To watch a video of Senator Manchin’s opening remarks, please click here.

To watch a video of Senator Manchin’s questioning, please click here.

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to examine opportunities for Congress to reform the process for permitting electric transmission lines, pipelines, and energy production on federal lands. During the hearing’s first panel, Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) discussed the need to address issues that are slowing or blocking critical energy infrastructure projects needed to ensure reliable and affordable energy, including interstate transmission lines, and how streamlining the judicial review process could help accelerate energy projects. Witnesses agreed with judicial reform and electric transmission provisions included in Chairman Manchin’s permitting reform legislation, the Building American Energy Security Act of 2023.

“Transmission is a key electric reliability tool, particularly during weather events that span hundreds of miles. Long-distance transmission and inter-connectivity enables power to move to where it’s needed And as we’ve seen in Texas and other parts of the country, the areas that need the power aren’t just blue states with aggressive climate targets that some of us may not agree with. Of course transmission infrastructure alone isn’t enough for reliability—we also need dispatchable generation like coal, natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear. But without transmission, that generation has nowhere to go and can’t help the areas that need it,” said Chairman Manchin. 

Chairman Manchin continued, “One critical element which wasn’t included in the debt deal that would benefit all types of energy projects—from pipelines, to offshore wind, to mining—are judicial reforms. There are three stages of the litigation process that we should look at streamlining—the filing, the case, and the remedy. On the first issue, right now, in many cases parties can file suit and begin litigation up to 6 years after a permit has been issued. Allowing three times as long to challenge a NEPA review as we’re allowing for agencies to issue one makes no sense at all. The second issue is the length of the court case itself. Given how behind we are building the energy infrastructure this country needs for our security, Congress should direct the courts to expedite proceedings for these projects. Third is what happens if a court sends a permit back to an agency for more work. Usually when a court sends a permit back, it identifies a few specific issues that must be fixed. Yet we have agencies taking almost as long on these fixes as it took them to write the whole permit from scratch. All of these parts of the judicial process can and should be structured so that everyone gets their day in court, but project developers of all kinds have more certainty.”

Chairman Manchin questioned all three witnesses about his proposed litigation reforms. 

“Would it be helpful to limit the amount of time parties have to bring a case?” asked Chairman Manchin. 

“Yes,” replied the witnesses.

“Would it be helpful to direct courts to set energy project litigation for expedited review?” questioned Chairman Manchin.

“Yes,” said Mr. Antonio P. Smyth, Executive Vice President - Grid Solutions and Government Affairs, American Electric Power.

“It’s necessary,” replied Mr. Jason M. Stanek, Former Chairman, Maryland Public Service Commission.

“Yes,” said Mr. Chad A. Teply, Senior Vice President – Transmission and Gulf of Mexico, Williams.

“Would it be helpful to set hard timelines on how long agencies can take to fix permit issues identified by courts?” asked Chairman Manchin.

“Yes,” responded Mr. Smyth.

“Most definitely,” said Mr. Stanek.

“Yes,” replied Mr. Teply.

Chairman Manchin also questioned witnesses about consolidated federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for federally-approved electric transmission projects at one agency instead of requiring two NEPA reviews — one at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and one at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — as current law requires.

“Do you think we should consolidate the federal backstop siting process so that there is a single environmental and national interest review at FERC?” asked Chairman Manchin. 

Witnesses replied affirmatively that the reviews should be consolidated.

“Consolidating into one EIS, one NEPA review just makes a lot of sense, saves a lot of time and there is no redundant use of resources,” said Mr. Stanek.

Chairman Manchin asked the panel about a provision in the Building American Energy Security Act establishing cost allocation principles for interstate transmission projects found to be in the national interest that would ensure the costs of a project are shared based on specific benefits received by customers, including improved reliability, reduced congestion, reduced power losses, greater carrying capacity, reduced operating reserve requirements, and improved access to generation.

“I would say that is a generally accepted list of benefits that we could put a price tag on with relative ease,” replied Mr. Stanek.

“We’re proponents of including all reasonable reliability and economic benefits when it comes to the allocation coasts. I think you’ve captured many of them there in your language,” said Mr. Smyth.

“Mr. Teply, all that is the same for gas lines, for pipelines, right? What’s your biggest obstacle you have right now?” asked Chairman Manchin.

“I would say our biggest obstacle is permitting certainty and then subsequent judicial reviews,” said Mr. Teply.

The first panel featured witnesses from American Electric Power, a former Chairman of the Maryland Public Service Commission, and Williams. 

To watch the hearing in full, please click here.