U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

96–986 2016

DISCUSSION DRAFTS ADDRESSING HYDROPOWER 

REGULATORY MODERNIZATION AND FERC 

PROCESS COORDINATION UNDER THE 

NATURAL GAS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 13, 2015 

Serial No. 114–40 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

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

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

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 156 

WITNESSES

Paul R. Lepage, Governor of Maine ....................................................................... 7 

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

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

Ann F. Miles, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 13 

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

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

Donald F. Santa, President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association 

of America ............................................................................................................. 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

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

Carolyn Elefant, Member of the Board, The Pipeline Safety Coalition, Principal, The Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant ......................................................... 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

John Collins, Managing Director of Business Development, Cube Hydro Partners ........................................................................................................................ 97

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Richard Roos-Collins, General Counsel, The Hydropower Reform Coalition ..... 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

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

Randy Livingston, Vice President, Power Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company ............................................................................................................... 121 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123 

John J. Suloway, Board Member, National Hydropower Association, Principal, 

Water and Power Law Group, PC (On Behalf of the Hydropower Reform 

Coalition) ............................................................................................................... 130 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 132 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion draft on FERC Process Coordination 1 ................................................ 3 

Discussion draft on Hydropower Regulatory Modernization 2 ............................. 4 

Statement of the Edison Electric Institute, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ............ 158 

Statement of the American Public Power Association, submitted by Mr. 

Whitfield ............................................................................................................... 159 

Statement of Trout Unlimited ................................................................................ 162 

Statement of the Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 167 

1 Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150513/103443/ 

BILLS-114pih-DiscussionDraftonFERCProcess.pdf. 2 Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150513/103443/ 

BILLS-114pih-DiscussionDraftonHydropowerRegulatoryModernization.pdf. 

(1) 

DISCUSSION DRAFTS ADDRESSING HYDROPOWER REGULATORY MODERNIZATION AND 

FERC PROCESS COORDINATION UNDER THE 

NATURAL GAS ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

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

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Barton, 

Shimkus, Pitts, Latta, Harper, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, 

Ellmers, Mullin, Hudson, Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Green, Sarbanes, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Associate, Energy and 

Power; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; Will 

Batson, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Allison 

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

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

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

Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member, Energy and Power; 

Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and Economy; 

Christine Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, 

Democratic Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and John Marshall, 

Democratic Policy Coordinator. 

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

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

morning. 

Today we are going to have another discussion on a discussion 

draft addressing hydropower regulatory modernization, and the 

FERC process coordination under the Natural Gas Act. As you 

know, we have had a series of meetings and hearings on drafts 

that we want to incorporate in an overall energy bill, and today, 

as I said, we are going to be focusing on hydroelectric power and 

natural gas. And our goal is to help unleash the potential of these 

2 

affordable domestic energy sources by modernizing the applicable 

regulatory process at FERC. 

If ever there were such a thing as a bipartisan energy source, it 

is certainly hydroelectric, and natural gas would be at the top of 

the list. So I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to 

minimize the red tape and maximize the benefits of these two 

sources for the sake of affordable energy, the environment, national 

security, job creation, and certainly economic growth. 

Hydroelectric is a source of clean, reliable, and affordable power, 

yet the federal process for licensing new capacity or relicensing existing capacity is considerably more cumbersome than for other renewable sources. For example, I have been told that it is not unusual that these hydropower projects to obtain the permits sometimes takes on average maybe up to 5 years, and I know we are 

going to hear today about a process that has taken 15, 16 years. 

But on the other side of the coin, for wind and solar projects, the 

Administration is so focused on moving those that you can get permits in 18 months, and then also you get exemptions from the Migratory Bird Act and also the Eagle Protection Act. So there is a 

lot of favoritism in those areas. 

So this discussion draft will establish FERC as the exclusive authority on hydroelectric licensing, and includes several provisions 

to eliminate redundant and unnecessary requirements, and put the 

review process on a reasonable schedule. It also encourages the creation of new hydroelectric power from existing non-powered dams 

by providing a licensing exemption for qualifying facilities. In all 

cases, all cases, the environmental and safety requirements for 

these facilities will be maintained. So we are not taking away any 

power from the agencies that have that responsibility. 

A few weeks ago, we had a hearing and I talked about Dire 

Straits, they had a song, Money for Nothing, Chicks are Free. 

Today, we have the words of Woody Guthrie in his song, Roll on 

Columbia, and it goes like this, and up on the river is the Grand 

Coulee Dam, the mightiest thing ever built by man, to run these 

great factories and water the land, it is roll on, Columbia, roll on. 

So we want to help Woody Guthrie keep this water rolling, produce 

this hydropower. Now, he didn’t talk about natural gas, but FERC 

is also involved in the approval process for interstate natural gas 

pipelines, and the problems are much the same as with hydroelectric power: a slow and unpredictable approval process that is 

out of touch with America’s energy needs today. This is particularly 

true of natural gas, given the tremendous increases in domestic 

output over the last decade. So getting that gas to the power plants 

and factories and consumers that need it will require new pipelines 

as well as upgrades of existing pipelines. In fact, this was a major 

point in the Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review. 

It was clear that a more streamlined permitting process will help 

to build these pipelines. 

So that is out goal. We want an efficient, quick process, but we 

want to protect the environment and make sure that we provide 

adequate protections for safety and everything else. So that is what 

our hearing is about this morning. 

3 

I am really delighted, we have two panels of witnesses, and I will 

be introducing our first panel in just a minute. At this time, I 

would like to recognize Mr. Rush for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning we will discuss two additional components of our bipartisan energy 

package that deal with hydroelectric power and natural gas. Our goal is to help unleash the potential of these affordable domestic energy sources by modernizing the 

applicable regulatory process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC). If ever there were such a thing as bipartisan energy sources, hydroelectric 

and natural gas would be at the top of the list, so I look forward to working with 

all of my colleagues to minimize the red tape and maximize the benefits of these 

two sources for the sake of affordable energy, the environment, national security, 

job creation, and economic growth. 

Hydroelectric is a source of clean, reliable, and affordable power, yet the federal 

process for licensing new capacity or relicensing existing capacity is considerably 

more cumbersome than for other renewable sources. Congress has long recognized 

the need to upgrade the process in order for hydroelectric power to meet its full potential. But as it is, even relatively small hydroelectric projects, including ones that 

would electrify existing dams with negligible environmental change, are often subjected to years of delays that can prevent these projects from getting off the ground. 

And relicensing of existing hydroelectric facilities can be more of a hurdle than it 

needs to be. 

The discussion draft establishes FERC as the exclusive authority on hydroelectric 

licensing and includes several provisions to eliminate redundant and unnecessary 

requirements and put the review process on a reasonable schedule. It also encourages the creation of new hydroelectric power from existing nonpowered dams by providing a licensing exemption for qualifying facilities. In all cases, the environmental 

and safety requirements for these facilities will be maintained. 

In the words of Woody Guthrie in his song, ‘‘Roll on Columbia’’: 

And up on the river is the Grand Coulee Dam, 

The mightiest thing ever built by a man, 

To run these great factories and water the land, 

It’s roll on, Columbia, roll on. 

This discussion draft helps carry on Woody Guthrie’s work. 

Now Woody Guthrie never sang about natural gas, but FERC is also involved in 

the approval process for interstate natural gas pipelines, and the problems are much 

the same as with hydroelectric power—a slow and unpredictable approval process 

that is out of touch with America’s energy needs today. This is particularly true of 

natural gas given the tremendous increases in domestic output over the last decade. 

Getting that gas to the power plants and factories and consumers that need it will 

require new pipelines as well as upgrades of existing pipelines. In fact, this was a 

major point in the Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review (QER). The 

QER was clear that a more streamlined permitting process will help to build this 

new natural gas infrastructure. In particular, the current approval process is especially hampered by the involvement of multiple agencies and no clear deadlines. A 

December 2012 study conducted by the INGAA Foundation found that delays of 

more than 90 days have risen 28 percent after EPAct’s permitting reforms, while 

delays of 180 days or more have risen 20 percent. 

The discussion draft puts FERC firmly in charge and gives it the authority to enforce firm deadlines. Additional provisions prevent other unnecessary delays. And, 

as with the hydroelectric provisions, this discussion draft aims to modernize the review process in a manner that maintains all existing environmental and safety 

standards. 

The hydroelectric and natural gas pipeline projects enabled by these discussion 

drafts will create a great many construction jobs. In addition to, the affordable energy produced by them will create still more jobs. It is time for the U.S. to make 

full use of our energy bounty, and these two discussion drafts are a strong step in 

that direction. 

[The discussion draft on the FERC Process Coordination is available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150513/ 

103443/BILLS-114pih-DiscussionDraftonFERCProcess.pdf.] 

4 

[The discussion draft on Hydropower Regulatory Modernization 

is available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/ 

20150513/103443/BILLS-114pihDiscussionDraftonHydropowerRegulatoryModernization.pdf.] 

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

before I begin, I want to ask for unanimous consent that we hear 

you sing the Woody Guthrie song, you know. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you. I will do that a little bit later. 

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

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you for holding the hearing. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are once again holding a hearing on two 

unrelated issues that each deserve their own separate consideration in their own right. The FERC process coordination under the 

Natural Gas Act is an updated version of H.R. 161 and H.R. 1900, 

which the subcommittee has previously examined, and is an attempt to expedite the FERC process for permitting natural gas 

pipelines. The biggest concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is one that 

I brought up in each of my previous attempts to modify this process, which is that this bill is simply a solution in search of a problem. 

Mr. Chairman, FERC data shows that between 2009 and 2015, 

over 100 million natural gas pipeline projects were approved, spanning over 3,700 miles in 35 states, and with a total capacity of over 

45 million cubic feet per day. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, while 

the average time from filing to approval was under 10 months, an 

overwhelming 91 percent of applications were decided within 12 

months. Even the GAO has concluded that FERC’s pipeline permitting process is both predictable and consistent, and pipelines are 

being built in a timely manner. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in testimony from stakeholders, ranging from the Interstate Natural Gas 

Association of America to Dominion Energy, this subcommittee has 

heard repeatedly that the current permitting process works well, 

and FERC has done a good job of deciding permits within a reasonable time period. 

So, Mr. Chairman, the question remains, is there really a problem? 

As far as the second and unrelated part of this hearing of dealing 

with the licenses of hydropower, I must say, Mr. Chairman, that 

this is the first time this subcommittee has even held an oversight 

hearing on this issue in at least the last 3 Congresses. Since I 

began as ranking member of this subcommittee in 2001, this is the 

first time we have even looked at this issue. And today’s hearing 

does not have one single witness from any of the agencies who can 

testify on the impact that this draft legislation would have on any 

of our other natural resources that the citizens of this nation depend on in our waterways. Mr. Chairman, there is not one single 

representative from the Department of Interior, or commerce, or 

any of the state agencies who can testify on how this bill might impact our shorelines, our rivers, or our streams in regards to protecting the general public interest outside of the narrow consideration of providing hydropower. Mr. Chairman, there is not a single 

5 

witness on either panel who can provide this subcommittee with 

expert testimony on how taking authority away from other agencies, and consolidating power and decision making authority solely 

within FERC might impact the public interest in matters regarding 

environmental protection, or families visiting a lake having a sufficient access to boat, fish, hike, or swim. 

Mr. Chairman, before we make it easier for private companies to 

take control of the use of the waters belonging to the people in this 

great nation, we should at least hear from the experts within those 

agencies that are responsible for protecting those interests. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Upton is not here this morning. Is there anyone on our side 

of the aisle would like to make a statement? If not, then at this 

time I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, of New Jersey 

for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have said before, 

the reality of the energy picture in the United States is changing 

rapidly. As the committee of jurisdiction over national energy policy, it is eminently reasonable and appropriate for the committee 

to look closely at our new energy reality. So much has changed 

since the House last considered an energy bill, and it is our responsibility to carefully consider proposals to help us develop the energy 

policies of the future. 

Two weeks ago, I expressed concern cramming two completely 

unrelated subjects into a single, two-panel hearing, and again, we 

are here examining two subjects; natural gas pipeline permitting 

and hydroelectric licensing, that are important and warrant not 

only separate legislative hearings, but they also should be proceeded by a thorough oversight. It has been years, and in the case 

of hydroelectric licensing, an entire decade since this committee 

has conducted oversight of either of the programs that these drafts 

aim to reconfigure. From my perspective, this committee should not 

be writing legislative solutions before members have a chance to 

examine the state of play, or even confirm that a problem actually 

exists. 

While hydroelectric power can be an important source of no-emission base load generation, it also potentially poses major harm to 

fish and wildlife populations, water quality, and other important 

resources. Hydroelectric power depends on rivers for fuel, and those 

rivers belong to all Americans, not just those who sell or buy the 

power generated from it. 

The Federal Power Act requires FERC to balance those competing interests in issuing a license because no one use of a river 

for power, drinking water, irrigation, recreation, or other use, 

should automatically take precedence. For instance, if a license 

might impact a protected resource such as a wild and scenic river, 

a national wildlife refuge, or a national park, then the appropriate 

federal agency responsible for that resource can put conditions on 

the license to ensure that the resource is protected. 

6 

Unfortunately, the draft proposal before us completely throws 

out decades of policy and case law in one fell swoop. There is nothing subtle about the draft’s changes. It undermines the key provisions of current law that exist to conserve our natural resources 

and protected areas, and ensure a balanced approach to the use of 

our nation’s rivers. This legislation will only result in greater confusion, time-consuming litigation, and exacerbated and unnecessary 

delays of hydropower licenses. So I sincerely hope the majority will 

consider holding proper oversight hearings to inform members, and 

help facilitate constructive discussions on hydropower reform. 

With regard to the other issue, the natural gas pipeline selling 

legislation, like the previous iterations of this bill. The draft is yet 

another solution in search of a problem. According to FERC, more 

than 91 percent of pipeline applications are reviewed within 1 year. 

I think that is pretty remarkable. And GAO concluded that the current FERC pipeline permitting process is predictable, consistent, 

and actually gets pipelines built. We have even heard pipeline companies testify that the process is generally very good. 

So this legislation, in my opinion, is unnecessary and would disrupt the perfectly functioning permitting process. Instead, it imposes a laundry list of prescriptive, duplicative, and potentially 

harmful requirements on FERC and every agency involved in the 

permitting process. This would only slow down, rather than speed 

up the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. The draft positions FERC as a policing agency charged with micromanaging 

other agencies in consideration of application, even determining the 

scope of their environmental review, and FERC doesn’t have the 

expertise or resources to make those types of decisions. More problematic, the draft purports to address this resource issue by allowing applicants to provide extra funding for FERC staff or contractors to aid in the speedy review of pipeline applications. And this 

provision is troublesome and could lead to inappropriate relationships between applicants and FERC staff. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I can’t support either of the drafts before us 

today, and I urge the majority to rethink their proposals. Instead, 

I would like to work with you on energy legislation that benefits 

consumers as well as producers, promotes American jobs, protects 

our environment, and builds upon past successes to propel us into 

a better future. 

I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back, and thank you very 

much for those statements. And that concludes the statements. 

So as I said, we have two panel of witnesses, and on the first 

panel, we have the Honorable Paul R. LePage, who is the Governor 

of Maine. Governor, we appreciate your taking time to be with us 

today, and thank you for being willing to participate. In addition, 

we have Ann Miles, who is the Director of the Office of Energy 

Projects at FERC. Ms. Miles, thank you very much for joining us. 

And each one of you will be recognized for 5 minutes for your statement, and then we will open it up for questions. 

So, Governor, I will begin with you, and you are recognized for 

5 minutes. And the little box on the table has the lights which— 

red would mean stop, but if you are in mid-sentence, you can go 

7 

on and complete it. Thank you. And turn your microphone on also, 

thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. PAUL R. LEPAGE, GOVERNOR OF 

MAINE; AND ANN F. MILES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY 

PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF PAUL R. LEPAGE 

Governor LEPAGE. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking 

Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today, and the efforts that this committee 

will take to modernize our federal permitting process for energy infrastructure. 

Natural gas and hydropower can provide competitive and clean 

energy for our economy. We need infrastructure, we plead with 

you, from pipelines to transmission lines, to take advantage of 

these plentiful resources. The people of New England want these 

projects done, but bureaucracy is preventing timely action. Bureaucracy has hijacked democracy. 

Natural gas. New England has transitioned to natural gas to 

generate electricity. We have gone from 15 percent to almost 50 

percent in the last 15 years. Our infrastructure has simply not kept 

up. Our pipeline cannot transport enough gas from Pennsylvania. 

This has caused prices to spike from $3 per million BTUs to $20 

per million BTUs; some of the highest prices in the world. This has 

dramatic consequences for New England. In Maine, we lost two 

major employers. Electric bills for residential customers have skyrocketed. The average electric price in our region is now 17.3 cents 

per kilowatt hour. In some areas, bills have increased by as much 

as 100 percent. We need a sense of urgency at the federal level to 

permit natural gas infrastructure. States must step up to prioritize 

these projects. Together, it can get done. 

It makes no sense to me why it should take 3 to 5 years to build 

a pipeline. We built several hundred miles within our state in 18 

months. The legislation before you today would help empowering 

FERC to make deadlines for other federal agencies. As far as I am 

concerned, Washington could use a lot more deadlines. 

Hydropower. The committee’s proposal regarding hydropower is 

encouraging. This country has ignored the benefits of hydropower. 

New England knows that hydropower is necessary to provide clean, 

predictable power. New England governors met last month to discuss infrastructure and transmission line to Canada. The committee must work to overhaul our cross-border permitting laws. 

Maine shares a huge border with Canada. I am concerned when 

cross-border permitting becomes politicized, like it has with the 

Keystone Pipeline. This is not how we should be doing business 

with our neighbors to the north; Canada. 

The committee draft legislation would exempt existing non-powered dams from the Federal Power Act if it does not significantly 

alter the dam. This is very sensible. We should remove roadblocks 

for getting power out of existing dams. Maine has a potential of 70 

megawatts of additional hydropower available for non-powered 

dams. 

8 

Gentlemen, overzealous activists are taking advantage of federal 

bureaucracy. I can give you a number of examples. They are blocking affordable energy for our citizens and our businesses. Congress 

must back our country. We must take it back from the bureaucracy 

of Federal Government. I often say, you have heard the saying, too 

big to fail, well, I say Washington is getting too big to work. Congress must act. 

And I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Governor LePage follows:] 

9 


96986.001
10 


96986.002
11 


96986.003
12 


96986.004
13 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, Governor, thank you very much for that 

statement. 

And at this time, Ms. Miles, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 

your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ANN F. MILES 

Ms. MILES. Thank you. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member 

Rush, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Ann Miles 

and I am the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

The commission is responsible for siting infrastructure for nonfederal hydropower projects, interstate natural gas pipelines and 

storage facilities, and liquefied natural gas terminals. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you to comment on the discussion 

drafts. 

As a member of the commission’s staff, the views I express in 

this testimony are my own, and not those of the commission or any 

individual commissioner. 

I will first comment on the discussion draft addressing hydropower. It has the important goals of improving transparency, accountability, and timely decision-making. Because the hydro draft 

is extensive, I will only highlight a few sections in my oral testimony. In Section 1302 of the draft, which adds a new Section 34 

to the Federal Power Act, or FPA, I support the development of 

procedures to lower the time, effort, and expense needed to develop 

hydropower projects at existing non-powered dams. However, it is 

not always the case that a small capacity project has only minor 

environmental impacts. Therefore, removing federal jurisdiction for 

qualifying facilities that are 5 megawatts or less could result in unintended consequences for environmental resources. I am also concerned about some of the specifics of the proposed new FPA Section 

34, including, for example, the extent to which it could be read as 

elevating economic and operational concerns over other public interest considerations. In Section 1303, I do not support the amendment to Section 33 of the FPA to require the commission, rather 

than the secretaries, to determine whether a licensed applicant’s 

alternative condition under Section 4(e) or Section 18 of the FPA 

would protect the federal agency’s reservation. Further, shifting 

oversight of the trial-type hearings required in the new Section 35 

to the commission would not eliminate the substantial expense and 

time associated with such hearings, as I understand is the current 

situation. Instead, Congress may wish to consider eliminating them 

entirely, and allowing the commission to address disputes on the 

material facts of the proceeding earlier in the commission’s licensing process. Finally, in Section 1304, I am supportive of the intent 

of the amendments to Section 308 and the new Section 313 to bring 

certainty and timeliness to the hydro-licensing process. However, 

without a method to enforce any established schedule, the goals 

may not be achieved. 

I will now turn to comments on FERC process coordination under 

the Natural Gas Act, or NGA, which has the commendable goal of 

improving transparency and predictability for federal and state 

permitting agency actions by adding more coordination, reporting, 

issue resolution, and accountability. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

14 

provided additional authorities and responsibilities to the commission in Section 15. The proposed legislation includes existing practices the commission added to its regulations in response to EPAct 

2005. However, the proposed changes would move some of the activities to later in the process than is the case under current commission practice; thus, lessening efficiency. 

There are two aspects of the draft that bear particular attention. 

First, in Section 15(c)(6), if an agency does not meet the 90 day or 

otherwise approved schedule, the federal agency head must notify 

Congress, which would provide some accountability. Second, in Section 15(e), I see value in requiring the commission to make available on its Web site the schedule established with other federal 

agencies, and the status of federal authorizations, because that information is now scattered in various filings. Overall, the current 

process for siting natural gas facilities is timely and efficient, and 

results in fair, thorough, and legally defensible documents. I am 

concerned that codifying the commission’s practices too rigidly 

might have the unintended consequence of limiting the commission’s ability to respond to the circumstances of specific cases, to 

changes in the natural gas industry, and to the nation’s energy 

needs. 

Finally, commission staff would be happy to provide technical assistance, and to work with other stakeholders to help refine both 

the hydropower and gas discussion drafts. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miles follows:] 

15 


96986.005
16 


96986.006
17 


96986.007
18 


96986.008
19 


96986.009
20 


96986.010
21 


96986.011
22 


96986.012
23 


96986.013
24 


96986.014
25 


96986.015
26 


96986.016
27 


96986.017
28 


96986.018
29 


96986.019
30 


96986.020
31 


96986.021
32 


96986.022
33 


96986.023
34 


96986.024
35 


96986.025
36 


96986.026
37 


96986.027
38 


96986.028
39 


96986.029
40 


96986.030
41 


96986.031
42 


96986.032
43 


96986.033
44 


96986.034
45 


96986.035
46 


96986.036
47 


96986.037
48 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Ms. Miles. And thank both of 

you once again for coming and giving us your perspective on this 

discussion draft. 

Governor, we have had a lot of hearings, obviously, on energy 

issues, and one of the recurrent themes that we hear about is that 

in the Northeast particularly, there are a lot of problems with electricity—adequate electricity supplies. I mean some of the nuclear 

plants are being closed. And one of the problems is, as you—this 

Administration particularly, is trying to transform the way energy 

is being produced in America, going more to renewables, less coal, 

and so forth, and when you push the country so quickly in one direction, it does create some capacity problems, and I think that is 

what you were referring to. And is this argument that we hear 

about the Northeast, that they really do have capacity problems, 

and the polar vortex, the impact of that, do you think it is a realistic problem or is it just something that is hyped too much? 

Governor LEPAGE. Well, let me put it this way. If you own a 

home in Montreal, a home in a major city, and you don’t heat with 

electricity, an average home will cost you about $34 a month in 

your electricity bill. If you do that in Maine, it is about $90. If you 

heat in December, January, and February in Montreal, it will cost 

you about $100 a month if you are using electricity. In Maine, you 

have to get a bank loan. 

So, sir, it is a capacity issue, and it can be resolved with about 

a 40-mile transmission line to connect into Quebec Hydro and bring 

it right into Maine. Quebec Hydro right now has 48,000 megawatts. 

48,000 megawatts. Muskrat Falls in Lower Labrador is going to be 

coming online in a couple of years with another 3,800 megawatts 

of hydro power. We don’t need to build dams up in Maine, although 

I think the the few dams that are already in place, if you put a 

generator on, you could generate 70 megawatts. But my point is 

very simply this, there is plenty of electricity, affordable energy, 

but we can’t get to it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And so what needs to be done to get to it? 

Governor LEPAGE. We need a transmission line in the western 

part of Maine, about 40 miles to go to the border, and the Canadians are waiting to hook on. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And is that a project that you have been very 

much involved in, and—— 

Governor LEPAGE. It is a project that we have been developing. 

There are three states that are willing—well, two out of three New 

England states are willing to do transmission at this point is 

Vermont is willing to transmit power from Canada into New England, and Maine is willing to transport power from Quebec into 

New England. The problem is getting through the bureaucracy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how long have you all been working on this 

project? 

Governor LEPAGE. I am in my fifth year of being governor. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And was it started before you became governor? 

Governor LEPAGE. Yes. New Hampshire had started it before I 

even came in, and that has been at a standstill ever since. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, could you be even more specific on precisely what the impediment has been? 

Governor LEPAGE. It has been state and federal. 

49 

Mr. WHITFIELD. State and federal. 

Governor LEPAGE. Yes, state and federal, meaning the State of 

New Hampshire, they have been working with Hydro Quebec for 

years and years and years, and frankly, we don’t know where it is 

going. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But—— 

Governor LEPAGE. I believe that by July or August, the Canadians are going to be looking elsewhere, looking to the other two 

states, and that is why it is very timely that I be here and say we 

need your help. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But you and your legal authorities have looked 

at this draft, and you do support this particular draft—— 

Governor LEPAGE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. That we have before you? 

Governor LEPAGE. Absolutely. We believe that it is very, very important. For instance, there are several projects being proposed to 

bring natural gas from, let’s say, Pennsylvania to Dracut, Massachusetts. We have the infrastructure in the ground in Maine. We 

have put in several hundred million dollars’ worth of pipeline in 

the roads of Maine, but we have empty pipes because we can’t connect to the source. And so we need the resource to come to at least 

Massachusetts, and four of the New England states are working together to try to make that happen. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. Yes. Well, we are not trying to upset the applecart with this discussion. We have heard from so many different 

interests that there are some significant problems. And, Ms. Miles, 

I appreciate your testimony. There are certain parts of this bill 

that you think are reasonable, and other parts that you are willing 

to work with us on. But, you know, it is not only FERC but we are 

talking about the Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service, we 

have all these federal agencies that have a part in this, and if they 

drag their feet, there is really not a lot that can be done about it. 

So we look forward to working with you both and others in trying 

to simply have a more balanced approach to help solve some of 

these capacity problems that we face. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 

5 minutes. 

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

Director Miles, are there any instances of a natural gas permitting application being delayed because an applicant has not submitted all of the necessary information, and if so, how would this 

legislation expedite the process in those cases where agencies are 

not provided with timely and complete information necessary to 

perform congressionally mandated project reviews, and what recommendations would you make to help address this particular 

issue? 

Ms. MILES. Congressman Rush, I believe FERC has a very structured, efficient process for addressing natural gas pipeline projects. 

It consists of the first stage where the applicant will actually investigate whether there is a need in the area to transport gas, and 

then we encourage all of our applicants with major pipelines to 

enter into what we call pre-filing. That was established quite a 

while ago, and we have found some more significant rules around 

50 

that came in in 2005. Anyway, during that period of time, we work 

with all stakeholders who have an interest in the pipeline, we work 

with all agencies who have responsibilities for issuing permits, and 

the goal of that pre-filing is to figure out what the issues are and 

what information is needed for not only FERC staff, but the other 

agencies to do their environmental reviews of siting such a pipeline. Most applicants are very accommodating and they are interested in providing us with the information that is required in all 

of our resource reports. If, per chance, we don’t have it at the time 

the application is filed, then we will ask further for it. 

Mr. RUSH. How would this legislation impact and expedite the 

process in those cases where agencies are not provided with timely 

and complete information which is necessary for you to perform 

your congressionally directed processes? 

Ms. MILES. We are able to move forward with our environmental 

document. As long as we have the information we need. Should 

some agencies need something after us, they then will have an opportunity to get that before they issue their permits. As far as the 

legislation goes, the one thing that seems to be in the gas legislation is that the head of the agency would report to Congress if 

there is any delay. 

Mr. RUSH. Have you had any extraordinary complaints from applicants about the time that it takes you to approve an application? 

Ms. MILES. As I said in my testimony, we are issuing the majority of our findings in the natural gas facilities with—about 92 percent within 1 year. There are a few more complex projects that are 

more contentious, where it may take slightly longer, and we do 

hear sometimes if it takes a bit longer than that. 

Mr. RUSH. Would you characterize the purpose of this hearing is 

to deal with the 8 percent that is not granted approval? It seems 

to me that if you granted 92 percent, then maybe we have—in this 

subcommittee maybe we have finally come up with the problem, 

and the purpose of this subcommittee is to find out what is happening with the 8 percent that are not approved and—because 92 

percent of all the applicants are approved within a timely manner, 

so maybe we are concerned about the 8 percent, Mr. Chairman. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Governor, welcome. I have been fortunate to be a member of the 

committee for a long time. And does New England still rely heavily 

on heating oil—and I think that is part of this debate, isn’t it? 

Governor LEPAGE. Yes, it is for us. In 2010, when I took office, 

roughly 80 percent of the homes in Maine were heated with heating oil. We have managed to get it down to about 62 percent this 

past winter. Most of it has been with heating pumps and pellets. 

In the rural areas, we can do pellets, heat pumps, that technology 

works pretty well, but in order to really make a difference, we really need natural gas to get into the infrastructure that we have in 

our state in order to be able to take the—while we call metropolitan areas or urban areas of Maine, you would call them—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My district. 

51 

Governor LEPAGE [continuing]. Very rural. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You would call them my district, so—— 

Governor LEPAGE. Yes, right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I represent 33 counties in southern Illinois, the 

largest community being 33,000 people, but we are connected. Natural gas is our predominant heating ability in fuel. In New England, it is not, and in fact, from my colleagues here, we set up what 

is it called, a heating oil reserve, because of a crisis years ago, to 

make sure that there would be heating oil for New England—— 

Governor LEPAGE. Right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Which now we kind of manage. So I 

would hope just as a national policy that we would help move natural gas to New England. 

Governor LEPAGE. I would certainly encourage Congress to look 

at this. In 2014, the State of Maine paid a premium of $2 billion— 

1.3 million people paid a premium of $2 billion because of spikes 

and the high cost of energy in the winter months. This past winter, 

while it was a severe winter, we got a break, we only paid a little 

over $1 billion premium. And Maine is not a wealthy state. The per 

capita income just broke $41,000. So we are putting an inordinate 

amount of pressure on Maine families, and we could do so much 

better. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think in New England, there are some small 

hydro—I am talking about New England as a whole, as a region, 

and there—I am told there is some concern of the possible inability 

to relicense some small hydro in New England as a whole, which 

would increase the challenges, would it not? 

Governor LEPAGE. Absolutely. Like I said earlier, we have small 

dams that if we could put power on them, we could generate 70 

megawatts, which doesn’t sound like a lot in Washington, but in 

Maine, that is a lot of power. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. Ms. Miles, thank you for your testimony. I 

was talking to the staff, and we actually employ government employees here many, many times. I don’t think I have sat through 

one that has been so specific and so precise on what you like and 

what you dislike. So I find that very refreshing, and I appreciate 

that. 

So I want to address one of the ones that you addressed. Your 

opposition to amending Section 33, I think that is on page 16 of the 

testimony. And the concern is, we have had Commissioner Moeller 

here a couple of times, where he specifically stated that what we 

are trying to address would be very, very helpful, which would 

seem to be contradictory to what you have stated. He has quoted 

if Congress chooses to address the situation, changes in various 

statutes could require that resource agencies meet certain deadlines in their statutory role in reviewing such products. Another 

approach would be to provide the commission with the authority to 

rule on whether the conditions that resource agencies submit appropriately balance the benefits and costs that these projects provide. Again, this would require significant change in the various 

environmental laws for the relevant resources agencies. Can you 

comment on that? 

Ms. MILES. Yes. I think there is a little bit of an innuendo. 

Shared decision-making is absolutely one of the biggest challenges 

52 

for licensing hydropower projects. That is the way Congress established the statutes, and we have worked many years to try to, 

through regulation and through some statute, get us all working in 

the same direction and in a timely—obviously, we all would like a 

very efficient, timely, low-cost process for hydropower. 

As I understood the Section 33 change, it was a very specific part 

that was put into the statute that allowed applicants to come up 

with an alternative, and then the agencies to address that through 

trial-type hearings and through alternative conditions. What I am 

trying to say is, I believe the agencies need to give us what their 

bottom line condition is that they believe is needed to protect their 

reservation. That is what their mandate is under their statute. If 

Congress were to choose to then, once the commission had all 

those, to say that it is the commission’s responsibility to do a more 

balanced look across those, then I can’t speak for Commissioner 

Moeller, but I think that is a bit of a distinction. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time, 

recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Governor and Ms. Miles, for coming and testifying this morning. 

You know, I think the intent of the bill sounds good; streamlining permitting so that we have things operating in parallel instead of in series. We want an efficient process, but I am not sure 

that we are heading down the right path in order to achieve that 

goal. 

Regarding the pipeline question, my estimate is it might actually 

make things worse. For example, FERC data shows that the average time for filing to approval is under 10 months, and FERC decides 91 percent of certificate applicants within 12 months. So are 

we actually going to make things better by enacting this kind of 

rule? 

So, Ms. Miles, what, if any, are the potential benefits of simply 

mandating pre-filing, trying to bring federal agencies to the table 

sooner on every permit? 

Ms. MILES. I believe in most cases, federal agencies are coming 

to the table early during pre-filing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Two thirds, approximately. 

Ms. MILES. Pardon me? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Two thirds. 

Ms. MILES. I don’t have a specific number on that. I could look 

into it. For liquefied natural gas facilities, pre-filing is mandated 

under the statute. It is not mandatory for pipeline and storage 

projects, however, we do meet with applicants before the pre-filing 

were to begin, and we recommend and many choose to use it because they find it a very valuable time to get everyone to the table 

early. We also work with those federal agencies to have them be 

cooperating agencies in our environmental document. So—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So how long does the pre-filing stage last? How 

long does it typically—— 

Ms. MILES. It is mandated for 6 months for liquefied natural gas 

facilities. Some applicants choose longer. The real goal of pre-filing 

is that the time the application is filed—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

53 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. All the information is available for 

FERC and other agencies who have permits to issue to be able to 

do their environmental documents and move toward issuing their 

permits. So some companies will choose to stay in pre-filing a little 

longer to make sure that the information is going to be available. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So pre-filing takes as long as the applicant 

wants it to take. 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. In your experience, what are some of the reasons other permitting agencies don’t always respond in a timely 

manner? 

Ms. MILES. Are you speaking particularly about natural gas? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Correct. 

Ms. MILES. As I said, you know, the majority are responding in 

a timely manner—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. For gas. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, it seems to me that a 90-day requirement 

is arbitrary because some projects are very complicated and some 

projects are very simple. Simply saying that we have to have all 

the agencies meet a 90-day requirement may actually tie their 

hands and force them to say no on applicants where, if they actually would have had more time, they could have approved it. Is 

that a correct assessment? 

Ms. MILES. That could be. My understanding is that also it could 

be 90 days or a schedule that is negotiated with the other agency. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So it might be more reasonable to have a negotiated timeline for every application, rather than just saying 90 

days for every application. 

Ms. MILES. It could be. The other thing that was a bit of concern 

is, we feel like using the pre-filing is very—that is the place where 

it is important that a lot of steps and cooperation and agency identifications begin, and I would not want anything to move later in 

the process that could be a complication for us, and I have mentioned that in the testimony. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So then to reiterate, I am going to just sum up 

by saying it might be beneficial to encourage more applicants to go 

through the pre-filing process, and then have a negotiated period 

instead of a 90-day strict requirement for federal agencies to respond. 

Ms. MILES. Certainly go through the pre-filing process. Ninety 

days seems a reasonable time to me. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Ms. MILES. It could be negotiated in some particular instances. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. 

As fate would have it, the chairman has to run off for a little opportunity, so 5 minutes for some questions. 

And first of all, welcome. Good morning. Thanks for coming. Governor LePage, just when we talked earlier about Maine, and what 

I know about Maine is you have a lot of water, lots over very powerful water, because my brother surfs in York, Maine, every winter. 

Really cold, and apparently gets some tubing, some really big 

54 

waves, much bigger than Galveston, Texas. So I want to learn more 

about your issue of hydropower. I understand you have done a 

study on hydropower recently. Can you talk about those findings 

and what are some of the benefits of hydropower challenges that 

this bill may fix? 

Governor LEPAGE. Well, right now in Maine we have a number 

of small dams throughout the state. So that you get the picture of 

Maine, Maine is 35,000 square miles, 90 percent is water and forest. So it gives you a sense that we have an awful lot of natural 

resources. And we are very proud of it and we take care of it, and 

one of the things that we do is we are very strong in tourism. We 

believe that we have the resources to be self-sufficient, and we 

could do it in a timely manner. 

Now, I have heard some talk about liquid natural gas. When I 

was elected in 2010, there was a project for liquid natural gas to 

be in Maine, and what happened now it has been canceled. So the 

point is—what I am saying is, if we were able to energize a lot of 

these little dams that we have, we could generate 70 megawatts of 

power for the Maine people, and lower the costs that we are currently paying. 

Mr. OLSON. And how are we blocking that, sir? How is Washington, D.C., blocking your efforts to have those little smaller 

dams—— 

Governor LEPAGE. Because every application has to go through 

FERC. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. 

Governor LEPAGE. Whether it is 2 megawatts, or 500 kilowatt 

hours, it has to go through. And earlier on in my career, of course, 

it is a long time ago, it took years to be able to get little dams, and 

now I hear that we don’t even bother because it is just too costly. 

Mr. OLSON. And switching to pipelines, sir, some people think 

pipeline reform—we have the permitting process, is something just 

for big oil, those companies, and that is something they only have 

to worry about. My first question is simple on this issue. What do 

you worry about as the Governor of Maine with these pipeline 

issues not being approved as quickly as possible? 

Governor LEPAGE. Well, like I said, we lost two major employers. 

We lost one this past winter. And folks, let me tell you some reality 

here, 500 jobs in a paper company, and the premium on oil, the 

premium going from gas to oil in the winter months between November and May was $20 million. They closed their doors. And now 

it is being dismantled. That is why I am pleading for you to do 

something because we need those jobs. 

Now, I spoke to the chairman of Airbus a couple of years ago and 

this is what he told me. Governor, what is the cost of your energy? 

I said, we are the cheapest in New England. He said, well, how do 

you compare with Alabama? He says, Alabama is 4 cents. Folks, at 

the time, we were 14 1⁄2. Now the region is up to 17. And he said, 

you may be a good governor but you are very naive on how much 

energy it takes to assemble a jet. 

Mr. OLSON. And we can fix that here in D.C. My questions, Ms. 

Miles, to you are, your testimony described how FERC acts on gas 

pipelines, but next panel, Mr. Santa, his testimony mentions that 

the GMO has analyzed the major pipelines, the approval process, 

55 

they have found that FERC takes up to 2.5 years for a certificate. 

That averages 558 days. Of course, that does include all the delays 

from other agencies being involved in this process. Can you talk 

about some of these delays on this larger pipeline project, and how 

FERC is addressing these long, long, long delays? 

Ms. MILES. I haven’t looked, actually, at the details of how the 

numbers were calculated for the GAO report. I do think that there 

are some projects that are very long and complex and more controversial, and they may take slightly longer to both gather the information that is necessary to do a solid evaluation of the potential 

effects of the project. I remain though very convinced that the majority of projects go through fairly quickly. It is a quite efficient 

process, and I think most have been extremely successful. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I encourage you to read the report, ma’am, because it says you average 558 days for approval process, 2.5 years. 

That is unacceptable. 

I yield back, or yield to the gentleman who is up here. 

VOICE. Mr. Green. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Green from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Governor, thank 

you for being here, and also, Director Miles. 

Director Miles, thank you for testifying, and I know FERC has 

a lot of on its plate and I think many of us believe the commission 

is doing as good a job as possible on natural gas space reviewing 

applications and issuing decisions. Today, I would like to talk about 

the FERC process of coordination for natural gas pipelines. 

In your testimony, you seemed to encourage more accountability 

in the pre-file review process. First, when you write natural gas 

project applications, what do you mean? Are you including every 

application, or are you including LNG operation and maintenance, 

or just new construction, or are you using all of them? Is that—— 

Ms. MILES. All of them. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. All applications? 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In your testimony you said that FERC is able 

to act 92 percent on natural gas applications in a year. What percentage of new construction projects has FERC approved in less 

than a year? Do you know? 

Ms. MILES. I do not know, but I would be glad to get back to you 

on that. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I know for an LNG, import facility now, we used 

to try and export, but now we are big on importing. I know FERC 

just approved one for Corpus Christie—— 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. Just in the last few days, and I appreciate that, but I know it takes typically about 18 months for an 

LNG import facility, and that is not even considering what the Department of Energy needs to do with the—although in the case of 

Corpus Christie, Department of Energy moved very quickly on it. 

Can you explain what type of projects that are included in the 

other 8 percent of that 92 percent, and what makes these projects 

different? 

56 

Ms. MILES. I would think it is the larger projects that have more 

issues. It sometimes can be the need to gather further information—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. From the company so that we are clear 

that we understand exactly what the potential effects are and we 

can analyze that. 

Mr. GREEN. And some of those issues, I know I have heard and 

it is—in earlier questions, are these issues with other federal agencies or issues with state-level agencies having to respond or not responding timely for FERC to FERC? 

Ms. MILES. I would think most of those are actually FERC trying 

to gather the information that it needs. We are typically cooperating with other federal agencies and state agencies who have federal authorizations. We will also work with them to review our documents. In our opinion, that is the best way to efficiently operate, 

is to have all federal agencies reviewing at the same time. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Do you think that there ought to be some time 

limits on federal agencies, or if you have a problem sometimes in 

working with you, and I am talking about both the pre-review or 

the pre-filing review or during the process, do you think there 

needs to be some time limits on these other agencies responding to 

FERC’s offer of—your offer to them? I know right now you can’t tell 

an agency, Fish and Game or anyone else, what to do, but do you 

think there would be some good idea to have some time limits on 

them? 

Ms. MILES. Do you mean for being a cooperating agency—— 

Mr. GREEN. Be cooperative. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. Choosing to be a cooperating agency? I 

think it can’t hurt. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I know the staff invites these other agencies to 

participate in the NEPA process. What type of response time from 

the agencies after receiving this information, do you have that—— 

Ms. MILES. I don’t have that, but I would be glad to get back 

with you on that. 

Mr. GREEN. And what if they just don’t respond? 

Ms. MILES. Well, at that point then they would not be a cooperating agency—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. With us. 

Mr. GREEN. So could they hold up a permit from, say, for example, a transmission line from Canada, although I know that is a 

State Department issue, but they could hold up a pipeline coming 

across Massachusetts. 

Ms. MILES. We can proceed without the federal agency being a 

part, and then they would need to do their responsibilities under 

their own volition. And it could occur after the certificate is issued. 

Mr. GREEN. OK, but until they participate, we are not going to 

get the natural gas to Maine. 

Governor, I want to thank you for being here. I know the frustration, and believe me, I am from Texas and I would love to send you 

some natural gas, but we do have some pipelines that go to the 

Northeast, but they have a lot of customers already. And I think 

the closest natural gas you will get is from my friends in PennsylVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:42 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-40 CHRIS
57 

vania. But we would sure like to get there because again, you 

shouldn’t have to have a paper mill shut down. I will have to 

admit, I had two paper mills over the last 30 years shut down in 

my district, and it wasn’t because of the high price of electricity. 

Governor LEPAGE. I have had three since I have been Governor. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. So, Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time, but 

thank you. 

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

Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Miles, I come from a position on this committee as a 

member who is currently dealing with the issue of permitting a 42- 

inch natural gas pipeline currently in the application review stage, 

and my district in Pennsylvania is home to some of the most pristine farmland, conservation space in the country, and my constituency has basically run the gamut of issues relating to the proposed 

pipeline from eminent domain to Indian burial grounds. One issue 

that keeps coming up is that of pipeline safety. As noted in your 

written testimony, FERC plays an inspection role during pipeline 

construction, but the Department of Transportation has jurisdiction 

to establish pipeline safety regs for operating reliance. So my question is can you tell us about the coordination you engage in with 

DOT to ensure that pipelines will meet their regulations, and ensure that nothing falls through the cracks as jurisdiction transitions from FERC to another agency? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, as you state, the Department of Transportation 

sets the standards, and when we review the applications we are 

checking to make sure that they meet those, and any analysis that 

needs to be done, we will do that, looking at volumes of flow and 

safety aspects of that. 

We do work with PHMSA, regularly coordinate with them on 

making sure we are clear on their standards, and that they are addressed through our evaluation. 

Mr. PITTS. One issue of concern to some of my constituents is the 

independence of FERC. Some perceive FERC as being captured by 

the industries it deals with, rubberstamp, if you will, and they 

point to statistics that reveal that virtually all of the applications 

that run the entirety of the FERC process are approved. Can you 

please speak to that concern? 

Ms. MILES. Well, I would say that many applications that come 

before us that we are looking at during the pre-filing period change 

dramatically through alternative routes, alternative systems, before 

we get to the point where the commission makes a decision on the 

appropriate project; whether to go forward with it, and if so, what 

conditions to include in it. So the commission takes into account 

and listens very carefully to comments from the public, from Indian 

tribes, from other state and federal agencies. Those are taken into 

account in trying to work through, what is the appropriate—looking at both engineering and environmental consequences of a 

project. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, in your written testimony, you stated that the 

discussion drafts addressing FERC process coordination has commendable goals, improving transparency, predictability of the agency actions, in particular. My question is, might these transparency 

58 

efforts in the bill help alleviate concerns that FERC is a 

rubberstamp for the industry? 

Ms. MILES. I believe we are quite transparent already, but any 

time we could add something to improve on that, we are most willing to. I think one of the things that this bill does is to make available on a Web site at the commission the established schedules and 

expected completion dates, and that type of information that many 

may be aware of. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, some outside groups have urged my constituents 

to work outside the FERC process to oppose pipeline construction, 

given their perception of FERC’s independence. And oftentimes, 

these groups advocate a turn to politics. My question is, can you 

please tell me how my constituents can best have their voices 

heard during permitting process? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, I certainly would hope that they would attend 

our scoping meetings. I would hope that they would file written 

comments also so that we clearly understand what their issues and 

concerns are. I would also ask them to subscribe through our electronic system to the project that they are concerned about, and 

they can keep up with what is going on with it every day. I would 

ensure them that commission staff is looking very carefully at everything as we go through the analysis, and that the commission 

in the end, when it makes its decision, will look at the entire record 

that has been developed for that project. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are of Ms. Miles. First, on the hydropower. Does 

FERC have a statutory mandate to protect water quality? 

Ms. MILES. Our mandate is to protect all developmental and nondevelopmental resources, and that would include the range of environmental resources of which water quality is certainly one. 

Mr. PALLONE. And how about statutory mandate to protect access to public lands? 

Ms. MILES. We do have a responsibility to provide for recreation 

and access at projects, as it is appropriate for specific projects. 

Mr. PALLONE. And what about a mandate to protect fish and 

wildlife? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, that is also a part of or comprehensive development and need to take into consideration all environmental and 

non-environmental resources. 

Mr. PALLONE. My concern is that the discussion draft appears to 

grant FERC near-exclusive statutory authority to enforce state and 

federal mandates under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and agency Organic Acts, and even though you say you 

have some authority, my concern is that that is not your primary 

authority. 

Is FERC seeking this authority at the expense of states and the 

Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture respectively? I mean, obviously, they have authority over these same 

things that I have asked about. Are you actually seeking this authority at their expense? I am only asking you the questions, not 

59 

the Governor. I mean are you initiating that? Are you asking for 

it? 

Ms. MILES. No. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Let me ask about—buried in the language of 

the draft there is a two-word change to Section 4(c) of the Federal 

Power Act, and the words of the existing statute, shall deem, are 

replaced by the single word, determines. The context of this change 

is the mandatory conditioning authority of the resource agency. 

You follow what I am asking you? Is this a significant change from 

current law? 

Ms. MILES. I don’t think I can—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Answer? 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. I quite follow the details of that. Are you 

referring to the alternative conditions? 

Mr. PALLONE. The mandatory conditions, sorry. 

Ms. MILES. The mandatory conditions? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. 

Ms. MILES. I think I said earlier that my sense, and I am speaking for myself, is that the agencies should provide—they are the 

ones that were given by Congress the responsibility to provide their 

mandatory condition for their reservation, whether it is land under 

the federal land-managing agency, or Section 18 for fishway prescriptions. 

Mr. PALLONE. But—— 

Ms. MILES. I believe that is their responsibility. 

Mr. PALLONE. But what would be the practical effect of this 

change on the ability of the resource agencies to protect and manage things under their jurisdiction? Can you answer that from a 

practical point of view? 

Ms. MILES. I believe that the draft discussion document is very 

complicated, and I am not sure that I have digested exactly what 

the goal is and the intent of each word. I am generally supportive 

of some aspects of it, and I am certainly supportive of any ability 

to move quicker and less costly in developing hydropower in this 

country, and an efficient system. The actual meaning of each word 

in the bill, I can’t talk about today, but I would be happy to discuss 

that further. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Let me just ask you a question about the natural gas pipeline regulation. My colleagues have said that we need 

the deadlines in this bill to hold federal agencies accountable, and 

ensure that they don’t just sit on applications. You mentioned in 

your testimony that since 2005, the commission has authorized 

nearly 10,500 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines, and GAO has concluded that FERC’s pipeline permitting is 

predictable and consistent, and gets pipelines built. In your experience, are there significant delays in the review of natural gas pipeline applications at the commission? 

Ms. MILES. I think the majority of pipeline applications are moving at a reasonable pace. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, so just the last thing, Mr. Chairman. So 

of the small number of applications that take a little longer to review, are these delays due to slow walking on the part of FERC 

staff? I would assume that more complex applications would and 

60 

should take longer to review. So what is the reason for those that 

are not—— 

Ms. MILES. They tend to be more complex, more controversial, 

probably the larger projects that require more information-gathering. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

I know the Governor wanted to interject at one point. Did you 

want to make a comment? 

Governor LEPAGE. Yes, a couple of points I wanted to make. As 

I understand, the draft of the bill is for small, non-producing hydro 

facilities. It is not the large project, it is the small, little dams that 

are not being produced, the less megawatt, maybe 3 to 4 

megawatts, which is really not a real problem in our state. Believe 

me, there are so many that would just jump at doing that opportunity, and I don’t believe it has any impact to the Federal Government. The only ones that are concerned about it are the people 

here in Washington, not the people in Maine. People in Maine see 

that as an extra few megawatts of power. So I don’t see the impact. 

But I will say this, to go to your point about do other agencies have 

an impact, I will give you a real example. We have in Maine the 

Canadian lynx. The Canadian lynx is called Canadian lynx because 

it is primarily in the real northern reaches of Quebec. The very 

southern border might cross over into Maine because we have a 

few on top of the State of Maine. It took 7 years, because in the 

United States, it is an endangered species but it is not native to 

the United States, but it took 7 years to get an incidental taking 

permit, which we just got a year ago. My predecessor put it in several years ago. And U.S. Fish and Wildlife just sat on it for several 

years. And so my point is, the importance of what we are trying 

to accomplish here, at least from the State of Maine, is very simply 

this. You have rules. No problem. We have no problem with that. 

Tell us what they are, give us a timetable, we get it done or we 

don’t get it done. But the danger is this. The reason the lyn permit 

took so long is they gave us a set of things to do. We did them. 

Then they gave us more things to do. We did them. They gave us 

more things to do. We did them. And it dragged on for 7 years. If 

that was tied to a hydro project, it is done, or if it is tied to natural 

gas, it is done, because no one, for these small projects that I am 

talking about, 500 kilowatt hours up to a megawatt or 2 megawatts 

or 3 megawatts, are going to spend their resources, the amount of 

money and time to permit such a small facility. So we are talking 

about small, little dams in our state that really are not—we are not 

talking the Boulder Dam here, we are talking about little, tiny 

projects along little streams, rivers that are already there, the 

dams are already there. It is just a matter of putting generation 

on it. So it is a totally different—we have gotten away from what 

I think the whole purpose is. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Governor, for that comment. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to both of 

you for being here. 

61 

And, Governor, thank you for your insight, and we certainly—it 

is not the first story we have heard about difficulties. And it almost 

appears that the delays are built in to keep others from trying to 

even go through the process, to make it so time-sensitive and so expensive that people just decide it is not worth the effort. Do you 

believe that? 

Governor LEPAGE. That is exactly what I am talking about. For 

these smaller, little projects, it is all about you delay them until 

they get discouraged and they have spent enough money. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. 

If I may ask you this, Ms. Miles. I am aware of four pending hydropower projects at my State of Mississippi. These proposed 

projects are below dams that already exist, there would be no new 

dam or impoundment, and the projects propose to make beneficial 

use of the water resources to generate clean electricity. Generally, 

how long does it take for that process? In general terms, how long 

should it take? 

Ms. MILES. The timeline for hydropower projects varies dramatically. For small projects like what the Governor may be talking 

about, where there aren’t any environmental resources that there 

is much concern about, we have issued licenses in as short as 6 

months from the time we have a complete application. For a complicated project—— 

Mr. HARPER. Define complicated. 

Ms. MILES. Well, where there are many issues. There may be endangered species, it could be any number of aspects of the environment—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. And it would be a larger project with 

more construction. 

Mr. HARPER. The examples I am using in Mississippi, for instance, that there is no new dam or impoundment, you would consider that a less complicated situation, I am assuming? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, I would. And I don’t know the situation with 

your individual projects, but one of the things that is going on is 

there is a DOE report that talks about a large amount of hydropower potential in the U.S., that there are 80,000 dams, and there 

is only a very small percentage of them that have hydropower on 

them. And it also lists the top projects where you are going to get 

your best bang for your buck, where they have the potential to 

have maybe a 30 or 40 megawatts of power added. Many of those 

are Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation Dams, and one 

thing that is in my testimony is perhaps a suggestion for trying not 

to have duplicative federal agencies, is that those agencies whose 

dams those are take on the responsibility for siting the nonfederal 

projects at their dams and remove FERC’s—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Well, you raised—— 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. Jurisdiction. 

Mr. HARPER. You raised an interesting point there. I know that 

certainly FERC employs a large number of fish biologists and other 

scientists. Would it not be possible for FERC to just adopt other 

agencies’ environmental analysis into the appropriate documents? 

62 

Ms. MILES. With the hydropower projects, we are the lead agency, so those other agencies would cooperate with us or adopt our 

analysis. 

Mr. HARPER. Certainly, but other cases, you would defer to others, I would assume. 

Ms. MILES. We could. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. The Natural Gas Act grants FERC authority 

to set deadlines for the various permits required to construct the 

natural gas pipeline. When is a final decision on a federal authorization due after the commission issues its final environmental document? 

Ms. MILES. Currently it is 90 days. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. How did FERC arrive at a 90-day deadline? 

Ms. MILES. Gosh, was that in the statute? I can’t remember. 

Mr. HARPER. If you know. 

Ms. MILES. I don’t know for certain. I—— 

Mr. HARPER. Well, we would assume if you don’t know, probably 

no one—— 

Ms. MILES. Well, others will know. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. MILES. I believe it was in—I don’t know if it was in the statute or it was established through our regulations. 

Mr. HARPER. That is fine. Have there been specific instances that 

you are aware of where other agencies were aware of the deadline 

set by FERC and simply failed to comply? 

Ms. MILES. There are times I am sure where they have not. 

Mr. HARPER. Do you know how long that some agencies have 

failed to meet deadlines set by FERC? 

Ms. MILES. I do not. 

Mr. HARPER. Could you obtain that information to us if—— 

Ms. MILES. I am not—— 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. It is available? 

Ms. MILES. I am not certain. I will look into it. 

Mr. HARPER. OK, thank you very much. And my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Miles, this bill provides that all other agencies that participate in the pipeline review process must give deference to the scope 

of environmental review that FERC determines to be appropriate. 

In other words, the bill before us would apparently have FERC tell 

other agencies what to consider when writing and issuing their permits, as required by federal law. That would require FERC to duplicate the expertise of the EPA, the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers. That does not sound 

feasible to me. So I ask, does FERC have the necessary expertise 

to determine the appropriate scope of environmental review for 

these coordinating agencies? 

Ms. MILES. We have a very technically adept staff, however, for 

the other agencies with permitting responsibilities, we discuss with 

them what the scope of the analysis that they believe is necessary 

63 

for them to issue their permits would be, and try to accommodate 

that as much as we can in our environmental documents. 

Mr. TONKO. So having those necessary bits of expertise may not 

necessarily be in place as we speak? 

Ms. MILES. FERC’s has a wide range of expertise. We are 340 

people. We are made up of scientists who cover all the resource 

areas that come before us in analyzing projects, as well as engineers who can do that analysis. So I feel very comfortable with our 

technical expertise. I do believe the other agencies have responsibilities under their mandates, and what we do is to try to work 

with them, understanding what each other’s goals are. 

Mr. TONKO. And further, does FERC have the resources to carry 

out the requirements of this provision? 

Ms. MILES. Currently, we have the resources we need to do our 

work. If we are given significant extra responsibilities, we would 

need to examine whether we do. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And finally, as you mentioned in your 

testimony, and I quote, ‘‘The comission staff gives deference to 

these agencies’ opinion of the scope of environmental review needed 

to satisfy their NEPA obligations, as they are best equipped to determine what information satisfies their statutory mandates.’’ So 

the language of this scoping provision would effectively reverse the 

current coordinating practice at FERC, would it not? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, we do have some concern that it has more of an 

oversight responsibility than we have right now with more of a cooperative relationship. 

Mr. TONKO. All right. And then would this provision improve or 

expedite, in your opinion, the current pipeline permitting process 

existing at FERC? 

Ms. MILES. My concern is, as I have said in my testimony, is that 

it moves some aspects of what we do now under our regulations, 

later in the process, and I don’t believe that is valuable. I believe 

it needs to be done early in the process. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Ms. MILES. And there are a few other things. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. There are a number of gas pipeline projects underway in my home State of New York. Some of these are 

multistate pipelines, some are expansion projects. We consume a 

lot of gas in New York and in other states in the Northeast, so I 

believe we need additional infrastructure to ensure reliable service 

for gas customers. Of course, as with any large infrastructure 

project, there is opposition. Some absolute and firm, some can be 

satisfied with alterations to a given project to address specific concerns or problems. But that times time. The public is often less organized, and slower to the table than industry, perhaps with less 

resources, and states and local communities have concerns and 

want to participate. That, again, takes time. My understanding is 

that most of these applications, when they are complete, are approved within a year or two. Is that correct? 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. So, frankly, that seems to be very reasonable. 

In fact, some of my constituents would probably want more time 

for deliberation in this process. I am concerned that shortening this 

process further could lead to compromises in safety, in fewer enviVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:42 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-40 CHRIS
64 

ronmental benefits, and in more resistance to these projects by the 

public and local communities. Is this process indeed too long? 

Ms. MILES. The current process, as I have said, is—with—according to our statistics, we are doing the majority of the projects within 1 year, which is—seems a reasonable period of time. 

Mr. TONKO. And do we not need to provide sufficient time for the 

public to weigh-in on projects that will operate for what could be 

decades? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, it is very important, and it is built into the process, that the public has adequate opportunity to participate. 

Mr. TONKO. With that, I thank you very much. And my time 

has—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Time has expired. Thank you very much. 

At this time, chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, 

Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I gather that the genesis of this legislation and this hearing are 

all about grid reliability. We have had numbers of meetings here 

and hearings about grid reliability, and this is one way to do it, either hydro or gas, to be able to expedite that. There is a study, I 

know, done by the University of Minnesota that talks about the 

concern for grid reliability because they say in the Midwest annually we have about 92 minutes per year that we lose power, and 

you in the Northeast and in New England the average is 214 minutes are lost annually, as compared to Japan, Japan only has 4 

minutes a year in grid reliability. So my concern is, with a lot of 

these regulations that are being imposed on us, is that things like 

the EIA has come out and said that if we continue on with this, 

we are going to lose 25 percent of our coal-fired generating capacity 

within the next couple of years. The PJM came out with a report 

in 2014 that said after the polar vortex, that we came within 500 

megawatts for 5 minutes; 700 megawatts for an hour, that we came 

that close to having a massive power shortage in America. And 

that compliments what FERC’s Commissioner Moeller came out 

and he said that we had better be concerned about this because we 

are going to have more blackouts, rolling brownouts in the Midwest 

by 2017 if we don’t do something. 

So my question to you, Ms. Miles, is—and thank you—you have 

been with the FERC now for 30 years. I understand you joined in 

1985, so you have seen quite a change perhaps within the group. 

Do you think that there is a real grasp of this situation of where 

we could be faced with brownouts? Do you think—was Moeller correct that should be concerned about this by the next 2 years, if we 

continue with these regulations that we are going to have shortages? 

Ms. MILES. I can’t speak to reliability issues. That is not a part 

of my purview. I can speak to the issues that are here on the bills 

that are before us today, and that my office does which—with making sure that we do the best we can under the statutes that we 

have to provide a process that is as efficient and provides opportunity for everyone to comment and to address the issues. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Do you think—but under your purview, do you 

have—are you concerned about brownouts? 

Ms. MILES. As I said, that is not a part of my responsibility. 

65 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So you have no opinion at all on whether or not 

brownouts could occur in this country? 

Ms. MILES. My responsibility—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK, I guess that may or may not be under your 

control, but our concern is we are building back on this grid reliability that we have had so many hearings about. This is a positive 

aspect coming out of this legislation that we are going to be able 

to provide more. If coal is going to be diminished in its use, at least 

we ought to be able to come back with hydro and gas. And when 

we have had roundtable meetings back in northern West Virginia, 

that is the biggest concern we hear from the drillers. They can’t get 

their gas to market. So I am hoping that this legislation can be advanced so that we can get the power to the Northeast, we can get 

the power to the east coast so we can have LNG. So I am very concerned that FERC seems to be perhaps slowing things down a little 

bit. And I just want to be sure, because that is what you were saying, you don’t know anything about brownouts, but unfortunately, 

I hope that you can go back and ask some other members of FERC 

what these—if I have misunderstood something, but I think we are 

facing some real concerns in this country if we don’t get legislation 

like this adopted so that we can avoid the brownouts and help our 

industry. 

Ms. MILES. I want to make clear that I believe that a—good 

parts of these legislation that are going to—toward the intent of 

making sure that the FERC process is efficient and timely are important. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Sounds like a great answer in Washington, 

doesn’t it? 

I yield back the time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the panel. 

So I mean I think your last answer was actually a pretty good 

one in terms of the desire to have things move efficiently and timely, and I don’t begrudge my colleagues’ aspiration for all of this 

process to happen more quickly. The problem is that if you put 

some of these fixed timelines in place, not only is there the issue 

that Congressman Tonko mentioned, which is where maybe FERC 

is being asked or compelled to substitute its expertise for that of 

other agencies in some instances, but if there is a timeline being 

put in place, that is a process thing, but it can have an impact on 

the substantive issues that need to be addressed. Most of the conversation here has related to the relationship between FERC and 

other federal agencies in terms of trying to get whatever review 

they are undertaking as part of a project done in a timely way, and 

the goal here is to give FERC the ability to kind of ride heard over 

that process and kind of corral the other agencies into a more expedited time frame. But as I understand it, Ms. Miles, it also has implications for state-level reviews and permits that would be issued 

as well, is that correct? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, there are several federal authorizations that are 

carried out by state agencies, like the water quality certification 

under the Clean Water Act. 

66 

Mr. SARBANES. Right, and my concern is that states are doing 

their best in a lot of these instances where they have been given 

responsibility on the environmental front, certainly, to make sure 

that these projects are being done in a way that don’t negatively 

impact the environment there in the state. And that capacity is 

being pulled away from them if there is some kind of a requirement that the whole process be finished within a certain period of 

time. And what I don’t quite understand is oftentimes, our colleagues on the other side are complaining about when the Federal 

Government gets in the way of the states being able to carry out 

things at the state level that they think are important to them, but 

the effect of this statute or bill, if it were to be passed, would actually supplant a lot of the states’ ability to fulfill its obligations to 

its own residents to make sure things are being put in place. 

Specifically, there is a project in Maryland right now, the 

Conowingo Dam, where certification from FERC has been forthcoming, but there is still some review that the Maryland Department of the Environment needs to do to make sure that the water 

quality standards are being met, and the ultimate relicensing is 

conditioned upon that permit being issued. And Exelon Corporation, which owns the Conowingo Dam, has undertaken to do a 

study. They have agreed to do that. That process is moving forward. If we had the kind of regime that is contemplated by this 

statute in place, there could be the potential situation where, because Maryland wasn’t moving fast enough to adhere to some time 

frame that was being imposed upon them by FERC, Exelon would 

have the opportunity to come in and sue as a result of them failing 

to meet that timeline. And then you are undermining the concerns 

of Maryland residents in terms of the environment. So I just wanted to point out that it has significant implications for the kind of 

state-level review that is important to conduct. 

And, Governor LePage, I thank you for your testimony. I understand the frustration, if you are looking at like a small dam and 

you just want to get generation put on top of it, as you said, and 

the process seems to go on and on forever. But I think the agency— 

Ms. Miles spoke to the fact that projects that are less complex can 

be handled in a more expedited way. We can maybe look at how 

to help with that dimension of things without imposing across the 

board this kind of time restriction, which could either have the effect of the agency saying, you know what, we can’t get done in time 

so we will just say no, which wouldn’t be good as a result, or 

issuing some kind of permit without really there being a good basis 

for it, and then there be consequences down the line. So I think we 

have to be very careful about that. 

Governor LEPAGE. Well, there are two things about that. Number 1 is, on the pipeline we are talking one thing, which are usually much larger. Give you an example of what we are talking 

about, these little dams. Take a farmer who is farming 100 acres 

of potatoes, and he has a little pond, he has a little dam on his 

property to have pond for irrigation, he could put a little generator 

on that and use the power from the dam for his irrigation. FERC 

has to be involved in that. That power is going to be used on the 

farm. It is like a little windmill on your farm. That is all we are 

asking about. Don’t believe FERC should be involved in that. I will 

67 

also say one other thing. I can’t speak for the other 49 states, but 

I guarantee you in the State of Maine, we will beat the Federal 

Government every time in getting permits. 

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

Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. I just want to say amen to the Governor of Maine. 

Move to Texas. We like your attitude. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to concentrate on the section of the 

proposed draft that deals with the Natural Gas Act. 

Back in 2005, we passed a major energy bill called the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, and in that, we gave the agency, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, additional authority to review 

pipeline applications. With all due respect, it doesn’t look to me 

like the agency is using that authority. If we are going to shut 

down all these coal plants, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to 

replace them at some point in time with some other kind of plant, 

and in most cases, that is—it could be a solar plant, it could be 

wind, but in a lot of cases it is going to be natural gas. So to get 

the gas to the plant, we are going to have to have more pipelines. 

The good news is that we have lots of natural gas to send, to use 

in electricity generation. The bad news is we have to get those 

pipelines built to get it there. 

So my first question to the gentlelady from the FERC, does your 

agency really want to be the lead agency, because it doesn’t look 

to me like you do? 

Ms. MILES. I believe that we have taken the role of lead agency. 

We have established regulations to carry out what was in EPAct 

2005, that the commission is the lead agency and it does establish 

the schedule. And we do have a consolidated record. Whether the 

applicant chooses to take anyone to court, that is really their decision and not FERC’s decision. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, but the proposed draft takes what we did in 

2005 and gives the FERC some additional enforcement authority, 

not you personally, but your agency doesn’t appear to want. Would 

you rather we took all that away and give it to the Department of 

Energy, or the Department—— 

Ms. MILES. I don’t—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Of Commerce? I mean you are either 

going to be the lead agency or you are not, and my preference 

would have FERC be the lead agency. Number 1, you are smaller, 

the staff of the FERC tends to be more results-oriented, I think is 

a fair way to say it, so there are a lot of reasons to give you additional authority, but you have to want to use it, there has to be 

a culture at the FERC that you don’t mind—if you are going to be 

the lead, that means you are actually going to lead. Sometimes you 

can collaborate, sometimes you can consult, but every now and 

then you have to say this is the way it is going to be, let’s get it 

done. So I am serious when I—the draft as it is currently structured gives additional enforcement and enhanced authority to the 

FERC. Is that something that the agency is comfortable with, or 

would you rather we not and we give to some other—make you the 

non-lead agency? It is a fair question. 

Ms. MILES. The overall question, I think we are very well positioned to be the lead agency. I think there are some aspects of the 

68 

discussion draft that we would like to have conversations about. 

There are aspects that I think are very good. One of the main situations is, is there accountability or enforcement if someone does not 

comply with this. In this bill, you do have the aspect, which I have 

not seen before, of having the heads of other agencies, who many 

not have complied with the schedule, report to Congress. That is 

a measure of accountability that has—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well—— 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. Some potential. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. My time is about to expire, Mr. Chairman, but I support the discussion draft’s increased authority for 

the FERC if the FERC will use it, and if we can get assurances 

that it is something they are comfortable with. And I understand, 

when you are an independent agency and you don’t have a lot of 

people, it is difficult to deal with some of these other federal agencies that are much larger and have more staff, much more bureaucratic, but the good news is if you are the lead agency and you will 

use that authority, the Congress will back you up, and will get 

more pipelines built and will get more energy produced, and will 

create a better economy. So there is an endgame that is a positive, 

if your agency will use the additional authority. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, I know you have to get power, and that is a problem 

for a lot of states as we press forward. I will assure you that we 

can ship you all the coal from southwest Virginia that the Federal 

Government will allow you to use. And Ohio. Can’t leave out my 

good friend, Mr. Johnson. And West Virginia, and for my colleague 

who spoke earlier. 

That being said, we have, in my opinion, unreasonable regulations on the use of coal, unreasonable timetable on a number of the 

new regulations coming into effect. And so the natural gas companies, I understand why they are doing it. They are proposing all 

kinds of pipelines be built, not just in your area, but they have a 

number that are coming through western Virginia. And so, Ms. 

Miles, that raises a lot of questions that I have for you this morning. 

The pre-filing review phase is not mandatory for natural gas 

pipelines. Should it be? 

Ms. MILES. You are correct, and that is something that we actually have wondered about ourselves. I think that there are any 

number of small pipelines that it is not necessary to have it, so 

should the Congress decide that is a place they want to go, we 

would need to have the ability to have the smaller projects not involved in it because that would slow it down for projects—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Perhaps—— 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. That don’t need it. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Perhaps you can make a suggestion and that can 

be incorporated into this draft in that regard. As a part of that, you 

are holding scoping meetings. In my district, as well as in others 

in western Virginia, it has come to our attention that—and I know 

69 

it is a longer section of pipeline, but the greater population is perhaps in the Roanoke and New River Valleys, and FERC only had 

two for the Mountain Valley Pipeline—two public hearings or 

scoping meetings in the Roanoke and New River Valleys, had four 

in West Virginia. The Roanoke Board of County Supervisors has requested an additional one. And I would say to you that Congressman Goodlatte and myself have submitted a letter requesting that 

you all hold another scoping meeting in regard to the Mountain 

Valley Pipeline, and would appreciate if you would look into that. 

As you know, I represent from Roanoke, all the way through the 

west of southwestern Virginia, the Allegheny Islands, and Southside. Congressman Goodlatte represents that area from Roanoke 

north, including Mary Baldwin, where I understand that you are 

an alumni. 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But it is concerning. One of the pipelines actually 

goes through Augusta County. And so we have 2 that are currently 

on the drawing board, I think a third is about to be there. There 

may be a fourth. This morning in the Roanoke Times, there is an 

op-ed piece by Rupert Cutler, and he indicates that as a part of 

your commission, that preparation of a single regional environmental impact statement, incorporating all of the pipelines in the 

region, should be done. Are you all doing that with these various 

pipelines, because it is of concern to the region because not only do 

you have the typical problems, but you have the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Appalachian Trail, a number of national forestlands that 

have to be crossed by these various pipelines? 

Ms. MILES. I am not prepared to discuss particular projects this 

morning, but we certainly will take all comments into consideration 

when we make decisions about them. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Is Mr. Cutler, a former member of the Roanoke 

City Council and an environmentalist, is he correct that it is a part 

of your charge though to prepare a single rational environmental 

impact statement incorporating all of the regional pipelines? 

Ms. MILES. Our responsibility is to analyze all the pipelines, and 

it is not defined how we do it, but under the National Environmental Policy Act, we need to analyze the issues, give everyone the 

opportunity to comment on them, display that so the public can 

comment on it before making any decision. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. He also asserts that you all have to look at the 

marketplace, and with all of the different pipelines being proposed 

now in an attempt to figure out a way that by 2020, we have to 

start replacing coal if the Clean Power Plan continues to go forward as expected, are you all looking at whether or not we have 

pipelines stepping over each other, and that we will have a greater 

capacity than is necessary? Is that part of your charge, and I am 

going to ask for a yes-or-no answer on that, is it just part of your 

charge? Because I am running out of time? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, we need to look at whether there are shippers 

that have been—have signed up for the capacity to move that—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. Transportation. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And then one of the concerns I have is, we have 

had a lot of people upset by these various pipelines, and particuVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:42 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-40 CHRIS
70 

larly in the Mountain Valley Pipeline. It started off coming through 

Montgomery and Floyd and Henry in my district, and part of Robert Hurt’s district in Franklin County. Now it is looking like it is 

going to go through Craig and Roanoke Counties, and then go 

through Franklin and Henry. A lot of folks have been distressed because it looks like they just put a line on the page. Can you encourage the companies to do a little more preplanning, and not have 

such large shifts? We are not talking about just within a small border, we are talking about, you know, completely different counties 

being involved, different Board of Supervisors, different folks who 

have to be involved. Could you please encourage that as they move 

forward, they try to figure out exactly where they want to go? Or 

when I say exactly, I mean within a reasonable corridor—— 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. Before they start putting a lot of folks 

in distress whose land may be taken under eminent domain. 

Ms. MILES. That is a part of the pre-filing process is to work 

through with the companies where they are, and to work with the 

public and their thoughts and understanding of where is the appropriate siting. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. I appreciate it very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and 

thank our panel for being with us here this morning as well. 

Director Miles, one of the concerns that you raise on page 17 of 

your testimony regarding the trial type hearing and the provisions 

under the discussion drafts to move all of these to FERC administrative law judges has to do with administrative costs, but isn’t it 

true that FERC recovers all of its administrative costs for the 

hydro program from licensees under annual charges required by 

the Federal Power Act? 

Ms. MILES. Yes, that is true. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. And, Director Miles, I represent 

eastern and southeastern Ohio which, as you well know, we have 

been blessed with the Utica and Marcellus Shale in that part of the 

state, which hold an abundance of natural gas reserves. One concern that I hear routinely from the folks who are employing my 

constituents to produce this resource, and recover this resource, is 

that if we don’t have adequate pipeline to get the natural gas to 

the market, these jobs are very much in jeopardy. 

In your testimony, you note that the draft pipeline reform legislation has unintended consequences that could slow down the process. So my question to you—things like moving some activities to 

later in the process. So my question to you is, would you be in favor 

of moving those things closer up so that they can be expedited? 

Ms. MILES. I would like to look at what that would look like, and 

have the opportunity to comment on it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, and are there other changes that you think 

the committee could make to the legislation to speed up the process 

so that the permitting can get done quicker, and we can make sure 

we save these jobs for those hard-working people? 

71 

Ms. MILES. I don’t have anything else to suggest right now. I do 

have some concern that we want to maintain some ability for flexibility, and not get too strict so that we can’t work a little differently with projects that are smaller and may go even quicker 

than this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. MILES. So, you know, if you do too much on the outside end 

to try—we want to make sure we are not messing up the ones that 

are moving through really quickly, so—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Well, you may have heard recently in our region of the state, our region of the nation, the Appalachia region 

of the nation, that, as many times often at the back of everybody’s 

mind in Washington, D.C., we have had it announced that a projected cracker plant coming into eastern Ohio. Thousands and 

thousands of construction jobs, and thousand permanent jobs, 

multibillion dollar, 5-year project. It is a game changer when you 

are talking about manufacturing coming back to our region and 

those kinds of things. So the pipeline, to get that gas to these processing plants, and then to send that raw material to manufacturers, it is critically important to the economic viability of our region. 

So I appreciate that you would consider those things. 

Let me ask you one other. Your testimony states that since the 

EPA Act of 2005, the commission has been able to act on 92 percent of natural gas project applications in less than 1 year after the 

application is filed. What do you mean by act? How many of these 

actually received all of the required federal authorizations, and 

how long did that take? 

Ms. MILES. What I mean by act is that the commission has acted. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But have they approved them—— 

Ms. MILES. Many—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Have they gotten all the way through 

the process? 

Ms. MILES. They have completed the process at the commission. 

Some orders that are issued may require an authorization from another federal agency. Those usually come through fairly timely. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you have done your part of it—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Excuse me just one minute. 

Ms. MILES. We did our part, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Excuse me one minute. When you say—are you 

talking about—that the FERC application has been granted, or—— 

Ms. MILES. Yes. The—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. The certificate has been—— 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. Commission has authorized it and included in it the conditions that—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. MILES [continuing]. The company needs to apply. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Chairman, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the 

witnesses for being here. 

72 

And, Ms. Miles, I must say, we have a lot of directors, secretaries 

that come in here, and a lot of times their demeanor is, in my opinion, almost despicable, and I want to commend you on how you are 

handling yourself today. I think all of us will say that we are wanting to work with you, we are wanting to work with the Governor, 

we are wanting to get issues resolved, but we are having a hard 

time understanding where FERC is going. And I understand you 

control, you know, a small piece of that pie, but we all are having 

problems. I mean one of the most common complaints I have in my 

district, I represent the eastern part of Oklahoma, the entire eastern side of Oklahoma, and we have many lakes and several of them 

are controlled by FERC, and it seems like FERC is growing in their 

influence in our state. In particular on the shorelines. And, Ms. 

Miles, you mentioned on page 13 in your testimony that the Federal Power Act determined that matters related to shoreline use, 

such as recreational flood control and environmental protection, are 

sometimes more of a local concern and, thus, should be resolved by 

an entity that is required to consider the overall public interest. 

Could expand on that comment a little bit more? 

Ms. MILES. Yes. Congress established the regime in the Federal 

Power Act that, in exchange for the use of the public waters of the 

United States, that licensees need to satisfy public interests, and 

the public interest might be recreation, it might be the environmental values of the area. 

Mr. MULLIN. But what I am trying to get to, are you saying that 

that should actually be determined by FERC, it shouldn’t be determined by the state? 

Ms. MILES. That is the regime that was established by Congress. 

The commission only has responsibility over the lands that are 

owned or controlled by the licensee. It does not have any responsibility over lands that are under private control. So the shoreline 

management plans that you are referring to would only cover that 

licensee-owned portion of the project. 

Mr. MULLIN. Completely agree with that, but I represent an area 

called Grand Lake which is very similar to the Lake of the Ozarks, 

and also—and Missouri, obviously, and there was an issue going on 

in—it was either Lake of the Ozarks or Table Rock Lake, I think 

it was Lake of the Ozarks, where, basically, FERC has come up 

onto the shorelines and was redrawing the boundary. And last 

year, I sat in the chairman’s office and we asked FERC about this, 

and they basically described the situation saying that, well, we are 

using different boundaries now because, back then we used basically the stick surveying mark, and now we are using GPS, and the 

old boundaries basically aren’t acceptable anymore. And so FERC 

is injecting themselves on telling people how big their house can 

be on the shoreline, which they own, telling people how many boat 

slips they can have, and telling them that the existing structures 

that was built inside the boundaries are no longer acceptable and 

have to be torn down. And it threw a whole big mess on the shorelines that now we are having the same issue in Grand Lake. And 

I thinking, well, FERC doesn’t even have the ability to control 

what they have. I mean we are talking about pipelines, we are 

talking about infrastructure, we are talking about things that you 

already have and you can’t control it, and now you are inserting 

73 

yourself farther onto the shorelines. And the way I am understanding it is that you are in agreement with that, that you should 

be inserting yourself farther on to the shorelines, when actually, 

the states would be more capable of controlling that. Wouldn’t you 

agree with that? 

Ms. MILES. I can’t speak to the individual project that you are 

raising. 

Mr. MULLIN. I understand you can’t speak to it, but if I am understanding it that you are saying that FERC should probably take 

control of that area, but what I am saying is don’t you agree that 

maybe the state should? I mean you can’t handle what you are getting to right now. You don’t have the manpower or the capability 

to even do something that is as simple as permit gas lines. 

Ms. MILES. What I am saying is that Congress basically authorized the regime that the license includes the land that is necessary 

for project purposes, which includes the generation of electricity as 

well as the protection of both developmental and non-development 

or environmental resources. 

Mr. MULLIN. So how can I help you get this off your plate then? 

What would you like to see Congress do with this regime, as you 

are referring to, because we refer to the FERC a lot as the regime 

too, and so how do I help you get rid of this regime that you are 

talking about? 

Ms. MILES. If Congress wants to change the balance, then we 

certainly would be—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Would you be supportive of it? 

Ms. MILES. I would need to see what it looked like. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. 

And that concludes the questions for the first panel. Once again, 

Governor, thank you for being here. Ms. Miles, thank you for being 

here. We look forward to working with both of you as we continue 

our efforts to develop an energy package. And thank you again for 

your time, and we will be in touch. 

At this time, I would like to call up the second panel. On the second panel today, we have 6 witnesses. I am not going to introduce 

everybody immediately, but I will introduce you as you are recognized to give your opening statement. And so if you all, when you 

get time, would have a seat. I want to thank all of your for joining 

us today, and we appreciate also your patience. 

And our first witness this morning will be Mr. Donald Santa on 

the second panel. He is the President and CEO of the Interstate 

Natural Gas Association of America. Mr. Santa, thanks again for 

being with us. And each one of you will be given 5 minutes for your 

opening statement, and then we will open it up for questions. 

So, Mr. Santa, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

74 

STATEMENTS OF DONALD F. SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; 

CAROLYN ELEFANT, MEMBER OF THE BOARD, THE PIPELINE SAFETY COALITION, PRINCIPAL, THE LAW OFFICES OF 

CAROLYN ELEFANT; JOHN COLLINS, MANAGING DIRECTOR 

OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CUBE HYDRO PARTNERS; 

RICHARD ROOS–COLLINS, GENERAL COUNSEL, THE HYDROPOWER REFORM COALITION; RANDY LIVINGSTON, VICE 

PRESIDENT, POWER GENERATION, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; AND JOHN J. SULOWAY, BOARD MEMBER, 

NATIONAL HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION, PRINCIPAL, WATER 

AND POWER LAW GROUP, PC (ON BEHALF OF THE HYDROPOWER REFORM COALITION) 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. SANTA 

Mr. SANTA. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee. 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. Our 24 members operate the vast majority of the interstate natural gas transmission network, which is the natural gas 

industry analogue to the interstate highway system. 

The approval and permitting process for interstate natural gas 

pipelines has become increasingly challenging. While this has been 

a good, albeit complex process, there have been some trends in the 

wrong direction. What was once orderly and predictable is now increasingly protracted and contentious. Most energy experts agree 

that we will need more gas pipeline infrastructure to connect the 

new supplies of natural gas made available by the shale revolution, 

and to support increased demand for gas from manufacturing and 

petrochemical sectors, electric generators, and other end-users. We 

need a process that balances thorough environmental review and 

active public involvement with orderly, predictable, and timely approval and permitting of necessary energy infrastructure. 

If enacted, the draft bill before the subcommittee today would 

modestly improve the permitting process by introducing additional 

transparency and accountability for federal and state permitting 

agencies. We support these steps, but continue to urge Congress to 

create real consequences for agencies that fail to meet reasonable 

deadlines. Entities proposing to construct or expand or modify an 

interstate natural gas pipeline must seek a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. While the Natural Gas Act provides FERC with exclusive 

authority to authorize the construction and operation of interstate 

natural gas pipelines, a variety of other permits and authorizations 

are necessary in order to construct and operate such a pipeline. 

And I think as evidenced by Mr. Johnson’s question a few minutes 

ago, while a lot of the dialogue this morning has been about the 

timeliness of FERC’s action under the Natural Gas Act, the focus 

of the draft bill really is the timeliness of these other permits and 

authorizations that are necessary before a pipeline can be constructed. 

75 

The Energy Police Act of 2005 provided FERC with new authority to oversee the pipeline permitting process. First, Section 313 of 

EPAct 2005 clarified that FERC is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act for interstate natural gas infrastructure projects. Second, this section empowered FERC to establish a schedule for all other federal authorizations. In other words, 

all federal and state permits required under federal law. Section 

313 stated that other federal and state permitting agencies ‘‘shall 

cooperate with the commission and comply with the deadlines established by the commission.’’ The draft legislation would codify the 

FERC rule that established a deadline 90 days after the completing 

of FERC’s NEPA review for all agencies acting under federal authority to make their final permitting decisions. 

The beginning of the 90-day permitting deadline would not be 

the first time a permitting agency would have seen an application 

from a pipeline developer. By the time FERC completes its NEPA 

review, it reasonably can be expected that the pipeline project developer will have been engaged in a dialogue with the various permitting agencies for 12 to 18 months, or perhaps even longer. Consequently, permitting agencies will have had ample time to review 

a proposed project, suggest changes and modifications, and render 

a final decision. 

Although EPAct 2005 authorized FERC to establish a deadline 

for permitting agencies, it did not create a mechanism for FERC 

to enforce such deadlines. Instead, a pipeline project developer may 

challenge a permitting agency’s tardiness or inaction in federal 

court. Doing so, however, is both time-consuming and risky, and 

this option seldom has been exercises. The lack of permitting 

schedule enforceability has become the Achilles’ heel in the pipeline 

approval and permitting process. Agencies are free to ignore 

FERC’s deadline in what is currently a consequence-free environment. 

Why is the timely approval of pipeline permits important? Pipeline infrastructure is a necessary predicate for fully realizing the 

benefits of America’s natural gas abundance. Abundant natural gas 

spurred by shale development already has had a profound effect on 

the United States’ economy. 

We hope that Congress will ensure that there are consequences 

associated with pipeline permitting delays so that this critical energy infrastructure can be constructed on a timely basis. Transparency is certainly important, yet it needs to go hand-in-hand 

with clear accountability for agency inaction or delay. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Santa follows:] 

76 


96986.038
77 


96986.039
78 


96986.040
79 


96986.041
80 


96986.042
81 


96986.043
82 


96986.044
83 


96986.045
84 


96986.046
85 


96986.047
86 


96986.048
87 


96986.049
88 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Santa, thank you very much for that opening statement. 

Our next witness is Ms. Carolyn Elefant, who is a Member of the 

Board of the Pipeline Safety Coalition, and Principal of the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant. So thank you for being with us, and you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN ELEFANT 

Ms. ELEFANT. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield. Thank you, 

Chairman Whitfield, and good afternoon to you and to Ranking 

Member Rush, and the members of the subcommittee. 

As you mentioned, my name is Carolyn Elefant. I am on the 

Board of the Pipeline Safety Coalition, which is a nonprofit organization that serves as a clearinghouse for factual and objective information to increase public awareness about pipelines, and also to 

promote environmental and public safety. In addition, in my capacity as an attorney, I represent landowners, conservation trusts, 

community governments, and other entities that are directly impacted by pipeline infrastructure. 

My testimony today will highlight two of the coalition’s concerns 

regarding the draft legislation, which essentially requires federal 

and state agencies with permitting authorities over pipelines to adhere to deadlines established by FERC. 

First, the coalition believes that the legislation is unnecessary. 

There is little evidence to suggest that it is actually the state and 

federal permitting agencies that are responsible for delays in development of pipeline infrastructure. And to the extent that they are, 

companies already have a mechanism in place to enforce those 

deadlines, which is through bringing suit in federal court; a mechanism that has only been used twice since it was enacted 10 years 

ago in the Energy Policy Act. 

Second, the coalition’s greater concern is that the proposed legislation’s approach to expediting the permitting process, such as requiring federal and state permitting agencies to confine the scope 

of their environmental review to those issues identified by FERC, 

would subordinate the regulatory mandates of FERC’s sister federal agencies, as well as state agencies implementing delegated federal authority under statutes like the Clean Water Act, the Clean 

Air Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

So the first issue I wanted to discuss as to why this legislation 

isn’t necessary relates to the delays, and from our perspective it is 

not clear that these state and federal permits are holding up the 

process. The way the INGAA has defined delay in its 2012 report 

that it commissioned is a situation where a state or federal permit 

is not completed within 90 days after FERC completes its environmental review. But there are many reasons for why this can happen. And first of all, the processes are not always properly aligned. 

So a company may not initiate the state permitting process until 

several months after it started the FERC certificate process, and 

that can lead to a misalignment at the end. In addition, state agencies also have—the statutes provide them with a year, in some instances, to act on a permit. So if you start the process late, it is 

going to run over at the end. 

89 

The second issue related to delay is that many times a delay may 

occur because there is a change in the root, or a different alternative is proposed down the line. And there are instances where a 

company knows about this initially, but rather than trying to accommodate and negotiate that issue, they will hedge their bets and 

figure that if they ignore it, it will go away. And it comes back to 

bite them at the end of the process. I have been involved in at least 

two proceedings where issues raised by state agencies early on in 

pre-filing were ignored for years later, and when it finally came 

time to issue the permit, and it appeared that the state permit 

wasn’t going to issue, those issues had to be dealt with and it created some delay. 

And last, as I mentioned, to the extent that there is delay, there 

is a mechanism that Congress put in place 10 years ago; the ability 

to bring suit in District Court. I would respectfully disagree with 

my colleague, Mr. Santa, as to the difficulty of this. It has been 

used twice. I was involved, representing interveners in one of those 

proceedings. It is extremely expedited, it is about 3 months, and 

the company in this particular situation received relief very quickly. And even with this expedited schedule, I, representing a group 

of landowners, was still able to participate. So that is an option 

that is highly underutilized, and suggests to me that perhaps companies don’t believe that they have enough of a case to be able to 

bring to court to show delay. And so they are not using this provision because it isn’t as necessary as has been suggested. 

As I mentioned before, really from our perspective, the most 

troubling aspect of the legislation is it seeks to eliminate delay 

really be eliminating differing perspectives. For example, one of the 

provisions that has been discussed is that, when making a decision 

with respect to federal authorization, the federal and state agencies 

shall defer to FERC’s scope of the environmental issues. And this 

is very troubling because state agencies and federal permitting 

agencies have different mandates. They evaluate different things in 

the environmental process. And you will sometimes see that they 

may be identifying issues that FERC considers not relevant to the 

certificate process. And that makes sense, but these are different 

mandates. So we don’t see that there is any justification to compel 

a federal or federally backed agency to subordinate its regulatory 

mandates to the goals of the Natural Gas Act, and indeed, we can’t 

think of any other federal industry or federally regulated industry 

that has been granted a similar trump card. 

So those are some of the concerns that we have, and I look forward to participating in the rest of this hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Elefant follows:] 

90 


96986.050
91 


96986.051
92 


96986.052
93 


96986.053
94 


96986.054
95 


96986.055
96 


96986.056
97 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right, thank you very much, Ms. Elefant. 

At this time, our next witness is Mr. John Collins, who is the 

Managing Director of Business Development at Cube Hydro Partners. You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Collins. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN COLLINS 

Mr. COLLINS. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My 

name is John Collins, and I am the Managing Director of Business 

Development for Cube Hydro Partners, a small, women-led business that owns and operates hydroelectric plants in several states. 

The company also engages in new hydropower development 

through the building of new plants at existing dams. I have over 

25 years of experience in the energy industry, including previous 

experience in the development of over 3,500 megawatts of merchant power natural gas-fired plants during my career at Constellation Energy. I spent over 22 years with Constellation Energy 

Group in various leadership positions, including Chief Risk Officer, 

Chief Financial Officer, and Senior Vice President of Integration. I 

am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the importance of modernizing and improving the hydropower licensing and relicensing process to make it more efficient 

and transparent, while supporting environmental protections. 

Cube Hydro’s current portfolio of hydrogenation assets consist of 

13 plants that comprise over 106 megawatts. The company is committed to developing, owning, and operating hydropower facilities 

across the United States. We are actively pursuing the potential 

development of new projects on existing dams. 

The National Hydropower Association and the Oakridge National 

Laboratories cite the potential to retrofit more than 54,000 dams 

in the United States, bringing more than 1,200 megawatts of new 

renewable energy onto the grid, while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and mitigating 40 million tons of greenhouse gas 

emissions annually. These opportunities are tremendous. However, 

the length, expense, and uncertainty of the hydro licensing approval process significantly disadvantages development. Licensing 

can extend for nearly a decade, and such a long, protracted, and 

uncertain regulatory process hampers investment by increasing 

regulatory risks, financial risks, and implementation risks, thus, 

driving up the cost of new hydropower at existing dams. The time 

and energy to secure the licenses and permits contributed to development costs that can be between 25 and 30 percent of the overall 

cost of the project. 

Cube Hydro experienced these regulatory challenges firsthand 

while developing its 6 megawatt Mahoning Creek Hydroelectric 

Project in western Pennsylvania. The overall regulatory process for 

the project spanned almost 10 years, causing significant difficulties 

in obtaining financing, and securing a long-term power purchase 

agreement. Although the end result is and continues to be a success story, the development process was a significant challenge. 

To facilitate hydropower development, the regulatory process 

should be streamlined to eliminate redundancies and provide developers and investors with added certainty. Removing duplication in 

the process, and placing a single agency in charge of managing the 

98 

entire approval process is needed. Such accountability is an essential attribute of efficient management and good government. The 

implementation of a streamlined regulatory process also needs to 

look to standardize the requirements associated with issuing a license to eliminate any competing requirements. We are particularly supportive of the provisions that will minimize duplications of 

studies and license proceedings, simplify the regulatory process for 

smaller projects, authorize new studies only when the FERC determines that additional data is necessary, weigh the cost-benefit 

analysis of licensing requirements, implement a use-it-or-lose-it 

provision for submitting a pre-application document within 3 years, 

as opposed to the current system which allows up to 8 years without developing the project. The end result is the establishment and 

enforcement of project timelines. These and other initiatives would 

help to simplify licensing requirements, and facilitate hydropower 

project development and relicensing. We believe that hydropower 

is, and should remain, an important component of and environmentally sustainable U.S. energy policy. Providing the ability to invest private capital to upgrade, modernize, and stabilize this resource is critical to maintaining and growing the currently installed base, which is the largest of any renewable resource in the 

United States. Hydropower is clean, renewable base load energy 

that helps to stabilize our electric grid. Federal policies should be 

adopted to encourage the development of this vast resource. Cube 

Hydro believes the draft legislative proposals under consideration 

by the subcommittee today are a reasoned and responsible modernization of federal licensing legislation to allow for increased development of this important resource. 

I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on 

hydropower’s role in meeting our nation’s energy and economic objectives, and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:] 

99 


96986.111
100 


96986.112
101 


96986.113
102 


96986.114
103 


96986.115
104 


96986.116
105 


96986.117
106 


96986.118
107 


96986.119
108 


96986.120
109 


96986.121
110 


96986.122
111 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Collins. 

And our next witness is Mr. Richard Roos-Collins, who is General Counsel for the Hydropower Reform Coalition, and Principal 

in the Water and Power Law Group, and he is testifying on behalf 

of the Hydropower Reform Coalition. So you are recognized for 5 

minutes, Mr. Collins. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ranking minority members. My name is Richard Roos-Collins. 

I appear on behalf of the Hydropower Reform Coalition. 

Our conservation groups represent two million people who fish, 

boat, and hike on the lands and waters of these hydropower 

projects. Since 1992, our coalition has reached 170 settlement 

agreements with licensees, including Pacific Gas and Electric, and 

also New York Power Authority. We worked with the National Hydropower Association and other stakeholders to negotiate the 2005 

integrated licensing process which FERC uses, and the 2013 Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act. 

We support the goal of expedited licensing consistent with the 

quality of the license. We do not support specific mechanisms in 

the discussion draft that would undercut cooperation between 

FERC and other agencies. 

Under the draft, FERC would control the schedule for the work 

of other agencies, determine facts relevant to fishways and federal 

reservations, and exclusively administer a license once issued. This 

would disrupt the cooperative approach that has succeeded under 

the Federal Power Act since 1935. Section 10(a) of that Act requires that each license must be best adapted to a comprehensive 

plan for power, flood control, water support, fish, and recreation. 

This mandate is achieved through cooperation. FERC determines 

overall how to advance the public interest, and it issues the license. 

Other agencies write specific articles for fishways, federal reservations, and water quality. FERC and those other agencies work hard 

to manage the tradeoffs between competing uses of waters, looking 

out two generations. In the modern era, licenses have increased 

power capacity by 4 percent, relative to the original licenses, and 

are providing billions of dollars of regional economic benefits associated with non-power uses. At one project alone, recreation, including family recreation, will produce more than $330 million in 

such benefits over the next 30 years. 

Now, let me turn to time. A licensing process is expected to take 

5 years or less. Why that period? The license is based on the studies conducted to evaluate how best to manage trade-offs over two 

generations. Should licensings end on time? Yes. And, in fact, most 

do. Are some licensings delayed today? Yes. Roughly 1⁄4. Do delays 

occur merely because agencies, other than FERC, write license articles? No. 

Let me give an example. Under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the 

federal agency that prescribes a fishway must provide a trial on 

disputed issues. These trials have consistently ended on time; 6 

months or less. The assigned judges did this by knocking heads. 

Section 1303 of the discussion draft would move these trials to 

112 

FERC. Would that save time? No. It would just transfer the authority to resolve those triable issues. 

We support commonsense mechanisms that save time and money 

by improving coordination between FERC and other agencies. Cut 

red tape? Yes. So let me make four suggestions. 

First, there should be a joint environmental document in each licensing. Today, there tend to be several. That is because FERC requires an agency cooperating in FERC’s own document to forego 

the right to be a party. Faced with that catch 22, states tend to 

prepare their own documents for their water quality certifications. 

Half of the delayed licensings are in California, and that is largely 

why. 

Second, a joint study plan should provide the information necessary for all license articles. 

Third, there should be a comprehensive schedule, and an agency 

dragging its feet should be subject to a judicial mandate. 

And lastly, we support the procedure used by former FERC 

Chair, Pat Wood, in the early 2000s. He held an annual hearing 

solely to address delayed licensings. He grilled his staff and parties 

alike to isolate and fix causes for delay. The backlog shrank very 

quickly. 

We are committed to work with this committee, industry, agencies, and other stakeholders to develop reforms that expedite 

licensings consistent with the public interest in enhancing power 

and other beneficial uses of our nation’s waters. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roos-Collins follows:] 

113 


96986.103
114 


96986.104
115 


96986.105
116 


96986.106
117 


96986.107
118 


96986.108
119 


96986.109
120 


96986.110
121 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Roos-Collins. 

And our next witness is Mr. Randy Livingston, who is Vice President of Power Generation, at Pacific Gas and Electric. And you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY LIVINGSTON 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Good morning, and thank you. 

PG&E is one of the nation’s largest combined electric and natural gas utilities, with more than 22,000 employees serving 16 million Californians. We are also the owner and operator of America’s 

largest investor-owned hydro system. With 26 FERC licenses, we 

are regularly in the process of relicensing, and in fact, today, we 

have seven projects in one phase or another of relicensing. 

Our system generates 3,900 megawatts of safe, clean, reliable, 

and affordable power for millions of Californians. It has been crucial in integrating other renewable energy sources. In addition, it 

provides water supply, recreation, flood control, taxes, and other 

benefits. Hydropower is an invaluable resource. It is one that our 

country can and should do more to capitalize on. 

We appreciate all the efforts done to date by past Congresses to 

advance hydroelectric generation. We believe this Congress has 

taken a very important step with the release of the discussion draft 

on hydropower regulatory modernization, and by holding today’s 

hearing. 

PG&E believes it is critical for hydroelectric power generators to 

be able to move through the relicensing processes more efficiently, 

more affordably, so we can implement the environmental protections, community improvements, and facility upgrades more quickly than we can today. 

We believe the discussion draft accomplishes this fairly and effectively, while maintaining important environmental protections and 

community interests. In particular, it does this by clarifying 

FERC’s exclusive authority to balance beneficial uses, and to enforce, amend, or otherwise administer all aspects of a FERC license. It improves the licensing process by allowing FERC to establish standards and deadlines for federal authorizations, it clarifies 

the scope of federal agencies’ authority under Sections 4(e) and 18 

of the Federal Power Act, and required those agencies to explain 

the effects of their conditions or prescription on other recognized 

benefits, such as energy production, flood control, and water supply. And it allows the licensee to seek a review of federal authorization or delay an issuance in the Federal Court of Appeals. 

We believe the commonsense and basic reforms can make hydropower more efficient, while keeping in place the environmental protections and other benefits that we all agree are critical. 

PG&E places a priority on using collaborative process to relicense a facility, as both understanding and incorporating the interests of stakeholders is critical. However, as it stands today, the current process is complex, protracted, leading to higher costs and delayed implementation of improvements and upgrades. To put this 

into perspective, PG&E’s recent experiences, even for a mediumsized license, it consistently takes over 7 years to renew an existing 

license for an existing facility, and often well over 10 years. The 

cost just to complete the process for the continued operation of a 

122 

facility can run over $50 million, and implementing the requirements of the new license can run into $100 million. All of these are 

costs that are ultimately born by the energy consumer. 

Relicensing process involves numerous federal and state agencies, and stakeholders with interests that may not always align. 

Therefore, we believe the process should be improved to focus on 

the following. Ensure environmental protections and preserve hydropower, achieve the multiple benefits of relicensing sooner, reduce cost, improve predictability, and enhance the collaborative 

process to be results and solution-oriented, and avoid conflicting license conditions. 

We would recommend a number of very specific improvements to 

address these license—these licensing matters, including improving 

coordination between federal and state environmental reviews, including an enforced discipline schedule for all parties involved, better defining the extent of authorities by federal agencies, improving 

federal and state agency coordination and transparency, and finally, by establishing a process for a single challenge opportunity 

before FERC to resolve issues or conflicting license restrictions. For 

example, in California, we are working to help our State Water 

Board environmental review follow a parallel path with the federal 

reviews, including relying on the same data and studies. To date, 

even though our State Water Board participates in relicensing, this 

process has generally been sequential and separate, at times resulting in conflicting license conditions. Today, it is up to the licensee to try and resolve those. As such, conditions have sometimes 

extended to private lands where there is no clear nexus to the 

project. 

The discussion draft being debated here would accomplish many 

of these objectives. Given the focus of this committee on crafting 

and advancing energy policy for the 21st century, you and your colleagues have an important opportunity to bring meaningful change 

to the hydropower relicensing process, and to assure that it is consistent with needs and opportunities today and many years ahead. 

PG&E looks forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Livingston follows:] 

123 


96986.065
124 


96986.066
125 


96986.067
126 


96986.068
127 


96986.069
128 


96986.070
129 


96986.071
130 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thanks, Mr. Livingston. 

And our next witness is John Suloway, who is Board Member of 

the National Hydropower Association, and you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SULOWAY 

Mr. SULOWAY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Rush, members of the subcommittee. My name is John Suloway. I 

appear today on behalf of the National Hydropower Association. I 

am on the Board of Directors, serve as Secretary of the Executive 

Committee, and I was President of NHA about 10 years ago. 

NHA appreciates and commends the work this committee and 

Chairman Upton, and also the discussion drafts proposed by Representative Kathy McMorris Rodgers. I am honored to be here 

today to discuss this issue, particularly with the focus on hydropower regulatory modernization. 

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I grew up in the electric 

utility industry. I have focused my entire career on project development, licensing, and environmental research. Most of that time was 

with the New York Power Authority. I retired from NYPA at the 

end of the year as the Vice President of Project Development Licensing. I loved my job, I loved the power authority, and I particularly loved working in hydropower. 

As you can tell from my written testimony, NYPA is one of the 

leading producers of electricity in the State of New York, and we 

have one of the largest hydropower systems in the entire country. 

My job and my group focused on project development and licensing 

of both generation and transmission projects. We worked a great 

deal on hydropower, but also I developed combined cycle plants and 

simple cycle turbine projects that burn natural gas, and also high 

voltage transmission lines. 

In my testimony, I am trying to convey four basic points. Number one, hydropower is a great technology. It has a proven track 

record of being a dependable and cost-effective source of generation. 

Also, in today’s world where the norm is change, hydropower is a 

crucial tool for maintaining the reliability of the changing electrical 

grid, while helping to address climate change. These characteristics 

made hydropower very attractive for economic development. There 

is a significant potential for increased hydropower capacity which 

is not being realized. 

Point two, the development of more hydropower should be a key 

component of America’s energy portfolio. We have thousands of 

megawatts that can be developed at existing dams that are not 

being developed, in part because the hydropower licensing process 

is protracted, costly, and risky. And us folks in the electrical utility 

industry tend to be risk-adverse. 

Point three, we, and I mean the big we here, industry, regulators, nongovernmental organizations, and Members of Congress, 

we have been working since the 1990s to improve the hydropower 

licensing process. We have made progress. There have been improvements in the licensing and administration of hydropower, but 

additional work needs to be done to make the process more efficient so a significant portion of that undeveloped capacity can be 

developed. 

131 

My fourth point. The goals and objectives expressed in the discussion draft bills would help to make hydropower more attractive 

to developers and investors, while ensuring careful consideration of 

environmental values and the protection of natural resources. Protecting the environment and natural resources is important, and is 

a commitment that the hydropower industry takes seriously. 

In conclusion, I have made a career of navigating these archaic 

processes. And that being said, I have come to the conclusion that 

we have a very important opportunity here that we should not 

miss. Like I mentioned before, incremental changes in the FERC 

process have improved the process, and as part of making those 

changes, we have created relationships, we have created friendships, and we can build on that communication improvements as 

we move forward. But when you stand back and you look at the 

fundamental question that is in front of us, why shouldn’t we be 

able to license a hydropower project for the same amount of time 

and the same amount of money as it does for a combined cycle 

plant that is burning natural gas? And when you look that question in the face, you know we have more work to do. 

So thank you for providing me this opportunity to testify on behalf of hydropower’s role in meeting our nation’s environmental, 

energy, and economic objectives, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Suloway follows:] 

132 


96986.072
133 


96986.073
134 


96986.074
135 


96986.075
136 


96986.076
137 


96986.077
138 


96986.078
139 


96986.079
140 


96986.080
141 


96986.081
142 


96986.082
143 


96986.083
144 


96986.084
145 


96986.085
146 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Suloway. And thank all of 

you for your testimony. 

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

It is obvious to everyone that the two subject matters we are 

looking at is natural gas pipelines, and we are looking at hydropower. And, Mr. Roos-Collins, I think I know where everybody 

stands on this draft. You focused on hydropower. You indicated— 

are you—did you say that you believe that there are some problems 

at FERC relating to licensing and relicensing of hydropower that 

need to be addressed, or I know that you are opposed to this particular draft, but are there some areas that you do think needs to 

be addressed? 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. 

And, Mr. Livingston, would you say that from your perspective 

at PG&E, is licensing more of an issue or is relicensing more of an 

issue? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Well, for us it is relicensing. I think as we look 

at our portfolio, we are going through a significant period of relicensing and are regularly involved in it. The licensing is a critical 

issue for development of the new resources on, for instance, nonpower dams—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON [continuing]. And for the licensing potential for 

pump storage development to help integrate other—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Now, you said you had seven active relicensing projects right now, I believe, and I think your testimony 

talked about the cost would be $20 to $50 million. And I think you 

mentioned $100 million. What was that about? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is about license implementation costs. So 

not only do you have the cost to get the new license, then you have 

to comply with all the new terms. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And my understanding, I am not an expert, but 

my understanding, the relicensing is almost as cumbersome as the 

licensing process, is that correct? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes, it is the same. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. It is the same, OK. OK. 

And, Mr. Santa—well, back to you, Mr. Livingston. I have heard 

about one relicensing project that you all have been involved in 

that has gone on for a number of years. I don’t know specifically 

the information about it, but could you give us a recent example 

of a challenging and cumbersome hydropower licensing proceeding 

that you are going through that has been particularly frustrating? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Well, I think just our most recent work is on 

our Desalba-Centerville Project. It is a 26 megawatt project. Lots 

of important resource issues there to work through. That process 

is currently in its eleventh year. We are well over $26 million, well 

over $1 million per megawatt, to go into relicensing. And we are— 

just got a water quality certificate—a proposed water quality certificate that has competing license conditions with everything that 

we have been talking about for the previous 11 years. And we are 

going to have to work to—now to resolve those before a final license can be—— 

147 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So is it this primarily a federal issue or a state 

issue, or—— 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. It is combined. The State Water Board is working under the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. The concept that I think many of us are trying 

to work through is how we can make the same set of studies, the 

same—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON [continuing]. Time frame, and the same process 

all come together at the end so—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how many years have you been involved in 

this project? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. It started its relicensing 11 years ago. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Eleven years ago. And it is still not resolved. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. It is still not resolved. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. Santa, Mrs. Elefant had mentioned in her testimony that 

from her perspective, there is really no need for change, and she 

specifically said if you have a problem, you can file this lawsuit. I 

am assuming that you don’t view that as a practical solution because of cost. 

Mr. SANTA. No, we don’t view that as a practical solution, Chairman Whitfield. For example, Ms. Elefant mentioned two instances 

in 10 years that someone had availed themselves of that; one of 

which was resolved reasonably quickly, but the other one involved 

multiple years, two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and ultimately, the project applicant ended up walking 

away from the project after investing years and significant resources in trying to develop that project. 

I think it is important to remember here that the current law 

would compel the applicant to sue the very agency from which it 

is trying to get the permit. Is that going to incline that agency to 

be more cooperative? Not to mention that same applicant may have 

other applications on other projects pending before that same agency. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You had mentioned this GAO report, I believe it 

was in your testimony, but it basically said that the average length 

of time on one of these pipeline certificates is like 5 years, I believe. 

Mr. SANTA. It was 558 days. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. 558. The 5 years, I guess, was the pre-filing and 

the other agency permits and so forth. 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, sir. Yes, I think it was if you took into account 

the time from project inception, the pre-filing process—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. SANTA [continuing]. The FERC process, the other permits—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. SANTA [continuing]. And construction, the 5-year period 

is—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. SANTA [continuing]. A reasonable estimate. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. And I point that out just because it does appear that there is an issue here. I mean some people are indicating 

148 

that they don’t think there is an issue, and that is why we have 

these hearings to hear all sides. 

So my time has expired. At this time, recognize the gentleman 

from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Elefant, as a former FERC lawyer, do you believe that requiring other agencies to defer to FERC on the scope of environmental review would help expedite the natural gas permitting process and leading to fewer or more lawsuits, and are FERC’s staff 

equipped to determine the scope of environmental review over and 

above the experts in other agencies with jurisdiction over these 

issues? 

Ms. ELEFANT. I don’t think that it would expedite anything. The 

problem is when you are looking at the scope of environmental review, it relates to what the agency’s mandate is. So, for example, 

I have seen cases where FERC has determined, for example, that 

it will not consider cumulative impacts related to fracking because 

that is something that FERC has determined is not causally connected to pipeline certification. And that is a decision that has been 

affirmed by the Second Circuit. There are other state or federal 

agencies for which this issue of fracking is more closely related to 

their mandate, so they might consider that within the scope of the 

issues they address when they are granting a permit. Unless you 

change the underlying regulatory mandate of those related state 

and federal agencies, that is the only way you can eliminate consideration of those issues. They look at different issues, that is why 

they are different agencies and they have different mandates. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. 

Mr. Roos-Collins, I know that you are not an agency expert on 

how this bill would impact commercially mandated environmental 

protection laws, but I don’t see anybody else on the panel who is 

an agency expert either, nor did I see anyone on the previous panel 

who is an agency expert, but I just want to get your opinion, if I 

could. How would this bill impact issues relevant to the Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture who are the very agencies that are responsible 

for protecting water quality, America’s fishways, federal reservations, and other of our nation’s natural resources? Can you give me 

an opinion on that? 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. I do. The discussion draft would transfer 

much of the authority to FERC. And I will leave aside pre-licensing, which is what our testimony has addressed. Let me briefly 

mention post-licensing. The opening page of the discussion draft 

provides that FERC will have exclusive authority to administer a 

license—— 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS [continuing]. Which is to say that it will have 

exclusive authority to administer those terms of a license that derive from a water quality certification. That is trouble, in terms of 

actually protecting the beneficial uses of our waters. And to be 

clear, Ranking Minority Member, I believe that FERC is a very capable federal agency. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. 

149 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. I respect Ms. Miles and her staff. They are 

competent. This is not about competency; it is about on-the-ground 

knowledge. In a typical proceeding, FERC staff will visit the project 

a few days. By contrast, the staff for the State Water Agency, or 

for the Fish and Wildlife Service and NIPS, or the Forest Service, 

will have walked those grounds dozens, if not hundreds of times. 

That on-the-ground knowledge is what Congress respected in the 

1935 Federal Power Act, which delegated to them limited authorities to use that knowledge to protect certain resources. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, it seems to me as though, Mr. Roos-Collins, that 

we are at a position that the question—when shifting the responsibility for holding trial-type hearings on any disputed issue of material fact from the secretaries of the same departments, Interior, Agriculture, or Commerce, to FERC, would that, in your opinion, do 

anything to expedite or will it be akin to a rat running around a 

maze, no way out, in terms of the permitting process, would this 

help us at all expedite? 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. My opinion is that it would not expedite, and 

it—indeed, it could delay. 

And if I might give one brief example. The National Marine Fishery Services uses administrative law judges assigned from the 

Coast Guard. Those judges conduct a trial as though they were onboard a ship. At a pretrial conference, they once looked at the attorneys and they said, you have pending motions, if you argue 

those motions I will cut you off, and if I cut you off I will probably 

rule against you. You want to argue on the motions? And, of 

course, all of the parties said no. Well, that pretrial conference was 

over in 15 minutes. 

My experience with the judges assigned by Interior and Commerce and Agriculture is that they are tough and fair, and as a result, I don’t think moving this to FERC would expedite decisions. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Santa, I believe you may have heard my questions with the 

prior panel, and so you know that I am concerned about placement 

of gas pipelines, but I want to talk to you about the need for gas 

pipelines because that is the driving force behind all of this, particularly in those areas that have relied on coal to produce their 

electricity. With the myriad of different regulations that the EPA 

has proposed, many of those power generating companies, the electric company as we know it back home, are having to turn to natural gas, isn’t that true? 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, sir, that is true. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And as a result of that, and looking forward at the 

impact of the closing of many coal-fired power electric generation 

units, many of those, particularly in the Southeast and the East, 

are looking at using natural gas instead, isn’t that also true? 

Mr. SANTA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And as a result of that, there are some serious 

concerns across the industry that if the natural gas pipelines are 

not built in a quick manner, or brought to bear fairly soon, we will 

have a problem with either rolling brownouts or possibly even 

150 

blackouts in many parts of the East and Southwest, is that not also 

true? 

Mr. SANTA. Many parties have expressed that in connection with 

the Clean Power Plan. We are confident that gas and gas pipelines 

ultimately can meet that need, but INGAA too, in our comments 

on the Clean Power Plan and at the FERC technical conferences 

noted the timing issues in terms of the time needed to develop infrastructure versus the compliance deadlines. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And, of course, it is one of the reasons why I support legislation that would cut the Clean Power Plan off until the 

litigation is over because it is going to create huge problems for 

electric generation companies across the United States, but particularly in the Southeast and the East. And I have serious questions about the legality of the EPA’s interpretation—I should say 

their new interpretation, not their original interpretation of Section 

111(d). And so that is one of the big drivers and the reason that 

right now there are as many as four, I know of at least two, a third 

that I have heard about, and a fourth that has been indicated in 

an article today, looking at gas pipelines in my region, and that is 

what is driving all of this, isn’t that what you would indicate to us? 

Mr. SANTA. It is a significant driver. There is also industrial demand that is part of the demand for those pipelines. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, and the natural gas pipeline—the natural 

gas price being low is a factor to be considered in that, and that 

is what is driving that new manufacturing demand as well, isn’t it? 

Mr. SANTA. That is correct, sir, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so if we are going to have more good-paying 

jobs, if we are going to have electricity in our homes, whether I 

agree with the EPA’s regulations or not, we are going to need natural gas pipelines, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Now, that being said, how can we do this in a better fashion because—and I would submit one of those would be to 

give a better timeline on the EPA regulations, if they are found 

legal, which I don’t think they will be, but what can we do to do 

a better job, because the decision on the ground suddenly has folks 

in their yard trying to figure out where they are going to place a 

pipeline, and one month it is in one county, and the next month 

it is in another county. And it has really got a lot of folks, I think, 

legitimately upset that they are about to lose their family farm or 

their home, or their area of concern, nearby them. And how can we 

allay those fears for the general public? 

Mr. SANTA. You are right that this does acutely affect landowners, it affects their major investment, their home, their farm, 

their property. It also is occasioned by the fact that we have prolific 

gas supplies in places that, at least in recent history, haven’t been 

prolific supply areas, and so it has created the demand for more 

pipelines to get that to the market. I think that overall, the FERC 

does a very good job with its process. I know that INGAA and its 

member companies are committed to this because, beyond going 

through the construction and siting process, these landowners will 

be our neighbors for years. I think that the legislation today is intended to try to make that process more efficient and yet still respect the rights of landowners and environmental concerns, and 

151 

also as part of the Administrations’ Quadrennial Energy Review, 

the first installment focused on infrastructure, they focused on improving the permitting process. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I am assuming that my region is not alone 

in having a number of proposals being made because we are going 

to have to move a lot of gas around the country. And of course, we 

had the Governor of Maine in here, requesting that we facilitate 

that somehow to get the gas to them, or to allow them to hook-up 

to electricity either at the hydro side or from Canada. 

Ms. Elefant, do you think FERC is equipped to take a look at the 

big picture and decide if they need to have two, three, or four pipelines passing through the western part of Virginia? 

Ms. ELEFANT. I think at some point somebody has to take a look 

at the big picture. The Natural Gas Act, although it is not imbued 

with the same public interest standard as the Federal Power Act 

governing hydro, does issue certificates for public necessity and 

convenience. If you look at the history of the Act in some of the 

older cases, FERC or the Federal Power Commission played a larger role, and they would look to see if there was a need for three 

or four pipelines, and try to take a programmatic view of what the 

public need was. In addition to development of multiple pipelines, 

there are other ways to increase efficiencies of existing pipelines to 

capture additional natural gas. FERC, in fact, just last month, implemented a policy which would incentivize existing pipeline developers to address leaks in the pipeline. And there was a study 

shown recently in the Boston area that if you could capture all that 

leakage, you could increase the pipeline capacity by almost 30 percent. So I think that in addition to looking at just building more, 

we need to take a more robust approach and also look at some creative solutions, for example, making pipelines safer and addressing 

leaks, which is really a win-win for everybody, including the pipeline, which gets incentive payments to do that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. My time is up. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time is up. 

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

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome Mr. Livingston here to the committee this afternoon, now. 

PG&E has done a lot of creative things with respect to the grid, 

and it has taken a lot of steps in terms of pipeline safety and leakage, so I want to make sure you get credit for that. 

Are there particular federal agencies that are having trouble 

coming to the table on the hydro issue in a timely manner? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I think each of the agencies, they have very 

dedicated folks and they are doing their best, but in a lot of cases, 

what we are looking at is agencies that have single or a few resource focus. Right? So if you are working in the water area or 

around land, or in other issues on fish, the same thing with some 

of the other stakeholders in this who might be interested in recreation or fishing, and it is really all of that coming together. What 

one agency versus another one would do as far as a prescription 

is—might interfere with what—another one. So the real point is 

trying to come together in a way that there is a decision-maker, 

there is one set of decisions. So it is not one particular agency, it 

152 

is when we have sequential decision-making going on and having 

an agency that can balance all the beneficial uses, and right now 

the only federal agency in the hydrospace that has that in statute 

is FERC. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are problems with regard to timing and responsiveness exacerbated by the drought in California now? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Sure. I think, particularly since we are in the 

fourth year of drought, and with the Governor making sure that we 

are taking decisive action on that. There is a lot of focus on trying 

to deal with the issues associated with water supply in the state, 

and many of the same folks and many of the same agencies are devoting their focus, rightly so, to that, and that does recently have 

an impact on—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON [continuing]. Agency timing and so on. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Santa, you indicated in your testimony that 

a number of reasons for potential delays to permits, including lack 

of agency resources, which I am sort of getting from Mr. Livingston 

as well, cooperation with FERC and applications being deemed incomplete. Could you talk a little bit about the cooperation with 

FERC? I am not sure what that means. 

Mr. SANTA. I think that I would have to go back and look specifically at the report, but I think it gets to the issue of—and a lot of 

what is attempted to be addressed in the discussion draft, of other 

permitting agencies being involved early in the process with the 

FERC in working cooperatively. For example, there have been 

some instances where agencies will not begin their process until 

some other action has been taken. So rather than things occurring 

concurrently, they may occur sequentially. That adds to the time. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. SANTA. I think it was trying to address things like that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. Do you think there is a chance 

that if this law or this bill were passed and enacted into law, that 

it would make delays longer or give rejections of applications because the agency didn’t have time to complete the study? 

Mr. SANTA. Well, two things. Number one, Ms. Miles, I think, 

had some good comments on the draft where she noted that there 

were parts of it that could be interpreted to inhibit FERC’s ability 

to try to resolve some of these things earlier in the process, rather 

than later. And I would certainly commend the subcommittee to 

take a look at that and see if that could be addressed. 

The issue of whether it might lead to rejections as the way for 

the agency to act, that is actually something that we talked about 

last year at a hearing in conjunction with Mr. Pompeo’s legislation. 

I know that concern was expressed. And I think on behalf of 

INGAA’s members, we made the point that, quite frankly, we 

would prefer the definite answer, even if it is a negative answer, 

to be engaged in a protracted process of waiting for an answer. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I think what you have indicated is there 

have been increases in federal authorization that failed to meet the 

90-day deadline. Do you think that is because there are more applicants, because there are more projects being approved, because 

there is more capacity being approved in the process? 

153 

Mr. SANTA. That is a good question. I don’t know. The one thing 

I would say is that the study that we pointed to in our testimony 

was released in, I believe, 2012, so it dealt with projects that were 

2012 and earlier. That was before really the wave of projects and 

infrastructure we have seen proposed in response to the shale revolution and all of the new supply coming to the market. So I am not 

sure that those delays really had to do with the number of projects 

being proposed to the agencies, but that is a good question. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

I have a couple of other questions I would like to ask, and if any 

of you all want to ask any others, fine. But, Mr. John Collins, one 

question I want to ask you is, do you think hydropower is disadvantaged by this current regulatory process? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, I do. I believe that the time it takes to license 

and the expense of licensing new hydropower or relicensing hydropower puts it at a distinct disadvantage relative to other renewable 

technologies. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, I mentioned in my opening statement that 

there are certain renewables like wind and solar that get precedence, that get preferential treatment, and are even exempted from 

some federal laws. But OK, I just wanted to clarify that. 

And then, Mr. Suloway, and maybe Mr. Roos-Collins might want 

to comment on this as well, but you stated that other federal resource agencies have the authority to impose mandatory environmental conditions on the FERC license, and that that seems to contribute to delay and additional cost. Am I reading something into 

your statement, or is that accurate what I have said that you believe? 

Mr. SULOWAY. No, they do employ mandatory conditions that do 

increase the cost of owning a FERC license. That—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. SULOWAY. That is a fact. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you want to make a comment on that, Mr. 

Collins—Roos-Collins? I mean you don’t have to, I was just—— 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, yes, the license articles required by other federal agencies have increased cost in terms of implementation. The question that we ask is, are the benefits worth 

the cost? And so to take New York Power Authority’s St. Lawrence 

FDR Project as a for instance, the federal and state agencies alike 

use these very authorities through settlement. I dare say that the 

result for the power authority may have been more expensive than 

what would have happened if FERC had exclusive authority. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. I think it is also fair to say that the benefits—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS [continuing]. Were significant. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, well, I think that is important because 

sometimes there are additional costs, but maybe the benefits outweigh that. But also let me ask this question. Do these mandatory 

conditioning authority of other federal resource agencies frustrate 

FERC’s ability to balance or modify the public interest? Do any of 

you have a thought on that? 

154 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I don’t think anyone disputes the rights of a 

federal agency to prescribe what happens on its land. I think part 

of the question goes how far does that authority go? Should it apply 

to neighboring lands, should it apply to private lands, should it 

apply to lands that are far away and have no clear nexus? So I 

think it is really getting down to having Congress define the extent 

of where that authority goes and how it is used, rather than any 

recognition that they don’t have the right to prescribe how somebody who is a guest on their land should treat the land. And I 

think we all agree with that. It is just—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON [continuing]. A matter of extent and where. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Green is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. Typically, on 

a Wednesday up here, there are so many issues going on and so 

many hearings. 

Ms. Elefant, you mentioned in your testimony that you are not 

aware of any federal agency that allows a trump card. In the LNG 

export permitting process, FERC requires the bulk of the NEPA 

analysis with nothing but a concurrence from the DOE. Why is deference to FERC not acceptable? 

Ms. ELEFANT. Well, I think that the provision with deference to 

DOE doesn’t necessarily have to do with the resource review. The 

LNG review authority still expressly preserves the power of states 

to issue permits under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and 

the Coastal Zone Management Act, and so I think that that statutes have such unique relationship to protecting those resources 

and having sort of an established procedure that deferring to FERC 

could encroach on the policies that were intended to be protected 

by those other laws. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, what we are trying to do is get more coordination between the federal agencies, but you mentioned also that you 

are concerned about public participation. Would a 30-day notice 

and comment period regarding issue resolution alleviate some of 

those concerns? 

Ms. ELEFANT. I think that the provision related to issue resolution, I have said I didn’t think that something like that was necessary because there are multiple opportunities for issues to currently be resolved. For example, in one case that I have that I 

think would be accurately characterized as a delay case, the state 

agency and the Corps of Engineers, very early in the pre-filing 

process and again in the application process, expressed some concerns and reservations about where the project was going to go, 

and also asked for additional information on certain resources. And 

it seemed to me that there were many opportunities to resolve 

those along the way rather than have it be done in this pressured 

30-day period, like the statute prescribes. There are still opportunities for the agencies to cooperate, and that does happen from time 

to time. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know the pre-filing work, I don’t know 

if we have exhausted the success of that, but that is a goal to do 

it, to get the Corps and different agencies together so the applicant 

155 

will know what the problem is and can deal with that early on, and 

so that is our goal, I guess. 

Mr. Santa, in your testimony, you state that challenging a permitting agency’s tardiness or inaction is time-consuming and risky. 

Where do most companies focus on their challenges? Is it a state 

agency or a federal agency? 

Mr. SANTA. It varies because in some instances, it is a state 

agency acting pursuant to delegated federal authority. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. SANTA. For example, I think in both of the cases where pipelines have availed themselves of the judicial review provisions, they 

have been challenging state agency actions. 

Mr. GREEN. What state would that be? 

Mr. SANTA. I believe one of them was Connecticut, and I believe 

the other one was Maryland. 

Ms. ELEFANT. Maryland was a delay case. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. So it depends on the area, I guess. 

Mr. SANTA. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. I was wondering if that was a problem with Texas. 

OK. Would arbitration better serve that approval process? 

Mr. SANTA. I really don’t know. That is an interesting question, 

Mr. Green, as to whether or not that would be something that 

might work. I think that the provisions that are in the draft now 

in terms of a dispute resolution process, I think are intended to 

kind of go in the direction of how do we resolve these disputes. I 

have not heard of arbitration being suggested before in the context 

of a permitting agency, an applicant, and the other stakeholders. 

Mr. GREEN. Right. That would get you to a decision though. 

Mr. SANTA. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. And that is the problem. 

Mr. SANTA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. The time frame keeps getting extended because the 

decision is not there. 

Mr. SANTA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Isn’t that the role though for the pre-filing review is 

to try and get that information out before during the pre-filing? 

Mr. SANTA. I think that is the goal of the pre-filing is to try to 

get these issues on the table early to begin to resolve them, and 

also to deal with them in a context before you have got a FERC 

application, in which case the ex parte rules and various things 

come to attach that tend to make it more cumbersome and more 

difficult to resolve. So yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have run out of time, but 

I appreciate it. But I also know that in the—because obviously, 

where I come from, the LNG exporting permits are an issue, and 

it is not necessarily FERC, it is also DOE. And I said it earlier, 

the Corpus Christie permitting for both FERC but also with DOE 

was very quick, and—comparatively, but obviously, we have a 

whole bunch more in line because most of those permits will probably come from Louisiana and Texas instead of the east or west 

coast. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You are welcome. 

Recognize Mr. Rush. 

156 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member Pallone asked this question of the previous panel, and I want to ask Mr. Roos-Collins the same question. 

Mr. Roos-Collins, buried in the language of the draft is a twoword change to Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. The words 

on the existing statute ‘‘shall deem’’ are replaced by the single word 

‘‘determines’’. The context of this change is mandatory conditioning 

authority of the resource agencies. 

I have three questions. Is this a significant change from current 

law? What would be the practical effect of this change on the ability of resource agencies to protect and manage things under their 

jurisdiction? And lastly, will this change result in more or less litigation, in your opinion? 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. In my opinion, the change in those two words 

is not significant, and here is why. I think the intent of the discussion draft is to change from a verb, deem, that has lots of discretion 

to determine, which sounds like it must be more rational and based 

in the record. That is what these agencies already must do. There 

is a case called Bangor Hydro, decided by the D.C. Circuit in 1996, 

that expressly held that a federal agency cannot have a field of 

dreams justification for a condition; it must have a rational basis 

and state a specific goal. And so with respect to those two words, 

what I see is an intent to recognize the holding of that case, and 

similar cases that followed. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, that concludes the questions, and concludes the hearing. And once again, I want to thank all of you for 

taking your time and coming and sharing your views and experiences with us. We look forward to working with all of you as we 

move forward trying to develop an overall energy package. 

And we will keep the record open for 10 days. And I would like 

to ask unanimous consent that the following statements and letters 

be submitted for the record. A letter from the Edison Electric Institute in support of the hydropower regulatory modernization discussion draft, and second, a statement from the American Public 

Power Association in support of both the natural gas pipeline permitting reform and hydropower regulatory modernization discussion drafts. 

VOICE. Without objection. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection, so entered. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. And thank you all once again. 

And that will conclude today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

The work on our bipartisan energy legislation continues, and to date the areas 

of agreement have significantly outweighed the areas of disagreement. I expect that 

trend to continue today as the subcommittee addresses two key topics, hydropower 

and natural gas pipelines, where I believe there is common ground on the direction 

the nation should be taking. 

The Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) set the stage by 

highlighting the transformative potential of American energy as well as the need 

for permitting reform in order for that potential to be realized. The administration’s 

157 

report noted the economic, energy security, and environmental benefits of energy 

sources like hydropower and natural gas, particularly when it is efficiently delivered 

through modern infrastructure. The QER recommended changes to existing policies 

in order to achieve these goals, and I believe the two discussion drafts today fit in 

well with the message from the administration. 

Hydropower and natural gas are both critical sources of energy and jobs in Michigan and across the country, but the federal process of licensing hydroelectric facilities and permitting interstate gas pipelines has grown far more cumbersome than 

necessary. The discussion drafts clear away the red tape and add increasing 

amounts of transparency so all stakeholders are aware of the process, which will 

help to pave the way for additional needed energy from these sources. 

Both discussion drafts place the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

in charge, and require it to set clear deadlines that all other agencies involved must 

meet. The end result is a more timely and certain permitting process for hydroelectric power and gas pipeline approvals. At the same time, all environmental and 

public safety provisions are left intact. 

There will surely be points of debate, but I am also sure that we will be able to 

achieve resolution to most differences. That is what is what these hearings are for, 

and I look forward to continued progress on our energy bill. 

158 


96986.086
159 


96986.087
160 


96986.088
161 


96986.089
162 


96986.090
163 


96986.091
164 


96986.092
165 


96986.093
166 


96986.094
167 


96986.095
168 


96986.096
169 


96986.097
170 


96986.098
171 


96986.099
172 


96986.100
173 


96986.101
174 

Æ 


96986.102