Hearing to Examine Opportunities for Congress to Reform the Permitting Process for Energy and Mineral Projects (U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources)

Hearing	Hearing to Examine Opportunities for Congress to Reform the Permitting Process for Energy and Mineral Projects
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Date	May 11, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Current Energy and Mineral Resource Needs and Challenges: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses focused on the U.S.’s current energy and mineral resource demands and needs. They highlighted how there has occurred an uptick in interest for domestic energy and mineral projects, especially following the enactments of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. They further asserted that these projects can support well-paying jobs (including union jobs) and provide tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments. They expressed concerns however that the U.S.’s current burdensome permitting processes are impeding its ability to extract, develop, and make use of these resources.
  • Demand and Need for U.S. Energy: Committee Members, Mr. Grumet, and Mr. Urlich asserted that the U.S. will need to increase its energy production and transmission capacities to meet growing global demand for energy. They stated that this will entail increased production of both fossil fuels (including oil, gas, and coal) and renewable energy sources (including solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal). Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) criticized the Biden administration for dismissing the use of fossil fuels and asserted that the U.S. must continue to use fossil fuels as it works to develop innovative technologies that can ultimately replace these fuels.
  • Demand and Need for U.S. Minerals: Committee Members, Mr. Nolan, and Ms. Shuler contended that the U.S. will need to increase its mineral extraction and processing capabilities in order to supply the necessary materials to build clean energy technologies, such as electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.
  • Current U.S. Energy Project Deployment Challenges: Committee Members, Mr. Grumet, and Ms. Shuler highlighted how many prospective energy projects face multiple challenges, including lengthy permitting processes, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, extensive litigation, and subsequent relicensing challenges. They lamented that the time and costs associated with these challenges can lead developers to abandon planned energy projects, which will impede the development of energy resources (including clean and renewable energy resources) and result in a less resilient U.S. energy grid. Full Committee Chairman Manchin further criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) failure to provide permits for Class VI wells and asserted that this failure undermines the U.S.’s development of carbon capture and sequestration capabilities.
  • Current U.S. Mineral Project Deployment Challenges: Committee Members, Mr. Grumet, and Mr. Nolan also highlighted how many prospective mining projects face significant permitting and litigation challenges, which can undermine the U.S.’s global competitiveness and national security. They also asserted that critical mineral mining will be key to supporting efforts to combat climate change. They expressed concerns that the U.S.’s failure to permit these domestic mineral projects will lead the U.S. to rely upon adversarial countries for these materials, such as China, Russia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). They emphasized that these countries maintain lower environmental, safety, and labor standards than the U.S.
  • Current Permitting Challenges on Public Lands: Committee Republicans, Mr. Nolan, and Mr. Urlich expressed particular concerns over the persistent permitting delays involving energy and mineral projects that are located on federal lands. They stated that these challenges are particularly acute in Western states (which tend to have federal lands comprise a large portion of their territories). They criticized the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Biden administration for their failure to provide consistent lease sales (which they claimed is in defiance of federal law). Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) discussed his legislation, the BLM Mineral Spacing Act, which would allow for states to manage permitting processes for projects where the federal government owns no surface acres and the federal government owns a minority of the mineral acres.
  • Ability to Transfer Power Across Regions: Mr. Grumet expressed concerns over how states can easily challenge transmission projects that would enable the transferring of energy between states and regions and commented that this dynamic undermines the U.S.’s ability to respond to emergency situations. Several Committee Members argued however that states should maintain robust roles in overseeing and approving transmission projects to ensure that their state residents are actually benefiting from these projects (and not being forced to subsidize benefits for the residents of other states).
  • Impact of the Rosemont Decision: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Mr. Nolan expressed concerns over the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision (known as the Rosemont decision). This decision found that a company must validate that all of the lands involved in a claim have valuable minerals for their claim to be valid under the Mining Act of 1972. They expressed concerns that this decision will limit the ability of domestic mining projects to proceed and expand.
• Permitting Reform Bills and Proposals: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in passing permitting reform legislation and in pursuing policies to ensure the U.S.’s ability to pursue energy and mineral projects. They argued that the U.S. can expedite its deployment of energy and mineral projects without sacrificing environmental standards and the ability of stakeholders to provide input and pursue legal challenges. Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) highlighted how Australia and Canada maintain energy permitting processes designed to complete projects within three years or less. He also mentioned how the European Union (EU) had recently issued new permitting timeline targets for energy, manufacturing, and minerals projects. 
  • Current Permitting Reform Legislative Proposals: There are four main permitting reform legislative proposals currently under consideration: Full Committee Chairman Manchin’s Building American Energy Security Act of 2023, Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Shelly Moore Capito’s (R-WV) Spur Permitting of Underdeveloped Resources (SPUR) Act, Sen. Moore Capito’s Revitalizing the Economy by Simplifying Timelines and Assuring Regulatory Transparency (RESTART) Act, and the U.S. House of Representatives Majority’s Lower Energy Costs Act. Moreover, the Biden administration has issued their own proposals for permitting reform. These proposals contain many consistent themes, including timelines for project reviews, promotion of coordination across federal agencies, and limitations on litigation. Full Committee Chairman Manchin expressed optimism that Congress could reconcile these various bills into a consensus piece of legislation that can achieve broad support.
  • Transmission Permitting Proposals: Mr. Grumet expressed optimism that the U.S. can develop a set of criteria for balancing the roles of the federal government and state governments in approving transmission projects. He stated that providing the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plenary authority to directly permit interstate transmission lines would help to increase grid resilience and low-cost clean power. He contended that the current coordinated interregional approval process is “designed to fail” because of variations in evaluation metrics across regions and the absence of an obligation and incentive to consider the full project benefits. He also remarked that states should continue to oversee transmission projects and that the U.S. should establish federal siting backstops to ensure that these projects can make progress in the event of state inaction. 
  • Preservation of Stakeholder Input Opportunities: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and the hearing’s witnesses stated that the U.S. must ensure that stakeholders (including states, localities, and tribes) will maintain opportunities to provide input on prospective energy and mining projects. Mr. Nolan testified that the National Mining Association’s members are constantly soliciting input from local community stakeholders (including tribes) on their projects. He indicated that these efforts include front end consultations. 
  • Litigation Reforms: Committee Members, Mr. Grumet, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Urlich called on the U.S. to adopt litigation reforms for energy and mining projects, including expedited judicial review periods, limited venue shopping, and statutes of limitations. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) asserted that permitting reform will likely be ineffective without litigation reform because endless litigation can prevent energy and mining projects from proceeding.
  • Incentives for U.S. Manufacturing: Mr. Grumet remarked that recently enacted incentives for domestic manufacturing will help to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. He cautioned policymakers against maintaining punitive tariffs and commented that these tariffs will punish U.S. companies for seeking to build up their domestic manufacturing capabilities. He further asserted that the U.S. must be patient in its efforts to bring back infrastructure and intellectual property (IP) to the U.S.
  • Mineral Extraction Capabilities: Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) and Mr. Nolan expressed interest in efforts to improve the technologies for extracting rare earth elements from lignite coal so that the U.S. can perform these extractions in a commercially viable manner. Sen. Hoeven noted how lignite coal is providing low-cost energy and how carbon capture technologies can reduce the environmental impacts of these energy sources. Mr. Nolan remarked that the U.S. will need to increase its research and development (R&D) efforts, feed, capital investments, and permitting speeds to bolster its rare earth production capabilities.
  • FAST-41 Process: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Mr. Grumet expressed support for the FAST-41 program, which provides expedited federal permitting reviews. They stated that this program should be expanded to cover mining projects and Sen. Kelly called for it to be permanently reauthorized. Mr. Grumet also remarked that the U.S. should provide incentives for states to participate in the FAST-41 program. He expressed support for revenue recycling proposals, which would return resources collected from permitting applications to states. He also contended that having the U.S. consult with states and stakeholders early on in the review process will make states more willing to participate in the FAST-41 program.
  • The U.S. Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council’s (FPISC) Role: Sen. Angus King (I-ME) and Mr. Grumet also suggested that the FPISC can serve as the appropriate body to expedite federal permitting processes. Mr. Grumet expressed support for proposals to limit permitting processes to two years and for providing FPISC with the authority to oversee these processes.
  • Delayed Issuance of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Mandated Mining Report: Mr. Nolan noted that the IIJA’s mandated report on potential improvements to the mining process was due on November 15, 2022 and indicated that the DOI has not yet released the report. He commented that this report would be helpful in developing future permitting reform policies. He noted how DOI had delegated the development of this report to their Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Mining Reform. He asserted that this delegation does not comport with the Committee’s directive. He expressed frustration with the DOI for failing to issue this mandated report on schedule and called on the DOI to release this report.
  • Mining Reform Legislation: Full Committee Chairman Manchin and Sen. Cortez Masto expressed interest in working to develop legislation that would establish a royalty system for mining projects on federal lands and require mining companies to have bonds to ensure that unfinished disposal and reclamation work will be completed in the event that the mining company declares bankruptcy. Mr. Nolan expressed the National Mining Association’s willingness to work with the Committee on bipartisan legislation to improve the U.S.’s mining process and to ensure the global competitiveness of the U.S. mining industry. He expressed concerns however over proposals to convert the U.S.’s mining system into a leasing system.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Jason Grumet, CEO, American Clean Power Association
2. Mr. Rich Nolan, President and CEO, National Mining Association
3. Ms. Elizabeth H. Shuler, President, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
4. Mr. Paul Ulrich, Vice President, Jonah Energy, Member, Wyoming Energy Authority Board of Directors

Member Opening Statements:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• He recounted how he had secured a commitment from President Biden and Democratic Congressional Leadership last summer to hold a vote on energy and mineral project permitting reform legislation.
• He mentioned how the U.S. Senate had later held a vote on his proposed permitting reform legislation in December 2022.
  • He indicated that this legislation had received 47 votes (including 40 votes from Democrats and 7 votes from Republicans).
• He commented that this legislation would have set permitting deadlines for energy and mineral projects, expedited litigation, required different agencies to coordinate on reviews, and ensured that the U.S. could get 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas into the market through the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
  • He highlighted how this legislation is the only comprehensive energy permitting reform legislation that has ever received bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate.
  • He also highlighted how this legislation had received support from the majority of Committee’s members, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
• He mentioned how he had recently reintroduced his permitting reform legislation and commented that this reintroduction is meant to revitalize bipartisan negotiations on the topic.
• He acknowledged that while the legislation is imperfect, he stated that this legislation can receive enough votes for passage and provide an improvement over the status quo.
  • He also asserted that the U.S. must pass permitting reform legislation to maintain the U.S.’s status as a global leader.
• He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that its permitting agencies are conducting effective and focused reviews and reaching faster decisions.
  • He further stated that the U.S. must address unnecessary legal challenges to federal permitting decisions.
• He expressed support for an “all of the above” U.S. energy policy and commented that Congress has supported this approach through the Energy Act of 2020, the IIJA, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
• He noted how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that the demand for U.S. fossil fuels (including oil, gas, and coal) will increasingly be driven by U.S. allies and trading partners that want reliable and cleaner energy source suppliers.
  • He commented that this demand will necessitate the construction of pipelines, export terminals, and more energy transportation infrastructure.
  • He warned that the U.S.’s failure to construct this infrastructure will lead U.S. partners to source their energy needs from other countries with different democratic and environmental values.
• He highlighted how FERC Commissioners had recently told the Committee that the U.S. cannot eliminate the use of coal within the near future if it seeks to maintain a reliable electric grid system.
• He also stated that the U.S. will need to mine and process minerals domestically in order to reduce its dependence on China for energy technologies.
  • He warned that the U.S.’s failure to mine and process minerals domestically will cause this dependence to worsen.
• He expressed his disagreement with the Biden administration’s climate change policy agenda and cautioned that this agenda would provide China with control over elements of the U.S. transportation and energy sectors.
• He contended that the U.S.’s current permitting system makes it impossible for the U.S. to produce sufficient energy to satisfy both domestic and global energy demands.
  • He lamented how it takes decades to permit a new mine in the U.S. and commented that this situation forces the U.S. to become reliant on hostile countries for critical needs.
• He noted however that the U.S. can more easily import products containing critical minerals that are mined using environmentally harmful products or processed in China.
• He discussed how the Mountain Valley Pipeline has been undergoing permitting litigation for more than eight years.
  • He indicated that this process has included over eight NEPA reviews and nine court cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as well as siting, permitting, litigation, and decision making on how to pay for long-distance high voltage transmission lines.
• He asserted that the aforementioned challenges threaten the viability of the U.S.’s energy grid system.
• He remarked that certain permitting reforms (such as setting and enforcing deadlines and expediting litigation) will help all sectors while other permitting reforms will need to be sector specific.
  • He commented that no energy sector is immune to permitting challenges and noted how every recent administration and Congress has identified permitting reform as necessary.
• He stated that the U.S.’s permitting problems are worsening and highlighted how the pace of construction for energy pipelines and transmission lines has declined.
  • He mentioned how the U.S. had the lowest amount of FERC-regulated natural gas pipeline infrastructure built in 2022 and the fewest miles of high voltage transmission built in 2021 according to the EIA.
• He remarked that the U.S. can expeditiously build energy pipeline and transmission line infrastructure without bypassing important environmental protections and community input.
  • He noted how Australia and Canada maintain energy permitting processes designed to complete projects within three years or less.
• He also mentioned how the EU had recently issued new permitting timeline targets for energy, manufacturing, and minerals projects.
  • He indicated that these timelines range between nine months and two years.
• He highlighted how federal agencies under the Committee’s jurisdiction perform over 80 percent of NEPA environmental impact statements (EISs) and asserted that the Committee therefore has a responsibility to address permitting reforms for energy and mineral projects.
  • He described EISs as “extremely cumbersome” and commented that EISs are the most intensive form of NEPA reviews intended for major projects with the potential for significant impacts.
  • He indicated that EISs take 4.5 years on average to complete.
• He noted how his permitting reform legislation would set enforceable timelines for federal agencies to complete reviews of energy and mineral projects, limit the length of these reviews, and require federal agencies to coordinate on one government-wide simultaneous review.
  • He also highlighted how his legislation would accelerate the court process for project reviews through requiring courts to set these cases for expedited reviews and reduce deadlines to bring these cases from six years to less than six months.
  • He further commented that his legislation would ensure that simple projects are not subject to prolonged review processes.
• He also commended Committee Republicans, including Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY), for including similar policies in their legislative proposals for permitting reform.
• He then noted how his permitting reform legislation recognizes that states have primary authority to site and allocate the costs for electric transmission projects.
  • He commented however that his legislation has made “reasonable” improvements to FERCs authority to intervene in cases where states cannot reach agreements within one year so that long-distance interstate transmission projects that are necessary for U.S. energy grid reliability can still move forward.
  • He also mentioned how this legislation includes language to ensure that costs are allocated fairly and proportionately.
• He highlighted how six leading oil and gas trade groups had acknowledged the importance of pairing transmission reforms with NEPA improvements and judicial reforms.
  • He called on Congress to negotiate in good faith on federal permitting reform legislation.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• He discussed how permitting challenges have been a longstanding issue for the U.S. and stated that the Biden administration has made these challenges worse.
  • He added that many projects that complete the permitting process may still be subject to costly litigation.
• He remarked that the time and costs associated with energy and mineral projects can lead developers to abandon planned projects.
  • He noted how the Economist had found that more miles of interstate natural gas pipelines had been canceled than had been built over the last several years.
• He stated that these energy and mineral permitting challenges have resulted in higher prices, abandoned projects, and “stubborn” inflation.
• He mentioned how he had recently introduced legislation with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) to expedite the permitting process and asserted that this legislation will preserve environmental safeguards.
  • He also highlighted how the U.S. House of Representatives has passed their own comprehensive permitting reform package and how Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) has reintroduced his own permitting reform legislation.
• He remarked that federal permitting reform legislation must adhere to several fundamental principles.
  • He first stated that such legislation must benefit the entire country and not a narrow range of special interests, favored technologies, or a limited group of projects.
  • He also stated that such legislation must include enforceable timelines to ensure that environmental reviews will not be excessively prolonged.
  • He thirdly stated that such legislation must place limitations on legal challenges to prevent endless litigation intended to derail projects.
  • He lastly stated that such legislation must stop the Executive Branch from “hijacking” the permitting process to advance its own “narrow and frequently extreme” agenda.
• He asserted that federal permitting reform legislation should leave no ambiguity as to what the law requires and remarked that his recently introduced legislation, the SPUR Act, meets the aforementioned criteria.
  • He highlighted how every Republican on the Committee has cosponsored this legislation.
• He stated that the SPUR Act would revitalize the U.S. energy sector, lower energy costs for families, reduce the U.S.’s dependency on China and Russia, and hold the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to their legal obligations to oil, natural gas, and coal leasing on federal lands.
• He also stated that this legislation would ensure access to minerals that are essential for renewable and battery technologies.
  • He discussed how the U.S. and his state of Wyoming have large deposits of minerals and commented that the responsible use of these resources would enhance U.S. national security.
• He further stated that the SPUR Act would provide companies with a more predictable permitting process for pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, and electric transmission lines.
• He expressed hope that the Committee can pass bipartisan permitting reform that supports domestic energy and mineral production, creates good paying jobs, reduces consumer prices, and bolsters national security.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Jason Grumet (American Clean Power Association):

• He discussed how Congress had passed “landmark” legislation in 2005 and 2007 that had reclaimed the U.S.’s role as an energy superpower, improved public health, and “dramatically” reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
• He expressed optimism that the U.S. could achieve a “massive breakthrough” in deploying renewable power and storage if it can enact federal permitting reform legislation.
  • He commented that the opening statements from Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) demonstrate that a bipartisan consensus on this topic is forming.
  • He also applauded the Committee for its passage of the Energy Act of 2020 and commented that this law supports an “all of the above” energy innovation policy.
• He expressed support for various NEPA reform proposals under consideration and noted how these reforms would provide time limits on NEPA actions, eliminate duplicative reviews, and empower lead federal agencies to drive the NEPA review process.
  • He indicated that these reform proposals include the Building American Energy Security Act of 2023, the RESTART Act, the Lower Energy Costs Act, and the Biden administration’s recent proposal.
• He also asserted that the aforementioned NEPA reform proposals would not undermine “bedrock” protections in U.S. environmental laws.
• He remarked however that NEPA reform alone would be insufficient for strengthening and expanding the U.S.’s electricity grid.
  • He stated that the U.S.’s failure to strengthen and expand its transmission capacity will result in the U.S. failing to meet its climate, economic, and security goals.
  • He also expressed concerns over the U.S.’s challenges in transferring power between regions and commented that these challenges limit the U.S.’s ability to respond to emergency situations.
• He mentioned how his organization, the American Clean Power Association (ACP), had developed its own discussion framework for addressing permitting, planning, and payment issues related to electricity projects.
• He then noted how the U.S. had never successfully used its backstop authority to permit projects of national significance.
  • He added that it would still take a decade or longer to site and permit a long-distance transmission line if the authority were to be employed.
• He remarked that ACP is proposing reforms that would provide timely reviews of electricity projects while also respecting the role of states in the permitting process.
  • He indicated that ACP’s proposal would reduce the time required to permit interstate transmission lines from a decade to between three and four years.
• He stated that providing FERC similar plenary authority to directly permit interstate transmission lines would be the most direct and efficient way to increase grid resilience and low-cost clean power.
• He then commented that while FERC No. 1000 had created a workable approach for the transmission lines that exist within a region, he asserted that the process for planning for transmission that spans more than one region is unworkable. 
  • He discussed how this process requires separate approvals for each region and then a coordinated interregional approval process.
  • He contended that this coordinated interregional approval process is “designed to fail” because of variations in evaluation metrics across regions and the absence of an obligation and incentive to consider the full project benefits.
• He further noted how ACP’s permitting reform proposal would obligate regions to jointly evaluate transmission lines use a set of FERC-established criteria so that the true benefits of these lines will be appreciated.
• He acknowledged that there have been recent criticisms of ACP’s permitting reform proposal (including from some ACP members) and noted how these critics allege that a well-designed permitting structure will still be vulnerable to parochial interests.
  • He also mentioned how there are arguments that ACP’s permitting reform proposal should include a minimum transfer capacity requirement and additional criticisms that the proposal would infringe upon state and federal prerogatives.
• He commented that while the ACP’s permitting reform proposal may be imperfect, he argued that it constitutes an improvement over the status quo.
  • He expressed ACP’s interest in working with the Committee to develop consensus permitting reforms that can be enacted into law.

Mr. Rich Nolan (National Mining Association):

• He called domestic mining conducted under “world leading” environmental, safety, and labor standards essential to virtually every supply chain and commented that the right policies are needed to unlock the full potential of the U.S.’s domestic resources.
  • He noted how uranium and coal (which supply 40 percent of the U.S.’s energy) are key sources of baseload power.
  • He also noted how copper, cobalt, lithium, and silver are essential components for EV batteries and the electrification of the U.S. economy.
  • He further noted how 70 percent of the world’s steel requires metallurgical coal for its production and indicated that it takes 100 metric tons of metallurgical coal to build a wind turbine.
  • He lastly noted how barium molybdates support oil and gas production.
• He contended that a strong domestic mining industry is critical for the U.S.’s energy security.
• He then discussed how the U.S. mining industry provides high-paying, stable, and unionized jobs that provide generous benefits.
  • He testified that the U.S. mining industry employs more than 475,000 people who make an average wage of $85,000 per year.
  • He added that the U.S. mining industry supports an additional 800,000 indirect jobs.
• He also noted how the U.S. mining industry generates more than $119 billion in revenues each year for the U.S. economy and pays more than $18 billion in federal, state, and local taxes.
  • He added that federal coal production had produced over $576 million in revenue for federal and state governments in 2022.
• He remarked that demand for mined materials is expanding “exponentially” and commented that there have not occurred corresponding actions to support the increased production of these mined materials.
• He expressed concerns over how the U.S. has increased its reliance on foreign sources for mined materials and noted how the U.S. had reached its highest level of mineral import reliance in 2022.
  • He commented that the U.S. has become more dependent than ever on China and Russia for mined materials and that the U.S. should be sourcing these materials domestically.
• He stated that each new announcement of a blocked domestic mine weakens the U.S.’s global competitiveness and national security.
  • He asserted that the U.S.’s failure to adopt permitting reform legislation will exacerbate these problems.
• He asserted that it will be meaningless to provide additional funding or tax incentives for programs that will never receive federal approval.
• He noted how it takes the U.S. an average of ten years to permit new mines and indicated that this constitutes one of the longest permitting timelines in the world.
  • He asserted that the U.S. can pursue mining projects while still protecting the environment.
• He remarked that the U.S.’s “unwieldy and needlessly complex” permitting process can subject promising mining projects to duplicative, endless, and costly reviews.
• He discussed how U.S. coal producers on federal lands are experiencing a moratorium on leasing for thermal coal and delays in granting metallurgical coal leases.
  • He noted how FERC has warned that these policies threaten the reliability of the U.S.’s energy grid.
• He remarked that the current federal permitting system is not working and asserted that Congress has a “unique” opportunity to enact meaningful permitting reform legislation.
• He described the Building American Energy Security Act of 2023, the SPUR Act, and the RESTART Act as “commonsense” solutions to the U.S.’s permitting challenges.
  • He commented that these bills prioritize development and certainty to mining communities, mining companies, manufacturers, and investors.
  • He elaborated that these bills would establish lead agencies for projects, coordinate state and federal processes, improve the timeliness of reviews, maintain mineral access, and address the reliability of the electric grid.

Ms. Elizabeth H. Shuler (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations):

• She remarked that permitting reform is a top priority for her organization, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
• She stated that every job in the energy and manufacturing sectors depends on permitting and siting.
  • She elaborated that permitting and siting are needed to mine critical minerals needed for clean energy technologies, enable electricity transmission (which will support the expansion of renewable energy sources), deploy pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and support manufacturing and power generation projects (including wind, solar, and nuclear energy projects).
• She stated that the U.S. now has an historic opportunity to create more than a million union jobs, improve its infrastructure, and provide secure and domestic supply chains in mining, energy, and manufacturing.
  • She commented that the IIJA, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will support the U.S.’s transition to a clean energy and high technology (high tech) economy.
• She called permitting reform “absolutely necessary” to fully realize the job creation and emissions reduction objectives of the aforementioned laws.
  • She commented that the full implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 alone will create more than one million new jobs and reduce economy-wide emissions.
• She warned however that the absence of permitting reforms will result in more modest job creation and can lead to greater emissions.
• She discussed how the TransWest Express Transmission Project is a $3 billion transmission line that will add 3,000 megawatts of transmission capacity across four states to ship more renewable power to areas of high demand in the West.
  • She indicated that this Project’s construction alone will create approximately 700 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) jobs.
• She noted how this Project had taken 18 years to obtain final permitting approval and commented that this lengthy process had resulted in additional costs for the Project’s developers and lost economic opportunities for workers.
  • She asserted that timely permitting processes are key to ensuring the safety of the U.S.’s water supply and infrastructure and promoting economic growth.
• She remarked that the U.S. can make its permitting processes more effective and efficient and provide quality union jobs for all Americans (including underrepresented and vulnerable groups).
• She asserted however that permitting reforms should not come at the expense of the rights of states, tribes, communities, and other stakeholders to formally intervene in the permitting process.
  • She called public participation a key feature of the permitting process and stated that Congress should preserve this feature as it works to reform the permitting process.
• She remarked that there are three things that permitting reform must provide: certainty around the finality of decisions, speedy decisions, and consistent processes.

Mr. Paul Ulrich (Jonah Energy, Wyoming Energy Authority Board of Directors):

• He discussed how his company, Jonah Energy, works to produce natural gas in an environmentally responsible manner and indicated that the company extracts natural gas from federal lands.
  • He also noted how the Wyoming Energy Authority is responsible for advancing the state’s diverse energy strategy and is working to achieve a “net-zero” energy mix.
• He remarked that unexpectedly long review times, endless litigation, and ever-changing regulations are “severely” limiting clean natural gas projects, wind projects, carbon dioxide sequestration efforts, pipelines, and wildlife conservation efforts.
  • He stated that Congress has an opportunity to support a cleaner and a low-carbon economy through meaningful permitting reform.
• He discussed how the U.S. needs affordable and reliable energy and commented that these needs are growing.
• He stated that the U.S. must acknowledge that all energy sources have an environmental impact and should stop being biased against hydrocarbon energy sources.
  • He called on the U.S. to recognize the work being performed to provide natural gas that is produced in a less impactful way.
• He asserted that the U.S. must address permitting and litigation challenges that hamper the U.S.’s ability to extract critical resources.
  • He also called on the U.S. to enhance its LNG export capacity in order to provide low-emission natural gas produced domestically to the world.
• He remarked that Western states with a large amount of public land are at a decided disadvantage to other parts of the U.S.
• He stated that leasing, environmental reviews, permitting, and any source of energy development can take years longer to complete on public lands compared to private lands.
  • He highlighted how the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Project and the TransWest Express Transmission Project have each taken over ten years to complete their permitting processes.
• He noted how the environmental analysis timeframes for oil and gas projects have ranged from 6 to 12 years over the previous 15 years.
  • He also highlighted how the average time to process an application for permit to drill (APD) has increased by 124 percent between 2018 and 2022.
• He further stated that the effects of litigation on federal oil and gas permitting in Wyoming are significant and mentioned how there have been several lawsuits challenging lease sales.
• He indicated that this litigation has caused the BLM to not approve drilling permits or any other actions on 2.1 million acres of oil and gas leases in Wyoming.
  • He called the BLM’s lack of action new and unprecedented and commented that this has effectively halted any development on valid existing rights “with no end in sight.”
• He remarked that additional natural gas pipelines would enable the U.S. to develop a global market for low-emission U.S. natural gas that will support global climate change goals.
  • He also commented that this increased natural gas production would satisfy the needs of U.S. allies for a reliable source of energy.
  • He further asserted that this infrastructure would provide for the potential of green hydrogen and ammonia export.
• He made several recommendations for Congress to support U.S. energy projects.
  • He first recommended that Congress enact “meaningful” leasing and permitting reform.
  • He then recommended that Congress amend, strengthen, and protect energy statutes.
  • He thirdly recommended that Congress limit or eliminate the ability of agencies to enact moratoriums or other administrative barriers.
  • He fourthly recommended that Congress ensure adherence to enforceable deadlines.
  • He fifthly recommended that Congress strengthen the mandate for multiple use on federal lands.
  • He sixthly recommended that Congress expedite judicial review periods, limit venue shopping, and enact “reasonable” statutes of limitations.
  • He seventhly recommended that Congress require federal agencies to “vigorously” defend their decisions in a timely manner.
  • He lastly recommended that Congress prioritize and accelerate approval for new interstate natural gas pipelines, LNG terminals, and related infrastructure.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin asked the witnesses to indicate whether they had observed an uptick in investment interest in U.S. projects since the passage of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that there has been a “surge” in investment activity in the U.S. following the passage of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He mentioned how $150 billion in private sector clean energy technology investments have been announced in the previous nine months. He added that there have been 47 announced domestic manufacturing facilities between September 2022 and April 2023. He commented that ACP must now issue its reports regarding these new investments on a weekly basis (rather than a monthly basis) because of the sheer volume of new investment activity. He remarked however that these investments will become more difficult to make unless the U.S. enacts permitting reforms.
• Chairman Manchin cautioned that much of the recently allocated federal funding will not be disbursed if permitting barriers remain. He noted how this funding must be allocated within a set period and commented that permitting barriers jeopardize these allocations.
  • Mr. Nolan indicated that there had occurred an uptick in investments for U.S. mines that can provide battery materials. He stated however that permitting challenges have impeded the opening of these mines. He noted how only two of these mines have been approved and indicated that the rest of these prospective mines remain in the exploration phase.
• Chairman Manchin asked Mr. Nolan to confirm that renewable resource extraction activities have increased and that fossil resource extraction activities have lagged behind these renewable resource extraction activities.
  • Mr. Nolan confirmed Chairman Manchin’s statement.
  • Ms. Shuler remarked that interest for investments in U.S. projects has increased since the passage of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. She stated that the AFL-CIO has been working to increase workforce training and readiness to support these new projects. She asserted that permitting reform is needed to ensure that these investment promises will be fulfilled.
  • Mr. Urlich remarked that there is a desire to pursue new energy projects following the passage of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He stated that his state of Wyoming is eager and ready to pursue clean energy projects. He commented that these projects can involve natural gas, coal, and wind.
• Chairman Manchin remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 balances the U.S.’s current energy needs with investments to support future energy technologies. He commented that this approach seeks to protect against energy grid disruptions within the near term. He asked the witnesses to identify their top three permitting impediments that need to be addressed through federal legislation. He requested that the witnesses provide these answers later and stated that these answers will inform the Committee’s development of bipartisan permitting reform legislation. He expressed his intention to develop this legislation prior to the Congressional recess in August. He then expressed frustration with the U.S.’s current policies toward hard rock mining. He noted how hard rock mining companies are not required to pay royalties for their extractions on federal lands or provide bonding for their mining tailings. He asked Mr. Nolan to indicate whether federal mining reform legislation should address these issues.
  • Mr. Nolan expressed the National Mining Association’s willingness to work with the Committee on bipartisan legislation to improve the U.S.’s mining process and to ensure the global competitiveness of the U.S. mining industry.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to remark that mining waste should be properly disposed of and reclaimed. He also stated that mining companies should maintain bonds to ensure that unfinished disposal and reclamation work will be completed if the mining company declares bankruptcy. He further asserted that companies that engage in mining on federal lands should pay royalties to the federal government for their extracted minerals.
  • Mr. Nolan reiterated the National Mining Association’s willingness to work with the Committee on bipartisan mining reform legislation.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• Ranking Member Barrasso noted how oil and gas projects on federal lands faces several obstacles. He commented that one of the most significant obstacles to developing these projects is the uncertainty surrounding the BLM’s lease sales. He asserted that the BLM under the Biden administration has defied the law and noted how the BLM has only held one lease sale in the previous nine quarters. He asked Mr. Urlich to address how the BLM’s leasing process could be improved to provide certainty for energy producers.
  • Mr. Urlich remarked that the BLM should adhere to its mandate to hold quarterly lease sales. He also noted how prospective energy projects must undergo multiple NEPA analyses. He stated that there should exist up-to-date, effective, and timely resource management plans to address all federal resources and to expedite lands for lease reviews.
• Ranking Member Barrasso noted how the BLM must conduct multiple rounds of environmental analyses before it can hold an oil and gas lease sale. He indicated that these analyses determine which federal lands can be leased and the conditions for these leases. He also noted how the BLM will conduct additional rounds of environmental analysis before it can approve drilling permits on these leases. He asked Mr. Urlich to discuss how this process of conducting multiple rounds of environmental analysis for oil and gas production on federal lands is duplicative. He also asked Mr. Urlich to provide recommendations for how Congress can fix this process.
  • Mr. Urlich called the environmental review process for oil and gas projects involving federal lands “laborious.” He noted how federal lands must undergo environmental reviews before the lands can be leased. He further noted how there are “overreaching” resource management plans for federal lands that are meant to guide development and conservation of resources. He discussed how parties that receive leases for federal lands must undergo either an environmental assessment (EA) process or an EIS process. He indicated that parties that complete these processes must then complete an APD, which can involve another EA or EIS. He remarked that stronger and more effective resource management plans that could be tiered from would help to expedite the environmental review process.
• Ranking Member Barrasso then noted how the Biden administration is seeking to achieve a carbon-free electricity grid by 2035 and a net-zero carbon emissions economy by 2050. He indicated that the Biden administration seeks to reach this goal through the widespread adoption of EVs and solar and wind electricity generation. He noted how EVs use over six times more minerals than vehicles with internal combustion engines, how solar panels require approximately five times more minerals than natural gas generation on a per megawatt-hour basis, and how offshore wind turbines require approximately 12 times more minerals than natural gas generation on a per megawatt-hour basis. He asked Mr. Nolan to indicate whether it is feasible under current permitting laws to achieve the Biden administration’s carbon emissions reduction goals without dramatically increasing the U.S.’s dependence on China and Russia.
  • Mr. Nolan noted how global investments in U.S. mining have fallen by half over the previous 20 years. He also mentioned how industry surveys have found that the U.S. has lost attractiveness as a mining investment location because of the U.S.’s permitting uncertainty and the U.S.’s regulatory and litigation environments. He highlighted how China has worked over 20 years to increase its investments in both domestic and foreign mining and processing operations. He commented that these long running investments have put China at a competitive advantage within the mining space. He asserted that the U.S. must swiftly work to regain market share in the mining sector to achieve its electrification needs.
• Ranking Member Barrasso asked Mr. Nolan to discuss the importance of federal lands access for future domestic mineral production.
  • Mr. Nolan called access to federal lands “critically important” for future domestic mineral production. He noted how the U.S. cannot dictate where its minerals are located and stated that the U.S. maintains the highest labor and environmental standards globally.
• Ranking Member Barrasso asked Mr. Grumet to indicate whether he disagrees with Mr. Nolan’s previous responses.
  • Mr. Grumet expressed agreement with the previous comments from both Ranking Member Barrasso and Mr. Nolan. He remarked that the U.S. will need to make significant investments in infrastructure, mining, production, and manufacturing to meet its climate change and security goals.

Sen. Angus King (I-ME):

• Sen. King highlighted how none of the Committee Members or the hearing’s witnesses have offered proposals to reduce the U.S.’s environmental standards as part of permitting reform. He asserted that high environmental standards and timely and predictable permitting processes are not mutually exclusive objectives. He remarked that there appears to exist broad agreement regarding the need for deadlines within permitting processes, some limitations on the length of litigation, and the adoption of more parallel review processes. He remarked that mining and manufacturing will be key to achieving the U.S.’s environmental goals and emphasized that lithium mining is necessary for EV manufacturing. He raised concerns over how 87 percent of the processed lithium currently used for EV batteries comes from China and called this a national security issue. He also lamented how it can take over a decade to build a new transmission line within the U.S. He then asked Mr. Grumet to indicate whether the FPISC can serve as the appropriate body to expedite federal permitting processes.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that the FPISC has proven to be “shockingly effective” and highlighted how the FPISC had played a key role in advancing the SunZia Southwest Transmission Project. He expressed support for proposals to limit permitting processes to two years and for empowering the FPISC to oversee these processes.
• Sen. King asked Mr. Grumet to comment on proposals that would shorten the period for litigation to challenge a permitting process from years to months.
  • Mr. Grumet indicated that while ACP does not have a formal position on judicial reform, he stated that a six-year window to challenge a permitting process seems unnecessary. He mentioned how the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act had limited the window to challenge the permitting process for transportation projects to two years and called this limitation constructive. He stated that while he could not recommend a precise window for challenging permitting processes, he reiterated his view that the current six-year window is likely too long.
• Sen. King then remarked that current federal permitting challenges likely deter many parties from pursuing new energy and mining projects and commented that the extent to which these projects are going unpursued remains unknown. He expressed his interest in working to support the Committee’s efforts to develop federal permitting reform legislation.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS):

• Sen. Hyde-Smith discussed how permitting delays have adversely impacted her state of Mississippi’s energy production, which has driven up consumer energy prices. She remarked that the U.S. should streamline its offshore oil and gas leasing and permitting processes, NEPA reviews, and onshore electric transmission permitting processes. She then discussed how there are proposals under consideration that would limit the role of states in the permitting process for transmission facility projects deemed to be in the national interest. She asked Mr. Grumet to discuss the roles that states should have in planning electric transmission projects. She also asked Mr. Grumet to indicate whether it is appropriate to reduce or eliminate a state’s ability to participate in such planning, especially if the customers that they represent will be required to pay for a portion of the project’s cost.
  • Mr. Grumet described the U.S.’s current power grid as fundamentally broken and balkanized. He commented that this balkanized power grid prevents the U.S. from transmitting energy across regions during periods of emergency, which can result in fatalities. He stated that the U.S. must work to connect these power grids and asserted that current permitting processes do not create incentives for different regions to work together. He contended that while the status quo does not work, he acknowledged that a federal preemption of permitting for electric transmission projects is not politically viable. He contended that states should thus continue to oversee these projects. He also stated that the U.S. should establish federal siting backstops to ensure that these projects can make progress in the event of state inaction. He asserted that this approach would not circumvent the rights of states in overseeing electric transmission projects. He then remarked that regions have a role to play regarding cost allocations for electric transmission projects. He asserted however that regions should not be allowed to imperil U.S. energy security as a result of their inaction on these projects. He stated that Congress should work to develop a solution that balances federal needs with the rights of states to oversee electric transmission projects.
• Sen. Hyde-Smith asked Mr. Grumet to address how transmission planners determine whether an electric transmission project is a high impact transmission project or of national interest.
  • Mr. Grumet expressed support for the criteria for determining a national interest project that was set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and reinforced in the IIJA. He stated however that these criteria do not dictate approval for electric transmission projects. He remarked that all states should consider the economic development, job, safety, security, resilience, and reliability benefits that a project would provide to both the states themselves and their regions. He asserted that states should consider these benefits in a standardized and coordinated way. He stated that there is currently no incentive for any region to consider the full benefits of an electric transmission project and commented that this dynamic harms the entire country.
• Sen. Hyde-Smith asked Mr. Grumet to indicate whether the promoters of an electric transmission project should be required to demonstrate that their proposed projects would resolve a specific and identified customer need.
  • Mr. Grumet stated that each proposed electric transmission project must demonstrate that its benefits to customers exceed its costs. He asserted however that electric transmission projects may have benefits beyond their impacts on electricity rates. He elaborated that these benefits can include the avoidance of electricity outages, the ability to receive power from other regions in the event of a natural disaster, the capacity to support new industries, and the ability to receive low-cost power from other regions. He remarked that policy conversations that consider these additional benefits can protect shareholders and consumers.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ):

• Sen. Kelly mentioned how he had supported the permanent reauthorization of the FAST-41 permitting process, which he described as a critical tool for helping large projects to navigate the federal permitting process. He called it important for the federal permitting process to not needlessly delay projects that can help to secure domestic supplies of critical minerals. He commented that these critical minerals will be key to combating climate change. He then discussed how the South32 Hermosa Critical Minerals Project is set to become the first mining project added to the FAST-41 permitting process. He indicated that this Project is a proposed zinc and manganese mining and processing operation located in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. He highlighted how demand for manganese from the battery sector is predicted to increase at the fastest rate of any of the industry’s key metals. He noted how the South32 Hermosa Critical Minerals Project is the only advanced mine development project in the nation that can produce two federally designated critical minerals. He stated that this Project is therefore essential for securing the U.S.’s domestic supply of critical minerals. He remarked that making the environmental review and permitting process for this type of project more transparent, timely, and predictable will help the U.S. to establish itself as a responsible producer of critical minerals and renewable energy. He asked Mr. Grumet to address how the expansion of the FAST-41 program into mine approval would benefit the clean power sector. He also asked Mr. Grumet to indicate whether the FAST-41 program will strengthen the U.S.’s supply chain with domestic resources.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that the U.S.’s capacity to address its economic, climate change, and security needs will require more mining (particularly of critical minerals). He commented that the U.S. cannot achieve its goals for vehicle electrification and battery storage without new mining projects (including the South32 Hermosa Critical Minerals Project). He stated that the FAST-41 program has a proven track record of success and should be extended to cover mining projects.
• Sen. Kelly asked Mr. Grumet to indicate how much time the FAST-41 program typically saves.
  • Mr. Grumet stated that the review process under the FAST-41 program typically takes two years to complete.
• Sen. Kelly asked Mr. Grumet to provide recommendations for how Congress can incentivize states to participate in the FAST-41 program to ensure timely deployments of their energy and mining projects.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that the U.S. should provide incentives for states to participate in the FAST-41 program. He expressed support for revenue recycling proposals, which he explained would return resources collected from permitting applications to states. He also contended that having the U.S. consult with states and stakeholders early on in the review process will make states more willing to participate in the FAST-41 program.
• Sen. Kelly then recounted how both the Navajo Generating Station and the Kayenta Mining Project had closed in his state of Arizona. He asked Ms. Shuler to discuss how permitting reform is connected to well-paying jobs in communities that may have previously experienced energy and mining project closures.
  • Mr. Shuler remarked that there must exist the promise of available high-wage union jobs as many older energy assets are retired. She stated that upcoming federal investments (particularly from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) can support new employment opportunities in areas that have experienced energy facility closures. She asserted that there should be high-wage standards attached to these new project opportunities.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):

• Sen. Murkowski expressed optimism that the Committee can develop and pass federal permitting reform legislation. She highlighted how the IIJA had included some “common sense” mineral permitting reforms that were based on the American Mineral Security Act. She asked Mr. Nolan to indicate whether the Biden administration had taken “meaningful” actions to make use of its new authorities under the IIJA to streamline permitting reviews. She also asked Mr. Nolan to indicate whether the U.S. can take additional actions to address current permitting challenges under existing laws.
  • Mr. Nolan first thanked Sen. Murkowski for her work to include permitting reforms as part of the IIJA. He noted however that the IIJA’s mandated report on potential improvements to the mining process was due on November 15, 2022 and indicated that the DOI has not yet released the report. He commented that this report would be helpful in developing future permitting reform policies. He noted how DOI had delegated the development of this report to their IWG on Mining Reform. He asserted that this delegation does not comport with the Committee’s directive. He expressed frustration with the DOI for failing to issue this mandated report on schedule and called on the DOI to release this report.
• Sen. Murkowski then discussed how Congress is currently considering four main permitting reform bills: the Lower Energy Costs Act, the Building American Energy Security Act of 2023, the SPUR Act, and the RESTART Act. She commented that while these four bills offer many beneficial proposals, she asserted that Congress will need to reconcile these bills into a single bill in order to advance permitting reform legislation. She asked the witnesses to indicate whether there are policies that should not be included as part of federal permitting reform legislation.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that there exists consensus around limiting the time of permitting reviews, avoiding duplication in the permitting review process, and reforming cost allocation processes (especially for transmission projects). He stated that the U.S. could pursue unwise reforms in any of these areas and called on the U.S. to prudently approach to these issues. He asserted that the U.S. can perform permitting reviews within two-year periods without impeding the ability of states, localities, and tribes to participate in these reviews. He recommended that Congress prioritize the passage of incremental reforms in the near-term and not pursue overly ambitious legislation.
  • Mr. Nolan expressed agreement with Mr. Grumet’s response. He remarked that there exists a “massive consensus” being formed on permitting reform that can serve as the foundation for future reforms. He stated that Congress should take an incremental approach to permitting reform. He also raised concerns over proposals to turn the U.S.’s mining system into a leasing system. He asserted that a leasing system would be “devastating” to the U.S. mining industry.
  • Mr. Shuler also expressed agreement with Mr. Grumet’s response. She stated that while states, localities, and tribes need the ability to participate in the permitting reviews, she asserted that there must exist strict timelines for these reviews to ensure that projects are actually pursued. She commented that these projects are needed for job creation purposes.
  • Mr. Urlich remarked that Congress should not create additional levels of bureaucracy as part of any permitting reform legislation. He attributed the U.S.’s current permitting challenges to too much bureaucracy.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

• Sen. Cantwell discussed how hydropower accounts for one-third of the renewable power generated within the U.S. and two-thirds of the renewable power generated within her state of Washington. She asserted that the U.S. could not achieve its net-zero emissions goals without maintaining its existing hydroelectric generating capacity. She also highlighted how hydropower provides firm and dispatchable power, which can compensate for interment energy sources. She noted however that current licenses for over 450 hydropower facilities, including pumped storage projects, will expire in 2035. She indicated that these expirations would put 17 gigawatts of clean energy in jeopardy. She mentioned how Washington has 18 hydropower facilities that will expire in 2035 and indicated that these facilities represent 1.3 gigawatts of energy capacity. She noted how the licensing process for hydropower facilities takes seven years on average to complete. She mentioned how she had just introduced comprehensive hydropower licensing reform legislation with Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) and highlighted how this proposal has support from a wide variety of bipartisan stakeholders. She stated that this legislation would streamline the permitting process, increase tribal engagement and oversight, expedite low-impact projects, consider future climate change impacts, promote healthy habits, and coordinate federal decisions. She asked Mr. Grumet and Ms. Shuler to indicate whether baseload power will play a key role in the U.S. energy grid’s future. She also asked Mr. Grumet and Ms. Shuler to indicate whether her proposed legislation should be part of the permitting reform process.
  • Mr. Grumet called clean non-carbon baseload power essential and described hydropower as the “unsung hero” of the U.S.’s energy system. He expressed appreciation for Sen. Cantwell’s leadership on hydropower issues. He stated that the U.S. cannot lose any of its non-carbon power sources and stated that Sen. Cantwell’s legislation would be key to maintaining the U.S.’s energy reliability. He expressed the ACP’s support for Sen. Cantwell’s efforts to reform the permitting process for hydropower projects.
• Sen. Cantwell also asked Ms. Shuler to indicate whether she supports efforts to add more transmission capacity to the U.S. energy grid. She commented that the Lower Energy Costs Act does not address transmission permitting reform.
  • Ms. Shuler mentioned how she had grown up in the Pacific northwest and thus has strong awareness of the role that hydropower plays in the region. She stated that the inability to expand transmission capacity is a major source of frustration. She remarked that the U.S. must improve the process for permitting hydropower facilities and highlighted how these facilities must be relicensed on a periodic basis. She expressed support for efforts to improve the relicensing process for these facilities.
• Sen. Cantwell asked Ms. Shuler to indicate whether transmission permitting reforms should be considered as part of hydropower permitting reform legislation.
  • Ms. Shuler answered affirmatively.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT):

• Sen. Daines remarked that NEPA’s regulations impose significant time and cost burdens on energy and mineral projects. He noted how the law’s EIS requirements add $4 million on average to the cost of projects and how EISs take 4.5 years to complete. He further noted how it routinely takes over ten years and $1 billion in startup capital before a company can commence hard rock mining extraction in the U.S. (assuming that the company successfully completes the permitting process). He discussed how many energy and mining projects, including the Libby Exploration Project in his state of Montana, have been engaged in “endless” cycles of permitting and litigation. He highlighted how many of these projects facing permitting and litigation challenges are necessary for producing the minerals and metals required for renewable energy technologies. He stated that these permitting and litigation challenges force the U.S. to depend on foreign countries, such as China and the DRC, for critical minerals and materials. He asserted that the U.S. needs to enact comprehensive permitting reform legislation. He also stated this legislation must include forestry and hydropower reforms. He indicated that the Committee will soon consider his bipartisan legislation to address the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service decision. He stated that this legislation must be part of federal permitting reform efforts. He then mentioned how he had recently introduced the Community and Hydropower Improvement Act with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). He stated that this bill would streamline the permitting and licensing process for hydropower projects, increase tribal consultation for these projects, and balance stream and species protection with increased support of hydropower protection. He noted how hydropower produces one-third of all renewable energy and over 6 percent of all electricity in the U.S. He asserted that the Community and Hydropower Improvement Act must be included as part of any ultimate federal permitting reform legislation. He then stated that pumped hydropower storage is the largest and most valuable storage solution for intermittent wind and solar energy. He noted how the Community and Hydropower Improvement Act would create an expedited three-year process for reviewing pumped storage projects. He asked Mr. Grumet to discuss the importance of including hydropower reforms as part of federal permitting reform efforts. He asked Mr. Grumet to specifically address the need to expedite pumped hydropower storage projects.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that hydropower will be key to enabling the U.S. to address its security, economic, and climate change challenges. He stated that pumped storage hydropower is an essential component of the U.S.’s energy transition because it ensures reliable energy that can counteract fluctuations in energy production from more intermittent energy sources. He expressed optimism that battery storage technology can also counteract these fluctuations in energy production from intermittent energy sources. He then remarked that there now exists a broad consensus regarding the need to deploy new energy and mineral projects, which makes permitting reform more politically viable. He stated that there appears to now exist general consensus that two years is an appropriate length of time for reviewing energy and mineral projects. He commented that this two-year timeframe would provide sufficient opportunities for stakeholder input.
• Sen. Daines then asserted that permitting reform without litigation reform would be “pointless.” He commented that the length of time it takes to obtain a permit is ultimately irrelevant if “radical” outside groups endlessly litigate the permits. He stated that the U.S. faces significant litigation problems for its mining projects and highlighted how the proposed Rock Creek Mine has faced ongoing litigation since 1987. He asked Mr. Nolan to address how the U.S. could fix the litigation problems associated with mining projects. He also asked Mr. Nolan to indicate whether litigation reform must be a central component of permitting reform.
  • Mr. Nolan expressed agreement with Sen. Daines’s assertion that permitting reform must include litigation reform. He noted how the federal permitting process currently takes between seven and ten years to complete and how projects tend to experience between three and five years of additional litigation. He stated that legal challenges to projects should be within scope, targeted to “substantial matters,” and occur at a project’s outset. He warned that any permitting reforms would have a limited impact if litigation reforms do not accompany them.
• Sen. Daines reiterated his concern that permitting reform will ultimately be ineffective if projects continue to face unnecessary litigation.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR):

• Sen. Wyden discussed how there now exists general acceptance that the U.S.’s energy policy should be technology neutral, that the U.S.’s energy system should be built around the private sector, and that carbon emissions reductions should result in tax savings. He raised concerns however that permitting challenges and delays are preventing the U.S. from pursuing cleaner energy sources, including solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. He asked Ms. Shuler to discuss the benefits that permitting reform would provide to the AFL-CIO’s union members and families.
  • Ms. Shuler thanked the Committee for considering the perspectives of workers in its development of federal permitting reform legislation. She remarked that the U.S.’s failure to move forward on energy and mining projects can demoralize workers and asserted that the U.S. can pursue permitting reform while accounting for stakeholder input on the projects. She emphasized that energy and mining workers live in the communities where the projects occur. She also noted how it takes time to train workers for energy and mining projects. She commented that permitting process certainty will lead project developers to invest in workforce training efforts, which will in turn result in high quality jobs.
• Sen. Wyden remarked that the needs of workers, energy security, and a sensible climate change policy are not mutually exclusive objectives.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s purpose is to provide the U.S. with energy security. He expressed frustration that the Biden administration has not emphasized this purpose and has instead been overly focused on climate change. He asserted that the U.S. cannot meet its energy needs without using clean fossil fuels. He remarked that the U.S. can use fossil fuels while also investing in innovative technologies that can ultimately replace fossil fuels. He stated however that the U.S. cannot eliminate its use of fossil fuels without having an available replacement energy source. He commented that Europe had sought to eliminate its use of fossil fuels and has subsequently experienced energy problems.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO):

• Sen. Hawley first commended the work of U.S. rail workers (who are AFL-CIO members) in transporting much of the U.S.’s critical energy supply. He criticized Congress for forcing rail workers into accepting a labor deal that had not provided the workers with additional sick days. He called it hypocritical for the federal government to not provide rail workers with additional sick days when many federal workers are still engaging in remote work out of concern that they might become sick themselves. He then asked Ms. Shuler to discuss the labor protections that U.S. workers receive when working on mining projects.
  • Ms. Shuler highlighted how the mining industry is one of the most union dense industries and attributed the mining industry’s safety protections to this unionization. She commented that labor unions have negotiated strong safety protections as part of mining employment contracts.
• Sen. Hawley highlighted how much of the U.S.’s supply of critical minerals comes from Chinese-operated mines in the DRC. He noted how these mines often employ child labor and have very poor conditions. He asked Ms. Shuler to indicate whether the U.S.’s labor protections are far superior to the DRC’s labor protections.
  • Ms. Shuler answered affirmatively and asserted that this difference in labor conditions underscores the need for a more robust domestic critical mineral supply chain.
• Sen. Hawley expressed agreement with Ms. Shuler’s response. He criticized the Biden administration for its recent signing of an agreement to fund critical mining projects in the DRC while simultaneously denying permits for domestic mining projects. She asked Ms. Shuler to indicate whether the U.S. has too many good-paying union jobs.
  • Ms. Shuler commented that the U.S. can never have enough good-paying union jobs.
• Sen. Hawley recounted how he had recently advocated to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland that the U.S. expand its mining projects. He also mentioned how he had highlighted the job creation benefits of these projects. He indicated however that Secretary Haaland had noted that the U.S. already has a significant number of vacancies in its labor market. He called Secretary Haaland’s response “outrageous.” He asserted that the U.S. needs more good paying jobs, which necessitates the passage of federal permitting reform. He thanked the AFL-CIO for its work to support the domestic mining of critical minerals. He then discussed how Invenergy is working to build the Green Belt Express Project, which is a wind energy transmission project that would traverse his state of Missouri. He noted how this Project has been subjected to multiple permitting processes within Missouri and commented that this Project likely faces permitting requirements in other states. He asked Mr. Grumet to indicate whether states should possess the authority to review and grant approvals for transmission projects.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that states must have a role in approving transmission projects. He stated however that this role must account for national interests. He noted how the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had indicated that there are transmission interests that are in the national interest. He stated that the U.S. must be able to transmit electricity across states to ensure continued access to electricity. He asserted that the U.S. currently maintains a “balkanized” system for approving transmission projects, which harms Americans. He stated however that the U.S. should not federalize its system for approving transmission projects and can instead make reforms to balance the needs of states and the federal government in approving transmission projects. He commented that these reforms would reduce electricity disruptions and provide clean power.
• Sen. Hawley expressed agreement with Mr. Grumet’s statement that the U.S. should not federalize its approval process for transmission projects. He called it critical for state agencies (which are responsive to state residents) to have influence over approval decisions for transmission projects.
  • Mr. Grumet expressed optimism that the U.S. can develop a set of criteria for balancing the roles of the federal government and state governments in approving transmission projects.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO):

• Sen. Hickenlooper expressed concerns over how the performance of the U.S. and the EU compares to the performance of China in terms of developing clean energy sources. He highlighted how the amount of rooftop solar panels installed in China in 2022 exceeds the combined amount of rooftop solar panels, utility grade wind energy sources, and utility grade solar energy sources installed by any other country in 2022. He asked Mr. Grumet to address how China had been able to quickly deploy renewable energy sources. She also asked Mr. Grumet to provide recommendations for bolstering the U.S.’s global competitiveness within this space.
  • Mr. Grumet discussed how the U.S. had begun to cede its supply chain capabilities to China 20 years ago. He noted that the goals of having the U.S. establish permanent normalized trade relations with China were to expand U.S. markets and to bolster global human rights. He commented however that the U.S. had ultimately failed to achieve these goals. He asserted that the U.S. must now work to reclaim the supply chain capabilities that it had previously ceded to China. He stated that the U.S. government will need to work with industry in order to achieve this goal. He criticized the policy of punitive tariffs and commented that this approach punishes U.S. companies for seeking to build up their domestic manufacturing capabilities. He remarked that recently enacted incentives for domestic manufacturing will help to bring companies back to the U.S. He mentioned how there have been 30 new domestic solar manufacturing projects announced within the previous nine months. He stated that the U.S. should work to continue this trend. He also asserted that the U.S. must be patient in its efforts to bring back infrastructure and IP to the U.S.
• Sen. Hickenlooper then discussed how part of the TransWest Express Transmission Project will traverse his state of Colorado and expressed optimism that the Project will soon be completed after 18 years. He commented that 18 years is a very long time. He asked Ms. Shuler to discuss the opportunities that large scale transmission line construction can provide to the U.S. labor force and the consequences of not permitting these types of projects to proceed.
  • Ms. Shuler remarked that transmission projects are “critically important” and called on the U.S. to shorten the siting process for these projects. She discussed how the U.S. requires various forms of power to support its needs and noted how this power is often generated in locations that are far away from where power load centers are located. She called it essential for the U.S. to urgently deploy transmission infrastructure. She also remarked that the U.S. must ensure that it possesses the necessary skilled workforce to deploy transmission projects. She noted how transmission infrastructure (especially high voltage transmission infrastructure) is complicated to deploy. She stated that there must exist certainty surrounding the deployment of transmission infrastructure projects so that the U.S. can ensure that it has enough workers to support said projects. She remarked that permitting reform will therefore support the creation of employment opportunities for future workers.
• Sen. Hickenlooper remarked that workforce challenges are present for all of the organizations represented by the witnesses. He expressed interest in educating U.S. students about workforce opportunities so that the U.S. can proactively address these future workforce needs. He expressed concerns that the absence of a skilled workforce could impede the U.S.’s ability to pursue future energy and mineral projects.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND):

• Sen. Hoeven discussed how most North Dakota residents receive their power through rural electrical cooperatives. He explained that rural electric cooperatives are non-profit entities with missions to provide reliable electrical service to rural customers at the lowest possible cost. He mentioned how Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) had recently raised concerns over proposals that would socialize the costs of large transmission lines and potentially force ratepayers to pay more for electricity without any benefits. He also noted how the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) has asserted that any changes to the permitting and siting processes for transmission projects should ensure that costs are only allocated to those that receive tangible and quantifiable benefits. He expressed agreement with the NRECA’s assertion and commented that North Dakota residents should not be forced to pay for transmission projects that only benefit other states. He then discussed his legislation, the BLM Mineral Spacing Act. He explained that this legislation would allow states to manage permitting processes for projects where the federal government owns no surface acres and the federal government owns a minority of the mineral acres. He asked Mr. Urlich to indicate whether he supports this legislation and to address whether this legislation would support energy production efforts.
  • Mr. Urlich indicated that while he is not familiar with the BLM Mineral Spacing Act, he expressed support for the legislation’s concept. He mentioned how there are parts of eastern Wyoming where a federal agency has a minority interest in a leasehold, which can complicate arrangements between private landowners, mineral owners, and project operators. He commented that a federal agency’s involvement in these arrangements can unnecessarily delay permitting processes. He expressed support for the BLM Mineral Spacing Act’s philosophy.
• Sen. Hoeven then discussed how North Dakota has lignite coal that contains high concentrations of rare earth elements. He mentioned how the North Dakota Geologic Survey has released a series of studies examining locations of potential resources. He also noted how the University of North Dakota is researching how to extract rare earth elements more efficiently and affordably from lignite coal. He asked Mr. Nolan to indicate whether leveraging coal-derived rare earth and critical minerals is necessary to address supply chain disruptions and lessen the U.S.’s reliance on China for these minerals.
  • Mr. Nolan answered affirmatively and asserted that the U.S. needs all available mineral sources. He noted how the forecasts indicate that future world resource demands will “explode exponentially” and commented that lignite coal can help to supply future rare earth element needs.
• Sen. Hoeven asked Mr. Nolan to address how the U.S. can improve the technologies for extracting rare earth elements from lignite coal so that the U.S. can perform these extractions in a commercially viable manner. He noted how lignite coal is providing low-cost energy and how carbon capture technologies can reduce the environmental impacts of these energy sources. He commented that the ability to extract rare earth elements from lignite coal will make lignite coal an even better energy source.
  • Mr. Nolan remarked that the U.S. will need to scale up its extraction capabilities and noted how the amount and size of the rare earth elements in lignite coal is very small. He also stated that the U.S. will need to reshore much of its processing capabilities.
• Sen. Hoeven interjected to ask Mr. Nolan to provide solutions for how the U.S. can improve its ability to extract rare earth elements from lignite coal.
  • Mr. Nolan reiterated that the U.S. must invest in domestic processing capabilities for rare earth elements. He noted how the U.S. often must ship rare earth minerals to China for processing and then re-import the elements.
• Sen. Hoeven interjected to ask Mr. Nolan to explain what the processing of rare earth minerals will entail.
  • Mr. Nolan remarked that the U.S. will need to establish facilities that can accept raw rare earth elements and extract the relevant materials so that they are marketable.
• Sen. Hoeven interjected to ask Mr. Nolan to identify the most impactful policy action that the U.S. can take to support domestic rare earth production capabilities.
  • Mr. Nolan remarked that the U.S. must build a robust industry that can accept raw rare earth material and domestically process it.
• Sen. Hoeven interjected to ask Mr. Nolan to indicate whether more R&D will be needed to support domestic rare earth production capabilities.
  • Mr. Nolan remarked that the U.S. will need to increase its R&D efforts, feed, capital investments, and permitting speeds to bolster its rare earth production capabilities.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV):

• Sen. Cortez Masto first expressed optimism that the Committee can develop bipartisan federal permitting reform legislation. She then described her state of Nevada as the “growing nexus” for the U.S.’s clean energy and critical mineral future. She stated that Nevada is the only state that encompasses nearly every facet of the critical mineral and advanced battery economy, including the mining of critical mineral deposits, R&D, processing and manufacturing, and recycling operations. She emphasized that all of these activities are performed in Nevada using union labor. She asserted that the U.S. must take action to address climate change in a manner that makes the U.S. more productive, secure, and self-sufficient. She stated that this will entail domestic critical mineral production. She also asserted that the U.S. can pursue domestic critical mineral production while also engaging with all stakeholders and protecting the environment. She asked the witnesses to indicate whether they disagreed with her position, to which all of the witnesses responded no. She then noted how the Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized the importance of domestically sourced critical minerals. She commented that critical minerals support many modern technologies, including batteries, EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels. She also called critical minerals essential to U.S. national security and economic prosperity. She noted how global demand for critical minerals is expected to “skyrocket” by between 400 percent and 600 percent over the next several decades. She further noted how global demand for lithium and graphite is expected to increase by as much as 4,000 percent. She asked Mr. Nolan to discuss how the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 Rosemont decision impacts the U.S.’s ability to meet the Biden administration’s climate change goals. She also asked Mr. Nolan to address how the Rosemont decision impacts the U.S.’s ability to develop domestic minerals.
  • Mr. Nolan first highlighted how Nevada is the top worldwide destination for minerals investment. He then remarked that the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s Rosemont decision has had a “chilling effect” on the ability of mining projects to expand and proceed. He noted how Sen. Cortez Masto had proposed legislation that would allow for ancillary uses on public lands to ensure that the U.S. can meet its critical mineral needs domestically. He thanked Sen. Cortez Masto for her leadership on this issue.
• Sen. Cortez Masto referenced a recent Las Vegas Sun editorial that had asserted that the mining industry must work harder to address environmental issues and to pressure industry bad actors to reform their practices. She also mentioned how this editorial had noted that domestic mining will be key for the U.S. to achieve its environmental policy goals. She asked Mr. Nolan to discuss how the U.S. mining industry will work with other stakeholders (including labor, clean energy, and environmental groups).
  • Mr. Nolan testified that the National Mining Association’s members are constantly soliciting input from local community stakeholders (including tribes) on their projects. He indicated that this includes front end consultations. He stated that there has been a “sea change” in the understanding about the importance of critical mineral projects for supporting clean energy technologies and the electrification of the U.S. economy.
• Sen. Cortez Masto asked the other witnesses to discuss how their organizations are engaging with mining companies on mining projects.
  • Mr. Grumet remarked that the U.S. will require broad energy industry cooperation to achieve its energy goals. He testified that the ACP is working closely with the National Mining Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and the Nuclear Energy Institute. He asserted that the U.S. requires clean energy for security and climate change reasons and critical minerals for clean energy. He stated that the U.S.’s inability to domestically produce clean energy will make it impossible for the U.S. to realize the national security benefits of clean energy. He commented that Congress should capitalize on this broad stakeholder consensus and enact permitting reform legislation.
  • Mr. Urlich remarked that the U.S. must ensure that there are credible and transparent emission reduction measures and targets in place. He stated that Jonah Energy is pursuing these measures and targets and mentioned how the company had signed onto the Oil & Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 (OGMP 2.0). He remarked that the American public and Congress deserve to have a clear understanding of emissions reduction performance and reasonable emissions reduction targets. He commented that the U.S. energy industry is making progress on these efforts.
• Sen. Cortez Masto also asserted that the U.S. should consider workforce opportunities as part of its work on clean energy and critical minerals. She asked Ms. Shuler to provide recommendations for how the U.S. can support workers as part of these efforts.
  • Ms. Shuler remarked that workers will be central in efforts to expand clean energy and critical minerals. She stated that permitting reform impacts every aspect of the U.S. economy and highlighted how the U.S. will need to site many new factories, including semiconductor chip fabrication, battery manufacturing, and EV manufacturing facilities. She asserted that the U.S. will need to facilitate constructive partnerships to support this manufacturing capacity and that labor unions can play a key role in these partnerships.
• Sen. Cortez Masto lastly expressed interest in addressing the issue of royalties for mining projects on federal lands. She mentioned how the Committee had held a hearing on this topic during the previous 117th Congress and noted how the U.S. mining industry had expressed its willingness to work on a solution to this issue.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin remarked that the Committee’s main goal is to support the development of the U.S. energy and mining industries. He expressed particular interest in supporting the development of carbon capture and sequestration capabilities. He criticized the EPA’s failure to provide permits for Class VI wells and asserted that this failure undermines the U.S.’s development of carbon capture and sequestration. He then asked the witnesses to provide their top three recommendations for federal permitting legislation.
  • Mr. Urlich first called for meaningful NEPA reform that provides for tiering. He then recommended that Congress prioritize judicial review periods for projects. He lastly called on the U.S. to prioritize LNG exports from the Rocky Mountains to the West Coast.
  • Ms. Shuler first called for the U.S. to establish timelines for NEPA review and deadlines for EISs. She commented that these actions will create certainty for project developers. She then recommended that Congress empower the President to designate a list of priority projects for permitting. She lastly stated that the U.S. should expand eligibility for federal permitting improvements to include energy projects, new technology, and the mining of critical minerals.
  • Mr. Nolan first expressed agreement with Chairman Manchin’s comments regarding carbon capture and sequestration.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to compare the federal government’s current treatment of carbon capture and sequestration to its previous treatment of methane. He recounted how the U.S. had previously flared large quantities of methane because methane companies could not obtain permits to transmit methane. He noted how Congress had responded to this situation from barring the federal government through issuing fines against companies that flare methane if the companies are not able to receive permits to transmit the methane.
  • Mr. Nolan called on Congress to clarify the statutory provisions governing ancillary uses for hard rock mining projects. He also called on Congress to impose limits on legal challenges to hard rock mining projects. He then stated that Congress should reform current EIS requirements. He further remarked that Congress should address the U.S.’s energy grid reliability issues. He commented that the U.S. should maintain optionality for its existing coal fleet.
  • Mr. Grumet also expressed agreement with Chairman Manchin’s comments on carbon capture and sequestration. He then remarked that Congress should work to reform transmission policies to support the connection of the U.S.’s “balkanized” energy grid. He also stated that Congress should pursue NEPA reform with a focus on public lands. He specifically called on Congress to address NEPA challenges involving the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and commented that there are offshore wind energy possibilities in these areas. He further remarked that Congress should promote competition among energy technologies to achieve energy security, support economic growth, and address climate change.
• Chairman Manchin called on the witnesses and Americans to support the development of consensus bipartisan permitting reform legislation.