U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–215 WASHINGTON : 2019

STATE OF THE NATION’S ENERGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2018 

Serial No. 115–102 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

Gary McCarthy, Mayor, City of Schenectady ........................................................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

John Devine, Senior Vice President, HDR, Inc. .................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 146 

Brian Slocum, Vice President, Operations, ITC Holdings Corporation ............... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 150 

Jim Ross, Director, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction and Maintenance Department ..................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 156 

Jennifer Chen, Attorney, Sustainable FERC Project Climate & Clean Energy, 

Natural Resources Defense Council ................................................................... 49 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 158 

Brenda Hellyer, Chancellor, San Jacinto College ................................................. 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 168 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Utilities Technology Council, submitted by Mr. Harper ......... 115 

Statement of the American Public Gas Association, submitted by Mr. Harper . 118 

Article entitled, ‘‘Debunking the False Claims of Environmental Review Opponents,’’ the Center for American Progress, May 3, 2017, submitted by Mr. 

Rush ...................................................................................................................... 120 

Article entitled, ‘‘Trump’s Infrastructure Scam Will Gut Environmental Protections To Benefit Corporate Polluters,’’ the Center for American Progress, 

January 28, 2018, submitted by Mr. Rush ........................................................ 131 

Statement of BlueGreen Alliance, submitted by Mr. Rush .................................. 134 

Article entitled, ‘‘Congress should support an infrastructure plan that builds 

infrastructure—not guts health & environmental protections,’’ Earthjustice, 

February 27, 2018, submitted by Mr. Rush ....................................................... 139 

Article entitled, ‘‘Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Puts Burden on State and 

Private Money,’’ Earthjustice, February 12, 2018, submitted by Mr. Rush .... 142 

1 The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Ross’s submitted questions 

for the record by the time of printing. 

(1) 

STATE OF THE NATION’S ENERGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2018 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

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

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

Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Daniel Butler, 

Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Jordan Davis, Director of Policy and External Affairs; Wyatt 

Ellertson, Professional Staff, Energy/Environment; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach 

and Coalitions; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; 

Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Milly Lothian, Press Assistant & Digital Coordinator; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy/ 

Environment; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; 

Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Austin Stonebreaker, Press 

Assistant; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, DCCP; Hamlin Wade, 

Special Advisor, External Affairs; Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow; Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; Tiffany 

Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rick 

Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 

Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Today’s hearing, the ‘‘State of the Nation’s Energy 

Infrastructure’’ will provide members with the opportunity to explore the challenges and the opportunities related to the maintenance, modernization, and development of energy infrastructure. 

Two weeks ago, the White House unveiled its framework for rebuilding infrastructure across the country. Citing the need to mainVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
2 

tain our country’s global competitiveness and improve our citizens’ 

quality of life, the President’s plan seeks to stimulate at least $1.5 

trillion in new investment over the next decade. 

And while the President’s plan touches all sectors, from roads 

and bridges to airports and hospitals and dams, this hearing will 

focus on the state of the Nation’s energy infrastructure and how we 

can make meaningful improvements. Joining us today is a panel of 

witnesses who can speak to the needs and challenges of a changing 

energy landscape. 

Since the start of the 115th Congress, this committee has held 

dozens of hearings related to infrastructure and the House has already passed legislation on interstate pipeline siting, hydropower 

licensing, and the development of cross-border energy infrastructure. That being said, this committee’s infrastructure efforts are 

ongoing as there is no question that more needs to get done and 

more projects need to get built, for to deliver our nation’s abundant 

energy resources to consumers in a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective manner, new electric transmission lines and natural gas 

pipelines have got to be constructed. 

And as we have heard during our series of Powering America 

hearings, the Nation’s electrical grid faces enormous challenges as 

needed infrastructure is not getting built fast enough in some areas 

of the country. Additionally, we have got to face the fact that much 

of our existing infrastructure is in fact aging. The average age of 

a coal-fired power plant in the U.S. is 40 years old and the country’s fleet of nuclear reactors isn’t much younger. Many of these 

power plants are now facing retirement due to their inability to 

compete economically in a market-based environment. Notably, the 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Station in New Jersey, which is the oldest 

reactor in the country, recently announced that it will retire later 

this year after nearly 50 years of service. 

So we can’t afford to have the energy infrastructure that does not 

meet America’s needs or reflect the evolution of our energy markets. Instead, we have got to modernize our outdated system by encouraging innovative developments and state-of-the-art technology 

such as battery storage and advanced transmission devices. I 

should recognize that much is already being done on this front with 

private capital largely funding these improvements. In fact, electric 

utilities and independent transmission developers spent an estimated $23 billion in 2017 on new transmission infrastructure 

alone; while the natural gas utilities invested a record $25 billion 

last year across its industry. 

Though these private sector investments are critical in a highly 

capital-intensive industry, we should be mindful that none of it will 

get built if we don’t have a trained workforce that is capable of innovating, designing, and constructing this new infrastructure. Not 

only do we need skilled linesmen and women and pipefitters but 

we also need the engineers to power systems in nuclear technologies in many other trades. The challenge associated with developing a skilled workforce may be greater than the challenge of 

siting and constructing infrastructure projects. So that’s an important part of this conversation. 

3 

I am glad we have some of the folks who can speak to us on that 

issue, and with that, I want to welcome our panel for sure and 

yield the balance of my time to Mr. Olson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today’s hearing, the ‘‘State of the Nation’s Energy Infrastructure’’ will provide 

members with the opportunity to explore the challenges and opportunities related 

to the maintenance, modernization, and development of energy infrastructure. Two 

weeks ago, the White House unveiled its framework for rebuilding infrastructure in 

America. Citing the need to maintain our country’s global competitiveness and improve our citizens’ quality of life, the President’s plan seeks to stimulate at least 

$1.5 trillion in new investment over the next 10 years. 

While the President’s plan touches all sectors, from roads and bridges to airports 

and hospitals, this hearing will focus on the state of the Nation’s energy infrastructure and how we can make meaningful improvements. Joining us today is a panel 

of witnesses who can speak to the needs and challenges of a changing energy landscape. 

Since the start of the 115th Congress, this committee has held dozens of hearings 

relating to infrastructure, and the House has already passed legislation on interstate pipeline siting, hydropower licensing, and the development of cross-border energy infrastructure. That being said, this committee’s infrastructure efforts are ongoing as there is no question that more needs to get done and more projects need 

to be built. If we are to deliver our nation’s abundant energy resources to consumers 

in a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective manner, new electric transmission lines and 

natural gas pipelines must be constructed. 

As we’ve heard during our series of Powering America hearings, the Nation’s electrical grid faces enormous challenges as needed infrastructure is not getting built 

fast enough in some areas. Additionally, we must face the fact that much of our existing infrastructure is aging—the average age of a coal-fired power plant in the 

U.S. is 40 years old and the country’s fleet of nuclear reactors isn’t much younger. 

Many of these power plants are now facing retirement due to their inability to compete economically in a market-based environment. Notably, the uclear station in 

New Jersey, which is the oldest reactor in the country, recently announced that it 

will retire later this year after nearly 50 years of service. 

We cannot afford to have energy infrastructure that does not meet America’s 

needs or reflect the evolution of our energy markets. Instead, we must modernize 

outdated systems by encouraging innovative developments in state-of-the-art technologies such as battery storage and advanced transmission devices. I should recognize that much is already being done on this front with private capital largely funding these improvements. In fact, electric utilities and independent transmission developers spent an estimated $23 billion in 2017 on new transmission infrastructure 

alone; while the natural gas utilities invested a record $25 billion last year across 

its industry. 

While these private-sector investments are critical in a highly capital-intensive industry, we should be mindful that none of it will get built if we don’t have a trained 

workforce that is capable of innovating, designing, and constructing this new infrastructure. Not only do we need skilled linemen and pipefitters, but we also need engineers in power systems and nuclear technologies, and in many other trades. The 

challenge associated with developing a skilled workforce may be greater than the 

challenge of siting and constructing infrastructure projects. This is an important 

point in this conversation, so I’m glad that we have some folks with us who can 

speak to this issue. 

With that, I’d like to thank this entire panel of distinguished witnesses for appearing today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and welcome to our six witnesses. 

Having a Texan on the panel gives me a chance to do what Texans love to do and that’s to brag about my home state. The greater 

Houston region has some of the best technical colleges in the country and Texas-22, who I worked for, has the best of the best. 

Schools like Houston Community College, Texas State Technical 

College, Alvin Community College, Wharton County Junior College, 

who actually built a new campus in Matagorda County to meet the 

4 

needs of retiring workers at the South Texas Power Plant. But the 

top gun at home is San Jacinto College and that’s because of their 

chancellor, Brenda Hellyer. We are honored to have you here, 

Chancellor Hellyer. 

When America’s largest petrochemical complex has a need, they 

turn to Dr. Hellyer and San Jac. One example is their new maritime technological training center. It simulates all 51 miles of the 

Port of Houston Ship Channel and it’s so real. I was down there 

a year ago right by the Harbor Bridge. It snowed heavy snow—blizzard. The waves started rocking my little tugboat. I got seasick in 

a simulator. It’s real, and that’s San Jacinto Junior—San Jacinto 

College. Welcome, Dr. Hellyer. Glad to have you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush. 

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

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss for words on that. But 

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

hearing today on the energy infrastructure. 

As you know, investing in the Nation’s aging infrastructure is a 

top priority for members on both sides of the aisle and it is my 

hope that we can address this issue in a bipartisan manner. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the proposal put forth by the 

Trump administration leaves a lot to be desired and, frankly, is a 

poor starting point, from my perspective. The President’s infrastructure plan fails to provide adequate Federal investment in the 

Nation’s antiquated energy infrastructure. But, rather, it attempts 

to short circuit environmental regulations and it places the vast 

majority of the funding burden on cash-strapped states and local 

municipalities. In fact, under the administration’s proposal, states 

will be prohibited from receiving more than 10 percent of the total 

grant fund and 80 percent of new investment must come from nonfederal sources. 

Mr. Chairman, this proposal resembles less of a national infrastructure plan and instead will simply pick winners and losers 

where only a limited number of states, localities, and affluent communities will actually benefit from the president’s plan. 

Instead, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge this subcommittee to look 

at a more serious alternative outlined in H.R. 2479, the Leading 

Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s America, or LIFT America, Act introduced by Ranking Member Pallone, myself, and the rest of the minority members of the Energy and Commerce Committee back in 

May 2017. This bill offers thoughtful recommendations that will 

surely benefit all Americans including providing provisions that 

would invest in cleaner water infrastructure, clean energy infrastructure, more resilient broadband, brownfields redevelopment 

and, last but not least, health care infrastructure. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I have also sponsored a bill that 

would strengthen the Nation’s workforce by investing in initiatives 

to train minority women and unemployed coal workers to compete 

for good-paying energy and manufacturing jobs and careers. Mr. 

5 

Chairman, it is not enough to simply curtail an environmental protection and pass the funding for immersion onto the same. 

I look forward to hearing from our esteemed witnesses and I look 

forward to working with the majority. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield my time to my good friend, also 

from the great State of Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, members, I thank you Ranking Member for yielding to me today. 

First of all, I want to say that this is the first committee hearing 

we have had that Pete Olson hasn’t talked about the Astros. So 

Pete, I want to tell you how proud we are on this side about the 

Castros. 

Mr. OLSON. It’s coming. It’s coming. 

Mr. GREEN. But, more importantly, I want to welcome our panel 

and particularly our chancellor from San Jac North. I’ve worked for 

many years with San Jacinto College in training. 

In East Harris County, we could have every union electrician in 

the country come to Houston and we’d still need more electricians 

because the expansion of our industries in East Harris County because of the Eagle Ford and now with Permian Basin. So we have 

refineries, chemical plants, and things like that. 

But I am a native Houstonian and you all have heard a lot of 

times I’ve never not lived on a pipeline easement in Houston, 

Texas. No matter where I’ve lived, I have a pipeline easement 

there and I get all these nice letters during the year making sure 

I know what happens if there is an accident. 

But our infrastructure is so important. It’s not just highways and 

rails and airports but it’s also pipelines, and because of the success 

we are having in some of the states, I think we need to have that 

infrastructure on energy pipelines, too. 

And with that, I’ll thank my colleague. I know I’ve used up the 

time he yielded to me. 

Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will recognize the chairman of the full committee, the 

gentleman from the good state of Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, and we are having a lot of 

talk about aging infrastructure and I don’t think that’s fair to 

Adam Kinzinger just because it’s his 40th birthday today, speaking 

of aging infrastructure. 

[Laughter.] 

Happy birthday. Today’s hearing explores the state of the nation’s energy infrastructure. It’s another important step in our commitment to putting the needs of consumers first. Energy, truly the 

driving force in our economy and our country, and our hearing 

today is focused on ways to expand and improve and modernize our 

infrastructure so we can deliver energy to consumers more safely, 

reliably, and cost-effectively. 

So this morning we have an excellent panel of witnesses who are 

going to share with us some challenges and opportunities that the 

country faces and you all face to modernize our infrastructure in 

6 

the energy realm. We will gather your perspectives and we will 

learn more about what we need to do in public policy. Just for the 

record, our committee has been very active in this area. A lot of 

work has gone into our legislative initiatives on the nation’s infrastructure. 

We know there is a lot more that needs to be done. This hearing 

marks our forty-seventh hearing on infrastructure just in this session of Congress alone. We have 24 energy bills and environmental 

bills that have passed the House already and have gone over to the 

Senate. They address pipeline infrastructure, hydropower relicensing, brownfields, air quality standards, energy efficiency, 

drinking water improvement, and nuclear waste storage. All this 

work is incredibly important for my district. These bills will have 

a direct positive impact for our local economies and our communities both in Oregon and across the country, and now we look forward to continuing our work with the United States Senate and 

the White House to get these measures signed into law. 

I applaud President Trump for not only recognizing the need to 

improve all facets of our nation’s infrastructure but also for demonstrating the leadership needed to push forward this major initiative for our country. 

While there are many difficult details to work out, I believe there 

is support for a broad infrastructure bill. Just the other week I participated in a bipartisan, bicameral infrastructure meeting hosted 

by the President at the White House where we talked about our 

shared priorities for rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure from 

roads and bridges to pipelines and for broadband in our un-served 

and underserved areas of the country. 

While much of the conversation around infrastructure has focused on ways to increase federal spending, we should be mindful 

that most of the nation’s energy infrastructure is privately owned 

and operated. 

We all know that financing is a crucial aspect of any infrastructure plan so we are thinking outside the box to see where we can 

make the most progress with the limited federal money that is 

available. We are focused on fixing the regulatory environment, encouraging public-private partnerships, and strengthening our workforce. 

Our nation’s energy infrastructure—the traditional base load 

power plants, windmills, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, pipelines, power lines, fossil fuel production facilities, and import-export terminals, they make up the real backbone of America’s economy. With innovation and technological advancements driving 

change at a rapid pace it’s our responsibility as members of this 

committee to understand the challenges and the opportunities associated with keeping these energy systems operating safely and reliably. 

So we have got a lot of work to do but we are moving in the right 

direction, and with that, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today. 

I look forward to your testimony and the work going forward in 

this matter under Chairman Upton’s leadership. 

7 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, unless anyone else wants the remainder of my time, I’d be happy to yield back and hear from our 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Today’s hearing exploring the ‘‘State of the Nation’s Energy Infrastructure’’ is another important step in our commitment to put the needs of consumers first. Energy 

is truly the driving force powering our economy. Our hearing today is focused on 

ways to expand, improve, and modernize our infrastructure, so that we can deliver 

energy to consumers more safely, reliably, and cost-effectively. 

This morning, we have an excellent panel of witnesses who will testify on the 

challenges and opportunities to modernizing our nation’s energy infrastructure. 

We’ll gather perspectives from the people on the front lines—those who train our 

workers and design, build, and operate our energy infrastructure. My hope is that 

their stories can help us identify policy gaps and propose solutions to attract investments to update and build new energy infrastructure. 

This committee has been hard at work on ways to modernize our nation’s infrastructure, but there’s more work to be done. This hearing marks our forty-seventh 

hearing on infrastructure this Congress alone. Twenty-four energy and environment 

bills have passed the House already, addressing pipeline infrastructure, hydropower 

licensing, Brownfields, air quality standards, energy efficiency, drinking water, and 

nuclear waste storage. All of this work is incredibly important for my district in Oregon. These bills will have a direct, positive impact for local economies and communities in my state and across the country. Now that these bills are with the Senate, 

we’re working with our colleagues and the administration to get them moving and 

signed into law. 

I applaud President Trump for not only recognizing the need to improve all facets 

of our nation’s infrastructure, but for also demonstrating the leadership needed to 

push forward this major initiative. 

While there are many difficult details to work out, I believe there is support for 

a broad infrastructure bill. Just the other week, I participated in a bipartisan, bicameral infrastructure meeting hosted by President Trump at the White House to 

discuss our shared priorities for rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. 

While much of the conversation around infrastructure has focused on ways to increase federal spending, we should be mindful that most of the nation’s energy infrastructure is privately owned and operated. 

We all know that financing is a crucial aspect of any infrastructure plan, so we’re 

thinking outside the box to see where we can make the most progress with limited 

federal funds. We’re focused on fixing the regulatory environment, encouraging public-private partnerships, and strengthening our workforce. 

Our nation’s energy infrastructure—the traditional baseload power plants, windmills, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, pipelines, power lines, fossil fuel production 

facilities, and import/export terminals—make up the backbone of our economy. With 

innovation and technological advancements driving change at a rapid pace, it’s our 

responsibility as members of this committee to understand the challenges and opportunities associated with keeping these energy systems operating safely and efficiently. 

We’ve got a lot of work to do, but we’re moving in the right direction. With that, 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today and I look forward to 

their testimony. 

Mr. UPTON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Upton. 

Revitalizing and modernizing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure should be an area where Democrats and Republicans can find 

8 

common ground. Unfortunately, the plan President Trump unveiled 

2 weeks ago barely mentions energy and, as a whole, represents 

another cynical bait and switch. After promising for more than a 

year to invest over a trillion dollars in America’s infrastructure, the 

President’s plan does not offer any new funding for infrastructure. This anemic proposal calls for $250 billion in federal spending but even that is offset by $200 billion in cuts to vital existing programs. Worse yet, the 80 percent match requirement will do little 

to help towns, cities, and counties all across this country that simply cannot afford this kind of spending. In fact, the Wharton School 

at the University of Pennsylvania where President Trump attended 

college provides a withering criticism of his so-called infrastructure 

plan, stating that it really won’t leverage funds and that ‘‘There 

will be little to no impact on the economy.’’ 

To call the Trump plan worthless isn’t partisan. It’s the reality. 

In stark contrast, Democrats actually have a real plan, a better 

deal for investing and rebuilding America. This plan includes important parts of the committee Democrats’ bill, the LIFT America 

Act. This legislation would create jobs and boost the economy by 

putting real money towards infrastructure like replacing drinking 

water pipes, cleaning up brown field sites, supporting energy efficiency and clean energy, extending broadband service and revitalizing our hospitals and health care infrastructure. 

Democrats are committed to delivering a better deal for Americans, providing cheap clean energy for consumers and modernizing 

our aging energy infrastructure so that it’s secure, efficient, and resilient. We will make key investments that will transport our energy infrastructure into the 21st century energy economy while creating jobs of the future that lessen our carbon footprint. We do this 

by expanding renewable energy and by investing in energy efficiency programs that will lower Americans’ monthly bills and these 

programs are good for the environment and good for consumers. 

The Democrats’ LIFT America Act is a bold proposal that will revitalize our infrastructure, grow our economy, and create new jobs, 

and to ensure good family-sustaining wages for workers we are 

committed to maintaining Davis-Bacon community-based wage 

standards and other worker protections. We will invest in workers 

through robust training, provide job opportunities for veterans, and 

level the playing field for small businesses including women and 

minority-owned businesses. And what we won’t do is buy into the 

false choice between a strong economy and a healthy environment. 

President and Republicans keep pushing this outdated false narrative, but the reality is that a clean and safe environment supports a strong economy. 

Environmental safeguards are not the obstacle to infrastructure 

improvements. The real obstacle is the lack of funds. President 

Trump spared no expense and required no offsets for tax breaks to 

fuel profits on Wall Street, but when it comes to helping Main 

Street all he’s offering is Monopoly money. And we can and must 

do better. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree 

and will work with us to invest in America and truly make our infrastructure great again. 

And I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Tonko. 

9 

Mr. TONKO. And I thank the ranking member of the standing 

committee for yielding. 

It’s my pleasure to thank Chair Upton and Ranker Rush for 

hosting this hearing, which is going to enable us to better understand the full range of possibilities of energy infrastructure that 

should be considered. 

So I welcome the panel here this morning and in particular want 

to offer my welcome to one of the mayors of the communities that 

I represent in the 20th Congressional District of New York, the 

Honorable Gary McCarthy, mayor of the great city of Schenectady, 

New York, in the 20th District. And I thank the mayor for being 

here. He’s a great friend, a super colleague, and a very thoughtful 

leader, a progressive leader, and one who has brought great vision 

to leading the city of Schenectady, which is dubbed the electric city, 

as it opened its gates to Thomas Alva Edison at one time, and we 

have great heritage as it relates to energy development. 

But I want to bring attention to the city of Schenectady’s report 

under the tutelage of Mayor McCarthy, the 2017 Smart City Report, which is just filled with all sorts of wonderful ideas and has 

enabled Gary McCarthy to be a national leader in Smart City demonstration projects. I encourage members to check out this report. 

It offers many opportunities that, when proven, could be replicable 

around the country and will hold a number of type of projects that 

are possible to improve energy efficiency, public safety, and internet access. It’s a tremendous report. I thank the mayor for his leadership and I thank him for being here with the rest of the panel 

here this morning. 

So thank you, Mayor McCarthy, and welcome. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, we are grateful for all the witnesses today. 

We are joined by Brian Slocum, the VP of operations for ITC 

Holdings, Jim Ross, the Director of International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers, Brenda Hellyer, Chancellor of San Jacinto College, John Devine, Senior VP for HDR, Inc., Jennifer Chen—I 

think—is that right, Chen—Sustainable FERC Project Attorney, 

Natural Resources Development Council, and the Honorable Mr. 

McCarthy, Mayor of Schenectady, New York. 

We welcome you all. Your statements are made part of the record 

in their entirety. Thank you for submitting them early, and each 

of you will be given 5 minutes to summarize that testimony. 

And Mr. Mayor, we will start with you. Welcome. 

10 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE GARY MCCARTHY, MAYOR, 

CITY OF SCHENECTADY; JOHN DEVINE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, HDR INC.; BRIAN SLOCUM, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, ITC HOLDINGS CORPORATION; JIM ROSS, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT; JENNIFER CHEN, ATTORNEY, SUSTAINABLE FERC 

PROJECT CLIMATE & CLEAN ENERGY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; BRENDA HELLYER, CHANCELLOR, SAN JACINTO COLLEGE 

STATEMENT OF GARY MCCARTHY 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, distinguished members of the committee and, of course, New York’s 20th 

District Congressman Tonko, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

While I am the mayor of the city of Schenectady and serve in the 

leadership of the New York Conference of Mayors, I want to make 

available to you the resources and staff of the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors. 

Under the capable leadership of Conference President New Orleans’ mayor, Mitch Landrieu and Executive Director Tom Cochran, 

the conference team is ready and able to assist you in research, 

identifying problems and opportunities in the adoption of a national energy infrastructure policy and the appropriate budgetary 

support to ensure the successful implementation of that policy. 

We live in an exciting time, one of rapid change, a time of disruptive technologies, a time of great opportunity. The city of Schenectady has a long and proud history of innovation in the creative use 

of technologies. Congressman Tonko pointed out Thomas Edison 

founded the General Electric Company in our city over 125 years 

ago. The x-ray was developed in Schenectady. The first television 

broadcast occurred in the city of Schenectady. Many of the worldchanging products and technologies we use today have their roots 

in Schenectady. 

Today, some of the most valuable real estate in Schenectady and 

communities across the country are our light poles. The conversion 

of conventional street lights to LED fixtures is happening everywhere. It makes sense. There is an immediate savings of over 50 

percent in electrical costs. But what we are doing in Schenectady 

and in some communities across the country is looking at the opportunity to add additional features. Sensor-based technologies to 

the light pole when the conversion to LED fixtures is happening, 

environmental sensors measure temperature and precipitation, device-based utility-grade meters that will allow different owners to 

place devices in a light pole and pay for the electricity that’s used 

just by their device, optical sensor providing deterrence and documentation for policing, traffic and pedestrian analytics, dimming 

controls for additional electrical savings, acoustical sensors, Wi-Fi, 

and cellular communication protocols are just a few of the possible 

additions to a standard light pole. These devices will better enable 

a more cost-effective delivery of municipal services, the valuable exchange of data and information, improved educational opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
11 

ties within our city school district, and help with cost containment 

in providing health care. 

Schenectady is partnering with National Grid, our local utility, 

in implementing a REV demonstration project in our city. REV is 

reforming the energy vision, a program with New York Governor 

Cuomo’s comprehensive energy strategy to build a clean and more 

resilient affordable energy system. We are working with National 

Grid, GE, AT&T, Cisco, Presidio, CIMCON Lighting, and other 

local partners to do a citywide deployment of Smart City technology as we do the conversion to LED lights. We hope the National Grid project in Schenectady will create a replicable model for 

utilities in other communities across the state and, hopefully, the 

country. 

The ongoing efforts of Schenectady to further invest in infrastructure by leveraging convergent technologies including distributive generation resources, intelligence services, buildings in the 

electrification of transport will not only make the city more energy 

productive, economically and environmentally sustainable, but will 

assist New York State in its individually adopted economy wide 

target of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 

2050, commonly referred to as the 80x50 Program. 

The 80x50 challenge is a significant goal and will require fundamental changes, which means that the early cost savings and sustainable applications of Schenectady and National Grid’s initiatives 

could serve as a model for other communities and utilities. This 

type of project has the potential to transform communities and has 

clear implications for the global competitiveness of this country. 

But it’s based on a stable and an adaptable electrical grid. There 

are many components of the Smart City or Smart Grid projects 

that are self-financing. Conversion to LED light fixtures is a clear 

example. Some lend themselves to partnerships between utilities, 

communities, and companies—public Wi-Fi in commercial areas is 

an example. Others, like the upgrading of utility resiliency to deal 

with physical and cyber-attacks, the possibility of electromagnetic 

pulses, economic warfare, or proof of concept for emerging or yet 

to be developed concepts or technologies will likely require 100 percent funding from the federal government. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for the opportunity to be here 

and look forward to the committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:] 

12 


30215.001

Mayor Gary R. McCarthy 

City of Schenectady, New York 

Testimony- February 27,2018 

lO:OOa.m.- 2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Energy 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, distinguished Members of the 

Committee and NY-20th District Congressman Tonko. I thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. 

While I'm the Mayor of the City of Schenectady and serve in the leadership 

of the New York Conference of Mayors, I want to make available to you the 

resources and staff of the US Conference of Mayors under the capable 

leadership of the Conference President, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu 

and Executive Director Tom Cochran. The Conference team is ready and able 

to assist you in research, identifying problems and opportunities, in adoption 

of a national energy infrastructure policy and the appropriate budgetary 

support to ensure the successful implementation of that policy. 

We live in an exciting time, one of rapid change, the time of disruptive 

technologies, a time of great opportunity. 

The City of Schenectady has a long and proud history of innovative and 

creative technology. Thomas Edison founded the General Electric Company 

in our city over 125 years ago. X-ray technology was developed in 

Schenectady, the 1st television broadcast occurred in our community, large 

steam turbine , many world changing products and technologies have their 

roots in Schenectady. 
13 


30215.002

Today some of the most valuable real estate in Schenectady and 

communities across the country are our light poles. The conversion of 

conventional street lights to LED fixtures is happening everywhere. It makes 

sense, there is an immediate savings of over 50% in electrical costs. But what 

we are doing in Schenectady and in some communities across the country is 

looking at the opportunity to add additional features, sensor based 

technologies, to the light pole when the conversion to LED fixtures is 

happening. 

Environmental Sensors- temperature- precipitation, device based utility 

grade meters -this will allow different owners to place devices on a light pole 

and pay for the electricity used by just their device, Optical Sensorsdeterrence & documentation for policing- traffic & pedestrian analytics -

dimming controls for additional electricity savings, Acoustic Sensors, Wi-Fi 

and cellular communication protocols are just a few of the possible additions 

to a standard light pole. These devices will enable better and more cost 

effective delivery of municipal services, valuable exchange of data & 

information, improved educational opportunities within our city school 

district and help with cost containment in providing health care. 

Schenectady is partnering with National Grid, our local utility, in 

implementing a REV demonstration project in our city. REV is Reforming the 

Energy Vision a program of New York Governor Cuomo's comprehensive 

energy strategy to build a clean, more resilient and affordable energy system. 

We are working with National Grid, GE, AT&T, Cisco, Presidio, Cimcon 

Lighting and other local partners to do a city wide deployment of 'Smart City' 

technology as we do the conversion to LED lights. 
14 


30215.003

We hope the National Grid project in Schenectady will create a replicable 

model for utilities and other communities across New York State and 

hopefully the country. 

The ongoing efforts of Schenectady to further invest in infrastructure by 

leveraging convergent technologies: including distributed generation 

resources, intelligent services, buildings and the electrification of transport. 

Will not only make the City more energy productive, economically & 

environmentally sustainable, but will assist in New York State its individually 

adopted economy-wide target of80% greenhouse gas emission reduction by 

2050, 80 x 50 (from a 1990 baseline). 

The 80 x 50 challenge is a significant goal and will require fundamental 

changes, which means that the early cost savings and sustainable applications 

of Schenectady & National Grid's initiatives could serve as a model for other 

communities and utilities. 

This type of project has the potential to transform communities and has 

clear implications for the global competiveness of this country. But it is based 

on a stable and adaptable electric grid. 

There are many components of'Smart City' or Smart Grid projects that 

are self financing •.•• the conversion to LED light fixtures is a clear example. 

Some lend themselves to partnerships between utilities, communities and 

companies .... public WiFi in commercial areas. Others like upgrading utility 

resiliency to deal with physical and cyber attacks, electromagnetic pulses, 

economic warfare or proof of concept for emerging or yet to be developed 

concepts or technologies will likely require 100% funding from the federal 

government. 

Mr. Chairman I again thank you for the opportunity to be here and look 

forward to the committees questions. 
15 


30215.004

US Conference of Mayors: 

'The New Bedford Principals' 

Adopted last year at the conclusion of the Mayors' Summit 

Washington, DC-Today as part of a two-day national mayors' summit on smart cities and 

new energy technologies, sponsored by The United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) 

and hosted by USCM's Energy Chair New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell, mayors developed 

''The New Bedford Principles," a six-point energy recommendation to be included in the 

USCM National Infrastructure plan that will be presented to the nation by USCM President 

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu later this year. 

The six principles include recommendations for tax reform and tax laws as well as 

infrastructure legislation. 

The principles are: 

1. Seek an energy-friendly tax reform package that doesn't undermine current 

progress: 

Keep tax-exemption on municipal bonds 

Keep state and local tax deductibility 

Preserve and extend tax credits and other incentives to support renewable energy 

2. Authorize additional tax and other incentives to promote more investment in 

microgrids, distributed generation, and storage systems. 

3. Direct funding to support the development of local energy assurance plans to 

advance local resiliency efforts, especially those to combat climatic events. 

4. Direct funding to municipal utilities or tax incentives to investor-owned utilities to 

modernize local grids, including microgrids, to increase resilience to climatic events. 

5. Direct funding to support local energy block grants to support city energy 

independence goals 

6. Restore federal challenge grants to incentivize smart grid efforts. 
16 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Devine, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DEVINE 

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

Rush, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am John Devine, a past president of the National Hydropower 

Association, and I am here today on behalf of NHA to share my 

thoughts about the value and needs of hydropower’s part of this nation’s infrastructure. 

My engineering career spans 45 years focused on water resources 

and hydropower, working both in the public and the private sector. 

That also makes me part of the aging infrastructure, I might say. 

I was also a founding member of a hydropower consulting firm 

that started with two people in Portland, Maine, and grew into a 

practice with over 250 professionals with offices in six states. I 

hope this provides a small example of the jobs that hydropower can 

create. 

I will emphasize three points today. First, investment in new and 

existing hydropower projects produces economic benefits and creates jobs. Second, policies that support hydropower deserve to be 

part of any infrastructure package Congress develops, and third, in 

order to preserve investment in hydropower, I believe changes in 

federal policy, particularly in the licensing process, will be necessary. 

So to my point one, investment in hydropower infrastructure 

doesn’t just create jobs. It creates the kind of jobs that require skill 

and education and are therefore valued, meaning in demand and 

well paid. We are talking about many field technicians, electricians, highly-skilled mechanics, biologist, hydrologists, computer 

modelers, suppliers of all kind in virtually every field of engineering. 

Hydropower is also often a cornerstone part of multipurpose 

projects that provide water for irrigation and natural resource protection, water supply for millions of people, drought mitigation, 

flood control, and other benefits. Which leads me to my second 

point. Ensuring more investment in hydropower should be a piece 

of any national infrastructure plan. Hydropower is a key part of 

the national infrastructure. Just consider the role played by hydropower in pulling the Northeast and the upper Midwest out of the 

2003 blackout that affected 45 million people in the U.S. 

Hydropower’s black start capability did that, and isn’t that the very 

definition of important infrastructure? 

Consider our federal hydropower system. The average federal hydropower facility is over 50 years old. While this demonstrates reliability and durability, it also highlights the potential to increase efficiency and add capacity, therefore, more renewable energy from 

the same plant and more jobs. This leads me to my third point. I 

report to you today as a practitioner in the field of federal hydropower licensing. Here is what I can report to you from the field. 

First, the federal licensing and relicensing process is broken but 

maybe not for the reasons that you’re thinking. It’s not because of 

Congress passing the EP Act of 2005. Congress took a significant 

step to bring efficiency, transparency, and accountability to agency 

17 

decision making. This committee in particular has done yeoman’s 

service in support of hydropower. It’s not because of FERC. In its 

promulgation of the integrated licensing process, FERC made a 

bold attempt to bring order, efficiency and better fact-based decision making to the process. 

In general, in my opinion, FERC is performing its role as a neutral arbiter of the facts. So how is it broken? It is broken today because many federal and state resource agencies do not adhere to 

the basic ground rules of the federal licensing process. 

Here are three examples that I can share with you. First, what 

I am seeing is that all too frequently the scientific studies conducted as part of the licensing process are being ignored by resource agencies when the study results do not comport with the 

agency’s notions of a project’s environmental impacts. This is despite the fact that these studies are performed for the express purpose of informing development of license conditions. Such disregard 

can lead to agency conditions which are not considered with the 

available and therefore are likely not to be effective. 

Second, state and federal resource agencies’ recommendations for 

license conditions including mandatory conditions which FERC 

cannot balance are often made without due consideration of their 

full impacts and are only focused on narrow agency goals. 

Third, in many cases, the federal licensing process can drag on 

for years, even a decade or more after the filing of a complete application, while the applicant waits for the various federal and state 

agency decision making processes to be completed. Together, these 

provide a very chilling effect on investment. 

To conclude, hydropower offers many benefits to society. IT supports the grid and, as I mentioned, literally keeps lights on. It integrates other renewable generation. It supports clean air for our 

communities. These values are being eroded and U.S. hydropower 

has much more to offer, but only if it is given the policy support 

to unlock its potential. 

I thank the subcommittee for allowing me to testify and I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Devine follows:] 

18 


30215.005

Written Statement 

of 

John Devine, P.E. 

on behalf of 

The National Hydropower Association 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

regarding 

A hearing on the "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure" 

February 27, 2018 

1 
19 


30215.006

Summary 

1) Both the existing system and new hydropower infrastructure projects have a critical role to play in 

meeting our nation's future energy, environment, and economic development objectives. As Congress 

works to address our energy and infrastructure needs, including a national infrastructure package, policies 

that support the hydropower system must be included. 

2) The existing hydropower fleet has stimulated an investment of tens of billions of dollars, created 

hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs and local economic opportunities. U.S. hydropower also has 

the potential to grow by nearly 50 GW from I 01 GW of capacity in 2015 to 150 GW by 2050, stimulating 

further job growth, economic investment, and environmental benefits. 

3) However, the benefits of hydropower are under direct threat by a series of policy decisions (both at the 

federal and state levels) that undervalue and handicap our hydropower resources. These include: an 

outdated, complex regulatory process; tax policy that picks winners and losers; the need for reinvestment 

in the federal hydropower system; and the lack of market policies that adequately compensate 

hydropower and pumped storage projects for the grid benefits they provide. 

4) Addressing the issues preventing the investment in hydropower, particularly the licensing process, is 

an immediate need. This Subcommittee has done tremendous work in a bipartisan fashion to advance 

several pieces of hydropower-related legislation through the House. These bills would promote a variety 

of regulatory improvements for new hydropower development and relicensing of existing projects. 

5) These hydropower bills are necessary to build a stronger hydropower industry. NHA urges their 

inclusion in any infrastructure package under development. Enacting these bills and improving the 

hydropower regulatory process is a way to move investment in hydropower infrastructure forward 

without major cost to the U.S. government. 

2 
20 


30215.007

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the Subcommittee. I am John 

Devine, a past president of the Nationalllydropower Association, and I appear before you today on 

behalf ofNHA. I am a Senior Vice President with HDR, an employee-owned engineering, architectural, 

and consulting firm with more than 9,000 professionals in over 185locations worldwide. HDR's 

hydropower group provides the full range of hydropower-related services, including engineering, 

regulatory, and environmental expertise. 

NHA is a nonprofit national association dedicated to promoting clean, affordable, renewable U.S. 

hydropower- from conventional hydropower to pumped storage to marine energy to conduit power 

projects. NHA represents more than 230 companies from Fortune 500 corporations to family-owned small 

businesses. Our members include both public and investor-owned utilities, irrigation and water supply 

entities, independent power producers, developers, equipment manufacturers and other service providers. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the importance of hydropower infrastructure to the U.S. electric system 

as well as the economic and job growth opportunities further investment in that infrastructure can 

stimulate in local communities across the country. I also appreciate this opportunity to discuss the 

importance of addressing regulatory improvements and other policy measures that are needed to drive this 

re-investment in our nation's hydropower infrastructure. 

In addition to my testimony today, l would refer the Committee to several previous statements submitted 

to the Subcommittee in the last year related to these issues. These statements include: I) testimony of 

Ramya Swaminathan, CEO of Rye Development, at the March I 3, 2017 hearing "Modernizing Energy 

Infrastructure: Challenges and Opportunities to Expanding Hydropower Generation"; 2) testimony of 

Jeffrey Leahey, NHA Deputy Executive Director, at the May 3, 20! 7 hearing "Legislation Addressing 

Pipeline and Hydropower Infrastructure Modernization"; and 3) testimony of Steven Wright, Genera! 

3 
21 


30215.008

Manager of Chelan County Public Utility District No.1, at the October 3, 2017 hearing "Part II: 

Powering America: Defining Reliability in a Transforming Electricity Industry".' 

Over the last several years, this Subcommittee has done tremendous work in a bipartisan fashion to 

advance several pieces of hydropower-related legislation through the House. These bills would promote 

regulatory improvements for new hydropower development and relicensing of existing projects, as well as 

resource-specific bills including, adding generating facilities to existing non-powered dams, new closedloop pumped storage, and small hydropower and conduit projects. 

I commend and thank you for your leadership and believe your work on hydropower exemplifies the 

types of policy advancements that are needed to support infrastructure reinvestment in our country. These 

hydropower bills are necessary to build a stronger hydropower industry, which, in turn, will advance our 

economy and create new jobs. I support and urge their inclusion in any infrastructure package under 

development. 

Background on Hydropower Infrastructure, including Jobs and Economic Impacts 

Hydropower has provided clean, reliable, renewable power for our nation for over a century. Currently, 

the U.S. conventional hydropower fleet is made up of almost 2200 individual plants with a total capacity 

of over 80 GW. In the last two years, these plants provided approximately 6-7 percent of all U.S. 

electricity generation, making hydropower the single largest provider of renewable electric power in our 

country. 2 Looking over the long term, hydropower has supplied a cumulative 10 percent of U.S. 

1 http://docs.house.gov/meetings/1F/IF03/20170315/105702/HHRG-115-IF03-Wstate-SwaminathanR-20 170315-

Ul.pdf 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF /IF03/20J 70503/1 05916/HHRG-115-IF03-W state-LeaheyJ-20 170503.pdf 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20 !7! 003/l 06457/HHRG-ll5-IF03-W state-WrightS-20 171 003-U3.pdf 2 Business Council for Sustainable Energy and Bloomberg New Energy Finance Sustainable Energy in America 

Factbook 2018, Slide 25. http://www.bcse.org/sustainableenergyfactbook/# 

4 
22 


30215.009

electricity generation over the past 65 years (1950-2015), and 85 percent of cumulative renewable power 

generation over the same time period. 3 

ln addition to the conventional hydropower system there are an additional 42 hydropower pumped storage 

plants with approximately 22 GW of capacity- projects that make-up almost all, 97 percent, of energy 

storage in the U.S. today.' 

Additionally, the ownership of the hydropower fleet is unique in that nearly half of the capacity is owned 

by the federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

Tennessee Valley Authority. The figure below from the Department of Energy's 2016 Hydropower 

Vision Report illustrates the diverse ownership mix of projects. 

3 2016 Hydropower Vision Report, Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, Executive Summary P.9 

https://energy.gov/siteslprod/files/20 18/02/f491Hydropower-Vision-021518.pdf 4 2016 Hydropower Vision Report, Executive Summary P. 9. 

5 
23 


30215.010

Over its lifetime, the existing hydropower fleet has stimulated an investment of tens of billions of dollars 

and created hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs and economic opportunities in localities across 

the country. Hydropower is a demonstrated economic driver, supporting jobs from engineering, 

environmental science, construction and operations and maintenance. The variety of jobs supported by 

hydropower infrastructure related work is expansive and includes: electricians, mechanics, engineers, 

biologists, hydrologists, construction workers, other contractors and equipment suppliers, project 

planners, administrative staff and information technology workers. And hydropower also offers other 

economic benefits and provides low-cost, reliable power to help businesses compete in a competitive 

environment 

In 2013, operations, construction, and upgrades at conventional hydropower plants supported in total 

approximately 143,000 jobs in the United States. Of this amount, hydropower O&M supports 

approximately 118,000 total ongoing full-time equivalent jobs nationwide. This translates into eamings of 

nearly $6 billion and economic activity or output of over $17 billion, as illustrated by the chart that 

follows.' 

5 2016 Hydropower Vision Report P. 202. 

6 
24 


30215.011

In addition to the jobs resulting from the operation of existing projects, an additional 25,000 jobs are 

supported nationally by hydropower construction and upgrades. These numbers translate into another $1.4 

billion in earnings and nearly $3.3 billion in economic output. 

These economic benefits are further amplified by the positive environmental attributes that affordable, 

reliable, renewable hydropower brings to the U.S. grid; such as cleaner, healthier air as well as lower 

carbon emissions. 

Finally, hydropower infrastructure provides many other public benefits including: water supply; flood 

control; drought mitigation; irrigation; recreation; and navigation. Each of these uses can provide net 

economic benefits to the region surrounding a hydropower facility. 

The benefits of the existing hydropower infrastructure are clear; however, the industry is also poised for 

significant growth. The Hydropower Vision analysis finds that U.S. hydropower could grow by nearly 50 

GW, from l 0 l GW of capacity in 2015 to 150 GW by 2050. Growth would result from a combination of 

13 GW of new hydropower capacity (upgrades to existing plants, adding power at existing dams and 

canals, and some development of new stream-reaches), and 36 GW of new pumped storage capacity.' 

The additional energy, economic and environmental benefits resulting from this growth are substantial, 

including the addition of tens of billions of dollars in cumulative economic investment and an additional 

76,000 hydropower related gross jobs spread across the nation in 2050.7 

6 2016 Hydropower Vision Report, Executive Summary P. I. 7 2016 Hydropower Vision Report, Executive Summary P. 24. 

7 
25 


30215.012

Undervaluing Hydropower Threatens Its Future 

Because of all of the above, NHA believes energy project deployment and project reinvestment, in the 

hydropower, pumped storage and marine energy sectors, is a necessary part of the conversation in the 

infrastructure debate. 

The numerous and broad-based benefits hydropower projects provide are under direct threat by a series of 

policy decisions (both at the federal and state levels) that undervalue and handicap our hydropower 

resources. These include: an outdated, complex regulatory process, which takes years longer than that of 

any other energy resource and does not result in any concomitant benefit; tax policy that picks winners 

and losers, often leaving hydropower at a competitive disadvantage, even while the resource helps to 

support other renewable technologies; the need for reinvestment in the federal hydropower system; the 

lack of market policies that adequately compensate hydropower and pumped storage projects for the grid 

benefits and ancillary services they provide; and more. 

NHA reiterates our strong support for policies that address the regulatory inefficiencies and improve the 

coordination and the effectiveness of the overall hydropower project approval process. We call on 

Congress, as well as the Administration, to address this and other energy and market policy issues that 

limit investment in hydropower infrastructure. And, we believe this can all be done in ways that promote 

the hydropower resource while also protecting environmental values. 

Hydropower Licensing Reform is an Infrastructure Issue 

Hydropower has the longest, most complex development timeline (for existing project relicensing or new 

project approvals) of any of the renewable energy technologies, with many projects taking 10 years or 

longer from the start of the licensing process through construction to being placed-in-service. 

8 
26 


30215.013

With over 400 existing projects coming up for relicensing by 2030, many of the project owners face a 

difficult economic decision of whether to continue operations or cease generation. Already, industry 

members are announcing project closures, particularly small hydropower projects. The impending cost 

and uncertainty of the relicensing process is enough to dissuade some owners from moving forward.' 

And this environment also impacts new project development. While the U.S. hydropower industry, along 

with the nascent marine energy sector, has the capacity to grow significantly, project developers report 

many investors are choosing to invest in other forms of generation with far shorter process timelines, 

clearer risk assessments, and, as a result, earlier returns on their investment. 

This Subcommittee has been focused and working diligently over the last 4 years to address one of the 

main obstacles for investment in hydropower- the licensing and relicensing approval process. We 

continue to support the work of the Subcommittee to implement commonsense improvements to the 

hydropower licensing scheme. Without addressing these regulatory challenges, hydropower will continue 

to struggle to compete versus other energy options, particular wind, solar and natural gas, that can be 

permitted in half the time. 

Any debate on infrastructure should include a discussion of how regulatory improvements can be 

included to unlock the potential in the hydropower industry and move new projects and existing project 

reinvestment forward, which will create significant local economic and jobs opportunities. 

An extensive record has been developed on these issues both by this Subcommittee and in the House 

Natural Resources Committee. In the past year alone, project owners and developers from across the 

8 http://www. hydroworld.com/articles/20 17/02/pg-e-announces-it -wi 11-not -rei icense-26-4-mw-desabl a-centervillehydro-facility.html. 

http://klpd. org!vertical/sites/% 7B4 23 3 5 5D4-5 FDE-44B4-800E-06 F A5 3C5B D4% 7Diup loads/Notice of Intent. pdf 

9 
27 


30215.014

hydropower sector representing all parts of the country have shared their concerns and ongoing issues. 

NHA would like to highlight some of their experiences as discussed in their testimony below: 

Testimony of Ramya Swarninathan, CEO of Rye Development, discussing project 

deployment on existing non-powered darns, submitted on behalf of NHA-

"The time line for a new hydropower development project to reach commercial operation is 

between 10 and 13 years, which is almost unmatched in the power generation space. 

This disparity oftimelines to commercial operation presents a fonnidable challenge to new 

hydropower development. Private investors in the power generation space find the length and 

complexity of hydropower's time line difficult to manage. As a result, hydropower development 

becomes expensive due to the compounding of interest costs over long periods coupled with the 

unclear risk profile. When faced with these factors, many investors choose to invest in other 

forms of generation with far shorter timelines and clearer risk assessments." 9 

Testimony of Herbie Johnson of Southern Company discussing relicensing of existing 

hydropower projects, submitted on behalf of NHA-

"In the coming years, there is a significant number of hydro projects with expiring licenses that 

will need to go through relicensing, but the rising cost and the continuing regulatory uncertainty 

of the relicensing process creates real doubt about the future of many projects. 

NHA believes that more efficient regulation is necessary both to protect America's existing 

hydropower assets and to create an opportunity to develop additional hydropower infrastructure 

both in the Southeast and across the nation. We believe that it is possible to achieve the same or 

9 http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20 1703!5/l 05702/HHRG-115-!F03-Wstate-SwaminathanR-20170315-

U !.pdf. House Energy Subcommittee hearing on March 15, 2017. 

10 
28 


30215.015

even improved hydro licensing outcomes more quickly and predictably while protecting the 

important environmental and natural resources of our country." 10 

Testimony of Bob Gallo, CEO ofVoith Hydro, on the positive economic impact licensing 

and permitting reform can have on U.S. mannfacturing-

"We hope the Committee will continue its strong work to streamline the licensing process. and 

look for ways to boost production on federally-owned dams. Expanding hydropower helps 

companies like Voith Hydro and those in the 2,500-company strong national hydropower supply 

chain that accounts for $17 billion in economic output. More importantly, it also helps the 

American worker. 

Voith Hydro is a perfect example. Though our workforce in the U.S. is already over 600 strong, 

our plant in York could accommodate a significant increase in work volume. And the good 

paying jobs that would be created are highly-skilled engineering and union manufacturing jobs 

that are the backbone of America."" 

Investment in hydropower is an investment in a critical piece of our nation's infrastructure. NHA 

maintains its strong support for hydropower licensing improvements as a critical step to unlocking growth 

in the industry. As such, we encourage the Subcommittee to consider an infrastructure bill as a pathway to 

achieve these licensing improvements and urge your active participation in its development. 

10 https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony johnson.pdf. House Water, Power and Oceans 

Subcommittee hearing on May 3, 2017. 11 https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony gallo.pdf. House Subcommittee on Water, Power and 

Oceans hearing on May 3, 2017. 

11 
29 


30215.016

Infrastructure Reinvestment Opportunities in the Hydropower System 

The existing United States fleet of hydropower plants is aging. As a result, there are many opportunities 

to reinvest in this infrastructure- investments that can add capacity, expand output, improve efficiencies 

and increase overall performance, including from an environmental perspective. 

At the beginning of2011, hydropower plants comprised 24 of the 25 oldest operating power facilities in 

the United States, with 72 percent of facilities older than 60 years. Looking specifically at the federal 

hydropower system, the Department of Energy has reported, as of2014, the average age of Corps of 

Engineer's hydropower facilities was 49 years, and, as of 2015, the average age of Bureau of Reclamation 

hydropower facilities was 58 years. 

In their Hydropower Market Report updated last year, the DOE estimates that 42 hydropower 

rehabilitation and upgrade (R&U) projects at 34 existing plants were started in 2016 with a total estimated 

value of$1.2 billion. Of these, the Corps of Engineers is the owner with the largest number of new 

projects (23) but they account for less than 10 percent of total investment value. DOE also estimates the 

value of tracked R&U investment since 2007 is $8.5 billion distributed among 143 plants, averaging $850 

million/year in 2007-2016. 12 

NHA believes this data demonstrates the tremendous economic benefits waiting to be triggered by reinvestment in the existing hydropower system. We also believe that even though the industry, both federal 

and non-federal, is making investments, that the opportunity exists to do even more, particularly on the 

federal system. 

12 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/20 17/04/134/US-Hydropower-Market-Report-20 17 -Update 20170403.pdf 

Slide 5. 

12 
30 


30215.017

Tax and Market Policv Changes Would Incentivize Development of Hydropower Infrastructure 

With the recent passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of20J 8, NHA also wants to highlight the ongoing 

disparity of treatment of hydropower versus other renewable energy technologies. The Act included only 

a one-year retroactive extension of the hydropower and marine energy tax credits through 2017, which 

provides no certainty for project developers seeking to finance their projects right now. Coupled with the 

fact that the Congress has extended for several years the tax credits for other renewable resources (wind, 

solar, fuel cells, etc.), the hydropower industry is placed at a severe economic disadvantage. 

At a time when we are seeking ways to strengthen grid reliability and resiliency, why would Congress 

seek to disadvantage the premier flexible and renewable technology like hydropower? This isn't just 

playing renewable energy favorites, it fundamentally misunderstands hydropower's role, and the benefits 

it brings, to our nation's electricity grid now and for the future. 

Another issue impacting hydropower deployment is the lack of appropriate compensation for the benefits 

and services hydropower brings to the grid system, this includes the valuing of hydropower in power 

markets as well as environmental markets. 

In fact, NHA recently commissioned an environmental markets study that puts a finer point on the 

economic disadvantage hydropower faces in the marketplace. The study analyzed federal and state 

policies that incentivize renewable energy technologies, such as federal tax credits as well as state 

Renewable Portfolio Standards. Not surprisingly, since the participation of hydropower is limited under 

these policies, the study conservatively identified a value gap of over $1.5 billion dollars annually that the 

hydropower industry could receive if supported similarly to other renewable technologies. 

13 
31 


30215.018

NHA believes the Department of Energy stated the market problem well in the Hydropower Vision 

Report: 

"Inherent market and regulatory challenges must be overcome to realize hydropower's potential 

to improve grid flexibility and facilitate integration of variable generation resources. The full 

valuation, optimization, and compensation for hydropower generation and ancillary services in 

power markets is difficult, and not all benefits and services provided by hydropower facilities are 

readily quantifiable or financially compensated in today's market framework. In traditional and 

restructured markets, as well as in emerging environmental markets, many hydropower services 

and contributions are not explicitly monetized. ln some cases, market rules undervalue 

operational flexibility, which is important to maintaining grid reliability and is a prime attribute 

ofhydropower."13 

Hydropower is capable of the full range of services required by electricity transmission grid, including 

system regulation and balance of supply and demand, voltage and frequency support, stability, and black 

start capability. Hydropower's ability to rapidly ramp generation up and down in response to changes in 

the balance between electrical loads and generators facilitates integration of variable renewable 

generation, such as wind and solar. 

NHA believes that better valuation and compensation of hydropower and pumped storage within power 

markets for its grid services, as well as hydropower's recognition and participation in renewable and clean 

energy markets, is needed. 

13 2016 Hydropower Vision Report, Executive Summary P.12 

14 
32 


30215.019

Conclusion 

Both the existing system and new hydropower projects have a critical role to play in meeting our nation's 

future energy, environment, and economic development objectives. 

As the Congress works to address our energy and infrastructure needs, including work on a national 

infrastructure package, policies that support both the preservation of the existing hydropower system and 

investment in upgrades and new projects must be included. A greater recognition that our hydropower 

infrastructure is incredibly valuable is needed, and continued investment and re-investment in the system 

is critical to our energy future and national security. 

I thank the Subcommittee for providing me this opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

15 
33 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Slocum, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN SLOCUM 

Mr. SLOCUM. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, and the distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

As you know, my name is Brian Slocum. I am the Vice President 

of Operations for ITC Holdings, Corp., and I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. 

ITC is the largest independent electricity transmission company 

in the country and we own and operate electric transmission assets 

that has a footprint that expands to eight Midwest and Great 

Plains states. We have no geographic constraints and we invest in 

the grid and we do that to improve reliability, to expand access to 

markets, and lower the cost of delivered energy to our customers. 

We also allow for diverse and new generating resources to interconnect to our transmission systems. At the conclusion of today’s 

hearings, I hope to leave the Committee with two very clear 

takeaways—first, that investment in the transmission grid is needed now, and secondly, the private sector utility industry, which we 

are a part of, are ready to make these investments if we are provided with the right regulatory and planning environment. 

While there have been some efforts made by the Trump administration and Congress to reform the existing regulatory process for 

electric transmission, additional reforms in federal permitting and 

environmental review processes are needed. We also need to continue to take proactive steps to reform procedures for planning the 

transmission system to ensure that we are examining the full value 

of the transmission investments. 

I would like to highlight the growing importance of transmission 

infrastructure to our economy. In the earliest incarnations of the 

grid, the transmission lines were built for a single purpose and 

that was just to move electricity from generating plants to homes 

and businesses. It was usually within a single utility footprint. 

Things have certainly evolved as FERC and individual states 

have opened up electricity markets to competition and transmission 

lines became more than just a one-way delivery system for individual utilities. Today, the transmission grid serves as a non-discriminatory regional platform for connecting consumers to energy 

markets. As customer expectations have increased, so too have the 

drivers for new investment in transmission infrastructure. 

Whatever the energy future may bring, let’s be clear that we 

need a modern transmission system to provide the optionality to facilitate that future. Moving forward, the story is clear as well. Our 

economy is becoming more and more dependent on reliable and affordable access to electricity and the transmission grid becomes 

more stressed as that occurs. Planning the grid to address these 

demands requires consideration of many complex factors including 

potential threats to the system. 

We now understand that the redundancy that we planned into 

the transmission system—in other words, the different ways and 

pathways that we can connect to consumers—that offers a pretty 

strong protection against adverse events that can impact generation resources or the transmission system itself. Investing now will 

34 

ensure the resilience of the grid and the resource diversity while 

keeping electricity prices low for consumers and for businesses. 

I would like to emphasize that, theoretically, no federal dollars 

are needed to strengthen the grid, increase resilience, and create 

jobs. The private sector which we are a part of is ready to make 

these investments, provided that regulatory and planning environment is conducive to the investment. 

We applaud the efforts by Congress to streamline the permitting 

process for new infrastructure. Even still today, permitting for a 

major transmission line can take nearly a decade to secure a range 

of federal, state, and local permits. 

In order to ensure that the NEPA process can be completed in 

a reasonable amount of time while maintaining the strong commitment that we have to environmental stewardship that we all share 

this commitment, then Congress could consider a number of options including requiring concurrent NEPA analysis and environmental reviews by all the permitting agencies involved, requiring 

those agencies to use the information that’s already contained in 

the lead agency’s NEPA document as the basis for their reviews, 

and then, finally, setting some firm deadlines for the NEPA process. 

To make the necessary investments in transmission infrastructure that we are ready to do, we need a supportive regulatory environment and to use the latest and most comprehensive methodologies to plan and approve new transmission lines. Planning the grid 

proactively requires that benefits of a potential investment be 

viewed more comprehensively by integrating a range of project benefits and planning drivers into criteria for approving projects. 

Finally, we need also to support the construction of new transmission lines that connect RTOs and ISOs in various regions 

which, as of today, are still highly separated. 

More interregional connections will increase system flexibility 

and resilience against potential threats while still allowing regional 

flexibility and approaches to joint planning. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the committee and I look forward to answering any questions you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slocum follows:] 

35 


30215.020

Statement of 

Brian Slocum 

Vice President of Operations 

lTC Holdings Corporation 

Hearing on 

The State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy 

United States House of Representatives 

February 27, 2017 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Brian Slocum, Vice President of Operations, lTC Holdings Corp. (lTC), and I greatly appreciate the 

opportunity to speak before you today. As the largest independent electricity transmission company in 

the country, lTC owns and operates electric transmission assets in Michigan's Lower Peninsula and 

portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. As we have no geographic 

constraints, lTC also focuses on new areas where significant transmission system improvements are 

needed.ITC is proud of our record of investing in the grid to improve reliability, expand access to markets, 

lower the costs of delivered energy, and allow diverse new generating resources to interconnect to our 

transmission systems. 

We are standing at the gateway to a modernized electric grid that will play an integral role in 

powering America. A modernized grid will create opportunities to increase system resilience and deliver 

more cost effective energy, including increased utilization of wind and solar energy that will create more 
36 


30215.021

than 150,000 jobs and save consumers billions annually. However, there are regulatory hurdles that must 

be overcome to help us achieve these objectives. 

At the conclusion of today's hearing, I hope to leave the Committee with two very clear 

takeaways: (1) investment in the transmission grid is needed now to grow, sustain, and protect our 21" 

century economy, and (2) with a supportive regulatory approval environment, the private sector stands 

ready to make these vital investments in our nation's infrastructure. 

While there have been efforts by the Trump Administration to reform the existing regulatory 

process for siting electric transmission, additional reforms in federal permitting and environmental review 

processes are needed. New development is delayed, and sometimes thwarted by unnecessarily complex 

and burdensome requirements. In addition, we need to take proactive steps to reform our procedures 

for planning and approving new transmission lines. Regulatory reforms to planning and siting processes 

for new infrastructure can help ensure that the right investments to strengthen our grid and our economy 

are realized. 

2 
37 


30215.022

To begin, I would like to highlight the growing importance of transmission infrastructure to our 

economy by briefly reviewing its origins. In the earliest incarnations of the grid, transmission lines were 

typically built for a single purpose: to move electricity from generating plants to local utilities, which would 

then distribute power to homes and businesses, usually within a single utility footprint. Then, as FERC and 

individual states opened wholesale and some retail electricity markets to competition, the grid became 

more than just a one-way delivery system for individual utilities. Today, the transmission grid needs to 

serve as a non-discriminatory regional platform for connecting consumers to energy markets. In many 

areas, Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) have been 

formed to develop the transmission grid on a regional basis, achieving substantial new investments and 

benefits for customers. The transmission system is expected to not only be reliable and economic, but 

also to support state-level public policy goals, provide us with access to diverse generation resources 

across the country, and remain resilient in the face of shifting natural and man-made threats. As our 

expectations of the grid have increased, so too have the drivers for new investments in transmission 

infrastructure. 

While it is important to understand today's needs, the continued success of our nation's economy 

requires understanding the energy needs of tomorrow. Transmission lines are long-lived assets, usually 

remaining in service for 40 years or more, and major lines often take nearly a decade to plan and develop. 

As a result, much of our time is spent thinking about the future to guide today's investment decisions. 

Here, the story is clear: as our economy becomes more and more dependent on reliable and affordable 

access to electricity, the demands we place on the transmission grid will only increase. First, we expect to 

see a continued shift in the nation's generation fleet as aging traditional plans retire and new resources 

seek to interconnect to the transmission system. Second, we expect consumer and policy demands drive 

the economy to become more electrified, which is likely to dramatically change how much electricity is 

needed, how it is produced, and where it used. Finally, the grid will need to become a reliable integrator 

3 
38 


30215.023

of new technologies, including storage and distributed generation sources. Clearly, to ensure we are ready 

for the future economy, we need to make smart, proactive investments in the grid today. 

Planning a grid that will serve our future demands requires us to consider many scenarios, while 

also preparing for potential threats to our vital infrastructure. The range of threats to the grid has grown 

and now includes cyber and physical attacks in addition to extreme weather and geomagnetic storms. 

Because the grid is so integral to economic growth and security, there is a growing recognition that we 

need to make sure it is both reliable for everyday use and resilient against things that we may not expect. 

We now understand that redundancy in the transmission system (in other words, the existence of multiple 

pathways to connect electricity to consumers) offers perhaps the strongest protection against adverse 

events that can impact generation resources or the transmission system itself. Whatever the future may 

bring, we need a modern transmission system to provide us with optionality to respond to unexpected 

challenges. 

To support and protect the 21st century economy, we need a stronger, more regionally integrated 

transmission grid. Investing in this grid now will help protect the resilience of our electric system and 

economy, and allow us to take advantage of resource diversity across the nation, all while keeping 

electricity prices low for consumers and businesses. And, like other forms of critical infrastructure, 

investments in transmission can create and support thousands of well-paying jobs, both directly during 

construction and through increased economic growth along the path and over the life of the system. 

Indeed, according to a recent report on transmission benefits released by the WIRES coalition and london 

Economics, job creation and economic benefits achieved through transmission development can be 

substantial and long lasting'. 

1 Frayer, J., Wand, E., Yang, R., Leslie, J., Duan, J., & Lan, T. How Does Electric Transmission Benefit You? 

Identifying and measuring the life-cycle benefits of electric transmission. 2017. 

4 
39 


30215.024

I would also like to emphasize that theoretically, an investment of zero federal dollars is fully 

capable of resulting in a strengthened grid, lower energy prices, increased resilience, and significant job 

creation in our local communities. As noted earlier, the private sector is ready to make these investments 

in the future grid, provided the regulatory environment is conducive to investment. 

But that certainly doesn't mean the federal government has no role in this electrified future. Congress 

is positioned to play a pivotal role in enabling the transmission industry to create a 21'' century grid for 

America. 

First, we applaud efforts by Congress to streamline the permitting process for new infrastructure. 

We also applaud recently-passed legislation to provide regulatory certainty surrounding the 

acquisition of transmission assets. 

Today, permitting for a major interstate transmission line can take nearly a decade due to the 

need to secure a range of federal, state and local permits. On the federal side, the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval process has historically suffered from a lack of 

coordination between participating agencies and uncertainty surrounding completion timelines. 

5 
40 


30215.025

Although progress has been made through the adoption of title 41 of the FAST Act ( FAST-41), we 

believe there may be additional opportunities to gain efficiencies in the permitting process. 

As an example, lTC is currently developing a major transmission project connecting Iowa and 

Wisconsin that will help to relieve congestion and deliver clean energy to load centers in the 

Midwest. For this project, lTC initiated the multi-agency NEPA process in 2016 and submitted its 

notice as a covered project under FAST-41 in 2017, a framework which includes oversight and 

coordination by OMB, as well as other Federal agencies and entities. Despite efficiencies gained 

through the application of FAST-41 requirements for agency coordination, we still do not expect 

the process to conclude until late 2019 or 2020. Based on this timeli ne, we expect to place the 

completed line in service in 2023. 

In order to ensure the NEPA process can be completed in a reasonable amount of time, while also 

maintaining the strong commitment to environmental stewardship we all share, Congress could 

consider a number of options, including: requiring concurrent NEPA analysis and environmental 

reviews by all permitting agencies; requiring cooperating agencies to use the information already 

contained in the lead agency's NEPA document as the basis for their permit related reviews; and 

setting a firm deadline on the NEPA process. We believe these are best practices that can expedite 

permitting without weakening NEPA or the environmental review process. Achieving greater 

efficiency could in fact improve environmental outcomes by expediting the integration of 

renewable resources and storage solutions. 

lTC believes that states should continue to have a strong role in the regulatory process, and lTC 

continues to work through the siting processes in states in which it does business. At the same 

6 
41 


30215.026

time, federal regulators should be empowered to assume responsibility to route a project if a 

state process fails to move forward. One example of the need for a new approach is the recently 

proposed Northern Pass transmission project in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Without 

commenting on the merits of the specific project, it is clear that the process was long, arduous, 

and ultimately unsuccessful. Another approach could be to refine DOE's ability to designate 

federal siting corridors by addressing concerns that made backstop siting provisions in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 ineffective. 

• Second, we need to be able to use the latest and most comprehensive methodologies to plan and 

approve new transmission lines, to ensure we are making the right investment in our future 

economy. Transmission planners at utilities and RTOs and ISOs need to be given the ability to use 

"Full Value Analysis" when they are evaluating regional transmission projects and determining 

how to share their costs. Planning the grid based on Full Value Analysis would require that the 

benefits of a potential investment are examined comprehensively, by integrating a range of 

project benefits and planning drivers, including fuel diversity, system resilience, and proactive 

planning for new interconnections, into criteria for approving projects. To implement this, 

Congress could consider asking FERC to initiate a rulemaking to adjust its regulations to encourage 

RTOs, ISOs and utilities to implement a Full Value Analysis process in their regional planning and 

cost allocation procedures. 

We also need to support the construction of new transmission lines that connect RTOs and ISOs, 

which today are still highly separated. More interregional connections will increase system 

flexibility and resilience against potential threats. A "Full Value Analysis" rulemaking process 

7 
42 


30215.027

implemented by FERC for projects that connect regions would help to us to identify and promote 

these opportunities, while still allowing for regionally flexible approaches to joint planning. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

8 
43 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ross. 

STATEMENT OF JIM ROSS 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and the Members of 

the Committee, on behalf of our president, Lonnie Stephenson, 

thank you for inviting me here today to participate in this important discussion. 

Energy generation and power distribution is an $800 billion a 

year business. With 775,000 active members and retirees, the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers—the IBEW—represents approximately 400,000 workers employed in generation, 

transmission, distribution, construction, and rail jobs all in some 

way related to the electrical grid. The IBEW supports a diverse 

balance and resilient energy portfolio that includes renewables like 

wind, solar, and hydro while preserving key base load energy’s 

sources like natural gas, coal, nuclear power. These base load 

power sources are extremely important to the United States security and vital to future planning. The need to upgrade is getting 

its rightful attention these days. 

But left out of the recent conversation is that the United States 

has not made meaningful upgrades to its energy infrastructure 

since the 1970s. Unfortunately, our current electric distribution 

system, which functions on a regional or localized basis, is outdated 

and inefficient and the permitting and approval process for largescale transmission projects is more than burdensome. It’s an outright barrier to construction. 

The large-scale solar installation in the desert of California, a 

massive new hydropower generation project in eastern Canada, and 

a wind farm in the plains—these are major renewable energy development projects the members of the IBEW have been proud to 

help construct in recent years. 

But these generation projects of the future are only as good as 

the transmission network they will rely on. Their value is diminished if there is no infrastructure to take power from the source to 

the demand for electricity. 

New investment in the transmission network is a necessary component of these renewable energy projects and the good news is 

that plans exist and, in some cases, are years into the necessary 

permitting and approval stages. In fact, approximately $140 billion 

in private capital is awaiting permit approvals for aging transmission system overhauls and development of new clean lines to 

move more renewable sources to market. 

One important method of financing infrastructure projects is 

through bonds and regulatory decisions can dramatically impact 

the bond market. Congress can also play a key role in project financing by expanding access to private activity bonds. Your support for legislation that encourages market predictability and stability will foster job creation. 

It is also important to support legislation that would streamline 

permitting and siting processes. There are plenty of energy infrastructure projects across the United States that have been involved 

in the permitting process for years. 

44 

An example of a project pending approval is the 192-mile Northern Pass project which will build high-voltage transmission lines 

through New Hampshire, carrying clean hydropower from Canada 

to New England. It would create 2,600 jobs during peak construction and many of these would be skilled IBEW construction linemen. Recent storms and frigid temperatures have challenged the 

ability to the region to meet demand for heating and electric generation. As a result, wholesale gas prices spiked more than 10 

times the 2017 average price and oil-fueled turbines were employed, triggering a release of greenhouse gases and pollutants into 

the atmosphere. 

Northern Pass will relieve the massive imbalance of supply and 

demand in New England and introduce necessary renewable diversity into its energy portfolio. Another 750-mile high-voltage clean 

line project will deliver 4,000 megawatts of wind-generated power 

to major load centers in the Midwest and the East Coast, enough 

to power 720,000 homes. Both of these projects bring economic and 

job growth, preserve local communities, and grow the tax base. A 

regulatory resistance from state and local jurisdictions has effectively stopped them before they could get off the ground. For this 

reason, we need to empower federal authorities to approve largescale projects of national importance that cross state lines and local 

government jurisdictions. 

With all due respect to local authorities, we need a new approach 

that trims unnecessary red tape and streamlines the rules created 

by numerous regulatory authorities. Additionally, the Federal Government should take responsibility for right sizing by incentivizing 

development of capacity in excess of current market demands. 

Accounting for future demand avoids the possibility of under 

building and encourages future development renewable electricity 

sources because there will be a market case to make to investors, 

providing that they can move their generation to major markets. 

Lastly, we are encouraged by recent one-agency one-decision proposals which will reduce the time line for federal environmental reviews and permitting processes. We do not support efforts to diminish current environmental protections. We simply need an efficient 

process. We cannot afford to continue postponing the necessary upgrades. 

The United States lags behind China and Brazil, Germany, and 

many other countries in transmission infrastructure investment. 

With the Federal Government taking a decision making lead, market predictability will improve as well as the IBEW’s ability to plan 

for training the next generation of construction linemen. It takes 

3 years to train a journeyman lineman to perform transmission line 

construction and maintenance, and we anticipate the need for approximately 50,000 new power linemen over the next 10 years. 

While projects are held up, we are losing valuable training time. 

By the way, our privately-operated apprenticeship training programs invest approximately $200 million annually to equip students with the skills the markets demand. For more than 70 years, 

the IBEW and our employer partners, the National Electrical Contractors Association, have been the largest private sector trainer of 

electrical workers in the Nation. 

45 

Together, the IBEW and NECA operate hundreds of training centers in communities across the country. Our training programs 

guarantee a steady stream of skilled electrical workers necessary 

for the important work of modernizing and expanding our grid. 

We ask for your leadership on making our modern electrical grid 

a reality. We remain a ready partner with our employers and elected officials from both sides of the aisle. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:] 

46 


30215.028

Testimony of Jim Ross 

Director 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

Construction and Maintenance Department 

Before the Subcommittee on Energy, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

February 27, 2018 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and the members of the Committee. On behalf of our 

president, Lonnie Stephenson, thank you for inviting me here today to participate in this important 

discussion. 

Energy generation and power distribution is an $800 billion a year business. With 775,000 active 

members and retirees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers- the IBEW- represents 

approximately 400,000 workers employed in generation, transmission, distribution, construction and rail 

jobs, all in some way related to the electrical grid. 

The IBEW supports a diverse, balanced and resilient energy portfolio that includes renewables like wind, 

solar and hydro, while preserving key base load energy sources like natural gas, coal and nuclear power. 

These baseload power sources are extremely important to the United States' security and vital to future 

planning. 

The need to upgrade the nation's infrastructure is getting its rightful attention these days. But left out of 

the recent conversation is that the United States has not made meaningful upgrades to its energy 

infrastructure since the 1970s. 

Unfortunately, our current electric distribution system, which functions on a regional or localized basis, 

is outdated and inefficient. And the permitting and approval process for large-scale transmission 

projects is more than burdensome. It's an outright barrier to construction. 

A large-scale solar installation in the desert of California. A massive new hydropower generation project 

in eastern Canada. And a wind farm in the Plains. 

These are major renewable energy development projects the members of the IBEW have been proud to 

help construct in recent years. 

1 
47 


30215.029

But these generation projects of the future are only as good as the transmission network they will rely 

on. Their value is diminished if there is no infrastructure to take power from the source to the demand 

for electricity. 

New investment in the transmission network is a necessary component of these renewable energy 

projects. And the good news is that plans exist and in some cases, are years into the necessary 

permitting and approval stages. In fact, approximately $140 billion in private capital is awaiting permit 

approvals for aging transmission system overhauls and development of new clean lines to move more 

renewable sources to market. 

One important method of financing infrastructure projects is through bonds and regulatory decisions 

can dramatically impact the bond market. Congress can also play a key role in project financing by 

expanding access to private activity bonds. Your support for legislation that encourages market 

predictability and stability wilt foster job creation. 

It is also important to support legislation that would streamline permitting and siting processes. There 

are plenty of energy infrastructure projects across the U.S. that have been involved in permitting 

processes for years. 

An example of a project pending approval is the 192-mile Northern Pass project, which will build high 

voltage transmission lines through New Hampshire, carrying clean hydropower from Canada to New 

England. It would create 2,600 jobs during peak construction and many of these would be skilled IBEW 

construction linemen. 

Recent storms and frigid temperatures have challenged the ability of the region to meet demand for 

heating and electric generation. As a result, wholesale gas prices spiked more than 10 times the 2017 

average price and oil-fueled turbines were employed, triggering the release of greenhouse gases and 

pollutants into the atmosphere. Northern Pass will relieve the massive imbalance of supply and demand 

in New England and introduce necessary, renewable diversity into its energy portfolio. 

Another, the 750-mile high-voltage Clean Line project will deliver 4,000 megawatts of wind-generated 

power to major load centers in the Midwest and the East Coast, enough to power 720,000 homes. 

Both of these projects promote economic development and job growth, preserve local communities and 

grow the tax base. But regulatory resistance from state and local jurisdictions has effectively stopped 

them before they could get off the ground. 

2 
48 


30215.030

For this reason, we need to empower federal authorities to approve large-scale projects of national 

importance that cross state lines and local government jurisdictions. With all due respect to local 

authorities, we need a new approach that trims unnecessary red tape and streamlines the rules created 

by numerous regulatory authorities. 

Additionally, the federal government should take responsibility for "right-sizing" by incentivizing 

development of capacity in excess of current market demands. Accounting for future demand avoids the 

possibility of underbuilding and encourages future development of renewable electricity sources 

because there will be a market case to make to investors, proving they can move their generation to 

major markets. 

Lastly, we are encouraged by recent "one-agency, one-decision" proposals which will reduce the 

timeline for federal environmental reviews and permitting processes. We do not support efforts to 

diminish current environmental protections; we simply need an efficient process. 

We cannot afford to continue postponing these necessary upgrades. The United States lags behind 

China, Brazil, Germany and many other countries in transmission infrastructure investment. 

With the federal government taking the decision-making lead, market predictability will improve, as will 

the IBEW's ability to plan for training the next generation of construction linemen. It takes three years to 

train a journeyman lineman to perform transmission line construction and maintenance, and we 

anticipate the need for approximately 50,000 new power!inemen over the next 10 years. While projects 

are held up, we are losing valuable training time. 

By the way, our privately-operated apprenticeship training programs invest approximately $200 million 

annually to equip students with the skills the market demands. For more than 70 years, the IBEW and 

our employer partners in the National Electrical Contractors Association have been the largest privatesector trainer of electrical workers in the nation. Together, the IBEW and NECA operate hundreds of 

training centers in communities across the country. 

Our training programs guarantee a steady stream of skilled electrical workers necessary for the 

important work of modernizing and expanding our grid. 

We ask for your leadership on making our modern electrical grid a reality. We remain a ready partner 

with our employers and elected officials from both sides of the aisle. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today. 

3 
49 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Dr. Chen. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER CHEN 

Ms. CHEN. Good morning, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, and members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Jennifer Chen, an 

attorney with the NRDC. I am also a board member with the 

Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, a coalition including transmission owners and developers. We are jointly working to achieve 

a modern, efficient, and clean consumer-friendly transmission grid. 

NRDC supports a range of infrastructure modernization projects 

that deliver economic, social, and environmental benefits. We support programs promoting energy efficiency and distributed energy 

resources, and we need to ensure that transmission planning 

counts for them to avoid overbuilding. 

Today, I will focus my comments on the main barrier to transmission infrastructure improvements most needed to modernize the 

electric grid—a severely fragmented transmission planning process 

and how we can overcome that barrier. 

But first, I want to emphasize that environmental laws are not 

driving a delay in modernizing our grid and President Trump’s infrastructure plan that would severely undermine these protections 

is not the solution. As DOE noted in its quadrennial energy review 

on energy infrastructure, the environmental review and permitting 

requirements are accomplished effectively and efficiently. This is 

due in large part to progress made by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as well as by the last two administrations. 

NEPA is only triggered if there is a federal nexus like when a 

project receives federal funding. NEPA and federal permitting requirements are important components for smart from the start 

planning. They disclose a project’s impact to the public and provide 

opportunities for input including alternate solutions. Early robust 

public engagement is also key through reducing conflicts and mitigating impacts. Such input has resulted in better outcomes and 

stakeholder engagement helps avoid protracted legal battles, bad 

publicity, and protests. 

On the other hand, President Trump’s plan to short circuit environmental projections and public processes would be counterproductive because experience has shown that insufficient public 

engagement breeds local opposition that can delay projects. It’s far 

better to fix the disjointed planning process we can all agree is a 

barrier to something a wide range of stakeholders wants. We want 

our nation’s transmission backbone to be able to deliver clean lowcost electricity from the windy heartland and sunny states to more 

densely populated regions. Importantly, that kind of grid modernization effort will create jobs, improve the efficiency of our electricity markets, promotes emissions-free electrification of our economy that is key to addressing climate change, and produce billions 

of dollars in benefits to electricity consumers. 

The problem is our transmission planning process is too small 

scale to produce a robust transmission backbone needed to accomplish these goals. Currently, interregional transmission planning 

proposals are dying on the vine, if proposed at all, far in advance 

50 

of the environmental review stage. This is largely due to mismatched planning between neighboring regions. 

Smaller regional projects, on the other hand, have seen more success. FERC tried to facilitate interregional project development by 

requiring neighboring grid planners to coordinate with each other. 

But that’s not the same as requiring them to jointly plan for transmission because neighboring regions use different methods in their 

planning. Asking them to simply coordinate has not facilitated 

these interregional projects. FERC sought public input in June of 

2016 to revisit this issue but it has not acted on it since. Interregional transmission planning, not just coordination between regions, must be FERC’s next priority. 

As a next step, Congress could encourage FERC to use existing 

authority to implement a rule on interregional transmission planning and to truly modernize the grid, Congress could encourage 

FERC to require planning that anticipates the impact of public 

policies and the falling costs of wind and solar power. 

FERC should also require planning that accounts for technologies that facilitate environmentally responsible siting, reduces 

energy loss along the wires, and maximizes the use of existing 

transmission lines and other infrastructure. Infrastructure is long 

lived and expensive, but it’s an investment and it’s important to 

get it right. And to do so, it’s critical to take steps now to improve 

the planning process. President Trump’s plan to circumvent environmental protections would encourage rushing to solve the wrong 

problem. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chen follows:] 

51 


30215.031

TESTIMONY BY 

JENNIFER CHEN 

ATIORNEY, SUSTAINABLE FERC PROJECT 

OF THE 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

February 27, 2018 
52 


30215.032

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee- thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm 

Jennifer Chen, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a 

nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists dedicated to 

protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 3 million 

members and online activists nationwide, served from our offices in New York, Washington, Los 

Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Beijing. Under the Sustainable FERC Project, I lead a 

coalition of environmental groups to jointly advocate before the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) and PJM Interconnection, Inc. I'm also a board member of the Americans 

for a Clean Energy Grid, a coalition representing industry, trade groups, and environmental 

organizations seeking to broaden stakeholder support for modernizing our transmission grid in 

a way that is efficient, consumer-friendly, and sensitively sited. 1 

NRDC's general position on energy infrastructure 

NRDC supports 21st century infrastructure investment that prioritizes performance-based 

projects that deliver economic, social and environmental benefits- such as jobs, clean energy 

and water, improved mobility and climate resilience. Technological innovations like smart 

meters and energy storage as well as upgrading the nation's power infrastructure will enable us 

to take advantage of clean, reliable, and cost-effective energy resources. Deploying information 

technology like broadband and wireless will help get us the data to run our cities and towns 

more efficiently. We also support preparing Americans for the future with clean energy jobs. 

Infrastructure projects are an opportunity for good jobs beyond construction, but we cannot 

afford to invest federal funding in constructing fossil fuel pipelines and refineries that lock us 

into unnecessary and outdated infrastructure that will burden generations to come. 2 

I will focus my comments on how we can address the real barriers to transmission 

infrastructure improvements most needed to modernize the grid3 - the severely fragmented 

1 Americans for a Clean Energy Grid works with utilities, environmental advocates, transmission 

owners and developers, renewable energy companies, technology manufacturers, labor unions, 

and public-interest groups to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of 

modernizing America's high-voltage transmission system. https://cleanenergygrid.org/. 2 Natural Resources Defense Council. March 2017. Infrastructure That Works for America-Not 

Just Wall Street. Retrieved from https:/ /www.nrdc.org/experts/shelley-poticha/infrastructureworks-america-not-just-wall-street. 

3 Note that grid modernization importantly also includes updating existing infrastructure to 

reduce waste and emissions, and modernizing home, buildings, end-use appliances and 

processes to be more efficient- and including this efficiency in planning so that we do not overbuild transmission and generation. Many aspects of H.R. 2479, the "Leading Infrastructure for 

Tomorrow's America Act," (LIFT America) introduced by Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. and 

2 
53 


30215.033

planning process. But first, I want to emphasize that environmental laws are not driving the 

delay in modernizing our grid. And President Trump's infrastructure plan4 that will cut corners 

in complying with them will not solve delay issues. 

Environmental review is important and not a driver of delay 

Claims that project delays are caused by federal environmental review or permitting 

requirements5 are based on unsound logic and inaccurate and unsubstantiated assumptions. 

Studies have disproved these claims and have shown that it is not federal rules that are causing 

the delays.6 For most types of infrastructure, the primary factor is lack of funding.? 

As the U.S. Department of Energy {DOE) noted in its Quadrennial Energy Review on energy 

transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure, "the environmental review and 

permitting requirements are accomplished effectively and efficiently."8 The statistics DOE 

provides in support are impressive-- according to a partial inventory, between 2009 and early 

2015: 

• The Bureau of Land Management {BLM) has approved 90 major electric transmission 

line projects, spanning about 3,000 total miles and authorized more than nine major 

pipeline projects for oil, water, and natural gas. 

• FERC has authorized about 4,500 miles of pipeline. 

• The Rural Utilities Service has financed 5,591 total miles of transmission line. 

the Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on May 17, 2017 would 

further important grid modernizations efforts along these lines. 

4 The White House, Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America, 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/INFRASTRUCTURE-211.pdf. 

5 Philip K. Howard, "Two Years Not Ten: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals" {New York: 

Common Good, 2015), http:/ /commongood.3cdn.net/c613b4cfda258a5fcb_e8m6b5t3x.pdf. 6 Center for American Progress, Debunking the False Claims of Environmental Review 

Opponents {May 3, 2017), 

cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2017 /05/02115452/DebunkingEnvironmentaiRevie 

wFalseCiaims-brief1.pdf; Congressional Research Service, Memo to House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure on Questions regarding the report Two Years Not Ten Years: 

Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals {Jun. 7, 2017). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/twonot.pdf. 

7 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

infrastructure Solutions, Testimony of Natural Resources Defense Council Legislative Director 

Scott Slesinger, llS'h Cong. (Jan. 30, 2018). 

8 U.S. Department of Energy, Chapter IX: Siting and Permitting of TS&D Infrastructure, 

Quadrennial Energy Review {April 2015) 

h ttps :/I energy .gov I sites/ p rod/fi les/2015 /08/f25 I QE R%20Cha p ter%201X%2 OS it i ng%2 Oa n d%2 OP 

ermitting%20April%202015.pdf. 

3 
54 


30215.034

• The Forest Service has approved and reauthorized 4,921 power line projects covering 

31,678 miles, 2,160 natural gas and oil pipelines covering 12,907 miles, and 158 water 

transmission projects covering 847 miles. 9 

FERC, too, has said it has been efficient in reviewing and approving proposed gas pipeline and 

LNG facilities: 

FERC's "natural gas project review processes are thorough, efficient, and have 

resulted in the timely approval of interstate natural gas pipelines, LNG facilities, 

and facilities at our international borders for the import or export of natural gas. 

Since 2000, the Commission has authorized nearly 18,000 miles of interstate 

natural gas transmission pipeline totaling more than 159 billion cubic feet per 

day of transportation capacity, over one trillion cubic feet of interstate storage 

capacity, and 23 facility sites for the import and export of LNG ..... Since August 

when the Commission gained a quorum, the agency has authorized more than 

12 billion cubic feet per day of additional pipeline capacity and more than 1,300 

miles of pipeline." 10 

Gas pipeline projects have been routinely approved by FERC under its current guidelines for 

project review, adopted in 1999.11 Since that time, FERC has rejected only two of the 

approximately 400 pipeline applications filedY As FERC continues to approve nearly every 

pipeline proposal it reviews and in light of underutilized existing pipelines (at a little above 50 

percent utilization),13 there are concerns that gas infrastructure is being overbuilt. 

Permitting and siting of the majority of transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure 

projects depends on state and local decisions. Federal agencies have siting authority over 

proposed infrastructure projects that cross Federal land or water, interstate natural gas 

pipelines, and, to a limited extent, interstate electricity transmission projects. 

9Jd. 

10 Testimony of Terry L. Turpin, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at 4 

(Dec. 12, 2017). 

11 Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 already made changes to FERC's authority to 

address concerns of delay of pipeline approvals, including placing FERC in charge of 

coordinating NEPA reviews and federal approvals needed for pipeline certification. Paul W. 

Parfomak, Congressional Research Service, Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines: Process and Timing 

of FERC Permit Application Review, Summary {Jan. 16, 2015). 

12 Susan Tierney, Analysis Group, Natural Gas Pipeline Certification: Policy Considerations for a 

Changing Industry at 1 {Nov. 6, 2017). 

13 The average utilization rate from 1998-2013 was only 54 percent. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Natural Gas Infrastructure Implications of Increased Demand from the Electric Power 

Sector at 22 (2015}. 

4 
55 


30215.035

In general, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, is triggered if a transmission project 

is on federal land, if the project receives federal funding or support, or if a federal permit is 

required for projects that would fill wetlands, might impact our nation's waters, or potentially 

harm threatened or endangered species. NEPA and federal permitting requirements are 

important components of "smart from the start" planning, which enables developers to 

anticipate potential issues with prospective construction sites, and consider alternatives and 

engage affected communities early in the processY 

One important way that federal agencies are advancing regional planning for infrastructure 

development in the west is through Regional Reviews of the West-wide Energy Corridors 

designated under Section 368 of Energy Policy Act 2005. 15 These reviews are being led by the 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Department of Energy (the Agencies) and 

are scheduled to be completed in 2019; the reviews will result in recommendations for 

improvements to the corridors to better facilitate infrastructure development while limiting 

impacts to the environment. The Agencies are making good progress and it is crucial that they 

continue to improve their approach and ensure the reviews are completed in a way that helps 

us plan for smart transmission line and pipeline development on federal lands across the west. 

For multistate transmission projects, the involvement of multiple jurisdictions adds time to 

siting, permitting, and review of infrastructure projects. As major infrastructure projects are 

proposed, Federal, state, local, and tribal governments must work to consider and minimize 

potential impacts on safety and security, as well as environmental and community resources. 

Close collaboration with tribal, state, and local governments is critical, and robust public 

engagement is essential for the credibility of the siting, permitting, and review process. 

Major infrastructure projects may trigger conflicting stakeholder interests and have the 

potential to produce significant impacts on local communities and the environment. Early and 

robust stakeholder engagement is necessary to encourage compromise, minimize conflict, and 

14 Smart from the Start siting refers the following principles. Consult stakeholders early and 

involve them in planning, zoning and siting. Use geospatial information to categorize the risk of 

resource conflicts. Avoid land and wildlife conservation and cultural resource conflicts and 

prioritize development in previously disturbed areas. lncentivize resource zone development 

with priority approvals and access to transmission. Consider renewable energy zones or 

development sites that optimize the use of the grid. Maximize the use of existing infrastructure. 

Where zoning is not feasible (as in much of the Eastern Interconnection), use siting criteria 

based on these principles. Carl Zichella and Johnathan Hladik, Siting: Finding a Home for 

Renewable Energy and Transmission. http:/ /americaspowerplan.com/siting/. 

15 http:/ /corridoreis.anl.gov/. 

5 
56 


30215.036

mitigate these potential impacts- and is likely to reduce delays in reaching a decision.16 And by 

disclosing a project's impacts and allowing for consideration of alternative solutions, we have 

saved money, lives, historical sites, endangered species, and public lands while encouraging 

compromise and found alternatives that were not previously considered, resulting in better 

projects with more public support. 

A great example of the importance of public input is the Hoover Dam Bypass, an award-winning 

project led by HDR Inc. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the 3.5-mile 

Hoover Dam Bypass project to address congestion at the Hoover Dam crossing. However, the 

environmental impact statement for the project failed to explore an adequate variety of 

options. Project manager Dave Zanetell and his team more thoroughly researched an 

alternative proposed by environmental groups and added features to the project in response to 

public comments. In its final form, the bypass runs closer to developed areas instead of cutting 

through pristine corridors and includes sidewalks, pedestrian facilities, and parking to enable 

pedestrian access. "Oftentimes the public is a huge influence on the project. NEPA is certainly 

the foundation for public participation," said Zanetell. "We don't look at it as a burden; it is 

something we relish," he addedP Zanetell went on to win the 2018 The ASCE OPAL award 

honoring outstanding civil engineering leaders for their lifetime accomplishments. 18 The Hoover 

Dam Bypass won the American Council of Engineering Companies' Grand Conceptor Award, 

given to the nation's best overall engineering achievement. 19 

Finally, it's worth noting that environmental review processes are not a beacon for litigation. 

Each year, about 50,000 major federal actions require an environmental assessment, 20 and 

another roughly 500 projects require full environmental impact statements. Yet only around 

16 U.S. Department of Energy, Siting and Permitting of TS&D Infrastructure; Federal Permitting 

Improvement Steering Council, Recommended Best Practices for Environmental Reviews and 

Authorizations for Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal Year 2018 (2017) (issued as a key part of 

Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act), 

https:/ /www.permits.performance.gov/sites/permits.performance.gov/files/docs/documentati 

on/40856/fast-41fy-2018best-practices-report.pdf. 

17 https:/ /www.nrdc.org/resources/never-eliminate-public-advice-nepa-success-stories. 

18 http:/ I news. asce. o rg/ engineer-who-managed-hoover-dam-bypass-project-earns-20 18-opa 1/. 19 https:/ /www. businesswi re .com/news/home/20110404006891/ en/Hoover-Dam-Bypass-2ndHDR-Project-Win. 

2

° Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The Twenty-fifth Anniversary 

Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Executive Office of the President, 1996), 

https:/ /ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-reports/ceq-25th-annual-report.pdf. 

6 
57 


30215.037

100 NEPA cases are filed. 21 This means that only one-fifth of 1 percent of federal actions 

triggering NEPA are subject to litigation. 22 

President Trump's infrastructure plan would short-circuit environmental protections, agency 

requirements to consider project alternatives, and public processes. And doing so would be 

counterproductive because experience has shown that insufficient public engagement breeds 

local opposition that can delay projects. In contrast, early stakeholder engagement can help the 

project approval process run smoothly, result in a more informed outcome, and avoid 

protracted legal battles, bad publicity, and protests. 

Further, additional amendments to the environmental review and permitting process are 

unnecessary and counterproductive. Congress has given the administration tools to expedite 

the permitting process without sacrificing environmental protections- tools that the 

administration has yet to take advantage of. In October 2015, the Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act} set up the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, 

which is tasked with coordinating and expediting federal permit reviews. The House, however, 

appropriated only $1 million to the steering council, and the Trump Administration has not 

appointed its Executive Director. 23 Layering on new inconsistent or contradictory changes to 

the environmental review and permitting process would create new conflicts and delay. 

A key issue impeding transmission grid modernization is a weak transmission backbone 

It is far better to fix what we can all agree is a barrier to something a wide range of stakeholders 

want. We want our nation's transmission backbone to be able to deliver low-cost renewable 

electricity from the wind-rich heartland and sun-soaked states to more heavily populated 

regions. Importantly, that kind of grid modernization effort will create good, stable jobs, 24 

21 Government Accountability Office, "National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information 

Exists on NEPA Analyses." 

22 Center for American Progress, 

https:/ /www .americanprogress.org/issues/ economy/reports/2017 /05/03/431651/ debunkingfalse-claims-environmental-review-opponents/#fn-431651-33. 

23 Center for American Progress, President Trump's Infrastructure Proposal Recklessly 

Undermines Environmental Laws (Feb. 16, 2018}, 

www. american p rogress.o rg/i ssues/ green/ news/2018/02/16/ 446914/ president-trumpsinfrastructure-proposal-recklessly-undermines-environmental-laws. 

24 https:/ /mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/PoweringAmerica.pdf. 

7 
58 


30215.038

improve the efficiency of our electricity markets, 25 promote clean, emissions-free electrification 

of our economy, and produce billions of dollars in benefits to electricity customers. 26 

The problem is that we need to fix a disjointed transmission planning process that does not 

plan on a geographic scale to produce long-line transmission projects. The contiguous United 

States has three separate interconnections- the eastern, western and Texas interconnections, 

with limited links between them. Not only is there no transmission planning between the 

interconnections, the transmission infrastructure planning is performed in even smaller regions 

within interconnections. 

Currently, interregional transmission proposals are dying on the vine, if they are proposed at all 

-far in advance of the environmental review stage. This is due to mismatches in assumptions, 

models, definitions, determinations of need, valuation of benefits, and allocation of costs 

across neighboring planning regionsY Smaller, regional projects, on the other hand, have seen 

more success- about $77 billion was spent on regional transmission projects between 2008 

and 201S in North America, largely in Texas, 28 the Great Plains, New England, the West, and the 

Midwest.29 

25 Edison Electric Institute, Transmission Projects: At A Glance (December 2016) 

http://www. eei. org/issuesa nd policy /tra n sm issi on/Docu me nts/T ran s _Project _I owres _ bookma r 

ked.pdf. 

26 Well-planned transmission investments reduce total costs. For example, SPP analyzed the 

costs and benefits of transmission projects from 2012-2014 and found that the planned $3.4 

billion investment in transmission was expected to reduce customer cost by $12 billion. 

https://democratsenergycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Tes 

timony-Kiernan-EP-Hrg-on-Part-11-Powering-America-Defining-Reliability-in-a-TransformingEiectricity-lndustry-2017 -10. pdf. 

27 Two neighboring regional grid operators, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator 

and Southwest Power Pool, have conducted two coordinated system plan studies that have 

failed to produce an approved interregional project, although they have studied several 

candidate projects. MISO Plans Interregional improvements with SPP, (February 14, 2018) 

https://www.rtoinsider.com/miso-spp-interregional-process-86374/. A guiding principle of 

FERC's landmark order on transmission planning, Order No. 1000, is that the costs of 

transmission should be allocated roughly commensurately with the benefits accrued. But 

"benefits" was never defined -it was left to individual regional grid operators. The result has 

been a wide variance in regional compliance plans. 

https:/ /scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2064&context=elq. 

28 Texas pioneered renewable energy resource zoning to develop transmission for remote wind 

energy projects. The Texas grid operator has estimated that up to 3,500 miles of new lines are 

needed to bring new wind capacity to the state's load centers. 

29 https:/ /www .ferc.gov /legal/staff -reports/2017 /transmission-investment -metrics. pdf. 

8 
59 


30215.039

FERC, in its landmark Order No. 1000 on transmission planning, tried to facilitate interregional 

project development by requiring neighboring regional grid planners to coordinate with each 

other, which falls short of requiring them to jointly plan. The neighboring regions plan 

separately- with different ways of modeling, determining the need for a project, valuing 

benefits, and allocating costs. Thus, simply asking them to coordinate has not sufficiently 

facilitated interregional transmission.3

° FERC revisited this issue by hosting a technical 

conference on Order No. 1000, including interregional coordination issues, on June 28 and 29, 

2016, and solicited public comments (Docket No. AD16-18-000), but FERC has not acted in 

response to the comments since then. 

While there are many successes to FERC's order on transmission planning, it can be improved. 

Integrated interregional transmission planning- not just coordination between regions must 

be the next priority for FER C. As a next step, Congress today could encourage FERC to 

implement a rule, using its existing authority, requiring interregional transmission planning and 

encourage FERC to require planning that includes the following important factors: 

• First, planning should be anticipatory- transmission is a long-lived investment, and it 

would be prudent to account for public policies that drive changes in the energy 

resources we use to power the grid,31 the falling costs of wind and solar power, and 

growing corporate demand for renewable energy.32 

• Second, planning should be holistic. 

o Planning should account for modern transmission technologies and other ways 

to increase the capacity on the system, reduce energy loss, and maximize the use 

of existing lines and rights of way. We need to stop building new transmission 

infrastructure with old, inefficient technology, a common practice today. 

Technological advancements can increase capacity on existing towers, reduce 

30 Stakeholders See Shortcomings in Western Interregional Tx Planning, 

https:/ /www.rtoinsider.com/western-interregional-transmission-planning-39424/. Even though 

this article was published a year ago, very little has changed and the same issues remain. 

31 According to a Brattle Group study, a more proactive and immediate approach to building a 

strong transmission grid will yield net savings in total generation and transmission investment 

costs ranging from $30-70 billion through 2030 for compliance with current regulations, up to 

almost $50 billion in savings annually on consumers' bills in an even more environmentally 

constrained future. Brattle Group, Well-Planned Electric Transmission Saves Customer Costs: 

Improved Transmission Planning is Key to the Transition to a Carbon-Constrained Future (May 

2016) 

http:/ /wi resgro up. com/docs/ reports/W I R ES%2 OB rattl e%20Report _ T ran sm iss ion Pian n i ng_J u ne 

2016.pdf. 

32 http: I jwi ndene rgyfou ndatio n. org/2018/0 1/16/ report-transm iss ion-needed-to-meetcorporate-americas-growing-demand-for-renewable-power/. 

9 
60 


30215.040

line losses and emissions, control power flows, reduce visual and land-use 

impacts, improve reliability, enhance security, and lower net costs. 

o Planning should account for the growing penetration of behind-the-meter 

resources and energy efficient appliances and buildings, and the willingness of 

customers to reduce electricity consumption during peak electricity demand. 

o Planning should account for non-transmission alternatives. States like New York 

have successfully incentivized non-wires solutions to defer or avoid unnecessary 

distribution system upgrades. FERC and regional grid planners should learn from 

their experiences to make rule changes at the federal level to ensure 

technologies that could provide transmission services, like storage, demand 

response, and energy efficiency, can do so and be fairly compensated for it. 

o Planning should account for all benefits of transmission. Transmission planners 

only provide estimates of short-term cost savings under simplified system 

conditions.33 These estimates undervalue transmission investments, because 

they miss a significant portion of transmission's total production cost savings and 

its overall economy-wide benefits. FERC should require a full accounting of 

transmissions benefits, including: 

Additional savings from reduced line losses and mitigation of extreme 

weather. 

Improved reliability and resource adequacy benefits, such as reduced 

reserve margins. 

Generation capacity savings, including reduced peak energy losses, 

deferred generation capacity investments, and access to lower-cost 

generation resources. 

Electricity market benefits, such as increased competition. 

Environmental benefits, such as reduced emissions. 

The benefits of meeting adopted public policy goals. 

o The transmission planning and generation interconnection process should be 

combined. Project-by-project interconnection requirements are often costly, 

especially for smaller resources, and efficiencies of coordinating many projects in 

a sub-region are missed. 

o Planning should include proactive consideration of impacts to lands, wildlife, 

cultural resources, recreation opportunities and other resources on federal and 

non-federal lands. Planning should emphasize avoiding and minimizing these 

impacts, which will facilitate infrastructure development by reducing conflicts 

and associated delays. 

• Third, planning should employ modern modeling techniques that can simultaneously 

account for wind and solar generation patterns and peak electricity demand to 

33 WIRES Brattle Group Study, 2013. 

10 
61 


30215.041

determine transmission needs.34 And planning should take advantage of new mapping 

tools that identify environmentally or culturally sensitive sites. 35 

• Fourth, and not least, planning should use consistent definitions, modeling, 

assumptions, and metrics across planning regions. 

To conclude, infrastructure is a decades-long- if not century-long investment, and it's 

expensive. It's important to build it right, and to do so, it's critical to takes steps now to 

improve the planning process. We must be diligent but also patient. President Trump's plan to 

circumvent environmental protections would encourage rushing to solve the wrong problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

34 http://www. noaa news. no a a .gov I stories2016/012516-ra pid-afforda ble-e nergytransformation-possible.html. 

35 Argonne National Laboratory's mapping effort could be used to identify more optimal, lowerconflict sites for renewable energy and transmission development. The Eastern Interconnection 

Planning Collaborative is completing a planning initiative that may include a tool that uses 

geospatial information to suggest the location of potential renewable energy development 

zones. 

11 
62 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Dr. Hellyer. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDA HELLYER 

Ms. HELLYER. Good morning, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, and Vice Chair Olson and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Dr. Brenda Hellyer and I am Chancellor of San 

Jacinto College, and I am pleased to testify this morning on the 

role that community colleges and San Jacinto College specifically 

can play in contributing to the Nation’s energy infrastructure and 

developing the workforce and the talent pipeline that’s necessary to 

support that infrastructure. 

San Jacinto College is located in East Harris County, the Gulf 

Coast region of Texas, and serves approximately 45,000 credit and 

non-credit students each year. Last year, the college was recognized as an Aspen Rising Star Award, representing as one of the 

top five community colleges in the country for community college 

excellence. 

We are located in the heart of an energy industry. Our service 

area incorporates the Houston Ship Channel, home to the Nation’s 

largest petrochemical complex, and we also support the NASA 

Johnson Space Center, Ellington Airport, and the Port of Houston, 

which is ranked number one in U.S. ports for foreign tonnage. 

In my written testimony, I outline some of the workforce challenges in the Houston region. Briefly, Houston’s skills gap has 

reached critical proportions among the middle skilled jobs—those 

that require more education and training than a high school diploma but less than a four-year degree. Of the 3.6 million jobs in 

Houston, 1.4 million, or approximately 40 percent, are middle skills 

jobs. The best way to address this need is through collaboration 

and partnership. 

We have taken a national state and regional approach. No one 

entity or group can fix this challenge alone. From a regional standpoint, we engage area economic development corporations, our 

school districts, our universities, and our industries to build the 

pipeline for future workers. 

We are at the table together, addressing this issue from multiple 

angles. I am going to give you some examples of that—San Jacinto 

College invites 6,000 sixth graders each year to gain hands-on experience in STEM experiments. This is through an event called 

Mind Trekkers. It’s supported and it’s sponsored by industry partners. 

We offer summer camps to kickstart students so they understand 

the jobs that are available in STEM, petrochemical, and maritime. 

We also have a speakers’ bureau that’s a grassroots effort—community colleges, our economic development group, and our industry 

partners going in to our high schools and our eighth graders talking about the careers and the jobs in our area. Last year, 12,000 

students and their parents were contacted and spoken with about 

these jobs. 

We partner with industry to understand the types of employees 

they need, the skill sets required, and we adjust our curriculum to 

meet those needs. To that end, we are building a 145,000 square 

foot center for petrochemical energy and technology. This facility is 

63 

being built based on the input from industry. It’s for industry by 

industry and it’s funded from taxpayer dollars and also private donations. 

More than a dozen industry leaders serve on a petrochem advisory council working directly with me to guide the project. This facility will house an exterior glycol unit. It’ll have programs in process technology, instrumentation, electrical, non-destructive testing, 

the craft trades, and it’ll also build on our construction management program. All of the programs will emphasize and build on a 

safety culture. The program will replicate a day in the life of plant 

operators and technicians. The programs are designed not only for 

the new worker coming into the field but also to upgrade the skills 

of the incumbent worker. 

Our partnership in providing a skilled energy workforce is enhanced through our work with you, the Federal Government. We 

understand that a well-educated technically trained energy workforce is essential to advancing the President’s America First energy 

plan and growing the Nation’s energy infrastructure. To that end, 

community colleges have been working on the development of new 

legislation for energy workforce training Centers of Excellence. Two 

bills have passed and we encourage the enactment on funding of 

this type of legislation. We also encourage Congress to continue investing in America’s labor force through grants with the Departments of Labor, Education, and Energy. 

San Jacinto College is working with the Federal Government to 

provide workforce training programs through the Ready to Act 

workforce grant, the Carl Perkins Grant, the Trade Adjustment 

Act. All of these are designed around building that workforce and 

they’re critical to the citizens of my region but they’re also critical 

to the 1,100 community colleges throughout the country that provide the critical workforce training. 

While this committee doesn’t oversee Pell, I would be remiss if 

I didn’t mention the impact of Pell and how that really can define 

how we are going to continue to feed the workforce and make sure 

that we build that workforce. There’s 2.7 million community college 

students using the Pell system, which is building our workforce. 

In conclusion, San Jacinto is working collaboratively in the Gulf 

Coast region to increase the number of students looking to go into 

these careers and workforce training, STEM, and the fields that 

really build this infrastructure. These programs improve the lives 

across our region. In the Gulf Coast region we are actually driving 

the economy of the Nation also. 

And so I can tell you from San Jacinto’s perspective this program, how we really are going to help support the infrastructure 

is critical. But it’s also critical that we have the support for all 

community colleges. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hellyer follows:] 

64 


30215.042

Prepared Testimony of 

Dr. Brenda Hellyer, Chancellor 

San Jacinto Community College District 

Pasadena, Texas 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Hearing: "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure" 

February 27, 2018 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and Members of the Subcommittee, Chancellor 

Brenda Hellyer of the San Jacinto Community College District, located in Pasadena, Texas is 

pleased to present this testimony to you regarding the nation's energy infrastructure and the role 

that community colleges, and San Jacinto College specificially, plays in contributing to the 

workforce needs related to it. 

Describing San Jacinto College 

Surrounded by monuments of history, industry and maritime enterprises of today, and the space 

age of tomorrow, San Jacinto College has been serving the citizens of East Harris County, Texas, 

since 1961. The College District incorporates the cites of Houston (east side), Pasadena, La 

Porte, Deer Park, Galena Park, Jacinto City, Channelview, Shoreacres, Morgan's Point, South 

Houston, Seabrook, El Lago, Taylor Lake Village, Nassau Bay, Webster, and portions of 

Humble and Pearland. A fiscally sound institution, the College currently holds bond ratings of 

AA and Aa2 by Standard & Poor's and Moody's, respectively. San Jacinto College was awarded 

the 2017 Aspen Prize Rising Star Award for Community College Excellence, making it a top 

five community college in the country out of 1,108 community and technical colleges. 

Approximately 45,000 credit and non-credit students each year benefit from a support system 

that maps out a pathway for success. More than three fourths of the students who attend San 

1 
65 


30215.043

Jacinto College do so part-time while working, and I or raising a family. More than 85 percent of 

the students intend to achieve an associate degree, or general academic credits, and either 

transfer to a university, or move directly into the workforce, or improve their job skills. Five 

percent attend for other reasons such as personal enrichment. 

San Jacinto College is diverse and has been designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution. The 

ethnicity of the College student body is 56.9 percent Hispanic, 23.5 percent Caucasian, 10.1 

percent African American, 5.6 percent Asian, and 2 percent other or did not report. The 

remaining 1. 9 percent of the enrollment is comprised of international students. 

The average age of the San Jacinto College student body is 23 years old, down from 26 years old 

I 0 years ago. This is due to enrollment growth in the area of dual credit, a classification for high 

school students who are concurrently enrolled in high school and college courses. The College 

collaborates with eight early college high school programs, designed so that high school students 

in the region may take College courses on campus while in high school. This program enables 

participants to earn an associate's degree while earning their high school diploma. Additionally, 

The College works with 11 area school districts to offer dual credit programs, separate from the 

early college high schools. The College offers eight career pathways that prepare students to 

transfer to a four-year college or university or directly enter the workforce with the skills needed 

to support the growing industries along the Texas Gulf Coast. San Jacinto College graduates 

contribute nearly $690 million each year to the Texas workforce. 

2 
66 


30215.044

San Jacinto College is focused on student success and making college education affordable and 

attainable to the citizens in our service area. Some relevant points include: 

• 167.4 percent increase in the number of degrees and certificates awarded since 2007 

• 30,941 credentials awarded over the last five years 

• Ranked as the #6 community college for Hispanic students by Hispanic Outlook on 

Education Magazine 

• Process technology program is ranked #1 by Texas Association of College Technical 

Educators 

• The only maritime technology associate degree in the State of Texas 

• Ranked 15'h overall by the Brookings Institute for the number of degrees and certificates 

awarded 

• Ranked in the top 5 of all community and technical colleges for excellence by the Aspen 

Institute for Community College Excellence 

• Open Educational Resources- have saved students $1.2 million over the last year in 

textbook costs. 

San Jacinto College is one of nine community colleges serving the Gulf Coast region. The 

College's service area, defined by Texas legislation, incorporates the Houston Ship Channel; 

home to the nation's largest petrochemical complex, which is expected to surpass Rotterdam in 

production by 2020, thus becoming the largest in the world. The area also includes the NASAJohnson Space Center and Port Houston, the first ranked U.S. port in foreign tonnage. The Gulf 

Coast region also hosts one of the largest medical centers in the world, the Texas Medical 

3 
67 


30215.045

Center. Currently, there are 11 health care facilities along the 1-45 corridor on the south side of 

Houston. 

In Texas, community colleges fund buildings by requesting permission from taxpayers to issue 

tax-backed bonds to build and renovate college facilities. San Jacinto College is currently in a 

building program after successfully passing a $425 million bond referendum by 68 percent in 

2015. The last bond referendum of$295 million was passed in 2008. With these building 

projects, the College continues to update facilities, some of which are 50 to 55 years old, to meet 

the educational needs oftoday's students. San Jacinto College is also partnering with 

petrochemical and maritime companies, and the NASA-Johnson Space Center to create facilities 

that specifically meet the workforce needs of the community. 

San Jacinto College's Maritime Training and Technology Center opened in 2016 as a premier 

maritime training center on the Gulf Coast. Both the maritime program and the new facility were 

created and constructed at the request of the maritime industry. Port Houston and the businesses 

directly supporting and working on the Houston ship channel saw that the state and federal 

maritime academies trained the unlimited tonnage officers for commercial sailing as well as 

Military Sealift Command. I Iowever, the lack of entry-level workers, I 00 and 200-ton masters, 

and engineers created a gap in the workforce. Maritime industry partners along the Houston Ship 

Channel requested workforce training assistance to build a pipeline of workers due to pending 

retirements for tugs, push-boats, and barges. 

4 
68 


30215.046

Similarly, the first project in the 2015 bond referendum building program is a Center for 

Petrochemical, Energy, and Technology. The 145,000-square foot facility is being constructed in 

partnership with the nearly 130 chemical plants within the 10-mile radius of the facility. As the 

College was forming plans for this facility, the Chancellor created the Chancellor's 

Petrochemical Advisory Council with a membership of nearly 20 plant managers and major 

construction contractors in the area. This Advisory Council provides input on the curriculum, 

equipment, and image of the industry in the aesthetics of the building. The facility is scheduled 

to open in Fall 2019. This is a facility created to replicate a day in the life of an operator in the 

industry; it was designed by industry for industry. 

In both projects, industry did more than just advise and counsel. They also contributed funding 

through millions of dollars of equipment donations, monetary donations to the facilities and 

scholarships; and provided their valuable time to meet with faculty and College administration in 

all stages of the facilities development. 

Understanding the Workforce Challenge 

Throughout the Gulf Coast region, there are a number of economic development, education, 

businesses and municipalities working together to address the region's skills gap. The Houston 

region has experienced incredible growth over the last several years. Led by a resurgence in 

energy, petrochemicals, manufacturing, life sciences and construction, the region's economy has 

been widely acclaimed as one of opportunity. However, leaders from across the business 

community have identified one of the region's most pressing issues- finding qualified workers 

for good jobs. 

5 
69 


30215.047

Houston's skills gap has reached critical proportions among middle-skill jobs-those that 

require more education and training than a high school diploma but less than a four-year degree. 

Of Houston's 3.6 million jobs, 1.4 million- or approximately 40 percent- are considered 

middle-skill positions. 

The Greater Houston Partnership formed a program called "UpSkill Houston." This initiative 

pulls business and education leaders and partners together to identify and address the sectors of 

our region where workers are retiring, expansion is happening, and the workforce pipeline is not 

robust enough to fill existing and future jobs. The Greater Houston Partnership has identified 

seven industry sectors, widely considered drivers of the regional economy, that are experiencing 

steady expansion. The sectors are: 

• Port and Maritime 

• Industrial and Commercial Construction 

• Health care 

• Petrochemical 

• Manufacturing 

• Oil and Gas 

• Utilities 

Quick Facts about workforce in the region and across the nation: 

• Beyond than the Houston area, 46 percent of U.S. employers report difficulty filling jobs. 

• Of all U.S. jobs, 53 percent require some training beyond high school but Jess than a 

four-year college degree. 

6 
70 


30215.048

• By 2020, two out of every three jobs in the U.S. will require meaningful post-secondary 

education and training. 

• Affordable natural gas and natural gas liquids have created a competitive advantage for 

U.S. chemical manufacturers leading to greater investment, industry growth and new 

jobs. 

• According to the American Chemical Council, as of December 2017, 3 17 projects 

cumulatively valued at $185 billion in capital investment have been announced. 

• Much of the investment is geared toward export markets for chemical and plastics 

products. 

• The American Chemical Council believes the $185 billion in capital investments will 

lead to $26 billion in permanent new federal, state and local tax revenues by 2025. 

• 63 percent of the announced investment is by firms based outside the U.S. 

• Middle-skill petrochemical jobs in Houston can pay a median wage of$30.61 per hour. 

• Starting salaries for middle-skills careers in the Gulf Coast region are as high as $60,000 

per year and have the potential to go higher with overtime. 

• Houston area community colleges have experienced a 42 percent increase in the 

completion of degrees as well as credit-bearing and non-credit continuing education 

certificates for technical (workforce) programs since June 2014. 

• The Houston Ship Channel is home to the nation's largest petrochemical complex, and 

second largest in the world, second only to Rotterdam. The American Chemical Council 

believes the Texas Gulf Coast will surpass Rotterdam production by 2020. 

• The Economic Alliance Houston Port Region is tracking 28 projects (of the 317) totaling 

$6.1 billion in capital investment in the upper Houston Ship Channel area. 

7 
71 


30215.049

• One out of every eight jobs in the Houston region is in health care. 

• More than 7,000 new construction jobs open per year in Houston. 

• Houston is the nation's 61

h best city for engineers. 

• Houston is ranked 2nd for maritime jobs in the United States. 

• Houston is the gth best metro area for STEM professionals. 

• More than 145 languages are spoken in Houston. 

Leveraging the Strength of Community Colleges in Energy Workforce Development 

Community and technical colleges can help secure the talent pipeline for our nation's energy 

workforce. Energy sector jobs require well-trained, skilled technicians- yet, many of those 

workforce positions do not require a baccalaureate degree. 

Two-year, public community and technical colleges offering robust and affordable programs in 

energy workforce training prepare students for workforce positions that are open today, and also 

serve as the "on-ramp" to further degrees. 

Since taking office on January 20,2017, President Donald J. Trump has identified an "America 

First Energy Plan" as a top White House priority. In order to advance that goal and grow the 

nation's energy infrastructure, a well educated, technically trained energy workforce is essential. 

San Jacinto College is uniquely positioned to produce a technically trained energy workforce in 

the Houston Port region, in collaboration with petrochemical and other energy industry partners. 

We partner with other colleges and universities along the Texas Gulf Coast, and throughout the 

8 
72 


30215.050

nation. All San Jacinto College energy workforce programs are designed based on energy 

industry input. 

Community and technical colleges in the shale play regions of the United States also play an 

important role in oil and gas industry workforce development. This includes colleges in the 

Marcellus and Utica shale play areas of in the Appalachian Basin, the San Juan shale play in 

northern New Mexico, the Permian Basin shale play in western Texas, and the Bakken shale play 

in North Dakota, as examples. In each of these regions, colleges have used investments by 

government and industry to expand their capabilities to educate and train workers for upstream, 

midstream and downstream energy workforce positions. 

During the 1141

h Congress significant progress was made in developing a new program of federal 

investments in energy industry workforce development. A House-Senate conference committee 

came to agreement on comprehensive energy modernization and workforce legislation, 

combining provisions developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The North American Energy Security and 

Infrastructure Act (H.R. 8/S. 2012) nearly became law during the fourth quarter of2016. That 

legislation would have authorized new investments in community and technical college energy 

workforce training "centers of excellence." We encourage the enactment and funding of this key 

legislation. 

It would be beneficial for American energy production if the Committee would work with the 

White House and the Department of Energy to focus on new opportunities for energy workforce 

9 
73 


30215.051

development and training, and consider harnessing the power of community and technical 

colleges in energy workforce development. 

Addressing the Challenge are Community Colleges, America's Partner 

San Jacinto College takes seriously its mission to ensure student success, create seamless 

transitions and enrich the quality of life in the communities it serves. To do this, San Jacinto 

College, like most community colleges, serves as a hub of collaboration. The College 

collaborates with its students, with K-12 educators and students, four-year colleges and 

universities, business and industry, economic development groups, municipalities and nonprofits. 

Partnering with Students: First, the College collaborates with its own students. The philosophy 

of the San Jacinto College Board of Trustees and reaching throughout the organization is the 

concept that when students succeed, the College succeeds. For that reason, San Jacinto College 

has gone through transformational change in the last I 0 years. Initiatives that focus employees 

on a strategic plan with student success as the focal point vary, from performance-based 

differentiated compensation for employees to faculty-led open educational resources to reduce 

the cost of textbooks. The College has initiated several student success best practices such as 

prohibiting students from registering for a class after it has started; mandating student orientation 

before the student can register; requiring a learning frameworks course so students understand 

the time commitment, accountability, and ownership they must possess to succeed; and even 

creating welcome week activities that showcase resources in tutoring, student groups and other 

assistance available to foster student success. 

10 
74 


30215.052

The San Jacinto College Board of Trustees charged faculty with solving the problem of 

escalating book costs. The College entered into a grant to implement Open Educational 

Resources (OER). The faculty labeled the initiative "Open Books" and the program is catching 

on. From spring 2017 to spring 2018, the number of Open Books courses increased from 185 

courses to 307 or by 923 percent. The number of students taking those courses to save on the 

cost of textbooks increased from 768 students to 7,166 or 833 percent. In this same time period, 

students saved more than $1.2 million in textbook costs. 

San Jacinto College also entered into a grant to evaluate financial aid distribution. In this grant, 

the College offered multiple disbursements of financial aid, similar to how one might receive a 

paycheck. After payment of the tuition, fees and books, the remaining aid is disbursed in 

multiple payments, rather than one payment after the 12th class day. The results included less 

student debt at the end of the semester and higher retention in the following term. In addition, the 

College offers financial literacy seminars and coaching for students receiving loans. This 

resulted in a three-year reduction in student loan default rates from 17.3 percent to 9.1 percent. 

Finally, to ensure students complete their educational goals, the College maps out pathways to 

complete a degree or certificate. Mapping includes removing courses that will not transfer to a 

four-year degree or fit into the needs of the region's workforce. This allows alignment between 

what in Texas is called "Endorsement Tracks" at K-12 institutions, and with the main transfer 

universities for students. The College implemented this work into the computer systems (Banner 

is the ERP) and called it "My San Jac GPS" so students understand their academic pathway and 

have a guided pathway system to get them there. Through this student success focused 

11 
75 


30215.053

transformation, the College has seen an increase of 167.4 percent in the number of degrees and 

certificates awarded since 2007. San Jacinto College has issued 30,941 credentials in the last five 

years. 

Partnering with K-12 Education: Part of San Jacinto College's mission is to begin science, 

technology, engineering, and math (STEM); and maritime and petrochemical education outreach 

early, by partnering with industry and education institutions. 

For seven years, the San Jacinto College maritime program has hosted the Maritime Youth Expo, 

most recently at the College's Maritime Campus. This event invites K-12 students for a day of 

interactive displays featuring equipment used in the industry, such as trucks, forklifts, cranes, 

response trailers, small boats and diving equipment. Past sponsors have included the Houston 

Pilots, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Harris County Precinct 2 and Port Houston. The 2017 

Maritime Youth Expo saw more than 400 K-12 student visitors. 

The College established a STEM Council to increase awareness of education and career 

opportunities related to the STEM fields. Each year the STEM Council partners with colleges 

and universities, local and national organizations, and K-12 schools to bring science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM) to more people. This also provides San Jacinto College 

students opportunities to apply what they've learned in the classroom. 

Outreach STEM events have exposed more than 18,000 pre-college age students to the world of 

STEM by partnering with MindTrekkers from Michigan Technological University for a two-day 

12 
76 


30215.054

STEM festival that brings experiments to local elementary schools and the community, and 

invites students to serve as judges for local school science fairs. The festival is sponsored by 

numerous industry partners including Dow Chemical Company, INEOS, Chevron Phillips, 

Austin Industries, LyondellBasell and PetrochemWorks. Dow has also donated $10,000 for San 

Jacinto College to create STEM kits for area schools that lost classrooms due to Hurricane 

Harvey. 

The College hosts STEM Expos at its Central, North and South Campuses for Communities in 

Schools' Afterschool Centers on Education participants in addition to hosting the Pasadena 

Independent School District's annual regional science fair each year. 

Due to collaborative efforts, San Jacinto College students have been accepted to prestigious 

university internship programs for undergraduate research. These include the Research 

Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program at Rice University, the University of Iowa's 

Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program, and NASA. 

The College invites special guest STEM speakers from industry and universities each semester to 

provide internship information and insight on trending topics to students. San Jacinto College 

faculty and students serve a large role in bringing robotics and virtual reality activities to the 

community and participating in research with the University of Houston-Clear Lake and assisting 

with the FIRST Robotics Competition Championship in Houston. The College will soon 

introduce a drone training course through the its Aerospace Academy. 

13 
77 


30215.055

To introduce K-12 students to the petrochemical industry, San Jacinto Colleges hosts the Energy 

Venture camp each summer for kids ages 12-15. Approaching its lOth year, the camp is 

sponsored by Shell and has hosted 1,600 students to date, many of whom attend free of charge 

due to the Shell sponsorship. The College also hosts Energize Your Destiny, sponsored by Shell, 

for high school and college women and serves as a sponsor for the Women in Industry 

conference through the Community College Petrochemical Initiative. 

Partnering with business and industry: San Jacinto College collaborates with business and 

industry partners to ensure students are receiving the exact training they need to move into these 

middle-skills jobs. The College has established programs in nearly every industry sector 

addressed by the Greater Houston Partnership "UpSkill Houston" initiative. However, below are 

three specific industry sectors that are driving the East Harris County workforce need. 

PetrochemicalSan Jacinto College's upcoming Center for Petrochemical, Energy, and Technology (CPET) will 

lead the way in training for a more advanced workforce to meet the growing demands of the 

industry. From a 2011 research study conducted by the East Harris County Manufacturer's 

Association, it was determined that the petrochemical industry in our region needs approximately 

11,000 skilled workers. 

San Jacinto College has served as the training leader for the petrochemical, energy and 

technology workforce in the greater Houston area for more than 50 years. The College is a 

training hub to the largest petrochemical manufacturing complex in the United States, and 

14 
78 


30215.056

second largest in the world, with 90 industries and 130 plants- all within a 1 0-mile radius from 

the College's Central Campus. 

The College broke ground on the $60 million Center for Petrochemical, Energy, and Technology 

in September 2017 with plans for completion in 2019. The College relies on industry partner 

feedback in many of its training programs, and invited leaders from the petrochemical industry, 

along with plant managers, to be a part of its Petrochemical Advisory Council. The Council is 

tasked with assessing the curriculum, equipment and planning for the Center. The 

technologically advanced Center will house skills labs in process technology, instrumentation 

and analyzer technology, and non-destructive testing and electrical technology; a craft training 

center; a control room; a process simulator lab; a glass pilot plant lab; an exterior glycol 

distillation unit; and corporate training and event space. 

In October 2017, Jim Griffin joined San Jacinto College as associate vice chancellor I senior vice 

president for the petrochemical training division. In his new position, Griffin oversees the 

curriculum and instruction of the College's petrochemical-related training programs, as well as 

the development of the Center for Petrochemical, Energy, and Technology. It was important to 

industry partners to invite someone of Griffin's caliber and experience in plant leadership--

more than 30 years- to lead the College's petrochemical training division. 

Currently, more than 3,600 students train annually in multiple programs that support the 

petrochemical industry, including electrical technology, non-destructive training, 

instrumentation, analyzer technician, process technology and other craft trades. Each of the 

programs are experiencing increases in enrollment. The new facility will allow the College to 

expand capacity in these needed areas, create a "day in the life" environment so students 

15 
79 


30215.057

understand what the job entails, and will allow the College to focus on the continuing education 

of current workers in the craft trades. Each program will have a renewed focus on the safety 

culture, which is critical to the success of any industry. The facility will also expand laboratory 

capabilities to provide students with more hands-on training. Industry partners are requesting this 

so students will leave the program with a greater ability to problem solve. 

As with the maritime program, industry partners are investing in the Center for Petrochemical, 

Energy, and Technology. In addition to working with the College on curriculum updates and 

career pathways, industry is also looking at what are called "extemships," where faculty 

members spend time at the plants to see new processes, new technology, and experience the 

same "day in the life" so that they may teach it to students. Already, several million dollars of 

donations- both monetary and in equipment --have been given and pledged to the College. The 

equipment donations will ensure that students are training on the same equipment they will 

encounter when leaving the College with their degree. The monetary donations give naming 

opportunities in the Center to industry partners and further aligns the program with industry 

leaders. 

The College has an apprenticeship partnership with Dow, in which Dow selects students for 

process operator and instrumentation apprenticeships. In the program's first year, the students 

work about I 0 hours per week in the plant while they attend classes at San Jacinto College full 

time. In the second year the work week is increased while class time decreases. At the end of the 

fourth year, students have completed an associate degree and have four years experience in their 

16 
80 


30215.058

skilled trade. The College will continue to seek these types of partnerships through internships or 

other apprenticeships. 

MaritimeThe Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of 150-plus private and public industrial 

terminals along the 52-mile-long Houston Ship Channel. Each year, more than 241 million tons 

of cargo move through the greater Port of Houston, carried by more than 8,200 vessels and 

223,000 barges. The port is consistently ranked 1st in the United States in foreign waterborne 

tonnage; 1st in U.S. imports; 1st in U.S. export tonnage and 2nd in the U.S. in total tonnage. It is 

also the nation's leading breakbulk port, handling 41 percent of project cargo at Gulf Coast ports. 

With this activity combined with a retiring workforce, San Jacinto College partnered with 

maritime businesses, starting with continuing education to offer U.S. Coast Guard-approved 

certified courses for mariners who were needing to maintain their maritime license or to train to 

move into the next level in their mariner pathway. In working with Port Houston and other 

maritime industry partners, the College was asked to develop a certificate and associate degree 

program. As vessels in the Port Houston region have become more advanced, businesses need a 

more skilled workforce that included training that emphasizes the soft skills of arriving to work 

on time, collaboration and team work, and consistently passing routine drug screenings. The 

College introduced the state of Texas's first associate degree in maritime transportation, housed 

in the 45,000-square foot Maritime Technology and Training Center that is prominently and 

strategically positioned on the Houston Ship Channel so as to best serve the mariners working in 

the industry. 

17 
81 


30215.059

The program currently offers more than 75 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)-approved deck and engine 

courses ranging from entry-level training for new mariners, to management-level training for 

Unlimited Tonnage Master and Unlimited Horsepower Chief Engineers on the world's largest 

ships, and everything in between. The College has issued approximately 6,000 USCG certificates 

to professional mariners since the 20 I 0-2011 academic year. The 60-credit hour associate degree 

program merges math, science and English classes with USCG-approved training allowing 

students to be more prepared for a maritime career. Currently, there are more than 70 students in 

the associate degree program which is in its fifth year of existence. To date, 38 students have 

graduated with an Associate of Applied Science in Maritime Transportation. 

To ensure program success, the Houston Pilots donated a state-of-the-art full-mission bridge 

simulation system. The simulator houses a main vessel and also incorporates simulation of the 

bridge of a tug boat and a barge. The three simulators can interact as if they are working together 

on the waterways of our region. The simulation is realistic and has been used by the Houston 

Pilots and the Corps of Engineers to study the impacts of Hurricane Harvey along Port Houston. 

The College invested in an engine room simulator to satisfy new regulations that have been 

implemented for existing mariners. The engine room and bridge simulators are fully integrated to 

provide a realistic shipboard training experience. 

The San Jacinto College Maritime Center is also equipped with a training pool, lifeboat, 

firefighting equipment and life rafts which are all used to reinforce learning by doing. All 

18 
82 


30215.060

students enrolled in the associate degree program are required to participate in at-sea internships 

working on commercial vessels to gain actual work experience in the maritime industry. 

To further ensure success of the program, the College hired a consultant in RADM William 

Pickavance, Jr. (Ret. Navy). RADM Pickavance is a graduate of Texas A&M Galveston's 

Maritime Academy and had served as the Superintendent of the Academy. After getting the 

facility completed and partnerships in place, RADM Pickavance assisted with the hiring of John 

Stauffer (Ret. Army) who ran the Army's maritime program at Ft. Lee. 

Health care 

The supply of nurses in Texas is low compared to national numbers, according to the Texas 

Department of State Health Services. Currently, more than 135,000 Texas nurses hold a Bachelor 

of Science in Nursing (BSN), accounting for about half of all licensed Registered Nurses (RN) in 

the state. Many of the nation's hospitals have moved- or are moving- to require that all nurse 

managers and nurse leaders hold baccalaureate or graduate degrees in nursing. They are also 

requiring that 80 percent of staff nurses hold a BSN. With the world's largest medical center in 

the heart of Houston, and expansion of hospitals on the southeast side of Houston where San 

Jacinto College is located, the need is evident. 

In collaboration with hospital administrators in our region, the College listened to the needs 

being described and the focus of area hospitals to achieve the 80 percent threshold of all RNs 

holding a BSN. 

19 
83 


30215.061

San Jacinto College has a robust training program for many areas of health care and is known for 

its quality nursing program. To help meet this workforce need for the BSN, the College sought 

authorization from the Texas Legislature to offer bachelor degrees in nursing and applied 

technology. The authorization was created in Texas' 85th Legislative Session. Once the 

authorization was issued, this gave the College the go-ahead to start the application process and, 

if approved, seek accreditation from its regional accreditor to offer baccalaureate degree 

programs to address the workforce needs of the region. 

The San Jacinto College Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-to-BSN pathway provides an entry 

level program that can lead to a Licensed Vocational Nurse (L VN) and RN progressing quickly 

through to the BSN program. Community college CNA-to-BSN pathways allow students to 

complete the core course work for the BSN at a lower cost, providing a more affordable option 

for meeting the BSN workforce need in Texas. It also allows students to earn a license and work 

while continually upgrading their licenses to stay current in the field. In many cases, the hospital 

will pay for the courses for the students . 

• 

Working with the Federal Government: 

San Jacinto College is working with the federal government to provide workforce training 

through grants with federal agencies. Grants include: 

• Department of Labor Ready to Work Grant. The H-1 B Ready to Work Petrochem Grant 

program is designed to provide education, training, and job placement assistance in the 

occupations and industries for which employers are using H-JB visas to hire foreign 

20 
84 


30215.062

workers, and the related activities necessary to support such training. The program is 

intended to raise the technical skill levels of American workers so they can obtain or 

upgrade employment in high growth industries and occupations as well as help 

businesses reduce their use of skilled foreign professionals permitted to work in the U.S 

on a temporary basis under the II-I B visa program. 

Carl. D. Perkins grant. The Department of Education Carl D. Perkins grant program 

supports awarded applicants in educating students who enroll in CTE (Career and 

Technical Education) courses and programs in preparation for high-skill, high-wage, or 

high-demand occupations. 

• Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career 

Training (TAACCCT) grant. The purpose of this Department of Labor grant is to use 

LINCS (Leveraging, Integrating, Networking and Coordinating Supplies) consortium to 

develop and deliver an innovative, latticed and laddered supply chain education and 

training program for entry and middle-level workers, enabling upward mobility from 

entry-level certifications all the way to the PhD with SCM specialization. 

• National Science Foundation STEM Talent Expansion Program- Bridges to STEM 

grant. The purpose of the National Science Foundation (NSF) STEP (STEM Talent 

Expansion Program) project is to increase attainment of science, technology, engineering, 

and math (STEM) associate and baccalaureate degrees, as well as to facilitate and 

increase transfer of STEM students across institutions. 

21 
85 


30215.063

Department of Education TRIO Upward Bound for Math and Science grant. The Upward 

Bound Math and Science program is designed to strengthen the math and science skills of 

participating students. The goal of the program is to help students recognize and develop 

their potential to excel in math and science and to encourage them to acquire 

postsecondary degrees in these areas, ultimately pursuing careers in the math and science 

profession. This grant is part of the federal TRIO programs that are federal outreach and 

student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from 

disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Department of Education TRIO Upward Bound grant. The purpose ofthe Upward Bound 

program is to generate in program participants the skills and motivation necessary to 

complete a program of secondary education and to enter and succeed in a program of 

postsecondary education. This grant is part of the federal TRIO programs which are 

federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services 

for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Department of Education TRIO Talent Search grant. The Talent Search program 

identifies and assists individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who have the potential 

to succeed in higher education. The program provides academic, career and financial 

counseling to its participants, and encourages them to graduate from high school and 

continue on to complete their postsecondary education. This grant is part of the federal 

22 
86 


30215.064

TRIO programs, which are federal outreach and student services programs designed to 

identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

To continue to meet the needs of East Harris County citizens, these grants are critical to provide 

the College with resources to meet the students in our area high schools. The majority ofthe 

school districts in the San Jacinto College District are minority majority, as is San Jacinto 

College. These programs provide access to a high-quality education, with industry support, and 

leads to the solution of the middle-skills gap in our region. 

Another way in which San Jacinto College partners with the federal government is through the 

Department of Education Pell grant program. Roughly one-third of San Jacinto College students 

receive Pelt grants to help pay for college expenses totaling just under $30 million. Over the last 

five years, nearly 50,000 students have received PELL awards totaling more than $155 million. 

San Jacinto College distributes financial aid like a paycheck and has seen significant decreases in 

its Return to Title IV requirement. In addition, financial counseling with students taking out 

loans has decreased the default rate from 16.8 percent to 9.1 percent. While the College is aware 

that there is still work to do, this is a definite step in the right direction. 

In conclusion, San Jacinto College is working collaboratively in the Gulf Coast region to 

increase the number of students in workforce training and STEM education. Communities and 

businesses across the nation will benefit from continued partnership with the federal government 

through the funding of these important programs. These programs change the lives of 

constituents in the Gulf Coast region. They also benefit the diversity of workforce needs in every 

23 
87 


30215.065

region in the country where community colleges are working as hard as San Jacinto College to 

meet the needs of the communities they serve. 

24 
88 


30215.066

Energy Subcommittee Hearing: State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure, Feb. 27,2018 

Summary of Testimony by Dr. Brenda Hellyer, Chancellor, San Jacinto College 

Throughout the Gulf Coast region, there are a number of economic development agencies, 

schools, businesses and municipalities working together to address a critical skills gap. 

Houston's skills gap has reached unprecedented proportions among middle-skill jobs those that 

require more education and training than a high school diploma, but less than a bachelor's 

degree. Of Houston's 3.6 million jobs, 1.4 million or approximately 40 percent are 

considered middle-skill positions. 

America's community colleges are uniquely positioned to address these needs due to the nature 

of our shared mission. San Jacinto College, specifically, is located in an area of the country 

where energy and commerce are a part of the fabric of the local community. Situated near the 

heart of the petrochemical complex along the Houston Ship Channel, Port Houston; which serves 

as the transportation partner for energy production, and the NASA-Johnson Space Center, San 

Jacinto College is able to work collaboratively with industry in truly exceptional ways. Whether 

supporting NASA's efforts to help K-12 students understand the importance of science, 

technology, engineering, and math, commonly known as "STEM;" or engaging industry partners 

in the creation of curriculum, the College is making every effort to support its communities 

through active listening, collaboration and partnership. 

However, this workforce gap cannot be addressed by one institution alone. Closing the gap will 

require that multiple entities begin working together to understand the needs and ensure that 

applicable, highly-sought after skills are being taught to students. Through these partnerships, we 

can create a talent pipeline to enable graduates to move into rewarding careers, and also provide 

industry with a knowledgeable workforce. 

The attached testimony defines the region, the opportunities, and the challenges of addressing the 

skills gap. It also shows how San Jacinto College is bringing partners to the table to help address 

specific workforce needs, and to encourage the younger generations to become interested in and 

excited about STEM. The College is also working with colleagues throughout the nation to 

address workforce needs by region and to find ways to collaborate with the Federal Government 

to help meet those needs. 

San Jacinto College believes it would be beneficial for the American energy industry to have the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce would work with the White House and the Departments of 

Energy, Labor, and Education to focus on new opportunities for energy workforce development, 

and consider harnessing the power of the nation's community and technical colleges. San 

Jacinto College, and other two-year public colleges, would support the development of 

legislation authorizing investments in community and technical college energy workforce 

training "centers of excellence." 
89 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you all for your testimony. At this point, we’ll 

move to questions from our subcommittee. 

Mr. Devine, I appreciate you being here for sure and from my 

perspective I want you to keep your job. I believe in an all-of-theabove strategy. 

Renewables are a big part of that. In Michigan, we’ve got a minimum mandate. Hydro is part of that. Not as much in Michigan as 

it is particularly in the Northwest, but as you may know, we have 

passed with a number of Democrats a hydropower licensing bill 

that moved through this committee and has passed in the House 

now and is waiting for action in the Senate. 

You talked about a number of hydropower facilities that are 

more than 50 years old. We need to add capacity. This is a renewable piece that most Americans would like but with, obviously, no 

carbon emissions, basically, from that source of power. If our legislation became law, went to the President’s desk, how would this 

help the hydropower industry in terms of dollars invested in kilowatts generated? 

Mr. DEVINE. Well, Chairman Upton, I think that improving the 

timelines involved in the licensing process will reduce some of the 

perception of the risk in the process. 

Risk is anathema to investment. So I think that aligns very well 

with increasing investment in hydropower. There are many opportunities for upgrades and improvements and increasing energy at 

existing hydropower facilities and at non-power dams, and I think 

it’s viewed as from these have to be financed and the financing is 

susceptible to risk and reward effects. So the proposals that increase the efficiency of the process and will help in terms of improving the overall investment opportunity. 

Mr. UPTON. So I am one who believes that there ought to be an 

energy title within the infrastructure bill that, hopefully, moves 

through the Congress this year. 

Dr. Hellyer, as you know, the President had many of the Nation’s 

governors here for the last couple days. A whole number of different issues were discussed. One of them was infrastructure. 

I had the opportunity last night to have dinner with my Michigan governor, Rick Snyder. He told me, he said, ‘‘You know, if 

there’s one thing you can really do to help create jobs and move 

on infrastructure is to expand Pell to make sure that it’s involved 

in community colleges and job training.’’ 

In my district, we’ve got two nuclear plants. We’ve got a new 

LNG plant that they’re almost ready to break ground on, which 

will, as I am told, double the tax base for that particular community. It’s a couple years away from being complete but they’re ready 

to break ground, I believe, this spring. 

As I meet with my IBEW folks, they have a very active group 

in Michiana, as we say—Indiana and Michigan. I’ve been to a number of their events over the years and they are very proud, rightly 

so, of the work that they do creating the jobs, the internships. 

I am fascinated with what’s happened in Houston and the leading role that you play because I do believe that that skills gap and 

worker training out of be part, again, perhaps, of an infrastructure 

bill creating the jobs that we want, knowing that we are going to 

improve the infrastructure across the country. 

90 

How do you both see perhaps an expanded role as it relates to 

worker training, working through our community colleges which, 

again, in my view, is so important? 

Maybe Mr. Ross, start with you and come back to Dr. Hellyer. 

Mr. ROSS. We are always looking for skilled craftsmen or toprated individuals that come out of the community colleges because 

we love getting those individuals directly out of the community college because that makes our job easier—transition them right into 

our apprenticeship program. At least for linemen it’s a 3-year program—our inside program for a journeyman wireman like myself 

is a 5-year program. So any advanced training they get it gives 

them a leg up on someone trying to apply for our program and get 

in our program. 

So we work directly with community colleges. I know where I am 

from, from West Virginia, we work directly with our community 

colleges there to get those individuals. I would go out and visit 

those community colleges, encourage them to take an application 

for our program. I know throughout the country IBEW always 

works with the community colleges. 

Mr. UPTON. And Dr. Hellyer, I would just say we’ve got a lot of 

really great community colleges in my district. 

One of them is Kalamazoo Valley—KVCC. They actually have a 

wind turbine school training folks and they have jobs right away 

as they graduate. 

Ms. HELLYER. So there are a couple of things I think could be 

done. Right now, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act is 

being looked at. 

There are some talks about making it where Pell can be used for 

short-term programs. For us, that could be very helpful, especially 

with programs like commercial truck driving that don’t qualify 

right now. 

As far as working with IBEW, apprenticeship, programs, we do 

that quite often. I was in Austin yesterday for a meeting around 

a new program in trying to take high school students and move 

them into apprenticeship and going into licensing for plumbing, 

electrical, and one of the comments came up how do they use their 

Pell dollars for that. 

So I think there needs to be some more flexibility built into the 

program and because some of these programs are going to take 

longer than what you have Pell dollars available and so how do you 

leverage that. 

So you need short-term but then you also need some of the long 

term where students are going out and working and then coming 

back. 

Mr. UPTON. I know Virginia Foxx would like me to say that that 

looks like additional jurisdiction for this committee. 

With that, I yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Rush. 

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

Mr. Ross, I really want to commend the IBEW Local 134 in my 

city and my state. They’re doing a remarkable job rebuilding the— 

in terms of a grammar school—a closed grammar school and 

they’re turning that into a union hall—really, really nice—right 

next to another of our vocational high schools. And so they’re in the 

91 

forefront of really taking CTE students and giving them skills and 

training and I really want to commend your union for that. They’re 

wonderful people. 

Dr. Hellyer, the city of Houston has a number of comprehensive 

workforce development strategies that includes training and in K 

to 12 levels, community college levels, university, and vocational 

educational levels. This decision allows candidates to be trained 

and developed throughout all stages of the educational spectrum. 

My workforce development bill attempts to run this model to a 

national level and is aimed at training minorities, women, veterans, and unemployed energy workers for good-paying jobs and careers. 

First of all, I want to commend you on your leadership in San 

Jacinto College and I hope that you will work with my office to 

help make my bill a reality as part of a broader infrastructure 

package. I think that you have shown tremendous insight into the 

needs of our nation by what you’re doing at San Jacinto and I also 

want to commend you. I think that your leadership is surely and 

truly inspirational, notwithstanding the comments of my friend 

Chairman Upton’s subcommittee. 

Mayor McCarthy, you are on the forefront on trying to reconcile 

the needs and priorities of your constituents with the budgetary restraints so many of our states and cities are facing. What are your 

thoughts on the administration’s proposal asking states and local 

municipalities to cover 80 percent of new funding for infrastructure 

projects? 

Is this realistic, in your view? Are you concerned with the Federal Government’s attempt to shirk its responsibility of investing in 

a serious and meaningful way in our nation’s aging energy infrastructure? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

I approach it that the 80/20 funding formula that’s proposed is 

really oversimplistic. There are, again, many components that 

could be financed within the revenue streams that exist today. But 

some of the emerging technologies are new. You have to do the 

proof of concept. They’re going to happen. They’re happening in 

other countries. You’re seeing things in South Korea. You’re seeing 

things in the Mideast where they’re developing and deploying technologies faster than we are doing here in the United States. 

And so how do you build that resiliency into the grid and at the 

same time create a platform that really positions not only our communities but the country as a whole to take advantage of it and 

go forward so that you’re creating jobs, you’re creating economic opportunities, and you’re improving just the quality of life and, hopefully, in your deliberations that you will look at those formulas and 

create the regulatory environment that allows things that are selffinancing to go forward but at the same time look at those things 

that are new and emerging that we need assistance and are going 

to need some subsidy or large amount of financing from the federal 

government to ensure that they’re developed, deployed, and continue to allow this country to lead in a global environment. 

Mr. RUSH. My second question to you, Mayor, is the administration—under this administration the agencies that had been previously preparing plans to increase resilience to climatic events for 

92 

access under their purview are now forbidden from even uttering 

the phrase ‘‘climate change,’’ much less preparing for its consequences and its symptoms. 

Do you see the need for significant federal investment in local energy assurance plans to advance resiliency efforts including proposals to combat climatic events? Do you—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. Directed to me again? 

Mr. RUSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Climate change is happening. There’s debate in 

terms of what’s causing that but it’s happening. And so we have 

to take that into account in terms of public policy and how do you 

look to reduce greenhouse gases. 

Most of the scenarios that are out there also allow for cost savings, improved efficiencies, and job creation when you do the reduction in greenhouse gases so that you’re improving the environment 

at the same time creating opportunities for some of these emerging 

technologies and emerging skill sets where we have to have a work 

force—and some of the other panelists have talked about—that are 

able to provide these skill sets that we need for services that people 

demand. 

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

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

chair now calls upon the chairman of the full committee from the 

Beaver State, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. As an Oregon Duck, I don’t 

always refer to it as the Beaver State, although that is our mascot. 

[Laughter.] 

So, Mr. Ross, thank you for being here. To all of our panelists, 

again, thank you for your testimony on this very important set of 

issues. 

I know I’ve worked closely with IBEW out in Oregon—Local 48 

and 659, I think—and toured the apprentice operation there. It’s 

very impressive. Where’s the gap? What do we need to be doing? 

I know we don’t directly have that jurisdiction but this is important 

because we can help streamline projects without diminishing the 

environmental piece of this. 

We can do a lot of work here to get pipelines and power lines and 

broadband going. But if we don’t have the skilled workforce necessary to do the work, we got a problem. 

So can you talk about your apprenticeship programs and where 

you’re at and what we need to be thinking about? 

Mr. ROSS. Well, we need a lot more, quite frankly. We are doing 

our level best to try to attract individuals into our programs. For 

our outside program we have approximately 4,600 registered apprentices for the line side and around 32,000 for our inside program and we certainly could use a lot more. But what you run into, 

we are unique in construction and for most people it is familiar— 

we work ourselves out of a job. So we are always looking for the 

next one. 

So good steady work forecasts certainly helps our apprenticeship 

programs, certainly attract individuals into our programs but also 

keeps them working. So it’s hard for a local union to accept a 

bunch of apprentices if they don’t have a place for them to work. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. Right. 

93 

Mr. ROSS. So that’s our dilemma. It’s kind of a catch-22. So we 

are always looking at the next job, and we certainly went through 

a major recession in 2007 and ’08. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROSS. We would call it depression for our industry. 

Mr. WALDEN. I would, too. 

Mr. ROSS. We had tremendous unemployment. Most of the locals 

weren’t taking apprentices in because they couldn’t keep them 

working. 

So we are trying to get caught up because we are in an economic 

boom for construction right. We are having some skills shortage. 

That’s why we are working with community colleges and different 

groups trying to get those individuals help. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. I know in the town of my birth, The Dalles, 

there’s Columbia Gorge Community College, actually, in both Hood 

River and The Dalles and they started a wind energy program a 

long time ago, teaching safety and some of the electrical skills as 

well. 

I would like to touch on too when I did a series of town halls last 

spring we got some development underway or proposed in Oregon 

and some who tried to block this sort of development ridicule these 

jobs as temporary jobs. I heard it a lot at the meeting, and it kind 

of perplexed me because while my wife and I have never constructed our own house, I think if we ever did when the carpenters 

were done I wouldn’t want them to move into one of the bedrooms. 

I would want them to move on to the next house. But this is an 

argument and it’s an argument on the left, and I heard it a lot. 

Can you speak to those temporary jobs and are they not worthy? 

That’s a rhetorical question. 

Mr. ROSS. It is rhetorical, yes. Like I said, we are always looking 

for the next project no matter how short. I am an electrician by 

trade, OK. I just happen to be working in Washington, D.C. now. 

But I’ve taken projects that were only supposed to last 3 weeks and 

be there 2 1⁄2 years. 

So I think it’s a pretty sad state of affairs, because all our jobs 

are temporary in construction. Quite frankly, if you didn’t work 

yourself out of a job you wouldn’t get the next job—— 

Mr. WALDEN. That’s right. 

Mr. ROSS. Because the idea is to get the job done on time and 

on budget. So—— 

Mr. WALDEN. As you know, we are spending a lot of time here 

trying to streamline the permitting process. Again, we get criticized 

that somehow we are diminishing the environmental nature of it. 

But that’s not what we are up to. 

I have a tiny little community in central Oregon that I think 

spent years trying to get four power poles on Bureau of Land Management land to go through the permitting process, and I know 

others say, ‘‘Oh, it never slows you down.’’ It does. 

Half of my district—more than that—is federal land. So we encounter this everywhere we go, and it took them 3 or 4 years to 

get these four power poles sited so that they could get three-phase 

power into Mitchell, Oregon for the first time. 

Do you run into—these permitting delays? 

94 

Mr. ROSS. Well, I kind of addressed that in my testimony. But 

yes, we will run into those issues all the time. Unfortunately, some 

of these projects would put a lot of people to work. Most of them 

have been through the siting permitting process and are just sitting there basically to get done but being held up through someone 

on the other side doesn’t want, I get where people don’t want a 

power line in their back yard. I get that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. 

Mr. ROSS. But in some cases—— 

Mr. WALDEN. They do want the power to come on when the 

switch is thrown, though. 

Mr. ROSS. Exactly. When people’s lights go out they want their 

power back on. They don’t really care what they look like. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, I thank you and I thank all our witnesses for 

your input. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from the thirteenth largest city in California—Stockton, California—Mr. McNerney, 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you for that little statistic, Mr. 

Chairman, and I thank the panel for coming and testifying this 

morning. 

The U.S. clearly needs to modernize our electrical infrastructure. 

The technology exists today to do that. We can make our grid resilient and responsive. We can meet consumer demands that are 

changing by the day. We can meet the demands of intermittent resources, physical and cyber-attacks, and the changing weather patterns that are brought on by climate change that have brought 

down the grid in Puerto Rico, in Texas, in New York, New Jersey, 

and in California. 

So we have the capabilities to do that and, fortunately, my good 

friend, Bob Latta, and I have formed a Grid Innovation Caucus to 

make people aware of what’s available and the need to move forward on that. So I just wanted to make that clear. 

Mr. Devine, I worked on the Hydropower Modernization Act and 

one of the things that struck me was definitely how long it took to 

get permits, how expensive it was to get permits. 

Could you say a little bit about how much hydropower we could 

expect if that was improved? 

Mr. DEVINE. I would hate to guess in terms of the total amount 

of capacity involved but it’s thousands of megawatts. It’s very significant. 

As I mentioned to Chairman Upton, the view of the risk in the 

amount of time it takes to improve even somewhat straightforward 

projects is very difficult for investors to accept. So I think there is 

a considerable amount of available upgrade potential and power to 

be added to existing dams that have no power and I think it’s in 

the thousands of megawatts. 

I am working on a project right now where we have an upgrade 

potential of something on the order, of an existing station, something on the order of 20 or 30 megawatts. Now, that may not seem 

large but that’s just one station in location. That’s a significant 

amount. We are now in our seventh or eighth year of licensing. It’s 

95 

not the only issue, of course, but the licensing process can hold up 

these upgrades and these improvements for a considerable amount 

of time. 

It’s very difficult for the investors to wait that long in order to 

realize a return on that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Ross, you mentioned private activity bonds. Could you expand on that a little bit? I’ve done some legislative work on that. 

How important would that be in terms of municipal bonds and 

other tools? 

Mr. ROSS. I am going to have to take a pass on that one and get 

our political department or someone get you an answer to that, 

OK? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Dr. Chen, you mentioned pretty pointedly that 

we would require regions to coordinate transmission planning. 

Could you go into that a little bit? How would that work? How 

would that speed up our process? How would it make it more easy 

to put in transmission? 

Ms. CHEN. All right. So there are two parts to that and I appreciate that question. 

So first, in the transmission planning process, the different ISOs 

and RTOs plan separately and they’re required to coordinate by 

FERC for interregional projects. But, unfortunately, that’s not really producing any projects. So what we really need to see is a full 

joint interregional planning process. FERC can use its existing authority to extend order number 1000 to require this and Congress 

could write letters to FERC, hold a hearing for FERC to ask how 

they can move forward in that process. 

Separately, in terms of siting, especially some of these long lines, 

coordinating between state and federal processes as well as locals 

and other stakeholders—landowners—would be greatly helpful. 

We’ve seen great success and, for example, in the Department of 

Energy and Department of Interior working together with the 

State of California to site 9 megawatts of solar in just 9 months 

by coordinating together, doing as much of the environmental review concurrently and jointly, and that sped things up a lot. 

There is a great example about a Midwestern project, CapX2020, 

that I can go into further. But a University of Minnesota report 

highlighted a lot of successes that arose out of the coordination 

there as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very briefly, does anyone have anything to say 

about ARPA–E? Would the elimination of ARPA–E, is that going 

to set us back in terms of our electrical infrastructure development? Anybody on the panel. 

Mr. DEVINE. In terms of the, Congressman McNerney, the renewable portfolio standards that you’re referring to? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No, ARPA—that’s the advanced renewable energy or advanced energy research based on DARPA. 

Ms. CHEN. Very briefly, I think that would set us back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

calls upon the gentleman who was the former chairman of the full 

committee, the current vice chairman of the full committee and a 

proud Texas Aggie, Mr. Barton. 

96 

Mr. BARTON. Well, we thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

that introduction. 

This is a difficult hearing for me to get my arms around because 

we are trying to put a government spin, apparently, on private sector investment in infrastructure. 

I do believe there’s a legitimate public interest certainly in the 

permitting and licensing part of these big infrastructure projects. 

We certainly need to protect our environment. 

And I think you could argue that if you look at public sector infrastructure—highways, bridges, ports—compare it to private sector infrastructure—pipelines, refineries, transmission lines—the 

private sector has done a better job. 

We seem to be more up to date in our private sector infrastructure than our public sector infrastructure. So, I think while it’s important to look at permitting reforms and things like that, if it’s 

not broke don’t fix it. 

I guess one question I have to the mayor of Schenectady—it’s always good to have local officials here—you’re closer to the problems. 

There’s been an ongoing problem for decades in the Midwest and 

the Northeast. When you need power, electricity, natural gas it’s 

hard to get the permits for the transmission lines or the pipelines 

to get that power or that product to your part of the country. 

Do you have the solution on how to balance the legitimate needs 

of the state and local government against the public good and 

interstate commerce of getting the product from point A to point 

B if it cross state lines? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I don’t, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. That’s an honest answer. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Even though I think the opportunity is out 

there, as you see some of the emerging technologies where you had 

centralized points of generation and the distribution network was, 

clearly, in one direction that is changing. 

So where you have solar and wind that are being added to it that 

can provide supplemental points of generation and the ability to 

balance the load so that you don’t get the peak demand anymore, 

those will take some of the pressure off the need to have the central points of generation at the same time will hopefully be able to 

allow it to be done in a cost-effective manner for the consumers 

who will take advantage of some of the newer concepts and products that are out there. 

Mr. BARTON. That’s actually a very good answer. If you eliminate 

the need to cross the state line, you have solved the problem and 

so more of these alternative energy projects that are on site. Those 

eliminate that need. But I think you’re still going to need to somehow figure out a way to move natural gas or oil from Texas to New 

York or Chicago. There are going to be occasions where you still 

need to cross state lines. But your solution is—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And I agree with that. I don’t have a solution, 

though, for the regulatory environment or the ability to make sure 

that adequate capacity is there. 

Mr. BARTON. This last question is a little bit off subject but it is 

infrastructure related and that’s who should be the lead and who 

97 

should pay to protect our infrastructure, our power plants and 

things like that against cyber-attacks? So OK, Mr. Slocum, just—— 

Mr. SLOCUM. Yes. We own quite a bit of that infrastructure and 

we certainly do a lot to protect especially our most critical facilities 

and our critical systems that we use to operate the bulk electric 

system from cyber-attacks. So we cover those costs and ultimately 

those go to our ratepayers today. But I do think there is a need 

for a discussion about at what point does that stop for private industry and what point does the government help to do that in 

areas where we are getting into even acts of war and things of that 

nature. 

So I have a concern that private industry not have to be burdened with those costs. But we are certainly ready to work together 

with government to meet those needs and make sure their infrastructure is protected. 

Mr. BARTON. I see my time has expired. 

Final question—are you any kin to the former football coach 

who’s my great friend, R.C. Slocum of Texas A&M? 

Mr. SLOCUM. I can’t say that I am but it’s not the first Slocum 

I’ve been asked if I am related to. So thanks. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now calls upon a friend who rooted against the L.A. 

Dodgers in the World Series and for our Houston Astros, Mr. 

Peters, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you. I always enjoy hearing what my introduction is going to be, Mr. Chairman. So thank you very much. 

Thanks for being here. I want to ask Dr. Chen a couple questions. 

Dr. Chen, I have to say I read your testimony and we hear all 

the time from businesses and investors that regulatory system can 

cause uncertainty and the length of delay can cause projects not to 

get built or be more expensive or result in investors not wanting 

to take these risks. The citations in your testimony to the Department of Energy’s own statistics, the Center for American Progress, 

I understand that people argue that it isn’t a problem. But we hear 

from people who are actually doing the investing that it is a problem and I just don’t think that we do ourselves any favors on this 

side of the aisle by not thinking about what we could do to improve 

the process to achieve high standards and yet do it more quickly 

in a way that’s more certain for people. 

What happens, I think, when we don’t do that is that we get the 

kinds of things that President Trump has proposed, which is an 

evisceration of the regulatory system that doesn’t get us high 

standards. 

So I wanted to just ask you about a couple things that Mr. Slocum suggested which seem, to me, reasonable and see if you have 

an issue with them. 

Could Congress require concurrent NEPA analysis and environmental reviews by all permitting agencies? Is there an issue you 

have with that? 

Ms. CHEN. No. So, certainly, there are a lot of provisions in place 

that enable a joint review so—— 

Mr. PETERS. Could it be required? 

Ms. CHEN. It could be. I haven’t—— 

98 

Mr. PETERS. OK. How about requiring concurrent NEPA analysis—well, that’s the same thing—requiring cooperating agencies to 

use the information already contained in the lead agency’s NEPA 

document as the basis for their permit-related reviews? 

Ms. CHEN. I think it’s something to consider. I think there are 

a lot of efficiencies that can be explored. But our main issue is 

eliminating or curtailing environmental protections. 

Mr. PETERS. I understand, too, and I think that’s not where I 

want to get to. The other thing is whether we should set a deadline, and I got to tell you I was shocked when I got on this committee and heard that hydropower which is, basically, clean base 

load energy—takes 10 years to get a permit for. 

And the thing that we learned is something you suggested, too, 

in your references to success stories. In the success stories you 

have these people who are remarkably talented and well-motivated 

to work together and they get it done in 9 months. That’s a really 

ad hoc kind of cross-your-fingers approach to permitting, I think, 

because you might not get people who are so willing to work together. You might get opponents who are more vociferous. 

And for me, it would be much more comfortable if we could find 

a way to get these decisions made in the right way, in a way that 

protects the environment but also gives an answer. I’ve always said 

no is the second best answer. Let people know. And I was just actually looking at Twitter because there is some downtime in these 

hearings, believe it or not, and NRDC is opposing a pipeline very 

vociferously right now on Twitter, and that’s fine. But I just don’t 

think there’s any excuse for not getting this done in a quicker way. 

And so I would like to work with you. 

By the way, you went to the finest law school in the United 

States of America. I would like to work with you, as a former alum 

of the same school, to see if we can’t come up with better responses 

to the concern that we are hearing from the economy that this permitting process is in the way. It’s too inefficient. I think we can do 

it in a way that’s useful. 

Mr. Devine, I wanted to ask you, just in case we haven’t covered 

it, you said in your testimony that you didn’t think that Congress 

was at fault for the length of time it takes to do hydropower. 

So you tell me if there’s anything Congress should do to address 

the situation out there. 

Mr. DEVINE. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Peters. 

I think there is, definitely. Let me do it by example, possibly. So 

I think what FERC tried to do with the integrated licensing process was try to bring some order and some efficiency to that process. 

It was a collaborative rulemaking process, which meant that all of 

the agencies and all conservation groups and the industry was involved in coming up with that process. And yes, it’s still a long 

process but it’s very structured and you go through the process and 

FERC, I think, has brought some efficiency in their effort to bring 

to the federal hydropower licensing process. 

The difficulty that we have in the process is you get to a certain 

point and and there are other federal and state licensing processes 

that then interact with that process and they don’t have any sort 

of schedule particularly and I think the courts have actually said— 

I am not an attorney—that FERC is not in a position to force those 

99 

agencies to meet any particular deadlines. So that means there is 

no deadline. 

Mr. PETERS. So we should look at action-forcing, perhaps? 

Mr. DEVINE. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. PETERS. All right. Thank you. My time has expired. I really 

to appreciate all the witnesses being here. 

I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon himself for 5 minutes. 

My first question is for you, Dr. Hellyer, and again, it’s so great 

to have you here this afternoon. You are the best of the best. 

As we both know, incredibly, I think kids these days still think 

they have to get a 4-year Bachelor’s degree to be successful in 

America. But as San Jac shows, there are incredible opportunities 

and jobs related to American energy and infrastructure for kids 

without a B.A. 

Can you please tell me a little about what draws your students 

to your programs and how you’re actively in the community to 

raise the profile of energy industry courses? 

Ms. HELLYER. Excuse me. I think it comes down to our relationship across all the sectors—with our K through 12 partners, with 

our university partners, but mostly with our industry partners— 

and we tackle that together. 

As I mentioned, we bring 6,000 sixth graders onto campus. That 

is based on hands-on experiments so that they can be working with 

industry partners at the table, seeing what happens in our 

petrochem facility, seeing what’s happening in the maritime industry. Then we also reconnect with them again as they’re going 

through eighth grade and we give those teachers experiments so 

they can refresh that in the classes. And in ninth grade, there is 

the speakers’ bureau where we are going out into the high schools 

with, again, industry partners talking about the jobs. 

We had had many years where we weren’t really focusing on the 

jobs in our region, and when you can become a process operator 

making $100,000 a year with an Associate degree, you start to look 

at that differently when you can be a welder and making $75,000 

a year. 

And so we are really putting that marketing campaign together 

but that marketing campaign is for students, it’s for parents, and 

it’s also for teachers and counselors in our high schools because 

they don’t necessarily understand all the pieces of our region. But 

then having industry really engaged in our programs, having internships, having apprenticeships where they can get hands-on 

training and then being involved in that interview process. So it’s 

across the board partnerships. 

Mr. OLSON. I would just ask you to brag. Can you talk about how 

you work with employers and local high schools to help students 

transition into industry? 

We’ve heard some confirm this—one day in May every year some 

young men and women walks across the stage, gets his high school 

diploma, spins around, puts on a different cap and gown and walks 

by and gets an AA from San Jacinto. 

Please explain that success you had with merging the education 

sector with your work there at San Jacinto College. 

100 

Ms. HELLYER. So we have eight early college high schools and 

these are early college high schools designed for high school students to be earning an Associate degree at the same time as they’re 

getting their high school diploma. 

So they will actually earn an Associate degree 2 weeks before 

they graduate from high school, and it’s a great program. It’s an 

intense program and people say, ‘‘Well, how are those kids ready?’’ 

It’s because of the screening process. It’s because of support systems. And where do those go to? I can tell you I’ve had students 

going to Princeton, UT, Penn State—just all across the country 

they’re going to the top colleges after they graduate from us. But 

we also have a similar program for career and technical education. 

So, again, they’re getting their career and technical process tech 

degree or a welding degree so they can go into the workforce right 

away. 

So at our graduation the youngest graduate can be 17 earning 

an Associate degree and in December the oldest was 72. So we 

serve everybody. 

Mr. OLSON. That includes my alma mater Rice, Mr. Flores’ alma 

mater Texas A&M, along those litany of UT and other schools? 

Ms. HELLYER. Yes. Our top five transfer universities, A&M and 

UT, are right there, and then all the University of Houston universities. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

One question for you, Mr. Slocum. We know that building a new 

transmission line, especially longer ones across the state lines or 

electricity markets is remarkably complex. You said a decade, in 

some cases, in your opening statement. 

What is the largest driver for these delays? Is there anything 

Congress can do to make this move faster? 

Mr. SLOCUM. Yes. I would say the largest delays that we have— 

we have an example of a project between Iowa and Wisconsin that 

we got approval for I believe back in 2011, if I have my date correct, and we don’t expect to complete that project until 2023. 

So we plan the project and we stand ready to build the project. 

But it’s getting that permitting process done in the middle. And so 

I agree with a lot of what’s been said today, that there are ways 

that we can more efficiently move through that process such that 

we can get to the point where we are building the lines, building 

the projects and those benefits are flowing to consumers rather 

than waiting and going through a serial permitting process. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

One final question for you, Dr. Hellyer. My dear colleague, Mr. 

Green, in his opening statement mentioned I’ve not talked about 

the Houston Astros, and that’s true. I didn’t do that because I 

knew you could talk about the Houston Astros for me. 

[Laughter.] 

They went to the World Series in 2005 for the first time in the 

Astros’ history. Two star players were on that team—Hall of 

Famers—Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte. 

Where did they start playing there all beyond high school? What 

school was that? 

Ms. HELLYER. San Jacinto College. 

[Laughter.] 

101 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. I yield back and yield to the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for allowing me to testify or to ask questions, rather. 

I was shocked because one of the successes of San Jacinto College, Andy Pettitte—a great baseball player but he comes back 

every year and has a great golf tournament that supports San 

Jacinto College. And I am not a very good golfer. I haven’t had a 

chance to play but I will at least go to the reception. 

So thank you, and thank all our witnesses for being here. I have 

a very urban district in Houston and one of the campuses of San 

Jacinto College is there and I have students from our district who 

go to the other two campuses. And I just want to thank Dr. Hellyer 

and the leadership both of the board of trustees but over the years 

at San Jacinto College because I was a state senator before I got 

to Congress I saw San Jacinto College doing some of the things 

that are so important today. 

Dr. Hellyer, can you elaborate on the partnership with local industry—the college heads and the Center for Petroleum Energy 

and Technology? 

I am interested in sharing more about how the industry guidance 

towards the curriculum is getting students ready for those real jobs 

today and not just generalized certificates, because I’ve been there 

and seen that partnership between the industry—the people who 

hire our constituents and the college. 

Ms. HELLYER. So one of the things with industry we have 90 petrochemical plants right there around us and it really is how do 

you partner. And so I make it very clear I want the good, bad, and 

the ugly around our programs and we are going to fix the bad and 

the ugly, and that’s what the conversations are. 

And so, for example, our electrical program, as we’ve dug into 

that, it was too focused on residential. We have redesigned it where 

it has a commercial and industrial phase. Industry has come to the 

table and gotten us almost $2 million in donations so that we can 

really have the program that they need. We have built in the kind 

of testing they want, the kind of components they feel are so critical, the safety components, and we are just constantly revising our 

programs. 

One of the things that we needed to do was hire somebody from 

industry to run the program and so we have hired a man named 

Jim Griffin who has been a plant manager or in the industry for 

about 30 years and he’s retired to work with us. He has the respect 

of industry and he is working with us on how we continue to develop and develop our faculty around that. It’s the same approach 

we took with our maritime programs. 

But it really is creating the environment where you’re having the 

conversations and then you’re responding and you’re bringing the 

resources to the table as partners. 

Mr. GREEN. I want to ask a question of Mr. Ross. 

Mr. Ross, when I was going to college I didn’t play football well 

enough to get a scholarship so I did my apprenticeship as a printer 

while I was going to school. 

Can the IBEW or other trades partner with programs like San 

Jacinto College? How hard is it to get college credit, for example, 

102 

for what may be the standard apprentice program for IBEW or 

plumbers or pipefitters or anything like that? 

Mr. ROSS. Well, as I stated earlier we certainly work with community colleges in an attempt to try to steal their graduates and 

to get them into our program, definitely. Second, our 5-year inside 

apprenticeship program we work with community colleges for those 

individuals once they complete our program to get an Associate’s 

degree. So once they graduate they work with the community colleges to get their Associate’s degree. So they—our program is accredited for—toward an Associate’s degree. So that’s what we do. 

Mr. GREEN. And I think that’s important because most folks getting out of high school want to earn a living and they may not be 

able to afford a college and go to college and they also may not 

want to take out loans so they could actually both get a job and 

do an apprenticeship. And I always remember my third year in my 

apprenticeship I actually started making decent money and I was 

able to get a business degree. And, so that’s why I would like to 

see if we could structure that with our trades and also our community colleges. That’s really important in my area in Houston and 

San Jac is part of it. 

And I know you’re getting competition from some of our other 

community colleges. I am trying to get them to realize that trades 

skills are really important and, frankly, I remember when I was 

graduating from college I had an offer of $600 a month—1971 dollars, by the way—and I explained to those companies that offered 

me that—I said, ‘‘Well, I am making $850 now and so I think I will 

stay in Houston and help manage this printing business.’’ 

So that can be done but mine was just lucky. I would like to see 

it structuralized so whether they be in our district or anywhere 

else they can get that training and if they want to go on and get 

an electrical engineer’s degree, that’s great. But they can at least 

support their families. 

So Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and you and I both are 

Astros fans and I know we’ll be at the White House next week. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, we will. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and since 

you always like to talk about sports I would be remiss, coming from 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, if I didn’t mention the number-one 

basketball team in the country is UVA. But we are particularly 

proud in my district of the fact that our Virginia Tech Hokies beat 

the number-one team a couple week back and last night dispatched 

with the number five Duke team. So we are very proud of that. 

The district is one that has a lot of assets. We are a coal mining 

district. We have natural gas. Last week, I attended a meeting 

with a solar company in district. But, Mr. Devine, we also have a 

lot of water and hydropower is an essential component of an allof-the-above strategy, which I have always supported, and I believe 

should be included in any infrastructure package that passes 

through this committee. 

I had a bill earlier or last fall—earlier in the session—H.R. 2880, 

which streamlines the licensing process for the construction of 

closed-loop pump storage hydropower projects. I see those as giant 

103 

batteries that are very energy efficient. I enjoyed reading your testimony where it talks about how hydro is the number-one ‘‘clean 

energy source in the country,’’ and I was wondering if you could explain to folks exactly how closed-loop pump storage hydro projects 

provide to our grid. 

Mr. DEVINE. Thank you. Be a pleasure to do so. 

So one of the aspects about pump storage is that it does help to 

bring in other renewable energy sources. It helps to regulate the 

grid in being able to incorporate those other renewable energy 

sources. The closed-loop part of pump—basically, what pump storage is is that during periods—historically, during periods of high 

demand an upper reservoir would throw water down to the lower 

reservoir and generate electricity in doing that. And then during 

periods of lower demand, base load stations like nuclear or coal 

would use energy to pump that water back up to use it at a more 

peak time. 

I think the role of pump storage is now changing. It’s changing 

significantly, because it’s now very critical to bring stability to the 

grid during the—and incorporating the other renewable energy 

generation opportunities into the grid and keeping stability to the 

grid. 

So the closed-loop part of this would be that while some pump 

storage projects are using water from, say, a river system that— 

in flowing by that would pump up water to the upper reservoir and 

then release it back to the river. A closed-loop system basically 

brings water into the system for one time and then is just constantly moving that water back and forth between the upper and 

lower reservoir. It only takes a little bit of water then to make up 

for some evaporation losses. So that closed-loop system, once built, 

basically operates by itself alone without any additional water flow 

or impact to the environment once built. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And as a result of that, do you agree that that 

warrants expedited consideration by FERC and with some relaxed 

regulations because we are using the same water over and over 

again so that we don’t have as much impact on the environment? 

Mr. DEVINE. I do, and one of the main reasons is because oftentimes what’s indicated to be the primary issue with respect to those 

is the effect of the river, where the water is being flowing into and 

pumping out of—fishery impacts, sediment impacts, other related 

potential impacts. With a closed-loop system, once you have built 

and filled these reservoirs and take care of that in the original licensing, you don’t have that potential issue any further. 

So I do believe that it deserves that more efficient process and 

expedited licensing process. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And we’ve been interested in—because we hear all 

the time from folks who oppose coal that you all need to transition, 

we’ve been interested in maybe putting one of these inside an 

abandoned coal mine because then there’s really virtually no impact to the environment. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. DEVINE. Yes. I think there’s opportunities with a lower reservoir potentially to be inside old mining facilities. I think there 

have been several of those in the past proposed and some actually 

moved through the—back in the ’80s I think it was, or early ’90s, 

move through the processing and were not able to get the financVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
104 

ing, not able to get built at that point but moved through the whole 

process of permitting and were closed-loop systems and using old 

mines for the lower reservoir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. We have a lot of people who are very interested 

in this and anybody that is interested in investing in the 9th Congressional District for doing one of these we’ve got plenty of water 

to put into the system. 

Mr. SLOCUM. I will just quickly mention ITC may be interested 

in that and we do have a project just as—exactly what you just 

mentioned in northwest Arizona that we’ve proposed and we’ve 

submitted that to FERC. And so I agree with everything that was 

just said. Thanks. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, and appreciate it and yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentlelady from Florida, who is a 

huge fan of the chancellor of University of Houston—Dr. Renu 

Khator, just like Dr. Hellyer and myself, Ms. Castor, has 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do have great respect for the University of Houston Chancellor 

Dr. Khator and I am sure she was as excited as you that her old 

alma mater, the University of South Florida, defeated the University of Houston in women’s basketball last week. 

But thank you for giving me time to be ready with that one. I 

want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Many of you 

have cited in your testimony the importance of modernizing America’s electrical grid and how that would be a very important piece 

of an infrastructure plan for the country, and I agree. 

Many of you have cited benefits of modernizing our grid. There 

is creating higher-paying jobs, building in greater grid resiliency, 

greater efficiency for our businesses and electric utilities and so 

much more. Many of you know that the Democratic colleagues on 

this committee have drafted a piece of legislation called the LIFT 

America Act. My contribution to the LIFT America Act has been 

to promote a modern grid that includes clean energy distribution 

and really trying to bring the most modern technology that we 

have developed to bear in an infrastructure plan. I think it’s clear 

that if we were to make a real investment in clean, reliable, and 

cost-effective energy resources, the country would reap huge benefits. 

Ms. Chen, in your testimony you highlight the importance of 

technological innovations like expanded grid technology, smart meters, energy storage as part of upgrading the nation’s power infrastructure. Can you elaborate on your vision for a more modern electrical grid with expanded distribution and greater technology and 

what would we need to build that? 

Ms. CHEN. Sure. That response—I probably don’t have enough 

time to fully flesh that out. But I think the number-one thing to 

think about here, especially when we talk about more clean innovative technologies on the distribution system is being able to integrate it with the larger bulk transmission grid so that that way 

whatever savings in electricity that you don’t have to purchase 

from the bulk electricity system you can reap through fewer reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
105 

quirements on the transmission grid infrastructure, lower requirements on generation infrastructure that could be very costly for 

your consumers. But at the same time, if you integrate these distributed energy resources like storage, demand response, energy efficiency, solar panels, you can also allow them to recover revenues 

from the wholesale electricity markets. 

So one of the great things that FERC recently did was finalize 

the storage rule that enables storage, at least, to compete in the 

wholesale electricity markets. What it left behind is the distributed 

energy resources. There’s a component to that rule that would have 

enabled those resources to also participate in the wholesale electricity markets. 

So FERC is going to convene a proceeding to investigate it further and we would love to see distributed energy resources to be 

able to participate in the bulk electric transmission system. So that 

kind of integrated system would be the overall large framework 

picture that we have for the modern grid. 

Ms. CASTOR. So you would encourage the Committee to urge 

FERC to move forward on that along with greater planning in advance across regions to help save money and become more efficient 

and put all those technological tools to use? 

Ms. CHEN. Right. Absolutely. 

So this all goes hand in hand in the transmission planning process and the regional operators’ load forecasting process. They have 

a lot of planning that goes on. Sometimes it’s not holistic enough 

to account for everything that’s on the distribution system. 

So, certainly, including these distributed energy resources in 

those plans would ensure that we don’t overbuild and, again, it 

would ensure that if they can participate in the markets they could 

reap some of those revenues. 

Ms. CASTOR. And I just want to close by saying that I think there 

was bipartisan concern that President Trump’s infrastructure plan, 

when it was released, included nothing in regard to modernizing 

America’s electrical grid, just simply no mention, and I think that 

was a real absence of vision. Just like the plan included no mention 

of broadband expansion across the country, and I think this committee has a responsibility to take up that charge on a bipartisan 

basis with the matters that are in our jurisdiction and help lead 

the way. 

We can’t do infrastructure and create these high-paying jobs and 

take our country to the next level unless infrastructure also means 

a modern electrical grid and greater broadband. 

So I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentlelady yields back and the chair wishes to 

inform the gentle lady that she publicly called Dr. Khator—her 

new home getting defeated by her old home. I’ve sent her a text 

message about the statement so be prepared for a response if it 

hasn’t come already. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from Indiana, the Hoosier State, Mr. Bucshon, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier this Congress, the House unanimously passed my bill, 

H.R. 2872, the Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing 

Non-powered Dams Act. H.R. 2872 would promote hydropower deVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
106 

velopment at existing non-powered dams by establishing an expedited licensing process for qualifying facilities that will result in a 

decision on an application in 2 years or less. The bill also requires 

FERC, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of 

the Interior to develop a list of existing non-powered federal dams 

that have the greatest potential for non-federal hydropower development. 

Developing hydropower generation at over 50,000 suitable dams 

across the country has the potential to have 12 gigawatts of clean 

energy to the grid, create good-paying jobs, and bring billions of 

dollars of investment. In fact, in the 8th District of Indiana, which 

I represent, there are six suitable dams that can benefit from this 

expedited permitting process. This legislation modernizes our existing infrastructure and I believe should be included in any infrastructure package passed out of Congress. 

So Mr. Devine, in your testimony you state that enacting legislation like this, and you quote, ‘‘in a way to move investments in hydropower infrastructure forward without major cost to the U.S. 

government.’’ Can you speak to the impact H.R. 72 and other hydropower legislation but specifically this would have on hydropower 

development across the country as well as its role in our country’s 

infrastructure? 

Mr. DEVINE. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Bucshon. 

I think it’s an excellent example of trying to improve the investment picture for small hydropower and hydropower in the country. 

It’s also an example of moving forward hydropower at existing 

dams recognizes that the main aspect of these dams are usually 

run-of-river dams. Run-of-river dams are known to have very minor 

impacts, generally, to the water resources of the river. Therefore, 

a 2-year expedited process in this is not incongruent with protecting environmental resources. 

I think it’s also an example of an expedited process which also 

continues to protect the environment because these environmental 

analyses will be done and completed in a reasonable time frame 

and fully evaluated from the scientific perspective. 

I think it also combines the expedited time frame for the licensing process and is a good example of not trying to rescind any environmental laws or regulations. 

I think it’s a fine example of encouraging new investments in hydropower and recognizing that some of these projects have minimal 

environmental effects and could move forward expeditiously. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I just want to point out this bill was passed unanimously out of 

the House with bipartisan support. We worked with both parties 

to develop language that people were comfortable with and, again, 

I want to reiterate that the environmental review process is still 

there in place. 

We are just getting federal agencies to move the process more 

quickly rather than 10 years or 12 years to a process that would 

be over a 2-year period, which the potential for expanding this form 

of clean energy is tremendous. 

And I look forward to our Senate colleagues taking this up and 

I do think there’s a lot of interest over there and I think in a biparVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
107 

tisan way. I am hoping to get this type of legislation to the president’s desk. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the pride of Schenectady, New York, 

right behind Thomas Edison, as we learned this morning—Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the pride may be the 

mayor of Schenectady. But that’s up for discussion. 

Mayor, again, I want to thank you for a very comprehensive report. It is so innovative and it allows us to go into the next stage 

of energy resources, and I thank you, again, for the vision that, obviously, will lead many people down a path of sound energy policy. 

Schenectady has, I believe, over 5,000 street lights and what is 

considered when a city decides to make a major infrastructure investment such as converting to LED streetlights? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Again, there’s approximately 5,000 street lights 

in the city of Schenectady, 500 of which the city owns. Forty-five 

hundred, approximately, are owned by the utility. So the 500 that 

the city owns are fairly easy to deal with. 

Where you get utility-owned streetlights it becomes a more complicated process to either buy those or purchase the residual value 

of the fixtures that had been installed and that’s why we are trying 

to work with New York Public Service Commission to come up with 

a model that would allow that transition to the LED lights. When 

you’re doing that it’s not to miss the opportunity to put some of the 

other available technology on the light pole, which will, again hopefully help the utility, help the city, then help the residents and 

businesses within the community take advantage of some of the 

emerging and wireless and sensor-based technologies. 

Mr. TONKO. So as you convert to LED, what are the potential 

savings for the city when adopting a smart lighting system? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The initial savings—our number is just under $400,000—about half of our electrical costs. 

Also, when you put the optical sensors on the poles that you can 

then pick up additional savings when you dim the lights further 

when there’s less activity on the street. 

When you put either a Wi-Fi or cellular communication protocol 

on the pole it might be able to extend that savings to residents or 

businesses so that your control is on the sensor on the street but 

you would enable homeowners or businesses to be able to dim their 

either porch lights or advertising on their buildings or other fixtures that they might have when there’s no activity—you could dim 

that. 

When there is activity you’d be able to turn them up. So it becomes really an integrated deployment where, hopefully, everybody 

will benefit from it. 

Mr. TONKO. Tremendous. In addition to lighting, Schenectady 

has developed other clean energy and efficiency projects. Among 

them a few years ago the city installed a CHP system—a combined 

heat and power system—at the wastewater treatment facility and 

more recently installed a solar array, I believe, at that facility. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. What are the benefits of these types of projects? 

108 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Our wastewater treatment plant, the co-gen facility there, saves us approximately $30,000 a month in utility 

costs, capturing the methane gas and burning it on site and then 

our solar deployment at the time was the largest municipal solar 

array in New York State. It’s done on top of an enclosed reservoir. 

The Bevis Hill Reservoir supplies hydrostatic pressure for the 

water system within the city. 

Mr. TONKO. So there’s, obviously, long-term benefits there to the 

city with these projects? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Correct. It was just really unused land and so 

now we get 711 kilowatts of electricity generated there that we use 

a remote metering package to offset the costs of some of our higher 

utility bills of the municipal—primarily city hall and some of our 

fire stations. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. 

Just make mention here for the record that the city established 

a smart city advisory commission chaired by Mark Little, the 

former chief technology officer and director of GE Global Research, 

which includes businesses and important institutions from around 

the area. So it’s really pulling in the private sector-public sector 

partnership. 

Back to those public sector partnerships, are there—earlier you 

were quizzed about the 80/20 match with Ranker Rush. But are 

there opportunities for public partnerships at the state and federal 

level that you would encourage? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I believe everybody has to look at the emerging 

technologies. Things are changing so fast. I was here at a NIST 

event 3 weeks ago and they talked about that 90 percent of the 

data that exists in the world today had been created in the last 36 

months. I went back and used that statistic at an event at our community college. Somebody came up to me and corrected me. He 

said, ‘‘Mr. Mayor, that’s wrong. Ninety percent of the data that exists in the world today has been created in, roughly, the last 24 

months.’’ 

So there is so much information out there that, if properly managed, it will allow us to do predictive analytics. It will enable us 

to drive better outcomes, whether it’s government services, products that are produced in business, and educational opportunities 

within our communities. 

But, again, it’s happening so fast that we have to have policy 

standards and an environment that allow those things to be fully 

utilized and taken advantage of in a rapid manner. Again, it’s really our global competitiveness is a key component of that because 

other countries are moving faster in some areas. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, again, for the vision. And I 

agree, the challenge to us now is to determine how we utilize the 

great compilation of data that we acquire. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now calls upon the Motorcycle Riders Foundation 2017 

Legislator of the Year, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Wow. 

[Laughter.] 

109 

Tell you what, always wondering what in the world you do to get 

all of the research done with all of our members here. It’s impressive, Mr. Chairman. Impressive. 

Thanks to the panel for being here. Mr. Ross, I certainly appreciate the work the Brotherhood does in training people to do jobs 

whether it’s at my Fermi plant—the DTE Fermi plant—or down 

Lake Erie a bit at the big coal-fired plant or in all of the consumers’ gas-powered plants, et cetera to get the electricity to the 

lines and ITC and others. We appreciate the work you do. 

I want to ask you to give us some examples, if you could, or ideas 

how we can expand access to apprenticeships. But I would preface 

it by saying I was greatly excited with what our governor was proposing in Michigan last week called the Marshall Plan for talent 

and, specifically, as he talked about pushing means toward shortterm certification programs, education programs, whether it’s the 

community college level or apprenticeships, et cetera. 

The PROSPER Act that we passed out of the House Education 

and Workforce Committee just a couple months ago that reauthorized the Higher Education Act has a one-loan one-grant one-work 

study program that can be done for that very purpose—those Pell 

grants, et cetera, that can go towards short-term training opportunities as well in the professional trades, as we are calling now in 

Michigan. I know they’re skilled but they’re professional as well 

and we want to give that idea out to our students that could look 

to fill spots that can be an asset to what we have. 

The SKILLS Act we passed several years ago and was signed by 

President Obama, again, pushed education for real-world jobs back 

to the states and the local communities and private entities like 

yourself. So we want to build on that. 

What would be the best way to do this, to expand recruiting and 

apprenticeships for the next generation of electric workers as well 

as how can the U.S. encourage more individuals pursue these programs? 

Mr. ROSS. I think we should start by introducing the trades earlier on in school. When I came through school you were introduced 

in shop class or you had to go to electrical class just to introduce 

individuals to those programs, and there’s not much vocational 

training, at least I haven’t seen much, in the high schools anymore. 

They’ve gone away from that and certainly guidance counselors 

have gotten away from trying to push individuals to our industry— 

the trades. 

Unfortunately, not everyone is cut out for college or even community colleges, in some cases. We take individuals with basically a 

high school education, at a minimum, and for an electrician basically high school algebra is a bare minimum for us and we train 

them to be electricians. 

We certainly need to do a better job of promoting that program 

to individuals out there and, quite frankly, we need to do a lot better than what we have been. 

And I think reintroducing them in the high schools would certainly be a starter—even earlier in junior high—to get them exposed to what the trades are—have them hands-on. We also have 

pre-apprenticeship programs out there that our electrical training 

alliance has developed to put high school graduates into those proVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
110 

grams. It gets them exposed to what’s expected of them when they 

become selected as an apprentice. So some of those programs we 

are trying to promote. 

Mr. WALBERG. That’s great. The push to encourage people toward 

their sweet spots—it would be a waste of time for some to go the 

university or 4-year college route. 

We would waste the skills and the talents that they have, and 

if we think about professional skills these are jobs like you’re talking about that are careers—that are good paying and can continue 

to expand. I wish you well on that. We need the juice. 

[Laughter.] 

We need the electricity to our homes. 

Mr. Slocum, earlier this Congress with the help of this committee 

we passed H.R. 1109. This was legislation that was introduced to 

reduce red tape on both industry and FERC to free up resources 

and lower utility bills. This made a simple fix to Section 203 of the 

Federal Power Act and harmonized the language in that particular 

section. 

We know there needs to be serious permitting reform. Simple or 

technical fixes such as 1109 that Congress can pass to remove red 

tape and reduce burdensome paperwork—other low-hanging fruit 

ideas as well. What would you have to move us forward to get past 

this red tape and bureaucracy? 

Mr. SLOCUM. Thank you, Congressman, and we appreciation the 

work that was done there to make things more efficient with respect to that 203 process. 

And I think, as mentioned in my testimony, I talk about some 

changes that could be made to the NEPA process that seems to 

have a level of agreement and seems to make some straightforward 

sense as far as making sure that we can get through the permitting process in a timely manner but we can do that efficiently. And 

so that would be one of the biggest things that I would see that 

would be a low-hanging fruit type opportunity. 

Mr. WALBERG. My time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER [presiding]. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, 

Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This now is the thirteenth we’ve had out of those—2 hours ago 

we heard this is the forty-seventh hearing we’ve had on infrastructure and this is the thirteenth dealing with grid resiliency regarding the infrastructure. We’ve heard a lot of good solutions over 

those 47 and, clearly, we have a growing problem with the adequacy of our energy infrastructure and the grid being at risk. 

But, unfortunately, I can tell you, I am not sure the messages 

are being heard because just a few years ago we had with the Polar 

Vortex we came within just minutes of having a blackout through 

the PJM. PJM was reporting that. And now ISO is just—New England has just come out with a very well-documented report that 

says the possibility of the power plants in the New England area 

won’t have or be able to get the fuel they need to operate, and their 

quote was, ‘‘This is the foremost challenge to a reliable power grid 

in New England.’’ 

111 

And then further in the report it says New England has a better 

than 80 percent chance of a blackout in the next bad weather 

storm. But in the meantime, New England is becoming increasingly reliant on Russian LNG to be able to satisfy their energy demands instead of using American energy. 

So if we are truly committed as a country for energy dominance, 

what are we doing about it? Are we listening to the hearings that 

have been taking place? 

And then one that particularly disturbs me is that New England 

is apparently importing subsidized Canadian electricity at the expense of American jobs—80—or 73 gigawatts of power coming in 

from Canada. I’ve got to think that the impact of that—instead of 

having the jobs that we could have as a result of that, nearly a 

hundred coal-fired or nuclear or wind or solar—the equivalent of 

power plants, we could have those in America instead of importing 

from overseas or from Canada. 

I don’t understand why the governments in the New England 

area are withholding permits to be able to build pipelines so that 

we could use American resources to be able to do that. As a result, 

we seem to be prematurely closing a lot of our coal and nuclear 

power plants unnecessarily so. So I think we have to be careful and 

I hope that these hearings will underscore that because what we’ve 

talked about is a couple weeks ago we passed a 45Q, which was 

a tax credit. 

We need to give more people the chance to use that 45Q to find 

out if we don’t get carbon capture with this tax credit that we were 

able to pass. And then working with Congressman Tonko, we keep 

pushing the efficiency idea with turbines. We have capabilities of 

doing this but it doesn’t look like there’s a commitment to do it. 

The fuel security is, I believe, a national security and that’s what 

these two reports are saying. So if government is—both sides of the 

aisle—really serious about all-of-the-above energy resources instead 

of just empty rhetoric, isn’t it about time that we paint or get off 

the ladder? Think about that. 

So Mr. Ross, I know you have got a connection back to Parkersburg. What’s your response to the fact that we are importing electricity from Canada rather than creating American jobs and using 

American ingenuity and American efficiency and American clean 

environment? 

Mr. ROSS. I hate to say too much to our brothers in the north 

because we represent IBEW members out there. So the powerline 

I talked about earlier on would be done with IBEW. So I understand where you’re coming from. There’s plenty of resources here 

in the United States we can use if we could just get the permitting 

process sped up and create the national grid that we need. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Can any of you explain why the pipelines are 

being held up so that we can use American resources to create 

American jobs? 

Mr. SLOCUM. I will just say I can’t speak to pipelines but certainly with the electric transmission infrastructure I think it’s a 

lack of that interregional planning where you can get buy-in to a 

project and the reasons for the project and then from there you can 

move forward with the permitting and get something that’s actually an interregional project built. 

112 

Until you have the impetus behind the project, it becomes very 

difficult to cross state lines, especially multiple state lines, where 

there’s going to be winners and losers between those two areas unless you have a project that has some sort of ultimate approval 

that’s going to proceed and move forward. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I know my time is over. But I find it just offensive that, according to this Bloomberg article that we are importing 

natural gas from Russia instead of using our own supplies, especially with all the gas that we have discovered in America that 

makes us such a large producer. I hope that we can reverse that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes. 

And Dr. Hellyer, I would like to ask you a few questions and certainly you know very well how the energy landscape of the United 

States is constantly changing. And according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average age of the U.S. energy workforce is over 

50 and the energy sector will need more than 100,000 new skilled 

workers by 2024 just to replace those retiring workers, and by 

some estimates more than twice as many workers are expected to 

retire as are currently involved in the apprenticeship or certificate 

programs, and degree completion and engineering has remained 

relatively stagnant since the 1980s. 

So from your perspective, what incentives are needed to expand 

community college access and apprenticeship programs? 

Ms. HELLYER. One of the conversations we had mentioned earlier 

was around Pell, and Pell is an important component for all students of higher education, specifically community college students. 

And there are 2.7 million community college students using Pell. 

From our standpoint and in my community, 75 percent of the students are first generation to college. About 75 percent are also 

going part time, and if you dig into our ISDs they are about 70 percent economically disadvantaged. 

And so Pell does play a critical role. I think it’s what Mr. Ross 

said earlier also is that awareness around those jobs, which is 

something that we have really done well in our region trying to 

build that awareness much younger and then putting that all together and allowing the resources to be put in place, the industry 

partnerships to build the apprenticeships. 

We have registered approved apprenticeships at San Jacinto College and we have unregistered programs and, again, designing 

them based on what the industry partner needs but realizing that 

it’s a combination that’s going to be needed. 

Mr. HARPER. So how do you communicate to these students that 

these are the types of jobs in the energy and manufacturing sector 

that they can have a good life, support their family on? How is that 

communication made to the students? 

Ms. HELLYER. In our region what we are doing is first we are engaging in sixth graders, bringing them onto campus and seeing 

hands-on around what happens in our petrochemical plants, what’s 

happening in the maritime industry so having that hands-on, reengaging them again in eighth grade. 

In eighth grade in Texas, students decide an endorsement—an 

area of study—and so we are engaged with them around that procVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 Jan 11, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-102 CHRIS
113 

ess. Again, how does this tie back to the jobs in our community, 

and then we also have a speakers bureau, which is led by industry 

with community colleges going in to the eighth grade and then the 

high schools. 

Those conversations are directed at parents, teachers, counselors, 

and students. You need that broad awareness and, to be honest, 

just as Mr. Ross said, there hadn’t been that kind of awareness in 

our communities for a lot of years and so we are building that pipeline. 

But when you can talk that a process operator will make $100,000 or a welder $70,000 with the proper credentials, that 

starts speaking. And those students need to hear it from people 

that are younger than me. They need to hear it from people who 

went to their high school and that are reengaging and that’s what 

industry has done. 

They bring in those people working in their plants back into the 

high schools where they can get a role model and then get their 

questions answered. And then it’s us putting in place the support 

systems at the college—having industry partners at the table, 

being real clear what the expectations are, defining how’s the safety culture built in—what’s the work ethic and reinforcing that in 

all your programs. Our industry partners at the table with us are 

the critical factors. 

Mr. HARPER. That’s great. What we observed is students just by 

nature, when they’re in high school, the earliest time that they are 

able to opt out of math and science classes they try to do that and 

get it done and then you lose those skills. 

So are you seeing any connection with that to where you’re seeing more and more students maintain the STEM curriculum in 

high school so they don’t opt out of those possible job opportunities? 

Ms. HELLYER. So, again, it’s working with our high schools and 

with the industries but also with the universities because some of 

those jobs do require university and so how do you have that pipeline. And then for us in higher education we can redesign math a 

little bit. We are not directing all students to college algebra. 

If you’re moving in to a business degree you’re doing more statistics. If you are going into process technology it’s more of a technical 

math and showing how that reinforces with what you’re going to 

do—welding, more geometry. And so we try to redefine some of 

that. 

We take the same approach with English. Our operators need 

English. They need the math skills. They need more of a technical 

English and so how do you redesign that and being very prescriptive again, take math early, take the sciences early because it does 

reinforce the rest of the courses in your degree program. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, all of you, for being here. It’s provided 

a lot of important insight to the committee. And seeing that there 

are no further members wishing to ask questions I would like to 

thank all of our witnesses again for taking the time to be here 

today. 

Before we conclude, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

submit the following letters for the record: One, the Utilities Technology Council letter, and the second is the American Public Gas 

Association. 

114 

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

Mr. HARPER. Without objection, those are so entered and I will 

ask if Mr. Rush has any similar documents. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the unanimous consent to 

enter into the record different letters, one from the Center for 

American Progress, these are statements, one, and the American— 

the Center for American Progress has a statement debunking the 

false claims of the environmental review component. Additionally, 

there’s the Center for American Progress statement on Trump’s infrastructure scam that will gut the environmental protection to 

benefit corporate polluters. And we have a series of others— 

BlueGreen Alliance entitled, ‘‘The Right Way to Repair America’s 

Infrastructure’’—the Earth Justice statement, which is entitled, 

‘‘Congress Should Support an Infrastructure Plan that Builds Infrastructure, Not Gut Health and Environmental Protection.’’ And 

lastly, a New York Times article that’s entitled, ‘‘Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Puts the Burden on State Environment Money.’’ 

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

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. 

Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they have 

10 business days to submit additional questions for the record and 

I ask that witnesses submit their response within 10 business days 

upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

115 


30215.067

Utilities 

Technology 

Council'" 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, House Energy and 

Commerce Committee Subcommittee 

On Energy 

2138 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman, House Energy and 

Commerce Committee 

2185 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

1129 20th Street NW I Suite 350 ! Washington, DC 20036 

202.872.0030 Phone I 202.872.1331 Fax 

www.utc.org 

Feb. 27,2018 

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

Ranking Member, House Energy and 

Commerce Committee Subcommittee 

On Energy 

2188 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member, House Energy and 

Commerce Committee 

237 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Feb. 27 Subcommittee on Energy Hearing on State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure 

Dear Subcommittee Chainnan Upton, Ranking Member Rush, Committee Chainnan Walden, and 

Ranking Member Pallone: 

I am writing on behalf of the Utilities Technology Council (UTC) regarding the Subcommittee on 

Energy's Feb, 27 hearing on the "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure." Established in 1948, UTC 

is the global association representing energy and water providers on their needs related to deployment of 

reliable and resilient information and communications technology (ICT). Energy providers use ICT 

networks as the backbone for the infrastructure that delivers safe, reliable, and secure energy services. 

These networks are essential for reliability, safety, resilience, and security. 

UTC applauds the Subcommittee on Energy for holding this important hearing. As Subcommittee 

Chairman Upton so aptly noted in his announcement of this hearing, "Modernizing the nation's energy 

infrastructure should play an integral role in any sort of infrastructure plan moving forward." 

Much of this hearing's focus will likely revolve around the transmission grid, resilience, and grid 

modernization, and rightfully so. A critical piece of this discussion must be centered on the ICT networks 

embedded throughout the grid. Indeed, electric infrastructure and the ICT networks that underpin them 

are essential to the reliable flow of electricity. More specifically, electricity providers usc these networks 

for the following essential functions: 

• Real-time monitoring of medium- and high-voltage networks (distribution and transmission, 

respectively) 

Protective relaying 

• Energy management 

• Outage management 

• Distribution management 

• Smart metering 
116 


30215.068

Utilities 

Technology 

Council'" 

Substation automation 

1129 20th Street NW ! Suite 350 ! Washington, DC 20036 

202.872.0030 Phone ! 202.872.1331 Fax 

www.utc.org 

Utilities began building out telecommunication networks as their service territories expanded in the post~ 

World War II years. Because of the need for electricity to flow reliably nearly 100% of the time, electric 

utilities could not rely on communications networks built by commercial providers, which did not provide 

the level of reliability necessary to run electricity infrastructure. As they developed their networks, 

utilities recognized the need to deploy both wired and wireless technologies. 

Over time, utilities began adding new technologies to these networks to improve real-time situational 

awareness, providing data from the power lines in the field to the more centralized substations and control 

rooms. These networks run the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCAD A) systems that are 

essential to reliability. While the term "smart grid" is relatively new, utility ICT networks have long 

provided a level of automation and efficiency. Importantly, ICT networks are critical to grid 

modernization as they enable utilities to integrate intermittent generation resources such as solar and 

wind, accommodate demand response regimes, smoothly transition between battery storage technologies 

and the grid, and provide the infrastructure needed to deploy electric vehicles, among other exciting 

advances empowered by technology and now sought by customers. 

Because these networks often rely on wireless devices to communicate, radiofrequency spectrum is a key 

element to their success. Spectrum is allocated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 

under which the full Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction. Spectrum is a limited and 

sought-after commodity that is needed for wireless communications of all kinds, including smart phones, 

laptops, any WiFi~enabled device, and much more. The FCC is charged with allocating spectrum in the 

public interest. 

As utilities built and maintained these networks, however, they noticed a disconnect in how their services 

are valued by the FCC in contrast to other government agencies. Specifically, the Department of 

Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, many in Congress and at the White House (under several 

Administrations) consider the electric sector to be among the most critical of all critical industries. Our 

members meet, and often exceed, strict reliability requirements to keep the power on safely and reliably 

while at the same time planning for natural disasters and other hazards such as physical and cybersecurity 

attacks that could result in operational challenges. 

Unfortunately, the FCC historically has not acknowledged this criticality in its spectrum allocation 

policies. As the demand for spectrum has increased exponentially due to the increased use of smart 

phones, drones, and many other wireless devices, the FCC's policies have crowded utilities out of, or 

forced them to share, spectrum in bands that are essential for the reliable flow of electricity. As 

policymakers discuss infrastructure proposals, we encourage members of this Subcommittee to consider 

the critical nature of energy providers and ensure they have access to suitable spectrum. Doing so will 

enable the country to realize its digital future while ensuring safe, secure and reliable delivery of energy 

services. 

This could be done in the following ways: 

FCC-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Meetings: Electric utilities meet and exceed 

requirements and standards for reliable service approved by FERC at the Bulk Power System (BPS) level. 
117 


30215.069

Utilities 

Technology 

Council'" 

1129 20th Street NW I Suite 350 ! Washington, DC 20036 

202,872.0030 Phone I 202.872.1331 Fax 

www.utc.org 

Utilities rely on the aforementioned telecommunications systems and networks to provide these extremely 

high levels of reliability, and spectrum is the key ingredient to operating these networks. With the FCC 

overseeing a central element to the reliability of our nation's electricity system, Congress should direct 

the FCC and FERC to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of shared interest and jurisdiction. This is 

especially critical as utilities implement new technologies, such as smart grid, that rely on 

communications and infonnation technologies and will result in a cleaner, more efficient energy delivery 

systems. We encourage Congress to direct FERC and the FCC to enter into a Memorandum of 

Understanding that would establish a format for these regular meetings and create a "joint spectrum team" 

consisting of a commissioner and staff from each agency. The joint spectrum teams would discuss each 

agency's authorities and hold technical conferences on how spectrum policies impact the energy industry. 

Sense of Congress on the Spectrum Needs of the Energy Industry: Congress should consider passing a 

Sense of Congress Resolution officially stating its recognition of the energy sector's spectrum needs. 

Such a resolution would declare the importance of spectrum to the energy industry, sending a strong 

signal to government agencies about how critical spectrum is to our nation's electricity future. 

The full Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over both FERC and the FCC. Members of 

this Subcommittee therefore have a unique opportunity to facilitate these discussions and analyze the 

growing interdependencies between the energy and telecommunications sectors. UTC stands ready to 

assist in this effort. Our organization has resources and subject-matter experts willing to provide 

Subcommittee members with any information or resources they need. 

Again, UTC thanks the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to submit 

this letter and look forward to working with all of you going forward. 

Sincerely, 

Joy Ditto 

President, CEO of the Utilities Technology Council 
118 


30215.070

AMERICAN Pusuc GAs AssociATION 

February 26, 2018 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush: 

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

On behalf of the American Public Gas Association (APGA), we appreciate this opportunity to submit 

testimony to this important hearing addressing the future of this country's energy infrastructure. 

APGA, the national association for municipal natural gas utilities, is in a unique position to offer 

testimony on this matter because of its members' proximity to the consuming public. APGA 

represents over 730 public gas systems across the country. Our members are retail distribution 

entities owned by, and accountable to, the citizens they serve. They include municipal gas 

distribution systems, public utility districts, county districts, and other public agencies that own and 

operate natural gas distribution facilities in their communities. 

As the debate on our energy future continues, it is clear that natural gas should be a foundation for 

our energy future. As this Committee begins to address our energy infrastructure needs, we would 

like to see this Committee support dynamic federal programs that allow communities to choose how 

to best meet their energy needs without establishing any bias or imbedded preferences. 

As our nation discusses our future energy infrastructure needs, the Committee must not overlook the 

fact that the direct use of natural gas is a critical factor in the reliability, resiliency, efficiency, and 

security of the overall U.S. energy system. The direct use of natural gas today provides relieffor 

our congested and stressed electrical infrastructure, as well as primary energy for on-site, back-up 

generators during grid outages. Often lost in the dialog about the nation's energy resiliency is the 

fact that diversity of delivery mechanisms (pipelines and electric transmission) and fuel sources and 

fuel reliance is key to ensuring overall system reliability. A fresh example is the current winter 

season, in particular the extreme weather of January 2018. According the American Gas 

Association, local gas utility preparation and the diversity of gas supply met an extreme challenge. 

On January 1, 2018, forty-two percent of natural gas delivered to consumers was sourced from 

underground storage infrastructure. Domestic production of natural gas sustained 72 billion cubic 

feet (Bet) per day, which was supplemented with Canadian imports as high as 8 Bcf per day. 

Bottom-line: The natural gas energy delivered to consumers on January 151 was equal to about 1700 

giga-watts (GW) equivalent electricity. To put this in perspective, total generation capacity in the U.S. 

today is only about 1000 GW. Natural gas is indeed foundational to our nation's energy resiliency. 

Natural gas is currently distributed to approximately 75 million homes and businesses nationwide. 

The use of natural gas appliances in homes and businesses frees up critical capacity and increases 

201 Massachusetts Avenue, NE 

Suite C-4 

Washington, DC 20002 

202.464.2742 (tel) 

202.464.0246 (fax) 

www.apga.org 
119 


30215.071

flexibility for the electric grid while lowering costs, improving overall efficiency, and reducing 

emissions. Similar to electricity conservation, natural gas appliances reduce the strain on the 

electricity grid while minimizing the need for the construction of additional generation plants and 

transmission lines. According to APGA's Levelized Cost of Energy Study1 , the direct use of natural 

gas has significantly lower levelized costs to consumers when compared to any of the electric 

generation technologies. 

Expanding natural gas direct-use will benefit the nation in several ways. First, natural gas will 

reduce the impact on consumers from the tremendous costs associated with the build out of 

additional electric generation and transmission assets. Consumers will also benefit from tower 

monthly utility bills when operating natural gas appliances as compared to electric alternatives. 

The Committee should explore increasing utilities' ability to expand their distribution capabilities. 

The expansion of a community's natural gas service is a key component to local and regional 

economic revitalization. Natural gas provides stable and low-cost energy to manufacturing and 

industrial businesses - an invaluable benefit that can attract investment and provide increased 

economic activity across the country. 

Our members have continued to took for ways to better serve their community by upgrading and 

expanding service to new areas. In many instances this is driven by the agricultural sector and the 

desire to provide farms and other agribusinesses with low cost energy. 

One of the biggest challenges to serving rural communities is towering the initial infrastructure cost 

for end users - also known as "last mile" programs. Natural gas utilities must recoup all of the costs 

associated with expanding into new areas and this can be difficult in rural areas where lower 

population density increases the cost per customer. The Committee should explore how the 

government can help lower these cost for farmers and other agribusinesses that are often high 

energy users. A 2017 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Task Group on 

Natural Gas Access and Expansion Report provides an overview of the impact "last mile programs" 

have on dramatically towering businesses' and underserved communities' energy bills. 

APGA believes that any infrastructure discussion must include assessing the benefits of direct use of 

natural gas, a domestic resource, and evaluating how best to assure a resilient energy system. not 

just a resilient electric system. Preserving fuel diversity is essential to the reliability, resiliency, and 

security of the nation's energy system. In considering the reliability of the electric grid, Congress 

should take into account how low priced, domestic natural gas has changed the energy sector. 

APGA believes that the direct use of natural gas can and should play an important role in providing 

consumers a reliable, diverse, resilient and secure energy system now and well into the future. We 

stand ready to work with the Committee on these and all other natural gas issues. 

Sincerely, 

Bert Kalisch 

President & CEO 

1 APGA published the"Levellzed Cost of Energy: Expanding the Menu to include Direct Use of Natural Gas" study in 

August 2017 to look at the levelized cost of electricity generation options and the direct use of natural gas. 

2 
120 


30215.072

Debunking the False Claims of 

Environmental Review Opponents 

By Kevil1 DeGood May 3, ZQ17 

Tallt is chei:~p nod lnfrastructun:projccts arc expens!ve.1hls'hdps exp.la:in why .is a 

candidat~1 Donald Trump repeatedly called for' Spending$ I b:illion to" rebuild U.S. 

inf.ras:tru¢tut.'e1 but M prcsidcnt1 he has flipped to pushing state ind local gnvemm~nts to 

"m<l:ximi<",e lcv-erag~"-ln other wot'ds1 ~ke on cxt~mely expe,nSlve private eq~ity capital 

t~nmgh public-private paitnershiJlS.J 

lt ti.Jt'hS Out that the hardest parfabout in(rastruc:ture spending is the·r.pendi.ng. And in 

Washington, D.C., when a campaign pt'9misc f'altl!rs, the bes~thing to do is blame an 

old.st~dby: regulation. With near ~·eligious 7.ea11 the Trump ~dmini~b'a.HoJ?. haS taken to 

dismantling decades ofhai'd-fought regulatory progreSs, The latest r~ulation to come 

under heavy fire is the NatiOnal Environmcnl'al Policy Attror NEPA. 

Congress enacted NEPAin t96C;? following years of gmwlngpubficconccrn and politic;ll 

prcssurc·to address ·the sOdill and ecological·damage·caused by infrastructure projects 

<\lid other fonn"S ~)feconomic devclopment.NEPA requires s~te·11rid locni project 

spon~ors to engage "in an ep.vironme.nta1 review ii:t.tendcJ to discov.cr any significant 

impacts prior to starting construction. 'l11cs~ impacts could include anything from the 

h»s of wetlands and a decil:'ea~e in Soil quality to the destiuction ofhistodc buildings 

ami damage to the sodo-c!iltural.chamcter of a neighhorhood.3'ln other wm:ds, NEPA 

defines the term "environment~' to indudc .both natural·and human environments. 

'Ihe oycrail 'goals ofNEPA are to empower local communities through gre';ltcr 

tr.).n.sparency and to provide a framewOrk for informed governmental dcdsion~maldng.~ 

NEPA requires pro]ect sponsors to carry out.sign!~c:mtpublk outrea.chJ all~ng 

residents to voice t11eirconcerns-abouthowthe project could resultin.soti:i.l or. 

ecological harm. Where possihle1 the pr6ject spohsor must adopt changes to. tlte design 

or op()ration ofthe fm;:ilityin order to mitigate the !Qentifie~ negatlve impa!=tS.ln eff~ct1 

NEPA transforms the theoretical idea of public engagemrnt into a suf!stantive r~ality, 

Ifthe project sponsor dOes, not fnlfow NEPA's proceduratrequirements1 residents may. 

seek legal terncdy. 

, .. , .................................. ~ ........ , ........................................ ~ .............................. , ............... ~.: .................................... , ................ . 1 Center for AmeriC"art Progres.s I Debtmkio~ the fijhe Cl!\IJl'iS ot Envlronm1;1nta! R~viaw OpP,o.nenU 
121 


30215.073

At its·corcr. NEPA is _a procedural statute that helps coordinate all eJiviromnental revk-w 

and permitting requirements mandated. by federal la-w. In th!J absenc'c·ofNEPAproject 

sponsors wOuld still haVe to co~ply with undCrlylng cnvli'OnmeJrta1 -st~tulesj"such ~.the 

Endangered Species A~ an:d Clean Water Act, among othGrs. 1be diifcroncc· is that th~ 

process woul~ b,ccomc ~isjoi~1ted, as proJect sponsors l"lould have. to apply scpar<ite~y to 

Cadt agency asserting jurlsdictlon.5 

Li~c any complex adm~nistratlve proces~, NEPAis not perfect. 'Ihc most recent surface 

transportattonanthorbiti{~n bili~Fi~ing: America's Surf.1.cc Tran.~portationJ or.FAS'T, 

Act-included .an entire-title dedicatt.--d to t·eforming NEPA.11 These Changes-often 

controvet·sial-buHton:pli.ortefon_ns to NRPA inclUded-in other transporta~on 

biiJs1 as well as ~xeetttive orders signed by:tl1e Obama adniinisl_ration. 'n1e m.ajorrcfOrm.s h~cludetl. in the FAST Act1 along. with thc.~ecutive ordei·s oft he pi·cvioils 

admii11Stl'atioir1 require- time for full impLementation ai1d study to determine thcil' 

overall clfe~tivcn~ss. at c)(.ptditing prOject ~ppt·ovals :while ensuring substanLivc 

protecti_on of t!1e environmerit 

With that Said, the rh'asSive budget an.d ;;taffcuts t11at the Tfump administration has 

proposed for the }:'..nviromnenta1 Protection Agency as well as 9ther dep:utments 

reveal that <1:ny talk ofNEPA reform ls a ho1Jow gestur~·on the way to cvisceration.1 

Unfortunately;, gUtting cnvlronrnerital rWie\'1 will do little to improve the state of our 

Jufrasti'uctui;e but wilUead. tO more projects. that utlneces:.s;irily harm our human and 

ecological cnvitonmen~ Fqr two powerful-cx~mples of pas~hitqllS/SCe ~Euii& Hrst1 Ask 

C4test!ons Later; How Wc<lkcning Envirom:u,entaU,\eview Will Hurt bur Commuttitfcs 

and No.tural Habitats."$ 

In sup}lOi'tofth_e idea thatNEPAsadJ.Jes stntc.and local gqvemmentswith·an.overly. 

~urdensomc administrative requirement, the Trurnp administration has pointed ·to a 

recent report by Common Good titled "Two Years Not Ten: Redesigning ln&asttucturc 

AP,provalS."91h.c report mrikes wlldly'inaccura:tc and often unsubstantiated claims abqut 

the costs ~ssbciatcd with enviromnenta'~ review. ln. factJthe assumptions tllat infot·m 

the calculations o£ pt·oj~cted s .J.vings from l'olling backNEJ?A are so shoddy that they 

undermille the overall n!idityof.the repo1't nnd its conclm;:ions. 

~cfor_c. addiessing.the spedfic clatms pf the Common Good re.port, it's. h~lpful to lay 

out two crucial fu.cts about environmental review. First: the' ave1:rige project revi-ew i$ 

f<irshortci·tbari Opponents le:nhhepublit,to bcHcvc.Ao.:nrd·it~g to the Governmeitt 

,Acto'Untab.ili_ty Oilicc1 the aycrngc time to complete a fun environmental impact 

$ti\tCIUCI\t1 01~ fiiSt is 4.6 yci.)rs.10 

Sc,ond, the ptincfpal rcstrainffacing state and local gQvernmcnts contemplating 

mcgaprojeds is mol).ey1 not envlron:mental review. Ih f.'\ ct. st?-tc and local go_vernmen.ts 

often heg~n en~..ronm~llt<!lreviCwwftb·the hope that this will help build the polfticnl 

··••••••••••••<••••···••··••·• .. ·••••••••·•"'""""'"""""""'' .. ''~·•··•••o .......... , ..•... ~,,.,H,,,,,,,,,,.., ..•• ,; .. , .... , .• ,;,,,..,,,,,,,.;,,,.,,.,,,,,,,.,,,, .... ~ .............. , •••••• ,~ ..... . 

1 -Ce~fer for Arnericar\'Progress- I OebunkiniJ the ~,~is!! <:;Ja!m~ ofl;'nvi(bnrnental Review Opponents 
122 


30215.074

momentum nece-ssary to secure thC funding for construction. For e-.xamplc, the Gateway 

Project is a set:ics <.?f in~rrc-1.'1tcd major rail improvements, including two new tunnels 

under the J:iudson River connecting Weel1.;.wkcnJ New Jersey, to Lower Manhattan, 

Th~ preliminary e.<>timated total cost is more than $23 billion.11 'lhc political dmOcngcs 

of securh1g this rnuch money are daunting. Environmcnta[ review is not the obstacle 

preventing completion. 

Assessing the claims of Common Good 

Claim: "No J~gitimate public go:~! ls.~erved by· years of delays." 

Truth: 'J;hi~; daim is troubling on both a practical and a philosophical level. On a 

practical Ievcl1 major projec.ts require -extensive study due to their scale and complexity. 

'flu; Common Good repo1·l arbitrarily ddinc:s delay as 'lny review thatt').kes more than 

two years, This arlifidal, tme·size~fit~h'lil deadllne is completely disconnected from 

the re.1ltL'}' of ~omplcx proje~ts. For e);ample1 should the federal government !'ssue a 

penn it to. construct a novel nuclear reactor design in tWQ y~at's regardless of unan~vered 

questions? 'the answer is dearly noi the government should take the time necessary to 

ensure p1iblic safety and secmity. 

On. a philosophic"lllevd, this daim ~emonstrates that hardcore opponentS of 

environmental review consider federal laws that pmtect the environment fundamentally 

illegitimate. even 'if those· laws 11.rc the reslllt of decades of Americans expressing their 

collective pofitic<Jl will. 

Claim: Lawsuits sfHmiJ be "limited to lebr.t.l -violattoos1 11ot policy decisions:· 

'lhltb: NEPAdoc.'l notpennit L1wsuits on po!ky grounds. NEPA is a procedllral statute. 

And when n. state or local government does not.follow basic pl'Ocedural requiremcn.ts, 

including conducting a substantive alternatives rmalysls O!' appropriately scoping the 

environmental revi.ew, then it has violated the law. 

CL·lim: "The Federal Highway At!ministration estimated t~at the average time for 

tlj1pn;val of m>~jor highway projects. was oversixye:.;.rs:' 

Truth: 'lhis daim ls based on projeds tl'l."ltcompletetl an environment,,} impct 

statement and received a record of decision from the Federal ffighway Adm!nistration1 

or FH.WA; between fiscal year 1999 and FY 2011.12 For projects that complC~ed the EIS 

process between FY .2014and FY20161 the average review· time has fallen· to 3.6 years.u 

11Iis substanti.tl improvement is dnc to NE'PA reforms passed by Congress, beginning 

with the 2005 surface trnnsportatlon bill-the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act-and subsequent transportntion renuthorizatiori measures. 14 

3. Center for Amerkan Progress j D!i!bunkli)!J the F<1!se C.!J.lms of Environmental.Revl<•.w Oppone-nh 
123 


30215.075

Beyond using outdated riul'n.bcrs1 the 

t'cport gives readers the ·irnprcssiou that 

l~ngthyreview is the norm.ln realit}'j 

only 4 _pcrccntofhighway projectstyplqtlly major uew c:on:;trut~on 

~~·expansion-require a::t J:HS.Js.~ct 

most of the war!• that stateS undertake 

iS mainteitancc and indcmcntal 

improvements within the exlstlng t'ight 

ofway.'Ihesc projects eith~ quttlify 

for.\ cat~rkal exdusiori·or. a. much 

simpler environmental assessmC:nl, or 

EA. For l::xa~plc; data frt?m Ohio show 

that large-scale projt.~ts arc not the 

nonn. Of the 11657.highway projectS 

included in the current Statewide 

Tratisportation Jmpro:vc~ncJ~t Prograql.t 

TABt.E1 

Average EIS completion time for 

highWay prOjects receiVing a record 

of<lecision, FY 2012 to fY 2016 

C!nly t:v.ro 1Iave·a_'t.Otal cost of more than $1 billion;· with anothct Slx.profccts rosung more 

than $200.inilllon. ~Thcsc prrij~cts represent less than half of I percent of Ohi()'s total. 

1hc average project cost is, $9· .. 2 million. P 

qrum1 "..bcJ.ay prolongs bottlcnecks.which waSte titile.and enetgy1 causing Anletica 

tQ l":g beh1ild global Cmnpetito.rs:' Additionally} the report claims that the t9tal savings 

from cllminatingsiX years of ddayin buHdirtg l'O:tds a,o:d b.ridgesls $421.$ billion. 

Trutlu Hight-vay.congt!i>tlon reduces Amerh::a's pro·dudivity and tldds un~.ertaiilty .to 

supply cha'ihs, However, ttle·e(>J:hn<itcs iii theseqn)d.section ofihe report rely on many 

qucstiOn:ible assumptions. ~irst; the 

report poi:nts otttt.hat ~ppmxhnatdy45 

perCent of all highway congeStion and 

delay is recU1i'ent-meaning du-e t9 

excess travel dern~nd as opposed to an 

acdd.ent or jndcment weather. Without 

anY basis in f.·H:t, the report assumes 

that speeding up C:lJ.Vironmental 

review would clim!nale.<:tll rc!=qrrc:nt 

~ongestion. Ar:cordin.g to tfi~ fBWA's 

20lS Conditions and PerformanCe 

Report) even a substantial itict~~~'~ 

in hi~hw,ay spct:tding woul~ improve 

ayerage.vehiclc speeds froni. 43.9 mph 

to 44•3 mph.-a11: inCl\.>a.~c of just 1.4 

mph1 or 3 pci'cent.18 

TABLE2 

Actual savings from ar~ifidaliy short .. 

em•ir<>nmental reviewt 

, ...... ;; ..... ., ................................................... ~ .......................... , .... -............ -......... , .. '.,;,; ............... ~ .................. · ............................ ~ ....... . 

4 ·Center lor Amt!ri<an l?rogress I Debunkin~ the False C!;H!'fls of fhvirorirnentd! Revl~wCppo.nenh 
124 


30215.076

Second, the report assmnes. that aU highway projects other th::m bask repalr would 

require·st~t:e and local governments. to undertake a full ill$. As previously liotcd, O.ltJy 

4 pcrccJ.lt of highway projects require a. fUll EIS. Furthermore) the report a~s~mes that 

tlicse projects would havc·a review thatl;~sts nt least dgl1t ye;1rs. Yet recent dab:fi·om the 

FHWA -shows that the actl\al av~rnge fOr a fUll highwzy ElS is 44 months1 Or 3.6 ycars.u 

'Ihus,-at rhe·outsidc most, 4 perCent afh,ighway pmjcct~cou1d save l.(iyears. 

'fl1ird! tlierepod:as..~limc~ 5.1 percCnt annual.co~tlnflatiOn fcrmatcriah: anJ labor. 

Without pt:ovJQing a cit.ation, the report daimt~ that the cost nf materials nccQunt~ 

for 70 percent of total project co~ts, with a 3 pe·rceht increase ettch year, while laboraccounts for 30 percent of costs and rises at 10 perccn't each year. Data fron.t the federal 

govCrnm·ent show t>therwise.Acrnrding tO the~FHWA's National Highway Constrw::tiOn 

Cost Index, prices. for highway trFttcrJals ln Mard.1 2016 bicte~sed 7.3 pcn::cnt from 

the baseline in March 2003. This.trnnsla~cs to a~ average annual cost incrca$C of half 

of i pct'cent.zu Data: from the U.S. Bureau ofL-abor Statistics show that n011farm wages 

l1oive.been risin_g <lt a nominal1'ate of iipproximately 2.5percentpcr yCarY1 'Thus, a more 

ac~>ttrat~C inflation number is t .l percent. 

Fourth, the congestion savings put forward by the reporf-assnme .static trayel demand. 

In otlH~l' words, the . .report assumes that after the.sblte e..:parids highway capnc.iL-y, drivers 

wotlld t..1ke the Same number of trips: and experience dramatica11y less cQngcsUon and 

9elay. In reality, tn(lst highway congestion o.cc:urs· in large metropolitan regions ~ith. 

a high degree oflatCnt demand. TI1lsmeans that' because tJ?adways are often ·heavl:Iy 

congested, driverS choose to take fewer trips. Highway capacity expansions ouly 

temporarily provide conge;sti9n.r~lief as drivers begin ta1dng ;tddjtion.altrip_s. As :a result, 

congestion ris~s until it reaches a pol.l:lt ofequ'iJibrium roughly eqQivaJent to the pre· 

expansion level, li 

U:;:ing a~smTI.ptiO:ll~f~.as-cd .on fcd.cral data1 tl1e actual value of-savings frcnn artificially 

shortening environmental review dtops from $427:8 biiiion. to $13.S bi!Iton. 

Claim: "Freight bbtflenecks resulting from inwffident rail capaCity cost the eConomy 

oWl" $200 billion a year, according to the ASCE [American Society of Civil Engineers]." 

Tl'uth: While 'freight ho'ttleneckscause delay, this clainl omits the importAnt fuct 

that freight mill-pad infi'nstructUt'e is owned and financ;ed by priVate rail compariiesexduding:th.e Nt;'H'.thcast Conidor1 which is owned hy.Amtrak:'Ihe National 

Environmcritd Policy Ar:t only applies to significant federal actions1 which federal 

la~v defines as ~prqjccts and profpms entirely or p~rtly financed, assisted, conducted,, 

regulated, or apptov~i by federal agencies.".l.l For mantinfrastru.ctu:re prujects1 nsing 

federal fundlng tdggers the application ofNEPA.Asidc from a very fewcxcepti(!ns, the 

ffeight rail industry ts responsible fOr financing infrastruch:re improYefl!cnts without 

relying on fedcrnl grants, loans, or lo:in guarantees. 

" •••• " ••• ' .................................... •.•' .............. -............................ ' ...... ' ............ • .... " ..... ·~ •• c ....................... , .... ••,• '-•-• •• c •••••• ' .......... ,.: •••• ·• 

5 Certterfor Americl'l!"l ?rogres~ I Debunking th<:! E11SH nahn~ of E!WlHHHlH!ntal Revl.,;w Oppon~ntJ: 
125 


30215.077

lmp.ortaut!y,.funding i.s not the only trigger for an cnvit\lt.tmcnt.tl review. A rail 

infrast:ructt;re proJect may -require anEIS due to the need to SC<'Ul:C <:erlain federal 

permit~. Yet _the Common GOod. report provides no data on the percentage of frpigbt mil 

pmjcctslhat require ai1 EIS .or on the av.eragc l.cngth of those reviews. Thi$la~k of data 

docs n-ot stop. the· t·cpm't fronrntaking c_akldntions m! the ~s.mmpti,On that all opltal 

projects req~h:c an ElS that last:!) eight year:;, F~thcrmo~e1 the report assumcro-also in 

the·a~scncc of any data -that all dcli\y caused by bottlenecks woUld be eliminated by 

shm·tening cnVitmuncntal rt\'Yiew. These assufn:phons are simply not credible. 

Cfair.m "Tofal costs. of~ix-year de1ay inn~building transmiss~tm.and disb.ibt~Uon· 

networks: $819 bi.Jlipn." 

Tl'llth:·1hc·Cstimates in the s:Ccti(.m rely on numeroUs que#Jonable assumptions. 

f'(rst, the rc-por~statc$ tbatnt c:urrc-n.t.l_narkct prkl~S~ the vaTu~ of lost electricity due 

to inefficiency is $25 billion anntmlly. Without providing anycitation1 the report 

01ssumes that electrici~y"tnl\)S;Inissfb'n and distribtftioil moJerhizatibn projctt~ requii:'e 

eilvimn_m~n:talt·evie\\• lnsti_ng ~t lta:SI: e-ight year~. Yet t}f:!dcr currc\tt ~-egnlatiollS.~-

many of the repair, rc~tabllitation,_ancl const~ucti?n activities required to ·upgrade 

eletiric:ltytt:ammi.ssion and distributiml systems qua.lif}' for a C.'ltegorical exdu:si~n. ~ 

Spedlknlly; federal regulations list the fOllqwlng 1!-.Xdusions: upgrading and reb_llildi.ng 

existing pow-erlinc:s; const.ructkm of powcrlines; and elect~ic power substations and 

i_ntcrconncctiOn fucilitics, among others,15 1hls nieans that companks could modernize 

a st1l1stantial share of the 6421000 miles·oftranSmissionlint!S m'ld 6.3 million miles of 

distributioii lines 'without 1mdertaking an environmental review}~ 

S'ecqn~~ the report :n-gnes that enhanc.hlg h'ansm!ifsion and disb1bution eHiciehcy 

wOUld teSult !n the· closure of Coal-fired power plants, but this argument ohscme.s 

se~l'al important aspects of the U.S. clcch'id.ty market. 1hc growth rate in electricity 

d.cmand has fallen ~ach -decade since the 1950s1 and the arc~tecturc ofthe grid is 

cltangi.ng rapidly as~ol'e distributed genct'ation and advanced management nio-dels 

enter6peration:27 These changeS, n.longwith otller mark,et fOt•ccsj affcc:t the generation 

mix to a greater degr.ce than tmnsmissl{>~ iU!d.dlst.rlbuti~n e!Iidencies.l~or t!te:>t•: 

reaSPhS1 there is no gu~rantcc tharefiiclcncy gains w:ould I cad to the replacemerit 

of c-qal~1ired gencr<~:tion. 

1hird; the report assurrtcs that alJ th~- e'lct;tricity"Iost due to tr.ansmission and dis~riPution 

lncilicicndes come_s from coal. '1his .is <111 !'dq assumption tomakc1 sloccAinerlca's 

energy mix is· not a mystery; According to the 'U.S. :Bttcrgy lnforinntion Adniihistration, 

only ;30 percent of electricity production co:me.~ from hmning C!,)aL211 'TI1is substantially 

reduces the Social and enVitOn.mental cos_t from cmissit!nsgeneratcd by electricity 

production. Generally/transmission_ and·distributioll pianning:1 as· well as sitin~ account 

fot rdlability1 dernandj and generation type: 'fhus1 inae<~sing the dfidcncy of existingor constructing ril·W-tl'ansmission. and distribution infrastrqctorc does t_tot guat.mte.c 

the rNirc)Ueht or addition of-one-power source qver. anuther. 

; ............... , ................... , ............ -. ................. ,, ... _. ····~·· .................................................................... :~ ....... : ...... ······· ~~.······ ; ................. . '6 Center ·for American Progress .!· r:ieblmking the-tafse CJ;;ims of fnvifonrne:nlai Heview Oppmwf\t$ 
126 


30215.078

Fourth, the report assumes that 7.5 percent of the total cQst of rebuilding transmlssion 

and d:istrib~tiop infi:astructure "would be directly :lffcctcd by environmental review." 

The report provides no dta~!on to support this dahn. Ar.- prcvjously notcd1 existing 

federal regulations con min a broad list of categorical exclusions. AdditiQnaiiy1 the report 

uses an u,n.substantiatcdassumption of S percent annual cost 'inflation and then assumes 

ti1at projects would hnve their envit'Qnmenta[ review shortened by six years. 

PiftJ11 the ulldedying premiSe of the electricity section is that gdd modcrnh;).tion 

is the nw.11t effe~tive means of redudng clecb;idty loss~s due to inefficacy; While 

mode~11ization is important, the 20 J S QtaQrennlal Energy Review and. 201.5 

Qui<drennlal TedmoJogy Review by the U.S. Dt)pal'tment ofEnergy reveal that the most 

effective way to improve energy effi~iencyis by adopting highet'-perfonnlng.enQ-usc 

tcch:nolog:iesJ such as LED !ightingi ·increasing thch1stallatl.onof distl'ibutcd generation 

~long with additional encJ'g)' storage to avoid huhrand-spo"ke grid architecturej and 

>tdortlngsmart grid management technique_<; and technologies that enable better inslght 

into grid functioning and allow for more sophisticated demand mati.agement1 reducing 

the numl,er and severity of disruptions, Importantly, these types oftnves.tments often 

reduce the need for new electric lines altogcthcr,l9 

T.1.kcn t-ogether, the numerous. baseless assumptions in this sec:tion of the-Common 

Good report call into ques_tion the-validity-of the c:ost'.savings assumed from weakening 

environmental revie-w·. 

Claim: ~In 2009,.An'lerka had the money {over $800 billion in the economic stimulus 

package) lmt few pcn11its.ln its five-year report on the stimul.u.s; released in. February 

2014, the White House reVealed that a grand total of$.10 billion ( 3.6 percent of the 

.~tinmlus) had been spent on transportation infrastructure." 

Truth: Tb.ls is perhaps the most disingenuous claim in the report, as it makes it 

seem as though Congress enacted $800'billion for infrastructure but only a smaH 

fraction had. been spent. In realit)IJ the stimulus act contained only $48 billion for 

transportation lnfr«structure-meaning that state and local governments spent 63 

percent oftr;~.nsportaUon fundi\ ~~tltl.lln ii.vc year:!l,J3 'Ihis sh;u-c may _seem low, but it's 

worth remembering that itt response to a massive drop in tax revenues due to the Great 

Recession, stat~ nod local governments furloughed thousands of public employees at 

the same time the federal goverrunent was pu:shing them to p!an and implement an even 

farger volume of infrastructure projects. tl 

Cli\lm: "UpwCtl'dS of tw"o million jobs can he created." 

Truth: '1'his calculation only hns valldity if all tiw underlying assumptions dm;H~ghout 

the report-:arc ac('urate, which they are not. 

7 Centet for American Progress J D.ebnnking.thl' false Clainis bf f:r\1/ir<:mmen~<~J Review Opponomts. 
127 


30215.079

Claim: "£nvirmm1ental review has become a litigation quagmire, us supptnters nnd 

pppond1ts:argue over thousands pfpages of~ctails." 

Trntlt: Each yc~r; :approxhnatdy 50,000 major fcdeml ;tctions req_\lire <'In EA1 ntld 

<~.nothcr roughly SOO prbj&:ts l'equire full cnvironmCnti\l impa<;t statcmcnts.31 Yc:t onlY 

arouml tOO NEPA tases -arc filcd.33 !l11is means thatonJy avo· tenths: o( 1 percent pf 

(L'ffc-ral actions are-subject to ~itig~tion. 

Claim: "lb cut the Gol'dian.lmnt of multiple permits_, the W11ltl! House needS authority 

to resolve disputes among bld<cring ;~gcndcs.:· 

~ruth: Once a,ga1n1 t~e report fullS- to accuratclyi·cpreseOt basic a~pe.cts of 

ct\Vironmenhllhl:iv-aiid regulations. Und.crCode:QfPcderalRegulattons,401 1504, the· 

CoUncil 01t Enviromrtental Quality and the prcsidcn.t of the Un~tcd' States have the: 

authority to:.rcs91ve int~ragcw:r dis1mte~ regarding a proposed fedcral.actlon.l 40 

Claim: "Without des'alinatioli ~,>fants, the-· aquifers in C:tliforula will be further. depleted." 

Truitt: 'Statements sn.:h ~s t.l\is show th~critical vrtlue ofNEPA and th\0' altcrni'\tlVt.'S 

at)alysis requirement. California faces real Water tha!Jcnges. LoCal, rcgioiml1 and 

stafe wilt.cr authdrltieS have th~ reSponsibility to enrore that residents and husiness·es 

havt! dean, reliable '~'1ltcr. H~?wcv~:rJ desalinizatiOn is o·nlyonc t?f many possible 

options for meeting water demand. For cxampiC1 Southern CalitOmia f:1.ces spreading 

contamination withh1 the San.Fernando Groun·dwater Basin1 or SFB1 aquifcrt whlch 

serves as a major so.urce Cl( grounilwater:'·~ Additiont~Uy; spring rains can cause the. 

L'Os Angc.Ies R,tycr to. discharge vast quantities of fresh water l~to the P~cdic OCean. 

lt may be the C<~.se that dccontamin~t.ing the SfB·nquifer and ~apturi.ilg, storin& and. 

treatinsstorrnovater and waStcwatcr·are ni.orc cost-effective and less ~nvjrom!).Cptallr 

han:nfuf th<ti'l desatinizati9n. 'Ihe only v~rty for govemm-c:nt officials and t.he publi~ 

to_ engage on such a co!nplcx set of choices i!' thr~:mgh the de~':iiid ~tudy required by 

cnv'b:onmental revie:w, 

Clahrt: "'Law is· supposed to be the tk.mt;workiOr~ free society) not an.fmpedinumt." 

Trutlu Hi~ undear if there iS :a dictionarY tl1ilt ddincS: n ditty envirtininent ;:utd 

communities torn apart by poorly de~!gned infrastructure facilities liS "freedom!' 

8 C!)nter for Amerkiln Progress: l Debunking: (he fo;~1:se Cl,tlrM ol Etwironrnental ReviewOppMenb 
128 


30215.080

Conclusion 

'!he hard wqrk of rebuildh1gAmcrka docs. n.ot l1~w~ any shortcuts, Imposing nftl'iicial 

dcadilnes for completion of environmental review will save the country lltt.lr..'; whOC' 

substantt"lly ihcrcaSing the likelihood th;,J.t.state and Ioc:'ll governments as well as the 

private· sector vo~-1ll constr\lct mnjor facilities that cnuse UJ:tne~;cssary h;'nms-potentlally 

recwJring h\mdn:d~ tJf mill ibn!! or bHli(ms of dollars in remet,IJation _later. 

'The United StateS need's to make major investments in infrastructllre based on smart 

po1i_clcs that ensl1l:'C"f'edcral ftmds are _target!!d to projects that increase-access to 

Ol'portunity, provide supportfo1 .. communi~iesmqstin need1 protect the enviro!lmeni:, 

and improve economic competitiven-ess; National progi~sS and protCcti1~g the 

cnviro"n'ment a!'emit mutually exdusive. By engaging in thoughtful planning hnstd on 

robu.$t communl~y outt-each1 project sponsors can deliver needed fadlitiC$ with minimal 

impact on natu~.a[ habitats anq local communities, 

Ke11i11 DeGood is tire T.Frector ofl11jrastnu:ture Policy at tlte Cenfe1-jor AltleJicrm ,Progn:.~s; 

·g · Center f.of Amerkan Proqr!!'ss I Debunking the: Fobe Cbnns of EnvlronmentO'EI Revle\J Of~ronents 
129 


30215.081

Endnotes 

I 0/(it~CfMana!)~ltanil6tl;;f!Jl'\,-Am~tlaif/tltAlludg<'t 

Blu~rlint!qh!rr$(~ .1mti!(O Gtt>lll AQ'<liil (E~e(utiv~Oiftt., bf 

111):.1'reoklcot, 2'011), avidlab!~ ,\1 ht!ps:lfwww.wl>ltchou~~. 

lj<>V/~iti!lfWf>i!~h<>UW,!IO'I'IM"l'(Qmb/l.oo.l<.lgetlfyJt'!J!li~Ojll_ 

btJ\lj'.IIIUI.p(jl, 

~ Llfld~ 1.\.ll~e~ '1hec Na!k>~ol &sl'ltonmf'iJfo/Poll~1 

Ad:llii<':J<fl!<ll.md and fmplernentJ!l(m"IW..<hlrJ!;II<ln.: 

t<.>)'lgte.I!.!Ot>alfles~~N.l! )~r~k\l, 100&), ilVJililbie at hlti~l;l/ 

fa>or\II'~<Wft~/ll\!StlftiJ3!Sl.!ldf. 

~ Uiu.lal•llhct, "1hdlofuotttw holliml>tn~tli~lll(\ri~w 

!'rotc>~ rn hd~nll;· f>J>WW Hil!fl:w~Y Prof~d~~ B~c~grntmd 

andliW.,ilotfb•tqren'!w.cl>lllgt(OO-C':mgro~ll<m<l! 

R~Wilr.:;h :i><ltvke, 2U1 )), nvJ\l~ble at hUpl/~m'tromn!>lll, 

lMmPilttatit>I'\.Of!IIPdi!l»'lL,d~l!vefi>_stl<.l~m/trueP<>rt_ 

~nwcu:;>dl. 

6 r~d('f~l Hlghw~y Mrnin~r~liorl. 'f!~k>g llm~rk~\ S<Jfatc 

7Mn>porl~Ul>f1 Ad or 'fAST l'\CI~ ~v~•lab!~ ~~ hl1P>'rimvw< 

lhwuJ<J.l.trov!f,t•l~d/ieo;;lW.t;.;r~.dm 1}.:1~1 ~(<~dApril 

J(ll]l. 

8 1'<1erly pLmMd Pfof~C~I'fodi.K<:t "''Ifill< ll~<>~ rew!l tn 

l'lftlQ!"r<l"dlflliunc<><t<.Forc,;>mpin,t!i~rt$!<'n~llon 

of lb~ Ki~lln>!l"W~ Ri~~~ IM Fiorld~ willCllU lll'?tf th;w $1 

billlo,,. S!m~~rly, Moritgur~19 J partioll of the ln~qllllQ)l 

!n II"''h~S(('!', N"w'ru.k; to "" ~t·Qmdl! b:oui~•Nrd t~t 

t~<o"M'CU the ~ut•oul\tlmqwmm>l!llly t() dowotoW!l 

wlll~<l>l S.ll.&rnWia~. 'ie<' K~~hiOc!Wo<l '1$\itld flt•t;A~k. 

Qu~>Urut$ Ullttr.tk;.wWe~keuiMa !;nyl•onmemal RevkwWdl 

Hurt Our Cammvnities ~nd N~lutal H;Wit.-l>'iWUhln<Jl<>n' 

C>"<>l<'r ror lltM!'!~~~~Progru.l, l017),,avdabtl' ~tlnltm / 

WWW¥,t'ti(~\\Pf"9f""·"'g./lp,r0,1!666. 

~ Phlllp!{.IJ"""'ri!,•fwoY<>'<SN<:>tTcn:l1ccl<!sl!)ning 

tnf<~WIJ(tum App,.wals'ltww'r'ark; Common bond. 

Nl~),;w.,;j;M~ ~~ hltp:lhomrrvmgood 3(dn.rwl/ 

c6lli>'lcfd;j'lSS~5f~b-"~"Sm6b5t3!(:pdl 

I I L.1'•Yiii9\):S,"Gr0llp~t~r<.:s fulld!rt(l ('f(ortfor newllu<.!wn 

ll.twrtunn~!5~NJ-<:Qm, tanu;wy 12. 2017,~va!J,Obl~~thnp:l/ 

WWW.ilj.COOli!!.affic/lm!~~'fn0\7/'.11/<;~alcw~)I-IO.~ll'lCl 

flnnl'l,ln!U)rou;>_~~~~-.~~~Qe_for,.gl:lt.hlm! 

1l Oat~.prov[ded by~~~ U,uw C11n>~ll1U~~ oof!r~n1,0Prf~l]!.lt< 

~m.l tt>l~\tm::turc b;]W<f nn lnlmm~tk>l) f(llm tlu! F~d<!m! 

Hi!]llV'f<l).'lldmi"ln!mtaJ!.-IId.dlholllll!<lflrnln't>lol•np!owcl 

mviiP!HMnt~lttv.ew compl~llan tim!~ m~y 111: found ~~ 

Alllyf'M~pl. "Kty)1t1U!j! D~!t!<><<a!~ 6l'lfllel~f,~~WJCI111e 

WM~ ()~ F11nt.lit19, Nl}\ f':l!n!llti;B!comlmq U~M.II!»ll6, 

'-01J.(,~fab!e1} 

1'> lmhr, "Th<! Rok> u! doe Envlr.;>nm~hl~l ~~vlew: Pf«~ In 

hd~<~ll)r Ful\ded Hlghway Pr:Jj«b:ll~clc:gmuotl Md ls.W~5 

for(<>ll!lllfU: 

16 Ohl<.>D<>p~•tmnntoi'Tr~Mport~tloll,"1(llt>.10f9STW 

Ptej!,llhi.:~H>~04/U/2011;.w'lil;.bt" atJtltpWI\rJWI'),t!ot. 

~~~~~.oh.u•/Di>ioom:!l'!iltming{Sl!NC:urr~ut'll<9>lll'%2o 

I'IC)IlCt%201i<t/Qment%'1QI'foj<l<;t'!tlQt,;t%./:~1W.~J5x(!;u.t 

ar~e~et!A~2ll17).. 

2l l~·.dm~t u:ghWJ>)' Admu>l~tration. "Hf.fl5·S1 H'i111Wr>1 

£t:1>1lflll>l' llc'lulre~~llU S.)ll'tom- S\~ V<!f1[1.)n: f~d;nk.ll 

1\<!poft·,\pflt"f>dl~ll>ln(iutcd'fmff;(Jndlnduwd!)~mand," 

.W~I!.abl~ ~~ htlp'>Jfwwwlhw~.di>l gw/im;~t/hcmt/puUlJ 

lochll~<h10tfm!41tRc<eJU:clf\pui70!1J. 

111 fou~e!IUn,~rsityt~wX!uwlbg~l ~fo1rnnlf<J.n 11vstnuto, 

•.4ocrrt~,,,, lltll Niltlonolfnvilon•l\l:nt.lll'"hl:yA~t 

ln•pl~m~nlll'\g Prnc~du1<15,' ~w11.lbl~ ~~ hUJWJfwww.low, 

~mn~l!.ed4i'dri!~Jtll9/P•l1'1-1Nl (l;llt ~=~$<!~ Aplil ?Gl7l. 

ZSihld. 

18 U.S, CMnJY ~lfomuti"~ Acl~linilli~t•.;,n, "frnquenllf "'~d 

•Ql!ulk•~•: ;111~ibbla a\ hUps1/www cl.l.(J(Iv/tools/f~qs/laq. 

llll!)?id~417&1 ''5Jt.,~t "'~~<;>«) 1\prll ~ll17). 

................................... , ......................................... · ......... , ......................... , .................................. ~ .................. ; .............................. .. 10 ((:.!rfte't lot American Progressc j Debunking the FaJw Cl<Hms ofEnviromtl~ntal'f!r;vit;wOpporient$ 
130 


30215.082

;n n~1ult i51>,ai~l.l 011 a<llhor"'; nllrul~tmn fmr!l 1>1khae! Grab~R 

~~~~~ <:;fm~toph~.>rW<!'~VI!~'"Th!! Strmu!u5.1'1:itr.I\Ot-t~l!edi.kt 

N>p~n<lmu."l'foflubika, ft.lmwy ll.lOU9,~w.aal.t~llt 

hl:tfw/lwwwf'l'¢1!ubl!!'a.or.y!p!tlal/l!m-~tlmu!ut·pla"·"" 

d<>toil~!l-lht·of·SJlOOdl~gff~tlm_tranlpGfl~tlon.-

)1 l\d~~1l.oo(lt>Y<lndMich.w!Git"lfi>IOilo:Att«Cifd O<>cllne 

111 (,(lllqrnmen\ Job~ !mphc~ti<!M fe1 the !:c~<l!lOO"lY a11d 

l\fl1Crkit5Workl01re."DrookH19' On Job Nunllleu, AU(IU~I 

J. l.Ol<'~ av<~lt,\ll!..q ~thnp1:1/wWw.b~ldi1us.~m•tbl"'}/ 

jub>atnUQl!ro)(,t-IC(Oid-4e,fioo·ln·IJb.vt'ltlmatll·.lobs· 

lmpli<~tlo•n-fo!'lh~·~((>l\Om)'"l!•l(hlm~rleas"""'tkl(ll(el. 

l2 Coundl onfnvlronmMtal Ql.r.tlity,Dwilomnrn.rolQt;o#l,t< 

ll1!1_fwvll;flfihlhlili¥e.t:tOIYfle;>ort<JitheC:O<II>(rlll<< 

~~~-;::;~;::~~j~{:;i~O!i:~~~~~~~~ t~<tl~HI"~fln'!a!-reportprl!. 

J l Gowmm~nt 1\W><ll>!llb;h!y Of(l{<!', "'N~II~~n~! ~~ilir<lnm<'!Tio11 

""iky A(!: U!Uell'lfotm~tltmExht><m NfPA Nt«il""~ 

14 C<>ffieii\Jl~Weflltyl!!)al!nform~Hpnlmtllllit-, "40Cf/l I'Mt 

15\l~ - Prndl!rlsion llefett•!• t~ lh~ (QuMH of f'IO(W•W 

fe<l~r~!Mti<>M0Nerm:<""<.t (ObtOfWiroM\<'ni•UJI 

\lnoali~f~nrny; avall~bk a! ilttpliiwwwJ~w.corneJI ~dll(dr! 

te-~!140/f>Srt"151M(lil~tacce~e-dApdl2ill7). 

)~ l<l> Attl,lell<S.Dl'~lMlmrnl ui"W•t .. nnd Prlwer, "'l'ruqiw:n 

S!.UMIIII)':Salof~lhatl\IOGtoUI>dW41erD,e.!illletne.Ji.:.Uon 

f>r<'IPMI" /2017.), ~l'~lbltl.. ~~ f>llp•:ttwww.ladwp.cmn/Clf 

ltlq>t~l!lkS'etvlc.-=G£T_Fltf&dDutNa!11e·""Of>lAOWJ'CCB55 

O.Wl&Relliskm~tlec\lon.'>l~thod~LI.t~nR~I .. ll<<!-d. 

11 Center for American ?rogre~s I Debunklny UW Fa!~c t;:fainls of fnvif"QI\11'\E>nta! Revlel-"l' Oppol\ent~. 
131 


30215.083

Trump's. Infrastructure Scam Will Gut Environmental Protections To Ben.,. https:/fwww.americanprogress.org/issues!green/news/2018/0l/2$/445496 .•. 

1 of4 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

Trump's Infrastructure Scam Will Gut 

Environmental Protections To Benefit 

Corporate Polluters 

By Christy Goldfussand Alison Cassady 1 Posted onjanualy 28,2018,8:59 am 

p·resldent Donald Trump step!> off A!r Force One upon retum to Andrews Air Force !o Maryland, January 1·s, 2018. 

2120/2018; 12:33 PM 
132 


30215.084

Trump's Infrastructure Scam Will Out Environmental Protections To Ben... https://www.amer'icanprogress,org/issues/greenlnews/2018/0l/28/445496 ... 

2of4 

In his first State ofthe Union address, President Donald Trump is el<pected to announce a longawaited plan to upgrade the nation's infrastructure and call on the U.S. Congress to work with his 

administration on related legislation. Leaked versions of the infrastructure proposal, however, 

show that this is not a plan to put Americans to work rebuilding crumbling lnfrastructure.lnstead, 

its a full-scale gutting of environmental protections to benefit corporate polluters and steam roll 

American communities. 

As detailed in the leaked proposal, the Trump administration's plan would require fundamental 

changes to no fewer than 10 bedrock environmental laws that protect the nation's clean air, clean 

water, wildlife, and national parks. The plan would hollow out the Notional EnVironmental Policy 

Act (NEPAl, the law that requires federal project sponsors to consult with stakeholders who would 

be affected by new projects and identify ways to reduce their impact on the environment, public 

health, and cul.tural resources. The Endangered Species Act is also In the crosshairs; as several 

provisions would prioritize new development over the protection of wildlife that is on the brink of 

extinction; The Trump administration proposes significant changes to the Clean Air Act and Clean 

Water Act to make it easier for corporations to break ground and.avoid inconvenient air and water 

quality protectii:lns. The proposal even includes some mystif)iing provisions, such as one to give 

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke unilateral authority to site natural gas pipelines in national 

parks. 

The Trump administration will attempt to brand these environmental attacks as an effort to 

improve the infrastructure permitting process. in actuality, they are attempting to steamroll 

hardworking Americans by silencing or disregarding communities' voices In determining where 

pipelines, highways, an.d other large projects should be built. Example after example shows the 

foolishness of that approach for the environment and publichealth. One only needs to look at 

certain commtmities that were built 50 years ago-before NEPA and other environmental laws 

existed-to see the detrimental impacts of this type of decision-making. In a particularly stark 

exannple, a low-Income community in Orlando, Florida, continues to suffer the consequences of 

short-sighted transportation policy decisions that left the neighborhood surrounded by highways, 

isolated from the rest ofthe city, and trapped in a haze of air pollution. 

While the Trump administration is proposing measures to sell out our air, water, and·national 

parks to corporate polluters, it is ignoring tangible steps that it could take without gutting 

environmental protections, An important first step would be to implement laws already on the 

books. in 2012 and 2015 respectively, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation-the Moving 

2120120f8, 12:33 PM 
133 


30215.085

Tn1mp 's Infrastructure Scam Will Gut.Environment~l Prot~tions To Ben... https://www.americanprogress.org/issueslgreen!news/2018/01/28/445496 ... 

3 of4 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and Fixing America's Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act-that contain provisions aimed at expediting the permitting process that iJre not fully 

implemented, sucf! as. me;lsures to reduce duplication; track the progres.s of project delivery; 

Integrate mapping and other data tools with fiscal managemenlsystems; and facilitate efforts to 

align historic preservation regulations. Congress also created the Federal Permitting Improvement 

Steering Council to manage the permitting process for certain complex projects. 

Implementing new laws takes time, and layering new provisions only makes i(harder. In March 

2017,. the Department ofTransportation's {bOT) inspector general found that DOT delayed 

implementing a significant number of MAP-21's reforms because they had to stop midstream and 

comply with additional provisions m!lnd!lted in the FAST Act. Rather than understanding am:! 

deploying the tools it already has, the Trump administration has jumped to the nuclear option 

-radical environmental rollbacks that grease the process for corporations at the expense of air 

and water quality and Wildlife. 

The best way for the Trump administration to speed up permitting Without sacrificing. 

enVironmental protection Is to adequately fund the relevant federal agencies iiwolved In the 

permitting and environmental review process. Without funding, the federal agencies cannot hire 

and train staff to complete environmental reviews or Invest in technolOgy that provides 

1'>fficiencies.ln DOT's "how-to" guide for environmental reviews, the agency notes that l!mited 

budgets and staff resources preclude many regulatory and resource agencies from assigning staff 

to work on reviews when they may alreadY be strained to process pencjing workload in a timely 

manrier. lnstea<:l of funding these professionals to provide the best information to make informed 

decisions, the Trump administration has proposed slashing agency budgets and undertaken the 

greatest assault that has ever beeri seen in the history of this count!)' on these agencies that 

protect dean air, clean water; wildlife, and national parks. 

With such a public record of promoting the interests of corporate polluters over communities and 

the environment, no one should be fooled by Trump's infrastructure scam. It is little more than a 

Trojan horse designed to gut the environmental protections that are necessary forth e. clean air, 

clean water, wildlife, and national parks that truly make America great. 

Christy Galdfuss is the senior vice president for Ene'IW and Environment Policy at the CeQter for 

American Progress. Alison Cassady is the managing director for Energy and Environment Policy at the 

Center. 

2120120!$,12:33 PM 
134 


30215.086

BlueGreen Alliance I The Right Way to Repair America's Infrastructl)re 

BLUEGREEN 

AlliANCE 

Page 1 of5 

THE RIGHT WAY TO REPAlR 

AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE 

Last year, BlueGreenAIIiance released our Making the Grade 

2,0 report outlining how a robust investment in America's 

infrastructure could create millions of quality jobs and protect 

the environment. We owtlined three key elements to achieve 

that goal: 

• A robust and broad public investment; 

• Strong labor aml procurement standards; and 

Forward-looking planning that delivers environmental benefits and build$. resilient 

infrastructure systems. 

Unfortunately, the infrastructure plan released this week by President Trump falls far .short on 

all three counts. It passes the buck to states and local governments to carry the weight of 

investment, mentions little to assure workers that jobs created will be quality jobs; does not. 

guarantee that projects will be re:quired to use American products, and fails to consider the 

added strain climate change will put on our infrastructure in the future. 

A Robust and Broad Public Investment 

First, this infrastructure plan largely passes the buck to state and local governments 

/https://wwwonbcnews.com/polltics/donalrf.trump/trump-rqlls~out-infrastructure-plan-opening-door·pfiitote· 

investirient·n847161) and private entities to come up with the funds to make the infrastructure 

improvements our n;3tion so desperately needs. Butthe truth of the matter is many state and 

https://www.b luegreenal!iance.org!resources/the-right~way -to-repair~americas-infrastmtttirc/ 2/27/2018 · 
135 


30215.087

BlueGrcen Alliilnce I The Right Way to Repair America's Infrastructure Page 2 of5 

local governments are already financially strapped and are struggling to provide for eveo the 

most basic of needs, like education. The federal government has been neglecting ol]rnation's 

Infrastructure fcirtoo long, and the scope of the problem is too large to pass off to the states 

or cities that are already doing their fare share. 

Moreover, Trump's plan doesn't actually provide any new funding at aii-Ws simply arepackaging of existing funding. This' "new" infrastructure funding will be offset by cuts 

(hUps://www.npr,org/20J8/02/11/5849406$l/trump-to-unveil-1ong-awoited-i.-!Hfillion-infrasfructure-planf.to 

things like transit funding and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

(TIGER) grants {https://www.transpoitatian.gov/tiger(about)-a successful. grant program that allows 

the U.S~ Department of Transportation to target .Investments across modes and regions where 

they will have. the most impact. 

A strong infrastructure package begins with a robust, public investment and must address the 

full scope of our Infrastructure needs, including·our buildings, electric grid, roads and transit 

systems; airports, water systems, :and schools. 

Labor and Procurement Standards 

lhe president's plan also does nothlngto 

ensure that any jobs created by It would be 

good, family-sust<liningjobs. Despite 

Trump's pledge during the State of the 

Union that infrastructure Improvements 

would be made with "American heart, 

American hands, and American 

grit," (httP$://www.cnbo.com/2018/(!1/JO/trumpstate-af-the-union-a-11ew-amerlcon-moment.html} his 

new pian fails to make a simple pledge that 

these improvements would be made with 

American products. Any infrastructure pl1mshould Include Buy American provisions that 

incentlvize the use. ofAmerican-made produCts and materials ;md, ultimately, spur domestic 

manufacturing, 

Repairing the nation's infras.tnicture is a big job, and h<Ird-working Americans wili complete it. 

For an infrastructure plan to truly benefit American workers, it must include Davis-Bacon 

provisions-which ensure workers are paid prevailing wages on public works proje(:ts-and 

should use project labor agreements and community benefits agreements that can help 

ensure projects are completed effectively and on time, that communities and workers h;we a 

voice in project development, that people in low-Income communities and communities of 

https://www.bluegreenalllance.org/resoorces!U1e-iight-way-to-repair-ainericas-infra.structure/ 2/27/2018 
136 


30215.088

BlueGreen Alliance I The Right Way to RepairAmerica's Infrastructure Page3 of5 

color have the opportunity to get these jobs, and that returns on investment are m<~ximized in 

the communities where these projects occur . 

. Not only does the Infrastructure plan released this week offer no assurance that policies like 

Buy American !lnd D;lvis-Bacon wlll.be Included, it actually proposes a number of el\emptions 

that could. weaken these critical protectlons~shlffing funding for projects away from the 

federal government and creating potential loopholes around existing requirements. 

A strong infrastructure package 

begins with a robust, public 

investment and must address the 

full scope of our infrastructure 

needs, including our buildings, 

electric grid, roads and transit 

systems, airports, water systems, 

and schools. 

Forward~looking Planning & Resilient 

Infrastructure Systems 

Finally, a modern Infrastructure system should be built wi.th the future in mind. Last year's 

historic storm. season devastated communities in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, arid the U.S. 

Virgin lslant::f.s. Wildfires are tearing through the West, and our nation's ~oasts <!reshrinkirig, 

Yet the President's plan does not make the.connection between these impacts and how we. 

should be investing iri ourcommlmities {http://www.businessinsider.comjtrumps·lnfritstructur!!"p/anclimate·chailge-environment·2018·2).1t do.es us no good to repair our infrastructure systems if 

they"re only going to be destroyed again ln months;or years as stronger storms and severe 

we;1ther impacts from climate change continue to grow. 

To safeguard our ir~vestment and ensure our communities are more resitient mo.\iing forward, 

we need to build and rebuild in a climate-smart way. Any Infrastructure package should 

https://www.blliegreenail1ance.org/resources/the-righFway-to-repair-americas-infrastructure/ .2/27/1018 
137 


30215.089

BlueGreen Alliance I The Right Way to Repair America's Infrastructure Page4 of5 

follow processes that ensure effective environm~ntal review and public partiCipation in 

infrastructure decisions while also prioritizing the resources needed to ensure these projects 

move forward swiftly and deliver benefitS to communities and workers quickly. 

The Bottom Line 

Ultimately, we need a.n infrastructure plan 

developed with the best interests of 

American workers and communities in mind, 

and we need it soon. Congressional 

Democrats in both chambers released 

infrastructure plans that. achieve our three 

goals: they put real federal dollars-$1 

triUion to .be exact-on the table and 

prioritize the kindsof policies, Including 

Davis Ba.con and Buy America, that maximize benefits to workers and communities. Plans like 

these will ensure our infrastructure.will be builtto last, jobs created can sustain a family and 

boost local economies, and the systems we rely on every day are safer, cleaner, and more 

efficient. 

Unfortunately, that is not the plan PresidentTrump released: The difference between the 

propqsals is more than just money; it's fixing water systems to avoid the lead polsoningwe 

saw in Flint; Michigan; repairing your local bridges to prevent them from.falling apart; 

stopping transit systems from breaking down and stranding riders; knowing our children are 

learning in healthy schools; and having our infrastructure systems ready for the next 

Hurricane Harvey, Irma, or Maria. 

lt'.s what America heeds. 

RELATED TOOLS & RESOURCES 

Gauging Growth- The Freight .Raif Supply Chain and Job-Creation Poten.tlal 

(lir:tps:jjwww.bfuegreenalliance.orgjresourcesjgauglng·growth-the-{reight·riJII-supply-chaiiJ-oncNob-cfeationPOtentiol/) 

https://ww'w~ bluegreenalliartce.orglresources/the"right-wa:y-to·repa:ir"americas-infrastructure/ 2/2 7/2018 
138 


30215.090

Bl.ueGreen AUiance l":he Right Way to Repair America's Infrastructure Page 5 of5 

Making the Grade: How lnvestr:nents in America's Infrastructure Benefit Our Economy and· 

Environment (htt:ps://www.bluegreenaltiance.org/resourtesjmaklngthegrade/) 

Members of BlueG.reen Alliance Call on Congress to Pass Hurricane Relief Aid 

(https:/jwww.bluegreenollltince.org/resources/lnembers-cf·bluegreen-alllance·call·on-congress-to·poss• 

hurricane-relief-aid/) 

Clean Infrastructure {https:i/www.bluegre~nalliance,org/reseurc~s/ls·i$Sue{]=2). 

High Road Investment in Public Infrastructure (https:/iwww.bluegreenolliance.org/re<Oflrces/?s,issue{]=l) 

[}lqg {https://www.blu.egr~en~iil~n~e.o~g/r.esourcesi?s_~type[]738) 

BLUEGREEN 

AlliANCE 

FOUNDATION 

© 201GBiue 

Green Alliance 

Privacy Policy 

Terms ofUse 

https://www.bluegreenall iance.org/resources/the-right cway-to-repair -americas~infrastructure/ 2/27/20 18 
139 


30215.091

Congress Should Support An Infrastructure Plan That Builds Infrastructme- Not Guts ... Page 1 of 5 

CONGRESS SHOULD SUPPORT AN 

INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN THAT BUILDS 

INFRASTRUCTURE- NOT GUTS HEALTH & 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS 

DONATE 

"Americans demand protections for their health and environment 

and want infrastructure projects built in a smart, resilient and safe 

manner." 

https;//earth justice.org/news/press/20 18/congress-should-support-an -infrastructure-pl;m-th. .. 2/27/2018. 
140 


30215.092

Congress Should Support An Infrastructure Plan That Builds infrastructure- Not Guts... Page 2 of 5 

Our communities do not lwt~e to choose 

between solid infrastructure and healthy 

comrnunitks. They know we can have both; 

but Trump's proposal offers neither. 

- Raul Garcia 

Senior legislative Caunsar. Earthjustli:e 

FEBRUARY11, 2018 

PHOTO BY ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Washington, D.C.- In response to President Trump's infrastructure 

plan, Raul Garcia, Senior Legislative Counsel at Earthjustice, issued the 

following statement: 

''This isn't an infrastructure. plan; lfs a cheap excuse to gut health and 

environmental safeguards that protect communities from dangerous, illconceived and poorly constructe\! projects. Americans demand protections 

for theirhealth and environment and want infrastructure projects built in a 

smart; resilient and safe manner. Our communities do ilOt have to choose 

between sOlid infrastructure and healthy.cotntnonities. They know we can 

have both, but Trump's proposal offers neither .. 

"rrump'sinfrastructureplan i.sa scam that fails to provide actual 

investment in infrastructure, sells outto wealthy corporations and destroys 

safeguards that keep our communities safe. Similar to other actions by his 

administration; it disproportionate:ly harms disenfranchise(:! communities, 

leaving them without a voice in how, vvhen or where infrastructure projects 

are built. It also bwlldozes the very safeguardsthat m<!ke our national 

transportation, energy and security systems more resilient. In effect, 

Trump's plan would actually make our lnrrastructure.more dangerous and 

likely to crumble in the nearfuture. 

https:f/eruthjustice.org/rtews/press/20'1 8/congress-should-support-an-infrasirucfurecplart-th. .. 2/27/2() 1 8 
141 


30215.093

Congress Should Support An Infrastructure Plan That Builds Infrastructure- Not Guts ... Page 3 of 5 

"We will continua to push Congress to reject this plan and support a. 

commonsense plan that actually invests in the infrastructure we need 

without tearing down health and environmental protections Americans 

want."· 

CONTACTS 

Raul Garcia, Earthjustice, {202) 797-5251 

"Silence and inaction are breeding grounds for injustice, and Earthjustice 

will not stand by while this reality continues;" 

-TRIP VAN NOPPEN 

President, Earthjustice. in response to President Trump's executive actfcnstotarget 

· immigrants and refugees. 

THE STORiES TO. REAP ON TRUMPAPMIN.ISTRATION 

Trump Administration Mutes Your Feedback on Offshore DrillingPian 

What's Hiding in the Budget Bill? Sneak Attacks on Wolves, Trees a lid 

Water 

Urgent: Take Action To Defeat Poisonous Budget Riders 

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW THiS WEEK 

Crawfisherman's Fight Brings Pipeline. to. a Halt 

Federal Judge Blocks Construction of Bayou Bridge Pipeline 

https://eal'thjustice.org/news/press/20 l8/congress-should-su~po1t •an-jnfrasiructure• plan-th... 2/27/2018 
142 


30215.094

Trump's Infrastructure Plan Puts Burden on State and Private Money- The New York Ti... Page 1 of 6 

l'it.btNtw jorkl'!times https:/lnyti.msi2STWC5J 

BUSINESS DAY 

Trump's Infrastructure Plan Puts 

Burden on State and Private Money 

By PATRICIA COHEN and ALAN RAPPEPORT FEB. 12; 2oi8 

President Trump's $2oo billion plan to rebuild America upends the criteria 

that have long been used to pickambitious federal projects, putth1g little 

emphasis on how much art infrastructure proposal benefits the public and 

more on finding private investors and other outside sources of money; 

Unveiled oii:Monday, the infrastructure program that Mt. Trump has 

champimJed since the campaign is intended to attract a huge amount of 

additional money from states, Ioc&lities &nd private investors. The goal is to 

generate a total pot.of $1.5 trillion to upgrade the country's highways, airports 

and milroads. 

Those financial priorities are crystallized in the. new guidelines 

established l:>y the White House. The ability to find sources of funding outside 

the federal government will be them-mit importantyardstick, accounting for 

70 percent of the formula for choosing infrastructure projects. I-Iow "the 

project '11111 spur economic and social retur11s oil investment'' ranks at the 

bottom, at just 5 perce.nt. 

.. In this new competition for federal funds, a plan ti;l, say, build a better 

4. access road for a luxury development- 1 projeCt with the potential to bdng in AtmClES.REMAINING. 

https://V.WW.nytimes.com/201.8/02/12/business/trump-infrastruciure~proposal.html 2/27/2018 
143 


30215.095

Trump's Infrastructure Plan Puts Burden on State and Private. Money- The NewYotk Ti... Page 2 of6 

4 

more dollars from private investors -could have. a strong chance ofgetting 

the gteeulight. By comparison, a critical tunnel overhaul that has trouble 

getting new money might uot be approved. 

"Instead of the public sector deciding on public needs and. public 

prioritie!l; the. projects that are most attractive to private investors are the 

ones that will go to the head of the line,'' said Elliott $clar, professorofutban 

planning and international affairs at Co1umbia UniversitY. "Private investors 

will become the tail that will wag the dog, because they'll want projects that 

will give returns:' 

:Proposais intended to serve more impoverished communities that require 

more state and local money; including improving drinking water in a place 

like Flint, Mich., coul\1 be given short shrift. Financial investors may not see a 

big profit in such a pi'0ject. 

"A private corporation has a fiduciary obligation to make. a profit. The 

governmentis supposed to be providing a public service," Mr. Sclar said. 

The president's plan recasts the federal government as a minority 

stakeholder in the nation's new infrastructure projects. Half of the $200 

billion pwhlised ove:t 10 years will be used for incentives to spur even .greater 

contributions from states, localities and the private sector. Mt\. Tmmp also 

wants to speed up the approval process. 

The White House budget, sep11rately releas.ed on Mo11C]ay, also gives 

federal agencie!l the authority to sell assets that would be better l11ailaged by 

state, local or private entities in cases. where a sale would "qptirnize taxpayer 

value." TI1e budget suggests that Ronald Reagan Washington National and 

Dulles International Airports could be among the assets ripe for new owners. 

Coming up with the $200 billion in federal funding will. not be easy. 

Republicans have already ballooned the deficitin last week's spending 

agree1hentand with their tax cuts. Democrats are unlil,ely to go along with 

cuts that would offs'et the cost ofMr, Trump's plan. 

ARTICLES REMA!N1NG 

https://ww'w;nytimes.com/20 l8/02/!2ibusiness/trump-lrrfrastructure-proposaL btml 2/27/2018 
144 


30215.096

Trump's Infrastructure Plan Puts Burden on State and Private Money- The New York Ti... Page 3 of6 

With his infr•astt1.tcture framework, the president is rethinldng 

Washington;s role. 

Economic developm(!nt has been thejustification for federal involvement 

going backto the country's efforts in: the early 18bos to improve harbors and 

rivers for navigation. It animated the 1902. Reclamation Act that funded 

irrigation projects that developed the. western United States. 

"National economic development benefits were the cornerstone of federal 

suppo1t," said Debra Knopman, a principal researcher at the RAND 

Corporation. "That was tl1e point." 

Public health, safety and national defense were added in the 20th century 

as core values, when the government developed the national highway system 

and passed the Clean Water Act. 

"Now, they're putting out incentive. programs that don't have to generate 

national or regional economic developments," said Ms. Knopman; the lead 

(!Uthot of a new no-page RAND report on transp01tation and water 

infr(lstrU:cture ih the United States. ''It may happen, but that's not what tl1ey're 

interested in and that's not the way they're screening these projects." 

The math for the infrastructure plan also relies on a lot of unknowns. 

Along with private investors, cities and states are being counted on to put 

up .significant funds. They have a need. States have been strttggling for years 

to rejuvenate creaky roads, bridges and ports. And even if the plan appears to 

put mucl1 ofthe onus on them to finance projects, fillY additional fede1•al 

funding is welcome. 

"States won't look down their nose at adding more money for 

infrastructure," s;,lid John Hicl\s, executive director of the National 

Association of State Budget Officers. "It's seen primarily as a positive, because 

it continues to shine light on a shared need ofinftastructure improvement." 

But cities andstates are not necessarily flush with cash for hew 

4 "f" . . . . . m r&stmcture pl'OJects. ARTICLES REMAINING 

https://www.nytimes.com/20 18/02/12/business/trui:np-infrastructure-proposal.html 2/27/2018 
145 


30215.097

Trump's Inl:iustructure. Plan Puts Burden on State and Private Money- The New York Ti... Page 4 of 6 

Congress has thrmvn their finances into lipheayal, with local lawmakers 

still trying to conie to grips with the effects oft he $1.5 trillion tax overhaul 

that was passed last year. Many states have already expressed concern that it 

will he hard fqr them to increase state and local taxes, beca\lSe deductions on 

them have been limited. 

Some are considering other ways,. such as gasolii1e taxes, to raise funds, 

but it may not be enough to fund new infrastructure projects. A .t:eporl 

released last month by Fitch, the ratings agency, fom1d that many states.could 

see their tax revenue fall from the changes to the individual and corporate 

taxation laws. 

David Damschen, Utah;s treasuret, said his state faces many 

infrastructure ch11llenges as it works to accorninodatt) a growing populatio1i, 

expand its stock of:;1ffordable housing anP- hnprove the transportation system, 

He said Utah was aheady looking for new sources oftax revenue to fund 

projects because sales tax and gas tax revenue had bee11 declinitJ,g, 

But Mr. Dams'chen also noted thatpnblic-private partnerships do not 

tend to worl' well in his state. "When things roll out, you'll find what the 

market will do with these .ideas," he said. "Sometin1es creative ideas don't 

always have the level ofacceptance in the marlcetplace as you hoped .. " 

TheamoUlJ.toffederal funds- $:Zb billion ayear-willbe spread very 

thin when stretched across the. entire country; It is also UJielear how much 

new money, as opposed to repurposed funds, the federal gove:~:nment is 

actually supplying. 

One analysis by the Penn-Whatton Budget Model at the University of 

Pennsylvania said that other pieces of the White House budget could end up 

reducing federal in:frastructure spending by $55 billion over 10 years 

despite the president's new plan. 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, foi·rner director of the Congtessionai Budget Office 

and the president of the conservativeA.meJ.ican Action Fon1111, complimented 

4 aspects of the president's initiative that -lealt with streamlining regulatiqns 

ARTICLES REMAINING 

https:/lwww.nytini()S.coni/2018/02/12/business/iruni!J-infrastructure-proposal,htiril 2/27/2018 
146 


30215.098

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

cttongr£1)1) of tbt ltttittb ~tattl) 

Jt)ou!it of l\tprt!icntatibt!i 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAvauRN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Mr. John J. Devine 

Senior Vice President 

HDRinc. 

970 Baxter Boulevard 

Portland, ME 04103 

Dear Mr. Devine: 

MlljOfiiY {107)125-·2927 

Minori!V (202)225--3£41 

March 20, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on February 27, 2018, to 

testify at the hearing entitled "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, 

which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions 

with a transmittal letter by the close ofbusiness on Tuesday, April3, 2018. Your responses should 

be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 

kelly.collins@.mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

"-~~ 

pton 

an 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
147 


30215.099

March 30, 2018 

Mailed and E-mailed (WORD format) to: Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515; 

Kelly.collins@mail.house.gov 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman Subcommittee on Energy 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-6115 

RE: Letter of March 20, 2018 With Additional Questions for the Record Regarding the U.S. 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, 

February 27, 2018 Hearing: "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure" 

Dear Chairman Upton, 

It was an honor to testify on behalf of the National Hydropower Association (NHA) at the 

House Energy Subcommittee hearing on our nation's infrastructure on February 27, 2018. I 

am in receipt of additional questions forwarded from the Subcommittee, and I respectfully 

provide responses below. 

I. Mr. Devine, you stated in your testimony that current market policies do not adequately 

compensate hydropower and pumped storage projects for the environmental and grid 

benefits that they provide. 

a. What should Congress consider when it comes to valuing hydropower? 

Response: In addition to the clean, renewable generation hydropower brings to the grid itself, 

it is also capable of a wide variety of services required to maintain the reliability and 

flexibility of the transmission grid. These services include system regulation and 

supply/demand balance, voltage and frequency support, stability, and black start capability. 

Hydropower can also have the flexibility to rapidly and efficiently ramp generation up and 

down in response to changes in the balance between electrical loads and generators, 

facilitating the integration of variable generation, such as wind and solar. Pumped storage 

provides many of the same grid services described above and is also being used more 

frequently as an integrator of new renewable generation. 

hdrinc.com 

970 Baxter Boulevard Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5346 

(207) 775-4495 
148 


30215.100

Chairman Fred Upton 

Page 2 

March 30, 2018 

These benefits are rarely considered when Congress debates, and ultimately when it enacts, 

energy and environmental policy. For example, hydropower is not currently fully recognized 

as a renewable energy resource in federal procurement policies and other renewable energy 

policies throughout the federal government. In addition, the tax credits for hydropower have 

currently lapsed, while those for other electricity resources have been extended for the long 

term or are permanent in the tax code. Simply said, while the growth of renewablcs in many 

cases depends on and directly benefits from hydropower's capabilities, the industry continues 

to receive unequal tax treatment at the hands of Congress. Finally, the Congress should take 

a more active role in highlighting the role of hydropower and pumped storage in our national 

electricity portfolio and in directing the administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and other regional policymakers (e.g. independent system operators and 

regional transmission organizations) to adopt market policies that do not pick wirmers and 

losers. 

The industry supports policy development that evaluates energy technologies for their 

abilities to provide supporting services to the overall electric grid, particularly when taking 

into consideration project lifecycle costs and performance. If done so, the industry expects 

that the contribution of hydropower and pumped storage to grid plarming and operations 

would increase. NHA would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee further 

on specific policy proposals and recommendations on hydropower valuation. 

2. Mr. Devine, HDR ltas worked on projects in just about every corner of the energy 

industry from transmission development to wind, LNG export terminals to solar, biogas to 

hydroelectric. 

a. Based on tltese experiences, wltat would you identify as the greatest challenge 

to modernizing and expanding energy infrastructure? 

b. What are some ways that Congress can ltelp? 

Response: This is a transforrnative time for energy industries with many disruptive trends 

impacting markets and business models. These trends include but are not limited to: 

• Lack of load growth of electric demand and usage 

• Increasing influence of Energy Efficiency (EE) programs and Distributed Energy 

Resources (DER) 

• Shale gas availability which lowers competitive power prices impacting legacy assets 

(coal & nuclear) and challenges renewable implementation 

• Customer changes - "prosumers" versus consumers and future digitization impacts 
149 


30215.101

Chairman Fred Upton 

Page 3 

March 30, 2018 

• Energy politics versus energy policy- historically environmental policy drives energy 

policy 

• Uncertainty in economic policy, tariffs, and subsidies and the associated impacts to 

new asset development 

As such the challenges with modernizing our energy infrastructure are broad based as we 

transition to a clean, digital and distributed system, while at the same time the importance 

and vulnerability of the interconnected grid remains paramount. The pace of technology 

change and solution innovation is outpacing regulatory change. The challenge is for 

regulators to offer stakeholder options and flexibility to competitively integrate the variety 

of energy sourcing technologies and alternatives and meet customer demands while also 

identifying effective policies to support the transition of the utility business model. The 

decoupling of revenue from sales volume (kWH's) and/or asset development as currently 

designed for the traditional centralized electric delivery model while transitioning to a service 

focused revenue model is fundamental to the future. 

Technology advancements will continue to force legal and regulatory changes which in tum 

will lead to market and industry transformations. The greatest obstacle to innovation is the 

existing regulatory model and rate structure and finding the resources to deal with these 

changes at state and local levels is key. The parallels to the 1970's regulated 

telecommunication industry is striking as that structure of 40 years ago no longer exists 

owing to the many changes that began with technology advances and disruptive market 

forces. 

I hope this addresses the additional questions, and I remain at your service to provide further 

information to the House Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

HDR 

John J Devine PE 

Senior Vice President Hydropower 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: Jeff Leahey, National Hydropower Association 
150 


30215.102

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Brian Slocum 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!ongrt~~ of tbt 1lnittb $$tate~ 

~oust of l\tprts'ttttatitlts' 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majorily 1~02)225-29:7.7 

Minority \202)2:2s.--·3641 

March 20, 2018 

Vice President, Operations 

lTC Holdings Corporation 

27175 Energy Way 

Novi, M148377 

Dear Mr. Slocum: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on February 27, 2018, to 

testify at the hearing entitled "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, 

which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions 

with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Tuesday, April3, 2018. Your responses should 

be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and.e-mailed in Word format to 

kelly.collins(li)mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

"-·~~ red Upton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
151 


30215.103

............. ,.. """4JI I \.. A FORTIS COMPANY 

March 29, 2018 

The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Re: February 27, 2018 Hearing- Response to Additional Questions for the Record 

Dear Chairman Upton, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Energy of the 

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

Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at the hearing entitled "State of the Nation's Energy 

Infrastructure," and for the opportunity to address additional questions. 

Attached are my responses to those additional questions per your letter dated 

March 20, 2018. I appreciate the opportunity to support the important work of the 

subcommittee. Should you have any questions with regard to the attached, please 

do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Brian Slocum 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Ms. Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk at U.S. House of Representatives 

jason Stanek, Committee Staff 

Richard Kessler, Committee Staff 

Attachment: Reply of Brian Slocum, Additional Questions for the Record 

I TC H 0 l 0 IN G S C 0 R P. 27175 Energy Way • Novi, Ml48377 

phone: 248.946.3000 • www.ltc~holdlngs.com 
152 


30215.104

Before The 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Responses to Additional Questions following Hearing entitled 

"State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure" 

Submitted by Brian Slocum on behalf of lTC Holdings Corporation 

March 29, 2018 

Responses to the Additional Questions for the Record Posed by the Honorable Fred Upton 

1. Mr. Slocum, while much of our nation's infrastructure depends on federal investments, the 

private sector needs to step up to make needed investments in our grid. 

a. In your view, what is the greatest impediment to unleashing more private sector 

investments? 

Response: The private sector stands ready to invest in a robust transmission grid that will 

support a 21'' century economy. While federal funds are not needed to support this investment, 

policy and regulatory hurdles are currently limiting the type of large scale investments in 

regional and interregional transmission needed to create the future grid. Chief among these 

hurdles are: 1) unsettled, potentially inadequate federal returns on transmission investment'; 

and 2) policies for planning new transmission projects and assigning their costs that are often 

overly rigid and reactive to facts on the ground, rather than proactive in anticipating future 

needs. Without regulatory and policy certainty, lTC believes the United States is in danger of 

missing opportunities to make needed investments in grid infrastructure that will create jobs, 

grow the economy, increase access to low-cost generating resources, and lower energy prices 

for consumers across the country. 

As the conversation about national infrastructure continues, the grid must be recognized for its 

vital role in powering America's digital economy and enabling other vital infrastructure. Our 

country needs substantial and long-term investments in the grid in order to expand our 

economy, grow jobs and compete globally. Despite the urgency ofthis issue, many regional 

transmission planning processes fail to fully consider how transmission can facilitate emerging 

economic and policy trends, and planning between RTOs and ISOs remains largely perfunctory. 

A more proactive approach to transmission planning is needed to ensure we have the right grid 

to facilitate the changes we see coming today. 

1 Transmission Investment: Revisiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Two-Step DCF Methodology for 

Calculating Allowed Returns on Equity. Edison Electric Institute. 2017. 

http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/transmission/Documents/ROE%20White%20Paper.pdf 

1 
153 


30215.105

To be sure, FERC has taken a number of actions over the years to advance the ball on 

transmission planning and cost allocation, and lTC lauds those efforts. However, the recent 

slowdown in regionally planned projects, and the absence of inter-regional transmission 

projects, have demonstrated that more needs to be done. 

First, lTC believes policy should empower transmission planners to consider a wide range of 

future scenarios and drivers for new transmission investments, including: the need for resilience 

against natural and man-made threats, the ability to efficiently integrate new generation 

resources, and the need to support a more electrified economy. Second, we must consider the 

full range of transmission benefits as part of a holistic benefits analysis, as opposed to today's 

highly fractured analysis in which transmission benefits are considered in isolation rather than 

seeking to determine the full value of a potential investment. Finally, in addition to the 

challenges involved with planning, financing, and siting new grid infrastructure, achieving 

consensus around "cost allocation" (determining who pays and how much) is a difficult process. 

To the extent FERC can assist the industry in better aligning costs with beneficiaries for 

transmission projects that create a more robust and integrated grid, investment certainty will 

increase. 

b. What could Congress do to encourage more public private partnerships? 

Response: As an independent transmission company, lTC has limited familiarity with publicprivate partnerships for purposes of funding new infrastructure. However, we appreciate the 

federal government's role in creating pilot programs for new grid technologies like storage, and 

its role partnering with the electric industry on grid security issues. For example, the industry is 

currently working with Department of Energy (DOE) National Labs and through the independent 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to research potential threats to the grid and evaluate 

credible responses. 

2. Mr. Slocum, as a representative of a company that specializes in transmission development, 

what would you say Is the average timeframe for the permitting and siting of transmission 

projects? 

Response: The timeframe for permitting and siting of tronsmission projects varies widely 

depending on a range of factors, including the length of the transmission line in question, 

whether it crosses one or more federal or state jurisdictions, and whether new right-of-way is 

needed. Because there are so many variables involved, it may be misleading to assign an overall 

average length of time for permitting. In ITC's experience, upgrades to existing lines that do not 

need new right-of-way and have little to no permitting requirements can usually be commenced 

and completed within 12-24 months. By comparison, new transmission lines that cross multiple 

federal or state jurisdictions can take as long as a decade to permit. As a rule, the process is 

significantly lengthened if permits are needed from multiple state and federal agencies. 

a. Is the timeframe different when the project crosses state lines or RTO regions? 

Response: Yes. Transmission projects that cross multiple states are subject to unique permitting 

risks due to the need to receive approvals from permitting agencies in different states where 

requirements may differ widely. lTC is advancing one such project in Wisconsin and Iowa 

2 
154 


30215.106

designed to reduce congestion and integrate wind energy. The project was approved by the ISO 

in 2011, but we do not expect to energize the project until 2023. In other cases, multi-state 

transmission lines may not be approved at all, such as the Northern Pass transmission line in the 

New England region. 

b. What challenges does the length of the tlmeframe present? 

Response: The lengthy federal and state permitting process increases the overall risk profile of 

transmission investment. From a consumer perspective, regional transmission lines are often 

approved by RTOs and ISOs because they are expected to provide a suite of benefits to electric 

customers in those regions, including increased reliability, resilience, market efficiency, and 

ability to integrate low cost generation resources. Thus, to the extent these projects are subject 

to permitting delays, the expected benefits of the projects are also deferred, which can impose 

a significant opportunity cost on electric customers. 

c. What are some ways that Congress can expedite siting and permitting processes? 

Response: In my testimony, I cited a range of reforms Congress could consider to streamline and 

shorten the federal permitting process, including aggressive implementation of Title 41 of the 

FAST Act. These suggested reforms include: requiring concurrent NEPA analysis and 

environmental reviews by all permitting agencies; requiring cooperating agencies to use the 

information already contained in the lead agency's NEPA document as the basis for their permit 

related reviews; and setting a firm deadline on the NEPA process. lTC believes these are best 

practices that can expedite permitting without weakening NEPA or the environmental review 

process. In addition, for projects that may encounter difficulty receiving state· level permits, 

Congress could consider revisiting and refining DOE's ability to designate federal siting corridors 

by addressing concerns that made backstop siting provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

ineffective. 

3. Mr. Slocum, you testified that we need to take proactive steps to reform our procedures for 

planning and approving new lines. 

a. Wasn't that the purpose of FERC's transmission planning rule as laid out in Order 1000? 

Response: Order 1000 included provisions designed to facilitate regional transmission planning 

and cost allocation, particularly in non-RTO regions that previously Jacked a requirement to 

examine regional needs. At the same time, Order 1000 implemented competitive bidding 

processes for the subset of transmission projects that receive regional cost allocation treatment. 

While FERC's goals in advancing Order 1000 were laudable, the planning provisions did not go 

far er10ugh to create truly holistic and forward looking transmission planning. Meanwhile, other 

provisions have resulted in unintended consequences that may actually be working in direct 

opposition to a more holistic planning process. Given the recent slowdown in regionally planned 

projects, and the absence of inter-regional projects, FERC should revisit Order 1000 to ensure its 

planning and cost allocation requirements are achieving the intended results. 

b. Has Order 1000 failed to develop inter-regional lines between RTOs and ISOs? 

Response: Yes. While Order 1000 required RTOs and ISOs to coordinate on issues impacting 

their seams, it did not require regions to conduct formal inter-regional transmission planning. As 

3 
155 


30215.107

a result, the RTOs and ISO's have made only minimal progress in developing joint approaches to 

resolving seams issues, and no Order 1000 inter-regional lines have been developed. 

Interregional coordination requirements of Order 1000 have not resulted in projects to resolve 

congestion, price separation, and other issues between regions. In order to ensure we are taking 

advantage of opportunities for trade between regions, lTC believes it is necessary for RTOs and 

ISOs to bridge their borders to create dedicated joint planning and cost allocation procedures. 

Regions should be required to jointly plan across their seams, while still allowing for regional 

partners to have flexibility in how they choose to do so. 

c. What about intra-regional transmission projects? 

Response: In many regions, procedures for planning intra-regional lines remain highly fractured 

and limited in scope. While Order 1000 implemented certain requirements for intra-regional 

planning, it has generally not resulted in more holistic procedures. For example, in most cases, 

an intra-regional transmission line is evaluated based on whether it can provide a single benefit 

sufficient to justify its costs. In practice, however, regional transmission lines almost always 

provide a wide range of benefits that often shift and multiply as the system evolves. Thus, 

to day's processes are structurally biased to significantly underestimate the potential benefits 

provided by regional transmission. Reforms are necessary to ensure that the full range of 

transmission planning drivers and transmission benefits are regularly evaluated as part of a 

holistic transmission planning process. 

4 
156 


30215.108

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Jim Ross 

Director 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR .. NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!Congre~~ of tbt 1Hntteb ~tate~ 

1l,lou~e of l\eprc~ttttatibe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Mujori!V (202):225--21121 

Minori!y (202)225-3641 

March 20, 2018 

International Brotherhood of Electric Workers 

Construction and Maintenance Department 

900 Seventh Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. Ross: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on February 27, 2018, to 

testifY at the hearing entitled "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains opeq for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, 

which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions 

with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Tuesday, April3, 2018, Your responses should 

be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 

kelly.collins@maiLhousc.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L, Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
157 


30215.109

Attachment-Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

I. Mr. Ross, as the U.S. energy landscape continues to evolve, how important is continuing 

education arid training to suc.cess in the industry? 

a. What Steps could Congress take to proniote the sharing of information and best 

practices, particularly as they pertain to new teclmologies such as distributed energy 

resources and advanced transmission devices? 

2. Mr. Ross, in your written testimony, you referenced the Northern Pass transmission project, 

which would bring hydropower from Canada to the U.S. As you know, this project has been 

effectively halted by the state siting commission. 

a. In your opinion, how can Congress help federal authorities better balance the needs 

of a region with the interests of individual states? 
158 


30215.110

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Dr. Jennifer Chen 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

((ongreS'S' of tbe W:ntteb ~tates1!)ou5'e of l\eprt5'tntatibt5' 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority i202ln5-2927 

Mlnomy {10?!2:25-,·3641 

March 20, 2018 

Sustainable FERC Project Attorney 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1152 15th Street, N.W.; Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Dr. Chen: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on February 27,2018, to 

testify at the hearing entitled "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, 

which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions 

with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Tuesday, April3, 2018. Your responses should 

be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 

kellv.collins@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
159 


30215.111

Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC 

1152 15th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 2000S 

~ 

April3, 2018 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Upton: 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at the February 27, 2018 hearing on the State of 

the Nation's Energy Infrastructure before the Subcommittee on Energy. 

Attached are my responses to questions for the record posed by the members of the 

Committee. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. 

Attachment 

Sincerely, 

/sf Jennifer Chen 

Jennifer Chen 

Attorney, Sustainable FERC Project 

Climate & Clean Energy 
160 


30215.112

Responses to Questions for the Record on "State of the Nation's Energy 

Infrastructure" 

Jennifer Chen 

Attorney, Sustainable FERC Project, Climate & Clean Energy 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

February 27, 2018 Hearing 

April 3, 2018 Responses 

NRDC 

~ Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

1152 15th St. NW, Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20005 
161 


30215.113

From the Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

Question 1. Majority witnesses broadly claim that regulatory and permitting requirements 

lead to delays (hydro says 10 years), but when asked for details, they provided none. 

Understanding that federal, state, local, tribal review and coordination for complex projects 

take time, and given the evidence that federal EIS review takes a median of 3.7 years, what 

do you think is the main driver of delay? 

Answer: 

Modernizing our nation's energy infrastructure to take advantage of current technologies and 

low-cost emissions-free energy resources is critical to cost-effectively meeting our nation's 

energy demands and achieving important public policy goals. If planned right, we could 

efficiently update our grid to harness American wind and solar power and mitigate manmade 

and natural threats while creating good jobs. Of the challenges impeding such grid 

modernization efforts, NEPA analysis and environmental review are not typically among them. 

Testimony faulting regulatory review for delays tend to lump together state, local, and tribal 

review and coordination processes along with federal NEPA or environmental review without 

specifying the main drivers of delays. Concluding that NEPA needs to be further "streamlined" 

without examining the broader process to pinpoint the real source of delay risks creating 

complications while leaving real problems unaddressed. 

Causes of delay depend on the type of project. For renewable project development, financing 

and lack of access to transmission are the main challenges. For multistate transmission 

development, the main drivers of delay are opposition from state and local governments and 

stakeholders and multi-jurisdictional coordination and resolution of conflicts. (And this issue is 

compounded by the fact that few multistate transmission projects make it through the planning 

process to begin with). For hydro licensing, inadequate funding for state and federal permitting 

processes may hobble review of 50-year-old projects due for relicensing under a very different 

environmental framework that did not exist 50 years ago. 

In the context of renewables, financing tends to be the most significant challenge. The U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector 

General (DOl) investigated whether and how permitting was a barrier to deploying projects and 

affiliated transmission infrastructure. Neither investigation identified permitting as the most 

substantial hurdle to deployment. The DOl highlights that "price competitiveness is perhaps the 

most significant barrier to renewable energy installations. Government can play a supportive 

role in renewable energy investment through a wide variety of tax incentives, including credits, 

grant funds, and accelerated depreciation (allowing larger deductions in the earlier years of an 

energy asset's life)."1 The GAO also pointed to financing as a key driver for project cancellation. 2 

1 DOl Inspector General's Statement Summarizing the Major Management and Performance 

Challenges Facing the U.S. Department of the Interior (Nov. 2016) at 8, (DOl Report) 

https:/ /www.doioig.gov /sites/ doioig.gov /files/2016ER049Public.pdf. 

2 "BlM officials we spoke with told us that one reason that some renewable energy projects 

were withdrawn was that financing was not available because of concerns about whether the 

2 
162 


30215.114

Another key factor the GAO acknowledged as impeding the pace of renewable energy 

development is the limited access to transmission lines (which are often scarce in areas where 

renewable energy is abundant).3 

The key issues driving delays for multistate transmission projects are multi-jurisdictional 

coordination and resolution of conflicts as well as state and local opposition. In contrast to 

renewable energy development, transmission project development generally does not suffer 

from lack of funding. 

Multi-jurisdictional coordination and resolving potentially conflicting approval processes for 

siting transmission between states and local government takes time. Federal, state, local, and 

tribal governments must work together to consider and minimize potential impacts on safety 

and security, as well as on environmental and community resources and resolve conflicting 

stakeholder interests. States can have incongruent and different approaches to transmission 

siting: some states have infrastructure authorities that coordinate review for interstate lines 

while others leave siting decisions up to individual counties, greatly extending the approval 

time for interstate projects. 

To improve coordination at the federal level, the previous two administrations have worked to 

coordinate the environmental review activities of federal agencies. 4 Under existing federal 

policies, agency reviews from departments and bureaus are coordinated under a single entity 

and done contemporaneously. Title 41 of the FAST Act changed the federal permitting process 

for major infrastructure and other capital projects to: (1) better coordinate and set deadline for 

permitting decisions; {2) enhance procedural transparency; and (3) tighten deadlines for 

litigation challenging permitting decisions. FAST Act Title 41 created a new inter-agency Federal 

Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) to set model or presumptive 

deadlines, facilitate resolution of interagency disputes, and allocate funding and personnel 

resources to support the overall decision-making process. FAST Act Title 41 also enumerates 

and strongly encourages use of a suite of NEPA best practices aimed at improving the timing 

project could repay its investment costs. These officials said that financing for permitting, 

construction, and other aspects of development is more likely to be available to applicants who 

demonstrate that demand is sufficient and that the cost of supplying power allows for 

profitability." GAO Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 

Representatives, Renewable Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the 

Permitting Process for Development on Federal Lands (Jan. 2013) at 41, 

https:/ /www.gao.gov/assets/660/651362.pdf. 

3 /d. at 7-8. 

4 The Obama administration made the review schedule for high-priority projects more 

transparent by launching the Permitting Dashboard. The Bush administration created a task 

force to help move complex projects through the permitting process. NEPA Task Force, 

"Modernizing NEPA Implementation," September 2003. https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceqpublications/report/finalreport.pdf. 

3 
163 


30215.115

and quality of environmental reviews. The FPISC compiles recommendations for best practices 

annually.5 

As noted by the FPISC,6 regulatory review and permitting can often be done concurrently when 

it makes sense. The chart below from a University of Minnesota study provides a general 

picture of how regulatory review fits into the overall process in terms of sequencing and timing. 

Transmission Development: A 10 Year Process 

1 he proc'"'' of huUding transmission generally takes 10 yea" from scoping to line 

construction and energization. Minnesota has a weiJ.prescribed regulatory proceeding 

process~ with numerous opportunities for stt~.kehoklers to engage with utilities and the 

PUC. 

0 5 10 

State or local opposition is also an issue in transmission siting. At the hearing, we were 

heartened to hear Mr. Jim Ross testify that the IBEW does not support efforts to diminish 

5 Another way federal agencies are coordinating infrastructure development is through 

Regional Reviews of the West-wide Energy Corridors designated under Section 368 of Energy 

Policy Act 200S. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Department of 

Energy are leading the reviews, which will be completed in 2019. The reviews will recommend 

improvements to better facilitate infrastructure development while limiting impacts to the 

environment. 

6 The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, Recommended Best Practices for 

Environmental Reviews and Authorizations for Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal Year 2018 on 

December 1, 2017 

http s :/ /www. perm its. perform a nee .gov I sites/ perm its. performance. gov /fi I es/ docs/ docu m entati 

on/40856/fast-41fy-2018best-practices-report.pdf at 7. 

4 
164 


30215.116

current environmental protections but seeks to make the process more efficient.l While IBEW 

in its written testimony had provided as examples Northern Pass and Clean line to make the 

case that "plenty of energy infrastructure projects that have been in the permitting process for 

years," Mr. Ross clarified in his oral testimony that both of the projects mentioned were 

inhibited by state and focal regulatory resistance.8 These are examples of delays due to state 

and local opposition, not federal permitting. When Mr. Ross was asked about permitting delays, 

he acknowledged the issue but responded that most of the delayed projects have been through 

the siting permitting process but are being held up because someone understandably doesn't 

want a power line in their back yard. 9 

Indeed, where there is state or local opposition, early and close collaboration with tribal, state, 

and local governments is critical, and robust public engagement is essential for the credibility of 

the siting, permitting, and review process. Such engagement is key to encourage compromise, 

minimize conflict, and mitigate potential impacts- and is likely to reduce delays in reaching a 

decision. States and other stakeholders need to know how the proposed projects benefit them, 

and early engagement is important to bringing them on board. 10 

A recent report by the University of Minnesota showcases a good example of early coordination 

and engagement in successfully addressing local opposition to an eleven-utility, four-state 

transmission project involving thousands of landholders. 11 The project, CapX2020 (short for 

"Capacity Expansion Needed By 2020") went relatively smoothly, which report authors 

attributed to the fact that project sponsors "engaged to an unparalleled degree with 

7 State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure Hearing transcript lines 874-7S. 

8 !d. at lines 853-55. 

9 !d. at lines 1444-52. 

10 "BLM respondents identified the quality of coordination between parties involved in 

permitting individual projects as among the top factors that facilitated the permitting process 

.... Such coordination occurs throughout the application process, including the initial request for 

an application; when key portions of the application, such as the plan of development, are 

made final; when environmental analyses are conducted and NEPA documentation is prepared; 

and the issuance of the right-of-way. It also happens among several parties-between the 

applicant and BLM staff, among staff within BLM, and between BLM staff and staff from other 

federal and nonfederal agencies." DOl Report at 35. 

Some effort has been made to foster better state coordination. An example is a process 

coordinated by the Western Governors Association (WGA) in coordination with the Department 

of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies. Differing state policies and federal requirements 

have been collected on a website available for developers to consult so they can better align 

their activities with these requirements and reduce delays. 

11 University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Center for Science, Technology & 

Environmental Policy, Transmission Planning and CapX2020: Building trust to build regional 

transmission (Apr. 2016), http:/ /www.capx2020.com/press/uofmhumphrey_capx2020_final_report.pdf. 

5 
165 


30215.117

landowners, town, city, and county administrators, state utility commissioners, legislatures, and 

regulators throughout the planning process to bring a new era of transparency and civic 

engagement to transmission planning, citing, and construction of new high-voltage 

transmission lines.''12 

Question 2: Are there drawbacks to requiring concurrent NEPA analysis and environmental 

review by all permitting agencies? 

Answer: 

While concurrent NEPA analysis and environmental review by all permitting agencies is a good 

best practice, and we support requiring it for transmission projects, we hesitate to recommend 

mandating it in all circumstances outside of the transmission project context without better 

understanding why it is not always done. 

Concurrent review is already encouraged, as noted by the FPISC: 

Per 42 U.S.C. § 4370m-4, 'each agency shall to the maximum extent practicable ... 

carry out the obligations of the agency with respect to a covered project under 

any other applicable law concurrently, and in conjunction with, other 

environmental reviews and authorizations being conducted by other cooperating 

or participating agencies, including environmental reviews and authorizations 

required under NEPA, unless the agency determines that doing so would impair 

the ability of the agency to carry out the statutory obligations of the agency.' NEPA 

regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] § 1500.2(c)) and CEQ (2012) 

also encourage integrating and coordinating environmental reviews or planning 

processes, such that as much of the review as possible can be concurrent rather 

than consecutive. 13 

12 /d. at xi. 

13 FPISC, Recommended Best Practices for Environmental Reviews and Authorizations for 

Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal Year 2018 on December 1, 2017, (FPISC Best Practices) 

https:/ /www.permits.performance.gov/sites/permits.performance.gov/files/docs/documentati 

on/40856/fast-41fy-2018best-practices-report.pdf at 7. Other NEPA regulations provide similar 

guidance. See 40 CFR §1502.2S(a) ("To the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact 

analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other environmental review laws 

and executive orders."). 

6 
166 


30215.118

The FPISC provided five examples of agency success stories where concurrent review was 

employed and additional examples of joint applications, but the list is not (and likely not 

intended to be) an exhaustive documentation of all such examples. 14 

We support requiring concurrent NEPA analysis and other regulatory review for transmission 

infrastructure. But concurrent review may not necessarily make sense in all circumstances. 

Requiring concurrent review could potentially diminish project flexibility or duplicate efforts. 

For example, requiring concurrent review could foreclose or inhibit information from one 

review process to sequentially feed into another, making it more difficult to revise a project 

based on its impacts and alternatives discovered during review before beginning the permit 

processing. This could predetermine the outcome without the benefit of the results from 

review. In addition, when permits are processed concurrently, the NEPA analysis may have to 

be supplemented and/or recirculated because an agency requires new permit terms or changes 

in the project that were not previously analyzed in detail in the NEPA document, which could 

then delay processing the permit. 

We would like to see agencies and reviewing authorities implement concurrent review when it 

is sensible as well as many of the other best practices the FPISC recommends. 1

s But always 

requiring concurrent review and eliminating the conditional words "to the maximum extent 

practicable" from section 4370m-4 referenced above may not be advisable without some study 

of whether concurrent review is always practicable. Given that the FPISC is still relatively new, 

we recommend giving it time to socialize its best practices to further encourage concurrent 

review rather than mandating it for all types of projects at this time. 

14 !d. at 18-23. The next section covers joint application processes or programmatic approaches 

among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments with similar authorities to reduce 

duplicative actions.ld. at 24-27. 

15 The FPISC also recommends that "the development and early use of GIS and other tools to 

assist in identifying potential community, historical, and environmental resources in project 

areas. Project sponsors can make more informed and strategic siting decisions through the use 

of GIS and other tools about sensitive resources. The lack of early identification of impacts to 

sensitive resources often delays or stops projects according to the plan to implement EO 13604 

(2012). Agencies should ensure the best available science and information can support fully 

informed and sound decision making." FPISC Best Practices at 12. 

NRDC has helped develop tools that provide information on environmental and cultural 

resources and calculators for capital and mitigation costs work as part of a transmission siting 

strategy. See, e.g., the ARRA-funded WECC environmental data viewer developed in concert 

with federal and state land and wildlife managers, utility transmission planners, archaeologists, 

land and wildlife experts, and tribal and historic preservation experts. DOE and WGA also built a 

web tool for developers to sort out conflicting state permit requirements, and in addition, DOE 

set up the integrated interagency pre-application process for NEPA planning to facilitate 

interaction between environmental and cultural resource stakeholders and developers. 

7 
167 


30215.119

Thank you for your questions, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Committee 

on this important topic. 

(sf Jennifer Chen 

Jennifer Chen 

Attorney, Sustainable FERC Project 

Climate & Clean Energy 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1152 15th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005 

8 
168 


30215.120

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Dr. Brenda Hellyer 

Chancellor 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

€:ongress of tbe Wntteb ~tates 

~oulic of l\eprelientntil:ltli 

COMMIITEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Maforlty (202)215-·2927 

Minonty !202:) 225-36<11 

March 20, 2018 

San Jacinto College 

8060 Spencer Highway 

Pasadena, TX 77505 

Dear Dr. Hellyer: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on February 27, 20!8, to 

testifY at the hearing entitled "State of the Nation's Energy Infrastructure." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, 

which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions 

with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Tuesday, April 3, 2018. Your responses should 

be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 

kelly.collins@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

,_,/~ 

red Upton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
169 


30215.121

Office of the Chancellor 

April3, 2018 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Upton: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Energy on February 27, 

2018 concerning community colleges and the role they play in preparing our nation's workforce 

as it relates to energy and infrastructure. It was an honor to be invited to speak about the great 

work taking place in our community college classrooms. 

I am writing this letter in response to additional questions for the hearing record :fTom members 

of the subcommittee. 

Questions from the Honorable Fred Upton 

1. What incentives are needed to expand community college access and apprenticeship 

programs? 

Although not necessarily the purview of this committee, the greatest incentive is Pell 

funding. The majority of students attending community colleges are at a financial risk 

and struggle to afford community college tuition, typically one-fourth the cost of 

universities. Providing funding for students through financial aid and scholarships will 

increase access to these programs. 

In Texas, apprenticeships are difficult because it is a "Right-to-Work" state and many of 

our business and industry partners are concerned about the apprenticeship models as they 

do not want to open the door to an expanded role for unionized labor. With that said, 

flexibility in the apprenticeship programs to build programs that meet the needs of 

students, as well as our industry partnerships, will help. We have designed multiple 

programs based on our partner's needs. 

Another area to consider is what we refer to as "extemships." For many faculty, the 

changing technology in industry creates opportunities and the requirement for faculty 

professional development. Industry "externships," allow faculty members to spend time 

at the plants to see new processes, new technology, and experience the same "day in the 

life" they are teaching to students. Funding for grants to create externships would allow 

An equal opportunity institution 

San Jacinto College District, 4624 Fairmont Parkway, Suite 200 • Pasadena, TX 77504 

www.sanjac.edu 281.998.6100 • Fax: 281.998.6324 
170 


30215.122

the community college to release faculty for an extemship (one to two weeks in length) 

and still ensure classes are covered while the faculty member is away and would be 

helpful in making sure faculty are teaching the workforce skills that meet current 

demands. 

Lastly, any workforce grants that can assist community colleges with funding to purchase 

equipment will help ensure students are getting the appropriate hands on training. 

Equipment in these programs is frequently in the millions of dollars. Community colleges 

simply do not have budgets to accommodate these types of purchases, so we rely heavily 

on grants and philanthropy to ensure we are providing the best equipment needed. 

2. How can community colleges better prepare their students for success in four-year 

engineering programs? 

Community colleges across the country are working on an initiative called "Pathways." 

This initiative is about student success and is helping students reach their educational 

goals in the shortest time and at the least cost possible, but with maximum preparation 

and support. This initiative removes barriers for students, streamlines courses in the 

degree, and then maps the associate to a university degree so students know exactly what 

will transfer toward the degree. 

This effort is engaging faculty across higher education and creating a pathway toward the 

four-year degree whether in engineering, business, science, technology, or mathematics. 

San Jacinto College is part of a national grant offered through the American Association 

of Community Colleges and is fully engaged in this work. It is transforming the culture 

of our College and creating seamless transitions for students from community college to a 

university degree program. 

3. What steps does your college take to ensure that your curriculum is teaching student the 

skills they need to succeed in the workforce? 

The College relies on industry partner feedback in all of its training programs. In the case 

of our Petrochemical, Energy, and Technology programs, we have invited leaders from 

the petrochemical industry to be a part of our Petrochemical Advisory Council. The 

Council is tasked with assessing the curriculum, equipment, and planning for the Center. 

To ensure we are meeting the industry workforce needs, we also hired a professional with 

30 years' experience in the petrochemical field to lead our programs. It was important to 

our partners that we hire someone of this caliber to ensure the success of these programs 

and their future workforce. 

Partnership is the key. In every one of our workforce programs, we have advisory 

committees that review the curriculum and provide advice on the equipment needs to 

keep our programs current. 
171 


30215.123

4. How can schools better partner with industry to develop a workforce that meets the needs 

of an evolving energy landscape? 

Partnerships are critical, and all parties have to be willing to take on the hard work, have 

honest conversations, and bring resources to the table. The work around apprenticeships, 

creating new curriculum, and allowing the flexibility to have those types of programs 

help build those relationships. They create a win-win scenario for students and for the 

industries hiring them. 

Questions from the Honorable Peter Welch 

1. In your testimony, you discussed your support of the "Centers of Excellence" concept 

that was included in H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security Act. Could you 

provide more detail as to the impact this legislation would have on San Jacinto College 

and other similarly positioned technical schools? 

San Jacinto College first began working on a "Centers of Excellence" initiative nearly six 

years ago. Community and technical colleges across the country are facing cuts from 

State Legislatures and are having to try to figure out how to meet the demands for highly 

skilled workers across the nation as baby boomers leave the workforce. As noted by 

committee members, industry partners see a skilled workforce as a one of the greatest 

challenges for expansion and start up efforts. 

Already at San Jacinto College, the Domestic Maritime Centers of Excellence legislation 

that was signed by President Trump in December 2017, is creating partnerships with 

other community and technical colleges across the country, with the Texas A&M 

University Maritime Academy, and with community and industry partners. Although the 

actual Domestic Maritime Centers of Excellence designation is still going through criteria 

development by the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, it is 

already creating collaborations. If San Jacinto College is awarded this designation, we 

believe the designation will assist the College with recruiting efforts for both faculty and 

students. If grants are awarded, we will use the funding to expand our programs through 

purchases of equipment so more training can be offered. 

Other Centers of Excellence for workforce training will help community colleges across 

the country in meeting regional workforce needs which will allow business and industry 

to continue expanding with a highly skilled workforce. 

Proposed Energy Workforce Centers of Excellence Act 

San Jacinto College would like to recommend that the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce consider adopting legislation to establish a community and technical college 

Energy Workforce Centers of Excellence program. The following provides a discussion 
172 


30215.124

of the need, and I am enclosing a draft legislative proposal prepared on behalf of San 

Jacinto College and others collaborating on efforts to move forward with a national 

energy workforce agenda - one that harnesses the unique strength and capabilities of 

community and teclmical colleges. 

The Trump administration has prioritized action on an America First Energy Plan to 

benefit United States energy interests and to promote economic development and job 

creation. Building a more robust American energy industry and creating new energy 

related jobs requires expansion of the training capacity at America's community and 

technical colleges, which are uniquely positioned to address the energy workforce talent 

pipeline. The proposed Energy Workforce Centers of Excellence Act would authorize 

creation of centers of excellence at community and technical colleges in order to expand 

the nation's capacity to train workers for jobs in a variety of energy industry operations. 

Energy sector jobs require well-trained, skilled technicians- yet, many ofthose 

workforce positions do not require a baccalaureate degree. Community and teclmical 

colleges throughout the nation can play an important role in workforce development and 

job training. This includes opportunities for enrolled students pursuing degrees, 

certificates and credentials, and for incumbent workers seeking non-credit training 

programs that upgrade their skills and help meet the workforce demands of employers. 

Community and technical colleges offer a cost-effective resource for training, pathways 

to opportunities for economic independence for Americans, and hope for under-served 

communities. 

Community and technical co lieges are uniquely suited to help secure the talent pipeline 

for energy industry. This includes 2-year public colleges training oil and gas workforce 

in the Gulf of Mexico and in the shale play regions of the United States- including the 

Marcellus and Utica shale play areas of the Appalachian region, the San Juan shale in 

northern New Mexico, the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and the Eagle Ford and · 

Permian Basin shale play areas in Texas. It also includes colleges training technicians for 

jobs involving geothermal, nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable forms of energy. 

In order to boost American energy industry, the United States needs to focus on new 

opportunities for energy workforce development, and to harness the capabilities of 

community and technical colleges to provide required technical training. This can be 

accomplished by supporting investments in community and technical college energy 

workforce training "centers of excellence," as is proposed by the Energy Workforce 

Centers of Excellence Act. The centers of excellence will work in partnership with 

government and industry to produce a technically skilled workforce capable of helping to 

achieve the goals of the America First Energy Plan. 

It would be helpful in building the workforce if Congress would develop an energy 

agenda that includes new opportunities for American workers. During the 114th 

Congress, bipartisan legislation known as the Energy Policy Modernization Act (S. 20 12) 

would have authorized energy workforce grants as well as community and technical 

college centers of excellence. That legislation was passed by the Senate and House and 
173 


30215.125

had the support of a House-Senate conference committee - but it was not brought to a 

final vote. It would help to have the 1J5th Congress work on a bipartisan basis to 

prioritize action on new energy legislative initiatives, to include the provisions of the 

Energy Workforce Centers of Excellence Act. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with your committee about the work of community 

colleges across the country, and for the opportunity to respond to these questions for the hearing 

record. We consider ourselves to be America's partner in workforce training to grow our 

national economy. 

Sincerely, 

Brenda Hellyer, Ed. D. 

Chancellor, San Jacinto College 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Enclosure: Discussion Draft- Energy Workforce Centers of Excellence Act of 2018 
174 


30215.126

ll5mCONGRESS 

2"'SESSION H.R. 

Discussion Draft-Apri/2, 2018 

To authorize the Secretary of Energy to designate community and technical colleges as centers of 

excellence for energy workforce training and education, and for other purposes, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

[DATE] 

[SPONSOR] introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on ___ _ 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Energy to designate community and technical colleges as centers of 

excellence for energy workforce training and education, and for other purposes, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Energy Workforce Centers of Excellence Act of 20 18", 

SEC. 2. ENERGY WORKFORCE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. 

(a) DESIGNATION AUTHORITY-The Secretary of Energy ("Secretary") is authorized to 

designate community and technical colleges as centers of excellence for energy training and education, 

(b) ELIGIBILITY.-To be eligible to receive a center of excellence designation and Federal 

assistance under this Act, an entity shall be a public community or technical college or a consortium of 

public community and/or technical colleges that-

(1) demonstrates experience in implementing and operating job training and education programs; 

(2) demonstrates the ability to recruit and support individuals who plan to work in the energy 

industry in the successful completion of job training and education programs designed for 

upstream, midstream and downstream energy workforce; and 

(3) provides students who complete the job training and education program with an industryrecognized credentiaL 
175 

Æ 


30215.127

Discussion Draft-Apri/2, 2018 

(c) PR!ORITY.-In selecting eligible entities to receive designation and assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall prioritize applicants that-

(I) provide for oil and gas workforce training in the Gulf of Mexico or in the shale play regions 

of the United States; 

(2) provide for energy workforce training in the Appalachian Basin and other areas in which coal 

industry activity has been prevalent; 

(3) train workers for jobs in connection with other energy industries including nuclear, solar, 

geothermal, wind and other alternative and renewable forms of energy; and 

(4) provide science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) training for students who 

have traditionally been underrepresented in energy industry, including women and minorities. 

SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. 

(a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS .. -The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement 

(as that term is used in section 6305 of title 31) with a center of excellence designated under Section 2(a) 

to support efforts of the center of excellence to-

(I) admit additional students; 

(2) recruit and train faculty; 

(3) expand facilities; 

( 4) create new energy career pathways; or 

(5) award students credit for prior experience, including military service. 

(b) DIRECT ASSIST ANCE.-ln providing support under cooperative agreements entered into in 

accordance with this section, the Secretary shall provide support for direct assistance including technical 

expertise, wraparound services, career coaching, mentorships, internships, and partnerships. 

(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-The Secretary shall provide technical assistance and capacity 

building to community and technical college energy workforce centers of excellence to leverage the 

existing job training and education programs of the Department. 

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $150,000,000 for each of fiscal 

years 2019 through 2024.