U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

86–390 2014

H.R. 1900, THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 

PERMITTING REFORM ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 9, 2013 

Serial No. 113–66 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 8 

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

Hon. Mike Pompeo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 10 

WITNESSES

Philip D. Moeller, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Accompanied by Jeff C. Wright, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission .......................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

David Markarian, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nextera Energy, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Maya K. Van Rossum, The Delaware Riverkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper 

Network ................................................................................................................ 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Rick Kessler, President, Board of Directors, Pipeline Safety Trust .................... 78 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Alex Paris, III, Distribution Contractors Association ........................................... 87 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Donald F. Santa, Jr., President and CEO, INGAA ............................................... 96 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 1900 .................................................................................................................. 2 

Materials submitted by Mr. Pompeo 

Letter of July 8, 2013, from the National Association of Manufacturers 

to the Committee .......................................................................................... 120 

Letter of July 2, 2013, from the Chamber of Commerce to the Committee 122 

Letter of July 1, 2013, from the Distribution Contractors Association 

to the Committee .......................................................................................... 124 

Letter of June 28, 2013, from the Electric Power Supply Association 

to the subcommittee ...................................................................................... 125 

Letter of June 26, 2013, from Edison Electric Institute to the subcommittee ...................................................................................................... 127 

Letter of July 8, 2013, from the American Public Power Association 

to the subcommittee ...................................................................................... 129 

Letter of July 8, 2013, from the Gas Processors Association to the Committee ............................................................................................................. 130 

Technical analysis of H.R. 1900 by the Army Corps of Engineers, submitted 

by Mr. Waxman .................................................................................................... 132 

Technical analysis of H.R. 1900 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

submitted by Mr. Waxman .................................................................................. 133 

(1) 

H.R. 1900, THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 

PERMITTING REFORM ACT 

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Whitman, Scalise, Hall, Pitts, Terry, 

Latta, Cassidy, Olson, Gardner, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), McNerney, Tonko, Green, Barrow, Matsui, 

Castor, Dingell, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representative Murphy of Pennsylvania. 

Staff Present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Allison Busbee, 

Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Patrick Currier, Counsel, 

Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and 

Power; Jason Knox, Counsel, Energy and Power; Ben Lieberman, 

Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff 

Member; Jeff Baran, Minority Senior Counsel; Phil Barnett, Minority Staff Director; Greg Dotson, Minority Staff Director, Energy and 

Environment; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Policy Analyst; and 

Bruce Ho, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning. 

Today we are going to be focusing on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas 

Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. 

[The information follows:] 

2 


86390.060
3 


86390.061
4 


86390.062
5 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And while I would normally give my opening 

statement first, I am going to be yielding to someone who is not 

here yet. So I am going to call on the chairman of the full committee to give his opening statement at this time. 

Mr. Upton is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, this subcommittee has held a number of hearings addressing America’s growing natural gas abundance, and two clear 

messages have emerged: first, that plentiful and affordable natural 

gas supplies offer many potential advantages; and, second, there is 

bipartisan support for the development and use of domestic natural 

gas. 

Today we are going to discuss a critical step in turning these pronatural-gas words into action with H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas 

Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. 

In a number of locations across the country, the existing natural 

gas pipeline infrastructure is indeed struggling to keep pace with 

the expanding supplies while approvals for new pipelines often get 

delayed by State and Federal red tape that can last for years and 

years. 

To put it bluntly, the permitting process has not kept up with 

the times. This problem is especially exacerbated in areas in the 

Northeast and the Midwest, as we learned in our natural-gas-electric coordination hearings earlier in this Congress. 

As more and more of our energy needs become tied to the safe 

deliverability of natural gas, the need to build new pipeline infrastructure to connect new supplies to existing and new markets becomes more critical. 

This is where the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act 

comes in. This legislation helps to put the Federal permitting process on a reasonable schedule with clear deadlines so that every 

Federal and State agency can be held accountable and know the 

rules of the road. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mike 

Pompeo, for spearheading this commonsense bill. 

New natural gas pipeline projects are going to benefit us in many 

ways. First, the projects themselves will provide significant numbers of good-paying jobs at a time of chronic high unemployment. 

And with each completed project, more natural gas can be transported to where it is needed. Countless homeowners and smallbusiness owners could benefit from lower gas and electric bills. 

Natural-gas-dependent manufacturers could obtain sufficient supplies to sustain an American manufacturing renaissance. And a 

more robust pipeline infrastructure would open up promising opportunities to export natural gas supplies to our trading partners 

around the world. 

The opportunities are great, but they could be stalled or even lost 

for good unless the pipelines start getting built. This legislation 

helps provide the certainty to ensure that these critical infrastructure projects get in the ground without unnecessary delay, while at 

the same time making sure they are protective of safety and the 

environment. 

6 

And I will remind us all, the President signed the pipeline safety 

bill last year, which upgraded 57 standards, new standards, for 

every oil and gas new pipeline being constructed. And I want to say 

that that bill passed without dissent, not only in this committee 

but also on the House floor. Maybe there was one person against 

it, but it was overwhelming. 

Natural gas is going to be a big part of our energy future but 

only if we cut the red tape from the past. We are a Nation of builders, not a Nation of bottlenecks. And I look forward to this discussion of the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act and advancing this important piece of energy and jobs legislation. 

And I yield the balance of my time back to the chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Upton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

This subcommittee has held a number of hearings addressing America’s growing 

natural gas abundance, and two clear messages have emerged—first, that plentiful 

and affordable domestic natural gas supplies offer many potential advantages, and 

second, that there is bipartisan support for the development and use of domestic 

natural gas. Today, we will discuss a critical step in turning these pro-natural gas 

words into action with H.R. 1900, the ‘‘Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform 

Act.’’ 

In a number of locations across the country, the existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure is struggling to keep pace with the expanding supplies, while approvals 

for new pipelines often get delayed by state and federal red tape that can last for 

years. To put it bluntly, the permitting process has not kept up with the times. This 

problem is especially exacerbated in areas in the Northeast and Midwest as we 

learned in our natural gas electric coordination hearings earlier this Congress. As 

more and more of our energy needs become tied to the safe deliverability of natural 

gas, the need to build new pipeline infrastructure to connect new supplies to existing and new markets becomes more critical. 

This is where the ‘‘Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act’’ comes in. This 

legislation helps to put the federal permitting process on a reasonable schedule with 

clear deadlines so all federal and state agencies are held accountable and know the 

rules of the road. I would like to thank my friend and colleague Mike Pompeo for 

spearheading this commonsense bill. 

New natural gas pipeline projects will benefit us in many ways. First, the projects 

themselves would provide significant numbers of good-paying jobs at a time of 

chronic high unemployment. And with each completed project, more natural gas can 

be transported to where it is needed. Countless homeowners and small business 

owners could benefit from lower gas and electric bills. Natural gas-dependent manufacturers could obtain sufficient supplies to sustain an American manufacturing renaissance. And a more robust pipeline infrastructure would open up promising opportunities to export natural gas supplies to our trading partners around the world. 

The opportunities are great, but they could be stalled or even lost for good unless 

the pipelines start getting built. This legislation helps provide the certainty to ensure these critical infrastructure projects get in the ground without unnecessary 

delay while at the same time making sure they are protective of safety and the environment. 

Natural gas is going to be a big part of our energy future, but only if we cut the 

red tape from the past. We are a nation of builders, not a nation of bottlenecks. I 

look forward to this discussion of the ‘‘Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act’’ 

and advancing this important piece of energy and jobs legislation. 

# # # 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform 

Act. 

This subcommittee has held several hearings over the first 6 

months of this year, many of which have focused on natural gas 

and our goal to achieve national energy independence through an 

approach that encompasses a variety of energy resources. 

Although there have been advantages of increasing natural gas 

production here in the United States, we must produce energy responsibly, in a way that doesn’t harm our environment or the public health. There are still reasonable concerns about methane leakage and pollution regarding natural gas production. 

However, I think we are taking some positive first steps. For example, the EPA’s final rule to reduce harmful emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases from new natural gas wells that 

use hydraulic fracturing will help our air quality and climate in 

years ahead. 

Under the Natural Gas Act, FERC reviews applications for 

siting, construction, and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines. A company must receive a certificate of public convenience 

and necessity before building a pipeline. FERC also works with 

other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, when reviewing permit applications. 

According to a 2013 GAO report, the average processing time 

from the filing of an application to certification was 225 days. H.R. 

1900 modifies the Natural Gas Act to require FERC to improve or 

deny a certificate within 12 months of the notice of application. The 

bill also imposes a 90-day deadline for other agencies to decide on 

other permits, such as those under the Clean Water Act and Clean 

Air Act. Lastly, the bill provides that the licenses and permits will 

automatically go into effect if the respective agency doesn’t approve 

them on time. 

I understand that the goal of these provisions is to speed up the 

permitting process, but I don’t believe that setting the same firm 

deadlines for every natural gas pipeline project is necessarily in the 

public’s interest. These deadlines may be achievable for a straightforward project or for a short pipeline but impractical for a complex 

pipeline that would travel hundreds of miles. 

I would much rather see FERC and the experts from other agencies have the appropriate time to thoroughly review an application 

rather than be forced to rush and potentially make a mistake during the process. Sound science and proper environmental and technical review is essential. It isn’t in anyone’s interest to cut these 

reviews short or to reduce opportunities for public involvement. 

There are just a couple of issues I hope we can answer today before we start the subcommittee markup this afternoon. We should 

fully understand the impacts of the changes made by this legislation and make sure they are necessary. 

I want to thank our witnesses today, and I am eager to hear 

their testimony and input to H.R. 1900. 

8 

At this point, I would like to recognize my colleague from Texas, 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our ranking 

member for allowing me to take some time. 

First of all, coming from where I come from, we have pipelines 

everywhere. People have said, I have never not lived on a pipeline 

easement in the Houston area. So I am very supportive of it. 

I support knowing regulatory certainty so we will know that 

these things can’t be drug out. But I think the bill goes so far in 

the deeming and approval, it may end up transferring it from a 

regulatory agency, FERC, who has been doing a pretty good job 

over the last 10 years—I know a few years ago I had some problems with FERC, but—but, you know, it may end up just transferring it to the courthouse, where we can’t do anything about it. 

So I would hope we have looked at the language of the bill, and 

particularly in section 3, and even looked at the testimony from 

Commissioner Moeller, who talks about some of the good things 

going on in FERC. And, typically, where I come from, if it ain’t 

broke, you don’t fix it. FERC was broken a few years ago, but it 

has been fixed. And I hate to create this new legislation that will 

make it harder to get pipelines approved, because pipelines are the 

safest way to move any product, as we found out recently, although 

it was an oil train, instead of anything else. 

But, again, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I look 

forward to the hearing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. 

Recently, the World Economic Forum was held in Davos, Switzerland, and the reports coming out of that forum was that a lot 

of attention was focused on the tremendous finds of natural resources in America and how the Eagle Ford, the Marcellus Shale, 

the Bakken field, and others in oil and gas gave America the opportunity to really become energy-independent. And people who attended that forum were struck by how the Europeans, in particular, were really focused on that issue. 

Since then, we have had a lot of hearings, and it is quite clear 

that we do have a capacity limit as it relates to transmission of gas 

in pipelines. And it has become quite clear, I think, to most people 

that FERC lacks the ability to enforce agency decisional deadlines 

related to these natural gas pipeline applications. 

And with the potential growth in this market, we have had hearings also about the problems in the Northeast, the lack of a capacity to get the product there. And so I am delighted that Mr. 

Pompeo has introduced H.R. 1900 to help us focus on this issue. 

It gives us the opportunity to look at his legislation and see if we 

could come up with a way to address this significant issue in America. 

9 

So at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

Kansas for purposes of an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Over the last 6 months of this Congress, the Energy and Power Subcommittee has 

held multiple hearings that have touched on issues related to the growing domestic 

production of natural gas. 

While we don’t often agree on all of the issues before us, it has been heartening 

to hear the near universal consensus from the members of this subcommittee on the 

abundant growth in natural gas supplies and its benefits, such as increased manufacturing competitiveness along with growing support for exports, both of which 

need to be encouraged for the betterment of our economy and our energy security. 

A common theme we have heard from our earlier hearings is that the U.S. needs 

to greatly expand its pipeline infrastructure because the new shale gas development 

has largely altered the previously existing model of delivering gas to capacity constrained centers that need it most like the Northeast and Midwest. 

Producers need pipeline infrastructure to move it from the place of production to 

where it needs to be supplied most, which is often hundreds if not thousands of 

miles away. Utilities and manufacturers in the Northeast lack adequate supplies 

due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure. 

There are endless examples of why more natural gas pipelines are needed but suffice it to say that it affects Americans in the two places that matter most right 

now—in the consumer’s wallets and in the job market. 

I want to thank Representative Pompeo for his work on H.R. 1900, the Natural 

Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. It is a commonsense and thoughtful approach 

to dealing with a critical need-the ability to build infrastructure in a timely manner. 

I also want to praise him for his openness to working with a wide variety of members on this issue, regardless of party affiliation. With that I will yield the balance 

of my time to Mr. Pompeo. 

# # # 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield. And thanks for 

holding this hearing this morning on the H.R. 1900. 

You know, we have natural gas production, as some have said, 

at an all-time high domestically. It is becoming an enormously important and prevalent fuel source for electricity generation, especially in the Northeast, which is starved for electrical power. Because of this combination of increased production and demand for 

natural gas, it is absolutely vital that the law for natural gas pipelines keep up with the capacity to get this stuff out of the ground. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made a very early attempt at improving the gas pipeline process, requiring FERC to act as the lead 

agency for all interstate natural gas pipelines. I think that absolutely made sense at the time. And in using this authority under 

EPAct, FERC required that all permitting agencies complete their 

reviews no later than 90 days after FERC provided notice that the 

environmental review was complete. 

And despite those very, very good reforms, we are seeing a growing need for natural gas pipeline infrastructure beyond that which 

the authors of EPAct could possibly have contemplated at the time 

it was being put into law. There was a very recent report that 

found increasing delays of 90, 180 days, or even more in the construction of pipeline projects, in part because we have permitting 

10 

process that still remains very complex. That is the language that 

the GAO used, called the permitting process too complex. 

That is why I, along with Congressmen Matheson and Olson and 

Johnson and Gardner from this committee introduced H.R. 1900, 

the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. We try to do two 

things in the law. We make commonsense reforms allowing the 

permitting process to create certainty for businesses. We do not 

have to gut the whole environmental review process to do that, and 

this bill doesn’t. 

The point on environmental review is very important. Nothing in 

this legislation takes away any authority from any permitting 

agency, and nothing in this legislation amends or limits any existing environmental statute. It doesn’t touch NEPA, the Clean Air 

Act, the Clean Water Act, or any other provision related to environmental review. 

Look, in a perfect world, I would introduce legislation that would 

be a complete overhaul of this system. But what I am trying to do 

here is create business certainty. They can grant the permit, they 

can deny the permit, they can grant the permit with conditions, but 

the agencies are forced to complete their task. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our hearing this morning and 

our markup later this afternoon and tomorrow. 

I would like to end by submitting letters for the record from organizations supporting H.R. 1900, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Distribution Contractors Association, the Electric Power Supply Association, Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, and the Gas Processors Association. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, without objection, those will be entered 

into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Waxman, for a 5-minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing focuses on Congressman Pompeo’s bill, which addresses the permitting of interstate natural gas pipelines. 

The U.S. Has more than 200,000 miles of interstate natural gas 

pipelines, and more new pipelines are built every year. Between 

2009 and 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or 

FERC, approved over 3,000 miles of new pipelines in 30 States. On 

average, it took FERC only 9 1⁄2 months to review and approve applications for pipeline projects. 

Earlier this year, GAO examined FERC’s permitting process and 

found it to be predictable and consistent. This process is getting 

pipelines permitted and built. That is what the pipeline companies 

told the subcommittee in May, when they testified that, ‘‘the interstate natural gas pipeline sector enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure.’’ They tesVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:50 Feb 11, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-66 CHRIS
11 

tified that pipeline development over the last decade shows that, 

‘‘the natural gas model works.’’ 

Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today proposes to 

change a regulatory system that is working fine. The bill would require FERC to approve or deny new pipeline certificates within 12 

months, regardless of their potential impacts or complexity. It 

would require all other Federal and State agencies to approve or 

deny required permits within 90 days after FERC completes its environmental review. 

According to FERC’s staff, some projects, due to their complexity, 

length, path, and the level of public concern, take longer than 12 

months to review to get right. Arbitrarily limiting this time will 

deny FERC and the public the opportunity to fully consider these 

projects. 

And it will likely results in slower, rather than faster, permitting. If FERC is unable to properly evaluate a project within 12 

months, the bill’s rigid deadline could force FERC to simply deny 

the permit. A project that currently could be approved in 15 

months after a full review might instead be denied in 12 months 

under this bill. 

The bill’s limits on other agencies would create additional problems. The Environmental Protection Agency says that the bill’s 90- 

day deadline could undermine protections under the Clean Air Act 

and the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came 

to the same conclusion, stating that the bill would, ‘‘allow certain 

activities to proceed despite potential adverse and significant impacts.’’ Other agencies and statutes will also be affected. This bill 

threatens the Bureau of Land Management’s ability to manage 

rights of way across Federal lands and Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

ability to protect endangered species. 

If any agency does not approve or deny a permit within 90 days, 

the bill states that the permit automatically goes into effect. 

That could create new legal vulnerabilities for pipeline permits 

by giving a pipeline company a permit without ensuring that the 

environment and public health are protected. Alternatively, agencies could be forced to simply deny the permits when they are prohibited from taking the time needed for reviews required by Federal law. 

American families expect our laws to protect health, safety, and 

the environment whenever pipelines are built. We shouldn’t put 

those protections at risk. 

We should also remember that, when FERC approves a pipeline, 

it grants the power of eminent domain, which allows a pipeline 

company to take property from landowners who do not want to sell. 

That is not something that should happen without agencies taking 

the time they need for thorough analysis and thoughtful decisionmaking. But, with this bill, we get rushed decisions and probably 

more project denials. No one benefits from that, not even the pipeline companies. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill has not been well thought out. It is good 

that we are having a hearing so that Members can better understand the problems with this bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

12 

That concludes the opening statements. 

And so we have two panels of witnesses today. On the first 

panel, there is only one witness, and that is Mr. Philip Moeller, 

who is our Commissioner over at the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. And accompanying him is Mr. Jeff Wright, who is the 

FERC Director of the Office of Energy Projects. 

And I am sure that—I know sometimes in Congress Members 

need to confer with their staff. I am sure that is not the case in 

your situation, Mr. Moeller. But if you do, I understand Mr. Wright 

is quite an expert, so we are delighted that he is here, as well. 

So, Mr. Moeller, thanks very much for being with us today. We 

do appreciate your views on this important issue. 

And, at this time, I would recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

And I guess before I ask you questions, I should give you an opportunity to make an opening statement, as well. So I will recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHILIP D. MOELLER, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION; 

ACCOMPANIED BY JEFF C. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

ENERGY PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. My name is Phil Moeller. I am the sitting Commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is an 

honor to be back before you again today. And the testimony today 

related to H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform 

Act. My testimony reflects only my views, but I can elaborate on 

some of my colleagues’ views, as well, if you would like. 

From the onset, I want to thank you for shining the light, highlighting the issue of the need for additional energy infrastructure 

in this country. Consumers, generally speaking, enjoy abundant, 

reliable, and safe energy of many different forms, but they generally don’t like to look at the pipes and wires that delivers it to 

them. And getting infrastructure built is, frankly, getting more difficult in the country. So the fact that you are focusing on this is 

a relevant topic. 

Similarly, focusing on governmental agency action in a timely 

manner is relevant, as well, and certainly specific to this, and the 

natural gas industry is relevant and timely. 

I think that FERC performs generally very well when it comes 

to energy projects, including natural gas pipelines. And I think that 

observation was largely supported by the report that has been referenced a few times already, the 2013 GAO report on pipeline permitting. 

Our jurisdiction, under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, relates 

to interstate pipelines, those that are proposed within a State. 

Intrastate pipelines, that jurisdiction rests solely with the States. 

Now, specific to natural gas pipeline certificates, project applications that we see at FERC have a wide range. They can be relatively small, uncontested upgrades to existing facilities, or they 

can range to a new pipeline that covers hundreds of miles. And so, 

naturally, the smaller and less contested projects can be reviewed 

13 

by us in a shorter amount of time and the complex applications 

take longer. 

We did an internal review over the last few years since Federal 

fiscal year 2009, and in that time we had a total of 548 applications 

submitted to the Commission. Projects in what we call the ‘‘Prior 

Notice/No Protests’’ category average 75 days for a Commission decision. Those projects in the ‘‘Protests, Policy Issues, or Major Construction’’ category averaged 375 days for a Commission decision. 

We stress to project developers the importance of public involvement when considering their projects, although some developers 

are better at outreach than others. Generally, those that employ 

aggressive public outreach tend to be rewarded with less 

contentiousness and faster Commission decisions. 

In my time at the Commission, I believe every new major pipeline project has had some kind of a route change based on public 

involvement. So hopefully we are seen as responsive to the public 

that is concerned about these projects. 

However, we are often dependent on other Federal agencies—a 

long list of them is in my testimony—to review aspects of the proposed projects. And sometimes, of course, State and local governments are involved, as well. 

Specific to H.R. 1900, I have been informed by our Commission 

staff that the 12-month timeline for action is achievable once the 

Commission determines that an application is complete. That is a 

key point. And I would respectfully suggest that clarifying that aspect might help the bill’s effectiveness, would it become law. 

The timeline for resource agencies adds an admirable level of accountability for these resource agencies involved. My only caution 

is that, without high-level agency oversight directing the agencies 

to prioritize these permits, a timeline could result in agencies either denying certain permits or adding burdensome conditions as 

a way to protect themselves from accusations of insufficient review. 

Vigilant oversight of resource agency actions will be necessary if 

these requirements become law. 

Apart from the bill itself, other actions would assist a more timely consideration of proposed timelines. Three areas: The first is the 

one I just reiterated. The management of Federal resource agencies 

have to be following these projects and these reviews to make sure 

that they are priorities to be reviewed in a timely manner. And we 

have seen a wide range. When agencies make this a priority, we 

get timely decisions. If they don’t, things can drag on, and usually 

consumers are the ones who pay the price. 

A second area is that we suggest that all natural gas pipeline developers should take advantage of the Commission’s pre-filing process, but not all do so. This process allows a lot of the issues to be 

resolved with the Commission staff and various stakeholders before 

a formal application. Once the formal application is in, the ex parte 

rules apply and all communication needs to be in writing. 

A third area, as noted in the GAO report, is that some States 

have designated a one-stop resource agency to coordinate State decisions on proposed pipelines. And for those States that have done 

it, it has generally added to regulatory certainty. For those States 

that haven’t, it is typically a lot more difficult to get the pipeline 

actually constructed or at least considered. So I would respectfully 

14 

suggest that those States that don’t have such a one-stop permitting resource agency consider doing so. 

Again, it is an honor to be here. I appreciate the chance to talk 

about infrastructure, and I look forward to any questions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Moeller, thanks so much, and we appreciate your opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moeller follows:] 

15 


86390.001
16 


86390.002
17 


86390.003
18 


86390.004
19 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes 

of questions. 

First of all, in the opening statements up here, I think you could 

detect that on one side of the aisle there was the impression that 

there really was not that much of a problem out there and on the 

other side of the aisle there was some reference that there is a 

problem out there relating to the approval of natural gas pipelines. 

Since you are a Commissioner there at FERC and you deal with 

this on a regular basis, what is your opinion? Is there a need for 

assistance in speeding up these applications or not? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, I think the trend is such that, because of the 

abundant domestic resource that several of the Members referenced earlier, we are probably going to see an increase in pipelines. And I think the numbers show that we are getting an increase in the number of applications. It is probably project by 

project, as to whether there is a problem. Resource agencies need 

to have—I think the accountability aspect of it is good. 

So there is a growing—we are certainly trending in a way where 

we are going to be a lot busier at FERC. And to the extent that 

Federal agencies can stick to timelines, I think the process would 

benefit. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how many people are really involved in the 

application process for a pipeline at FERC? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, again, it depends on the project, but we have 

internal engineers, particularly analysts—Mr. Wright can probably 

elaborate more. We also have contractors that can perform environmental reviews. But it depends on the extent of the project. 

But—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. MOELLER. —from just a few to many, especially if it is involving new pipe. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. And, typically, what takes the most time, 

I am assuming, is the environmental impact study. Is that correct? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. Well, arguably, maybe the pre-filing process, 

depending on the extent of the project. But once the application is 

filed, yes, the environmental review, whether it is an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment, would 

take the most amount of time in terms of the process. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And under the Energy Power Act of 2005, you 

all have the authority to conduct the environmental impact study, 

correct? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Now, you mentioned the pre-filing, of 

course, in your opening statement, as well. Would you elaborate a 

little bit on what is included in this pre-filing process? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, typically, the developers will come to the 

Commission with an idea of what they are proposing. Sometimes 

there is an economic element of it, as well, in terms of who is going 

to bear the burden of financing it, but mostly it is going to be a 

focus on environmental aspects of the project. 

And the feeling is that if the developer can work with the Commission staff and the stakeholders, a wide range of stakeholders, 

they can eliminate a lot of misunderstandings that could occur in 

20 

terms of routing, mitigation. And those are just much easier to 

work out before the formal ex parte rules apply. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, I have heard some people refer to it 

as sort of a Byzantine system, which—would that be a fair characterization, or is that being a little bit—maybe it is not that difficult. But you are dealing with State issues, you are dealing with 

local issues. You are dealing with a lot of other government agencies, as well. 

Mr. MOELLER. I am guessing that it becomes more Byzantine the 

more agencies that are involved. If it is relatively focused, where 

maybe only one or two Federal agencies are in the loop, that is better. You start adding on to that, there are just that many more decision points. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

And have you had the opportunity to review H.R. 1900? 

Mr. MOELLER. I have, yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, your personal view, do you think this is a 

good piece of legislation? Do you support this? 

Mr. MOELLER. As I noted in the testimony, I think the key in 

terms of the 12-month timeline is having an ability for the Commission, perhaps through Mr. Wright, to designate once an application is complete that the timeline kicks in then. A lot of the problems we have had with developers are, you know, they are missing 

something, and that delays the process. Once it is deemed complete, we feel that the 12-month timeline is—we can accomplish 

that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Commissioner, for your thoughtful testimony. I 

think it was very informative. 

It seemed to me that you were saying that, if companies participated in the pre-filing process and did sufficient outreach, that 

their problems were likely to be less difficult and they might meet 

faster timelines. Is that right? Did I—— 

Mr. MOELLER. Correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. —understand that correctly? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Commissioner Moeller, the FERC data shows that, from 2009 to 

2012, the Commission approved 69 major natural gas pipeline 

projects spanning 3,000 miles in 30 States. Does that sound about 

right? 

Mr. MOELLER. Sounds about right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, when the CEO of Dominion Energy testified on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

in May, he told this subcommittee that the industry can add new 

pipeline capacity in a timely, market-responsive manner and that 

the interstate natural gas pipeline sector enjoys a favorable legal 

and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure. 

His conclusion was that the natural gas model works, and I was 

wondering if you thought that that situation had changed since 

May. 

21 

Mr. MOELLER. The only thing I would add is that we really lack 

sufficient capacity in the Northeast. And the typical financing 

model was long-term contracts for local gas companies, and the 

new demand is electric generation that is driving a lot. And that 

financing model doesn’t work in the Northeast, and we need more 

pipe in the Northeast. So that is something we are struggling with. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. I don’t believe that this bill addresses that problem, does it? 

Mr. MOELLER. Congressman, no, this is not specific to that. Correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. It does not address that problem. All right, thank 

you. 

Mr. MOELLER. I didn’t mean to imply that it did. I am sorry. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Well, the pipeline industry told us that the permitting process 

works. They reiterated today that the process is generally very 

good. 

The GAO recently examined the issue, as well, and the GAO 

found that the permitting process for interstate natural gas pipeline is consistent. Do you agree with the GAO that FERC’s permitting process is consistent for pipelines? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, it takes FERC an average of 9–1/2 months 

to decide on an application for pipeline certification, but not all 

projects are clearly the same. The permitting process applies to applications for a single compressor station and to a short extension 

of existing pipeline. It also applies to, say, a 500-mile pipeline with 

multiple compressors that goes across many rivers. 

As you pointed out in your testimony, the more complex projects 

take longer to permit than the smaller projects. Is it realistic to 

think that the permitting process for every project, no matter how 

complex, can be completed within 12 months? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, my impression is that we can do that if the 

bill becomes law. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, the bill doesn’t start the clock until the application is completed. It starts the clock when FERC issues a notice that an application has been filed, even if it isn’t completed; 

is that right? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. I mean, referencing my earlier point, clarifying that we can deem an application complete would be very 

helpful. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think there is a risk that applications 

will be denied for insufficient time? 

Mr. MOELLER. That is something we have to be vigilant about. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And do you think it is realistic to expect other 

agencies to issue permits within 90 days or even 120 days if the 

application filed with them are not complete? 

Mr. MOELLER. If it is not complete, no. If it is complete, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

22 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is always good when honesty breaks out here at the subcommittee. I appreciate the Commissioner’s admittance that, if we 

pass the law, he would enforce it. That is a noble thing in the 

Obama administration, so we are glad to know that. 

You know, back in 2005, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Green, I think Mr. 

Barrow maybe was on the committee, Mr. Whitfield, myself, Mr. 

Pitts, Mr. Terry, we all passed this Energy Policy Act in 2005. And 

we gave the FERC additional authority, let the FERC kind of coordinate and serve as the quarterback, but we didn’t give enforcement, we didn’t put in penalties for noncompliance. Because the assumption was, if we required this coordination, that all the various 

agencies that had to coordinate and cooperate in what is considered 

to be a complex and complicated permitting process would comply. 

Well, that has apparently turned out not to be. 

Do you agree that the current law, as written, does not give the 

FERC any meaningful enforcement authority when other agencies 

fail to comply with the various deadlines and requirements under 

the current law? 

Mr. MOELLER. I would concur. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Now, the solution that Mr. Pompeo has come up with is to give 

a certain amount of time and, if they don’t comply, then it is just 

deemed or decided that their failure to act means they approve it. 

Would the FERC have a different enforcement mechanism than 

that? Is there something that is not in the bill, that, instead of saying, we will give you so much time with a possible extension but 

after that period of time we are going to assume that those agencies don’t have a problem and move forward? Would you prefer 

some different mechanism, or would FERC prefer some different 

mechanism? 

Mr. MOELLER. We haven’t discussed any alternative. 

Mr. BARTON. Then are you satisfied that the bill as written is acceptable? 

Mr. MOELLER. I believe that if it became law, it would add a 

level of accountability to the resource agencies. But we would all 

have to be vigilant to make sure that they didn’t have the incentive 

to just deny permits or add burdensome conditions as a way of essentially covering themselves. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, we have a good problem, in that the United 

States is blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas, and they 

are geographically well-situated, close to potential markets. It is a 

clean-burning fuel, it is an environmentally benign fuel. 

So if we can come to some understanding of what an acceptable 

permitting process is, give everybody that is a stakeholder an opportunity to participate in the process, but if projects appear to be 

mutually beneficial to both the supplier and the consumer, that 

they should go forward, we are going to have a great outcome for 

this country. 

And this bill attempts to, I think, create a balance between all 

the various competing interests so that these projects can move forward unless there is really a problem. And some on the more liberal side of the agenda just don’t want these projects to go forward 

23 

under any circumstance. It is not a gas pipeline, but you see it in 

the Keystone pipeline. 

So I think the Pompeo bill is a good step forward. And I hope, 

Mr. Chairman, that we mark it up expeditiously at the subcommittee, full committee, on the floor, and send it on the other 

body. This would serve as a good example to the American people 

that the Congress can solve problems and do things that are mutually beneficial for the entire country. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to clarify for the record, people aren’t against pipelines per se, and my opposition to the XL pipeline is not because 

it is a pipeline, but because of additional greenhouse gases that 

would be expended just to get that dirty tar sands oil ready to be 

put into a pipeline. 

But that does raise the question of a legislation that was adopted 

by the Congress, where there was an absolute deadline for the 

President to approve it, and he said he couldn’t do the analysis in 

time so he disapproved it. And I think that is the point that Mr. 

Moeller was just making, and others, that you may get the opposite 

of what you hoped for. 

Before an interstate natural gas pipeline can be built and operated, it has to get a permit from FERC. And the Pompeo bill 

amends the Natural Gas Act to establish a 12-month deadline for 

FERC to act one way or the other. 

Under these same rigid deadlines, we would have the same situation apply to every project, whether it is a straightforward 30-mile 

pipeline in the middle of nowhere that crosses no rivers or a complex 500-mile pipeline that goes through a major population center 

and crosses a dozen rivers. 

Commissioner Moeller, I appreciate your testimony, but I want 

to ask a question for Mr. Wright. 

Mr. Wright, you are a senior member of FERC’s nonpartisan career staff, aren’t you? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The FERC staff works on pipeline applications 

every day. You work on the easy ones and the more difficult ones. 

Do you believe that it is feasible for FERC to make a decision within 1 year of the notice of application for every complex pipeline 

project? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I believe 12 months is adequate when FERC determines that it has a complete application before it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So sometimes FERC takes longer because you 

don’t have a complete application. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Which means the company didn’t give you all the 

information you need; is that right? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, maybe they would just as soon run out the 

clock and get an automatic approval. 

24 

The bill doesn’t start the clock when the application is complete. 

It starts the clock when FERC issues a notice that an application 

has been filed even if it isn’t complete; isn’t that right? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Before FERC can make a final decision on an application, you not only have to do an environmental analysis but 

engineering and rate reviews; isn’t that right? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. These are important reviews to ensure that the environment, public health, and safety are protected. They are also 

necessary to make sure that rates are fair and reasonable. 

Mr. Wright, if FERC could not complete the required analysis 

and certificate work for a project within the 12-month deadline established by this bill, what would happen? Would FERC have to 

dismiss the application? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That would be a likely outcome if we are not satisfied with the environmental review that we have come to at that 

point in time and the review of the other matters that would be 

before us. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So this bill aimed at speeding up FERC permitting 

could actually end up having the opposite effect. A project that 

could have been approved in 15 months, let’s say, may just get denied if FERC is required to make a final decision in 12 months before it is ready to issue a certificate. 

Mr. Wright, the bill also establishes a 90-day deadline for all 

other agencies to approve or deny their permits once the environmental review is complete. If they fail to do so, the permits are 

automatically granted. Do you think other agencies may end up denying permits that would otherwise have been approved because of 

this deadline and automatic issuance provision? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That is a possible outcome. 

Mr. WAXMAN. If this bill became law, do you think it would actually result in interstate natural gas pipelines being permitted faster than they are today, or could it backfire and create problems 

and permitting delays? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I don’t believe it would effectively cause pipelines 

to be permitted faster than they are now. And, quite possibly, if we 

would have to deny an application, it could take longer for certain 

projects, 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I thank you for your answers to these questions. 

The current system is getting pipelines permitted. This is what 

we want. This bill could result in slower permitting while also 

threatening safety, health, and environmental protections. That 

shouldn’t be what we want. 

This bill has not been thought through. It certainly is not ready 

to go to the floor this month. The committee should take the time 

to really understand the current permitting process before making 

changes that will have serious consequences. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind the Members that Mr. 

Wright is not here as a witness today. He is here to lend technical 

support to Commissioner Moeller. 

25 

And since Mr. Waxman addressed all of his questions to Mr. 

Wright, Mr. Moeller, do you have any comment to any of his questions that you would like to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear what Mr. 

Moeller has to say, but Mr. Wright is there with the nitty-gritty—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Wright is not here as a witness. He is here 

to lend technical support. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He was here at our request. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, look, you heard him, and now I am going 

to give Mr. Moeller an opportunity to respond since he is the witness. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, that is fine. Let’s hear from Mr. Moeller. 

Mr. MOELLER. Let’s see. The 12-month deadline, we think, as I 

said earlier, as long as we feel that an application is deemed complete, it is a deadline that we have been assured we can work 

around. And to the extent that that adds certainty, that is a good 

thing. The agencies, it seems to me that more accountability toward them is a good thing. 

We are trending toward needing more pipelines based on domestic supply, and, frankly, we are burning a lot more gas to make 

electricity. So, as trend lines go, I appreciate the committee’s focus 

on this. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you think we should start the 12 months after 

the application is complete? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks very much to our witness for being here, and the 

technical witness. 

You know, the questioning has been very interesting this morning. It is also kind of interesting, this morning there was an article 

in the Akron Beacon Journal, which is on the other side of the 

State from me. I am from northwest Ohio. And the article was kind 

of interesting. The headline is ‘‘Shale Boom Creating Shortage of 

Affordable Housing in Eastern Ohio.’’ And reading through the 

story, it is talking about the reason for that is because of all of the 

drilling company workers that are coming in. And a lot of places 

around the State of Ohio would very much like to be in a situation 

to say that they have a problem out there because there is just not 

enough housing. 

And so, you know, as we look at what is happening in Ohio and 

especially with our Utica Shale and what is happening across our 

State, I think one of the questions that the chairman had started 

off with a little bit earlier was a question, he had mentioned and 

asked, you know, was there a need to speed up the process? And 

I believe that, if I understood it right, you said that you are probably looking at there is going to be a need for more pipelines across 

the country. 

And have you done any type of analysis of how much, you know, 

let’s just say looking down the road in that crystal ball 5 years or 

26 

10 years, of what we are looking at and what we are going to need 

in more pipeline across the country? 

Mr. MOELLER. I don’t think FERC has done that specifically, but 

I know you will be hearing from some industry witnesses later. 

And I know there are a number of studies that particularly the 

pipeline association has undertaken looking at those projected 

numbers. 

Mr. LATTA. But any kind of an idea off the top of your head of 

what those numbers might be? 

Mr. MOELLER. I have seen their numbers, but I wouldn’t want 

to misquote them. But, as you noted, with this supply coming in 

places that we didn’t expect even a few years ago, there will be a 

great opportunity to expand pipelines for consumers’ benefit. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

And just also, the chairman had also asked about on the pre-filing process of projects, I am just curious on that. In your testimony, you said that all natural gas pipeline developers should take 

advantage of the Commission’s pre-filing process but not all do so. 

Any idea of how many, you know, percentage-wise, take advantage of the pre-filing? 

Mr. MOELLER. Mr. Wright tells me 70 percent in the last year. 

Mr. LATTA. Seventy percent? And could I ask, just following up 

on that, how much more time does that add to the overall process? 

Does it lengthenit? Does it help shorten? What are we looking at? 

Mr. MOELLER. Oh, it helps shorten the process, because, again, 

a lot of the issues and perhaps some misunderstandings between 

the developer, the Commission staff, and the stakeholders have an 

opportunity to be resolved before the formal written-only communication requirements kick in. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

And just also kind of out of curiosity, are these large pipelines 

or developers? Are they small? Or is there kind of a mix of everybody that might be out there? 

Mr. MOELLER. Related to pre-filing? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, I think every project developer should take 

advantage of it, and the larger ones especially. But I think most 

of the larger ones do. It is, I think, to their detriment if they don’t. 

Mr. LATTA. I mean, when you are talking about ‘‘to their detriment,’’ not to dwell on one area, but I am just kind of curious, 

does it reduce the cost quite a bit? Or what happens in that prefiling? When you look at, you know, trying to get the timeline down 

and make sure the paperwork that would be involved is there, is 

there a cost reduction to the developer in the end? Or what would 

you say on that? 

Mr. MOELLER. I think almost universally, because, again, if you 

have a misunderstanding that has to be resolved in writing, it is 

so much less efficient than doing it in another manner ahead of the 

formal application filing. So I think it saves—and I think the industry would testify to the fact that it saves a lot of money and 

time if they take advantage of it. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

27 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

These questions to Mr. Moeller. 

The new subsection 1 created by this bill would require that 

FERC approve or deny certificates of public convenience and necessity within 12 months. 

Can you tell me approximately what percentages of these certificate requests currently take longer than 12 months? 

Mr. MOELLER. Approximately 10 percent. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Why? 

Mr. MOELLER. Their complexity, usually. Sometimes—— 

Mr. DINGELL. What does this do about those complex questions? 

Does it give the Commission more authority, more money, or anything to help them achieve a quicker solution to those difficult and 

complex requests? 

The answer is ‘‘no,’’ isn’t it. 

Mr. MOELLER. I think with the addition of the certainty of an application being deemed complete, that 12-month deadline 

would—— 

Mr. DINGELL. But if it is not—— 

Mr. MOELLER. —provide some certainty. 

Mr. DINGELL. But if it is not, that is going to cause considerable 

delay, is it not? 

Mr. MOELLER. We think that would improve the bill. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would improve the bill. Thank you. 

Now, Commissioner, the new subsection (j)(2) allows agencies to 

request that FERC grant a 30-day extension if the agency needs 

more than 90 days to approve permits required by such laws as the 

Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

Do you believe that FERC has the technical expertise and understanding to determine if a Federal or State agency issuing permits 

required by these and other acts do or don’t need additional time, 

yes or no? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, you do have a problem here, however, with 

the fact that a lot of authorities are delegated by the Federal Government to the States, such as clean air, clean water, and others, 

where the States are permitted to take action under a coordinated 

program of Federal-State cooperation; isn’t that right? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. What is this bill going to do to those matters? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, it would apply the deadlines to those agencies, as well. 

Mr. DINGELL. Even if the State deadline might be different and 

even if the problem that the State confronts is more difficult and 

complex? 

Mr. MOELLER. That is how I read the bill. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, as you know, more utilities are planning on 

building new natural-gas-fired plants. In order to do so, they will 

need more pipeline infrastructure to support these plants. 

28 

Do you believe that the FERC has funding, staff, and expertise 

to consider future applications in a timely manner, yes or no? 

Mr. MOELLER. For now, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. But in the future probably not, right? 

Mr. MOELLER. I think the way things are trending—and Mr. 

Wright could elaborate more—I would be happy to have the problem of more applications—— 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. 

Mr. MOELLER. —than the need for more—— 

Mr. DINGELL. So in the future you are looking at a problem. 

Thank you. 

Now, the chair has said that I can’t ask questions of Mr. Wright, 

so I am going to ask these questions of you. 

Are all applications submitted to FERC for pipeline projects the 

same, yes or no? 

Mr. MOELLER. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. That is, they are not, then, all the same length? 

They deal with different links in the pipeline, different kinds of terrain, different problems, such as being under the ocean or under 

bodies of water and so forth? And that is correct, is it not? 

Mr. MOELLER. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Does FERC receive incomplete applications requiring additional information from the applicant, yes or no? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Is there a deadline for which applicants need to 

submit complete application information? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes, in the data requests. 

Mr. DINGELL. Is that an absolute complete submission that you 

can require, or does that still leave you holes in the information 

that you need? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, if there are holes, we won’t grant the—we 

won’t make—— 

Mr. DINGELL. So that means delay. It means you will reject the 

application, because you had no choice under the legislation. 

Now, if FERC were not able to complete its due diligence review 

within 12 months, as required under the proposed legislation, do 

you believe that more applications would be denied? 

Mr. MOELLER. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. But there would be denials because of this, would 

there not? You have already indicated that. 

Mr. MOELLER. I think it would depend on each application. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, we have some other problems. I am about 

running out of time here. But I thank you for your assistance to 

the committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 

Pompeo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Moeller, for your testimony today. I take to heart 

your concern about the application being completed, deemed full 

and complete. I just want to make sure that I understand the prefiling process. This is an extensive process when it is used, lots of 

29 

back and forth, including environmental concerns. Lots of issues 

are resolved in that pre-filing time period in a way that—— 

Mr. MOELLER. Correct. 

Mr. POMPEO. And stakeholders are also notified during the prefiling process, so we bring all the relevant folks that are concerned 

about a particular pipeline and have an interest in that pipeline, 

have a chance to engage during that pre-filing process when a company chooses to engage in the pre-filing? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. How long does that take typically? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, it varies widely depending on the complexity 

of the project. I would imagine it has ranged from maybe 6 to 12 

months generally. 

Mr. POMPEO. So this is not a shotgun deal. This is a long, 

thoughtful, lots of engagement process when done properly—— 

Mr. MOELLER. Correct. 

Mr. POMPEO. —where all stakeholders get an opportunity—— 

Mr. MOELLER. Right. 

Mr. POMPEO. —to state their case and make their arguments, 

and improve the process and improve the pipeline pathway and 

make sure we are doing all the things, including protecting the environment, complying with all the relevant statutes? 

Mr. MOELLER. Precisely. 

Mr. POMPEO. Why do you think some companies choose not do 

that? 

Mr. MOELLER. They may not be aware of it. 

Mr. POMPEO. So these are typically smaller, the folks who choose 

not to, is it fair to say they are typically smaller pipelines, less sophisticated businesses perhaps? I mean, to not be aware of a prefiling opportunity. 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. I think typically that is right. Some have chosen not to, but I think they have missed an opportunity. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Mr. MOELLER. Oh. Those that have—that are perhaps newer to 

the development—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Sure. Sure. Yes. 

Mr. MOELLER.—don’t realize the advantages of it. 

Mr. POMPEO. I mention all this, because I think it is important 

in the context of these deadlines, which to someone who didn’t— 

was unaware of this, this extended process might think 90 days or 

12 months was too short a time period. It has been fascinating to 

listen to some folks here today who normally object to things be 

concerned about denial of permits and think this piece of legislation is a bad piece of legislation because it might delay a permit. 

I am thrilled to hear now that some folks on the other side are concerned about delaying of the permitting process. It may be the first 

time in my 30 months at Congress that I have heard that. 

I wrote this in a way that I thought it would be bipartisan. All 

I was trying to do was get deadlines established and, as you talked 

about, accountability inside the other agencies; really not as much 

about FERC, but about the other agencies that require permits. 

I want to come back to something Mr. Barton asked. So in the 

alternative of setting a deadline—and 90 days, I will concede we 

30 

could make it 91 or 89, I will concede that 90 is in some sense arbitrary, but I think it is important to have that deadline. 

In the alternative, what are the other mechanisms to tell these 

agencies to just do their job? 

Mr. MOELLER. Essentially people could bring an action against 

them in some—— 

Mr. POMPEO. You mean go to litigation? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. That is why I think this is absolutely important. And to your point, I think directing these agencies to be accountable and prioritize this permitting process needs to be done 

and needs to set these deadlines in a way that is meaningful. And 

I am happy if we need to talk about the trigger, the start point, 

I am happy to consider that. 

The last thing, and this is a bit of a tangent, I just want to talk 

about reporting and data. In 2013, GAO stated that it had these 

public records to get at the actual length of the time that permitting process took for projects and to be approved by FERC. Do you 

think that in order to provide a better understanding of the time 

it takes to get the real good data that it would be appropriate to 

begin actual tracking inside of FERC of how long these processes 

take and maybe inside of each of the agencies as well? 

Mr. MOELLER. We have—I think we have hopefully done a good 

job of adding some transparency by tracking information on our 

Web site. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MOELLER. But generally, yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I would 

like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I know my earlier statement, I appreciate being able to have 

part of the opening statement, but Mr. Moeller, in a question from 

our—from Chairman Dingell, you have a 90 percent approval rate 

of applications once they are deemed within the year already? 

Mr. MOELLER. A decision on 90 percent within 12 months. 

Mr. GREEN. Within 12 months. I wish we had other Federal 

agencies that had that kind of record. And I know FERC’s problems. And like I said earlier, you heard I had problems with FERC 

many years ago, but the problems I had were fixed, I mean, early 

part of 2001, 2002. Of course, in Texas, we had to live with Enron 

and part of the problems that deal with that, but I knew you were 

doing a good job, because I wasn’t getting complaints from any of 

my companies, but 90 percent approval rate is amazing. 

One of the concerns I have, and I know the Corps of Engineers 

and EPA has provided technical comments on the bill. They raised 

concerns that automatic permitting would lead to permits that are 

inconsistent with requirements with the Clean Water and Clean 

Air Act. This committee doesn’t control resources to the Army 

Corps of Engineers and EPA; our appropriations process does that. 

And if either FERC doesn’t have the appropriations or those agencies don’t have it, you know, by setting arbitrary time limits means 

that it could possibly just be denied. Is that correct? 

31 

Mr. MOELLER. That is a potential, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. So that is an option. If you don’t make the year and 

the information is not available, you end up denying it because 

some agency—and that is not just Federal agencies. For example, 

I know one of my questions I want to get to is that some States 

have one-stop agency designations, and I assume those are much 

quicker in responding, but what if a State doesn’t respond, and, of 

course, Congress doesn’t control those States and we don’t want to, 

so we are—there is a lot of moving targets in this issue, but let me 

ask some particular questions. 

You and your staff interact with other agency and State permitting every day. And let’s say that the agency couldn’t finish preparing a permit before the 90-day deadline, and that would mean 

the unwritten permit would automatically take effect or would it 

be denied? 

Mr. MOELLER. I believe the bill has another 30-day potential extension. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. MOELLER. And then under the bill, as I read it, it would be 

deemed approved. 

Mr. GREEN. Even if there was no control by FERC or on a State 

agency not responding or another Federal agency? 

Mr. MOELLER. That is how I read the legislation. 

Mr. GREEN. My other concern, I said earlier, is increased litigation. If something is approved and there is something left out, it 

is deemed approved, you know, we just move it from an agency 

that is a regulatory agency to a courtroom. And if you think you 

have regulatory delay, go to even a State court system, but a Federal court system, it will be delayed even more. 

One part of the bill that I don’t have a huge interest—or issue 

with is it codified the 90-day deadline. And that said, there is some 

of the concern. I would hope that before this bill gets out, and we 

are going to have a markup this afternoon, we would at least make 

sure that that application is deemed complete before the time 

frames run, and simply because, again, I look at this that a solution in search of a problem is you have a 90 percent approval rating, but—— 

Mr. DINGELL. That could be a problem. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. But if we are going to do something, let’s don’t 

mess up a system that is working 90 percent of the time. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I would 

like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So here is the question 

I would have. If we are going to define and if we decided we wanted to change that the time starts when the application is complete, 

when is the application complete? And let me preface that by saying that I have had some experience with a different agency or different agencies where my constituents think they have got everything complete, and then a new request comes in from the agency 

and then we get that complete, and then another request comes in 

from the agency. So I just want to make sure that if we go down 

that path we are not setting ourselves up for failure. So when 

32 

would the application be complete under your projections or 

thoughts? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, I think Mr. Wright could probably come up 

with some very specific examples, but I know that we have had applications come in and perhaps part of the environmental review is 

somewhat deficient, and in that sense if we enter the pre-—if we 

enter the application period, as I referenced earlier, it is just a lot 

more inefficient to get that resolved in writing. So it will depend 

on each different project, but it is going to be, I think, largely environmental-related studies or—yes. There are potential rate-making 

issues that could be hanging out there. Most of those get resolved, 

at least discussed, ahead of time in terms of making sure there 

isn’t subsidization of an expansion by existing customers of relatively detailed but important matters. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. And I guess my one concern with deviating 

from the bill as it is currently written is that I wouldn’t want to 

get into a situation where there were just a series of new requests, 

and would maybe want to see some limitation—— 

Mr. MOELLER. Understood. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. —placed on that. That being said, I do appreciate 

that, you know, folks can talk these things out before the official 

process starts. That always is very helpful. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Moeller, in your testimony, you indicate there were some 548 

applications submitted since 2009. How many fell into the Prior 

Notice/No Protests category? 

Mr. MOELLER. A total of 75 over those years. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Thank you. And would the replacement of an 

existing pipeline go through the same project approval as a new 

pipeline? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. What proportion of applications is for the replacement of existing pipelines versus entirely new lines, would you suggest? 

Mr. MOELLER. We can get you those numbers. In terms of an actual replacement? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Mr. MOELLER. Relatively few. In terms of additions to existing 

pipes, such as updated compressors or—there are many more of 

those. 

Mr. TONKO. Do replacement pipeline projects in general take the 

same amount of time to approve as new pipelines? 

Mr. MOELLER. I think it depends on their environmental impacts 

in terms of where they are going and how much land they disturb. 

Mr. TONKO. And in your experience, would you say that pipeline 

projects in areas of higher population density are more likely to fall 

into your second category—— 

Mr. MOELLER. Oh, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. —that being protests and policy issues and major 

construction? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. Absolutely. 

33 

Mr. TONKO. OK. It appears the areas that are deficient in pipeline infrastructure currently are areas with higher density, for example, areas like the Northeast, because of the increased gas development in the Marcellus Shale and a strong demand for gas in that 

region. Is that the case? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, that is part of it, but as I referenced earlier, 

part of the challenge in the Northeast is that the new growing use 

of electricity there is—of natural gas is to make electricity, and the 

financing model traditionally for pipelines has been that the local 

distribution company enters into long-term contracts to get the 

pipe built. 

The new demand in New England is generators who may or may 

not be called on a daily basis, so they can’t be expected to go into 

long-term contracts. So we have that kind of conundrum of needing 

more pipe in the Northeast, but the traditional financing model 

really doesn’t apply to the new demand. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, if we have different categories of pipeline 

projects with differing circumstances, it seems to me that this onesize-fits-all policy for project consideration is likely to shortchange 

those projects that are the most complex to the highest density 

areas or are perhaps controversial. 

I am very concerned about pipeline safety. I had represented 

when I was in the State legislature in New York areas that were 

impacted by serious pipeline failures that cost people their lives. It 

seems to me that an average approval time of a little over a year 

for a pipeline that will operate for some, what, 4 to 5 decades, perhaps, is simply not unreasonable. 

Your comments to that statement. 

Mr. MOELLER. I think it will highlight the need for the pre-filing 

process and that to be thorough, extensive and aggressive public 

outreach for any such projects. Those issues will be highlighted 

under a 12-month timeline. 

Mr. TONKO. But even in light of, as was earlier discussed, some 

of the track record, that track record at the agency, are we sacrificing at the expense of pipeline failure? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, I don’t think so. I think we have had a pretty good record in terms of how we deal with applications; as I 

noted, the 90 percent. The trend is that we are getting more of 

them, though, so that is something to keep in mind. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you for being here. I always appreciate your 

efforts to keep us updated. I am just curious, when we talk about 

the protest and no protest, out of an—in let’s say a year’s time, 

how many of the projects will be protested? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, I have a total here of in fiscal year—well, 

for the last 5 years, basically the ones that haven’t been protested 

average right about 75. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. I know. Those are the number of days. I am asking for the number of—you take the total number of applications, 

how many of the applications are actually protested? 

Mr. MOELLER. We will get you that number, but I think it is 

more and more, generally. 

34 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. I would not be surprised that it is more and 

more, and then that begs the question of who is filing these complaints or protests. 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, on major projects, they are going to be economic and, you know, market issues that are worthy of shippers 

and perhaps other entities being involved. In terms of smaller 

projects, we have seen more sophisticated public outreach in terms 

of social media being concerned about, say, a compressor station. 

So it can range from major corporations to individuals. 

Mr. TERRY. So is there an effort, do you see, by Sierra Club or 

the NRDC to file protests on each one of these projects? 

Mr. MOELLER. You know, we can get you that. I think, generally 

speaking, everybody is more interested in infrastructure, perhaps, 

than they used to be. 

Mr. TERRY. That is kind. Genteel. 

Then another area, now for something completely different than 

who is protesting and why, but I just received an email as I have 

been sitting here from Sapp Bros, which is a small chain of truck 

stops along Interstate 80 in the Midwest headquartered in my district inviting me to one of their high volume CNG pumps that they 

are putting in at their stations. 

You have mentioned the additional need for natural gas pipelines 

to electric generators and with the new rules and regulations coming down from the EPA, from the White House, there will be even 

more pressure on natural gas. So my question is, has FERC started 

looking ahead at way—towards ahead to the future pipeline, gas 

pipeline needs in this country as natural gas will be used more for 

transportation and electrical generation? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, specifically we haven’t done any projections, 

but industry entities have. As I think you know, one of my major 

concerns has been the fact that we are transitioning so quickly to 

using more natural gas. And there are reliability issues there, they 

are not insurmountable, but it is a very different paradigm going 

from, frankly, a pile of coal to a just-in-time fuel delivery on a pipeline. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, and that is part of my concern, is as the economy starts naturally moving to natural gas in transportation and 

then artificially from rules and regulations, the demand will be 

there and the infrastructure will be needed, so how do we get your 

agency to look forward? Is that something that we need to do legislatively in addition to the Pompeo bill? 

Mr. MOELLER. I think that we can look to the industry projections for pipeline capacity. Your continued oversight of how we do 

our job is appropriate. I think we have done a good job, but as I 

referenced earlier, the trend is that we are getting more of these, 

and we need to stay on top of that, and so I welcome your oversight. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I would 

like to recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much for being here. I want to focus on the part 

of the bill that says that permits automatically go into effect if 

35 

agencies do not approve or deny the permits within 90 days, because this kind of stuck out for me. Especially when you consider 

the complex projects, this provision appears to be very problematic, 

because I understand these permits are not simply yes or no, green 

light or red light. For example, a water discharge permit typically 

involves some limits, a clean air permit includes specific requirements such as emission limitations based on control technology or 

methods of operation. These permits can be very detailed documents, especially with the complex projects that need to be written 

by the agencies. 

And let’s say we go to that scenario of complex project, the agencies could not complete their review and conditions within the 90- 

day deadline. Would that mean under this bill an unwritten permit 

would automatically go into effect? 

Mr. MOELLER. I believe as the legislation is drafted, there is another 30-day option, and then, yes, as I read the bill, the permits 

would go into effect. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, I think that is a major deficiency in the bill. 

I understand the need to boost efficient agency review in the drafting of the conditions, but I think that goes back to the point that 

was made earlier that this could potentially cause greater delays, 

especially for those complex projects. 

The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA provided technical comments on the bill. They raise concerns that automatic permitting 

could lead to permits that are inconsistent with the requirements 

of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. This could lead to a violation of Federal statutes. Doesn’t it make—does it make sense for 

a permit to be granted that could be in violation of Federal statutes? Don’t you think that could be problematic? 

Mr. MOELLER. That would be problematic. 

Ms. CASTOR. I would think so. We empower these agencies to assess the impacts of a project, set appropriate terms and conditions 

to protect the public interest and public health. And I think what 

has been established in the hearing today is that from 2009 to 

2012, FERC has approved 69 major natural gas pipeline projects 

spanning over 3,000 miles and 30 States with a capacity of nearly 

30 billion cubic feet per day. 90 percent of the permits are granted 

within a 12-month period. 

Commissioner, you testified there are a wide range of projects, 

that you would encourage companies to take greater advantage of 

pre-filing. Maybe we should be focused on how we encourage that 

to happen. We have testimony in the record now that this bill could 

result in greater delays due to the fact that denials are mandated, 

so I think on balance we have work to do here. 

There is a very important balance between making sure infrastructure is permitted and improved in the most efficient way, but 

it has got to be balanced against the health and safety standards, 

and I think this draft legislation just has not risen to the occasion. 

I think based on the evidence in the record, it could create greater 

problems. And I know that is not the intent of the author. I 

thank—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Would the gentlelady yield for a question? 

Ms. CASTOR. I would be happy to yield. 

36 

Mr. DINGELL. You just raised a very good point. So let’s take a 

situation where my State or the gentlewoman’s State has not complied with the requirements delegated to them by the Clean Air Act 

or the Clean Water Act, so they can’t issue a necessary permit. 

FERC may then step in and issue the permit whether the State 

has acted on this matter or not and whether or not the Federal 

Clean Water or Clean Air Act has been implemented and approved 

in the State? Isn’t that right? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, we wouldn’t issue the permit in place of the 

State. 

Mr. DINGELL. What makes you so sure? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, we have been in that situation before where 

a State has delayed a Clean Water Act permit for a pipeline, and 

we have deemed the application complete subject to that being resolved. 

Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank you. To the gentlewoman, I say 

thank you for your courtesy. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. And, Mr. Dingell, I think this also highlights a concern that it could lead to much greater litigation and 

this might be a great new employment act for environmental litigators out there. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time has expired. At this time 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. And Commissioner Moeller, it is 

good to see you again. Welcome. 

Mr. MOELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. I hope you celebrated the Fourth of July with your 

family. 

Mr. MOELLER. I did. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. And speaking of celebration, America has a 

lot to celebrate in 2013, because we are at a turning point in our 

country’s history. For the first time in my 50 years on this planet, 

we can actually become energy independent. We are finding new oil 

and new gas places all over America that 10 years ago would have 

never been called energy States. North Dakota, the Bakken Shale 

play is the best example of that. Back home in Texas, shale plays 

seem to be doubling in size with each passing year. It is truly remarkable. 

And the benefits extend beyond the oil patch. I have seen it firsthand along the Rio Grande River in the Eagle Ford Shale play. 

Local school districts there do not have revenue to compete—did 

not have revenue to compete for admission to America’s best universities, but now with the revenue school districts are getting with 

all the oil and gas development from the Eagle Ford Shale play, instead of floppy disks, these kids have laptops, they have iPads, 

they have a future, but all that development, that progress will 

stop if we allow those resources to stay stranded at the wellhead. 

Bureaucrats dither, and professional plaintiffs in the environmental community are looking to crank up lawsuits and take 

care—get involved with reviews of safe, important projects and 

grind them to a halt. That needs to stop, and that is why I am so 

thankful that we have this conversation today. 

37 

Now, I have a handful of questions for you on pipeline infrastructure and permitting in the United States. And in the tradition of 

Chairman Dingell, I will ask you to answer a few questions with 

either yes or no answers. 

First question. Do you agree that we are relying on natural gas 

more today than ever before in our modern energy history? 

Mr. MOELLER. I agree, yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Do you agree that increasing shale gas supply and increased use of natural gas for power generation are causing a need for new pipeline infrastructure? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Do you agree that infrastructure bottlenecks can contribute to or even cause a reliability crisis? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Does that fact make time and consideration of new 

or expanded pipelines for regulators even more important? 

Mr. MOELLER. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. No more yes or no questions, but as yet I heard 

complaints even at church this past Sunday from an employee of 

one of our oil companies, our power generators about the timeliness 

of reviews with regulation—some regulators. FERC has heard from 

groups with names like Stop the Pipeline and No Gas Pipelines 

dedicated to flooding your agency with sometimes trivial comments 

on individual pipelines. Knowing that, do you agree that some 

members of the environmental community have made it their mission to slow your good work? 

Mr. MOELLER. Well, I don’t know if it is their mission. There is 

a big debate going on out there, but as I said earlier, you need the 

infrastructure, the pipes and wires to get the energy to people for 

them to enjoy it, contribute to their quality of life. 

Mr. OLSON. One more question, Commissioner. When FERC is 

considering a pipeline application, I know that you do all the 

lengthy reviews to ensure you meet all of your statutory requirements under the Natural Gas Act, however, I would like to know 

how you work with pipeline operators and project developers on 

their needs. Specifically if a project has to be completed in a certain 

time frame to guarantee reliability or meet some contractual deadline, does FERC have a way to take that into account? 

Mr. MOELLER. Everyone would like their project done as soon as 

possible, so we have to balance the complexity of the project with 

the economic issues and try and do the best we can to get a thorough analysis of the application. 

Mr. OLSON. Is there a way that we could involve the contractors, 

given these considerations, involved in the process without impacting the quality of your reviews? 

Mr. MOELLER. I think emphasizing the pre-filing process that we 

talked about earlier. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. I had some question on that, but I understand 

you hammered that, so I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. And I believe that concludes the questions for this first panel. 

I think Mr. Murphy is here to introduce someone on the second 

panel. 

38 

So Chairman Moeller—I mean, Mr. Moeller, thank you for being 

with us today. And, Mr. Wright, we appreciate your being with us 

as well. We do value your comments and answers to our questions 

and we look forward to working with you as we move forward. So 

thank you all for joining us this morning. 

Mr. MOELLER. Thank you for letting us. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And you are dismissed at this time. 

Now I would like to call up the second panel of witnesses. I am 

going to introduce all of them except the gentleman that Mr. Murphy is going to introduce. 

First we have Mr. David Markarian, who is Vice President of 

Government Affairs for NextEra Energy. We have Ms. Maya van 

Rossum, who is the Delaware Riverkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper 

Network. We have Mr. Rick Kessler, who is the President of Pipeline Safety Trust. And we have Mr. Donald Santa, who is President 

and CEO of INGAA. 

And at this time I would like to recognize Mr. Murphy for the 

purposes of an introduction. 

Mr. MURPHY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

members of the subcommittee. I want to introduce Mr. Alex Paris. 

He is a good friend and a constituent of mine from Avella, Pennsylvania. Mr. Paris is a southwestern Pennsylvania success story. His 

company, founded by his grandfather I think in 1928, has its roots 

in coal mining and road building. Today it is a full service heavy 

construction firm employing hundreds of workers and laying thousands of miles of pipelines and helping to promote the safe development and secure transmission of natural gas from the Marcellus 

Shale, which is now the country’s most productive shale play. 

My district is experiencing an economic revival because of the 

Marcellus Shale, which sits almost exclusively on privately held 

lands, but regulatory and permitting pipeline barriers are restricting job growth, especially in gas poor regions of the country that 

stand to benefit from access to Pennsylvania’s natural gas. Those 

regions need gas to power their factories, provide the feed stock for 

important chemicals, heat their homes, and basically keep the 

lights on. As Mr. Parish will explain, the passage of a the Natural 

Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act could help to address this 

challenge and spur billions in new economic activity. 

So thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman, and 

I now turn it back to you. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much. 

And I want to welcome all of the members of this second panel. 

We do look forward to your testimony, and each one of you will be 

given 5 minutes for an opening statement. And, Mr. Markarian, we 

will begin with you, so you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

39 

STATEMENTS OF DAVID MARKARIAN, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.; RICK 

KESSLER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PIPELINE 

SAFETY TRUST; DONALD F. SANTA, JR., PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, INGAA; MAYA K. VAN ROSSUM, THE DELAWARE 

RIVERKEEPER, DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK; AND E. 

ALEX PARIS III, DISTRIBUTION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MARKARIAN 

Mr. MARKARIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Rush, members of the subcommittee. Dave Markarian, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for NextEra Energy, Inc., also known 

as Florida Power & Light for many years here in town. And I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and testify in favor 

of this bill. 

NextEra is one of America’s leading energy companies: 15,000 

employees; we operate one of the most diverse fleets in the U.S., 

natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear, coal and other fuels to generate 

electricity every day for millions of Americans. We are engaged in 

hydraulic fracturing in many of the shales across the U.S. We build 

pipeline, we build long-distance, high voltage transmission lines. 

We operate the fourth largest nuclear fleet in the U.S., with commercial nuclear facilities in Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa and 

Wisconsin. 

Now, to the point, in the last 5 years alone, NextEra Energy has invested $27 billion in American infrastructure for this industry. 

That puts us in the top 10 of folks that have come forward and put 

their money on—bet on this American economy. These projects 

have created thousands and thousands of jobs and improved our 

ability to take advantage of domestic sources of fuels to generate 

electricity here at home. These are key ingredients, not just for 

supplying electricity, but for economic growth. One of the things 

that we have done the most of is to invest in natural gas. 

Now, we are probably better known as the largest wind energy 

company in the U.S., the second largest in the world, or the largest 

in solar, but the fact that we are sitting here today—we heard 

Chairman Upton talk about this bill having bipartisan support. 

This reflects—our presence here reflects that the support for this 

bill goes across fuel sources. So for a company like ours that uses 

everything, we are actually proud to sit here today and say that 

use of natural gas is saving customers across America billions of 

dollars. But just our company alone by investing in natural gas 

over the last so many years, we have reduced our import and use 

of foreign oil by 98 percent, our customer bills are 25 percent below 

the national average, our Florida utility, which is about half of our 

business, serves about half of our State, about 9 million folks, and 

this is the key thing, delivers lower electricity prices, which does 

a few things: one, it encourages businesses to locate, grow or move 

to our areas where we serve; it gives people more money in their 

pocket so they can do more with it; it spurs economic growth, it 

spurs spending, it spurs saving and investment. 

If you have flown in and out of Fort Lauderdale, over the airport, 

we have got that classic smokestack configuration. Tuesday morning, 6:45 a.m., we blow those babies up and we build a brand-new 

40 

facility that will burn natural gas. A billion dollars of our money 

will save our customers $400 million just in the life of the plant. 

So we believe that it is really important to look ahead and get this 

fuel from where it is harnessed to where it is needed. 

And I have heard the comments today. And I think the point, 

NextEra’s support of this bill isn’t so much for today, it is for the 

future, it is for the next 20 and 30 years. Our industry plans to 

20, 25, 30 years out. And I wasn’t alive during the Eisenhower administration, but they built a highway system, but I was alive for 

Gemini and Apollo. And if this industry doesn’t rise to the level of 

national priority yet, and I think it will, and so we have to get 

ready for it. We have to keep pace with this renaissance that we 

know is on the way. 

And I think what this bill does is it sets expectations. It requires 

that people and agencies think about staffing, that folks in Washington think about funding for staffing, and that everybody has an 

expectation of review that is certain. 

Now, I said in my testimony that sometimes a definite no is better than an interminable maybe, and I think that that is true. If 

you are going to do what we do for a living, sometimes it is good 

to know that you are not going to get it done and you move in a 

different direction. So there is four reasons why, in summary, we 

support this: one, this is a great opportunity for us; two, we think 

it is going to spur the economy; three, it is helping to save customers money; and, four, it helps us move things from where they 

are harnessed to where we need it. 

I also want to point out that the EEI, the Edison Electric Institute, which we are a member of, also supports this bill and there 

is wide industry support for the bill, and they have filed a letter 

in support. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Markarian. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markarian follows:] 

41 


86390.005
42 


86390.006
43 


86390.007
44 


86390.008
45 


86390.009
46 


86390.010
47 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And Ms. van Rossum, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAYA K. VAN ROSSUM 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Thank you. Good morning. My name’s Maya 

van—is this on? Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. Push the button to make sure it is on. 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Sorry. Good morning. My name is Maya van 

Rossum. I am the Delaware Riverkeeper, and my organization is 

the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. And I really appreciate the 

time to speak with you this morning about H.R. 1900. And I am 

actually here to ask you to please rethink the proposal, to rethink 

H.R. 1900 and not send it to the floor. H.R. 1900 will diminish critical protections for our communities and our environment and it 

will have unintended consequences. 

Ensuring full and fair environmental reviews and permitting of 

pipelines is critical, because of the enormity of the potential environmental impact from these projects. For example, just one portion of one recent pipeline as it passes through the Delaware River 

watershed will impact 450 acres of land, cross 90 water bodies and 

136 wetlands and cut through two State preserve forests. 

By imposing an inflexible reduction in the time allowed for Clean 

Water Act 401 and 404 permitting or decision-making, H.R. 1900 

could compel the States and the Army Corps to deny more applications rather than work with applicants to remedy deficiencies and 

improve their projects, or alternatively, they could overlook deficiencies and issue legally dubious approvals. 

Our experience is that currently States will work with pipeline 

applicants to cure application deficiencies so as to ensure a fully informed 401 review. The time limitations in H.R. 1900 would inhibit 

such cooperation. 

The H.R. 1900 timeline will also diminish the time available for 

States to develop conditions necessary to support 401 certification, 

resulting in either further denials or the issuance of certifications 

unsuited to protecting our water quality. More 401 denials necessarily results in more denials of 404 permits. 

To avoid the administrative stress of H.R. 1900, some States may 

opt to simply waive their 401 authority altogether, depriving them 

of a critical opportunity to prevent degradation of their waters. 

Given that 401 certification may be the only way that a State can 

assure its water quality standards are met with regards to pipeline 

projects, H.R. 1900’s interference with the exercise of this authority 

is an interference with the rights of States to protect their communities. 

H.R. 1900 may even encourage deficient applications in the 

hopes that its timing restrictions prevent full and careful review by 

the agencies. And if FERC is unable to obtain the detailed surveys, 

expert reports and data analysis necessary to comply with NEPA 

and H.R. 1900’s 1-year time frame, FERC could be forced to choose 

between deficient NEPA reviews or denying the certificate of public 

convenience and necessity. 

By truncating the time for allowed for environmental reviews, 

H.R. 1900 incentivizes the illegal practice of project segmentation. 

Segmentation prevents the understanding of the full impacts of a 

48 

pipeline project and the need for specific protections. Segmentation 

is already common practice for pipeline projects. H.R. 1900 diminishes the ability of agencies to identify and stop the practice. 

And a look at the pipeline map that we have provided for you 

with our testimony, if you look at the top where the arrow is, the 

red and the yellow line towards the top is two approved projects. 

One was authorized in May of 2010, the other was authorized in 

May of 2012. And it is very clear by even casual observation and 

the timing of these reviews that these two proposals are, in fact, 

one project that should have been reviewed and decided upon as a 

single project, not two. So that demonstrates, you know, how segmentation plays out. 

H.R. 1900 reduces environmental protection by reducing environmental reviews and the time allowed for creating appropriate conditions. As such, if this piece of legislation is to move forward, it 

must be balanced by legislation that ensures the use of best construction practices and planning in order to ensure avoidance of environmental harm. Examples of enhanced practices: reduced rightof-way widths to more historic proportions that are mandatory; a 

mandate that public lands protected with community resources are 

avoided; use of construction strategies that avoid and reverse soil 

compaction. Compaction at pipeline construction sites can be as 

high as 98 percent. Urban dams are generally only compacted to 

95 percent. The increased runoff, pollution, potential flooding and 

failed restoration that result could be avoided by better construction practices, such as using excavated soils and wood chips from 

felled trees to create the construction bed for operating heavy 

equipment. 

And FERC should have a duty to ensure coordinated location of 

pipeline projects as part of its review, similar as its obligation with 

respect to hydroelectric dams. 

Coordinated planning for pipeline projects would better serve the 

public interest and help avoid redundant and unnecessary projects. 

So I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 

and I respectfully ask that you not move forward with this proposed piece of legislation, but if you do, I ask that you balance its 

effect with necessary legislative upgrades regarding pipeline planning, reviews and construction. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. van Rossum follows:] 

49 


86390.024
50 


86390.025
51 


86390.026
52 


86390.027
53 


86390.028
54 


86390.029
55 


86390.030
56 


86390.031
57 


86390.032
58 


86390.033
59 


86390.034
60 


86390.035
61 


86390.036
62 


86390.037
63 


86390.038
64 


86390.039
65 


86390.040
66 


86390.041
67 


86390.042
68 


86390.043
69 


86390.044
70 


86390.045
71 


86390.046
72 


86390.047
73 


86390.048
74 


86390.049
75 


86390.050
76 


86390.051
77 


86390.052
78 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Kessler, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KESSLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, could I just be recognized for about 

30 seconds? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you for your courtesy. I want to commend 

Ms. van Rossum for her very fine statement and I would like to 

welcome to the committee Mr. Rick Kessler, who is a personal 

friend, former staff member, wrote much of the energy legislation 

written by this committee during my chairmanship, served with 

distinction in writing pipeline safety legislation and other matters. 

So we welcome an old friend back. Pleasure to see you, Mr. Kessler. 

STATEMENT OF RICK KESSLER 

Mr. KESSLER. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. McNerney, and also you, Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Rick Kessler and I am here in my voluntary, uncompensated role as President of the Pipeline Safety Trust, which, as 

you know, is the only national independent non-profit solely focused on pipeline safety. 

I am here to let you know of the trust’s concerns and opposition 

to H.R. 1900 in its current form. The bill would add two new subsections loosely based on current regulation to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act in an effort to expedite FERC’s certification process, 

which, as we have heard from FERC, is pretty fast to begin with. 

There are many reasons, though, why a FERC certificate may 

not be complete within a year time frame. These include the complexities involved with studying the impact of a pipeline on environmentally sensitive areas or on dense urban areas requiring substantial public involvement, or the mere lack of funds available to 

an agency to adequately staff FERC’s NEPA review process. This 

latter reason will no doubt grow as sequestration takes greater 

hold on our budget. 

Frankly, we see no policy rationale for the bill’s one-size-fits-all, 

1-year limit that would treat a 10-mile pipeline across the barren 

desert the same as a 1,400-mile pipeline that runs through multiple ecosystems in dense urban areas. In fact, this new limitation 

seems to run counter to the recent GAO report that studied the 

natural gas permitting process and found that the average time for 

those projects that began at the application phase was 225 days. 

But to be clear, our opposition to H.R. 1900 relates primarily to 

the new subsection that would deem approve any licenses, permits 

or, quote unquote, approvals related to an application for certificate 

of public convenience and necessity if the agency considering the 

application doesn’t act within the 90 to 120-day time frame of 

FERC’s issuance of its final environmental document. It would do 

this regardless of when the agency receives the permit or the license application. 

We note that the bill contains no requirement that such applications be complete and contain the necessary information for the reviewing agency. Even the recent INGAA Foundation report found 

that many of the causes for delays are due to issues wholly within 

the control of the applicants, not the permitting agencies. In those 

79 

cases, it would be impossible for an agency to complete its review 

of a complex route dependent permit within the allotted time 

frame, making permit issuance under H.R. 1900 a potential fait 

accompli and effectively gutting the important role these agencies 

play in protecting public health, safety and the environment. 

We also note that current regulation, while setting a 90-day 

deadline also, includes an exemption for timelines set by other Federal law, yet no such exemption exists in H.R. 1900. 

We would additionally point out that almost no company has 

pursued the remedy provided to industry under current law, yet 

now the industry is arguing for the significant change to EPAct 

2005 without even availing itself of the avenues it currently has to 

address the problem. And as others have pointed out, ironically it 

is possible that this could slow progress on approval of pipeline 

projects by leaving agencies no choice but to deny permits, particularly at the State level, which are often even more strapped for 

money than the feds. 

Perhaps most significantly, Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act is 

unique in that it provides for the granting of Federal eminent domain authority to natural gas pipeline companies. Subsection 7(h) 

of current law allows these companies in certain circumstances to 

take private land to build an interstate natural gas pipeline upon 

the grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The 

trust believes that the taking of private land by corporations or any 

other entity is an extremely serious matter and shouldn’t be taken 

lightly in law or in practice. In our view, no process or part of the 

process should be curtailed or deemed approved when takings are 

involved. Unfortunately this legislation would do just that. 

Ultimately the trust failed to see any compelling case for this legislation. Natural gas pipeline construction has grown and will only 

continue to grow as a result of the increased development of unconventional shale gas around the country. Any perceived strain on 

FERC and related agency consideration is due to the success, not 

the failure, of the growth of natural gas pipeline transmission. 

Absent new financial resources, in fact, the increase in new pipeline plants will likely put a strain on the ability of agencies at the 

Federal and State level to review these pipeline plans as quickly 

as companies and their investors want; however, that shouldn’t be 

an excuse to cut corners, shortchange landowners and put at risk 

the public and our environment. 

Thank you for your attention to our concerns. As you know, the 

trust does not oppose the construction of new pipelines in general; 

rather, we advocate to ensure that new and existing pipelines are 

as safe as they can be for the sake of property owners, the environment and the public welfare. 

You have heard from us before about the inadequacy of the Federal pipeline safety program. We believe that this legislation, by 

short-circuiting the review and permitting process on numerous 

levels, would deal a major blow to pre-construction review of new 

lines, increasing future risks to the public and the environment. 

We urge the committee to take the time necessary to fully review 

the situation before scheduling the bill for a full committee markup. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

80 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Kessler, thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kessler follows:] 

81 


86390.011
82 


86390.012
83 


86390.013
84 


86390.014
85 


86390.015
86 


86390.016
87 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Paris, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF E. ALEX PARIS III 

Mr. PARIS. Chairman Whitfield and members of the subcommittee, my name is Alex Paris. I am President of Alex Paris 

Contracting. Our offices are located in Atlasburg, Pennsylvania, 

which is about 2 miles from the first Marcellus well. 

We provide a variety of construction services throughout the midatlantic region, including natural gas pipeline construction. Last 

year we installed about 350,000 feet of pipe, mainly in the 

Marcellus and Utica Shale plays in Pennsylvania, West Virginia 

and Iowa. Because of development of these shale plays, we have 

had to increase our employee base dramatically as well as purchase 

a substantial amount of equipment. While we perform a significant 

amount of midstream work, we also work on gas distribution pipeline systems. 

I am here today on behalf of the Distribution Contractors Association, which represents contractors who work primarily in the gas 

industry. I am pleased to speak to you this morning about the natural gas pipeline permitting process, which unfortunately often results in considerable delays in getting important projects off the 

ground. 

The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Act would effectively address this problem by authorizing FERC to enforce approval deadlines subject to other Federal agencies involved in the permitting 

process. 

It is evident that we have enough natural gas to meet America’s 

growing energy needs for generations to come, which is a blessing; 

however, many parts of the country do not have the necessary pipeline infrastructure to meet the rise in demand. Many more pipeline 

projects will be needed to achieve that capacity. 

Gas pipeline projects create high paying jobs and generate significant economic activity. On top of that, tax revenue generated by 

natural gas production comes at a time when States and local communities need it most. In 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Revenue reported that companies engaged in natural gas drilling 

activities paid more than $1.1 billion in State taxes since 2006. 

Last year nationwide production and transportation of gas added 

$62 billion to Federal and State government revenues, and it could 

elevate to $111 billion by 2020. 

I have seen these economic impacts up close over the past few 

years in my home State of Pennsylvania. In 2008, I employed about 

250 people. I currently employ about 450, about a 20 percent increase per year. We are constantly hiring and training new employees to meet our project needs. In fact, on a recent project, we had 

to add about 60 more people to the job because the schedule compressed due to permitting issues. 

Economic benefits that accompany natural gas pipeline projects 

aren’t limited to hiring workers. Last year my company purchased 

an additional $16 million worth of trucks and equipment, and I can 

honestly attribute all of this to the recent boom in natural gas production and transportation. 

I have had an opportunity to see firsthand both the economic and 

social impact of natural gas development. We have also witnessed 

88 

many problems that occur when permits are delayed. This includes 

layoffs, equipment being idled and negative impacts to property 

owners. 

I would like to point out that our company is an opportunity to 

work in a vast variety of industries with many different—and with 

many different government entities. I have never seen an industry 

like the gas industry. Its commitment to the environment and to 

doing projects the right way is unparalleled. They spend the money 

and dedicate the resources necessary to address environmental concerns and build safe pipeline systems that meet the latest and 

highest standards. I have had an opportunity to be part of this, and 

I am very proud of it. 

Unfortunately, important pipeline projects are often stalled because of extended reviews while they acquire Federal and State 

permits. Permit delays are a big problem. We live this almost every 

day, often resulting in missed in-service dates and increased project 

costs. My company is currently experiencing permit delays on several projects, one of which we were not able to obtain a permit for 

the last 8,000 feet of a project. That project ended up being delayed 

and in all likelihood will be rebid. 

A recent study conducted in Pennsylvania determined that permit delays are averaging 150 days and most of them are for minor 

wetland and stream crossings. The bottom line is that delays in acquiring pipeline permits regularly cause downstream delays, which 

in the end impacts the consumer. 

Understanding the significant job creation and the economic activity that result from gas pipeline projects, DCA strongly supports 

legislation to streamline the permitting process. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning 

and look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thanks very much, Mr. Paris. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paris follows:] 

89 


86390.053
90 


86390.054
91 


86390.055
92 


86390.056
93 


86390.057
94 


86390.058
95 


86390.059
96 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, Mr. Santa, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. SANTA, JR. 

Mr. SANTA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Mr. 

McNerney, and members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Power. My name is Donald Santa and I am the President and CEO 

of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA. 

INGAA represents interstate natural gas transmission pipeline operators in the U.S. and Canada. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share INGAA’s views on H.R. 

1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. INGAA 

supports H.R. 1900. If enacted, this bill would perfect the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that were intended to provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the ability to 

coordinate the actions of other Federal and State agencies that 

have authority under Federal law to issue permits required for the 

construction of natural gas pipelines. 

As part of this coordination, EPAct 2005 authorized FERC to establish deadlines for action by other Federal and State agencies 

that must issue permits in connection with a FERC-approved pipeline. EPAct 2005, however, did not provide FERC with any authority to enforce such deadlines. Further, the remedy provided in that 

law, a lawsuit against the offending agency brought in a Federal 

appellate court by the pipeline applicant, has proven to be ineffective. 

H.R. 1900 would remedy this problem by requiring that the Federal or State permitting agency must act within 90 days after 

FERC issues its environmental impact statement or environmental 

assessment pursuant to NEPA. 90 days is the period prescribed by 

the regulations adopted by FERC to implement EPAct 2005. 

Should the permitting agency fail to act within the 90 days, H.R. 

1900 would have the license, permit or approval go into effect by 

operation of law. 

This change in the law is needed because, notwithstanding the 

intent of EPAct 2005, it now takes longer than before for an applicant to receive the permits and approvals required to commence 

constructing a FERC-approved pipeline. 

In particular, a report prepared by Holland & Knight and sponsored by the INGAA Foundation examined a sample of 51 pipeline 

projects from both before and after EPAct 2005. The report found 

more than a threefold increase in the permits that were delayed 

more than 90 days after the issuance of the FERC NEPA document 

and a more than fivefold increase in the permits that were delayed 

for yet another 90 days beyond the initial 90-day period. The report 

found that reasons for the delays varied and could be addressed 

partly by process improvements on the part of both the permitting 

agencies and the applicants. Still, the top recommendation from 

the report was schedule enforceability. 

INGAA’s goal in supporting H.R. 1900 is to encourage permitting 

agencies to make timely decisions by providing a real enforcement 

mechanism. With this enforcement, as contained in H.R. 1900, 

INGAA believes that permitting agencies will be strongly motivated to make timely decisions. 

97 

Why should Congress care about the timely permitting for natural gas pipelines? Congress should care because pipelines are critical to enabling U.S. consumers to take advantage of the substantial new domestic natural gas supplies. 

The central role of natural gas in our Nation’s energy future was 

noted by President Obama in his June 25th speech at Georgetown 

University. The President said, in part, quote, ‘‘Sometimes there 

are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this. We should 

strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer, because in 

the medium term, at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap energy but it can also reduce our carbon emissions,’’ close quote. The 

President went on to say, quote, ‘‘The bottom line is natural gas 

is producing jobs. It is lowering many families’ heat and power 

bills,’’ close quote. 

Without pipelines, natural gas supplies remain in the ground, 

and consumers in capacity-constrained markets experience greater 

price volatility and higher-than-average natural gas prices. 

Mr. Chairman, members of INGAA thank Representative 

Pompeo and the cosponsors of H.R. 1900 for introducing this legislation and the subcommittee for inviting testimony on the bill. If 

enacted, this bill will make an incremental but important change 

that will increase the likelihood that the U.S. fully realizes the benefits of abundant domestic natural gas. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Santa, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Santa follows:] 

98 


86390.017
99 


86390.018
100 


86390.019
101 


86390.020
102 


86390.021
103 


86390.022
104 


86390.023
105 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And thank all of you for your testimony. As I 

said in the beginning, we appreciate your being here to give us 

your views on H.R. 1900. 

I think it goes without saying that this is a particularly important piece of legislation, and I know all of us will have questions. 

And I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

We have all talked about the abundant natural resources that we 

have in America with these recent discoveries. And we do know 

that there is going to be an increase in application numbers for gas 

line pipelines. And it appears that, on this panel, two of you are 

probably opposed to this—are opposed to this legislation, and three 

of you, I am assuming, support this legislation. 

And one of the key issues here is this schedule enforceability. 

And, Mr. Santa, in your testimony, you gave an example of the 

Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service on a water permit. You gave a good example of a permit that 

was delayed an unreasonable length of time, in my view. And I 

want you to comment on it, because that is the kind of real-life situation that we deal with. 

Now, 90 percent of these permits are either approved or disapproved within the time constraints of existing law. But there are 

real consequences, certainly on both sides of the issue, when a permit is delayed. And in the example you gave, it increased the cost 

of this project by 6 percent, I believe. 

Would you elaborate just a little bit on that project and the delay 

caused by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service? 

Mr. SANTA. It was a relatively short project, 20 miles of pipeline. 

I believe it was relatively small-diameter pipe. But nonetheless, 

notwithstanding the FERC process having worked very well, dealing with the Corps and the other agency added quite a bit of delay. 

That added cost for the applicant, likely cost for those who were 

the customers of the pipeline. To the extent the pipeline was going 

to provide additional gas supplies to that community, it delayed the 

benefit of that. 

I think it is, as you said, Mr. Chairman, an example of the type 

of a delay that this bill would provide a powerful incentive for the 

agencies to act in a timely manner so that these facilities could be 

built. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, can any of you think of a better way to encourage these agencies that have these 90 days to either approve 

or deny a permit, can you think of a better enforcement mechanism 

than what Mr. Pompeo sets out in his legislation? Is there some 

other way that it could be done to encourage timely action? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Good morning. This is Maya van Rossum. 

With all due respect, there already is an opportunity. In the 2005 

Energy Protection Act, there is the opportunity to go to the courts 

and seek a remedy through the courts. The fact that even in 

INGAA’s own report they document that the pipeline companies 

have chosen not to avail themselves of this remedy does not mean 

that it is not a fair, adequate, full, complete, and available remedy 

for them. 

And, in fact, going to the courts is also the remedy that is available to environmental organizations and community organizations 

106 

and citizens and residents who feel that they have been 

disenfranchised by the process, perhaps for different reasons. 

So just with all due respect, I would say that there is a remedy 

available to the pipeline companies. They simply have chosen not 

to avail themselves to take advantage of it. 

And I would say, if they were to pursue these legal actions 

through the decisions that come out of each of these court cases, 

precedent would be set. And it would be the precedent that would 

mandate quicker or shorter, more thoughtful or less thoughtful decision-making by the agencies. 

But that is really the path forward, we believe, rather than legislation that takes away the rights of the agencies and the community to fully participate. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Has your agency ever filed a lawsuit to stop a 

project? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. We have filed—we are engaged in legal action, 

because we are actually concerned about the deficiency of the reviews and permitting that have been undertaken by FERC and by 

the State of Pennsylvania for the Northeast Upgrade Project pursued by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. 

So it is not a legal action about stopping a project. It is a legal 

action about making sure that the law has been complied with and 

that the project only moves forward in a safe manner for the environment and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you have a lawsuit against FERC today? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Yes, we do. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. We have a legal action in the courts today. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. My time has—— 

Mr. SANTA. Could—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Oh, yes, Mr. Santa? 

Mr. SANTA. Could I respond on the point about the effectiveness 

of the legal remedy provided under the law today? 

As we note in the testimony, it is somewhat self-defeating for a 

pipeline to go and sue the agency from which it is seeking to get 

a favorable permit. 

But probably more importantly, the one instance in which a pipeline company availed itself of the appellate rights provided under 

EPAct 2005 I think illustrates that. With the Islander East project, 

it sought review of the denial of a clean water permit by the State 

of Connecticut, so not inaction by the State but nonetheless denial 

of a permit. 

It took Islander East 1 year and 3 months to get review from the 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to get a decision remanding the 

case to the Connecticut DEP. It took Islander East a total of 2 

years and 10 months and two more trips back to the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Second Circuit to get the final word, which ultimately was upholding the State on denying the permit. 

So I think with that as the track record of utilizing the appellate 

process under EPAct 2005, you can see why pipelines have not 

been eager to do this. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Santa. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

107 

This has been a pretty beneficial hearing. I think it has brought 

out that there are legitimate concerns on both sides of this piece 

of legislation. So I appreciate the testimony. 

In my mind, the bottom line is this: Are firm deadlines going to 

be beneficial overall, or are firm deadlines going to be detrimental, 

taking into account public safety and the possible denial of what 

would be legitimate projects? 

So I would like to just acknowledge that this is not an easy question to answer ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ I think we should take time and look 

at this in a more deliberate manner than just bringing it up for 

markup this afternoon. That is my opinion, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Paris, you have mentioned what you referred to as permit 

delays. Has your business participated in the pre-permitting process at FERC, and has that been beneficial? 

Mr. PARIS. No. As a contractor, we typically wouldn’t be involved 

in that. The pipeline company would be. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So—— 

Mr. PARIS. The permit delays are generally within the pipeline 

company that we are working for the constructing—that we are 

constructing the line for. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I would just recommend that that approach be taken. It might ease that, sort of, burden that you are 

facing. 

But this bill does set a 12-month deadline on FERC to decide applications for gas pipeline certificates. There is no flexibility, there 

are no exceptions. FERC has to decide every application within 1 

year. During that year, the entire environmental review required 

by NEPA would have to be completed. 

Ms. Rossum, do you think that 12 months is enough time to complete those kinds of permits on complex projects? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. In terms of NEPA, where the 12 months in 

H.R. 1900 would apply, I absolutely feel that there are numerous 

projects where 12 months would not be appropriate, especially if 

you are not assuring that the clock begins at the time when there 

is an administratively complete application before the agency. 

In terms of the State agencies and the Federal agencies, the 90- 

, potentially 120-day time frame, again, the volume of information 

and analysis that has to be undertaken to review a project, to put 

in place the conditions, to collect the data and the research of geological resources and water bodies that will be impacted and what 

kind of ENS control, it is a very time-intensive process, and I do 

not believe those time frames are enough. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Well, I mean, it is clear that we must remember that doing a 

good job reviewing a proposed natural gas pipeline could have serious impacts. And we are not only talking about environmental impacts, but I don’t live too far from the San Bruno explosion that 

happened a few years ago in the San Francisco Peninsula. There 

are very serious consequences with engineering review deficiencies, 

as well. 

And I would like to see if any of you, Mr. Markarian in particular, have concerns about possible consequences of bad engineering and environmental reviews if there is an imposed deadline that 

doesn’t permit the agencies to do sufficient work. 

108 

Mr. MARKARIAN. Well, I think it is critically important that we 

do the things we need to do correctly and we not squander this 

great opportunity to advance our Nation forward on the back of 

natural gas. 

However, I do think that a year’s time is enough if we—I think 

we all worry about what government does well and efficiently. And 

I think we have to raise the bar and set expectations that things 

need to be done according to a schedule. And if they can’t, a rejection, a ‘‘no,’’ is certainly understandable. This will produce certain 

noes, and I think that is favorable to an interminable ‘‘maybe.’’ 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I guess I don’t disagree. But, I mean, I 

think the question is, imposing these strict deadlines, is that going 

to be beneficial or not? It is not clear to me that we can answer 

that question in one hearing. It is not clear to me that we should 

move forward with a markup today until we get some better answers on these questions. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. Pompeo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank all the witnesses for coming out and testifying 

today. 

I want to just keep going in the direction you were headed, Mr. 

Markarian. You talked about the risk of ‘‘no.’’ We have heard from 

Members today that there is this risk that the agencies will just 

say ‘‘no’’ because they ran the clock out. We have heard from Ms. 

van Rossum and Mr. Kessler of that risk. 

But all the folks who have to go out and raise capital and operate 

in this environment seem to think that that risk is worth taking, 

because it creates certainty for them so they can deliver a highquality product at a low cost and good value to their customers. 

So you all got to the place that INGAA, that says, hey, that risk, 

which I think is low but, nonetheless, out there—how did you get 

there? How did you get comfortable that that is better off for you 

and for your customer service area than this risk of just being 

hung out for an indefinite period of time? 

Mr. MARKARIAN. Because planning is critical, and meeting the 

expectations of a plan is critical. And let’s not forget, we have done 

great things as Americans. And when we work together, we—what 

your bill does is it ups our game. It says, everybody, whether we 

are concerned about the environment or safety or getting things 

done, everybody ups their game and commits to a time schedule. 

And you actually have a little bit of wiggle room, too, in the bill, 

that if it can’t be done in a year, you have some extra time. 

So I think what we are focused on—we have been through some 

tough times, and we are focused on a gift that we can take advantage of, work together, up our game, make a commitment to each 

other that we are going to do it within a time limit, and then stick 

to it. 

And you know what? If we have to work a little harder, we have 

to work weekends, we have to work nights, we have to work a 20- 

hour day, if that is what it takes, that is what we need to do. Because I really do believe the promise of this resource is that great. 

109 

Mr. POMPEO. And, Mr. Markarian, you have another obligation, 

you have a service area obligation to provide reliable—you have 

agencies that are requiring you to meet a certain level of reliability 

and capacity and are constantly chasing you on rate issues, as well. 

I assume you think that H.R. 1900 would improve your capability to meet those other various commitments that your company 

has, as well. 

Mr. MARKARIAN. We do. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Santa, does this risk of ‘‘no’’ due to timeline— 

Ms. van Rossum was talking about short-circuiting—I am not sure 

what the language was, but her concern was that the agencies 

would just say ‘‘yes’’ when they hadn’t really completed the task. 

Do you think that is the likely administrative response to H.R. 

1900? 

Mr. SANTA. I think they have the potential, as has been noted, 

to say ‘‘no.’’ And I also think that when we are talking about the 

timelines here, while there is a focus on the 90 days and the 30- 

day extension, let’s remember there is all that period before FERC 

issues the NEPA document. 

In that GAO report, they noted that for the projects that go 

through the pre-filing—those are the more complex, longer 

projects—typically, it is 558 days between initiation of pre-filing 

and the FERC certificate order. That is over a year and a half. 

Even if you back out and assume FERC takes 90 days between the 

EIS and the certificate order, that is still a year and 3 months of 

dialogue and engagement that is going on between the applicant, 

stakeholders, the resource agencies. So, number one, I think there 

is the time to make those decisions. 

And, also, I think, quite frankly, if those agencies are true to 

their statutory mandates and, you know, what Congress has asked 

them to do, if they need to say ‘‘no,’’ they will say ‘‘no.’’ And as you 

noted, as Mr. Markarian noted, that is a risk that I think the industry is going to take. It is greater accountability on the part of 

the agencies, but also, quite frankly, it requires greater accountability on the part of the pipeline industry to file good applications. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. And my expectation would be that if that 

were to be the case, that we started to get these noes, I think industry would respond to that in an appropriate way. They would 

be more complete, they would be more careful, they would get these 

things done in a more timely fashion. They are not going to sit 

there and allow administrative noes to be made simply because of 

a failure on the part of the applicant. 

Mr. SANTA. I don’t think their shareholders would tolerate that. 

Mr. POMPEO. I think that is probably right, as well. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the little bit 

of time left. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Kessler, you indicate in your testimony that, in spite of your 

organization’s work, we continue to experience major pipeline failures. 

110 

In response to my question earlier to Mr. Moeller, he indicated 

that projects going through densely populated areas are more complex than those through more open areas. In an abbreviated process, are we likely to put more people at risk, given those situations? 

Mr. KESSLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. TONKO. And what role do safety considerations play now in 

pipeline sitings? 

Mr. KESSLER. Not enough, from our perspective. But, you know, 

when you are making decisions about routing, whether it is 

through urban areas or high hazard areas like earthquake zones, 

flood zones, things like that, it is clearly a consideration. 

I also think it is interesting that the industry which has been 

very reluctant, in fact resistant, to mandatory deadlines for safety 

inspections, who has argued against one-size-fits-all for safety inspections, suddenly wants a one-size-fits-all mandatory deadline for 

permitting. So it comes across a little strange to me. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

To what extent are concerns about safety involved in public opposition to pipeline projects? You know, you talk about this one-sizefits-all for inspection. Is the public aware of that? And what concerns—again, are safety involved with public opposition to proposals? 

Mr. KESSLER. You know, public opposition occurs for a number 

of reasons, ranging from true safety or environmental concerns to 

just a lack of familiarity with pipeline and energy production. As 

we get more energy production in New York, Maryland, where I 

live, and other nontraditional production States, you are going to 

have a level of resistance to projects based upon a lack of familiarity. 

But you also have them based upon safety and environmental 

concerns, depth of coverage for burial of pipelines through streams, 

running through earthquake zones, running through densely populated areas, and routing matters when you do these things. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Ms. van Rossum, we have heard the environmental review process response mentioned several times as the source of delays in approval of pipeline projects. Are communities’ drinking water resources, agricultural and fishery resources part of the environmental review process? Are we only talking about habitats and 

areas of low public use? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Yes, when we are talking about the National 

Environmental Policy Act, we are not looking just at the ecological 

environment, we are looking at the human environment. So we are, 

in fact, looking at drinking water supplies, the quality of the air, 

the level of noise pollution that perhaps a compressor creates next 

to residential communities, to a wide variety of issues. 

So we are concerned about the critters in the forests, but we are 

very much looking at the implications of what happens to the critters, to the forests, to the water, for what it means to the health, 

the safety, and the tremendous level of jobs that benefit people as 

a result of them. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Thank you. 

111 

And is an expedited process likely to increase or reduce public 

confidence and/or support for pipeline projects, in your opinion? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. I think it will absolutely decrease it. I think 

there are already concerns about the integrity of the process, because there is so much chumminess, frankly, between the regulators and the regulated when it comes to pipeline projects. And 

that already has raised a level of concern. 

And I think if we start imposing artificial deadlines and reducing 

the opportunity for the public to participate, which a 90-day review 

period absolutely does, we will absolutely be diminishing public 

confidence as well as the process as a whole. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I think Mr. Kessler wanted to say something. 

Mr. TONKO. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Kessler? 

Mr. KESSLER. I just wanted to add to my answer before, that one 

of the reasons for the protest could involve the potential taking of 

private lands. And those landowners should have a right to process 

and to be able to argue against a particular route that would affect 

them. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. I thank you for that added information. 

And, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. 

And good afternoon and welcome to the witnesses. 

And before I get started with my questions, I want to share with 

you all a real-world story that happened about 48 hours ago about 

the importance of a thorough and expeditious permitting process to 

build new pipelines. 

As I said, 48 hours ago I was at my church having a glass of 

water. I was approached by one of my fellow church members 

about the need to grow the pipeline infrastructure from the Eagle 

Ford Shale play in south-central Texas to the refineries along the 

Texas Gulf Coast. He works downstream for a power generator, 

natural gas power generator. And his legitimate concern was that 

our current pipeline infrastructure would hurt his business. He 

thought the natural gas price would increase because of artificially 

limited supply because of a lack of pipelines. I think that is a very 

legitimate concern. 

So my first question is for you, Mr. Markarian. As you mentioned 

in your testimony, NextEra has an extremely clean and diverse 

fleet. You have gas, nuclear, coal, and wind. And I am very happy 

to have you operating in Texas. On behalf of the people of Texas 

22, I encourage you to build new plants in the Lone Star State. 

But, of course, one key element of your fleet is your gas-fired 

plants, which not only provide reliable power themselves but also 

help back up the highly variable wind. And when I say wind and 

power, I want to remind my colleagues that Texas is the numberone producer of wind in America—number one. 

We discussed in this committee how reliability and access to fuel 

is different for coal plants or nuclear plants, and as it is for natural 

gas plants. So can you discuss the differences between coal, nuclear, and natural gas plants for reliability? 

112 

And is it fair to say that an efficient regulatory process for pipeline approvals like H.R. 1900 is key to keeping the lights on in 

many parts of our country? 

Mr. MARKARIAN. It is key. 

We actually have two giant gas plants, Forney and Lamar, in 

Texas, in Mr. Hensarling’s district. 

We believe we need all of these fuels. We are the Saudi Arabia 

of coal. We have a gift now of natural gas, by the way, made possible by the support of this Congress for policy that invested in new 

technologies that ultimately yielded the ability to harness this. 

All forms of power need backup. And so we believe at NextEra 

we need all forms of energy and should encourage the development 

of all of it. 

And, as far as Texas, it is a great place to do business. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. You like that State income tax rate, right? 

Pretty close to zero. 

Mr. MARKARIAN. Right. 

Mr. OLSON. You got it. Yes, sir. 

How would you describe the overall current regulation? Would 

you say it is efficient? 

Mr. MARKARIAN. I do. Again, as I said, you know, there are rules 

that apply to every one of us in this room and outside this room 

in this town. And if we follow the rules that are set up and work 

together to try to do things according to the timelines set forth, I 

think we all win. And, on the contrary, if we don’t work together, 

we all lose. We don’t harness the electricity we can from natural 

gas, we don’t sell it, we don’t pull it up, we don’t benefit the economy from it. So I think it behooves us to all work together. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. And my State faces a power crisis. Supposed 

to bring new power plants on line sometime next year, too. If we 

have another heat wave like we had August of 2011, lights will go 

out all over the State. 

My final questions are for you, Mr. Santa. I mean, as you mentioned in your testimony, pipelines are multibillion-dollar investments. And once these projects are undertaken, the timing becomes 

very important, because investors have expectations as capital is 

tied up, like Mr. Pompeo alluded to. The shippers who produce gas 

and the end-users who consume it need certainty for when that 

supply and demand can meet up. 

Can you discuss some of the ways in which delays to pipeline 

projects can hurt everyone up and down the pipe chain, from the 

getting it out of the ground to the refinery, the whole supply chain? 

It is just like my fellow church member, worried about downstream, a power generating plant worried about a pipeline from the 

Eagle Ford Shale play. 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, Mr. Olson. I think this is illustrated of what 

happens in the market when you have capacity constraints. This 

past winter in Boston, prices at one point got to $34 per MMBTU, 

while they were averaging a little above $4 in the rest of the country. That was largely due to pipeline constraints. So customers in 

that market were paying more because of pipeline constraints that 

were not relieved. 

Similarly, upstream, if there are constraints that hinder a producer in getting their gas to the market, they will be forced to acVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:50 Feb 11, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-66 CHRIS
113 

cept a lower price for that gas. That reduces their incentive to drill 

and to produce gas. 

So the capacity constraints on the pipelines, the ability to relieve 

them in an efficient market-responsive manner, it not only affects 

the pipeline companies, it affects gas consumers across the board. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

I am out of time. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The arbitrary deadlines established by this bill raise serious concerns, but the worst provision may be the one that automatically 

grants environmental permits for a pipeline. The project could be 

approved if an agency does not make a decision on the permit within 90 days of the issuance of FERC’s environmental analysis. 

The automatic permitting provision broadly applies to the Clean 

Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, Coastal 

Zone Management Act, and the rights of way through Federal 

lands. 

Under this bill, if an agency cannot complete its review of a permit application by the arbitrary 90-day deadline, then no one 

checks to make sure that the project won’t have an adverse impact 

on the environment or public health; the permit is just magically 

issued. 

These permits are detailed documents. They can include emission 

limits, technology or operating requirements, conditions to ensure 

that the environment is protected. Agencies need to figure out all 

of these details and then actually draft the permits. 

Ms. van Rossum, what would it mean for a permit that might not 

even be written to automatically take effect if a deadline is missed? 

How would that work? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. To be honest with you, I am not sure how it 

would work. I don’t know what is the permit or the approval that 

would go into effect. Perhaps it is just the application the way the 

applicant submitted it, no matter how deficient the application material. So there is no clarity on that, frankly, the way the law is 

written. 

But one thing I will say is that it is probably assured that we 

won’t have the limitations in the document necessary to ensure 

that water protection laws, air protection laws, coastal zone management laws are met. And, as a result, those permits are eminently challengeable in the court. So it is going to draw us all into 

the courtroom. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me give you a concrete permitting example to 

understand the impacts of this provision. What is involved with an 

Army Corps of Engineers review of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and why is this review important? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Yes, so the Army Corps is working to protect 

the health and the quality of the wetlands. Wetlands are vitally 

important for protecting water quality, including the quality of 

drinking water supplies, for soaking up waters that would prevent 

flooding and flood damages, for protecting ecological systems that 

are important for supporting wonderful ecotourism jobs and recVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:50 Feb 11, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-66 CHRIS
114 

reational opportunities. So the work that the Army Corps does is 

beneficial to the wetlands, but it is beneficial to our community as 

a whole. 

In order to undertake that review, they need to look carefully at 

the materials that have been submitted by the applicant to make 

sure that they are accurate. They need to go out in the field and 

do jurisdictional determinations. They need to collect information 

and data on the construction practices that are going to be 

used—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. What if they are just taking too long? We have a 

90-day period, and they just haven’t figured out to do all this in 

that period of time. What happens under this bill? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. That is what is not clear to us, frankly. We 

don’t know what happens. We don’t know what is the document 

that goes into force and effect. Perhaps it is simply the application 

materials that the permittee has put in, whatever quality and information that may or may not have. It is really not clear what it 

means—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. —to approve a nonexistent document. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Kessler, what do you think? Is the Pipeline 

Safety Trust concerned about the safety implications of a host of 

permits automatically going into effect without any agency analysis 

or conditions? 

Mr. KESSLER. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Waxman. 

Look, we certainly would love to see the certification process be 

more efficient. We have no objection to that. But we don’t think 

that a deemed approval or an undue denial of a permit is good public policy in any way, shape, or form. This is why we have agencies 

to actually look into these things. 

I would note that this committee after 9/11, you will recall and 

Chairman Whitfield will recall, did extensive work, bipartisan, on 

nuclear safety. And we found that there was a 2-year backlog in 

FBI review of security—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, what would be the—— 

Mr. KESSLER. —permits. And I don’t think anyone argued 

that—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Because you know what this committee is like 

and—— 

Mr. KESSLER. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. —the Member only has a limited amount of time, 

what if we have this automatic permit and then it results in damage to the environment and public health? What is this going to do 

to the public acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines going 

through their community? 

Mr. KESSLER. Oh, it is going to hurt them greatly, I think. 

And, as I said, no one would have argued for a deemed approval 

of a security permit after 9/11 if it took longer than 6 months or 

a year. So, same thing with immigration. Even the most ardent 

supporter of open immigration wouldn’t, I think, argue for a 

deemed approval of a green card. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. My time has—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time—— 

115 

Mr. WAXMAN. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that the technical analysis provided to us from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ perspective be put into the record, as 

well as the technical analysis by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

I am intrigued. Ms. van Rossum, in answering one of Chairman 

Emeritus Waxman’s questions, you were getting excited, as is a 

good thing to do when you are discussing the public events, and 

you indicated that one of the provisions of this bill would just draw 

us all into the courtroom, as if that were a negative thing. 

And yet, earlier in the testimony, you indicated that that was the 

remedy for folks who had a problem with what was going on, that 

they could go into the courtroom and that that was a good thing, 

and they didn’t need this bill and this remedy because they had the 

courts available to them. 

And I am wondering if you could rectify the two. Is it good or 

is it bad to be pulled into the courtroom? 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. Well, it is always important to have the courts 

as an opportunity to remedy a real problem that exists. And so, if 

we find ourselves in a situation where the law is automatically approving documents that are nonexistent or are eminently deficient 

because the agencies did not have the opportunity to complete 

them, then, absolutely, the remedy is to go into courts. 

But that is going to be a much more frequently required remedy 

than what we have in the current situation. We have had many, 

many—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am, and I—— 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. —testimony about how many applicants are 

approved—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. —appreciate that. I don’t think—I think the distinction, personally, is that it depends on whose ox is being gored. 

The courts are good when it is somebody else’s ox, are bad when 

the courts are goring your ox. But when it is somebody else’s ox, 

that is a great place to go. 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. No. It is about—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Let me—— 

Ms. VAN ROSSUM. —intentionally creating—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I don’t have but so much time or I would love to 

get into a further discussion with you. 

But I would ask you, Mr. Santa, earlier, in the previous panel, 

there was a lot of discussion about, well, we can make this happen 

if we only start the 12 months when there is a completed application. And I raised the concern that, yes, but when is an application 

completed, because can’t that be a moving target? 

Do you have those same concerns, Mr. Santa? 

Mr. SANTA. I think there is some risk of that, Mr. Griffith, but 

I also think that it is something that if, you know, the committee 

116 

is looking at ways to respond to Commissioner Moeller’s concern, 

certainly is worth further discussion. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But it shouldn’t just be a blanket statement. There 

maybe ought to be some guidelines as to when there is a finished 

application—— 

Mr. SANTA. Oh, very much so. I think, in the interests of all concerned, there needs to be clarity as to what constitutes a complete 

application so that it can’t be used as a way to game the system. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And it always work better when Congress dictates 

what that is, as opposed to leaving it to the administrative branch 

of government. Isn’t that true, yes or no? 

I will tell you it is ‘‘yes.’’ 

Mr. SANTA. OK. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Paris, do you want to make some comments 

on that point? 

Mr. PARIS. Yes, I am from Pennsylvania, and I see the completed 

application process many times. Because we permits ourself, and 

we work for pipeline transportation companies that submit permits 

for—a lot of times, you will send the permit in for a review and 

ask if it is complete. They will send you a letter, ‘‘No, it is not complete. We are going to hold it. Here are the three things that aren’t 

complete.’’ You send those three things, and 2 months later here 

comes another letter saying, ‘‘Well, we also looked at it again, and 

this isn’t complete.’’ So you can get into basically a rat race on 

deeming what is a completed application. 

So whatever is done here with this bill, that needs to be clearly 

defined, because the regulatory agencies can turn that into a nightmare. And I have been through that. I have seen that happen before. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And, Mr. Paris, I have to say that I have only 

been in office in Congress for 30 months, and I have had any number of complaints from my constituents about that very same problem. 

Mr. Markarian, do you want to weigh in on that subject, as well? 

Mr. MARKARIAN. It is important to build safely, environmentally 

sensitively, and get the job done all at the same time. But what 

we take comfort in, in terms of this bill, is it doesn’t shortcut any 

reviews that are guaranteed to ensure any of those things. 

Now, this process will produce yeses and noes, but it doesn’t affect the substantive standards of environmental protection that are 

designed to protect Americans. It just means we have to get it done 

by a time certain. And that is why we are comfortable with it. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I appreciate that. I also appreciate that your 

company is one of those that truly exercises all of the above when 

looking at production of energy in this country. And I do appreciate 

that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I assume the whole panel was here during the FERC testimony? 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, sir. 

117 

Mr. GREEN. Just answer ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’: The testimony was that 

there is a 90 percent approval rating within the time frame that 

is the FERC rules right now? Is that correct? 

Mr. MARKARIAN. That is what I heard. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Is that your experience, though, in filing for applications? 

Mr. MARKARIAN. I wouldn’t have any evidence to counter what 

we heard here today. My only point is we have to plan for the next 

20, 25, and 30 years, when, I think it has been conceded, pipeline 

development is going to be ramped up significantly because the 

ability to harness gas is going to go in that same direction. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I agree. But if it is 90 percent now—and, 

you know, there may be some unintended consequences of the legislation I am concerned of, including saying, well, we don’t have the 

time, we just have to deny the permit. 

And believe me, I understand, where I come from, the need for 

expansion of natural gas. Some of you may have heard. I have gone 

through Eagle Ford at night, and there is so much flaring there. 

One, environmentally bad, but also I know everyone who is drilling 

those wells would like to have a market for that gas. And so we 

need to expand it. I am not so sure, the way that it is drafted, this 

legislation will do it. 

But the other experiences—Mr. Santa, do you agree, or INGAA, 

that 90 percent is what FERC is doing now? 

Mr. SANTA. I have no reason to dispute it. We think that the 

FERC Office of Energy Projects does a good job. 

However, the one point I would make in addition is that FERC’s 

admirable record doesn’t address the delays and the need to get all 

of the other permits from Federal and State agencies that are required before a pipeline can commence construction. And so the 

FERC record only answers part of the issues raised by Mr. 

Pompeo’s bill. 

Mr. GREEN. And I agree that that—but, you know, with this legislation, I don’t know if FERC is going to be able to tell the Corps 

of Engineers or even EPA or even a State agency that—like I said, 

if a State has a unified application process, instead of having different States—in fact, I will probably get that from FERC, on how 

many States have that. I would assume Texas and Louisiana have 

some type of one-stop shopping for pipeline permits, just because 

we do them a lot. And maybe the States that are not—and I know 

somebody said something about, we are going to have pipelines in 

upper New York. You know, most of my drillers say, first, we need 

to get a permit to worry about a pipeline. And so we haven’t had 

a permit in upstate New York on some of the success in the 

Marcellus Shale. 

Mr. Santa, I appreciate you being here and worked for INGAA 

for years. And I recognize the need for additional capacity, particularly in my State and around the country. Namely, my concern, 

though, is the unintended consequences, namely the potential for 

agencies to deny permits simply on the grounds it lacks sufficient 

times for inadequate and legally defensible review or any other scenario if it deemed approved. 

I would like to remind my colleagues and the majority, we did 

this once before and then last year when we required the President 

118 

to approve a pipeline within 60 days, or deemed it approved, and 

he denied it. I would worry that some of our pipelines that are so 

far down the road, because there may be a problem with getting 

a report back from some agency, would just say we will deny it and 

then starting over again. So that is my worry. 

Mr. Santa, are you worried about the potential denials? And I 

know earlier in a question you said, if it is a ‘‘no,’’ it is a ‘‘no.’’ But 

what happens when they deny it? Filing a lawsuit virtually guarantees additional delay. 

Mr. SANTA. Well, I think that, you know, as Mr. Markarian said, 

sometimes a definite ‘‘no’’ is better than an indefinite ‘‘maybe’’ in 

terms of businesses and their planning. 

I also think that, you know, as I have noted, this bill establishes 

a two-way street. I mean, it will hold the permitting agencies more 

accountable, but, quite frankly, the pipeline industry is going to be 

more accountable for filing complete, timely applications so as to 

not put the agency in that bind and produce that undesirable result. 

Mr. GREEN. And I know that hopefully there will be an amendment that would talk about a completed application before the time 

starts running so you have that. And I don’t think the bill actually 

says that now. 

And I understand you would rather have a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ than a 

‘‘maybe’’ if a ‘‘maybe’’ would delay, would get you further down the 

road. But that ought to be the completed application process. That 

ought to be decided up front when you get that completed application. 

Commissioner Moeller also warned that a 90-day deadline may 

force agencies to add burdensome conditions as a way to protect 

themselves from accusations of insufficient review. Is INGAA or 

any of you on the panel concerned about that? 

I know, obviously, I am interested in building pipelines to handle 

both the natural gas but also, you know, to get it to a market, 

whether it be an export market that I support or either, you know, 

power generation. 

Mr. SANTA. I mean, agencies frequently condition permits today. 

So I think the notion of receiving conditions in connection with an 

environmental permit is not something new. And if it leads the 

agencies to do that to ensure that all, you know, bases are covered, 

I think that is one of the consequences. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. MARKARIAN. And I think if an agency acts capriciously or in 

a way that it shouldn’t, that brings heat of its own on the agency. 

So I think we can count on the agencies to act in good faith to— 

if it is a denial, a denial in good faith. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. Well, and some of you know, I have been 

around long enough that I know that I had problems with FERC, 

and I know Mr. Kessler does. And you may have been on the staff 

when we had some battles at FERC over the years. 

But in the last few years, having dealt with them, and, like I 

said, a lot of your members I have worked with literally every day 

almost in the Houston area haven’t had a problem with FERC. Because if there was, believe me, I would be there saying, what are 

we doing with it? 

119 

Mr. Santa, I have read where permitting time frames are even 

longer now than they were before we streamlined the process in 

the 2005 energy bill. Why is it longer, the time frames longer than 

we did the—as Joe Barton and I brag about all the time. 

Mr. SANTA. Mr. Green, I am not sure there is any causal connection between the EPAct 2005 provisions and what has happened. 

The INGAA Foundation report that we reference in our testimony had a survey and then more in-depth interviews with a subset of those pipeline companies. There were a variety of reasons 

identified, including inexperience on the part of the agencies in 

dealing with linear projects like this, other priorities at the agencies, interagency disputes, and also, in some instances, quite frankly, deficiencies on the part of the pipeline applicants. 

But, as the report noted, probably the main recommendation 

coming out of there was providing some teeth, some enforceability 

to the EPAct 2005 provisions to prompt the incentive to address all 

of that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That concludes today’s hearing on H.R. 1900. I 

want to thank those of us you who joined us today. We, as I said, 

appreciate your insights, your suggestions, your thoughts. And we 

have all looked at your opening statements, and we look forward 

to working with you as we move forward to address these many 

complicated energy issues. So thank you. 

And that concludes today’s hearing. 

The record will remain open for 10 days. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

120 


86390.063
121 


86390.064
122 


86390.065
123 


86390.066
124 


86390.067
125 


86390.068
126 


86390.069
127 


86390.070
128 


86390.071
129 


86390.072
130 


86390.073
131 


86390.074
132 


86390.075
133 


86390.076
134 


86390.077
135 


86390.078
136 

Æ 


86390.079