[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172 AND H.R. 2173
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 23, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-952 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
RUSH D. HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democrat Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Mike Coffman, CO Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Dan Benishek, MI CNMI
David Rivera, FL Martin Heinrich, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Betty Sutton, OH
Bill Flores, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Vacancy
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
TN
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 23, 2011.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Noem, Hon. Kristi L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Dakota...................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Statement of Witnesses:
Dougherty, P.J., Vice President, Strategic Marketing
Innovations................................................ 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Huntley, Chase, Director, Renewable Energy Policy, The
Wilderness Society......................................... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Lyons, Jim, Senior Director for Renewable Energy, Defenders
of Wildlife................................................ 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Pool, Mike, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Taylor, Chris, Chief Development Officer, Element Power, on
behalf of the American Wind Energy Association............. 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Thomsen, Paul A., Director of Policy and Business
Development, Ormat Technologies, Inc....................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Additional materials supplied:
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement, Statement submitted for the record............ 67
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 73
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2170, STREAMLINING FEDERAL REVIEW
TO FACILITATE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS; H.R. 2171, TO
PROMOTE TIMELY EXPLORATION FOR GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
UNDER EXISTING GEOTHERMAL LEASES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; H.R. 2172, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON FEDERAL LANDS; AND H.R. 2173,
TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
RESOURCES.
----------
Thursday, June 23, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Thompson, Rivera, Gosar,
Flores, Landry, Fleischmann, Johnson, Hastings [ex officio],
Holt, Costa and Markey [ex officio].
Also Present: Representatives Wittman, Labrador, and Noem.
Mr. Lamborn. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Committee
Rule 3[e] is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources is meeting today for a legislative hearing to
hear testimony on four bills: H.R. 2170, Hastings, Washington,
the ``Cutting Federal Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable Energy
Act''; H.R. 2171, Labrador, Idaho, ``Exploring for Geothermal
Energy on Federal Lands Act''; H.R. 2172, Noem, South Dakota,
``Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind Energy Act''; and
H.R. 2173, Wittman of Virginia, ``Advancing Offshore Wind
Production Act''.
Under Committee Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.
However, I intend to recognize full Committee Chairman Hastings
and Ranking Member Markey for opening statements, if they wish
to make one. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to include
any other Members' opening statements in the hearing record, if
submitted to the clerk by close of business today.
[No objection.]
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Furthermore, I ask unanimous consent that Representative
Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Representative Raul Labrador of
Idaho, and Representative Rob Wittman of Virginia, all members
of the full Natural Resources Committee be allowed to sit on
the dais and participate in today's hearing.
[No objection.]
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Finally, it is the intention of the Chairman to recognize
these Members, the authors of the bills before us today, for
short opening statements about their legislation. In addition,
the Chairman will remind all Members and the witnesses here
today that Committee Rule 3[d] requires that Members and
witnesses shall limit remarks to the subject matter under
consideration. It is the intention of the Chairman to enforce
this provision should the discussion today veer too far from
the subject matter of this hearing and the jurisdiction of this
Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an
opening statement.
Today, the Subcommittee is considering a package of bills
designed to make building renewable energy projects easier on
Federal lands. Last month, the Committee heard from a host of
renewable energy advocates, that one of the most important
changes that could be made to help them advance new electrical
power generation is to help provide certainty in the process of
permitting projects.
This comes as no surprise to those who follow energy
development on Federal lands. Time and time again, we see
massive delays in projects. It does not matter if the project
is a Navajo-owned coal plant, offshore drilling by Shell, or a
wind project in Nantucket Sound. Federal rules, regulations,
and bureaucratic red tape slow, stall, or sometimes directly
destroy critical projects. It can easily be said that these
projects are ``not as shovel-ready as expected.''
Just this week, news articles were highlighting the
President's announcement from last October, where he declared,
just like President Carter, he would put solar panels on the
White House roof in the spring. Surprising to only the
environmental groups that supported this decision, spring has
come and gone and yet the White House has yet to move forward
with installing panels. The reality is that government red
tape, frivolous lawsuits, and bureaucratic bungling slow or
stop domestic energy projects.
President Clinton, writing earlier this week, made this
exact point. He said, ``don't blame the people in the White
House for problems in getting shovel-ready projects off the
ground. Sometimes, it takes two or three years or more for the
approval process. We should try to change this. Keep the full
review process when there are real environmental concerns; but
when there aren't, the Federal Government should be able to
give a waiver to the states to speed up start times on
construction projects.'' I agree with President Clinton on
this. We need to streamline projects.
But this effort is not just about the President's failed
stimulus package. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a
recent study titled, ``Progress Denied: The Potential Economic
Impact of Permitting Challenges Facing Proposed Energy
Projects.'' This study, which I will submit for the record
today, had a number of critical findings to it. Of the 350
projects that they examined, the study found that building
those projects that were stalled ``could produce a $1.1
trillion short-term boost to the economy and create 1.9 million
jobs annually. Moreover, these facilities, once constructed,
continue to generate jobs once filled because they operate for
years or even decades.'' Based on their analysis, the two
authors estimate that in aggregate, each year, the operation of
these projects could generate $145 billion in the economic
benefits and involve 791,000 jobs. Let me state that again, the
construction of these would have a short-term boost to the
economy of $1 trillion and create nearly two million jobs.
The four bills we are considering today are small steps
toward achieving our goal of making renewable energy projects a
reality on our Federal lands. Leaving aside conventional energy
for the time being, the development of renewable energy on
Federal lands holds great promise, while at the same time
offering us tremendous opportunity for job creation and
domestic energy security.
It has come as no surprise that there are critics of these
bills. Groups with names like Wild Lands and Diversity, who
claim they support renewable energy, but in reality believe
that energy production and Federal lands are incompatible.
Groups who challenge traditional and renewable energy projects
every step of the way with protests and frivolous lawsuits that
add years to the permitting and construction process. And as we
heard at our last hearing, years more in planning can be the
death of renewable energy projects and a huge blow to
implementing a national strategy of all-of-the-above energy
critical to America's future.
Americans are desperate for new jobs and our construction
industry has been particularly hard hit by the economic
downturn. This package of bills will help streamline the
process, give developers more certainty over their time lines,
facilitate construction projects, and put more Americans back
to work.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
I look forward to hearing their testimony and I now recognize
Ranking Member Holt. And I pledge that if he is not here at the
time we start, he will have an opportunity soon after he gets
here, if not immediately--let us see if this is--ah, perfect
timing. Ranking Member Holt, as soon as you are situated, you
are welcome to give an opening statement of up to five minutes
and welcome.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamborn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Today the Subcommittee is considering a package of bills designed
to make creating domestic energy easier on federal lands. Last month,
the Committee heard from a host of renewable energy advocates that one
of the most important changes that could make to help them move new
energy generation forward is to help provide certainty in the process
of permitting projects.
This comes as no surprise to those who follow energy development on
federal lands. Time and time again, we see massive delays in projects,
it doesn't matter if the projects is a Navajo owned coal plant,
offshore drilling by Shell, or a wind project in Nantucket sound.
Federal rules, regulations and bureaucratic red tape slow, stall or
sometimes directly kill critical projects. It can easily be said that
these projects are ``not as shovel-ready as expected.''
President Clinton writing earlier this week made this exact point,
he said, ``I don't blame the people in the White House for problems in
getting shovel-ready projects off the ground; sometimes it takes three
years or more for the approval process. We should try to change this:
keep the full review process when there are real environmental
concerns, but when there aren't, the federal government should be able
to give a waiver to the states to speed up start times on construction
projects.''
But this isn't just a story of the failure of the President's
stimulus package. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a recent study
titled, Progress Denied: The Potential Economic Impact of Permitting
Challenges Facing Proposed Energy Projects. This study, which I will
submit for the record today, had a number of critical findings to it.
Of the 351 projects that they examined the study found that building
those project that were stalled would, quote, ``could produce a $1.1
trillion short-term boost to the economy and create 1.9 million jobs
annually. Moreover, these facilities, once constructed, continue to
generate jobs once built, because they operate for years or even
decades. Based on their analysis, Pociask and Fuhr estimate that, in
aggregate, each year the operation of these projects could generate
$145 billion in economic benefits and involve 791,000 jobs.''
Let me state that again, a TRILLION DOLLAR BOOST TO OUR ECONOMY AND
NEALRY 2 MILLION JOBS.
The four bills we are considering today are small steps in
achieving our goal of making renewable energy projects a reality on our
federal lands. The development of renewable energy on federal lands
holds great promise, while at the same time offering us tremendous
opportunity for job creation and domestic energy security.
It has come as no surprise that there are critics of these bills.
Groups with names like wildlands and wilderness, groups and
organizations who believe that energy production and federal lands are
incompatible. However, a national strategy of all of the above energy
is critical to America's future.
American's are desperate for new jobs and our construction industry
has been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. This package
of bills will help streamline the process, give developers more
certainty over their timelines, move forward construction projects, and
put more American's back to work.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Over the
first six months of this Congress, we have seen what I would
have to call a hostility to clean energy investments growing
within the majority, and it is on full display now in the
Appropriations Committee. Last week, the Committee passed an
energy bill that is a couple of billion dollars below the White
House request for investments in research and development,
energy efficiency, advanced technology vehicles, renewables
such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and it is 40 percent
below current funding levels.
In this Committee, the hostility to renewable energy is
exceeded only by the hostility to the environment. With many
legislative options available for increasing renewable energy
development on public lands, the majority has chosen a path of
minimum benefit to renewable energy and maximum environmental
conflict. I regret that. Some on the Committee would set up a
false choice, making Members who care about renewable energy
and the environment to choose only one. Fortunately, we can
safely reject the bills before us today because they are bad
for both.
Were these bills to become law, they would not bring more
renewable energy on line from our public lands. In fact, they
stand a very real chance of doing the opposite. The bills cut
the public comment periods and reduce the planning options for
renewable energy projects. I would tell everyone to prepare
should these become law, prepare to see more lawsuits and more
delay as a result. They create new and duplicative permitting
processes. So, I would say prepare to see more project
applications rejected right from the start.
Overall, they could well lead to fewer watts of renewable
energy production and that is why none of the industry groups
that represent solar, wind, offshore wind, geothermal and so
forth, support these bills. These bills do not reflect the
recommendations of the 10 witnesses who have testified on this
subject so far before the Committee. In fact, only one witness
recommended anything remotely resembling what we have in these
bills and that recommendation did not go as far as suggesting a
complete waiver of NEPA, of the National Environmental Policy
Act.
If the majority were serious about legislation to
accelerate renewable energy development on public lands, they
would find strong bipartisan support, from me and most of the
Democrats on the Resources Committee. Unfortunately, the path
they have chosen is a path showing no interest in working to
actually get renewable energy on line or in allowing Democratic
bills to be considered as part of the hearing. Instead, the
majority has decided to use public support for clean energy as
a lever for dismantling environmental protections, something
that I, speaking for myself, but I think for many other people,
cannot support.
There is another way. Democrats requested two relevant
renewable energy bills to be included in this hearing. One of
the bills, introduced by Mr. Heinrich, would do exactly what
the wind and solar industries have recommended in the hearing
earlier this month. It would take the permit fees paid by the
wind and solar companies and funnel the money back into state
and Federal agencies doing the permitting, thereby ensuring the
adequate human resources for these agencies to be allocated to
the projects. Oil and gas industries already enjoy this kind of
dedicated funding mechanism.
The other Democratic bill, introduced by our Ranking Member
Mr. Markey, would increase the percentage of renewable energy
electricity that the Federal Government would be required to
purchase. Currently, the government must procure 7.5 percent of
its electricity from renewable sources by 2013. The Markey bill
would continue to ramp this up through 2025, at which point 25
percent of the Federal electricity would have to come from
renewable sources. I ask the Chairman that this Committee hold
a legislative hearing on these two bills as soon as possible.
They could work.
The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of moving
forward on clean energy and there is much this Committee can do
to further that objective. I look forward to working with the
majority to advance these policies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Energy and Mineral Resources, on H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172,
and H.R. 2173
Over the first six months of this Congress, we have seen a
disturbing hostility to clean energy grow within the Republican caucus.
It is on full display right now in the Appropriations Committee. Last
week, the committee passed an energy bill that is nearly $1.9 billion
below the White House request for investments in research and
development, energy efficiency, advanced technology vehicles, and
renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. That is a 40
percent cut below current funding levels.
In this committee, Republican hostility to renewable energy is
trumped only by their hostility to the environment. With many
legislative options available for increasing renewable energy
development on public lands, Republicans have chosen the path of
minimum benefit to renewable energy and maximum environmental conflict.
Ideally for Republicans, they would set up a false choice, making
those members that care about both renewable energy and the environment
choose between the two. Fortunately, we can safely reject these
Republican bills before us today because they are bad for both. Were
these bills to become law, they would not bring more renewable energy
online on our public lands. In fact, they stand a very real chance of
doing exactly the opposite.
These bills cut public comment periods and reduce planning options
for renewable energy projects. Prepare to see more lawsuits. They
create new and duplicative permitting processes. They increase the
likelihood of project applications receiving wholesale rejections. They
could well lead to fewer megawatts of renewable energy production.
That is why none of the industry groups that represent solar, wind,
offshore wind, and geothermal companies support these bills.
These bills do not reflect the recommendations of the 10 witnesses
we've had testify before the full committee on this subject. In fact,
only one witness recommended anything remotely resembling what we have
before us today, and that recommendation did not go as far as
suggesting a complete waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act.
If the majority were serious about legislation to accelerate
renewable energy development on public lands, they would have strong
bi-partisan support from me and most of the Democrats on this
Committee. Unfortunately, the majority has shown no interest in working
with us on renewable energy or in allowing Democratic bills to be
considered as part of this hearing. Instead, the majority has decided
to use public support for clean energy as a lever for dismantling
environmental protections. That is something I cannot support.
There is another way. Democrats requested two relevant renewable
energy bills be included in this hearing.
One of these bills (H.R. 2176), introduced by Mr. Heinrich, would
do exactly what the wind and solar industries recommended in the
hearing earlier this month. It would take the permit fees paid by the
wind and solar companies and funnel the money back into the federal and
state agencies doing the permitting, thereby insuring that adequate
human resources from these agencies are allocated to the projects. The
oil and gas industries already enjoy this dedicated funding mechanism.
The other Democratic bill (H.R. 2196), introduced by Mr. Markey,
would increase the percentage of renewable electricity that the federal
government would be required to purchase. Currently, the government
must procure 7.5% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2013.
The Markey bill would continue this ramp up through 2025, at which
point 25% of federal electricity would have to come from renewable
sources.
I would ask the chairman that this committee hold a legislative
hearing on these Democratic bills as soon as possible.
The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of moving forward
on clean energy, and there is much this committee can do to further
that objective. I will continue to look forward to working with the
majority on advancing policies which do that.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize full Committee Chairman
Hastings for five minutes for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again thank
you for your courtesy allowing me to be here at your
Subcommittee hearing. It is often said that there is no silver
bullet to achieving energy security and I certainly agree with
that statement. Any long-term energy policy must include all
types of American energy, from oil and natural gas, to
alternative and renewable forms of energy, such as wind, solar,
nuclear, and hydropower. This all-of-the-above energy approach
is a cornerstone of House Republican's American energy
initiative in an ongoing effort to advance legislation that
will expand all types of American energy production to create
jobs and to stop this Administration policies that are raising
energy prices.
Republicans recognize that energy diversity is essential
for energy security. That is why I am very proud that this
Committee has not only advanced legislation to expand American
oil and natural gas production, but is now turning our focus to
critical minerals and renewable energy projects on Federal
lands and waters.
The full Committee has held two hearings examining
roadblocks to renewable energy production on public lands. We
heard over and over again from representatives of the renewable
energy industry about the need for certainty. Let me repeat
that, we heard over and over again from those in that industry
about the certainty as they proceed forward with their
projects. They currently have to navigate through a twisted
maze that involves conflicting answers from different agencies,
different government agencies, bureaucratic hurdles and endless
litigation. It is sad, but true, that too often the biggest
obstacle to renewable energy production is the Federal
Government.
The four bills we are discussing today take steps to
correct that. They all share a common goal of streamlining
regulatory hurdles and creating a simpler, clearer path to
develop renewable energy projects on Federal lands. For
example, environmental review should be focused on the specific
areas where the renewable energy project will be located. Small
temporary structures to test onshore and offshore wind to
determine the best location to put a windmill should not be
bogged down in red tape, and each geothermal exploration hole
should not have to go through a separate approval process when
they are often on the same tract of leased land.
Now all of these are commonsense proposals that will cut
years off the time it takes to develop these projects. In other
words, it provides a certainty to these industries we are
talking about. These bills are necessary in order to encourage
a timely and efficiently production of renewable energy on our
Federal lands and water, in order to create jobs and expand all
types of renewable energy production.
And I thank the Chairman and this Subcommittee for holding
the hearing on these important bills and I yield back my time.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I now recognize full Committee
Ranking Member Markey of Massachusetts for five minutes for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural
Resources, on H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172, H.R. 2173
Thank you Chairman Lamborn for holding this hearing today,
It's often said that there's no silver bullet to achieving energy
security--and I agree. Any long-term energy policy must include all
types of American energy, from oil and natural gas to alternative and
renewable forms such as wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower.
This all-of-the-above energy approach is the cornerstone of House
Republicans' American Energy Initiative, an on-going effort to advance
legislation that will expand all types of American energy production to
create jobs and stop Obama Administration policies that are raising
energy prices.
Republicans recognize that energy diversity is essential for energy
security.
That's why I'm proud this Committee has not only advanced
legislation to expand American oil and natural gas production but is
now turning our focus to critical minerals and renewable energy
projects on federal lands and waters.
The Full Committee has held two hearings examining roadblocks to
renewable energy production on public lands. We heard over and over
again from representatives of the renewable energy industry about the
need for certainty. They currently have to navigate through a twisted
maze that involves conflicting answers from different agencies,
bureaucratic hurdles and endless litigation.
It's sad but true that too often the biggest obstacle to renewable
energy production is the federal government.
The four bills we are discussing today take steps to correct that.
They all share a common goal of streamlining regulatory hurdles and
creating a simpler, clearer path to develop renewable energy projects
on federal lands.
For example, environmental reviews should be focused on the
specific areas where the renewable energy project will be located,
Small, temporary structures to test onshore and offshore wind to
determine the best location to put a windmill should not be bogged down
in red tape.
And each geothermal exploration hole should not have to go through
a separate approval process when they are on the same tract of leased
land.
These are all common sense proposals that will cut years off the
time it takes to develop these projects.
These bills are necessary in order to encourage the timely and
efficient production of renewable energy on our federal lands and
waters in order to create jobs and expand all types of renewable energy
production.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. The
President has announced that he is going to begin, in
conjunction with other countries in the world, to deploy oil
from our strategic petroleum reserve. I think that is a very
important development, in order to ensure that the price of oil
does not continue to impact our economy and our country. Iran
and Venezuela have asserted their power within OPEC. Unilateral
reliance upon Saudi Arabia to increase supply has failed. The
President is sending a clear signal with his deployment of the
strategic petroleum reserve that the American consumers will
not be held hostage to Iranian and Venezuelan dictators or to
events which are occurring in Libya and in Yemen that has taken
oil off the global market. So this is a very important
development this morning, which I think will really help to
stabilize the price of oil and not have the same kind of
dramatic impact which it has had over the last four or five
months since the beginning of the Libyan conflict.
Now over the past two years, the 1603 renewable energy
grant program has supported 10,000 megawatts of wind, solar,
geothermal, and other renewable energy projects through more
than 7,000 separate awards. It has led to $22 billion in clean
energy investments, more than 70 percent of which came from the
private sector. Just last Friday, the Energy Department
announced a $150 million loan guarantee to a Massachusetts
company called 1366 Technologies, that is using technology
developed at MIT to radically reduce the cost of making silicon
wafers for solar cells. Earlier this month, construction broke
ground on the largest solar power plant in the world in
California. This project on public land received fast-track
permitting at the Interior Department and was awarded a $2
billion loan guaranteed by the Department of Energy.
These success stories are part of the Recovery Act. These
renewable energy programs come out of what you call workhorse
legislation. They successfully pulled billions of dollars of
private capital off the sideline, and are now putting thousands
of people to work, and putting millions of watts of clean
energy electricity production in the ground. These Recovery Act
programs are scheduled to expire by the end of the year or
sooner. Again, these are workhorse programs.
That is not what we are here to talk about today. The
Republicans oppose workhorse legislation when it comes to
renewable energy. We are here today to judge some show horse
legislation. The four Republican bills under consideration
today deal entirely with weather towers and needless
evisceration of environmental protections. They will not bring
more renewable energy on line on our public lands. In fact,
they stand a very good chance of doing exactly the opposite.
These bills are a recipe for more lawsuits, more rejective
projects, and fewer megawatts of clean energy production.
Instead of thinking big picture and figuring out how to get
more wind towers and solar concentrated towers in the ground,
Republicans are sidetracked with weather towers. Now, I fear
the only reason that they are even interested in those is
because the opportunity it presents to rein in environmental
laws. Once they hobble environmental laws for renewable energy,
they may be hoping it will be a lot easier to do the same for
the industry they really care about, the oil and gas industry.
So instead of show horse legislation, maybe we should call
this Trojan horse legislation. If the Republicans are genuinely
interested in passing good renewable energy legislation that
creates jobs and helps get more renewable energy deployed on
public lands, Democrats are eager to work with them in a
bipartisan fashion to get those renewable projects on the
books. But the fact remains that there are many other
approaches to encouraging renewable energy development on
public lands, approaches that are actually recommended in the
multiple hearings we have had on this subject, approaches that
could actually gain the endorsement of the industry they are
intended to help.
It was in that spirit that the Democratic side requested
that the Committee consider two of our Members' relevant bills
as part of this hearing, one by Mr. Heinrich and another by
myself. Neither has been included in the hearing today.
Therefore, I reiterate my request to the Chairman of the full
Committee for a legislative hearing on these Democratic bills,
as well, and as soon as possible, so that we can get a
comprehensive view of what it takes to be successful in the
renewable's area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, Committee
on Natural Resources, on H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172, and H.R. 2173
First of all, I'd like to commend the White House for finally
deciding deploy the strategic petroleum reserve. . .
Over the last two years, the 1603 [sixteen-oh-three] renewable
energy grant program has supported 10,000 megawatts of wind, solar,
geothermal, and other renewable energy projects through more than 7,000
separate awards. It has led to $22 billion in clean energy investments,
more than 70 percent of which came from the private sector.
Just last Friday, the Energy Department announced a $150 million
loan guarantee to a Massachusetts company called 1366 Technologies that
is using technology developed at MIT to radically reduce the cost of
making silicon wafers for solar cells.
Earlier this month, construction broke ground on the largest solar
power plant in the world in California. This project on public land
received fast-track permitting at the Interior Department and was
awarded a $2 billion loan guarantee by the Department of Energy.
These success stories are Recovery Act success stories. These
renewable energy programs came out of what you call work horse
legislation. They successfully pulled billions of dollars of private
capital off the sideline and are now putting thousands of people to
work and putting millions of watts of clean, renewable electricity
production in the ground. These Recovery Act programs are scheduled to
expire by the end of the year or sooner.
Again, those are workhorse programs. That's not what we're here to
talk about today. Republicans oppose workhorse legislation when it
comes to renewable energy. We're here today to judge some show horse
legislation.
The four Republican bills under consideration today deal entirely
with weather towers and needless evisceration of environmental
protections. They will not bring more renewable energy online on our
public lands. In fact, they stand a very real chance of doing exactly
the opposite. These bills are a recipe for more lawsuits, more rejected
projects, and fewer megawatts of clean energy production.
Instead of thinking big picture and figuring out how to get more
wind towers and solar concentrating towers in the ground, Republicans
are sidetracked with weather towers. I fear the only reason they're
even interested in those is because the opportunity it presents to rein
in environmental laws. And once they hobble environmental laws for
renewable energy, they may be hoping it will be a lot easier to do the
same for the industry they really care about, the oil and gas industry.
So instead of show horse legislation, maybe we should call this
Trojan horse legislation.
If the chairman is genuinely interested in passing good renewable
energy legislation that creates jobs and helps get more renewable
energy deployed on public lands, Democrats are eager to work with him
in a bipartisan fashion.
The fact remains that there are many other approaches to
encouraging renewable energy development on public lands. Approaches
that were actually recommended in the multiple hearings we've had on
this subject. Approaches that could actually gain the endorsement of
the industry they are intended to help.
It was in that spirit that the Democratic side requested that the
committee consider two of our member's relevant bills as part of this
hearing, one authored by Mr. Heinrich (H.R. 2176) and one by myself
(H.R. 2196). Neither has been included today. Therefore, I reiterate my
request to the chairman of the full committee for a legislative hearing
on these Democratic bills as soon as possible.
Thank you and I reserve my time.
______
Mr. Lamborn. You are welcome. I now recognize full
Committee member and H.R. 2172 author, Representative Noem of
South Dakota for five minutes for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTI NOEM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Mrs. Noem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman
Hastings, for your leadership on this issue. Although this bill
has nothing to do with horses, of which I am a big fan of, it
does have everything to do with giving our American energy
policy some more horsepower and getting our economy going in
this country again.
The Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind Energy Act
is just one part of the Committee's initiative to cut
unnecessary bureaucratic red tape for renewable energy
development. My bill will speed up the production of clean,
renewable energy--American energy--by streamlining the process
to develop onshore wind power on Bureau of Land Management and
U.S. Forest Service lands. Currently, it can take the industry
up to four years to even decide if a location is going to be
suitable for a wind project. My bill can reduce that by up to
two years in the initial process by streamlining the National
Environmental Policy Act or NEPA process. This bill sets a firm
time line for issuing permits on Federal land. It streamlines
the regulatory requirements for installing temporary towers to
test and to monitor the weather.
Requiring burdensome, duplicative reviews for these
temporary structures is unnecessary. It slows down production
of this clean energy source, especially in this harsh economic
climate. With gas prices around $4 a gallon, it is important to
have an all-of-the-above American energy policy. Wind energy is
certainly in that category.
Our Nation has a vast energy, wind energy supply that we
can utilize here in resources here at home. We need to make
sure that we are using our Federal lands for commonsense clean,
renewable energy production.
My home State of South Dakota is a perfect example. We are
blessed with enormous potential for producing wind power. The
United States Department of Energy has indicated that there are
excellent to outstanding areas for wind production throughout
our state.
In fact, South Dakota is also home to nine Indian
reservations and there is a lot of potential for wind
development in Indian country. They often have to go through a
lengthy process for renewable energy development. This bill
could serve as a model for streamlining the process for wind
development on Indian land.
In 2003, the first utility scale Native American wind
turbine was installed on the Rosebud Sioux Indian reservation
in my state. That was after an eight-year preparation. This
wind turbine is now generating energy for businesses on this
reservation. They are able to sell their excess green energy to
local power cooperatives and create jobs in an area where the
unemployment is around 80 percent. This is just one example of
how wind power can benefit local communities and it can create
jobs. It is our job to ensure that excess government
regulations do not get in the way.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and their
perspective on these bills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Noem follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Kristi L. Noem, a Representative in Congress
from the State of South Dakota
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make an opening statement
and that my statement be submitted for the record.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you Chairman Hastings for your
leadership on this issue. The Utilizing America's Federal Lands for
Wind Energy Act is just one part of the Committee's initiative to cut
unnecessary bureaucratic red tape for renewable energy development. My
bill will speed up the production of clean, renewable American energy
by streamlining the process to develop onshore wind power on Bureau of
Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands. Currently, it can take
an industry up to 4 years to even decide if a location is suitable for
a wind project. My bill could reduce that by around 2 years in the
initial process by streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process.
This bill sets a firm timeline for issuing permits on federal land
and streamlines the regulatory requirements for installing temporary
towers to test and monitor weather. Requiring burdensome, duplicative
reviews for these temporary structures is unnecessary and slows down
production of this clean energy source. Especially during a tough
economic climate and gas prices around $4 a gallon, it is important to
have an ``all of the above'' energy approach, and wind energy is
certainly in that category. Our nation has a vast amount of resources
here at home, and we need to make sure we are using our federal lands
for common sense, clean, renewable energy production.
My home state of South Dakota is a great example. We are blessed
with enormous potential for producing wind power. The U.S. Department
of Energy has indicated that there are ``excellent-to-outstanding''
areas for wind production throughout the state.
South Dakota is also home to 9 Indian reservations, and there is a
lot of potential for wind development in Indian Country. They often
have to go through a lengthy process as well for renewable energy
development. This bill could serve as a model for streamlining the
process for wind development in Indian land. In 2003, the first
utility-scale Native American wind turbine was installed on the Rosebud
Sioux Indian Reservation in my state. That was after an eight-year
preparation! This wind turbine is now generating energy for businesses
on the reservation. They are able to sell their excess green energy to
local power cooperatives and create jobs in an area where unemployment
is around 80%.
This is just one example of how wind power can benefit local
communities and create jobs. It is our job to ensure that excess
government regulations do not get in the way. I look forward to hearing
from the witnesses on their perspective on these bills.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Lamborn. You are welcome. We will now hear from our
first panel of witnesses. I would like to invite to the witness
table, The Honorable Mike Pool, Deputy Director of the Bureau
of Land Management, accompanied by Mr. Walter Cruickshank of
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement, and The Honorable Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of
the U.S. Forest Service.
Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will
appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep
your oral statements to five minutes, as outlined in our
invitation letter. Our microphones are not automatic, so you
need to turn them on when you are ready to begin. After four
minutes, the yellow light will come on. You are probably
familiar with that. In fact, we talked about that a few days
ago. So, Mr. Pool, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you
today to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior on
the renewable energy bills before you today. As Deputy Director
of the BLM, I am here to provide departmental views on these
bills and answer any questions related to BLM. With me is
Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director for the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, who will answer
any questions you may have on the offshore wind legislation.
The bills exempt certain Federal actions from compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act, the cornerstone law
guiding environmental protection and public involvement
associated with public lands. The Department opposes these four
bills. Since the beginning of his tenure, Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar has made the development of a new energy
frontier on America's public lands one of his top priorities.
As Deputy Director of the BLM, I share this priority and I am
happy to tell you that both the BLM and BOEMRE are implementing
the Secretary's Smart from the Start program, through approving
development for onshore wind, solar, geothermal, and for
offshore wind, ocean wave, and ocean current energy. Our goal
is environmentally responsible development of renewable
resources on the public lands with a fair return to the
American people for use of their resources.
Guiding all of BLM's management actions, including
renewable energy development, is the agency's open and public
land use plans, coupled with full environmental review and
public involvement under NEPA. This remains a vital tool as we
work to protect our Nation's environment and revitalize our
economy. H.R. 2170 would narrow the scope of environmental
review for renewable energy projects, wind, solar, geothermal,
biomass, tidal, or kinetic forces used to generate energy. NEPA
analysis would be limited to a proposed action and a no-action
alternative. The public comment would be limited to 30 days.
The Department of the Interior opposes H.R. 2170. It
restricts the development and consideration of a range of
alternatives and reduces the analysis of complex, challenging
issues to a limited yes or no choice. There may be unintended
consequences to H.R. 2170. Agencies may be forced to select a
no-action alternative if a proposal has resource conflicts that
cannot be addressed through alternatives.
H.R. 2171 established criteria for geothermal exploration
test projects and exempts a proposal meeting those criteria
from NEPA compliance. The Department opposes H.R. 2171 because
it is inconsistent with sound and longstanding NEPA
requirements for Federal actions. The bill offers no exemption
for extraordinary circumstances, which are red flags to let the
public and the agency know what NEPA reviewed would still be
warranted. BLM believes in the absence of an exemption for
extraordinary circumstances may result in renewable energy
development that impacts the environment.
H.R. 2172 would affect onshore wind power on BLM and Forest
Service land by removing the requirement to complete NEPA
analysis for met towers. The Department opposes H.R. 2172
because it is also inconsistent with sound and longstanding
NEPA requirements for Federal actions. BLM policy provides for
categoric exclusions from NEPA review for met towers. It also
provides an exception for extraordinary circumstances when NEPA
review is still required. The BLM applies CXs only when
appropriate. Blanket use of CXs without regard for
extraordinary circumstances, as under H.R. 2172, could
significantly impact public health and the environment.
H.R. 2173 would exempt certain Federal actions relating to
offshore wind production from compliance with NEPA. The
Department opposes this bill because of conflicts with section
8p of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, eliminating the
Secretary's ability to consider environmental impacts of
renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The 30-day deadline for public review in H.R. 2173 is
simply not sufficient to consider public comment, conduct
mandatory consultations with other agencies, tribes, and state
officials, and perform engineering and safety reviews. The
result would be permits being denied unnecessarily.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:]
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to present
testimony on several bills pertaining to the development of renewable
energy resources on our nation's onshore public lands: H.R. 2170, the
Cutting Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable Energy Act; H.R. 2171, the
Exploring Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands Act; and H.R. 2172, the
Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind Energy Act.
These bills were introduced little more than one week ago, so the
Department of the Interior has not had time to conduct an in-depth
analysis of them, but we appreciate the opportunity to outline our
general views at this time. The bills exempt certain Federal actions
from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--the
cornerstone law guiding environmental protection and public involvement
in Federal actions. The Department opposes these three bills.
Background
Since the beginning of his tenure, Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar has made the development of the New Energy Frontier on
America's public lands one of his top priorities. The Department's
renewable energy strategies are guided by the fundamental belief that
renewable energy for America will allow us to diversify energy sources
and ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
As Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), I share
this priority. I am happy to tell you that the BLM is committed to
giving priority to renewable energy projects that are ``smart from the
start.'' The BLM is working with local communities, state regulators,
industry, and other Federal agencies to build a clean energy future.
Our goal is environmentally responsible development of renewable energy
resources on the public lands with a fair return to the American people
for the use of their resources.
Guiding all of the BLM's management actions--including renewable
energy development--is the agency's land use planning process. This is
an open, public process in which the agency's proposals for managing
particular resources are made known to the public in advance of taking
action. The BLM's plans are analyzed and frequently critiqued by
members of the public and stakeholders, and the BLM must address all
comments on agency proposals and make available to the public its
responses.
Similarly, the BLM is committed to providing the full environmental
review and public involvement opportunities required by NEPA for all
agency proposals for BLM-managed lands. As noted in the Presidential
Proclamation commemorating the 40th anniversary of the act, NEPA, was
enacted to ``prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and
biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.'' It established
concrete objectives for Federal agencies to enforce these principles,
while emphasizing public involvement to give all Americans a role in
protecting our environment. America's economic health and prosperity
are inexorably linked to the productive and sustainable use of our
environment. That is why NEPA remains a vital tool as we work to
protect our Nation's environment and revitalize our economy.
Under land use plans and environmental analyses informed by public
involvement, the BLM is leading the nation toward the New Energy
Frontier with active solar, wind, and geothermal energy programs. In
2010, the BLM approved the first nine large-scale solar energy projects
on public lands. These projects will have an installed capacity of
3,600 megawatts, enough to power close to 1 million homes, and will
create thousands of jobs. Additionally, the BLM has 29 authorized wind
energy projects on the public lands with a total of 437 megawatts of
installed wind power capacity. Geothermal energy development on the
public lands, meanwhile, with an installed capacity of 1,275 MW,
accounts for nearly half of U.S. geothermal energy capacity.
H.R. 2170, ``Cutting Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable Energy Act''
H.R. 2170 would narrow the scope of environmental review for
renewable energy projects, defined as wind, solar power, geothermal
power, biomass or tidal or kinetic forces used to generate energy.
Under the bill, NEPA analysis would be limited to a ``proposed action''
and the ``no-action alternative''--rather than the range of
alternatives that are generally evaluated during NEPA review. Members
of the public would be limited to 30 days after the publication of a
draft NEPA document to conduct their review and send comments to the
Federal agency.
The Department opposes H.R. 2170, as it unnecessarily restricts the
scope of analysis in the NEPA process. This restriction on the
development and consideration of alternatives to a proposed agency
action would reduce the analysis of complex, challenging issues to a
limited ``yes-or-no'' choice. It would impair the Federal government's
ability to accurately assess the likely impacts of a Federal action and
to employ the consideration of alternative means to avoid, minimize
and/or mitigate adverse impacts. Furthermore, reducing the timeframe
available for review and public comment to 30 days, especially for
complicated, multi-state, utility-scale environmental impact
statements, could significantly reduce the public's ability to weigh-in
on critical matters affecting them. The BLM relies on this public
participation to improve the analysis of actions on public lands.
Properly developed alternatives inform decisions by allowing the
decision-maker to evaluate ways to resolve resource conflicts in
complex projects. Addressing a reasonable range of alternatives under
NEPA provides opportunity to address issues that arise in public
scoping and reduces the likelihood of litigation. Alternatives analysis
also provides more opportunities for the BLM to work with applicants to
address possible alternative means to reduce environmental impacts.
Through the development and consideration of a reasonable range of
alternatives, the BLM can work with applicants to explore proposals
using different technology or project layout alternatives with the
applicant. To accomplish this, the BLM has recently provided guidance
on defining a reasonable range of alternatives in development of
renewable energy projects on public lands, based on lessons learned
from fast track renewable energy projects in 2010. This policy
recognizes that the BLM must consider the applicant's interests and
objectives to inform its decision.
There may also be unintended consequences to this legislation. The
inability to consider other alternatives may lead the BLM to select the
no-action alternative more frequently if a proposed project presents
resource conflicts that cannot be addressed through mitigation.
H.R. 2171, ``Exploring Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands Act''
H.R. 2171 establishes criteria for ``geothermal exploration test
projects'' and exempts a proposal meeting those criteria from NEPA
compliance. The bill authorizes a geothermal leaseholder proposing to
drill such a test project to notify the Secretary of their proposal 30
days prior to the start of drilling. The Secretary is allowed 10 days
within which to review the proposal and determine if it meets the
criteria for exemption from NEPA, or to identify the reasons why the
proposal does not meet the criteria and thus would not be exempt from
NEPA. If the latter, the Secretary is required to notify the proponent
of specific deficiencies and to give the leaseholder the opportunity to
meet the criteria and thereby become exempt from NEPA.
The Department opposes H.R. 2171 because it is inconsistent with
sound and long-standing NEPA requirements for Federal actions.
Furthermore, its NEPA-exempt framework contains no exception for
``extraordinary circumstances''--i.e., circumstances when NEPA review
would still be warranted. The BLM believes the absence of an exemption
for extraordinary circumstances may result in geothermal development
that may pose an impact to the environment. The BLM is ensuring that
development of geothermal resources on the public lands is implemented
in an environmentally responsible manner. NEPA review is an important
component of this responsible development.
H.R. 2172, ``Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind Energy Act''
H.R. 2172 proposes to streamline the process to develop onshore
wind power on BLM and U.S. Forest Service (FS) land by removing the
requirement to complete NEPA analysis for weather testing or monitoring
devices. The bill also reduces agency decision-making timeframes for
the site applications.
The Department opposes H.R. 2172 because it is inconsistent with
sound and long-standing NEPA requirements for Federal actions.
Furthermore, its NEPA-exempt framework contains no exception for
extraordinary circumstances. While BLM policy (IM 2009-043, December
19, 2008) currently provides for ``categorical exclusions'' (CXs) from
NEPA review for wind-related weather testing or monitoring devices, it
provides an exception for certain extraordinary circumstances when NEPA
review is still required. The BLM currently applies CXs only when
appropriate. Blanket use of CXs without regard for certain
extraordinary circumstances, could significantly impact public health
and the environment.
The BLM believes the absence of an exemption for extraordinary
circumstances may result in wind energy development that may pose a
threat to aviation safety and to the environment. Under H.R. 2172, an
exclusion from NEPA could preclude consideration of a condition such as
the proposed height of a met tower that may have impacts on aviation
operations and Federal Aviation Administration safety requirements, or
could preclude consideration of potential bird impacts from guyed
versus non-guyed met towers. An absolute exclusion from NEPA for
weather monitoring and testing devices would be inconsistent with
consideration of site specific environmental impacts for installations.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on these three
pieces of legislation. The Department of the Interior looks forward to
continuing its work toward standing up a renewable energy program and a
portfolio of projects that reflect the incredible resource potential of
America's public lands.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF,
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to share the agency's views on
three renewable energy bills currently before you. Renewable
energy plays an important role in strengthening America's
energy independence and in fulfilling the agency's mission, and
the Forest Service supports the goal of facilitating its
development. We also acknowledge the need to streamline
procedures for approving and implementing the development of
these resources.
In recent years, the Forest Service has addressed the
challenge of contributing to the Nation's renewable energy
needs in a multitude of ways. For example, we host over 16,000
megawatts of installed hydropower generating capacity. In
geothermal, we currently permit leases producing equivalent
electricity for 60,000 homes. In wind energy, we have 15 active
permits for testing sites and for solar, we have roughly three
million acres of national forest system land that have been
identified as suitable for solar energy development. Biomass
energy production presents an especially important opportunity
for us because biomass for energy can be a byproduct of most of
our vegetation management work, including hazardous fuels
reduction, habitat improvement, and timber production. In
Fiscal Year '10, nearly 3.3 million green tons were harvested
on national forest system lands for energy production.
Carrying out these renewable energy efforts takes place
under a complex body of requirements and policies that has
evolved over decades, and we support efforts to achieve
improvements in our process. However, the Forest Service cannot
support the three bills before you today because we are
concerned that the approaches they put forth could have
unintended consequences that actually undermine progress toward
these goals.
Regarding H.R. 2171 and 2172, we note that geothermal and
wind testing projects meeting the criteria for the proposed
NEPA exclusion would also meet the eligibility criteria for
existing categorical exclusions that the Forest Service is
already authorized to use, and we have routinely used them to
expedite projects of this nature. However, the provisions for
categorical exclusions give us the discretion to undertake a
more detailed analysis when certain conditions exist in the
area, such as important cultural or archaeological sites or
sensitive habitats. This helps us ensure necessary protections
and gives us the opportunity to work with project proponents to
improve their proposals when such concerns exist.
On the other hand, the requirement proposed by these bills
to exclude such analysis for all covered projects without
exception could lead to unanticipated resource damage in some
cases and increase the likelihood of litigation in many more.
This would ultimately cause further complications and delays in
our permitting process and could also increase resistance to
efforts to promote renewable energy development. For these
reasons, the Forest Service cannot support this legislation.
H.R. 2170 poses similar concerns. Its proposed requirement
to limit analysis for renewable energy proposals to only a
single proposed action and a no-action alternative would
mandate the broad use of shortcut procedures that frequently
are not appropriate to apply. Currently, the agency has
discretion to determine whether this proposed action, no-action
approach is appropriate. The expectation remains that we are to
analyze multiple alternatives, unless the proposed action, no-
action approach is justified. Indeed, it is our experience that
analysis of multiple alternatives usually produces better
decisions that garner greater acceptance across a broader range
of stakeholders, and provides additional opportunities to work
with proponents to improve environmental mitigations.
Furthermore, we are concerned that broad prohibitions on
analyzing or considering input on multiple alternatives may
increase the likelihood of appeals and litigation, cause delays
and implementation, or lead the agency to more frequently
select the no-action alternative.
We believe there are other approaches that would have
greater promise for meeting the goals of facilitating renewable
energy. One such alternative is to authorize the judicious use
of categorical exclusions under specific circumstances, rather
than the approach proposed in these bills requiring broader
exclusions or limitations on NEPA more generally. Another
approach is to expand the use of pre-decisional administrative
review, which improves resolution of stakeholder concerns,
produces better decisions, and gets more work done on the
ground.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss proposals to
improve the ability of the Forest Service to meet the Nation's
renewable energy needs. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follow:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, on H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, and
H.R. 2172
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joel Holtrop,
Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity
to share the Agency's views on three renewable energy bills currently
before you for consideration.
Recognizing the important role that renewable energy can play in
strengthening America's energy independence and in fulfilling the
agency's mission, the USDA Forest Service (USFS) supports the goal of
the proposed legislation to facilitate the development of renewable
energy resources on lands within the National Forest System (NFS). We
also acknowledge the need identified in these bills to streamline
procedures for approving and implementing the development of these
resources. However, we are concerned that the approaches contained in
H.R. 2170, 2171 and 2172 could have unintended consequences that
ultimately serve to undermine progress towards those goals.
In recent years the USFS has addressed the challenge of
contributing to the nation's renewable energy needs in a multitude of
ways. Hydroelectric power, although not addressed by the proposed
legislation, represents one of the agency's largest contributions to
the nation's renewable energy needs: NFS lands host over 16,000 MW of
installed hydropower generating capacity, the second most among federal
agencies. Regarding geothermal power, as of April 2011 there were 137
geothermal leases producing equivalent electricity for 60,000 homes on
approximately 155,000 acres of NFS lands. In wind energy, as of May
2011 the agency has received at least 18 inquiries for meteorological
testing projects to explore wind energy production; of these, 11
progressed to the proposal or application stage, and of those 11, five
have gone on to receive permits while the remaining six are currently
in processing. And for solar energy, although we have received no
formal applications for utility or other large-scale commercial solar
facilities to date, we do anticipate some applications for solar energy
facilities in the future on some of the roughly 3 million acres of NFS
land that have been identified as suitable for that purpose.
Biomass energy production presents an especially important
opportunity for the NFS to increase America's energy independence while
also meeting many other objectives at the core of our mission, such as
restoring healthy forests, supporting local economies and communities,
and improving water quality. This is the case because biomass products
are harvested for energy production in connection with vegetation
management projects undertaken for a wide variety of purposes,
including hazardous fuels reduction, habitat improvement, timber
production, salvage, pre-commercial thinning, maintenance of roads,
campgrounds, and various rights-of-way, and other purposes. In FY2010
nearly 3.3 million green tons were harvested on NFS lands for energy
production, in the form of small-diameter trees and shrubs, tree-
harvest debris and other woody plant matter.
Approval and implementation of these renewable energy efforts, like
that for most other USFS activities, takes place under a complex and
wide-ranging body of requirements that has evolved over decades of
legislative action, administrative policy and judicial review. In some
cases, negative unintended effects of the accumulated direction
continue to impact the agency's ability to fulfill its mission. We
support efforts to achieve improvements in this respect. However, we
are concerned that the approaches put forth in these bills could
inadvertently lead to increased appeals, more frequent litigation, and
missed opportunities for constructive input that will ultimately serve
to undermine progress toward that goal. We believe other approaches
have greater promise and we would welcome the opportunity to explore
them further.
I will now point out some specific concerns regarding the proposed
legislation.
H.R. 2171: H.R. 2171 would exclude ``the drilling of a well to test
or explore for geothermal resources on lands leased by the Department
of the Interior'' (DOI) from provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requiring preparation of an environmental
impact statement. Projects would be excluded when they result in no
more than 5 acres of total disturbance, require no new road
construction, and are to be completed within 45 days including
restoration of the site to pre-existing condition, among other
criteria.
In most cases, DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the lead
for preparing NEPA documentation for geothermal projects on NFS lands
leased by the DOI, with the USFS participating as a cooperating agency.
However, an interagency agreement pursuant to Section 225 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) requires coordination between the two
agencies on surface management issues relating to geothermal activities
on NFS lands.
As it applies to NFS lands, the projects meeting the criteria set
forth in this legislation would also meet the eligibility criteria for
an existing categorical exclusion (CE) from NEPA documentation
requirements found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(8), for short-term mineral,
energy, or geophysical investigations, as long as specified
extraordinary circumstances do not exist.
We support the use of existing statutory and administrative CEs in
situations where their application is determined to be appropriate. To
help in making this determination, the regulations specify several
resource conditions that the agency must consider in determining
whether extraordinary circumstances warrant further analysis and
documentation in an EA or EIS, and therefore preclude the use of a CE
(36 CFR 220.6(b)). These provisions are important in helping to protect
Congressionally designated special areas, Native American religious or
cultural sites, archaeological sites, habitat for certain categories of
sensitive, threatened or endangered species, and other special
landscape features.
Conversely, we are concerned that the proposed legislation would
preclude the agency from documenting an EIS for any project meeting the
specified criteria, thereby removing protections for extraordinary
circumstances that are otherwise provided by the regulations for CEs
and increasing the possibility of unanticipated resource damage. We
also have a more general concern that broad-scale efforts to exclude or
otherwise limit documentation of environmental analysis may generate
uncertainty and skepticism that has a negative effect on stakeholder
collaboration, increasing the likelihood of appeals and litigation as a
result.
Given the above concerns, we cannot support this bill and concur
with the DOI position to oppose this bill.
H.R. 2172: H.R. 2172 would exclude certain meteorological site
testing and monitoring activities associated with wind and solar energy
production from NEPA. Projects would be excluded when they result in no
more than 5 acres of total disturbance, require minimal off-road access
and no new road construction, and are to be decommissioned within 5
years including restoration of the site to pre-existing condition,
among other criteria.
Projects meeting the criteria set forth in this legislation would
also meet the eligibility criteria for an existing categorical
exclusion (CE) from NEPA documentation requirements found at 36 CFR
220.6(e)(3), as long as specified extraordinary circumstances do not
exist. Approving the construction of a meteorological sampling site is
explicitly mentioned as an example where this CE can be applied.
As mentioned earlier, we support the use of existing statutory and
administrative CEs in situations where their application is determined
to be appropriate, including the regulations that help make that
determination by specifying the extraordinary circumstances that
preclude such use. These protections are helpful in many respects,
including those that sometimes exist for wind testing proposals, like
visual impacts from ridge top development and the potential impacts on
migratory birds and bats.
Similar to our concerns regarding H.R. 2171 above, a requirement to
exclude documentation of environmental analysis may lead to
unanticipated resource damage in some cases, and a chilling effect that
increases the likelihood of appeals and litigation.
The legislation also sets forth a requirement that issuance or
denial of permits for such projects take place within 30 days after
receipt of receiving an application, and that any denial clearly state
the deficiencies resulting in that decision and provide opportunity for
remedy. By contrast, USFS regulations at 36 CFR 251.58(c)(7) require
grant or denial of an application such as this one that is subject to a
processing fee within 60 days from receipt of the processing fee. This
provision raises concerns about whether the proposed legislation's
shorter timeline is consistent with agency capacity.
Although we support the goal of streamlining procedures for
development of renewable energy resources on NFS lands, we cannot
support this bill given the above concerns.
H.R. 2170: H.R. 2170 requires that a Federal agency shall consider
and analyze only the proposed action and the ``no action'' alternative
when reviewing any proposed renewable energy project on Federal lands,
including proposals to produce energy from solar power, geothermal
power, wind, biomass or other sources. The bill further requires, in
complying with NEPA, that consideration of public comments be limited
to those that specifically address the proposed action and/or the no
action alternative rather than other potential alternatives.
We acknowledge that there are cases where it can be appropriate to
limit alternatives to a proposed action and no action alternative.
Examples include certain land exchanges where a willing seller is
interested in a specific parcel, or various types of special uses
involving unique landscape attributes, or certain vegetation management
projects where there is broad-based support for urgent action and an
effective treatment clearly presents itself. In the latter case,
legislation can play a critical role in establishing effective
parameters that guide decisionmaking and maintain public support, as is
the case with hazardous fuels projects and the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148).
However, in all these cases the agency has limited discretion to
determine whether this approach is appropriate; the expectation remains
that we are to analyze multiple alternatives unless the proposed-
action/no-action approach is deemed justifiable. Indeed, it is our
experience that analysis of multiple alternatives often produces better
decisions that garner greater acceptance across a broader range of
stakeholders, and provides additional opportunities to work with
proponents to improve environmental mitigations. Furthermore, we are
concerned that broad prohibitions on analyzing or considering input on
multiple alternatives may have a negative effect, generating
uncertainty and skepticism that increases the likelihood of appeals and
litigation. This can cause delays in implementation even if the agency
position is most frequently upheld, or lead the agency to more
frequently select the no-action alternative.
Although we support the goal of streamlining procedures for
development of renewable energy resources on NFS lands, we cannot
support the proposed legislation given the above concerns.
Conclusion: Thank you for this opportunity to discuss proposals to
improve the ability of the U.S. Forest Service to meet the nation's
renewable energy needs. This concludes my prepared statement, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for your testimony, as
well. We will now begin questioning. Members are limited to
five minutes for their questions. I now recognize myself for
five minutes for questions.
Director Pool, you state that the Administration is opposed
to H.R. 2170 because it would reduce to a yes or no question
the decision about how and where to place renewable energy
projects. The cost of draft environmental impact statements are
beginning to exceed $7 million, which can be more than $10,000
per page. This tremendous cost includes considering a
reasonable range of alternatives.
The problem facing renewable energy developers is that
projects can go anywhere. There are 22 million acres, for
instance, of solar resources in the Southwest and as a solar
developer, most of those acres could be considered as a
reasonable alternative. Can you tell the Committee how
frequently BLM is sued about decisions based on inadequate
consideration of reasonable alternatives?
Mr. Pool. Yes. as it relates to litigation associated with
our authorizations. What we have discovered, especially over
the last several years, if we do quality work up front in
response to the National Environmental Policy Act, and we have
indeed improved upon our collaborative models, working with the
proponent, working with the environmental community, working
with state entities, county entities, the more work we do up
front, where everybody is involved and have a great
understanding as to what is being proposed, and I am referring
to utility scale type applications on public lands, when they
are at the table and they are being consulted and we value
their input, and we do that quality work up front, then on the
back end of these processes, it usually moves very
expeditiously and we are less prone to litigation. If we fail
to complete our requirements under the National Environmental
Policy Act and other statutes, including the Endangered Species
Act, the Bald Eagle Legal Protection Act, the National
Environmental Historic Protection Act, among many others, that
is when we become vulnerable to litigation.
So, we have clearly demonstrated, I think, a good example
under the Secretary's leadership, for the first time in public
land history, we authorized last year nine utility scale solar
projects in Nevada and California and we hope to approve 10
more solar projects at the end of this fiscal year. The
projects we approved last year was roughly 3,600 megawatts.
So, I guess what I am saying, NEPA has been around for
many, many years. It is what we utilize as a tool in
authorizing all proposed actions on public lands. With each
passing year, we learn more in terms of improving upon
collaborative models. And we have discovered, these are public
interest determinations. These are the American public's public
lands. And so, we take into account very carefully their views,
whatever segment of the society they represent: conservation,
industrial development, other state, county considerations.
When we take that information into account and weigh it very
carefully, and it is the NEPA that guides us through those
processes----
Mr. Lamborn. OK, Mr. Pool, let us talk about alternatives--
--
Mr. Pool. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn.--the process of looking at alternatives. Of
those nine projects that you just mentioned, how many of them
are under construction and how may are still tied up in
litigation?
Mr. Pool. I do not have the exact dates on the
construction. I would be glad----
Mr. Lamborn. Is it three under construction, does that
sound right, and six tied up in litigation?
Mr. Pool. We have four tied up--under construction now.
Mr. Lamborn. So the other five are tied up in litigation?
Mr. Pool. I think that----
Mr. Lamborn. The consideration of so-called reasonable
alternatives.
Mr. Pool. Oh, well, let me be specific about that. What a
range of alternatives does, when we start scoping out with the
proponents in what we call the pre-application phase, it gives
us a preliminary indication in reference to our land-use plans
and other scientific information that has been presented to BLM
to look at the possible suitability of that project. Now, we
are consulting much earlier than we used to do with the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Park Service because of visual
proximities. What a range of alternatives affords BLM and
working with the proponent is that we weigh the environmental
analyses through a range of alternatives such that at the end
of the process, when we evaluate the environmental impacts for
each alternative and the needed mitigations, then we can
extract from that range of alternatives to issue a record of
decision.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Mr. Pool, that may be the theory, but the
reality is that that is a loophole for people to bring lawsuits
and tie things up for years.
Mr. Pool. We do not view it that way, Chairman. What we
have discovered with some of these recent projects, with
everybody participating in the collaborative process, is that
many times when we elect to approve these projects, taking into
account the environmental analyses and the mitigations and
working with the proponent, we have adjusted the configuration
of some of these facilities. We have altered the project, the
site locations, because the mitigations, as addressed in a
range of alternatives, not just no action or proposed action,
allows us greater utility, but working with the proponent, as
well as the conservation community, and our state and county
stakeholders to really give a full overview of that site
consideration.
So, in our view, by having a range of alternatives with
public input affords us, I think, a much more sustainable
decision on the tail end of the process. And in many cases,
having a range of alternatives, we have made adjustments in
terms of site locations. We have reconfigured, for example, the
number of wind turbines.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Well, we have run out of time. Thank you
for your answer.
I would like to recognize the Ranking Member Mr. Holt for
five minutes of questions.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To move along, I would
like to ask the witnesses just to answer briefly, maybe one
word, if appropriate, because I wanted to get through a series
of questions. Mr. Pool and Mr. Holtrop, the BLM and the Forest
Service already have the authority to grant categorical
exclusions under NEPA for site testing of wind and other
renewable projects, is that correct?
Mr. Pool. That is correct.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Holt. And Mr. Pool and Mr. Holtrop, it is my
understanding that the BLM and the Forest Service have been
exercising its authority to grant categorical exclusions. You
have talked about this now in your testimony. How many
categorical exclusions have been issued for wind-testing
projects on BLM land since FY-08 versus projects that have gone
through environmental assessment? It is about 80 percent, is it
not?
Mr. Pool. We have authorized about 149 CXs and about 32
environmental assessments.
Mr. Holt. So, yes, far more than three-quarters of them
have.
Mr. Pool. Right.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Holtrop, how many categorical exclusions has
the Forest Service issued for wind-testing projects?
Mr. Holtrop. Fifteen out of 15 project proposals.
Mr. Holt. And environmental assessment?
Mr. Holtrop. To date, all of them have been used as a
categorical exclusion.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Pool, has the BLM required an environmental
assessment for a solar site-testing application?
Mr. Pool. A solar site-testing application?
Mr. Holt. For solar. I think the answer is no.
Mr. Pool. I was just going to say no, but I want to be
sure.
Mr. Holt. Yes, OK.
Mr. Pool. My expert says no, too.
Mr. Holt. So, you already have the authority to grant
categorical exclusions. Now, H.R. 2172 would, in effect, then
prevent your agencies from taking a more thorough look at a
project when there are extraordinary circumstances. I believe
that is what each of you has said, Mr. Pool and Mr. Holtrop.
Mr. Pool. That is correct.
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct.
Mr. Holt. So, H.R. 2172 really is not only unnecessary, but
might tie the Agencies' hands. Would you see it that way?
Mr. Pool. I believe it would, yes.
Mr. Holt. OK. Now the majority claims, Mr. Pool, that this
legislation is necessary to streamline the permitting process
for renewable energy. But, as you have said, and I just want to
get this clearly in the record, if the legislation were
enacted, could it not have the opposite effect and slow down or
even prevent by leading the agency to select the no action
alternative, even if with longer review, the project might have
been approved?
Mr. Pool. That is our position, yes, sir.
Mr. Holt. Do you believe that H.R. 2170 would lead to more
lawsuits and, hence, possible delays in renewable projects?
Mr. Pool. I believe any action that would shortchange the
NEPA process would indeed result in more lawsuits.
Mr. Holt. OK. And I would comment that although some people
want to avoid the comment period, the comment period actually
is a way of avoiding lawsuits, but that is just my comment.
Let me talk with Mr. Cruickshank for the minute-and-a-half
that I have remaining, for the Bureau of Ocean Energy. The
current system in place provides the agency can issue leases to
companies, so that their claim is not jumped by other companies
during the testing; is that correct?
Mr. Cruickshank. That is correct.
Mr. Holt. And the testing can cost millions of dollars, I
believe.
Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, that is true.
Mr. Holt. So, 2173 appears to set up a wholly new process
of permitting for site testing, which would appear to add an
additional layer of permitting review for onshore--for
offshore, I beg your pardon, renewable energy projects. Do you
see it that way at the Bureau?
Mr. Cruickshank. We would actually like to see some
clarification on the bill. We think that is one likely
interpretation, they would add an additional process to what we
have in place now.
Mr. Holt. So it could add actually additional hurdles. In
the last few seconds that remain, Mr. Pool, would you care to
talk about the importance of the public comment period, and do
you find that useful to your agency in the environmental
reviews you have had?
Mr. Pool. Almost certainly. I think it is this wonderful
opportunity the American public has. They can participate in
the process, Congressman. Many of these projects are in close
locations to their communities. It is not uncommon for them to
express concerns about the visual resource impact in these
rural areas. And so, it just affords them to express their
views and we take those into consideration.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. Pool. And it does create a much stronger decision
process on the tail end.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. I would like to recognize
Representative Fleischmann of Tennessee.
Mr. Fleischmann. Can you tell me what the Bureau of Land
Management, BLM, is attempting to take in order to streamline
the process?
Mr. Pool. Congressman, usually in terms of when development
on public land, the companies will come in and they will seek
testing periods, so to speak, and what we call met towers. They
will test the wind volumes typically a minimum of three years,
could go longer. And then depending on the information that is
recorded, then they make their determination as to whether or
not they want to invest in that particular location.
Let us assume that they do and then they will come back to
the Bureau and they will file what is called a right-of-way
application. Accompanying that is a plan of development, and
this is more precisely, for example, how many turbines they
would like to install in that particular area. We evaluate the
proximity of that location in relationship to other laws. More
recently, for example, with the passage of the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, there are various guidelines that the
Fish and Wildlife Service has issued. For eagles and wind
turbines, there is a lot of compatibility in the same thermals
that they both enjoy. But, our goal is not to create a high
instance of take with wind turbines and the close proximity to
eagle territories, a high density of nesting and, therefore, we
work both with the proponents and we work with the Fish and
Wildlife Service on those mitigations, so as to accommodate
these projects within reason.
Mr. Fleischmann. A follow-up question, and maybe Mr.
Holtrop would like to also address this. My big concern is the
lawsuits that sometimes will--often do--impede the process. Do
either of you gentleman have any idea how much these delays
cost companies that are trying to implement either wind energy
or offshore wind?
Mr. Pool. You know, I cannot quantify the delays. But, as I
mentioned in my comments, that if we do some quality up front
work with the proponents, with our other Federal agencies, in
terms of these site locations, and we start to identify those
resources conflicts and issues early on and we make other
members of the public part of that process, through scoping,
through public comment periods related to an EIS, we seem to be
less prone to litigation, if we follow those steps: good
environmental analyses, public input, and working with the
proponent on these mitigations that I just mentioned earlier.
And that is what the public desires to see. They do have value
to input, both the conservation community, other state entities
that we work with, and counties. So, we factor all of that in
and we think if we really optimize the collaborative model
along those lines, that we greatly reduce litigation risks.
Mr. Holtrop. I would like to also add that I also am not
able to quantify the effect from a time standpoint or an
expense standpoint to the companies of these proponents that
litigation would lead to and I am sure that it is significant.
I am sure that there is an issue associated with that. I think,
like my colleague, Mr. Pool, we are also interested in finding
ways to avoid that whenever that is possible. I think the fact
that there are litigation for projects such as this when that
happens is reflective of the fact that we have a broad range of
resources we are managing our public lands for, one of which is
appropriate use of renewable energy resources. And we believe
that the complexities of all of those values and resources that
we are managing, we need to have that full set of tools
available to us, to work with the public in an effective manner
and in doing so, I think we can reduce the amount of litigation
by engaging the public early on.
Mr. Fleischmann. OK. I understand your positions, but both
of you all would agree that these costs can be extremely
burdensome on companies that are trying to invest and develop
these technologies. I guess I am looking for a yes or no.
Mr. Holtrop. I would assume that that is the case.
Mr. Pool. Yes, I would assume that is true.
Mr. Fleischmann. OK. Thank you, gentlemen. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member from Massachusetts for any questions he may
have.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr.
Cruickshank, the Outer Continental Shelf is a shared resource.
As the bill's sponsor knows, the Navy uses the Virginia OCS
extensively to practice maneuvers. There are many
telecommunication's wires strung along the ocean floor there,
as well. Planes fly through the area. Could not the time frames
in this bill requiring the Interior to decide on a permit
within 30 days potentially hinder consultation with the U.S.
Navy, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal
Aviation Administration, and other agencies about whether the
proposed site and structure could hinder the activities of
those agencies?
Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, sir. We believe 30 days is too short
to allow us to fully consult with all of those agencies over
what their concerns and issues might be.
Mr. Markey. Now have you been talking to the Navy and the
Federal Communications Commission about this provision at all,
about this potential for having a deadline?
Mr. Cruickshank. Not about this specific provisions as yet.
We have just gotten the bill recently, so we have not worked
through entirely. We have touched base briefly to know their
concerns, but we have not gone into great depth with them yet.
Mr. Markey. So there are basically just time constraints in
terms of consultation, and 30 days is an awful lot of pressure
to put on people to make a decision about the next century's
use of an ocean off of a coastline of a state and I just think
that it is an unrealistic time frame, which they are proposing.
Now in his questions, the Chairman mentioned the number of
lawsuits currently ongoing with renewable energy projects on
public lands. Do these lawsuits halt the consideration process
at your agencies? Mr. Pool?
Mr. Pool. And let me just preface, if I may, Congressman,
in reference to the Chairman's earlier question. We have had
one injunction filed on just one of our solar projects. When
people seek injunctive relief through a temporary restraining
order, we adjudicate the merit of that TRO that has been filed
and what is typically challenged is the quality of our NEPA
process: did we consult with our Federal agencies, did we carry
out our Native American consultations. And we feel very
confident that for all of these projects, that we have clearly
executed our responsibilities under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Pool, if this bill was to become law and a
geothermal test were to be proposed outside of Yellowstone Park
that would tap the geothermal wells that produce Old Faithful
and other famous geysers, would the Interior Department have
grounds to review the project, as long as the project's
technical specifications fit within the terms described within
this bill?
Mr. Pool. Oh, most certainly. Yes, we would evaluate any
project, geothermal project, that may be in close proximity to
Yellowstone or one of the BLM wellness areas or other park
service units, so as not to impact those park attributes.
Mr. Markey. Under current law. How about under the law they
are proposing?
Mr. Pool. I do not think it would work for us. I think the
current system we have now, the laws we have in place would
help facilitate the right decision.
Mr. Markey. So what would this bill do, in terms of your
ability to evaluate the impact on Old Faithful?
Mr. Pool. I think the time frames are unrealistic, in terms
of working through the NEPA process and the consultation
process that we have before us.
Mr. Markey. So if you had to make a decision in 30 days?
Mr. Pool. That would be impossible.
Mr. Markey. Impossible?
Mr. Pool. Yes. Because of our consultation requirements,
they currently are a regulatory standard for--environmental
impact statement, for example, it is a minimum, minimum 45-day
public comment period. And depending on the magnitude of the
project, some of our utility scale solar projects, the company
has actually come back and requested more time and we have
granted up an additional 45 days, a full 90 days. And we think
that we are honoring the public's request to further analyze
all the information that has been provided and allow them to
have information to be well informed and that is a good public
process.
Mr. Markey. So this bill could kill Old Faithful?
Mr. Pool. Well----
Mr. Markey. If there was a company that really wanted to
drill and have their own geothermal, you would really have a
tough----
Mr. Lamborn. It is time for our next----
Mr. Markey.--time to----
Mr. Lamborn. It is time for our next witnesses.
Mr. Markey. Anyway, I just thought that it is important for
us to understand the consequences.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for putting
this hearing together. Thank you, gentlemen, for your
testimony.
First of all, I want to get some clarification from you
all, my colleague who just made some comments about century-
long impacts. And as I have read these three bills, I wanted to
get yours, as you have read them, obviously, based on your
comments, your interpretation. The way I read these bills, we
are not talking about century-long impacts here. We are talking
about temporary structures for measurement. We are not talking
about permanent structures. So would you agree that we are not
talking about things that have a century-long impact? We are
talking about temporary structures for measurement within each
of these three bills.
Mr. Pool. That is correct, if you are referring to the
testing, met towers, so to speak.
Mr. Thompson. Correct.
Mr. Pool. Yes. Oftentimes, Congressman, and as pointed out
earlier, we have authorized 80 percent of those actions through
what we call a categoric exclusion. I mean, the company just
does not come in and get their freelance on public lands. Our
goal is to work with them and find the right location for their
met towers.
Mr. Thompson. So, if you would, tell me the criterion for
the--and 80 percent is impressive and actually 100 percent with
the Forest Service, I think, is pretty impressive. It almost
speaks to the support of these three bills, just not your
words, but your actions of what you have done. Tell me about
the 20 percent that have not been excluded from the NEPA?
Mr. Pool. Those are what we call extraordinary
circumstances and these are our departmental guidelines. We do
not have full understanding of every acre of public land. We
develop the land-use plans. We build in scientific information.
But, given the 250 million acres that we manage, sometimes we
lack additional on-the-ground data. So, oftentimes, when the
company wants to place met towers, we will discover that they
are in close proximity of critical habitats associated with
wildlife species, we are trying to better conserve. There has
been issues associated with the height of met towers that may
conflict with Federal Aviation guidelines, may conflict with
adjacent military installations when they conduct their aerial
testing and training. There has been issues raised on some of
these where the Native American community has raised concerns
about sacred sites in that proximity. So based on that new
information and to fully flush out getting that met tower
placed, we will elevate that to a little bit higher
environmental standard.
Mr. Thompson. OK, thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. If I could also?
Mr. Thompson. OK.
Mr. Holtrop. My interpretation of H.R. 2171 and 2172,
referring to your first question, is the same as what you are
interpreting it. These are for testing, for exploratory
purposes. H.R. 2070, on the other hand, I think is intended to
also apply to the development of these projects, and it could
have long-term implications--at least that is my
interpretation.
And then also just like Mr. Pool, while for wind energy
test projects, in all cases to date, we have been able to
utilize the existing categorical exclusion. If there were
extenuating circumstances, those would be the types of
opportunities we would be looking for in needing to have the
ability to do a more thorough analysis at that point, if there
were those types of extenuating circumstances. To this date,
that has not been the case.
Mr. Thompson. I just want to kind of pursue this
categorical exclusion from NEPA, which sounds like it is
working and a good idea from your testimony. In 2009, the
Forest Service specifically attempted to apply NEPA to oil and
gas processes in the national forest, the Allegheny National
Forest that I represent. Ninety-seven percent of it is--some
service rights are privately owned and held, even though the
State Department of Environmental Protection effectively and
thoroughly has long maintained this process. To both panelists,
do you believe that the Service or the BLM would attempt to
further apply NEPA to other forms of energy production or
frankly would--or is your success with this categorical
exclusion from NEPA something you intend to apply to the search
for the exploration in the production of other energy?
Mr. Holtrop. The categorical exclusion is an exclusion from
needing to document an environmental review in the form of an
environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment.
It is not authority to not do an environmental analysis of the
project. It has to do with the documentation and review process
needs that are associated with it. We have explicit categories
that we have worked with the Council on Environmental Quality
to determine what types of actions are authorized for us to
utilize categorical exclusions for and if any type of project
fits within one of those categories, we pursue that as an
efficiency measure, if that is the appropriate way to go.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time
has expired.
Mr. Lamborn. All right, thank you. Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Pool and Mr. Holtrop, give me a time frame
for these processes with and without a categorical exclusion?
Tell me the time frame from start to implementation.
Mr. Pool. Congressman, for BLM, we have about 80 CXs we use
for all of our programs and the application of those CXs can
vary from one jurisdiction to the next, depending on the
program activity. But, it is designed to accelerate the
approval process. And my more recent example, for our
geothermal activity, and Nevada is a big geothermal state, that
we were able to process a CX in less than six weeks, for
example.
Dr. Gosar. So, from all processing, permitting, NEPA, six
weeks?
Mr. Pool. That is correct, because the extraordinary
circumstances involve a variety of disciplines that we have in
the field offices. It is not just one person and so----
Dr. Gosar. And how are they subjective to litigation in
those fast tracks?
Mr. Pool. For CXs?
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Mr. Pool. Not to my knowledge.
Dr. Gosar. Forest Service, time frame?
Mr. Holtrop. It is a broad question that you are asking.
Dr. Gosar. We are going to define this very quickly.
Mr. Holtrop. OK. So, if we are talking about wind energy
proposals for the met towers, for just determining whether
there is sufficient wind energy there for further development,
of those projects that I have mentioned that we have used a
categorical exclusion on, the length of time it has taken us to
complete those projects has ranged to a little under two
months, to usually done within a year's time and in one case,
it took us 21 months and I believe that was because of
iterations with the proponent.
Dr. Gosar. When you said that you have fewer litigations
when you do the proper analysis, particularly the NEPAs, talk
to me about the time frame about the NEPAs. What is the average
time frame with NEPAs going on right now, and is that
satisfactory in your viewpoint? Is it salient to keep it the
same way?
Mr. Holtrop. We are generally able to complete an
environmental assessment in an average time of less than a year
and an environmental impact statement in about a year-and-a-
half. That is about how long it takes use on average for
environmental impact statements and environmental assessments
across all of the variety of programs that we have. Obviously,
if there are some more complex issues that we are dealing with,
with greater public interest, those tend to take a longer
period of time.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Pool?
Mr. Pool. Yes. It can vary; but usually on the high-level
projects, we try to target an 18-month turnaround time; and
that factors in a scoping period, a series of meetings, and
working with the public. Sometimes the draft environmental
impact statement can take several months to produce because the
amount of information that is required, all of the scientific
information, the analysis, the alternative analysis. Then, as I
mentioned earlier, we will open up the EISs to a minimum of 45
days and oftentimes the public will say, because of the volume
of these documents, ``we need more time.'' Then from there, we
develop the final EIS and then we prepare an ROD.
And I just want to clarify one thing, Congressman. When you
asked me about whether or not the CXs were open to litigation,
I think anything that we authorize is subject to litigation.
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Mr. Pool. What I wanted to say is that to my knowledge, and
we have been using CXs at BLM for 30 years, I cannot reflect on
any one time where we issued a CX that was litigated.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I am just really curious because in
Arizona, in District 1, the average NEPA life or the average
time for a NEPA is 5.9 years. And so, I am getting some very
different figures from you two gentlemen, because the process
in Arizona, particularly in District 1, is broken and there is
a problem, particularly when we are struggling to find out how
extreme wings of environmental communities, who have not gotten
along, actually using equal access to funding to justify filing
litigation. And we would love to know what has been used for
litigation in that kind of funding for litigations within all
of these parameters that you are talking about. We would like
to have a report on that.
But, we are having a problem here and what I am hearing
from you is not what is happening in real life, in real time,
on the ground in my district. So, I would like to have better
follow through as far as what is impeding our process out
there, OK. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. I would be more than happy to come and meet
with you, if you would like. I would like to get to the bottom
of that myself.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Now, I would like to recognize
Representative Johnson of Ohio.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing on these four bills that we are hopeful
is going to cut through the bureaucratic red tape that is
impeding our ability to unleash our renewable energy resources
on Federal lands. You know, we have heard time and time again
from this Committee, from companies that have wanted to go
forward with renewable energy projects, but they cannot because
of a flawed, failing permitting process. Interestingly, the
Bureau of Land Management seemed to notice that red tape was
getting in the way of these projects; so in order to ensure
that the so-called stimulus program dollars would be spent on
renewable projects, they created a fast-track program to get
permits approved for these projects. Surprisingly though, only
35 percent of these fast-track projects were able to be
approved in time to receive the funding from the stimulus
program. Go figure.
Thankfully, these four bills cut to the heart of the
problem and speed up the permitting process on Federal lands,
so that we can get on about doing what the stimulus program was
designed to do in the first place, which is create jobs and
make America more energy secure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
estimates that nearly 1.1 trillion in investments are currently
being held up due to the permitting process. Now, granted, not
all of these projects are on Federal lands, but a large portion
of the held-up projects are. If the bureaucrats would get out
of the way and allow these projects to go forward, nearly 1.9
million jobs would be created. It is mind boggling to me that
we are letting this private funding in the private sector sit
on the sidelines, while unemployment hovers around 10 percent.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Mr. Pool, you testified
today that BLM and the Department of the Interior are opposed
to all four of these bills.
Let me ask you my first question, Mr. Pool. Regarding BLM's
decision to fast track certain projects in an effort to move
the permitting process along and take advantage of the so-
called stimulus program, was there a formal process that BLM
used to decide which projects qualified for the fast-track
process and, if so, could you briefly describe that process?
Mr. Pool. Yes, sir, I would be glad to do that. It is a
two-way street, that the companies, based on the load centers
in the United States, and California being one of the premiere
load centers, that is where we had a lot of interest. We have
had it for a number of years. Also, the State of California has
a high renewable portfolio standard that the state has set
through the state legislature. Other states do not have that.
So that is one dynamic that really accelerates renewable
development in California.
In terms of accelerating the processes to the R funding and
also the stimulus incentives that is available to industry, we
really accelerated our hiring staff, we developed renewable
project offices, and that helped us to really get geared up to
help move forward in an expeditious way many of the
environmental requirements, including various studies. So----
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry for interrupting you, because we
only have a limited amount of time. I am really not hearing
much about the process, the formal process. I am hearing a lot
of other stuff, but I am not hearing about the formal process
that you went through to identify these projects. Would you
agree that a 35 percent approval rate, given what the stimulus
program was designed to do, is that in your mind acceptable?
Mr. Pool. Well, as I mentioned earlier, industry has a lot
of influence in terms of those priorities.
Mr. Johnson. No. Is that acceptable? Do you think 35
percent approval rating is acceptable?
Mr. Pool. I think that what we achieved, this
Administrative achieved in advancing renewable development on
public lands was remarkable, as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Johnson. Is 35 percent approval rating on permits
acceptable?
Mr. Pool. I think it was a good----
Mr. Johnson. That is a yes or no question, Mr. Pool.
Mr. Pool. Well, I cannot----
Mr. Johnson. Is it acceptable or not?
Mr. Pool. Congressman, I do not know what 35 percent. I am
just saying that what we have accomplished----
Mr. Johnson. It is a good batting average, if you are
playing baseball, but when you are talking about America's
unemployment rate and energy security, I submit to you that it
is not very good.
Mr. Pool. And what I am trying to say is that that is an
arrangement between the investments the company elect to make
and when they elect to make it, in light of the stimulus
funding, the added resources that we, BLM, were provided, to
really accelerate these projects.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the private sector has indicated
their commitment to these investments; $1.1 trillion IN
investments are being held up by this flawed permitting
process. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time; but, hopefully, it
will come back around again.
Mr. Lamborn. That certainly could happen. At this point, I
would like to recognize Mr. Labrador for five minutes.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing. Mr. Pool, you are here testifying against all
four bills; correct?
Mr. Pool. That is correct.
Mr. Labrador. And I assume that you read the bills,
correct?
Mr. Pool. That is correct.
Mr. Labrador. And you understand the bills?
Mr. Pool. Yes.
Mr. Labrador. So, we should probably trust your opinion,
your analysis, and your conclusions on these bills, because you
have actually read the bills and understand them; correct?
Mr. Pool. Correct.
Mr. Labrador. Well, you just had a colloquy with the
Ranking Member earlier about my bill, which is H.R. 2171. And
in his words, and you agreed with this, this bill would
destroy--that we are attempting to destroy Old Faithful and you
agreed with that, correct?
Mr. Pool. Well, I am not sure if I really understood the
Old Faithful analogy; but, in terms of, you know, authorizing
and leasing for geothermal development of public land, we do
take into account through the NEPA process adjacent provinces
like Yellowstone and other critical environments.
Mr. Labrador. But according to him, we would be drilling or
we would be actually exploring on Old Faithful and you agreed
with that. Now, let me just read part of the bill, because I am
not sure that you have read it. According to the bill, the
definition of a geothermal exploration test project, it means
the drilling of a well to test or explore for geothermal
resources on lands leased by the Department of the Interior, on
lands leased by the Department of the Interior, for the
development and production of geothermal resources. Also, the
NEPA exclusion shall not apply with respect to a project that
the NEPA shall not apply with respect to a project that the
Secretary of the Interior determines under subjection C, which
is a geothermal exploration test project. So a geothermal test
exploration project has to be on lands leased, correct? Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Pool. That is correct.
Mr. Labrador. So tell the Committee, is any land adjacent
to Old Faithful currently leased by BLM?
Mr. Pool. I do not know the proximity of any leased lands
in Wyoming to Yellowstone currently. I do not have that
information.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. So would the BLM lease lands that
would impact Old Faithful?
Mr. Pool. I do not think we would.
Mr. Labrador. You do not think it. Then this bill, which
only impacts lands leased for geothermal development, would
have absolutely no impact on the case presented by the Ranking
Member; correct?
Mr. Pool. Would you state that again, please?
Mr. Labrador. This bill would in no way affect any lands
that are leased that are close--not that are leased, but that
are close to or adjacent to Old Faithful; correct?
Mr. Pool. Only based on the proximity of those leases that
we have granted.
Mr. Labrador. But there are currently no leases granted and
you cannot foresee the BLM granting any leases, correct?
Mr. Pool. We would not grant leases that would impact----
Mr. Labrador. Old Faithful.
Mr. Pool.--Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Labrador. So why in the world did you agree with the
Ranking Member's characterization that this would actually
impact Old Faithful?
Mr. Pool. Well, I think it was in the context of the
shorter time frame, you know.
Mr. Labrador. No, he said that we are destroying, our plan
is to destroy Old Faithful and you seemed to agree that this
bill would destroy Old Faithful. Is that an accurate
conclusion?
Mr. Pool. My response was in the context of leasing and
proximity of Yellowstone that would impair the values of
Yellowstone is something we would not do.
Mr. Labrador. It is not something you would do; but under
my bill, it could not be done because it would have to be lands
leased and you just told us that there are no lands leased at
this time and that BLM would not lease any lands. So, I am
having a hard time understanding how you----
Mr. Pool. Well, let me clarify. We have a lot of lands
currently under lease with geothermal development.
Mr. Labrador. But none at Old Faithful--none that would
impact Old Faithful, correct?
Mr. Labrador. Or any other significant jurisdiction where
we have high entries or space that need to be protected and
conserved.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. So your conclusion and his
conclusion were wrong and I am having a hard time understanding
why would we trust anything else that is coming from you or
from the other side. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Pool. Congressman, I did want to clarify one point, if
I may.
Mr. Labrador. No, thank you.
Mr. Pool. OK.
Mr. Lamborn. We will now shift to Representative Landry of
Louisiana.
Mr. Landry. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the balance of my
time to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I thank my colleague for yielding. You know, I
get so frustrated coming to these hearings and hearing the same
rhetoric out of the Administration over and over and over
again. Mr. Chairman, I may be new to Congress; but having been
born and raised on the farm and spending 27 years in the
military and being a businessman myself, somewhere along the
way God gifted me with a little bit of commonsense. In the
first 230 plus years of our Nation's history, we have been the
Nation of innovation, ingenuity, seeing the glass as half full,
and going after opportunities, but there is a disturbing
pattern that I have noticed coming from this Administration and
the Department of the Interior. It seems to me that from the
top to the bottom, we have a culture of no. No permeates
everything that this Administration and the Department does. No
to unleashing America's natural resources. No to renewable
energy projects. And no to energy independence and energy
security.
You know, I do not really have anymore questions because I
do not think we are going to get any good answers. But, I thank
the Chairman for bringing these important bills to the
Committee and I look forward to voting in favor of them in the
future. And with that, I want to yield back the balance of my
time to Mr. Labrador. Do you have any other?
Mr. Labrador. I do not have any other questions.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. In that event, we will go to the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Flores, if he has any questions.
Mr. Flores. I do not.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Then that concludes this panel. Thank you
for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for the
answers to the questions.
[Witnesses excused.]
Mr. Lamborn. I would like to invite up the second panel
now, consisting of PJ Dougherty, Vice President of Helios
Strategies; Chris Taylor, Chief Development Officer of Element
Power; Paul Thomsen, Director of Policy and Business
Development for Ormat Technologies, Inc.; Chase Huntley,
Director of Renewable Energy Policy for the Wilderness Society;
and Jim Lyons, Senior Director, Renewable Energy for Defenders
of Wildlife.
As you come forward, let me repeat what I said to the
earlier panel. Your written testimony will appear in full in
the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements
to five minutes, as outlined in our invitation letter to you.
Our microphones are not automatic, so that you have to activate
them when you begin speaking. You have five minutes. After four
minutes, the yellow light comes on and after five minutes, the
red light comes on.
At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Dougherty to begin.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF PJ DOUGHERTY, VICE PRESIDENT,
HELIOS STRATEGIES
Mr. Dougherty. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, other
members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here with
you today to discuss the development and deployment of
renewable energy technologies on Federal lands. Thank you,
along with your staff, for your efforts on this legislation.
I am currently employed with Strategic Marketing
Innovations, Inc. It is a leading government relations and
Federal marketing firm here in Washington. We represent
numerous clients in the clean energy and renewable energy
arena.
My testimony is based on nearly 20 years as a senior
official at the U.S. Department of Energy with the focus on
clean energy technology development and practices. I also work
very closely with other Federal and state agencies and industry
across the country during my time at DOE. In general, these
bills before us today would take a significant step toward
increasing development of renewables on Federal lands. They are
measured in their reach and scale to allow timely testing and
resource assessments, while still ensuring protection of the
environment. In short, these bills would add predictability to
the clean energy project planning and development processes.
However, I have several recommendations on how they could
be improved, which are discussed in more detail in my written
statement for the record. In relation to H.R. 2170, I would
recommend adding language advocating for an adaptive management
approach, similar to that contained in S-630, the Marine
Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, which is
pending floor action in the Senate. This language would ensure
the intent of H.R. 2170 as applied to how many different sizes
of pilot projects across the different technologies. I would
also recommend replacing tidal or kinetic forces with marine
and hydrokinetic energy, which is the statutory definition used
in EISA 2007 to refer to ocean, tidal, and wave technologies.
In relation to H.R. 2171, I would recommend the
Subcommittee work closely with the Department of Energy and the
geothermal industry to determine if the well depth limit
language is adequate to meet the goals of the legislation.
In regards to H.R. 2172, this bill is noteworthy in that it
would protect the data collected, plus protecting the
investment of the project proposer. I would recommend the
Subcommittee consider modifying this language to allow a two-
track system of data collection and disclosure based on whether
or not Federal funds are used to collect that data.
In relation to H.R. 2173, I would recommend the
Subcommittee rename this bill the Offshore Renewable Testing
Act, as it does include other technologies beyond offshore
wind. The Subcommittee should also clarify that wave and ocean
energy technologies are qualified under the definition of
offshore energy resources and that the bill applies to the
collection of water energy flows, as well as meteorological
data.
Finally, I would also recommend engaging the offshore wind
development community and Department of Energy's wind and water
program, to determine that the language related to areas
affected at the seabed is adequate to achieve the goals of this
legislation.
While these bills will play a significant role in removing
barriers to project development and spur investment, the
Federal role, in my view, goes beyond regulation. It includes
adopting proper policies, stimulating R&D investment, and
making process improvements that stimulate a balanced energy
portfolio. The combination of those three removes uncertainty
from the market and sends a strong signal that the U.S. is and
will remain a safe investment for innovative energy technology
development, manufacturing, and project development, as well.
Now, there are many players in this effort, including the
Federal agencies and their dedicated staffs that have been
working closely with industry, the utility sector, and many
stakeholders across the country. Federal technology programs,
particularly those at DOE, have directly supported the
development and commercialization of new energy technologies,
such as geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, and water
technologies. Agencies like Department of Defense and USDA have
also funded the development and deployment of renewable energy
technologies for many, many years. Department of
Transportation, Commerce, and the Interior have also
contributed consistently over the years to the development and
deployment of advanced energy technologies.
In conclusion, the legislation discussed today would build
on these efforts today to bring us steps closer to realizing
stronger economy, a cleaner energy future, enhance national
security, and strengthen U.S. leadership in the global energy
marketplace.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you.
I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dougherty follows:]
Statement of P.J. Dougherty, Vice President,
Strategic Marketing Innovations
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and other members of the
Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to give
testimony on a series of bills put forth by the Committee to accelerate
the deployment of renewable energy technologies on federal lands. Thank
you, along with your staff, for your efforts on this legislation.
My name is P.J. Dougherty, and I am a Vice President with Strategic
Marketing Innovations Inc., a government relations and federal
marketing firm in Washington, D.C. Our firm represents numerous clients
in the renewable energy arena, including the Ocean Renewable Energy
Coalition. The Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition is the only national
trade association exclusively dedicated to promoting marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies from clean, renewable ocean
resources. Founded in April of 2005, the Coalition has grown to over 50
members.
I will be speaking today on how these bills could impact our
nation's ability to accelerate renewable energy technology development,
demonstration and deployment on federal lands. I will also share my
thoughts on the role of the federal government as a whole in achieving
our national energy, economic, environmental and national security
goals.
My testimony is based on nearly 20 years as a senior official at
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with a focus on clean energy
technologies and practices. During my time at DOE, I served in a
variety of positions, including Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Acting Program Manager for the
Wind and Water Power Program, and National Coordinator of the Wind
Powering America Deployment Program. I also worked across the EERE
portfolio to engage and coordinate with other agencies on overlapping
mission areas, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Interior and Transportation.
Renewables Overview
The U.S. is blessed with abundant renewable resources on public
lands. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Land Management, renewable resources on public lands are estimated to
potentially generate 2.9 million MW of solar, 206,000 MW of wind, and
39,000 MW of geothermal energy. While this entire resource is not
likely to be developed in our lifetimes, it represents a game changer
for our nation's energy, economic, environmental and national security.
Clearly, renewable energy can play a significant role in expanding our
homeland energy supply and the power needs of our military facilities
around the world.
Federal commitment to creating a robust U.S. renewable energy
industry will advance our national economic goals by creating high-
quality employment in rural communities, new sources of revenues for
all levels of government, long-term investment in supporting
infrastructure, and strengthening the thousands of businesses that make
up the U.S. energy and industrial supply chain. However, it will take a
concentrated and committed effort combining investment in research and
development, effective regulatory policies, and coordinated federal
processes to make these goals a reality.
Proposed Legislation
The bills before us today, as written, would take a significant
step forward towards increasing the development of renewables on
federal lands. The bills are measured in their reach and scaled to
allow timely testing and resource assessments while still ensuring
protection of the environment and our natural resources. In general,
these critical first steps in developing any energy project would be
advanced in a timely and predictable manner by removing a level of
uncertainty that exists within today's numerous regulatory frameworks.
This uncertainty is the primary disincentive to further public and
private investment in the development and deployment of new energy
generation technologies.
I would like to offer some specific thoughts on each of the bills
and then close by offering my opinion on the larger role of government
in developing and deploying cleaner energy technologies.
H.R. 2170--Streamlining Federal Review to Facilitate Renewable Energy
Projects.
H.R. 2170 aims to focus NEPA requirements on proposed energy
projects in federal lands and waters. The bill would also set a
reasonable limit on comment periods and provides clear definitions of
qualified renewable technologies within the scope of H.R. 2170. While I
believe the majority of project developers and investors would find
reason to support this language, it may be subject to legislative and
legal challenge by other interested stakeholders. The Subcommittee may
want to consider adding language advocating for an adaptive management
approach similar to that contained in S.630, the Marine and
Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, which is pending
floor action in the Senate. This language would ensure the intent of
H.R. 2170 is applied to accommodate different sizes of pilot projects
across technologies. The Subcommittee should also consider replacing
``tidal or kinetic forces'' with ``marine and hydrokinetic energy,''
the statutory definition used in EISA 2007 to refer to ocean, tidal,
and wave technologies.
H.R. 2171--Promoting the Timely Exploration of Geothermal Resources
under Existing Geothermal Leases.
H.R. 2171 seeks to ease the regulatory burdens related to
geothermal resource assessments to those tests and explorations that
are very limited in areas affected and overall scope. The bill also
sets timetables for federal officials to act on applications and would
focus the consideration of NEPA requirements. H.R. 2171 is a reasonable
fix given its limited scope. However, I would recommend the
Subcommittee work closely with the Department of Energy and the
geothermal industry to determine if the well depth limit under Sec. 2
(a)(3)(A) is adequate to meet the goals of the legislation.
H.R. 2172--Facilitate the Development of Wind Energy Resources on
Federal Lands.
H.R. 2172 is focused primarily on allowing installation of onshore
wind resource assessment equipment with provisions similar to H.R. 2171
regarding NEPA requirements scaled to project impact size and scope.
The bill would also protect the data collected, thus protecting the
investment of the project proposer. I would recommend the Subcommittee
consider modifying this language to allow a two track system of data
collection and disclosure, based on whether or not federal funds are
used to collect the data.
H.R. 2173--Facilitate the Development of Offshore Wind Energy
Resources.
H.R. 2173 is focused on allowing installation of offshore wind and
other renewable resource assessment equipment and mirrors the
provisions contained in H.R. 2171 and H.R. 2172. It also prescribes the
process for decommissioning of testing equipment and remediation of
affected areas, refocuses NEPA requirements given scale and scope, and
sets timetables for federal officials to act on applications for
resource assessments. The bill also protects data collected as in H.R.
2172. While I would recommend the Subcommittee adopt this provision,
the Subcommittee may wish to rename this bill the Offshore Renewable
Testing Act, as it does include other technologies beyond offshore
wind, including marine hydrokinetic energy technologies. The
Subcommittee may also want to clarify that wave and ocean energy
technologies are qualified under the definition of offshore energy
resources and that the bill applies to collection of water energy flows
as well as meteorological data. Finally, I would also recommend
engaging the offshore wind development community and the Department of
Energy's Wind Program to determine if the language under Sec. 2 (a) (1)
(B) related to areas affected at the seabed is adequate to achieve the
goals of the legislation.
Larger Federal Role in Renewable Energy Development
While I believe these bills would play as significant role in
removing barriers to project development and spur investment, the
federal role goes beyond streamlining the regulatory regime. It
includes ensuring a balanced investment in developing, testing and
deploying advanced technologies as well as ensuring a clear, timely and
predictable process for permitting and siting projects. The combination
of proper policies, R&D investment, and process improvements are the
key elements to demonstrate a national commitment to a balanced energy
portfolio that utilizes our homeland resources. The combination also
removes uncertainty from the market and sends a strong signal that the
U.S. is and will remain a safe investment for innovative technology
development, manufacturing and project development.
I would like to touch further on the important role the federal
agencies and their dedicated staffs are playing in the renewable energy
arena. To do so, I will borrow some language previously used in
testimony in 2009 by James Dehlsen, father of the U.S. wind industry,
and with whom I have had the honor of working with and for over the
past few years.
First, the federal technology programs, particularly those at DOE,
have over their 30-year history directly enabled the development and
commercialization of new energy technologies such as geothermal, solar,
biomass, wind and marine hydrokinetics. The Department's management--
political and career--and the technical experts at headquarters and the
national laboratories can take much of the credit for helping to create
today's global renewable industries. They closely collaborated with the
emerging industry players to understand, and then mitigate risk; they
requested the funds necessary to research, develop and demonstrate new
technologies; they shared the pride when technology achieved commercial
success and gritted through the setbacks along the way; and they
promoted the new technologies, within the government, as well as the
nation's utilities, and their consumers. They helped launch major
industrial activity and large-scale renewable power generation.
Second, the Departments of Defense and USDA have both funded the
development and deployment of renewable energy technologies for many
years. They have also been in the forefront in recognizing the benefits
to not only their mission areas but the nation and world in developing
substitutes for fossil fuels for transportation as well as using
homeland resources to generate electricity. DOD in particular has
voiced the danger to their critical mission areas and, more important,
their men and women in uniform, from continued reliance on non-
renewable fuels, particularly in combat areas and forward operating
bases.
Third, many other federal and state agencies have also played and
will continue to play a significant role in the success we have made to
date in alternative energy technologies. DOT/FAA, Commerce's NOAA and
NTIA, USDA's Forest Service and many state energy and economic
development offices have also contributed consistently over the years
to developing our cleaner energy technologies. These partnerships,
along with the U.S. generation, transmission and distribution
industries, are all necessary to our success.
The legislation discussed today will build on these efforts to date
and bring us steps closer to realizing a stronger economy, cleaner
energy future, enhanced national securing and strengthened U.S.
leadership in the global energy marketplace.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and
I am happy to take your questions.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Mr. Taylor?
STATEMENT OF CHRIS TAYLOR, CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ELEMENT
POWER, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, very much, Chairman, Ranking Member.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Chris
Taylor. I am the Chief Development Officer of Element Power. We
are a global wind and solar development operation company with
headquarters in Portland, Oregon. I am also here representing
the American Wind Energy Association.
As we had testified before this Committee back on June 1st,
far and away the biggest challenge our industry is facing
today, right now, is the looming expiration of Federal tax
incentives for renewable energy, as well as the lack of
progress on the demand side policy, such as renewable energy
standards and we certainly look forward to talking about the
benefits of these bills and what they would do. But, it is
important to note that any change in siting projects on public
land will not result in the full utilization of our Nation's
renewable potential unless we also have policy action on the
incentive and demand side.
With respect to the bills under consideration today, in
AWEA's testimony two weeks ago, we suggested that the Committee
consider legislation that would provide categorical exclusions
for temporary met towers to test wind speeds. BLM's current
wind energy development policy, which I do want to note, we
think, in general, is well drafted and BLM, in general, has
been a good agency to work with. There are some exceptions,
which I am about to talk about; but, overall, have been
supportive. They do currently allow for categorical exclusions.
However, as you heard today, a significant percentage of those
met tower applications are not being processed that way. I
guess I have a high number of my projects that are in the 32
that went through the full EA and we feel that this is an
unnecessary waste of resources.
The issue really has to do with inconsistent application at
the field office level. However. some offices routinely require
EAs, while others routinely use the CATX, and in
rare cases, we are even asked for a full EIS. So, we very much
appreciate the introduction of H.R. 2172 by Representative
Noem; and as long as met towers meet certain conditions spelled
out in the bill, such as limiting road building, we think that
using the categorical exclusion makes sense. We thank the
Representative for her leadership on this issue.
We do believe that the met tower application process can be
improved within the confines of NEPA. We support providing
CATX's, except in cases where ``extraordinary circumstances are
present,'' as described in the existing regs, and we think this
would be providing an appropriate balance between the need to
support development and the protection of natural resources.
I have a few specific examples here. It is hard to see, I
know, for you up on the bench there, but this is a picture of
one of the sites where we had to perform a full EA. We had to
take the equipment in. We had to have a week's worth of Native
American monitors, archaeological monitors, biological
monitors. As you can see, there is not a plant to be found at
this site. There is an existing track. You can see the two
tracks to the left of the tower. That piece of junk in the
front was there when we got there. We did not bring that, but
there is an existing ``trail'' going up there. We could not
drive on that. We had to carry the equipment on our backs. This
is an area that is opened to OHV use. In fact, some OHV guys
came up and said, what are you guys
doing carrying that stuff,'' as they zoomed off to recreate.
So, this is a fairly egregious example. I don't want to
represent this as typical or the norm for BLM, but these are
some of the examples that we run into. Having some legislation
that is black and white, that we can wave around to say this is
crazy, would be helpful to us.
We are also being asked to monitor. This gives you the idea
of what a met tower is. That is a four-by--that piece of metal
at the bottom is much smaller than this table we are sitting
at. We are not talking about a lot of ground disturbance, but
they are requiring us to use literally shovels to dig out the
holes to stick in the anchors, rather than an auger, which also
seems a little unnecessary. And we are being asked to monitor
this, have someone walk out there, because you cannot drive out
there to look and see if any birds have run into this six-inch
pole, which we certainly support for wind projects; but for a
met tower, it is a little crazy.
I also want to point out the two other issues I want to
bring out--the BLM using more discretion, and how they
incorporate comments from other agencies. Sometimes a comment
from a relatively low-level field biologist from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service that is not even official policy of the
agency, is not based on science, suddenly becomes virtually the
word of God and it is adopted by BLM as such and we are forced
to comply with that, even when there is no reason to do so. I
think that policy can be strengthened.
Last, with respect to the builds and alternatives analysis,
we do share some concerns that the other witnesses mentioned
about potential unintended consequences of increasing
litigation. But, I think we could restrict the geographic scope
of these and the credibility of these alternatives. They should
be things that are actually likely to get build, that are
actually moving forward, not just something somebody uttered
once one day that are not credible proposals.
Finally, cumulative effects analysis is another area where
currently the process is skewed because we are forced to look
at every project that has ever been proposed, not just those
that appear to be moving forward that actually have a plan of
development on file, that actually have an interconnection
request on file, et cetera.
So by limiting the scope of both the alternatives analysis
and the cumulative effects analysis, we think those are
important and we do not want to get rid of those, but they
could be done in a way that is a little more reasonable and a
little more limited to what is likely to actually happen, and
we would really like to work with the Committee and other
stakeholders to implement those.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Statement of Chris Taylor, Chief Development Officer, Element Power, on
behalf of the American Wind Energy Association, on H.R. 2170, H.R.
2171, H.R. 2172 and H.R. 2173
Subcommittee Chairman Lamborn, Subcommittee Ranking Member Holt and
other members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
My name is Chris Taylor. I am Chief Development Officer for Element
Power. Element Power is a global wind and solar energy development
company with U.S. headquarters in Portland, Oregon and regional offices
in California, Minnesota and Virginia. Element Power has wind energy
projects under construction or in operation in both the U.S. and Europe
and thousands of megawatts (MWs) of wind energy projects under
development across the United States, including eight proposed wind
projects on BLM-owned land. I oversee the development of all of our
wind and solar energy projects in North America.
I am testifying on behalf of the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA), where I currently serve on AWEA's Siting Committee Steering
Committee.
AWEA is the national trade association representing a broad range
of entities with a common interest in encouraging the deployment and
expansion of wind energy resources in the United States. AWEA members
include wind turbine manufacturers, component suppliers, project
developers, project owners and operators, financiers, researchers,
renewable energy supporters, utilities, marketers, customers and their
advocates.
As AWEA testified before the full committee on June 1st, far and
away the biggest challenging facing the wind energy industry right now
is the lack of stable federal policy support, namely long-term
financial incentives and a demand-side policy like a clean or renewable
electricity standard.
I recognize that these issues do not fall within the jurisdiction
of this Committee. However, it needs to be clear that any changes that
are made to make it easier to site projects on public lands will be of
limited use if projects aren't able to be built because federal tax
incentives, including the production tax credit and investment tax
credit, expire for wind energy next year or because the lack of demand-
side policies limit the market for renewable energy.
With respect to the specific bills under consideration today, in
AWEA's testimony two weeks ago, we suggested the Committee consider
legislation providing categorical exclusions for temporary
meteorological towers to test wind speeds. BLM's wind energy
development policy current allows categorical exclusions, but the
option is inconsistently applied at the field office level. Some
offices often require an environmental assessment (EA) for these
temporary towers, which leave no permanent site disturbance. In rare
cases, we are asked for a full-scale environmental impact statement
(EIS).
We appreciate the introduction of H.R. 2172 by Representative Noem,
which would exempt met tower applications from the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as long as the application meets
certain conditions spelled out in the bill, such as limiting road
building and soil and vegetation disruption. We thank Representative
Noem for her leadership on this issue.
AWEA believes the met tower application process can be improved
within the confines of NEPA. We support providing categorical
exclusions except in cases where extraordinary circumstances are
present as described in existing regulations. This would provide an
appropriate balance between the need to support development as well as
protect natural resources.
I have a few examples to share of requirements applied to met tower
installations that add unnecessary time and expense to the process. My
company has been required to hire environmental specialists to survey
an area prior to construction and then the same specialists, often
multiple individuals, are required to be on-site during the entire
installation, which can take up to a week.
We are also required to haul equipment to the site by foot or
helicopter and install met towers without the use of machinery in areas
with high OHV use. In one case the installers were approached by OHV
drivers while carrying met tower equipment to an installation site.
These examples highlight how the renewable energy industry is held to a
higher standard than other uses on BLM lands.
AWEA is also concerned that the BLM does not use enough discretion
when applying the recommendations of cooperating agencies like the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the NEPA process. Often times
right-of-way (ROW) applications are held up by the USFWS commenting and
then requirements for evaluation and mitigation are applied without any
existing scientific data to support the suggested impacts.
With respect to H.R. 2170, introduced by Chairman Hastings, AWEA
appreciates the Committee's interest and leadership in attempting to
make NEPA more manageable from a development perspective. There is no
doubt that getting through the alternatives analysis process can be
difficult and add a lot of additional cost and time to the NEPA
process.
However, AWEA is concerned that limiting analysis to only the
proposed project and a single no project alternative could have the
unintended consequence of more agency decisions rejecting projects. By
limiting the flexibility to consider alternatives, including relatively
modest adjustments, such as relocating a road or a turbine or two that
might be considered by the agency too close to a resource of concern,
out of an abundance of caution the agency may just say no.
We are also concerned that limiting the alternatives analysis could
have the perverse effect of increasing litigation, as affirmative
decisions are targeted for not being protective enough of resources. It
would be difficult to demonstrate otherwise in court without analysis
to which to point.
That said, in the spirit of the Chairman's interest in streamlining
the NEPA process, clarifications of requirements for the alternatives
analysis would be helpful. For example, it is reasonable that
alternatives to be analyzed should be economically and technically
feasible. Additionally, alternatives analyzed should be limited to a
reasonable number of alternatives focusing on potential environmental
impacts identified during site specific field studies. Similarly, a
geographic limitation on alternatives to be considered would help
ensure the alternatives are in fact reasonable.
AWEA also believes it would be helpful to better define cumulative
effects analysis. BLM and the USFWS require analysis of a variety of
projects that are unlikely ever to be built (due to a lack of
transmission, market, adequate wind resource or other key factors),
which skews the analysis by implying a far higher degree of cumulative
impact that is likely to actually occur. Today, cumulative effects
analysis includes projects that have merely submitted a ROW application
or have even just begun wind measurement. These thresholds need to be
strengthened so only those projects that are truly likely to come to
fruition are analyzed.
AWEA would be interested in working with this Committee, the
Department of the Interior and other stakeholders to discuss what
sideboards on alternatives and cumulative effects analyses might be
helpful while still balancing preservation of our nation's resources.
Thank you again for the opportunity. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Mr. Thomsen?
STATEMENT OF PAUL THOMSEN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the Committee. It is my honor to testify today on behalf of
Ormat Technologies. My name is Paul Thomsen and I am the
Director of Policy and Business Development and I am also the
President of the Geothermal Energy Association. I would like to
make note that the Geothermal Energy Association did submit a
letter of support for H.R. 2171.
Ormat Technologies is a world leader in the geothermal
power plant sector. The company has four decades of experience
and is responsible for the development of over 1,000 megawatts
of geothermal generation throughout the world and over 400
megawatts of generation in the United States. Important to this
hearing is the fact that Ormat is engaged in the largest effort
undertaken by a single company within the last 20 years to
categorize, map, sample, and drill green field geothermal
prospects in the United States.
The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the
geothermal industry has the potential to generate 39,000
megawatts of electricity in the United States using existing
technologies. This sort of potential is remarkable and can even
be used reliably to power state capitals, such as Idaho's state
capital in Boise, which has been using geothermal power since
1982. Today, 144 projects are estimated to be under some form
of development in the United States and are projected to
produce 624,000 construction jobs, if permitting that work can
be done efficiently. These 144 projects will require $26
billion in capital over the next five years, with approximately
50 percent allocated to the exploration and drilling phases to
develop these projects.
In order to open the capital markets to develop these
projects, the U.S. must commit to finding permitting solutions
that support greater development activity. H.R. 2171, Exploring
for Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands Act, supports greater
geothermal development by clearly defining and enhancing the
existing categorical exclusion policy and setting time lines
that create accountability and remove the uncertainty from the
NEPA process. This bill does this by limiting the size of the
disturbance, the time allowed at the site, and the time
required to respond to the notice of intent, all of which are
not currently regulated under the existing CX. This removes
much of the subjective nature of the current process, allowing
for BLM staff to be more confident in their decisions and allow
developers to know in a timely manner if their exploration
efforts will be granted a CX.
We believe H.R. 2171 falls in line with the BLM and DOE's
focus on exploration and development on Federal lands. As noted
earlier, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was designed to promote
and streamline domestic renewable energy production. This is
evident to Ormat in the superior work of Director Bob Abbey,
who hails from Nevada as their former state director, and our
Acting Director, Amy Lueders, who have worked tirelessly with
our industry to shepherd projects through the EA and EIS
process in a timely manner.
A DOE blue ribbon panel recently recommended that the DOE
geothermal program also focus on locating geothermal resources,
and in the near term they suggested using rapid recognizance
surveys, surface exploration, and temperature gradient
drilling. DOE will be better able to do this work under the
provisions of this bill.
For those that might be worried that a developer might CX
its way through the regulatory process, you need not worry.
BLM's geothermal regulations govern the various stages or
phases of project development, including exploration
operations, drilling operations, utilization operations, and
finally commercial operations. At each phase, the project
proponent submits separate applications to conduct operations,
which correspond to the development phase. The information
needed to access potential and environmental increases in
detail and focus, as the intensity of the use moves from
exploration phase to an energy facility operation phase.
In December of 2008, BLM issued an instructional
memorandum, which provided guidance for the approval of a
notice of intent to conduct geophysical explorations with no
road construction by means of a CX. The BLM did this after
reviewing 244 geophysical exploration projects and determining
that geophysical exploration operations that do not include the
construction of a road do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant impact on the human environment.
H.R. 2171, the Exploring for Geothermal Energy on Federal
Lands Act, supports greater geothermal development by clearly
defining and enhancing the existing CX policy and setting time
lines that create accountability and remove uncertainty from
the NEPA process.
That concludes my statements. Thank you, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomsen follows:]
Statement of Paul A. Thomsen, Director of Policy and Business
Development, Ormat Technologies, Inc., on H.R. 2171
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is my honor to testify
today on behalf of Ormat Technologies regarding H.R. 2171.
Ormat Technologies is a world leader in the geothermal power plant
sector. The company has four decades of experience in the development
of state of the art, environmentally sound power solutions, primarily
in geothermal and recovered energy generation. Ormat is responsible for
the development of over 1,000 MW of geothermal generation throughout
the world and over 400 MW of generation in the United States.
EXPANDING THE GEOTHERMAL FOOTPRINT:
Geothermal electrical generation is a baseload renewable energy
source that uses heat from the earth to create electricity. Baseload
means that it's a power source that is constantly producing energy,
just like fossil fuel combustion, but clean and renewable--and a
renewable that doesn't rely on the wind to blow or the sun to shine.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimated the geothermal industry has the
potential to generate 39,000 MW of electricity in the United States
using existing technologies.\1\ This sort of potential is remarkable
and can even be used to reliably power State Capitols such as Idaho's
State Capitol in Boise, which has been using geothermal heat since
1982! We congratulate the State of Idaho for its vision and use of this
remarkable, clean and reliable renewable source of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, 144 projects estimated to be under development in the United
States \2\ are projected to produce 624,000 construction jobs if
permitting the work can be done efficiently. These 144 projects will
require $26 billion in capital over the next five years with
approximately 50 percent allocated to exploration and drilling phases.
In order to open the capital markets to develop these projects, the
U.S. must commit to finding permitting solutions that support greater
development activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.geo-energy.org/reports/
GEA_January_Update__Special_Edition_Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2171 ``(the) Exploring for Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands
Act'' supports greater geothermal development by clearly defining and
enhancing the existing Categorical Exclusion (CX) policy and setting
timelines that create accountability and remove the uncertainty from
the NEPA process
BLM and DOE recognize the importance of permitting and exploration
on Federal Lands:
Energy Policy Act of 2005--The Energy Policy Act of
2005 (``EPAct 2005'')\3\ was designed to promote and streamline
domestic renewable energy production. It also includes
provisions specifically aimed at making geothermal energy more
competitive with fossil fuels.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub.L. 109-58.
\4\ See EPAct 2005 Sec. Sec. 221-237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementing Statements and Directives--Consistent
with the mandate to encourage renewable energy development
contained in the EPAct of 2005, the Department of the Interior
(``DOI'') has taken steps to make the production, development,
and delivery of renewable energy top priority.\5\ Furthermore,
BLM's 19 Priority Renewable Energy Projects for 2011 include
five geothermal projects throughout the western U.S.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BLM News Release, Secretary Salazar Issues Order to Spur
Renewable Energy Development on U.S. Public Lands (March 11, 2009),
available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom.html.
\6\ BLM News Release, BLM Announces 2011 Priority Renewable Energy
Projects (March 8, 2011), available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/
info/newsroom.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOE Blue Ribbon Panel--The U.S. Geological Survey
estimated in 2008 that 30 GWe of undiscovered geothermal
resources could be found in the western United States.\7\ The
panel recommended that the DOE geothermal program focus on
locating these resources in the near term using rapid
reconnaissance surveys, surface exploration, stress
measurements, fracture mapping, temperature gradient drilling
or even cost-shared exploration drilling. The Program should
also partner with other agencies, including the Department of
the Interior, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Nevada
Bureau of Mines to share knowledge and data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Williams, Colin F., Reed, Marshall J., Mariner, Robert H.,
DeAngelo, Jacob, Galanis, S. Peter, Jr., 2008, Assessment of moderate-
and high-temperature geothermal resources of the United States: U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3082, 4 p.2008-3082. 2008. http://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Process Governing Geothermal Energy Development:
BLM's geothermal regulations govern the various stages or phases of
project development, including exploration operations, drilling
operations, utilization operations, and commercial use. At each phase,
the project proponent typically submits separate application to conduct
operations which correspond to the development phase. The information
needed to assess potential environmental impacts increases in detail
and focus as the intensity of use moves from the exploration phase to
an energy facility operation phase.
Exploration Operations--A BLM-approved geothermal
exploration permit, also known as an approved Notice of Intent
to Conduct Geothermal Resource Exploration Operations
(``NOI''), is required to explore any BLM-managed public lands
open to geothermal leasing.
Drilling Operations--A BLM-approved geothermal
drilling permit \8\ is required to drill wells and conduct
related activities for the purposes of performing flow tests,
producing geothermal fluids, or injecting fluids into a
geothermal reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Geothermal drilling permit means BLM written permission to
drill for and test Federal geothermal resources.'' 43 C.F.R.
Sec. 3200.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilization Operations--BLM authorization is required
prior to starting preliminary site investigations that may
disturb the surface, building pipelines and facilities
connecting the well field to utilization facilities not located
on Federal lands leased for geothermal resources, testing a
facility that is not located on Federal lands leased for
geothermal resources, starting commercial use operations, or
building or testing a utilization facility.
Commercial Use--Finally, before using Federal
geothermal resources, the applicant must submit a completed
commercial use permit.
Focusing on Exploration Operations and CX's:
In December of 2008, BLM issued Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-044
which provided guidance to 516 Department Manual 11.9 B. Fluid
Minerals: Approval of Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical
Exploration with No Road Construction, by means of CX.
The BLM did this after reviewing 244 geophysical exploration
projects and determining that geophysical exploration operations that
do not include the construction of roads do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, the BLM determined that establishment of the new geophysical
exploration CX was warranted (see 72 Fed. Reg. 45504 Aug. 14, 2007).
BLM recognized that geophysical operations had evolved so that there
are far fewer environmental impacts; the BLM and operators also employ
BMPs that further reduce the impacts of these operations. In addition,
the BLM has developed many COAs that can be included in any approval of
geophysical operations that, like BMPs, further reduce the impacts of
the proposed operations. The consistent use of these BMPs and COAs
precludes the need for a new environmental evaluation specific to each
new proposed action \9\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/
Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_
instruction/2009/IM_2009-044.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2171 ``(the) Exploring for Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands
Act'' supports greater geothermal development by clearly defining and
enhancing the existing (CX) policy and setting timelines that create
accountability and remove the uncertainty from the NEPA process.
Once the delay in permitting is resolved, the true power of
renewable energy will be unlocked, creating a workforce to satisfy the
geothermal industries' labor-intensive demands in science, sub-surface
research, exploration, drilling, construction, and operation and
maintenance. Replacing fossil fuels with domestic labor creates a
market for U.S. export of services and equipment.
Improving project permitting has the potential to mobilize a
workforce reminiscent of the U.S. Maritime ``Liberty Ships'' program,
which engaged a similar sized workforce of 640,000 to produce, among
other things, 2,700 ``Liberty Ships.'' The program engaged a new
workforce from various employment sectors and, in doing so, developed
partnerships that improved shipyards, pre-fabrication and sub-
contracting. Streamlining the geothermal permitting process would
enable the industry to follow in the footsteps of the ``Liberty Ships''
program and help expedite the construction of 144 geothermal plants
while affording an opportunity to create jobs, build similar
partnerships and foster innovation across a number of sectors.
Technical Suggestions:
Since this bill deals with NEPA, and NEPA is primarily directed in
this case at surface disturbance, it really doesn't make any sense to
limit the depth of the hole, nor what kind of vehicle is used (wheeled
or tracked), so long as the disturbance is less than 5 acres. The well
has to be permitted under state rules as to type of well, depth,
protections and casing design.
Therefore we suggest striking lines 17-19 on page 2 and lines 4-5
on page 3 since those variables are defined by the well pad size.
We also suggest adding language to Line 12 on page at the end of
the sentence that states ``. . .within three years unless project
becomes part of larger project.''
We would also propose that Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act be completed during the leasing process which would
significantly curtail further delays.
Best Regards, Paul A. Thomsen, Director, Ormat Technologies, Inc.
______
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Now before we hear from Mr.
Lyons, I want to clarify an issue. Under Committee Rule 4[a]
and House Rule 112[g][5], witnesses appearing in a non-
governmental capacity are required to file with their testimony
a completed disclosure form describing their education,
employment, and experience, and provide other background
information pertinent to their testimony the purpose of this
information is to help the members of the Committee judge the
testimony in context. Committee Rule 4[a] indicates that
failure to comply with these requirements may result in the
exclusion of the written testimony from the hearing record and/
or the barring of an oral presentation of the testimony.
Mr. Lyons, recognizing that your disclosure statement was
submitted to the Committee late and includes a statement where
you admit that it remains incomplete, before you make a
statement, will you verbally commit to us that you will provide
a complete disclosure form to the Committee in a timely
fashion?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for submitting it
late. We were notified late of the invitation to testify. I was
not aware that it was incomplete, but will gladly complete that
information. I apologize.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Well, thank you, so much, and at this
point, I would like to welcome you and hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JIM LYONS, SENIOR DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today and want to thank you for your interest in
renewable energy and trying to accelerate the development of
renewable energy in the United States. I am Jim Lyons. I am the
Senior Director for Renewable Energy at Defenders of Wildlife,
an organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of
wild animals and plants in the natural communities.
We certainly appreciate the efforts to encourage renewable
energy development, but would suggest that a different set of
solutions is needed than what is proposed by the legislation we
are discussing today. I think we would all agree that what is
needed is greater certainty. What you heard from witnesses at
your June 1 hearing is that uncertainty associated with
financing for projects, and certainly that financing will
affect the available, primarily from Treasury grant program
funds and from the DOE loan guarantee program, poses the
greatest challenge to wind and solar development in the United
States.
For example, Roby Roberts noted on behalf of the American
Wind Energy Association, ``without more stable Federal
financial incentives and demand-side policies, any changes to
make developing wind energy projects on public lands more
attractive will be of only marginal benefit.'' Dan Reicher, who
also testified before you on June 1, is the Director of
Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance,
and also is associated with the law and business communities
schools said ``What I worry more about than the siting of
renewable energy projects on public lands is successfully
navigating the long and complicated road that takes the
renewable technology to the routine construction operation of
hundreds of full-scale commercial plants with low-cost
financing.''
Oil and gas continue to benefit from generous tax breaks
and Federal subsidies, many of which are permanent. However,
renewable energy continues to struggle to gain something close
to a level playing field. Similarly, without the market
mechanisms in place to provide for increased demand for
renewable sources of energy, which Mr. Taylor alluded to, it is
reasonable to ask if private capital will flow to solar wind
and geothermal energy production. As you have heard, without
the certainty of long-term capital for investments, companies
interested in entering this market, or simply investing in the
U.S. market, are forced to scramble to prove the viability of
their technologies and of their investments.
In addition, companies have been forced to scramble to
secure access to lands with potential for solar development, in
particular in the hope public capital will be there to help
track the private capital to bring utility scale projects on
line. This scramble is the bane of good business planning and
of thoughtful and smart project siting and planning.
We argue that this can best be achieved by employing what
we refer to as ``smart from the start'' principles. If I could,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to include for the record as part of
my testimony a letter that we wrote to President Obama in
February of this year, which highlights the need for ``smart
from the start'' planning in those principles. Knowing where
critical habitats and sensitive landscapes are located,
determining where critical migratory corridors exist, where
water resources are scarce, siting projects in low conflict
areas, and the benefit to conservation advocates is obvious,
but the benefit to developers is also substantial. Developing
in high conflict areas can substantially increase project
costs, as you know. Impact in wildlife resources can require
mitigation and the development of mitigation strategies can at
time be costly. And of course, controversial projects in high
conflict areas oftentimes face tough scrutiny.
Better approached project development is to begin by
determining where highly valued habitats, sensitive landscapes,
and natural resources exist and the tools, in fact, and
technologies do exist to do that in a much more expedited way.
We think there are many innovative strategies in the works to
help further reduce the potential impacts of renewable energy
development and I want to credit the industries, solar, wind,
and geothermal, for working with us, with the Department of the
Interior, and others to try and find remedies for the
impediments that they have run into.
As one example of innovative approaches, Kansas Governor
Sam Brownback recently announced his road map for wind energy
policy. The road map included a plan to protect tall grass
prairie area from commercial wind development. In announcing
this plan, the Governor noted, ``we will continue to encourage
the expansion of an unparalleled economic development
opportunity that will allow our state to regain its energy
exporter status, while also protecting the ecological jewel of
our state and nation.''
I want to end my comments today, Mr. Chairman, by
emphasizing that we think certainty is the key to improving and
accelerating the development of renewable energy. Project
developers seek certainty in order to attract capital to build
their projects and sell their product, which, of course, is
clean energy. Utilities seek certainty that the power they
purchase will actually be produced. Investors seek certainty
that they are going to get a return on their investment, which
is one of the principal reasons they are making these
investments. And conservationists seek certainty that clean
energy can be produced to address the impacts of climate change
to produce jobs and economic benefits, which are critical--and
can do so without harming wildlife, wildlands, and other
natural resources.
We certainly appreciate your help, Mr. Chairman, in
addressing these issues, but I would submit to you that I think
the critical issue associated with certainty is that of
providing long-term stable financing, so that the industry does
not have to beg from year to year to receive the funds that are
necessary to provide that certainty from the investments that
they seek.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
Statement of Jim Lyons, Senior Director for Renewable Energy,
Defenders of Wildlife, on H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172, and H.R.
2173
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today. My name
is Jim Lyons and I am the Senior Director for Renewable Energy at
Defenders of Wildlife. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a
nonprofit organization with more than 1 million members and supporters
across the nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of
wild animals and plants in their natural communities.
On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I am here today to express my
strong support for renewable energy development. Defenders believes
that this nation must accelerate efforts to promote the development of
renewable energy in order to generate the multiple benefits that would
result, including jobs, economic growth, and a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions. We believe that a clean energy future is an essential
part of producing a healthy American economy and a healthy planet and
we are working with renewable energy developers, investors, utilities,
conservation leaders, and the Obama administration to help realize that
future.
We believe a clean energy economy is possible. To make it a reality
we must promote thoughtful planning, effective use of technology, and a
long-term commitment of resources to finance the development and growth
of the renewable energy sector. These elements are critical to provide
the certainty that the renewable energy industry, utilities,
conservationists, investors, and the public demand.
Part of our challenge is to find ways to tap into this vast
resource for renewable energy production while avoiding, minimizing,
and mitigating the impacts on wildlife, wild lands, and other important
natural resources associated with public and private lands. We need not
sacrifice the conservation gains of the 20th century--leading to the
conservation of millions of acres of public lands and the protection of
wildlife, wilderness, and water resources--for the sake of our efforts
to solve the conservation challenges of the 21st century.
Today the Subcommittee is examining four bills with the intention
of removing impediments to developing renewable energy on federal
lands. We applaud this Committee's efforts to examine the challenges of
developing renewable energy industry. We can and will work with all
parties to improve the administrative processes affecting project
siting, permitting, and development. I firmly believe we can achieve
these outcomes without additional legislative assistance. In fact, some
of the proposed shortcuts and ``work arounds'' intended to short
circuit NEPA may do more harm than good, precisely because they will
introduce added uncertainty to the process. We appreciate the offer for
help with these issues, but I am not convinced that legislative
remedies are needed or would help, nor do they address the real
roadblocks to clean energy development
The successful development of clean energy in the United States is
dependent upon three things. We need energy resources, technology, and
capital. I would submit that the most significant roadblock to our
efforts to develop clean energy resources in the United States is
capital. The long term commitment of capital and with it the assurance
that the financial resources will be there to cover the high front end
costs associated with the development of solar, wind, or geothermal
energy is the Achilles heel of this energy sector.
To illustrate this point, I want to reference the comments to two
of the witnesses at the June 1 hearing of the House Natural Resources
Committee on this subject.
At that hearing, Roby Roberts noted on behalf of the American Wind
Energy Association (AWEA):
``Without more stable federal financial incentives and demand-
side policies, any changes to make developing wind energy
projects on public lands more attractive will be of only
marginal benefit.''
And, Dan Reicher, Director of Stanford University's Steyer-Taylor
Center for Energy Policy and Finance and a faculty member of the
Stanford Law School and the Graduate School of Business, stated,
``What I worry more about more than siting renewable energy
projects on public lands is successfully navigating the long
and complicated road that takes a renewable energy technology
from the first gleam in a scientist's eye and an early pilot
project all the way to the routine construction and operation
of hundreds of full-scale commercial plants with low-cost
financing and good paying jobs on all kinds of land--private
and public.''
In this regard, Mr. Reicher and other witnesses at that hearing
cited the importance of the DOE loan guarantee program and the Section
1603 Treasury Grant program as essential sources of capital for
renewable energy projects as a means to spur private sector investment
in these new technologies. Both of these programs are set to expire at
the end of this year. Lacking assurances that federal grants and loan
guarantees will continue to be available to provide the long-term
capital for utility scale renewable energy, the future of our Nations'
renewable resources will remain uncertain.
Oil and gas continue to benefit from generous tax breaks and
federal subsidies (many of which are permanent); however, renewable
energy continues to struggle to gain something close to a level playing
field. Of course, this is one reason that the Obama administration has
proposed to end subsidies for oil and gas production (aside from the
enormous profits these companies have been reporting). Redistributing
this capital to improve the prospects for growth in the renewable
energy sector and to improve the prospects of attracting private
capital is critical to providing certainty for developers, investors,
and a host of other stakeholders, including the conservation community.
Similarly, without the market mechanisms in place to provide for
increased demand for renewable sources of energy, it is reasonable to
ask if private capital will flow to solar, wind, and geothermal energy
production. While 38 states have established renewable or alternative
energy standards, a national renewable energy standard is still
lacking. And, with the recent development of technologies to tap
abundant natural gas resources from sources such as the Marcellus
shale, which is particularly abundant in the northeastern United
States, can renewable sources of energy, such as wind, compete?
As you have heard, without the certainty of long-term capital for
investment, companies interested in entering this market--or simply
investing in the U.S. market--are forced to scramble to prove the
viability of their technologies and their investments. In addition,
companies have been forced to scramble to secure access to lands with
the potential for solar development, in particular, in the hope that
the public capital will be there to help them attract the private
capital to bring utility-scale projects on line. This scramble is the
bane of good planning and of thoughtful and smart project siting.
We all recognize that careful planning is essential to making good
business decisions. Just as investors look to a good business plan
before committing capital to a project, making good decisions about
project siting and development are essential to reducing impacts on
wildlife. This past February, 17 conservation organizations wrote to
President Obama to express their support for accelerating the
development of renewable energy on public lands. (I have attached a
copy of that letter to my testimony.) We argued that this can best be
achieved by employing ``smart from the start'' principles.
Simply stated, ``smart from the start'' is good planning. Knowing
where critical habitats and sensitive landscapes are located,
determining where critical migratory corridors exist, and where water
resources are scarce are key to siting projects in low-conflict areas.
The benefit to conservation advocates is obvious, but the benefit to
developers is substantial as well.
Developing in high conflict areas can substantially increase
project costs for biological surveys and inventories for rare plants
and animals. Operating in areas that are home to threatened and
endangered species requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. And, impacting wildlife resources can
require mitigation that may involve restoring habitats or acquiring
similar lands to compensate for habitats negatively affected by the
project. Of course, controversial projects in high-conflict areas face
tough scrutiny. If approved despite high environmental costs, they may
fact potential litigation which can further increase project costs and
cause development delays.
A better approach to project development is to begin by determining
where highly-valued wildlife habitats, sensitive landscapes and natural
resources exist and avoid them. This is actually easier than one might
think, as the technology has improved our ability to identify and map
key wildlife areas.
For example, through support from the Department of Energy, the
Western Governors' Association has worked with state fish and wildlife
agencies to develop decision support systems to improve efforts to
locate energy projects in low risk areas. And, the American Wind
Wildlife Association has recently launched an online tool to help wind
developers determine where wildlife conflicts may occur and how to
avoid them.
While guiding development to low-conflict zones is one means of
reducing wildlife conflicts, it will not completely address wildlife
impacts. For this reason, all interests acknowledge the need to develop
mechanisms for mitigating project impacts on wildlife, which, in the
state of California, is required by law. Mitigation strategies can seek
to avoid or minimize project impacts, but they can also be designed to
compensate for impacts by permitting the restoration of habitats
similar to those that are lost or by acquiring similar habitat
proximate to the project.
At Defenders, we are exploring the prospect of mitigation banking.
That is, working at the landscape level to identify areas that might be
protected or restored in order to mitigate energy projects before they
are designed and built. The benefit of this approach is that it helps
achieve conservation goals such as minimizing impacts on wildlife
populations, reducing the need to list species as threatened or
endangered, and helping to restore habitat for threatened and
endangered species. It also helps developers understand the mitigation
costs they may face in developing a project in a particular landscape.
In fact, BLM Special Status Species policy directs the agency to not
only minimize threats to sensitive species, but also ``improve the
condition of the species habitat'' and ``initiate proactive
conservation measures'' to minimize the likelihood of ESA listing.''
(BLM Manual 6840.2; 6840.02).
Many innovative strategies are in the works to help further reduce
the potential impacts of solar, wind, and geothermal development on
wildlife, wild lands, and important natural resources. And, to its
credit, the renewable energy industry is increasingly playing a role in
helping to identify both the problems and potential solutions. We
encourage the use and expansion of efforts like the regional habitat
conservation planning process in the central flyway for Whooping Cranes
and Lesser Prairie Chickens. And we support efforts such as that of
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who recently announced his Road Map for
Wind Energy Policy. The plan includes a plan to protect a tallgrass
prairie area from commercial wind development. The governor noted,
``We will continue to encourage the expansion of an
unparalleled economic development opportunity that will allow
our state to regain its energy exporter status while also
protecting an ecological jewel of our state and the nation.''
Similar efforts are underway in Wyoming and Oregon to protect
remaining sage grouse habitat while facilitating further wind energy
development.
We are also encouraged by the progress that is being made by the
Department of the Interior, working with the wind energy industry and
through its federal advisory committee on onshore wind energy
guidelines, to address the need to provide greater certainty for
developers with regard to requirements for reducing the impacts of wind
energy on wildlife and protecting bald and golden eagles. In response
to draft guidance issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we
joined with the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), National
Audubon Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others in
suggesting that a properly designed and implemented voluntary, risk-
based approach for minimizing and mitigating the effects of wind energy
on wildlife can work. (I would like to also submit a copy of our joint
comments for the record.) We support this strategy because we believe a
risk-based approach is consistent with the notion of guiding renewable
energy projects to low-conflict areas and is consistent with good
business practices. And, we believe that developers who engage in good
planning will seek to operate in low risk areas where the successful
development of their project is more likely and their ability to
successfully attract investors and capital is also greater.
This same concept, guiding renewable energy project development to
low-risk areas, is at the heart of identifying zones for development
for utility scale solar projects and is one of the alternatives
presented in DOI and DOE's draft solar Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement. We support this concept as well, because we believe
it will accelerate project development, shorten planning horizons, and
help simplify the requirements for coordination and consultations with
state and federal agencies entrusted with the protection of our
wildlife and other public land assets. And we continue to work with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with Department of the Interior
officials, and with our colleagues in the conservation community to
find ways to improve and accelerate the project siting, permitting, and
development process.
I want to end my statement this morning, by returning to where I
began. Certainty is the key to improving and accelerating the
development of renewable energy resources in the United States. Project
developers seek certainty in order to attract capital, to build their
projects, and sell their product--clean energy. Utilities seek the
certainty that the clean energy they buy will be produced and available
to help them meet renewable energy standards and an increasing public
demand. Investors seek certainty so that they have some assurance of a
return on investment which, of course, is the primary reason they
choose to invest in projects. And conservationists seek certainty that
clean energy can be produced to address the impacts of climate change,
produce the jobs and economic benefits attributed to the new clean
energy economy, and do so without harming the wildlife, wild lands, and
other natural resources Americans treasure.
As I mentioned previously, we need your help in providing greater
certainty that the financing will be there, over an extended period of
time, to support the R&D and development essential to proving the
viability of utility-scale solar energy and to getting solar, wind and
geothermal projects built. Having to beg for clean energy financing one
year at a time is not conducive to good planning and will not provide
the assurances to private investors, markets, and utilities that clean
energy will be there when they need it or that it is, in fact, worth
the investment.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to find
solutions to these challenges and to identify remedies to the
roadblocks that are impacting the development of clean energy in
America. Working within our existing environmental laws will, in fact,
result in better renewable energy development and greater certainty,
assuring the viability of the renewable energy industry for the long
term. This is our future and we are committed to helping realize the
vision of a clean energy economy with all the benefits it can provide.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify before you today.
______
Mr. Lamborn. We will now have questions from members of the
Committee. I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Mr. Dougherty, in your testimony, you say that the
uncertainty that exists within today's regulatory framework and
that it exists and that this uncertainty is the primary
disincentive to further public and private investment in the
renewable energy market. Do you believe that having firm time
lines for the permitting application and for reducing research
project time lines will help to alleviate some of this
uncertainty?
Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Dougherty. I think you missed a witness, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. Yes. We had a gentleman, who sat in the wrong
order, so we will now--before I ask the questions, we will now
go to Mr. Huntley. Yes, I see that, Mr. Holt.
Mr. Huntley. Thank you, sir. My apologies, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. We are supposed to sit in the order in which
we are invited to be on the panel. So, we have a little mixup
here. But, I would like to hear your testimony, so I recognize
you for five minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CHASE HUNTLEY, DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Huntley. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Holt, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding development of renewable
energy resources on Federal lands and waters. My name is Chase
Huntley. I am Director for Renewable Energy Policy with the
Wilderness Society. We strongly support efforts to tap into the
rich renewable resources found on our public lands and forests.
As I will detail in a minute, we have pressed hard for a
``smart from the start'' approach that sites renewable energy
in the right places, and builds what we need with the right
input from the very beginning.
We agree with this Subcommittee's goal of accelerating
development on public lands, but we cannot support the bills
under discussion today because we feel they are based on a
false assumption, that the National Environmental Policy Act is
a roadblock to development. These views are further detailed in
my written statement, but rest on our belief that there is
sufficient flexibility under the law.
Rather, we believe the best way to speed up permitting is
to work within existing law, to end the scatter shod approach
of project-by-project permitting that we see today. For too
long, energy development has been characterized by conflict and
controversy, attributed in most cases to poor siting decisions
that were not revealed until late in the permitting process,
putting sensitive wildlife and wild lands at risk of severe
damage and stranding company's investments. We cannot afford to
repeat this experience with the renewable energy industry, so
important to our energy security.
Instead, we must move toward clear policies that guide
companies to the right places with early engagement and
consistent environmental review. We have seen progress at the
Interior Department in this direction with the new guidance for
solar and wind by identifying and avoiding environmental and
other impacts early, ideally before projects are even proposed.
This approach can prevent the conflict and controversy
responsible for increased project costs and time delays. This
is developing ``smart from the start,'' and we believe that
this approach will provide the certainty sought by project
developers, investors, conservationists, and other
stakeholders.
But let me address directly the often heard charge that
NEPA, along with other environmental requirements, unduly
restricts the pace and advancement of renewable energy. We know
that this is not true from our recent experience with the
Interior Department's fast track projects. After nearly a
decade of inattention and inactivity, this Administration's
commitment to moving ahead with renewable energy on public
lands resulted in permits for more megawatts of renewable
energy than ever before. The public involvement afforded during
environmental review has been indispensable to ensuring that
projects are built in a manner that maximizes their energy
potential, while avoiding the impacts that would undermine the
viability of sensitive resources.
In our work on projects permitted to date, environmental
reviews has not been a roadblock, rather it has served as a
road map to better outcomes. For example, of the six solar
projects permitted in 2010, which we supported, and none of
which we challenged legally, all saw significant changes as a
result of the review process. In fact, it is unlikely we would
have been able to support these projects in the absence of that
opportunity.
To be sure, more can be done to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the existing review process, but shortcutting
or sidestepping this process will only result in more conflict,
more delays, and more costs to developers and ultimately to
consumers. We understand the interest to move forward quickly,
but ample authority exists to enhance permitting without these
legislative remedies.
We will continue to work diligently with the industry, with
the Administration, and with Congress to find solutions that
work as well for wind and solar, as they do for wildlife and
wild lands. But focused only on the permitting system, we
overlook the proverbial elephant in the room. Time and again,
we have heard clearly from developers, investors, and business
leaders that siting and permitting is not the real barrier to
renewable energy developments, rather it is the on again, off
again nature of critical financing, like loan guarantees and
refundable tax credits, both of which expire at the end of this
year, and the lack of policies, like a national renewable
energy standard that create the market demand for renewable
power. If we are to reach our common goal of dramatically
expanding clean, renewable energy, we must remove these
barriers to success. In our view, this is what Congress should
concert its considerable influence.
In conclusion, real progress is being made to develop
renewable energy on the public lands. The environmental review
process has provided a critical road map for successes to date.
We are encouraged by the approaches under development at the
Interior Department to guide wind and solar energy development
using existing authorities, away from conflicts with the
wildlife habitat, sensitive wild lands, and other important
resources. But, ultimately, the biggest obstacle remain stable
financing and market demand.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these views. I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huntley follows:]
Statement of Chase Huntley, Director, Renewable Energy Policy,
The Wilderness Society, on H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172, and H.R.
2173
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding
development of renewable energy resources on federal lands and waters.
My statement focuses only on onshore permitting of energy resources on
forests and public lands for typically categorized as `renewable'--that
is, geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass energy development. It does so
drawing on the collective experience of The Wilderness Society's staff
across the country.
The Wilderness Society works on behalf of its 500,000 members and
supporters to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our
wild places. This includes working to ensure that the development of
needed new energy resources is done in a way that protects the
ecological integrity of the land.
For The Wilderness Society, that includes enacting policies that
would correct the market failure that allows fossil energy providers to
dump emissions harmful to the public health and welfare into the
atmosphere for free. It also means avoiding the construction of
unneeded generating facilities by simply increasing the efficiency of
our electrical grid, buildings, gadgets and appliances, and
transportation system. And it means promoting more sustainable home-
grown sources of energy, especially electricity, to meet future demands
and replace the dirty fuels of our past with adequate financial
incentives.
We are strong supporters of efforts to tap the rich renewable
resources found on our public lands and forests. As with any form of
development, however, not all places are appropriate for this kind of
activity. Some places are simply too wild or too sensitive to develop.
And where it occurs, it must take place in a responsible manner.
We are opposed to H.R. 2170, H.R. 2171, H.R. 2172, and H.R. 2173
because these four bills are predicated on the false notion that a
principal roadblock to the successful approval of renewable energy
projects on the public lands is the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). (These views are detailed in Appendix A.) These bills are
simply not needed to accelerate renewable energy development on public
lands and forests. Rather, all of our experience has shown us that
attempts to shortcut and undermine environmental values actually delays
projects.
Instead, we believe that the best way to rapidly deploy renewable
energy projects on our public lands is to end the scattershot approach
to permitting that we see today. We can use existing law to move away
from project-by-project permitting, and toward clear policies that
guide companies to the right places, with early public engagement and
consistent environmental review. To us, this kind of ``smart from the
start'' approach includes several key elements:
Policies that guide projects to areas that have high
clean energy potential; minimal conflicts with wildlife, wild
lands, and other important resources and uses of the
surrounding environments; and, wherever feasible, access to
existing transmission.
Early and ongoing input and coordination with
interested stakeholders.
Thorough analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of renewable energy projects, including their
cumulative impacts.
Policies that fully and fairly value public lands and
forests, and reinvest significant portion of the revenues
generated in conservation activities.
Effective mitigation measures to address unavoidable
impacts.
Consistent and careful monitoring at the project and
landscape level to improve existing and future projects and
permitting and mitigation processes.
Discouraging speculation by evaluating the financial
and technological capacity of project proponents to design,
build, operate, and decommission projects.
Policies that encourage new transmission projects and
upgrades that connect clean renewable energy resources.
We believe that a smart from the start approach, if properly
implemented, will provide added certainty for project developers,
investors, conservationists, and other stakeholders by avoiding
conflicts that result in costly delays.
We are seeing these concepts become a reality as the Interior
Department works to break a five year solar stalemate on public lands.
The ongoing programmatic environmental impact statement has the
potential to bring order to a process that has frustrated all parties.
By identifying zones for development and screening these areas for
conflicts with significant natural and cultural resources, the
Department can enhance the likelihood that projects permitted will
result in projects successfully built. For this reason, we have seen an
emerging consensus amongst developers, conservationists, and utilities
that a zone-based system for development is the preferred approach as
evidenced in a joint comment letter from the members of the California
Desert Renewable Energy Working Group that I request be included in the
record. Zone-based development can greatly improve both the permitting
process and outcomes for wildlife and wild lands.
Central to the `smart from the start' concept is a commitment to
take stock in the early stages of a proposed federal action of the pros
and cons of alternatives, and choosing the one that gets you the best
result with the least conflict. That's what Congress recognized when it
passed NEPA, and that is the role that NEPA continues to serve.
``The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make
decisions that are based on understanding of environmental
consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the
environment.'' 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1500.1(c). This is the overarching
principle by which the agencies charged with administering our public
lands must, and should, make decisions that best balance renewable
energy development with management of the many other uses and resources
found on these lands.
In its forty year history, the NEPA process has improved the health
and well-being of communities, saved billions in taxpayer dollars, and
unequivocally improved the quality of decision-making. NEPA's common
sense axiom is ``look before you leap.'' NEPA requires that agency
decisions are transparent, grounded in rigorous scientific analysis,
and fully informed by the collective expertise of all stakeholders.
NEPA recognizes that the public--which includes industry,
landowners, local and state governments, tribes, and business owners
among others--can make important contributions by providing unique
expertise. In 2008, a groundbreaking review conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences confirmed the benefits of public participation. The
panel found:
When done well, public participation improves the quality and
legitimacy of a decision and builds the capacity of all involved to
engage in the policy process. It can lead to better results in terms of
environmental quality and other social objectives. It also can enhance
trust and understanding among parties. Achieving these results depends
on using practices that address difficulties that specific aspects of
the context can present.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas Dietz and Paul C. Stern, Editors, Panel on Public
Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, National
Research Council, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The business community has also awakened to the value the value of
public participation afforded through the NEPA process. For example, in
October 2009, the project manager for the SunZia power line testified
before a hearing jointly held by this committee and the Subcommittee on
Energy and Power that ``NEPA still works.'' In discussing the effects
of input received from the environmental community, for instance, he
observed that, ``the result is a better one for all involved'' and
``[t]he contributions provided to SunZia by these important
stakeholders have been immeasurable.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Testimony of Tom Wray, Project Manager, SunZia Transmission
Project. November 5, 2009. Available at http://
naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/WrayTestimony11.05.09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public participation via NEPA has made important contributions
leading to real improvements. Numerous examples have been compiled by
the Environmental Law Institute in NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating 40
Years of Transparency and Open Government.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa_information/
NEPA_Success_Stories.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the National Academy of Sciences recommended: ``Public
participation should be fully incorporated into environmental
assessment and decision-making processes, and it should be recognized
by government agencies and other organizers of the processes as a
requisite of effective action.'' (emphasis added). NEPA plays an
invaluable role in making review of renewable energy projects
meaningful and, ultimately, leading to projects that will be less
likely to be challenged or derailed once approved.
Let me address directly the often-heard charge that NEPA, along
with other environmental requirements, unduly restricts the pace and
advancement of renewable energy projects. We know that this is not
true. Of the nine solar energy projects permitted in 2010, the average
time for environmental review was 527 days, or 1.4 years. Permitting
that was initiated during the Obama Administration and received ``fast-
track'' status took an average of 423 days, or 1.1 years to reach a
final record of decision. This is well within other permitting time
frames for similarly sized projects, and is remarkable given that these
projects are unique in scale and complexity. That NEPA is working as
intended is equally true of permitting of resource testing facilities
as of commercial-scale generation. For example, more than three-
quarters of the 38 wind testing facilities permitted on public lands
between 2008 and 2011 were processed using categorical exclusions under
the law. Ample authority exists to enhance the effectiveness of
implementation of this statute without these proposed legislative
remedies.
However, several roadblocks do stand in the way of faster
deployment of renewable energy. Time and again major companies,
financial houses, market watchers, and others deeply steeped in the
business of building projects have pointed to the need for policies
that create markets for these technologies and alleviate fiscal
uncertainty as the chief roadblocks to the industry. The renewable
energy industry is at a critical point in its maturation process.
Significant, targeted investments in this industry will leverage
private equity, produce new megawatts of power, put Americans to work,
and strengthen our competitiveness in the global marketplace for
renewable energy technologies.
Congressional involvement to promote renewable energy development
on public lands would be best directed toward ensuring that federal
financing tools will be predictably available, establishing policies
that create market demand for renewable power, and support smart from
the start policies, including a zone-based approach to solar energy
development on public lands, will ensure consistently good permitting
decisions are made over time.
In conclusion, The Wilderness Society appreciates the efforts of
the Subcommittee to accelerate development of these important clean
energy resources on public lands and forests. We support the
Subcommittee's goal of faster, cheaper, and better outcomes for those
interested in developing the rich renewable energy resources found on
these lands--of developing renewable energy smart from the start.
Successfully advancing development of wind, solar and other
renewable energy resources requires us to do better than we've done
with other forms of energy on the public lands and forests. Putting in
place policies designed to avoid known conflicts as early as possible
is just common sense--but it is a new way to do business for federal
agencies. This smart from the start approach relies on the type of
information and input received by federal agencies through the NEPA
process. To be sure, more can be done to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the existing review process, but shortcutting or
sidestepping this process will only result in more conflict, more
delays, and more costs to developers and, ultimately, consumers. Rather
than turning our backs on this essential federal law, we should be
putting effort into expanding the marketplace for renewable power and
creating the fiscal certainty needed to attract private investment.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our views.
Appendix A. Detailed Views on Proposed Legislation
Cutting Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable Energy Act (H.R. 2170)
The Wilderness Society opposes this bill. This bill offers a `rifle
shot' approach that offers the agency--and ultimately the project
proponent--too narrow a scope of review: one document, one alternative,
and only one chance at getting it right. This approach is not supported
by our recent experience with developing renewable energy resources on
public lands and forests. Concerns related to the pace of environmental
review could be ameliorated by ensuring that federal and state agencies
responsible have the resources, personnel, direction, and technical
expertise necessary to thoroughly evaluate development zones to speed
project review time, prioritize applications most likely to be built
for review, and conduct a robust stakeholder process to minimize
conflict and controversy.
Limiting environmental review to one action alternative may seem
more expedient, but the fact is that the majority of renewable energy
projects proposed for public lands are very large and complex projects
involving first-of-a-kind technologies at this scale with which neither
the agency nor the company have much experience. It sets up a decision
between build and no build based on the agency's interpretation of the
proposed project, existing and almost always imperfect data, and no
formal consultation with states, tribes, and other stakeholders. Our
experience with the Interior Department's fast track projects
underscores this point. In all cases, significant changes were made
between the draft and final environmental impact statements, often
incorporating elements of multiple alternatives. The agency and project
proponents need the ability to consider more than one alternative as
has already been shown.
Moreover, the inclusion of biomass in this bill is highly
problematic as biomass more commonly involves the sourcing of wood
materials, particularly use of secondary materials, and not the siting
of plants on public lands. This bill as written could foster public
distrust in biomass proposals resulting in delays and complications as
the U.S. Forest Service moves to a restoration focus as Secretary
Vilsack has proposed.
Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind Energy Act (H.R. 2171)
The Wilderness Society opposes this bill. This bill will not result
in faster or cheaper completion of wind projects on federal lands--in
fact, we have concerns it could have exactly the opposite effect. By
putting these facilities outside the very law designed to gather the
critical information and input from states and other stakeholders
necessary to ensure quick and intelligent deployment of commercial
scale projects, project developers may find significant investments
stranded at the project review stage when conflicts are uncovered
through the environmental review process. Concerns related to
meteorological permit processing time should be dealt with by the
agencies administratively, under existing law and with full
consideration of the current use of categorical exclusions.
Exploring the Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands Act (H.R. 2172)
The Wilderness Society opposes this bill. The agency can address
concerns about how existing categorical exclusions are applied or if
additional exclusions are needed administratively, through a public
process.
Clean Energy Promotion Act (H.R. 2176)
The Wilderness Society supports redirecting revenues to permit
process improvement, but recommends also seeking to authorize the
Interior Department to reinvest in other key activities that would
mitigate impacts on human and natural communities.
______
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you for your statement. Thank you
all for being here.
Now, we will begin the questioning. I would like to start
my five minutes with Mr. Dougherty. In your testimony, you say
that the uncertainty that exists within today's regulatory
framework, that this does exist, and this uncertainty is the
primary disincentive to further public and private investment
in the renewable energy market. Do you believe that having firm
time lines for the permitting application process and reducing
research project time lines will help to alleviate some of this
uncertainty?
Mr. Dougherty. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. Good. Then, Mr. Taylor, I have a question for
you. In your testimony, you say--but, wait, before we go on, do
you want to amplify on that any? You are welcome to do so, if
you would like.
Mr. Dougherty. Yes. I think from my experience with the
wind industry, with the geothermal industry, with the water,
marine, hydrokinetic industry, and others, a clear timely
predictable process is key to alleviating any uncertainty and
then taking away risk that you do not need to have, in order to
do a project. I do agree that--my focus here was on the siting
bills, so I do agree that a predictable Federal incentive
process is also critical. I think the combination of the two
would do well to help spur the clean energy future that we are
all looking for.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Now, Mr. Taylor, in your
testimony, you say that categorical exclusions are
inconsistently applied at the field office level and that some
offices require an environmental assessment for meteorological
met towers, and you are sometimes asked to do a full
environmental impact statement. Can you tell us how long a full
EIS takes to complete, how long an assessment takes, and give
an indication of how these costs impact your business?
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman. So, yes, in my testimony,
I alluded to that. I would say for an environmental impact
statement, for me, that would be reason to walk away. It is
just not worth it. It is just way too much cost and time to put
up a met tower. I mean, you expect to do that to build a
project; but to put a met tower, as a business decision, for me
that would not be worth the effort.
An EA, it really depends on how much detail they are
looking for, how reasonable the office is, what kind of
comments they receive. But, it is many months that that can
drag on.
I do not have the estimates with me today for the cost. I
would be happy to follow up in writing with that, of the EA.
But, what I do have would be the cost for all the monitoring I
described, which is in the tens of thousands of dollars just
for that monitoring. That does not include the EA. It is just
having the people sit around for a week, watching. I will be
happy to submit the other information, if you would like.
Mr. Lamborn. If you could, please, that would be great. OK,
thank you. I am going to yield back the balance of my time. I
would now like to recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes
and I am going to ask Mr. Landry of Louisiana to take the gavel
for the remainder of the hearing.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several of the witnesses
or a couple of the witnesses have talked about the real delays
here; not the NEPA process, but the financial process, the
technical process, all those other things. Mr. Thomsen, I would
like to look at your experience in this. Your company was
recently awarded a multi-hundred-million-dollar loan guarantee
for three geothermal facilities in Nevada, is that correct?
Mr. Thomsen. That is correct.
Mr. Holt. And it would be more than 100 megawatts of base
load power, is that correct?
Mr. Thomsen. Correct.
Mr. Holt. Sizeable project. Was the loan guarantee through
the ARRA, the so-called Recovery Act program?
Mr. Thomsen. Yes, it was.
Mr. Holt. How many jobs will that create?
Mr. Thomsen. A little over 300 construction jobs and about
30 full-time positions in very rural counties in Nevada.
Mr. Holt. So that is significant. You know, the spending
plan for this current year, H.R. 1, would have rescinded all
remaining funds in the loan guarantee program had it become law
four or five months ago. And so, I suppose you would not have
gotten this loan guarantee that will make possible hundreds of
construction jobs and dozens of permanent jobs; is that
correct?
Mr. Thomsen. It is. And to be clear, we have not received
the loan yet. We received----
Mr. Holt. It has been approved.
Mr. Thomsen.--conditional commitment from the Department of
Energy. And, unfortunately, that loan is actually contingent on
two of those three projects finishing NEPA permitting.
Mr. Holt. I see.
Mr. Thomsen. Both are in the public review phase and both
have been in that process for well over 24 months.
Mr. Holt. Well, I suppose the headline that will come out
of today's hearing is ``death panel dooms Old Faithful.'' But,
I do not want to engage in histrionics. I just want to make--or
exaggeration. I just want to make the point that there is a
reason for the environmental review and I would like to
understand kind of how that works.
Let me stay with Mr. Thomsen for a moment. I do not know
your exact expertise. It might be financial. It might be public
policy. But, you have people in the consortium, the company
that is working to build these geothermal projects. You have
experts in financial. You have experts in plumbing and piping
and all of those other things. You probably do not have on
staff, except the extent that it is required by NEPA, an
archaeologist or someone who would be an expert in endangered
species. We rely on the process to bring those considerations
in, is that correct?
Mr. Thomsen. We do not have an archaeologist; but when you
are developing as many projects as we are, we have a very
competent permitting team, consisting of well over 10
individuals, biologists and permitting experts, who have come
to us through other fields----
Mr. Holt. And that is because there are----
Mr. Thomsen.--with specific expertise.
Mr. Holt. It is because, is it not, NEPA requirements are
imposed on you for----
Mr. Thomsen. Well, NEPA does not impose that. We have to
hire experts in each one of these fields. You know, you touched
on the process and I think this is an interesting debate. I
would like to just take a moment. The lands that we are working
on for Federal lands are leased to us by the BLM. The BLM
geothermal program conducted a programmatic environmental
impact statement, looking at lands that were reasonable for
development. Those lands then go to state offices that look at
them and see if they fit into their resource management plans.
Then those lands go for lease to developers and the 2005 Energy
Policy Act was a fantastic piece of legislation that allows--
freed up the leasing process, to allow developers to
competitively bid for leases for development.
We compete against other developers with the intent that
BLM has put these lands up as acceptable parcels for renewable
development. We competitively bid on that. The bonus bid comes
back to the--it is actually divvied up kind of interestingly,
where 25 percent goes to the BLM, 25 percent goes to the state,
and 25 percent goes to the local jurisdiction or county in
which those lands were leased. Then, we have these leases and
we go into a permitting phase.
Mr. Holt. Just to truncate your comment, I think you are
illustrating the point that I think is important to make, which
is BLM, these agencies, and Congress, itself, have a
responsibility to balance many competing interests. That is the
role of government, to balance competing interests, and that
happens because this process is set up. And if we remove pieces
of the process that make it impossible for those to be
balanced, then it is not included. Well, I should yield my time
now or my time is in the negative, so I thank you for your
comments. We should pursue that more.
Mr. Landry [presiding]. I was going to let you go on a
little longer.
Mr. Holt. You are kind, but I----
Mr. Landry. I understand. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomsen,
apparently, we found an area where NEPA regulations are
creating jobs, right, because you have to hire additional
people to comply with those NEPA regulations, so maybe that is
a good thing about NEPA regulations. Would you agree with that
statement or not?
Mr. Thomsen. I would begrudgingly agree with that
statement.
Mr. Labrador. But, it is not really the kind of jobs that
we want to be creating because they are not really productive
jobs. They are just complying with more Federal regulation.
Mr. Thomsen. They often pale in comparison to the jobs that
would be created if we could develop these projects.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. I would rather have you developing
the projects than going through more regulatory requirements.
Let us go back to Old Faithful here for a second. Do you
agree with the Ranking Member's description of how H.R. 2171
would actually destroy Old Faithful?
Mr. Thomsen. Absolutely not.
Mr. Labrador. And why not? Is it even possible under the
law to destroy Old Faithful?
Mr. Thomsen. I believe, you know, as I have discussed the
process for BLM, to be compliant with their programmatic
environmental impact statement, to be compliant with their
range management plans, and for them to put up a lease in the
area of Old Faithful for developers to bid on would not happen.
Mr. Labrador. OK.
Mr. Thomsen. Second, I think it is--you know, it is
probably not rational to think that business would try to
destroy one of our national treasures by trying to develop a
project there.
Mr. Labrador. You are expecting Congress to be rational,
though, right, and government agencies? Now, are you familiar
with the 1988 Geothermal Steam Act Amendment?
Mr. Thomsen. I am.
Mr. Labrador. Under the 1988 Geothermal Steam Act
Amendments, it has the units of a national system that are
listed as significant thermal features, and we have some really
strong requirements before you can even lease lands on these
units that are part of the national park system--that are
significant thermal features. Would you be surprised that
Yellowstone National Park is part of one of those units?
Mr. Thomsen. Would I be surprised? Yes.
Mr. Labrador. Yes. So under this Act, Yellowstone National
Park is actually protected. And, in fact, it tells us that the
Secretary has to determine, number one, if a lease is even
appropriate, and the determination is whether there is going to
be any significant adverse effect on these lands. The one area
that is protected is Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park.
Not only does it do that, but it gives special protections for
these units and even if a lease is agreed upon--and none of us,
I think, believe that a lease would be approved for Old
Faithful--but even if it were approved, it tells the Secretary
of the Interior that he must remove the lease if it is having
any significant adverse effect. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Thomsen. I would agree and I think to elaborate, the
way we read page four, lines eight through 19, take that to
even if you were to receive a geothermal lease, a typical
lease, let us say in the Nevada desert, and the Secretary or
the BLM were to find a significant impact there, they have the
right clearly outlined to determine that you are not eligible
for a CX. Then as a developer, we would go to the environmental
assessment phase or an EIS, which we currently do, to continue
to see if we may drill. Simply what this CX does, in places
that have previously been scoped, approved, and are part of the
plan, is allow us to look and do very non-intrusive temperature
gradient holes, to see if there are resources so that we can
decide, as a company, whether we want to designate our time and
resources to looking to fully permit and fully develop those
projects.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Now NEPA was not intended to apply to
projects that individually or cumulatively have no significant
impacts, right?
Mr. Thomsen. I cannot comment directly on that statement.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Do you think the waiver in section 2b of
H.R. 2171 is consistent with the BLM's current findings on NEPA
and exploratory practices and the type authorized under the
bill?
Mr. Thomsen. I do and I think, you know, in my statement, I
think it actually refines the actions. Currently, the
categorical exemption for geophysical activity only has one
factor, which is you cannot build a road and you--excuse me,
two, you cannot build a road and you cannot build a pad. And
this allows for, I think, a lot of interpretation, which we
have heard from this panel that makes BLM wary. It also allows
for a lot of potential mischief under those broad scopes. H.R.
2171 reins that in and says you can only disturb an acre. You
cannot build a road. It limits the depth. It limits the time,
really, you know, handcuffing developers to doing what was the
intent, looking for temperature gradient and nothing more.
Mr. Labrador. All right. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Landry. OK. I guess it would be my turn. And if you do
not mind, after, we are going to do a second round. Mr. Holt
has some additional questions.
Mr. Thomsen, I am going to go out on a limb here. The
industry that you and Mr. Taylor are in are considered a
renewable energy industry or a green energy, is that not
correct?
Mr. Thomsen. Yes, it is.
Mr. Landry. And I would believe that you all would not be
here today unless you were passionate about your industry?
Mr. Thomsen. It is our core business.
Mr. Landry. Well, I am so sorry to welcome you to the
Federal Government, OK, because the frustrations that you see
and the frustrations that the oil and gas industry has been
facing and many other energy industries in this country, and I
think it is inexcusable. I want you to know I am with you, all
right. So make sure any of the liberal bloggers out there, who
take me as big oil, I want you to know I am with you to try to
cut through some of that red tape.
What I do not understand is do you believe that NEPA
balances the environment with the economic impact?
Mr. Thomsen. I believe it attempts to and I think it is
very hard. The question was asked earlier about the impact of
delays on a project and the cost. We have heard some examples
where you simply walk away from the development of a project.
But, I can tell you, you know, when you have many projects in
the pipeline, unexpected delay is very difficult to deal with,
and I think a long lead time or the work required to do the
proper work up front is respectable and we support that. What
you need in business is consistency or an expectation. When you
do not have that, that is where the trouble comes. When we can
file for a CX, we may get it in six weeks, we may get it in six
months, or we may find out that it needs to be an EIS. That is
where the real trouble comes in.
Mr. Landry. Would you say certainty is what you are looking
for?
Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Landry. Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Taylor. Same question?
Mr. Landry. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. Yes. I think that predictability and certainty.
One other point I would add, which I assume Mr. Thomsen would
agree with, is one of the challenges in our industry is you
have multiple different time lines that need to all come
together. You have a whole separate process that is regulated
by FERC, for access to the transmission good, for example, and
that is a highly regulated process with defined time frames.
And if you get to the point where you are ready to build the
substation and connect to the grid, but you do not have your
permits, you are often told by the grid operator, you have to
put millions of dollars up and if you do not know you are going
to get a permit, how can you commit to the millions of dollars
to build the interconnection that is necessary to transmit that
power onto the grid, to say nothing of power contracts,
financing, and all the other complexities. So knowing when
these things are going to happen, so that you can plan for them
to coincide is critically important in our industry.
Mr. Landry. Well, just to clarify something. Mr. Huntley or
Mr. Lyons, either one, I do not know anywhere under NEPA where
in the studies, they are required to balance the environment
with the economic impact of it. Do you all know? I do not know
if Mr. Thomsen might have been confused whether or not he and
his own company try to balance whether or not they want to do a
project under NEPA. But, under NEPA, do you all know of any
provisions where when we do the studies, we look at what is the
cost of the environment and what is the cost to the economy?
Mr. Huntley. Thank you, sir. That is an excellent question
because I think one of the biggest misconceptions about the
statute is that it does not dictate outcomes. It creates
process where many factors can be balanced. That includes
economic considerations, considerations of environmental
impacts, considerations of impacts to states, to tribes, to
other assets.
My reading of NEPA is that the process that NEPA creates
affords all stakeholders the opportunity to bring their
concerns to bear and that would include economic
considerations.
Mr. Landry. But when you include the economic
considerations, are you just looking at it from a one side, as
to if we impact the environment, what is the economic impact of
impacting the environment? In other words, you are looking for
it in one dimension, rather than saying, OK, what is the impact
on the environment and what is the benefit to the economy if we
go ahead and allow the project to continue? What is the overall
economic impact based upon how many jobs it is going to create?
What is it going to do to the price of energy? Does it take
that into account as well?
Mr. Huntley. I believe that, again, the process that is
created affords the opportunity for all of those considerations
to be brought forward. And what I have heard from the panelists
today is that all too often, these concerns are raised late in
the permitting process. What we have offered as an alternative
is a way to look at these considerations much earlier, to give
companies the predictability and certainty that they crave by
having a better sense of what the impacts would be on places,
to find the right places, and get development to those places--
taking into account not just environmental considerations but,
again, the full suite of impacts to society.
Mr. Landry. Well, I am going to abide my time and then the
Chair recognizes Mr. Holt for five minutes the second round.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Thomsen,
in your testimony, let us see, in the printed testimony, it was
page two and I think I heard you also say this in your oral
testimony, you said that H.R. 2171, that you support it because
it will lead to ``clearly defining and enhancing the existing
categorical exclusion.''
Now, I have read 2171. It does not do anything to clarify
or better define categorical exclusion. What is says is under
some circumstances, NEPA shall not apply. So did you really
mean to say that it defines and clarifies categorical
exclusion?
Mr. Thomsen. To the Chairman, to Mr. Holt, you know, this
was a question that came up with staff. I think the words NEPA
exclusion in line 13 could be revisited on page three of the
bill. You know, I think the intent, and I----
Mr. Holt. So, you would like it to clarify categorical
exclusion; is that what you mean?
Mr. Thomsen. Well, I do not think it is my place to speak
to the intent of the bill. The way I read it is this exclusion,
as written, is permissible with the approval of the Secretary
and the BLM. In my mind, that is the same as a categorical
exclusion.
Mr. Holt. No, it would be in the statute. Yes, in the
statute, you would say, it shall not apply. So, that is--the
NEPA shall not apply. It does not say categorical exclusion
shall be imposed in a certain circumstance or clarify that.
The other point I would like to raise is you said, again
fairly categorically, that lands next to Yellowstone would
never be leased from the BLM. I would suggest that maybe in the
President Lamborn Administration, if there were oil there or in
some other administration, where energy production is foremost
or is the sole concern, then, in fact, it might be leased. So,
I do not think that we would want to then get into a situation
where NEPA would be raised.
Mr. Taylor, according to your testimony, the Wind Energy
Association supports the consistent use of categorical
exclusions. This is along the same line that we were talking
about a just a moment ago with Mr. Thomsen for meteorological
towers, is that correct?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Holt. In your testimony, you acknowledged that there
may be extraordinary circumstances in which the categorical
exemption from NEPA would not be appropriate; is that correct?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Holt. Yes. Yet, H.R. 2172 simply exempts meteorological
towers from NEPA. In other words, it does not clarify; it does
not say it should; it just says, NEPA shall not apply. So, it
seems to me that the bill does not mandate the use of
categorical exemptions or say that there might be extraordinary
circumstances. Would you not agree that because of such a broad
exemption, it might actually be counterproductive in moving
along with these projects?
Mr. Taylor. Representative Holt, Chairman, if I could maybe
expand a bit on that. I think the challenge is this: under
current BLM policy, it allows the use of categorical exclusions
today and most BLM offices apply that in a rational matter.
There are some specific offices, and it is well known which
ones they are, in particular, the California Desert District
Office is the one that is the biggest challenge, does not do
so. So, we are open to a variety of strategies to getting to a
reasonable outcome. I think what we are looking for is some
more clearer direction that we can point to, to say that this
is what the appropriate policy is. And the reason that we would
be concerned about categorically exempting from NEPA any met
towers, my company would never propose this, but what if
someone proposed to put one----
Mr. Holt. So, you want uniformity and predictability in the
implementation.
Mr. Thomsen. Without having----
Mr. Holt. You are not advocating that NEPA be thrown aside?
Mr. Thomsen. If we can get to an implementation that is
consistent with what the policy currently is, we would be very
happy with that and I do not think that necessarily requires a
total exemption through NEPA.
Mr. Holt. OK. So, you would like a consistent process that
does not promote more litigation or does not, because of
limited options, lead the agency to say no prematurely?
Mr. Thomsen. I think that is a fair statement, yes.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. I thank you for your courtesy, Mr.
Chairman, and we look forward to the Lamborn Administration.
Mr. Landry. Mr. Labrador?
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just to make it
clear for the record, the 1988 Geothermal Steam Act Amendments
has the following language it, and I am having fun, I guess,
with this going back and forth, but if the Secretary determines
that the exploration, development, or utilization of the land
subject to the lease application is reasonably, reasonably
likely to result in a significant adverse effect on a
significant thermal feature, and we already determined that
Yellowstone is one of those significant thermal features,
within a unit of the national park system, the Secretary shall
not, shall not issue such a lease, just to make it clear for
the record.
Mr. Thomsen, geothermal exploration test project under H.R.
2171 is to last no more than 45 days. If you have to go through
a full NEPA review, how much time would you likely spend on
NEPA assessments and processing?
Mr. Thomsen. In our experience, for exploration, to receive
an EA takes about 12 months.
Mr. Labrador. OK. How many worker hours would be required
if a NEPA review were required for every permit?
Mr. Thomsen. A lot.
Mr. Labrador. Hundreds? Dozens?
Mr. Thomsen. I would say thousands of man hours.
Mr. Labrador. Thousands, OK. What efficiencies are gained
by having BLM employees focus a NEPA review on when the project
is ready to go at the development stage, rather than at the
exploration phase?
Mr. Thomsen. To the Chairman and Mr. Labrador, a great
question. I think, you know, we have brought this up. BLM has
limited resources and if they try--you know, we need to drill
lots of temperature gradient holes to start to delineate where
the resource is and if it is a viable resource. Then, we move
into the full exploration phase, where we drill wells,
observation wells in much larger diameter, much deeper, to see
flow testing and know if there is a project. During these
phases, we are like oil and gas wildcatters and the success
rate is getting lower and lower in this country, as we move
East, away from anomalous resources, such as the geysers in
northern California. So, the success rate is going down
dramatically.
If they were to do an EA for every TGA hole or exploration
hole, the resources would be spread very thin. And we think
that if we do this responsibly, through the research management
plans and the programmatic environmental impact statement, we
can allow them to focus their resources on the viable projects
that may come to fruition, resolving some of the other concerns
we have heard, which is getting those real projects through the
process expeditiously, while, you know, addressing all of the
concerns from the environmental community and through NEPA.
Oftentimes, I think we take it out on NEPA, the bigger problem,
which is, maybe, you know, staff resources and so forth. So, we
think it can have a large impact and allow not only developers
like Ormat Technologies and the industry; but also the
Department of Energy geothermal program to start doing this
work, to start to identify where this resource is, so that we
can more rapidly develop the emerging geothermal resource in
the country.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. H.R. 2171 addresses likely
environmental impacts by limiting the project's footprint, the
well's depth, and surface disturbance. What additional factors
might be considered should NEPA apply?
Mr. Thomsen. You know, again, it is dependent on field
offices. But, we have been asked questions that related to 12-
mile bird studies for a rig that might be up for 45 days;
comprehensive numerical water models, trying to see what the
reservoir impact will be, that we have had to go through. So,
these can become costly and quite timely. And this is really
the result of taking it to the staff level experts, who want
this data for projects that may or may never come to fruition.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Now the provisions of H.R. 2171 talk
about 2,500 feet well depth and one acre of soil disruption. Do
you think these are sufficient to facilitate improved
exploration for geothermal energy?
Mr. Thomsen. I think it is and I also think it is a
compromise. When we talk to the industry, they would love to go
deeper and bigger under the CX and I think that the one-acre
disturbance really limits their ability to do so. And I think,
again, it focuses the existing CX or at least policy that is
there today that allows for some of this to occur.
Mr. Labrador. All right, thank you. Mr. Huntley, in your
testimony, you say that the legislation before us today is
predicated by the false notion that NEPA approval is the
principal roadblock to renewable energy projects. However,
witness after witness has told our Committee that these
projects are tied up in the permitting process for years or
months. I just want to make sure that the record reflects that
you disagree with the other witnesses, who have said that the
delays, uncertainty, and environmental process is a primary
reason for delays in the renewable energy projects. Do you
agree or disagree with the renewable energy witnesses, who have
come before this Committee?
Mr. Huntley. Thank you, sir. With respect, I think we have
heard different messages from both this panel and the prior
panel. What I have heard is that there are challenges to the
implementation, especially the consistent implementation of the
statute, a statute that affords the opportunity to consider
economic and other costs. We continue to work with many of the
companies represented at the table and with the agencies you
heard from on the first panel, to improve the efficiency and
the effectiveness of implementation of the law. So, I
appreciate the question, but I heard a different message.
Mr. Labrador. All right. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Labrador. I wish Mr. Holt would
have hung around just a little longer, so I could address
something. I want to thank Mr. Labrador for inserting the
language that Mr. Holt spoke about. I think it is necessary
that we exclude NEPA from the process and I will tell you why:
because for too long, you cannot create certainty unless you
legislate it, unfortunately, because when you leave it to the
whim of the Administration, it becomes a subjective argument,
instead of an objective one, and this Administration seems to
not be able to calculate reason from fiction when it comes to
creating jobs. And so, I think it is necessary that after we
have hearings, it is Congress's role to come in and to create
that certainty by legislating those things.
And Mr. Huntley, I know your testimony, you expressed
support for a zone-based system of renewable energy development
and I am sure you know that BLM manages about 120 million acres
of land and that I understand is some of the best land for
creating solar energy projects. And of the 120 million acres,
only 22 million acres would be available for right-of-way
applications and of that, 677,000 or so acres have been
identified as solar energy zones. So this amounts to less than
one percent of the total land viable for solar development.
Now, if you are a strong supporter of tapping into
renewable resources, do you believe that setting aside one
percent of our public land and locking away the rest is an
effective way to expand our renewable energy production in this
country?
Mr. Huntley. Thank you for the question, sir. I believe
that what we have been presented with from the Bureau of Land
Management were two options, neither of which, I think, would
be satisfactory for the majority of the stakeholder's interest
in seeing solar developed. However, in that analysis that the
Bureau put forward in December of last year, they jointly, with
the Department of Energy, estimated that less than one-half of
that 600,000 acres would be required to support utility scale
development on public lands to meet the needs of the six states
over the next 20 years.
I do not believe that the particular places in that 670,000
acres are necessarily the right places for the rest of time,
but what is most attractive to our organization with the zone-
based approach that has been put forward--and we believe could
be improved upon--is that it identifies the right places to
start. I think for that reason you will find in the letter that
I submitted for inclusion in the record, which we signed
jointly with the large-scale solar association and six utility
companies, there is an emerging consensus amongst the solar
industry that this is an appropriate way forward.
Mr. Landry. So, basically, under your analysis, .5 percent
is all we need, because you said half of that amount would be
necessary. I guess--well, let me ask you this, take a look at
this, I mean, this is the industry. Does the industry feel that
they could use more land, that stakeholders would like to see
more land become available?
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Representative Landry. To answer the
question, so 600,000 acres, if you assume that all of that were
available, and my company does solar photovoltaic, the panels,
we do not do solar thermal, so I am not as familiar with the
acreage requirements for solar thermal, but for photovoltaic,
the sort of rule of thumb is somewhere around seven acres per
megawatt of output. So, with that kind of a figure, if you
truly had 600,000 acres available, you could produce a massive
amount of solar energy.
I think the challenge is more about, from my personal
perspective, having looked at the maps and what the areas BLM
identified, I do not think they did as good a job as they could
have done consulting with the industry and other stakeholders
on where are practical places to develop. I think they did a
good job--I do not want to speak for Mr. Huntley or for Mr.
Lyons, I do not know if the environmental stakeholders feel
like they picked places that were environmentally unacceptable.
I think they picked some of the right places, but they picked
some other places that just are not feasible from a
transmission and market standpoint, and that is evidenced by
the fact that there are no applications. Even though they have
given these sort of a green light, many of those locations do
not have anyone applying to go there because there is no
business reason to do it.
So, I think they are on the right track. I think we share
the view that getting to buy in up front makes our life easier.
But, I think there is still some more work to do to really
tailor that to where the need is.
Mr. Landry. Well, you see that is my frustration, is that I
do not think you all allow the stakeholders an opportunity to
sit at the table when you all and the bureaucrats decide where
the stakeholders should be placing their projects. You know, at
the end of the day, it comes down to dollars and cents, all
right. It does not come down to a forest dream of where you
would like them to place a solar panel. The question is whether
or not they can place their solar panel on a particular piece
of acreage and can they make money placing it on it. If they
cannot make any money, they will not put it in there.
So, I think the lesson here is that, again, you are all not
allowing the stakeholders an opportunity to give their input as
to where they need to place them and what acreage they need to
place them. At the same time, it again shows that this Federal
Government is just incapable, OK, of promoting any energy
industry. I mean, I just find it fascinating that I can sit in
this Committee and hear from wind and solar and thermal
industries that are basically singing off the same hymnal, as
oil and gas and coal industries. So with that, I think you all
should take into consideration more of what the stakeholders
need.
That is the end of the questions that I have. I think that
we--I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record a letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting all
four bills and the project number report that Chairman Lamborn
mentioned in his opening statement. And, of course, since I am
the only one here, I guess we can consent to it.
[NOTE: The letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce's study titled ``Progress Denied: A
Study on the Potential Economic Impact of Permitting Challenges
Facing Proposed Energy Projects'' has been retained in the
Committee's official files. The study can be found at http://
www.uschamber.com/reports/progress-denied-study-potential-
economic-impact-permitting-challenges-facing-proposed-energy
Mr. Landry. Thank you all, so much, for your participation
in this hearing. I thank you all for your testimony and any
members of the Committee that have additional questions for the
record, I will ask that they respond to those in writing. If
there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) submits the
following statement for the record to discuss its renewable energy
program, efforts to facilitate and expedite the development of the
Nation's offshore wind energy resources, and comments on two bills
before the committee, H.R. 2170, the Cutting Federal Red Tape to
Facilitate Renewable Energy Act, and H.R. 2173, the Advancing Offshore
Wind Production Act.
These bills were introduced little more than one week ago, so the
Department of the Interior has not had time to conduct an in-depth
analysis of them, but we appreciate the opportunity to outline our
general views at this time. The bills exempt certain federal actions
from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--the
cornerstone law guiding environmental protection and public involvement
in federal actions. The Department opposes these two bills.
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Wind Resources and Energy Development
Goals
BOEMRE manages the energy and mineral resources of the OCS, which
comprises some 1.7 billion acres of submerged lands generally located
between three and 200 nautical miles off the continental U.S., Alaska,
and Hawaii. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the
total offshore wind potential is over 4,000 gigawatts (GW) for areas up
to 50 miles from shore with average wind speeds of seven meters per
second or greater at 90-meter elevation. This estimate includes the
resources of the Great Lakes and the coastal submerged lands under
state jurisdiction, which are not managed by BOEMRE. However, OCS lands
constitute the vast majority of what DOE considers ``offshore'' in its
wind energy estimate.
According to a report prepared and issued jointly by DOE's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and BOEMRE earlier this year,
each average GW of wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million
megawatt-hours of electricity annually.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A National Offshore Wind Strategy, Creating an Offshore Wind
Energy Industry in the United States, February 7, 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This amount of power would replace the use of 1.7 million tons of
coal or 27.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and reduce the carbon
emissions associated with those fossil fuels by 2.7 million metric
tons. The Nation's vast offshore wind resources are located close to
our largest electricity demand centers, allowing offshore wind to
compete directly with fossil fuel-based electricity generation.
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic coastal states especially can benefit
from OCS wind resources to meet ambitious renewable energy portfolio
standards and related policy goals calling for the use of a stable and
clean supply of energy resources for electrical generation.
In addition to these energy and environmental benefits, offshore
wind energy development would have considerable direct and indirect
economic benefits. The National Offshore Wind Strategy suggests that
offshore wind development would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs
per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters. Many of these jobs would
be located in economically depressed port areas that could become
important fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture,
installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines.
The National Offshore Wind Strategy addresses these goals and
discusses three focus areas that are central to achieving them--(1)
technology development, (2) market barrier removal, and (3) advanced
technology demonstration. BOEMRE is working closely with DOE and with
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and other
stakeholders to establish an effective process for siting and
permitting offshore renewable energy projects.
OCS Renewable Energy Regulatory Framework
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided the Secretary of the
Interior with the authority to administer an OCS renewable energy
program. This authority, including the mandate to promulgate necessary
regulations, was delegated to BOEMRE (then the Minerals Management
Service) in March 2006. In early 2009, at the start of the Obama
Administration, a draft rule had been issued, but a final regulatory
framework was not yet promulgated. On taking office, Secretary Salazar
addressed the remaining issues, leading to the publication of BOEMRE's
final OCS renewable energy regulatory framework on April 29, 2009.
The regulatory framework is a comprehensive approach to managing
the full life cycle of OCS renewable energy activities, from initial
study and leasing, through site characterization and assessment and
project construction and operation, ultimately to cessation and
decommissioning. The regulatory framework reflects a renewable energy
program which embraces a ``life cycle'' approach that encompasses:
Coordination through task forces established with
state, local and tribal governments;
Lease and grant issuance including competitive and
non-competitive leasing as well as commercial and limited
leases;
Plans and operations oversight, including site
assessment, construction and operations, and general activities
plans, plan approval, and environmental and safety monitoring
and inspections;
Payments to cover bonding activities; and
Decommissioning at the end of a project's life span.
Additionally, key mandates for the Renewable Energy Program
include:
Safety;
Protection of the environment;
Coordination with affected State and local
governments and Federal agencies;
Collecting a fair return for the use of Federally-
owned resources; and
Equitable sharing of revenue with States.
With over 20 existing laws and Executive Orders that apply to the
OCS, consultation and coordination is critical to a successful
renewable energy program. As BOEMRE strives to facilitate sustained
development of a domestic offshore wind industry, we are working with a
wide array of stakeholders to find ways for offshore wind projects to
proceed with minimal adverse effects on other uses and resources. Our
most valuable consultation and coordination tools have proved to be the
state-by-state intergovernmental task forces that we have established.
These bodies bring together all interested and affected government
parties to facilitate information sharing and foster informed and
efficient decision-making with the goal of advancing environmentally
responsible offshore renewable energy development. To date, we have
nine task forces on the Atlantic coast that are helping BOEMRE to
proceed with commercial wind energy leasing, as well as one on the
Pacific coast that may focus on marine hydrokinetic energy development.
Since the OCS renewable energy regulatory framework was established
in 2009, Secretary Salazar and BOEMRE have sought to outline, refine,
and streamline our siting and permitting processes for wind leasing and
development. BOEMRE has launched several initiatives to support our
efforts as summarized briefly below.
Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium
In early 2010 Secretary Salazar invited the governors of the
Atlantic coast states to join with the Department of the Interior in an
Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium (AOWEC) for the purpose of
facilitating federal-state cooperation and coordination for the
efficient, expeditious, orderly, and responsible development of wind
resources along the Atlantic coast. On June 8, 2010, the Secretary and
11 governors signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the
scope and objectives of the Consortium and establishing working groups
charged with formulating an action plan addressing issues relating to:
(1) siting and permitting, (2) data and science, and (3) investment in
infrastructure. DOE is serving an advisory role to BOEMRE by assessing
national infrastructure investment requirements as described in the
National Offshore Wind Strategy. The action plan was completed in
February of this year, and BOEMRE is considering its recommendations,
which relate to improving coordination, implementing pilot projects,
revising existing statutory and regulatory authorities to streamline
permitting, and improving data acquisition and sharing.
Smart from the Start Atlantic Wind Initiative
On November 23, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced Smart from the
Start, a program to expedite commercial wind lease issuance on the
Atlantic OCS. This initiative has three main elements:
Streamlined processes, including more efficient
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance review, for
renewable energy lease issuance;
Identification of Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) followed
by information gathering to stimulate investment in Atlantic
OCS wind leasing and development; and
Processing of OCS energy transmission line proposals
on a parallel but separate track from generation projects.
Work has begun to identify as WEAs those areas of the OCS that have
high wind energy resource potential and relatively low potential use
conflicts. BOEMRE will then conduct an environmental assessment (EA) to
analyze potential impacts associated with issuing leases and conducting
site characterization and assessment activities. If the EA leads to a
finding of no significant impact, we will be able to issue leases and
will not have to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). This
will allow developers to acquire leases on an expedited basis and
enable them to acquire necessary financing of their projects. BOEMRE
will conduct a full EIS when the lessee submits a construction and
operations plan for review.
Smart from the Start also calls for enhanced coordination on
offshore wind within the federal government. The Department of the
Interior has led the formation of the Atlantic Offshore Wind
Interagency Working Group--which includes executive level officials of
DOE, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality and other federal
agencies--to facilitate the sharing of relevant data. In response to
our January 2011 data call to the Working Group, we received 180
entries from our federal partners. BOEMRE will use these data sets when
conducting environmental analysis and during the identification and
modification of WEAs, and when possible, we will share this data
publicly through the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre.
Smart from the Start has been well received by federal and state
stakeholders and the offshore renewable energy industry.
Additional Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies
BOEMRE is also working with interested federal agencies to
establish agreements to facilitate coordination on OCS renewable energy
development. For example, we have in place an MOU with DOE to
facilitate and expedite OCS wind and hydrokinetic development.
Consistent with this MOU, DOE is making available up to $50.5 million
over 5 years to develop offshore wind technology and to reduce specific
market barriers to its deployment. We also have an established MOU with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on OCS
energy development and environmental stewardship, a MOU with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
a MOU with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the
leasing and licensing of marine hydrokinetic projects. Other MOUs in
development are with the Department of Defense (Secretary), the Army
Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are confident that
these inter-agency groups will ultimately improve permitting processes
and promote efficient and effective decision-making.
BOEMRE Research and Studies
BOEMRE has two main scientific research programs. The Environmental
Studies Program (ESP) has completed numerous research projects and has
several more that are planned or ongoing to determine and evaluate the
effects of OCS activities on natural, historical, and human resources
and the appropriate monitoring and mitigation of those effects. For
example, the ESP has completed or is conducting a number of scientific
studies that explore the potential effects of offshore wind projects on
birds, marine species, and other aspects of the environment. BOEMRE and
DOE co-fund a number of studies within ESP and also partner on research
efforts led by the International Energy Agency. Pursuant to the MOU
mentioned above, DOI and DOE have also formed an interagency working
group with other federal agencies including NOAA, Department of
Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of the Navy which
will facilitate an integrated national network for characterization of
offshore wind resources and design conditions. BOEMRE's Technology
Assessment and Research (TA&R) Program also conducts research
associated with operational safety, engineering standards, and
pollution prevention.
One noteworthy research project just completed under our TA&R
program is on Offshore Wind Energy Turbine Structural and Operating
Safety. BOEMRE asked the National Research Council's Marine Board to
conduct a study relating to the structural safety of offshore wind
turbines. The study addresses three specific areas: (1) standards and
guidelines for design, fabrication and installation of offshore wind
turbines; (2) expected roles of third-party entities, called Certified
Verification Agents (CVA), in overseeing the design and construction of
offshore wind turbines and identifying standards for monitoring,
inspection and compliance verification; and (3) expected qualifications
to be considered a recognized CVA. BOEMRE received the final report on
April 28, 2011, and is in the process of analyzing the recommendations
to determine whether to modify the relevant offshore renewable energy
regulations.
The National Ocean Policy's Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
BOEMRE is implementing the OCS renewable energy program in
accordance with Executive Order 13547, which President Obama issued in
2010 to establish a comprehensive and integrated national policy for
stewardship of the oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes, including a
framework for coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP). We fully
understand and support the need to work together with all OCS users and
regulators, and we look forward to coordinating with the National Ocean
Council and leading and participating in regional planning bodies
undertaking CMSP. We believe our intergovernmental task forces are a
valuable vehicle for informing these efforts. We will use an integrated
interagency marine information system, developed in collaboration with
the National Ocean Council, to implement Executive Order 13547. Part of
this system will be the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, which provides
legal, physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common
geographic information system framework. This tool was created in
partnership with NOAA to comply with a mandate in section 388 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Outreach to Non-governmental Stakeholders
BOEMRE has repeatedly engaged non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
to obtain feedback on its regulatory framework and associated
processes. During promulgation of our renewable energy regulatory
framework rule, we conducted several stakeholder information gathering
sessions, as well as workshops on the draft and final regulations.
Since the final framework was issued, we have continued meeting with
NGOs and stakeholders, including The Nature Conservancy, the National
Wildlife Federation, and the Mariners Advisory Committee and have had
valuable information exchanges. We have also communicated with
representatives of fishing interests through the special working groups
established by Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as the regional
Fisheries Management Councils. BOEMRE also has continued its dialogue
with industry representatives, primarily through the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition. Based on all of our conversations with
stakeholders, we have identified regulatory revisions that we will
pursue to bring more clarity and efficiency to our processes. Our first
such revision--designed to simplify the leasing process for offshore
wind in situations where there is only one qualified and interested
developer by eliminating a redundant and therefore unnecessary step--
became effective on June 15.
Status of OCS Wind Development
All of the initiatives discussed to this point are helping BOEMRE
to identify areas where there are relatively few impediments to
offshore wind development and move forward quickly and efficiently to
promote the establishment of an offshore renewable energy industry.
BOEMRE's efforts have already resulted in significant
accomplishments in offshore wind development:
The Bureau has issued 4 short-term leases that permit
the installation of data collection facilities to inform
planned commercial wind development activities (three off New
Jersey and one off Delaware). These leases were issued in 2009
under an interim policy initiated while the OCS renewable
energy regulatory framework was being developed.
Interior issued the first ever U.S. offshore
commercial wind energy lease in October 2010 for the Cape Wind
Energy Project in Nantucket Sound off Massachusetts. Shortly
thereafter, the lessee submitted a construction and operations
plan, which BOEMRE approved on April 18, 2011. The lessee hopes
to begin construction later this year. The Cape Wind Energy
Project proposal contemplates building 130 wind turbine
generators, 3.6 megawatts each, with the maximum capacity to
produce about 468 megawatts. The average expected production
from the wind facility could provide about 75 percent of the
electricity demand for Cape Cod and the islands of Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket. At average expected production, Cape
Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000
homes in Massachusetts.
BOEMRE announced the first four WEAs--off the coasts
of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia--established
under Smart from the Start on February 9, 2011, in a Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for Mid-Atlantic
Wind Energy Areas. We have determined that there is no
competitive interest in leasing the area made available off
Delaware and we will complete the noncompetitive leasing
process in response to NRG Bluewater Wind's commercial wind
lease request. We hope to make a final decision on lease
issuance by the end of this year. By contrast, we have
determined that there is competitive interest off Maryland, and
we believe there will also be competitive interest off New
Jersey and Virginia. BOEMRE plans to complete competitive
processes for these three states by early 2012. We will
continue to consult with our intergovernmental task forces on
all of these leasing processes.
BOEMRE intends to designate a second set of WEAs--
potentially including areas offshore Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New York, and North Carolina--by the end of this year.
We have already received numerous expressions of interest off
the coast of Massachusetts, and we will be soliciting
nominations and other relevant information in the other three
areas in the coming months. We will continue to consult with
the intergovernmental task forces in these states.
BOEMRE will consult with the established Maine
intergovernmental task force concerning possible future
deepwater wind leasing and development and anticipates
establishing new task forces in Georgia, South Carolina and
Hawaii later this year. The University of Maine's DeepC wind
program, funded in part by DOE, is working on developing new
technologies, including floating wind turbines for use in deep
waters. BOEMRE will work with Maine in the event that we
receive an unsolicited application for a commercial wind lease
offshore Maine. We also have received an application for a
short-term lease for data collection off Georgia under the
interim policy, and are currently processing that application.
BOEMRE also received a request for a right-of-way for
a 750-mile backbone transmission line running about 10 miles
offshore from New York to Virginia. The developer has ambitious
plans for this transmission line, believing that it can link
future Atlantic OCS wind energy installations in a manner that
can facilitate efficient interconnection to the onshore
electrical grid. We held initial meetings on the proposed
project with members of our New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia Task Forces in early June, and will
continue to consult and coordinate with our Task Forces and
other stakeholders in processing this request.
H.R. 2170 and H.R. 2173
H.R. 2170, the Cutting Federal Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable
Energy Act, and H.R. 2173, the Advancing Offshore Wind Production Act,
were introduced only a week ago, and the Department has not had
sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the bills or
their potential effects on BOEMRE's offshore renewable energy program.
The Department appreciates the committee's efforts to accelerate the
development of renewable energy projects on federal lands and waters.
However, these bills make sweeping changes to environmental review of
renewable energy projects both onshore and offshore. Since the final
regulations for the OCS Renewable Energy Program were announced in
2009, BOEMRE has been working extensively with other federal agencies,
Atlantic coastal state Governors, and other stakeholders to seek ways
to improve the leasing and permitting process for developing this vital
component of our nation's comprehensive energy policy without cutting
corners on safety or environmental protection. The Department opposes
these bills.
While H.R. 2170 and H.R. 2173 limit or exempt NEPA review of
offshore renewable energy projects and offshore meteorological site
testing and monitoring projects, the projects would not be exempt from
consultations mandated by several other laws including the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSFCMA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Depending on the location,
government-to-government consultations may also be required with
affected tribal governments. The important consultation BOEMRE performs
in conformance with these laws is often informed by the NEPA analysis
customarily undertaken by BOEMRE, and we are concerned that the
elimination or limitation of NEPA analysis contemplated by this
legislation would deprive those consultations of valuable information
and analyses.
H.R. 2170, the Cutting Federal Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable
Energy Act, limits Federal NEPA reviews for all renewable energy
projects to the ``proposed action'' and ``no action alternative'',
eliminating the consideration of alternative locations and other
project modifications. By limiting the federal agency to a ``Take It or
Leave It'' option, the bill constrains the federal agency's ability to
consider reasonable alternatives to a proposed renewable energy project
that could ultimately generate a comparable amount of energy but with
less environmental impact. Limiting consideration of a reasonable range
of alternatives prevents BOEMRE's ability to work with applicants to
explore different technologies, siting, and project plans that would
advance responsible renewable energy development.
H.R. 2173, the Advancing Offshore Wind Production Act, would
completely eliminate NEPA review and analysis of meteorological site
testing and monitoring projects on the OCS. This bill may conflict with
section 8(p) of the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA), because it may eliminate the
Secretary's ability to consider all impacts of meteorological testing
and monitoring projects and to consider environmental impacts of
renewable energy projects on the OCS.
Section 8(p) requires BOEMRE to issue a renewable lease, easement
or right of way for these types of activities, and to determine if
competitive interest exists for such a grant. The bill appears to allow
permits for meteorological site testing and monitoring activities while
remaining silent on the need for a lease, easement or right of way.
H.R. 2173 also sets up a permitting process--which could be read as
an additional step in addition to the leasing process--by describing
``permit timeline conditions.'' This section includes a public and
interagency comment period during the permitting process while at the
same time establishing a 30 day deadline for the Secretary to act on
permit applications--thus inherently constraining opportunities for
comment.
BOEMRE's comment and consultation process, currently established as
part of the leasing process, is extensive. BOEMRE works closely with
federal agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Department
of Defense, NOAA, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), during
the renewable energy leasing process. These agencies have provided
invaluable input, assisting us with the acquisition of useful data and
information, resolution of multiple use challenges, and identification
of key nongovernmental stakeholders. For example, in deciding what
areas to offer for lease, consultation and discussions with the Coast
Guard resulted in the Coast Guard withdrawing its objection to a
significant portion of an area that it initially had objected to, and
allowed a larger area to be included in further considerations for
leasing.
Several federal laws mandate BOEMRE consult with other federal
agencies and tribes, such as the ESA, MSFCMA, CZMA, MMPA, NMSA, and
NHPA. The ESA and MSFCMA consultations are generally completed within
time periods greater than 30 days. The NHPA allows up to 30 days for an
affected tribe to submit a response to BOEMRE's request to initiate a
consultation, and the consultation itself can take much longer. The
NHPA also requires consultation with State Historic Preservation
Officers. The CZMA allows affected states up to 60 days to respond to a
BOEMRE-prepared consistency determination (under Subpart C) and six
months to respond to a lessee's consistency certification (under
Subparts D and E). The NMSA requires notification with a description
and potential impacts of actions that are likely to destroy, cause the
loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource no less than 45 days before
final approval of the action. Consultation may take an additional 45
days longer, and reasonable and prudent alternatives may be
recommended. In addition to these mandated consultations, BOEMRE also
consults with the Department of Defense to resolve possible multiple
use conflicts; FAA regarding conflicts with air navigation, and USCG
regarding conflicts with marine navigation. The time to complete these
consultations, as well as any others that may be required, varies
depending on a variety of factors, including previous activity in the
area and, most importantly, with the complexity and controversy of the
many safety, environmental, and operational issues to be addressed.
Finally, since only governmental entities may take part in Task
Force meetings, BOEMRE frequently participates in stakeholder outreach
efforts with entities such as maritime navigation organizations and
commercial fishing groups that may be affected by offshore renewable
energy activities. BOEMRE believes that continuing this effort will be
crucial in order to avoid or minimize user conflicts and diffuse
potential litigation challenges, and that 30 days will likely be
insufficient time to meaningfully engage with these groups.
Both bills are inconsistent with sound and long-standing NEPA
environmental reviews and with BOEMRE's technical and engineering
reviews necessary to promote safe operations and environmental
protection for responsible renewable energy activities on the OCS.
Conclusion
BOEMRE has set ambitious but achievable goals to help the U.S. make
development of domestic sources of clean, renewable energy a reality.
The combination of streamlined processes along with the increased
involvement of state and federal partners is helping BOEMRE make good
strides in reaching those goals. BOEMRE is excited to have a prominent
role in the nation's renewable energy future, and looks forward to
working with stakeholders to develop a thriving domestic offshore wind
industry that is coordinated and supports Executive Order 13547 and the
national policy for stewardship of the oceans.
Mr. Chairman this concludes BOEMRE's statement for the record.
______
The following documents were submitted for the record and have been
retained in the Committee's official files.
Alaska Wilderness League, American Rivers, Clean
Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America,
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Izaak Walton League of
America, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon
Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra
Club, The Trust for Public Land, The Wilderness Society, Union
of Concerned Scientists, Letter to President Barack Obama dated
February 9, 2011.
California Desert & Renewable Energy Working Group,
Letter to Robert Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, dated May 2, 2011.
Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society,
American Wind Energy Association, The Sonoran Institute, AES
Wind Generation, Inc., Element Power, Western Resource
Advocates, Mass Audubon, The Union of Concerned Scientists,
MAP, Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy, Inc., Ridgeline
Energy, LLC, Pattern Energy Group, LP, Iberdrola Renewables,
Inc., Sierra Club and others, Letter to Hon. Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, dated May 19, 2011.
The New York Times article entitled ``Regulation Lax
as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits River '' dated February 26,
2011.
The New York Times article entitled ``Wastewater
Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process'' dated March 1, 2011.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article entitled ``Public
water safe from radioactivity throughout region'' dated June
21, 2011.
The Wall Street Journal article entitled ``The Facts
About Fracking.''