel 

of witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, as policymakers, we all understand the needs for 

additional infrastructure to ensure the critical views and critical resources are transported to the places where they are needed in 

order to meet our Nation’s energy demands. However, as representatives of the people, Mr. Chairman, we must also ensure that the 

rights, the interests of Native Americans, property owners, and less 

affluent communities are also protected, and protected very vigorously. 

Mr. Chairman, Congress should help provide thoughtful and responsible guidance for instituting a fair and balanced process for 

moving forward with large-scale energy projects that respect the 

rights of all communities and does not place expedience or maximum profit among the rights of land owners or the communities 

that these projects traverse. 

Mr. Chairman, I welcome today’s witnesses and I look forward 

to a very rigorous debate on these very important and difficult 

issues. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate the gentleman’s statement. I do look forward to working with you to get the job done with Mr. Pallone and 

both Republicans and Democrats as we move forward. 

It is time now for me to recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes. 

6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And as I 

said a couple of weeks ago to our first Energy Subcommittee chairman, we are all humbled by our responsibility of this committee 

and appreciate the power that we have to make policy changes that 

will have an enormous and positive impact on American consumers 

for decades to come. 

Today, we examine the challenges and opportunities to expand, 

improve, and modernize our energy infrastructure across the Nation. We will hear from builders, and laborers, and contractors, and 

energy producers, and concerned citizens. We will hear from Tribes 

and utilities at the forefront of these issues. Our infrastructure is 

undergoing rapid changes on both the electrical and the energyproducing side but there is one thing I think that unites both, and 

that is these changes can mean real jobs. 

On the first panel, we will hear from witnesses who will present 

a wide-ranging view of the technology developments in the electricity system. The U.S. electrical grid is one of the engineering 

marvels of modern history, but it is aging and it is under stress. 

The vast network that arose to deliver seamless uninterruptable 

power into our homes, schools and hospitals in a centralized and 

standardized fashion is being tested and challenged by the intersection of digital technology and innovation. 

As technology continues to change the way we go about our daily 

lives, we also have to rethink how we generate, deliver and consume electricity. This could provide opportunities for consumers 

both large and small to save money and be more competitive. 

The meeting I held in my district a couple of weeks ago in 

Prineville, Oregon, they were talking to an outfit that wanted to locate there and bring hundreds of jobs, do a major build-out. Then 

they found out the electrical grid is not sufficient to support that. 

And when I pursued that with Bonneville Power Administration 

and others, they are telling me it could be 2 to 3 years before they 

could get the capacity this community needs. This community during the downturn had the highest unemployment rate consistently 

in the State of Oregon. How the heck did we get to this point? 

When you finally think you have a chance to grow jobs, put people to work building things, you discover somehow the electrical 

grid is not up to snuff and that it could take a couple of years to 

get it there. That is not where we want to be. 

That is why we are here today, by the way. That is part of it, 

is we have got to do a better job of forecasting. We have to clear 

the roadblocks out of the way that aren’t necessary, while still protecting the environment, while still providing appropriate ability 

for people to weigh in. You should always have the right to appeal 

your Government decisions, but it can’t be an endless appeal that 

leads to situations that stop jobs and stop progress on making sure 

we have a safe and secure grid or that the pipelines continue to 

get the product where it is needed. 

On the second panel, we will hear from all sides that area affected by the country’s record-setting liquid fuels production 

growth. This growth has brought about tremendous opportunities 

7 

to make our Nation more energy independent, all the while creating thousands jobs. 

At the same time, concerned citizens have come forward with 

their worries about the potential environmental impacts from new 

projects. The Dakota Access Pipeline is currently at the forefront 

of those headlines, and we welcome before the committee our witnesses from both the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Dakota 

Access Project developer, Energy Transfer Partners. 

We know that this issue means a great deal to both parties involved, and we are here to listen. The committee welcomes all sides 

of the debate, and we look forward to the testimony. 

But the Dakota Access Pipeline is not the only project that is 

currently being challenged across the country. The impacts and 

delays brought on by increasing amounts of uncertainty do nothing 

to open up a productive conversation about the true risks and benefits of these types of projects. 

We want to learn from the ongoing challenges presented to us 

today in order to bring more accountability, transparency, and predictability to the environmental permitting processes. The sooner 

our project developers and communities can talk about the risks 

and benefits within the community, the better. It is only by talking 

to each other, and not past each other, that we will be able to move 

beyond rhetoric and do what is right for our communities. 

As this committee implements its own energy policy agenda, the 

testimony we take today will inform us on how to best approach 

the future so that we can embrace innovation and new technology 

for consumers. 

We can be good stewards of our environment, and we will, while 

we also pursue policies to grow our economy. They are not mutually exclusive goals. 

We stand ready to listen. We are excited to work, and we thank 

you all for being here. 

[The statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

I said 2 weeks ago during our first Energy Subcommittee hearing that one of the 

humbling responsibilities for members of this committee is to fully appreciate the 

power we have to make policy changes that can have enormous and positive impact 

on American consumers for decades to come. And I reiterate that sentiment today 

as we begin our efforts to examine the challenges and opportunities to expand, improve, and modernize our energy infrastructure across the country. We will hear 

from builders, laborers, contractors, energy producers, concerned citizens, Tribes, 

and utilities at the forefront of these issues. Our infrastructure is undergoing rapid 

changes on both the electrical and energy producing side but there is one thing uniting them both. These changes mean jobs. 

On the first panel, we will hear from witnesses who will present a wide-ranging 

review of the technological developments in the electricity system. The U.S. electrical grid is one the engineering marvels of modern history. But it is aging and 

under stress. The vast network that arose to deliver seamless uninterruptable 

power into our homes, schools and hospitals in a centralized and standardized fashion is being tested and challenged by the intersection of digital technology and innovation. As technology continues to change the way we go about our daily lives, we 

also have to rethink how we generate, deliver and consume electricity. This could 

provide opportunities for consumers, both large and small to save money and be 

more competitive. 

However, these opportunities do not come without their own set of challenges. We 

must strike a delicate balance of maintaining the reliability and security of the grid 

and ensuring ample power generation, regardless of the fuel source. We must ensure 

8 

that the grid works in ways that optimize and build upon integrating new technologies with existing grid infrastructure, and siting new infrastructure when needed. I look forward to hearing the testimony of some of the leading entrepreneurs 

and research minds in this space to help create the electricity system of the future. 

I especially welcome our witnesses from the labor and contractor community, who 

stand to benefit with thousands of new jobs putting people to work doing what they 

do best. 

On the second panel, we will hear from all sides that are affected by the country’s 

record-setting liquid fuels production growth. This growth has brought about tremendous opportunities to make our Nation more energy independent all while creating thousands of jobs. At the same time, concerned citizens have come forward 

with their worries about the potential environmental impacts from new projects. 

The Dakota Access Pipeline is currently at the forefront of those headlines, and we 

welcome before the committee our witnesses from both the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe and the Dakota Access Project developer, Energy Transfer Partners. We know 

this issue means a great deal to both parties involved, and we are here to listen. 

The committee welcomes all sides of the debate and looks forward to your testimony. 

But the Dakota Access Pipeline isn’t the only project that is currently being challenged across the country. The impacts and delays brought on by increasing 

amounts of uncertainty do nothing to open up a productive conversation about the 

true risks and benefits of these types of projects. We want to learn from the ongoing 

challenges presented to us today in order to bring more accountability, transparency, and predictability to the environmental permitting process. The sooner 

project developers and communities can talk about the risks and benefits within the 

community, the better. It’s only by talking to each other that we will be able to 

move beyond rhetoric and do what’s right for our communities. 

As the committee implements its own energy policy agenda, the testimony we 

take today will inform how we approach the future and how we best use innovation 

and technology to protect American consumers. We can be good stewards of our environment while also pursuing policies to grow our economy; they are not mutually 

exclusive goals. We stand ready to listen and are excited to get to work helping create new jobs to reinvigorating our energy and electricity delivery systems, ultimately bringing consumers affordable American energy that is safe, secure, and efficient. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I yield the balance of my time to the vice chair 

of the committee, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are looking forward 

to today’s hearing. 

Whatever your energy needs are, America has it. I had the Ambassador for India in my office yesterday, and he wanted to talk 

about American energy going to India. If we have the energy, we 

have to be able to transport it. And in order to transport it, we 

have to be able to build transmission lines, pipelines, railroads, 

highways. That is what this hearing is about, is how do we build 

our infrastructure to transport our energy in a way that is economically sound and environmentally safe. And I am sure at the 

end of this hearing, we will have a better understanding of how to 

do that. 

With that, I appreciate the hearing and yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman. 

9 

Democrats strongly support modernizing our energy infrastructure, much of which is either outdated, on the verge of disrepair, 

or inadequate to today’s needs. In the last Congress, we agreed 

with the Republicans on this committee on the need to provide 

funding to bring our electricity grids into the 21st century and to 

facilitate the repair of old leaky gas pipelines that waste resources 

and pose significant safety and environmental threats. In fact, we 

had an agreement with the GOP committee leadership to provide 

a total of $3 billion for a Grid Modernization Grant Program and 

a Pipeline Repair Program modeled off the recommendations of the 

first installment of the Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review. 

Unfortunately, the full House Republican leadership, probably in 

response to the far right wing of the Republican caucus, opposed 

that plan and that led to the collapse of our bipartisan efforts here 

in this committee. Nevertheless, I am willing to try again. Infrastructure modernization is too important to our economy, to the 

public, and to workers to become a partisan issue. And if we do it 

right, we can enhance the environmental performance of the energy 

sector and protect vital natural resources. We need new and revitalized infrastructure to deliver energy, industrial feedstocks, and 

information safely, reliably, and efficiently. And it is going to take 

a substantial investment to realize this goal. This can’t just become 

the package of deregulatory measures, tax giveaways to corporations, and fake investments through private-public partnerships. 

We need new hardware, new software, and new thinking, work 

that can and should be done in America by American workers for 

the benefit of all the American people. Our Nation is filled with 

great minds and great technologies that can modernize our energy 

infrastructure to meet 21st century needs. We can make our infrastructure smarter, more flexible, and more resilient and we can significantly improve its safety and environmental performance. 

Now, most of us can agree that our country’s energy infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Yet, the most important question today 

is not whether we invest in our infrastructure but what types of 

infrastructure we prioritize. And I still believe that we should be 

focusing on Federal funding to repair our aging gas pipeline distribution system and looking at ways to upgrade our electricity 

transmission and distribution networks to enhance reliability and 

efficiency, and to ensure sufficient power generation. 

Now, I am a big supporter of expanding renewable energy generation here in the United States but I understand that a massive 

transmission to cleaner energy sources won’t take place overnight. 

As long as we continue to use fossil fuels, pipelines can be the 

safest, most environmentally benign and economically efficient 

ways to move these fuels. But pipelines are only a benefit if they 

are constructed, maintained and overseen properly and they must 

be sited correctly with due respect for the rights of Tribes, local 

Governments, and individual property owners, as well as the environment. They must be constructed to high standards that ensure 

safety and protection of the communities and resources along their 

pathways and Federal permitting agencies have a critical responsibility to ensure that these pipelines don’t jeopardize the land, 

water, habitat and cultural resources that surround them. 

10 

So many of the problems we see with big pipeline projects like 

Dakota Access revolve not around the project itself, but the process 

for routing and constructing the line. We won’t solve these problems with streamlining. Instead, it will take discussion, understanding, respect, and flexibility and that takes time but it is time 

worth spending. 

With regard to the siting of natural gas pipelines, we need to not 

only modernize our infrastructure but also the law that Governs its 

construction. The Natural Gas Act allows for the taking of private 

land in the name of the public convenience and necessity. That 

power was an important one when we were building pipelines to 

bring critical fuel to power plants and heat to homes. But now it 

is time to examine whether that power should be available merely 

to bring higher profit margins to some operators. 

So, Mr. Chairman, these are important issues. This is a critical 

time to examine and plan for our future needs. Our past investments served us well for over a century. Now, however, we face 

new conditions and new challenges, including climate change. To 

retain our economic strength and robust job base, we need to get 

this right. Simply reinforcing old patterns of energy production, 

distribution, and use won’t take us where we need to go. 

And I want to work together to build the infrastructure that will 

deliver broad-based public benefits will into the future I hope we 

will not squander this opportunity to move forward. The time is 

now. The need is great and we have the resources to get this done. 

We only need the will to do it. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Mr. Chairman, Democrats strongly support modernizing our energy infrastructure, much of which is either outdated, on the verge of disrepair, or inadequate to 

today’s needs. 

In the last Congress, we agreed on the need to provide funding to bring our electricity grids into the 21st Century and to facilitate the repair of old, leaky gas pipelines that waste resources and pose significant safety and environmental threats. In 

fact, we had an agreement to provide a total of $3 billion for a grid modernization 

grant program and a pipeline repair program modeled off the recommendations of 

the first installment of the Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review. 

Unfortunately, the House Republican Leadership, probably in response to the far 

right wing of the Republican caucus, opposed the plan. That led to the collapse of 

our bipartisan efforts. 

Nevertheless, I am willing to try again. Infrastructure modernization is too important to our economy, to the public and to workers to become a partisan issue. And, 

if we do it right we can enhance the environmental performance of the energy sector 

and protect vital natural resources. 

We need new and revitalized infrastructure to deliver energy, industrial feedstocks, and information safely, reliably, and efficiently. And it’s going to take a substantial investment to realize this goal. This can’t just become a package of deregulatory measures, tax giveaways to corporations and fake investments through ‘‘private-public partnerships.’’ We need new hardware, new software and new thinking 

-work that can and should be done in America by American workers for the benefit 

of all the American people. Our Nation is filled with great minds and great technologies that can modernize our energy infrastructure to meet 21st Century needs. 

We can make our infrastructure smarter, more flexible, and more resilient. And, we 

can significantly improve its safety and environmental performance. 

Most of us can agree that our country’s energy infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Yet, the most important question today is not whether we invest in our infrastructure, but what types of infrastructure we prioritize. I firmly believe that we 

11 

should be focusing on setting aside Federal funding to repair our aging gas pipeline 

distribution system and looking at ways to upgrade our electricity transmission and 

distribution networks to enhance reliability and efficiency and to ensure sufficient 

power generation, particularly from renewable energy sources. 

I am a big supporter of expanding renewable energy generation here in the U.S., 

but I understand that a massive transition to cleaner energy sources won’t take 

place overnight. As long as we continue to use fossil fuels, pipelines can be the 

safest, most environmentally benign and economically efficient way to move these 

fuels. But pipelines are only a benefit if they are constructed, maintained and overseen properly. And they must be sited correctly, with due respect for the rights of 

Tribes, local Governments and individual property owners, as well as the environment. They must be constructed to high standards that ensure safety and protection 

of the communities and resources along their pathways. Federal permitting agencies 

have a critical responsibility to ensure that these pipelines don’t jeopardize the land, 

water, habitat and cultural resources that surround them. So many of the problems 

we see with big pipeline projects like Dakota Access revolve not around the project 

itself, but the process for routing and constructing the line. We won’t solve these 

problems with ‘‘streamlining.’’ Instead, it will take discussion, understanding, respect and flexibility. That takes time, but it is time worth spending. 

With regard to the siting of natural gas pipelines, we need to not only modernize 

our infrastructure, but also the law that Governs its construction. The Natural Gas 

Act allows for the taking of private land in the name of public convenience and necessity. That power was an important one when we were building pipelines to bring 

critical fuel to power plants and heat to homes. But now it is time to examine 

whether that power should be available merely to bring higher profit margins to 

some operators. 

These are important issues and this is a critical time to examine and plan for our 

future needs. Our past investments served us well for over a century. Now, however, 

we face new conditions and new challenges including climate change. To retain our 

economic strength and robust job base, we need to get this right. Simply reinforcing 

old patterns of energy production, distribution and use won’t take us where we need 

to go. 

We want to work together to build the infrastructure that will deliver broadbased, public benefits well into the future. I hope we will not squander this opportunity to move forward. The time is now, the need is great, and we have the resources to get this done. We only need the will to do it. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. The time for opening 

statements is concluded. 

We are very pleased to have our first panel with us this morning. 

We are joined by Mr. Michael Howard, President and CEO of Electric Power Research Institute; Mr. Ganesh Bell, Chief Digital Officer and General Manager for Software and Analytics for G.E.; Lonnie Stephenson, International President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and Steve Hauser, CEO of GridWise 

Alliance. 

I appreciate very much you submitting your testimony well in 

advance. I was able to read it last night. Your statement is made 

part of the record, and we will give you 5 minutes to summarize 

your comments and move on from there to questions. 

Dr. Howard, you are recognized. Thank you and welcome. 

12 

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL W. HOWARD, PH.D., PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE; GANESH BELL, CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER, GE POWER; LONNIE R. STEPHENSON, PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; AND STEVEN G. HAUSER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

GRIDWISE ALLIANCE 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. HOWARD 

Dr. HOWARD. Thank you. Good morning and thank you very 

much, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of 

the subcommittee. 

I am Mike Howard, President and CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute. This is our 45th year as an independent nonprofit 

company whose mission is to advance safe, reliable, affordable, and 

clean energy for society through global collaboration, thought leadership, and science and technology innovation. 

Our annual research funding is over $400 million a year, principally from the electric utility companies in more than 30 different 

countries. Our research focuses on the generation of electricity, the 

delivery of electricity, and the use of electricity, including energy 

efficiency. 

Over the past couple of years, we have examined the forces that 

are changing the world’s energy systems. We have gained insights 

through discussions with our advisors, leaders in the industry, regulators, academicians, science and environmental organizations financing Government. We introduced our initial finding earlier this 

week at NARUC conference in a report titled, ‘‘The Integrated Energy Network: Connecting Customers with Reliable, Affordable, 

and Cleaner Energy.’’ This report is provided to you as my written 

testimony and serves as the basis for my comments. 

The Integrated Energy Network envisions a future in which customers have flexibility to use, reduce, and manage energy as they 

choose, while improving access to reliable, safe, affordable, and 

cleaner energy. I want to share with you five insights from the 

work and implications for infrastructure investment. 

First, electric, gas, transport, and water systems are increasingly 

interdependent, but their planning, operations, and regulation are 

largely separate. Closer integration could improve liability, gain efficiency, and maximize value of energy customers, as well provide 

greater independence and security. We emphasize that infrastructure investments will be more effective if broad energy and natural 

resource implications are considered, rather than focusing narrowly 

in a single energy sector. 

Second, advances in information and communication technology, 

sensors, data analytics modeling are key enablers for The Integrated Energy Network. These digital innovations enable greater 

customer engagement with their energy choices and control, while 

maintaining a focus on critical issues such as affordability, reliability, security, and data privacy. 

Third, an essential near-term step is the full implementation of 

what we call The Integrated Grid, an integrated electrical system 

which fully realizes the value of central and distributed energy reVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
13 

sources. The Integrated Grid is the backbone of The Integrated Energy Network. 

Much progress has been made, but we need to redouble efforts 

to create technical and communication standards, deploy modern 

electric grid technologies, and providing supporting infrastructure 

and oversight to accelerate the adoption of emerging electrification 

technologies. These advanced electrification technologies, to name 

just a few, include electric vehicles, advanced heat pumps, and 

water heaters. These more efficient electrification technologies have 

the potential, the opportunity to improve productivity and efficiency while reducing emissions by using electricity where it is 

more efficient compared to other energy options. 

Fourth, investment in the electric grid is needed to maintain reliability. The emergence of shale gas and rapid deployment of largescale solar and wind have fundamentally changed the electric generating fleet, stressing an aging grid infrastructure. Rapid deployment of solar and wind generation increases significantly the value 

of expanding regional and long distance electric grid systems to enable more effective utilization as these have every important generation assets. 

And finally, acknowledging advancements are essential to controlling costs and creating new possibilities in delivering and generating electricity, including next generation nuclear plants, advanced thermal fossil plants with carbon capture in storage. The 

generation fleet will need to be more operationally flexible to support a much greater end-to-end dynamic electrical system that puts 

the customer first. 

More detail on the required actions and challenges to provide are 

provided in my written testimony. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Howard follows:] 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bell, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GANESH BELL 

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, 

and members of the committee. 

I am Ganesh Bell, Chief Digital Officer for GE Power. I have 

spent my entire career in software, and today I work at the intersection of the industrial world, especially energy and software. I 

am one of 28,000 employees in a newly formed business unit in GE 

called GE Digital that is helping our 125-year-old company. Our 

customers become digital business, and the industries that we 

serve, especially energy, become a digital industry. 

This is a time of incredible innovation in business. Every industry, every aspect of our society is being reimagined through software. Low-cost sensors, ubiquitous connectivity, cloud computing, 

data science are presenting incredible opportunities to innovate a 

new industrial internet. The possibilities for the electricity industry 

is especially exciting. The 100-year-old model of electricity grid that 

our founder Edison helped proliferate is being tested, pushed, and 

challenged every day, as Dr. Howard testified in his fantastic Integrated Energy Network paper. 

Consumers are also becoming producers of electricity. The industry is in transformation. The future of the electricity infrastructure 

is not just the flow of electrons, but electrons and data in multiple 

directions across our electricity highway. While these are some of 

the challenges, these are also big business model opportunities for 

every power producer and every utility. There are already one billion devices connected across electricity today. There will be seven 

billion devices by 2020. Power plants, wind farms, grids, substations, energy management systems already produce terabytes 

and petabytes of data a day. Less than two percent of that data actually is analyzed. The unused or underutilized dark data pulls 

massive value and potential for the entire industry. 

Last year, we would say 2016 we believe was a tipping point of 

this digital transformation of the electricity industry. We help our 

customers and the power they release get more out of their existing 

assets and optimize their operations using digital technologies. Our 

customers can now monitor and diagnose every single asset across 

generations. It doesn’t matter if it is gas, or nuclear, or renewables. 

They can monitor every asset across transmission distribution, 

even consumption of energy. So they can now forecast the yield 

from renewable energy, integrate them better into the grid. They 

can ramp up or ramp down fossil power plants, based on supply 

and demand. They can improve fuel efficiency, reduce grid losses, 

eliminate unplanned downtime, improve accuracy of the predictive 

maintenance, and even improve the safety of the workers across 

the entire system using digital technologies. 

And these ceilings are really, really meaningful. Leaders like 

Exelon, NRG, PSEG, and NYPA, New York Power Authority, are 

well on their way in their digital journey, and these savings add 

up to massive value for the industry. The World Economic Forum 

estimates that in the next 10 years, just by deploying digital technology, there is $1.3 trillion of value to be created. And the societal 

36 

benefits are even higher, more than $2 trillion over the next 10 

years and especially three million new jobs at the intersection of 

software and electricity. 

And there are other societal benefits as well, reduced emissions 

and also improving the reliability and affordability of electricity 

and access to every citizen on the planet. 

Lastly, digital will help us capture the skills of an aging workforce. More than 25 percent of the electricity workers are going to 

retire in the next 5 years. We can capture their expertise and 

knowledge for the next generation in software and also encourage 

a new generation of digitally savvy workforce to join the industry 

to solve some of the biggest problems that we have ahead. 

This is just the beginning. Just like Amazon, Apple, eBay, and 

Uber’s software platforms change their industries, electricity and 

power producers now have the opportunity to transform all of generation, all of transmission, all of consumption into a new connected network that we call The Electricity Value Network, Dr. 

Howard calls The Integrated Energy Network, where it is really 

about the network and not a linear model anymore. 

The grid was the foundation of the 20th century economy. The 

internet is the foundation of our digital economy. This Electricity 

Network will be the foundational infrastructure for the democratization of modern cities, intelligent transportation, and healthier 

and connected communities. America has an opportunity to lead. 

The country that invented the grid and the internet, two of the biggest innovations and important networks which are now coming together, America has an opportunity to lead this future. We need to 

remove the obstacles. We need to modernize our existing infrastructure. We need to modernize operation technologies all the way 

from sensor to cloud, cybersecurity. We also need to prepare a 

whole new generation of digital workforce that are going to come 

in and transform this entire industry. 

I thank you for holding this important hearing and welcome your 

comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:] 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stephenson, welcome back. Nice to see you. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE R. STEPHENSON 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Chairman Upton, Ranking Chairman Rush, 

and the members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today. 

Often when people think of infrastructure, they think of roads, 

bridges, or airports, but perhaps even more important is our electrical infrastructure. The energy industry has changed in so many 

ways, but too much of our existing infrastructure is still stuck in 

the 20th century. The configuration of our current grid, which 

largely functions on a localized, Statewide basis just isn’t appropriate to meet our current energy needs. We need a truly national 

grid and new transmission lines that can safely and reliably transfer power, including renewables like wind and solar, from energyrich regions to those parts of the country where it is most needed. 

And that means we need new transmission projects that will cross 

multiple jurisdictions and State lines. Projects like the Plains and 

Eastern Clean Line. This is a $2.3 billion line that would deliver 

low-cost energy throughout the southeast. This is not only a huge 

boost for energy consumers, who can count on a cheaper and more 

reliable power supply, but for working families throughout the region. This project alone is estimated to create and support more 

than 2,500 construction and manufacturing jobs, and this only is 

one of the many planned transmission projects across the country 

that could mean hundreds of thousands of new jobs. 

But, despite Clean Line’s importance and clear economic benefit, 

it has bumped up against regulatory snags that continue to hold 

up the final approval. Just like the interstate highway system, the 

modern transmission lines of the 21st century can’t stop at the 

State line. But it only takes only local commission or regulatory 

board to delay a project like Clean Line indefinitely. With all respect to all local authorities, we need a new approach to siting and 

permitting that trims the unnecessary red tape, streamlines the 

rules created by numerous regulatory authorities, and lets us start 

breaking ground on these projects sooner rather than later. 

We in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are 

the best trained, most professional workforce in the electrical industry. Electrical infrastructure is our business. It is our outside 

construction members who build the high voltage lines and our 

utility members who maintain them. It was our members who built 

the first electrical grid and have kept it running safely and reliably 

for more than 100 years. And under our Code of Excellence Program, we are fully committed to working with our employers to 

provide on-the-job excellence every day. Our members are ready to 

get to work modernizing and expanding our grid and our apprenticeship and training programs, which are second to none, will 

guarantee a steady stream of skilled electrical workers necessary 

for the projects that are so important to this Nation’s future. 

We ask for your leadership on making this a reality and remain 

a ready partner with both our employers and our elected officials 

from both sides of the aisle to get this job done. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you here today. 

45 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] 

46 

47 

48 

49 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Hauser. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN G. HAUSER 

Mr. HAUSER. Good morning, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, full committee Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, 

and distinguished members of this subcommittee. I am Steve 

Hauser, CEO of the GridWise Alliance. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing on such an important topic and 

with such distinguished colleagues on this panel. 

In 2001, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

asked me to testify before them on the opportunity to use emerging 

information and communications technologies to improve the efficiency and operation of the electricity grid. Then, 2 years later, 

during one of the most significant blackouts in U.S. history, I 

founded the GridWise Alliance to educate public policymakers and 

advance the modernization of the electricity sector. At the same 

time, the newly formed Office of Electricity in the U.S. Department 

of Energy launched an R&D program to focus experts around the 

country on these same issues. And I might add that EPRI has 

worked in this area for just as long. 

GridWise Alliance members include both public and private utilities from many of your States, technology companies such as GE, 

transmission builders and operators from around the country, national labs, academic institutions and others. 

From the very beginning, our goal was to represent the broad interests of all stakeholders who have a role in building and operating the electricity grid, and we have advocated for policies that 

are clearly in the Nation’s interest, rather than those of individual 

companies. 

We applaud the leadership that this subcommittee and full committee have demonstrated over the past decade and more with the 

‘‘Smart Grid’’ Title XIII of the 2007 Energy 

Independence and Security Act being a major policy change that 

has served to motivate many significant changes throughout the industry in the years since. 

Today’s hearing continues to demonstrate your desire to place a 

high priority on these issues and explore new policies that will continue to lead our Nation toward an effective, safe, and reliable electricity grid for the next several decades. 

The electric system is probably the most critical infrastructure 

and has been a major driver of our economic success for over a century. From the very beginning, Congress has recognized the need 

for effective national policies to drive the expansion and sophistication of the grid. Our digital economy, our national security, and all 

aspects of this sector and all other critical infrastructure sectors, 

and our daily lives depend on a reliable, safe, affordable, resilient, 

and secure electricity systems. 

For many decades, we promised our citizens access to electricity 

anywhere, anytime and, I might say, as much electricity as they 

want to use. We have realized the need to change this paradigm, 

being more efficient and smarter about the ways in we use electricity, resulting in a much more complex electric grid, actively 

50 

managing loads, installing generation closer to loads, and integrating new sources of power. 

Over the past several years, the electricity industry has experienced fundamental changes on a scale not witnessed since the creation of the electricity system more than 100 years ago. Our Nation’s grid must continue to be modernized and evolve to respond 

to these changes. The future grid needs, and will need, to manage 

not only for daily operations that our digital economy requires, but 

also for increasing security, resiliency, reliability, consumer choice, 

affordability, flexibility, and more. 

Fortunately, new technologies and capabilities have come along 

to help us address these changes. The challenge we face is that our 

infrastructure has not kept pace with these rapid changing needs 

and demands and technology opportunities. In addition, the business models and policies also need to be revamped to ensure the 

grid and grid operators remain viable. 

One key point I want to leave with you today is that, because the 

electric system is critical infrastructure, and because this infrastructure is in desperate need of being modernized, GridWise believes that any infrastructure package that you can consider must 

include the electricity system and, as part of this, must address 

grid modernization or ‘‘Smart Grid.’’ 

Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership with this 

regard. Grid modernization is an area that has garnered bipartisan 

support in the past and should continue to do so. Modernizing the 

grid will help create highly skilled jobs and stimulate economic 

growth. It also will help reduce costs, and increase reliability, resilience, and security in the near and long term. 

Nearly every State and most utilities are now considering the 

best way to modernize their electricity infrastructure. With some 

States and utilities leading the way, we recognize that each has its 

own priorities and constraints that result in unique policy approaches that fit its specific situation. What works in California 

and New York does not necessarily work well in Oregon and Michigan. 

Regardless of the specifics, however, the technologies and capabilities apply almost universally. 

And I respectfully refer you to the rest of my written testimony, 

which includes details and specific examples of changes that are 

happening across the industry, and we look forward, representing 

my companies and the broader stakeholders, to working with you 

to make these changes happen. I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hauser follows:] 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thank you all. 

We will now recognize ourselves up here for 5 minutes each for 

questions. 

Dr. Howard, you mentioned that 25 percent of the workforce is 

going to be needed to be replaced within the next 5 years. Mr. Stephenson, I have seen your wonderful folks. I have seen the outcome 

of your apprenticeships. Are you going to be ready for that challenge? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, not only do we, within our construction 

branch, have about around 300 training centers across the United 

States alone, where we train our inside and outside construction 

branches, but also we work very closely with our utilities themselves, and we have started the National Utility Industry Training 

Fund, where we have got four locations, recognizing the number of 

our members that are going to be retiring out of the utility branch 

alone, that we need to have an avenue to help utilities bring in 

more people, hire more people and get them trained as well. So, we 

have been working with our employers very closely in that regard. 

Mr. UPTON. So, Dr. Howard, in your report, you indicated that 

smart meters in the U.S. among residential sectors is pretty close 

to 50 percent in the U.S. I think they are a little bit better in Europe is what you noted. 

What is the trend line that we are on? What are some of the energy savings that we are able to see because of the advent or the 

roll out of smart meters in a good number of communities across 

the country? 

Dr. HOWARD. So the trend line that we are on is full deployment 

of smart meters. They are a very, very important tool to not 

only—— 

Mr. UPTON. They are all digital, right? 

Dr. HOWARD. Absolutely, that is right. And it is important because, from a customer’s perspective, they can integrate and understand their use of electricity and other forms of energy as well, but 

from the utility’s perspective, it gives them a much clearer picture 

of where issues are—for example, if there is an outage, and they 

can then restore it much faster because they have near perfect information and visualization of the electrical system. 

So, it is an extremely important technology and one that we have 

been doing work with for a long time and it is going to be full deployment here very soon. 

Mr. UPTON. And as we see more and more homes going with 

solar displays on the roof or even wind turbines, are they able to 

measure the energy that is put back into the system as well? 

Dr. HOWARD. Absolutely. It is a two-way flow system now that 

is much more dynamic and the smart meters are able to look at 

it both ways. You have got to have that, absolutely. 

Mr. UPTON. So, Mr. Bell, I want to hear a little bit. You asked 

that we do all we can to remove obstacles to, in essence, get out 

of the way. Particularly on the digital side, questions that I have, 

what have you done—what can we do more to prevent a 

cyberattack? I mean that is the fear that we all have, something 

that was in Ted Koppel’s book, ‘‘Lights Out,’’ which I am sure that 

you have all looked at. 

62 

What are additional things that we can do to help the industry 

help folks like you to make sure that that is a never-ever occurrence? 

Mr. BELL. Great question. From a cybersecurity it is important 

to understand that while across every business people take information or IP security very, very importantly. They should also take 

it through measures, operational technology. So in industries and 

especially in electricity, we need to think about everything from 

sensors to cloud. That means we need to think about modernizing 

age-old controlled systems. We need to think about security firewalls for all. 

There is a misconception that connected systems are actually 

vulnerable. It is actually quite the opposite. All of our phones today 

are way more secure than any of our PCs are, because a phone was 

designed for a connected era. We believe a connected asset is a 

safer asset. So, we have to make sure that power producers, utilities start connecting every single asset, make sure that they are 

monitored. That means when it is connected, they have the latest 

and the greatest updates of patches running. So, we have to make 

sure that there are incentives for power at least to modernize all 

their software systems. And also, we need security standards that 

industries can come together, and not just around information technology, but also around physical technology. 

Mr. UPTON. So, as you mentioned in your testimony that you 

worked with a number of different power utilities around the country, do you have a special chapter on cyber threats and different 

firewalls that they need to continue to update and install? 

Mr. BELL. Absolutely. Yes, so we offer a cyber assessment service 

for all of our customers. We also make industrial-specific cybersecurity fire walls. 

And we are also working with partners because cyber is not just 

a single-vendor problem. It is an industry problem. We have the Industrial Internet Consortium. We are working with lots of partners. We are furthering technologies and standards across the industry, especially in the context of adopting Internet of Things or 

industrial internet. 

Mr. UPTON. Are there any specifics that we can do legislatively 

to help you on your job to make sure that it is as foolproof as it 

can be? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, along with working with institutions like EPRI, 

driving Industrial Internet Consortium Standards and the adoption 

of IoT technology. 

So, specifically around Internet of Things or industrial internet 

in the context of energy, providing standards would be very helpful. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is in relation to Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell, my office received a letter from the National Urban League which, in part, 

noted the importance of job training and workforce development 

programs as an essential component of any comprehensive infrastructure proposal. Specifically, the letter discussed the necessity of 

including technical training, career apprenticeships, internships, 

63 

and job placement opportunities for African Americans and other 

minority communities as a way to ensure that all Americans are 

able to fully benefit in the tremendous opportunities that abound 

before us. 

As many of you are aware, myself and Representative Hudson 

co-sponsored a bill that would make training for women, minorities, veterans, and displaced energy workers a key priority. 

Mr. Bell, in your written statement, you talk about significant 

job creation in areas such as data science, energy storage integration, smart asset planning, and asset performance management. 

And you note that as many as three million jobs could be created 

worldwide. You also cite significant challenges that industry faces 

and will continue to face due to the current aging workforce and 

the insufficient numbers of skilled workers ready to step in to replace these retiring workers. 

Would you discuss some of these innovative partnerships that 

your company, GE, has initiated and how some of these programs 

may provide a way forward for industry and for those communities 

that desperately need jobs and opportunities? 

Mr. BELL. Fantastic question, Ranking Member Rush. 

When you think about jobs, if you think about even myself, I said 

all my career I worked in software. Only in the last 3 years I am 

working at the intersection of energy and software. 

So first thing in GE, we are making everyone aware that the industrial world—the world of electricity, health care, transportation—we need software developers and technology people. That is 

something we were driving at a company level, at an industry 

level. We are partnering with our customers. 

For example, where in the past we only had a thermal engineer 

around power plants, now, in the future, we think that thermal engineers are also data scientists. So, we have to train a whole new 

generation. 

We are also doing things to balance the equation for women. We 

have programs around women in leadership, women in science, 

technology, and math, and we are driving programs to make sure 

that across the company we are actually committed to getting 

20,000 more women by 2020 in the field of engineering, science and 

technology in GE, and it is a worldwide commitment for us. 

But the interesting thing about these jobs that we are talking 

about, which is at the intersection of software and energy, is not 

just jobs in Silicon Valley or in New York, because software means 

you can actually do it anywhere. And we also need them to be in 

the local communities, whether it is in Minneapolis, or Eugene, Oregon, or Batesville, Indiana. You need electricity systems, consumptions systems in grid. So we believe the future of this intersection of jobs can be put anywhere across the country. And in fact, 

America can—just like Silicon Valley leads the digital economy, 

America can lead this new infrastructure of electricity and digital 

from here in America across the globe. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Stephenson, many of us understand the value of 

nuclear power and nuclear power plants are sourcing a reliable, 

safe, carbon-free energy. There has been no action at the Federal 

level to fully value these plants. And in that absence, many States, 

including my home State of Illinois, are taking steps to preserve 

64 

these plants as part of their energy infrastructure. These actions 

have caused a lot of controversy and, in some cases, they are being 

challenged at the local level. 

We know that there are thousands of jobs at stake nationally. So, 

my question is what role do you think that the Congress can take 

to support these State-level policies, and should we be involved in 

any of them anyway? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Congressman Rush. 

As far as the nuclear, I was very engaged with what was going 

on in Illinois the end of last year when Exelon was looking at possibly closing some of their plants there in Illinois. In fact the two 

units, Quad Cities, that is where I am originally from. So I was 

very close to that and very passionate to that. 

But I could tell you the nuclear industry, the whole energy, when 

we talk about energy, and we are moving to the green economy. We 

are moving to more wind, more solar but we still have to have reliable baseload. And nuclear is a very reliable baseload energy that 

has really zero emissions. If our goal is to try to cut down on carbon emissions, nuclear is clean when it comes to carbon. 

So I think there is a big role to play for nuclear. I think one of 

the problems they have is because of the price right now, say, of 

natural gas and some of the other power supplies, that it is difficult for them to build and run reliably and economically because 

of the pressures economically that are put on them. And I think 

the action that was taken in Illinois—and I think there was also 

some action taken in New York, as well—to recognize and preserve 

that they are already providing a good, clean energy source is 

something that needs to be considered for the nuclear industry and 

make sure that we are keeping a good, solid baseload, a reliable 

baseload that provides clean power. 

Mr. RUSH. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields his time back. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Walden for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. I appreciate your testimony. It is 

most helpful to inform our decisionmaking going forward. 

Mr. Stephenson, I have toured Local 48 and the work they do 

there in Portland and throughout Oregon and been very impressed 

with the training that goes on, the education that goes on and the 

work. 

Mr. Bell, in your testimony, you cited some statistics about the 

efficiency of our generation fleet. And according to NERC, the U.S. 

fleet operates at less than 50 percent of total potential capacity. 

Generating units are unavailable on average 15 percent of the time 

due to outages and maintenance, 6 percent of the time they are unable to meet demand at all. 

Is this purely a technological issues or are there regulatory barriers at the Federal level and State level preventing greater utilization and market efficiency in digitalization? 

Mr. BELL. Great question, Congressman. We believe it is an untapped potential today. Like I talked about, a single gas-fired 

power plant, for example, could generate up to two terabytes of 

data a day. That is more data than all of us collectively in this 

room could even put on Facebook or Twitter over a year. 

65 

So there is more data. It is actually unused data. And we have 

been able to drive efficiencies as much as reduce unplanned downtime by 17 percent, increase uptime, therefore, by 10 percent or, in 

the case of nuclear, predict outages with accuracy of 90 percent. 

And these are just the start, as the algorithms are getting 

trained on technology. For example, we already have algorithms 

that are trained on a 100,000,000 hours of operating data. So as 

they get trained on more operating data, we can get specific with 

recommendations not just about a particular class of a machine, 

but about a machine in that particular operating condition. So we 

can get more specific about eliminating that 15 percent, which is 

a very meaningful number that we can make a dent into. 

Mr. WALDEN. You know part of what we always have to keep in 

mind is both the efficiency but also the consumer. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so in my district we have thousands of 

megawatts of wind energy, enormous—not enormous, but we have 

a lot of solar energy, a lot of hydro power. We are a very renewable 

energy base. 

We also, obviously, have other generating source, gas and I think 

we get electricity from coal from outside of the region, but it comes 

in via the power lines. 

As we work on renewable energy, one of the concerns that has 

come my way is it is not 24/7 baseload. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so often, that means you have to have a standby baseload plant you have to build, and the consumers are ending 

up paying for both. How do we bridge that best? How do we get 

the best efficiency out of that? And what does this mean to consumers? Because price to consumers is an issue we need to be 

thinking about. 

Mr. BELL. Absolutely. So, just like the example you shared, in renewables, for example, we are already using software to improve 

the predictability of energy yield from renewable resources. And 

that is absolutely key so you can plan the other fuel sources to 

compensate for the fluctuations. 

And also, software is already helping baseload power plants be 

more flexible. We can ramp them up quickly and ramp them down 

quickly. 

So regardless of what the mix of energy is, to really optimize all 

of the sources of fuel, you need software because at the end of the 

day it is an optimization problem and our customers are starting 

to use them individually now, and some of them are actually building operation centers, where they monitor every asset, whether it 

is NYPA, for example, building an operations center that monitors 

everything from Niagara Falls to all sources of generation and grid. 

So now we can get to a state where we can truly integrate renewables even better because by New York reg standards, they have 

got to get 50 percent renewables by 2030. The only way that happens is instrumentation of every single node, every single asset, 

and optimizing algorithms through software. 

Mr. WALDEN. So, Mr. Stephenson, talk to me a bit about what 

your members have encountered in terms of jobs that are out there, 

66 

the permitting processes, delays, from your experience necessary/ 

unnecessary. What should we be focused on there? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well as I mentioned briefly in my remarks, because of some of the permitting—I will give you an example. Clean 

Line Energy has, I think, three or four projects where they are taking wind energy from out in the west, where there is a big demand 

or an opportunity for wind, and moving it east into the Chicago 

metro area and down into Indiana and down south through the 

Southeast. One of the problems they are having in getting that opportunity is getting all the proper—you know each State they go 

through they have got a whole new challenge of regulations they 

have got to have to get through those States. 

And so I have been working personally with Clean Line Energy 

probably for about 8 years, the first time I met with them when 

they were talking about what their projects were. 

So, some way to start getting that standardized for them to build 

and get their sitings for where they are going to put these towers. 

And in a lot of ways we have already got functioning towers all 

over the country. They have been there. So it is not like we necessarily have to always take a whole new path. I mean, they are 

able to kind of parallel some paths where there are already towers 

there and blended in with the communities. But that is the biggest 

obstacle. There are several projects that are waiting right now that 

if we could get through that process would be up and ready to go. 

And a lot of these projects, by the way, are privately funded. These 

are the companies that have the resources ready to go. They just 

need to get the proper permitting to start. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair would recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Building new energy infrastructure is important but protecting 

and strengthening our existing infrastructure is as important, if 

not more so. And I think we need to do more to ensure that we 

are hardening essential infrastructure and making the grid more 

resilient and that means not just transmission but providing more 

flexibility and resilience within the distribution networks. 

And I mentioned in my opening that I was very proud of the fact 

that at the beginning of the last session we did have agreement 

with the Republicans on the committee to have a $3 billion grant 

program for grid modernization and pipeline repairs. 

But I wanted to ask Mr. Stephenson, you spoke about the welldeveloped training program that IBEW runs for your members. 

And I wanted to ask has the program been expanding to train 

members to move into new areas, such as energy storage, nuclear 

technologies, and microgrids. And in your opinion, would a grid 

modernization grant program like I have discussed, providing 

grants to States actually help create jobs for your members? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, it would because, you know, we are constantly training in the new technologies. As soon as we see new activities come in, our training program is always on top of it, starting to get our folks trained and ready for the changes as they come. 

But yes, it absolutely would provide that. 

67 

Mr. PALLONE. OK and then you mentioned that many members 

work in the nuclear utilities also and coal utilities. And you said 

that with respect to nuclear, in particular, that these haven’t necessarily fared well in recent years. 

Would some or all of the workers in coal or nuclear, would they 

be able to move into other jobs associated with the grid modernization of the electricity sector? If we have that kind of a grant program, would that be helpful to them? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, it would help, but one of the issues we 

face is that when you are going from, let’s say, coal generation because coal has been changing rapidly over the years, where you 

might have 200 employees at a coal-generating plant and that is 

being replaced by a natural gas plant. You know you might go from 

200 employees probably down to 40, and then, of course, the renewables as far as wind and solar would even be less. After the construction, after they are built, there are less permanent jobs in 

maintaining them. 

So we will see, overall, probably a reduction in our utility branch 

because of some of those technological changes, but we also work 

very closely with our employers in the utility industry that, as they 

transition, our employees that are already there will have opportunities and have been offered opportunities to get training to allow 

them to stay employable in those new markets through those employers. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Hauser, you know my district was the hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy back in 2012. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. It took an incredible toll on the electricity grid. 

More than 8.5 million households and businesses had outages. In 

some places, including my own house, the power took a couple of 

weeks to restore. 

So as I said, a big part of our modernizing the electricity grid 

must include hardening our electricity infrastructure to protect the 

power lines, such as during a storm. Some of our utilities in New 

Jersey, such as PSE&G have made strides to protect the energy infrastructure but there is a lot more than can be done to prevent 

you know from a hurricane causing major power outages. 

So in your testimony, you discussed hardening and resilience as 

important aspects of modernizing the grid. Kind of the same question I was asking Mr. Stephenson, would a grid modernization 

grant program providing targeted grants to States to support this 

effort, would that be helpful? What do you think about it? 

Mr. HAUSER. Absolutely. I mean we talk a lot about the publicprivate partnerships that are needed to really build out this system 

to be more resilient. As I am sure you know, many of our utilities 

are private. There may be 70 or so utilities private, but there are 

almost 3,000 utilities across the country who are public utilities 

that absolutely need support to help do this. 

While it is important to consider the rate payer’s need to support 

this, I think the taxpayers need to also look at opportunities to 

support this. And in particular, a grand program would look at potentially some innovative ways, some things that GE has already 

68 

talked about, innovative ways to make it more cost-effective, certainly perform better. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Back in 2005, we passed the Energy Policy Act and it put in 

place a procedure in congested areas if the Department of Energy 

designated a particular region as a congested or high-need region, 

set up an expedited procedure to site electrical transmission lines. 

A Federal court in Virginia, on a two-to-one vote struck that provision of the Act down. So we certainly don’t have an efficient way 

to site interstate electrical transmission lines. And given the growing needs of our economy, we need to move electricity from where 

it is generated to where it is consumed. And it is also impossible 

to do in these States in the Midwest and the Northeast where the 

geography is constrained and the populations are fairly dense. 

I would like to ask Dr. Howard and Mr. Hauser if your groups 

have any ideas that we could legislate to try to solve that problem. 

Dr. HOWARD. So you bring up a very important point. And as we 

add additional variable generation resources onto the electrical system, we do want to move it where it is needed. And congestion is 

a problem because that is where you run into generation and load 

kind of meet each other at the congestion points. 

So we have done a lot of work on looking at advanced conductors, 

whether it is DC or AC, to look at how we can advance the science 

and technology to help eliminate this problem. We are focused on 

the science and technology, but what I can say is that the need for 

additional work around trying to eliminate or alleviate congestion 

is critically important because it is not going away. 

In terms of the regulation that is required or some potential policies, we don’t have a specific recommendation. Our focus is on the 

science and technology, but what I can say is that when you look 

to the future, this is going to get to be a bigger and bigger problem 

unless it is solved because as we have more variable generation, it 

is going to be a bigger problem. 

Some of the things that we are doing around sensors, and computation and analytics, and information and communication will 

help some, but it comes down to pipes and wires. We have got to 

have more wires to move this around. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Hauser? 

Mr. HAUSER. Building new transmission lines is certainly an important option that has to be considered going forward. There is a 

lot of work by companies that are looking at ways to use existing 

transmission line to upgrade them. That is kind of what Mike was 

talking about, make them more efficient, get more capacity through 

the existing systems. 

You may be aware there is a project in New York now called the 

Brooklyn/Queens Demand Management Program that is a significant project that is looking at alternatives to building transmission 

to allow congestion relief in areas we call load pockets, where they 

do need more capacity. 

69 

So I don’t think there is a magic silver bullet here to make this 

happen. I think we need to look at all options and certainly, in 

some instances, building new transmissions lines is the best option. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed with 

those answers, to be frank. I would have thought that great minds 

would have come up with some alternatives besides just suck it up 

and try to get more molecules and electrons through the existing 

system. If you are going to have a nation that grows and an economy that grows, we are going to need more transmission lines. 

There is a limit how much technology can do. 

And I hope we can continue to ponder that because if we are 

really going to do something in this area in this Congress, we are 

going, at least in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we need to come up 

with a way that respects the rights of the States and respects the 

rights of the communities but still makes it possible when there is 

an obvious need to build new transmission lines. We simply have 

to do that. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. It is really illuminating. 

I am going to follow-up on Mr. Barton’s last question. Mr. 

Hauser, you mentioned in your testimony that not only do we need 

new transmission, we need to focus on upgrading existing transmission facilities. Could you explain that, why we need to focus 

on—what is the benefit of focusing on rebuilding or upgrading? 

Mr. HAUSER. Well, as an example, and I think Mike alluded to 

this, there are new conductors that allow you to put a lot more 

electrons through existing lines and existing right-of-ways so you 

can upgrade conductors, as an example, very cost-effectively and 

get a lot more power through the existing lines. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So the technology is there to—— 

Mr. HAUSER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. Make it a cheaper way to go forward with our power needs. 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you believe the Smart Grid Matching Grants 

and Smart Grid Demonstration Project funding that was included 

in the American Recovery and Investment Act was a useful or good 

modernization in deploying new technologies? 

Mr. HAUSER. Oh, absolutely. I think almost two-to-one the utilities that were beneficiaries of those grants are thrilled with the results. And in many cases the utilities that are members of mine 

talk about how the benefits they have seen from those grants far 

outweigh the benefits they even expected to get from those projects. 

So yes, I would say that absolutely that is the case. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, excellent. You mentioned that the grid 

isn’t keeping up with new technology. How would we go about improving that situation? 

Mr. HAUSER. You know, it is always a challenge—as my colleagues have talked on the panel already, it is always a challenge 

to find ways to implement these new technologies that are somewhat revolutionary, if you will. And I think the grants that ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
70 

gressman Pallone talked about is certainly one way to show examples. 

I think one of the things we are looking at is how to share lessons learned across the industry. So because there are so many 

utilities, one utility in Texas that is doing pioneering work in a 

particular area or Chattanooga, Tennessee, which does a lot of very 

impressive work, we want to take what they are learning and 

share it across the industry so that it is easier for the utilities and 

the regulators to accept some of the new technologies that are having such a big impact on the industry. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Howard, cybersecurity and resiliency remain an essential piece of any component throughout an electricity 

or energy production system. Is there a uniform definition of what 

cybersecurity and cyberresiliency means? 

Dr. HOWARD. A uniform definition, I am not sure there is a uniform definition. I think there is a somewhat consistent awareness 

of the importance of it, but I am not sure there is a common definition. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would it be useful to have a common understanding of what that means? 

Dr. HOWARD. Certainly an increased awareness of what we can 

do and a discussion of some of the options that we could consider, 

all of that is very important. We are doing a lot of that at EPRI. 

So, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Different subject. How could real-time pricing 

rates affect grid modernization efforts? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, one is that it could help consumers, and the 

devices themselves, to have a better understanding of congestion, 

for example. We talked about that previously. So anytime that you 

can provide more awareness and understanding of the issues, 

whether it is the consumer or the devices where they can make 

smarter decisions on their own, those are important factors that 

consumers can include in their energy choice. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Bell, in about 30 seconds, what 

do you think the biggest obstacles to grid modernization are? 

Mr. BELL. The biggest obstacle is actual visibility, lack of visibility today. Because we think of the whole system as a uniform 

system and there is already enough data. We are not talking about 

new instrumentation. We are talking about making sure we use all 

the existing data to get better insights and better visibility so we 

can start writing a program or a roadmap of how to modernize 

step-by-step. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. 

Welcome, Dr. Howard, Mr. Bell, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. 

Hauser. As you all know, in my home State of Texas, we have a 

huge amount of wind power coming onto our grid. 

This question is for you, Mr. Hauser, and you, Dr. Howard. One 

year ago this month, nearly half the power in our grid came from 

wind turbines; 13.9 gigawatts of power from wind, double the caVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
71 

pacity of any other State. Most of that wind is pretty far from our 

population centers so we worry a lot about things like line loss. At 

the same time, our plants that are closer to our cities are being 

closed or replaced, which can mean things like congestion to the 

system as the generation shifts. 

Clearly, our grid is rapidly changing. In the Houston region, my 

alma mater Rice University at the Smalley-Curl Institute, it is advancing nanotechnology for a broad range of issues, mostly energy 

transmission. 

Also, at Mr. Green’s alma mater, the University of Houston, the 

Texas Center of Superconductivity Advancement is looking into 

power transmissions through superconductors. In fact, they are trying to rewire the whole main campus with superconductors. 

Those are just two examples of how the grid could evolve. My 

question is, again, for you, Mr. Hauser, first, and then Dr. Howard. 

What are some of the technologies you see coming in terms of innovation for electric transmission and how can they shape the grid? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, well, you have given a couple of great examples already from the great State of Texas. I might yield to Mr. 

Bell from GE because a lot of the work is being done to move to 

digital silicon-based transformers, switches at much higher speed, 

much higher power densities, two-way flow on the grid, controllers 

that allow two-way flow, sensors, and other devices that allow us 

to manage reactive power versus real power, which is also an issue 

that comes up with increasing amounts of wind and solar on the 

grid. 

Mr. Bell, do you want to add anything to that? 

Mr. BELL. I think Mr. Hauser covered a lot of—I think one of the 

simple ideas is while there is material science breakthroughs, new 

technologies, new electronics, we also believe that software closer 

to the edge needs to be changed and modernized. 

Many substations, power plants are all still running controlled 

software that is, like, decades old. So, we are looking at algorithms 

that run what we call Edge, meaning closer to the machine so they 

can make intelligent decisions locally, just like Dr. Howard talked 

about, so they are aware. 

When we talk about the network or the Electricity Value Network or the Integrated Energy Network, we mean that every node 

is aware of what is happening across the entire network, so they 

can make local decisions about how to optimize routing, how to 

take load, and how to react to demands outside of the network. 

So, those are some of the innovations that are happening, actually, Mr. Tonko, right where you are, in Niskayuna, where we have 

our Global Research Center, this is where we talk about high-tech 

meets deep technology, where it is not just software, but driving 

that innovation all the way down to the silicon and creating new 

kinds of value up and down a full integrated stack of technology. 

Mr. OLSON. Dr. Howard, you pulled the microphone, you are 

ready. Sir, you are up. 

Dr. HOWARD. So we have talked a lot about digital communication centers and so on, and that is pretty important, but I want to 

mention three. One is, and you talked about superconductors, but 

it needs to be higher temperature superconducting materials. So 

that is one. 

72 

Second, low-loss conductors. There is a lot of work that is going 

on that will significantly reduce the loss on transmission cables 

and they are called low-loss transmission. 

Three, power electronics. Our electronics, which will enable the 

digital grid is exactly what we need to move forward on, in terms 

of improving not only the congestion but the ability to increase the 

power on the existing right-of-ways and so on. It is akin to where 

we are headed, which is really a digital transformer. 

Mr. OLSON. 4 seconds left. I yield back the balance of my time 

and save my questions. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair would recognize Mr. Peters for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank the witnesses 

for some fascinating ideas. 

You have highlighted a lot of the innovation that is happening 

in the economy into the private sector. I would like to explore a little bit what you think the Federal role is here. And maybe, Dr. 

Howard, I would ask you are we talking about—if we decided we 

are not going to do power loss conductors down the hallway. That 

is something that is going to happen appropriately in the private 

sector. If we were going to come up with actions that we can take, 

direct investment, grants, standard-setting, regulatory relief 

through Federal preemption, what are the kinds of things that you 

think would be helpful for us to do to support the kind of grid that 

is in the national interest? 

Dr. HOWARD. Probably the most important is the continued focus 

on basic research because all of these things we have talked about, 

whether it is high-temperature semiconductors, or advanced cables, 

or power electronics, or sensors, and so on starts, many of them 

start in the national labs with looking at fundamental material 

science. And I think that is one of the most important things that 

we can do to advance. Once the material is designed and we uncover the basics of the atom and its ability to work together to advance some of these technologies, then private industry can take it 

from there and apply it and make this the best grid possible. But 

it takes the fundamental science and research to help us get there. 

Mr. PETERS. Do you have an opinion on the adequacy of the current levels of funding in that field? 

Dr. HOWARD. Low. 

Mr. PETERS. Low. Too low? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes. 

Mr. PETERS. So I get that. I think I would be supportive of that. 

How do you think, though, that we assure the outcomes? Obviously, the Nation has an interest in a grid that functions and that 

is resistant to attack, that is resilient, that is efficient, that conserves energy. How do you think we could, as a Federal Government, most productively assure that outcome through all the innovations that you are talking about today? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, one way is to encourage and support the application of these technologies. They don’t just wake up one morning and say let’s go and apply it. We have to start off with multiple 

demonstrations and learn from that to make it better. And the 

basic research it is conducting in the national labs, then you take 

that and move it into private industry and you support the need 

73 

for multiple demonstrations and multiple science to then learn 

from that so that you can apply it and make sure it does the job 

that we thought it will do when we started the research. So, support the application and demonstration. 

Mr. PETERS. So some information sharing as well as the research. 

Dr. HOWARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. PETERS. And do any of the other panelists want to talk about 

what the Federal role? Any thoughts you have, Mr. Hauser? 

Mr. HAUSER. I will add a couple of things. First of all, we should 

have mentioned storage in the context of technology, too. That is 

a real game changer for this industry going forward. But I think 

technical assistance, building better models, better analytic models, 

we are really moving from a data poor to a data rich environment. 

So a lot of our models from a regulatory standpoint, from an operations standpoint have been based on not having much data about 

what is happening out in the system. 

With the changes that are happening with AMI, with automated 

distribution systems, we are collecting so much data now and our 

models really haven’t kept abreast of that and building better analysis, better models, is certainly something that could be done at the 

Federal level or at least the support for that. 

And the last thing I would say is technical assistance to regulators and to local utilities. Again, there are more than 3,000 utilities across this country. It is a very complicated stakeholder environment. And providing the education and the training, and the 

technical assistance is going to be really important. 

Mr. PETERS. So one of your points is that not all utilities are 

huge and have all the resources that they need to do this. 

Mr. HAUSER. Absolutely. 

Mr. PETERS. So am I to understand, too, that there aren’t sufficient private incentives to take advantage of the kinds of technologies that Mr. Bell is talking about? Is that something that the 

Federal Government has to get involved in? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, I think so. I mean there is always this dance 

between State and Federal roles with regard to this and we need 

to be respectful of both. But certainly, providing better incentives 

for new technologies, again, the utility—and Mike can probably 

talk about this better than I can, but historically, utilities install 

technologies that last 30, 40, 50 years, and that is part of the issue 

that we have got, is that we have got technologies in the systems 

now that were installed in the 1970s or even the 1960s. And so 

coming up with ways to allow them to put technologies that may 

not have 30- or 40-year lifetimes, they may have 5- or 10-year lifetimes because technology is evolving so fast, is going to be really 

critical to this. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. Time has expired. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome. This is 

a great hearing and I read the testimony also and I have been listening to the question and answer and your 5-minute statements. 

74 

So I have gone off the rails a little bit here to ask some questions 

that I don’t think people have asked yet. But actually Scott Peters 

asked great questions, I think Joe Barton asked some questions of 

really what is the Federal role. Where can we be helpful? Where 

can we be harmful, right? And we can do both. 

And plus the electricity generation and transmission world has 

changed just through competitive markets versus regulated communities. We haven’t really started talking about that. Do you try 

to put the genie back into the bottle? Can you get incentivized? 

So let me kind of ramble here for a few minutes. The other thing, 

I mean, I see the laborers in the crowd. I know you are with IBEW 

and this focus on jobs. My, I called him, Uncle Bob, he climbed 

power poles. I grew up with his kids. My dad was a telephone lineman, climbed poles and he fed seven kids and mine was a stay-athome mom. So, that is the story of a lot of us in my era. So I have 

great appreciation for the work that is done. 

But we don’t talk, what we haven’t talked about are these jobs 

here. These jobs. The IBEW guys at a power plant, the United 

Mine Workers at the coal mine, the pipefitters, the boilermakers, 

and the change that we are dealing with now is because we have 

lost these. They are under attack for a lot of reasons. So there are 

some issues about what can Government do. Government can get 

off the back of the fossil fuel sector and allow us to—major generation. 

So in all of our debates, no one talked about major generation, 

baseload generation and the importance to the grid and the resiliency and the cost. So that is my first question, if you would go to 

Dr. Howard, across the first panel, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. HOWARD. Thanks. So, we have for years been looking at the 

generation mix and what that means to security of the country. All 

of the research that we have done points toward the need for a full 

portfolio generation options, which includes the need for all forms 

of thermal generation, including nuclear and coal. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And they are all at-risk. 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, we need them all. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are at-risk. No one who is observing these 

markets will say that major nuclear, major coal is not threatened 

and at-risk. 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, let me just—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me go quickly, because I have got another 

question. So, Mr. Bell. 

Mr. BELL. Sure, Mr. Shimkus, the role of baseload. The role of 

baseload, we actually, our biggest customers today use our software 

across baseload power plants. 

If you take Exelon, who is one of our biggest customers, they are 

implementing our software across all forms of generation because 

being gas, nuclear and it is all about improving efficiency, reliability—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, let me go to Mr. Stephenson. I get it. Exelon 

is a good friend of mine. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Stephenson. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, baseload is very important, as I mentioned earlier and especially all forms. I believe there is clean coal 

75 

technology that still needs to be looked at and considered about 

some of the jobs that you just pointed out. 

Being a former Illinoisan, I am very aware of what is going on 

in downstate Illinois and the number of jobs that are at-risk there. 

And so I think there are still opportunities. And we, maybe, as a 

Federal Government could help fund some of the that technology, 

some of that research, so that we can go into carbon capture questions and others. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the Federal Government really has put a lot 

of money into that type of research already. 

Mr. Hauser, baseload quickly. I have got one more question for 

you after. 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, well, sir, clearly Illinois is the leader in this 

space. Exelon is one of my members. 

You know I think what I would add to this is that the technologies we have been talking about that apply to the grid changes 

are also being applied to power plants. I mean power plants are becoming much more efficient. Sensors are being used to help us understand how to make them much more efficient, how to make the 

O and M much more effective and less costly. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I liked one of the testimonies that talked 

about the downtime of the grid saved a million households didn’t 

go out of power. 

But Mr. Hauser, you also made a statement and I want to end 

with this. Aren’t rate payers the same as taxpayers? 

Mr. HAUSER. I often joke that it comes out of either your right 

pocket or your left pocket. So, yes, the citizens—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I mean there is a private sector so we just have 

got to be careful about how we apportion the cost and assume that 

one is not the other when they are actually the same people. 

Mr. HAUSER. Sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank our witnesses 

for being here. 

I represent a very urban district in Houston with refineries, 

chemical plants. GE actually shut down one of our plants—not shut 

it down but because of the international market but we make turbines for whatever few you have. 

Our problem in Texas is not—because we build our own pipelines. We have our own grid. And so if we have wind power in Lubbock, Texas, they actually can get it to the Dallas-Fort Worth market, Houston market, San Antonio because it doesn’t cross State 

lines. And we have our own grid, the ERCOT, that we can work 

ourselves. 

But I know we have trouble with getting pipelines and getting 

electricity transmission permitted across State lines. But like I 

said, we don’t have that problem but I am real aware of it because 

I would like to sell more natural gas to Mexico from Texas and we 

need to get those permits quickly done so we can sell that. 

President Stephenson, welcome. I work with your Houston locals 

both. In fact, I was down at our nuclear power plant in south 

76 

Texas. It has been IBEW since it was built and the first time I had 

been back here. 

We have a small amount of nuclear in Texas. We wanted to go 

expand it but because of the market and because one of our partners with Fukushima, Tokyo Power went bankrupt and they were 

one of our partners and we couldn’t expand. And we have a lot of 

mix, whether it is wind power, nuclear power, of course natural 

gas, and in Texas, as my friend from Pennsylvania say you burn 

dirt, we burn lignite, which is probably one of the dirtiest we could 

do but we bring in a lot of coal from the Midwest for our coal-fired 

plants. 

But the mix is changing, simply because of the cheap prices of 

natural gas. And we are seeing it literally at home. 

But I want to talk about the workforce because I have a district 

that they work at those plants. And IBEW, you have partnerships 

with your local contractors, I assume, because you have a great apprenticeship program, but also with our community colleges. A couple of years ago, our previous Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, was 

at San Jacinto Community College in my area and Congressman 

Babin’s area and they were training for jobs that were available 

right then because they partnered with the large employers in the 

community and said show us what you need and we will let you 

write the curriculum because our goal is to get these students get 

those jobs and fill them. And we still had challenges on that in the 

energy industry but it is working. 

Does IBEW partner, have a goal partnering with your apprenticeship program with the community colleges? 

You might say yes, so that the record will take it up. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And does IBEW have expansion plans? I have been 

to your apprenticeship programs. They are actually in our district 

near Hobby Airport in Houston. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, we are consciously looking at the projected workforce needs and adjusting our apprenticeships, trying to 

take in more apprentices to provide for the additional need to the 

skilled labor so we can provide them for our employers so that they 

can continue to bid that work. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Bell, does GE partner with local community colleges and support workforce training? I don’t know in my area because although we had that turbine plant but we have GE oil and 

gas buildings all over Houston, Texas. 

So do you all partner with local community college for that workforce training? 

Mr. BELL. Absolutely we do. And we are also doing, for example, 

in New Orleans, we have an apprenticeship program where it is 

software engineering apprentice program that we are working in 

New Orleans. We partner with the universities in many different 

areas. 

And also talking about the workforce question you talked about, 

when we think about digital infrastructure and network, it is not 

just the assets. We think about how the workers are becoming 

more productive and their work environments are getting safer. So 

we think about every worker in a power plant becoming a digital 

worker so they have all the information they need, whether 

77 

through wearables or safety devices so they can help do their jobs 

better. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Hauser, do the relevant Federal agencies currently possess the required authority to expedite the Smart Grid 

siting and also the approval? And we are talking about interstate, 

not intrastate. 

Mr. HAUSER. So, there has clearly been a lot of discussion and 

debate around that issue. I think FERC is looking at that now in 

terms of what other authority might be needed to appropriately address that. 

So much of the Smart Grid work is being done at the local level, 

so it is really more State PUC focused and focus with the Governor 

and the State legislatures. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time expired. 

The Chair calls the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have you 

all here and I find your testimony fascinating as we recognize the 

problems with our grid and what we need to be doing for modernization. 

A special welcome, Mr. Stephenson. It is good to have the IBEW, 

my friends here, as well as my Lonnie in the back as well. 

But Mr. Hauser, I want to ask you some issues with regard to 

the grid. In my district, I have the National Energy Technology 

Lab, so it is funded by the Department of Energy doing research. 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. And I think it is very important to continue funding to have that partnership. They also put a lot of grants out to 

the private sector, too. 

With regard to this, what kind of areas in research and development can NETL have to invest in some approved—you talked about 

resilience, reliability, and security in the system. Could you elaborate on where the public sector can be assisting this? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, absolutely, and we have worked with the National Energy Technology Lab for more than 10 years in different 

spaces. I am aware right now that they are doing some work in 

power electronics. Controls is becoming a very, very hot topic. 

Again, GE is doing a lot of work in that area, but NETL has some 

work going on in that area, looking at advanced control theory 

structures. How do you use the data that is being collected to a 

much more effective job of controlling what has become a much 

more complex grid and will continue to become much more complex. 

Mr. MURPHY. So this has continued to be pretty sophisticated as 

you go through this. Like when I go to the IBEW training facility, 

this is on a very high level. This is not my knowledge of electricity, 

which is just above dangerous. I know the black wires connect with 

black, white/white, and the copper, leave them alone, and then call 

somebody to connect the power and check my mess. 

But as it goes through here, and the kind of controls that are developed by companies out there, GE and other ones, it is pretty sophisticated. But this is where we have this kind of alliance and 

working together of public and private sector. Can you give some 

78 

examples of areas where we need to continue to push this or move 

this forward in these public-private partnerships to facilitate this? 

I mean you mentioned something with GE. Can you elaborate on 

that a little bit more or if GE can elaborate. 

Yes, Mr. Hauser. 

Mr. HAUSER. So, yes, public-private partnerships, of course, have 

been important in a lot of different areas. The labs, of course, work 

with companies like GE. They work with utilities. A lot of the time 

it is proof testing, demoing these advanced systems so that they 

can be deployed more broadly and more reliably. 

Mr. MURPHY. You mean with the Smart Grid, for example? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY. Define that. Expand a little bit on that, how that 

works and the kind of work we can do to help. 

Mr. HAUSER. So the Department of Energy might put out a request for proposals where the company’s team, EPRI is involved in 

those, many of my member companies are involved. Utility will 

often get involved to do some of the demo of a technology, maybe 

it is a new storage technology, and integrating into the grid. A lot 

of times the questions become how do you take it from a lab environment to a full-scale environment. 

Mr. MURPHY. In the context of what you are saying, one of the 

advantages I understand is Smart Grid. If you do it right, you are 

not wasting a lot of power. You are actually making it work more 

effectively, more efficiently along the way. 

Mr. Bell, can you comment on that Smart Grid and how we can 

be facilitating that? Power waste is environmental waste, too. We 

don’t want that. We want to create just enough and use it wisely. 

How do we do that? 

Mr. BELL. I mentioned a World Economic Forum Study. They actually talk about across the world, and a big part of that applies 

in America as well. More than 75 percent of breakdowns in generation, for example, can be prevented using software analytics. And 

more than eight percent of electricity that gets generated never 

reaches the consumer. 

Mr. MURPHY. Seventy percent. 

Mr. BELL. No, eight percent of electricity that gets generated 

never reaches the consumer. 

Mr. MURPHY. Got it. 

Mr. BELL. There are 75 percent of breakdowns that happen that 

can be already predicted and prevented. So we actually think that 

number could be even higher with software. 

So when you think about eliminating breakdowns and preventing 

failures, as well as reducing transmission loss, you can actually 

yield more from existing investments that are out there. 

And to the question of proof of concept, where the Government 

funds—environmental research is very, very important, as we 

talked about, but also funding new solutions, especially members 

that are part of the IoT Working Group, thinking about this as an 

option of cloud, an option of modern technologies, and setting up 

labs and proof points where—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Stephenson, my final few seconds here. And 

what does this yield in terms of jobs if we move forward to this 

79 

kind of Smart Grid? And just your workers alone, what are we 

talking about here, do you have some sense? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I am sorry, could you repeat that? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I am just wondering in terms of jobs, moving 

forward on these issues to improve the grid, what does this mean 

in terms of jobs, just in your group alone, your unit alone? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, there is the potential for a big demand 

as we continue to train the next generation of workers for these 

changes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Several thousand? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. And due to the baby boomers that are leaving 

and the new people coming in, there is a big demand. 

Mr. MURPHY. Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing today. 

Let me start with Mr. Hauser. In your testimony, you mentioned 

the importance of Smart City Initiatives. As you know, Pittsburgh 

was a finalist in this new initiative that the Department of Transportation had last fall. And our city later received some funding for 

a component of its application and I think that this is a program 

that should be expanded and we hope the new administration will 

do that. 

Can you just expand a little bit on what you think are some of 

the most important features of potential Smart City programs and 

how we should try to encourage such programs here at the committee? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, absolutely. And I think it was Dr. Brown that 

mentioned as we understand and increase the sophistication of the 

electricity system, it begins to interact more, and more, and more 

with the other infrastructures, whether it is electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, whether it is water systems either to cool the 

power plants or it is pumping required for agricultural use and 

other things, these infrastructures are increasingly becoming complex and interactive. And so it is really important, from a Smart 

City standpoint, that we look at the entire infrastructure, not just 

one infrastructure at a time. The interactions are becoming extremely important. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I am glad you mentioned autonomous vehicles. 

With Uber and now Ford making their announcement, Pittsburgh 

is now claiming itself to be the autonomous vehicle capital of the 

world. So, we look forward to more research in that. 

Let me go into nuclear, too. The QER 1.2 notes that nuclear 

power currently provides 60 percent of the U.S.’s zero-carbon electricity but existing nuclear merchant plants are having difficulty 

competing in the market these days. 

I have been a long-time supporter of the country’s largest source 

of carbon-free power and I am alarmed by the premature plant retirements that we are seeing across the country. 

Mr. Stephenson, and let me say it is a pleasure to work with 

IBEW Local 5 in Pittsburgh under the leadership of Mike 

Dunleavy. Those guys do a great job. But each nuclear power plant 

80 

employs between 400 to 700 people and the average plant also generates an average of almost $16 million in State and local tax revenue annually and Federal tax payments of approximately $67 million each year. 

And this source of energy is vital for our local economies and 

critically important in our fight against climate change. Can you 

please comment on what the closure of some nuclear plants is 

meant for your workers and their communities? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, we have had, for example, the ones—we 

avoided this at this point, but the Exelon you know had announced 

earlier they were looking at closing three facilities. And if they had 

done that, it would have been approximately $3.6 billion out of the 

local economy and direct and indirect loss of jobs of around 13,300 

that we had researched just for that alone. 

In other areas, Zion, Illinois, for example, was a plant that was 

closed several years ago but if you read the research, they are still 

suffering. That community has still never recovered because it was 

built—you know when those were built a lot of the nukes, they 

weren’t in the metropolitan areas. They were more in the rural 

area. So those rural communities have grown and thrived because 

of the economy of the nuclear industry. And when they start going 

down, you decimate all those people that live in those small communities. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, Mr. Hauser, one of the other recommendations 

in the QER was to expand funding assistance to enhance analytical 

capabilities for State PUCs and improve access to training and expertise for smaller utilities. I think this is particularly important, 

given the rise in distributed generation resources. 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Do you agree with that? And if so, could you please 

expand on the challenges you see in this space? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, I do agree with that. And as I have mentioned 

earlier, there are almost 3,000 public utilities out there that are, 

many of them, struggling with these issues. As the systems become 

more complicated, as the data becomes more rich, we need better 

models and simpler models, I will say, for many of these utilities 

to use and they need training and technical assistance, certainly, 

to help understand and effectively use the models that are being 

developed. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, you know I have seen estimates of we will need 

to invest anywhere from $500 billion to over a trillion dollars in our 

grid by 2040 or we are going to suffer decreased reliability. 

I guess the question is to anyone on the panel. What is the best 

way for our committee to call for significant investment in the 

backbone of our country’s energy infrastructure? 

Mr. OLSON. Quickly, please. 

Mr. DOYLE. More funding. 

Mr. BELL. We believe that, as I said, just like grid was the foundation of the economy in the last century and the internet is the 

foundation of our digital economy, we have got to create a belief 

that the intersection of both creates this new electricity network, 

which is the foundation of the next set of economies. We just have 

to have that belief and invest with that belief. 

81 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just note that 

while we are in sequester, that is the discretionary part of the 

budget what makes us tough to increase funding for basic research 

in this country and we all have got to find a way to get out of that 

sequester. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair calls on the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thanks 

very much for the panel. It has been a very, very good discussion 

this morning. 

Mr. Bell, if I could ask the first question to you. In your testimony you talked about advances in technology and innovation in 

the electricity sector that point towards an increasing smarter grid. 

This could follow bidirectional flows of electricity, clear price signals, and a greater balance of supply and demand. 

And a smarter grid system enables operators to identify reliability issues, address consumer concerns, and promote efficiency 

delivery of electricity to consumers. 

If you could talk just a little about the smarter grid but let me 

take you back. I can’t believe it, I just checked it has almost been 

14 years ago that we had the major blackout and it hit Ohio, went 

into Pennsylvania, New York, Ontario. I couldn’t believe it, at that 

time, I was actually in all those places about that same time. But 

how could a smarter grid, if you could take us back almost 14 

years, how can we hopefully either stop that from occurring or how 

we could get things up faster from that massive electrical blackout 

that we had at that time? 

Mr. BELL. So, first is understanding the reason why. I believe 

you are also the co-chair of the IoT Working Group. And when you 

think about things that are already connected and the ideas that 

we have had about Smart Grid and interconnected systems and 

SCADA systems, and being able to monitor devices are not new. 

But when you look at an interconnected set of systems, you get 

a system of systems, as Dr. Howard would call it, to be able to optimize the whole system. And what we see is a new network of data 

across all of the existing infrastructure that we have, so we can actually get better at monitoring, better at predictive maintenance, 

better at preventative maintenance, and prevent all these outages 

because we do have the combination of not just the software-driven 

analytics, but also physics-based analytics. 

So being able to create virtual, what we call digital twins, today 

we can actually create that. In the past, this was a challenge. Now 

I can have 100,000,000 hours of operating data being questioned in 

a matter of seconds at the speed of thought because of cloud technologies. So, adopting those technologies and making sure that we 

use all the data will give us insights into how to optimize the entire network. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Hauser, can you share some of the benefits of the grid modernization technologies that have enabled or provided in my home 

State of Ohio? 

82 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes. So, AEP, in particular, has been a pioneer in 

this space. They have done a lot of work in storage. They have also 

done some work around involving customers and reducing outages 

across the system. As I am sure you know, ice storms come through 

Ohio periodically and take down lines pretty routinely. And having 

the utility able to identify the outages and redirect flows in order 

to minimize the impact on consumers has been really important. 

AEP has been an excellent example of doing that. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

I would like to, in my last minute and half, maybe go to ask all 

of the full panel real quickly give a quick answer. From your vantage point, what are the most significant challenges that the U.S. 

electricity system or the industry is facing today? Mr. Howard. 

Dr. HOWARD. So the most significant is the incorporation of the 

whole digital group. It is the technology modernization that is required to take us to the fully functional digital grid. And it is that 

infrastructure modernization that is going to get us there. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, Mr. Bell, in about 10 seconds. 

Mr. BELL. I said digital, and I think it is also utilizing the existing assets more effectively. I think we don’t have the visibility and 

insight across all the networks. We can do that today with modern 

technologies like cloud and IoT. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Stephenson? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think building the transmission line necessary to tie the whole system back together again from all the 

green energy. To get everything tied, we have got to have the 

transmission to get it there. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Hauser? 

Mr. HAUSER. I think business models are going to be a huge challenge for this industry, especially the private utilities. Load growth 

is pretty flat in most places. In some places, it is actually going 

down and the business models have typically been built around 

growing load growth, where you have to build more power plant 

and earn a rate of return on the investment of large capital. So, 

I think there is going to have to be a real significant look at how 

do we make these business models work in a future grid scenario. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, my 

time has expired and I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair calls upon the lady from Florida, Mr. Castor—Ms. 

Castor, I’m sorry—for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. I know I am the only female on the dais but—— 

Mr. OLSON. The biggest Houston Cougar fan, I believe, from Florida, as well. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to say that I share the enthusiasm of this expert panel 

on the great potential that modernization of America’s electric grid 

holds. We really are at a turning point on the transformation of 

how we supply energy to consumers and businesses, whether it is 

how we are generating it, energy efficiency, Smart Grids, and technology, we really need to unlock the potential here and I see us 

kind of being held back. 

Mr. Bell, you rightly identified that traditional energy infrastructure is becoming smarter and the mix of fuel is rapidly evolving 

83 

with addition of more diverse and distributed generation sources. 

At the same time, we have a wave of connectivity and innovation. 

And Mr. Stephenson, you are absolutely right. We can unlock 

higher wage jobs, higher skilled jobs, if we all work together to 

bring American ingenuity to bear here. 

I have been to the IBEW training center in Tampa with Randall 

King and that great team there and they are ready to go. But it 

is oftentimes being blocked by our inability at the State level to do 

the kind of innovative thing that we need to do. 

Consumers are more sophisticated right now. They are ready. 

They are clamoring for more tools to control their power usage. 

Businesses are really in the lead beyond Government because 

they see what it means to their bottom line and productivity and 

profits. But I look across the country and progress is very uneven. 

The electric utility regulation largely happens at the State level 

and you have some States that are being very innovative and then 

others—Mr. Hauser, you hit it on the answer to the last question. 

There are State regulatory schemes and business models that are 

stuck in 30 years ago and all of the incentives are on building big 

new plants, while all of the new tools that we have are about efficiency, demand management. Yes, we have got to keep that baseload. Yes, we have got to modernize the infrastructure across the 

country but what can we do here in Washington to really 

incentivize and bring those States that are laggards and have these 

old business models, what can we do here in Federal policy to help 

create these highly skilled jobs and move towards a more innovative electric system? 

Mr. HAUSER. So, it is a great question. As you probably know, 

the State regulators are meeting in the other part of town, as we 

speak. These issues are things that they are discussing and debating. I am very impressed with how the discussion at the State level 

has evolved over the last few years. 

I believe a lot of that has come from Federal leadership, and 

while you can’t necessarily dictate what they do, you can certainly 

set ambitious expectations and goals for them to look for ways to 

live up to and I think that is one of the things that the feds at ear 

level really look at. 

Ms. CASTOR. So how do we set expectations in Federal policy? We 

can say this is good, this is bad but unless there is something really set forth in Federal policy, how do we encourage those laggard 

States to do better? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, I don’t have a great answer for that. I think 

at GridWise Alliance we do something we call the grid modernization index, which we look at all 50 States and DC and rank them 

on a score of zero to a hundred on how well they are doing. 

Ms. CASTOR. Dr. Howard, there must be something better than 

just rankings and encouraging. Do these business models have to 

change to help incentivize energy efficiency and use of technology? 

What are the discussions that are being had? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, we are focused on helping to advance the 

science and technology so policymakers can make these more informed decisions. But we are seeing, as we have talked about here 

today, a variety of technology options that regulators and policyVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
84 

makers can use to help to make more informed decisions, but that 

is our focus. 

Ms. CASTOR. I think we can do a lot better and I encourage you 

all to be creative and be innovative and give us the best expert advice because we have, like I said, there is huge potential here for 

an economic revolution as part of the modernization of our electric 

grid and we want to do better. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentlelady, Ms. Castor, yields back. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stephenson, about maybe an hour ago you made a remark 

that resonated with me and I want follow up on what John Shimkus was talking about about reliability. Do you think that the markets should place more value on reliability attributes of our power 

plants, especially as it relates to baseload capacities? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Absolutely, we have got to have reliable baseload, and that could be a combination of nuclear, I think coal 

should still be in a mix and can be, and of course natural gas. We 

have got to have that baseload reliability. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I guess the work is still ahead of us 

how we are going to convert. We have just gone through 8 years, 

we have seen a loss of baseload capacity across this country and 

we are going to have to rebuild now after 8 years of a war on coal. 

So, Mr. Howard, your comment was interesting as well in your 

written statements about the need for carbon capture and clean 

coal technology and as it relates to demonstration plants. What is 

the incentive? What do we need to do to build more large-scale 

demonstration plants? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, there is still a lot of need for some basic research on understanding the more optimal approach to capturing 

carbon. We made some steps. We have got a project now going on 

in Texas. It is going to demonstrate one technology, but it is going 

to take a full suite of different technologies to really enable a carbon capture storage to be economically efficient. And so supporting 

the demonstrations and advanced science and technology needed to 

come up with the right chemistry that will efficiently capture carbon. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And also release some of the burdens that our 

regulatory agencies have put on for enhanced oil recovery from 

using carbon capture as well, I assume. 

Dr. HOWARD. Right. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. No, Mr. Bell, the last question more to you. It 

is more for General Electric’s position and that is, this wireless 

power transfer. It is probably aspirational. We see around the 

world Russia, and Germany, and Japan are moving into some pretty significant investments in that. What do you see coming with 

that? We know we already are using wireless with our cell phones, 

our internet access with wireless. We are seeing induction motors 

in our industrial plants. We are seeing others are wireless. 

Where do you see GE moving in that arena in wireless power 

transfer? 

85 

Mr. BELL. I will answer the first part of your question, which is 

around the different source of fuel. Then, I will get to the other 

part. 

See, we actually introduced the idea of how can existing power 

plants, whether it is gas or coal, be digital, with the idea of a digital power plant. We can actually reduce emissions in existing 

power plants using our software. So whether it is coal, or gas, or 

nuclear, whatever the source of fuel, we can rejuvenate existing 

sources and keep them functioning more efficiently and effectively. 

With regards to wireless, there is a lot of fundamental research 

that is happening, not a whole lot of commercial-ready solutions at 

industrial scale. What we would do is we would get back to you 

with some of our research colleagues on what we see as the future 

of how that should be brought to market in a commercial way. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I don’t think we are talking—maybe eventually 

it is long-term transmission that would reduce some of the outages 

we have but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking more 

short-term within our—to be able to, through induction coils, recharge our electric cars, same thing that we are already doing with 

our cell phones. Some of the fundamental ways of moving technology so that America continues to be the global leader on innovation. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So, I have run out of time, unfortunately, but if 

you could get back to me on that, I would like to know more from 

your perspective. 

Mr. BELL. I would be happy to do that. We will follow-up on that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair thanks Dr. Howard for talking about the Petra Nova 

Project and the Parish Power Plant there in my district in Texas. 

That is the only viable carbon capture enhanced oil recovery operation in the entire world. Texas brag. 

The Chair now calls upon the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. 

Welch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. Great hearing. Great witnesses. I appreciate you being here. 

I will start with you, Mr. Bell. I liked your testimony. I have met 

with some folks from GE and you are doing a lot of good work on 

decentralizing, decarbonizing, and digitizing. But as I understand 

it, you are so confident in your business model that when you make 

some contractual arrangements with some of your customers, that 

you agree to be paid from the savings that you achieve on their behalf. Is that correct? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, in addition to being a hardware provider, as well 

as services provider around the hardware, with our digital business, we started offering our software in a subscription model, just 

like every other software provider in the world. 

Mr. WELCH. So, you have very large customers that provide electricity into the grid. Are there benefits for individual consumers 

with the approach that you are taking with your technology and 

your coding? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, absolutely. So what we look at, we want to help 

our customer’s customers. So today, most of our customers, who are 

86 

power and utilities, they see their customer as a meter. They have 

no insight into beyond the meter. So we are partnering with solutions. 

For example, we have a separate business that we call Current, 

that is driving energy efficiency for commercial industrial customers of electricity, and we want to partner with power utilities 

to make sure that those systems are integrated back into them. 

Mr. WELCH. OK, thank you very much and I appreciate the work 

you are doing. 

Mr. Stephenson, I wanted to talk to you a little bit. You know 

we have a lot of jobs in this country but we don’t have a lot of good 

paying jobs. And I think the issue is paychecks is actually more 

than jobs. A lot of your folks have good jobs and they help keep 

the lights on and I just want to acknowledge that and thank you. 

Do you see there to be a big opportunity if we plunge into modernizing the grid to provide more folks with the kind of good jobs 

that your union provides? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, absolutely, because we are going to need 

both our employers, our utility employers, and our construction employers are going to need to wield their workforce as this moves on. 

So yes, absolutely. 

Mr. WELCH. And I would be interested, I don’t want you to take 

the time now, but your specific recommendations about job training. I know your union does a lot but that has got to be organically 

integrated into our educational system so that people who want to 

work can work and get jobs where they get a living wage. So I 

would really welcome, and I think the whole committee would welcome your concrete suggestions on that. 

One point I wanted to bring up with you, you talk about the permitting process. And you have got some legitimate points there. 

How does it work? It has got to be fair but ideally, it is timely so 

that there is a fair resolution in a timely way and that includes access to people who have got altering different points of view. 

But the last Congress we passed, and this was a bipartisan effort, the FAST Act, which, in part, created a Federal Permitting 

Improvement Steering Council to expedite permitting and environmental review for large infrastructure projects, namely, those over 

$200 million. I don’t know if you are familiar with that but would 

you regard as at least a down payment on trying to get this thing 

in better order? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I am not specifically aware of that. I do know 

this. 

Mr. WELCH. That is the idea that you are talking about. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Right. 

Mr. WELCH. To try to get an answer, get from here to there, 

sooner rather than later—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. WELCH [continuing]. But not cut corners on considering the 

valid environmental labor and safety concerns. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. WELCH. Is that right? 

I want to ask Mr. Hauser, with any new grid technology has to 

be fast enough to incorporate locally generated electricity, which is 

the heart of oftentimes what renewables are. In Vermont, we have 

87 

a focus on renewables and we have had a focus on efficiency. And 

actually by doing that, we have been able to save about $400 million in grid repair and grid expansion. So there is a lot of money 

to be made in using less electricity or using it more efficiently. 

How do we get the grid to work that way and how do we align 

it with the incentives that have to be changed for utilities that 

have generally been based on a reimbursement model, where the 

more they invest, the more they make? 

Mr. HAUSER. That is a good question, and those are very impressive numbers, of course, in Vermont. 

I think I am impressed. VELCO is one of my members. I have 

been impressed with the work that they are doing, for instance, on 

predicting weather and being much more accurate in how to predict the weather impacts and effects on the grid, and that includes 

wind, solar, as well as storm recovery and so on. And so I think 

that is an example of some of the work that is going on to help 

make this much more effective. 

Mr. WELCH. OK, thank you. I see my time is up. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get some very concrete suggestions 

from these witnesses about one, two, three, what we can do to facilitate the advocacy they are presenting here today. 

Mr. OLSON. We will do our best to make that happen. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Howard, let me jump right in. We were talking about reliability of baseload, Congressman Shimkus, Congressman McKinley. 

And in your testimony, you talked about carbon capture, sequestration projects, et cetera. And one of the things you said is we have 

to have more research as a part of that discussion. 

Some of my friends, even in the Obama administration Department of Energy, were advocating for parity in research dollars between clean-burning fossil fuel research and the renewables. Would 

you agree with that strategy? 

Dr. HOWARD. I am not sure about parity. I would emphasize the 

importance of focusing on a broader energy mix, which certainly 

coal and nuclear, and other sources, including certainly renewables, 

is part of the mix. And we need to advance all of those technologies, including ensuring that the baseload generation, of which 

nuclear is a big part, continues to operate safely and reliably, and 

coal is part of it, as well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I appreciate that very much, coming from a 

coal-producing region that has lost thousands of jobs in the last 

several years. 

As a part of that, I have been very interested in chemical looping 

and so that is one of the reasons I would like to push research because it can be used both with coal and natural gas. And what it 

does for carbon capture and sequestration is if it works, if the demonstrations work out, we don’t have as much expense on capture 

because what you get is CO2. So, I am very hopeful for that. 

I noticed you also touched on that we probably need to do some 

more research with carbon capture with bioenergy. And I am assuming that is algae. Are there other substances we can use? And 

88 

I am one of those people that doesn’t make fun of algae. We are 

not ready yet but it is a way that you can use the CO2 and use 

some plant materials. But is there something besides the algae? 

Dr. HOWARD. And other biomasses. 

Mr. WELCH. And other biomasses, where they use the CO2 and 

convert it into additional energy. 

Dr. HOWARD. Right, and for some parts of the world, that is critically important to have those other options available. So, absolutely. 

Mr. WELCH. I do appreciate that. 

Mr. Bell, I am going to switch to you, and I am have to be a little 

parochial. I have a GE facility. Now it is not apparently in the 

same line that you are in but you did mention Current a minute 

ago. And my plant in Salem, Virginia, which we are very proud of, 

is GE Energy Connections, which is a part of the Connections and 

Current section. So I do want to say that. 

And you also indicated that with your division, you all could create jobs anywhere. I have high unemployment on two ends of my 

district. It is about a 6-hour-long district, but on the south side and 

around Martinsville we have some high unemployment and then in 

the coal fields. So if you are looking for jobs, we have got all kinds 

of wonderful buildings and sites that we would love to show you. 

But that being said, I do want to talk about something a little 

different before I get into just a general question and that is the 

United States has always used high voltage alternating current for 

the majority of its transmission lines, as opposed to high voltage 

direct current. The world is looking at direct current. The economists ran an article describing the growing use of long distance 

high voltage direct current power lines in China. It also references 

a project in India on which GE is working. 

OK, should we be looking at this? I think there is one project in 

the United States now. Should we be looking more at direct current? 

Mr. BELL. I will add to the first part of your question, which is 

around coal and fossil fuel. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Sure. 

Mr. BELL. With regards to research and investment, I do agree 

with Dr. Howard that we believe all sorts of fuel need to be optimized. In fact, last year we acquired a company of 25 data scientists who work in the coal industry, because clean energy means 

you have got to make everything clean. And we like the vision of 

decentralized energy, decarbonization and digitalization all working together. 

So, we will definitely look into that as we create more jobs, jobs 

in your region. 

With regards to DC, obviously we are working technologies like 

that. I am not the expert on DC versus AC, but if there are specific 

questions, we would love to follow up with you and share with you 

what we are doing and when we think those technologies will be 

used for commercial purposes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I do appreciate that. 

Mr. BELL. We do see it adopted in microgrids quite a bit right 

now. 

89 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I have got about 35 seconds so I am going to 

give you an opportunity to talk about something that maybe we 

haven’t talked about that GE is working on that you think, particularly from your division where you are an expert, where you think 

that we can be helpful. 

Mr. BELL. I think we have discussed most of the technologies 

today. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well I do think that the digital aspects in making 

existing coal-fired power plants cleaner is a great way to go. I hope 

it is fairly affordable but we need people to not be afraid to use coal 

because everybody I have talked with, not only in this country but 

around the world, believes that coal will be a significant part of the 

mix well into the future. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, we see that across the globe and increasingly 

more plants built around in Asia, for example. So if it is going to 

be part of the mainstay, we want to make sure it is optimized and 

it is clean. So, we want to provide the technology so our customers 

can make the best determination of what is the right fuel mix. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I agree with that. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would the gentleman yield just a second? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I have negative 23 seconds, but you are welcome 

to them. 

Mr. WALDEN. I just wanted to—on the DC issue of transmission, 

in about, I don’t know, probably the late 1960s, early 1970s, the 

Bonneville Power put in an intertie to California from The Dalles, 

Oregon down there. It is all DC. So we could hook up with Bonneville Power and all. It is, I think, very efficient. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

And the Chair calls upon the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our panelists. 

Great discussion. Important discussion. 

I work closely with the industry, with the union, with the IBEW 

and am proud of the fact that we have been able to move forward 

with progress. A lot longer road to go but the commitment is there 

and I appreciate it. 

Mr. Bell, earlier today you made mention of the intersection of 

the software industry and the electric industry and you also made 

mention of efficiency being required in the generation aspects, the 

delivery aspects, and consumption aspects. 

So in the delivery area alone, is there some order of data analysis, as we do these analyses of the data compiled, is there a biggest area that you believe of promise as to how we can improve and 

make more efficient the delivery portion, the transmission and distribution ends of things? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, so for us we have a simple vision that is across 

the entire electricity network. We want to start building. Just like 

Google organizes the world’s information, we want to organize all 

of the analytics, all of the data science, all of the algorithms across 

the entire network. 

We definitely started a lot in the generation space. We have a 

library of analytics and data science algorithms across all of distribution and transmission as well. When we look at end use, evVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
90 

erything from congestion to world war, all of those ideas are still 

some of the biggest areas for our continued research. 

I think right now the biggest challenge is most of these systems 

or opaque. Our customers do not have the right level of visibility 

and utilization of all of the data. So, as we look into more utilization of data, I think we will get better insights into what those outcomes could be that we can go generate. 

Mr. TONKO. The best synergy, the best structuring of utilizing 

that and providing that service to professionals, what is the format? How do we best structure that? 

Mr. BELL. So our customers are adopting our IoT platform that 

we call Predix and they are deploying solutions they call asset performance management. So it doesn’t matter if it is a substation or 

a grid or a transmission or a distribution. All of those systems can 

be monitored so we can get better insights into. 

So the best way is analytics, insights, and applications around 

being able to run those systems. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. And you mentioned the GE R&D lab. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Very proud of the institution and the workers. The 

professionals are magnificent. 

What are the effective ways to integrate renewables into the 

grid. Is digitization something that can best help that, support that 

integration? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, today it is software at all levels. For renewables, 

for example, just about few years ago we were capturing data that 

was about every few minutes at a wind farm. Now we can capture 

data at every sub-second and all that data stays locally within that 

plant, and we can make local decisions around how to optimize improvement in wind performance. So we are able to, just by software, for example in the last few years, we can improve wind turbine and wind farm performance by up to five or ten percent. That 

is five or ten percent more power from the same wind. But when 

you also combine that with forecasting and predictability, we now 

have better algorithms to integrate them into the grid. And when 

you combine that with the ability to ramp up or ramp down other 

sources of fuel, it gives operators confidence to be able to incorporate all sources of fuel into the mix and also confidently bid into 

the market. 

So we think it is a combination across all of that and also the 

grid, as well, to be able to take on those new sources of fuel. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And Dr. Howard and Mr. Hauser, have 

you been sensing this also, that the smarter grid is making the integration of renewables a whole lot easier and more effective? 

Dr. HOWARD. Absolutely, and I would add one other technology 

that is important, and that is the inverter. That is the device that 

fits between the renewable and the grid. And we have made tremendous progress in improving the technologies around the smarter inverter. So that is a big enabler. 

Mr. HAUSER. I was in the control center at Texcel just a few 

weeks ago and watched them manage a very large fraction of wind 

power on their system. And one comment that they made is that 

they actually can send signals to the wind turbine now, which they 

91 

didn’t in the past. So they can actually control the wind turbines 

up and down to meet the load. 

Mr. TONKO. Now your groups have also been involved with 

DOE’s research efforts and the Grid Modernization Initiative, I believe. And that has proved beneficial? 

Dr. HOWARD. Absolutely. And the most important thing is, what 

it has done is allowed us to demonstrate the technology and show 

that it works or not. And if it doesn’t, we can improve on it. 

Mr. HAUSER. Tremendous capabilities across the lab system is, I 

am sure you are aware, including Brookhaven in New York and the 

GMI project at DOE has helped to integrate those, so that they 

talk a lot better amongst each other and they work together on 

joint projects very effectively. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Well, I see my time up, Mr. Chair, and 

I will yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here. I will be brief. 

I support an all of the above energy strategy. And I was in Europe recently talking with some energy companies and the question 

that I am concerned about is what do you do about the reliability 

of the grid when you have a large percentage of renewables that 

are counted on for baseload. And what they are finding in Europe 

is they are going backwards and building coal-fired power plants 

and other things because they have to have those for reliability 

reasons. So it is not just about generating energy. It is about reliability of the grid. 

Does anyone have any comments about where we see America 

going? Because every coal mine in the State of Indiana is in my 

district. My dad was a United Mine Worker for 34 years. Everybody I knew was in the coal industry. It was a great job. My main 

concern is reliability of the grid and if we go too far and we don’t 

have that backup—look, I am all for renewables but we have to be 

realistic here. I would just be interested in your thoughts. 

Dr. HOWARD. So what you are pointing out is the importance of 

not just having enough energy but having adequate capacity to fill 

in the voids. And that is one of the issues they ran into in Germany. And so we are getting to the point where we are energy-rich 

but capacity-poor, and that reinforces the need for baseload generation. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I just want to reinforce what you just said. I mean 

we will just go down the line. 

Mr. BELL. In Germany there was clearly a major problem. They 

had to curtail more than 1,500 gigawatts. And we see challenges 

for power plants that were built in the baseload era to be actually 

competitive in the ancillary services market. So, we are actually 

using software today. 

In fact, there was a power plant in northern Italy that was shut 

down, and we were able to reopen that power plant with software, 

purely through software, because we are now able to make it competitive in the ancillary service market. 

92 

So every single power plant that is designed in a baseload era, 

we can actually make it flexible with software and technology so 

we can actually allow for the more integration of renewables and 

compensate for that with the void. 

Mr. BUCSHON. So quickly, how do you then—say you have a 

power plant and you are running at 40 percent capacity. How do 

you have enough people there when something happens with renewables and you have to go to 80 percent capacity. I mean that 

is a challenge, right? 

I mean, Mr. Stephenson, you might comment on the workforce 

issues as it relates to this type of thing. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, it is, and like you said, to have that workforce there waiting. One thing about natural gas is they can fire 

up and shut down a gas unit a little quicker than, say, nuclear, for 

example. You pretty much have your workforce there around the 

clock, but it is very important that they are there. 

So there are different forms of baseload. Of course, coal, again, 

I believe should be in the mix, to have the opportunity to bring it 

up when needed. And maybe having some smaller units that are, 

as time goes on, smaller units that could be fired up and quicker 

in a faster manner. 

Mr. HAUSER. The industry has gotten so much better just in the 

last few years about being able to predict the wind and solar. And 

so they can anticipate it extremely well these days. So that is certainly helpful. 

I want to do a short call out to Indianapolis Power and Light, 

who just won an award a couple of weeks ago from the industry 

for some of the work they are doing around storage. And storage 

is certainly going to be a key aspect of this as well. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I mean, there is a real-world example in the 

United States. A number of years ago, we had that polar vortex. 

And I am talking to the energy folks, and I am not an energy expert but, in the northeast, for example, we were like really this 

close to brownouts because they had to buy power from, I would 

say, Midwestern coal-fired power plants, and those plants had to 

ramp up and really run. 

And the other thing is, they didn’t have the infrastructure in 

place for natural gas and other things. They were at capacity because of issues we have had with building out infrastructure in certain areas of our country. So that kind of ties this whole thing. 

And I think it is important for people watching this hearing to 

know that the reliability issue and the stability issue, not just how 

the power is generated, is really critically important to the future 

of our country and our economics. 

And does anybody have any final comments? I have 30 seconds. 

Dr. HOWARD. I would just say that is the importance of storing 

the energy on-site. Nuclear, you can store it 18 to 24 months. Coal, 

you can put it in a coal pile. In times of need, you don’t have to 

ship it in. You may not be able to. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON [presiding]. Mr. Sarbanes is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel. 

We have an incoming Secretary of Energy. The Department of 

Energy, at one point, had talked about eliminating the Department 

93 

of Energy. He has changed his mind on that, I imagine partly because if that happened he wouldn’t have a job, but also, I think, 

because he recognizes that we do have to make smart investments 

through a kind of partnering with private industry, with rate payers, and so forth. 

So I would like to hear from each of you briefly your perspective, 

and you have obviously touched on this already, but the important 

role that the Department of Energy can play in leveraging the 

kinds of partnerships that can strengthen the grid across the country. If you want to site come examples of that kind of investment 

you have seen already, as you talk about what we can have going 

forward, that will be helpful as well. 

I authored, in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis, a bill that 

would encourage and provide resources to the Department of Energy to give financial assistance to these kinds of public-private 

partnerships to make sure we are upgrading the grid and we are 

going to reintroduce that again and look forward to support for 

that kind of legislation. 

So, I will just ask you to go down the line quickly. 

Dr. HOWARD. OK, thanks. We partner a tremendous amount with 

the Department of Energy and their national labs. It is an incredible resource that we have in the U.S., unlike any other country. 

It is important that we continue to encourage the development of 

basic research that will help us address many of the issues that we 

are facing here today. 

So, strong supporter, they are a great partner and we enjoy 

working with them. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. Any other thoughts? 

Mr. BELL. So, in addition to research at the DOE level, engaging 

private-sector communities to go to drive innovation on top of that 

at the intersection of digital and hardware, and we would also say 

promotion of more industry-led performance standards. We don’t 

need standard mandates. What we need is the industry will figure 

out where we need promotion of those standards and commitment 

for some policy to promote the support of these future technologies. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. The IBEW, we work very closely with the Department of Energy and, particularly, with Secretary Moniz, and 

what he has done with our director, Jim Hunter, who is the director of our utility department. We have worked very closely over the 

last few years talking about the energy, where we are going in the 

country and some of the needs. And so we think that is crucial to 

continue to have the Department of Energy involved. 

Mr. HAUSER. We certainly support the demonstration projects 

that you have talked about in your legislation. I have heard the 

modernization of the grid referred to as trying to modernize a 747 

while it is in flight. So, it is not like we can shut down the grid, 

rebuild it, and then start it back up when it is all modernized. It 

has to happen in real time. So, demos become extremely important 

because we need to know for sure that these technologies will work 

in the way that we expect them to, when they are installed in the 

grid. So that becomes important. 

Plus, a lot of the large-scale demos can be extremely expensive 

and Mike can certainly attest to that, that the industry need supVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
94 

port, Federal support for sure to do a lot of these demos that can 

be pretty expensive. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Mr. Stephenson, I wanted to ask you a question. I had the privilege of working with a terrific partnership in Baltimore that is 

looking at installation of solar panels and basically trying to continue to aggressively in not just building that workforce but building that part of the energy portfolio. And I think you are probably 

very familiar with some of the statistics, the number of solar workers in the country increase by 25 percent over 260,000 and have 

been increasing by at last 20 percent every year for the past 4 

years. One in 50 new U.S. jobs were in the solar industry, which 

is incredible. And the median wage for those installers is $26 per 

hour. 

So I wondered if you could just give us a few seconds on what 

kind of opportunities the solar energy part of the portfolio is offering to your members. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, you know, solar is continuing to grow in 

leaps and bounds, not only large solar fields, if you will, but also 

individuals, people putting it on their homes and otherwise and 

starting to use solar. 

For the installation, we get a lot of work installing those processes. But again, afterwards, there are not a whole lot of jobs that 

follow the installation, once they are up and running. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will recognize Mr. Long from Missouri. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hauser, can you take a moment to describe what a smart 

Grid is and how it differs from the electricity systems of the past? 

Mr. HAUSER. Of course. I mean, this has evolved over many 

years. It is still evolving. I actually like to talk about it as a smarter grid and not just a Smart Grid. Smart Grid sounds like a thing. 

What it is, is an evolution of using technologies, communication 

technologies, sensors that have become very cheap and easy to install so that we can understand better how the grid is operating. 

As you probably know, only just a few years ago, utilities didn’t 

see anything below the substation. And now they do. And that is 

becoming increasingly important for them to see the operations, 

voltage levels, frequency levels, impacts on customers, outages, and 

so on. 

Mr. LONG. Thinking about impact on customers, how does a 

Smart Grid or smarter grid, as you call it, expand the consumer 

choice? 

Mr. HAUSER. So it provides consumers with a much better insight into how they use electricity and how their use of electricity 

impacts the grid. So, for instance, if it is 4:00 in the afternoon and 

the grid is being stressed and called on to provide electricity at a 

very high level and consumers are aware of that, they can reduce 

their usage in the afternoon to help stabilize the operation of the 

grid. 

It certainly has become impactful in certain parts of the country 

when there are storms or when there are heat waves that really 

can stress the grid. 

95 

Mr. LONG. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Stephenson, what can Congress do to improve workforce 

training and education for the electricity sector? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well mostly, the training that we do specifically with our contractors is really self-funded. We fund ourselves. 

Through our collective bargaining agreement, we have funding that 

goes into our apprenticeship programs. And so all the training we 

do is pretty much self-funded. However, we do rely, as brought up 

earlier, on community colleges and others to help prepare new employees, new members to come into our programs. But we pretty 

much fund our own system within the IBEW structure. 

Mr. LONG. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Howard, in your testimony you discussed the Integrated Energy Network where energy systems and services are more connected with the resources that they utilize. 

You state that separate regulation of these systems can make it 

harder to realize any gains from integration. Could you discuss 

how the current technology process hinders this integration? 

Dr. HOWARD. The current technology that we are talking about 

here enables more optimal integration. So it doesn’t hinder. It actually enables it. 

The communication centers, computation, analytics, and so on 

that we have talked about here really are important enablers for 

allowing this energy system to be more—— 

Mr. LONG. We are talking about the regulatory process. How 

does the regulatory process? 

Dr. HOWARD. OK, how does the regulatory? Well, I think it is an 

awareness that what happens in one energy sector, whether it is 

water, or petroleum, or others, does impact everything. And that is 

really at the heart of our discussion and our vision of the integrated energy network, that it all has to work together and you 

can’t regulate it in one sector by the other. It has to be—— 

Mr. LONG. That is my next question. What approach should regulators take to improve integration? 

Dr. HOWARD. That is exactly what I talked about this week at 

NARUC, which is an awareness that all of this fits together. We 

have to look at it much more holistically and step back and say if 

we are going to have a more resilient, affordable, safe, environmentally responsible energy future, then we have to look at it 

much more holistically and integrate it together. 

Mr. LONG. Talking about renewable energy integration, what are 

some of the industry challenges that you face? 

Dr. HOWARD. What are some of the challenges we face with integrating renewables? Well, the one is that it is variable. And the 

variable generation of renewables with a baseload and the flexibility that we need not only across the entire grid, but also the 

flexibility we need on both ends of the grid, both in generation and 

renewables. We are approaching an area here where we haven’t 

ever had this. It is a two-way power flow, much more unpredictable, not as much forecastable, and not as much dispatchable. And 

when you put all of that together, that is why we absolutely have 

to have a more integrated energy network. 

Mr. LONG. Well, how can we strengthen and expand the transmission system to support the integration? 

96 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, first is the recognition that we are going to 

need more transmission. We are going to need to upgrade the 

transmission system. We need to invest the money to modernize it, 

the infrastructure, the training, everything that we have been talking about here. You can’t do this—in fact I have said several times 

that if you want to move forward with a digitized, a highly dynamic interactive grid, you are going to have to have more grid. 

And that starts with the transmission, upgrading, modernizing, the 

same with distribution. 

Mr. LONG. OK, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time expired. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. 

Cramer, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of our 

panelists. A special thank you to Mr. Stephenson. 

My daddy was a proud member of the IBEW for I guess 60 years, 

up until his death. And probably one of my proudest artifacts are 

his hooks, and his belt, and his hard hat, and his pin. So, welcome. 

You all have covered so many things that every time one of you 

speaks I think of a couple other things I want to ask you. So I am 

going to focus on two things. 

I am going to stay with the DOE because there has been some 

really good discussion lately. And I thought Mr. Sarbanes touched 

on some issues related to the R&D, and some of you have spoken 

about how closely you work with DOE. And I have studied DOE 

fairly significantly in the last several months, and one of the things 

in the R&D that I have noticed is there are these applied research 

sort of silos, I call them, and that, while there are wonderful 

innovators at DOE that you all work with, no doubt, it seems to 

me we could even loosen that up a little more, maybe not have the 

research be so specific to—I would rather see an outcome that 

would be achieved with more innovation at that level, working with 

our private-sector friends. 

Is that a relevant—it is not a criticism, necessarily, but we are 

going to be talking about DOE reorg eventually in this committee, 

and I would like to see some real innovation take place in the reorg 

itself that could unleash some of these incredible resources there. 

So, Mr. Howard, if you want to begin, that would be great. 

Dr. HOWARD. So there is a lot of innovation that is occurring at 

the national labs. 

Mr. CRAMER. Right. 

Dr. HOWARD. I have been to many of the national labs. I go 

there. I look at what they are doing, and it is incredible. And we 

need to reinforce the importance of that and then get it out and 

get it applied. 

EPRI is focused on applied research. We want to take that basic 

research and figure out the best optimal solution to solving these 

problems. So we are kind of on the back end. But if you don’t have 

the front end, you are not going to have a back end. That is why 

I am emphasizing points of basic research. 

Mr. CRAMER. Anyone else? Mr. Bell. 

Mr. BELL. Yes, we love the idea of outcomes. In fact, we think, 

yes, we should do fundamental science research and applied research, but to solve system-level problems, you need to look at the 

97 

whole outcome. In fact, we have a business model that we call outcome as a service, just like our customers can buy software. And 

what happens is when you think about an outcome, whether it is 

fuel efficiency or integration of renewables or now we want to incorporate more mobility, intelligent transportation or electrified 

transportation, you intend to solve the whole problem versus pieces 

of the problem. So I do think there are big initiatives that when 

we think about the future of digital electricity infrastructure, we 

have big use cases to go solve. So we should look at some of those 

use cases as big outcomes that we want to go solve and fund research at that level, as well. We like that. 

Mr. HAUSER. I am certainly concerned that our current administration will look at DOE and look at it as an opportunity to reduce 

the funding for the good R&D that they do. As I am sure that you 

know, the funding at DOE has gone up and down over the years. 

That is not a good thing. It is difficult to manage against budgets 

that increase and decrease a lot. I think stability is very important 

for an R&D mission, and it is also the focus sometimes tends to go 

more towards basic. And I think, as you have said, applied research, working with industry, is extremely important, especially 

in this sector and especially now, these days. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. Hauser, what I would 

say is that I think without decreasing or increasing that R&D 

budget, by knocking out some walls, making the research more outcome-based, rather than fuel-specific or politically based, we can 

get a lot more out of the current budget. 

With that, I just want to end with a question about—we have 

heard a lot of talk about double circuiting, is what we used to call 

it, when I sited many transmission lines as a regulator and we 

would build these massive towers for the future. And I think that 

is all great, but sometimes I get a little concerned that we are willing to give up sort of geographic diversity, which is critical to that 

redundancy and reliability. 

Do we need to be careful to not put all of our infrastructure in 

one corridor, that one storm can take out multiple resources? 

Mr. HAUSER. Yes, and diversity is good. 

Mr. CRAMER. I like simple answers. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. HAUSER. Absolutely. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. Seeing that there are no 

further members wishing to ask questions of the first panel, I want 

to thank you all for being with us for the last number of hours. I 

appreciate that. We all did. So you are now excused. That concludes our first panel. 

We are going to take a few minutes to set up. I know originally 

we thought Panel II would start at 1:00. So, we are going to start 

5 minutes early, because we are expecting votes on the floor perhaps around 1:15. 

So my goal is to have the second panel actually give their testimony. Then, we will adjourn, recess for the votes, and then come 

back for questions. So, that is what our intention is. 

So with that, the first panel is excused. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

98 

Mr. UPTON. We just had a series of votes on the floor, and we 

are all walking back. And we did our opening statements earlier, 

so we will not repeat those. 

I want to welcome you back. Sorry we are starting a little later 

than we had anticipated. We are now moving into our second 

panel. And as the first panel, we appreciate you all submitting your 

testimony in advance. I read all the testimony last night, actually 

yesterday afternoon. 

So we are joined by Terry O’Sullivan, General President of the 

Laborers’ International Union of North America; Mr. Rex Ferry, 

owner and CEO of VEC, Inc. on behalf of the National Electric 

Contractors Association; Kim Kann, private citizen. Moving testimony. Thank you again. Chad Harrison, Councilman at-Large of 

the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; and Joey Mahmoud, Project Director of the Dakota Access Line. 

So, again, your testimony is part of the record. If you would, take 

no more than 5 minutes to summarize it. We will start with Mr. 

Harrison. And when we are completed, we will do questions on 

both sides of the aisle. 

And I know the Democrats are on their way. They know that we 

are doing the testimony first. And again, they have read it as well, 

but they will be coming in as our Republicans who are not here yet. 

So, Mr. Harrison, welcome. Thank you. Thanks for being here. 

STATEMENTS OF CHAD HARRISON, COUNCILMAN AT–LARGE, 

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE; KIM KANN, LANCASTER 

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, LAND OWNER; REX FERRY, PRESIDENT AND OWNER, VEC, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION; TERRY 

O’SULLIVAN, GENERAL PRESIDENT, LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA; AND JOEY 

MAHMOUD, VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, AND PROJECT EXECUTIVE, DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE 

STATEMENT OF CHAD HARRISON 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Chad Harrison, a Tribal Council member from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It is an honor to be here 

today. 

As the committee is well aware, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has 

opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline because of our concerns about 

our waters and our sacred sites. We have said from the beginning 

that the impact of an oil spill would be devastating on our people, 

and we have a strong obligation to future generations to protect 

them from that harm. 

This matter is currently in litigation. Just yesterday, our lawyers 

filed for motion for summary judgment to address our basic claims. 

Our position is straightforward. The Army has never, to this day, 

evaluated the impact an oil spill would have on our waters or our 

treaty rights. That evaluation needs to be done through an EIS, as 

promised to us before that promise was then taken away a couple 

of weeks ago. 

99 

Our litigation raises basic issues of fairness. The pipeline was 

originally routed across the Missouri River north of Bismarck, 

away from our reservation, but it was determined that the risk of 

an oil spill was too risky for the drinking water and wildlife interests near Bismarck. So, they rerouted the pipeline to cross the 

river just upstream from the reservation. How can a pipeline be too 

risky for the water supplies of Bismarck, but be perfectly fine for 

the water supplies of my people? 

We have seen this kind of treatment throughout our history and 

we believe that we are entitled to a greater measure of fairness 

and justice. Along these lines, I have read the testimony from Dakota Access to this committee and it strikes me that there is a deep 

underlying irony there. Dakota Access argues that it is the victim 

here. But Dakota Access is a multibillion-dollar pipeline company 

in which the President of the U.S. has been an investor and its 

CEO is a campaign contributor to the President. When in history 

has such a company been the victim of an impoverished Indian 

Tribe? The answer is never. 

And when they say their pipeline is safe, I ask then why was the 

original route changed if there is no risk of an oil spill at all? And 

why did you never allow an independent review of your secret documents on which you base your claims of safety? The point is, they 

are simply not telling you the full story. 

These and other questions need to be resolved by the courts. And 

we are confident that the courts will vindicate the Tribe’s position. 

But I am here today to discuss what I believe are some of the opportunities arising from our experience with this pipeline. 

First, we do not oppose energy independence, economic development, or the protection of national security, but these goals must 

be advanced in a way that recognizes and protects Tribal culture 

resources, sacred places, and resources. For too long, decisions have 

been made and the Federal Government has acted in a way that 

places too much burden on Indian Tribes. We can all achieve prosperity together, but only if the costs of development and infrastructure are shared fairly. It is time to end the long-standing approach 

of forcing Tribes to bear the costs of prosperity for others. 

Second, Tribes need to be full partners in the process of infrastructure decisions from the beginning. I truly believe that if there 

had been meaningful consultation with the Tribe at the very beginning regarding Dakota Access, we all could have avoided the 

lengthy dispute that has arisen. When Tribal interests are ignored 

in the beginning, it is much harder to resolve the matter than 

when those interests are properly addressed by the Federal decision-makers at the outset. Requiring proper Tribal consultation at 

the beginning leads to better results and less litigation about these 

matters. 

Third, when we talk about meaningful consultation, we mean 

high-level Government-to-Government discussions that are comprehensive and collaborative that seek to obtain Tribal consent. All 

too often, Federal agencies treat Tribal consultation as a check-thebox exercise, rather than a solemn obligation. This mindset must 

change, as the absence of proper consultation can lead to very extensive problems later. 

100 

Fourth, the law regarding these matters needs to be amended. 

Where oil pipelines are concerned, decisions are made in a piecemeal way and there is no process for considering the impact of the 

pipeline overall. 

As far as Tribal interests are concerned, the law needs to be 

strengthened so that when Tribal treaty rights and lands are involved, Tribal consent is required or, at the very least, that the 

Tribe has the ability to impose conditions to protect Tribal homelands. 

Committee, our Tribe has a voice, and it demands to be heard 

on these issues. It demands to be heard on the front side of the 

issues, the front side of infrastructure development. 

I want to restate that we are not against development of any 

sort. We are not against unions. We are not against jobs. We are 

for responsible and reasonable infrastructure development, and we 

wish to be included. We wish to be heard. We are Americans. We 

are the first Americans, and we wish to be treated as such. 

Overall, we believe that more needs to be done to improve the 

processes of infrastructure approval for the benefit of native peoples and all Americans. We look forward to working with the committee on this important matter. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:] 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Kann, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KIM KANN 

Ms. KANN. First of all, thank you for inviting me here today. My 

name is Kim Kann. I want to commend the earlier speakers today 

for the really relevant and compelling testimony about how the industry is helping to keep our lights on, and our houses warm, and 

our businesses energized. 

I am a 33-year STEM teacher, and I am canceling my lesson 

plans tomorrow to share with my students many of the things that 

I learned here this morning, because it was very exciting. 

I’m here, however, to give a voice to the landowners who have 

had their dreams and financial security shattered by the unjust use 

of eminent domain for projects that are intended primarily to export U.S. energy. 

I was blessed to raise my three sons on a small family farm in 

rural Lancaster County, PA, and grateful to be able to give them 

the perfect childhood haven; a stream for building dams, hidden 

campsites for sleeping outside, and a small pasture for a few horses 

that could teach them about patience and responsibility. Nothing 

was handed to us. Everything was the product of careful spending, 

self-reliance, hard work, and the dream was to pass that property 

on to my boys. 

In the spring of 2014, my community was stunned to learn that 

William Partners intended to build a gigantic 42-inch 1580-pound 

per square inch Atlantic Sunrise natural pipeline through our community. So first, we studied exactly what that meant and we found 

that the proposal brought no benefit to us and potentially much 

harm and we opposed it; 1700 of 2300 registered voters returned 

petitions saying so. 

And from the laundry list of harms we were facing, the issue of 

eminent domain was the most egregious. How could American 

landowners be forced to surrender their homes to a profit-making 

corporation that plans to export natural gas, while being forced to 

pay real estate forever on land that they would no longer own? 

My story: My narrow 20-acre farm will now be cut in half. The 

far ten acres is only accessible by crossing a right-of-way that will 

be completely controlled by Williams. The bedrooms will be in the 

hazard zone, which guarantees catastrophic burns or death in the 

event of an explosion. 

My story is echoed by my neighboring landowners, 36 who refused to sign easements in Lancaster County, people like John and 

Deb Swanson, who own a small farm. Much of their land will be 

taken and their home will lie well within the hazard zone. John is 

a proud Marine veteran who served America with honor. The country he defended is planning to allow a private corporation to take 

land that has been in his family for generations. 

Or Laura and David Banta, who will have the pipeline pass feet 

from their bedrooms. 

Or Linda Like, who has owned a small tract of farmland that she 

planned to sell for building lots to finance her approaching retirement. No one can build on it. So, retirement is no longer in her 

plans. She is trying to sell, but no one is interested. 

112 

We get that sometimes land needs to be taken for the benefit of 

the community. So, we looked for benefits. And from this project, 

locally, there were none. And beyond that, we found negatives that 

far outweighed positives. We hired a pipeline feasibility expert, 

Dennis Witmer, whose results can be found on the You Tube video, 

A Perspective on Natural Gas Markets, who found that there is no 

domestic demand for the gas that is to flow through this pipeline. 

In fact, we currently enjoy low natural gas prices because there is 

a glut. And keep in mind, much of the gas planned for Atlantic 

Sunrise is for export. 

There is no local access, so our community and our neighbors 

cannot connect into the line. Claims of jobs are misleading, as most 

workers come from far out of State. And how do you justify supporting new jobs to create wealth for some at the expense of other 

hardworking citizens? We discovered our beloved preserved farms 

with world class soils, 106 supposedly protected for eternity with 

tax dollars and private donations, were targeted because of their 

open space and reduced land value. 

We started following the news and saw catastrophic pipeline failures in San Bruno; Appomattox; Salem Township, Pennsylvania; 

Sissonville, West Virginia; and just this week in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where two men were gravely injured and one is presumed 

dead, to name a few. This raises the risk of evacuation, contamination, catastrophic explosion, or death in our community from zero 

to something much higher. 

The route through my township of Conestoga passes through four 

State-registered Native American cultural sites and 86 along the 

entire route. We learned that fracking is contaminating water and 

frack waste is difficult to dispose of and natural gas is not as clean 

as advertised, with methane being 80 times worse as a contributor 

to climate warming. 

I would like to quote directly from the GOP Platform for 2016 defining the American Dream: ‘‘It means a decent place to live, a safe 

place to raise kids, a welcoming place to retire. It bespeaks the 

quiet pride of those work hard to shelter their family and, in the 

process, create caring neighborhoods.’’ 

The reality of a decent, safe, guaranteed place to live and retire 

is about to be ripped away from us, many of us. A 30,000-more 

miles of pipeline as slated in Pennsylvania by John Quigley in his 

State Impact Report of 2015, using the numbers from our pipeline 

in our county, 137,000 Pennsylvania landowners could face seizure 

of private property. 

And as powerful corporations profit from the gas that flows to export, they will pay inflated executive salaries and dividends to 

shareholders. 

The reality is our financial assets, will be seized and redistributed. That is corporate welfare at its worst. 

This is what it has come to. In our small, very conservative town, 

in just 3 weeks, over 500 local residents have pledged to participate 

in non-violent civil disobedience to stop this project and their numbers are growing daily. Although framed as radicals, and far left 

crazies, they are really just counselors—— 

Mr. UPTON. Ma’am, if you could please just sum up, that would 

be great. 

113 

Ms. KANN. Sure. 

They are just regular people that would like to have their voices 

heard. 

And I am asking that all of you, Democrats and Republicans 

alike, work to find a solution to this issue, because they are going 

to make their voices heard, one way or the other. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kann follows:] 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Ferry. 

STATEMENT OF REX FERRY 

Mr. FERRY. Thank you Chairman Upton and members of the subcommittee for inviting me here today to testify. On behalf of the 

National Electrical Contractors Association, we greatly appreciate 

the opportunity to submit a statement for this important hearing. 

My name is Rex Ferry. I am President and CEO and owner of 

Valley Electrical Consolidated, VEC, which is located in Girard, 

Ohio. I am also past president of NECA and having served from 

years 2009 to 2011. 

Shortly after graduating from high school, I entered the electrical 

trades and began working for Valley Electrical. I quickly moved up 

through the ranks from foreman to project manager before making 

the decision to purchase the company in 1990. Our vision, VEC’s 

vision is to serve others with integrity for the sake of our future 

generations and resulted in significant growth. VEC started as a 

family-owned business providing electrical contracting services in 

regional factories, automotive production lines, steel mills, and created the diversity it needed for sustainability for the future and 

employing as many as 400 workers across multiple trades during 

the height of the construction season. 

And our business is truly a family firm. We have 26 family members working across the spectrum. With the arrival of my granddaughter, I am pleased to say we now are a third-generation family-owned company. 

Energy production within the oil and gas industry has proven to 

be one of the most promising job creators and revenue generators 

in oil and gas markets are both directly and indirectly and they 

make up over 65 percent of our revenue over the past 6 years, 

which has allowed Valley to reinvest tens of millions of dollars in 

vehicles, equipment, tools, technology, and buildings. 

Prior to the oil and gas energy boom, this scope of work experience was not prevalent in Ohio. In fact, it did not even exist in the 

Midwest. The area surrounding Youngstown, Ohio, has tremendous 

growth, directly and indirectly, because of the Utica and Marcellus 

Shale oil and gas industry. In its peak, there wasn’t a hotel room 

during the week available. And so this also is helping the hospitality industry. 

A 2012 study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 

21st Century Energy Institute says the extraction of unconventional shale oil and gas through horizontal hydraulic fracking has 

created job booms even in States that do not actually have shale 

deposits; 1.7 million jobs have already been created and a total of 

3.5 million jobs are projected to be created by 2035. 

This growth extends into the chemical industry. A recent Price 

Waterhouse study shows that by 2025, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West 

Virginia will be the number one capitol producer in the world and 

creating one million new jobs. 

The electrical construction industry has played a key role in assuring the U.S. will have adequate and reliable electrical power 

supply. In fact, the concept of the electrical construction worker has 

evolved dramatically over the past decade. Today, nearly 50 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
119 

cent of the electrical contractors are performing work on almost 40 

different project services. 

In today’s global economy, widespread adoption of the new energy technologies has slowed due to economic, Government, and 

marketplace barriers. We believe there is a fresh opportunity for 

the Federal Government to unleash unprecedented development, 

exploration, construction, and production of this sector. 

There are some challenges that must be met if we are to achieve 

these goals in moving the fruits of our energy development to market. Now is the time to fully invest in the Nation’s infrastructure. 

We are very encouraged by the actions of the pipeline construction 

taken by the Trump administration. From VEC’s experience, I can 

report in the last couple of weeks the opportunities have increased 

dramatically. 

Thankfully, this committee has helped overhaul environmental 

review of infrastructure projects and we believe even more can be 

done to ensure permitting decisions are made in a timely manner. 

Electrical construction companies want to grow and they need capital to make that happen. We urge Congress to examine how to better increase the access to capital and credit for the construction industry. 

It is also necessary we recruit young and talented workers 

through our apprenticeship training programs, which offer hightech, high-skilled, high paying careers that come with rewarding 

pay, with full health benefits and a promise of retirement plans. 

We hope that Congress will enact a comprehensive energy strategy that promotes the development on all available energy resources. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify in this very important 

hearing. NECA and VEC applauds the committee’s efforts and we 

continue to offer our support to advance the committee’s agenda 

and look forward to working with you in the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferry follows:] 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Ferry. 

Mr. O’Sullivan, if you are ready. Right here. We were a little 

worried, you didn’t take that water. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. I am wearing a tie. 

Mr. UPTON. All right. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. I am recovering from a cold, thanks. 

Mr. UPTON. All right. Well, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY O’SULLIVAN 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and 

members of the Subcommittee on Energy, on behalf of the 500,000 

strong, proud, and united men and women of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. It is both an honor and a privilege 

to do so. 

As the people who build, repair, and maintain our Nation’s critical energy infrastructure, LIUNA members support a reasonable, 

rational, fact-based energy policy. We support regulatory reform 

that streamlines the permitting process, allows reviews by separate 

agencies and entities to proceed concurrently, and provide, for 

timely, definitive decisions that enable approved projects to proceed 

without delay. This should be a bipartisan agenda to create millions of new jobs across many sectors of the economy, while modernizing our vital energy infrastructure and ensuring America’s energy independence. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our energy infrastructure a grade of D plus, yet opposition to almost every energy project has threatened to derail all serious attempts to address this crisis. It also threatens the creation of good, middleclass-family-supporting jobs. 

For workers in communities throughout the United States, pipe- line projects are lifelines. Today, LIUNA has more than $50 billion 

worth of pipeline work under contract. Tens of thousands of highly 

trained, safe, and skilled building trade members are being put to 

work for years to come on projects such as the Dakota Access Pipeline that the President’s Executive Order has allowed to move forward, the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline, the Rover pipeline, the Atlantic Coast pipeline, the Sabal Trail pipeline, and the PennEast pipeline. And these are just the tip of the iceberg. 

Although these jobs, like all construction jobs, are temporary by 

nature, anyone who has a clue about the work we do knows that 

by stringing together one temporary job after a number, construction workers are able to provide for their families and save for retirement. 

At a time when it is harder and harder to succeed without a college education and the debt that goes with it, LIUNA and other 

building trades unions are one of the few places where a high 

school graduate can enter an apprenticeship program, learn a 

trade, become a qualified journeyperson and build a rewarding 

middle class career. 

LIUNA does not deny climate change. In fact, we are one of the 

few unions that supported cap-and-trade legislation and that 

sought to build common ground with some environmental groups. 

But we became disillusioned, disenchanted, and disheartened as we 

130 

watched many environmentalists abandon reason and oppose each 

and every pipeline project and the jobs they would create because 

they want to leave all oil and gas in the ground, which would leave 

many Americans in the cold, in the dark, and in the red from high 

energy prices. This keep it in the ground mentality ignores the reality that these resources continue to be pulled out of the ground 

anyway and transported by means that are riskier and less environmentally sound than the pipelines these groups loudly oppose. 

Again and again over the past few years, some of these groups 

have misled legitimate regulatory processes to delay projects indefinitely and to needlessly repeat environmental reviews in the hopes 

that they will get the answer that they want. Frankly, it is not the 

pipelines that are dirty. It is the politics surrounding them. Keep 

it in the ground isn’t a viable energy policy. It’s an unreal, unattainable, uninformed slogan. It is time to embrace a comprehensive, rational, common sense energy policy. 

Finding realistic, environmentally responsible solutions to our 

energy infrastructure problems isn’t a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It isn’t a conservative issue or a liberal cause. It is an 

American issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. I look forward to answering any questions you might have and to working 

with you in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Sullivan follows:] 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mahmoud, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOEY MAHMOUD 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is a 

pleasure to be here. My name is Joey Mahmoud, I am the Executive Vice President for Energy Transfer Partners. 

Over the course of the last 6 months this project, and our company, have been subjected to a series of politically motivated actions by the previous administration, accompanied by a host of 

half-truths and misrepresentations in both social and mainstream 

media. 

Dakota Access is a $3.8 billion, privately funded pipeline project 

which, during the course of construction, has employed more than 

ten thousand skilled workers and unskilled workers. During its entire 1,172-mile journey from North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois, it 

does not cross a single inch of Tribal reservation or trust land, and 

it only crosses a mere 1,094 feet of Federal land. 

During the greater than 2 1A1⁄2-year-long permitting process for 

the whole project, we and the Army Corps of Engineers reached out 

to and accommodated 55 different Native American Tribes or 

groups. Of these Tribes, the Standing Rock Tribe was the first 

Tribe we actually approached and gave a presentation to in September, 2014. It was clear from their response they had no interest 

in discussing the project with us. In addition to our efforts, the 

Army Corps reached out to the Tribe on nine separate occasions. 

Despite these efforts, the Standing Rock declined to participate in 

any meaningful way. 

On July 25, 2016, the Army Corps brought to conclusion its 2- 

year-plus review of the project, issuing an Environmental Assessment approving, among other things, our application for a crossing 

of the Missouri River at the current location, as it sits today. 

After declining to participate in any meaningful consultation, the 

Tribe, supported by Earthjustice, brought a legal action seeking to 

block the project. 

On September 9, 2016, a Federal judge issued a 58-page opinion 

rejecting the Tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction and finding that the Tribe largely refused to engage in consultations. 

However, within minutes of the judge’s ruling, the Departments 

of Justice, Interior, and the Army issued a joint statement indicating that, notwithstanding their successful defense of the permitting process in Federal court, they were not deciding to issue an 

easement at that time. 

Perhaps the most prominent, and ill-founded, of the misconceptions is that Dakota Access represents a threat to the Missouri 

River and those who rely on it for drinking water. Nothing could 

be further from the truth. Much of the oil from the Bakken is currently being transported across the Missouri River via truck and 

rail transportation, modes which, statistically, are far more likely 

to experience a spill than pipelines. 

Perhaps even more, the greatest irony in a saga replete with ironies is that the Standing Rock have just relocated their Missouri 

River water intake more than 70 miles downstream from this pipeline. However, there is a rail crossing that crosses 1.6 miles from 

136 

their new intake that moves hundreds of thousands of barrels per 

day. 

Others have asserted the route chosen for the pipeline was indifferent to, and would disrupt, archeological sites of importance. 

Again, this is totally contrary to the facts. 

Dakota Access employed dozens of cultural experts to work 

alongside State and Tribal cultural officials to ensure that nothing 

of cultural, historic, or sacred significance was disturbed. Based on 

these experts’ findings, the project 

undertook 140 different route changes in North Dakota alone. 

Indeed, the selection of the river crossing itself was largely driven by a desire to ensure the protection of cultural resources. The 

river crossing site for the Dakota Access Pipeline is located in an 

existing utility corridor which already includes two pipelines, the 

Northern Border Natural Gas pipeline and a high-voltage electric 

transmission line, both built in 1982. 

The easement, which has been the focus of so much public attention since this has occurred is a simple ministerial document which 

was part and parcel of the river crossing permit. The easement was 

arbitrarily withheld by the former Assistant Secretary of Civil 

Works and was not received until last week. We can only speculate 

as to her motivation, but what is abundantly clear is that the Department of the Interior, and most likely senior members of the 

White House staff, interfered deeply and inappropriately in the 

waning stages of the regulatory process. 

What is also clear is that I and other senior representatives of 

my company sat in the Department of Justice, while representatives of that agency, the Army and the Department of Interior repeatedly made factual misrepresentations about the process and 

their intentions. 

Finally, it is abundantly clear that notwithstanding the repeated 

public pronouncements that the Army Corps and Dakota Access 

had complied with all applicable requirements for construction of 

the pipeline, and notwithstanding two successful defenses of the 

permitting process in two Federal courts, these agencies have made 

the political decision that they were not going to issue the permit 

or the easement at that time. 

Mr. Chairman, we came to realize that even a company as large 

as Energy Transfer is helpless in the face of a Government that 

will neither obey nor enforce the law. We came to realize that playing by the rules can count for little. And we came to realize that 

good faith efforts to accommodate with the many different stakeholders involved can be a fool’s errand when political motivation 

overrides the law. 

I suggest, and as I indicated, the easement withheld by the politically appointed Assistant Secretary was the sole remaining administrative step needed for completion of this project. This $3.8 

billion, 1,172-mile pipeline had already received all other necessary 

Federal, State and local permits, as well as all the rights-of-way 

necessary for completion of the project. All of this was accomplished over a 2-year period. 

I would respectfully submit that a project of this size does not 

receive those approvals in that time frame unless it places a heavy 

137 

emphasis on cultural and social concerns, is sensitive to diversity 

and gives great deference to the environment. 

With that, sir, I thank you for your time and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mahmoud follows:] 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, all of you, for your 

testimony. 

So let me just say a couple of things. So as you all know, I am 

from Michigan. I am no stranger to controversies surrounding pipeline safety. I want to say one of my first bills when I when I first 

elected was establishing an oil spill response team from the Great 

Lakes, something that we did not have when I served on the 

Transportation Committee. 

I would note that the rate of accidents has fallen significantly in 

recent years and we have seen more stringent Federal regulations 

and closer oversight but there is, obviously, more work that has to 

be done. 

I had a spill not too far from my district back in 2010 in the 

Kalamazoo River. I worked across the aisle with then-Chairman 

Dingell. This is the Dingell Room. Chairman Dingell was here to 

cut down on the time that it takes to report a spill. The old rules 

were it had to be reported on a timely basis. In the case of the 

Kalamazoo River, it was days. It is now 24 hours without heavy 

fines. 

So we have, in the last couple of years, we have actually done 

two reauthorizations of pipeline safety bills. Both bills passed out 

of this committee. We worked with the Transportation Committee. 

Overwhelmingly bipartisan. I want to say, I don’t think there was 

a single Member that voted against that bill when it reached the 

floor. President Obama signed it into law, both of the bills. And I 

would note that we have a Line 5, which connects the upper peninsula with the lower peninsula. So, when you say you are from 

Michigan, make sure you put both hands up. But we had some special provisions from here. I had some special provisions that were 

added for safety and transparency available to the public. 

So the bottom line is, this committee is not afraid to tackle this 

issue. We don’t want any pipeline spills. And in the case of the 

Kalamazoo spill, a million gallons, it cost the pipeline company, 

Enbridge, a billion dollars to clean that up. So these are not the 

light issues. 

Mr. Mahmoud, you talked about there are other alternatives to 

pipelines that include rail, they include truck. I think we know the 

answer but is there a safer, more economical way than a pipeline? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Thank you. No, sir, there is not. Statistically 

pipes are significantly safer than other forms of transportation. Actually, the safest form of transportation of any mode of transportation are pipelines. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Harrison noted in his testimony that there were 

some secret documents, the words that you used, relating to safety. 

Can you expand on that? 

Mr. HARRISON. Real simply, during some of the meetings when 

we asked for that very transparency that some of these bills are 

pushing, we get met with words such as proprietary and confidential and we can only give you certain things. A pipeline of this nature, it would go a long ways to have that transparency up front. 

What are we dealing with? What are we trying to sign off on as 

individuals? 

146 

Mr. UPTON. One of the things that was in the testimony from Mr. 

Mahmoud was that you did look at alternatives, right? You looked 

at a number of different alternative routes. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UPTON. And how many different routes did you look at? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. In the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, there was 

one additional alternative route in addition to what is called the no 

action alternative. However, in preparation for the development of 

the project, my company looked at many, many alternative routes 

to connect the Bakken crude oil to Patoka, Illinois. 

Under the Environmental Assessment for the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, they are only required or looked at the crossing at 

Lake Oahe which, in this case, included the two alternatives which 

one being the route alternative and two being the no action. 

Mr. UPTON. Now, one of the things that I did, as we moved this 

legislation forward, it was called the Upton-Dingell bill, was when 

a pipeline goes underneath a major water source, a river, a lake, 

rather than the old days of simply what they called trenching it, 

laying the pipe down, putting cement bags or rocks on either side 

to bolster its security, they actually now, for major water sources, 

they actually bore underneath that water source. Is that what you 

are doing in Lake Oahu? Is it Oahu, is that how you say it? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Lake Oahe. 

Mr. UPTON. Oahe. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir. And that is correct. 

Mr. UPTON. Is it correct that it is like 90 feet underneath? So you 

are doing exactly what we said in this committee when we passed 

the reform legislation that instead of trenching, you are actually 

going fairly deep underneath that water body. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, that is correct, 90 to 115 feet. 

Mr. UPTON. All right, my time has expired. 

Let me yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, my 

friend Bobby Rush from Illinois. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

I just want to say that I am always—most of my life I have always 

been a fighter for those who don’t have a voice, those who are 

marginalized, those who have little respect. Instinctively, I am concerned about this issue, although, Mr. Chairman, I want to be 

open-minded on this because I am interested in how the energy 

sector in its entirety produces jobs for people in my district and 

similarly situated districts all across the Nation. So, this is a challenge for a lot of us who want respect, progress, jobs, economic viability. We also want to have environmentally sound policies and 

projects. 

I have a question I am going to ask Mr. Harrison. First of all, 

Mr. Harrison, in your testimony you said that the Tribe does not 

philosophically or etiologically oppose economic development, energy independence, or protection of national security. But you oppose development that is unattainable without your consent that 

puts your people, your cultural sites, and your natural resources at 

risk. 

Were you consulted at all during this decisionmaking process? 

Mr. HARRISON. Just to clarify, were we consulted? 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. 

147 

Mr. HARRISON. Not at the level that we feel that the law should 

provide or actually does provide. 

A lot of the issues have centered around the words ‘‘meaningful 

consultation.’’ Attending a couple of public hearings does not fit 

that bill. And I just want to reiterate, at the very meeting that Mr. 

Mahmoud mentioned, in 2014, the Tribal Council adopted a resolution opposing this. That is the strongest statement that we can 

make, as a Government, in opposition to this project. 

At that point, there was little to no real consultation as to resolve that resolution or to address it. The project went forward, and 

there were some attempts at some minor communication, but consultation, no. 

Mr. RUSH. So when you say that they tried to ram this project 

down the throats, would you say that this company tried to ram 

this project down your throats without any respect or any real 

input, without any buy-in from you and your Tribe? 

Mr. HARRISON. I think this project was going to go forward 

whether we objected or not. And we feel that that should be addressed at the front end. There should be some consensus, some 

real input, which we did not have. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Mahmoud, would you answer the same question 

or respond to what he said? Did you all include them in at the various stages of decisionmaking that would satisfy their need for buyin or input into this process? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Thank you for the question. And yes, sir, I believe we did. 

From the very beginning, as I mentioned, September of 2014, we 

gave our first presentation to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. From 

that time forward, we met with them or on occasion invited them 

to participate in seven different opportunities to have sit-down, 

very one-on-one dialogues to discuss their concerns, as well as any 

information that we could share regarding the routing, as well as 

the operation or design of the pipeline. And those requests for consultation were mostly denied. 

We had some conversations with the Tribal chairman, who I respect greatly. But at the same time, we were not able to have 

meaningful consultation because of a lack of engagement. 

Mr. RUSH. I have one final, one follow-up. 

Did you all attempt to get a third party involved in this at all, 

either the Tribe or the company? Did you all attempt to get a third 

party to referee, if you will, the discussions? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, we did. We hired a Tribal liaison, who 

was a NEPA expert and an outreach specialist. She is actually an 

archeologist. 

Mr. RUSH. An independent third party, not somebody that you 

hired. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, an independent. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question, Mr. Mahmoud: When you talk about NEPA, 

doesn’t the Army Corps of Engineers have to follow a NEPA process? 

148 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, they do. 

Mr. WALDEN. And does that NEPA process require consultation 

with Tribes? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, it does and they did. 

Mr. WALDEN. And they did? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. All the Tribes? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. In the Northwest Region of the United States, 

they have a list of approximately, I think it is 55 different Tribes. 

They did reach out to all 55 Tribes, a total of 389 different attempts or consultations with those 55 Tribes occurred as part of 

the NEPA process. 

Mr. WALDEN. And did they listen to those Tribes? Did they make 

any changes as recommended through the NEPA process from the 

Tribes to the route of the pipeline or any conditions? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Absolutely. On multiple occasions, we modified 

the route. In North Dakota, 140 different modifications. In particular, we made multiple alterations of the route, specifically as 

the result of consultations and surveys conducted in coordination 

with the Native American groups that participated. 

Mr. WALDEN. And did the Native American groups also employ 

archeologists? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. I am sorry. 

Mr. WALDEN. Did they employ archeologists, as well? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, they did. 

Mr. WALDEN. To identify any sacred grounds, any of those sorts 

of issues, right? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. They provided their cultural and heritage specialists and some of those may or may not have been archeologists by 

training. 

Mr. WALDEN. I understand. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, they did. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK, fine. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Sullivan, I know I support the Keystone pipeline. We voted 

on it here. It had 60-plus, I think, as I recall, additional safety requirements above and beyond the underlying American pipeline 

safety laws. 

When I went home, I had Democrats and others attack me because these weren’t real jobs because they were temporary jobs. I 

would like to get your view on that because I hope that like, if I 

build a house, which I have never done, but if I did, I would want 

it to be temporary in the sense I would want you to finish. But 

aren’t those jobs kind of valuable? Isn’t that what your folks do is 

a whole bunch of temporary jobs that make up for full-time family 

wage jobs with great benefits? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely, Congressman. And I want to thank 

you, personally, for your support on Keystone pipeline. 

In my testimony, I talk about these are good, middle-class-family-supporting jobs. 

Mr. WALDEN. What would the annual salary be, on average? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. On a pipeline job, it depends on where it is at 

because that is the wage would depend on it. But it isn’t anything 

for a member of my union to make $70,000 or over $100,000 on a 

pipeline project. 

149 

Mr. WALDEN. And do they get health insurance and retirement, 

things of that nature? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. They get health insurance and they do get retirement security through a defined benefit pension plan. 

So, there are some of the best jobs, those heavy in the highway 

sector, that we have in our entire organization. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Mahmoud, the pipeline itself, are you going to pay any 

property taxes? Is anything going to local communities? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. How much? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Millions of dollars. In North Dakota, $13.1 million. In South Dakota—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Is that just a one-time payment? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. It is an annual payment. So every year from now 

and for as long as that pipeline exists in the ground as property, 

it is taxed as real property. 

Mr. WALDEN. So how much a year? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. The valuations are done by the State taxing authority. But in year one, I will give you the stats: $13.1 million for 

North Dakota, $13.5 million for South Dakota, $27.4 million in 

Iowa, and $750,000 in Illinois. 

Mr. WALDEN. So would I be right to assume that it would be 

somewhere in that range going forward per year? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. That is a reasonable estimate, yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, I am going to yield now to the gentleman 

from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer, the balance of my time, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you 

for being here. A special welcome to Mr. Harrison, my constituent, 

and Mr. Mahmoud, my newest corporate citizen. It is great to have 

you all here. 

I am going to start out by letting you know I was on the Public 

Service Commission in North Dakota for nearly 10 years. I carried 

the pipeline portfolio. I sited the original Keystone pipeline through 

North Dakota, through 600 landowners’ land, nine counties, and 

they are very grateful, those rural counties, for that property tax 

relief that is offered. 

Before I run out of time I will tell you that my intention going 

forward as I get to questions will be to dig in a little bit, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Mahmoud, on the consultation process, both as it has 

happened in this case and, probably as important as anything, Mr. 

Harrison, going forward, if in fact we can improve some of those 

things. 

But I am also going to offer into the record some very specific 

documents to tackle it, including Judge Boasberg’s ruling from last 

fall, Colonel Henderson’s memo of record on December third, one 

day prior to the Acting Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

changing that memo, at least the conclusions of that memo. So, 

with time running out, I will yield back, and those are the areas 

of exploration I want to go down. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman from Oregon’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

150 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our 

panel for being here. Normally, we don’t have two panels in a day 

but I appreciate you all’s patience. 

First, Mr. President, I appreciate your being here. I have a great 

Laborers’ Local in Houston that I work with all the time. You stated that the Dakota Access Pipeline would put about a thousand laborers back to work, and I see some of the orange shirts. Thank 

you all for being here. 

You mentioned it and I have heard it that these jobs are temporary jobs, unlike refineries and chemical plants for my steel 

workers. They go there every day. But laborers literally in all of 

our building trades, they work on a project and then they may go 

down the road or go across the country the next day. So even 

though they are temporary jobs, but if you do that—and, where I 

come from, we have lots of pipelines and we need to keep making 

them better. So, but you mentioned about the temporary jobs. You 

could probably explain it better than I can, these jobs are site-temporary but they are full-time jobs that are created. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. And thank you for your support, Congressman. 

At the end of the day, we pride ourselves because we are builders. So we build pipelines, we build buildings, we build highways 

and bridges. And when that project is over, we move on to the next 

one. 

So it is nothing for a member of my organization to have five or 

six different jobs in a year. Some of them may work on one job for 

multiple years, but ideally—not ideally, but regularly—what happens is that we move from project to project. We like longer-term 

projects better than shorter-term projects, but, at the end of the 

day, that is the nature of the construction industry. And, as I said 

in my testimony, we cobble together a temporary job after temporary job and create a construction career for those that we proudly represent and the building trades men and women as well. 

Mr. GREEN. The Dakota Access Pipeline you said was a thousand 

laborers working. How many man-hours would a pipeline project 

like that create? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. It would be millions. Congressman, I could get 

that for you. There was 4,500 building tradesmen and women that 

were also—so, there was a total of 4,500 union building tradesmen 

and women; 1,100 of them were laborers. 

Mr. GREEN. What type of workforce programs do you have or development programs that—I know you have an apprenticeship program. I went through a 4-year apprenticeship as a printer, but I 

couldn’t print the newspaper today. But could you also partner 

with local community colleges for training in your apprenticeship 

programs? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. In many instances, we do, Congressman, in various places across the country. As an organization, we train almost 

200,000 laborers a year and over 100 different environmental and 

construction skills training programs. We spend $145 million of our 

own money training, upgrade training, apprenticeship training, the 

skills and abilities of those that we proudly represent. I believe it 

is one of the things that we do best and serves as the cornerstone 

of our organization is our ability to provide that quality training to 

keep up with new technologies to make sure that our members 

151 

have the diverse skills so that they can have a career as a construction laborer. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Did you want a minute of his time? Well, 

there is a minute left. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Sullivan, congratulations on our outstanding 

work. Laborers are a very important part of the Chicago workforce. 

My question to you is what about diversity among your members, 

diversity among your labor force, diversity among those who will 

be employed on this pipeline? Can you answer the question of diversity of workforce with the tens of thousands of people that you 

have trained and have been employed by your union? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. So, Congressman, I could answer it in a general 

sense because we have about 350 local union offices across the 

United States and Canada, but the diversity of the community is 

usually very reflective of the diversity of our local unions and our 

membership. 

And we are a very diverse organization. Now, if you go to Montana or other places, we would reflect the diversity there. But if we 

go to Chicago or if we go to New York, we go to California, usually, 

the diversity of the community is going to reflect the diversity of 

our organization. 

Mr. RUSH. How diverse was your workforce on this pipeline? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. On the Dakota Access? 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. I could get you that information. I don’t have 

it at my fingertips, Congressman, but I would be happy to get it. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you. 

Thank you for getting that information to us. We will look forward 

to seeing it all. 

Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee Mr. Olson, from Texas. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair and a big Texas howdy and welcome to Mr. Harrison, Mr. Ferry, Mr. O’Sullivan, and Mr. 

Mahmoud. 

And a special howdy for Ms. Kann. You mentioned your friend 

named John, who served our Marine Corps. Is that correct? Was 

that his first name, John? I served in our Navy. So, please thank 

John for his service. And please remind him that he is within the 

Department of the Navy as a Marine. He will love you for it. 

VOICE. The men’s department. 

Mr. OLSON. I am an optimist. As I said in my opening statement, 

we have to find a balance between jobs and growth and historic 

lands. If it is all black and white, nobody wins; we all lose. 

And as I mentioned in my opening statement, I have got a great 

example back home in Sugar Land, Texas, a park for our veterans 

that kids go fishing in, have barbeques in, fly kites on. It is all on 

top of a natural gas pipeline. It has been that way for 10 years. 

Sugar Land found a balance and surely, North Dakota can find a 

balance. We can’t seek perfection. 

Mr. Mahmoud, you know we lost perfection the day Eve bit that 

apple. It has never happened since then. Nothing made by men is 

perfect. So please tell us, with that said, can you talk about some 

of the safety advances we have seen, what is going on with the 

pipeline right now to make it the safest pipeline ever? 

152 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir and I appreciate that because this pipeline, by the pure fact that it is being built today, is safer than a 

pipeline that was built in the 1950s. The technology has improved. 

The steel that is used is higher quality. The formulas are better 

suited in our design to withstand the different forces that the earth 

puts on it on a daily basis, as well as the preventative steps that 

we take to ensure safety because that is our number one goal. Safety is always our number one goal. When we designed and we build 

a pipeline and we place it in these diverse communities, that is the 

number one thing we think about. So we always design to the latest standards and, most often, we go above and beyond. 

So we use things such as automated valves. It is probably one 

of the greater technologies that a lot of pipeline companies and including Energy Transfer that we put in place so that you don’t 

have to rely upon a field operator to go close that valve, but then 

you can actuate that valve remotely. So there are a lot of technologies that we employ above and beyond. 

[Simultaneous speaking.] 

Mr. OLSON. Shut off manually? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. That is a complicated question. For oil pipelines, 

it doesn’t quite work that way, but for a natural gas pipeline it absolutely works that way. 

Mr. OLSON. Sorry for the confusion. 

My final question is there for Mr. O’Sullivan and Mr. Ferry. One 

thing that divides us on this issue is a lack of pipeline certainty. 

Right now because FERC does not have a forum, nothing is moving 

from FERC. So please tell us, beyond that, and even beyond pipelines, can you talk about how important it is for project certainty 

when it comes to attracting and keeping skilled labor? 

Mr. O’Sullivan, Mr. Ferry, whoever is up first. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Congressman, it is critically important. When I 

talk about, and I know this committee has, about the approval 

process, I mean in many instances, as we work with community 

colleges where we are training to need is that you don’t want to 

train somebody and then they don’t have a job for 6, or, 8, or 9 

months, they feel as though they have been let down. So that training is absolutely critical and particularly as Joey was talking 

about, new technologies and things like that we try and keep our 

members and our apprentices up to speed on all of that. 

And so if we could cut down, without cutting any corners—I am 

certainly not suggesting that—that every stakeholder should be 

heard, that it should be a fair, but there should be a beginning and 

an end. And that gives the kind of certainty to ramp up training, 

to ramp for jobs. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Ferry, do you care to comment on that, sir? 

Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir. Just to help everybody understanding, I will 

give you a little metaphor. When I went to work in the trade, I 

went to work every day to work myself out of a job. That is the 

type of temporary construction we are talking here. So we build 

buildings and when the building is done, we move on. 

So to support what Mr. O’Sullivan is saying right here, yes, we 

go to work every day to work ourselves out but it is the training. 

It is the safety. It is all that. 

153 

We are doing the ETC Rover pipeline with ETC in Ohio right 

now. And I will tell you, everything is marched to the drawings, to 

the specifications. There are certifications we have to follow. There 

are testing procedures we have to follow, and it is all done with the 

whole intent of safety, of going to work every day to make sure my 

workers come home safe, but to make sure every day the product 

is completed and it is safe for the community. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. I like that answer because Rover is coming to Michigan, and we are going to need it. It is going to impact my district, 

I know. 

Mr. Welch is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. I want to thank the panel. 

A couple of things. One, the big issue about the pipeline is not 

so much the pipeline, the big issue about where it goes and how 

it affects folks there, and it is not about the jobs. Mr. O’Sullivan, 

you have a fantastic union and fantastic workforce. And if I have 

my way, we are going to put them together rebuilding America 

with a big infrastructure bill. I mean we need to get them doing 

the work. So I just want to thank you. 

And also, Mr. Walden made the point we get it that if you are 

in construction, by definition, those are temporary jobs. So see the 

union folks here. Thanks for being willing to do the work where it 

needs to be done. That means spending time away from your family. That is hard. 

The other thing I think we understand is that America has a lot 

of work that needs to be done. There is a lot of jobs. We have got 

low unemployment. There is not a lot of good paying jobs. And the 

challenge for us is more the paycheck than it is actually the job. 

And anything we can do to maintain those jobs, we should. 

But there is another issue that hasn’t really been discussed here 

that is important to a lot of us that is not about the union and it 

is not even about the location of where this pipeline goes. And that 

is, obviously, of enormous importance to the Tribal peoples and 

that is the whole climate change issue and how we get our energy. 

And that is a point of enormous contentious debate here in Congress about what should be our policy to try to move to less carbonintensive forms of energy. 

And I feel as though in the pipeline a lot of really good people, 

including these workers here, get caught in the crossfire. But that 

is an issue that we are not going to resolve here but where there 

is a lot of things that we can do that would achieve or move us toward the goal that I have of less carbon in the atmosphere that 

would involve good jobs for folks in your union. 

You know the energy efficiency stuff that we have been working 

on, Mr. Chairman, that requires skilled workers to retrofit places 

and it requires real skills. And I hope we find an ability to work 

on the common ground so that we are going to pay some respect 

to these workers. 

I do want to ask Mr. Harrison, I know for you this whole situation is in not just your backyard, it is in your yard. And I think 

all of us should have the capacity for some awareness that if it 

were our yard, we would have a passion about protecting our historical cultural rights. 

154 

Just tell me about your interaction with the pipeline folks and 

whether there was an effort to have you—you made an effort to try 

to locate the pipeline away from places that would encroach on important issues for you. 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you for pointing that out, Congressman. 

We often have to put it in that perspective that if the shoe were 

on the other foot, how would you react. So, I appreciate that. 

One of the elements that we have consistently tried to say in our 

opposition is that much of the pipeline and the risk, and there is 

a risk, as the Congressman and vice chairman said. There is always a risk, but we bear the greatest risk. How is that shared with 

the rest of the State? How is it shared with the rest of that? 

We are approximately, well I should say we are about 20 miles, 

a little over 20 miles from the South Dakota border, so we are at 

the southernmost edge of North Dakota and before the Missouri 

hits South Dakota. In the State of South Dakota, we are going to 

bear the greatest risk. 

I would also submit, and this goes right to the point of how does 

it affect us, that we also bear the least benefit. And whenever this 

oil starts to pump through the pipeline, I can submit that a year 

from there, I would wager that our county, Sioux County, which is 

also part of North Dakota, would have the smallest tax revenue 

from it. We have no workers on this pipeline, and we are right 

there. 

So, the benefits of this, these economic development portion of it, 

the economics behind it, don’t benefit us but yet we bear the greatest risk. We have been opposed on many of those platforms. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have you 

all here. 

It is always great to talk about jobs, the economy, and energy security. I believe in pipelines. I believe they are the safest, most reliable, cheapest way to move bulk, liquid crude. Undeniable. 

So, having said that, I want to put up, Mr. Mahmoud, this pipeline that you are speaking of ends up here? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Patoka, around Vernon. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Patoka is in my district. I have been to the Patoka 

Tank Farm numerous times. It is one of our pride and joys. 

And so the two pictures that everybody can see is the one on the 

left is our pipeline system in our country right today. Sometimes 

what has happened in this debate, because of the PR is that the 

country thinks that there is only one pipeline being built and we 

are only operating one pipeline. But there is, obviously, thousands 

and thousands of miles of pipeline and hundreds of pipelines that 

go across the transcontinental line. 

So, if we were debating the other pipeline controversy of a Keystone XL, you would think that we had never had a pipeline go 

across a country boundary. But as the map shows, we have got 

gazillions. No, no, go back to that. 

So the red is crude oil refined product, the blue is natural gas. 

And again, the right one is the big red dot, that is Patoka. So you 

155 

can see in my congressional district, one, two, three, four, five, six, 

seven, eight crude-oil-refined pipelines, and look at all the blue 

ones, which is the natural gas. So, let’s go to the next slide. 

So I also deal with—this weekend I leave for Brussels. I am a 

member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. NATO is also a big 

new story today. Russia has used energy extortion to our allies. 

So this picture tells another story. The ship on the right is actually an LNG import terminal in Lithuania called Independence, 

aptly named because it is the hope of our allies that as we build 

these pipelines and we move them to the east coast, and then we 

build LNG terminals, compress it, put it on ships, that they are no 

longer extorted by Russian natural gas or Russian crude oil. They 

are our allies. They are our friends. They fought together in Afghanistan with us. They fought together in Iraq with us. And that 

is critical. 

Now, the other ship on the left is just an LNG terminal ship delivering LNG to Independence. 

Now, why do I weave this story? So a lot of people will say there 

is no economic benefit. There is huge economic benefit. If we are 

putting natural gas on the world market, it dramatically increases 

our balance of trade. It makes us a stronger nation. It makes communities stronger. There are 30 applications for LNG terminals 

pending. I don’t think they will all get built. To build an LNG terminal is about $10 billion. And that is good jobs, good wages, good 

benefits. 

And not only that, I always talk about the tax benefit to these 

communities. I have rural America. I have high-powered transmission lines. And I have some of my community folks that don’t 

like them. But when they go to the power plant in that community 

that has the power plant, has the tax base to fund its schools and 

it has the tax base to do its county, we lose the focus of the benefits 

of energy when we have this narrow focus and we don’t look at how 

it is benefiting the whole country. 

So I am all in on the bet that it is the safest, most reliable, 

cheapest way to move it. I am in it that it creates job. And I just 

want my colleagues here to understand the additional benefits that 

are happening not just in our country but to our friends and allies 

in Europe. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, no questions. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to get one question in to Councilman Harrison and one 

to Ms. Kann. So, I will try to use my time wisely here. 

In my opening statement, I mentioned that most of the problems 

with pipeline construction result from disputes over the siting of 

these lines. Streamlining will solve this problem for the developers 

of the project but at the expense, often, of people and resources 

along the project pathway. 

So Councilman Harrison, in your testimony, you point out that 

consultation with Tribes doesn’t just mean telling landowners and 

communities what you are going to do and how you are going to 

do it. It means listening to community concerns and making necVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
156 

essary changes to ensure these projects do not harm people, land, 

and other resources. 

Mr. Mahmoud said that Energy Transfer Partners negotiated 

with and accommodated 55 Native American groups and that only 

the Sioux Nation has been unwilling to talk with or work with 

them. I just wanted your response to that. When did the company 

first approach the Tribe about the proposed pipeline and the proposed route near your Tribe’s water supply? What offers, if any, did 

the company make to alter the route or design the project in response to your concerns? 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you for the question. I want to back up 

just a hair. The map that was up that showed all the pipelines, if 

you notice right above the North Dakota-South Dakota, there is a 

big hole where there are no pipelines. And that is treaty lands. The 

Native American treaties have been assigned that from the mid1800s on, and that is a large portion of that. 

So to your question, how do these pipelines affect people and 

their resources, that is a good example. You start cutting through 

there without the proper consultation, now we are cracking the seal 

on something else, which is infringement on treaty rights. And 

that, my contract with the Government of the United States is 

something we take very seriously. 

Now, to answer your question about when they approached us, 

September of 2014 is the initial time. At that time, we adopted a 

resolution, as a Tribe, opposing this project. From that, we don’t 

feel that any of the meaningful consultation about the—not just the 

objection, but any kind of meaningful reroute, was not taken seriously. 

Now, there may have been some rerouting to the tune of a few 

feet or maybe a dozen feet here and there to avoid a little site, but 

there has never been a real conversation about let’s look at some 

place else to cross that river. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. 

And then I wanted to ask Ms. Kann, in your testimony, you 

seemed to indicate that you come from a pretty conservative, predominately Republican area. In fact, I think that area went pretty 

strongly for President Trump. Mr. Chairman, I am glad I am not 

running there. It doesn’t seem like you come from an area that is 

part of the keep it in the ground or anti-fossil fuels movement. In 

fact, you go so far as to say regarding your community that, and 

I quote, we get that sometimes land needs to be taken for the benefit of the community. 

So am I right in my assumption about the Republican conservative nature of your area? 

Ms. KANN. Can you say the last part of that for me again? 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, in other words, I am just trying to point out 

that your area is pretty conservative, predominately Republican. 

Ms. KANN. Oh, it is strongly Republican. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

Ms. KANN. You know as people speak up with regard to this 

issue, they almost feel like they are kind of not in keeping with 

their Republican roots. But then the issue becomes the rights of individual landowners and the actual protection under the Bill of 

157 

Rights which is probably the most important protection that either 

party provides their constituents. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Well, let me get to my questions, I have 

only got a minute left. 

I just found it interesting in your testimony when you say the 

citizens are no longer willing to tolerate the abuse of eminent domain to line the pockets of others. Because many in the gas line 

industry would argue that eminent domain is only used as a last 

resort and almost never involves seizure of private property and 

that they are constantly adjusting routes to minimize the impact 

on land owners. 

But what is your experience? Do you feel like your concerns were 

listened to and there was a good faith effort to reach an accommodation with you and your neighbors to avoid eminent domain? Do 

you feel like there should be an eminent domain reform for natural 

gas pipelines that perhaps there should be a higher standard for 

a gas company to take land? 

Ms. KANN. Absolutely. And to maybe start at the end of your 

questioning and work backwards, the standard that seems to bring 

the most angst to my community is the division between the intent 

of natural gas for domestic use to meet the needs of our communities, to keep our schools warm, our factories running, our homes 

lit, and the intent of resources to be used for corporate profit. And 

we have felt that the standard should be different for the two. We 

are much more open and accepting of the idea of eminent domain 

when you are talking about upgrading electrical grids and supplying local power plants than we are about gas, in particular, that 

is specifically slated for export. 

That difference is huge. That difference is the difference between 

what is protected by the Bill of Rights and what is not. That difference is part of what is spoken to repeatedly in the Republican 

platform of 2016 of protecting individual land owner rights as a sacred compact between our Government and our citizens. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

The Chair will recognize Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is to Mr. Mahmoud. Is that the way you say 

it? You are an employee of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. I am an employee of Energy Transfer Partners, 

which is the managing partner in the joint venture. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. I am told that this particular pipeline, if built, 

would go through an existing right-of-way. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, part of it does. 

Mr. BARTON. Part of it does. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Does the part of it that is under debate go through 

an existing right-of-way, the one that seems to be the most controversial? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. At Lake Oahe, there are two existing natural gas 

pipelines for the same system called Northern Border that we parallel, two existing 42-inch pipes. 

158 

Mr. BARTON. OK, so there is already pipelines there. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, two of them. 

Mr. BARTON. I am also told by my staff that this particular pipeline has complied with every State and Federal environmental review and all the various permitting requirements. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. That is correct. We have permits from each State, 

every jurisdiction, local, State, as well as Federal. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, so there is not any existing hold up in terms 

of an agency of the Federal or State Government that says no. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. What is the issue with the Indian Tribe or 

Tribes that seems to be controversial in their mind? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. You know it stems back to the consultation. And 

I cannot speak for the Government, but what I can say is that the 

meaningful consultation that we have mentioned today—as a private company, we are not a Government. And so, therefore, resides 

the issue is that the Tribe, although we attempted seven different 

times, and actually more than that, but seven official times, to 

have consultation, and the Corps did it nine times, so that is 16 

attempts with the Standing Rock. We don’t have the Governmentto-Government relationship that the Tribe was seeking to have 

that consultation. So there lies the issue is that we cannot enter 

into formal consultation with the Tribe to resolve some of the 

issues that they claimed and, therefore, it is the Government that 

has to have those consultations. 

Mr. BARTON. Well you could, but you can’t force them. Isn’t that 

correct? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Well under Government-to-Government consultation, by definition, we are not a Government. So therefore, we don’t 

have consultation other than informal consultation, which we did 

do and we attempted to have very meaningful. 

Mr. BARTON. But under State and Federal law, you don’t have 

the right to consult with an Indian Tribe because you are not a 

Government. Is that correct? 

VOICE. Yes, thank you very much! You don’t have a treaty. You 

are not—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am asking the question to him, not to you. I am 

just trying to understand it. I am not trying to be adversarial or 

controversial. I just wanted the basic facts. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. That is correct, sir. We have the right to communicate with anyone as a U.S. citizen, and I think we do that very 

well. Communicating with the Native American community is 

something that we hold very near and dear to our heart. We treat 

all stakeholders with the utmost respect. But when it comes to the 

official process, under the permitting that we have to go through, 

we do not qualify to be a Government to enter into Governmentto-Government consultation. 

Mr. BARTON. My time is about to expire. I don’t necessarily have 

a question for Ms. Kann. 

Both my family farms were taken by eminent domain. So, I have 

a high-speed project going through my congressional district that 

a lot of my constituents opposed. So, I have great respect for indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
159 

viduals who are having to give some of their right-of-way by an 

eminent domain process. 

As I understand it, you have said in answer to questions and in 

your comments that this particular project—because, as you put it, 

is for-profit—is objectionable. But if it were used for domestic purposes or if it were used for a product in or near your home, you 

wouldn’t be opposed. 

I said I wasn’t going to ask you a question, but is that correct? 

Ms. KANN. I believe the members of my community who are most 

opposed to this would be less opposed and more willing to consider 

it as a viable option and not a violation of their rights as citizens, 

if that were the case. 

Mr. BARTON. But your property is not affected by the Dakota Access Pipeline. 

Ms. KANN. No. No, sir. It is the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair and let me welcome all of our 

members of the panel. Thank you for your input. 

My effort here, or I think our effort should be to strike balance 

where there is opportunity with comprehensive energy plan to grow 

significant jobs that pay well and respond to all of the energy 

needs. And I understand fully that expression coming from our 

union force—union labor force but there does have to be that balance. 

And Ms. Kann, I thank you for being here today to speak up for 

many private property owners that often feel left out of the process. 

How long have you owned your property? 

Ms. KANN. The property has been in my family since 1990. 

Mr. TONKO. And can you describe the process of dealing with the 

company, the pipeline company as they work to site its project and 

obtain permits? 

Ms. KANN. The pipeline company, characterizing their behavior, 

the best word that I can think of is bully. They have shown up onsite with demands. They have left messages on my answering machine indicating that if they can have access to my property, their 

goal is to move it from my property, which I knew was not something that was within the power of the land agent speaking to me 

to do. 

There was, at one time, a very important need to gain access to 

as many properties as possible for the purpose of surveying, and 

many people in my community were treated in a way that was very 

disingenuous and very misleading, and very preying upon the lack 

of understanding that the people in the community had. 

Mr. TONKO. And do you sense that they heard your concerns and 

worked with you to resolve any issues from the beginning of the 

process? 

Ms. KANN. Absolutely at no point. 

Mr. TONKO. Well this subcommittee considered legislation last 

year that would have allowed companies to use areal surveying 

done by drones to obtain surveying data. This could allow companies to get the data that they need, while doing minimal outreach 

to property owners. 

160 

Now, while I do not expect you to know the details of this legislation, based on your experience, do you have any thoughts on changing the permitting process that would allow pipeline companies to 

do less community outreach and engagement with private property 

owners? 

Ms. KANN. I can’t imagine anything more objectionable than not 

having to deal with the people that are directly affected by this. If 

anything, individual property owners need to have a larger voice in 

this and I think we need to redefine the concept of voice. Being invited to FERC hearings and being allowed to testify and have testimony on the record does not equate to being involved in meaningful dialogue that affects any kind of influence on a project like this. 

It doesn’t serve to educate anybody, and it doesn’t serve to allow 

anybody to have input. 

To end run the obligation of energy companies that want to do 

projects like this and not require them to engage with the communities that they intend to go through, I believe would be a horrific 

violation of our rights as citizens and landowners. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I tend to agree that these procedures that process needs to include respect and transparency and that means respecting the communities that host pipelines, inheriting all of the 

risks and none of the benefits. And respecting Tribal rights and 

property right, private property owner rights should be obvious. 

But sadly, the process has tilted the way from the public dialogue 

necessary to determine whether these projects are justified and 

how they will seek to minimize the damage to aggrieved parties. 

I also want to point out that there have been officials that, despite supporting high profile pipeline projects have opposed interstate high-voltage direct current transmission projects, energy infrastructure projects that even many members of the environmental community support. 

So while I, too, have my concerns about potentially cutting States 

out of the process, these projects will bring clean energy from 

America’s heartland to the rest of the country. Instead of exploring 

yesterday’s fuel supply to foreign countries tomorrow, let’s work on 

getting tomorrow’s domestic electricity to Americans today. 

I would just ask for consistency in how we evaluate these 

projects. For me, that means ensuring a robust community-oriented 

process that respects landowner and Tribal rights, regardless of the 

type of infrastructure in question. I hope those same standards can 

be applied by everyone, whether it is a pipeline benefitting the oil 

industry or a transmission line benefiting utility scale clean energy. 

I have a few seconds remaining, and I will yield those to Mr. 

Rush, please. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Sullivan, I have just got to come back to the same line of 

questioning that I had for you before. 

First of all, I am a strong union supporter. I am very close to the 

local in Chicago and I have a lot of admiration for the Laborers’. 

But I just can’t settle in my mind you made a statement. You said 

that you move from community to community and, therefore, you 

reflect the demographics of that community. But you also said that 

these are temporary jobs and the way that these jobs becomes perVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
161 

manent is that you string together jobs. That gives a picture of a 

team of people going from one job to another, from one State, one 

community to another, and they become the workforce. I don’t see 

that. I have a problem how can at one time reflect the demographics of a standing community and then also moving people in 

and out of your jobs who may or may not be from that community. 

How do you know that? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Congressman, you have always been a strong 

supporter of organized labor, and we certainly appreciate that. 

By that I mean this: If we take ETP’s job, it is 1,100 miles. And 

so we will have to do it by 100-mile spreads. So I will have laborers 

and the other trades will have members that work within that 100- 

mile spread. And then I will have a group of other laborers that 

will work on the next 100. Sometimes we will cross over, but what 

happens is that, when somebody gets out of that particular pipeline 

job, they will go back and they may be working on building construction or heavy and highway construction out of their local 

union hall after that particular job. Sometimes they stay with the 

company but most of the time when that particular spread is over, 

they will go back to the local union hall and then get dispatched 

out, maybe on another pipeline job, but possibly—— 

And what we do, Congressman, is go through training. And so 

somebody that doesn’t have training that is a pipeline laborer, we 

put him through training so that we give him the skill sets to be 

able to do building construction, heavy, and highway construction. 

Mr. RUSH. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will recognize Dr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. O’Sullivan, I want to follow-up with what you just said there. 

So, in terms of work of being a laborer, or an electrical worker, 

or a carpenter, or anything else, I guess in some ways all work is 

somewhat temporary in terms of a particular project. But it is longterm in terms of they are involved in multiple projects, correct? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Correct, Congressman. 

Mr. MURPHY. So how long will it take one of your workers, for 

example, on one of those 100-mile stretches? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. It depends on the project and the terrain but I 

believe that Dakota Access, the time line was for 7 months or 

somewhere in that neighborhood to complete that 1,100 mile section of pipeline. Some are a little more complicated, more compressor stations. And I don’t want to get into the intricacies of it. 

Joey has forgotten more than I know about it. But at the end of 

the day, those spreads, when they are over, it could be anywhere 

from 2 months to 7 months, depending on the particular project, or 

longer. 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, that is the nature of all construction 

work—— 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. Unless it is a multi-year project. 

May I remind my colleagues, we are temp employees. We only 

have a 2-year contract. We have to go back to our boss every couple 

of years and ask for a renewal on the contract. We don’t have tenure. We are not permanent employees here. 

162 

I want to ask a question, Mr. Mahmoud, on the safety issue. I 

was a private sponsor a few years ago of a bill called Mark and 

Chelsea’s Law, which included a comprehensive pipeline safety bill 

to keep families safe from ruptures from gas lines. And it basically 

said that if a utility worker, construction worker, anybody, punctures or ruptures a gas line, they have to notify the owners of that 

gas line and local emergency responders immediately on that. 

Let me expand that to other areas of safety. In terms of during 

the construction, or inspection of what is in place, or response if 

there is a problem, can you give me an idea of what has happened 

over the years here, what is currently in place in terms of what you 

have to adhere to in terms of doing these projects to assure public 

safety? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Thank you for that. There are multiple levels of 

safety, number one. And safety is always our number one criteria. 

Putting aside operational safety, if we are looking at construction 

safety, one, we are bound by the rules under OSHA for all of the 

workers that are employed not only by LIUNA, or some of the 

other trades, or the contractors, but also for Energy Transfer, or 

whomever they may work for. 

So we comply with those laws and regulations, but we also employ a very robust construction safety program that is executed by 

our contractors, primarily, but it is driven by our company to make 

sure that the culture of safety is pushed down to all the different 

layers so everybody behaves and acts in a safe manner. 

Mr. MURPHY. Some are Federal, some are State, some are other 

local safety issues you have to be adhering to at all times? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. MURPHY. What if a local citizen has a concern about safety 

or risk factors, are you required to respond to that? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. We are. And typically, on a gas pipeline for an 

interstate pipeline, when those concerns are raised, they usually 

are raised as part of the NEPA process through FERC. And we address those through that environmental document or through data 

requests from that Federal agency. 

If it is not a federalized project, we do, we have a very robust 

outreach program that we educate the public, as well as other individuals that may live by or near, the 811 programs that you may 

be familiar with. So we have a very robust, very—— 

Mr. MURPHY. And I guess this also goes to Mr. Sullivan. Are the 

workers on the project empowered also that if they see a problem, 

they report it right away? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. O’Sullivan is that true in terms of your workers and their training to report something immediately if they see 

a problem? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely, Congressman. 

Mr. MURPHY. And I just think it is always extremely important 

to have someone who can pull the whistle or something and say 

there is a problem, we have to act on it. And the responsiveness 

then within the construction is—— 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Immediate. There is no delay. If there is a safetyrelated incident, it is addressed right then. 

163 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. Finally, I only have about 30 seconds left here, 

but back to Mr. O’Sullivan. 

Expand this some more, labor’s role, a seat at the table in terms 

of the regulatory process. Do you play a role in that? Does labor 

play a role in that? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. We do, Congressman. What we do is we is we 

find our members that are along the pipeline route. We encourage 

them to show up at the town hall meetings and public hearings 

that are going on all along the whole pipeline. 

So we do engage because they are residents of the community as 

well. So, they do show up at the town hall meetings and public listening sessions. 

Mr. MURPHY. Let me just add one final comment with regard to 

what you said before about whether someone is working 2 months 

or 7 months and multiple jobs put together may not seem like 

much, if someone is on the outside looking in, but I am sure it 

means a lot to that worker—— 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. Who would much rather be getting a 

paycheck than an unemployment check. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were 

going to go to the other side. 

Quickly, if I could get into it, 51 years ago I picked up a lunch 

pail and went out on my first construction job. It has been something that means a lot to me as a construction industry and I 

spent, again, 51 years in it. And now in the Washington, I am the 

chairman of the Construction Trades Council Caucus, trying to 

make sure that all our members understand the construction 

trades and what the impact of our construction industry has on the 

economy of this country. 

Curiously, we only have about 12 or 15 members in Congress 

that have ever performed construction work. So you can imagine 

the educational process that we have to go through when people 

are concerned about part-time jobs. That is what we have done for 

51 years is understanding that. 

But my question, in part, is maybe it is almost an opening statement of sorts is I am frustrated for us in West Virginia because the 

last 8 years we have seen our coal industry collapse. So, we tried 

to switch over to natural gas and be able to exercise what we use 

in the Utica and Marcellus but we can’t get permits to build our 

pipeline. 

So my question, I guess maybe it would be at your, Mr. 

O’Sullivan, with laborers. Are you seeing a slowdown around the 

country of the ability to build pipelines and put our people to work? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Congressman, we are seeing a slowdown in the 

permitting process and I hate to keep going back to that but shovel-ready projects are only shovel-ready if there is a reasonable review process. And again, we are for comprehensive process but 

there has to be a beginning and an end. 

164 

West Virginia, in particular—and I am a proud member of Laborers’ Local 1353 in Charleston, West Virginia, and worked in the 

State for a number of years, and I appreciate your support all the 

years as well. 

What we are seeing in West Virginia, in my local particularly, 

with what has happened to coal in the State, we have lost half our 

members. In many instances, natural gas pipelines have really 

helped our members out in the State. To be honest, we would have 

lost more than half our members if it wasn’t because of that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We have apparently, if we can tap into it properly, the Marcellus, the Utica, and West Virginia, we could produce 

50 percent of all the natural gas in America using that. However, 

we just can’t get the permits to get those pipelines built. Of course, 

they are building some but not at the speed that we need to help 

out. 

And so it is coming down to elected bureaucrats and delays and 

tactics or are we just putting people to work? If we can’t mine coal 

for 8 years, we have seen the employment situation occur in West 

Virginia, well, actually, across the country, this anti-coal fervor 

that the Obama administration put in place; 83,000 coal miners 

lost their job, 246 power plants closed down, 400 coal mines closed. 

So we turn, with hope, that we can use the natural gas and build 

the pipelines so that we can put our people to work and find a new 

way, a different economy. But we are stymied and I don’t want to 

see that happen in the Dakotas or elsewhere, where people are trying to find jobs, just jobs it comes down to. 

So what advice would you give us? What would be the best thing 

that we could do here in Congress to try to get the regulatory bodies to be more responsive so that the people that want to work, our 

building trades and elsewhere, what could we do to eliminate some 

of those barriers? The process is there but what else do we need 

to do? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Yes, I think it all boils down to predictability, 

predictability in the process. And as long as it is fair across all industries, and for our industry on the energy side, we need predictable regulations that we can rely upon when we make these multibillion-dollar decisions and we need finality. So what happened on 

the DAPL project is very devastating to a company like ours, when 

we are investing nearly $4 billion all of a sudden just to be halted 

by a political intervention. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We talked to, I guess it was Barton, someone 

brought up the NEPA process and we saw that process abused in 

the last 8 years. They were trying to ship export coal from Bellingham, Washington, and they didn’t—the NEPA process was underway with it, but the administration just stepped in and stopped 

the NEPA process. That has got to be very frustrating to people 

that have spent $7 million or $8 million to get something approved. 

I have got problems with this bureaucratic nonsense that we 

have to put up with sometimes around here. 

So I yield back my time. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. The Chair calls upon the 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. 

165 

Ms. Kann, let me ask you a couple of questions. As a part of the 

pipeline going through Pennsylvania, did you participate in the 

FERC processes? 

Ms. KANN. I participated at every opportunity. I am registered 

as an intervenor and I have spoken at the FERC hearings. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And was your experience with FERC a good one? 

Ms. KANN. It was very neutral. There was no dialogue. There 

was no back and forth. There was a panel of people sitting on a 

stage who just sat. It wasn’t dialogue. It was testimony. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I have a pipeline coming through my district, 

which is why I am asking these questions. 

And do you feel that FERC should be able to look at, as opposed 

to one individual pipeline, perhaps multiple pipelines going 

through a region so that they might consider whether or not all the 

pipelines are needed? 

Ms. KANN. Absolutely. Pennsylvania is slated for up to 300,000 

miles of pipelines in the next several years, and they are both collection lines and interstate distribution lines. 

The collective impact of that is an entirely different story than 

what FERC considers on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am, that has been our experience, as well. 

And as a part of that, do you know if in your situation they 

looked at highway right-of-ways or co-location opportunities for the 

pipeline? 

Ms. KANN. There was a great deal of dialogue in my community. 

The initial proposal from Williams for this pipeline route rather extensively used some existing public land and existing right-of-ways 

in our township. There was some outcry over that because some of 

the public lands had been bought with taxpayer and donation dollars. It was a conservancy land. And Williams quickly rerouted 

through private properties after that. 

There was a second wave of proposals made by some of the residents in my township in particular to reroute back to some of that 

public land and FERC did not choose to make that move. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate your testimony here today. 

Mr. Mahmoud, I know that you have already testified that you 

all did do some co-location. As your company was looking at this, 

did you all look at opportunities where you might be able to co-locate? And is the gas that you are piping through, is that something 

that you all believe is necessary, exclusive to other projects or are 

we—my question is are we getting into a situation where we are 

using eminent domain for competing projects? Each standing alone 

would meet FERC’s requirements but maybe together, we are 

overdoing it and building an oversupply of pipeline. Do think there 

are any concerns? And I will just open it up. You answer however 

you wish. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Sure. Thank you very much. 

You know, in the context of natural gas, we do have the Rover 

pipeline, which is up partially in Pennsylvania for a small section. 

It is a 713-mile pipeline that gathers natural gas from the producing region of the Utica and Marcellus and takes it to market. 

I can tell you there is about 20 Bcf of stranded gas in the Utica 

and Marcellus today. Our project moves 3.25 billion cubic feet of 

that 20. So that means there is a need for more pipelines to be 

166 

built in that region to take care of that capacity to de-bottleneck 

the production in that region. 

So in my mind, those infrastructure projects are necessary to 

transport the volume coming out of that production region. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. One of the concerns that Ms. Kann has and I 

know gas companies want to try to work it out the best they can 

but everybody has got to make money while they are doing this, 

too, is that her region apparently isn’t going to benefit from it. The 

gas is being transported through. Is that going to be the case in 

the Dakota pipeline as well or are there going to be some opportunities after the pipeline is built for opportunities there for people 

to get the gas? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. So the Dakota Access Pipeline is a crude oil pipeline. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. That is a little bit different than natural gas. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Sure. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. And I would suggest on the connectiveness or 

interconnectiveness to an interstate natural gas pipeline is the 

process for which to get access to that gas really resides with the 

States, with the State public utility commissions. That is where the 

work needs to be by the local constituents to help them develop 

programs to build LDCs to distribute that gas. Because from an 

interstate perspective, we would love to have more connections. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right, now on the oil in particular, a number 

of folks have brought up the fact that there have been some pipeline problems over the years, but, just on either side of my district, 

I have had train problems with transporting oil. Which do the studies say is safer, the pipeline or running it on train? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Pipelines by far, by a factor of between 3 1A1⁄2

to 4 1A1⁄2 times more incidents on a rail than there are on pipe. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right, I appreciate that. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this important hearing today. 

I want to turn to Mr. Ferry, if I could. Mr. Ferry, it is always 

good to have someone that has seen the impacts the shale plays in 

the oil and gas boom in the Marcellus and the Utica in the great 

State of Ohio here to talk a little bit about our experiences. 

In your testimony, you state that widespread adoption of new energy technologies has been slowed by economic, Government, and 

marketplace barriers. Could you identify these barriers? And how 

can we reduce these barriers to help the industry utilize new technologies? 

Mr. FERRY. I think you heard a lot of it today from Mr. 

Mahmoud. Those are some of the issues that are going on that 

have slowed down—in the year 2016, we were supposed to be well 

done with the ETC Rover pipeline project, and it is only going to 

kick off here in the middle of February. But it has been the permitting. It is the FERC permitting, the EPA issues. We need to—and 

the balance between this side of the room and this side of the room, 

167 

and I am in the middle. I understand because I respect what is 

going on over there, but we do want to put people to work. 

We do have investors that have a lot of money sitting on the 

table that they need to get it to get a TAP capital return. 

So, I would say the permitting issue is number one, and then 

once this finally gets worked out, we are going to have major issues 

of finding talented people to get it done, that can do it safely. Number one, it is driven from the top. In our company, it is: you see 

it, you own it, you have to get involved to stop it. But the other 

thing that we talked earlier about is I am really concerned about 

having a drug-free workforce out there to do it safely as we respect 

it on all jobs. The owners demand that we have a drug-free program in place and I think that is another issue that is going to 

hurt us in the long-run. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, could you discuss the Electrical Training Alliance Apprenticeship Program and how important it is in developing a skilled workforce? 

Mr. FERRY. President Lonnie was here earlier from the IBEW 

but we, together, it is called the NJATC, the National Joint Apprenticeship Training, which was the alliance, we invest, like the 

Laborers, over hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and there are 

over 300 training facilities across the United States, and they are 

all keyed for every area what the training needs to be. 

So, just like Mr. O’Sullivan says, if the pipeliners are not working, there is other training that we can do to get our electricians 

to work. So our trade, the electrical trade, has went from just pipe 

and wire, and lights and switches, to a vast array of training needs 

to get that done. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I am thinking that many in our region of the 

country, in our State of Ohio are going to be paying very close attention to this hearing, so I want to make sure that I get this question out there. Is it safe to say that if you are a part of that trained 

workforce and you put forth the effort, that your chances of getting 

opportunities for good paying jobs, high paying jobs are real good? 

Mr. FERRY. I would say it is an excellent opportunity. 

Again, one of the things, one of jobs as being the leader of the 

company and having the vision, that is the biggest fear I have is 

having the talented people to make that happen. There are going 

to be great opportunities in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, just 

the cracker facilities, along with the fracking and gas and oil, there 

are going to be a lot of great opportunities. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You know, I have talked to a lot of the labor 

groups and the career tech centers, and whether it is the building 

trades, the plumbers and pipefitters, the operating engineers, you 

name it, about these opportunities, can you talk a little bit about, 

especially in our region, you have got a lot of young people that 

don’t really see a 4-year college education as something that they 

want to do. And there are a great number of opportunities in those 

trades, in the oil and gas industry. 

Can you address that some? 

Mr. FERRY. Absolutely. I think the universities have done a great 

job in marketing that you need a 4-year degree to have an opportunity to raise a family, but I am classic example of that. I come 

out of high school, I was the oldest of seven. We didn’t have the 

168 

money for college. I went into the trades, and now I am the owner 

and CEO of a company. 

So the possibilities to get into the construction industry is unlimited. It is all driven by the individual and how far they want to go 

in this industry. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Anything that we can do in Congress to help this 

process along? 

Mr. FERRY. I am leaning this side over here. The regulations 

have really slowed the processes down. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are working on those. You know that. 

Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir, but I know when President Trump signed 

those orders on the 24th, our phones started ringing off the hook 

of opportunities. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our phones are ringing off the hook, too. 

Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good deal. Well, thank you, Mr. Ferry. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FERRY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I was hearing you 

introduce my friend Mr. Johnson, I thought, well, I am next, so I 

had better get my questions ready. 

And I looked and I couldn’t find my questions. Then I started to 

listening to Mr. Johnson. I thought he is answering my questions. 

He had stolen my paper. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would you like some of mine? 

Mr. LONG. So, all I can do is, I am going to yield to my friend 

from North Dakota. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, I think. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thanks to all of you. 

As I said, I want to dig into the consultation issue, because I 

think it is important. And I am going to start by reading from an 

important-to-note December 3, 2016, memorandum of record from 

the Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. December third is important because it was on December fourth that 

the Acting Secretary of the Army called me to tell me, ‘‘I have 

changed my mind.’’ 

OK, so December third, this was the memorandum. I am going 

to start at the end. It says, ‘‘The Corps of Engineers, through the 

Department of the Army, is required by statute to notify Congress 

when an application is received and when the Corps is going to 

grant an easement for a pipeline that is greater than 24 inches in 

diameter. ... The Army notified Congress of the application on September 13, 2015,’’ and, ‘‘In accordance with this memorandum, I 

recommend the Army notify Congress that the Corps intends to 

grant the attached easement to Dakota Access.’’ 

And it ends by saying, ‘‘After notification to Congress, the 

Omaha District intends to execute and issue the easement to Dakota Access.’’ December 3, 2016. 

I am going to highlight a couple more points in this memo. About 

halfway through: ‘‘Corps policy is that it will coordinate and consult with federally-recognized Native American tribes when resVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
169 

1The memorandum appears at the conclusion of the hearing. The Environmental Assessment 

has been retained in committee files and also is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ 

IF/IF03/20170215/105567/HHRG-115-IF03-20170215-SD007.pdf. 

ervation lands are involved. ... The proposed DAPL crossing at 

Lake Oahe is not on reservation lands; therefore, by policy there 

is no requirement to coordinate with any federally-recognized tribe. 

However, the Corps reached out to the [Standing Rock Sioux Tribe] 

to coordinate and to consult on the DAPL project. As established 

in the analyses set forth in the Final [Environmental Assessment]’’—that is this document, Mr. Chairman—‘‘the Corps attempted to engage in meaningful discussions with the [Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe] on numerous occasions about the nature of the 

project, cultural resources, and the Lake Oahe crossing beginning 

in October 2014 and continuing through March 2016.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that both the Environmental Assessment and this memorandum be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. Upton [presiding]. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]1

Mr. CRAMER. I also wanted to then turn to a decision by DC District Court, U.S. Judge James Boasberg for the United States District of Columbia, appointed by President Barack Obama, for what 

it is worth. 

I am going to skip several references to the consultation process 

that he references, but I am going to jump to page 48 of this 58- 

page order. 

‘‘Plaintiff’s last point on the merits is that the Corps failed’’—this 

is important, because Mr. Mahmoud referenced the importance of 

a Government-to-Government responsibility here—‘‘the Corps 

failed to offer it a reasonable opportunity to participate in the Section 106 process as to the narrow scope of the construction activity 

that the Corps did consider to be an effect of the permitted waterway activities.’’ And then it goes on to talk about the process. 

He writes, ‘‘The Corps has documented dozens of attempts to engage Standing Rock in consultations to identify historical resources 

at Lake Oahe and other PCN crossings. To the reader’s relief’’— 

and he is right—‘‘the Court need not repeat them here. Suffice it 

to say that the Tribe’’—the Tribe—‘‘largely refused to engage in 

consultations. It chose instead to hold out for more...’’ 

And then he writes, ‘‘In fact, on this record, it appears that the 

Corps exceeded its [National Historic Preservation Act] obligations 

at many of the ... sites.’’ 

I am going to skip several other references. I will read this one 

on page 55: ‘‘The record contains abundant evidence that the Corps 

also repeatedly sought other input on known cultural sites at these 

locations, and, in many cases, other tribes conducted site visits to 

search for any resources likely to be affected ...’’ And on he states. 

But I think it is really important to highlight that he actually 

references here that, ‘‘In fact, on this record, it appears thay the 

Corps exceeded’’—exceeded—‘‘its NHPA’’ requirements. 

In conclusion, he writes, ‘‘As it has previously mentioned, this 

Court does not lightly countenance any depredation of lands that 

hold significance to the Standing Rock Sioux. Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court 

170 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20170215/105567/HHRG-115-IF03-20170215-SD008.pdf. 

scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care. Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe 

has not’’—has not—‘‘demonstrated that an injunction is warranted 

here.’’ 

I will ask questions at my next opportunity. I yield. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to Mr. Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would then ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 

record Judge Boasberg’s ruling. 

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.1

Mr. CRAMER. All right, thank you. I do want to get into this consultation process a bit. One of the things that we heard that I want 

to dig into, Mr. Mahmoud, is that Mr. Harrison in his testimony 

references consultation, meaningful consultation, Government-toGovernment. These are all things I think we need to be talking 

about, especially going forward. I don’t think you can change in 

midstream. 

But he also references something that I think is relevant to this 

entire hearing, and he references the need for consent. Now, consultation is one thing. Consent means something completely different. Could you tell me, as a developer, what would it mean if 

every development of any type required the consent of Tribal entities on private property outside of a reservation? How would that 

impact development going forward? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Thank you for the question. Consent is something that we, from a development standpoint, would probably not 

have a—we would not agree to that from a standpoint of—the process already exists today, where the consultation under the Federal 

laws is intact. Where, if the Tribes, no matter what Tribe in what 

State, would engage in that consultation and really engage in 

meaningful consultation, then I believe that their voices would be 

more heard and I believe that their questions could be answered. 

And then I believe that we would have a more robust process. 

So, I don’t believe consent is the answer. I believe meaningful engagement is the answer under the current laws, as they stand 

today. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you for that. Mr. Harrison, I want to ask 

you, because you have referenced—and I think this is an important 

point—you have referenced treaty issues. I think you acknowledge 

that this DAPL does not cross reservation land. Is that correct? 

Mr. HARRISON. The reservation as it stands today, yes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Correct. And the big hole that you referenced in the 

previous map really wasn’t treaty land where there is a hole because, clearly, the two pipelines that are in the same corridor as 

the DAPL are on the land that is in dispute right now. 

So you referenced treaty. Tell me which treaty you are referencing, and maybe give us—I don’t know if 30 seconds is enough. 

171 

You are a good educator, but I don’t know how much time you 

need. Just tell us about that treaty and what is at stake here. 

Mr. HARRISON. OK, the treaty that we reference is the 1851 Fort 

Laramie Treaty. And that is a larger part of four or five States, basically the western corner, the southwest corner of North Dakota, 

large part of South Dakota, probably half of South Dakota, I should 

say, parts of Montana and Wyoming, as well. And that is the treaty 

line that we reference. 

Mr. CRAMER. So since we are on that, then what can you tell me 

about the Laramie Treaty of 1868, which is obviously after 1851, 

because that is on your Web site. You probably know that. And 

that, I believe, in that treaty the Tribe gives up some of its authority, if you will, over these other treaty lands. 

Can you sort of clarify that for us a little bit? 

Mr. HARRISON. I will clarify this, that the Tribe has never given 

up anything. It was taken. And that is a big point of contention on 

this. 

Mr. CRAMER. So what is your recourse then with regard to the 

Treaty of 1868? Because I think, if I am not mistaken, I think that 

is sort of where we land on some of what is in contention. Because 

clearly, again, it is not on the reservation. 

Mr. HARRISON. I guess I would disagree a little bit on the fact 

that that is not where we land. We land on the fact that we do 

have a Government-to-Government relationship. It is very clear 

that this process is not only flawed, but it is not in the Tribe’s favor 

at all. And whether meaningful consultation is had, the big question is, Is it listened to? We can object until we are blue in the face 

and if that pipeline, or any other pipeline, or any other project, 

whether it affects us or townspeople like Ms. Kann here, it still 

goes in and says we noted that is the problem we have. We do not 

approve of the checking-the-box attitude of it. 

We reached out to you. Check. We oppose that. We want consultation. We want meaningful dialogue. 

Mr. CRAMER. But Judge Boasberg claims that there were dozens 

of attempts at meaningful consultation, but the Tribe wouldn’t—— 

Mr. HARRISON. Judge Boasberg also scrutinizes the process and 

acknowledges that there has been decades, if not centuries, of problems with this. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, and I think that is the problem. We are not 

going to litigate the history in this one project, but that is why I 

wanted to clarify things going forward so that perhaps we can do 

better going forward. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HARRISON. And we would really like to be a part of that dialogue going forward, to look for some resolution to a lot of these 

things and to be included. 

As I stated at the outset, we are Americans. We are the first 

Americans, and we want to be treated as such. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

calls upon the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes. 

172 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, 

a very important hearing. I want to thank the panel. This is a critical discussion whenever we are siting a pipeline or any other kind 

of energy infrastructure project, it is important that we balance all 

of the various interests. I certainly think that means being sensitive to impacted constituencies and that is a challenge for us and 

a challenge for all the agencies that have to weigh these important 

decisions. So, it is a very important discussion that we are having. 

I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Ruiz from 

California. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank the committee for holding this important hearing and our 

witnesses for coming. Thank you for coming to tell your stories. 

They are important stories. Each and every one of your stories is 

an important story. 

And this is a story of the Federal permitting process being 

rushed and fast tracked without meaningful Tribal consultations. 

We have had multiple conversations of what that means to be 

meaningful. And if done properly, and according to law, could have 

avoided the delays that are harming families, harming workers, 

and could have prevented the desecration of very important sacred 

sites. It is a story about environmental injustice taking a risk burden from one community and putting it on a more vulnerable community’s shoulders. It is a story about how our Nation is, once 

again, trampling on the rights of Native Americans and threatening the health, environment, and cultural survival of the surrounding Tribes. 

It is also a story of an administration that fast tracked the 

project, despite the serious warnings and strong recommendations 

by the EPA, the Department of the Interior, the National Council 

of Historic Preservation, circumventing the already-in-process Environmental Impact Statement review in order to line its own pockets. You see the Federal Government has a moral and legally enforceable obligation to protect Tribal treaties, land, and resources 

under the Federal trust responsibility. Tribes have the right to regular and meaningful consultation under Executive Order 13175 for 

projects that can have an impact on health or Tribal land. 

Under the Historic Preservation Act, Federal agencies are required to be responsible stewards of the Nation’s historic resource 

and consult with Tribes when their actions may impact sacred 

sites. 

Furthermore, under the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps has 

the responsibility to protect our Nation’s waters from contamination by conducting accurate Environmental Assessments to determine if construction permits should be granted and all those other 

agencies said that that initial assessment was inaccurate. 

So, it is not just the right thing to do, based on our historical experiences and historical traumas with Native Americans, it is the 

law. 

So, now we find ourselves confronting an historical violation of 

both civil rights and Tribal sovereignty, all because the procedural 

safeguards of the meaningful consultation process were not followed. 

173 

The proposed pipeline was determined to be too risky already for 

one community in Bismarck. So, let’s put it in a more vulnerable 

community. Why did that happen? Why is it now acceptable that 

we give the risk—put the risk onto the Tribes? 

I want to reiterate again that the workers are caught in the middle of this failed system. Tribes and working families want the 

same thing, a better quality of life for themselves and their families, a fair opportunity to have a say in decisions that may affect 

their health, cultural preservation and their environment. They 

want to be heard, a seat at the table. 

So I stand with the Tribes, and I am greatly disappointed that 

this administration has ignored scientific evidence requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. I also stand with the workers, because it is unfair to them and their families that they should suffer 

because of a failed permitting process. 

So in terms of the sacred sites, on September 2, 2016, shortly before my visit to Lake Oahe and the Sacred Stone Camp, the Tribe 

filed paperwork with the court that identified sacred and culturally 

significant sites that were miles apart from the construction site 

but in the proposed line of construction. Not even 24 hours later, 

in the middle of the night, on a holiday weekend, Labor Day, DAPL 

bulldozed and completely demolished the site the Tribes were trying to save and had identified earlier. 

Time after time Tribes have seen their treaties broken, their 

lands taken, and sacred sites desecrated. 

So, Mr. Mahmoud, I want to ask is it standard practice to go and 

at 3:00 a.m. on a holiday weekend to bulldoze a site that has been 

designated as a culturally significant site by the Tribe? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Thank you for the question. And let me start off 

with I believe that a lot of what you said is the reason we are here 

today is to correct the record. 

Mr. RUIZ. Well, the record shows that you guys at 3:00 a.m. on 

a holiday weekend went over and specifically bulled over a site that 

was so sensitive to the Tribe. So, that is what the record shows. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. So let me back up a little bit and start off with 

the pipeline parallels and existing utility corridor, that was constructed in 1982. As part of that, the swath of the land where our 

pipeline sits simply disturbed all the land—— 

Mr. RUIZ. Well my question is on the timing and the day of the 

actual decision to go in and desecrate a sacred site. 

Mr. OLSON. The time has expired. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. FERRY. Mr. Chairman, I need to excuse myself. I have a 

flight to catch and I apologize. 

Mr. OLSON. Oh. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Ferry. 

Safe travels home. 

Mr. FERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Flores, your time, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ferry, I want to tell 

you thank you for your story and your testimony today, as well as 

the rest of the panel. Your story was inspiring. 

Mr. O’Sullivan, when I talk about the Keystone pipeline back 

home and the DAPL, most of my constituents get it. They underVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:31 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X7MODERNE&EXAWAITSCANS\115X7MODERNE&EPENDING
174 

stand the value of jobs, any job. But there are some that don’t. 

Some say that we shouldn’t build these infrastructure projects because they are temporary jobs. And so I would like you to ask the 

people who would be affected by that logic, that failed logic, who 

would be affected? If every job was a temporary job and so, therefore, there should be no temporary jobs, who would be affected? 

Would you ask them to stand up? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Well Congressman, I mean those that say that, 

and there have been some—— 

Mr. FLORES. But would you ask them stand? I mean you have 

got some here with you, don’t you? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Yes, whether it is Keystone pipeline, we could 

argue over the amount but there has been estimates as high as 

42,000. 

Mr. FLORES. I know but I want the American people to see the 

eyes of the people who would be affected by that false logic. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. And the eyes of the people who would be affected are sitting right behind me. 

Mr. FLORES. Would you ask them to stand? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Yes, I would. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, thank you. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Would my brothers and sisters from LIUNA 

stand? 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. OK, sit down. Thank you. Apparently, 

I was out of order. Anyway, people got to see that. 

So that logic doesn’t work. And essentially, an infrastructure 

project—you know we are talking about infrastructure in this country and trying to renew our infrastructure. So, infrastructure is a 

series of temporary projects. Is there any difference between the 

value of a temporary paycheck and a full-time paycheck? It is still 

a great paycheck, right, based on what you told me you pay earlier. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, that is good to hear. 

So, I would like to continue. Even as we migrate to a low-carbon 

economy, fossil fuels are still going to be a key fuel, a key energy 

source for the years to come. And so in that regard, why is it important that we establish a more reasonable and predictable permitting and review process for complex infrastructure projects like 

pipelines? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. From my perspective, the reason for that is that 

there has to be, as I have said, a beginning and an end. The regulatory process, and it needs to be thorough, no question about that, 

it needs to be a process where there is a reasonable expectation 

that when these projects are announced and they are thoroughly 

reviewed, that they lead to middle-class-family-supporting jobs. 

And one of the challenges we have, and I know Joey and ETP, and 

others have, is the delivery system of workers because if we start 

training now for a project that isn’t complete, those individuals 

may never go to work and we can turn them off about a whole sector of an industry. 

So, if we don’t fix some of the things that we have been talking 

about in this hearing, it is going to affect our ability to provide a 

capable and skilled workforce. 

175 

Mr. FLORES. I think you answered the question pretty well and 

I am sorry to cut you off. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. That is all right. 

Mr. FLORES. So in order to move forward with the big infrastructure ambitions that we have as a country we need to modernize the 

permitting process so that we can benefit these hard-working 

American families and so that their so-called temporary jobs become a series of temporary jobs that leads to a vibrant middle 

class. And I thank you for that. 

Mr. Mahmoud, you talked about the fact that if this pipeline is 

not built, we are going to have to use trucks or trains. You talked 

about the relative safety impacts. 

One of the things we didn’t talk about is the climate impact of 

a pipeline versus trucks or trains. So when you look at trucks, 

trains, and pipelines, which has the lowest carbon footprint in 

terms of fuel transportation? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. Pipelines by far. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, thank you. And one of the things you talked 

about, you touched on this a minute ago, you are going to bury this 

thing 90 to 115 feet below this reservoir and below the river, which 

is very unusual. Most pipelines are in the 15- or 5- to 25-foot range. 

Tell me about why you did that. I mean there is a geological subsurface issue here that—just tell me why you are doing that. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. OK. And you are right, it is all about geology. So 

we have to span—the crossing of the waterway in that particular 

location is 5,400 feet. So, it is an engineering issue and it is also 

a geology issue. 

At that location, there is sand, and clay, and some gravel, and 

then there is what is called a clay shale. And so part of the design 

was to put the pipeline in the soil band that is most conducive to 

allow that drill to be successful. And then you have to engineer to 

make the inflections or the bends in the pipe so the pipe can withstand the forces on it when you are pulling it through the hole. So, 

it is a combination of engineering design and geology that puts you 

to a depth. And in this case, we wanted to be as deep as we could. 

Mr. FLORES. And the bottom line is, it becomes a much safer 

pipeline because you are doing it that way. 

Mr. MAHMOUD. One hundred percent. That is exactly right. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair calls upon the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as my colleague 

from West Virginia was referring to, there is only a few of us that 

have been on construction sites. I traded in my Carhartt’s and Red 

Wings when I got elected to office and had to learn how to tie a 

tie and buy my first suit. True story. 

For my guys that are sitting in the back representing the labor 

force, special labor force across the country, I wish you guys 

weren’t here. I wish you were on a jobsite. You know if they use 

the logic that this is considered a temporary job, than all 150 of 

my employees are a day-by-day employee but I think they consider 

themselves full-time, considering some of them have been working 

176 

for me from 17 to 20 years. It just shows the lack of understanding 

and the lack of knowledge. 

And we are talking about construction jobs. And Republicans and 

Democrats have all been saying we have got a job package, we 

have got a job package. And the only reason why I ran is because 

I was saying get your foot off my neck and I will go to work but 

we can’t because of all the political correctness and all the in-house 

fighting and all the permits that has got to be used and it gets old. 

And Mr. Harrison, I am Cherokee. I understand very well sacred 

sites and heritage sites. It is our heritage. I want to protect them, 

too. It is vitally important to me. I live in the same spot that my 

family literally quit walking on the volunteer walk until we got to 

Indian territory which is known as Oklahoma. 

I still own the same land that was allotted to my family, and 

there is a utility easement that goes across it. And I was glad to 

grant the utility easement because it is not just about our back 

yard, but it is about the country as a whole. What is good for your 

back yard is good for the country, and it is going to create jobs in 

your back yard, too. And you misrepresent it by starting to say that 

it is an 1851 Treaty, but you are not referring to the 1868 Treaty— 

is that what it was? But yet you want to talk about Governmentto-Government relationships and yet you want to honor what is in 

one treaty but you don’t want to use that one; you actually want 

to refer back to the other treaty. It seems a little hypocritical to 

me. 

We want to talk about not engaging and having meaningful conversations between Government-to-Government, but yet they try to 

engage with you guys 389 times. Is that not enough? What do you 

consider meaningful meaningful conversations between Government-to-Government? 

Mr. HARRISON. An actual dialogue, perhaps. 

Mr. MULLIN. You have been engaged 389 times. You have had 

time to have a dialogue. Because coming out of those nonmeaningful, according to you, but 389 times which, by the way, is why we 

can’t build pipelines, they moved it 140 times. 

Mr. HARRISON. Not on our land. That was on—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Well those were meaningful conversations, weren’t 

they? 

Mr. HARRISON. Those weren’t our conversations. 

Mr. MULLIN. Were they not taken into consideration? 

Mr. HARRISON. Those were not our conversations. 

Mr. MULLIN. How many times have you guys been invited to be 

at the table? 

Mr. HARRISON. Numerous. I met with Joey myself. 

Mr. MULLIN. And those weren’t meaningful? 

Mr. HARRISON. No, they were proprietary and confidential. 

Mr. MULLIN. So the only way that it was going to be is, it was 

going to be moved, regardless of what you guys wanted. It was 

going to be—go where? You didn’t want it on an existing easement 

that has already been there since 1982, which means that that soil 

had already been dug before. There has already been Environmental Impact Studies. There have already been sacred sites 

looked at. And you don’t want it there. So, where do you want it? 

The answer is you don’t want it. You just don’t want it. 

177 

Mr. HARRISON. No, we just—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Because if you don’t want it right there, you are 

wanting it to reroute it someplace else. But through Indian country, every time we dig up certain places because we occupied all the 

land, it can all be considered sacred at some point. 

Now, if I am making a decision of where I want a pipeline because we need the infrastructure, I would rather put it on an existing easement that has been there since 1982 that we already know, 

for the most part, what is underneath the soil. Wouldn’t you? 

Mr. HARRISON. Not in this case, no. 

Mr. MULLIN. So you would rather it just be routed someplace else 

and dig up new soil and you are not worried about those sacred 

sites. 

Mr. HARRISON. At the risk of—— 

Mr. MULLIN. At the risk of what? 

Mr. HARRISON. Can I finish? 

Mr. MULLIN. Yes. I mean, risk of what? 

Mr. HARRISON. At the risk of us guys taking all the risk—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Us guys, who is us guys? This isn’t going across 

Tribal land because this wasn’t actually in the last treaty. So a risk 

of what? 

Mr. HARRISON. A risk of a breach. A risk of a spill. 

Mr. MULLIN. A breach of what? 

Mr. HARRISON. The oil pipeline. 

Mr. MULLIN. What are they breaching? They are not going across 

what you consider the current treaty. They were going outside of 

it. 

Mr. HARRISON. The river that flows goes into our treaty land, 

across our reservation. 

Mr. MULLIN. But they have already crossed it, and it has been 

crossed upstream multiple times, too. 

Mr. HARRISON. They could have crossed anywhere else upstream. 

Mr. MULLIN. So you are OK with it going upstream, which 

doesn’t make any sense, because if there was a breach, that means 

the oil would flow downstream. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now calls upon the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Ruiz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you very much. You know, this is the same old 

song that we have been dealing with in our relationships with 

Tribes throughout our country’s initiation. It is a historical trauma 

of paternalistic disrespect, political trickery that abuses laws and 

policies, then we interpret them during our own convenience, in 

terms of the Federal Government, in order to tell you what to 

think, what to say, and then also put the blame of that historical 

trauma and experience on your shoulders to then turn around and 

say it is your fault. 

I think it is a shameful way to treat Native Americans and the 

first people, and this must end. This must end in our country. This 

must end to relieve our historical trauma. You are not a hypocrite 

for standing up for your historical reasons to say that that water 

that is not on your land has a vital component to your land, your 

life, your drinking water, and all those people that depend on it 

downstream. 

178 

It is not hypocritical when somebody does not ask you where 

your sacred sites are to bring your opinion in there to say, wait a 

minute, all throughout the pipeline construction, can you just at 

least ask me, ask our Tribe where we think our cultural sites are? 

We will work with you. It is not hypocritical for you to extend your 

hands with labor and others to say listen, build it somewhere else. 

Right now we are living in the now and the moment and this is 

a great risk for our Tribe, for future generations, for our ability to 

drink this clean water. So hey, if you want to reroute it into some 

other place and build more pipe and lay more pipes for more hours 

of work and more construction and more jobs, then go for it but 

just not now, not in the water source that we drink. 

Executive Order 13175 says any project that has an impact to 

the land or the health of Tribes. Don’t we all, as Americans, deserve the right to self-determination and have a right on decisions 

that may affect our children’s health, our sacred lands and our future? Isn’t that a fundamental value of the democratic process? 

Isn’t that a fundamental American value that we must stand up 

for? Isn’t that the value of the working families that want to have 

a say in what we do for our livelihood and have a fair shot and 

benefits package so that we can claim our rightful place in this Nation’s great industry and economy? 

So this is what is at stake now, and I am so tired of the Federal 

Government not respecting the meaningful consultation. 

Notification is not meaningful consultation. Engagement is not 

meaningful consultation. Asking somebody to come to your meeting 

so they can check off a box and use that as an excuse to say ‘‘See, 

we did consult with these Tribes’’ is political trickery. It is not 

meaningful consultation. 

Meaningful consultation is consulting, having dialogue, understanding the concerns, the risks at the beginning, before a plan 

was made and come to say, ‘‘Hey, listen, this is what we are going 

to do. I want you to sign this box so we can get on with it.’’ No, 

it is to talk about not only the design, the location, the compromises, the negotiations, the rerouting, the mitigation risks, and 

all the cleanup Superfunds that need to exist so that the burden 

of cleanup and the risks aren’t just placed on Native Americans. 

That is meaningful consultation. 

This is not about not creating jobs. This is not about not helping 

the labor force to have a dignified job with a future for your families. This is about respecting Tribes and ending, once and for all, 

the historical trauma that they have faced in our Nation. 

What is meaningful consultation for you, Mr. Harrison? 

Mr. HARRISON. It is an actual dialogue. I just want to refer to 

Congressman Mullin. That wasn’t meaningful dialogue. That is the 

way things have been going when we get peppered when we walk 

into the room. Rather than hear our side out, we get peppered with 

the hypocrisy, the numbers of however many times they dialed our 

phone number. That is not meaningful consultation. 

Consultation comes in the planning stages. Consultation comes 

beforehand, when they can actually make some adjustments prior 

to. They have consulted other Tribes. Apparently, they have made 

144 two-foot diversions. The pipeline is still going where it is going 

to go. 

179 

Mr. RUIZ. I really want to get to the bottom of this and fix a 

problem so that our workers don’t have to be caught in the middle 

of this anymore and in the future. Let’s define what meaningful 

consultation is. 

I have a GAO study that I requested to determine whether or not 

the Federal Government is in compliance with that. The previous 

administration has conducted a multi-agency investigative study to 

determine what does ‘‘impact’’ and ‘‘meaningful consultation’’ mean. 

So, let’s start looking from those to put those into practice and implementation. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now calls upon Mr. Cramer from North Dakota. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thanks to all of 

you for being here. Mr. Harrison, special thanks and welcome to 

you. 

It is hard to respond to that kind of raging nonsense, but I do 

have to say a couple of things. 

First of all, you have to, if you are invited into meaningful consultation but don’t show up, it is not the person that invited you 

into the consultation, that there wasn’t meaningful consultation. 

You have to show up when you are invited and at least respond 

to the request. 

I want to get to another thing that Mr. Ruiz kept saying. There 

are many fake news stories, many fake news stories related to this, 

but perhaps one of the most egregious is this notion that there was 

once a route through north of Bismarck that was denied by all the 

white people in Bismarck, therefore, they had to move it down upstream from the reservation. That is just not true. That is blatantly 

not true. 

I have sited many pipelines, and this route was chosen because 

it is the most direct, because it is an existing corridor that the 

Tribe, by the way, did not oppose 35 years ago when 2 other pipelines and a transmission line went across it. 

So we have just got to get back to reality. There is a Tesoro refinery on the west side of the Missouri River in Mandan, North Dakota, that employs many union workers. We are very proud of that 

refinery. That refined product goes under the Missouri River, right 

through Bismarck, on to Fargo, North Dakota. Nobody ever complains about it. We are happy to have it. There is a pipeline two 

houses down from mine. I am glad to have it there. I am grateful 

the warmth it brings. 

I want, though, to speak in my final moments maybe with you, 

Mr. O’Sullivan. One of my dearest friends in this body is David 

Scott, a Democratic Member of the Congressional Black Caucus 

from Atlanta, Georgia, who might be organized labor’s biggest 

friend in the Congress. He and I worked together on the Keystone 

pipeline. We worked together on several other energy projects. We 

have introduced this year legislation similar to what he wanted in 

the Keystone pipeline to encourage the unions, encourage the companies, encourage the Government in their process of utilizing 

labor, obviously, training and apprenticeship programs to put a 

special emphasis on a social problem, and that is jobs for young 

black men. 

180 

I would just love to hear more about how your union and how 

your membership reaches out to our minority community to provide—OK, call me biased, I suppose, for wanting to give a hand up, 

a leg up to certain populations that I think need it, frankly, and 

that have earned it, but help me understand how we can maybe 

do more with our minority population and identify opportunities. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Well, Congressman, I can tell you what we do 

in the Laborers’ International, and that is when we have opportunities like we do with ETP and other pipeline owners and users. 

And a lot of times because work is good in the energy sector, we 

have to recruit young men and women into our organization, train 

them, and put them on projects like Dakota Access Pipeline. 

We work with faith-based groups. We work with local high 

schools, as we have we talked a number of times today about those 

that aren’t ready to go to college or want an alternative career. So, 

our commitment to diversity in trying to do as much local hire as 

we possibly can is second to none. 

There are golden opportunities to work with people of color, 

faith-based groups, community groups, even community colleges, to 

recruit the workforce of tomorrow. 

Mr. CRAMER. So Mr. Harrison raised a very important point 

about what is in it for us, so to speak. Those are my words, not 

yours. You are more eloquent. But related to ‘‘none of the workers 

are ours,’’ could we try—they have wonderful community colleges. 

Sitting Bull is a great college down in Standing Rock. United 

Tribes Technical College in Bismarck has worked with the industry 

to identify some skills that they could train. Let’s commit at least 

to that, to providing more opportunities to provide jobs that I think 

could cure a lot of the social challenges, as well as the relationship 

challenges, that we seem to be facing today. 

Mr. Mahmoud, how does that sound for a plan going forward? 

Mr. MAHMOUD. We absolutely support that plan. We would love 

to increase diversity in our workplace, as well as on the construction side. 

Mr. CRAMER. With that, my last 10 seconds, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. Again, thanks to all of you. A special thanks and welcome to Mr. Harrison and Mr. O’Sullivan. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Congressman, I could say that along with faithbased groups and the other groups, we have worked with Native 

American Tribes, not only in the U.S., but in Canada, as well. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right, I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Seeing there are 

no further Members who wish to ask questions of the second panel, 

I would like to thank all of the witnesses today for being here. 

And pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they 

have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. I would ask that the witnesses submit their response within 

10 business days upon receipt of those questions. 

I also ask unanimous consent to enter these five lists of documents for the record: The Clean Line Energy Partners letter, the 

Industrial Energy Consumers of America letter; the National Rural 

Electrical Cooperative Association letter; the Association of Oil Pipe 

Lines letter; and a letter from the National Urban League, without 

objection. So ordered, without objection. 

181 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. OLSON. This subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

231 

232 

233 

234 

235 

Æ